Technologies and Politics of Control - User contributions [en]

Technologies and Politics of Control:Community Portal

2011-06-12T16:04:29Z

Gclinch: added Social Media a Double-Edged Sword for Democracy Advocates

When is a telephone call a telephone call? When you pick up the handset, dial a number and start speaking to someone? Apparently not. The FCC, which is funded by telecommunications surcharges, has held the position that voice transmitted over IP is considered information and not a phone call. Perhaps they are rethinking this decision. After all, traditional TDM infrastructure (the technology used to support calls over copper lines) is experiencing a decrease in use by consumers at a very rapid pace. Many people are converting from traditional copper lines to digital phone service or Voice over IP (VoIP) as offered by companies like Skype and Vonage. However, if voice over the internet is considered information, than why do telecommunications surcharges still apply? Apparently someone thinks they shouldn't. The following article reports of a landmark case where the courts have determined that Voice carried over the internet is information and therefore the surcharges do not apply.

[http://www.telecomlawmonitor.com/2010/02/articles/voip/federal-court-rules-that-voip-need-not-pay-access-charges/ Link to Article here: Does this bode well for the FCC?]

So what does this mean? As consumers opt out of traditional POTS lines (plain old telephony system) is the FCC at a crossroads? How do they acquire the funding necessary to support their agressive plans for a nationwide 100 squared access to the internet? It is true that a significant amount of funds will be garnered due to the American Re-Investment and Recovery Act of 2009, but unless an ongoing plan for funding exists, those funds will eventually run out and then what? Who will be left to pay for the rest? Do I smell a true and real internet tax coming on? And if so... how do we collect that tax from the foreign users and businesses who we interact with... Or will the burden be placed upon us? Thoughts anyone? D. Jodoin --[[User:Lunatixcoder|Lunatixcoder]] 16:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

[http://blog.infotech.com/analysts-angle/social-media-a-double-edged-sword-for-democracy-advocates/ Social Media a Double-Edged Sword for Democracy Advocates] --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 16:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Final Projects

2011-05-09T03:06:41Z

Gclinch: /* Submissions */ The Transition to Next Generation 9-1-1 in North America

Internet and Democracy: The Sequel

2011-04-28T16:05:40Z

Gclinch: /* Links */ http://www.governing.com/topics/technology/Wiretapping-Internet-Calls-May-Require-New-Law.html

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
 
</div>
'''April 26'''

A decade ago, the Internet was widely seen as a means to diminish the power of countries to regulate the flow of ideas and information. However, we have witnessed the resurgence of national sovereignty in cyberspace, with many countries now resorting to a combination of technology, law and intimidation to reign in the spread of free speech via the Net. Often aided by the technological support of the private sector in the United States, for this class, we will debate the ethics, practicality and implications of Internet censorship.

[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/InternetDemocracyApril26.pdf Slides: Internet and Democracy II]
<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==

* Read John Palfrey and Jonathan Zittrain: [http://opennet.net/sites/opennet.net/files/Deibert_06_Ch05_103-122.pdf Reluctant Gatekeepers: Corporate Ethics on a Filtered Internet]
* Take a look at the [http://opennet.net/blog ONI blog]
* And the [http://opennet.net/map ONI global filtering map]
* Explore the Global Network Initiative website [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/ GNI], with particular attention to the [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/principles/index.php Principles], [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/implementationguidelines/index.php Implementation Guidelines], and [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/governanceframework/index.php Governance Framework]

== Additional Resources ==

</onlyinclude>
== Class Discussion ==
According to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, all policy makers must cultivate a culture that promotes the fulfillment of human rights. However numerous policy markers grossly violate their duties to fulfill the declaration, and many governments, especially in the developing world- brutally exploit and corrupt their citizens. So, how are ICT companies suppose to fulfill online rights in volatile environments?
I think it’s interesting how GNI believes ICT companies will abide by their guidelines and try to strategically execute the human rights framework on a global scale within in environments, where violating human rights is considered part of societal norms.
Thus, I’m surprised GNI’s Implementation Guidelines entail, “Participating companies will encourage governments to be specific, transparent and consistent in the demands, laws and regulations (“government restrictions”) that are issued to restrict freedom of expression online.   Participants will also encourage government demands that are consistent with international laws and standards on freedom of expression. This includes engaging proactively with governments to reach a shared understanding of how government restrictions can be applied in a manner consistent with the Principles.”
Freedom of expression and privacy are severely neglected worldwide the recent events in Egypt to overthrow Mubarak in Egypt and ongoing Civil War in Libya exemplify severe abuse of freedom of expression and human rights. I doubt companies can convince autocratic governments to abide by GNI’s guidelines especially in corrupt environments.
Though “ICT companies have the responsibility to respect and protect the freedom of expression and privacy rights of their users”. It doesn’t mean the governments will necessarily facilitate such efforts. by Alex

Zittrain and Palfrey suggest a viable model for defining filtering parameters may be to allow the voluntary industry consensus to evolve into established law over time. I liken this to a policy version of the type of production model we saw in our von Hippel readings. If some of the most successful products can be borne out of manufacturer improvements on initial user innovations, I think it is arguable that the same can be said of policy. Proof in practice. [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 16:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The goals of protecting individual privacy and minimizing the regulation of speech are indeed worthy of attention. Unfortunately, Zittrain and Palfrey’s solution falls short of the mark. They do concede that any industry consensus does not carry the force of law, and instead hope that the solution proposed by industry will be workable enough so that it is eventually adopted as law. They assert, however, that industry self-regulation is the “most likely – and most desirable – means of resolving this problem in the near term.” They are correct to a point in that a great deal of the technical expertise resides in the ranks of industry, but industry “cooperation” is notoriously complex. First, there is more than one industry type: content providers will favor a different solution than search engines, with each industry biased to its advantage. Second, there are legal barriers to industry collusion. An industry consortium can easily set operating standards or principles that favor the business model of its members while putting non-member competitors at a disadvantage. Third, members are free to abandon the standards at will. Note how GNI membership includes representation from search engine providers (Google & Yahoo) but there are no member network providers or telecommunication companies like Cisco or AT&T at the table, even though the group purports to represent “information and communications technologies.” The members associate voluntarily, and may choose to disassociate ust as easily. In fact, they may choose to not share all information with third party compliance assessors, as business contracts and corporate law departments may supersede any and all principles. Ultimately it will come down to a question of international law. Perhaps the UN or WTO is not such a long shot after all.[[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 19:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

== Links ==

Here is a link to the link to the extensive Freedom House "Freedom on the Net 2011" report. (Honestly, at 410 pages I haven't really had time to read and evaulate this, but I thought I would throw it up on the wiki for those who might be interested.)
http://www.freedomhouse.org/images/File/FotN/FOTN2011.pdf
[[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 17:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

On the Today show this morning, one of the lead headlines was about your location can be followed thru your IPhone and IPad which is something we have been chatting about for the last two classes in the chat room. Also, there was an interesting article for corporate counsel on law.com regarding the idea that the government is watching corporations on the internet:
http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202484184534
[[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 18:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)}}

[http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/unsecured-wi-fi-router-brings-federal-agents- Unsecured Wi-Fi router brings federal agents, assault rifles on early morning visit] --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 21:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

[http://www.governing.com/topics/technology/Wiretapping-Internet-Calls-May-Require-New-Law.html Wiretapping Internet Calls May Require New Law]

Internet and Democracy: The Sequel

2011-04-26T21:28:04Z

Gclinch: /* Links */

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
 
</div>
'''April 26'''

A decade ago, the Internet was widely seen as a means to diminish the power of countries to regulate the flow of ideas and information. However, we have witnessed the resurgence of national sovereignty in cyberspace, with many countries now resorting to a combination of technology, law and intimidation to reign in the spread of free speech via the Net. Often aided by the technological support of the private sector in the United States, for this class, we will debate the ethics, practicality and implications of Internet censorship.

[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/InternetDemocracyApril26.pdf Slides: Internet and Democracy II]
<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==

* Read John Palfrey and Jonathan Zittrain: [http://opennet.net/sites/opennet.net/files/Deibert_06_Ch05_103-122.pdf Reluctant Gatekeepers: Corporate Ethics on a Filtered Internet]
* Take a look at the [http://opennet.net/blog ONI blog]
* And the [http://opennet.net/map ONI global filtering map]
* Explore the Global Network Initiative website [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/ GNI], with particular attention to the [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/principles/index.php Principles], [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/implementationguidelines/index.php Implementation Guidelines], and [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/governanceframework/index.php Governance Framework]

== Additional Resources ==

</onlyinclude>
== Class Discussion ==
According to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, all policy makers must cultivate a culture that promotes the fulfillment of human rights. However numerous policy markers grossly violate their duties to fulfill the declaration, and many governments, especially in the developing world- brutally exploit and corrupt their citizens. So, how are ICT companies suppose to fulfill online rights in volatile environments?
I think it’s interesting how GNI believes ICT companies will abide by their guidelines and try to strategically execute the human rights framework on a global scale within in environments, where violating human rights is considered part of societal norms.
Thus, I’m surprised GNI’s Implementation Guidelines entail, “Participating companies will encourage governments to be specific, transparent and consistent in the demands, laws and regulations (“government restrictions”) that are issued to restrict freedom of expression online.   Participants will also encourage government demands that are consistent with international laws and standards on freedom of expression. This includes engaging proactively with governments to reach a shared understanding of how government restrictions can be applied in a manner consistent with the Principles.”
Freedom of expression and privacy are severely neglected worldwide the recent events in Egypt to overthrow Mubarak in Egypt and ongoing Civil War in Libya exemplify severe abuse of freedom of expression and human rights. I doubt companies can convince autocratic governments to abide by GNI’s guidelines especially in corrupt environments.
Though “ICT companies have the responsibility to respect and protect the freedom of expression and privacy rights of their users”. It doesn’t mean the governments will necessarily facilitate such efforts. by Alex

Zittrain and Palfrey suggest a viable model for defining filtering parameters may be to allow the voluntary industry consensus to evolve into established law over time. I liken this to a policy version of the type of production model we saw in our von Hippel readings. If some of the most successful products can be borne out of manufacturer improvements on initial user innovations, I think it is arguable that the same can be said of policy. Proof in practice. [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 16:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The goals of protecting individual privacy and minimizing the regulation of speech are indeed worthy of attention. Unfortunately, Zittrain and Palfrey’s solution falls short of the mark. They do concede that any industry consensus does not carry the force of law, and instead hope that the solution proposed by industry will be workable enough so that it is eventually adopted as law. They assert, however, that industry self-regulation is the “most likely – and most desirable – means of resolving this problem in the near term.” They are correct to a point in that a great deal of the technical expertise resides in the ranks of industry, but industry “cooperation” is notoriously complex. First, there is more than one industry type: content providers will favor a different solution than search engines, with each industry biased to its advantage. Second, there are legal barriers to industry collusion. An industry consortium can easily set operating standards or principles that favor the business model of its members while putting non-member competitors at a disadvantage. Third, members are free to abandon the standards at will. Note how GNI membership includes representation from search engine providers (Google & Yahoo) but there are no member network providers or telecommunication companies like Cisco or AT&T at the table, even though the group purports to represent “information and communications technologies.” The members associate voluntarily, and may choose to disassociate ust as easily. In fact, they may choose to not share all information with third party compliance assessors, as business contracts and corporate law departments may supersede any and all principles. Ultimately it will come down to a question of international law. Perhaps the UN or WTO is not such a long shot after all.[[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 19:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

== Links ==

Here is a link to the link to the extensive Freedom House "Freedom on the Net 2011" report. (Honestly, at 410 pages I haven't really had time to read and evaulate this, but I thought I would throw it up on the wiki for those who might be interested.)
http://www.freedomhouse.org/images/File/FotN/FOTN2011.pdf
[[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 17:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

On the Today show this morning, one of the lead headlines was about your location can be followed thru your IPhone and IPad which is something we have been chatting about for the last two classes in the chat room. Also, there was an interesting article for corporate counsel on law.com regarding the idea that the government is watching corporations on the internet:
http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202484184534
[[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 18:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)}}

[http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/unsecured-wi-fi-router-brings-federal-agents- Unsecured Wi-Fi router brings federal agents, assault rifles on early morning visit] --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 21:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Internet and Democracy

2011-04-19T15:31:49Z

Gclinch: /* Links */ Twitter Tsar?

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
 
</div>
'''April 19'''

Digital tools are seen as playing a major part in political activities and revolutions around the world from the Green Revolution in Iran to the recent events in the Middle East and North Africa. In this class, we'll explore the role of the Internet in political organizing, social movements and popular protests, and the potential impact of digital tools on governance.

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/14/world/middleeast/14egypt-tunisia-protests.html?_r=2&hp A Tunisian-Egyptian Link That Shook Arab History]

* [http://ejournalism.co.uk/?p=739 Clay Shirky on social media in the Middle East and North Africa]

* [http://nms.sagepub.com/content/12/8/1225.full.pdf Etling, Kelly, Faris and Palfrey, Mapping the Arabic Blogosphere: Politics, Culture and Dissent]
**Problems with the Etling, Kelly, Faris and Palfrey PDF? If you're off campus and presented with a website saying you need to sign up to access this article . . . you do not. Sign into Harvard's VPN solution and you'll then have access or access it while on the Harvard network (on campus). Or ask nicely and I'm sure it can be emailed to you. :-) --[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 01:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
** Updated link to the Etling, et al. piece: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Mapping_the_Arabic_Blogosphere_0.pdf Mapping the Arabic Blogosphere]

== Additional Resources ==

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2008/Mapping_Irans_Online_Public Bruce Etling and John Kelly, Mapping Iran's Online Public]

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2010/Public_Discourse_Russian_Blogosphere Etling, Alexanyan, Kelly, Faris, Palfrey, and Gasser, Public Discourse in the Russian Blogosphere: Mapping RuNet Politics and Mobilization]

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2008/Digitally_Networked_Technology_Kenyas_Post-Election_Crisis Josh Goldstein and Juliana Rotich, Digitally Networked Technology in Kenya's 2007-2008 Post-Election Crisis].

* [http://fletcher.tufts.edu/forum/archives/pdfs/32-2pdfs/Faris-Etling_32-2.pdf Faris, Etling, Madison and the Smart Mob: The Promise and Limitations of the Internet for Democracy]

</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==

I'm inclined to be skeptical of the idea that the internet and social media are making interpersonal connections "shallower", whether we are talking about "Facebook friends" or social and political activism. Setting aside the question of whether online relationships count as "real" relationships (that is, are qualitatively inferior to real-life relationships), in order for this theory to be correct, online relationships would have to be replacing real-life relationships. While I don't have any hard data to back this up, I simply don't see this happening in most cases. The imagined concept is one of young people avoiding traditional social contact in favor of hours spent online. However, I would postulate that the people most inclined to shut themselves off from the "real world" in favor of computers are the same people who would have shut themselves off in favor of books or various solo hobbies in previous decades. Under this model, the quantity and quality of social interaction for persons thus inclined is ''increasing'', rather than decreasing. What we are talking about is both an increase in reach and a lowering of thresholds. For the average user, social media, first and foremost, provides a vehicle for interaction with people they ''already know'' in real life (friends from school, family, etc... so your kid spending time on the computer rather than playing with friends outside is likely to be interacting with those same friends electronically) and then adds to this a new layer of online friendships and acquaintances which arise as social media provides previously unavailable opportunities to build relationships over distance. (There is, as well, traffic between these two layers, as real-life friends separated by distance use social media to keep in touch, and friends - and potential romantic partners - met online arrange to meet in person). Similarly, when it comes to activism, the increasing availability of "intermediate" levels of support (such as donation or petition signing – hardly new developments) is not likely, to my mind, to decrease the number of active real-world advocates. Verily, the opposite: those inclined to get off the couch and "make a difference" are still likely (or even more likely) to do so, only now with the support of countless others who would not have been reached by the activist's message otherwise.
[[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 00:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's worth raising the point that there have been a lot of serious questions raised as to the accuracy of the NYTimes piece read in class this week; for example, Global Voices shows Egyptian Twitterers mocking the idea that they needed Western help (http://globalvoicesonline.org/2011/04/15/egypt-gene-sharp-taught-us-how-to-revolt/). I think that, ultimately, this controversy is more important than the content of the article itself, in that it illustrates how social media can be vital to media accuracy--you have numerous direct accounts from known activists contradicting the commentary in the NYTimes, while the NYTimes meanwhile often has difficulty getting good sources in the Arab world because of its somewhat negative reputation (two words: Thomas Friedman). Another issue in the piece is the emphasis on a very tiny collaborative movement aided by the US, while numerous genuine, grassroots movements exist and have been ignored by media (case in point: The Arab Bloggers workshops and Arab Techies group).

In terms of the broader picture, one aspect of all of this that has been desperately overlooked is the use and importance of backchannels like private groups, IRC, and email. While social media is certainly important, the organizing that happens in private online spaces (as well as via SMS) is undoubtedly even more vital. [[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 20:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Another argument in favor of the role social media is playing in providing accurate information for journalists about things that are happening elsewhere: if you have Twitter, check out the work that @andycarvin has beeen doing. He's NPR's senior product manager for online communities, and has been connecting with people on the ground in countries like Egypt and Libya for a while, using them and their networks to verify or challenge information that the mainstream media has been getting. It's been neat stuff. [[User:Mcforelle|Mcforelle]] 01:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the lack of accuracy in the NY Times article, I don't think the internet is necessarily the mean of online hate speech and irrational behavior. Many of the least developed and heavily indebted poor countries are grossly corrupt, which lack adequate financial means or political and economic conditions to cultivate human rights. In addition, poor countries are also notoriously more vulnerable to economic volatility, conflict and humanitarian crisis; good governance matters to development and how citizens behave online.[[User:Alexsolomon|Alexsolomon]]

== Links ==
[http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/04/12/state-of-texas-leaks-data-on-3-5-million-people/ State of Texas exposes data of 3.5 million people] I mentioned this story in the chat room during last class, seemed to be a good point considered the private vs state accumulation of personal info discussion that we were having. It's a quick read, and it'll make you squirm. [[User:Mcforelle|Mcforelle]] 18:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to Fareed Zakaria's 1997 "The Rise of Illiberal Democracy" essay, referenced in the Faris/Etling article, which contrasts "Democracy" with "Constitiutional Liberalism".
http://www.fringer.org/wp-content/writings/fareed.pdf
[[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 23:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

If we're looking to Tunisia and Egypt, I really think we ought to be looking at Tunisian and Egyptian sources, particularly in light of the fact that we're reading what is largely considered an inaccurate portrayal by the NYTimes. Here are two great pieces from an Egyptian blogger (they're not necessarily representative, but they're the best English sources I've found so far): http://www.hanimorsi.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/02/22/from-clicktivism-to-activism/; http://www.hanimorsi.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/02/17/the-virtualization-of-dissent-social-media-as-a-catalyst-for-social-change-part-two/. I also think that these two 2008 pieces from Egyptian journalist Hossam El-Hamalawy are vital reading, incredibly prescient: http://www.arabawy.org/2008/05/08/the-revolution-will-be-flickrized/; http://www.arabawy.org/2008/02/26/a-call-to-blogo-arms/. [[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 20:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This article too: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/02/egypt-revolution-mubarak-wall-of-fear [[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 20:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting Question: [http://www.govtech.com/e-government/Government-Twitter-Tsar.html Do Government Agencies Need a Twitter Tsar?] --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 15:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Assignment 4 Submissions

2011-04-19T04:57:56Z

Gclinch: /* Submissions */

Assignment 4 Submissions

2011-04-19T04:52:32Z

Gclinch: /* Submissions */ Guy's link to multimedia

Control and Code: Privacy Online

2011-04-12T04:33:13Z

Gclinch: /* Class Discussion */

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
 
</div>
'''April 12'''

Code is law; the architecture of the Internet and the software that runs on it will determine to a large extent how the Net is regulated in a way that goes far deeper than legal means could ever achieve (or at least ever achieve alone). Technological advances have also produced many tempting options for regulation and surveillance that may severely alter the balance of privacy, access to information and sharing of intellectual property. By regulating behavior, technological architectures or codes embed different values and political choices. Yet code is often treated as a technocratic affair, or something best left to private economic actors pursuing their own interests. If code is law, then control of code is power. If important questions of social ordering are at stake, shouldn't the design and development of code be brought within the political process? In this class we delve into the technological alternatives that will shape interactions over the Internet, as well as the implications of each on personal freedom, privacy and combating cyber-crime.
<onlyinclude>
==Readings==

* [http://futureoftheinternet.org/download Jonathan Zittrain, Future of the Internet, Chapter 9: Privacy 2.0]
* [http://www.bitsbook.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/chapter2.pdf Abelson, Ledeen, Lewis, Blown to Bits, Chapter 2: Naked in the Sunlight: Privacy Lost, Privacy Abandoned]
* [http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-295.html Solveig Singleton, Privacy as Censorship (CATO)]
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/business/media/26privacy.html Noam Cohen, It’s Tracking Your Every Move and You May Not Even Know (NYTimes, March 26, 2011)]

==Optional Readings==

* [http://www.onthemedia.org/episodes/2010/04/02/segments/152890 NPR On the Media Story "Anonymous Justice"]
* [http://www.danah.org/papers/talks/2010/SXSW2010.html "Making Sense of Privacy and Publicity." Transcript of talk given by Danah Boyd at SXSW. Austin, Texas, March 13, 2010]
* [https://www.socialtext.net/codev2/privacy Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0: Privacy]
* http://paranoia.dubfire.net/2009/12/8-million-reasons-for-real-surveillance.html
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_flesh_search_engine
</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==

'''Regarding Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 295'''

So, I'm struggling with this analysis piece from the Cato Institute. I used to consider myself to be a libertarian; unfortunately, I'm not sure that term means what I want it to mean anymore. Suffice it to say that some of the core ideas in the Cato Institute piece have resonance for me; namely, the idea that one does not own information, that there is no right ''not'' be annoyed or offended, and that there is (significant) societal and economic value in businesses being able to access information concerning their customers (the Slate article I posted below goes into this). That said, the Cato Institute seems to be taking the (rather undesirable) position that there *is* no "right to privacy", and the piece itself seems (to my mind) to be riddled with a number of false equivalencies, leaps in reasoning, and glaring oversights. It seems to unduly privilege one portion of the citizenry (those engaged in business) against another (those engaged in consumption). Now, there is nothing wrong with running a business, or turning a profit (verily, the opposite - such activity is key to both individual and national well-being), but I am skeptical at the idea that direct marketing counts as "free speech" and should therefore be immune to government regulation (indeed, there are numerous precedents for limiting marketing speech), that industry self-regulation has proven adequate, or that concerns about privacy, fraud, and identity theft should be so casually dismissed.

'''On the ownership of information:''' clearly we do not “own” information about ourselves; information is not property in the traditional sense, but that does not mean we cannot control the release of certain information under certain circumstances. The article mentions confidentiality for medical records, for instance – but then seems to act as if this is the only sort of information that can or should receive protection. Yet there are other categories of information which we can and do privilege – court proceedings and criminal records, for instance, can be sealed in some cases. While it may be lawful to obtain and publish such information by other means, this is not the sort of free access to information that the article seems to envision. The paper compares gathering (and then selling) statistical information on clients with – of all things – gossip, which (to my mind) is nothing like gathering statistical information. Gossip is a natural social occurrence based on casual observation and the relation of second or third hand accounts. It is nothing like using instruments (in this case computer programs) to take detailed recordings of a person’s circumstances and shopping habits and then processing them mathematically to yield commercially valuable statistics. Gossip is an inevitability that cannot be prevented, or even regulated, beyond the use of social norms (legal means for extreme cases, such as libel, have been shown to be remarkably ineffective). Regulation of business practices, either by law or by voluntary codes of business ethics, is, on the other hand, not merely feasible, but common. Furthermore, no contract (save perhaps the ''social contract'') exists between the causal observer and those observed. In contrast, a contractual relationship exists between the consumer of a good or service and the provider thereof – contracts which are subject to regulation by law. I reject the false equivalency drawn between gossip and the gathering of marketing data, and with it a large portion of the Cato Institute’s argument, which attempts to convince the reader that such data collection is not only similar too, but in light of its greater accuracy, more beneficial to the subject being observed. We can make this rejection, however, without disputing that such marketing information may be of critical value to the business operator, or bring other, legitimate benefits to the consumer.

'''On the validity of privacy concerns:''' Furthermore, I find the paper in question entirely too dismissive of consumers’ privacy concerns – as if large corporate marketing databases posed little to no increased risk for those who’s information they contain. Just today, I heard news of a large corporate email database being hacked into (http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/04/04/banks-retailers-warn-customers-after-email-database-hacked/), exposing the customers of several major firms to the potential of spam and fraudulent email. This is not the first such occurrence; indeed, we have seen much more sensitive bank account and credit card data stolen from financial institutions. The Cato institute seems to think that the abuse of cooperate databases can be adequately prevented by industry standards, existing legal penalties, and that the only real danger is that posed by the government. To further its case, it argues that many instances of criminal abuse are essentially inevitable – making the spectacular leap of logic that since certain abuses are not 100% preventable, that there is little value in attempting to increase legal protection against them. This is fallacious at best, disingenuous at worst. It is often said that there is very little one can do to prevent a determined assassin from assassinating a public figure; yet we do not throw up our hands and, say, allow the President to travel unescorted. On the contrary, the Secret Service and other government agencies spend an enormous amount of time, energy, and money attempting to safeguard key public officials by preventing or otherwise making such assassination attempts as difficult as possible. Likewise – to take a considerably more mundane example – even the best bike-lock will not prevent the most determined and organized of bike thieves from stealing or stripping a parked bike. That does not mean we encourage cyclists to leave their bikes unlocked and unattended on the street. I am willing to accept the argument that there is a price to be paid for greater privacy rights and safeguards, and that no such measures provide perfect protection, but I am not willing to entertain the notion that such safeguards are doomed to failure and therefore are of no value to the consumer, and to society as a whole. I am also troubled by the piece’s treatment of direct marketing; namely the glaring omission of any mention of spam email. While direct marketing is no doubt crucial to many businesses, and more tailored marketing would no doubt be a blessing to many consumers, when it comes to email, “junk mail” or “spam” can be crippling to the very businesses who’s interests the Cato Institute seems to have in mind; sorting though hundreds of spam messages a day can have serious impact on productivity for employees who make heavy use of electronic communications as part of their work duties – increasingly efficient spam filters help, but they are not solely responsible for reductions of spam mail; rather governmental regulation and prosecution of spammers has played a vital role in this. I doubt that many recipients of spam mail would be favorably predisposed to the argument that such mail constituted a category direct marketing constitutionally protected as “free speech”. We are not a talking about mere “annoyance” here, as the Cato Institute suggests, but rather a phenomenon that new technology has allowed to grow to such proportion that it has a serious impact on people’s lives, let alone its role as a conduit for illegal and unethical predatory activity. The government is commonly held to have a responsibility to protect citizens from unwanted and intrusive harassment by other private citizens. While the “Lands End” catalogue may not fall into this category, spam mail, as well as persistent telemarketing calls at inappropriate times, increasingly are seen to do so. As a consumer I am inclined to think that the rights of business to conduct their business need to be balanced against the rights of consumers to conduct their lives without undo interference.

'''On the government and business ethics:''' The Cato Institute is quite correct to point out the special danger presented by the government and government information gathering, with the unique powers of enforcement it holds over the citizenry. I applaud this healthy skepticism; however, I think the institute’s libertarian biases have blinded it to potential for abuse posed by corporate databases, both by corporations themselves and – in the most glaring omission of the piece – abuse of said databases by the government with the acquiescence (if not outright support) of their private administrators. We have already seen such (mis)use of corporate marketing databases in our current reading: eloquently detailed by Christopher Soghoian on his weblog (http://paranoia.dubfire.net/2009/12/8-million-reasons-for-real-surveillance.html). Keep in mind that these databases were never intended to be used for surveillance purposes, but rather intended for just the sort of marketing uses which the Cato Institute is advocating in favor of. The purity of purpose the institute ascribes to business – that is, the pursuit of profit – did not prevent these companies from secretly divulging customer information for (what the institute itself would surely see as) abuse by government agencies. And why should it have? If businesses are conceived for the sole purpose of making profit, then why should we expect them to do anything but what they have done? – namely seize the opportunity to turn the sale of consumer information to the government into a profitable revenue source. The only potential curb on this sort of behavior would be the ire these corporations’ customer base, but since the widespread sale of geo-location and other private information is largely hidden from the public no outcry is possible. Furthermore, while I am sure that the Cato Institute would be quick to demand new restrictions on the government concerning the acquisition of such information (judicial oversight through a system of warrants, and laws requiring transparency in reporting), I am equally sure that the Institute would casually dismiss any need for tighter regulation on the business end. This is troubling to me. Industry self-regulation is only valuable as far as it achieves the desired results; it is only too easy for self-regulation to be corrupted into a self-serving obfuscation. And, as much as we should respect business’ (entirely necessary) role as an engine of societal growth and prosperity, we can still demand that said businesses conform to certain codes of business ethics. Requiring that businesses respect the privacy of their customers by providing clear explanations of how and to what extent customer information will be used, requesting permission for certain uses, and abiding by terms of service agreements which govern these uses is entirely is, to me, entirely reasonable. Telling customers that they can just “opt out” of internet or cell phone use if they are concerned about privacy seems to me to be about as sensible as relying on abstinence-only education to prevent the spread of STDs and unwanted teen pregnancy.

'''Conclusion:'''

To synthesize the thoughts presented here:
1) A certain degree of personal privacy is desirable and should be protected.
2) Businesses have a legitimate need for marketing information gathered from consumers who use their services.
3) Therefore, efforts must be made to balance these two nontrivial concerns.
4) Self-regulation is insufficient to guarantee freedom from abuse of corporate consumer information databases.
5) Both the government and private corporations should be restricted in this regard.

Highly tailored direct marketing is the wave of the future. This development cannot be stopped; neither should we attempt to stop it, as it promises significant benefits to both business and consumer. This sort of analysis (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/04/how-the-american-man-spends-money/236888/) is not only critical to business, but can tell us important things about society as a whole. However, this does not mean we need to, or should, sacrifice the entirety of our personal privacy rights on the altar of innovation. Privacy is an important issue, and it behooves us to define with a degree of clarity to what extent a citizen’s personal privacy is to be protected. It is naïve to believe that such protection is of little benefit to society, or that the natural (unregulated) course of evolution will adequately provide for its existence. This is not a call for heavy handed regulation; rather it is a call for serious, objective thought on the subject. I am not sure that the Cato Institute’s advocacy piece (as valuable as it its insights might be) qualifies in this regard.
[[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 03:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

'''RE: Privacy as Censorship ''' (typing this on my Blackberry, sorry for any typos)
Singleton says that, "...value does not somehow inhere in a person's name.
Rather, the activities of marketers and list compilers create the value of the name." Really? If the name wasn't worth anything, why collect it? The miner doesn't create the value of the gold, he is mearly the conduit. My name is valuable to marketers because of who I am and what I have accomplished in life. The sum total of what we each accomplish and the labor we expend to produce the income that the marketers seak to extract from each of us among other things is what creates the value of a name.[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 04:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

== Links ==
[http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/get-ring-us-europe-vow-bash-out-internet-pers Get in the ring: US, Europe vow to bash out Internet personal privacy protection] --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 21:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

New York Times op-ed on new privacy legislation being considered by Sen. Kerry: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/opinion/19sat2.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=privacy%20on%20the%20internet&st=cse --[[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 20:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)]]

Slate's (skeptical) take on online privacy:
http://www.slate.com/id/2290719
[[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 03:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, a link to the FTC filing mentioned in the above article (regarding Google Buzz): http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2011/03/google.shtm
[[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 03:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The internet in action: "My Dad is Li Gang!", courtesy of Know Your Meme. http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/my-dad-is-li-gang-%E6%88%91%E7%88%B8%E6%98%AF%E6%9D%8E%E5%88%9A
[[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 06:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Control and Code: Privacy Online

2011-04-12T04:20:46Z

Gclinch: /* Class Discussion */ Privacy as censorship remark

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
 
</div>
'''April 12'''

Code is law; the architecture of the Internet and the software that runs on it will determine to a large extent how the Net is regulated in a way that goes far deeper than legal means could ever achieve (or at least ever achieve alone). Technological advances have also produced many tempting options for regulation and surveillance that may severely alter the balance of privacy, access to information and sharing of intellectual property. By regulating behavior, technological architectures or codes embed different values and political choices. Yet code is often treated as a technocratic affair, or something best left to private economic actors pursuing their own interests. If code is law, then control of code is power. If important questions of social ordering are at stake, shouldn't the design and development of code be brought within the political process? In this class we delve into the technological alternatives that will shape interactions over the Internet, as well as the implications of each on personal freedom, privacy and combating cyber-crime.
<onlyinclude>
==Readings==

* [http://futureoftheinternet.org/download Jonathan Zittrain, Future of the Internet, Chapter 9: Privacy 2.0]
* [http://www.bitsbook.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/chapter2.pdf Abelson, Ledeen, Lewis, Blown to Bits, Chapter 2: Naked in the Sunlight: Privacy Lost, Privacy Abandoned]
* [http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-295.html Solveig Singleton, Privacy as Censorship (CATO)]
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/business/media/26privacy.html Noam Cohen, It’s Tracking Your Every Move and You May Not Even Know (NYTimes, March 26, 2011)]

==Optional Readings==

* [http://www.onthemedia.org/episodes/2010/04/02/segments/152890 NPR On the Media Story "Anonymous Justice"]
* [http://www.danah.org/papers/talks/2010/SXSW2010.html "Making Sense of Privacy and Publicity." Transcript of talk given by Danah Boyd at SXSW. Austin, Texas, March 13, 2010]
* [https://www.socialtext.net/codev2/privacy Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0: Privacy]
* http://paranoia.dubfire.net/2009/12/8-million-reasons-for-real-surveillance.html
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_flesh_search_engine
</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==

'''Regarding Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 295'''

So, I'm struggling with this analysis piece from the Cato Institute. I used to consider myself to be a libertarian; unfortunately, I'm not sure that term means what I want it to mean anymore. Suffice it to say that some of the core ideas in the Cato Institute piece have resonance for me; namely, the idea that one does not own information, that there is no right ''not'' be annoyed or offended, and that there is (significant) societal and economic value in businesses being able to access information concerning their customers (the Slate article I posted below goes into this). That said, the Cato Institute seems to be taking the (rather undesirable) position that there *is* no "right to privacy", and the piece itself seems (to my mind) to be riddled with a number of false equivalencies, leaps in reasoning, and glaring oversights. It seems to unduly privilege one portion of the citizenry (those engaged in business) against another (those engaged in consumption). Now, there is nothing wrong with running a business, or turning a profit (verily, the opposite - such activity is key to both individual and national well-being), but I am skeptical at the idea that direct marketing counts as "free speech" and should therefore be immune to government regulation (indeed, there are numerous precedents for limiting marketing speech), that industry self-regulation has proven adequate, or that concerns about privacy, fraud, and identity theft should be so casually dismissed.

'''On the ownership of information:''' clearly we do not “own” information about ourselves; information is not property in the traditional sense, but that does not mean we cannot control the release of certain information under certain circumstances. The article mentions confidentiality for medical records, for instance – but then seems to act as if this is the only sort of information that can or should receive protection. Yet there are other categories of information which we can and do privilege – court proceedings and criminal records, for instance, can be sealed in some cases. While it may be lawful to obtain and publish such information by other means, this is not the sort of free access to information that the article seems to envision. The paper compares gathering (and then selling) statistical information on clients with – of all things – gossip, which (to my mind) is nothing like gathering statistical information. Gossip is a natural social occurrence based on casual observation and the relation of second or third hand accounts. It is nothing like using instruments (in this case computer programs) to take detailed recordings of a person’s circumstances and shopping habits and then processing them mathematically to yield commercially valuable statistics. Gossip is an inevitability that cannot be prevented, or even regulated, beyond the use of social norms (legal means for extreme cases, such as libel, have been shown to be remarkably ineffective). Regulation of business practices, either by law or by voluntary codes of business ethics, is, on the other hand, not merely feasible, but common. Furthermore, no contract (save perhaps the ''social contract'') exists between the causal observer and those observed. In contrast, a contractual relationship exists between the consumer of a good or service and the provider thereof – contracts which are subject to regulation by law. I reject the false equivalency drawn between gossip and the gathering of marketing data, and with it a large portion of the Cato Institute’s argument, which attempts to convince the reader that such data collection is not only similar too, but in light of its greater accuracy, more beneficial to the subject being observed. We can make this rejection, however, without disputing that such marketing information may be of critical value to the business operator, or bring other, legitimate benefits to the consumer.

'''On the validity of privacy concerns:''' Furthermore, I find the paper in question entirely too dismissive of consumers’ privacy concerns – as if large corporate marketing databases posed little to no increased risk for those who’s information they contain. Just today, I heard news of a large corporate email database being hacked into (http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/04/04/banks-retailers-warn-customers-after-email-database-hacked/), exposing the customers of several major firms to the potential of spam and fraudulent email. This is not the first such occurrence; indeed, we have seen much more sensitive bank account and credit card data stolen from financial institutions. The Cato institute seems to think that the abuse of cooperate databases can be adequately prevented by industry standards, existing legal penalties, and that the only real danger is that posed by the government. To further its case, it argues that many instances of criminal abuse are essentially inevitable – making the spectacular leap of logic that since certain abuses are not 100% preventable, that there is little value in attempting to increase legal protection against them. This is fallacious at best, disingenuous at worst. It is often said that there is very little one can do to prevent a determined assassin from assassinating a public figure; yet we do not throw up our hands and, say, allow the President to travel unescorted. On the contrary, the Secret Service and other government agencies spend an enormous amount of time, energy, and money attempting to safeguard key public officials by preventing or otherwise making such assassination attempts as difficult as possible. Likewise – to take a considerably more mundane example – even the best bike-lock will not prevent the most determined and organized of bike thieves from stealing or stripping a parked bike. That does not mean we encourage cyclists to leave their bikes unlocked and unattended on the street. I am willing to accept the argument that there is a price to be paid for greater privacy rights and safeguards, and that no such measures provide perfect protection, but I am not willing to entertain the notion that such safeguards are doomed to failure and therefore are of no value to the consumer, and to society as a whole. I am also troubled by the piece’s treatment of direct marketing; namely the glaring omission of any mention of spam email. While direct marketing is no doubt crucial to many businesses, and more tailored marketing would no doubt be a blessing to many consumers, when it comes to email, “junk mail” or “spam” can be crippling to the very businesses who’s interests the Cato Institute seems to have in mind; sorting though hundreds of spam messages a day can have serious impact on productivity for employees who make heavy use of electronic communications as part of their work duties – increasingly efficient spam filters help, but they are not solely responsible for reductions of spam mail; rather governmental regulation and prosecution of spammers has played a vital role in this. I doubt that many recipients of spam mail would be favorably predisposed to the argument that such mail constituted a category direct marketing constitutionally protected as “free speech”. We are not a talking about mere “annoyance” here, as the Cato Institute suggests, but rather a phenomenon that new technology has allowed to grow to such proportion that it has a serious impact on people’s lives, let alone its role as a conduit for illegal and unethical predatory activity. The government is commonly held to have a responsibility to protect citizens from unwanted and intrusive harassment by other private citizens. While the “Lands End” catalogue may not fall into this category, spam mail, as well as persistent telemarketing calls at inappropriate times, increasingly are seen to do so. As a consumer I am inclined to think that the rights of business to conduct their business need to be balanced against the rights of consumers to conduct their lives without undo interference.

'''On the government and business ethics:''' The Cato Institute is quite correct to point out the special danger presented by the government and government information gathering, with the unique powers of enforcement it holds over the citizenry. I applaud this healthy skepticism; however, I think the institute’s libertarian biases have blinded it to potential for abuse posed by corporate databases, both by corporations themselves and – in the most glaring omission of the piece – abuse of said databases by the government with the acquiescence (if not outright support) of their private administrators. We have already seen such (mis)use of corporate marketing databases in our current reading: eloquently detailed by Christopher Soghoian on his weblog (http://paranoia.dubfire.net/2009/12/8-million-reasons-for-real-surveillance.html). Keep in mind that these databases were never intended to be used for surveillance purposes, but rather intended for just the sort of marketing uses which the Cato Institute is advocating in favor of. The purity of purpose the institute ascribes to business – that is, the pursuit of profit – did not prevent these companies from secretly divulging customer information for (what the institute itself would surely see as) abuse by government agencies. And why should it have? If businesses are conceived for the sole purpose of making profit, then why should we expect them to do anything but what they have done? – namely seize the opportunity to turn the sale of consumer information to the government into a profitable revenue source. The only potential curb on this sort of behavior would be the ire these corporations’ customer base, but since the widespread sale of geo-location and other private information is largely hidden from the public no outcry is possible. Furthermore, while I am sure that the Cato Institute would be quick to demand new restrictions on the government concerning the acquisition of such information (judicial oversight through a system of warrants, and laws requiring transparency in reporting), I am equally sure that the Institute would casually dismiss any need for tighter regulation on the business end. This is troubling to me. Industry self-regulation is only valuable as far as it achieves the desired results; it is only too easy for self-regulation to be corrupted into a self-serving obfuscation. And, as much as we should respect business’ (entirely necessary) role as an engine of societal growth and prosperity, we can still demand that said businesses conform to certain codes of business ethics. Requiring that businesses respect the privacy of their customers by providing clear explanations of how and to what extent customer information will be used, requesting permission for certain uses, and abiding by terms of service agreements which govern these uses is entirely is, to me, entirely reasonable. Telling customers that they can just “opt out” of internet or cell phone use if they are concerned about privacy seems to me to be about as sensible as relying on abstinence-only education to prevent the spread of STDs and unwanted teen pregnancy.

'''Conclusion:'''

To synthesize the thoughts presented here:
1) A certain degree of personal privacy is desirable and should be protected.
2) Businesses have a legitimate need for marketing information gathered from consumers who use their services.
3) Therefore, efforts must be made to balance these two nontrivial concerns.
4) Self-regulation is insufficient to guarantee freedom from abuse of corporate consumer information databases.
5) Both the government and private corporations should be restricted in this regard.

Highly tailored direct marketing is the wave of the future. This development cannot be stopped; neither should we attempt to stop it, as it promises significant benefits to both business and consumer. This sort of analysis (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/04/how-the-american-man-spends-money/236888/) is not only critical to business, but can tell us important things about society as a whole. However, this does not mean we need to, or should, sacrifice the entirety of our personal privacy rights on the altar of innovation. Privacy is an important issue, and it behooves us to define with a degree of clarity to what extent a citizen’s personal privacy is to be protected. It is naïve to believe that such protection is of little benefit to society, or that the natural (unregulated) course of evolution will adequately provide for its existence. This is not a call for heavy handed regulation; rather it is a call for serious, objective thought on the subject. I am not sure that the Cato Institute’s advocacy piece (as valuable as it its insights might be) qualifies in this regard.
[[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 03:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

'''RE: Privacy as Censorship ''' (typing this on my Blackberry, sorry for any typos)
Singleton says that, "...value does not somehow inhere in a person's name.
Rather, the activities of marketers and list compilers create the value of the name." Really? If the name wasn't worth anything, why collect it? The miner doesn't create the value of the gold, he is mearly the conduit. My name is valuable to marketers be cause of who I am and what I have accomplished in life. The sum total of what we each accomplish and the labor we expend to produce the income that the marketers seak ti extract from each of us among other things is what creates the value of a name.

== Links ==
[http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/get-ring-us-europe-vow-bash-out-internet-pers Get in the ring: US, Europe vow to bash out Internet personal privacy protection] --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 21:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

New York Times op-ed on new privacy legislation being considered by Sen. Kerry: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/opinion/19sat2.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=privacy%20on%20the%20internet&st=cse --[[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 20:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)]]

Slate's (skeptical) take on online privacy:
http://www.slate.com/id/2290719
[[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 03:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, a link to the FTC filing mentioned in the above article (regarding Google Buzz): http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2011/03/google.shtm
[[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 03:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The internet in action: "My Dad is Li Gang!", courtesy of Know Your Meme. http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/my-dad-is-li-gang-%E6%88%91%E7%88%B8%E6%98%AF%E6%9D%8E%E5%88%9A
[[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 06:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Assignment 4 Submissions

2011-04-11T02:43:33Z

Gclinch: /* Submissions */ Guy's submission

File:Internet and Society Assingment 4 gclinch.pdf

2011-04-11T02:36:08Z

Gclinch: Rough draft of final project

Rough draft of final project

Copyright in Cyberspace

2011-04-06T11:58:13Z

Gclinch: /* Class Discussion */

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
 
</div>
'''April 5'''

The Internet has enabled individuals to become involved in the production of media and to distribute their contributions widely at a very low cost. The former bastion of the entertainment industry is opening up to what many are calling a democratization of culture. The copyright doctrine of fair use seemingly bolsters the right to "recut, reframe, and recycle" previous works, but the protection fair use gives to those re-purposing copyrighted material is notoriously uncertain.

Digital and file-sharing technologies also spawned the proliferation of sharing of media and music, which has led to a number of controversial legal and technological strategies. The "notice-and-takedown" provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") allow Internet service providers to limit their liability for the copyright infringements of their users if the ISPs expeditiously remove material in response to complaints from copyright owners. The DMCA provides for counter-notice and "put-back" of removed material, but some argue that the statutory mechanism can chill innovative, constitutionally-protected speech.

This class provides an overview of some major copyright law concepts and takes up some of the issues swirling around copyright in cyberspace.

'''[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/IS2011-4.5.11-Copyright.pdf Slides: Copyright in Cyberspace]'''

==Assignments==

== Required Readings ==
* [http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright Basics]
* [http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 17 U.S.C. § 107 ("Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use")]
* [http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512 17 U.S.C. § 512(c) ("Information Residing on Systems or Networks at Direction of Users")]
* [http://www.free-culture.cc/freecontent/ Lawrence Lessig, Free Culture] (pp. 1-20)
* Viacom v. YouTube: [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/19/technology/19youtube.html?pagewanted=1&sq=viacom&st=cse&scp=2 "Viacom Says YouTube Ignored Copyrights" (M. Helft, NY Times, 3/18/2010)], [http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2010/07/what-the-viacom-vs-youtube-verdict-means-for-copyright-law183.html What the Viacom vs. YouTube Verdict Means for Copyright Law]
* Righthaven Copyright Lawsuits: [http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/mar/29/righthaven-wins-round-litigation-campaign/ Las Vegas Sun, Righthaven wins round in litigation campaign], [http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/business-notebook/2011/mar/19/righthaven-lawsuits-backfire-reduce-protections-ne/ Las Vegas Sun, Righthaven lawsuits backfire, reduce protections for newspapers], and skim [http://www.righthavenlawsuits.com/ this].
* [http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/news%20aggregation%20white%20paper.pdf The Rise of the News Aggregator: Legal Implications and Best Practices]

== Optional Readings ==
* [http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2011/02/02/super-bust-due-process-and-domain-name-seizure.html Super Bust: Due Process and Domain Name Seizure]
* [http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/comics1 Creative Commons: A Spectrum of Rights (comic)]
* [http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/recut_reframe_recycle/ Center for Social Media, Recut, Reframe, Recyle] (full report optional)
* [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8647956476676426155&q=545+U.S.+913&hl=en&as_sdt=2002 MGM v. Grokster, 545 U.S. 913 (2005)] (Sec. II, pp. 928 - 937)
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/nyregion/09potter.html?_r=1 "Rowling Wins Lawsuit Against Potter Lexicon" (J. Eligon, NY Times, 9/8/08)]
* [http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/830/index.html New York Times Bits Blog: Mixing It Up Over Remixes and Fair Use]
* [http://www.eff.org/files/20030926_unsafe_harbors.pdf EFF, Unsafe Harbors: Abusive DMCA Subpoenas and Takedown Demands]
* [http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/03/15/concrete-steps-congress-can-take-protect-americas-intellectual-property The White House Blog: Concrete Steps Congress Can Take to Protect America's Intellectual Property]
</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==

For the mind map software, I found [http://vue.tufts.edu/ VUE] easy to use. I was especially impressed by the rendering in PDF. Everything fit neatly on the page. This was a big surprise after being a Microsoft Office User ;-). Also, PC Users, if you need to print to PDF, [http://www.pdfforge.org/ PDF Creator] is wonderful. --[[User:SCL|SCL]] 22:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The story of Edwin Howard Armstrong in Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture, is especially disturbing due in part to his unfortunate demise. FM radio was systematically repressed by RCA and the government (FCC); for the benefit of RCA (to keep it's market share with AM radio).The fight between RCA and Edwin Armstrong ultimately broke him down, but this story has repeated itself in many forms throughout history. RCA benefited from AM radio at the expense of millions of radio listeners who would have been able to enjoy clear FM transmissions. In this particular case, it lead to the direct death of the inventor and the short changing of the radio listening public. What happens in other cases where lives are at stake? Would a pharmaceutical company react the same way to protect their financial interests in the event of an important cure being developed? What if the cure was developed using prior pharmaceutical patents? Would “common sense revolt at the idea?”1 [[User:Earboleda|Earboleda]] 23:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
1 Lawrence Lessig, ( New York: Penguin Press, 1994) Free Culture, 2

The Righthaven case cites some factors working against the plaintiffs, one of which is the fact that they sought copyright protection with the specific intent to file suit. While I certainly don't think their actions are on the whole noble, it does seem a bit challenging that copyright protection does not require registration. If registration is mere legal formality, but is also required in order to file a suit, it seems unfair to subject Righthaven to scrutiny on that particular basis. If a judge is going to deem such actions as dubious, why not require registration at the outset? [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 19:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It is difficult to discern the common sense in today’s copyright law. It certainly makes sense that some expressions have value, and the author or assignee of copyright should have the ability to control the use of their valuable intellectual property. There’s a difference, however, between the deliberate misappropriation of copyrighted material for commercial gain (or infliction of harm), and the casual innocent use of copyrighted material by an individual. If I buy a newspaper and share it with several people on the train there’s no harm to the publisher. If I read an article on their web site and email a copy to my friends, that action should be fine too. While a blog has the potential for more viewers, it seems like a simple extension of social interaction. I think it’s a travesty that Righthaven was able to prosecute these kinds of claims. In contrast, the big commercial cases like Viacom v. YouTube, AFP v. Google, AP v. All Headline News and Gatehouse Media v. NYT all had a substantial monetary stake in the creation and dissemination of intellectual property. Those seem to me to be the more suitable parties for questions of copyright infringement. [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 21:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Classmates,

Thank you for another thoughtful, engaging and energetic discussion both in class an online last evening. The topics discussed are today hyper relevant to all of us and as [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/User:Earboleda Earboleda] points out in the case of Armstrong and FM radio have been the source of commerce, intrigue and even tragedy for time uncertain. From the business tactics of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Randolph_Hearst William Randolph Hearst] to [http://www.ascap.com/ ASCAP] suing the Girl Scouts for singing "[http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/communications/ASCAP.html God Bless America]" and far beyond none of us are immune to the ramifications. Not to dwell on it, but as I said last evening even the dead.

In a strange coincidence last night when I got home, I sat down to grab a bite and flipped on CNBC. The show "[http://www.cnbc.com/id/40795923/ 60 Minutes on CNBC]" was rerunning the segment “[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/19/60minutes/main6598800.shtml How Celebs Make A Living After Death]”. It told how Attorney Mark Roesler, who wished to become a famous entertainment agent but because he lived in Indiana couldn’t find that many big named clients, latched upon the idea of representing notable figures who have passed away. For almost the past thirty years he has turned that idea into an industry.

Although I didn’t articulate this as well as I had hoped in class, I am conflicted over this. First it seems creepy to me that someone should take the life’s work of transformative figures from Einstein to Michael Jackson and use that for profit. I’m all for profit from one’s contribution, but affixing the face of Einstein, crossed eyed and sticking out his tongue to a tee shirt, doesn’t seem to me to be that much of a contribution to society and more so something that someone should be able to appropriate. As [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/edit/User:ChrisSura?redlink=1 Chris] points out, even more so, prevent the rest of us from also doing so without paying a royalty (if the tee shirt maker also had written above the image their correction of a mistake in one of Einstein's theorems, perhaps).

On the other hand, Mr. Roesler has created an industry from which many people today make a living, feed their families and send their kids to great institutions like Harvard where they are able to have engaging conversations dissecting the subject. There’s also the point that if someone is going to make money of the dead, shouldn’t some of that money go to their heirs. Well maybe yes and maybe no. Who knows what the dearly departed would have wished for their post mortem profits. I suspect that today there are a lot of people getting rich in part due to the legacies of people like Mother Teresa and other who never spent a night knee deep in filth caring for the sick and dying. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 11:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

== Links ==
Interesting question: [http://paidcontent.org/article/419-have-media-companies-destroyed-their-copyrights-with-the-share-button/# Have Media Companies Destroyed Their Copyrights With The ‘Share’ Button?] --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 23:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyright in Cyberspace

2011-04-06T11:56:11Z

Gclinch: /* Class Discussion */

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
 
</div>
'''April 5'''

The Internet has enabled individuals to become involved in the production of media and to distribute their contributions widely at a very low cost. The former bastion of the entertainment industry is opening up to what many are calling a democratization of culture. The copyright doctrine of fair use seemingly bolsters the right to "recut, reframe, and recycle" previous works, but the protection fair use gives to those re-purposing copyrighted material is notoriously uncertain.

Digital and file-sharing technologies also spawned the proliferation of sharing of media and music, which has led to a number of controversial legal and technological strategies. The "notice-and-takedown" provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") allow Internet service providers to limit their liability for the copyright infringements of their users if the ISPs expeditiously remove material in response to complaints from copyright owners. The DMCA provides for counter-notice and "put-back" of removed material, but some argue that the statutory mechanism can chill innovative, constitutionally-protected speech.

This class provides an overview of some major copyright law concepts and takes up some of the issues swirling around copyright in cyberspace.

'''[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/IS2011-4.5.11-Copyright.pdf Slides: Copyright in Cyberspace]'''

==Assignments==

== Required Readings ==
* [http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright Basics]
* [http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 17 U.S.C. § 107 ("Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use")]
* [http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512 17 U.S.C. § 512(c) ("Information Residing on Systems or Networks at Direction of Users")]
* [http://www.free-culture.cc/freecontent/ Lawrence Lessig, Free Culture] (pp. 1-20)
* Viacom v. YouTube: [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/19/technology/19youtube.html?pagewanted=1&sq=viacom&st=cse&scp=2 "Viacom Says YouTube Ignored Copyrights" (M. Helft, NY Times, 3/18/2010)], [http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2010/07/what-the-viacom-vs-youtube-verdict-means-for-copyright-law183.html What the Viacom vs. YouTube Verdict Means for Copyright Law]
* Righthaven Copyright Lawsuits: [http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/mar/29/righthaven-wins-round-litigation-campaign/ Las Vegas Sun, Righthaven wins round in litigation campaign], [http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/business-notebook/2011/mar/19/righthaven-lawsuits-backfire-reduce-protections-ne/ Las Vegas Sun, Righthaven lawsuits backfire, reduce protections for newspapers], and skim [http://www.righthavenlawsuits.com/ this].
* [http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/news%20aggregation%20white%20paper.pdf The Rise of the News Aggregator: Legal Implications and Best Practices]

== Optional Readings ==
* [http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2011/02/02/super-bust-due-process-and-domain-name-seizure.html Super Bust: Due Process and Domain Name Seizure]
* [http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/comics1 Creative Commons: A Spectrum of Rights (comic)]
* [http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/recut_reframe_recycle/ Center for Social Media, Recut, Reframe, Recyle] (full report optional)
* [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8647956476676426155&q=545+U.S.+913&hl=en&as_sdt=2002 MGM v. Grokster, 545 U.S. 913 (2005)] (Sec. II, pp. 928 - 937)
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/nyregion/09potter.html?_r=1 "Rowling Wins Lawsuit Against Potter Lexicon" (J. Eligon, NY Times, 9/8/08)]
* [http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/830/index.html New York Times Bits Blog: Mixing It Up Over Remixes and Fair Use]
* [http://www.eff.org/files/20030926_unsafe_harbors.pdf EFF, Unsafe Harbors: Abusive DMCA Subpoenas and Takedown Demands]
* [http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/03/15/concrete-steps-congress-can-take-protect-americas-intellectual-property The White House Blog: Concrete Steps Congress Can Take to Protect America's Intellectual Property]
</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==

For the mind map software, I found [http://vue.tufts.edu/ VUE] easy to use. I was especially impressed by the rendering in PDF. Everything fit neatly on the page. This was a big surprise after being a Microsoft Office User ;-). Also, PC Users, if you need to print to PDF, [http://www.pdfforge.org/ PDF Creator] is wonderful. --[[User:SCL|SCL]] 22:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The story of Edwin Howard Armstrong in Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture, is especially disturbing due in part to his unfortunate demise. FM radio was systematically repressed by RCA and the government (FCC); for the benefit of RCA (to keep it's market share with AM radio).The fight between RCA and Edwin Armstrong ultimately broke him down, but this story has repeated itself in many forms throughout history. RCA benefited from AM radio at the expense of millions of radio listeners who would have been able to enjoy clear FM transmissions. In this particular case, it lead to the direct death of the inventor and the short changing of the radio listening public. What happens in other cases where lives are at stake? Would a pharmaceutical company react the same way to protect their financial interests in the event of an important cure being developed? What if the cure was developed using prior pharmaceutical patents? Would “common sense revolt at the idea?”1 [[User:Earboleda|Earboleda]] 23:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
1 Lawrence Lessig, ( New York: Penguin Press, 1994) Free Culture, 2

The Righthaven case cites some factors working against the plaintiffs, one of which is the fact that they sought copyright protection with the specific intent to file suit. While I certainly don't think their actions are on the whole noble, it does seem a bit challenging that copyright protection does not require registration. If registration is mere legal formality, but is also required in order to file a suit, it seems unfair to subject Righthaven to scrutiny on that particular basis. If a judge is going to deem such actions as dubious, why not require registration at the outset? [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 19:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It is difficult to discern the common sense in today’s copyright law. It certainly makes sense that some expressions have value, and the author or assignee of copyright should have the ability to control the use of their valuable intellectual property. There’s a difference, however, between the deliberate misappropriation of copyrighted material for commercial gain (or infliction of harm), and the casual innocent use of copyrighted material by an individual. If I buy a newspaper and share it with several people on the train there’s no harm to the publisher. If I read an article on their web site and email a copy to my friends, that action should be fine too. While a blog has the potential for more viewers, it seems like a simple extension of social interaction. I think it’s a travesty that Righthaven was able to prosecute these kinds of claims. In contrast, the big commercial cases like Viacom v. YouTube, AFP v. Google, AP v. All Headline News and Gatehouse Media v. NYT all had a substantial monetary stake in the creation and dissemination of intellectual property. Those seem to me to be the more suitable parties for questions of copyright infringement. [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 21:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Classmates,

Thank you for another thoughtful, engaging and energetic discussion both in class an online last evening. The topics discussed are today hyper relevant to all of us and as [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/User:Earboleda Earboleda] points out in the case of Armstrong and FM radio have been the source of commerce, intrigue and even tragedy for time uncertain. From the business tactics of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Randolph_Hearst William Randolph Hearst] to [http://www.ascap.com/ ASCAP] suing the Girl Scouts for singing "[http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/communications/ASCAP.html God Bless America]" and far beyond none of us are immune to the ramifications. Not to dwell on it, but as I said last evening even the dead.

In a strange coincidence last night when I got home, I sat down to grab a bite and flipped on CNBC. The show "[http://www.cnbc.com/id/40795923/ 60 Minutes on CNBC]" was rerunning the segment “[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/19/60minutes/main6598800.shtml How Celebs Make A Living After Death]”. It told how Attorney Mark Roesler, who wished to become a famous entertainment agent but because he lived in Indiana couldn’t find that many big named clients, latched upon the idea of representing notable figures who have passed away. For almost the past thirty years he has turned that idea into an industry.

Although I didn’t articulate this as well as I had hoped in class, I am conflicted over this. First it seems creepy to me that someone should take the life’s work of transformative figures from Einstein to Michael Jackson and use that for profit. I’m all for profit from one’s contribution, but affixing the face of Einstein, crossed eyed and sticking out his tongue to a tee shirt, doesn’t seem to me to be that much of a contribution to society and more so something that someone should be able to appropriate. As [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/edit/User:ChrisSura?redlink=1 Chris] points out, even more so, prevent the rest of us from also doing so without paying a royalty (if the tee shirt maker also had written above the image their correction of a mistake in one of Einstein's theorems perhaps, well then maybe).

On the other hand, Mr. Roesler has created an industry from which many people today make a living, feed their families and send their kids to great institutions like Harvard where they are able to have engaging conversations dissecting the subject. There’s also the point that if someone is going to make money of the dead, shouldn’t some of that money go to their heirs. Well maybe yes and maybe no. Who knows what the dearly departed would have wished for their post mortem profits. I suspect that today there are a lot of people getting rich in part due to the legacies of people like Mother Teresa and other who never spent a night knee deep in filth caring for the sick and dying. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 11:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

== Links ==
Interesting question: [http://paidcontent.org/article/419-have-media-companies-destroyed-their-copyrights-with-the-share-button/# Have Media Companies Destroyed Their Copyrights With The ‘Share’ Button?] --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 23:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyright in Cyberspace

2011-04-06T11:55:05Z

Gclinch: /* Class Discussion */ tweak to dear Classmates

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
 
</div>
'''April 5'''

The Internet has enabled individuals to become involved in the production of media and to distribute their contributions widely at a very low cost. The former bastion of the entertainment industry is opening up to what many are calling a democratization of culture. The copyright doctrine of fair use seemingly bolsters the right to "recut, reframe, and recycle" previous works, but the protection fair use gives to those re-purposing copyrighted material is notoriously uncertain.

Digital and file-sharing technologies also spawned the proliferation of sharing of media and music, which has led to a number of controversial legal and technological strategies. The "notice-and-takedown" provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") allow Internet service providers to limit their liability for the copyright infringements of their users if the ISPs expeditiously remove material in response to complaints from copyright owners. The DMCA provides for counter-notice and "put-back" of removed material, but some argue that the statutory mechanism can chill innovative, constitutionally-protected speech.

This class provides an overview of some major copyright law concepts and takes up some of the issues swirling around copyright in cyberspace.

'''[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/IS2011-4.5.11-Copyright.pdf Slides: Copyright in Cyberspace]'''

==Assignments==

== Required Readings ==
* [http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright Basics]
* [http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 17 U.S.C. § 107 ("Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use")]
* [http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512 17 U.S.C. § 512(c) ("Information Residing on Systems or Networks at Direction of Users")]
* [http://www.free-culture.cc/freecontent/ Lawrence Lessig, Free Culture] (pp. 1-20)
* Viacom v. YouTube: [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/19/technology/19youtube.html?pagewanted=1&sq=viacom&st=cse&scp=2 "Viacom Says YouTube Ignored Copyrights" (M. Helft, NY Times, 3/18/2010)], [http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2010/07/what-the-viacom-vs-youtube-verdict-means-for-copyright-law183.html What the Viacom vs. YouTube Verdict Means for Copyright Law]
* Righthaven Copyright Lawsuits: [http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/mar/29/righthaven-wins-round-litigation-campaign/ Las Vegas Sun, Righthaven wins round in litigation campaign], [http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/business-notebook/2011/mar/19/righthaven-lawsuits-backfire-reduce-protections-ne/ Las Vegas Sun, Righthaven lawsuits backfire, reduce protections for newspapers], and skim [http://www.righthavenlawsuits.com/ this].
* [http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/news%20aggregation%20white%20paper.pdf The Rise of the News Aggregator: Legal Implications and Best Practices]

== Optional Readings ==
* [http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2011/02/02/super-bust-due-process-and-domain-name-seizure.html Super Bust: Due Process and Domain Name Seizure]
* [http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/comics1 Creative Commons: A Spectrum of Rights (comic)]
* [http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/recut_reframe_recycle/ Center for Social Media, Recut, Reframe, Recyle] (full report optional)
* [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8647956476676426155&q=545+U.S.+913&hl=en&as_sdt=2002 MGM v. Grokster, 545 U.S. 913 (2005)] (Sec. II, pp. 928 - 937)
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/nyregion/09potter.html?_r=1 "Rowling Wins Lawsuit Against Potter Lexicon" (J. Eligon, NY Times, 9/8/08)]
* [http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/830/index.html New York Times Bits Blog: Mixing It Up Over Remixes and Fair Use]
* [http://www.eff.org/files/20030926_unsafe_harbors.pdf EFF, Unsafe Harbors: Abusive DMCA Subpoenas and Takedown Demands]
* [http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/03/15/concrete-steps-congress-can-take-protect-americas-intellectual-property The White House Blog: Concrete Steps Congress Can Take to Protect America's Intellectual Property]
</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==

For the mind map software, I found [http://vue.tufts.edu/ VUE] easy to use. I was especially impressed by the rendering in PDF. Everything fit neatly on the page. This was a big surprise after being a Microsoft Office User ;-). Also, PC Users, if you need to print to PDF, [http://www.pdfforge.org/ PDF Creator] is wonderful. --[[User:SCL|SCL]] 22:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The story of Edwin Howard Armstrong in Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture, is especially disturbing due in part to his unfortunate demise. FM radio was systematically repressed by RCA and the government (FCC); for the benefit of RCA (to keep it's market share with AM radio).The fight between RCA and Edwin Armstrong ultimately broke him down, but this story has repeated itself in many forms throughout history. RCA benefited from AM radio at the expense of millions of radio listeners who would have been able to enjoy clear FM transmissions. In this particular case, it lead to the direct death of the inventor and the short changing of the radio listening public. What happens in other cases where lives are at stake? Would a pharmaceutical company react the same way to protect their financial interests in the event of an important cure being developed? What if the cure was developed using prior pharmaceutical patents? Would “common sense revolt at the idea?”1 [[User:Earboleda|Earboleda]] 23:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
1 Lawrence Lessig, ( New York: Penguin Press, 1994) Free Culture, 2

The Righthaven case cites some factors working against the plaintiffs, one of which is the fact that they sought copyright protection with the specific intent to file suit. While I certainly don't think their actions are on the whole noble, it does seem a bit challenging that copyright protection does not require registration. If registration is mere legal formality, but is also required in order to file a suit, it seems unfair to subject Righthaven to scrutiny on that particular basis. If a judge is going to deem such actions as dubious, why not require registration at the outset? [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 19:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It is difficult to discern the common sense in today’s copyright law. It certainly makes sense that some expressions have value, and the author or assignee of copyright should have the ability to control the use of their valuable intellectual property. There’s a difference, however, between the deliberate misappropriation of copyrighted material for commercial gain (or infliction of harm), and the casual innocent use of copyrighted material by an individual. If I buy a newspaper and share it with several people on the train there’s no harm to the publisher. If I read an article on their web site and email a copy to my friends, that action should be fine too. While a blog has the potential for more viewers, it seems like a simple extension of social interaction. I think it’s a travesty that Righthaven was able to prosecute these kinds of claims. In contrast, the big commercial cases like Viacom v. YouTube, AFP v. Google, AP v. All Headline News and Gatehouse Media v. NYT all had a substantial monetary stake in the creation and dissemination of intellectual property. Those seem to me to be the more suitable parties for questions of copyright infringement. [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 21:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Classmates,

Thank you for another thoughtful, engaging and energetic discussion both in class an online last evening. The topics discussed are today hyper relevant to all of us and as [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/User:Earboleda Earboleda] points out in the case of Armstrong and FM radio have been the source of commerce, intrigue and even tragedy for time uncertain. From the business tactics of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Randolph_Hearst William Randolph Hearst] to [http://www.ascap.com/ ASCAP] suing the Girl Scouts for singing the "[http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/communications/ASCAP.html God Bless America]" and far beyond none of us are immune to the ramifications. Not to dwell on it, but as I said last evening even the dead.

In a strange coincidence last night when I got home, I sat down to grab a bite and flipped on CNBC. The show "[http://www.cnbc.com/id/40795923/ 60 Minutes on CNBC]" was rerunning the segment “[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/19/60minutes/main6598800.shtml How Celebs Make A Living After Death]”. It told how Attorney Mark Roesler, who wished to become a famous entertainment agent but because he lived in Indiana couldn’t find that many big named clients, latched upon the idea of representing notable figures who have passed away. For almost the past thirty years he has turned that idea into an industry.

Although I didn’t articulate this as well as I had hoped in class, I am conflicted over this. First it seems creepy to me that someone should take the life’s work of transformative figures from Einstein to Michael Jackson and use that for profit. I’m all for profit from one’s contribution, but affixing the face of Einstein, crossed eyed and sticking out his tongue to a tee shirt, doesn’t seem to me to be that much of a contribution to society and more so something that someone should be able to appropriate. As [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/edit/User:ChrisSura?redlink=1 Chris] points out, even more so, prevent the rest of us from also doing so without paying a royalty (if the tee shirt maker also had written above the image their correction of a mistake in one of Einstein's theorems perhaps, well then maybe).

On the other hand, Mr. Roesler has created an industry from which many people today make a living, feed their families and send their kids to great institutions like Harvard where they are able to have engaging conversations dissecting the subject. There’s also the point that if someone is going to make money of the dead, shouldn’t some of that money go to their heirs. Well maybe yes and maybe no. Who knows what the dearly departed would have wished for their post mortem profits. I suspect that today there are a lot of people getting rich in part due to the legacies of people like Mother Teresa and other who never spent a night knee deep in filth caring for the sick and dying. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 11:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

== Links ==
Interesting question: [http://paidcontent.org/article/419-have-media-companies-destroyed-their-copyrights-with-the-share-button/# Have Media Companies Destroyed Their Copyrights With The ‘Share’ Button?] --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 23:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyright in Cyberspace

2011-04-06T11:48:12Z

Gclinch: /* Class Discussion */ Dear Classmates entry

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
 
</div>
'''April 5'''

The Internet has enabled individuals to become involved in the production of media and to distribute their contributions widely at a very low cost. The former bastion of the entertainment industry is opening up to what many are calling a democratization of culture. The copyright doctrine of fair use seemingly bolsters the right to "recut, reframe, and recycle" previous works, but the protection fair use gives to those re-purposing copyrighted material is notoriously uncertain.

Digital and file-sharing technologies also spawned the proliferation of sharing of media and music, which has led to a number of controversial legal and technological strategies. The "notice-and-takedown" provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") allow Internet service providers to limit their liability for the copyright infringements of their users if the ISPs expeditiously remove material in response to complaints from copyright owners. The DMCA provides for counter-notice and "put-back" of removed material, but some argue that the statutory mechanism can chill innovative, constitutionally-protected speech.

This class provides an overview of some major copyright law concepts and takes up some of the issues swirling around copyright in cyberspace.

'''[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/IS2011-4.5.11-Copyright.pdf Slides: Copyright in Cyberspace]'''

==Assignments==

== Required Readings ==
* [http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright Basics]
* [http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 17 U.S.C. § 107 ("Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use")]
* [http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512 17 U.S.C. § 512(c) ("Information Residing on Systems or Networks at Direction of Users")]
* [http://www.free-culture.cc/freecontent/ Lawrence Lessig, Free Culture] (pp. 1-20)
* Viacom v. YouTube: [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/19/technology/19youtube.html?pagewanted=1&sq=viacom&st=cse&scp=2 "Viacom Says YouTube Ignored Copyrights" (M. Helft, NY Times, 3/18/2010)], [http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2010/07/what-the-viacom-vs-youtube-verdict-means-for-copyright-law183.html What the Viacom vs. YouTube Verdict Means for Copyright Law]
* Righthaven Copyright Lawsuits: [http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/mar/29/righthaven-wins-round-litigation-campaign/ Las Vegas Sun, Righthaven wins round in litigation campaign], [http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/business-notebook/2011/mar/19/righthaven-lawsuits-backfire-reduce-protections-ne/ Las Vegas Sun, Righthaven lawsuits backfire, reduce protections for newspapers], and skim [http://www.righthavenlawsuits.com/ this].
* [http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/news%20aggregation%20white%20paper.pdf The Rise of the News Aggregator: Legal Implications and Best Practices]

== Optional Readings ==
* [http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2011/02/02/super-bust-due-process-and-domain-name-seizure.html Super Bust: Due Process and Domain Name Seizure]
* [http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/comics1 Creative Commons: A Spectrum of Rights (comic)]
* [http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/recut_reframe_recycle/ Center for Social Media, Recut, Reframe, Recyle] (full report optional)
* [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8647956476676426155&q=545+U.S.+913&hl=en&as_sdt=2002 MGM v. Grokster, 545 U.S. 913 (2005)] (Sec. II, pp. 928 - 937)
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/nyregion/09potter.html?_r=1 "Rowling Wins Lawsuit Against Potter Lexicon" (J. Eligon, NY Times, 9/8/08)]
* [http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/830/index.html New York Times Bits Blog: Mixing It Up Over Remixes and Fair Use]
* [http://www.eff.org/files/20030926_unsafe_harbors.pdf EFF, Unsafe Harbors: Abusive DMCA Subpoenas and Takedown Demands]
* [http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/03/15/concrete-steps-congress-can-take-protect-americas-intellectual-property The White House Blog: Concrete Steps Congress Can Take to Protect America's Intellectual Property]
</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==

For the mind map software, I found [http://vue.tufts.edu/ VUE] easy to use. I was especially impressed by the rendering in PDF. Everything fit neatly on the page. This was a big surprise after being a Microsoft Office User ;-). Also, PC Users, if you need to print to PDF, [http://www.pdfforge.org/ PDF Creator] is wonderful. --[[User:SCL|SCL]] 22:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The story of Edwin Howard Armstrong in Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture, is especially disturbing due in part to his unfortunate demise. FM radio was systematically repressed by RCA and the government (FCC); for the benefit of RCA (to keep it's market share with AM radio).The fight between RCA and Edwin Armstrong ultimately broke him down, but this story has repeated itself in many forms throughout history. RCA benefited from AM radio at the expense of millions of radio listeners who would have been able to enjoy clear FM transmissions. In this particular case, it lead to the direct death of the inventor and the short changing of the radio listening public. What happens in other cases where lives are at stake? Would a pharmaceutical company react the same way to protect their financial interests in the event of an important cure being developed? What if the cure was developed using prior pharmaceutical patents? Would “common sense revolt at the idea?”1 [[User:Earboleda|Earboleda]] 23:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
1 Lawrence Lessig, ( New York: Penguin Press, 1994) Free Culture, 2

The Righthaven case cites some factors working against the plaintiffs, one of which is the fact that they sought copyright protection with the specific intent to file suit. While I certainly don't think their actions are on the whole noble, it does seem a bit challenging that copyright protection does not require registration. If registration is mere legal formality, but is also required in order to file a suit, it seems unfair to subject Righthaven to scrutiny on that particular basis. If a judge is going to deem such actions as dubious, why not require registration at the outset? [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 19:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It is difficult to discern the common sense in today’s copyright law. It certainly makes sense that some expressions have value, and the author or assignee of copyright should have the ability to control the use of their valuable intellectual property. There’s a difference, however, between the deliberate misappropriation of copyrighted material for commercial gain (or infliction of harm), and the casual innocent use of copyrighted material by an individual. If I buy a newspaper and share it with several people on the train there’s no harm to the publisher. If I read an article on their web site and email a copy to my friends, that action should be fine too. While a blog has the potential for more viewers, it seems like a simple extension of social interaction. I think it’s a travesty that Righthaven was able to prosecute these kinds of claims. In contrast, the big commercial cases like Viacom v. YouTube, AFP v. Google, AP v. All Headline News and Gatehouse Media v. NYT all had a substantial monetary stake in the creation and dissemination of intellectual property. Those seem to me to be the more suitable parties for questions of copyright infringement. [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 21:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Classmates,

Thank you for another thoughtful, engaging and energetic discussion both in class an online last evening. The topics discussed are today hyper relevant to all of us and as [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/User:Earboleda Earboleda] points out in the case of Armstrong and FM radio have been the source of commerce, intrigue and even tragedy for time uncertain. From the business tactics of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Randolph_Hearst William Randolph Hearst] to [http://www.ascap.com/ ASCAP] suing the Girl Scouts for singing the "[http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/communications/ASCAP.html God Bless America]" and far beyond none of us are immune to the ramifications. Not to dwell on it, but as I said last evening even the dead.

In a strange coincidence last night when I got home, I sat down to grab a bite and flipped on CNBC. The show "[http://www.cnbc.com/id/40795923/ 60 Minutes on CNBC]" was rerunning the segment “[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/19/60minutes/main6598800.shtml How Celebs Make A Living After Death]”. It told how Attorney Mark Roesler, who wished to become a famous entertainment agent but because he lived in Indiana couldn’t find that many big named clients, latched upon the idea of representing notable figures who have passed away. For almost the past thirty years he has turned that idea into an industry.

Although I didn’t articulate this as well as I had hoped in class, I am conflicted over this. First it seems creepy to me that someone should take the life’s work of transformative figures from Einstein to Michael Jackson and use that for profit. I’m all for profit from one’s contribution, but affixing the face of Einstein, crossed eyed and sticking out his tongue to a tee shirt, doesn’t seem to me to be that much of a contribution to society and more so something that someone should be able to appropriate, and as [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/edit/User:ChrisSura?redlink=1 Chris] points out prevent the rest of us from also doing so.

On the other hand, Mr. Roesler has created an industry from which many people today make a living, feed their families and send their kids to great institutions like Harvard where they are able to have engaging conversations dissecting the subject. There’s also the point that if someone is going to make money of the dead, shouldn’t some of that money go to their heirs. Well maybe yes and maybe no. Who knows what the dearly departed would have wished for their post mortem profits. I suspect that today there are a lot of people getting rich in part due to the legacies of people like Mother Teresa and other who never spent a night knee deep in filth caring for the sick and dying. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 11:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

== Links ==
Interesting question: [http://paidcontent.org/article/419-have-media-companies-destroyed-their-copyrights-with-the-share-button/# Have Media Companies Destroyed Their Copyrights With The ‘Share’ Button?] --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 23:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyright in Cyberspace

2011-04-03T23:06:28Z

Gclinch: /* Links */

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
 
</div>
'''April 5'''

The Internet has enabled individuals to become involved in the production of media and to distribute their contributions widely at a very low cost. The former bastion of the entertainment industry is opening up to what many are calling a democratization of culture. The copyright doctrine of fair use seemingly bolsters the right to "recut, reframe, and recycle" previous works, but the protection fair use gives to those re-purposing copyrighted material is notoriously uncertain.

Digital and file-sharing technologies also spawned the proliferation of sharing of media and music, which has led to a number of controversial legal and technological strategies. The "notice-and-takedown" provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") allow Internet service providers to limit their liability for the copyright infringements of their users if the ISPs expeditiously remove material in response to complaints from copyright owners. The DMCA provides for counter-notice and "put-back" of removed material, but some argue that the statutory mechanism can chill innovative, constitutionally-protected speech.

This class provides an overview of some major copyright law concepts and takes up some of the issues swirling around copyright in cyberspace.

==Assignments==

== Required Readings ==
* [http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright Basics]
* [http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 17 U.S.C. § 107 ("Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use")]
* [http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512 17 U.S.C. § 512(c) ("Information Residing on Systems or Networks at Direction of Users")]
* [http://www.free-culture.cc/freecontent/ Lawrence Lessig, Free Culture] (pp. 1-20)
* Viacom v. YouTube: [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/19/technology/19youtube.html?pagewanted=1&sq=viacom&st=cse&scp=2 "Viacom Says YouTube Ignored Copyrights" (M. Helft, NY Times, 3/18/2010)], [http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2010/07/what-the-viacom-vs-youtube-verdict-means-for-copyright-law183.html What the Viacom vs. YouTube Verdict Means for Copyright Law]
* Righthaven Copyright Lawsuits: [http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/mar/29/righthaven-wins-round-litigation-campaign/ Las Vegas Sun, Righthaven wins round in litigation campaign], [http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/business-notebook/2011/mar/19/righthaven-lawsuits-backfire-reduce-protections-ne/ Las Vegas Sun, Righthaven lawsuits backfire, reduce protections for newspapers], and skim [http://www.righthavenlawsuits.com/ this].
* [http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/news%20aggregation%20white%20paper.pdf The Rise of the News Aggregator: Legal Implications and Best Practices]

== Optional Readings ==
* [http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2011/02/02/super-bust-due-process-and-domain-name-seizure.html Super Bust: Due Process and Domain Name Seizure]
* [http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/comics1 Creative Commons: A Spectrum of Rights (comic)]
* [http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/recut_reframe_recycle/ Center for Social Media, Recut, Reframe, Recyle] (full report optional)
* [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8647956476676426155&q=545+U.S.+913&hl=en&as_sdt=2002 MGM v. Grokster, 545 U.S. 913 (2005)] (Sec. II, pp. 928 - 937)
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/nyregion/09potter.html?_r=1 "Rowling Wins Lawsuit Against Potter Lexicon" (J. Eligon, NY Times, 9/8/08)]
* [http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/830/index.html New York Times Bits Blog: Mixing It Up Over Remixes and Fair Use]
* [http://www.eff.org/files/20030926_unsafe_harbors.pdf EFF, Unsafe Harbors: Abusive DMCA Subpoenas and Takedown Demands]
</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==

For the mind map software, I found [http://vue.tufts.edu/ VUE] easy to use. I was especially impressed by the rendering in PDF. Everything fit neatly on the page. This was a big surprise after being a Microsoft Office User ;-). Also, PC Users, if you need to print to PDF, [http://www.pdfforge.org/ PDF Creator] is wonderful. --[[User:SCL|SCL]] 22:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

== Links ==
Interesting question: [http://paidcontent.org/article/419-have-media-companies-destroyed-their-copyrights-with-the-share-button/# Have Media Companies Destroyed Their Copyrights With The ‘Share’ Button?] --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 23:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Internet Infrastructure and Regulation

2011-04-01T15:42:56Z

Gclinch: /* Links from Class */

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
 
</div>
'''March 29'''

In this class, we will cover the politics, policy, economics and technology of deploying broadband infrastructure. We will look at the year-old US National Broadband Plan and the Berkman Center review of international experiences in broadband policy. Additionally, we will look at the substance and politics of the net neutrality debate.

[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/InternetSocietyMarch29.pdf Slides: Internet Infrastructure and Regulation]

<onlyinclude>
==Readings==

* Executive Summary of the National Broadband Plan [http://www.broadband.gov/plan/executive-summary/]

* National Broadband Plan Commission Meeting: National Purposes Update, February 18th 2010 [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296353A1.pdf ]

* Next Generation Connectivity: A review of broadband Internet transitions and policy from around the world, Berkman Center [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Berkman_Center_Broadband_Final_Report-C1_15Feb2010.pdf ]

* Net Neutrality 101 [http://www.savetheinternet.com/frequently-asked-questions?gclid=CKbclcK65KcCFULf4AodaxmJCg]

* More Confusion about Internet Freedom [http://techliberation.com/2011/03/01/more-confusion-about-internet-freedom/]

* Hands Off the Internet [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlhSbJYxOnc]

== Optional Readings==

* [http://www.fcc.gov The Federal Communications Commission]
* [http://www.broadband.gov National Broadband Plan]
* [http://www.openinternet.gov OpenInternet.gov]
* [http://www.ietf.org The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)]
* [http://www.icann.org The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers]
* [http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.txt The Telecommunications Act of 1996]
* [http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=auctions_home FCC - Wireless Spectrum Auctions]
* [http://www.isp-planet.com/cplanet/tech/2004/prime_letter_040301_powell.html Powell's Four Freedoms]
</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==
A number of things came to mind during the readings. The one that I'd like to discuss here is what the economic impact on startup and small businesses and the potential negative effects pipeline tiering might have on the US economy. Pipeline tiering could and most likely would have a negative effect on the US economy if small and startup businesses seek creating revenue in other countries due to class A and class B access by US ISP's. This said, it could mean many companies opting not to setup shop in the US. This in turn means less innovation within our own borders. In the end the ISP's lose out on a source of revenue and the US loses it's position as world class innovator.

Further, if another country dictates that all content is free to anyone, how can it be enforced if our own ISP's charge a tier pricing to access such sites, data and content? It would also be a requirement for protection of such sources to be made law or included in the requirement to pay for access. But how do you collect against a foreign country where the services are housed? Are this ISP's really thinking this through? Are they prepared to lose a large amount of business to foreign providers? To the majority of us we would not notice if we are going to say the UK for content.

If Sealand were still in existence would it help protect against the possibility of tiered charges?
--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 20:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

After reading all this week's assignment readings, I started to dig websites to see what is going on in my country, which is South Korea, regarding the "Net Neutrality" issue. It was quite a surprise to find out that Korea, nominated as one of the leading Internet police states in the world, is, in fact, suggesting a rather positive vision in this aspect. ([http://www.koreainformationsociety.com/2010/09/net-neutrality-view-from-korea.html]) --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 21:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thought this was relative and very interesting:
Article referring to common carriage; http://www.economist.com/node/16106593 -- [[User:Alex|Alex]]

----

A follow-up to our discussion on limits to free speech and indirect political pressure on third-party private intermediaries. In this case, four senators are "requesting" Google, Apple, and RIM (maker of Blackberry) to remove apps from their device app stores that identify police DUI checkpoints. This article is the more passionate and argues for the freedom-of-speech angle: [http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/Senators-Pressure-Mobile-App-Stores-to-Kill-Politically-Incorrect-Apps-337124/ Senators Pressure Mobile App Stores to Kill Politically Incorrect Apps.] While this one is more neutral: [http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20110323/tc_pcworld/groupsdefenddrunkdrivingcheckpointsoftware Groups Defend Drunk-driving Checkpoint Software.] But it certainly looks like we'll see more and more instances of individuals in congress finding favorite online bogeymen to show how patriotic/principled/family-valued/tough-on-crime/fill-in-the-blank they can be! [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

*[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/User:Smithbc Smithbc] thanks for pointing out this topic. There’s a couple of interesting discussion topics here. One is, if the purpose of drunken driving checkpoints is to get drunk drivers off the road, why would you combat a technology that would allow a potential offender to see active checkpoints before leaving the bar and maybe think twice, get a cab or stay home? It’s like people being pulled over for flashing their lights at oncoming traffic to let others know about a speed trap or ticketing for speed trap scanners in cars. If the purpose is to get people to slow down, don’t all of these accomplish the goals as much as the presence of enforcement? Of course for this logic to be valid one must assume that the goal is keeping drunk drivers off the road and slowing people down as opposed to arrest quotas and the revenue associated with fines.

-- Putting the soapbox aside, a more focused question about the above related to the topics of class is: is it an effective policy tool to attack one set of social problems by diminishing the fundamental rights insured by the First Amendment or aren’t there many other innovative and direct ways? How about directing enforcement or remediation at the offenders instead of stripping the rest of society of basic rights in an attempt to control the actions of a few? It’s seems arcane. It’s akin to thinking you can cure someone who is anemic by using the ancient medical technique of bloodletting. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 14:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Classmates: Is it just me or are the subjects we are studying in this class some of the most real world relevant in any class you’ve taken? Every week it seems like the syllabus tracks the headlines. We studied Wikileaks while in the real world events directly related to the topic unfolded. We studied collaborative technologies and the power of the individual to influence the world through digital technologies while dramatic examples of technology propelling individuals as catalysts for social change and crowd sourced political revolutions continue to unfold across large regions of the globe.

This week we are studying the Internet Infrastructure and Regulation and the National Broadband Plan and in the news important implications of this topic shout out to us.

The reason I say these things is that I below are a couple of specific examples that I would like your thoughts on. May I have your opinion on the following?

Last class we talked about Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 commonly known as the ([http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000230----000-.html Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act]). One of the primary goals of the 1996 Telecom act was advertised as creating an environment within which competition would flourish.

Flourish it did, for a relatively short period of time, but in the long run, not so much. This week’s business news started with one of the few remaining independent major wireless carriers in the US agreeing to merger terms with a massive firm that is itself the contemporary result of a string of industry consolidations that have take place in the intervening years since the passage of the Telecom Act of 1996 (see: [http://wwww.networkworld.com/news/2011/032111-att-tmobile-duopoly.html Will AT&T's T-Mobile buy lead to a duopoly?])

In this week’s class we will be studying [http://www.broadband.gov/ National Broadband Plan] and again recent headlines including, [http://www.govtech.com/public-safety/FCC-Endorses-4G-Wireless-Standard-022411.html “FCC endorsed long term evolution (LTE) as the required standard for any government”] are about highly relevant topics. One of the goals of the National Broadband Plan is to, “ensure public safety” through addressing the, “lack a nationwide public safety mobile broadband communications network.”

One of the ways the National Broadband Plan proposed to address the lack of a nationwide public safety mobile broadband network was a proposal to auction off a block of spectrum known as the “D Block.” The D Block is a segment of the 700 MHz band that was proposed to be sold to a private entity that would use part of it for commercial purposes and as part of the purchase agreement, the organization would make available and manage part of the spectrum block in support of public safety communications. It’s a very complicated issue, but the bottom line was that the numbers didn’t work out and no private company stepped up to bid enough to cover the auction reserve (see [http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/09/fcc-considering-new-d-block-auction-plan.ars FCC considering new D Block auction]).

This all brings me to a couple of questions I hope we can discuss. Both the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and National Broadband Plan are OMNIBUS initiatives by government to address social challenges. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_spending_bill Omnibus] is a term that originated (in terms of its use by US government) in the 1970’s for the purpose of handling the national budget when large numbers of funding items would be consolidated into a single piece of legislation. (This is yet again another topic related to recent headlines see [http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/12/Omnibus-Spending-Bill-Busts-the-Budget-to-Pay-for-Pork Omnibus Spending Bill Busts the Budget to Pay for Pork ...])

My first question begins with, “is the omnibus approach a valid way to address challenges?” Can government effectively tackle challenging issues with all encompassing approaches such as omnibus intiatives and legislation? Isn't it more effective to solve complex problems by chunking them up in more manageable pieces?

Other questions we might discuss tie last week’s readings to this week’s topics. In [https://www.socialtext.net/codev2/free_speech chapter 12 subsection] ''The Regulators of Speech: Distribution'', Professor Lessig talks about the idea of how the, “deeply held assumption at the core of our jurisprudence governing broadcasting technologies: Only a fixed amount of ‘spectrum’ is available for broadcasting,” and that the way to manage it is to, “allocate slices of it to users,” is a misconception routed in the decades ago understanding of the technology. Today’s technologies are vastly different and no longer constrain the use of broadcast spectrum in the same ways, yet governance mentality seems stuck in the 1920’s.

What are your thoughts about this idea that even in forward thinking initiatives including the National Broadband Plan policy making seeks to be progressive, yet often is trapped by historical context?
Thank you. I look forward to your thoughtful comments. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 14:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

During this week's reading I came across two interesting articles in support of the AT&T/T-Mobile merger as an exemplary initiation of the National Broadband Plan in action with full blanket coverage across the country, and the economical and technological potential of wireless advancements as the way of the future for broadband. [http://techliberation.com/2011/03/21/some-random-thoughts-on-att-t-mobile-merger/ Some Random Thoughts on AT&T/T-Mobile Merger] and [http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-20045239-94.html AT&T and T-Mobile--Listen Before You Judge] [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 23:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

====Thoughts on Net Neutrality and Open Access====
This week’s readings on the Omnibus Broadband Initiative, net neutrality and Internet freedom are pure advocacy papers. (Only the Berkman Center study of next generation connectivity conveyed a sense of impartiality.) Each presents big business or big government as the enemy of the people’s Internet. Each is correct to a degree, but neither paints a fair and complete picture. Theirer warns of inefficient bureaucracy should the government get involved, yet it was a government project from DARPA that created the Internet. The populist sounding organizations “SaveTheInternet.com” and “HandsOff.org” alternately blame the greedy motives of big businesses like AT&T and Google without discussing the natural competition between content providers and common carriers. The simple fact of the Internet is that traffic management has existed long before the Internet did – and it has been an integral part of the Internet for most of its life. The electric company and the telephone company each have business and residential service tiers. These public utilities are regulated by government to insure and even subsidize a minimum level of residential service. Business customers pay more for higher service levels.
This public utility model can serve the Internet as well. Just as the phone company cannot restrict who you can call (although you may have to pay more for long distance), no Internet service provider should block a particular site’s traffic (although there can be different data plans for capacity and speed). Many of us perform our own traffic shaping using “Quality of Service” settings (QoS) to grant higher priority “fast lane” access to voice-over-IP (Skype) while relegating email to the slow lane (big deal). In fact, we welcome the intervention of our ISP for filtering all that spam! I think the Berkman Center paper gets the concept right by emphasizing “open access” policy – i.e., that every business or other entity has the ability to connect to the infrastructure – but not mandating any policy beyond it. Promote innovation by allowing tiered service levels with an opportunity to profit from risk, while still guaranteeing basic access to all as a public good in the spirit of the First Amendment. [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 02:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice thoughts Chris...I share your opinion as regard your last two sentences...To be honest, I did not know how far net neutrality issue is. Till now I though that it is more problem of future than issue of current days. I was wrong...Information about the blocking skype by T-Mobile in Germany in 2009 made me sure in how important the topic is. ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality#Law_in_Germany T-Mobile blocking Skype in Germany])

== Links from Class ==
[http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202486102650&Manhattan_Federal_Judge_Kimba_Wood_Calls_Record_Companies_Request_for__Trillion_in_Damages_Absurd_in_Lime_Wire_Copyright_Case Fed Judge Kimba Wood Calls Record Companies' Request for Trillions in Damages Absurd in LimeWire Copyright Case] The most interesting part of the article is not the outrageousness of the record companies' claims, but the way the judge reached her decision. She stated that legislature could not have foreseen the way the internet would interact with copyright law, and thus you can't use legislative history. Reasonableness, instead, was the issue to rule on.

Wall Street Journal Op Ed by Yochai Benkler [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21Benkler.html Ending the Internet’s Trench Warfare] March 20, 2010
"The Federal Communications Commission’s National Broadband Plan, announced last week, is aimed at providing nearly universal, affordable broadband service by 2020. And while it takes many admirable steps — including very important efforts toward opening space in the broadcast spectrum — it does not address the source of the access problem: without a major policy shift to increase competition, broadband service in the United States will continue to lag far behind the rest of the developed world." --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 23:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

New America Foundation link concerning differing broadband service and pricing in the US vs that in Japan:
http://newamerica.net/publications/policy/u_s_vs_japan_residential_internet_service_provision_pricing
The brief posted is from 2009 and contains a generous quantity of data which should serve to give you a clear idea of the difference in service availability between the US and a country which is considered to be half a generation ahead of the international standard.[[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 00:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

[http://www.govtech.com/newsletters/question-of-the-day-for-033111.html In a thread on Reddit.com yesterday, members of Google's Chrome development team shared how fast their office's Internet connection is. Can you guess the number?]

Internet Infrastructure and Regulation

2011-04-01T15:42:20Z

Gclinch: /* Links from Class */ Google speed link

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
 
</div>
'''March 29'''

In this class, we will cover the politics, policy, economics and technology of deploying broadband infrastructure. We will look at the year-old US National Broadband Plan and the Berkman Center review of international experiences in broadband policy. Additionally, we will look at the substance and politics of the net neutrality debate.

[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/InternetSocietyMarch29.pdf Slides: Internet Infrastructure and Regulation]

<onlyinclude>
==Readings==

* Executive Summary of the National Broadband Plan [http://www.broadband.gov/plan/executive-summary/]

* National Broadband Plan Commission Meeting: National Purposes Update, February 18th 2010 [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296353A1.pdf ]

* Next Generation Connectivity: A review of broadband Internet transitions and policy from around the world, Berkman Center [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Berkman_Center_Broadband_Final_Report-C1_15Feb2010.pdf ]

* Net Neutrality 101 [http://www.savetheinternet.com/frequently-asked-questions?gclid=CKbclcK65KcCFULf4AodaxmJCg]

* More Confusion about Internet Freedom [http://techliberation.com/2011/03/01/more-confusion-about-internet-freedom/]

* Hands Off the Internet [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlhSbJYxOnc]

== Optional Readings==

* [http://www.fcc.gov The Federal Communications Commission]
* [http://www.broadband.gov National Broadband Plan]
* [http://www.openinternet.gov OpenInternet.gov]
* [http://www.ietf.org The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)]
* [http://www.icann.org The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers]
* [http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.txt The Telecommunications Act of 1996]
* [http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=auctions_home FCC - Wireless Spectrum Auctions]
* [http://www.isp-planet.com/cplanet/tech/2004/prime_letter_040301_powell.html Powell's Four Freedoms]
</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==
A number of things came to mind during the readings. The one that I'd like to discuss here is what the economic impact on startup and small businesses and the potential negative effects pipeline tiering might have on the US economy. Pipeline tiering could and most likely would have a negative effect on the US economy if small and startup businesses seek creating revenue in other countries due to class A and class B access by US ISP's. This said, it could mean many companies opting not to setup shop in the US. This in turn means less innovation within our own borders. In the end the ISP's lose out on a source of revenue and the US loses it's position as world class innovator.

Further, if another country dictates that all content is free to anyone, how can it be enforced if our own ISP's charge a tier pricing to access such sites, data and content? It would also be a requirement for protection of such sources to be made law or included in the requirement to pay for access. But how do you collect against a foreign country where the services are housed? Are this ISP's really thinking this through? Are they prepared to lose a large amount of business to foreign providers? To the majority of us we would not notice if we are going to say the UK for content.

If Sealand were still in existence would it help protect against the possibility of tiered charges?
--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 20:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

After reading all this week's assignment readings, I started to dig websites to see what is going on in my country, which is South Korea, regarding the "Net Neutrality" issue. It was quite a surprise to find out that Korea, nominated as one of the leading Internet police states in the world, is, in fact, suggesting a rather positive vision in this aspect. ([http://www.koreainformationsociety.com/2010/09/net-neutrality-view-from-korea.html]) --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 21:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thought this was relative and very interesting:
Article referring to common carriage; http://www.economist.com/node/16106593 -- [[User:Alex|Alex]]

----

A follow-up to our discussion on limits to free speech and indirect political pressure on third-party private intermediaries. In this case, four senators are "requesting" Google, Apple, and RIM (maker of Blackberry) to remove apps from their device app stores that identify police DUI checkpoints. This article is the more passionate and argues for the freedom-of-speech angle: [http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/Senators-Pressure-Mobile-App-Stores-to-Kill-Politically-Incorrect-Apps-337124/ Senators Pressure Mobile App Stores to Kill Politically Incorrect Apps.] While this one is more neutral: [http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20110323/tc_pcworld/groupsdefenddrunkdrivingcheckpointsoftware Groups Defend Drunk-driving Checkpoint Software.] But it certainly looks like we'll see more and more instances of individuals in congress finding favorite online bogeymen to show how patriotic/principled/family-valued/tough-on-crime/fill-in-the-blank they can be! [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

*[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/User:Smithbc Smithbc] thanks for pointing out this topic. There’s a couple of interesting discussion topics here. One is, if the purpose of drunken driving checkpoints is to get drunk drivers off the road, why would you combat a technology that would allow a potential offender to see active checkpoints before leaving the bar and maybe think twice, get a cab or stay home? It’s like people being pulled over for flashing their lights at oncoming traffic to let others know about a speed trap or ticketing for speed trap scanners in cars. If the purpose is to get people to slow down, don’t all of these accomplish the goals as much as the presence of enforcement? Of course for this logic to be valid one must assume that the goal is keeping drunk drivers off the road and slowing people down as opposed to arrest quotas and the revenue associated with fines.

-- Putting the soapbox aside, a more focused question about the above related to the topics of class is: is it an effective policy tool to attack one set of social problems by diminishing the fundamental rights insured by the First Amendment or aren’t there many other innovative and direct ways? How about directing enforcement or remediation at the offenders instead of stripping the rest of society of basic rights in an attempt to control the actions of a few? It’s seems arcane. It’s akin to thinking you can cure someone who is anemic by using the ancient medical technique of bloodletting. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 14:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Classmates: Is it just me or are the subjects we are studying in this class some of the most real world relevant in any class you’ve taken? Every week it seems like the syllabus tracks the headlines. We studied Wikileaks while in the real world events directly related to the topic unfolded. We studied collaborative technologies and the power of the individual to influence the world through digital technologies while dramatic examples of technology propelling individuals as catalysts for social change and crowd sourced political revolutions continue to unfold across large regions of the globe.

This week we are studying the Internet Infrastructure and Regulation and the National Broadband Plan and in the news important implications of this topic shout out to us.

The reason I say these things is that I below are a couple of specific examples that I would like your thoughts on. May I have your opinion on the following?

Last class we talked about Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 commonly known as the ([http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000230----000-.html Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act]). One of the primary goals of the 1996 Telecom act was advertised as creating an environment within which competition would flourish.

Flourish it did, for a relatively short period of time, but in the long run, not so much. This week’s business news started with one of the few remaining independent major wireless carriers in the US agreeing to merger terms with a massive firm that is itself the contemporary result of a string of industry consolidations that have take place in the intervening years since the passage of the Telecom Act of 1996 (see: [http://wwww.networkworld.com/news/2011/032111-att-tmobile-duopoly.html Will AT&T's T-Mobile buy lead to a duopoly?])

In this week’s class we will be studying [http://www.broadband.gov/ National Broadband Plan] and again recent headlines including, [http://www.govtech.com/public-safety/FCC-Endorses-4G-Wireless-Standard-022411.html “FCC endorsed long term evolution (LTE) as the required standard for any government”] are about highly relevant topics. One of the goals of the National Broadband Plan is to, “ensure public safety” through addressing the, “lack a nationwide public safety mobile broadband communications network.”

One of the ways the National Broadband Plan proposed to address the lack of a nationwide public safety mobile broadband network was a proposal to auction off a block of spectrum known as the “D Block.” The D Block is a segment of the 700 MHz band that was proposed to be sold to a private entity that would use part of it for commercial purposes and as part of the purchase agreement, the organization would make available and manage part of the spectrum block in support of public safety communications. It’s a very complicated issue, but the bottom line was that the numbers didn’t work out and no private company stepped up to bid enough to cover the auction reserve (see [http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/09/fcc-considering-new-d-block-auction-plan.ars FCC considering new D Block auction]).

This all brings me to a couple of questions I hope we can discuss. Both the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and National Broadband Plan are OMNIBUS initiatives by government to address social challenges. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_spending_bill Omnibus] is a term that originated (in terms of its use by US government) in the 1970’s for the purpose of handling the national budget when large numbers of funding items would be consolidated into a single piece of legislation. (This is yet again another topic related to recent headlines see [http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/12/Omnibus-Spending-Bill-Busts-the-Budget-to-Pay-for-Pork Omnibus Spending Bill Busts the Budget to Pay for Pork ...])

My first question begins with, “is the omnibus approach a valid way to address challenges?” Can government effectively tackle challenging issues with all encompassing approaches such as omnibus intiatives and legislation? Isn't it more effective to solve complex problems by chunking them up in more manageable pieces?

Other questions we might discuss tie last week’s readings to this week’s topics. In [https://www.socialtext.net/codev2/free_speech chapter 12 subsection] ''The Regulators of Speech: Distribution'', Professor Lessig talks about the idea of how the, “deeply held assumption at the core of our jurisprudence governing broadcasting technologies: Only a fixed amount of ‘spectrum’ is available for broadcasting,” and that the way to manage it is to, “allocate slices of it to users,” is a misconception routed in the decades ago understanding of the technology. Today’s technologies are vastly different and no longer constrain the use of broadcast spectrum in the same ways, yet governance mentality seems stuck in the 1920’s.

What are your thoughts about this idea that even in forward thinking initiatives including the National Broadband Plan policy making seeks to be progressive, yet often is trapped by historical context?
Thank you. I look forward to your thoughtful comments. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 14:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

During this week's reading I came across two interesting articles in support of the AT&T/T-Mobile merger as an exemplary initiation of the National Broadband Plan in action with full blanket coverage across the country, and the economical and technological potential of wireless advancements as the way of the future for broadband. [http://techliberation.com/2011/03/21/some-random-thoughts-on-att-t-mobile-merger/ Some Random Thoughts on AT&T/T-Mobile Merger] and [http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-20045239-94.html AT&T and T-Mobile--Listen Before You Judge] [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 23:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

====Thoughts on Net Neutrality and Open Access====
This week’s readings on the Omnibus Broadband Initiative, net neutrality and Internet freedom are pure advocacy papers. (Only the Berkman Center study of next generation connectivity conveyed a sense of impartiality.) Each presents big business or big government as the enemy of the people’s Internet. Each is correct to a degree, but neither paints a fair and complete picture. Theirer warns of inefficient bureaucracy should the government get involved, yet it was a government project from DARPA that created the Internet. The populist sounding organizations “SaveTheInternet.com” and “HandsOff.org” alternately blame the greedy motives of big businesses like AT&T and Google without discussing the natural competition between content providers and common carriers. The simple fact of the Internet is that traffic management has existed long before the Internet did – and it has been an integral part of the Internet for most of its life. The electric company and the telephone company each have business and residential service tiers. These public utilities are regulated by government to insure and even subsidize a minimum level of residential service. Business customers pay more for higher service levels.
This public utility model can serve the Internet as well. Just as the phone company cannot restrict who you can call (although you may have to pay more for long distance), no Internet service provider should block a particular site’s traffic (although there can be different data plans for capacity and speed). Many of us perform our own traffic shaping using “Quality of Service” settings (QoS) to grant higher priority “fast lane” access to voice-over-IP (Skype) while relegating email to the slow lane (big deal). In fact, we welcome the intervention of our ISP for filtering all that spam! I think the Berkman Center paper gets the concept right by emphasizing “open access” policy – i.e., that every business or other entity has the ability to connect to the infrastructure – but not mandating any policy beyond it. Promote innovation by allowing tiered service levels with an opportunity to profit from risk, while still guaranteeing basic access to all as a public good in the spirit of the First Amendment. [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 02:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice thoughts Chris...I share your opinion as regard your last two sentences...To be honest, I did not know how far net neutrality issue is. Till now I though that it is more problem of future than issue of current days. I was wrong...Information about the blocking skype by T-Mobile in Germany in 2009 made me sure in how important the topic is. ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality#Law_in_Germany T-Mobile blocking Skype in Germany])

== Links from Class ==
[http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202486102650&Manhattan_Federal_Judge_Kimba_Wood_Calls_Record_Companies_Request_for__Trillion_in_Damages_Absurd_in_Lime_Wire_Copyright_Case Fed Judge Kimba Wood Calls Record Companies' Request for Trillions in Damages Absurd in LimeWire Copyright Case] The most interesting part of the article is not the outrageousness of the record companies' claims, but the way the judge reached her decision. She stated that legislature could not have foreseen the way the internet would interact with copyright law, and thus you can't use legislative history. Reasonableness, instead, was the issue to rule on.

Wall Street Journal Op Ed by Yochai Benkler [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21Benkler.html Ending the Internet’s Trench Warfare] March 20, 2010
"The Federal Communications Commission’s National Broadband Plan, announced last week, is aimed at providing nearly universal, affordable broadband service by 2020. And while it takes many admirable steps — including very important efforts toward opening space in the broadcast spectrum — it does not address the source of the access problem: without a major policy shift to increase competition, broadband service in the United States will continue to lag far behind the rest of the developed world." --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 23:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

New America Foundation link concerning differing broadband service and pricing in the US vs that in Japan:
http://newamerica.net/publications/policy/u_s_vs_japan_residential_internet_service_provision_pricing
The brief posted is from 2009 and contains a generous quantity of data which should serve to give you a clear idea of the difference in service availability between the US and a country which is considered to be half a generation ahead of the international standard.[[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 00:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

[http://www.govtech.com/newsletters/question-of-the-day-for-033111.html In a thread on Reddit.com yesterday, members of Google's Chrome development team shared how fast their office's Internet connection is. Can you guess the number?}

Control and Code: Privacy Online

2011-03-30T21:51:04Z

Gclinch: /* Links */ US, Europe vow to bash out Internet personal privacy protection

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
 
</div>
'''April 12'''

Code is law; the architecture of the Internet and the software that runs on it will determine to a large extent how the Net is regulated in a way that goes far deeper than legal means could ever achieve (or at least ever achieve alone). Technological advances have also produced many tempting options for regulation and surveillance that may severely alter the balance of privacy, access to information and sharing of intellectual property. By regulating behavior, technological architectures or codes embed different values and political choices. Yet code is often treated as a technocratic affair, or something best left to private economic actors pursuing their own interests. If code is law, then control of code is power. If important questions of social ordering are at stake, shouldn't the design and development of code be brought within the political process? In this class we delve into the technological alternatives that will shape interactions over the Internet, as well as the implications of each on personal freedom, privacy and combating cyber-crime.
<onlyinclude>
==Readings==

* [http://futureoftheinternet.org/download Jonathan Zittrain, Future of the Internet, Chapter 9: Privacy 2.0]
* [http://www.bitsbook.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/chapter2.pdf Abelson, Ledeen, Lewis, Blown to Bits, Chapter 2: Naked in the Sunlight: Privacy Lost, Privacy Abandoned]
* [http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-295.html Solveig Singleton, Privacy as Censorship (CATO)]

==Optional Readings==

* [http://www.onthemedia.org/episodes/2010/04/02/segments/152890 NPR On the Media Story "Anonymous Justice"]
* [http://www.danah.org/papers/talks/2010/SXSW2010.html "Making Sense of Privacy and Publicity." Transcript of talk given by Danah Boyd at SXSW. Austin, Texas, March 13, 2010]
* [https://www.socialtext.net/codev2/privacy Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0: Privacy]
* http://paranoia.dubfire.net/2009/12/8-million-reasons-for-real-surveillance.html
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_flesh_search_engine
</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==

== Links ==
[http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/get-ring-us-europe-vow-bash-out-internet-pers Get in the ring: US, Europe vow to bash out Internet personal privacy protection] --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 21:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Internet Infrastructure and Regulation

2011-03-28T23:32:06Z

Gclinch: /* Links from Class */ Wall Street Journal Op Ed link

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
 
</div>
'''March 29'''

In this class, we will cover the politics, policy, economics and technology of deploying broadband infrastructure. We will look at the year-old US National Broadband Plan and the Berkman Center review of international experiences in broadband policy. Additionally, we will look at the substance and politics of the net neutrality debate.

<onlyinclude>
==Readings==

* Executive Summary of the National Broadband Plan [http://www.broadband.gov/plan/executive-summary/]

* National Broadband Plan Commission Meeting: National Purposes Update, February 18th 2010 [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296353A1.pdf ]

* Next Generation Connectivity: A review of broadband Internet transitions and policy from around the world, Berkman Center [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Berkman_Center_Broadband_Final_Report-C1_15Feb2010.pdf ]

* Net Neutrality 101 [http://www.savetheinternet.com/frequently-asked-questions?gclid=CKbclcK65KcCFULf4AodaxmJCg]

* More Confusion about Internet Freedom [http://techliberation.com/2011/03/01/more-confusion-about-internet-freedom/]

* Hands Off the Internet [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlhSbJYxOnc]

== Optional Readings==

* [http://www.fcc.gov The Federal Communications Commission]
* [http://www.broadband.gov National Broadband Plan]
* [http://www.openinternet.gov OpenInternet.gov]
* [http://www.ietf.org The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)]
* [http://www.icann.org The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers]
* [http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.txt The Telecommunications Act of 1996]
* [http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=auctions_home FCC - Wireless Spectrum Auctions]
* [http://www.isp-planet.com/cplanet/tech/2004/prime_letter_040301_powell.html Powell's Four Freedoms]
</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==

A follow-up to our discussion on limits to free speech and indirect political pressure on third-party private intermediaries. In this case, four senators are "requesting" Google, Apple, and RIM (maker of Blackberry) to remove apps from their device app stores that identify police DUI checkpoints. This article is the more passionate and argues for the freedom-of-speech angle: [http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/Senators-Pressure-Mobile-App-Stores-to-Kill-Politically-Incorrect-Apps-337124/ Senators Pressure Mobile App Stores to Kill Politically Incorrect Apps.] While this one is more neutral: [http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20110323/tc_pcworld/groupsdefenddrunkdrivingcheckpointsoftware Groups Defend Drunk-driving Checkpoint Software.] But it certainly looks like we'll see more and more instances of individuals in congress finding favorite online bogeymen to show how patriotic/principled/family-valued/tough-on-crime/fill-in-the-blank they can be! [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

*[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/User:Smithbc Smithbc] thanks for pointing out this topic. There’s a couple of interesting discussion topics here. One is, if the purpose of drunken driving checkpoints is to get drunk drivers off the road, why would you combat a technology that would allow a potential offender to see active checkpoints before leaving the bar and maybe think twice, get a cab or stay home? It’s like people being pulled over for flashing their lights at oncoming traffic to let others know about a speed trap or ticketing for speed trap scanners in cars. If the purpose is to get people to slow down, don’t all of these accomplish the goals as much as the presence of enforcement? Of course for this logic to be valid one must assume that the goal is keeping drunk drivers off the road and slowing people down as opposed to arrest quotas and the revenue associated with fines.

-- Putting the soapbox aside, a more focused question about the above related to the topics of class is: is it an effective policy tool to attack one set of social problems by diminishing the fundamental rights insured by the First Amendment or aren’t there many other innovative and direct ways? How about directing enforcement or remediation at the offenders instead of stripping the rest of society of basic rights in an attempt to control the actions of a few? It’s seems arcane. It’s akin to thinking you can cure someone who is anemic by using the ancient medical technique of bloodletting. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 14:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Classmates: Is it just me or are the subjects we are studying in this class some of the most real world relevant in any class you’ve taken? Every week it seems like the syllabus tracks the headlines. We studied Wikileaks while in the real world events directly related to the topic unfolded. We studied collaborative technologies and the power of the individual to influence the world through digital technologies while dramatic examples of technology propelling individuals as catalysts for social change and crowd sourced political revolutions continue to unfold across large regions of the globe.

This week we are studying the Internet Infrastructure and Regulation and the National Broadband Plan and in the news important implications of this topic shout out to us.

The reason I say these things is that I below are a couple of specific examples that I would like your thoughts on. May I have your opinion on the following?

Last class we talked about Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 commonly known as the ([http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000230----000-.html Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act]). One of the primary goals of the 1996 Telecom act was advertised as creating an environment within which competition would flourish.

Flourish it did, for a relatively short period of time, but in the long run, not so much. This week’s business news started with one of the few remaining independent major wireless carriers in the US agreeing to merger terms with a massive firm that is itself the contemporary result of a string of industry consolidations that have take place in the intervening years since the passage of the Telecom Act of 1996 (see: [http://wwww.networkworld.com/news/2011/032111-att-tmobile-duopoly.html Will AT&T's T-Mobile buy lead to a duopoly?])

In this week’s class we will be studying [http://www.broadband.gov/ National Broadband Plan] and again recent headlines including, [http://www.govtech.com/public-safety/FCC-Endorses-4G-Wireless-Standard-022411.html “FCC endorsed long term evolution (LTE) as the required standard for any government”] are about highly relevant topics. One of the goals of the National Broadband Plan is to, “ensure public safety” through addressing the, “lack a nationwide public safety mobile broadband communications network.”

One of the ways the National Broadband Plan proposed to address the lack of a nationwide public safety mobile broadband network was a proposal to auction off a block of spectrum known as the “D Block.” The D Block is a segment of the 700 MHz band that was proposed to be sold to a private entity that would use part of it for commercial purposes and as part of the purchase agreement, the organization would make available and manage part of the spectrum block in support of public safety communications. It’s a very complicated issue, but the bottom line was that the numbers didn’t work out and no private company stepped up to bid enough to cover the auction reserve (see [http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/09/fcc-considering-new-d-block-auction-plan.ars FCC considering new D Block auction]).

This all brings me to a couple of questions I hope we can discuss. Both the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and National Broadband Plan are OMNIBUS initiatives by government to address social challenges. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_spending_bill Omnibus] is a term that originated (in terms of its use by US government) in the 1970’s for the purpose of handling the national budget when large numbers of funding items would be consolidated into a single piece of legislation. (This is yet again another topic related to recent headlines see [http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/12/Omnibus-Spending-Bill-Busts-the-Budget-to-Pay-for-Pork Omnibus Spending Bill Busts the Budget to Pay for Pork ...])

My first question begins with, “is the omnibus approach a valid way to address challenges?” Can government effectively tackle challenging issues with all encompassing approaches such as omnibus intiatives and legislation? Isn't it more effective to solve complex problems by chunking them up in more manageable pieces?

Other questions we might discuss tie last week’s readings to this week’s topics. In [https://www.socialtext.net/codev2/free_speech chapter 12 subsection] ''The Regulators of Speech: Distribution'', Professor Lessig talks about the idea of how the, “deeply held assumption at the core of our jurisprudence governing broadcasting technologies: Only a fixed amount of ‘spectrum’ is available for broadcasting,” and that the way to manage it is to, “allocate slices of it to users,” is a misconception routed in the decades ago understanding of the technology. Today’s technologies are vastly different and no longer constrain the use of broadcast spectrum in the same ways, yet governance mentality seems stuck in the 1920’s.

What are your thoughts about this idea that even in forward thinking initiatives including the National Broadband Plan policy making seeks to be progressive, yet often is trapped by historical context?
Thank you. I look forward to your thoughtful comments. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 14:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

== Links from Class ==
[http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202486102650&Manhattan_Federal_Judge_Kimba_Wood_Calls_Record_Companies_Request_for__Trillion_in_Damages_Absurd_in_Lime_Wire_Copyright_Case Fed Judge Kimba Wood Calls Record Companies' Request for Trillions in Damages Absurd in LimeWire Copyright Case] The most interesting part of the article is not the outrageousness of the record companies' claims, but the way the judge reached her decision. She stated that legislature could not have foreseen the way the internet would interact with copyright law, and thus you can't use legislative history. Reasonableness, instead, was the issue to rule on.

Wall Street Journal Op Ed by Yochai Benkler [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21Benkler.html Ending the Internet’s Trench Warfare] March 20, 2010
"The Federal Communications Commission’s National Broadband Plan, announced last week, is aimed at providing nearly universal, affordable broadband service by 2020. And while it takes many admirable steps — including very important efforts toward opening space in the broadcast spectrum — it does not address the source of the access problem: without a major policy shift to increase competition, broadband service in the United States will continue to lag far behind the rest of the developed world." --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 23:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Internet Infrastructure and Regulation

2011-03-26T14:21:44Z

Gclinch: /* Class Discussion */

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
 
</div>
'''March 29'''

In this class, we will cover the politics, policy, economics and technology of deploying broadband infrastructure. We will look at the year-old US National Broadband Plan and the Berkman Center review of international experiences in broadband policy. Additionally, we will look at the substance and politics of the net neutrality debate.

<onlyinclude>
==Readings==

* Executive Summary of the National Broadband Plan [http://www.broadband.gov/plan/executive-summary/]

* National Broadband Plan Commission Meeting: National Purposes Update, February 18th 2010 [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296353A1.pdf ]

* Next Generation Connectivity: A review of broadband Internet transitions and policy from around the world, Berkman Center [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Berkman_Center_Broadband_Final_Report-C1_15Feb2010.pdf ]

* Net Neutrality 101 [http://www.savetheinternet.com/frequently-asked-questions?gclid=CKbclcK65KcCFULf4AodaxmJCg]

* More Confusion about Internet Freedom [http://techliberation.com/2011/03/01/more-confusion-about-internet-freedom/]

* Hands Off the Internet [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlhSbJYxOnc]

== Optional Readings==

* [http://www.fcc.gov The Federal Communications Commission]
* [http://www.broadband.gov National Broadband Plan]
* [http://www.openinternet.gov OpenInternet.gov]
* [http://www.ietf.org The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)]
* [http://www.icann.org The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers]
* [http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.txt The Telecommunications Act of 1996]
* [http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=auctions_home FCC - Wireless Spectrum Auctions]
* [http://www.isp-planet.com/cplanet/tech/2004/prime_letter_040301_powell.html Powell's Four Freedoms]
</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==

A follow-up to our discussion on limits to free speech and indirect political pressure on third-party private intermediaries. In this case, four senators are "requesting" Google, Apple, and RIM (maker of Blackberry) to remove apps from their device app stores that identify police DUI checkpoints. This article is the more passionate and argues for the freedom-of-speech angle: [http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/Senators-Pressure-Mobile-App-Stores-to-Kill-Politically-Incorrect-Apps-337124/ Senators Pressure Mobile App Stores to Kill Politically Incorrect Apps.] While this one is more neutral: [http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20110323/tc_pcworld/groupsdefenddrunkdrivingcheckpointsoftware Groups Defend Drunk-driving Checkpoint Software.] But it certainly looks like we'll see more and more instances of individuals in congress finding favorite online bogeymen to show how patriotic/principled/family-valued/tough-on-crime/fill-in-the-blank they can be! [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

*[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/User:Smithbc Smithbc] thanks for pointing out this topic. There’s a couple of interesting discussion topics here. One is, if the purpose of drunken driving checkpoints is to get drunk drivers off the road, why would you combat a technology that would allow a potential offender to see active checkpoints before leaving the bar and maybe think twice, get a cab or stay home? It’s like people being pulled over for flashing their lights at oncoming traffic to let others know about a speed trap or ticketing for speed trap scanners in cars. If the purpose is to get people to slow down, don’t all of these accomplish the goals as much as the presence of enforcement? Of course for this logic to be valid one must assume that the goal is keeping drunk drivers off the road and slowing people down as opposed to arrest quotas and the revenue associated with fines.

-- Putting the soapbox aside, a more focused question about the above related to the topics of class is: is it an effective policy tool to attack one set of social problems by diminishing the fundamental rights insured by the First Amendment or aren’t there many other innovative and direct ways? How about directing enforcement or remediation at the offenders instead of stripping the rest of society of basic rights in an attempt to control the actions of a few? It’s seems arcane. It’s akin to thinking you can cure someone who is anemic by using the ancient medical technique of bloodletting. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 14:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Classmates: Is it just me or are the subjects we are studying in this class some of the most real world relevant in any class you’ve taken? Every week it seems like the syllabus tracks the headlines. We studied Wikileaks while in the real world events directly related to the topic unfolded. We studied collaborative technologies and the power of the individual to influence the world through digital technologies while dramatic examples of technology propelling individuals as catalysts for social change and crowd sourced political revolutions continue to unfold across large regions of the globe.

This week we are studying the Internet Infrastructure and Regulation and the National Broadband Plan and in the news important implications of this topic shout out to us.

The reason I say these things is that I below are a couple of specific examples that I would like your thoughts on. May I have your opinion on the following?

Last class we talked about Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 commonly known as the ([http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000230----000-.html Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act]). One of the primary goals of the 1996 Telecom act was advertised as creating an environment within which competition would flourish.

Flourish it did, for a relatively short period of time, but in the long run, not so much. This week’s business news started with one of the few remaining independent major wireless carriers in the US agreeing to merger terms with a massive firm that is itself the contemporary result of a string of industry consolidations that have take place in the intervening years since the passage of the Telecom Act of 1996 (see: [http://wwww.networkworld.com/news/2011/032111-att-tmobile-duopoly.html Will AT&T's T-Mobile buy lead to a duopoly?])

In this week’s class we will be studying [http://www.broadband.gov/ National Broadband Plan] and again recent headlines including, [http://www.govtech.com/public-safety/FCC-Endorses-4G-Wireless-Standard-022411.html “FCC endorsed long term evolution (LTE) as the required standard for any government”] are about highly relevant topics. One of the goals of the National Broadband Plan is to, “ensure public safety” through addressing the, “lack a nationwide public safety mobile broadband communications network.”

One of the ways the National Broadband Plan proposed to address the lack of a nationwide public safety mobile broadband network was a proposal to auction off a block of spectrum known as the “D Block.” The D Block is a segment of the 700 MHz band that was proposed to be sold to a private entity that would use part of it for commercial purposes and as part of the purchase agreement, the organization would make available and manage part of the spectrum block in support of public safety communications. It’s a very complicated issue, but the bottom line was that the numbers didn’t work out and no private company stepped up to bid enough to cover the auction reserve (see [http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/09/fcc-considering-new-d-block-auction-plan.ars FCC considering new D Block auction]).

This all brings me to a couple of questions I hope we can discuss. Both the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and National Broadband Plan are OMNIBUS initiatives by government to address social challenges. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_spending_bill Omnibus] is a term that originated (in terms of its use by US government) in the 1970’s for the purpose of handling the national budget when large numbers of funding items would be consolidated into a single piece of legislation. (This is yet again another topic related to recent headlines see [http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/12/Omnibus-Spending-Bill-Busts-the-Budget-to-Pay-for-Pork Omnibus Spending Bill Busts the Budget to Pay for Pork ...])

My first question begins with, “is the omnibus approach a valid way to address challenges?” Can government effectively tackle challenging issues with all encompassing approaches such as omnibus intiatives and legislation? Isn't it more effective to solve complex problems by chunking them up in more manageable pieces?

Other questions we might discuss tie last week’s readings to this week’s topics. In [https://www.socialtext.net/codev2/free_speech chapter 12 subsection] ''The Regulators of Speech: Distribution'', Professor Lessig talks about the idea of how the, “deeply held assumption at the core of our jurisprudence governing broadcasting technologies: Only a fixed amount of ‘spectrum’ is available for broadcasting,” and that the way to manage it is to, “allocate slices of it to users,” is a misconception routed in the decades ago understanding of the technology. Today’s technologies are vastly different and no longer constrain the use of broadcast spectrum in the same ways, yet governance mentality seems stuck in the 1920’s.

What are your thoughts about this idea that even in forward thinking initiatives including the National Broadband Plan policy making seeks to be progressive, yet often is trapped by historical context?
Thank you. I look forward to your thoughtful comments. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 14:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

== Links from Class ==
[http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202486102650&Manhattan_Federal_Judge_Kimba_Wood_Calls_Record_Companies_Request_for__Trillion_in_Damages_Absurd_in_Lime_Wire_Copyright_Case Fed Judge Kimba Wood Calls Record Companies' Request for Trillions in Damages Absurd in LimeWire Copyright Case] The most interesting part of the article is not the outrageousness of the record companies' claims, but the way the judge reached her decision. She stated that legislature could not have foreseen the way the internet would interact with copyright law, and thus you can't use legislative history. Reasonableness, instead, was the issue to rule on.

Internet Infrastructure and Regulation

2011-03-26T14:18:13Z

Gclinch: /* Class Discussion */ comment on Smithbc's comment and some questions of my own.

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
 
</div>
'''March 29'''

In this class, we will cover the politics, policy, economics and technology of deploying broadband infrastructure. We will look at the year-old US National Broadband Plan and the Berkman Center review of international experiences in broadband policy. Additionally, we will look at the substance and politics of the net neutrality debate.

<onlyinclude>
==Readings==

* Executive Summary of the National Broadband Plan [http://www.broadband.gov/plan/executive-summary/]

* National Broadband Plan Commission Meeting: National Purposes Update, February 18th 2010 [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296353A1.pdf ]

* Next Generation Connectivity: A review of broadband Internet transitions and policy from around the world, Berkman Center [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Berkman_Center_Broadband_Final_Report-C1_15Feb2010.pdf ]

* Net Neutrality 101 [http://www.savetheinternet.com/frequently-asked-questions?gclid=CKbclcK65KcCFULf4AodaxmJCg]

* More Confusion about Internet Freedom [http://techliberation.com/2011/03/01/more-confusion-about-internet-freedom/]

* Hands Off the Internet [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlhSbJYxOnc]

== Optional Readings==

* [http://www.fcc.gov The Federal Communications Commission]
* [http://www.broadband.gov National Broadband Plan]
* [http://www.openinternet.gov OpenInternet.gov]
* [http://www.ietf.org The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)]
* [http://www.icann.org The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers]
* [http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.txt The Telecommunications Act of 1996]
* [http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=auctions_home FCC - Wireless Spectrum Auctions]
* [http://www.isp-planet.com/cplanet/tech/2004/prime_letter_040301_powell.html Powell's Four Freedoms]
</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==

A follow-up to our discussion on limits to free speech and indirect political pressure on third-party private intermediaries. In this case, four senators are "requesting" Google, Apple, and RIM (maker of Blackberry) to remove apps from their device app stores that identify police DUI checkpoints. This article is the more passionate and argues for the freedom-of-speech angle: [http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/Senators-Pressure-Mobile-App-Stores-to-Kill-Politically-Incorrect-Apps-337124/ Senators Pressure Mobile App Stores to Kill Politically Incorrect Apps.] While this one is more neutral: [http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20110323/tc_pcworld/groupsdefenddrunkdrivingcheckpointsoftware Groups Defend Drunk-driving Checkpoint Software.] But it certainly looks like we'll see more and more instances of individuals in congress finding favorite online bogeymen to show how patriotic/principled/family-valued/tough-on-crime/fill-in-the-blank they can be! [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

*[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/User:Smithbc Smithbc] thanks for pointing out this topic. There’s a couple of interesting discussion topics here. One is, if the purpose of drunken driving checkpoints is to get drunk drivers off the road, why would you combat a technology that would allow a potential offender to see active checkpoints before leaving the bar and maybe think twice, get a cab or stay home? It’s like people being pulled over for flashing their lights at oncoming traffic to let others know about a speed trap or ticketing for speed trap scanners in cars. If the purpose is to get people to slow down, don’t all of these accomplish the goals as much as the presence of enforcement? Of course for this logic to be valid one must assume that the goal is keeping drunk drivers off the road and slowing people down as opposed to arrest quotas and the revenue associated with fines.

-- Putting the soapbox aside, a more focused question about the above related to the topics of class is: is it an effective policy tool to attack one set of social problems by diminishing the fundamental rights insured by the First Amendment or aren’t there many other innovative and direct ways? How about directing enforcement or remediation at the offenders instead of stripping the rest of society of basic rights in an attempt to control the actions of a few? It’s seems arcane. It’s akin to thinking you can cure someone who is anemic by using the ancient medical technique of bloodletting. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 14:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Classmates: Is it just me or are the subjects we are studying in this class some of the most real world relevant in any class you’ve taken? Every week it seems like the syllabus tracks the headlines. We studied Wikileaks while in the real world events directly related to the topic unfolded. We studied collaborative technologies and the power of the individual to influence the world through digital technologies while dramatic examples of technology propelling individuals as catalysts for social change and crowd sourced political revolutions continue to unfold across large regions of the globe.

This week we are studying the Internet Infrastructure and Regulation and the National Broadband Plan and in the news important implications of this topic shout out to us.

The reason I say these things is that I below are a couple of specific examples that I would like your thoughts on. May I have your opinion on the following?

Last class we talked about Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 commonly known as the ([http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000230----000-.html Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act]). One of the primary goals of the 1996 Telecom act was advertised as creating an environment within which competition would flourish.

Flourish it did, for a relatively short period of time, but in the long run, not so much. This week’s business news started with one of the few remaining independent major wireless carriers in the US agreeing to merger terms with a massive firm that is itself the contemporary result of a string of industry consolidations that have take place in the intervening years since the passage of the Telecom Act of 1996 (see: [http://wwww.networkworld.com/news/2011/032111-att-tmobile-duopoly.html Will AT&T's T-Mobile buy lead to a duopoly?])

In this week’s class we will be studying [http://www.broadband.gov/ National Broadband Plan] and again recent headlines including, [http://www.govtech.com/public-safety/FCC-Endorses-4G-Wireless-Standard-022411.html “FCC endorsed long term evolution (LTE) as the required standard for any government”] are about highly relevant topics. One of the goals of the National Broadband Plan is, “ensure public safety” through addressing the, “lack a nationwide public safety mobile broadband communications network.”

One of the ways the National Broadband Plan proposed to address the lack of a nationwide public safety mobile broadband network was a proposal to auction off a block of spectrum known as the “D Block.” The D Block is a segment of the 700 MHz band that was proposed to be sold to a private entity that would use part of it for commercial purposes and as part of the purchase agreement, the organization would make available and manage part of the spectrum block in support of public safety communications. It’s a very complicated issue, but the bottom line was that the numbers didn’t work out and no private company stepped up to bid enough to cover the auction reserve (see [http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/09/fcc-considering-new-d-block-auction-plan.ars FCC considering new D Block auction]).

This all brings me to a couple of questions I hope we can discuss. Both the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and National Broadband Plan are OMNIBUS initiatives by government to address social challenges. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_spending_bill Omnibus] is a term that originated (in terms of its use by US government) in the 1970’s for the purpose of handling the national budget when large numbers of funding items would be consolidated into a single piece of legislation. (This is yet again another topic related to recent headlines see [http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/12/Omnibus-Spending-Bill-Busts-the-Budget-to-Pay-for-Pork Omnibus Spending Bill Busts the Budget to Pay for Pork ...])

My first question begins with, “is the omnibus approach a valid way to address challenges?” Can government effectively tackle challenging issues with all encompassing approaches such as omnibus intiatives and legislation? Isn't it more effective to solve complex problems by chunking them up in more manageable pieces?

Other questions we might discuss tie last week’s readings to this week’s topics. In [https://www.socialtext.net/codev2/free_speech chapter 12 subsection] ''The Regulators of Speech: Distribution'', Professor Lessig talks about the idea of how the, “deeply held assumption at the core of our jurisprudence governing broadcasting technologies: Only a fixed amount of ‘spectrum’ is available for broadcasting,” and that the way to manage it is to, “allocate slices of it to users,” is a misconception routed in the decades ago understanding of the technology. Today’s technologies are vastly different and no longer constrain the use of broadcast spectrum in the same ways, yet governance mentality seems stuck in the 1920’s.

What are your thoughts about this idea that even in forward thinking initiatives including the National Broadband Plan policy making seeks to be progressive, yet often is trapped by historical context?
Thank you. I look forward to your thoughtful comments. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 14:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

== Links from Class ==
[http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202486102650&Manhattan_Federal_Judge_Kimba_Wood_Calls_Record_Companies_Request_for__Trillion_in_Damages_Absurd_in_Lime_Wire_Copyright_Case Fed Judge Kimba Wood Calls Record Companies' Request for Trillions in Damages Absurd in LimeWire Copyright Case] The most interesting part of the article is not the outrageousness of the record companies' claims, but the way the judge reached her decision. She stated that legislature could not have foreseen the way the internet would interact with copyright law, and thus you can't use legislative history. Reasonableness, instead, was the issue to rule on.

Regulating Speech Online

2011-03-23T02:29:10Z

Gclinch: /* Class Discussion */ response to Su Ri

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
 
</div>
'''March 22'''

The Internet has the potential to revolutionize public discourse. It is a profoundly democratizing force. Instead of large media companies and corporate advertisers controlling the channels of speech, anyone with an Internet connection can "become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox." Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 884, 896-97 (1997). Internet speakers can reach vast audiences of readers, viewers, researchers, and buyers that stretch across real space borders, or they can concentrate on niche audiences that share a common interest or geographical location. What's more, with the rise of web 2.0, speech on the Internet has truly become a conversation, with different voices and viewpoints mingling together to create a single "work."

With this great potential, however, comes new questions. What happens when anyone can publish to a national (and global) audience with virtually no oversight? How can a society protect its children from porn and its inboxes from spam? Does defamation law apply to online publishers in the same way it applied to newspapers and other traditional print publications? Is online anonymity part of a noble tradition in political discourse stretching back to the founding fathers or the electronic equivalent of graffiti on the bathroom wall? In this class, we will look at how law and social norms are struggling to adapt to this new electronic terrain.

==Assignments==

[[Assignments#Assignment_3:_Project_Outline|Assignment 3 due]]

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==

* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1625820 David Ardia, Free Speech Savior or Shield for Scoundrels: An Empirical Study of Intermediary Immunity Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act] (Parts I & II)
* [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000230----000-.html Communications Decency Act § 230]
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/technology/companies/25google.html Larger Threat is Seen in Google Case NYT]
* [http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2009/02/11/Two-Lawyers-Fight-Cyber-Bullying/index.html David Margolick, "Slimed Online," Portfolio.com, February 11, 2009, read all]
* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/a-friendly-exchange-about-the-future-of-online-liability.ars John Palfrey and Adam Thierer, "Dialogue: The Future of Online Obscenity and Social Networks," Ars Technica, March 5, 2009, read all]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union Wikipedia on Reno v. ACLU].
* [http://www.socialtext.net/codev2/index.cgi?free_speech Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0, Chapter 12: Free Speech]
* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1689865 David Ardia, Reputation in a Networked World: Revisiting the Social Foundations of Defamation Law] (Part III)
</onlyinclude>

==Class Discussion ==

Regarding the AutoaAdmit case, does anyone have further details on what happened with Anthony Ciolli's countersuit against the two women and their legal advisor? For further reading on cyberbullying, defamation, privacy etc. an excellent book of essays is The Offensive Internet, edited by Saul Levmore and Martha Nussbaum.[[User:Mary Van Gils|Mary Van Gils]] 21:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This comment really applies to a previous class, but you might be interested in reading about the latest counter-tactics in the struggle for a "borderless Internet" against government control in this article: [http://www.economist.com/node/18386151 Unorthodox links to the internet: Signalling dissent] [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 16:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Though the introduction to this session states that "nstead of large media companies and corporate advertisers controlling the channels of speech...", we've reached a point where intermediaries--Facebook, Google, etc--are essentially controlling online speech. Our networks have landed in private, corporate, centralized locations. I hope that we'll be adding intermediary censorship to the discussion :) [[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 00:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Another story in the vein of "AutoAdmit" out right now is at [http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/cut-and-die-the-web-loves-to-hate-rebecca-black-20110321-1c2tz.html 'Cut and die': the web loves to hate Rebecca Black] About a 13-year old cut-and-paste singer who has become popular on You-Tube for all the wrong reasons; she is receiving death threats via user comments and web discussions. [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 00:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

To my knowledge, in US, you have different laws for intermediary liability for speech online (sec 230) and copyright (DMCA), maybe even more. In EU, there are 4 articles in one single act governing liability of ISPs. Especially for hosting providers one specific art. 14. For those interested, here is a link to Ecomerce Directive containing (see art. 12 to 15, hosting providers art. 14) [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000L0031:en:NOT]. Comparing art. 14(1)b and art. 14(2) of the EC directive with sec. 320 plus explanation of what is publisher and distributor liability from first reading, conclusion is that in EU, hosting provider would be liable under similarly as a distributor or publisher as in US. There are problems with EU legal framework and liability of ISPs and currently it is under review. If you read art. 14 you might realise what can be problem. There is no explanation of terms, such as 'actual knowledge'or 'expediously'. Or even how should 'notice and take down' procedure look like when comparing it to DMCA. It will be interesting to see how the law will change in future. Hopeully in near future:)As regard to google case in Italy, although I was aware of the issue, I did no read decision and can not say my opinion based only on the article read. However, based on my information, I would say that this was exceptional case in EU, and would not therefore make some outcome about threat in EU only based on this case.[[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 16:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I meant not intermediary liability, but intermediary censorship; e.g., Amazon's takedown of Wikileaks or Facebook removing Egyptian protest groups.[[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 21:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I wonder whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act would follow the footsteps of so-called journalist's privilege. As the emergence of millions of amateur reporters and publishers, the conventional definition of journalist's privilege is rather obsolete now. Likewise, the act which was enacted more than a decade ago seems to not hold the effectiveness any more. There is literally a tremendous number of interactive computer service providers and we have witnessed numerous side-effects burgeoning with the widespread of the online communities. Would it be still okay to give immunity to these providers? --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 19:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/User:Yu_Ri Yu Ri,] I am disappointed that we ran out of time in class to have the full discussion you propose. Perhaps we can continue in this forum.

From my perspective [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000230----000-.html Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act] protecting internet intermediaries has had many undesirable unintended consequences. At the same time, however, it is impossible to know what today’s internet would be like if Section 230 were not made law and not have survived the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union Reno v. ACLU] challenge. The internet and the offline world for that matter would surely be significantly different.

One thing that probably would have happened is that large numbers of companies that today provide internet based intermediary services would not be in the business because of the costs incurred due of the threat of law suits.

What if one of those companies that decided the costs related to the risk of litigation was too high was google? What if google’s investors decided they could make more money by investing in some other industry and chose not to fund google? How different would our world be? I think of things in the real world that might not be the same.

For instance, what might have happened in Egypt if [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20030485-503543.html Wael Ghonim] had not found a job at google and followed a different career path? Would the changes we are seeing all across the globe have happened if the social networking tools used so effectively by dissidents never came into existence without Section 230?

Very interesting questions and I’d like to hear your thoughts and those of others in the class. Thanks! --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 02:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

A very interesting study on 'Four Phases of Internet Regulation'. It talk about how the concept of internet regulation has changed since its early day to present times:
[http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/faculty-workshops/palfrey.faculty.workshop.summer.2010.pdf Four Phases of Internet Regulation][[User:syedshirazi|SyedShirazi]] 21:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

In professor Lessig’s [http://www.socialtext.net/codev2/index.cgi?free_speech Chapter 12: Free Speech] he makes the well reasoned proposal that a system to protect children from unwanted speech on the internet would be to implement the browser tag <H2M>. I well understand his reasoning and it makes a great deal of sense. In suggesting how to accomplish universal acceptance of this technique professor Lessig says, “This is the role for government.”

Now I haven’t finished his book and knowing how well he backs his arguments I won’t be surprised to find he has tackled this question but until I get there I must ask: Do we really want government to get into the business of legislating actual code?

Professor Lessig’s point that “code is law” teaches us that the code writer can be the secret hand that regulates us by the choices made when programs are written. For instance when we are in a virtual environment we are limited in what we can do substantially by the choices that the programmer has made when she wrote the program. I think it is the legitimate role of government to protect us from the undue influence of the coder, especially when the software involved might be used by an intermediary who has been granted special status by [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000230----000-.html Communications Decency Act § 230.]

I’m not so sure that we should carry the logic to the next level by saying that it is government’s role to actually dictate aspects of code. Classmates: what do you think? --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 01:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

== Links from Class ==

Slides for today's class: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/IS2011-3.22.11-Regulating_Speech_Online.ppt.pdf http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/IS2011-3.22.11-Regulating_Speech_Online.ppt.pdf]

Regulating Speech Online

2011-03-23T01:49:47Z

Gclinch: /* Class Discussion */ question on Lessig

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
 
</div>
'''March 22'''

The Internet has the potential to revolutionize public discourse. It is a profoundly democratizing force. Instead of large media companies and corporate advertisers controlling the channels of speech, anyone with an Internet connection can "become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox." Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 884, 896-97 (1997). Internet speakers can reach vast audiences of readers, viewers, researchers, and buyers that stretch across real space borders, or they can concentrate on niche audiences that share a common interest or geographical location. What's more, with the rise of web 2.0, speech on the Internet has truly become a conversation, with different voices and viewpoints mingling together to create a single "work."

With this great potential, however, comes new questions. What happens when anyone can publish to a national (and global) audience with virtually no oversight? How can a society protect its children from porn and its inboxes from spam? Does defamation law apply to online publishers in the same way it applied to newspapers and other traditional print publications? Is online anonymity part of a noble tradition in political discourse stretching back to the founding fathers or the electronic equivalent of graffiti on the bathroom wall? In this class, we will look at how law and social norms are struggling to adapt to this new electronic terrain.

==Assignments==

[[Assignments#Assignment_3:_Project_Outline|Assignment 3 due]]

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==

* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1625820 David Ardia, Free Speech Savior or Shield for Scoundrels: An Empirical Study of Intermediary Immunity Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act] (Parts I & II)
* [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000230----000-.html Communications Decency Act § 230]
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/technology/companies/25google.html Larger Threat is Seen in Google Case NYT]
* [http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2009/02/11/Two-Lawyers-Fight-Cyber-Bullying/index.html David Margolick, "Slimed Online," Portfolio.com, February 11, 2009, read all]
* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/a-friendly-exchange-about-the-future-of-online-liability.ars John Palfrey and Adam Thierer, "Dialogue: The Future of Online Obscenity and Social Networks," Ars Technica, March 5, 2009, read all]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union Wikipedia on Reno v. ACLU].
* [http://www.socialtext.net/codev2/index.cgi?free_speech Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0, Chapter 12: Free Speech]
* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1689865 David Ardia, Reputation in a Networked World: Revisiting the Social Foundations of Defamation Law] (Part III)
</onlyinclude>

==Class Discussion ==

Regarding the AutoaAdmit case, does anyone have further details on what happened with Anthony Ciolli's countersuit against the two women and their legal advisor? For further reading on cyberbullying, defamation, privacy etc. an excellent book of essays is The Offensive Internet, edited by Saul Levmore and Martha Nussbaum.[[User:Mary Van Gils|Mary Van Gils]] 21:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This comment really applies to a previous class, but you might be interested in reading about the latest counter-tactics in the struggle for a "borderless Internet" against government control in this article: [http://www.economist.com/node/18386151 Unorthodox links to the internet: Signalling dissent] [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 16:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Though the introduction to this session states that "nstead of large media companies and corporate advertisers controlling the channels of speech...", we've reached a point where intermediaries--Facebook, Google, etc--are essentially controlling online speech. Our networks have landed in private, corporate, centralized locations. I hope that we'll be adding intermediary censorship to the discussion :) [[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 00:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Another story in the vein of "AutoAdmit" out right now is at [http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/cut-and-die-the-web-loves-to-hate-rebecca-black-20110321-1c2tz.html 'Cut and die': the web loves to hate Rebecca Black] About a 13-year old cut-and-paste singer who has become popular on You-Tube for all the wrong reasons; she is receiving death threats via user comments and web discussions. [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 00:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

To my knowledge, in US, you have different laws for intermediary liability for speech online (sec 230) and copyright (DMCA), maybe even more. In EU, there are 4 articles in one single act governing liability of ISPs. Especially for hosting providers one specific art. 14. For those interested, here is a link to Ecomerce Directive containing (see art. 12 to 15, hosting providers art. 14) [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000L0031:en:NOT]. Comparing art. 14(1)b and art. 14(2) of the EC directive with sec. 320 plus explanation of what is publisher and distributor liability from first reading, conclusion is that in EU, hosting provider would be liable under similarly as a distributor or publisher as in US. There are problems with EU legal framework and liability of ISPs and currently it is under review. If you read art. 14 you might realise what can be problem. There is no explanation of terms, such as 'actual knowledge'or 'expediously'. Or even how should 'notice and take down' procedure look like when comparing it to DMCA. It will be interesting to see how the law will change in future. Hopeully in near future:)As regard to google case in Italy, although I was aware of the issue, I did no read decision and can not say my opinion based only on the article read. However, based on my information, I would say that this was exceptional case in EU, and would not therefore make some outcome about threat in EU only based on this case.[[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 16:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I meant not intermediary liability, but intermediary censorship; e.g., Amazon's takedown of Wikileaks or Facebook removing Egyptian protest groups.[[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 21:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I wonder whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act would follow the footsteps of so-called journalist's privilege. As the emergence of millions of amateur reporters and publishers, the conventional definition of journalist's privilege is rather obsolete now. Likewise, the act which was enacted more than a decade ago seems to not hold the effectiveness any more. There is literally a tremendous number of interactive computer service providers and we have witnessed numerous side-effects burgeoning with the widespread of the online communities. Would it be still okay to give immunity to these providers? --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 19:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

A very interesting study on 'Four Phases of Internet Regulation'. It talk about how the concept of internet regulation has changed since its early day to present times:
[http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/faculty-workshops/palfrey.faculty.workshop.summer.2010.pdf Four Phases of Internet Regulation][[User:syedshirazi|SyedShirazi]] 21:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

In professor Lessig’s [http://www.socialtext.net/codev2/index.cgi?free_speech Chapter 12: Free Speech] he makes the well reasoned proposal that a system to protect children from unwanted speech on the internet would be to implement the browser tag <H2M>. I well understand his reasoning and it makes a great deal of sense. In suggesting how to accomplish universal acceptance of this technique professor Lessig says, “This is the role for government.”

Now I haven’t finished his book and knowing how well he backs his arguments I won’t be surprised to find he has tackled this question but until I get there I must ask: Do we really want government to get into the business of legislating actual code?

Professor Lessig’s point that “code is law” teaches us that the code writer can be the secret hand that regulates us by the choices made when programs are written. For instance when we are in a virtual environment we are limited in what we can do substantially by the choices that the programmer has made when she wrote the program. I think it is the legitimate role of government to protect us from the undue influence of the coder, especially when the software involved might be used by an intermediary who has been granted special status by [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000230----000-.html Communications Decency Act § 230.]

I’m not so sure that we should carry the logic to the next level by saying that it is government’s role to actually dictate aspects of code. Classmates: what do you think? --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 01:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

== Links from Class ==

Slides for today's class: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/IS2011-3.22.11-Regulating_Speech_Online.ppt.pdf http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/IS2011-3.22.11-Regulating_Speech_Online.ppt.pdf]

Assignment 3 Submissions

2011-03-22T19:58:24Z

Gclinch: /* Submissions */ Guy's submission

File:Internet and Society Assingment 3.pdf

2011-03-22T19:53:04Z

Gclinch: Internet and Society: Technologies and Politics of Control - Assignment 3 Final Project Outline - Title: The Transition to Next Generation 9-1-1 in North America

Internet and Society: Technologies and Politics of Control - Assignment 3 Final Project Outline -
Title: The Transition to Next Generation 9-1-1 in North America

Assignment 2 Submissions

2011-03-21T01:33:20Z

Gclinch: /* Name: Guy Clinch -- Gclinch 13:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC) */

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; padding: 5px; text-align: left;">
<big>'''Assignments'''</big>

'''[[Assignment 1 Details and Reporting]]''' | [[Assignment 1 Submissions|Submissions]] 
''Due February 8''

'''[[Assignments#Assignment_2:_Prospectus| Assignment 2]]''' | [[Assignment 2 Submissions|Submissions]] 
''Due February 22''

'''[[Assignments#Assignment_3:_Project_Outline| Assignment 3]]''' | [[Assignment 3 Submissions|Submissions]] 
''Due March 22''

'''[[Assignment 4 Details and Links]]''' | [[Assignment 4 Submissions|Submissions]] 
''Due April 12''

'''[[Final Project]]''' | [[Final Projects|Submissions]] 
''Due May 10''

</div>

===Distribution of Grades===
[[Image:Assignment2_distribution.png‎|400px]]

===Submission Instructions===
This assignment is due on February 22. Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (assignments submitted 4 days late or later will have a maximum grade of 1 point).

Please make sure the name of your file includes your name (example: Name_Assignment2.doc) to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment. ''The '''upload file''' link is to the left, under '''toolbox'''.'' Once you've uploaded your file, please link to it following the format below:

*Name:
*Prospectus title:
*Link to prospectus: (the file you uploaded)

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

===Comments===
Everyone will receive an additional participation grade for this assignment. You should read through everyone's proposals after they are uploaded and add constructive comments below the proposal on which you're commenting. Comments should be submitted by March 6 so you have time to incorporate them, if applicable, into your project outline. ('''Remember to sign your comments!''')

===Submissions===

----

====Name: Gagan Panjhazari --[[User:Gpanjhazari|Gpanjhazari]] 07:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: The Role of Censorship Of the Internet in the Egypt and Libya'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/GaganPanjhazari-Assignment2.txt
*Comment: You might want to check the article I posted on the Feb 22 assignment page that appeared in the New York Times. Might be helpful on your first topic. <<[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 00:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)>>
**Comment: Gagan, I find both of your topic choices interesting. I think the second one, regarding the ability to hold website creators responsible for their content, especially when said content could be considered treasonous, would be the best topic of the two. It is such an important question, the answer to the question will frame our national security for the future. With either topic, I look forward to reading your findings. [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 01:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
*Comment: Frontline, the PBS program, had an episode about the April 6 Movement in Egypt, including how it used the interent and mobile devices for organization and how it was forced to adapt when access was cut. There isn't a whole lot of detail here, but it might be a useful place to start. [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 02:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/revolution-in-cairo/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid
*''Comment:'' I like the second topic. It would be interesting to see if the treason charges are somehow being used to:
# silence Julian Assange
# scare others from doing the same thing
#*One thing you might look up for precedence is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers Pentagon Papers] [[User:Rakundig|Rakundig]]
**Hai!...I love your idea of covering the censorship and even internet blackouts at times in Egypt and Libya along with the role that social networking and tweeps had in organizing the recent protests, and ousting of Mubarak. This is a fascinating narrative to be sure. Here are a few links about a European internet activist group that has worked to provide low tech communication aid to the protesters. I hope they might be of use to you in your research. [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/02/egypts-internet-blackout-highlights-danger-weak|Egypt's Internet Blackouts Highlights Danger of Weak Links, Usefulness of Quick Links], [http://werebuild.eu/wiki/Egypt/Main_Page | werebuild.eu the Egyptian project page], [http://werebuild.eu/wiki/Libya/Main_Page | werebuild.eu, the Libyan project page], and [http://telecomix.org/ | telecomix.org] [http://globalvoicesonline.org/ | Global Voices]has done an outstanding job of covering these events as well. Best of luck![[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 01:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I agree with Deinous. Your topic is very time-appropriate and I cannot hide my excitement to read final results of the research! I believe it should be closely examined as an epitome of the Internet censorship by all of us who are taking this class. From my perspective, it seems that Egypt's Internet kill switch decision rather ignited people's movement toward democracy and protests. By the way, your prospectus includes primarily theoretical approaches to the topic. I would love to know which resources you are going to use in the course of the research. Depending on types of media, your research conclusions, I believe, can be various. Below is the article of the Economist that might be useful in your project. Good Luck! --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 10:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**[[http://www.economist.com/node/18112043 The Economist: Reaching for the kill switch]]
**Comment: Hi Gagan, both your topics are interesting. According to the description of the Final Project it should be built around one of the theoretical conceptions that we study during the course.So if you think about the conceptions that may apply to your topics, it will help you to chose one of two topics proposed by you and, perhaps, to generate your questions and hypothesis around the theoretical conception as the Final Project demand. [[Kristina Meshkova]], 5 March 2011.
**Comment: Gagan, great subjects! You should stick with the subject that interests you most. I suppose its the first one that you wrote about, the role of social media and networking in the revolutions. This is definitely a broad subject, but that doesn't mean you should throw it out, it means you should narrow it to a point that is achievable. A suggestion would be to pick one of the countries, and one of the social networks to drill deeper into. (i.e. the role that Facebook users played in the Egyptian revolution.) Then you need to think about what you will investigate. This project is supposed to be empirical, so you should find some way of observing or surveying the users or the events. This might be in the form of friending as many of the users who were involved in a particular event on Facebook. This should be a great project for you! [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Gagan,I think the same - great topics. I believe both of them are very current and it will be interesting to read your final project. It is very hard to comment your prospectus because it is apparent that you did a deep research and you are clear in what you want to research in final paper. It seems to me that first project seems to be more empirical than second one. Although it would be maybe more or less easier to find 'clear' answers for questions in second project. I do not know. When regards the topics, both of them are very current and you identified the questions very clearly. Good luck with your project...[[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 10:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I think thats remarkable. I do think your topic is a bit broad, as is mine, must a great start! This link might help as well-http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/29/technology/internet/29cutoff.html I wonder what role did social networks play in Egypts revolution. I know the Egyptian consulate in New York cut off web access, but you can still inquire via phone. Will they take this same route in the future?--[[User:Elishasurillo|Elishasurillo]] 04:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: This is a very serious and evolving topic that should be very fun and interesting to work on. It is very important to study the internet's effect on these countries because it could quite possibly happen to other countries. Just like the revolutionary furry spread from Egypt to Libya, it could easily spread to other countries either for the better of for the worse.--[[User:Joshuasurillo|Joshuasurillo]] 05:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Saam Batmanghelidj --'''[[User:Saambat|Saambat]] 10:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: The Effect of Synthetic World Communities on Real World Societies, Economies, and Copyright law'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Batmanghelidj_Final_Project_Prospectus.doc
**Comment: Hi Saam, I think your topic of synthetic or virtual worlds. I had a suggestion that you take a look at BitCoin (http://www.bitcoin.org/), this is an emerging technology that only started up a short time ago. It's a fascinating technology that deals with a new form of money (yes it can be exchanged for real money and is currently trading 1 for 1 with the US dollar). Some interesting things about it: uses public/private encryption keys, it's completely anonymous, it has great potential to circumvent certain banking regulation systems, it can be used to make real purchases, because of it's anonymity and cannot be tracked creates a security of privacy for the purchaser and seller. This also means could could be exploited by people not wanting transactions to be recorded. This technology really opens a virtual door of monetary exchange across the globe where any currency can be exchanged for BitCoins and then exchanged again into a different currency. This is just a top end look at it. It's already in use and some places accept this currency including some non-profit agencies for donation purposes. It also opens an easy way to laundry dirty money. Regards Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi , Saam. The topic is very interesting, but, I’m not sure that questions you want to answer will help you to develop the topic deeply and systemically: the questions are not in a strong correlation with your topic, I think they will not disclose the topic in full and from the main sides of it. You also use such phrase as “virtual property”, what do you mean by this? Is it the same as intellectual property? If yes, I think, it’s better to use the term “intellectual property”. You also pose such question as “How harmful is it for people to sell virtual items for real world monies, and to what extent is it harmful?” So you’ve already decided that it’s harmful, may be, it’s worth to give some arguments in your work why you decided it’s harmful. If you consider “the Synthetic World Communities” as the theoretical concept you want to use in the Final Project, you can try to determine the main features of this concept, then divide your hypothesis into three sphere ( society, economic and copyright law) and pose the main, in your opinion, questions in each of the spheres, regarding the theoretical basis you chose. [[Kristina Meshkova]], 5 March 2011.
**Comment: Saam, you've picked a fascinating topic. You've identified a rich field and topics; the challenge will actually be in narrowing it down to something observable, rather than reporting on what has already been written and explored. Pick one of the topics like virtual property trades and one of the sites like EVE Online and think through how you can observe what is happening in that cross-section. I look forward to reading this project! [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Saam...Great topic. I agree with Smithbc comments. I am not sure whether we should study smething mere via reporting the book and blog. As I said, I am not sure and at this time you should have already had a feedback so you probably know better. Good luck with the project and looking forward for reading final version. [[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 21:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
----

====Name: Kimberly Nevas --'''[[User:KimberlyNevas|KimberlyNevas]] 02:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: Can the U.S. Prosecute Julian Assange?'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Nevas_Kimberly_LSTU_E-120_Assignment_2.pdf
**Comment: Hi, Kimberly. Your topic is one of the essential questions I myself also want to closely observe and look for answers. Especially, considering the global impacts of Wikileaks, the prosecution of Assange is merely not confined to the jobs of the US Justice Department. Many governments are quite eager to punish him for revealing sensitive political/diplomatic issues, which might have significantly deterred their national agenda. Nonetheless, the 1st Amendment of the US and equivalent provisions existing in each country that guarantee freedom of speech are standing in the way of this very prosecution. So the question always comes down to this: are we going to sacrifice freedom of speech for a greater cause - usually national security? Are there certain limitations that media have to comply with in publishing their articles? I would love to see how this 21th version of the Zenger Trial will turn out. Good luck! Best, [[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 03:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: It might also be interesting to see if any other sites purporting to disclose sensitive information whether government or corporate have become more aggressive considering all the confusion about what to do with Julian Assange. Does his legal situation make these sites feel more confident regarding avoiding prosecution? <<[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 00:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)>>
**Comment: Your statement, "In this respect, Assange cannot be considered any more liable than the New York Times." is a bold one, which some might strongly disagree with, given Assange's postings and his refusal to censor, along with his use or threatened use of yet unreleased information as leverage to keep himself free. I look foward to reading your arguments regarding Assange, freedom of speech and the case law which supports your position. [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 01:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi, Kimberly. The problem you decided to consider in the Prospectus is really important and actual. But I think that the question “whether the Justice Department can prosecute Assange without damaging the U.S. free press as we know it”, that you pose describing the Problem is wider than the Research question. Perhaps, it’s worth to add the question “whether the Justice Department can prosecute Assange without damaging the U.S. free press as we know it”, to your Research question as the main one. And your present research question: Are the distribution methods adopted by Wikileaks for the dissemination of thousands of pages of classified U.S. documents structured so as to arm Julian Assange and his associates with a strong defense to prosecution under U.S. law?” will help you to answer your main question. Your present research question can be also considered as a research frame, so that you can explore the distribution methods of Wikileaks to answer if they really make the obstacles for the Justice Deparment to prosecute Assange and if yes to what extend; are the distribution methods of Wikileaks the main obstacles which do not permit the Justice Department to prosecute Assange or there are the other obstacles (for ex., with respect to the features of free press)? [[Kristina Meshkova]], 5 March, 2011.
**Comment: Kimberly, you have the beginnings of a good project here. I am interested in what you choose to use as your methodology and what you will choose to "observe" as part of this case study. One suggestion in particular is to look at the particular statements made by the U.S. papers in regards to why they believe their approach to printing the leaks are legal and any justifications they made in regard to accepting Assange's information. [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comments: Kimberly, that is an explosive topic! I bet you'll have lots of material! The qusetion is where did he commit the crimes if any. If in Australia, can they prosecute him? Or because they are U.S. cables, does the U.S.A. have jurisdiction? And who has the right to tell him he can or cannot post and release? The U.S.A. has to clearly stae how he broke the law. As far as I know, treason can only be a crime if commited by a citizen. Good work! --[[User:Elishasurillo|Elishasurillo]] 04:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Yes, very timely and interesting topic. One thing you might look up for precedence is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers Pentagon Papers] [[User:Rakundig|Rakundig]]

----

====Name: Jamil Buie====
*'''Prospectus Title: Profiteering via "Public Privacy" The use/misuse of your data'''
*'''Link to prospectus:'''http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:JBProject_Prospectus.pdf
**Comment: Hi Jamil, For me this is a an extremely important issue, I'm glad to see you're looking at it. I have a few pointers that may help uncover some things that are currently being looked at and something that was done in the UK back in 2008. Do a search for Phorm, BT implemented it in secrecy and it caused a big uproar. Also, it appears that ComCast is looking to implement it here in the US. It deals with deep level packet inspection. Not sure how tech savvy you are, but basically it comes down to an ISP looking at each packet users are sending out over their home connection. It is suppose to be done anonymously, however, it's invasive to the nth degree. Another technology that you might want to look at is the Evercookie. This can be used by websites that a user goes to, this then gathers information about a great number of browsing files that are on a system to ID the system. In the instance that a user cleans up his/her cookies, EverCookie will still be able to quickly identify you and place certain cookies back on your computer being able to keep tabs on the user. Regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi, Jamil. In your Prospectus, you write the following: “While most do understand that they are interacting with a third-party be it a site, search engine, or ISP they remain ignorant to how the data they’re providing is being farmed out or utilized in a commercial vein”. I can agree with you only partly: of course, we could not exclude the situations, when the data we provided are an object of unfair use, but it should be also mentioned that “the main players” of the Internet services do not ignore users, thus they stay uninformed about the way their data are used. For ex., Yahoo Privacy Policy http://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/details.html or Google Privacy http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacy/ In the question: What are the common guidelines and site best practices? you use such phrase as “site best practices”, that is very subjective category, as also the question: “Are consumers truly aware?”. Perhaps, it’s better to avoid such categories in your science research. [[Kristina Meshkova]], 5 March 2011.
**Comment: Jamil, we have similar interests and research topics. You are looking at the broad trail of information left by a typical internet user and the ways that trail is used. I am going narrower, specifically into the information gathered by location-based services to examine the associated privacy issues and assess the average consumer's perceptions of risks. If you are interested, I'd be willing to trade notes and help each other shape up the final project. Since we are doing similar topics, I would really appreciate your comments on my prospectus as well. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Very intrigued by your topic (and somewhat regretting not pursuing it myself!). I used to work as a targeting specialist at Yahoo!, and was floored by the amount of user data we had access to. Thought I'd share an extremely thorough [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703940904575395073512989404.html study] the WSJ put together not long ago, which summarizes the policies and efficacy of the major players in this space. Looking forward to reading your report on this very controversial and fascinating topic. - Jessica [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 03:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Another very ineresting topic. I believe, most consumers are not aware. I was surprised when I blocked cookies and then wanted to log in to facebook. Following message occured: 'Cookies are not enabled on your browser. Please adjust this in your security preferences before continuing.'. Seems like they are not interested in someone using their service without getting access to information about me so they can get paid:)I am still not aware of all information they can easily get about me. Good luck with project.[[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 09:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Uduak Patricia Okon====
*'''Prospectus Title: Web Pages/Blog Sites: Rights and Limitations-How free are you?'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Uduak_Patricia_Okon_Assign_2.pdf
**Comment: Hi Uduak, Your prospectus is very interesting. I look forward to seeing how your project comes together. But I have some comments that I would like to share, I hope my feedback is helpful.
**Re:
***In general, people are entitled to share facts if they don’t breach confidentiality or depict a real situation. This would depend on how citizen bloggers support their argument about their political commentary, whether it’s positive or negative. You need to remember that politicians are public figures, so the first amendment applies differently to them. Therefore the confidential circumstances that apply to the general population do not apply to politicians since they are not entitled to the same level of privacy. And citizen bloggers don’t have to adhere to the same circumstances as journalists to the best of my knowledge (I major in journalism and work in media in NYC) (i.e. it’s considered unethical for journalists to be bias if they’re not commentary writers. Also most journalists are not allowed to put political figure signs on their lawn, bumper sticker on their car, etc they need to push their feelings aside to accurately report the truth). I think the bigger issue is whether or not non-citizen bloggers can face defamatory lawsuits if there is proof they intentionally acted with malice? Or will future non-citizens bloggers have to abide by the same guidelines as employed journalists in the blogosphere working for CNN?
***Corporate law is an entirely different world. Because many corporations lie to promote their brand among many other issues on the internet, which is unethical to their consumers.
***I don’t think you should look into news websites like CNN, NY Times, etc because those are explicitly run by paid journalists (whom must adhere to strict guidelines about what they report) and comments are very restricted so the same type of freedom doesn’t apply to citizen journalists because official journalists also have code of ethics and have much more at stake.
***It's important to note that some citizen bloggers sell advertising on their blogs which might impede with how they portray a public figure on the net because they're getting paid. Formally employed journalists can't bias their stories based on relationships with advertisers because the editorial and advertising departments are seperate at news organizations.
***You, first need to narrow your focus because there is a huge difference between local mayors and congressional candidates, and citizen and non-citizen bloggers. (i.e. I think it would be interesting if you looked at how political figures use blogging as a form of position taking in Congress and compare cases of democratic and republican candidates on an issue like healthcare reform, education, etc. And the implications blogging has on Senators or Representatives relationships with their constituents).
**Comment: Uduak, very interesting subject. As you shape these ideas into a final project, one aspect to consider focusing on is to differentiate between a) the official "legal findings" of what bloggers can/cannot do vs. b) the unoffical "codes of conduct" being developed in the world of blogging. I think the unofficial codes would reflect the complex realities of the different types of bloggers, rather than the more simplistic legal concept of a blogger. One case to look at is the judge that was recently found to have been blogging anonymously [she thought :) ] about the case on which she herself was the sitting judge. I'll look for the URL to send you. I look forward to reading your project. [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Yaerin Kim [[User:Quill80|Quill80]] 02:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: OpenCourseWare(OCW) and its Impact: Case Study of MIT’s OCW'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment2_Kim.doc
**Comment: Hi Yaerin, I think this is a great topic. Being a part of F/OSS environment has pushed forward a number of wonderful software innovations. Scratch is an example of MIT's commitment to OCW. Scratch, though at first glance might appear comical, is actually a great tool to teach people the concepts of early stages of computer programming. I'm sure there are tons of other open source software that would interest you. I would suggest, if you have a spare computer or can run a virtual environment, downloading and running a Linux distribution like Ubuntu or Linux Mint. Then you can take a look at the rich repository of software that is completely free to install and use. Some of the software is not F/OSS, such as Adobe Reader, but the disclaimers of Left-Copied software is always clear. Anything that came from MIT would also give credit to that source even if it's been morphed. Best regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Yaerin, you've nicely narrowed down your topic to MIT OCW and assessing progress on the 3 goals. In the context of this course, it would really be interesting to narrow down even further to the third goal: the level of interaction of OCW users with the institutions that provide it. What are they and the users missing out on? We've already seen examples of digital communities developing and producing some amazing things and perhaps MIT is or should be seeking to turn OCW from content publishing into an active community. I look forward to reading about this in your project. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Yaerin. I think your topic is brilliantly targeted and focused on one of the distinct manifestations of peer collaboration - that is an open online course. I, myself, have greatly benefited from MIT OCW and Yale Open Course and thus look forward to see, specifically, the reasons why the participation rate of users is lingering at such low figures. Would it be too much to expect OCW to be an open education forum with lively discussions? In my opinion, the architectures of OCW and Yale Open Course are expressly posing limitations on interaction between users as there is no such place to share opinions. I am very much excited to read your final project! Best, --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 10:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: William Bauser --[[User:Wnb|Wnb]] 23:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: Modern Web Design and Civic Engagement: Access to Information and Community Development'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Wnb_assignment2.pdf
**Comment: This is an interesting topic -- you have a lot of avenues to explore! Among the sites you list, some are clearly partisan while others seem more altruistic. I would be interested to learn the contrast of methods used by each type. For example, what are the membership requirements? Does the site encourage a particular philosophy? Does a certain amount of selective cocooning take place? On the other side, how can an Internet based civic community be both neutral and vital? If it is only fact based then it won't be interesting. How does is promote community discussions without advocating a position? I'm sure you'll have to narrow the focus of your chosen topic and I thought this might be an interesting distinction you could use. [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 01:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi William: Sounds like a very interesting subject. I have two comments. First, it is clear you are looking at assessing how effective internet tools are in increasing engagement in the political process, but your last statement doesn't seem to fit. It seems like you'd also like to look at how effective they are in increasing the transparency of the political process as well and you'd have to clarify how those fit together. (IMO, engagement =/= transparency.) Second, I'd be interested in hearing more about your methodology, since most of the sites you mention would likely not share their data openly (perhaps I am wrong.) All the best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I think this sounds interesting, particularly as scholars are emerging to study the implications of the internet, web 2.0 and social networking on politics. I think there's going to be a lot of research into how these tools (and many of the sites you mentioned, particularly sites like change.org or moveon.org) are contributing to the distribution of social capital/political capital among the population. I think your topic is timely, and interesting. My guess is that you will need to hone in on a few specific sites and some specific aspects of them in order to make solid comparisons and broad analysis. Best of luck! [[User:Acrowe|Acrowe]] 16:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Brian Smith [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 23:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: Location-Based Services: Implications and Awareness of Effects on Consumer Privacy'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Brian_Smith_-_Assignment_2.pdf
**Comment: Greetings Brian! I found your research idea very creative and the methodology you are planning to utilize seems realistically achievable, although some instruments used by government and private marketing agencies are very difficult to trace and require special software and equipment. I have a topic idea that may coincide with a notion of privacy you are investigating, so I may cite your work in my project. What I found to be inconsistent is that your methods seem to be distant on the instrumental level from your hypothetical statements, that is, it is undetermined how your method will help to prove or reject either of your hypotheses. In fact, even doctorate dissertations attempting to either reject or accept only one hypothesis. It is in quantitative sciences we test several hypothesis in order to corroborate the validity of the expression or formula, etc., but not in the research as far as academic papers suggest. In terms of your definition of location, it is unclear whether your are talking about the IP address based location or mobile device based location, if it is about mobile device only (most hosts like schools and bosses may hunt for both mobile and the laptop IP to trace their employee or a student) then you need to state so in your research and in the proposal as well. I know one thing for sure that with arrival of the wireless technology it became much more harder for Federal agents to trace hackers: it is technologically more convenient to retain privacy through the public wireless router. I think you will benefit from setting up a singular and more definite hypothetic statement that will encapsulate the entire topic. In addition, you would make the research more productive and to the point if you will add the limitations to your research so that your process will have its bottom line. Check out this research, it could be helpful or at least you can retrieve some more sources from in-context citations: http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~adillon/Journals/Expertise-JASIS.htm Good Luck! --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 20:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Thank you, Vladimir - these are really helpful comments. I might ping you back for more details as I go through them each. Best, Brian'' [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

**Comment: Brian, the location of a caller is also one of the key pieces of information that is used by public safety officials when responding to emergencies. There is a long history of regulation related to the use of location information in the Enhanced 9-1-1 system. I know the location services that you are talking about in your paper are based upon the GPS capabilities in mobile devices, but you may benefit from understanding the history of location as you look at some of the politics surrounding these new services. There has been some recent political maneuvering related to the location information provided by telecommunications carriers for the purpose of Enhanced 9-1-1 since many have determined, as you say in your prospectus, that location information is a marketable commodity.

Here is a short explanation of how location is determined in Enhanced 9-1-1. If you were to need to dial 9-1-1 in an emergency, when your call is answered at the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) a software application retrieves information about your location from the Automatic Location Information (ALI) database. The ALI database – there are actually over 3,000 ALI databases in the US, but from a local jurisdiction only one is important - that is/are maintained on behalf of the government by various on-contract third parties. How information about your location gets populated in that database depends upon the device originating your call. For a traditional wired phone, the phone company is responsible to update your location when your phone is installed.

When you are calling from a mobile phone, there are actually two ways that your location is determined. One is GPS, but many mobile devices today still either don’t have GPS chips or the users don’t turn the GPS on for reasons that range from prolonging battery life to a belief that they are protecting their privacy (something that you may next see is an illusion). One way wireless location is determined is by the triangulation of two or more cell towers. A mobile phone is almost always in communication with two or more towers and an estimate can be made of your location by measuring distance as a function of signal strength. The other way is to integrate the GPS chip. For Enhanced 9-1-1, this actually turns out not to be as straight forward as one might think. This is because the GPS information is carried in the data channel of a phone. For many phones it isn’t possible to have both a concurrent voice call and a data transmission. This means that in order to retrieve the GPS data, the PSAP needs to disconnect the caller. Not the best situation in an emergency. [http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/wireless911srvc.html The FCC’s Wireless 911 Rules] currently specify that the phone carrier is required to be able to locate you within, “50 to 300 meters depending upon the type of location technology used.”

There is also a separate system for determining the location of a caller who is using a VoIP device (as in Skype) and another process for determining the location of a caller from within an enterprise organizations (such as a PBX extension).

Hope you find this of use. Let me know if I may clear up and points or answer any additional questions. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 01:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Yu Ri Jeong -- [[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 22:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: How manifestations of collective intelligence vary in different cultures and societies: Study on Naver Knowledge iN of South Korea in comparison with Wikipedia.'''
*'''Link to Prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Yu_Ri_Jeong_Internet_and_Society_Assignment_2_Prospectus.doc
**Comment: This is a really interesting topic! I hadn't known that South Korea had so strongly resisted the dominance of Wikipedia. I am curious, even if you do not include these questions in your paper, to hear what you think is unique about South Korea that it managed to create its own version of Wikipedia. Was it simply a question of timing, or is there something about South Korean Internet culture that allowed it to rally around its own creation. I also wonder what this means for Wikipedia. As a result of the lack of participation by South Korean Internet users, does Wikipedia suffer from a gap in information about South Korean culture, politics or society? I think the paper you have laid out in your prospectus is very thorough and complete, but I would love to hear your thoughts on these questions separately as you continue your research! [[User:Mcforelle|Mcforelle]] 19:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Dear Mcforelle, thank you for your kind words on my prospectus. I believe that the user-friendly manner of NKIN is encouraging Koreans to prefer it over Wikipedia. To elaborate, NKIN offers such an environment that participants can just write down their ideas without having to give much thought about the impacts of their posts. It is not that they have no responsibility in writing down articles; but they want to give information or advice as they do to their friends and family. The system of Wikipedia requires some duties such as learning of new Wiki codes. I believe that these factors are alienating Koreans from using Wiki. Furthermore, the under-activated usage rate of Korean Wiki is discouraging people to use it. --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 03:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Yuri! I think your research would reveal some very interesting points about the difference between the Korean Naver website and Wikipedia. If I may suggest, it would be interesting to analyze the difference in user demographic between the two websites. This would assist your analysis for Question #3. Also, since Naver seems to be a for-profit organization, it would be interesting to analyze how profitable NKin has been and contrast it to the non-profit model of Wikipedia. [[User:Quill80|Quill80]] 22:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Yaerin, thank you for your kind comments. Your suggestions include very important points which I might have ignored had it been not you! Truly, the demographic analysis of two websites and the comparison of them in terms of for-profit and non-profit will reveal some of the interesting characteristics of these open knowledge forums. Thank you! --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 03:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Yu Ri: This is a solid proposal for the project. I like how you've used the course themes as your areas of investigation and how you've narrowed down to two communities that you will compare, and even further to a set of articles with common subjects across the two communities. The only area of concern might be that your subject areas are pretty large in and of themselves (architectural elements, social norms & governance, membership, limits on expression, and national law.) If you can do all of those, then that's great, but you might think of narrowing to a smaller set. Otherwise, this proposal seems strong. Have fun! Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 08:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Smith. Thank you for spending your time in reading my prospectus. I absolutely agree with your concern. I wish to nail down the topic further, but am still not certain which theme to focus on as all the aspects matter most. I will keep you informed if I narrow down to the very specific topic! Thank you! --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 03:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: La Keisha Landrum [[User:llandrum|llandrum]] 21:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: Building a Sustainable News Org'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:LNLAssignment2.doc
**Comment: Hi La Keisha, It's good to see you're approaching this hot topic. I think most Americans are rather clueless about the current demise of the media or at least they are clueless as to why the media has been in a state of disintegration over the past 30 years. The newspaper companies came to late to the Internet forum and due to their lack of response they lost the "first-to-line" efforts in advertising & classified revenues. Aggregators and bloggers have only worsened the situation for major media, not to mention giants like Google and Craigslist drawing away advertising dollars. Still, a more important aspect is that experienced journalists need to continue to be supported in doing investigative reporting. Looking at detail as to how the different models of moving forward and the benefits might be speculative at this point, but we have seen some success stories in new ways to successfully report on current events. Regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hello La Kiesha! This is a very interesting and important topic for the future well being of journalism. According to your prospectus, it seems that you are interested in the profit aspect of the emergence of new internet-based journalism. If this is the case, it would be helpful if you can offer comparison in income for the aforementioned journalist. In other words, how much did these journalist as an employee of a traditional publisher and how much are they making now with their innovative website? Also, it would be interesting to know who is willing to patron these professional journalists. I think the lecture slides from March 1 would be very helpful as well. Good luck![[User:Quill80|Quill80]] 22:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi La Keisha, Bravo for taking on this topic. I like the fact that you are exploring success stories in online journalism. While journalism is undergoing fundamental changes, I think this is not just a doomsday scenario that dictates journalism will disappear. The newspaper existed for so long because, I believe, there is strong consumer demand for quality information. Just because the business model for supplying news is undergoing transformation doesn't mean that that demand is gone. My hypothesis is what we discussed in our last class: that the newspaper is being disaggregated and all the components will find their places as the changes shake out. There will be a place for classified ads, opinion articles, local fluff pieces, national news, international news, and yes, even, high-quality investigative reporting! It's just that they won't all be delivered by the same company, in the same vehicle, nor with the same business model anymore. As a side note for a case study check out the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. I'm not sure how successful it has been, but their story might be interesting to you in that they closed down their print publication and went entirely online with a shrunken staff. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 08:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Enjoyed reading your prospectus! Just read an article in [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/mar/05/huffington-post-aol The Guardian] that seems to resonate very well with your proposed topic. It highlights the business model Huffington Post created whereby a good portion of their content is via free contributions, and the ensuing backlash amongst some writers circles who feel they are under/uncompensated. Also, I noticed you touch on the concept of 'content farming,' and thought I'd reiterate an example I brought up in class, [http://www.demandmedia.com/ Demand Media]. It is the poster child for content farming in the media industry, so might be worth a glance. Good luck and hope this is helpful! - Jessica [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 18:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I really enjoy the topic of your proposal. I think it's a timely and meaningful investigation. I think in comparing what makes these online media outlets successful, it is important to create a measure of which are and which are not successful. There are Nielsen ratings for websites, but I don't recall where to find them... and I believe Alexa does a web index ranking as well. It is probably worthwhile to be sure that the parallels you're drawing are across the most successful models. Many blogs that are popular are not lucrative business models, and as you seem poised to compare your results with the decline in financially-stable, traditional media, this will be an important distinction. It seems like a great jumping off point! Good luck! [[User:Acrowe|Acrowe]] 16:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Jillian York [[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 21:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: Understanding "Lesbanon": Lebanon's Online Lesbian Community'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Understanding_Lesbanon.doc
**Comment: Hi Jillian. I found your approach to the project very interesting: based on your prospectus, it seems that you are studying an online society as a mirror to look into the real world. Your idea of examining the ways that homosexuality is expressed on the Internet would offer a glimpse to the country's customs and legal regulations is truly brilliant. I will look forward to seeing what kind of role the Internet is playing in Lebanon society for freedom of speech - especially for that of lesbians. Best, Yu Ri --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 03:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hey Jillian, I think this is such a great paper topic. I love how secretive communities can still operate out in the public through using the internet. The value of anonymity in this case seems like it must be very high, especially if there are governmental pressures keeping women from coming out. I had no idea that "Lesbanon" existed but it really does make perfect sense. Maybe if there are other communites out there like this, you could make a broader statement on the nature of coming out on the internet despite oppressive governments and societal norms. Otherwise, I think your question is quite reigned in and manageable in scope. I look forward to reading this paper when you're finished. [[User:Saambat|Saambat]] 18:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Jillian, this is a clever topic. I think in America, we often take for granted what the Civil Rights Movement did for communities beyond racial and sexual orientation lines--it really impacted our cultural norm mindset. The internet is not only release but '''power''' for those in disadvantaged or secretive communities the world over--especially when you are looking at two groups under different governments: the Lebanese and the diaspora. I am curious to read more. [[User:Myra|Myra]] 19:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

**Comment: I am sorry if I am posting belated remarks but it seems that your topic, along with many other topics related to this type of mental state, overlooks the origins of the same sex attraction for males, that is, pederasty, which by nature can affect the mind set of the near situated females. It is widely argued in the world, may be not in the entire U.S., that the same sex attraction among men is not a genetic phenomenon, but rather it is the bodily stigma imposed either during the childhood or during the adultery. In the majority of cases, I refer to the child molestation cases with a few exceptions, neither adult nor a child is able to recall the first same sex sexual experience, which decisively suggests on the unconscious intercourse under the influence of a sedative and/or somnolent substance. In the scholarly papers similar to this, you may find the old and new findings that can explain both the political and biological causes of mental and physical attraction in the same sex: http://www.ched.uq.edu.au/index.html?page=39750&pid=0 It is no doubt that the nature has produced hermaphrodites, but their amount is nothing in comparison to what America or Lebanon has. Hence, it is not the nature that produces majority of them. Overall, you have very intelligent approach to tackle the puzzle of how homosexuals are created in a society with many religious denominations like Lebanon and the U.S.. As far as I know, it is a scientific fact that in order to have stigma a body should have most of its sensitive erogenous zones irritated. The next piece of the puzzle: by coincidence, the amount of child molestation cases among Jehova Witnesses exceeds the amount of all sexual scandals among Catholic, Muslim, and Orthodox religions. So, here is the Bingo - the amount of religious sects which are striving to get your trust and intimacy and visit you at home and may be have a "drink" or "dinner" with you is equally proportional to the amount of homosexuals in the society. So, the taboo is coming from the kind of common sense I mentioned above; unfortunately or may be fortunately for many Jews in Lebanon, not everyone is able to crunch this trust game puzzle in reality right away. May be your project will help to make this devastating syndrome that originates from the terrible crime disappear from any society. --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 06:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
----

====Name: Caroline McLoughlin [[User:Camcloughlin|Camcloughlin]] 21:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus title: Privacy and Society'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Assignment-2.pdf
**Comments: Caroline, I, too, was interested in writing a paper more inclined to policy arguments and Rebekah counseled me against it. I got the impression we are supposed to be more observant of communities and how they interact and work. If this is true, you might lean your paper more towards observing whether privacy policies are adequately disclosed on sites in the US and how they are different on Canadian sites. Is this difference due to the contrasting privacy legal frameworks in the two countries? Do participants react differently?This might also help narrow your topic which seems like alot of material to cover. All this being said, I find your topic very interesting and think it might be great to present it in something like a PowerPoint format. Would be the great beginnings of a law review article if you are a lawyer.[[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 21:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)]]
**Comment: Hi Caroline, we are interested in the same privacy subjects. Similar to Sjennings feedback, I tried to make mine more about observing a community, specifically consumers using location-based services, and less about policy. If you've got the understanding already to get into issues and policy, though, then it sounds like a great project. As I mentioned to Jamil Buie above, if you are interested, I'd be willing to trade notes and help each other shape up the final project. Since we are doing similar topics, I would really appreciate your comments on my prospectus as well. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name:Anthony Crowe [[User:Acrowe|Acrowe]]====
*'''Prospectus title: Tagging and Metadata on the Internet and in New Media'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Crowe_LSTUE120_2.doc
*Comments:
**Comment: I like that you've identified another means of content organization for study. I feel like tagging is going to be a rich topic, not only because of the ways people use it, but because of how it defines or redefines website architectures. I don't really know much about tags beyond their most obvious uses (and frankly, on in Twitter), so I am curious to see what kind of social rules you discover in your research. The only thing I might suggest is that, given the richness of your topic, that you not worry about studying superusers too deeply. I feel like a thorough study of tagging on the three main sites you've identified, which are pretty major sites, in addition to the other examples you'll be incorporating, will be more than enough data and analysis for a great paper. Unless perhaps I'm not understanding the particular lens through which you'll be approaching the superuser question? [[User:Mcforelle|Mcforelle]] 19:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I think this is a really fascinating and relatively untouched subject; I'm curious to learn the myriad ways tagging is used, both for public sharing and for semi-private sharing (e.g., cleverly devised tags that only a particular group is aware of) -- but I agree with the above commenter in that I'm not sure how the question of superusers fits in here; I think you might be better off narrowing the subject just to the question of tagging.[[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 16:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Vladimir Kruglyak --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 21:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus title: A Transparency of the U.S. Government in the Socio-Cyber Environment'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus.doc
**Comment: Vladimir, thank you for your resources. I have been reading your prospectus and found your approach as interesting as ambitious. To investigate wether the U.S. Government maintains Constitutional transparency and accountability for the tax money expenditures using e-government resources, that is a very well focused research and I can tell you are passionate about the topic, which makes the reading even more interesting. However, when you talk about conspiracy relating it with the internet resources, I have to disagree. I think power and conspiracy are long-time friends, governments have faced every kind of suspicions since they exist, but the importance of digital resources when it comes to spreading these suspicions cannot be denied, and that is why I think your research will face very interesting issues to deal with, as investigating the origin of "conspiracies" from a social point of view. Do you think the Internet is a cause or a consequence? I think about WikiLeaks, for example. The Internet had nothing to do with the origin of the cables, but made them become a "popular" topic, blurring the "secret" component of International Politics. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? We are talking about serious crimes becoming nearly gossip (we could talk further about a Spanish journalist murdered in Iraq and how Spanish and American Governments made a deal to make it look like an accident: that's on WikiLeaks). But now it looks like nothing happened. Amazon was selling the cables for Kindle, Julian Assange is to be extradited to Sweden in a week and I highly doubt any of the "accused" by, or thanks to, WikiLeaks, is to face trial. When you say that I am adressing a brave category of people ready to risk their lives for the "right cause", that is exactly the interesting thing about this. Why would someone get into trouble for nothing? However, it calls my attention that you take for granted that their cause is the right one. I see in your statement that you look pretty convinced about conspiracies when it comes to very sensitive and historic topics. You assume the defense of one group, don't you doubt that the cause may not always be the right one? I find your statement so determined that it becomes intriguing to me (it is really hard to me to be sure about something), I will be following your work with interest to get a better understanding of your point of view. In the meantime, I hope to receive more suggestions or resources you may find interesting to check out about this topic. Lorena Abuín. --[[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 21:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I see a potential flaw in your methodology, and find it potentially invasive of a web surfer's privacy. Collecting data by sniffing packets is rather dubious for your uses and can be construed as an abuse of networking tools. Trying to parse the IP addresses into geographical locations through a Whois database may be difficult to and inaccurate if users are using proxy based anonymizers such as Tor or i2p. It is for this reason, among others, that many people chose to use anonymizers when they surf. [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 04:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
**Answer: There is no flaw, it is rather your misunderstanding of the software functionality: 1) collecting data of the visiting traffic by IP from a domain is not a crime and often the consent is given by the owner of a domain; 2) WhoIs database traces the domain's information from the server such as registration expiration date and the contact information of the domain's owner. In addition, there is a way to detect the Tor user and toss those IP out from the sample. In my survey, I will target users with average knowledge who do not use anonymous proxy services or encrypted networking channels.
***Vlaidmir: Thank you all for the creative comments addressed toward my prospectus, although the assignment says to add constructive suggestions which can help an author to improve his project. I think it is little bit unfair to help others reconstruct their idea and receive nothing in return. I guess that is all I can get from the general public. If however, someone in this course really knows about the internet traffic analysis, you are welcome to suggest substantial changes. --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 20:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Vladimir, I apologize if I said anything to upset or discouraged you in any way. I meant my comment to be constructive in raising an ethical question to your research methodology in regards to the privacy of web surfers. U can certainly observe and aggregate traffic through packet sniffing network tools, but I would not be so trusting in precise geographical locations of the IP addresses for the reasons that I mentioned. However, with a large enough sample you could perhaps get a general feel for regional traffic. [http://www.ethereal.com | Ethereal]is a popular easy to use modern analysis tool with good documentation, and may serve your purposes. Again, I meant no disrespect and look forward to your project evolving.[[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 21:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name:Corey MacDonald [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 20:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus title: Fringe Forums for the Under-represented'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus_Assignment_2_MacDonald.doc
**Comments: Wow! This is a great prospectus, I feel like these kinds of sites are the perfect places to be asking these questions. So many of the conversations we've had in class have centered around how to best facilitate legal social interactions. I'm excited to read your analysis of how semi-legal and illegal topics are handled by users, administrators and legal bodies on these forums. I'd be curious to see if legal action had ever been taken against the users of these sites, or whether the information posted on them had ever been used in legal action against someone else, like as evidence or tips on possible illegal goings-on? Are there any specific government agencies that track activity on these kinds of sites? Are any extra precautions taken to protect the anonymity of contributors? [[User:Mcforelle|Mcforelle]] 20:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comments: Hi Corey this is a interesting topic, the existence of sites like Erowid and “the chemical underground” highlight how (especially the US) government are losing the battle to control drug information. A “non-event” that may be of interest to you is the DEA making Microgram public in 2003. Microgram was a law enforcement restricted newsletter aimed at forensic chemists and its release made very little impact on the “chemical underground” due to the wealth of information on illicit drugs that was already available.
Here’s a link to an article that might be useful/interesting http://www.michaelerard.com/fulltext/2006/08/open_secrets_how_the_governmen.html [[User:Ltconnell|Ltconnell]] 20:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Richard (Rick) Kundiger --[[User:Rakundig|Rakundig]] 19:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus title: The Role of Bittorrent in the Internet Society'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Kundiger_Assignment_2_Research_Prospectus.pdf
**Comment: This is a great example of "code is law." You have a very powerful tool (the bittorrent protocol) which can be used for both good an illicit purposes. Your investigation of the different interests for and against its deployment should provide an excellent case study. Does a company or government have more of a right than an individual to control the protocols in use? Are those opposed to the protocol trying to protect the greater good of the Internet or their own financial interests? [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 01:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Rick, I also like this topic. One thing you could really expand upon is the use of P2P (point to point) connections has also drivin forward such technologies as Skype. This type of technology was also never intended to be used for illicit purposes, but then again the Internet was never designed to be used in many of the ways it is used today. VoIP actually breaks the TCP/IP model where packets were never intended to be treated in such a timely fashion. Another item is that it was used by WikiLeaks to keep Assange a bit more safe, which could be interpreted both good and bad. It's also amazing that the record industry had enough lobby power to take down some of the most famous P2P services. There's also the aspect that businesses deal with a very real threat of employees using bittorrent technologies. The executive that installs a P2P client and accidentally shares out his entire drive has been a very real issue for companies to combat. Further, then end use that also does something simular can share very personal information such as passport and bank account details with the world. Hope my comments have given you some help in this area of interest. Regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Mary Van Gils====
*'''Prospectus title: Yelp Case Study - Freedom of Expression'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus_-_Yelp_Study_Case.doc
**Comment: Wanted to make you aware as you investigate the external restriciton on freedom of expression regarding the Yelp site that there are also types of businesses which are regulated by state law as to how they may respond to reviews/complaints on sites like Yelp. If you look at my prospectus, you will note insurance companies are one of those types of businesses.[[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 15:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)]]
**Comment: Hi Mary - This is a fascinating subject - the tension between freedom to express opinions and libel as well as the possible manipulations. Your decision to use Yelp forums as a focal point is also a good idea. What is not clear to me what exactly you will be observing about the forums. It would be great to not only observe instances of the tension points, but also to find instances where free expression has been limited by external sources (not sure if you'll be able to get access to this if it's happened.) I really look forward to reading your project. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 06:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I think Yelp makes a really interesting case study for freedom of expression, but, as mentioned above, Yelp doesn't exactly seem ripe for external limiting of free expression (in the forums at least; reviews are a separate issue), rather, I would venture to guess that the vast majority of limiting speech on the site is in the interest of the TOS. Nevertheless, I think there's a fascinating question here, and plenty of existing evidence, particularly to the question of reviews/slander.[[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 16:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Susan Jennings [[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 15:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)]]====
*'''Prospectus title: Annuity Companies' Social Media Communities'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Annuity_Companies%27_Social_Media_Communities.doc
**Comments: Hi Susan, your subject area appears well-defined and methodology seems systematic. In addition to surveying the companies' online activities, I would really encourage you to speak to the compliance person or even a marketing person in those companies to see how their efforts are going. [You might find the marketing person easier to reach out to :) and get a response.] Additionally, is there any way to bring in the actual federal regulators in order to get their perspective on how new social media plays in their framework for regulation? It would be interesting to see if and how they are adapting to the new technologies. Have fun! Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Alan Davies-Gavin & Alex Solomon====
*'''Prospectus title: Architecture of Sites eHarmony and Match.com: contributions of membership data and effects on security and privacy.'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Assignment2ProjectProspectus.pdf
**Comment: Alan and Alex, I think your topic is fascinating and I wanted to chip in my 2 cents which might help your research. Considering the different natures of sites that ultimately sell the same product, I would consider looking at how the two compete in response to one another. By this I mean, is Match doing something that eHarmony isn, and therefore, is eHarmony a bit jealous and trying to get into their market? I know that eHarmony lauched their more casual spinoff "Jazzed.com" which is meant to steal people away from Match. Is Jazzed a suggestion that privacy isn't all that important to frustrated singles? I think that there are also rather large differences in target audience between the two competitors, with eHarmony focusing on a bit older, more conservative crowd while Match goes for the "single and ready to mingle."Also, perhaps look at each companies approach to user profile creation over time, have they changed at all and in what ways? This looks like it'll be an exciting project, I'm looking forward to what you find! ([[User:Lewtak|Lewtak]] 21:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC))
*** '' Response: Thanks Tym. I like your observations and I think they may well contribute to our research and final content. It's a good perspective that you bring to light. Alan'' --[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Kristina Meshkova====
*'''Prospectus title: A music sharing site - Grooveshark, Soundcloud, MySpace.'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignement_2_%28Kristina_Meshkova%29.pdf
*Comment: Hey Kristina, I think we have some similar ambitions in regards to our final project. Let's chat tonight if you have any interest in potentially working together [[User:Alex|Alex]] Bryan 14:31, 1 March 2011.
**Comment: Hello Kristina, I found your project very interesting and I am looking forward to see it evolve. I am particularly interested in how and why the streaming content services are so territory-limited, beyond of copyright, and how long will this model survive. In Europe we can use Spotify but instead there is no access to Pandora or Grooveshark, and vice versa. Same happens with Netflix or Hulu. However, Spotify is said to be preparing its expansion to the USA and some people talk about pression groups beyond record labels. I think it could be interesting to explore if there are some inter-continental lobbying activities or corporative deals regarding this issues. Best,[[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 12:00, 6 March 2011.

----

====Name:Vladimir Trojak-- [[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 20:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC) ====
*'''Prospectus title: Are different language groups consistent in what topics are permitted and what is removed?'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_2.pdf
**Comments: Hello Vladimir, Your proposal is intriguing and I am looking forward to see how it evolves. I did have a question about why do you think that all the Wikipedia policies should be the same in all the language communities? Thanks. --[[User:SCL|SCL]] 03:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. I hope it will turn in the way I expect:)I believe that in general they shoudl be the same, such as 'neutral point of view', 'verifiability'. Although there may be differences in other policies because of different laws, such as topics you can speak about. You have any suggestions?Thanks.[[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 18:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Faye Ryding [[User:FMRR|FMRR]] 23:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus title: Trolls and vandals on Epinions.com'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Faye_Ryding_Assignment_2.doc
**Comments: Hello Faye, I read your prospectus but had the following thought. What if the person belives they are in the right? Does that make them still a vandal? And can you outline excatly what recourses one can take against such offenders? What authority can someone make a complaint to? That last question brings us to a much bigger, more complex one. Who has the soveriegn rights over the web? The government? A trade federation? Or individual users? --[[User:Elishasurillo|Elishasurillo]] 04:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
** Facebook recently launched an "anti-troll" algorithm that reduces troll comments by ~50%. Perhaps Epinions.com has implemented a similar algorithm too, and a comparison could be made. [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 20:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: [[User:Alex|Alex]] Bryan 16:59, 21 February 2011====
*'''Prospectus title: Groooveshark music application'''
*'''Link to prospectus''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus.pdf
**Comments: Hi, Alex. Sorry that didn't answer you earlier. Will be glad to discuss an opportunity to work together on the Final project. Let's discuss it next week in a chat room or via email. This is my email for the course: kristinam2907@gmail.com [[Kristina Meshkova]], 5 March 2011.
**Comment: Hello, Alex. I am very interested in the legal aspect of streaming content services. Have you considered to study this issue from a global point of view regarding a potential Grooveshark expansion? As I stated below Kristina's project, I think both of your prospects are very interesting, I will be following them. Good luck [[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 12:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Robert Cunningham====
*'''Prospectus title: The Archive Team'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Proposed_Paper_TopicCunningham.pdf
**Comment: Hi Robert! Interesting subject, you've narrowed down nicely on one particular group and your areas of interest should cover nicely what the group is and does nicely. Also, your methods seem achievable and will allow you to experience the group, not just observe it (one of the core challenges for many of the projects, including mine.) The one counsel I would give is to go back to the course material we've been discussing to tie the Archive Team back into the course themes. As examples, you could look at the incentive system for contributors, the group hierarchy and governance for control and decision-making, the architecture of the online tools they use, or the merging of offline and online worlds. Have fun! [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: [[Joshuasurillo]]====
*'''Prospectus title: The effect of government transparency websites- Wikileaks'''
*'''Link to prospectus:'''http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Harvard_assignment_2.doc
**Comment: Joshua, I am very much looking forward to your final product. Your position (or what I am assuming your postion to be) comes across very loud and clear in your prospectus. I wonder if you will reach an opinion as to where to draw the line on "free speech," or if no line should be drawn? My reading of your position if you were to define it today is that free speech must be protected at all costs and no limits are appropriate, at least that is the feeling I am left with from your prospectus. If wikileaks posted the location or identity of our undercover operatives in Iraq or elsewhere, would you support that? If not, what else would you feel would be "going to far?" I look forward to reading more from you. [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 01:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I will try to convey a more balanced and neutral argument in my final paper. I will weigh both sides of the argument and shed light on both. Hopefully, I will be able to come to a consensus. I would not support a decision by Wikileaks to disclose the location or identity of our undercover operatives in Iraq, but I do not believe it is our place to stop them. I believe the government should not be going after Wikileaks but they should be finding and prosecuting the actual leak; not the whistle blowing agency.--[[User:Joshuasurillo|Joshuasurillo]] 01:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Susan Lemont====
*'''Prospectus title: Why do people cultivate large online networks?'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Lemont_Prospectus.doc
*Comments:
**Comment: Unfortunately beyond the stated scope of your project (and not practical to include), but it would be interesting to see how your findings compare to similar surveys of Youtube users (who frequently seek comments, ratings, and channel subscriptions) and members of various online forums which award rankings, custom titles, "reputation", and other benefits to prominent posters based on peer imput. Good luck with this topic. (P.S. Also, it might be interesting try and determine what percentages of Facebook 'friends' of these users are A) people they know in real life vs. those relationships which are strictly online-only and B) what proportion of real life contacts were made prior to 'friending' vs. those which were made as a result of meeting virtually via facebook.) [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 04:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Susan, your research question is so basic that I am surprised no one else chose a topic towards this issue, since it is the basis of the new big business, social media. From an anthropological point of view, I find it very interesting and not enough explored, focusing the research into motivations: not what or when people share or live online, but why do they do it. Besides, I find your methodology very well planned and practical, although I have some doubts about the sincerity when it comes to explaining to someone you don't know why you have more than 200 friends. I will be following your work with interest, good luck! [[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 11:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
***Response: Thank you everyone for your insightful comments. I have changed my project and the new prospectus follows:

====Name: Susan Lemont --[[User:SCL|SCL]] 20:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: What conditions are conducive to successful commons based peer production?'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Peer_production_Lemont_030611.doc
**Comments: Hi Susan. I like the way you tie the course readings into your project and your "test" of the theoretical writings on a real-life subject. So much of what we study is based on the success stories but we often can learn more from the failures. It will be interesting to know whether some of Benckler's or Zittrain's critical success factors were missing or whether they were all there and the project did not succeed for other reasons. I look forward to reading more about this in your projects. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Chris Sura [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 03:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus title: The Java Community Process: How Does It Really Work?'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Chris_Sura_Assignment_2.pdf
**Comment: Admittedly, I knew nothing of JCP prior to reading your prospectus, but it's a pretty intriguing process. It does make us wonder who is really behind our machines, as most consumers of technology only see (and care about) the surface. I wish you luck in obtaining your inside info, and I look forward to seeing how it comes along! [[User:Myra|Myra]] 23:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Ed Arboleda [[User:Earboleda|Earboleda]] 04:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: Are there collective benefits for copyright owners, copyright infringers, and the general community; if copyright infringement is not enforced under specific circumstances on social media sites?'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Ed_Arboleda_Prospectus.pdf
**Comments: Hi Ed, I certainly believe that in specific instances that there can be collective benefits for infringers and owners of copyright. One example is the pirating of the UK run of the TV series Battlestar Gallactica in Australia in October 2004. When the show aired in Australia in January 2005 the ratings exceeded expectations due to “sampling” and word of mouth. Here’s a link to an article with more information http://www.mindjack.com/feature/piracy051305.html [[User:Ltconnell|Ltconnell]] 20:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Elisha Surillo====
* '''Prospectus title: The Tea Party and Internet Freedom'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_2.doc
**Comment: I'm confused. This link does not seem to take me to the correct prospectus? Elisha, could you update this to make sure I can access yours?
**Comment: Hai to the comment above: Elisha and I uploaded with the same file names so they are stacked alphabetically. My file is one that I would like to remove actually but do not know how, but in the meantime, Elisha's file is the second link. Sorry for any confusion. [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 02:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I don't believe the tea party is just confined to the older generation. I believe it to be a stronger movement that will soon grip the masses. By having such a strong presence on the internet this movment will propell itself forward. I believe this is just the begining of many other grassroots campains and parties.--[[User:Joshuasurillo|Joshuasurillo]] 04:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Sorry I would change the name but I don't know how. Sorry for the confusion!'' --[[User:Elishasurillo|Elishasurillo]] 04:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Brandon A. Ceranowicz - [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 08:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: A Comparative Study of Open Source Licenses'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:LSTU_E-120_Assignment_2_-_Prospectus_BAC.doc
**Comment: Hello Brandon! I think your topic can be very interesting. However I think it would be important for you to have a specific focus since the topic seems so broad. I don’t know how relevant this would be, but I suggest that you take a look at the Open Content License. (http://www.opencontent.org/opl.shtml) Good luck! [[User:Quill80|Quill80]] 22:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Lorena Abuín====
* '''Prospectus title: Contribution to prosecuted online activities (Anonymous, BitTorrent, WikiLeaks)'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_2_-_Lorena_Abu%C3%ADn.pdf
**Comment: I noticed that there is a lot of crossover between our topics. We are both addressing hacker communities, but from differing angles. I have acquired quite a bit of information about Anonymous and have listed the resources on my tentative reference page located just below here. Feel free to look and use anything from that list that may help you in your project. Also, the Anonymous page found in Wikipedia is quite good in understanding what the Anonymous phenomenon is. They are free agents often acting independently of each other and unaffiliated with one another under the umbrella name Anonymous. In other words, Anonymous is a concept more than an identifiable specific group. I also noticed you have listed pastebin as a resource. It is my suggestion to be careful with that, and try to find where that document was published. It could simply be the rantings of teenager enamored with the publicity of their antics and activity. The questionable authenticity of that write pad entry to me is found in the signature at the bottom. It should read: We are Anonymous/We are legion/We do not forgive/We do not forget/Expect us-always. Lastly, keep in mind that not all Anonymous hacktivity is criminal, that is just the part that gets sensationalized. There are many other cyber-activism efforts that take place under the name of Anonymous that are not criminal. Good luck, and I look forward to watching your project develope! -----=:) [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 23:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC) for the #datalove
**Comment: I found that some of your research objectives coincide with mine. I can assure you that people do use what is called "hacktivism" to oppose the lies and conspiracies of the U.S. Government. If you take a http://www.nogw.com/ alone you would be surprised how some of the secret documents happen to be available on line. For instance, the loan by the Wall Street Banks to finance Adolf Hitler's Army is not a secret nowadays because of the "hacktivism", although the fact and the document has been kept in secret from the Government of Soviet Union for decades. The role of the Jews in the mass murder of millions is proven with facts on the Holocaust denial web sites. I guess the major drive that motivates people to use their skill in the "wrong way" is to oppose the lie that is bigger in size and thus controls the legacy tools such as Media and Congress. Even children in New York City know that the twin towers were demolished by the "uniformed criminals" employed as the federal agents. Check out the list of literature on my prospectus and http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=46 is just one out of dozens web sites. The U.S Government had no reason to deploy troops anywhere at the cost of the taxpayers' dollars. Do you think other citizens do not realize this? They do, but they join others in this giant lie and say that it is a war on terror, and they say this at Law Schools, through the public media, and post it online. These people are indifferent and coward because they lie to themselves and the so called prosecuted activities is the only way to reveal the truth. In your research you are therefore addressing a brave category of people who are ready to risk their lives for the simple yet amazingly right cause - to reveal the corrupted syndicate of greedy liars who oppresses people with their tyrannic power and ability to prosecute. If you are not afraid to cooperate on this project in front of the university staff, then take a look at my proposal and let me know what do you think. I may give you a couple of additional sources and suggestions, but if you do not want to be involved in this type of a project, I will totally understand. Best! --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 10:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hai. Thanks for your response. I just thought that I would add that it is very important make the distinction between hackers and crackers. Unfortunately the media has not made this distinction clear and has tainted the meaning of the term hacker. In a nutshell, hackers create things and crackers break things. Most hackers look down upon crackers and dismiss them as technological bugs. Most hackers I know are not pleased with the criminal antics done in the name of Anonymous. It is true that collaborative write pads are in common use because of the ease to collaborate live together at once. Pastebin happens to not be one used for documents all that much though. It is mainly used to send larger pieces of text into chat protocols such as IRC without flooding the channel. Write pads such as typewith.me and piratepad.net are more common to use for group documents since the url is not made public and searchable, and is kept private among the group working on it. Also, an interesting comment about hacktivism made to me by a French hacker with whom I am in contact with simply and broadly described hacktivism as using technology to impact society. I think we must be careful, myself included, when we talk about cracker v. hackers. A classic document among hackers written and maintained by Eric Raymond, "[http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html How to Become a Hacker]" describes the difference quite well. [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 03:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Lorena. I think this is a great topic and I agree that you and Deinous seem to have a strong intersection of ideas. I think the comments I made under Deinous' posting are applicable here as well. It's good to see this topic having such strong discussion. Regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 04:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Hi, Alan, thanks a lot for your interest! I can't find your comments below deinous' prospect, and I would really like to check them.'' [[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 12:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I too went in search of Allen's comments and were unable to find them :( [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 18:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Margaret Tolerton [[User: deinous|deinous]]====
* '''Prospectus title: Jailbreaking appliance based gadgets and game consoles: the legal and generative implications'''
* '''Link to prospectus:'''http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:JailbreakingGadetsAndGamesConsoles.doc
**Comment: Margaret, thanks a lot for your offering. I could really use some inside information about this topic. About your suggestion, I chose pastebin as a reference looking for a way to begin my research. You are right when you say that accuracy is not guaranteed when it comes to this source, but my main objective is to test the general perception of internet community about "hacktivism", I want to read about it in forums, press articles comments... See what normal people think about this. Of course, not every "hacktivist" action is a ciber-crime, but I am particularly interested in motivations that lead people to engage in certain projects that could be prosecuted depending on the country, as uploading copyrighted contents. I am sure we could find a lot of profit-driven actions, but I want to get deeper in personal motivations, since there are many so-called "cyber-crimes" that have nothing to do with obtaining a profit, at least a tangible one. When reading your prospectus, I came up with something very interesting: "Happy to help others who are not as advanced?". I think solidarity plays a huge role of hacktivism communities, empowered by the feeling of being passionate about some topic. I guess the desire to share sprouts from passion, but I think that the need of feeling part of a community is also very important, especially when it comes to very well defined criminals such as sex offenders and very sensitive content uploaders, communities widely persecuted but, however, still huge. While my prospectus adopts a more anthropological point of view, I see yours as an inside work with very valuable information about hacktivism running. I look forward to see how your research evolves and to learn more about these communities from a privileged point of view. Please don't hesitate to make any suggestion you may consider, I am sure it will be very helpful for my research. Lorena Abuín. --[[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 21:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: LOL, I don't know how privileged my point of view is. I am more or less just another nerd with a computer on Friday and Saturday nights. In recent weeks I have come to feel as though the people of Telecomix have accepted me as one of their own though, as I have done a little public relations, fact checking, and some translations. Telecomix is very open about their work, and does not engage in illegal actions. Being mostly European, they lobby against, or for, various cyber laws to their respective Parliaments. What I meant though by my comment "happy too help others who are not as advanced" is that it is common for someone to ask a question of a technological nature and usually others jump in and help to solve the problem. For example, my switch over to Linux, I have been having quite a time configuring a few of my drivers, and getting used to working from a command line with unix syntax, and several people who know how to fix the problems will jump in and start coaching with many lulz along the way.[[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 03:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hello there. I am delighted and in part surprised to see a topic of this type. By type I mean it is heavily technological mission to retrieve a piece of real information from the community of real hackers. Not all software engineers employed by the government are able to intervene communication among the community of real hackers. You may however, catch a few portals where "I can do this, I can do that" type of conversations take place, but whether they really have done something interesting and indeed reveal their ideology is a big speculation. For this course, I believe, you need to change your frequency, sort of speak, and listen not for the hacking communities themselves, but for the actions they have already done. Actions speak lauder than words, as you may know. You you need to listen to the anti-thesis, that is, the counter part of the hacking group. In this country, among various subsequent agencies that keep control of all networks, the NSA sources will probably be the most beneficial to you, although I am not 100 percent sure about this. It is difficult to find something that is available to the public. Recall the scandal with pornographic downloads by the employees of the Trade Commission; this is just one out of million examples of the internet traffic control by the Feds. It is therefore the Feds who are on the opposite side of the argument with the hackers. By considering both ideology of the hackers and a counter-premise by the Feds you will have a full and comprehensive picture for your project. In short, I am proposing to search not only within the hackers community, which may only seem as community of hackers and give you a bogus information, but also find reports, chronicles, and cases exposed by the Feds. It may ultimately appear that it is the Feds who are vandals and trolls and who violate privacy and steal the tax money of the citizens. At least this is what my prospectus's sources can prove, but take a look at National Security Agency [http://www.nsa.gov/] web site. In the meantime, I will keep checking on your project and will try to give you more clues because your topic coincides with mine in many regards. --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 06:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Thank you for your response and comments. I will certainly take them into consideration. However, I feel that my views toward hacking are much broader than the criminality of a few, and that there should be more emphasis in part on the difference between hacking and cracking. I am one that still holds the traditional meaning of a hacker as one that is adept with the computer and often generates new creative uses for what is in front of them. As a result I am watching my topic shift a bit and focusing perhaps more on the difficulty that researchers have with the DMCA preventing them from publishing in full their findings, and the law of fair use. Over this past year we have watched the jailbreaking of an iPhone of iPad for the use of external software not approved by Apple go from being an illegal act to being justified as fair use. Although it will nullify any warranty of your gadget. Currently we are watching this same debate occur over the jailbreaking of the Sony PS3 to run Linux and homebrewed games. I am one that supports the fair use argument in that if you are clever enough to make your gadgetry do fun and interesting things beyond the uses that they are intended, then you should be able to do it--especially if you have no intention on using pirated software or make profit of any sort from it. As for an original angle, I am still waffling a bit, and welcome any further comments.====:)'' [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 17:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Margaret, Given your change in perspective of your project you may wish to explore the discussion of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization Tivoization] (if you have note already considered such). The question of, “Should manufacturers of hardware have the right to limit the use of software on their machines when that software included elements covered under versions of the GNU license?” seems a related and interesting debate. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 16:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Guy, thank you so much for your wonderfully concise thesis question! Sometimes it just takes the right little tweak to bring scattered thoughts together, and pondering the legal parameters of an open source kernel wrapped in a proprietary shell is a question I would very much like to spend some time on. Thanks again.'' [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 19:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Margaret, I am very glad you found my suggestion helpful. I look forward to your final output. It’s a really intriguing topic. Thanks for checking out web.alive (comment below). I didn’t play any role in developing it (wish I were that bright). My colleague [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiYi3iEBJNM Arn Hyndman] is the chief architect.

Your comment about, “test driving it among a group of ppl,” got me thinking. If we wished to, we could use the tool for a virtual study group. Would you be interested? Do you think others would be? It could be a great environment for classmates to meet and discuss the coursework.

Also, anyone who is working as a group in developing their project can use it to collaborate virtually. There are virtual white boards, web browsers that appear to be mounted on walls, desktop application sharing portals and other tools. I’ll be glad to meet folks in the environment and show how to use the tools. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 23:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Guy, I think using web.alive as a platform for a study group is a great idea. Perhaps you can make an announcement in class this week.'' [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 00:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Guy Clinch -- [[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 13:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title (updated Mar 20): The Transition to Next Generation 9-1-1 in North America'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Internet_and_Society_Assingment_2_%28revised_Mar_20%29.pdf

*To my Classmates: As of March 20 I have changed the title and subject of my finalk project proposal. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 01:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

*It has occurred to me that in order to give me feedback on my proposal you may need to experience the web.alive environment. Please feel free to click on the following link and explore. http://apex.avayalive.com/715/html
I look forward to reading your ideas. Thank you. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 19:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hai Guy! I recently checked out web.alive and thought on first impression it was a nice sleek, useful, and intuitive application. Very well designed indeed. Were you one of the developers? I'm afraid that at this time I cannot offer much in the way of constructive criticism without test driving it among a group of ppl, but I do see it as a wonderful tool for distance business communication. [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 18:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Syed Yasir Shirazi [User: syedshirazi]====
* '''Prospectus title: Online Group Buying - Newly Emerging Business Model or Fad?'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Syed_Yasir_Shirazi-Assignment_2.pdf
**Comment: Syed, this is a really interesting topic, but I am concerned that it may be too broad. I feel like a question like yours would more likely take up a book than a paper to be completed over a single semestre! Perhaps you could look into a specific group-buying site rather than the concept as a whole, like Groupon or LivingSocial. It might even be interesting to compare the two. Or, are there sites in which users decide which company they want to solicit such coupons from, rather than having the site itself decide? Just some ideas to help you get this topic down to something manageable. Does this help at all? [[User:Mcforelle|Mcforelle]] 21:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Hi Michelle - Thanks for the feedback. I was actually planning to do a comparative study between a daily deal website (Groupon) versus a more traditional online retailer (Amazon or ebay) to see which model is more sustainable in terms of driving traffic and providing value. But your comments about 'websites that allow users to decide which company they want to solicit coupons from' has got me thinking now. Project is currently in Work-in-Process mode.Will keep everyone posted. Thanks - Yasir '' ~~[[User:syedshirazi|syedshirazi]] 22:14, 06 March 2011

----

====Name: Jessica Sanfilippo - [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 16:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: Transparency and Participation in Crowd Funding'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:JSanfilippo_Assignment_2.doc
**Comment: Hi Jessica,I think crowd funding is a fascinating topic, and there seem to be various types of crowd funding as you point out. Micro Loans and sites such as Kiva.com are also wonderful examples of crowd funding. I am probably over reaching, but I noticed that Syed Yasir A. Shirazi has a prospectus on Group Buying, and wonder if the two can be connected somehow? What if materials needed for a funded project on kickstarter.com for instance, could be purchased through groupon.com or a similar site? Regardless, I am looking forward to your findings around Crowd Funding (especially in the creative space).
**Comment: Hi Jessica: www.33needs.com is another website which would be of interest to you. You might want to take a look at it for ideas related to crowd-funding. Also, let me know if you would be interested in sharing thoughts regarding the final research project.My email id is sshirazi@fas.harvard.edu. Thanks - Yasir ~~[[User:syedshirazi|syedshirazi]] 21:24, 06 March 2011

----

====Name: Adriana Faria Torii [drifaria] and Anna Christiana Marinho C. Machado [([[User:Anna|Anna]] 17:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC))]====
*'''Prospectus title: Analysis of E-Government Practices in Brazil'''
*'''Link to prospectus:'''http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Faria_Marinho_Prospectus.pdf
**Comment: Hi Adriana and Anna - E-governance in an emerging country like Brazil is an attention-grabbing subject. As you have mentioned in your prospectus, in terms of audience, Brazil is amongst the top ten countries in the world (I think they have recently moved up to #5 in terms of total internet users). But that said, the overall internet penetration is pretty low (I think it is close to only 40% of the entire Brazilian population).
The G2C part of your project should provide an interesting analysis since concepts like e-voting work the best when the internet usage amongst citizenry is high. Brazil does not have uniformly high internet penetration across the entire county. Maybe you can differentiate the G2C aspect and compare between urban and rural populations because there will be different results (I believe) for effectiveness of such an ‘e-system’ amongst the 2 geographic segments. Also, you can include some analysis on mechanisms for ‘fraud detection’ for e-voting and e-tax filing processes. Thoughts on this link might be of interest to you: http://qssi.psu.edu/files/hidalgo.pdf. Looking forward to reading your final paper. ~~[[User:syedshirazi|syedshirazi]] 21:21, 03 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi, I believe you should also compare other countries E- Government practices to Brazil's. It might be interesting to see if there are any other governments polices similar to Brazil's. There might be a government with similar statistics, and by comparing them you might see another variable that might be affecting Brazil. --[[User:Joshuasurillo|Joshuasurillo]] 04:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Laura Connell [[User:Ltconnell|Ltconnell]] 18:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*''' Prospectus title: Does providing a legal alternative act as a deterrent to internet piracy?'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Laura_Connell_Assignment_2_Prospectus.pdf
**Comment: Laura, here is a link to a recent study that you may find of use:
[http://documents.envisional.com/docs/Envisional-Internet_Usage-Jan2011.pdf Envisional - Technical report: An Estimate of Infringing Use of the Internet] Hope you find this helpful --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 03:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Laura, glad to see this topic on the list. It's a tough topic as it could be looked at as requiring a world government organization to pass law enacting the crack down on stolen DRM'ed materials. At the same time there seems to be evidence that this type of activity does not hit the bottom line of Hollywood and other world producers of content. Manufacturers of CD and DVD technology has traditionally tried to work with the "Hollywoods" of the world only to be thwarted by the hacker. There seems to be a balance in the mix where the manufactures can create some hurdles for the most common user and at the same time not create a situation where users are not able to access valid content (such as putting in a DVD from Japan in a US DVD player and not being able to play the content). I think we're moving more and more toward online content like Netflix where the content is more controlled and the physical media is going away. Streaming content has some inherent properties that cannot be easily overcome, further, as long as the browser being used to support a new type of encryption technology, companies can make changes to security on the web server side when hackers have found an exploit. It's a very interesting topic, but I think any laws created would be done by people that do not fully understand the technology and also the laws have great potential to be outdated in a short amount of time if not written with enough foresight. Having said that, there has been a great deal of reduction in some types of sharing due to cases against people that have pirated DRM'ed media and also have had big impacts on many sites that traditionally have been an excellent source for finding pirated material. Regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Alokika Singh [[User:Singh singh|Singh singh]] 19:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[[User:Singhsingh]]====
*'''Prospectus title: Online Political Activism in India'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_II_22_feb..pdf
**Comment: Hi Alokika: I think your topic is very interesting. You can also draw a comparative line between roles of leading social/political leaders in India versus the role of ordinary internet users when it comes to acting as the leading force behind online social/political debate in India? A lot of times, it has been seen that individuals who don’t follow any hierarchy kick-off such bold campaigns. (Take the example of what happened in Egypt over the last six months. The online movement was sparked by ordinary folks and not any leading social or political figure). I am curious to know whether the online ‘Pink Chaddi’ campaign was initiated by general users or spearheaded by a leading social organization in India. I suspect the former. So it will be interesting to see how the online debate has evolved in India. Looking forward to reading your final analysis.~~[[User:syedshirazi|syedshirazi]] 20:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Don Hussey [[User:Donaldphussey|Donaldphussey]] 19:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: Online Crowd-Sourcing of Starbucks Product Development'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:LSTU_E-120_--Hussey_-_Asmt2.doc
**Comment: Don, this is a really ambitious project. I think it's a great idea for you to use your professional position to get your foot in the door with some of the people at Starbucks; I hope it works! My only concern with this project is that you are only focusing on the corporate side of this venture. Is there any way you can include information from participants or contributors to this site? Is there any way on this site that users can interact with each other, or is it a one-way interaction between contributors and Starbucks? ~~[[User:mcforelle|mcforelle]] 18:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Don, I also agree with mcforelle in that you should involve the contributors into your work. For example, if you look at those in support of Starbucks minis (lol)
http://mystarbucksidea.force.com/ideaview?id=08750000000H4DwAAK
you can ask them if they seriously feel more loyalty to the company based on their contributions--even if they never see their ideas come to fruition? Or do they merely want to be a part of the Starbucks online community? Or do they want bragging rights? Also, it might be interesting to briefly compare the Starbucks strategy--seeing the consumer/contributor as the catalyst of a new product--versus, say, the recent Dominos Pizza strategy--viewing the consumer/contributor as the rater of a finished product. This might allow you to connect the measurable (business performance) with the non-measurable (customer feedback)--the latter which now can be more accurately measured because of social media and online communities. All in all, I think you have great potential with this topic! [[User:Myra|Myra]] 20:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Re: methodology, [http://socialmention.com Social Mention] is a free tool you can use to track sentiment/mentions/posts related to Starbucks in various social spheres. Might be worth checking out as the mystarbucksidea project takes off, in order to see how this shapes their metrics! - Jessica [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 03:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Tym Lewtak [[User:lewtak|lewtak]] 21:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: User Generated Sites: Defining Superusers and Their Monetization'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Assignment_2.pdf
**Comment: Tymoteusz, I find you topic very interesting. I am wondering as a product of your research if you will study the proportion of individuals who are super users compared to commercial organizations using these tools. That is, in respect to commercial organizations using the various tools, how important is the individual? Over time, is the place of the individual becoming more or less important? I would suspect that part of this equation depends upon the rate at which people are able to monetize their involvement as much as how commercial organizations are co-opting the modalities. Is there a constant influx of new blood or will the ability of individuals to monetize their involvement decrease over time? It may be fascinating to see is this is an indication of a generative system over the long run or something that may peak and decline. Good luck! --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 03:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Gclinch, Thanks for all of your input! I initially didn't think to so much as include corporations, but taking a second glance at the subject you're right. I would be foolish to not look at motivations for companies and individuals alike to join sites as super-users. If I can find historical data on users from these sites, I'd like to especially take a look at whether it was individuals who joined first and became super-users, or if corporations jumped onto the "ball game" with individuals following. I suspect the latter isn't true, but I will try to distinguish between companies that joined these sites early on versus already popular companies that grew their earlier existent popularity.'' ([[User:Lewtak|Lewtak]] 21:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC))
**Comment: One thing that is very interesting about internet communities is the ability of certain super users to arise. You will find it in all communities from IRC to blogs to forums to games and so on. Normally these are the folks to spend 60+ hours a week on their system (might want to look up references on hours as it relates to superusers) and this is their exposure to the "outside" world. There are different kinds of super users as well. There are the mentors who want to help the community evolve and guide users in the right direction, gently correct them when they are wrong, and are just generally helpful. There are also the dictatorial power mongers who will ban, delete, disparage, etc... anything they don't like, no matter how small the violation or mistake may be. There are many super user personalities in between as well. These individuals do it because they want to do it, not because of pay. Sites that can entice a user community to police itself significantly reduces their overhead costs and still, normally, maintains a good site with good content and a happy user community. Unless, of course, they select a powerMAD person to be the superuser in which case everyone will eventually get upset and move to greener pastures. [[User:Rakundig|Rakundig]]

----

====Name: Denise Reed--[[User:Dreed07|-dreed07]] 21:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: A comparative study of user behavior on Chinese social networking sites with that of United States social networkers'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/REED_LSTU_E120_Assignment_2.doc
**Comment: Fascinating subject! I think that the differences between Chinese and USA based social networking sites is an area ripe for exploration, and one that could potentially shed a lot of light on the effects of government censorship on online communities. Some thoughts: differences in user behavior may be due to many different factors, including site architecture, demographics, and cultural influences. It would be worthwhile to explore the demographic differeces (such as age, socio-economic status, and geographic location) between different sites offering similar services in and outside of China. Furthermore, I wonder if it would be possible to obtain information on the behavior of Chinsese nationals using facebook prior to that site being banned in the PRC, and to compare it to that of non-Chinese nationals? Also, you might look into the social networking habits of users in Hong Kong, where Facebook and simmilar sites (IIRC) remain unblocked. Are their any social networking sites specifically targeted toward the Hong Kong community, and how do such sites differ from those in the rest of China? Finally, I notice that your links seem to be primarily in English. Direct access to Chinese social networking sites, and their users, in their native language would, I imagine, be extremely valuable to this project. [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 03:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I would love to see how your research will bloom at the end of the course. I am from South Korea but I have spent a considerable amount of time in China as my family runs business there. I usually stay in Beijing at least for a month every year and am naturally exposed to the Internet culture of China. As it is widely known, access to Facebook is blocked in the country and sometimes - I am not certain about the cause - access to Google is denied, which practically separates me from my online networks. You prospectus seems to cover general contrasting characteristics of two countries' different social networks. Since the filtering level of these countries varies, setting clear standards for comparing subjects, I think, might be quite crucial. From your project, selecting a proper social network website which can be considered as Facebook of the US would be an essence. Please let me know if you need any help with that.
--[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 03:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Michelle Forelle [[User:mcforelle|mcforelle]] 21:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: Online Video-Making Groups: Community, Copyright, Collaboration and Commercialism'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment2_Vimeo.pdf
**Comment: Michelle, I have never heard of Vimeo (this is where the Geico man asks me if I live in a cave), but I think you are onto something very interesting here. Perhaps when you tap the frequent contributors of the site, you can ask them why they post their videos on Vimeo instead YouTube, and if for a time, they did switch over to YouTube, and why? It looks like Vimeo started about a year before YouTube. Where did they share their videos before, or did they not? At the onset, Vimeo seems like a more serious bunch than Youtube, but let's see what you discover! [[User:Myra|Myra]] 21:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Thought this was a very interesting and challenging research topic. I work in the digital advertising space, and video has always been a tough nut to crack for clients. They are drawn to the "sight, sound and motion" element that made TV advertising so successful, but clearly the digital space opens possibilities for an entirely new set of formats beyond the :30 sec TV spot. I have used Vimeo for one of my client's campaigns, and it was the community-oriented nature of its architecture that made it particularly compelling. So, I'll be very curious to read your completed report! Also thought I'd share a helpful resource that summarizes the online video landscape (it's slightly dated, but you might find their case studies to be useful to your cross-analysis): [http://www.emarketer.com/blog/index.php/emarketer-webinar-evolving-online-video-landscape/ eMarketer]. Good luck! - Jessica [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 01:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I think this is a very interesting topic and i cannot wait till it is completed. There are so many other video sharing websites besides Youtube. Like Myra said, Vimeo seems to be for more serious users. Also they tend to target a specific group of fellow professionals. I wish I had chosen this topic. Good luck! --[[User:Joshuasurillo|Joshuasurillo]] 04:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Myra Garza [[User:Myra|Myra]]====
*'''Prospectus title: Preparing and Accommodating Millenials in the Workforce: Use of Social Media in Two Career Coaching Businesses'''
*'''Link to prospectus:'''http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Garza.M.Prospectus.doc
**Comment: Myra, this is a really interesting topic! I feel like this is exactly as narrow a case study as the professors were asking for. I'm jealous that you were able to identify such an relevant topic, lol! I look forward especially to reading the background research for this paper, as it is my understanding that minority youth are disproportionally represented on sites like Twitter; I'm eager to find out whether that rumor is true, and if so, what it means for the way these youth interact with and influence the hiring process. I'm also interested in hearing how these companies help steer the social use of the social media into the practical, career-building use. I'm curious to see if you find that the conclusions you are specific to urban youth or whether such tactics in career counseling are also applicable to suburban and rural kids too. Great prospectus, I really look forward to reading your paper! [[User:mcforelle|mcforelle]] 18:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I, too, think this is going to be a very interesting paper. There is such a need in the corporate community for young people who can help older executives use social media both within the organization for employees and outside the organization for the public and consumers. I would be interested in what the career objectives are for the clients of these two organizations. Are they interested in using their social media skills as part of their job requirements or are they looking for careers in various non-related fields? <<[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 01:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)>>
**Comment: Great topic, as I am sure many of us see on a daily basis the generational differences at work, and the need to involve and "catch" the millenial generation. I wonder if the two organizations will provide you with data on their success, and outreach numbers in the community? I look forward to seeing how this plays out. [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 01:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Myra - The influence of social media on both the job search process and in the workplace itself is a very powerful topic! If I am interpreting your prospectus correctly, it seems that your primary concern is with how, in practice, the two case study sites prepare Millenials for the proper use of social media in their job search/and work environments? If so, it might be interesting to connect with Human Resources representatives, to get a pulse on how their employee/recruitment policies have evolved due to the emergence of these new communication tools. In theory, I think there should likely be some alignment between the advice from the two websites and what HR is practicing. Separately, you also raise a very compelling distinction, which is that these businesses serve the needs of minority groups. I wonder if this may warrant its own stand-alone investigation. This way, you can truly dedicate your research towards how the workplace and job search process is shifting (and hopefully closing the gap) for minorities, as exemplified by the social media practices and guidelines from your 2 case study sites. In any case, this is indeed a substantial topic, so I look forward to seeing which direction you take it! - Jessica [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]]
***'' Response: Everyone--thanks so much for feedback! I actually am an HR professional myself, and I can tell you that a lot of HR and business literature out there encourages the bridging of generations at work--particularly with the use of technology. Easier said than done! So, I already have an interest in the broad topic and am hoping the two organizations will be willing to share their experiences teaching social media tactics to youth (for career purposes) and offer some insight on the specific needs of minority youth. I actually met the owner of CC4Kidz at a conference a few weeks ago, and after searching for similar organizations, I discovered The Youth Career Coach Inc. As Jessica indicated above, this topic will require some more narrowing down. Thanks!'' [[User:Myra|Myra]] 22:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Jose Uscanga====
*'''Prospectus Title: Cummunity reporting or social activism? The New Age of media reporting in Mexico.'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Jose_Uscanga_Assignment_-2.doc
**Comment: Jose, you have identified a truly compelling topic.
When you ask, “Is free press necessary for democracy?” many of us would say, obviously yes. Reading your prospectus though makes me wonder, “what do we mean today by a free press.” Does phenomenon such as Mexican citizens taking, “on the civic responsibility of alerting other citizens by providing detailed and unfiltered information,” redefine what we mean when we use the term press? I’ll be looking forward to reading your conclusions.
I’d also be interested to learn if you think there is something unique about Mexican culture that compels people to get involved. It seems to me that these citizen journalists are taking huge risks. Even less than the professional journalists, there would seem to be no safety net. After all isn’t it easy for the drug cartels to find out who is issuing the alerts. Is it a demographic trend, is it youth driven or does it span the population? Is it something unique about the way Mexican people relate to one another that makes people get involved? Thanks for taking on such an interesting and challenging topic. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 02:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Internet and Society Assingment 2 (revised Mar 20).pdf

2011-03-21T01:31:55Z

Gclinch: My final project will be a study and analysis aimed at coming to a meaningful conclusion on the dynamics in the building friction between the opposing forces of the perceived need for change and the tendency towards status quo inherent to the social, comm

My final project will be a study and analysis aimed at coming to a meaningful conclusion on the dynamics in the building friction between the opposing forces of the perceived need for change and the tendency towards status quo inherent to the social, commercial and political environments surrounding the 9-1-1 system.

Assignment 2 Submissions

2011-03-21T01:29:21Z

Gclinch: /* Name: Guy Clinch -- Gclinch 13:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC) */

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; padding: 5px; text-align: left;">
<big>'''Assignments'''</big>

'''[[Assignment 1 Details and Reporting]]''' | [[Assignment 1 Submissions|Submissions]] 
''Due February 8''

'''[[Assignments#Assignment_2:_Prospectus| Assignment 2]]''' | [[Assignment 2 Submissions|Submissions]] 
''Due February 22''

'''[[Assignments#Assignment_3:_Project_Outline| Assignment 3]]''' | [[Assignment 3 Submissions|Submissions]] 
''Due March 22''

'''[[Assignment 4 Details and Links]]''' | [[Assignment 4 Submissions|Submissions]] 
''Due April 12''

'''[[Final Project]]''' | [[Final Projects|Submissions]] 
''Due May 10''

</div>

===Distribution of Grades===
[[Image:Assignment2_distribution.png‎|400px]]

===Submission Instructions===
This assignment is due on February 22. Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (assignments submitted 4 days late or later will have a maximum grade of 1 point).

Please make sure the name of your file includes your name (example: Name_Assignment2.doc) to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment. ''The '''upload file''' link is to the left, under '''toolbox'''.'' Once you've uploaded your file, please link to it following the format below:

*Name:
*Prospectus title:
*Link to prospectus: (the file you uploaded)

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

===Comments===
Everyone will receive an additional participation grade for this assignment. You should read through everyone's proposals after they are uploaded and add constructive comments below the proposal on which you're commenting. Comments should be submitted by March 6 so you have time to incorporate them, if applicable, into your project outline. ('''Remember to sign your comments!''')

===Submissions===

----

====Name: Gagan Panjhazari --[[User:Gpanjhazari|Gpanjhazari]] 07:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: The Role of Censorship Of the Internet in the Egypt and Libya'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/GaganPanjhazari-Assignment2.txt
*Comment: You might want to check the article I posted on the Feb 22 assignment page that appeared in the New York Times. Might be helpful on your first topic. <<[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 00:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)>>
**Comment: Gagan, I find both of your topic choices interesting. I think the second one, regarding the ability to hold website creators responsible for their content, especially when said content could be considered treasonous, would be the best topic of the two. It is such an important question, the answer to the question will frame our national security for the future. With either topic, I look forward to reading your findings. [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 01:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
*Comment: Frontline, the PBS program, had an episode about the April 6 Movement in Egypt, including how it used the interent and mobile devices for organization and how it was forced to adapt when access was cut. There isn't a whole lot of detail here, but it might be a useful place to start. [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 02:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/revolution-in-cairo/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid
*''Comment:'' I like the second topic. It would be interesting to see if the treason charges are somehow being used to:
# silence Julian Assange
# scare others from doing the same thing
#*One thing you might look up for precedence is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers Pentagon Papers] [[User:Rakundig|Rakundig]]
**Hai!...I love your idea of covering the censorship and even internet blackouts at times in Egypt and Libya along with the role that social networking and tweeps had in organizing the recent protests, and ousting of Mubarak. This is a fascinating narrative to be sure. Here are a few links about a European internet activist group that has worked to provide low tech communication aid to the protesters. I hope they might be of use to you in your research. [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/02/egypts-internet-blackout-highlights-danger-weak|Egypt's Internet Blackouts Highlights Danger of Weak Links, Usefulness of Quick Links], [http://werebuild.eu/wiki/Egypt/Main_Page | werebuild.eu the Egyptian project page], [http://werebuild.eu/wiki/Libya/Main_Page | werebuild.eu, the Libyan project page], and [http://telecomix.org/ | telecomix.org] [http://globalvoicesonline.org/ | Global Voices]has done an outstanding job of covering these events as well. Best of luck![[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 01:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I agree with Deinous. Your topic is very time-appropriate and I cannot hide my excitement to read final results of the research! I believe it should be closely examined as an epitome of the Internet censorship by all of us who are taking this class. From my perspective, it seems that Egypt's Internet kill switch decision rather ignited people's movement toward democracy and protests. By the way, your prospectus includes primarily theoretical approaches to the topic. I would love to know which resources you are going to use in the course of the research. Depending on types of media, your research conclusions, I believe, can be various. Below is the article of the Economist that might be useful in your project. Good Luck! --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 10:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**[[http://www.economist.com/node/18112043 The Economist: Reaching for the kill switch]]
**Comment: Hi Gagan, both your topics are interesting. According to the description of the Final Project it should be built around one of the theoretical conceptions that we study during the course.So if you think about the conceptions that may apply to your topics, it will help you to chose one of two topics proposed by you and, perhaps, to generate your questions and hypothesis around the theoretical conception as the Final Project demand. [[Kristina Meshkova]], 5 March 2011.
**Comment: Gagan, great subjects! You should stick with the subject that interests you most. I suppose its the first one that you wrote about, the role of social media and networking in the revolutions. This is definitely a broad subject, but that doesn't mean you should throw it out, it means you should narrow it to a point that is achievable. A suggestion would be to pick one of the countries, and one of the social networks to drill deeper into. (i.e. the role that Facebook users played in the Egyptian revolution.) Then you need to think about what you will investigate. This project is supposed to be empirical, so you should find some way of observing or surveying the users or the events. This might be in the form of friending as many of the users who were involved in a particular event on Facebook. This should be a great project for you! [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Gagan,I think the same - great topics. I believe both of them are very current and it will be interesting to read your final project. It is very hard to comment your prospectus because it is apparent that you did a deep research and you are clear in what you want to research in final paper. It seems to me that first project seems to be more empirical than second one. Although it would be maybe more or less easier to find 'clear' answers for questions in second project. I do not know. When regards the topics, both of them are very current and you identified the questions very clearly. Good luck with your project...[[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 10:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I think thats remarkable. I do think your topic is a bit broad, as is mine, must a great start! This link might help as well-http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/29/technology/internet/29cutoff.html I wonder what role did social networks play in Egypts revolution. I know the Egyptian consulate in New York cut off web access, but you can still inquire via phone. Will they take this same route in the future?--[[User:Elishasurillo|Elishasurillo]] 04:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: This is a very serious and evolving topic that should be very fun and interesting to work on. It is very important to study the internet's effect on these countries because it could quite possibly happen to other countries. Just like the revolutionary furry spread from Egypt to Libya, it could easily spread to other countries either for the better of for the worse.--[[User:Joshuasurillo|Joshuasurillo]] 05:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Saam Batmanghelidj --'''[[User:Saambat|Saambat]] 10:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: The Effect of Synthetic World Communities on Real World Societies, Economies, and Copyright law'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Batmanghelidj_Final_Project_Prospectus.doc
**Comment: Hi Saam, I think your topic of synthetic or virtual worlds. I had a suggestion that you take a look at BitCoin (http://www.bitcoin.org/), this is an emerging technology that only started up a short time ago. It's a fascinating technology that deals with a new form of money (yes it can be exchanged for real money and is currently trading 1 for 1 with the US dollar). Some interesting things about it: uses public/private encryption keys, it's completely anonymous, it has great potential to circumvent certain banking regulation systems, it can be used to make real purchases, because of it's anonymity and cannot be tracked creates a security of privacy for the purchaser and seller. This also means could could be exploited by people not wanting transactions to be recorded. This technology really opens a virtual door of monetary exchange across the globe where any currency can be exchanged for BitCoins and then exchanged again into a different currency. This is just a top end look at it. It's already in use and some places accept this currency including some non-profit agencies for donation purposes. It also opens an easy way to laundry dirty money. Regards Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi , Saam. The topic is very interesting, but, I’m not sure that questions you want to answer will help you to develop the topic deeply and systemically: the questions are not in a strong correlation with your topic, I think they will not disclose the topic in full and from the main sides of it. You also use such phrase as “virtual property”, what do you mean by this? Is it the same as intellectual property? If yes, I think, it’s better to use the term “intellectual property”. You also pose such question as “How harmful is it for people to sell virtual items for real world monies, and to what extent is it harmful?” So you’ve already decided that it’s harmful, may be, it’s worth to give some arguments in your work why you decided it’s harmful. If you consider “the Synthetic World Communities” as the theoretical concept you want to use in the Final Project, you can try to determine the main features of this concept, then divide your hypothesis into three sphere ( society, economic and copyright law) and pose the main, in your opinion, questions in each of the spheres, regarding the theoretical basis you chose. [[Kristina Meshkova]], 5 March 2011.
**Comment: Saam, you've picked a fascinating topic. You've identified a rich field and topics; the challenge will actually be in narrowing it down to something observable, rather than reporting on what has already been written and explored. Pick one of the topics like virtual property trades and one of the sites like EVE Online and think through how you can observe what is happening in that cross-section. I look forward to reading this project! [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Saam...Great topic. I agree with Smithbc comments. I am not sure whether we should study smething mere via reporting the book and blog. As I said, I am not sure and at this time you should have already had a feedback so you probably know better. Good luck with the project and looking forward for reading final version. [[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 21:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
----

====Name: Kimberly Nevas --'''[[User:KimberlyNevas|KimberlyNevas]] 02:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: Can the U.S. Prosecute Julian Assange?'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Nevas_Kimberly_LSTU_E-120_Assignment_2.pdf
**Comment: Hi, Kimberly. Your topic is one of the essential questions I myself also want to closely observe and look for answers. Especially, considering the global impacts of Wikileaks, the prosecution of Assange is merely not confined to the jobs of the US Justice Department. Many governments are quite eager to punish him for revealing sensitive political/diplomatic issues, which might have significantly deterred their national agenda. Nonetheless, the 1st Amendment of the US and equivalent provisions existing in each country that guarantee freedom of speech are standing in the way of this very prosecution. So the question always comes down to this: are we going to sacrifice freedom of speech for a greater cause - usually national security? Are there certain limitations that media have to comply with in publishing their articles? I would love to see how this 21th version of the Zenger Trial will turn out. Good luck! Best, [[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 03:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: It might also be interesting to see if any other sites purporting to disclose sensitive information whether government or corporate have become more aggressive considering all the confusion about what to do with Julian Assange. Does his legal situation make these sites feel more confident regarding avoiding prosecution? <<[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 00:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)>>
**Comment: Your statement, "In this respect, Assange cannot be considered any more liable than the New York Times." is a bold one, which some might strongly disagree with, given Assange's postings and his refusal to censor, along with his use or threatened use of yet unreleased information as leverage to keep himself free. I look foward to reading your arguments regarding Assange, freedom of speech and the case law which supports your position. [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 01:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi, Kimberly. The problem you decided to consider in the Prospectus is really important and actual. But I think that the question “whether the Justice Department can prosecute Assange without damaging the U.S. free press as we know it”, that you pose describing the Problem is wider than the Research question. Perhaps, it’s worth to add the question “whether the Justice Department can prosecute Assange without damaging the U.S. free press as we know it”, to your Research question as the main one. And your present research question: Are the distribution methods adopted by Wikileaks for the dissemination of thousands of pages of classified U.S. documents structured so as to arm Julian Assange and his associates with a strong defense to prosecution under U.S. law?” will help you to answer your main question. Your present research question can be also considered as a research frame, so that you can explore the distribution methods of Wikileaks to answer if they really make the obstacles for the Justice Deparment to prosecute Assange and if yes to what extend; are the distribution methods of Wikileaks the main obstacles which do not permit the Justice Department to prosecute Assange or there are the other obstacles (for ex., with respect to the features of free press)? [[Kristina Meshkova]], 5 March, 2011.
**Comment: Kimberly, you have the beginnings of a good project here. I am interested in what you choose to use as your methodology and what you will choose to "observe" as part of this case study. One suggestion in particular is to look at the particular statements made by the U.S. papers in regards to why they believe their approach to printing the leaks are legal and any justifications they made in regard to accepting Assange's information. [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comments: Kimberly, that is an explosive topic! I bet you'll have lots of material! The qusetion is where did he commit the crimes if any. If in Australia, can they prosecute him? Or because they are U.S. cables, does the U.S.A. have jurisdiction? And who has the right to tell him he can or cannot post and release? The U.S.A. has to clearly stae how he broke the law. As far as I know, treason can only be a crime if commited by a citizen. Good work! --[[User:Elishasurillo|Elishasurillo]] 04:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Yes, very timely and interesting topic. One thing you might look up for precedence is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers Pentagon Papers] [[User:Rakundig|Rakundig]]

----

====Name: Jamil Buie====
*'''Prospectus Title: Profiteering via "Public Privacy" The use/misuse of your data'''
*'''Link to prospectus:'''http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:JBProject_Prospectus.pdf
**Comment: Hi Jamil, For me this is a an extremely important issue, I'm glad to see you're looking at it. I have a few pointers that may help uncover some things that are currently being looked at and something that was done in the UK back in 2008. Do a search for Phorm, BT implemented it in secrecy and it caused a big uproar. Also, it appears that ComCast is looking to implement it here in the US. It deals with deep level packet inspection. Not sure how tech savvy you are, but basically it comes down to an ISP looking at each packet users are sending out over their home connection. It is suppose to be done anonymously, however, it's invasive to the nth degree. Another technology that you might want to look at is the Evercookie. This can be used by websites that a user goes to, this then gathers information about a great number of browsing files that are on a system to ID the system. In the instance that a user cleans up his/her cookies, EverCookie will still be able to quickly identify you and place certain cookies back on your computer being able to keep tabs on the user. Regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi, Jamil. In your Prospectus, you write the following: “While most do understand that they are interacting with a third-party be it a site, search engine, or ISP they remain ignorant to how the data they’re providing is being farmed out or utilized in a commercial vein”. I can agree with you only partly: of course, we could not exclude the situations, when the data we provided are an object of unfair use, but it should be also mentioned that “the main players” of the Internet services do not ignore users, thus they stay uninformed about the way their data are used. For ex., Yahoo Privacy Policy http://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/details.html or Google Privacy http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacy/ In the question: What are the common guidelines and site best practices? you use such phrase as “site best practices”, that is very subjective category, as also the question: “Are consumers truly aware?”. Perhaps, it’s better to avoid such categories in your science research. [[Kristina Meshkova]], 5 March 2011.
**Comment: Jamil, we have similar interests and research topics. You are looking at the broad trail of information left by a typical internet user and the ways that trail is used. I am going narrower, specifically into the information gathered by location-based services to examine the associated privacy issues and assess the average consumer's perceptions of risks. If you are interested, I'd be willing to trade notes and help each other shape up the final project. Since we are doing similar topics, I would really appreciate your comments on my prospectus as well. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Very intrigued by your topic (and somewhat regretting not pursuing it myself!). I used to work as a targeting specialist at Yahoo!, and was floored by the amount of user data we had access to. Thought I'd share an extremely thorough [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703940904575395073512989404.html study] the WSJ put together not long ago, which summarizes the policies and efficacy of the major players in this space. Looking forward to reading your report on this very controversial and fascinating topic. - Jessica [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 03:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Another very ineresting topic. I believe, most consumers are not aware. I was surprised when I blocked cookies and then wanted to log in to facebook. Following message occured: 'Cookies are not enabled on your browser. Please adjust this in your security preferences before continuing.'. Seems like they are not interested in someone using their service without getting access to information about me so they can get paid:)I am still not aware of all information they can easily get about me. Good luck with project.[[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 09:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Uduak Patricia Okon====
*'''Prospectus Title: Web Pages/Blog Sites: Rights and Limitations-How free are you?'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Uduak_Patricia_Okon_Assign_2.pdf
**Comment: Hi Uduak, Your prospectus is very interesting. I look forward to seeing how your project comes together. But I have some comments that I would like to share, I hope my feedback is helpful.
**Re:
***In general, people are entitled to share facts if they don’t breach confidentiality or depict a real situation. This would depend on how citizen bloggers support their argument about their political commentary, whether it’s positive or negative. You need to remember that politicians are public figures, so the first amendment applies differently to them. Therefore the confidential circumstances that apply to the general population do not apply to politicians since they are not entitled to the same level of privacy. And citizen bloggers don’t have to adhere to the same circumstances as journalists to the best of my knowledge (I major in journalism and work in media in NYC) (i.e. it’s considered unethical for journalists to be bias if they’re not commentary writers. Also most journalists are not allowed to put political figure signs on their lawn, bumper sticker on their car, etc they need to push their feelings aside to accurately report the truth). I think the bigger issue is whether or not non-citizen bloggers can face defamatory lawsuits if there is proof they intentionally acted with malice? Or will future non-citizens bloggers have to abide by the same guidelines as employed journalists in the blogosphere working for CNN?
***Corporate law is an entirely different world. Because many corporations lie to promote their brand among many other issues on the internet, which is unethical to their consumers.
***I don’t think you should look into news websites like CNN, NY Times, etc because those are explicitly run by paid journalists (whom must adhere to strict guidelines about what they report) and comments are very restricted so the same type of freedom doesn’t apply to citizen journalists because official journalists also have code of ethics and have much more at stake.
***It's important to note that some citizen bloggers sell advertising on their blogs which might impede with how they portray a public figure on the net because they're getting paid. Formally employed journalists can't bias their stories based on relationships with advertisers because the editorial and advertising departments are seperate at news organizations.
***You, first need to narrow your focus because there is a huge difference between local mayors and congressional candidates, and citizen and non-citizen bloggers. (i.e. I think it would be interesting if you looked at how political figures use blogging as a form of position taking in Congress and compare cases of democratic and republican candidates on an issue like healthcare reform, education, etc. And the implications blogging has on Senators or Representatives relationships with their constituents).
**Comment: Uduak, very interesting subject. As you shape these ideas into a final project, one aspect to consider focusing on is to differentiate between a) the official "legal findings" of what bloggers can/cannot do vs. b) the unoffical "codes of conduct" being developed in the world of blogging. I think the unofficial codes would reflect the complex realities of the different types of bloggers, rather than the more simplistic legal concept of a blogger. One case to look at is the judge that was recently found to have been blogging anonymously [she thought :) ] about the case on which she herself was the sitting judge. I'll look for the URL to send you. I look forward to reading your project. [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Yaerin Kim [[User:Quill80|Quill80]] 02:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: OpenCourseWare(OCW) and its Impact: Case Study of MIT’s OCW'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment2_Kim.doc
**Comment: Hi Yaerin, I think this is a great topic. Being a part of F/OSS environment has pushed forward a number of wonderful software innovations. Scratch is an example of MIT's commitment to OCW. Scratch, though at first glance might appear comical, is actually a great tool to teach people the concepts of early stages of computer programming. I'm sure there are tons of other open source software that would interest you. I would suggest, if you have a spare computer or can run a virtual environment, downloading and running a Linux distribution like Ubuntu or Linux Mint. Then you can take a look at the rich repository of software that is completely free to install and use. Some of the software is not F/OSS, such as Adobe Reader, but the disclaimers of Left-Copied software is always clear. Anything that came from MIT would also give credit to that source even if it's been morphed. Best regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Yaerin, you've nicely narrowed down your topic to MIT OCW and assessing progress on the 3 goals. In the context of this course, it would really be interesting to narrow down even further to the third goal: the level of interaction of OCW users with the institutions that provide it. What are they and the users missing out on? We've already seen examples of digital communities developing and producing some amazing things and perhaps MIT is or should be seeking to turn OCW from content publishing into an active community. I look forward to reading about this in your project. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Yaerin. I think your topic is brilliantly targeted and focused on one of the distinct manifestations of peer collaboration - that is an open online course. I, myself, have greatly benefited from MIT OCW and Yale Open Course and thus look forward to see, specifically, the reasons why the participation rate of users is lingering at such low figures. Would it be too much to expect OCW to be an open education forum with lively discussions? In my opinion, the architectures of OCW and Yale Open Course are expressly posing limitations on interaction between users as there is no such place to share opinions. I am very much excited to read your final project! Best, --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 10:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: William Bauser --[[User:Wnb|Wnb]] 23:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: Modern Web Design and Civic Engagement: Access to Information and Community Development'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Wnb_assignment2.pdf
**Comment: This is an interesting topic -- you have a lot of avenues to explore! Among the sites you list, some are clearly partisan while others seem more altruistic. I would be interested to learn the contrast of methods used by each type. For example, what are the membership requirements? Does the site encourage a particular philosophy? Does a certain amount of selective cocooning take place? On the other side, how can an Internet based civic community be both neutral and vital? If it is only fact based then it won't be interesting. How does is promote community discussions without advocating a position? I'm sure you'll have to narrow the focus of your chosen topic and I thought this might be an interesting distinction you could use. [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 01:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi William: Sounds like a very interesting subject. I have two comments. First, it is clear you are looking at assessing how effective internet tools are in increasing engagement in the political process, but your last statement doesn't seem to fit. It seems like you'd also like to look at how effective they are in increasing the transparency of the political process as well and you'd have to clarify how those fit together. (IMO, engagement =/= transparency.) Second, I'd be interested in hearing more about your methodology, since most of the sites you mention would likely not share their data openly (perhaps I am wrong.) All the best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I think this sounds interesting, particularly as scholars are emerging to study the implications of the internet, web 2.0 and social networking on politics. I think there's going to be a lot of research into how these tools (and many of the sites you mentioned, particularly sites like change.org or moveon.org) are contributing to the distribution of social capital/political capital among the population. I think your topic is timely, and interesting. My guess is that you will need to hone in on a few specific sites and some specific aspects of them in order to make solid comparisons and broad analysis. Best of luck! [[User:Acrowe|Acrowe]] 16:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Brian Smith [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 23:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: Location-Based Services: Implications and Awareness of Effects on Consumer Privacy'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Brian_Smith_-_Assignment_2.pdf
**Comment: Greetings Brian! I found your research idea very creative and the methodology you are planning to utilize seems realistically achievable, although some instruments used by government and private marketing agencies are very difficult to trace and require special software and equipment. I have a topic idea that may coincide with a notion of privacy you are investigating, so I may cite your work in my project. What I found to be inconsistent is that your methods seem to be distant on the instrumental level from your hypothetical statements, that is, it is undetermined how your method will help to prove or reject either of your hypotheses. In fact, even doctorate dissertations attempting to either reject or accept only one hypothesis. It is in quantitative sciences we test several hypothesis in order to corroborate the validity of the expression or formula, etc., but not in the research as far as academic papers suggest. In terms of your definition of location, it is unclear whether your are talking about the IP address based location or mobile device based location, if it is about mobile device only (most hosts like schools and bosses may hunt for both mobile and the laptop IP to trace their employee or a student) then you need to state so in your research and in the proposal as well. I know one thing for sure that with arrival of the wireless technology it became much more harder for Federal agents to trace hackers: it is technologically more convenient to retain privacy through the public wireless router. I think you will benefit from setting up a singular and more definite hypothetic statement that will encapsulate the entire topic. In addition, you would make the research more productive and to the point if you will add the limitations to your research so that your process will have its bottom line. Check out this research, it could be helpful or at least you can retrieve some more sources from in-context citations: http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~adillon/Journals/Expertise-JASIS.htm Good Luck! --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 20:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Thank you, Vladimir - these are really helpful comments. I might ping you back for more details as I go through them each. Best, Brian'' [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

**Comment: Brian, the location of a caller is also one of the key pieces of information that is used by public safety officials when responding to emergencies. There is a long history of regulation related to the use of location information in the Enhanced 9-1-1 system. I know the location services that you are talking about in your paper are based upon the GPS capabilities in mobile devices, but you may benefit from understanding the history of location as you look at some of the politics surrounding these new services. There has been some recent political maneuvering related to the location information provided by telecommunications carriers for the purpose of Enhanced 9-1-1 since many have determined, as you say in your prospectus, that location information is a marketable commodity.

Here is a short explanation of how location is determined in Enhanced 9-1-1. If you were to need to dial 9-1-1 in an emergency, when your call is answered at the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) a software application retrieves information about your location from the Automatic Location Information (ALI) database. The ALI database – there are actually over 3,000 ALI databases in the US, but from a local jurisdiction only one is important - that is/are maintained on behalf of the government by various on-contract third parties. How information about your location gets populated in that database depends upon the device originating your call. For a traditional wired phone, the phone company is responsible to update your location when your phone is installed.

When you are calling from a mobile phone, there are actually two ways that your location is determined. One is GPS, but many mobile devices today still either don’t have GPS chips or the users don’t turn the GPS on for reasons that range from prolonging battery life to a belief that they are protecting their privacy (something that you may next see is an illusion). One way wireless location is determined is by the triangulation of two or more cell towers. A mobile phone is almost always in communication with two or more towers and an estimate can be made of your location by measuring distance as a function of signal strength. The other way is to integrate the GPS chip. For Enhanced 9-1-1, this actually turns out not to be as straight forward as one might think. This is because the GPS information is carried in the data channel of a phone. For many phones it isn’t possible to have both a concurrent voice call and a data transmission. This means that in order to retrieve the GPS data, the PSAP needs to disconnect the caller. Not the best situation in an emergency. [http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/wireless911srvc.html The FCC’s Wireless 911 Rules] currently specify that the phone carrier is required to be able to locate you within, “50 to 300 meters depending upon the type of location technology used.”

There is also a separate system for determining the location of a caller who is using a VoIP device (as in Skype) and another process for determining the location of a caller from within an enterprise organizations (such as a PBX extension).

Hope you find this of use. Let me know if I may clear up and points or answer any additional questions. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 01:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Yu Ri Jeong -- [[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 22:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: How manifestations of collective intelligence vary in different cultures and societies: Study on Naver Knowledge iN of South Korea in comparison with Wikipedia.'''
*'''Link to Prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Yu_Ri_Jeong_Internet_and_Society_Assignment_2_Prospectus.doc
**Comment: This is a really interesting topic! I hadn't known that South Korea had so strongly resisted the dominance of Wikipedia. I am curious, even if you do not include these questions in your paper, to hear what you think is unique about South Korea that it managed to create its own version of Wikipedia. Was it simply a question of timing, or is there something about South Korean Internet culture that allowed it to rally around its own creation. I also wonder what this means for Wikipedia. As a result of the lack of participation by South Korean Internet users, does Wikipedia suffer from a gap in information about South Korean culture, politics or society? I think the paper you have laid out in your prospectus is very thorough and complete, but I would love to hear your thoughts on these questions separately as you continue your research! [[User:Mcforelle|Mcforelle]] 19:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Dear Mcforelle, thank you for your kind words on my prospectus. I believe that the user-friendly manner of NKIN is encouraging Koreans to prefer it over Wikipedia. To elaborate, NKIN offers such an environment that participants can just write down their ideas without having to give much thought about the impacts of their posts. It is not that they have no responsibility in writing down articles; but they want to give information or advice as they do to their friends and family. The system of Wikipedia requires some duties such as learning of new Wiki codes. I believe that these factors are alienating Koreans from using Wiki. Furthermore, the under-activated usage rate of Korean Wiki is discouraging people to use it. --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 03:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Yuri! I think your research would reveal some very interesting points about the difference between the Korean Naver website and Wikipedia. If I may suggest, it would be interesting to analyze the difference in user demographic between the two websites. This would assist your analysis for Question #3. Also, since Naver seems to be a for-profit organization, it would be interesting to analyze how profitable NKin has been and contrast it to the non-profit model of Wikipedia. [[User:Quill80|Quill80]] 22:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Yaerin, thank you for your kind comments. Your suggestions include very important points which I might have ignored had it been not you! Truly, the demographic analysis of two websites and the comparison of them in terms of for-profit and non-profit will reveal some of the interesting characteristics of these open knowledge forums. Thank you! --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 03:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Yu Ri: This is a solid proposal for the project. I like how you've used the course themes as your areas of investigation and how you've narrowed down to two communities that you will compare, and even further to a set of articles with common subjects across the two communities. The only area of concern might be that your subject areas are pretty large in and of themselves (architectural elements, social norms & governance, membership, limits on expression, and national law.) If you can do all of those, then that's great, but you might think of narrowing to a smaller set. Otherwise, this proposal seems strong. Have fun! Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 08:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Smith. Thank you for spending your time in reading my prospectus. I absolutely agree with your concern. I wish to nail down the topic further, but am still not certain which theme to focus on as all the aspects matter most. I will keep you informed if I narrow down to the very specific topic! Thank you! --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 03:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: La Keisha Landrum [[User:llandrum|llandrum]] 21:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: Building a Sustainable News Org'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:LNLAssignment2.doc
**Comment: Hi La Keisha, It's good to see you're approaching this hot topic. I think most Americans are rather clueless about the current demise of the media or at least they are clueless as to why the media has been in a state of disintegration over the past 30 years. The newspaper companies came to late to the Internet forum and due to their lack of response they lost the "first-to-line" efforts in advertising & classified revenues. Aggregators and bloggers have only worsened the situation for major media, not to mention giants like Google and Craigslist drawing away advertising dollars. Still, a more important aspect is that experienced journalists need to continue to be supported in doing investigative reporting. Looking at detail as to how the different models of moving forward and the benefits might be speculative at this point, but we have seen some success stories in new ways to successfully report on current events. Regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hello La Kiesha! This is a very interesting and important topic for the future well being of journalism. According to your prospectus, it seems that you are interested in the profit aspect of the emergence of new internet-based journalism. If this is the case, it would be helpful if you can offer comparison in income for the aforementioned journalist. In other words, how much did these journalist as an employee of a traditional publisher and how much are they making now with their innovative website? Also, it would be interesting to know who is willing to patron these professional journalists. I think the lecture slides from March 1 would be very helpful as well. Good luck![[User:Quill80|Quill80]] 22:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi La Keisha, Bravo for taking on this topic. I like the fact that you are exploring success stories in online journalism. While journalism is undergoing fundamental changes, I think this is not just a doomsday scenario that dictates journalism will disappear. The newspaper existed for so long because, I believe, there is strong consumer demand for quality information. Just because the business model for supplying news is undergoing transformation doesn't mean that that demand is gone. My hypothesis is what we discussed in our last class: that the newspaper is being disaggregated and all the components will find their places as the changes shake out. There will be a place for classified ads, opinion articles, local fluff pieces, national news, international news, and yes, even, high-quality investigative reporting! It's just that they won't all be delivered by the same company, in the same vehicle, nor with the same business model anymore. As a side note for a case study check out the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. I'm not sure how successful it has been, but their story might be interesting to you in that they closed down their print publication and went entirely online with a shrunken staff. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 08:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Enjoyed reading your prospectus! Just read an article in [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/mar/05/huffington-post-aol The Guardian] that seems to resonate very well with your proposed topic. It highlights the business model Huffington Post created whereby a good portion of their content is via free contributions, and the ensuing backlash amongst some writers circles who feel they are under/uncompensated. Also, I noticed you touch on the concept of 'content farming,' and thought I'd reiterate an example I brought up in class, [http://www.demandmedia.com/ Demand Media]. It is the poster child for content farming in the media industry, so might be worth a glance. Good luck and hope this is helpful! - Jessica [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 18:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I really enjoy the topic of your proposal. I think it's a timely and meaningful investigation. I think in comparing what makes these online media outlets successful, it is important to create a measure of which are and which are not successful. There are Nielsen ratings for websites, but I don't recall where to find them... and I believe Alexa does a web index ranking as well. It is probably worthwhile to be sure that the parallels you're drawing are across the most successful models. Many blogs that are popular are not lucrative business models, and as you seem poised to compare your results with the decline in financially-stable, traditional media, this will be an important distinction. It seems like a great jumping off point! Good luck! [[User:Acrowe|Acrowe]] 16:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Jillian York [[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 21:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: Understanding "Lesbanon": Lebanon's Online Lesbian Community'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Understanding_Lesbanon.doc
**Comment: Hi Jillian. I found your approach to the project very interesting: based on your prospectus, it seems that you are studying an online society as a mirror to look into the real world. Your idea of examining the ways that homosexuality is expressed on the Internet would offer a glimpse to the country's customs and legal regulations is truly brilliant. I will look forward to seeing what kind of role the Internet is playing in Lebanon society for freedom of speech - especially for that of lesbians. Best, Yu Ri --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 03:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hey Jillian, I think this is such a great paper topic. I love how secretive communities can still operate out in the public through using the internet. The value of anonymity in this case seems like it must be very high, especially if there are governmental pressures keeping women from coming out. I had no idea that "Lesbanon" existed but it really does make perfect sense. Maybe if there are other communites out there like this, you could make a broader statement on the nature of coming out on the internet despite oppressive governments and societal norms. Otherwise, I think your question is quite reigned in and manageable in scope. I look forward to reading this paper when you're finished. [[User:Saambat|Saambat]] 18:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Jillian, this is a clever topic. I think in America, we often take for granted what the Civil Rights Movement did for communities beyond racial and sexual orientation lines--it really impacted our cultural norm mindset. The internet is not only release but '''power''' for those in disadvantaged or secretive communities the world over--especially when you are looking at two groups under different governments: the Lebanese and the diaspora. I am curious to read more. [[User:Myra|Myra]] 19:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

**Comment: I am sorry if I am posting belated remarks but it seems that your topic, along with many other topics related to this type of mental state, overlooks the origins of the same sex attraction for males, that is, pederasty, which by nature can affect the mind set of the near situated females. It is widely argued in the world, may be not in the entire U.S., that the same sex attraction among men is not a genetic phenomenon, but rather it is the bodily stigma imposed either during the childhood or during the adultery. In the majority of cases, I refer to the child molestation cases with a few exceptions, neither adult nor a child is able to recall the first same sex sexual experience, which decisively suggests on the unconscious intercourse under the influence of a sedative and/or somnolent substance. In the scholarly papers similar to this, you may find the old and new findings that can explain both the political and biological causes of mental and physical attraction in the same sex: http://www.ched.uq.edu.au/index.html?page=39750&pid=0 It is no doubt that the nature has produced hermaphrodites, but their amount is nothing in comparison to what America or Lebanon has. Hence, it is not the nature that produces majority of them. Overall, you have very intelligent approach to tackle the puzzle of how homosexuals are created in a society with many religious denominations like Lebanon and the U.S.. As far as I know, it is a scientific fact that in order to have stigma a body should have most of its sensitive erogenous zones irritated. The next piece of the puzzle: by coincidence, the amount of child molestation cases among Jehova Witnesses exceeds the amount of all sexual scandals among Catholic, Muslim, and Orthodox religions. So, here is the Bingo - the amount of religious sects which are striving to get your trust and intimacy and visit you at home and may be have a "drink" or "dinner" with you is equally proportional to the amount of homosexuals in the society. So, the taboo is coming from the kind of common sense I mentioned above; unfortunately or may be fortunately for many Jews in Lebanon, not everyone is able to crunch this trust game puzzle in reality right away. May be your project will help to make this devastating syndrome that originates from the terrible crime disappear from any society. --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 06:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
----

====Name: Caroline McLoughlin [[User:Camcloughlin|Camcloughlin]] 21:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus title: Privacy and Society'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Assignment-2.pdf
**Comments: Caroline, I, too, was interested in writing a paper more inclined to policy arguments and Rebekah counseled me against it. I got the impression we are supposed to be more observant of communities and how they interact and work. If this is true, you might lean your paper more towards observing whether privacy policies are adequately disclosed on sites in the US and how they are different on Canadian sites. Is this difference due to the contrasting privacy legal frameworks in the two countries? Do participants react differently?This might also help narrow your topic which seems like alot of material to cover. All this being said, I find your topic very interesting and think it might be great to present it in something like a PowerPoint format. Would be the great beginnings of a law review article if you are a lawyer.[[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 21:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)]]
**Comment: Hi Caroline, we are interested in the same privacy subjects. Similar to Sjennings feedback, I tried to make mine more about observing a community, specifically consumers using location-based services, and less about policy. If you've got the understanding already to get into issues and policy, though, then it sounds like a great project. As I mentioned to Jamil Buie above, if you are interested, I'd be willing to trade notes and help each other shape up the final project. Since we are doing similar topics, I would really appreciate your comments on my prospectus as well. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name:Anthony Crowe [[User:Acrowe|Acrowe]]====
*'''Prospectus title: Tagging and Metadata on the Internet and in New Media'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Crowe_LSTUE120_2.doc
*Comments:
**Comment: I like that you've identified another means of content organization for study. I feel like tagging is going to be a rich topic, not only because of the ways people use it, but because of how it defines or redefines website architectures. I don't really know much about tags beyond their most obvious uses (and frankly, on in Twitter), so I am curious to see what kind of social rules you discover in your research. The only thing I might suggest is that, given the richness of your topic, that you not worry about studying superusers too deeply. I feel like a thorough study of tagging on the three main sites you've identified, which are pretty major sites, in addition to the other examples you'll be incorporating, will be more than enough data and analysis for a great paper. Unless perhaps I'm not understanding the particular lens through which you'll be approaching the superuser question? [[User:Mcforelle|Mcforelle]] 19:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I think this is a really fascinating and relatively untouched subject; I'm curious to learn the myriad ways tagging is used, both for public sharing and for semi-private sharing (e.g., cleverly devised tags that only a particular group is aware of) -- but I agree with the above commenter in that I'm not sure how the question of superusers fits in here; I think you might be better off narrowing the subject just to the question of tagging.[[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 16:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Vladimir Kruglyak --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 21:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus title: A Transparency of the U.S. Government in the Socio-Cyber Environment'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus.doc
**Comment: Vladimir, thank you for your resources. I have been reading your prospectus and found your approach as interesting as ambitious. To investigate wether the U.S. Government maintains Constitutional transparency and accountability for the tax money expenditures using e-government resources, that is a very well focused research and I can tell you are passionate about the topic, which makes the reading even more interesting. However, when you talk about conspiracy relating it with the internet resources, I have to disagree. I think power and conspiracy are long-time friends, governments have faced every kind of suspicions since they exist, but the importance of digital resources when it comes to spreading these suspicions cannot be denied, and that is why I think your research will face very interesting issues to deal with, as investigating the origin of "conspiracies" from a social point of view. Do you think the Internet is a cause or a consequence? I think about WikiLeaks, for example. The Internet had nothing to do with the origin of the cables, but made them become a "popular" topic, blurring the "secret" component of International Politics. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? We are talking about serious crimes becoming nearly gossip (we could talk further about a Spanish journalist murdered in Iraq and how Spanish and American Governments made a deal to make it look like an accident: that's on WikiLeaks). But now it looks like nothing happened. Amazon was selling the cables for Kindle, Julian Assange is to be extradited to Sweden in a week and I highly doubt any of the "accused" by, or thanks to, WikiLeaks, is to face trial. When you say that I am adressing a brave category of people ready to risk their lives for the "right cause", that is exactly the interesting thing about this. Why would someone get into trouble for nothing? However, it calls my attention that you take for granted that their cause is the right one. I see in your statement that you look pretty convinced about conspiracies when it comes to very sensitive and historic topics. You assume the defense of one group, don't you doubt that the cause may not always be the right one? I find your statement so determined that it becomes intriguing to me (it is really hard to me to be sure about something), I will be following your work with interest to get a better understanding of your point of view. In the meantime, I hope to receive more suggestions or resources you may find interesting to check out about this topic. Lorena Abuín. --[[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 21:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I see a potential flaw in your methodology, and find it potentially invasive of a web surfer's privacy. Collecting data by sniffing packets is rather dubious for your uses and can be construed as an abuse of networking tools. Trying to parse the IP addresses into geographical locations through a Whois database may be difficult to and inaccurate if users are using proxy based anonymizers such as Tor or i2p. It is for this reason, among others, that many people chose to use anonymizers when they surf. [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 04:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
**Answer: There is no flaw, it is rather your misunderstanding of the software functionality: 1) collecting data of the visiting traffic by IP from a domain is not a crime and often the consent is given by the owner of a domain; 2) WhoIs database traces the domain's information from the server such as registration expiration date and the contact information of the domain's owner. In addition, there is a way to detect the Tor user and toss those IP out from the sample. In my survey, I will target users with average knowledge who do not use anonymous proxy services or encrypted networking channels.
***Vlaidmir: Thank you all for the creative comments addressed toward my prospectus, although the assignment says to add constructive suggestions which can help an author to improve his project. I think it is little bit unfair to help others reconstruct their idea and receive nothing in return. I guess that is all I can get from the general public. If however, someone in this course really knows about the internet traffic analysis, you are welcome to suggest substantial changes. --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 20:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Vladimir, I apologize if I said anything to upset or discouraged you in any way. I meant my comment to be constructive in raising an ethical question to your research methodology in regards to the privacy of web surfers. U can certainly observe and aggregate traffic through packet sniffing network tools, but I would not be so trusting in precise geographical locations of the IP addresses for the reasons that I mentioned. However, with a large enough sample you could perhaps get a general feel for regional traffic. [http://www.ethereal.com | Ethereal]is a popular easy to use modern analysis tool with good documentation, and may serve your purposes. Again, I meant no disrespect and look forward to your project evolving.[[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 21:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name:Corey MacDonald [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 20:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus title: Fringe Forums for the Under-represented'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus_Assignment_2_MacDonald.doc
**Comments: Wow! This is a great prospectus, I feel like these kinds of sites are the perfect places to be asking these questions. So many of the conversations we've had in class have centered around how to best facilitate legal social interactions. I'm excited to read your analysis of how semi-legal and illegal topics are handled by users, administrators and legal bodies on these forums. I'd be curious to see if legal action had ever been taken against the users of these sites, or whether the information posted on them had ever been used in legal action against someone else, like as evidence or tips on possible illegal goings-on? Are there any specific government agencies that track activity on these kinds of sites? Are any extra precautions taken to protect the anonymity of contributors? [[User:Mcforelle|Mcforelle]] 20:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comments: Hi Corey this is a interesting topic, the existence of sites like Erowid and “the chemical underground” highlight how (especially the US) government are losing the battle to control drug information. A “non-event” that may be of interest to you is the DEA making Microgram public in 2003. Microgram was a law enforcement restricted newsletter aimed at forensic chemists and its release made very little impact on the “chemical underground” due to the wealth of information on illicit drugs that was already available.
Here’s a link to an article that might be useful/interesting http://www.michaelerard.com/fulltext/2006/08/open_secrets_how_the_governmen.html [[User:Ltconnell|Ltconnell]] 20:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Richard (Rick) Kundiger --[[User:Rakundig|Rakundig]] 19:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus title: The Role of Bittorrent in the Internet Society'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Kundiger_Assignment_2_Research_Prospectus.pdf
**Comment: This is a great example of "code is law." You have a very powerful tool (the bittorrent protocol) which can be used for both good an illicit purposes. Your investigation of the different interests for and against its deployment should provide an excellent case study. Does a company or government have more of a right than an individual to control the protocols in use? Are those opposed to the protocol trying to protect the greater good of the Internet or their own financial interests? [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 01:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Rick, I also like this topic. One thing you could really expand upon is the use of P2P (point to point) connections has also drivin forward such technologies as Skype. This type of technology was also never intended to be used for illicit purposes, but then again the Internet was never designed to be used in many of the ways it is used today. VoIP actually breaks the TCP/IP model where packets were never intended to be treated in such a timely fashion. Another item is that it was used by WikiLeaks to keep Assange a bit more safe, which could be interpreted both good and bad. It's also amazing that the record industry had enough lobby power to take down some of the most famous P2P services. There's also the aspect that businesses deal with a very real threat of employees using bittorrent technologies. The executive that installs a P2P client and accidentally shares out his entire drive has been a very real issue for companies to combat. Further, then end use that also does something simular can share very personal information such as passport and bank account details with the world. Hope my comments have given you some help in this area of interest. Regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Mary Van Gils====
*'''Prospectus title: Yelp Case Study - Freedom of Expression'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus_-_Yelp_Study_Case.doc
**Comment: Wanted to make you aware as you investigate the external restriciton on freedom of expression regarding the Yelp site that there are also types of businesses which are regulated by state law as to how they may respond to reviews/complaints on sites like Yelp. If you look at my prospectus, you will note insurance companies are one of those types of businesses.[[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 15:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)]]
**Comment: Hi Mary - This is a fascinating subject - the tension between freedom to express opinions and libel as well as the possible manipulations. Your decision to use Yelp forums as a focal point is also a good idea. What is not clear to me what exactly you will be observing about the forums. It would be great to not only observe instances of the tension points, but also to find instances where free expression has been limited by external sources (not sure if you'll be able to get access to this if it's happened.) I really look forward to reading your project. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 06:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I think Yelp makes a really interesting case study for freedom of expression, but, as mentioned above, Yelp doesn't exactly seem ripe for external limiting of free expression (in the forums at least; reviews are a separate issue), rather, I would venture to guess that the vast majority of limiting speech on the site is in the interest of the TOS. Nevertheless, I think there's a fascinating question here, and plenty of existing evidence, particularly to the question of reviews/slander.[[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 16:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Susan Jennings [[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 15:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)]]====
*'''Prospectus title: Annuity Companies' Social Media Communities'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Annuity_Companies%27_Social_Media_Communities.doc
**Comments: Hi Susan, your subject area appears well-defined and methodology seems systematic. In addition to surveying the companies' online activities, I would really encourage you to speak to the compliance person or even a marketing person in those companies to see how their efforts are going. [You might find the marketing person easier to reach out to :) and get a response.] Additionally, is there any way to bring in the actual federal regulators in order to get their perspective on how new social media plays in their framework for regulation? It would be interesting to see if and how they are adapting to the new technologies. Have fun! Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Alan Davies-Gavin & Alex Solomon====
*'''Prospectus title: Architecture of Sites eHarmony and Match.com: contributions of membership data and effects on security and privacy.'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Assignment2ProjectProspectus.pdf
**Comment: Alan and Alex, I think your topic is fascinating and I wanted to chip in my 2 cents which might help your research. Considering the different natures of sites that ultimately sell the same product, I would consider looking at how the two compete in response to one another. By this I mean, is Match doing something that eHarmony isn, and therefore, is eHarmony a bit jealous and trying to get into their market? I know that eHarmony lauched their more casual spinoff "Jazzed.com" which is meant to steal people away from Match. Is Jazzed a suggestion that privacy isn't all that important to frustrated singles? I think that there are also rather large differences in target audience between the two competitors, with eHarmony focusing on a bit older, more conservative crowd while Match goes for the "single and ready to mingle."Also, perhaps look at each companies approach to user profile creation over time, have they changed at all and in what ways? This looks like it'll be an exciting project, I'm looking forward to what you find! ([[User:Lewtak|Lewtak]] 21:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC))
*** '' Response: Thanks Tym. I like your observations and I think they may well contribute to our research and final content. It's a good perspective that you bring to light. Alan'' --[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Kristina Meshkova====
*'''Prospectus title: A music sharing site - Grooveshark, Soundcloud, MySpace.'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignement_2_%28Kristina_Meshkova%29.pdf
*Comment: Hey Kristina, I think we have some similar ambitions in regards to our final project. Let's chat tonight if you have any interest in potentially working together [[User:Alex|Alex]] Bryan 14:31, 1 March 2011.
**Comment: Hello Kristina, I found your project very interesting and I am looking forward to see it evolve. I am particularly interested in how and why the streaming content services are so territory-limited, beyond of copyright, and how long will this model survive. In Europe we can use Spotify but instead there is no access to Pandora or Grooveshark, and vice versa. Same happens with Netflix or Hulu. However, Spotify is said to be preparing its expansion to the USA and some people talk about pression groups beyond record labels. I think it could be interesting to explore if there are some inter-continental lobbying activities or corporative deals regarding this issues. Best,[[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 12:00, 6 March 2011.

----

====Name:Vladimir Trojak-- [[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 20:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC) ====
*'''Prospectus title: Are different language groups consistent in what topics are permitted and what is removed?'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_2.pdf
**Comments: Hello Vladimir, Your proposal is intriguing and I am looking forward to see how it evolves. I did have a question about why do you think that all the Wikipedia policies should be the same in all the language communities? Thanks. --[[User:SCL|SCL]] 03:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. I hope it will turn in the way I expect:)I believe that in general they shoudl be the same, such as 'neutral point of view', 'verifiability'. Although there may be differences in other policies because of different laws, such as topics you can speak about. You have any suggestions?Thanks.[[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 18:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Faye Ryding [[User:FMRR|FMRR]] 23:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus title: Trolls and vandals on Epinions.com'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Faye_Ryding_Assignment_2.doc
**Comments: Hello Faye, I read your prospectus but had the following thought. What if the person belives they are in the right? Does that make them still a vandal? And can you outline excatly what recourses one can take against such offenders? What authority can someone make a complaint to? That last question brings us to a much bigger, more complex one. Who has the soveriegn rights over the web? The government? A trade federation? Or individual users? --[[User:Elishasurillo|Elishasurillo]] 04:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
** Facebook recently launched an "anti-troll" algorithm that reduces troll comments by ~50%. Perhaps Epinions.com has implemented a similar algorithm too, and a comparison could be made. [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 20:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: [[User:Alex|Alex]] Bryan 16:59, 21 February 2011====
*'''Prospectus title: Groooveshark music application'''
*'''Link to prospectus''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus.pdf
**Comments: Hi, Alex. Sorry that didn't answer you earlier. Will be glad to discuss an opportunity to work together on the Final project. Let's discuss it next week in a chat room or via email. This is my email for the course: kristinam2907@gmail.com [[Kristina Meshkova]], 5 March 2011.
**Comment: Hello, Alex. I am very interested in the legal aspect of streaming content services. Have you considered to study this issue from a global point of view regarding a potential Grooveshark expansion? As I stated below Kristina's project, I think both of your prospects are very interesting, I will be following them. Good luck [[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 12:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Robert Cunningham====
*'''Prospectus title: The Archive Team'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Proposed_Paper_TopicCunningham.pdf
**Comment: Hi Robert! Interesting subject, you've narrowed down nicely on one particular group and your areas of interest should cover nicely what the group is and does nicely. Also, your methods seem achievable and will allow you to experience the group, not just observe it (one of the core challenges for many of the projects, including mine.) The one counsel I would give is to go back to the course material we've been discussing to tie the Archive Team back into the course themes. As examples, you could look at the incentive system for contributors, the group hierarchy and governance for control and decision-making, the architecture of the online tools they use, or the merging of offline and online worlds. Have fun! [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: [[Joshuasurillo]]====
*'''Prospectus title: The effect of government transparency websites- Wikileaks'''
*'''Link to prospectus:'''http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Harvard_assignment_2.doc
**Comment: Joshua, I am very much looking forward to your final product. Your position (or what I am assuming your postion to be) comes across very loud and clear in your prospectus. I wonder if you will reach an opinion as to where to draw the line on "free speech," or if no line should be drawn? My reading of your position if you were to define it today is that free speech must be protected at all costs and no limits are appropriate, at least that is the feeling I am left with from your prospectus. If wikileaks posted the location or identity of our undercover operatives in Iraq or elsewhere, would you support that? If not, what else would you feel would be "going to far?" I look forward to reading more from you. [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 01:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I will try to convey a more balanced and neutral argument in my final paper. I will weigh both sides of the argument and shed light on both. Hopefully, I will be able to come to a consensus. I would not support a decision by Wikileaks to disclose the location or identity of our undercover operatives in Iraq, but I do not believe it is our place to stop them. I believe the government should not be going after Wikileaks but they should be finding and prosecuting the actual leak; not the whistle blowing agency.--[[User:Joshuasurillo|Joshuasurillo]] 01:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Susan Lemont====
*'''Prospectus title: Why do people cultivate large online networks?'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Lemont_Prospectus.doc
*Comments:
**Comment: Unfortunately beyond the stated scope of your project (and not practical to include), but it would be interesting to see how your findings compare to similar surveys of Youtube users (who frequently seek comments, ratings, and channel subscriptions) and members of various online forums which award rankings, custom titles, "reputation", and other benefits to prominent posters based on peer imput. Good luck with this topic. (P.S. Also, it might be interesting try and determine what percentages of Facebook 'friends' of these users are A) people they know in real life vs. those relationships which are strictly online-only and B) what proportion of real life contacts were made prior to 'friending' vs. those which were made as a result of meeting virtually via facebook.) [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 04:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Susan, your research question is so basic that I am surprised no one else chose a topic towards this issue, since it is the basis of the new big business, social media. From an anthropological point of view, I find it very interesting and not enough explored, focusing the research into motivations: not what or when people share or live online, but why do they do it. Besides, I find your methodology very well planned and practical, although I have some doubts about the sincerity when it comes to explaining to someone you don't know why you have more than 200 friends. I will be following your work with interest, good luck! [[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 11:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
***Response: Thank you everyone for your insightful comments. I have changed my project and the new prospectus follows:

====Name: Susan Lemont --[[User:SCL|SCL]] 20:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: What conditions are conducive to successful commons based peer production?'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Peer_production_Lemont_030611.doc
**Comments: Hi Susan. I like the way you tie the course readings into your project and your "test" of the theoretical writings on a real-life subject. So much of what we study is based on the success stories but we often can learn more from the failures. It will be interesting to know whether some of Benckler's or Zittrain's critical success factors were missing or whether they were all there and the project did not succeed for other reasons. I look forward to reading more about this in your projects. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Chris Sura [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 03:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus title: The Java Community Process: How Does It Really Work?'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Chris_Sura_Assignment_2.pdf
**Comment: Admittedly, I knew nothing of JCP prior to reading your prospectus, but it's a pretty intriguing process. It does make us wonder who is really behind our machines, as most consumers of technology only see (and care about) the surface. I wish you luck in obtaining your inside info, and I look forward to seeing how it comes along! [[User:Myra|Myra]] 23:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Ed Arboleda [[User:Earboleda|Earboleda]] 04:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: Are there collective benefits for copyright owners, copyright infringers, and the general community; if copyright infringement is not enforced under specific circumstances on social media sites?'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Ed_Arboleda_Prospectus.pdf
**Comments: Hi Ed, I certainly believe that in specific instances that there can be collective benefits for infringers and owners of copyright. One example is the pirating of the UK run of the TV series Battlestar Gallactica in Australia in October 2004. When the show aired in Australia in January 2005 the ratings exceeded expectations due to “sampling” and word of mouth. Here’s a link to an article with more information http://www.mindjack.com/feature/piracy051305.html [[User:Ltconnell|Ltconnell]] 20:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Elisha Surillo====
* '''Prospectus title: The Tea Party and Internet Freedom'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_2.doc
**Comment: I'm confused. This link does not seem to take me to the correct prospectus? Elisha, could you update this to make sure I can access yours?
**Comment: Hai to the comment above: Elisha and I uploaded with the same file names so they are stacked alphabetically. My file is one that I would like to remove actually but do not know how, but in the meantime, Elisha's file is the second link. Sorry for any confusion. [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 02:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I don't believe the tea party is just confined to the older generation. I believe it to be a stronger movement that will soon grip the masses. By having such a strong presence on the internet this movment will propell itself forward. I believe this is just the begining of many other grassroots campains and parties.--[[User:Joshuasurillo|Joshuasurillo]] 04:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Sorry I would change the name but I don't know how. Sorry for the confusion!'' --[[User:Elishasurillo|Elishasurillo]] 04:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Brandon A. Ceranowicz - [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 08:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: A Comparative Study of Open Source Licenses'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:LSTU_E-120_Assignment_2_-_Prospectus_BAC.doc
**Comment: Hello Brandon! I think your topic can be very interesting. However I think it would be important for you to have a specific focus since the topic seems so broad. I don’t know how relevant this would be, but I suggest that you take a look at the Open Content License. (http://www.opencontent.org/opl.shtml) Good luck! [[User:Quill80|Quill80]] 22:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Lorena Abuín====
* '''Prospectus title: Contribution to prosecuted online activities (Anonymous, BitTorrent, WikiLeaks)'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_2_-_Lorena_Abu%C3%ADn.pdf
**Comment: I noticed that there is a lot of crossover between our topics. We are both addressing hacker communities, but from differing angles. I have acquired quite a bit of information about Anonymous and have listed the resources on my tentative reference page located just below here. Feel free to look and use anything from that list that may help you in your project. Also, the Anonymous page found in Wikipedia is quite good in understanding what the Anonymous phenomenon is. They are free agents often acting independently of each other and unaffiliated with one another under the umbrella name Anonymous. In other words, Anonymous is a concept more than an identifiable specific group. I also noticed you have listed pastebin as a resource. It is my suggestion to be careful with that, and try to find where that document was published. It could simply be the rantings of teenager enamored with the publicity of their antics and activity. The questionable authenticity of that write pad entry to me is found in the signature at the bottom. It should read: We are Anonymous/We are legion/We do not forgive/We do not forget/Expect us-always. Lastly, keep in mind that not all Anonymous hacktivity is criminal, that is just the part that gets sensationalized. There are many other cyber-activism efforts that take place under the name of Anonymous that are not criminal. Good luck, and I look forward to watching your project develope! -----=:) [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 23:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC) for the #datalove
**Comment: I found that some of your research objectives coincide with mine. I can assure you that people do use what is called "hacktivism" to oppose the lies and conspiracies of the U.S. Government. If you take a http://www.nogw.com/ alone you would be surprised how some of the secret documents happen to be available on line. For instance, the loan by the Wall Street Banks to finance Adolf Hitler's Army is not a secret nowadays because of the "hacktivism", although the fact and the document has been kept in secret from the Government of Soviet Union for decades. The role of the Jews in the mass murder of millions is proven with facts on the Holocaust denial web sites. I guess the major drive that motivates people to use their skill in the "wrong way" is to oppose the lie that is bigger in size and thus controls the legacy tools such as Media and Congress. Even children in New York City know that the twin towers were demolished by the "uniformed criminals" employed as the federal agents. Check out the list of literature on my prospectus and http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=46 is just one out of dozens web sites. The U.S Government had no reason to deploy troops anywhere at the cost of the taxpayers' dollars. Do you think other citizens do not realize this? They do, but they join others in this giant lie and say that it is a war on terror, and they say this at Law Schools, through the public media, and post it online. These people are indifferent and coward because they lie to themselves and the so called prosecuted activities is the only way to reveal the truth. In your research you are therefore addressing a brave category of people who are ready to risk their lives for the simple yet amazingly right cause - to reveal the corrupted syndicate of greedy liars who oppresses people with their tyrannic power and ability to prosecute. If you are not afraid to cooperate on this project in front of the university staff, then take a look at my proposal and let me know what do you think. I may give you a couple of additional sources and suggestions, but if you do not want to be involved in this type of a project, I will totally understand. Best! --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 10:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hai. Thanks for your response. I just thought that I would add that it is very important make the distinction between hackers and crackers. Unfortunately the media has not made this distinction clear and has tainted the meaning of the term hacker. In a nutshell, hackers create things and crackers break things. Most hackers look down upon crackers and dismiss them as technological bugs. Most hackers I know are not pleased with the criminal antics done in the name of Anonymous. It is true that collaborative write pads are in common use because of the ease to collaborate live together at once. Pastebin happens to not be one used for documents all that much though. It is mainly used to send larger pieces of text into chat protocols such as IRC without flooding the channel. Write pads such as typewith.me and piratepad.net are more common to use for group documents since the url is not made public and searchable, and is kept private among the group working on it. Also, an interesting comment about hacktivism made to me by a French hacker with whom I am in contact with simply and broadly described hacktivism as using technology to impact society. I think we must be careful, myself included, when we talk about cracker v. hackers. A classic document among hackers written and maintained by Eric Raymond, "[http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html How to Become a Hacker]" describes the difference quite well. [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 03:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Lorena. I think this is a great topic and I agree that you and Deinous seem to have a strong intersection of ideas. I think the comments I made under Deinous' posting are applicable here as well. It's good to see this topic having such strong discussion. Regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 04:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Hi, Alan, thanks a lot for your interest! I can't find your comments below deinous' prospect, and I would really like to check them.'' [[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 12:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I too went in search of Allen's comments and were unable to find them :( [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 18:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Margaret Tolerton [[User: deinous|deinous]]====
* '''Prospectus title: Jailbreaking appliance based gadgets and game consoles: the legal and generative implications'''
* '''Link to prospectus:'''http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:JailbreakingGadetsAndGamesConsoles.doc
**Comment: Margaret, thanks a lot for your offering. I could really use some inside information about this topic. About your suggestion, I chose pastebin as a reference looking for a way to begin my research. You are right when you say that accuracy is not guaranteed when it comes to this source, but my main objective is to test the general perception of internet community about "hacktivism", I want to read about it in forums, press articles comments... See what normal people think about this. Of course, not every "hacktivist" action is a ciber-crime, but I am particularly interested in motivations that lead people to engage in certain projects that could be prosecuted depending on the country, as uploading copyrighted contents. I am sure we could find a lot of profit-driven actions, but I want to get deeper in personal motivations, since there are many so-called "cyber-crimes" that have nothing to do with obtaining a profit, at least a tangible one. When reading your prospectus, I came up with something very interesting: "Happy to help others who are not as advanced?". I think solidarity plays a huge role of hacktivism communities, empowered by the feeling of being passionate about some topic. I guess the desire to share sprouts from passion, but I think that the need of feeling part of a community is also very important, especially when it comes to very well defined criminals such as sex offenders and very sensitive content uploaders, communities widely persecuted but, however, still huge. While my prospectus adopts a more anthropological point of view, I see yours as an inside work with very valuable information about hacktivism running. I look forward to see how your research evolves and to learn more about these communities from a privileged point of view. Please don't hesitate to make any suggestion you may consider, I am sure it will be very helpful for my research. Lorena Abuín. --[[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 21:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: LOL, I don't know how privileged my point of view is. I am more or less just another nerd with a computer on Friday and Saturday nights. In recent weeks I have come to feel as though the people of Telecomix have accepted me as one of their own though, as I have done a little public relations, fact checking, and some translations. Telecomix is very open about their work, and does not engage in illegal actions. Being mostly European, they lobby against, or for, various cyber laws to their respective Parliaments. What I meant though by my comment "happy too help others who are not as advanced" is that it is common for someone to ask a question of a technological nature and usually others jump in and help to solve the problem. For example, my switch over to Linux, I have been having quite a time configuring a few of my drivers, and getting used to working from a command line with unix syntax, and several people who know how to fix the problems will jump in and start coaching with many lulz along the way.[[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 03:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hello there. I am delighted and in part surprised to see a topic of this type. By type I mean it is heavily technological mission to retrieve a piece of real information from the community of real hackers. Not all software engineers employed by the government are able to intervene communication among the community of real hackers. You may however, catch a few portals where "I can do this, I can do that" type of conversations take place, but whether they really have done something interesting and indeed reveal their ideology is a big speculation. For this course, I believe, you need to change your frequency, sort of speak, and listen not for the hacking communities themselves, but for the actions they have already done. Actions speak lauder than words, as you may know. You you need to listen to the anti-thesis, that is, the counter part of the hacking group. In this country, among various subsequent agencies that keep control of all networks, the NSA sources will probably be the most beneficial to you, although I am not 100 percent sure about this. It is difficult to find something that is available to the public. Recall the scandal with pornographic downloads by the employees of the Trade Commission; this is just one out of million examples of the internet traffic control by the Feds. It is therefore the Feds who are on the opposite side of the argument with the hackers. By considering both ideology of the hackers and a counter-premise by the Feds you will have a full and comprehensive picture for your project. In short, I am proposing to search not only within the hackers community, which may only seem as community of hackers and give you a bogus information, but also find reports, chronicles, and cases exposed by the Feds. It may ultimately appear that it is the Feds who are vandals and trolls and who violate privacy and steal the tax money of the citizens. At least this is what my prospectus's sources can prove, but take a look at National Security Agency [http://www.nsa.gov/] web site. In the meantime, I will keep checking on your project and will try to give you more clues because your topic coincides with mine in many regards. --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 06:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Thank you for your response and comments. I will certainly take them into consideration. However, I feel that my views toward hacking are much broader than the criminality of a few, and that there should be more emphasis in part on the difference between hacking and cracking. I am one that still holds the traditional meaning of a hacker as one that is adept with the computer and often generates new creative uses for what is in front of them. As a result I am watching my topic shift a bit and focusing perhaps more on the difficulty that researchers have with the DMCA preventing them from publishing in full their findings, and the law of fair use. Over this past year we have watched the jailbreaking of an iPhone of iPad for the use of external software not approved by Apple go from being an illegal act to being justified as fair use. Although it will nullify any warranty of your gadget. Currently we are watching this same debate occur over the jailbreaking of the Sony PS3 to run Linux and homebrewed games. I am one that supports the fair use argument in that if you are clever enough to make your gadgetry do fun and interesting things beyond the uses that they are intended, then you should be able to do it--especially if you have no intention on using pirated software or make profit of any sort from it. As for an original angle, I am still waffling a bit, and welcome any further comments.====:)'' [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 17:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Margaret, Given your change in perspective of your project you may wish to explore the discussion of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization Tivoization] (if you have note already considered such). The question of, “Should manufacturers of hardware have the right to limit the use of software on their machines when that software included elements covered under versions of the GNU license?” seems a related and interesting debate. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 16:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Guy, thank you so much for your wonderfully concise thesis question! Sometimes it just takes the right little tweak to bring scattered thoughts together, and pondering the legal parameters of an open source kernel wrapped in a proprietary shell is a question I would very much like to spend some time on. Thanks again.'' [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 19:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Margaret, I am very glad you found my suggestion helpful. I look forward to your final output. It’s a really intriguing topic. Thanks for checking out web.alive (comment below). I didn’t play any role in developing it (wish I were that bright). My colleague [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiYi3iEBJNM Arn Hyndman] is the chief architect.

Your comment about, “test driving it among a group of ppl,” got me thinking. If we wished to, we could use the tool for a virtual study group. Would you be interested? Do you think others would be? It could be a great environment for classmates to meet and discuss the coursework.

Also, anyone who is working as a group in developing their project can use it to collaborate virtually. There are virtual white boards, web browsers that appear to be mounted on walls, desktop application sharing portals and other tools. I’ll be glad to meet folks in the environment and show how to use the tools. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 23:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Guy, I think using web.alive as a platform for a study group is a great idea. Perhaps you can make an announcement in class this week.'' [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 00:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Guy Clinch -- [[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 13:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title (updated Mar 20): The Transition to Next Generation 9-1-1 in North America'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Internet_and_Society_Assingment_2%28gclinch%29.pdf
*To my Classmates: As of March 20 I have changed the title and subject of my finalk project proposal. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 01:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

*It has occurred to me that in order to give me feedback on my proposal you may need to experience the web.alive environment. Please feel free to click on the following link and explore. http://apex.avayalive.com/715/html
I look forward to reading your ideas. Thank you. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 19:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hai Guy! I recently checked out web.alive and thought on first impression it was a nice sleek, useful, and intuitive application. Very well designed indeed. Were you one of the developers? I'm afraid that at this time I cannot offer much in the way of constructive criticism without test driving it among a group of ppl, but I do see it as a wonderful tool for distance business communication. [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 18:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Syed Yasir Shirazi [User: syedshirazi]====
* '''Prospectus title: Online Group Buying - Newly Emerging Business Model or Fad?'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Syed_Yasir_Shirazi-Assignment_2.pdf
**Comment: Syed, this is a really interesting topic, but I am concerned that it may be too broad. I feel like a question like yours would more likely take up a book than a paper to be completed over a single semestre! Perhaps you could look into a specific group-buying site rather than the concept as a whole, like Groupon or LivingSocial. It might even be interesting to compare the two. Or, are there sites in which users decide which company they want to solicit such coupons from, rather than having the site itself decide? Just some ideas to help you get this topic down to something manageable. Does this help at all? [[User:Mcforelle|Mcforelle]] 21:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Hi Michelle - Thanks for the feedback. I was actually planning to do a comparative study between a daily deal website (Groupon) versus a more traditional online retailer (Amazon or ebay) to see which model is more sustainable in terms of driving traffic and providing value. But your comments about 'websites that allow users to decide which company they want to solicit coupons from' has got me thinking now. Project is currently in Work-in-Process mode.Will keep everyone posted. Thanks - Yasir '' ~~[[User:syedshirazi|syedshirazi]] 22:14, 06 March 2011

----

====Name: Jessica Sanfilippo - [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 16:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: Transparency and Participation in Crowd Funding'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:JSanfilippo_Assignment_2.doc
**Comment: Hi Jessica,I think crowd funding is a fascinating topic, and there seem to be various types of crowd funding as you point out. Micro Loans and sites such as Kiva.com are also wonderful examples of crowd funding. I am probably over reaching, but I noticed that Syed Yasir A. Shirazi has a prospectus on Group Buying, and wonder if the two can be connected somehow? What if materials needed for a funded project on kickstarter.com for instance, could be purchased through groupon.com or a similar site? Regardless, I am looking forward to your findings around Crowd Funding (especially in the creative space).
**Comment: Hi Jessica: www.33needs.com is another website which would be of interest to you. You might want to take a look at it for ideas related to crowd-funding. Also, let me know if you would be interested in sharing thoughts regarding the final research project.My email id is sshirazi@fas.harvard.edu. Thanks - Yasir ~~[[User:syedshirazi|syedshirazi]] 21:24, 06 March 2011

----

====Name: Adriana Faria Torii [drifaria] and Anna Christiana Marinho C. Machado [([[User:Anna|Anna]] 17:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC))]====
*'''Prospectus title: Analysis of E-Government Practices in Brazil'''
*'''Link to prospectus:'''http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Faria_Marinho_Prospectus.pdf
**Comment: Hi Adriana and Anna - E-governance in an emerging country like Brazil is an attention-grabbing subject. As you have mentioned in your prospectus, in terms of audience, Brazil is amongst the top ten countries in the world (I think they have recently moved up to #5 in terms of total internet users). But that said, the overall internet penetration is pretty low (I think it is close to only 40% of the entire Brazilian population).
The G2C part of your project should provide an interesting analysis since concepts like e-voting work the best when the internet usage amongst citizenry is high. Brazil does not have uniformly high internet penetration across the entire county. Maybe you can differentiate the G2C aspect and compare between urban and rural populations because there will be different results (I believe) for effectiveness of such an ‘e-system’ amongst the 2 geographic segments. Also, you can include some analysis on mechanisms for ‘fraud detection’ for e-voting and e-tax filing processes. Thoughts on this link might be of interest to you: http://qssi.psu.edu/files/hidalgo.pdf. Looking forward to reading your final paper. ~~[[User:syedshirazi|syedshirazi]] 21:21, 03 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi, I believe you should also compare other countries E- Government practices to Brazil's. It might be interesting to see if there are any other governments polices similar to Brazil's. There might be a government with similar statistics, and by comparing them you might see another variable that might be affecting Brazil. --[[User:Joshuasurillo|Joshuasurillo]] 04:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Laura Connell [[User:Ltconnell|Ltconnell]] 18:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*''' Prospectus title: Does providing a legal alternative act as a deterrent to internet piracy?'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Laura_Connell_Assignment_2_Prospectus.pdf
**Comment: Laura, here is a link to a recent study that you may find of use:
[http://documents.envisional.com/docs/Envisional-Internet_Usage-Jan2011.pdf Envisional - Technical report: An Estimate of Infringing Use of the Internet] Hope you find this helpful --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 03:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Laura, glad to see this topic on the list. It's a tough topic as it could be looked at as requiring a world government organization to pass law enacting the crack down on stolen DRM'ed materials. At the same time there seems to be evidence that this type of activity does not hit the bottom line of Hollywood and other world producers of content. Manufacturers of CD and DVD technology has traditionally tried to work with the "Hollywoods" of the world only to be thwarted by the hacker. There seems to be a balance in the mix where the manufactures can create some hurdles for the most common user and at the same time not create a situation where users are not able to access valid content (such as putting in a DVD from Japan in a US DVD player and not being able to play the content). I think we're moving more and more toward online content like Netflix where the content is more controlled and the physical media is going away. Streaming content has some inherent properties that cannot be easily overcome, further, as long as the browser being used to support a new type of encryption technology, companies can make changes to security on the web server side when hackers have found an exploit. It's a very interesting topic, but I think any laws created would be done by people that do not fully understand the technology and also the laws have great potential to be outdated in a short amount of time if not written with enough foresight. Having said that, there has been a great deal of reduction in some types of sharing due to cases against people that have pirated DRM'ed media and also have had big impacts on many sites that traditionally have been an excellent source for finding pirated material. Regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Alokika Singh [[User:Singh singh|Singh singh]] 19:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[[User:Singhsingh]]====
*'''Prospectus title: Online Political Activism in India'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_II_22_feb..pdf
**Comment: Hi Alokika: I think your topic is very interesting. You can also draw a comparative line between roles of leading social/political leaders in India versus the role of ordinary internet users when it comes to acting as the leading force behind online social/political debate in India? A lot of times, it has been seen that individuals who don’t follow any hierarchy kick-off such bold campaigns. (Take the example of what happened in Egypt over the last six months. The online movement was sparked by ordinary folks and not any leading social or political figure). I am curious to know whether the online ‘Pink Chaddi’ campaign was initiated by general users or spearheaded by a leading social organization in India. I suspect the former. So it will be interesting to see how the online debate has evolved in India. Looking forward to reading your final analysis.~~[[User:syedshirazi|syedshirazi]] 20:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Don Hussey [[User:Donaldphussey|Donaldphussey]] 19:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: Online Crowd-Sourcing of Starbucks Product Development'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:LSTU_E-120_--Hussey_-_Asmt2.doc
**Comment: Don, this is a really ambitious project. I think it's a great idea for you to use your professional position to get your foot in the door with some of the people at Starbucks; I hope it works! My only concern with this project is that you are only focusing on the corporate side of this venture. Is there any way you can include information from participants or contributors to this site? Is there any way on this site that users can interact with each other, or is it a one-way interaction between contributors and Starbucks? ~~[[User:mcforelle|mcforelle]] 18:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Don, I also agree with mcforelle in that you should involve the contributors into your work. For example, if you look at those in support of Starbucks minis (lol)
http://mystarbucksidea.force.com/ideaview?id=08750000000H4DwAAK
you can ask them if they seriously feel more loyalty to the company based on their contributions--even if they never see their ideas come to fruition? Or do they merely want to be a part of the Starbucks online community? Or do they want bragging rights? Also, it might be interesting to briefly compare the Starbucks strategy--seeing the consumer/contributor as the catalyst of a new product--versus, say, the recent Dominos Pizza strategy--viewing the consumer/contributor as the rater of a finished product. This might allow you to connect the measurable (business performance) with the non-measurable (customer feedback)--the latter which now can be more accurately measured because of social media and online communities. All in all, I think you have great potential with this topic! [[User:Myra|Myra]] 20:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Re: methodology, [http://socialmention.com Social Mention] is a free tool you can use to track sentiment/mentions/posts related to Starbucks in various social spheres. Might be worth checking out as the mystarbucksidea project takes off, in order to see how this shapes their metrics! - Jessica [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 03:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Tym Lewtak [[User:lewtak|lewtak]] 21:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: User Generated Sites: Defining Superusers and Their Monetization'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Assignment_2.pdf
**Comment: Tymoteusz, I find you topic very interesting. I am wondering as a product of your research if you will study the proportion of individuals who are super users compared to commercial organizations using these tools. That is, in respect to commercial organizations using the various tools, how important is the individual? Over time, is the place of the individual becoming more or less important? I would suspect that part of this equation depends upon the rate at which people are able to monetize their involvement as much as how commercial organizations are co-opting the modalities. Is there a constant influx of new blood or will the ability of individuals to monetize their involvement decrease over time? It may be fascinating to see is this is an indication of a generative system over the long run or something that may peak and decline. Good luck! --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 03:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Gclinch, Thanks for all of your input! I initially didn't think to so much as include corporations, but taking a second glance at the subject you're right. I would be foolish to not look at motivations for companies and individuals alike to join sites as super-users. If I can find historical data on users from these sites, I'd like to especially take a look at whether it was individuals who joined first and became super-users, or if corporations jumped onto the "ball game" with individuals following. I suspect the latter isn't true, but I will try to distinguish between companies that joined these sites early on versus already popular companies that grew their earlier existent popularity.'' ([[User:Lewtak|Lewtak]] 21:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC))
**Comment: One thing that is very interesting about internet communities is the ability of certain super users to arise. You will find it in all communities from IRC to blogs to forums to games and so on. Normally these are the folks to spend 60+ hours a week on their system (might want to look up references on hours as it relates to superusers) and this is their exposure to the "outside" world. There are different kinds of super users as well. There are the mentors who want to help the community evolve and guide users in the right direction, gently correct them when they are wrong, and are just generally helpful. There are also the dictatorial power mongers who will ban, delete, disparage, etc... anything they don't like, no matter how small the violation or mistake may be. There are many super user personalities in between as well. These individuals do it because they want to do it, not because of pay. Sites that can entice a user community to police itself significantly reduces their overhead costs and still, normally, maintains a good site with good content and a happy user community. Unless, of course, they select a powerMAD person to be the superuser in which case everyone will eventually get upset and move to greener pastures. [[User:Rakundig|Rakundig]]

----

====Name: Denise Reed--[[User:Dreed07|-dreed07]] 21:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: A comparative study of user behavior on Chinese social networking sites with that of United States social networkers'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/REED_LSTU_E120_Assignment_2.doc
**Comment: Fascinating subject! I think that the differences between Chinese and USA based social networking sites is an area ripe for exploration, and one that could potentially shed a lot of light on the effects of government censorship on online communities. Some thoughts: differences in user behavior may be due to many different factors, including site architecture, demographics, and cultural influences. It would be worthwhile to explore the demographic differeces (such as age, socio-economic status, and geographic location) between different sites offering similar services in and outside of China. Furthermore, I wonder if it would be possible to obtain information on the behavior of Chinsese nationals using facebook prior to that site being banned in the PRC, and to compare it to that of non-Chinese nationals? Also, you might look into the social networking habits of users in Hong Kong, where Facebook and simmilar sites (IIRC) remain unblocked. Are their any social networking sites specifically targeted toward the Hong Kong community, and how do such sites differ from those in the rest of China? Finally, I notice that your links seem to be primarily in English. Direct access to Chinese social networking sites, and their users, in their native language would, I imagine, be extremely valuable to this project. [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 03:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I would love to see how your research will bloom at the end of the course. I am from South Korea but I have spent a considerable amount of time in China as my family runs business there. I usually stay in Beijing at least for a month every year and am naturally exposed to the Internet culture of China. As it is widely known, access to Facebook is blocked in the country and sometimes - I am not certain about the cause - access to Google is denied, which practically separates me from my online networks. You prospectus seems to cover general contrasting characteristics of two countries' different social networks. Since the filtering level of these countries varies, setting clear standards for comparing subjects, I think, might be quite crucial. From your project, selecting a proper social network website which can be considered as Facebook of the US would be an essence. Please let me know if you need any help with that.
--[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 03:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Michelle Forelle [[User:mcforelle|mcforelle]] 21:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: Online Video-Making Groups: Community, Copyright, Collaboration and Commercialism'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment2_Vimeo.pdf
**Comment: Michelle, I have never heard of Vimeo (this is where the Geico man asks me if I live in a cave), but I think you are onto something very interesting here. Perhaps when you tap the frequent contributors of the site, you can ask them why they post their videos on Vimeo instead YouTube, and if for a time, they did switch over to YouTube, and why? It looks like Vimeo started about a year before YouTube. Where did they share their videos before, or did they not? At the onset, Vimeo seems like a more serious bunch than Youtube, but let's see what you discover! [[User:Myra|Myra]] 21:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Thought this was a very interesting and challenging research topic. I work in the digital advertising space, and video has always been a tough nut to crack for clients. They are drawn to the "sight, sound and motion" element that made TV advertising so successful, but clearly the digital space opens possibilities for an entirely new set of formats beyond the :30 sec TV spot. I have used Vimeo for one of my client's campaigns, and it was the community-oriented nature of its architecture that made it particularly compelling. So, I'll be very curious to read your completed report! Also thought I'd share a helpful resource that summarizes the online video landscape (it's slightly dated, but you might find their case studies to be useful to your cross-analysis): [http://www.emarketer.com/blog/index.php/emarketer-webinar-evolving-online-video-landscape/ eMarketer]. Good luck! - Jessica [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 01:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I think this is a very interesting topic and i cannot wait till it is completed. There are so many other video sharing websites besides Youtube. Like Myra said, Vimeo seems to be for more serious users. Also they tend to target a specific group of fellow professionals. I wish I had chosen this topic. Good luck! --[[User:Joshuasurillo|Joshuasurillo]] 04:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Myra Garza [[User:Myra|Myra]]====
*'''Prospectus title: Preparing and Accommodating Millenials in the Workforce: Use of Social Media in Two Career Coaching Businesses'''
*'''Link to prospectus:'''http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Garza.M.Prospectus.doc
**Comment: Myra, this is a really interesting topic! I feel like this is exactly as narrow a case study as the professors were asking for. I'm jealous that you were able to identify such an relevant topic, lol! I look forward especially to reading the background research for this paper, as it is my understanding that minority youth are disproportionally represented on sites like Twitter; I'm eager to find out whether that rumor is true, and if so, what it means for the way these youth interact with and influence the hiring process. I'm also interested in hearing how these companies help steer the social use of the social media into the practical, career-building use. I'm curious to see if you find that the conclusions you are specific to urban youth or whether such tactics in career counseling are also applicable to suburban and rural kids too. Great prospectus, I really look forward to reading your paper! [[User:mcforelle|mcforelle]] 18:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I, too, think this is going to be a very interesting paper. There is such a need in the corporate community for young people who can help older executives use social media both within the organization for employees and outside the organization for the public and consumers. I would be interested in what the career objectives are for the clients of these two organizations. Are they interested in using their social media skills as part of their job requirements or are they looking for careers in various non-related fields? <<[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 01:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)>>
**Comment: Great topic, as I am sure many of us see on a daily basis the generational differences at work, and the need to involve and "catch" the millenial generation. I wonder if the two organizations will provide you with data on their success, and outreach numbers in the community? I look forward to seeing how this plays out. [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 01:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Myra - The influence of social media on both the job search process and in the workplace itself is a very powerful topic! If I am interpreting your prospectus correctly, it seems that your primary concern is with how, in practice, the two case study sites prepare Millenials for the proper use of social media in their job search/and work environments? If so, it might be interesting to connect with Human Resources representatives, to get a pulse on how their employee/recruitment policies have evolved due to the emergence of these new communication tools. In theory, I think there should likely be some alignment between the advice from the two websites and what HR is practicing. Separately, you also raise a very compelling distinction, which is that these businesses serve the needs of minority groups. I wonder if this may warrant its own stand-alone investigation. This way, you can truly dedicate your research towards how the workplace and job search process is shifting (and hopefully closing the gap) for minorities, as exemplified by the social media practices and guidelines from your 2 case study sites. In any case, this is indeed a substantial topic, so I look forward to seeing which direction you take it! - Jessica [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]]
***'' Response: Everyone--thanks so much for feedback! I actually am an HR professional myself, and I can tell you that a lot of HR and business literature out there encourages the bridging of generations at work--particularly with the use of technology. Easier said than done! So, I already have an interest in the broad topic and am hoping the two organizations will be willing to share their experiences teaching social media tactics to youth (for career purposes) and offer some insight on the specific needs of minority youth. I actually met the owner of CC4Kidz at a conference a few weeks ago, and after searching for similar organizations, I discovered The Youth Career Coach Inc. As Jessica indicated above, this topic will require some more narrowing down. Thanks!'' [[User:Myra|Myra]] 22:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Jose Uscanga====
*'''Prospectus Title: Cummunity reporting or social activism? The New Age of media reporting in Mexico.'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Jose_Uscanga_Assignment_-2.doc
**Comment: Jose, you have identified a truly compelling topic.
When you ask, “Is free press necessary for democracy?” many of us would say, obviously yes. Reading your prospectus though makes me wonder, “what do we mean today by a free press.” Does phenomenon such as Mexican citizens taking, “on the civic responsibility of alerting other citizens by providing detailed and unfiltered information,” redefine what we mean when we use the term press? I’ll be looking forward to reading your conclusions.
I’d also be interested to learn if you think there is something unique about Mexican culture that compels people to get involved. It seems to me that these citizen journalists are taking huge risks. Even less than the professional journalists, there would seem to be no safety net. After all isn’t it easy for the drug cartels to find out who is issuing the alerts. Is it a demographic trend, is it youth driven or does it span the population? Is it something unique about the way Mexican people relate to one another that makes people get involved? Thanks for taking on such an interesting and challenging topic. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 02:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Assignment 2 Submissions

2011-03-21T01:28:44Z

Gclinch: /* Name: Guy Clinch -- Gclinch 13:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC) */

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; padding: 5px; text-align: left;">
<big>'''Assignments'''</big>

'''[[Assignment 1 Details and Reporting]]''' | [[Assignment 1 Submissions|Submissions]] 
''Due February 8''

'''[[Assignments#Assignment_2:_Prospectus| Assignment 2]]''' | [[Assignment 2 Submissions|Submissions]] 
''Due February 22''

'''[[Assignments#Assignment_3:_Project_Outline| Assignment 3]]''' | [[Assignment 3 Submissions|Submissions]] 
''Due March 22''

'''[[Assignment 4 Details and Links]]''' | [[Assignment 4 Submissions|Submissions]] 
''Due April 12''

'''[[Final Project]]''' | [[Final Projects|Submissions]] 
''Due May 10''

</div>

===Distribution of Grades===
[[Image:Assignment2_distribution.png‎|400px]]

===Submission Instructions===
This assignment is due on February 22. Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (assignments submitted 4 days late or later will have a maximum grade of 1 point).

Please make sure the name of your file includes your name (example: Name_Assignment2.doc) to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment. ''The '''upload file''' link is to the left, under '''toolbox'''.'' Once you've uploaded your file, please link to it following the format below:

*Name:
*Prospectus title:
*Link to prospectus: (the file you uploaded)

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

===Comments===
Everyone will receive an additional participation grade for this assignment. You should read through everyone's proposals after they are uploaded and add constructive comments below the proposal on which you're commenting. Comments should be submitted by March 6 so you have time to incorporate them, if applicable, into your project outline. ('''Remember to sign your comments!''')

===Submissions===

----

====Name: Gagan Panjhazari --[[User:Gpanjhazari|Gpanjhazari]] 07:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: The Role of Censorship Of the Internet in the Egypt and Libya'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/GaganPanjhazari-Assignment2.txt
*Comment: You might want to check the article I posted on the Feb 22 assignment page that appeared in the New York Times. Might be helpful on your first topic. <<[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 00:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)>>
**Comment: Gagan, I find both of your topic choices interesting. I think the second one, regarding the ability to hold website creators responsible for their content, especially when said content could be considered treasonous, would be the best topic of the two. It is such an important question, the answer to the question will frame our national security for the future. With either topic, I look forward to reading your findings. [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 01:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
*Comment: Frontline, the PBS program, had an episode about the April 6 Movement in Egypt, including how it used the interent and mobile devices for organization and how it was forced to adapt when access was cut. There isn't a whole lot of detail here, but it might be a useful place to start. [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 02:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/revolution-in-cairo/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid
*''Comment:'' I like the second topic. It would be interesting to see if the treason charges are somehow being used to:
# silence Julian Assange
# scare others from doing the same thing
#*One thing you might look up for precedence is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers Pentagon Papers] [[User:Rakundig|Rakundig]]
**Hai!...I love your idea of covering the censorship and even internet blackouts at times in Egypt and Libya along with the role that social networking and tweeps had in organizing the recent protests, and ousting of Mubarak. This is a fascinating narrative to be sure. Here are a few links about a European internet activist group that has worked to provide low tech communication aid to the protesters. I hope they might be of use to you in your research. [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/02/egypts-internet-blackout-highlights-danger-weak|Egypt's Internet Blackouts Highlights Danger of Weak Links, Usefulness of Quick Links], [http://werebuild.eu/wiki/Egypt/Main_Page | werebuild.eu the Egyptian project page], [http://werebuild.eu/wiki/Libya/Main_Page | werebuild.eu, the Libyan project page], and [http://telecomix.org/ | telecomix.org] [http://globalvoicesonline.org/ | Global Voices]has done an outstanding job of covering these events as well. Best of luck![[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 01:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I agree with Deinous. Your topic is very time-appropriate and I cannot hide my excitement to read final results of the research! I believe it should be closely examined as an epitome of the Internet censorship by all of us who are taking this class. From my perspective, it seems that Egypt's Internet kill switch decision rather ignited people's movement toward democracy and protests. By the way, your prospectus includes primarily theoretical approaches to the topic. I would love to know which resources you are going to use in the course of the research. Depending on types of media, your research conclusions, I believe, can be various. Below is the article of the Economist that might be useful in your project. Good Luck! --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 10:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**[[http://www.economist.com/node/18112043 The Economist: Reaching for the kill switch]]
**Comment: Hi Gagan, both your topics are interesting. According to the description of the Final Project it should be built around one of the theoretical conceptions that we study during the course.So if you think about the conceptions that may apply to your topics, it will help you to chose one of two topics proposed by you and, perhaps, to generate your questions and hypothesis around the theoretical conception as the Final Project demand. [[Kristina Meshkova]], 5 March 2011.
**Comment: Gagan, great subjects! You should stick with the subject that interests you most. I suppose its the first one that you wrote about, the role of social media and networking in the revolutions. This is definitely a broad subject, but that doesn't mean you should throw it out, it means you should narrow it to a point that is achievable. A suggestion would be to pick one of the countries, and one of the social networks to drill deeper into. (i.e. the role that Facebook users played in the Egyptian revolution.) Then you need to think about what you will investigate. This project is supposed to be empirical, so you should find some way of observing or surveying the users or the events. This might be in the form of friending as many of the users who were involved in a particular event on Facebook. This should be a great project for you! [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Gagan,I think the same - great topics. I believe both of them are very current and it will be interesting to read your final project. It is very hard to comment your prospectus because it is apparent that you did a deep research and you are clear in what you want to research in final paper. It seems to me that first project seems to be more empirical than second one. Although it would be maybe more or less easier to find 'clear' answers for questions in second project. I do not know. When regards the topics, both of them are very current and you identified the questions very clearly. Good luck with your project...[[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 10:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I think thats remarkable. I do think your topic is a bit broad, as is mine, must a great start! This link might help as well-http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/29/technology/internet/29cutoff.html I wonder what role did social networks play in Egypts revolution. I know the Egyptian consulate in New York cut off web access, but you can still inquire via phone. Will they take this same route in the future?--[[User:Elishasurillo|Elishasurillo]] 04:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: This is a very serious and evolving topic that should be very fun and interesting to work on. It is very important to study the internet's effect on these countries because it could quite possibly happen to other countries. Just like the revolutionary furry spread from Egypt to Libya, it could easily spread to other countries either for the better of for the worse.--[[User:Joshuasurillo|Joshuasurillo]] 05:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Saam Batmanghelidj --'''[[User:Saambat|Saambat]] 10:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: The Effect of Synthetic World Communities on Real World Societies, Economies, and Copyright law'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Batmanghelidj_Final_Project_Prospectus.doc
**Comment: Hi Saam, I think your topic of synthetic or virtual worlds. I had a suggestion that you take a look at BitCoin (http://www.bitcoin.org/), this is an emerging technology that only started up a short time ago. It's a fascinating technology that deals with a new form of money (yes it can be exchanged for real money and is currently trading 1 for 1 with the US dollar). Some interesting things about it: uses public/private encryption keys, it's completely anonymous, it has great potential to circumvent certain banking regulation systems, it can be used to make real purchases, because of it's anonymity and cannot be tracked creates a security of privacy for the purchaser and seller. This also means could could be exploited by people not wanting transactions to be recorded. This technology really opens a virtual door of monetary exchange across the globe where any currency can be exchanged for BitCoins and then exchanged again into a different currency. This is just a top end look at it. It's already in use and some places accept this currency including some non-profit agencies for donation purposes. It also opens an easy way to laundry dirty money. Regards Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi , Saam. The topic is very interesting, but, I’m not sure that questions you want to answer will help you to develop the topic deeply and systemically: the questions are not in a strong correlation with your topic, I think they will not disclose the topic in full and from the main sides of it. You also use such phrase as “virtual property”, what do you mean by this? Is it the same as intellectual property? If yes, I think, it’s better to use the term “intellectual property”. You also pose such question as “How harmful is it for people to sell virtual items for real world monies, and to what extent is it harmful?” So you’ve already decided that it’s harmful, may be, it’s worth to give some arguments in your work why you decided it’s harmful. If you consider “the Synthetic World Communities” as the theoretical concept you want to use in the Final Project, you can try to determine the main features of this concept, then divide your hypothesis into three sphere ( society, economic and copyright law) and pose the main, in your opinion, questions in each of the spheres, regarding the theoretical basis you chose. [[Kristina Meshkova]], 5 March 2011.
**Comment: Saam, you've picked a fascinating topic. You've identified a rich field and topics; the challenge will actually be in narrowing it down to something observable, rather than reporting on what has already been written and explored. Pick one of the topics like virtual property trades and one of the sites like EVE Online and think through how you can observe what is happening in that cross-section. I look forward to reading this project! [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Saam...Great topic. I agree with Smithbc comments. I am not sure whether we should study smething mere via reporting the book and blog. As I said, I am not sure and at this time you should have already had a feedback so you probably know better. Good luck with the project and looking forward for reading final version. [[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 21:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
----

====Name: Kimberly Nevas --'''[[User:KimberlyNevas|KimberlyNevas]] 02:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: Can the U.S. Prosecute Julian Assange?'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Nevas_Kimberly_LSTU_E-120_Assignment_2.pdf
**Comment: Hi, Kimberly. Your topic is one of the essential questions I myself also want to closely observe and look for answers. Especially, considering the global impacts of Wikileaks, the prosecution of Assange is merely not confined to the jobs of the US Justice Department. Many governments are quite eager to punish him for revealing sensitive political/diplomatic issues, which might have significantly deterred their national agenda. Nonetheless, the 1st Amendment of the US and equivalent provisions existing in each country that guarantee freedom of speech are standing in the way of this very prosecution. So the question always comes down to this: are we going to sacrifice freedom of speech for a greater cause - usually national security? Are there certain limitations that media have to comply with in publishing their articles? I would love to see how this 21th version of the Zenger Trial will turn out. Good luck! Best, [[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 03:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: It might also be interesting to see if any other sites purporting to disclose sensitive information whether government or corporate have become more aggressive considering all the confusion about what to do with Julian Assange. Does his legal situation make these sites feel more confident regarding avoiding prosecution? <<[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 00:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)>>
**Comment: Your statement, "In this respect, Assange cannot be considered any more liable than the New York Times." is a bold one, which some might strongly disagree with, given Assange's postings and his refusal to censor, along with his use or threatened use of yet unreleased information as leverage to keep himself free. I look foward to reading your arguments regarding Assange, freedom of speech and the case law which supports your position. [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 01:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi, Kimberly. The problem you decided to consider in the Prospectus is really important and actual. But I think that the question “whether the Justice Department can prosecute Assange without damaging the U.S. free press as we know it”, that you pose describing the Problem is wider than the Research question. Perhaps, it’s worth to add the question “whether the Justice Department can prosecute Assange without damaging the U.S. free press as we know it”, to your Research question as the main one. And your present research question: Are the distribution methods adopted by Wikileaks for the dissemination of thousands of pages of classified U.S. documents structured so as to arm Julian Assange and his associates with a strong defense to prosecution under U.S. law?” will help you to answer your main question. Your present research question can be also considered as a research frame, so that you can explore the distribution methods of Wikileaks to answer if they really make the obstacles for the Justice Deparment to prosecute Assange and if yes to what extend; are the distribution methods of Wikileaks the main obstacles which do not permit the Justice Department to prosecute Assange or there are the other obstacles (for ex., with respect to the features of free press)? [[Kristina Meshkova]], 5 March, 2011.
**Comment: Kimberly, you have the beginnings of a good project here. I am interested in what you choose to use as your methodology and what you will choose to "observe" as part of this case study. One suggestion in particular is to look at the particular statements made by the U.S. papers in regards to why they believe their approach to printing the leaks are legal and any justifications they made in regard to accepting Assange's information. [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comments: Kimberly, that is an explosive topic! I bet you'll have lots of material! The qusetion is where did he commit the crimes if any. If in Australia, can they prosecute him? Or because they are U.S. cables, does the U.S.A. have jurisdiction? And who has the right to tell him he can or cannot post and release? The U.S.A. has to clearly stae how he broke the law. As far as I know, treason can only be a crime if commited by a citizen. Good work! --[[User:Elishasurillo|Elishasurillo]] 04:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Yes, very timely and interesting topic. One thing you might look up for precedence is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers Pentagon Papers] [[User:Rakundig|Rakundig]]

----

====Name: Jamil Buie====
*'''Prospectus Title: Profiteering via "Public Privacy" The use/misuse of your data'''
*'''Link to prospectus:'''http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:JBProject_Prospectus.pdf
**Comment: Hi Jamil, For me this is a an extremely important issue, I'm glad to see you're looking at it. I have a few pointers that may help uncover some things that are currently being looked at and something that was done in the UK back in 2008. Do a search for Phorm, BT implemented it in secrecy and it caused a big uproar. Also, it appears that ComCast is looking to implement it here in the US. It deals with deep level packet inspection. Not sure how tech savvy you are, but basically it comes down to an ISP looking at each packet users are sending out over their home connection. It is suppose to be done anonymously, however, it's invasive to the nth degree. Another technology that you might want to look at is the Evercookie. This can be used by websites that a user goes to, this then gathers information about a great number of browsing files that are on a system to ID the system. In the instance that a user cleans up his/her cookies, EverCookie will still be able to quickly identify you and place certain cookies back on your computer being able to keep tabs on the user. Regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi, Jamil. In your Prospectus, you write the following: “While most do understand that they are interacting with a third-party be it a site, search engine, or ISP they remain ignorant to how the data they’re providing is being farmed out or utilized in a commercial vein”. I can agree with you only partly: of course, we could not exclude the situations, when the data we provided are an object of unfair use, but it should be also mentioned that “the main players” of the Internet services do not ignore users, thus they stay uninformed about the way their data are used. For ex., Yahoo Privacy Policy http://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/details.html or Google Privacy http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacy/ In the question: What are the common guidelines and site best practices? you use such phrase as “site best practices”, that is very subjective category, as also the question: “Are consumers truly aware?”. Perhaps, it’s better to avoid such categories in your science research. [[Kristina Meshkova]], 5 March 2011.
**Comment: Jamil, we have similar interests and research topics. You are looking at the broad trail of information left by a typical internet user and the ways that trail is used. I am going narrower, specifically into the information gathered by location-based services to examine the associated privacy issues and assess the average consumer's perceptions of risks. If you are interested, I'd be willing to trade notes and help each other shape up the final project. Since we are doing similar topics, I would really appreciate your comments on my prospectus as well. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Very intrigued by your topic (and somewhat regretting not pursuing it myself!). I used to work as a targeting specialist at Yahoo!, and was floored by the amount of user data we had access to. Thought I'd share an extremely thorough [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703940904575395073512989404.html study] the WSJ put together not long ago, which summarizes the policies and efficacy of the major players in this space. Looking forward to reading your report on this very controversial and fascinating topic. - Jessica [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 03:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Another very ineresting topic. I believe, most consumers are not aware. I was surprised when I blocked cookies and then wanted to log in to facebook. Following message occured: 'Cookies are not enabled on your browser. Please adjust this in your security preferences before continuing.'. Seems like they are not interested in someone using their service without getting access to information about me so they can get paid:)I am still not aware of all information they can easily get about me. Good luck with project.[[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 09:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Uduak Patricia Okon====
*'''Prospectus Title: Web Pages/Blog Sites: Rights and Limitations-How free are you?'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Uduak_Patricia_Okon_Assign_2.pdf
**Comment: Hi Uduak, Your prospectus is very interesting. I look forward to seeing how your project comes together. But I have some comments that I would like to share, I hope my feedback is helpful.
**Re:
***In general, people are entitled to share facts if they don’t breach confidentiality or depict a real situation. This would depend on how citizen bloggers support their argument about their political commentary, whether it’s positive or negative. You need to remember that politicians are public figures, so the first amendment applies differently to them. Therefore the confidential circumstances that apply to the general population do not apply to politicians since they are not entitled to the same level of privacy. And citizen bloggers don’t have to adhere to the same circumstances as journalists to the best of my knowledge (I major in journalism and work in media in NYC) (i.e. it’s considered unethical for journalists to be bias if they’re not commentary writers. Also most journalists are not allowed to put political figure signs on their lawn, bumper sticker on their car, etc they need to push their feelings aside to accurately report the truth). I think the bigger issue is whether or not non-citizen bloggers can face defamatory lawsuits if there is proof they intentionally acted with malice? Or will future non-citizens bloggers have to abide by the same guidelines as employed journalists in the blogosphere working for CNN?
***Corporate law is an entirely different world. Because many corporations lie to promote their brand among many other issues on the internet, which is unethical to their consumers.
***I don’t think you should look into news websites like CNN, NY Times, etc because those are explicitly run by paid journalists (whom must adhere to strict guidelines about what they report) and comments are very restricted so the same type of freedom doesn’t apply to citizen journalists because official journalists also have code of ethics and have much more at stake.
***It's important to note that some citizen bloggers sell advertising on their blogs which might impede with how they portray a public figure on the net because they're getting paid. Formally employed journalists can't bias their stories based on relationships with advertisers because the editorial and advertising departments are seperate at news organizations.
***You, first need to narrow your focus because there is a huge difference between local mayors and congressional candidates, and citizen and non-citizen bloggers. (i.e. I think it would be interesting if you looked at how political figures use blogging as a form of position taking in Congress and compare cases of democratic and republican candidates on an issue like healthcare reform, education, etc. And the implications blogging has on Senators or Representatives relationships with their constituents).
**Comment: Uduak, very interesting subject. As you shape these ideas into a final project, one aspect to consider focusing on is to differentiate between a) the official "legal findings" of what bloggers can/cannot do vs. b) the unoffical "codes of conduct" being developed in the world of blogging. I think the unofficial codes would reflect the complex realities of the different types of bloggers, rather than the more simplistic legal concept of a blogger. One case to look at is the judge that was recently found to have been blogging anonymously [she thought :) ] about the case on which she herself was the sitting judge. I'll look for the URL to send you. I look forward to reading your project. [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Yaerin Kim [[User:Quill80|Quill80]] 02:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: OpenCourseWare(OCW) and its Impact: Case Study of MIT’s OCW'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment2_Kim.doc
**Comment: Hi Yaerin, I think this is a great topic. Being a part of F/OSS environment has pushed forward a number of wonderful software innovations. Scratch is an example of MIT's commitment to OCW. Scratch, though at first glance might appear comical, is actually a great tool to teach people the concepts of early stages of computer programming. I'm sure there are tons of other open source software that would interest you. I would suggest, if you have a spare computer or can run a virtual environment, downloading and running a Linux distribution like Ubuntu or Linux Mint. Then you can take a look at the rich repository of software that is completely free to install and use. Some of the software is not F/OSS, such as Adobe Reader, but the disclaimers of Left-Copied software is always clear. Anything that came from MIT would also give credit to that source even if it's been morphed. Best regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Yaerin, you've nicely narrowed down your topic to MIT OCW and assessing progress on the 3 goals. In the context of this course, it would really be interesting to narrow down even further to the third goal: the level of interaction of OCW users with the institutions that provide it. What are they and the users missing out on? We've already seen examples of digital communities developing and producing some amazing things and perhaps MIT is or should be seeking to turn OCW from content publishing into an active community. I look forward to reading about this in your project. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Yaerin. I think your topic is brilliantly targeted and focused on one of the distinct manifestations of peer collaboration - that is an open online course. I, myself, have greatly benefited from MIT OCW and Yale Open Course and thus look forward to see, specifically, the reasons why the participation rate of users is lingering at such low figures. Would it be too much to expect OCW to be an open education forum with lively discussions? In my opinion, the architectures of OCW and Yale Open Course are expressly posing limitations on interaction between users as there is no such place to share opinions. I am very much excited to read your final project! Best, --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 10:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: William Bauser --[[User:Wnb|Wnb]] 23:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: Modern Web Design and Civic Engagement: Access to Information and Community Development'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Wnb_assignment2.pdf
**Comment: This is an interesting topic -- you have a lot of avenues to explore! Among the sites you list, some are clearly partisan while others seem more altruistic. I would be interested to learn the contrast of methods used by each type. For example, what are the membership requirements? Does the site encourage a particular philosophy? Does a certain amount of selective cocooning take place? On the other side, how can an Internet based civic community be both neutral and vital? If it is only fact based then it won't be interesting. How does is promote community discussions without advocating a position? I'm sure you'll have to narrow the focus of your chosen topic and I thought this might be an interesting distinction you could use. [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 01:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi William: Sounds like a very interesting subject. I have two comments. First, it is clear you are looking at assessing how effective internet tools are in increasing engagement in the political process, but your last statement doesn't seem to fit. It seems like you'd also like to look at how effective they are in increasing the transparency of the political process as well and you'd have to clarify how those fit together. (IMO, engagement =/= transparency.) Second, I'd be interested in hearing more about your methodology, since most of the sites you mention would likely not share their data openly (perhaps I am wrong.) All the best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I think this sounds interesting, particularly as scholars are emerging to study the implications of the internet, web 2.0 and social networking on politics. I think there's going to be a lot of research into how these tools (and many of the sites you mentioned, particularly sites like change.org or moveon.org) are contributing to the distribution of social capital/political capital among the population. I think your topic is timely, and interesting. My guess is that you will need to hone in on a few specific sites and some specific aspects of them in order to make solid comparisons and broad analysis. Best of luck! [[User:Acrowe|Acrowe]] 16:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Brian Smith [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 23:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: Location-Based Services: Implications and Awareness of Effects on Consumer Privacy'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Brian_Smith_-_Assignment_2.pdf
**Comment: Greetings Brian! I found your research idea very creative and the methodology you are planning to utilize seems realistically achievable, although some instruments used by government and private marketing agencies are very difficult to trace and require special software and equipment. I have a topic idea that may coincide with a notion of privacy you are investigating, so I may cite your work in my project. What I found to be inconsistent is that your methods seem to be distant on the instrumental level from your hypothetical statements, that is, it is undetermined how your method will help to prove or reject either of your hypotheses. In fact, even doctorate dissertations attempting to either reject or accept only one hypothesis. It is in quantitative sciences we test several hypothesis in order to corroborate the validity of the expression or formula, etc., but not in the research as far as academic papers suggest. In terms of your definition of location, it is unclear whether your are talking about the IP address based location or mobile device based location, if it is about mobile device only (most hosts like schools and bosses may hunt for both mobile and the laptop IP to trace their employee or a student) then you need to state so in your research and in the proposal as well. I know one thing for sure that with arrival of the wireless technology it became much more harder for Federal agents to trace hackers: it is technologically more convenient to retain privacy through the public wireless router. I think you will benefit from setting up a singular and more definite hypothetic statement that will encapsulate the entire topic. In addition, you would make the research more productive and to the point if you will add the limitations to your research so that your process will have its bottom line. Check out this research, it could be helpful or at least you can retrieve some more sources from in-context citations: http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~adillon/Journals/Expertise-JASIS.htm Good Luck! --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 20:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Thank you, Vladimir - these are really helpful comments. I might ping you back for more details as I go through them each. Best, Brian'' [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

**Comment: Brian, the location of a caller is also one of the key pieces of information that is used by public safety officials when responding to emergencies. There is a long history of regulation related to the use of location information in the Enhanced 9-1-1 system. I know the location services that you are talking about in your paper are based upon the GPS capabilities in mobile devices, but you may benefit from understanding the history of location as you look at some of the politics surrounding these new services. There has been some recent political maneuvering related to the location information provided by telecommunications carriers for the purpose of Enhanced 9-1-1 since many have determined, as you say in your prospectus, that location information is a marketable commodity.

Here is a short explanation of how location is determined in Enhanced 9-1-1. If you were to need to dial 9-1-1 in an emergency, when your call is answered at the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) a software application retrieves information about your location from the Automatic Location Information (ALI) database. The ALI database – there are actually over 3,000 ALI databases in the US, but from a local jurisdiction only one is important - that is/are maintained on behalf of the government by various on-contract third parties. How information about your location gets populated in that database depends upon the device originating your call. For a traditional wired phone, the phone company is responsible to update your location when your phone is installed.

When you are calling from a mobile phone, there are actually two ways that your location is determined. One is GPS, but many mobile devices today still either don’t have GPS chips or the users don’t turn the GPS on for reasons that range from prolonging battery life to a belief that they are protecting their privacy (something that you may next see is an illusion). One way wireless location is determined is by the triangulation of two or more cell towers. A mobile phone is almost always in communication with two or more towers and an estimate can be made of your location by measuring distance as a function of signal strength. The other way is to integrate the GPS chip. For Enhanced 9-1-1, this actually turns out not to be as straight forward as one might think. This is because the GPS information is carried in the data channel of a phone. For many phones it isn’t possible to have both a concurrent voice call and a data transmission. This means that in order to retrieve the GPS data, the PSAP needs to disconnect the caller. Not the best situation in an emergency. [http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/wireless911srvc.html The FCC’s Wireless 911 Rules] currently specify that the phone carrier is required to be able to locate you within, “50 to 300 meters depending upon the type of location technology used.”

There is also a separate system for determining the location of a caller who is using a VoIP device (as in Skype) and another process for determining the location of a caller from within an enterprise organizations (such as a PBX extension).

Hope you find this of use. Let me know if I may clear up and points or answer any additional questions. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 01:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Yu Ri Jeong -- [[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 22:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: How manifestations of collective intelligence vary in different cultures and societies: Study on Naver Knowledge iN of South Korea in comparison with Wikipedia.'''
*'''Link to Prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Yu_Ri_Jeong_Internet_and_Society_Assignment_2_Prospectus.doc
**Comment: This is a really interesting topic! I hadn't known that South Korea had so strongly resisted the dominance of Wikipedia. I am curious, even if you do not include these questions in your paper, to hear what you think is unique about South Korea that it managed to create its own version of Wikipedia. Was it simply a question of timing, or is there something about South Korean Internet culture that allowed it to rally around its own creation. I also wonder what this means for Wikipedia. As a result of the lack of participation by South Korean Internet users, does Wikipedia suffer from a gap in information about South Korean culture, politics or society? I think the paper you have laid out in your prospectus is very thorough and complete, but I would love to hear your thoughts on these questions separately as you continue your research! [[User:Mcforelle|Mcforelle]] 19:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Dear Mcforelle, thank you for your kind words on my prospectus. I believe that the user-friendly manner of NKIN is encouraging Koreans to prefer it over Wikipedia. To elaborate, NKIN offers such an environment that participants can just write down their ideas without having to give much thought about the impacts of their posts. It is not that they have no responsibility in writing down articles; but they want to give information or advice as they do to their friends and family. The system of Wikipedia requires some duties such as learning of new Wiki codes. I believe that these factors are alienating Koreans from using Wiki. Furthermore, the under-activated usage rate of Korean Wiki is discouraging people to use it. --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 03:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Yuri! I think your research would reveal some very interesting points about the difference between the Korean Naver website and Wikipedia. If I may suggest, it would be interesting to analyze the difference in user demographic between the two websites. This would assist your analysis for Question #3. Also, since Naver seems to be a for-profit organization, it would be interesting to analyze how profitable NKin has been and contrast it to the non-profit model of Wikipedia. [[User:Quill80|Quill80]] 22:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Yaerin, thank you for your kind comments. Your suggestions include very important points which I might have ignored had it been not you! Truly, the demographic analysis of two websites and the comparison of them in terms of for-profit and non-profit will reveal some of the interesting characteristics of these open knowledge forums. Thank you! --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 03:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Yu Ri: This is a solid proposal for the project. I like how you've used the course themes as your areas of investigation and how you've narrowed down to two communities that you will compare, and even further to a set of articles with common subjects across the two communities. The only area of concern might be that your subject areas are pretty large in and of themselves (architectural elements, social norms & governance, membership, limits on expression, and national law.) If you can do all of those, then that's great, but you might think of narrowing to a smaller set. Otherwise, this proposal seems strong. Have fun! Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 08:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Smith. Thank you for spending your time in reading my prospectus. I absolutely agree with your concern. I wish to nail down the topic further, but am still not certain which theme to focus on as all the aspects matter most. I will keep you informed if I narrow down to the very specific topic! Thank you! --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 03:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: La Keisha Landrum [[User:llandrum|llandrum]] 21:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: Building a Sustainable News Org'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:LNLAssignment2.doc
**Comment: Hi La Keisha, It's good to see you're approaching this hot topic. I think most Americans are rather clueless about the current demise of the media or at least they are clueless as to why the media has been in a state of disintegration over the past 30 years. The newspaper companies came to late to the Internet forum and due to their lack of response they lost the "first-to-line" efforts in advertising & classified revenues. Aggregators and bloggers have only worsened the situation for major media, not to mention giants like Google and Craigslist drawing away advertising dollars. Still, a more important aspect is that experienced journalists need to continue to be supported in doing investigative reporting. Looking at detail as to how the different models of moving forward and the benefits might be speculative at this point, but we have seen some success stories in new ways to successfully report on current events. Regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hello La Kiesha! This is a very interesting and important topic for the future well being of journalism. According to your prospectus, it seems that you are interested in the profit aspect of the emergence of new internet-based journalism. If this is the case, it would be helpful if you can offer comparison in income for the aforementioned journalist. In other words, how much did these journalist as an employee of a traditional publisher and how much are they making now with their innovative website? Also, it would be interesting to know who is willing to patron these professional journalists. I think the lecture slides from March 1 would be very helpful as well. Good luck![[User:Quill80|Quill80]] 22:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi La Keisha, Bravo for taking on this topic. I like the fact that you are exploring success stories in online journalism. While journalism is undergoing fundamental changes, I think this is not just a doomsday scenario that dictates journalism will disappear. The newspaper existed for so long because, I believe, there is strong consumer demand for quality information. Just because the business model for supplying news is undergoing transformation doesn't mean that that demand is gone. My hypothesis is what we discussed in our last class: that the newspaper is being disaggregated and all the components will find their places as the changes shake out. There will be a place for classified ads, opinion articles, local fluff pieces, national news, international news, and yes, even, high-quality investigative reporting! It's just that they won't all be delivered by the same company, in the same vehicle, nor with the same business model anymore. As a side note for a case study check out the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. I'm not sure how successful it has been, but their story might be interesting to you in that they closed down their print publication and went entirely online with a shrunken staff. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 08:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Enjoyed reading your prospectus! Just read an article in [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/mar/05/huffington-post-aol The Guardian] that seems to resonate very well with your proposed topic. It highlights the business model Huffington Post created whereby a good portion of their content is via free contributions, and the ensuing backlash amongst some writers circles who feel they are under/uncompensated. Also, I noticed you touch on the concept of 'content farming,' and thought I'd reiterate an example I brought up in class, [http://www.demandmedia.com/ Demand Media]. It is the poster child for content farming in the media industry, so might be worth a glance. Good luck and hope this is helpful! - Jessica [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 18:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I really enjoy the topic of your proposal. I think it's a timely and meaningful investigation. I think in comparing what makes these online media outlets successful, it is important to create a measure of which are and which are not successful. There are Nielsen ratings for websites, but I don't recall where to find them... and I believe Alexa does a web index ranking as well. It is probably worthwhile to be sure that the parallels you're drawing are across the most successful models. Many blogs that are popular are not lucrative business models, and as you seem poised to compare your results with the decline in financially-stable, traditional media, this will be an important distinction. It seems like a great jumping off point! Good luck! [[User:Acrowe|Acrowe]] 16:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Jillian York [[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 21:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: Understanding "Lesbanon": Lebanon's Online Lesbian Community'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Understanding_Lesbanon.doc
**Comment: Hi Jillian. I found your approach to the project very interesting: based on your prospectus, it seems that you are studying an online society as a mirror to look into the real world. Your idea of examining the ways that homosexuality is expressed on the Internet would offer a glimpse to the country's customs and legal regulations is truly brilliant. I will look forward to seeing what kind of role the Internet is playing in Lebanon society for freedom of speech - especially for that of lesbians. Best, Yu Ri --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 03:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hey Jillian, I think this is such a great paper topic. I love how secretive communities can still operate out in the public through using the internet. The value of anonymity in this case seems like it must be very high, especially if there are governmental pressures keeping women from coming out. I had no idea that "Lesbanon" existed but it really does make perfect sense. Maybe if there are other communites out there like this, you could make a broader statement on the nature of coming out on the internet despite oppressive governments and societal norms. Otherwise, I think your question is quite reigned in and manageable in scope. I look forward to reading this paper when you're finished. [[User:Saambat|Saambat]] 18:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Jillian, this is a clever topic. I think in America, we often take for granted what the Civil Rights Movement did for communities beyond racial and sexual orientation lines--it really impacted our cultural norm mindset. The internet is not only release but '''power''' for those in disadvantaged or secretive communities the world over--especially when you are looking at two groups under different governments: the Lebanese and the diaspora. I am curious to read more. [[User:Myra|Myra]] 19:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

**Comment: I am sorry if I am posting belated remarks but it seems that your topic, along with many other topics related to this type of mental state, overlooks the origins of the same sex attraction for males, that is, pederasty, which by nature can affect the mind set of the near situated females. It is widely argued in the world, may be not in the entire U.S., that the same sex attraction among men is not a genetic phenomenon, but rather it is the bodily stigma imposed either during the childhood or during the adultery. In the majority of cases, I refer to the child molestation cases with a few exceptions, neither adult nor a child is able to recall the first same sex sexual experience, which decisively suggests on the unconscious intercourse under the influence of a sedative and/or somnolent substance. In the scholarly papers similar to this, you may find the old and new findings that can explain both the political and biological causes of mental and physical attraction in the same sex: http://www.ched.uq.edu.au/index.html?page=39750&pid=0 It is no doubt that the nature has produced hermaphrodites, but their amount is nothing in comparison to what America or Lebanon has. Hence, it is not the nature that produces majority of them. Overall, you have very intelligent approach to tackle the puzzle of how homosexuals are created in a society with many religious denominations like Lebanon and the U.S.. As far as I know, it is a scientific fact that in order to have stigma a body should have most of its sensitive erogenous zones irritated. The next piece of the puzzle: by coincidence, the amount of child molestation cases among Jehova Witnesses exceeds the amount of all sexual scandals among Catholic, Muslim, and Orthodox religions. So, here is the Bingo - the amount of religious sects which are striving to get your trust and intimacy and visit you at home and may be have a "drink" or "dinner" with you is equally proportional to the amount of homosexuals in the society. So, the taboo is coming from the kind of common sense I mentioned above; unfortunately or may be fortunately for many Jews in Lebanon, not everyone is able to crunch this trust game puzzle in reality right away. May be your project will help to make this devastating syndrome that originates from the terrible crime disappear from any society. --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 06:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
----

====Name: Caroline McLoughlin [[User:Camcloughlin|Camcloughlin]] 21:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus title: Privacy and Society'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Assignment-2.pdf
**Comments: Caroline, I, too, was interested in writing a paper more inclined to policy arguments and Rebekah counseled me against it. I got the impression we are supposed to be more observant of communities and how they interact and work. If this is true, you might lean your paper more towards observing whether privacy policies are adequately disclosed on sites in the US and how they are different on Canadian sites. Is this difference due to the contrasting privacy legal frameworks in the two countries? Do participants react differently?This might also help narrow your topic which seems like alot of material to cover. All this being said, I find your topic very interesting and think it might be great to present it in something like a PowerPoint format. Would be the great beginnings of a law review article if you are a lawyer.[[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 21:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)]]
**Comment: Hi Caroline, we are interested in the same privacy subjects. Similar to Sjennings feedback, I tried to make mine more about observing a community, specifically consumers using location-based services, and less about policy. If you've got the understanding already to get into issues and policy, though, then it sounds like a great project. As I mentioned to Jamil Buie above, if you are interested, I'd be willing to trade notes and help each other shape up the final project. Since we are doing similar topics, I would really appreciate your comments on my prospectus as well. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name:Anthony Crowe [[User:Acrowe|Acrowe]]====
*'''Prospectus title: Tagging and Metadata on the Internet and in New Media'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Crowe_LSTUE120_2.doc
*Comments:
**Comment: I like that you've identified another means of content organization for study. I feel like tagging is going to be a rich topic, not only because of the ways people use it, but because of how it defines or redefines website architectures. I don't really know much about tags beyond their most obvious uses (and frankly, on in Twitter), so I am curious to see what kind of social rules you discover in your research. The only thing I might suggest is that, given the richness of your topic, that you not worry about studying superusers too deeply. I feel like a thorough study of tagging on the three main sites you've identified, which are pretty major sites, in addition to the other examples you'll be incorporating, will be more than enough data and analysis for a great paper. Unless perhaps I'm not understanding the particular lens through which you'll be approaching the superuser question? [[User:Mcforelle|Mcforelle]] 19:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I think this is a really fascinating and relatively untouched subject; I'm curious to learn the myriad ways tagging is used, both for public sharing and for semi-private sharing (e.g., cleverly devised tags that only a particular group is aware of) -- but I agree with the above commenter in that I'm not sure how the question of superusers fits in here; I think you might be better off narrowing the subject just to the question of tagging.[[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 16:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Vladimir Kruglyak --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 21:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus title: A Transparency of the U.S. Government in the Socio-Cyber Environment'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus.doc
**Comment: Vladimir, thank you for your resources. I have been reading your prospectus and found your approach as interesting as ambitious. To investigate wether the U.S. Government maintains Constitutional transparency and accountability for the tax money expenditures using e-government resources, that is a very well focused research and I can tell you are passionate about the topic, which makes the reading even more interesting. However, when you talk about conspiracy relating it with the internet resources, I have to disagree. I think power and conspiracy are long-time friends, governments have faced every kind of suspicions since they exist, but the importance of digital resources when it comes to spreading these suspicions cannot be denied, and that is why I think your research will face very interesting issues to deal with, as investigating the origin of "conspiracies" from a social point of view. Do you think the Internet is a cause or a consequence? I think about WikiLeaks, for example. The Internet had nothing to do with the origin of the cables, but made them become a "popular" topic, blurring the "secret" component of International Politics. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? We are talking about serious crimes becoming nearly gossip (we could talk further about a Spanish journalist murdered in Iraq and how Spanish and American Governments made a deal to make it look like an accident: that's on WikiLeaks). But now it looks like nothing happened. Amazon was selling the cables for Kindle, Julian Assange is to be extradited to Sweden in a week and I highly doubt any of the "accused" by, or thanks to, WikiLeaks, is to face trial. When you say that I am adressing a brave category of people ready to risk their lives for the "right cause", that is exactly the interesting thing about this. Why would someone get into trouble for nothing? However, it calls my attention that you take for granted that their cause is the right one. I see in your statement that you look pretty convinced about conspiracies when it comes to very sensitive and historic topics. You assume the defense of one group, don't you doubt that the cause may not always be the right one? I find your statement so determined that it becomes intriguing to me (it is really hard to me to be sure about something), I will be following your work with interest to get a better understanding of your point of view. In the meantime, I hope to receive more suggestions or resources you may find interesting to check out about this topic. Lorena Abuín. --[[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 21:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I see a potential flaw in your methodology, and find it potentially invasive of a web surfer's privacy. Collecting data by sniffing packets is rather dubious for your uses and can be construed as an abuse of networking tools. Trying to parse the IP addresses into geographical locations through a Whois database may be difficult to and inaccurate if users are using proxy based anonymizers such as Tor or i2p. It is for this reason, among others, that many people chose to use anonymizers when they surf. [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 04:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
**Answer: There is no flaw, it is rather your misunderstanding of the software functionality: 1) collecting data of the visiting traffic by IP from a domain is not a crime and often the consent is given by the owner of a domain; 2) WhoIs database traces the domain's information from the server such as registration expiration date and the contact information of the domain's owner. In addition, there is a way to detect the Tor user and toss those IP out from the sample. In my survey, I will target users with average knowledge who do not use anonymous proxy services or encrypted networking channels.
***Vlaidmir: Thank you all for the creative comments addressed toward my prospectus, although the assignment says to add constructive suggestions which can help an author to improve his project. I think it is little bit unfair to help others reconstruct their idea and receive nothing in return. I guess that is all I can get from the general public. If however, someone in this course really knows about the internet traffic analysis, you are welcome to suggest substantial changes. --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 20:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Vladimir, I apologize if I said anything to upset or discouraged you in any way. I meant my comment to be constructive in raising an ethical question to your research methodology in regards to the privacy of web surfers. U can certainly observe and aggregate traffic through packet sniffing network tools, but I would not be so trusting in precise geographical locations of the IP addresses for the reasons that I mentioned. However, with a large enough sample you could perhaps get a general feel for regional traffic. [http://www.ethereal.com | Ethereal]is a popular easy to use modern analysis tool with good documentation, and may serve your purposes. Again, I meant no disrespect and look forward to your project evolving.[[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 21:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name:Corey MacDonald [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 20:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus title: Fringe Forums for the Under-represented'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus_Assignment_2_MacDonald.doc
**Comments: Wow! This is a great prospectus, I feel like these kinds of sites are the perfect places to be asking these questions. So many of the conversations we've had in class have centered around how to best facilitate legal social interactions. I'm excited to read your analysis of how semi-legal and illegal topics are handled by users, administrators and legal bodies on these forums. I'd be curious to see if legal action had ever been taken against the users of these sites, or whether the information posted on them had ever been used in legal action against someone else, like as evidence or tips on possible illegal goings-on? Are there any specific government agencies that track activity on these kinds of sites? Are any extra precautions taken to protect the anonymity of contributors? [[User:Mcforelle|Mcforelle]] 20:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comments: Hi Corey this is a interesting topic, the existence of sites like Erowid and “the chemical underground” highlight how (especially the US) government are losing the battle to control drug information. A “non-event” that may be of interest to you is the DEA making Microgram public in 2003. Microgram was a law enforcement restricted newsletter aimed at forensic chemists and its release made very little impact on the “chemical underground” due to the wealth of information on illicit drugs that was already available.
Here’s a link to an article that might be useful/interesting http://www.michaelerard.com/fulltext/2006/08/open_secrets_how_the_governmen.html [[User:Ltconnell|Ltconnell]] 20:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Richard (Rick) Kundiger --[[User:Rakundig|Rakundig]] 19:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus title: The Role of Bittorrent in the Internet Society'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Kundiger_Assignment_2_Research_Prospectus.pdf
**Comment: This is a great example of "code is law." You have a very powerful tool (the bittorrent protocol) which can be used for both good an illicit purposes. Your investigation of the different interests for and against its deployment should provide an excellent case study. Does a company or government have more of a right than an individual to control the protocols in use? Are those opposed to the protocol trying to protect the greater good of the Internet or their own financial interests? [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 01:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Rick, I also like this topic. One thing you could really expand upon is the use of P2P (point to point) connections has also drivin forward such technologies as Skype. This type of technology was also never intended to be used for illicit purposes, but then again the Internet was never designed to be used in many of the ways it is used today. VoIP actually breaks the TCP/IP model where packets were never intended to be treated in such a timely fashion. Another item is that it was used by WikiLeaks to keep Assange a bit more safe, which could be interpreted both good and bad. It's also amazing that the record industry had enough lobby power to take down some of the most famous P2P services. There's also the aspect that businesses deal with a very real threat of employees using bittorrent technologies. The executive that installs a P2P client and accidentally shares out his entire drive has been a very real issue for companies to combat. Further, then end use that also does something simular can share very personal information such as passport and bank account details with the world. Hope my comments have given you some help in this area of interest. Regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Mary Van Gils====
*'''Prospectus title: Yelp Case Study - Freedom of Expression'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus_-_Yelp_Study_Case.doc
**Comment: Wanted to make you aware as you investigate the external restriciton on freedom of expression regarding the Yelp site that there are also types of businesses which are regulated by state law as to how they may respond to reviews/complaints on sites like Yelp. If you look at my prospectus, you will note insurance companies are one of those types of businesses.[[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 15:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)]]
**Comment: Hi Mary - This is a fascinating subject - the tension between freedom to express opinions and libel as well as the possible manipulations. Your decision to use Yelp forums as a focal point is also a good idea. What is not clear to me what exactly you will be observing about the forums. It would be great to not only observe instances of the tension points, but also to find instances where free expression has been limited by external sources (not sure if you'll be able to get access to this if it's happened.) I really look forward to reading your project. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 06:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I think Yelp makes a really interesting case study for freedom of expression, but, as mentioned above, Yelp doesn't exactly seem ripe for external limiting of free expression (in the forums at least; reviews are a separate issue), rather, I would venture to guess that the vast majority of limiting speech on the site is in the interest of the TOS. Nevertheless, I think there's a fascinating question here, and plenty of existing evidence, particularly to the question of reviews/slander.[[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 16:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Susan Jennings [[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 15:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)]]====
*'''Prospectus title: Annuity Companies' Social Media Communities'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Annuity_Companies%27_Social_Media_Communities.doc
**Comments: Hi Susan, your subject area appears well-defined and methodology seems systematic. In addition to surveying the companies' online activities, I would really encourage you to speak to the compliance person or even a marketing person in those companies to see how their efforts are going. [You might find the marketing person easier to reach out to :) and get a response.] Additionally, is there any way to bring in the actual federal regulators in order to get their perspective on how new social media plays in their framework for regulation? It would be interesting to see if and how they are adapting to the new technologies. Have fun! Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Alan Davies-Gavin & Alex Solomon====
*'''Prospectus title: Architecture of Sites eHarmony and Match.com: contributions of membership data and effects on security and privacy.'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Assignment2ProjectProspectus.pdf
**Comment: Alan and Alex, I think your topic is fascinating and I wanted to chip in my 2 cents which might help your research. Considering the different natures of sites that ultimately sell the same product, I would consider looking at how the two compete in response to one another. By this I mean, is Match doing something that eHarmony isn, and therefore, is eHarmony a bit jealous and trying to get into their market? I know that eHarmony lauched their more casual spinoff "Jazzed.com" which is meant to steal people away from Match. Is Jazzed a suggestion that privacy isn't all that important to frustrated singles? I think that there are also rather large differences in target audience between the two competitors, with eHarmony focusing on a bit older, more conservative crowd while Match goes for the "single and ready to mingle."Also, perhaps look at each companies approach to user profile creation over time, have they changed at all and in what ways? This looks like it'll be an exciting project, I'm looking forward to what you find! ([[User:Lewtak|Lewtak]] 21:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC))
*** '' Response: Thanks Tym. I like your observations and I think they may well contribute to our research and final content. It's a good perspective that you bring to light. Alan'' --[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Kristina Meshkova====
*'''Prospectus title: A music sharing site - Grooveshark, Soundcloud, MySpace.'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignement_2_%28Kristina_Meshkova%29.pdf
*Comment: Hey Kristina, I think we have some similar ambitions in regards to our final project. Let's chat tonight if you have any interest in potentially working together [[User:Alex|Alex]] Bryan 14:31, 1 March 2011.
**Comment: Hello Kristina, I found your project very interesting and I am looking forward to see it evolve. I am particularly interested in how and why the streaming content services are so territory-limited, beyond of copyright, and how long will this model survive. In Europe we can use Spotify but instead there is no access to Pandora or Grooveshark, and vice versa. Same happens with Netflix or Hulu. However, Spotify is said to be preparing its expansion to the USA and some people talk about pression groups beyond record labels. I think it could be interesting to explore if there are some inter-continental lobbying activities or corporative deals regarding this issues. Best,[[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 12:00, 6 March 2011.

----

====Name:Vladimir Trojak-- [[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 20:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC) ====
*'''Prospectus title: Are different language groups consistent in what topics are permitted and what is removed?'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_2.pdf
**Comments: Hello Vladimir, Your proposal is intriguing and I am looking forward to see how it evolves. I did have a question about why do you think that all the Wikipedia policies should be the same in all the language communities? Thanks. --[[User:SCL|SCL]] 03:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. I hope it will turn in the way I expect:)I believe that in general they shoudl be the same, such as 'neutral point of view', 'verifiability'. Although there may be differences in other policies because of different laws, such as topics you can speak about. You have any suggestions?Thanks.[[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 18:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Faye Ryding [[User:FMRR|FMRR]] 23:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus title: Trolls and vandals on Epinions.com'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Faye_Ryding_Assignment_2.doc
**Comments: Hello Faye, I read your prospectus but had the following thought. What if the person belives they are in the right? Does that make them still a vandal? And can you outline excatly what recourses one can take against such offenders? What authority can someone make a complaint to? That last question brings us to a much bigger, more complex one. Who has the soveriegn rights over the web? The government? A trade federation? Or individual users? --[[User:Elishasurillo|Elishasurillo]] 04:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
** Facebook recently launched an "anti-troll" algorithm that reduces troll comments by ~50%. Perhaps Epinions.com has implemented a similar algorithm too, and a comparison could be made. [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 20:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: [[User:Alex|Alex]] Bryan 16:59, 21 February 2011====
*'''Prospectus title: Groooveshark music application'''
*'''Link to prospectus''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus.pdf
**Comments: Hi, Alex. Sorry that didn't answer you earlier. Will be glad to discuss an opportunity to work together on the Final project. Let's discuss it next week in a chat room or via email. This is my email for the course: kristinam2907@gmail.com [[Kristina Meshkova]], 5 March 2011.
**Comment: Hello, Alex. I am very interested in the legal aspect of streaming content services. Have you considered to study this issue from a global point of view regarding a potential Grooveshark expansion? As I stated below Kristina's project, I think both of your prospects are very interesting, I will be following them. Good luck [[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 12:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Robert Cunningham====
*'''Prospectus title: The Archive Team'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Proposed_Paper_TopicCunningham.pdf
**Comment: Hi Robert! Interesting subject, you've narrowed down nicely on one particular group and your areas of interest should cover nicely what the group is and does nicely. Also, your methods seem achievable and will allow you to experience the group, not just observe it (one of the core challenges for many of the projects, including mine.) The one counsel I would give is to go back to the course material we've been discussing to tie the Archive Team back into the course themes. As examples, you could look at the incentive system for contributors, the group hierarchy and governance for control and decision-making, the architecture of the online tools they use, or the merging of offline and online worlds. Have fun! [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: [[Joshuasurillo]]====
*'''Prospectus title: The effect of government transparency websites- Wikileaks'''
*'''Link to prospectus:'''http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Harvard_assignment_2.doc
**Comment: Joshua, I am very much looking forward to your final product. Your position (or what I am assuming your postion to be) comes across very loud and clear in your prospectus. I wonder if you will reach an opinion as to where to draw the line on "free speech," or if no line should be drawn? My reading of your position if you were to define it today is that free speech must be protected at all costs and no limits are appropriate, at least that is the feeling I am left with from your prospectus. If wikileaks posted the location or identity of our undercover operatives in Iraq or elsewhere, would you support that? If not, what else would you feel would be "going to far?" I look forward to reading more from you. [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 01:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I will try to convey a more balanced and neutral argument in my final paper. I will weigh both sides of the argument and shed light on both. Hopefully, I will be able to come to a consensus. I would not support a decision by Wikileaks to disclose the location or identity of our undercover operatives in Iraq, but I do not believe it is our place to stop them. I believe the government should not be going after Wikileaks but they should be finding and prosecuting the actual leak; not the whistle blowing agency.--[[User:Joshuasurillo|Joshuasurillo]] 01:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Susan Lemont====
*'''Prospectus title: Why do people cultivate large online networks?'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Lemont_Prospectus.doc
*Comments:
**Comment: Unfortunately beyond the stated scope of your project (and not practical to include), but it would be interesting to see how your findings compare to similar surveys of Youtube users (who frequently seek comments, ratings, and channel subscriptions) and members of various online forums which award rankings, custom titles, "reputation", and other benefits to prominent posters based on peer imput. Good luck with this topic. (P.S. Also, it might be interesting try and determine what percentages of Facebook 'friends' of these users are A) people they know in real life vs. those relationships which are strictly online-only and B) what proportion of real life contacts were made prior to 'friending' vs. those which were made as a result of meeting virtually via facebook.) [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 04:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Susan, your research question is so basic that I am surprised no one else chose a topic towards this issue, since it is the basis of the new big business, social media. From an anthropological point of view, I find it very interesting and not enough explored, focusing the research into motivations: not what or when people share or live online, but why do they do it. Besides, I find your methodology very well planned and practical, although I have some doubts about the sincerity when it comes to explaining to someone you don't know why you have more than 200 friends. I will be following your work with interest, good luck! [[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 11:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
***Response: Thank you everyone for your insightful comments. I have changed my project and the new prospectus follows:

====Name: Susan Lemont --[[User:SCL|SCL]] 20:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: What conditions are conducive to successful commons based peer production?'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Peer_production_Lemont_030611.doc
**Comments: Hi Susan. I like the way you tie the course readings into your project and your "test" of the theoretical writings on a real-life subject. So much of what we study is based on the success stories but we often can learn more from the failures. It will be interesting to know whether some of Benckler's or Zittrain's critical success factors were missing or whether they were all there and the project did not succeed for other reasons. I look forward to reading more about this in your projects. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Chris Sura [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 03:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus title: The Java Community Process: How Does It Really Work?'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Chris_Sura_Assignment_2.pdf
**Comment: Admittedly, I knew nothing of JCP prior to reading your prospectus, but it's a pretty intriguing process. It does make us wonder who is really behind our machines, as most consumers of technology only see (and care about) the surface. I wish you luck in obtaining your inside info, and I look forward to seeing how it comes along! [[User:Myra|Myra]] 23:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Ed Arboleda [[User:Earboleda|Earboleda]] 04:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: Are there collective benefits for copyright owners, copyright infringers, and the general community; if copyright infringement is not enforced under specific circumstances on social media sites?'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Ed_Arboleda_Prospectus.pdf
**Comments: Hi Ed, I certainly believe that in specific instances that there can be collective benefits for infringers and owners of copyright. One example is the pirating of the UK run of the TV series Battlestar Gallactica in Australia in October 2004. When the show aired in Australia in January 2005 the ratings exceeded expectations due to “sampling” and word of mouth. Here’s a link to an article with more information http://www.mindjack.com/feature/piracy051305.html [[User:Ltconnell|Ltconnell]] 20:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Elisha Surillo====
* '''Prospectus title: The Tea Party and Internet Freedom'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_2.doc
**Comment: I'm confused. This link does not seem to take me to the correct prospectus? Elisha, could you update this to make sure I can access yours?
**Comment: Hai to the comment above: Elisha and I uploaded with the same file names so they are stacked alphabetically. My file is one that I would like to remove actually but do not know how, but in the meantime, Elisha's file is the second link. Sorry for any confusion. [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 02:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I don't believe the tea party is just confined to the older generation. I believe it to be a stronger movement that will soon grip the masses. By having such a strong presence on the internet this movment will propell itself forward. I believe this is just the begining of many other grassroots campains and parties.--[[User:Joshuasurillo|Joshuasurillo]] 04:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Sorry I would change the name but I don't know how. Sorry for the confusion!'' --[[User:Elishasurillo|Elishasurillo]] 04:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Brandon A. Ceranowicz - [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 08:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: A Comparative Study of Open Source Licenses'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:LSTU_E-120_Assignment_2_-_Prospectus_BAC.doc
**Comment: Hello Brandon! I think your topic can be very interesting. However I think it would be important for you to have a specific focus since the topic seems so broad. I don’t know how relevant this would be, but I suggest that you take a look at the Open Content License. (http://www.opencontent.org/opl.shtml) Good luck! [[User:Quill80|Quill80]] 22:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Lorena Abuín====
* '''Prospectus title: Contribution to prosecuted online activities (Anonymous, BitTorrent, WikiLeaks)'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_2_-_Lorena_Abu%C3%ADn.pdf
**Comment: I noticed that there is a lot of crossover between our topics. We are both addressing hacker communities, but from differing angles. I have acquired quite a bit of information about Anonymous and have listed the resources on my tentative reference page located just below here. Feel free to look and use anything from that list that may help you in your project. Also, the Anonymous page found in Wikipedia is quite good in understanding what the Anonymous phenomenon is. They are free agents often acting independently of each other and unaffiliated with one another under the umbrella name Anonymous. In other words, Anonymous is a concept more than an identifiable specific group. I also noticed you have listed pastebin as a resource. It is my suggestion to be careful with that, and try to find where that document was published. It could simply be the rantings of teenager enamored with the publicity of their antics and activity. The questionable authenticity of that write pad entry to me is found in the signature at the bottom. It should read: We are Anonymous/We are legion/We do not forgive/We do not forget/Expect us-always. Lastly, keep in mind that not all Anonymous hacktivity is criminal, that is just the part that gets sensationalized. There are many other cyber-activism efforts that take place under the name of Anonymous that are not criminal. Good luck, and I look forward to watching your project develope! -----=:) [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 23:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC) for the #datalove
**Comment: I found that some of your research objectives coincide with mine. I can assure you that people do use what is called "hacktivism" to oppose the lies and conspiracies of the U.S. Government. If you take a http://www.nogw.com/ alone you would be surprised how some of the secret documents happen to be available on line. For instance, the loan by the Wall Street Banks to finance Adolf Hitler's Army is not a secret nowadays because of the "hacktivism", although the fact and the document has been kept in secret from the Government of Soviet Union for decades. The role of the Jews in the mass murder of millions is proven with facts on the Holocaust denial web sites. I guess the major drive that motivates people to use their skill in the "wrong way" is to oppose the lie that is bigger in size and thus controls the legacy tools such as Media and Congress. Even children in New York City know that the twin towers were demolished by the "uniformed criminals" employed as the federal agents. Check out the list of literature on my prospectus and http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=46 is just one out of dozens web sites. The U.S Government had no reason to deploy troops anywhere at the cost of the taxpayers' dollars. Do you think other citizens do not realize this? They do, but they join others in this giant lie and say that it is a war on terror, and they say this at Law Schools, through the public media, and post it online. These people are indifferent and coward because they lie to themselves and the so called prosecuted activities is the only way to reveal the truth. In your research you are therefore addressing a brave category of people who are ready to risk their lives for the simple yet amazingly right cause - to reveal the corrupted syndicate of greedy liars who oppresses people with their tyrannic power and ability to prosecute. If you are not afraid to cooperate on this project in front of the university staff, then take a look at my proposal and let me know what do you think. I may give you a couple of additional sources and suggestions, but if you do not want to be involved in this type of a project, I will totally understand. Best! --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 10:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hai. Thanks for your response. I just thought that I would add that it is very important make the distinction between hackers and crackers. Unfortunately the media has not made this distinction clear and has tainted the meaning of the term hacker. In a nutshell, hackers create things and crackers break things. Most hackers look down upon crackers and dismiss them as technological bugs. Most hackers I know are not pleased with the criminal antics done in the name of Anonymous. It is true that collaborative write pads are in common use because of the ease to collaborate live together at once. Pastebin happens to not be one used for documents all that much though. It is mainly used to send larger pieces of text into chat protocols such as IRC without flooding the channel. Write pads such as typewith.me and piratepad.net are more common to use for group documents since the url is not made public and searchable, and is kept private among the group working on it. Also, an interesting comment about hacktivism made to me by a French hacker with whom I am in contact with simply and broadly described hacktivism as using technology to impact society. I think we must be careful, myself included, when we talk about cracker v. hackers. A classic document among hackers written and maintained by Eric Raymond, "[http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html How to Become a Hacker]" describes the difference quite well. [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 03:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Lorena. I think this is a great topic and I agree that you and Deinous seem to have a strong intersection of ideas. I think the comments I made under Deinous' posting are applicable here as well. It's good to see this topic having such strong discussion. Regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 04:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Hi, Alan, thanks a lot for your interest! I can't find your comments below deinous' prospect, and I would really like to check them.'' [[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 12:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I too went in search of Allen's comments and were unable to find them :( [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 18:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Margaret Tolerton [[User: deinous|deinous]]====
* '''Prospectus title: Jailbreaking appliance based gadgets and game consoles: the legal and generative implications'''
* '''Link to prospectus:'''http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:JailbreakingGadetsAndGamesConsoles.doc
**Comment: Margaret, thanks a lot for your offering. I could really use some inside information about this topic. About your suggestion, I chose pastebin as a reference looking for a way to begin my research. You are right when you say that accuracy is not guaranteed when it comes to this source, but my main objective is to test the general perception of internet community about "hacktivism", I want to read about it in forums, press articles comments... See what normal people think about this. Of course, not every "hacktivist" action is a ciber-crime, but I am particularly interested in motivations that lead people to engage in certain projects that could be prosecuted depending on the country, as uploading copyrighted contents. I am sure we could find a lot of profit-driven actions, but I want to get deeper in personal motivations, since there are many so-called "cyber-crimes" that have nothing to do with obtaining a profit, at least a tangible one. When reading your prospectus, I came up with something very interesting: "Happy to help others who are not as advanced?". I think solidarity plays a huge role of hacktivism communities, empowered by the feeling of being passionate about some topic. I guess the desire to share sprouts from passion, but I think that the need of feeling part of a community is also very important, especially when it comes to very well defined criminals such as sex offenders and very sensitive content uploaders, communities widely persecuted but, however, still huge. While my prospectus adopts a more anthropological point of view, I see yours as an inside work with very valuable information about hacktivism running. I look forward to see how your research evolves and to learn more about these communities from a privileged point of view. Please don't hesitate to make any suggestion you may consider, I am sure it will be very helpful for my research. Lorena Abuín. --[[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 21:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: LOL, I don't know how privileged my point of view is. I am more or less just another nerd with a computer on Friday and Saturday nights. In recent weeks I have come to feel as though the people of Telecomix have accepted me as one of their own though, as I have done a little public relations, fact checking, and some translations. Telecomix is very open about their work, and does not engage in illegal actions. Being mostly European, they lobby against, or for, various cyber laws to their respective Parliaments. What I meant though by my comment "happy too help others who are not as advanced" is that it is common for someone to ask a question of a technological nature and usually others jump in and help to solve the problem. For example, my switch over to Linux, I have been having quite a time configuring a few of my drivers, and getting used to working from a command line with unix syntax, and several people who know how to fix the problems will jump in and start coaching with many lulz along the way.[[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 03:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hello there. I am delighted and in part surprised to see a topic of this type. By type I mean it is heavily technological mission to retrieve a piece of real information from the community of real hackers. Not all software engineers employed by the government are able to intervene communication among the community of real hackers. You may however, catch a few portals where "I can do this, I can do that" type of conversations take place, but whether they really have done something interesting and indeed reveal their ideology is a big speculation. For this course, I believe, you need to change your frequency, sort of speak, and listen not for the hacking communities themselves, but for the actions they have already done. Actions speak lauder than words, as you may know. You you need to listen to the anti-thesis, that is, the counter part of the hacking group. In this country, among various subsequent agencies that keep control of all networks, the NSA sources will probably be the most beneficial to you, although I am not 100 percent sure about this. It is difficult to find something that is available to the public. Recall the scandal with pornographic downloads by the employees of the Trade Commission; this is just one out of million examples of the internet traffic control by the Feds. It is therefore the Feds who are on the opposite side of the argument with the hackers. By considering both ideology of the hackers and a counter-premise by the Feds you will have a full and comprehensive picture for your project. In short, I am proposing to search not only within the hackers community, which may only seem as community of hackers and give you a bogus information, but also find reports, chronicles, and cases exposed by the Feds. It may ultimately appear that it is the Feds who are vandals and trolls and who violate privacy and steal the tax money of the citizens. At least this is what my prospectus's sources can prove, but take a look at National Security Agency [http://www.nsa.gov/] web site. In the meantime, I will keep checking on your project and will try to give you more clues because your topic coincides with mine in many regards. --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 06:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Thank you for your response and comments. I will certainly take them into consideration. However, I feel that my views toward hacking are much broader than the criminality of a few, and that there should be more emphasis in part on the difference between hacking and cracking. I am one that still holds the traditional meaning of a hacker as one that is adept with the computer and often generates new creative uses for what is in front of them. As a result I am watching my topic shift a bit and focusing perhaps more on the difficulty that researchers have with the DMCA preventing them from publishing in full their findings, and the law of fair use. Over this past year we have watched the jailbreaking of an iPhone of iPad for the use of external software not approved by Apple go from being an illegal act to being justified as fair use. Although it will nullify any warranty of your gadget. Currently we are watching this same debate occur over the jailbreaking of the Sony PS3 to run Linux and homebrewed games. I am one that supports the fair use argument in that if you are clever enough to make your gadgetry do fun and interesting things beyond the uses that they are intended, then you should be able to do it--especially if you have no intention on using pirated software or make profit of any sort from it. As for an original angle, I am still waffling a bit, and welcome any further comments.====:)'' [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 17:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Margaret, Given your change in perspective of your project you may wish to explore the discussion of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization Tivoization] (if you have note already considered such). The question of, “Should manufacturers of hardware have the right to limit the use of software on their machines when that software included elements covered under versions of the GNU license?” seems a related and interesting debate. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 16:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Guy, thank you so much for your wonderfully concise thesis question! Sometimes it just takes the right little tweak to bring scattered thoughts together, and pondering the legal parameters of an open source kernel wrapped in a proprietary shell is a question I would very much like to spend some time on. Thanks again.'' [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 19:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Margaret, I am very glad you found my suggestion helpful. I look forward to your final output. It’s a really intriguing topic. Thanks for checking out web.alive (comment below). I didn’t play any role in developing it (wish I were that bright). My colleague [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiYi3iEBJNM Arn Hyndman] is the chief architect.

Your comment about, “test driving it among a group of ppl,” got me thinking. If we wished to, we could use the tool for a virtual study group. Would you be interested? Do you think others would be? It could be a great environment for classmates to meet and discuss the coursework.

Also, anyone who is working as a group in developing their project can use it to collaborate virtually. There are virtual white boards, web browsers that appear to be mounted on walls, desktop application sharing portals and other tools. I’ll be glad to meet folks in the environment and show how to use the tools. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 23:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Guy, I think using web.alive as a platform for a study group is a great idea. Perhaps you can make an announcement in class this week.'' [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 00:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Guy Clinch -- [[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 13:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title (updated Mar 20): The Transition to Next Generation 9-1-1 in North America'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Internet_and_Society_Assingment_2%28gclinch%29.pdf
***To my Classmates: As of March 20 I have changed the title and subject of my finalk project proposal. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 01:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

***It has occurred to me that in order to give me feedback on my proposal you may need to experience the web.alive environment. Please feel free to click on the following link and explore. http://apex.avayalive.com/715/html
I look forward to reading your ideas. Thank you. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 19:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hai Guy! I recently checked out web.alive and thought on first impression it was a nice sleek, useful, and intuitive application. Very well designed indeed. Were you one of the developers? I'm afraid that at this time I cannot offer much in the way of constructive criticism without test driving it among a group of ppl, but I do see it as a wonderful tool for distance business communication. [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 18:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Syed Yasir Shirazi [User: syedshirazi]====
* '''Prospectus title: Online Group Buying - Newly Emerging Business Model or Fad?'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Syed_Yasir_Shirazi-Assignment_2.pdf
**Comment: Syed, this is a really interesting topic, but I am concerned that it may be too broad. I feel like a question like yours would more likely take up a book than a paper to be completed over a single semestre! Perhaps you could look into a specific group-buying site rather than the concept as a whole, like Groupon or LivingSocial. It might even be interesting to compare the two. Or, are there sites in which users decide which company they want to solicit such coupons from, rather than having the site itself decide? Just some ideas to help you get this topic down to something manageable. Does this help at all? [[User:Mcforelle|Mcforelle]] 21:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Hi Michelle - Thanks for the feedback. I was actually planning to do a comparative study between a daily deal website (Groupon) versus a more traditional online retailer (Amazon or ebay) to see which model is more sustainable in terms of driving traffic and providing value. But your comments about 'websites that allow users to decide which company they want to solicit coupons from' has got me thinking now. Project is currently in Work-in-Process mode.Will keep everyone posted. Thanks - Yasir '' ~~[[User:syedshirazi|syedshirazi]] 22:14, 06 March 2011

----

====Name: Jessica Sanfilippo - [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 16:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: Transparency and Participation in Crowd Funding'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:JSanfilippo_Assignment_2.doc
**Comment: Hi Jessica,I think crowd funding is a fascinating topic, and there seem to be various types of crowd funding as you point out. Micro Loans and sites such as Kiva.com are also wonderful examples of crowd funding. I am probably over reaching, but I noticed that Syed Yasir A. Shirazi has a prospectus on Group Buying, and wonder if the two can be connected somehow? What if materials needed for a funded project on kickstarter.com for instance, could be purchased through groupon.com or a similar site? Regardless, I am looking forward to your findings around Crowd Funding (especially in the creative space).
**Comment: Hi Jessica: www.33needs.com is another website which would be of interest to you. You might want to take a look at it for ideas related to crowd-funding. Also, let me know if you would be interested in sharing thoughts regarding the final research project.My email id is sshirazi@fas.harvard.edu. Thanks - Yasir ~~[[User:syedshirazi|syedshirazi]] 21:24, 06 March 2011

----

====Name: Adriana Faria Torii [drifaria] and Anna Christiana Marinho C. Machado [([[User:Anna|Anna]] 17:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC))]====
*'''Prospectus title: Analysis of E-Government Practices in Brazil'''
*'''Link to prospectus:'''http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Faria_Marinho_Prospectus.pdf
**Comment: Hi Adriana and Anna - E-governance in an emerging country like Brazil is an attention-grabbing subject. As you have mentioned in your prospectus, in terms of audience, Brazil is amongst the top ten countries in the world (I think they have recently moved up to #5 in terms of total internet users). But that said, the overall internet penetration is pretty low (I think it is close to only 40% of the entire Brazilian population).
The G2C part of your project should provide an interesting analysis since concepts like e-voting work the best when the internet usage amongst citizenry is high. Brazil does not have uniformly high internet penetration across the entire county. Maybe you can differentiate the G2C aspect and compare between urban and rural populations because there will be different results (I believe) for effectiveness of such an ‘e-system’ amongst the 2 geographic segments. Also, you can include some analysis on mechanisms for ‘fraud detection’ for e-voting and e-tax filing processes. Thoughts on this link might be of interest to you: http://qssi.psu.edu/files/hidalgo.pdf. Looking forward to reading your final paper. ~~[[User:syedshirazi|syedshirazi]] 21:21, 03 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi, I believe you should also compare other countries E- Government practices to Brazil's. It might be interesting to see if there are any other governments polices similar to Brazil's. There might be a government with similar statistics, and by comparing them you might see another variable that might be affecting Brazil. --[[User:Joshuasurillo|Joshuasurillo]] 04:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Laura Connell [[User:Ltconnell|Ltconnell]] 18:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*''' Prospectus title: Does providing a legal alternative act as a deterrent to internet piracy?'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Laura_Connell_Assignment_2_Prospectus.pdf
**Comment: Laura, here is a link to a recent study that you may find of use:
[http://documents.envisional.com/docs/Envisional-Internet_Usage-Jan2011.pdf Envisional - Technical report: An Estimate of Infringing Use of the Internet] Hope you find this helpful --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 03:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Laura, glad to see this topic on the list. It's a tough topic as it could be looked at as requiring a world government organization to pass law enacting the crack down on stolen DRM'ed materials. At the same time there seems to be evidence that this type of activity does not hit the bottom line of Hollywood and other world producers of content. Manufacturers of CD and DVD technology has traditionally tried to work with the "Hollywoods" of the world only to be thwarted by the hacker. There seems to be a balance in the mix where the manufactures can create some hurdles for the most common user and at the same time not create a situation where users are not able to access valid content (such as putting in a DVD from Japan in a US DVD player and not being able to play the content). I think we're moving more and more toward online content like Netflix where the content is more controlled and the physical media is going away. Streaming content has some inherent properties that cannot be easily overcome, further, as long as the browser being used to support a new type of encryption technology, companies can make changes to security on the web server side when hackers have found an exploit. It's a very interesting topic, but I think any laws created would be done by people that do not fully understand the technology and also the laws have great potential to be outdated in a short amount of time if not written with enough foresight. Having said that, there has been a great deal of reduction in some types of sharing due to cases against people that have pirated DRM'ed media and also have had big impacts on many sites that traditionally have been an excellent source for finding pirated material. Regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Alokika Singh [[User:Singh singh|Singh singh]] 19:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[[User:Singhsingh]]====
*'''Prospectus title: Online Political Activism in India'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_II_22_feb..pdf
**Comment: Hi Alokika: I think your topic is very interesting. You can also draw a comparative line between roles of leading social/political leaders in India versus the role of ordinary internet users when it comes to acting as the leading force behind online social/political debate in India? A lot of times, it has been seen that individuals who don’t follow any hierarchy kick-off such bold campaigns. (Take the example of what happened in Egypt over the last six months. The online movement was sparked by ordinary folks and not any leading social or political figure). I am curious to know whether the online ‘Pink Chaddi’ campaign was initiated by general users or spearheaded by a leading social organization in India. I suspect the former. So it will be interesting to see how the online debate has evolved in India. Looking forward to reading your final analysis.~~[[User:syedshirazi|syedshirazi]] 20:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Don Hussey [[User:Donaldphussey|Donaldphussey]] 19:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: Online Crowd-Sourcing of Starbucks Product Development'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:LSTU_E-120_--Hussey_-_Asmt2.doc
**Comment: Don, this is a really ambitious project. I think it's a great idea for you to use your professional position to get your foot in the door with some of the people at Starbucks; I hope it works! My only concern with this project is that you are only focusing on the corporate side of this venture. Is there any way you can include information from participants or contributors to this site? Is there any way on this site that users can interact with each other, or is it a one-way interaction between contributors and Starbucks? ~~[[User:mcforelle|mcforelle]] 18:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Don, I also agree with mcforelle in that you should involve the contributors into your work. For example, if you look at those in support of Starbucks minis (lol)
http://mystarbucksidea.force.com/ideaview?id=08750000000H4DwAAK
you can ask them if they seriously feel more loyalty to the company based on their contributions--even if they never see their ideas come to fruition? Or do they merely want to be a part of the Starbucks online community? Or do they want bragging rights? Also, it might be interesting to briefly compare the Starbucks strategy--seeing the consumer/contributor as the catalyst of a new product--versus, say, the recent Dominos Pizza strategy--viewing the consumer/contributor as the rater of a finished product. This might allow you to connect the measurable (business performance) with the non-measurable (customer feedback)--the latter which now can be more accurately measured because of social media and online communities. All in all, I think you have great potential with this topic! [[User:Myra|Myra]] 20:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Re: methodology, [http://socialmention.com Social Mention] is a free tool you can use to track sentiment/mentions/posts related to Starbucks in various social spheres. Might be worth checking out as the mystarbucksidea project takes off, in order to see how this shapes their metrics! - Jessica [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 03:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Tym Lewtak [[User:lewtak|lewtak]] 21:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: User Generated Sites: Defining Superusers and Their Monetization'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Assignment_2.pdf
**Comment: Tymoteusz, I find you topic very interesting. I am wondering as a product of your research if you will study the proportion of individuals who are super users compared to commercial organizations using these tools. That is, in respect to commercial organizations using the various tools, how important is the individual? Over time, is the place of the individual becoming more or less important? I would suspect that part of this equation depends upon the rate at which people are able to monetize their involvement as much as how commercial organizations are co-opting the modalities. Is there a constant influx of new blood or will the ability of individuals to monetize their involvement decrease over time? It may be fascinating to see is this is an indication of a generative system over the long run or something that may peak and decline. Good luck! --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 03:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Gclinch, Thanks for all of your input! I initially didn't think to so much as include corporations, but taking a second glance at the subject you're right. I would be foolish to not look at motivations for companies and individuals alike to join sites as super-users. If I can find historical data on users from these sites, I'd like to especially take a look at whether it was individuals who joined first and became super-users, or if corporations jumped onto the "ball game" with individuals following. I suspect the latter isn't true, but I will try to distinguish between companies that joined these sites early on versus already popular companies that grew their earlier existent popularity.'' ([[User:Lewtak|Lewtak]] 21:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC))
**Comment: One thing that is very interesting about internet communities is the ability of certain super users to arise. You will find it in all communities from IRC to blogs to forums to games and so on. Normally these are the folks to spend 60+ hours a week on their system (might want to look up references on hours as it relates to superusers) and this is their exposure to the "outside" world. There are different kinds of super users as well. There are the mentors who want to help the community evolve and guide users in the right direction, gently correct them when they are wrong, and are just generally helpful. There are also the dictatorial power mongers who will ban, delete, disparage, etc... anything they don't like, no matter how small the violation or mistake may be. There are many super user personalities in between as well. These individuals do it because they want to do it, not because of pay. Sites that can entice a user community to police itself significantly reduces their overhead costs and still, normally, maintains a good site with good content and a happy user community. Unless, of course, they select a powerMAD person to be the superuser in which case everyone will eventually get upset and move to greener pastures. [[User:Rakundig|Rakundig]]

----

====Name: Denise Reed--[[User:Dreed07|-dreed07]] 21:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: A comparative study of user behavior on Chinese social networking sites with that of United States social networkers'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/REED_LSTU_E120_Assignment_2.doc
**Comment: Fascinating subject! I think that the differences between Chinese and USA based social networking sites is an area ripe for exploration, and one that could potentially shed a lot of light on the effects of government censorship on online communities. Some thoughts: differences in user behavior may be due to many different factors, including site architecture, demographics, and cultural influences. It would be worthwhile to explore the demographic differeces (such as age, socio-economic status, and geographic location) between different sites offering similar services in and outside of China. Furthermore, I wonder if it would be possible to obtain information on the behavior of Chinsese nationals using facebook prior to that site being banned in the PRC, and to compare it to that of non-Chinese nationals? Also, you might look into the social networking habits of users in Hong Kong, where Facebook and simmilar sites (IIRC) remain unblocked. Are their any social networking sites specifically targeted toward the Hong Kong community, and how do such sites differ from those in the rest of China? Finally, I notice that your links seem to be primarily in English. Direct access to Chinese social networking sites, and their users, in their native language would, I imagine, be extremely valuable to this project. [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 03:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I would love to see how your research will bloom at the end of the course. I am from South Korea but I have spent a considerable amount of time in China as my family runs business there. I usually stay in Beijing at least for a month every year and am naturally exposed to the Internet culture of China. As it is widely known, access to Facebook is blocked in the country and sometimes - I am not certain about the cause - access to Google is denied, which practically separates me from my online networks. You prospectus seems to cover general contrasting characteristics of two countries' different social networks. Since the filtering level of these countries varies, setting clear standards for comparing subjects, I think, might be quite crucial. From your project, selecting a proper social network website which can be considered as Facebook of the US would be an essence. Please let me know if you need any help with that.
--[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 03:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Michelle Forelle [[User:mcforelle|mcforelle]] 21:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: Online Video-Making Groups: Community, Copyright, Collaboration and Commercialism'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment2_Vimeo.pdf
**Comment: Michelle, I have never heard of Vimeo (this is where the Geico man asks me if I live in a cave), but I think you are onto something very interesting here. Perhaps when you tap the frequent contributors of the site, you can ask them why they post their videos on Vimeo instead YouTube, and if for a time, they did switch over to YouTube, and why? It looks like Vimeo started about a year before YouTube. Where did they share their videos before, or did they not? At the onset, Vimeo seems like a more serious bunch than Youtube, but let's see what you discover! [[User:Myra|Myra]] 21:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Thought this was a very interesting and challenging research topic. I work in the digital advertising space, and video has always been a tough nut to crack for clients. They are drawn to the "sight, sound and motion" element that made TV advertising so successful, but clearly the digital space opens possibilities for an entirely new set of formats beyond the :30 sec TV spot. I have used Vimeo for one of my client's campaigns, and it was the community-oriented nature of its architecture that made it particularly compelling. So, I'll be very curious to read your completed report! Also thought I'd share a helpful resource that summarizes the online video landscape (it's slightly dated, but you might find their case studies to be useful to your cross-analysis): [http://www.emarketer.com/blog/index.php/emarketer-webinar-evolving-online-video-landscape/ eMarketer]. Good luck! - Jessica [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 01:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I think this is a very interesting topic and i cannot wait till it is completed. There are so many other video sharing websites besides Youtube. Like Myra said, Vimeo seems to be for more serious users. Also they tend to target a specific group of fellow professionals. I wish I had chosen this topic. Good luck! --[[User:Joshuasurillo|Joshuasurillo]] 04:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Myra Garza [[User:Myra|Myra]]====
*'''Prospectus title: Preparing and Accommodating Millenials in the Workforce: Use of Social Media in Two Career Coaching Businesses'''
*'''Link to prospectus:'''http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Garza.M.Prospectus.doc
**Comment: Myra, this is a really interesting topic! I feel like this is exactly as narrow a case study as the professors were asking for. I'm jealous that you were able to identify such an relevant topic, lol! I look forward especially to reading the background research for this paper, as it is my understanding that minority youth are disproportionally represented on sites like Twitter; I'm eager to find out whether that rumor is true, and if so, what it means for the way these youth interact with and influence the hiring process. I'm also interested in hearing how these companies help steer the social use of the social media into the practical, career-building use. I'm curious to see if you find that the conclusions you are specific to urban youth or whether such tactics in career counseling are also applicable to suburban and rural kids too. Great prospectus, I really look forward to reading your paper! [[User:mcforelle|mcforelle]] 18:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I, too, think this is going to be a very interesting paper. There is such a need in the corporate community for young people who can help older executives use social media both within the organization for employees and outside the organization for the public and consumers. I would be interested in what the career objectives are for the clients of these two organizations. Are they interested in using their social media skills as part of their job requirements or are they looking for careers in various non-related fields? <<[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 01:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)>>
**Comment: Great topic, as I am sure many of us see on a daily basis the generational differences at work, and the need to involve and "catch" the millenial generation. I wonder if the two organizations will provide you with data on their success, and outreach numbers in the community? I look forward to seeing how this plays out. [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 01:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Myra - The influence of social media on both the job search process and in the workplace itself is a very powerful topic! If I am interpreting your prospectus correctly, it seems that your primary concern is with how, in practice, the two case study sites prepare Millenials for the proper use of social media in their job search/and work environments? If so, it might be interesting to connect with Human Resources representatives, to get a pulse on how their employee/recruitment policies have evolved due to the emergence of these new communication tools. In theory, I think there should likely be some alignment between the advice from the two websites and what HR is practicing. Separately, you also raise a very compelling distinction, which is that these businesses serve the needs of minority groups. I wonder if this may warrant its own stand-alone investigation. This way, you can truly dedicate your research towards how the workplace and job search process is shifting (and hopefully closing the gap) for minorities, as exemplified by the social media practices and guidelines from your 2 case study sites. In any case, this is indeed a substantial topic, so I look forward to seeing which direction you take it! - Jessica [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]]
***'' Response: Everyone--thanks so much for feedback! I actually am an HR professional myself, and I can tell you that a lot of HR and business literature out there encourages the bridging of generations at work--particularly with the use of technology. Easier said than done! So, I already have an interest in the broad topic and am hoping the two organizations will be willing to share their experiences teaching social media tactics to youth (for career purposes) and offer some insight on the specific needs of minority youth. I actually met the owner of CC4Kidz at a conference a few weeks ago, and after searching for similar organizations, I discovered The Youth Career Coach Inc. As Jessica indicated above, this topic will require some more narrowing down. Thanks!'' [[User:Myra|Myra]] 22:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Jose Uscanga====
*'''Prospectus Title: Cummunity reporting or social activism? The New Age of media reporting in Mexico.'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Jose_Uscanga_Assignment_-2.doc
**Comment: Jose, you have identified a truly compelling topic.
When you ask, “Is free press necessary for democracy?” many of us would say, obviously yes. Reading your prospectus though makes me wonder, “what do we mean today by a free press.” Does phenomenon such as Mexican citizens taking, “on the civic responsibility of alerting other citizens by providing detailed and unfiltered information,” redefine what we mean when we use the term press? I’ll be looking forward to reading your conclusions.
I’d also be interested to learn if you think there is something unique about Mexican culture that compels people to get involved. It seems to me that these citizen journalists are taking huge risks. Even less than the professional journalists, there would seem to be no safety net. After all isn’t it easy for the drug cartels to find out who is issuing the alerts. Is it a demographic trend, is it youth driven or does it span the population? Is it something unique about the way Mexican people relate to one another that makes people get involved? Thanks for taking on such an interesting and challenging topic. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 02:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Assignment 2 Submissions

2011-03-08T01:59:13Z

Gclinch: /* Name: Brian Smith Smithbc 23:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC) */

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; padding: 5px; text-align: left;">
<big>'''Assignments'''</big>

'''[[Assignment 1 Details and Reporting]]''' | [[Assignment 1 Submissions|Submissions]] 
''Due February 8''

'''[[Assignments#Assignment_2:_Prospectus| Assignment 2]]''' | [[Assignment 2 Submissions|Submissions]] 
''Due February 22''

'''[[Assignments#Assignment_3:_Project_Outline| Assignment 3]]''' | [[Assignment 3 Submissions|Submissions]] 
''Due March 22''

'''[[Assignment 4 Details and Links]]''' | [[Assignment 4 Submissions|Submissions]] 
''Due April 12''

'''[[Final Project]]''' | [[Final Projects|Submissions]] 
''Due May 10''

</div>
This assignment is due on February 22. Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (assignments submitted 4 days late or later will have a maximum grade of 1 point).

Please make sure the name of your file includes your name (example: Name_Assignment2.doc) to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment. ''The '''upload file''' link is to the left, under '''toolbox'''.'' Once you've uploaded your file, please link to it following the format below:

*Name:
*Prospectus title:
*Link to prospectus: (the file you uploaded)

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

===Comments===
Everyone will receive an additional participation grade for this assignment. You should read through everyone's proposals after they are uploaded and add constructive comments below the proposal on which you're commenting. Comments should be submitted by March 6 so you have time to incorporate them, if applicable, into your project outline. ('''Remember to sign your comments!''')

===Submissions===

----

====Name: Gagan Panjhazari --[[User:Gpanjhazari|Gpanjhazari]] 07:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: The Role of Censorship Of the Internet in the Egypt and Libya'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/GaganPanjhazari-Assignment2.txt
*Comment: You might want to check the article I posted on the Feb 22 assignment page that appeared in the New York Times. Might be helpful on your first topic. <<[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 00:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)>>
**Comment: Gagan, I find both of your topic choices interesting. I think the second one, regarding the ability to hold website creators responsible for their content, especially when said content could be considered treasonous, would be the best topic of the two. It is such an important question, the answer to the question will frame our national security for the future. With either topic, I look forward to reading your findings. [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 01:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
*Comment: Frontline, the PBS program, had an episode about the April 6 Movement in Egypt, including how it used the interent and mobile devices for organization and how it was forced to adapt when access was cut. There isn't a whole lot of detail here, but it might be a useful place to start. [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 02:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/revolution-in-cairo/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid
*''Comment:'' I like the second topic. It would be interesting to see if the treason charges are somehow being used to:
# silence Julian Assange
# scare others from doing the same thing
#*One thing you might look up for precedence is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers Pentagon Papers] [[User:Rakundig|Rakundig]]
**Hai!...I love your idea of covering the censorship and even internet blackouts at times in Egypt and Libya along with the role that social networking and tweeps had in organizing the recent protests, and ousting of Mubarak. This is a fascinating narrative to be sure. Here are a few links about a European internet activist group that has worked to provide low tech communication aid to the protesters. I hope they might be of use to you in your research. [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/02/egypts-internet-blackout-highlights-danger-weak|Egypt's Internet Blackouts Highlights Danger of Weak Links, Usefulness of Quick Links], [http://werebuild.eu/wiki/Egypt/Main_Page | werebuild.eu the Egyptian project page], [http://werebuild.eu/wiki/Libya/Main_Page | werebuild.eu, the Libyan project page], and [http://telecomix.org/ | telecomix.org] [http://globalvoicesonline.org/ | Global Voices]has done an outstanding job of covering these events as well. Best of luck![[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 01:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I agree with Deinous. Your topic is very time-appropriate and I cannot hide my excitement to read final results of the research! I believe it should be closely examined as an epitome of the Internet censorship by all of us who are taking this class. From my perspective, it seems that Egypt's Internet kill switch decision rather ignited people's movement toward democracy and protests. By the way, your prospectus includes primarily theoretical approaches to the topic. I would love to know which resources you are going to use in the course of the research. Depending on types of media, your research conclusions, I believe, can be various. Below is the article of the Economist that might be useful in your project. Good Luck! --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 10:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**[[http://www.economist.com/node/18112043 The Economist: Reaching for the kill switch]]
**Comment: Hi Gagan, both your topics are interesting. According to the description of the Final Project it should be built around one of the theoretical conceptions that we study during the course.So if you think about the conceptions that may apply to your topics, it will help you to chose one of two topics proposed by you and, perhaps, to generate your questions and hypothesis around the theoretical conception as the Final Project demand. [[Kristina Meshkova]], 5 March 2011.
**Comment: Gagan, great subjects! You should stick with the subject that interests you most. I suppose its the first one that you wrote about, the role of social media and networking in the revolutions. This is definitely a broad subject, but that doesn't mean you should throw it out, it means you should narrow it to a point that is achievable. A suggestion would be to pick one of the countries, and one of the social networks to drill deeper into. (i.e. the role that Facebook users played in the Egyptian revolution.) Then you need to think about what you will investigate. This project is supposed to be empirical, so you should find some way of observing or surveying the users or the events. This might be in the form of friending as many of the users who were involved in a particular event on Facebook. This should be a great project for you! [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Gagan,I think the same - great topics. I believe both of them are very current and it will be interesting to read your final project. It is very hard to comment your prospectus because it is apparent that you did a deep research and you are clear in what you want to research in final paper. It seems to me that first project seems to be more empirical than second one. Although it would be maybe more or less easier to find 'clear' answers for questions in second project. I do not know. When regards the topics, both of them are very current and you identified the questions very clearly. Good luck with your project...[[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 10:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I think thats remarkable. I do think your topic is a bit broad, as is mine, must a great start! This link might help as well-http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/29/technology/internet/29cutoff.html I wonder what role did social networks play in Egypts revolution. I know the Egyptian consulate in New York cut off web access, but you can still inquire via phone. Will they take this same route in the future?--[[User:Elishasurillo|Elishasurillo]] 04:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: This is a very serious and evolving topic that should be very fun and interesting to work on. It is very important to study the internet's effect on these countries because it could quite possibly happen to other countries. Just like the revolutionary furry spread from Egypt to Libya, it could easily spread to other countries either for the better of for the worse.--[[User:Joshuasurillo|Joshuasurillo]] 05:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Saam Batmanghelidj --'''[[User:Saambat|Saambat]] 10:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: The Effect of Synthetic World Communities on Real World Societies, Economies, and Copyright law'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Batmanghelidj_Final_Project_Prospectus.doc
**Comment: Hi Saam, I think your topic of synthetic or virtual worlds. I had a suggestion that you take a look at BitCoin (http://www.bitcoin.org/), this is an emerging technology that only started up a short time ago. It's a fascinating technology that deals with a new form of money (yes it can be exchanged for real money and is currently trading 1 for 1 with the US dollar). Some interesting things about it: uses public/private encryption keys, it's completely anonymous, it has great potential to circumvent certain banking regulation systems, it can be used to make real purchases, because of it's anonymity and cannot be tracked creates a security of privacy for the purchaser and seller. This also means could could be exploited by people not wanting transactions to be recorded. This technology really opens a virtual door of monetary exchange across the globe where any currency can be exchanged for BitCoins and then exchanged again into a different currency. This is just a top end look at it. It's already in use and some places accept this currency including some non-profit agencies for donation purposes. It also opens an easy way to laundry dirty money. Regards Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi , Saam. The topic is very interesting, but, I’m not sure that questions you want to answer will help you to develop the topic deeply and systemically: the questions are not in a strong correlation with your topic, I think they will not disclose the topic in full and from the main sides of it. You also use such phrase as “virtual property”, what do you mean by this? Is it the same as intellectual property? If yes, I think, it’s better to use the term “intellectual property”. You also pose such question as “How harmful is it for people to sell virtual items for real world monies, and to what extent is it harmful?” So you’ve already decided that it’s harmful, may be, it’s worth to give some arguments in your work why you decided it’s harmful. If you consider “the Synthetic World Communities” as the theoretical concept you want to use in the Final Project, you can try to determine the main features of this concept, then divide your hypothesis into three sphere ( society, economic and copyright law) and pose the main, in your opinion, questions in each of the spheres, regarding the theoretical basis you chose. [[Kristina Meshkova]], 5 March 2011.
**Comment: Saam, you've picked a fascinating topic. You've identified a rich field and topics; the challenge will actually be in narrowing it down to something observable, rather than reporting on what has already been written and explored. Pick one of the topics like virtual property trades and one of the sites like EVE Online and think through how you can observe what is happening in that cross-section. I look forward to reading this project! [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Kimberly Nevas --'''[[User:KimberlyNevas|KimberlyNevas]] 02:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: Can the U.S. Prosecute Julian Assange?'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Nevas_Kimberly_LSTU_E-120_Assignment_2.pdf
**Comment: Hi, Kimberly. Your topic is one of the essential questions I myself also want to closely observe and look for answers. Especially, considering the global impacts of Wikileaks, the prosecution of Assange is merely not confined to the jobs of the US Justice Department. Many governments are quite eager to punish him for revealing sensitive political/diplomatic issues, which might have significantly deterred their national agenda. Nonetheless, the 1st Amendment of the US and equivalent provisions existing in each country that guarantee freedom of speech are standing in the way of this very prosecution. So the question always comes down to this: are we going to sacrifice freedom of speech for a greater cause - usually national security? Are there certain limitations that media have to comply with in publishing their articles? I would love to see how this 21th version of the Zenger Trial will turn out. Good luck! Best, [[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 03:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: It might also be interesting to see if any other sites purporting to disclose sensitive information whether government or corporate have become more aggressive considering all the confusion about what to do with Julian Assange. Does his legal situation make these sites feel more confident regarding avoiding prosecution? <<[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 00:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)>>
**Comment: Your statement, "In this respect, Assange cannot be considered any more liable than the New York Times." is a bold one, which some might strongly disagree with, given Assange's postings and his refusal to censor, along with his use or threatened use of yet unreleased information as leverage to keep himself free. I look foward to reading your arguments regarding Assange, freedom of speech and the case law which supports your position. [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 01:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi, Kimberly. The problem you decided to consider in the Prospectus is really important and actual. But I think that the question “whether the Justice Department can prosecute Assange without damaging the U.S. free press as we know it”, that you pose describing the Problem is wider than the Research question. Perhaps, it’s worth to add the question “whether the Justice Department can prosecute Assange without damaging the U.S. free press as we know it”, to your Research question as the main one. And your present research question: Are the distribution methods adopted by Wikileaks for the dissemination of thousands of pages of classified U.S. documents structured so as to arm Julian Assange and his associates with a strong defense to prosecution under U.S. law?” will help you to answer your main question. Your present research question can be also considered as a research frame, so that you can explore the distribution methods of Wikileaks to answer if they really make the obstacles for the Justice Deparment to prosecute Assange and if yes to what extend; are the distribution methods of Wikileaks the main obstacles which do not permit the Justice Department to prosecute Assange or there are the other obstacles (for ex., with respect to the features of free press)? [[Kristina Meshkova]], 5 March, 2011.
**Comment: Kimberly, you have the beginnings of a good project here. I am interested in what you choose to use as your methodology and what you will choose to "observe" as part of this case study. One suggestion in particular is to look at the particular statements made by the U.S. papers in regards to why they believe their approach to printing the leaks are legal and any justifications they made in regard to accepting Assange's information. [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comments: Kimberly, that is an explosive topic! I bet you'll have lots of material! The qusetion is where did he commit the crimes if any. If in Australia, can they prosecute him? Or because they are U.S. cables, does the U.S.A. have jurisdiction? And who has the right to tell him he can or cannot post and release? The U.S.A. has to clearly stae how he broke the law. As far as I know, treason can only be a crime if commited by a citizen. Good work! --[[User:Elishasurillo|Elishasurillo]] 04:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Yes, very timely and interesting topic. One thing you might look up for precedence is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers Pentagon Papers] [[User:Rakundig|Rakundig]]

----

====Name: Jamil Buie====
*'''Prospectus Title: Profiteering via "Public Privacy" The use/misuse of your data'''
*'''Link to prospectus:'''http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:JBProject_Prospectus.pdf
**Comment: Hi Jamil, For me this is a an extremely important issue, I'm glad to see you're looking at it. I have a few pointers that may help uncover some things that are currently being looked at and something that was done in the UK back in 2008. Do a search for Phorm, BT implemented it in secrecy and it caused a big uproar. Also, it appears that ComCast is looking to implement it here in the US. It deals with deep level packet inspection. Not sure how tech savvy you are, but basically it comes down to an ISP looking at each packet users are sending out over their home connection. It is suppose to be done anonymously, however, it's invasive to the nth degree. Another technology that you might want to look at is the Evercookie. This can be used by websites that a user goes to, this then gathers information about a great number of browsing files that are on a system to ID the system. In the instance that a user cleans up his/her cookies, EverCookie will still be able to quickly identify you and place certain cookies back on your computer being able to keep tabs on the user. Regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi, Jamil. In your Prospectus, you write the following: “While most do understand that they are interacting with a third-party be it a site, search engine, or ISP they remain ignorant to how the data they’re providing is being farmed out or utilized in a commercial vein”. I can agree with you only partly: of course, we could not exclude the situations, when the data we provided are an object of unfair use, but it should be also mentioned that “the main players” of the Internet services do not ignore users, thus they stay uninformed about the way their data are used. For ex., Yahoo Privacy Policy http://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/details.html or Google Privacy http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacy/ In the question: What are the common guidelines and site best practices? you use such phrase as “site best practices”, that is very subjective category, as also the question: “Are consumers truly aware?”. Perhaps, it’s better to avoid such categories in your science research. [[Kristina Meshkova]], 5 March 2011.
**Comment: Jamil, we have similar interests and research topics. You are looking at the broad trail of information left by a typical internet user and the ways that trail is used. I am going narrower, specifically into the information gathered by location-based services to examine the associated privacy issues and assess the average consumer's perceptions of risks. If you are interested, I'd be willing to trade notes and help each other shape up the final project. Since we are doing similar topics, I would really appreciate your comments on my prospectus as well. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Very intrigued by your topic (and somewhat regretting not pursuing it myself!). I used to work as a targeting specialist at Yahoo!, and was floored by the amount of user data we had access to. Thought I'd share an extremely thorough [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703940904575395073512989404.html study] the WSJ put together not long ago, which summarizes the policies and efficacy of the major players in this space. Looking forward to reading your report on this very controversial and fascinating topic. - Jessica [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 03:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Uduak Patricia Okon====
*'''Prospectus Title: Web Pages/Blog Sites: Rights and Limitations-How free are you?'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Uduak_Patricia_Okon_Assign_2.pdf
**Comment: Hi Uduak, Your prospectus is very interesting. I look forward to seeing how your project comes together. But I have some comments that I would like to share, I hope my feedback is helpful.
**Re:
***In general, people are entitled to share facts if they don’t breach confidentiality or depict a real situation. This would depend on how citizen bloggers support their argument about their political commentary, whether it’s positive or negative. You need to remember that politicians are public figures, so the first amendment applies differently to them. Therefore the confidential circumstances that apply to the general population do not apply to politicians since they are not entitled to the same level of privacy. And citizen bloggers don’t have to adhere to the same circumstances as journalists to the best of my knowledge (I major in journalism and work in media in NYC) (i.e. it’s considered unethical for journalists to be bias if they’re not commentary writers. Also most journalists are not allowed to put political figure signs on their lawn, bumper sticker on their car, etc they need to push their feelings aside to accurately report the truth). I think the bigger issue is whether or not non-citizen bloggers can face defamatory lawsuits if there is proof they intentionally acted with malice? Or will future non-citizens bloggers have to abide by the same guidelines as employed journalists in the blogosphere working for CNN?
***Corporate law is an entirely different world. Because many corporations lie to promote their brand among many other issues on the internet, which is unethical to their consumers.
***I don’t think you should look into news websites like CNN, NY Times, etc because those are explicitly run by paid journalists (whom must adhere to strict guidelines about what they report) and comments are very restricted so the same type of freedom doesn’t apply to citizen journalists because official journalists also have code of ethics and have much more at stake.
***It's important to note that some citizen bloggers sell advertising on their blogs which might impede with how they portray a public figure on the net because they're getting paid. Formally employed journalists can't bias their stories based on relationships with advertisers because the editorial and advertising departments are seperate at news organizations.
***You, first need to narrow your focus because there is a huge difference between local mayors and congressional candidates, and citizen and non-citizen bloggers. (i.e. I think it would be interesting if you looked at how political figures use blogging as a form of position taking in Congress and compare cases of democratic and republican candidates on an issue like healthcare reform, education, etc. And the implications blogging has on Senators or Representatives relationships with their constituents).
**Comment: Uduak, very interesting subject. As you shape these ideas into a final project, one aspect to consider focusing on is to differentiate between a) the official "legal findings" of what bloggers can/cannot do vs. b) the unoffical "codes of conduct" being developed in the world of blogging. I think the unofficial codes would reflect the complex realities of the different types of bloggers, rather than the more simplistic legal concept of a blogger. One case to look at is the judge that was recently found to have been blogging anonymously [she thought :) ] about the case on which she herself was the sitting judge. I'll look for the URL to send you. I look forward to reading your project. [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Yaerin Kim [[User:Quill80|Quill80]] 02:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: OpenCourseWare(OCW) and its Impact: Case Study of MIT’s OCW'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment2_Kim.doc
**Comment: Hi Yaerin, I think this is a great topic. Being a part of F/OSS environment has pushed forward a number of wonderful software innovations. Scratch is an example of MIT's commitment to OCW. Scratch, though at first glance might appear comical, is actually a great tool to teach people the concepts of early stages of computer programming. I'm sure there are tons of other open source software that would interest you. I would suggest, if you have a spare computer or can run a virtual environment, downloading and running a Linux distribution like Ubuntu or Linux Mint. Then you can take a look at the rich repository of software that is completely free to install and use. Some of the software is not F/OSS, such as Adobe Reader, but the disclaimers of Left-Copied software is always clear. Anything that came from MIT would also give credit to that source even if it's been morphed. Best regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Yaerin, you've nicely narrowed down your topic to MIT OCW and assessing progress on the 3 goals. In the context of this course, it would really be interesting to narrow down even further to the third goal: the level of interaction of OCW users with the institutions that provide it. What are they and the users missing out on? We've already seen examples of digital communities developing and producing some amazing things and perhaps MIT is or should be seeking to turn OCW from content publishing into an active community. I look forward to reading about this in your project. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Yaerin. I think your topic is brilliantly targeted and focused on one of the distinct manifestations of peer collaboration - that is an open online course. I, myself, have greatly benefited from MIT OCW and Yale Open Course and thus look forward to see, specifically, the reasons why the participation rate of users is lingering at such low figures. Would it be too much to expect OCW to be an open education forum with lively discussions? In my opinion, the architectures of OCW and Yale Open Course are expressly posing limitations on interaction between users as there is no such place to share opinions. I am very much excited to read your final project! Best, --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 10:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: William Bauser --[[User:Wnb|Wnb]] 23:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: Modern Web Design and Civic Engagement: Access to Information and Community Development'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Wnb_assignment2.pdf
**Comment: This is an interesting topic -- you have a lot of avenues to explore! Among the sites you list, some are clearly partisan while others seem more altruistic. I would be interested to learn the contrast of methods used by each type. For example, what are the membership requirements? Does the site encourage a particular philosophy? Does a certain amount of selective cocooning take place? On the other side, how can an Internet based civic community be both neutral and vital? If it is only fact based then it won't be interesting. How does is promote community discussions without advocating a position? I'm sure you'll have to narrow the focus of your chosen topic and I thought this might be an interesting distinction you could use. [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 01:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi William: Sounds like a very interesting subject. I have two comments. First, it is clear you are looking at assessing how effective internet tools are in increasing engagement in the political process, but your last statement doesn't seem to fit. It seems like you'd also like to look at how effective they are in increasing the transparency of the political process as well and you'd have to clarify how those fit together. (IMO, engagement =/= transparency.) Second, I'd be interested in hearing more about your methodology, since most of the sites you mention would likely not share their data openly (perhaps I am wrong.) All the best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Brian Smith [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 23:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: Location-Based Services: Implications and Awareness of Effects on Consumer Privacy'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Brian_Smith_-_Assignment_2.pdf
**Comment: Greetings Brian! I found your research idea very creative and the methodology you are planning to utilize seems realistically achievable, although some instruments used by government and private marketing agencies are very difficult to trace and require special software and equipment. I have a topic idea that may coincide with a notion of privacy you are investigating, so I may cite your work in my project. What I found to be inconsistent is that your methods seem to be distant on the instrumental level from your hypothetical statements, that is, it is undetermined how your method will help to prove or reject either of your hypotheses. In fact, even doctorate dissertations attempting to either reject or accept only one hypothesis. It is in quantitative sciences we test several hypothesis in order to corroborate the validity of the expression or formula, etc., but not in the research as far as academic papers suggest. In terms of your definition of location, it is unclear whether your are talking about the IP address based location or mobile device based location, if it is about mobile device only (most hosts like schools and bosses may hunt for both mobile and the laptop IP to trace their employee or a student) then you need to state so in your research and in the proposal as well. I know one thing for sure that with arrival of the wireless technology it became much more harder for Federal agents to trace hackers: it is technologically more convenient to retain privacy through the public wireless router. I think you will benefit from setting up a singular and more definite hypothetic statement that will encapsulate the entire topic. In addition, you would make the research more productive and to the point if you will add the limitations to your research so that your process will have its bottom line. Check out this research, it could be helpful or at least you can retrieve some more sources from in-context citations: http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~adillon/Journals/Expertise-JASIS.htm Good Luck! --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 20:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Thank you, Vladimir - these are really helpful comments. I might ping you back for more details as I go through them each. Best, Brian'' [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

**Comment: Brian, the location of a caller is also one of the key pieces of information that is used by public safety officials when responding to emergencies. There is a long history of regulation related to the use of location information in the Enhanced 9-1-1 system. I know the location services that you are talking about in your paper are based upon the GPS capabilities in mobile devices, but you may benefit from understanding the history of location as you look at some of the politics surrounding these new services. There has been some recent political maneuvering related to the location information provided by telecommunications carriers for the purpose of Enhanced 9-1-1 since many have determined, as you say in your prospectus, that location information is a marketable commodity.

Here is a short explanation of how location is determined in Enhanced 9-1-1. If you were to need to dial 9-1-1 in an emergency, when your call is answered at the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) a software application retrieves information about your location from the Automatic Location Information (ALI) database. The ALI database – there are actually over 3,000 ALI databases in the US, but from a local jurisdiction only one is important - that is/are maintained on behalf of the government by various on-contract third parties. How information about your location gets populated in that database depends upon the device originating your call. For a traditional wired phone, the phone company is responsible to update your location when your phone is installed.

When you are calling from a mobile phone, there are actually two ways that your location is determined. One is GPS, but many mobile devices today still either don’t have GPS chips or the users don’t turn the GPS on for reasons that range from prolonging battery life to a belief that they are protecting their privacy (something that you may next see is an illusion). One way wireless location is determined is by the triangulation of two or more cell towers. A mobile phone is almost always in communication with two or more towers and an estimate can be made of your location by measuring distance as a function of signal strength. The other way is to integrate the GPS chip. For Enhanced 9-1-1, this actually turns out not to be as straight forward as one might think. This is because the GPS information is carried in the data channel of a phone. For many phones it isn’t possible to have both a concurrent voice call and a data transmission. This means that in order to retrieve the GPS data, the PSAP needs to disconnect the caller. Not the best situation in an emergency. [http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/wireless911srvc.html The FCC’s Wireless 911 Rules] currently specify that the phone carrier is required to be able to locate you within, “50 to 300 meters depending upon the type of location technology used.”

There is also a separate system for determining the location of a caller who is using a VoIP device (as in Skype) and another process for determining the location of a caller from within an enterprise organizations (such as a PBX extension).

Hope you find this of use. Let me know if I may clear up and points or answer any additional questions. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 01:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Yu Ri Jeong -- [[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 22:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: How manifestations of collective intelligence vary in different cultures and societies: Study on Naver Knowledge iN of South Korea in comparison with Wikipedia.'''
*'''Link to Prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Yu_Ri_Jeong_Internet_and_Society_Assignment_2_Prospectus.doc
**Comment: This is a really interesting topic! I hadn't known that South Korea had so strongly resisted the dominance of Wikipedia. I am curious, even if you do not include these questions in your paper, to hear what you think is unique about South Korea that it managed to create its own version of Wikipedia. Was it simply a question of timing, or is there something about South Korean Internet culture that allowed it to rally around its own creation. I also wonder what this means for Wikipedia. As a result of the lack of participation by South Korean Internet users, does Wikipedia suffer from a gap in information about South Korean culture, politics or society? I think the paper you have laid out in your prospectus is very thorough and complete, but I would love to hear your thoughts on these questions separately as you continue your research! [[User:Mcforelle|Mcforelle]] 19:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Dear Mcforelle, thank you for your kind words on my prospectus. I believe that the user-friendly manner of NKIN is encouraging Koreans to prefer it over Wikipedia. To elaborate, NKIN offers such an environment that participants can just write down their ideas without having to give much thought about the impacts of their posts. It is not that they have no responsibility in writing down articles; but they want to give information or advice as they do to their friends and family. The system of Wikipedia requires some duties such as learning of new Wiki codes. I believe that these factors are alienating Koreans from using Wiki. Furthermore, the under-activated usage rate of Korean Wiki is discouraging people to use it. --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 03:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Yuri! I think your research would reveal some very interesting points about the difference between the Korean Naver website and Wikipedia. If I may suggest, it would be interesting to analyze the difference in user demographic between the two websites. This would assist your analysis for Question #3. Also, since Naver seems to be a for-profit organization, it would be interesting to analyze how profitable NKin has been and contrast it to the non-profit model of Wikipedia. [[User:Quill80|Quill80]] 22:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Yaerin, thank you for your kind comments. Your suggestions include very important points which I might have ignored had it been not you! Truly, the demographic analysis of two websites and the comparison of them in terms of for-profit and non-profit will reveal some of the interesting characteristics of these open knowledge forums. Thank you! --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 03:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Yu Ri: This is a solid proposal for the project. I like how you've used the course themes as your areas of investigation and how you've narrowed down to two communities that you will compare, and even further to a set of articles with common subjects across the two communities. The only area of concern might be that your subject areas are pretty large in and of themselves (architectural elements, social norms & governance, membership, limits on expression, and national law.) If you can do all of those, then that's great, but you might think of narrowing to a smaller set. Otherwise, this proposal seems strong. Have fun! Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 08:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Smith. Thank you for spending your time in reading my prospectus. I absolutely agree with your concern. I wish to nail down the topic further, but am still not certain which theme to focus on as all the aspects matter most. I will keep you informed if I narrow down to the very specific topic! Thank you! --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 03:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: La Keisha Landrum [[User:llandrum|llandrum]] 21:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: Building a Sustainable News Org'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:LNLAssignment2.doc
**Comment: Hi La Keisha, It's good to see you're approaching this hot topic. I think most Americans are rather clueless about the current demise of the media or at least they are clueless as to why the media has been in a state of disintegration over the past 30 years. The newspaper companies came to late to the Internet forum and due to their lack of response they lost the "first-to-line" efforts in advertising & classified revenues. Aggregators and bloggers have only worsened the situation for major media, not to mention giants like Google and Craigslist drawing away advertising dollars. Still, a more important aspect is that experienced journalists need to continue to be supported in doing investigative reporting. Looking at detail as to how the different models of moving forward and the benefits might be speculative at this point, but we have seen some success stories in new ways to successfully report on current events. Regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hello La Kiesha! This is a very interesting and important topic for the future well being of journalism. According to your prospectus, it seems that you are interested in the profit aspect of the emergence of new internet-based journalism. If this is the case, it would be helpful if you can offer comparison in income for the aforementioned journalist. In other words, how much did these journalist as an employee of a traditional publisher and how much are they making now with their innovative website? Also, it would be interesting to know who is willing to patron these professional journalists. I think the lecture slides from March 1 would be very helpful as well. Good luck![[User:Quill80|Quill80]] 22:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi La Keisha, Bravo for taking on this topic. I like the fact that you are exploring success stories in online journalism. While journalism is undergoing fundamental changes, I think this is not just a doomsday scenario that dictates journalism will disappear. The newspaper existed for so long because, I believe, there is strong consumer demand for quality information. Just because the business model for supplying news is undergoing transformation doesn't mean that that demand is gone. My hypothesis is what we discussed in our last class: that the newspaper is being disaggregated and all the components will find their places as the changes shake out. There will be a place for classified ads, opinion articles, local fluff pieces, national news, international news, and yes, even, high-quality investigative reporting! It's just that they won't all be delivered by the same company, in the same vehicle, nor with the same business model anymore. As a side note for a case study check out the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. I'm not sure how successful it has been, but their story might be interesting to you in that they closed down their print publication and went entirely online with a shrunken staff. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 08:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Enjoyed reading your prospectus! Just read an article in [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/mar/05/huffington-post-aol The Guardian] that seems to resonate very well with your proposed topic. It highlights the business model Huffington Post created whereby a good portion of their content is via free contributions, and the ensuing backlash amongst some writers circles who feel they are under/uncompensated. Also, I noticed you touch on the concept of 'content farming,' and thought I'd reiterate an example I brought up in class, [http://www.demandmedia.com/ Demand Media]. It is the poster child for content farming in the media industry, so might be worth a glance. Good luck and hope this is helpful! - Jessica [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 18:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Jillian York [[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 21:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: Understanding "Lesbanon": Lebanon's Online Lesbian Community'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Understanding_Lesbanon.doc
**Comment: Hi Jillian. I found your approach to the project very interesting: based on your prospectus, it seems that you are studying an online society as a mirror to look into the real world. Your idea of examining the ways that homosexuality is expressed on the Internet would offer a glimpse to the country's customs and legal regulations is truly brilliant. I will look forward to seeing what kind of role the Internet is playing in Lebanon society for freedom of speech - especially for that of lesbians. Best, Yu Ri --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 03:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hey Jillian, I think this is such a great paper topic. I love how secretive communities can still operate out in the public through using the internet. The value of anonymity in this case seems like it must be very high, especially if there are governmental pressures keeping women from coming out. I had no idea that "Lesbanon" existed but it really does make perfect sense. Maybe if there are other communites out there like this, you could make a broader statement on the nature of coming out on the internet despite oppressive governments and societal norms. Otherwise, I think your question is quite reigned in and manageable in scope. I look forward to reading this paper when you're finished. [[User:Saambat|Saambat]] 18:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Jillian, this is a clever topic. I think in America, we often take for granted what the Civil Rights Movement did for communities beyond racial and sexual orientation lines--it really impacted our cultural norm mindset. The internet is not only release but '''power''' for those in disadvantaged or secretive communities the world over--especially when you are looking at two groups under different governments: the Lebanese and the diaspora. I am curious to read more. [[User:Myra|Myra]] 19:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Caroline McLoughlin [[User:Camcloughlin|Camcloughlin]] 21:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus title: Privacy and Society'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Assignment-2.pdf
**Comments: Caroline, I, too, was interested in writing a paper more inclined to policy arguments and Rebekah counseled me against it. I got the impression we are supposed to be more observant of communities and how they interact and work. If this is true, you might lean your paper more towards observing whether privacy policies are adequately disclosed on sites in the US and how they are different on Canadian sites. Is this difference due to the contrasting privacy legal frameworks in the two countries? Do participants react differently?This might also help narrow your topic which seems like alot of material to cover. All this being said, I find your topic very interesting and think it might be great to present it in something like a PowerPoint format. Would be the great beginnings of a law review article if you are a lawyer.[[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 21:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)]]
**Comment: Hi Caroline, we are interested in the same privacy subjects. Similar to Sjennings feedback, I tried to make mine more about observing a community, specifically consumers using location-based services, and less about policy. If you've got the understanding already to get into issues and policy, though, then it sounds like a great project. As I mentioned to Jamil Buie above, if you are interested, I'd be willing to trade notes and help each other shape up the final project. Since we are doing similar topics, I would really appreciate your comments on my prospectus as well. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name:Anthony Crowe [[User:Acrowe|Acrowe]]====
*'''Prospectus title: Tagging and Metadata on the Internet and in New Media'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Crowe_LSTUE120_2.doc
*Comments:
**Comment: I like that you've identified another means of content organization for study. I feel like tagging is going to be a rich topic, not only because of the ways people use it, but because of how it defines or redefines website architectures. I don't really know much about tags beyond their most obvious uses (and frankly, on in Twitter), so I am curious to see what kind of social rules you discover in your research. The only thing I might suggest is that, given the richness of your topic, that you not worry about studying superusers too deeply. I feel like a thorough study of tagging on the three main sites you've identified, which are pretty major sites, in addition to the other examples you'll be incorporating, will be more than enough data and analysis for a great paper. Unless perhaps I'm not understanding the particular lens through which you'll be approaching the superuser question? [[User:Mcforelle|Mcforelle]] 19:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I think this is a really fascinating and relatively untouched subject; I'm curious to learn the myriad ways tagging is used, both for public sharing and for semi-private sharing (e.g., cleverly devised tags that only a particular group is aware of) -- but I agree with the above commenter in that I'm not sure how the question of superusers fits in here; I think you might be better off narrowing the subject just to the question of tagging.[[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 16:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Vladimir Kruglyak --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 21:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus title: A Transparency of the U.S. Government in the Socio-Cyber Environment'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus.doc
**Comment: Vladimir, thank you for your resources. I have been reading your prospectus and found your approach as interesting as ambitious. To investigate wether the U.S. Government maintains Constitutional transparency and accountability for the tax money expenditures using e-government resources, that is a very well focused research and I can tell you are passionate about the topic, which makes the reading even more interesting. However, when you talk about conspiracy relating it with the internet resources, I have to disagree. I think power and conspiracy are long-time friends, governments have faced every kind of suspicions since they exist, but the importance of digital resources when it comes to spreading these suspicions cannot be denied, and that is why I think your research will face very interesting issues to deal with, as investigating the origin of "conspiracies" from a social point of view. Do you think the Internet is a cause or a consequence? I think about WikiLeaks, for example. The Internet had nothing to do with the origin of the cables, but made them become a "popular" topic, blurring the "secret" component of International Politics. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? We are talking about serious crimes becoming nearly gossip (we could talk further about a Spanish journalist murdered in Iraq and how Spanish and American Governments made a deal to make it look like an accident: that's on WikiLeaks). But now it looks like nothing happened. Amazon was selling the cables for Kindle, Julian Assange is to be extradited to Sweden in a week and I highly doubt any of the "accused" by, or thanks to, WikiLeaks, is to face trial. When you say that I am adressing a brave category of people ready to risk their lives for the "right cause", that is exactly the interesting thing about this. Why would someone get into trouble for nothing? However, it calls my attention that you take for granted that their cause is the right one. I see in your statement that you look pretty convinced about conspiracies when it comes to very sensitive and historic topics. You assume the defense of one group, don't you doubt that the cause may not always be the right one? I find your statement so determined that it becomes intriguing to me (it is really hard to me to be sure about something), I will be following your work with interest to get a better understanding of your point of view. In the meantime, I hope to receive more suggestions or resources you may find interesting to check out about this topic. Lorena Abuín. --[[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 21:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I see a potential flaw in your methodology, and find it potentially invasive of a web surfer's privacy. Collecting data by sniffing packets is rather dubious for your uses and can be construed as an abuse of networking tools. Trying to parse the IP addresses into geographical locations through a Whois database may be difficult to and inaccurate if users are using proxy based anonymizers such as Tor or i2p. It is for this reason, among others, that many people chose to use anonymizers when they surf. [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 04:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
***Vlaidmir: Thank you all for the creative comments addressed toward my prospectus, although the assignment says to add constructive suggestions which can help an author to improve his project. I think it is little bit unfair to help others reconstruct their idea and receive nothing in return. I guess that is all I can get from the general public. If however, someone in this course really knows about the internet traffic analysis, you are welcome to suggest substantial changes. --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 20:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Vladimir, I apologize if I said anything to upset or discouraged you in any way. I meant my comment to be constructive in raising an ethical question to your research methodology in regards to the privacy of web surfers. U can certainly observe and aggregate traffic through packet sniffing network tools, but I would not be so trusting in precise geographical locations of the IP addresses for the reasons that I mentioned. However, with a large enough sample you could perhaps get a general feel for regional traffic. [http://www.ethereal.com | Ethereal]is a popular easy to use modern analysis tool with good documentation, and may serve your purposes. Again, I meant no disrespect and look forward to your project evolving.[[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 21:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name:Corey MacDonald [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 20:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus title: Fringe Forums for the Under-represented'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus_Assignment_2_MacDonald.doc
**Comments: Wow! This is a great prospectus, I feel like these kinds of sites are the perfect places to be asking these questions. So many of the conversations we've had in class have centered around how to best facilitate legal social interactions. I'm excited to read your analysis of how semi-legal and illegal topics are handled by users, administrators and legal bodies on these forums. I'd be curious to see if legal action had ever been taken against the users of these sites, or whether the information posted on them had ever been used in legal action against someone else, like as evidence or tips on possible illegal goings-on? Are there any specific government agencies that track activity on these kinds of sites? Are any extra precautions taken to protect the anonymity of contributors? [[User:Mcforelle|Mcforelle]] 20:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comments: Hi Corey this is a interesting topic, the existence of sites like Erowid and “the chemical underground” highlight how (especially the US) government are losing the battle to control drug information. A “non-event” that may be of interest to you is the DEA making Microgram public in 2003. Microgram was a law enforcement restricted newsletter aimed at forensic chemists and its release made very little impact on the “chemical underground” due to the wealth of information on illicit drugs that was already available.
Here’s a link to an article that might be useful/interesting http://www.michaelerard.com/fulltext/2006/08/open_secrets_how_the_governmen.html [[User:Ltconnell|Ltconnell]] 20:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Richard (Rick) Kundiger --[[User:Rakundig|Rakundig]] 19:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus title: The Role of Bittorrent in the Internet Society'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Kundiger_Assignment_2_Research_Prospectus.pdf
**Comment: This is a great example of "code is law." You have a very powerful tool (the bittorrent protocol) which can be used for both good an illicit purposes. Your investigation of the different interests for and against its deployment should provide an excellent case study. Does a company or government have more of a right than an individual to control the protocols in use? Are those opposed to the protocol trying to protect the greater good of the Internet or their own financial interests? [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 01:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Rick, I also like this topic. One thing you could really expand upon is the use of P2P (point to point) connections has also drivin forward such technologies as Skype. This type of technology was also never intended to be used for illicit purposes, but then again the Internet was never designed to be used in many of the ways it is used today. VoIP actually breaks the TCP/IP model where packets were never intended to be treated in such a timely fashion. Another item is that it was used by WikiLeaks to keep Assange a bit more safe, which could be interpreted both good and bad. It's also amazing that the record industry had enough lobby power to take down some of the most famous P2P services. There's also the aspect that businesses deal with a very real threat of employees using bittorrent technologies. The executive that installs a P2P client and accidentally shares out his entire drive has been a very real issue for companies to combat. Further, then end use that also does something simular can share very personal information such as passport and bank account details with the world. Hope my comments have given you some help in this area of interest. Regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Mary Van Gils====
*'''Prospectus title: Yelp Case Study - Freedom of Expression'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus_-_Yelp_Study_Case.doc
**Comment: Wanted to make you aware as you investigate the external restriciton on freedom of expression regarding the Yelp site that there are also types of businesses which are regulated by state law as to how they may respond to reviews/complaints on sites like Yelp. If you look at my prospectus, you will note insurance companies are one of those types of businesses.[[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 15:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)]]
**Comment: Hi Mary - This is a fascinating subject - the tension between freedom to express opinions and libel as well as the possible manipulations. Your decision to use Yelp forums as a focal point is also a good idea. What is not clear to me what exactly you will be observing about the forums. It would be great to not only observe instances of the tension points, but also to find instances where free expression has been limited by external sources (not sure if you'll be able to get access to this if it's happened.) I really look forward to reading your project. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 06:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I think Yelp makes a really interesting case study for freedom of expression, but, as mentioned above, Yelp doesn't exactly seem ripe for external limiting of free expression (in the forums at least; reviews are a separate issue), rather, I would venture to guess that the vast majority of limiting speech on the site is in the interest of the TOS. Nevertheless, I think there's a fascinating question here, and plenty of existing evidence, particularly to the question of reviews/slander.[[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 16:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Susan Jennings [[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 15:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)]]====
*'''Prospectus title: Annuity Companies' Social Media Communities'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Annuity_Companies%27_Social_Media_Communities.doc
**Comments: Hi Susan, your subject area appears well-defined and methodology seems systematic. In addition to surveying the companies' online activities, I would really encourage you to speak to the compliance person or even a marketing person in those companies to see how their efforts are going. [You might find the marketing person easier to reach out to :) and get a response.] Additionally, is there any way to bring in the actual federal regulators in order to get their perspective on how new social media plays in their framework for regulation? It would be interesting to see if and how they are adapting to the new technologies. Have fun! Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Alan Davies-Gavin & Alex Solomon====
*'''Prospectus title: Architecture of Sites eHarmony and Match.com: contributions of membership data and effects on security and privacy.'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Assignment2ProjectProspectus.pdf
**Comment: Alan and Alex, I think your topic is fascinating and I wanted to chip in my 2 cents which might help your research. Considering the different natures of sites that ultimately sell the same product, I would consider looking at how the two compete in response to one another. By this I mean, is Match doing something that eHarmony isn, and therefore, is eHarmony a bit jealous and trying to get into their market? I know that eHarmony lauched their more casual spinoff "Jazzed.com" which is meant to steal people away from Match. Is Jazzed a suggestion that privacy isn't all that important to frustrated singles? I think that there are also rather large differences in target audience between the two competitors, with eHarmony focusing on a bit older, more conservative crowd while Match goes for the "single and ready to mingle."Also, perhaps look at each companies approach to user profile creation over time, have they changed at all and in what ways? This looks like it'll be an exciting project, I'm looking forward to what you find! ([[User:Lewtak|Lewtak]] 21:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC))
*** '' Response: Thanks Tym. I like your observations and I think they may well contribute to our research and final content. It's a good perspective that you bring to light. Alan'' --[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Kristina Meshkova====
*'''Prospectus title: A music sharing site - Grooveshark, Soundcloud, MySpace.'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignement_2_%28Kristina_Meshkova%29.pdf
*Comment: Hey Kristina, I think we have some similar ambitions in regards to our final project. Let's chat tonight if you have any interest in potentially working together [[User:Alex|Alex]] Bryan 14:31, 1 March 2011.
**Comment: Hello Kristina, I found your project very interesting and I am looking forward to see it evolve. I am particularly interested in how and why the streaming content services are so territory-limited, beyond of copyright, and how long will this model survive. In Europe we can use Spotify but instead there is no access to Pandora or Grooveshark, and vice versa. Same happens with Netflix or Hulu. However, Spotify is said to be preparing its expansion to the USA and some people talk about pression groups beyond record labels. I think it could be interesting to explore if there are some inter-continental lobbying activities or corporative deals regarding this issues. Best,[[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 12:00, 6 March 2011.

----

====Name:Vladimir Trojak-- [[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 20:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC) ====
*'''Prospectus title: Are different language groups consistent in what topics are permitted and what is removed?'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_2.pdf
**Comments: Hello Vladimir, Your proposal is intriguing and I am looking forward to see how it evolves. I did have a question about why do you think that all the Wikipedia policies should be the same in all the language communities? Thanks. --[[User:SCL|SCL]] 03:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. I hope it will turn in the way I expect:)I believe that in general they shoudl be the same, such as 'neutral point of view', 'verifiability'. Although there may be differences in other policies because of different laws, such as topics you can speak about. You have any suggestions?Thanks.[[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 18:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Faye Ryding [[User:FMRR|FMRR]] 23:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus title: Trolls and vandals on Epinions.com'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Faye_Ryding_Assignment_2.doc
**Comments: Hello Faye, I read your prospectus but had the following thought. What if the person belives they are in the right? Does that make them still a vandal? And can you outline excatly what recourses one can take against such offenders? What authority can someone make a complaint to? That last question brings us to a much bigger, more complex one. Who has the soveriegn rights over the web? The government? A trade federation? Or individual users? --[[User:Elishasurillo|Elishasurillo]] 04:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: [[User:Alex|Alex]] Bryan 16:59, 21 February 2011====
*'''Prospectus title: Groooveshark music application'''
*'''Link to prospectus''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus.pdf
**Comments: Hi, Alex. Sorry that didn't answer you earlier. Will be glad to discuss an opportunity to work together on the Final project. Let's discuss it next week in a chat room or via email. This is my email for the course: kristinam2907@gmail.com [[Kristina Meshkova]], 5 March 2011.
**Comment: Hello, Alex. I am very interested in the legal aspect of streaming content services. Have you considered to study this issue from a global point of view regarding a potential Grooveshark expansion? As I stated below Kristina's project, I think both of your prospects are very interesting, I will be following them. Good luck [[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 12:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Robert Cunningham====
*'''Prospectus title: The Archive Team'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Proposed_Paper_TopicCunningham.pdf
**Comment: Hi Robert! Interesting subject, you've narrowed down nicely on one particular group and your areas of interest should cover nicely what the group is and does nicely. Also, your methods seem achievable and will allow you to experience the group, not just observe it (one of the core challenges for many of the projects, including mine.) The one counsel I would give is to go back to the course material we've been discussing to tie the Archive Team back into the course themes. As examples, you could look at the incentive system for contributors, the group hierarchy and governance for control and decision-making, the architecture of the online tools they use, or the merging of offline and online worlds. Have fun! [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: [[Joshuasurillo]]====
*'''Prospectus title: The effect of government transparency websites- Wikileaks'''
*'''Link to prospectus:'''http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Harvard_assignment_2.doc
**Comment: Joshua, I am very much looking forward to your final product. Your position (or what I am assuming your postion to be) comes across very loud and clear in your prospectus. I wonder if you will reach an opinion as to where to draw the line on "free speech," or if no line should be drawn? My reading of your position if you were to define it today is that free speech must be protected at all costs and no limits are appropriate, at least that is the feeling I am left with from your prospectus. If wikileaks posted the location or identity of our undercover operatives in Iraq or elsewhere, would you support that? If not, what else would you feel would be "going to far?" I look forward to reading more from you. [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 01:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I will try to convey a more balanced and neutral argument in my final paper. I will weigh both sides of the argument and shed light on both. Hopefully, I will be able to come to a consensus. I would not support a decision by Wikileaks to disclose the location or identity of our undercover operatives in Iraq, but I do not believe it is our place to stop them. I believe the government should not be going after Wikileaks but they should be finding and prosecuting the actual leak; not the whistle blowing agency.--[[User:Joshuasurillo|Joshuasurillo]] 01:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Susan Lemont====
*'''Prospectus title: Why do people cultivate large online networks?'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Lemont_Prospectus.doc
*Comments:
**Comment: Unfortunately beyond the stated scope of your project (and not practical to include), but it would be interesting to see how your findings compare to similar surveys of Youtube users (who frequently seek comments, ratings, and channel subscriptions) and members of various online forums which award rankings, custom titles, "reputation", and other benefits to prominent posters based on peer imput. Good luck with this topic. (P.S. Also, it might be interesting try and determine what percentages of Facebook 'friends' of these users are A) people they know in real life vs. those relationships which are strictly online-only and B) what proportion of real life contacts were made prior to 'friending' vs. those which were made as a result of meeting virtually via facebook.) [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 04:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Susan, your research question is so basic that I am surprised no one else chose a topic towards this issue, since it is the basis of the new big business, social media. From an anthropological point of view, I find it very interesting and not enough explored, focusing the research into motivations: not what or when people share or live online, but why do they do it. Besides, I find your methodology very well planned and practical, although I have some doubts about the sincerity when it comes to explaining to someone you don't know why you have more than 200 friends. I will be following your work with interest, good luck! [[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 11:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
***Response: Thank you everyone for your insightful comments. I have changed my project and the new prospectus follows:

====Name: Susan Lemont --[[User:SCL|SCL]] 20:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: What conditions are conducive to successful commons based peer production?'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Peer_production_Lemont_030611.doc
**Comments: Hi Susan. I like the way you tie the course readings into your project and your "test" of the theoretical writings on a real-life subject. So much of what we study is based on the success stories but we often can learn more from the failures. It will be interesting to know whether some of Benckler's or Zittrain's critical success factors were missing or whether they were all there and the project did not succeed for other reasons. I look forward to reading more about this in your projects. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Chris Sura [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 03:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus title: The Java Community Process: How Does It Really Work?'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Chris_Sura_Assignment_2.pdf
**Comment: Admittedly, I knew nothing of JCP prior to reading your prospectus, but it's a pretty intriguing process. It does make us wonder who is really behind our machines, as most consumers of technology only see (and care about) the surface. I wish you luck in obtaining your inside info, and I look forward to seeing how it comes along! [[User:Myra|Myra]] 23:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Ed Arboleda [[User:Earboleda|Earboleda]] 04:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: Are there collective benefits for copyright owners, copyright infringers, and the general community; if copyright infringement is not enforced under specific circumstances on social media sites?'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Ed_Arboleda_Prospectus.pdf
**Comments: Hi Ed, I certainly believe that in specific instances that there can be collective benefits for infringers and owners of copyright. One example is the pirating of the UK run of the TV series Battlestar Gallactica in Australia in October 2004. When the show aired in Australia in January 2005 the ratings exceeded expectations due to “sampling” and word of mouth. Here’s a link to an article with more information http://www.mindjack.com/feature/piracy051305.html [[User:Ltconnell|Ltconnell]] 20:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Elisha Surillo====
* '''Prospectus title: The Tea Party and Internet Freedom'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_2.doc
**Comment: I'm confused. This link does not seem to take me to the correct prospectus? Elisha, could you update this to make sure I can access yours?
**Comment: Hai to the comment above: Elisha and I uploaded with the same file names so they are stacked alphabetically. My file is one that I would like to remove actually but do not know how, but in the meantime, Elisha's file is the second link. Sorry for any confusion. [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 02:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I don't believe the tea party is just confined to the older generation. I believe it to be a stronger movement that will soon grip the masses. By having such a strong presence on the internet this movment will propell itself forward. I believe this is just the begining of many other grassroots campains and parties.--[[User:Joshuasurillo|Joshuasurillo]] 04:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Sorry I would change the name but I don't know how. Sorry for the confusion!'' --[[User:Elishasurillo|Elishasurillo]] 04:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Brandon A. Ceranowicz - [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 08:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: A Comparative Study of Open Source Licenses'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:LSTU_E-120_Assignment_2_-_Prospectus_BAC.doc
**Comment: Hello Brandon! I think your topic can be very interesting. However I think it would be important for you to have a specific focus since the topic seems so broad. I don’t know how relevant this would be, but I suggest that you take a look at the Open Content License. (http://www.opencontent.org/opl.shtml) Good luck! [[User:Quill80|Quill80]] 22:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Lorena Abuín====
* '''Prospectus title: Contribution to prosecuted online activities (Anonymous, BitTorrent, WikiLeaks)'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_2_-_Lorena_Abu%C3%ADn.pdf
**Comment: I noticed that there is a lot of crossover between our topics. We are both addressing hacker communities, but from differing angles. I have acquired quite a bit of information about Anonymous and have listed the resources on my tentative reference page located just below here. Feel free to look and use anything from that list that may help you in your project. Also, the Anonymous page found in Wikipedia is quite good in understanding what the Anonymous phenomenon is. They are free agents often acting independently of each other and unaffiliated with one another under the umbrella name Anonymous. In other words, Anonymous is a concept more than an identifiable specific group. I also noticed you have listed pastebin as a resource. It is my suggestion to be careful with that, and try to find where that document was published. It could simply be the rantings of teenager enamored with the publicity of their antics and activity. The questionable authenticity of that write pad entry to me is found in the signature at the bottom. It should read: We are Anonymous/We are legion/We do not forgive/We do not forget/Expect us-always. Lastly, keep in mind that not all Anonymous hacktivity is criminal, that is just the part that gets sensationalized. There are many other cyber-activism efforts that take place under the name of Anonymous that are not criminal. Good luck, and I look forward to watching your project develope! -----=:) [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 23:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC) for the #datalove
**Comment: I found that some of your research objectives coincide with mine. I can assure you that people do use what is called "hacktivism" to oppose the lies and conspiracies of the U.S. Government. If you take a http://www.nogw.com/ alone you would be surprised how some of the secret documents happen to be available on line. For instance, the loan by the Wall Street Banks to finance Adolf Hitler's Army is not a secret nowadays because of the "hacktivism", although the fact and the document has been kept in secret from the Government of Soviet Union for decades. The role of the Jews in the mass murder of millions is proven with facts on the Holocaust denial web sites. I guess the major drive that motivates people to use their skill in the "wrong way" is to oppose the lie that is bigger in size and thus controls the legacy tools such as Media and Congress. Even children in New York City know that the twin towers were demolished by the "uniformed criminals" employed as the federal agents. Check out the list of literature on my prospectus and http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=46 is just one out of dozens web sites. The U.S Government had no reason to deploy troops anywhere at the cost of the taxpayers' dollars. Do you think other citizens do not realize this? They do, but they join others in this giant lie and say that it is a war on terror, and they say this at Law Schools, through the public media, and post it online. These people are indifferent and coward because they lie to themselves and the so called prosecuted activities is the only way to reveal the truth. In your research you are therefore addressing a brave category of people who are ready to risk their lives for the simple yet amazingly right cause - to reveal the corrupted syndicate of greedy liars who oppresses people with their tyrannic power and ability to prosecute. If you are not afraid to cooperate on this project in front of the university staff, then take a look at my proposal and let me know what do you think. I may give you a couple of additional sources and suggestions, but if you do not want to be involved in this type of a project, I will totally understand. Best! --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 10:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hai. Thanks for your response. I just thought that I would add that it is very important make the distinction between hackers and crackers. Unfortunately the media has not made this distinction clear and has tainted the meaning of the term hacker. In a nutshell, hackers create things and crackers break things. Most hackers look down upon crackers and dismiss them as technological bugs. Most hackers I know are not pleased with the criminal antics done in the name of Anonymous. It is true that collaborative write pads are in common use because of the ease to collaborate live together at once. Pastebin happens to not be one used for documents all that much though. It is mainly used to send larger pieces of text into chat protocols such as IRC without flooding the channel. Write pads such as typewith.me and piratepad.net are more common to use for group documents since the url is not made public and searchable, and is kept private among the group working on it. Also, an interesting comment about hacktivism made to me by a French hacker with whom I am in contact with simply and broadly described hacktivism as using technology to impact society. I think we must be careful, myself included, when we talk about cracker v. hackers. A classic document among hackers written and maintained by Eric Raymond, "[http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html How to Become a Hacker]" describes the difference quite well. [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 03:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Lorena. I think this is a great topic and I agree that you and Deinous seem to have a strong intersection of ideas. I think the comments I made under Deinous' posting are applicable here as well. It's good to see this topic having such strong discussion. Regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 04:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Hi, Alan, thanks a lot for your interest! I can't find your comments below deinous' prospect, and I would really like to check them.'' [[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 12:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I too went in search of Allen's comments and were unable to find them :( [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 18:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Margaret Tolerton [[User: deinous|deinous]]====
* '''Prospectus title: Jailbreaking appliance based gadgets and game consoles: the legal and generative implications'''
* '''Link to prospectus:'''http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:JailbreakingGadetsAndGamesConsoles.doc
**Comment: Margaret, thanks a lot for your offering. I could really use some inside information about this topic. About your suggestion, I chose pastebin as a reference looking for a way to begin my research. You are right when you say that accuracy is not guaranteed when it comes to this source, but my main objective is to test the general perception of internet community about "hacktivism", I want to read about it in forums, press articles comments... See what normal people think about this. Of course, not every "hacktivist" action is a ciber-crime, but I am particularly interested in motivations that lead people to engage in certain projects that could be prosecuted depending on the country, as uploading copyrighted contents. I am sure we could find a lot of profit-driven actions, but I want to get deeper in personal motivations, since there are many so-called "cyber-crimes" that have nothing to do with obtaining a profit, at least a tangible one. When reading your prospectus, I came up with something very interesting: "Happy to help others who are not as advanced?". I think solidarity plays a huge role of hacktivism communities, empowered by the feeling of being passionate about some topic. I guess the desire to share sprouts from passion, but I think that the need of feeling part of a community is also very important, especially when it comes to very well defined criminals such as sex offenders and very sensitive content uploaders, communities widely persecuted but, however, still huge. While my prospectus adopts a more anthropological point of view, I see yours as an inside work with very valuable information about hacktivism running. I look forward to see how your research evolves and to learn more about these communities from a privileged point of view. Please don't hesitate to make any suggestion you may consider, I am sure it will be very helpful for my research. Lorena Abuín. --[[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 21:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: LOL, I don't know how privileged my point of view is. I am more or less just another nerd with a computer on Friday and Saturday nights. In recent weeks I have come to feel as though the people of Telecomix have accepted me as one of their own though, as I have done a little public relations, fact checking, and some translations. Telecomix is very open about their work, and does not engage in illegal actions. Being mostly European, they lobby against, or for, various cyber laws to their respective Parliaments. What I meant though by my comment "happy too help others who are not as advanced" is that it is common for someone to ask a question of a technological nature and usually others jump in and help to solve the problem. For example, my switch over to Linux, I have been having quite a time configuring a few of my drivers, and getting used to working from a command line with unix syntax, and several people who know how to fix the problems will jump in and start coaching with many lulz along the way.[[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 03:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hello there. I am delighted and in part surprised to see a topic of this type. By type I mean it is heavily technological mission to retrieve a piece of real information from the community of real hackers. Not all software engineers employed by the government are able to intervene communication among the community of real hackers. You may however, catch a few portals where "I can do this, I can do that" type of conversations take place, but whether they really have done something interesting and indeed reveal their ideology is a big speculation. For this course, I believe, you need to change your frequency, sort of speak, and listen not for the hacking communities themselves, but for the actions they have already done. Actions speak lauder than words, as you may know. You you need to listen to the anti-thesis, that is, the counter part of the hacking group. In this country, among various subsequent agencies that keep control of all networks, the NSA sources will probably be the most beneficial to you, although I am not 100 percent sure about this. It is difficult to find something that is available to the public. Recall the scandal with pornographic downloads by the employees of the Trade Commission; this is just one out of million examples of the internet traffic control by the Feds. It is therefore the Feds who are on the opposite side of the argument with the hackers. By considering both ideology of the hackers and a counter-premise by the Feds you will have a full and comprehensive picture for your project. In short, I am proposing to search not only within the hackers community, which may only seem as community of hackers and give you a bogus information, but also find reports, chronicles, and cases exposed by the Feds. It may ultimately appear that it is the Feds who are vandals and trolls and who violate privacy and steal the tax money of the citizens. At least this is what my prospectus's sources can prove, but take a look at National Security Agency [http://www.nsa.gov/] web site. In the meantime, I will keep checking on your project and will try to give you more clues because your topic coincides with mine in many regards. --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 06:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Thank you for your response and comments. I will certainly take them into consideration. However, I feel that my views toward hacking are much broader than the criminality of a few, and that there should be more emphasis in part on the difference between hacking and cracking. I am one that still holds the traditional meaning of a hacker as one that is adept with the computer and often generates new creative uses for what is in front of them. As a result I am watching my topic shift a bit and focusing perhaps more on the difficulty that researchers have with the DMCA preventing them from publishing in full their findings, and the law of fair use. Over this past year we have watched the jailbreaking of an iPhone of iPad for the use of external software not approved by Apple go from being an illegal act to being justified as fair use. Although it will nullify any warranty of your gadget. Currently we are watching this same debate occur over the jailbreaking of the Sony PS3 to run Linux and homebrewed games. I am one that supports the fair use argument in that if you are clever enough to make your gadgetry do fun and interesting things beyond the uses that they are intended, then you should be able to do it--especially if you have no intention on using pirated software or make profit of any sort from it. As for an original angle, I am still waffling a bit, and welcome any further comments.====:)'' [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 17:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Margaret, Given your change in perspective of your project you may wish to explore the discussion of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization Tivoization] (if you have note already considered such). The question of, “Should manufacturers of hardware have the right to limit the use of software on their machines when that software included elements covered under versions of the GNU license?” seems a related and interesting debate. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 16:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Guy, thank you so much for your wonderfully concise thesis question! Sometimes it just takes the right little tweak to bring scattered thoughts together, and pondering the legal parameters of an open source kernel wrapped in a proprietary shell is a question I would very much like to spend some time on. Thanks again.'' [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 19:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Margaret, I am very glad you found my suggestion helpful. I look forward to your final output. It’s a really intriguing topic. Thanks for checking out web.alive (comment below). I didn’t play any role in developing it (wish I were that bright). My colleague [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiYi3iEBJNM Arn Hyndman] is the chief architect.

Your comment about, “test driving it among a group of ppl,” got me thinking. If we wished to, we could use the tool for a virtual study group. Would you be interested? Do you think others would be? It could be a great environment for classmates to meet and discuss the coursework.

Also, anyone who is working as a group in developing their project can use it to collaborate virtually. There are virtual white boards, web browsers that appear to be mounted on walls, desktop application sharing portals and other tools. I’ll be glad to meet folks in the environment and show how to use the tools. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 23:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Guy, I think using web.alive as a platform for a study group is a great idea. Perhaps you can make an announcement in class this week.'' [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 00:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Guy Clinch -- [[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 13:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title (updated Mar 6): The Personal Imperative: What is the role of the individual in shaping the future of cyberspace governance?'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Internet_and_Society_Assingment_2%28gclinch%29.pdf
***To my Classmates: Please note that after receiving feedback on my original prospectus I have created an updated version. My title has changed to The Personal Imperative: What is the role of the individual in shaping the future of cyberspace governance?
**Comment: I hope you will find this more focused and greater compelling. I will appreciate any additional comments and suggestions based on this new approach. Thank you, Guy --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 23:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
***It has occurred to me that in order to give me feedback on my proposal you may need to experience the web.alive environment. Please feel free to click on the following link and explore. http://apex.avayalive.com/715/html
I look forward to reading your ideas. Thank you. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 19:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hai Guy! I recently checked out web.alive and thought on first impression it was a nice sleek, useful, and intuitive application. Very well designed indeed. Were you one of the developers? I'm afraid that at this time I cannot offer much in the way of constructive criticism without test driving it among a group of ppl, but I do see it as a wonderful tool for distance business communication. [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 18:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Syed Yasir Shirazi [User: syedshirazi]====
* '''Prospectus title: Online Group Buying - Newly Emerging Business Model or Fad?'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Syed_Yasir_Shirazi-Assignment_2.pdf
**Comment: Syed, this is a really interesting topic, but I am concerned that it may be too broad. I feel like a question like yours would more likely take up a book than a paper to be completed over a single semestre! Perhaps you could look into a specific group-buying site rather than the concept as a whole, like Groupon or LivingSocial. It might even be interesting to compare the two. Or, are there sites in which users decide which company they want to solicit such coupons from, rather than having the site itself decide? Just some ideas to help you get this topic down to something manageable. Does this help at all? [[User:Mcforelle|Mcforelle]] 21:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Hi Michelle - Thanks for the feedback. I was actually planning to do a comparative study between a daily deal website (Groupon) versus a more traditional online retailer (Amazon or ebay) to see which model is more sustainable in terms of driving traffic and providing value. But your comments about 'websites that allow users to decide which company they want to solicit coupons from' has got me thinking now. Project is currently in Work-in-Process mode.Will keep everyone posted. Thanks - Yasir '' ~~[[User:syedshirazi|syedshirazi]] 22:14, 06 March 2011

----

====Name: Jessica Sanfilippo - [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 16:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: Transparency and Participation in Crowd Funding'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:JSanfilippo_Assignment_2.doc
**Comment: Hi Jessica,I think crowd funding is a fascinating topic, and there seem to be various types of crowd funding as you point out. Micro Loans and sites such as Kiva.com are also wonderful examples of crowd funding. I am probably over reaching, but I noticed that Syed Yasir A. Shirazi has a prospectus on Group Buying, and wonder if the two can be connected somehow? What if materials needed for a funded project on kickstarter.com for instance, could be purchased through groupon.com or a similar site? Regardless, I am looking forward to your findings around Crowd Funding (especially in the creative space).
**Comment: Hi Jessica: www.33needs.com is another website which would be of interest to you. You might want to take a look at it for ideas related to crowd-funding. Also, let me know if you would be interested in sharing thoughts regarding the final research project.My email id is sshirazi@fas.harvard.edu. Thanks - Yasir ~~[[User:syedshirazi|syedshirazi]] 21:24, 06 March 2011

----

====Name: Adriana Faria Torii [drifaria] and Anna Christiana Marinho C. Machado [([[User:Anna|Anna]] 17:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC))]====
*'''Prospectus title: Analysis of E-Government Practices in Brazil'''
*'''Link to prospectus:'''http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Faria_Marinho_Prospectus.pdf
**Comment: Hi Adriana and Anna - E-governance in an emerging country like Brazil is an attention-grabbing subject. As you have mentioned in your prospectus, in terms of audience, Brazil is amongst the top ten countries in the world (I think they have recently moved up to #5 in terms of total internet users). But that said, the overall internet penetration is pretty low (I think it is close to only 40% of the entire Brazilian population).
The G2C part of your project should provide an interesting analysis since concepts like e-voting work the best when the internet usage amongst citizenry is high. Brazil does not have uniformly high internet penetration across the entire county. Maybe you can differentiate the G2C aspect and compare between urban and rural populations because there will be different results (I believe) for effectiveness of such an ‘e-system’ amongst the 2 geographic segments. Also, you can include some analysis on mechanisms for ‘fraud detection’ for e-voting and e-tax filing processes. Thoughts on this link might be of interest to you: http://qssi.psu.edu/files/hidalgo.pdf. Looking forward to reading your final paper. ~~[[User:syedshirazi|syedshirazi]] 21:21, 03 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi, I believe you should also compare other countries E- Government practices to Brazil's. It might be interesting to see if there are any other governments polices similar to Brazil's. There might be a government with similar statistics, and by comparing them you might see another variable that might be affecting Brazil. --[[User:Joshuasurillo|Joshuasurillo]] 04:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Laura Connell [[User:Ltconnell|Ltconnell]] 18:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*''' Prospectus title: Does providing a legal alternative act as a deterrent to internet piracy?'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Laura_Connell_Assignment_2_Prospectus.pdf
**Comment: Laura, here is a link to a recent study that you may find of use:
[http://documents.envisional.com/docs/Envisional-Internet_Usage-Jan2011.pdf Envisional - Technical report: An Estimate of Infringing Use of the Internet] Hope you find this helpful --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 03:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Laura, glad to see this topic on the list. It's a tough topic as it could be looked at as requiring a world government organization to pass law enacting the crack down on stolen DRM'ed materials. At the same time there seems to be evidence that this type of activity does not hit the bottom line of Hollywood and other world producers of content. Manufacturers of CD and DVD technology has traditionally tried to work with the "Hollywoods" of the world only to be thwarted by the hacker. There seems to be a balance in the mix where the manufactures can create some hurdles for the most common user and at the same time not create a situation where users are not able to access valid content (such as putting in a DVD from Japan in a US DVD player and not being able to play the content). I think we're moving more and more toward online content like Netflix where the content is more controlled and the physical media is going away. Streaming content has some inherent properties that cannot be easily overcome, further, as long as the browser being used to support a new type of encryption technology, companies can make changes to security on the web server side when hackers have found an exploit. It's a very interesting topic, but I think any laws created would be done by people that do not fully understand the technology and also the laws have great potential to be outdated in a short amount of time if not written with enough foresight. Having said that, there has been a great deal of reduction in some types of sharing due to cases against people that have pirated DRM'ed media and also have had big impacts on many sites that traditionally have been an excellent source for finding pirated material. Regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Alokika Singh [[User:Singh singh|Singh singh]] 19:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[[User:Singhsingh]]====
*'''Prospectus title: Online Political Activism in India'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_II_22_feb..pdf
**Comment: Hi Alokika: I think your topic is very interesting. You can also draw a comparative line between roles of leading social/political leaders in India versus the role of ordinary internet users when it comes to acting as the leading force behind online social/political debate in India? A lot of times, it has been seen that individuals who don’t follow any hierarchy kick-off such bold campaigns. (Take the example of what happened in Egypt over the last six months. The online movement was sparked by ordinary folks and not any leading social or political figure).
I am curious to know whether the online ‘Pink Chaddi’ campaign was initiated by general users or spearheaded by a leading social organization in India. I suspect the former. So it will be interesting to see how the online debate has evolved in India.
Looking forward to reading your final analysis.~~[[User:syedshirazi|syedshirazi]] 20:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Don Hussey [[User:Donaldphussey|Donaldphussey]] 19:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: Online Crowd-Sourcing of Starbucks Product Development'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:LSTU_E-120_--Hussey_-_Asmt2.doc
**Comment: Don, this is a really ambitious project. I think it's a great idea for you to use your professional position to get your foot in the door with some of the people at Starbucks; I hope it works! My only concern with this project is that you are only focusing on the corporate side of this venture. Is there any way you can include information from participants or contributors to this site? Is there any way on this site that users can interact with each other, or is it a one-way interaction between contributors and Starbucks? ~~[[User:mcforelle|mcforelle]] 18:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Don, I also agree with mcforelle in that you should involve the contributors into your work. For example, if you look at those in support of Starbucks minis (lol)
http://mystarbucksidea.force.com/ideaview?id=08750000000H4DwAAK
you can ask them if they seriously feel more loyalty to the company based on their contributions--even if they never see their ideas come to fruition? Or do they merely want to be a part of the Starbucks online community? Or do they want bragging rights? Also, it might be interesting to briefly compare the Starbucks strategy--seeing the consumer/contributor as the catalyst of a new product--versus, say, the recent Dominos Pizza strategy--viewing the consumer/contributor as the rater of a finished product. This might allow you to connect the measurable (business performance) with the non-measurable (customer feedback)--the latter which now can be more accurately measured because of social media and online communities. All in all, I think you have great potential with this topic! [[User:Myra|Myra]] 20:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Re: methodology, [http://socialmention.com Social Mention] is a free tool you can use to track sentiment/mentions/posts related to Starbucks in various social spheres. Might be worth checking out as the mystarbucksidea project takes off, in order to see how this shapes their metrics! - Jessica [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 03:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Tym Lewtak [[User:lewtak|lewtak]] 21:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: User Generated Sites: Defining Superusers and Their Monetization'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Assignment_2.pdf
**Comment: Tymoteusz, I find you topic very interesting. I am wondering as a product of your research if you will study the proportion of individuals who are super users compared to commercial organizations using these tools. That is, in respect to commercial organizations using the various tools, how important is the individual? Over time, is the place of the individual becoming more or less important? I would suspect that part of this equation depends upon the rate at which people are able to monetize their involvement as much as how commercial organizations are co-opting the modalities. Is there a constant influx of new blood or will the ability of individuals to monetize their involvement decrease over time? It may be fascinating to see is this is an indication of a generative system over the long run or something that may peak and decline. Good luck! --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 03:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Gclinch, Thanks for all of your input! I initially didn't think to so much as include corporations, but taking a second glance at the subject you're right. I would be foolish to not look at motivations for companies and individuals alike to join sites as super-users. If I can find historical data on users from these sites, I'd like to especially take a look at whether it was individuals who joined first and became super-users, or if corporations jumped onto the "ball game" with individuals following. I suspect the latter isn't true, but I will try to distinguish between companies that joined these sites early on versus already popular companies that grew their earlier existent popularity.'' ([[User:Lewtak|Lewtak]] 21:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC))
**Comment: One thing that is very interesting about internet communities is the ability of certain super users to arise. You will find it in all communities from IRC to blogs to forums to games and so on. Normally these are the folks to spend 60+ hours a week on their system (might want to look up references on hours as it relates to superusers) and this is their exposure to the "outside" world. There are different kinds of super users as well. There are the mentors who want to help the community evolve and guide users in the right direction, gently correct them when they are wrong, and are just generally helpful. There are also the dictatorial power mongers who will ban, delete, disparage, etc... anything they don't like, no matter how small the violation or mistake may be. There are many super user personalities in between as well. These individuals do it because they want to do it, not because of pay. Sites that can entice a user community to police itself significantly reduces their overhead costs and still, normally, maintains a good site with good content and a happy user community. Unless, of course, they select a powerMAD person to be the superuser in which case everyone will eventually get upset and move to greener pastures. [[User:Rakundig|Rakundig]]

----

====Name: Denise Reed--[[User:Dreed07|-dreed07]] 21:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: A comparative study of user behavior on Chinese social networking sites with that of United States social networkers'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/REED_LSTU_E120_Assignment_2.doc
**Comment: Fascinating subject! I think that the differences between Chinese and USA based social networking sites is an area ripe for exploration, and one that could potentially shed a lot of light on the effects of government censorship on online communities. Some thoughts: differences in user behavior may be due to many different factors, including site architecture, demographics, and cultural influences. It would be worthwhile to explore the demographic differeces (such as age, socio-economic status, and geographic location) between different sites offering similar services in and outside of China. Furthermore, I wonder if it would be possible to obtain information on the behavior of Chinsese nationals using facebook prior to that site being banned in the PRC, and to compare it to that of non-Chinese nationals? Also, you might look into the social networking habits of users in Hong Kong, where Facebook and simmilar sites (IIRC) remain unblocked. Are their any social networking sites specifically targeted toward the Hong Kong community, and how do such sites differ from those in the rest of China? Finally, I notice that your links seem to be primarily in English. Direct access to Chinese social networking sites, and their users, in their native language would, I imagine, be extremely valuable to this project. [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 03:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I would love to see how your research will bloom at the end of the course. I am from South Korea but I have spent a considerable amount of time in China as my family runs business there. I usually stay in Beijing at least for a month every year and am naturally exposed to the Internet culture of China. As it is widely known, access to Facebook is blocked in the country and sometimes - I am not certain about the cause - access to Google is denied, which practically separates me from my online networks. You prospectus seems to cover general contrasting characteristics of two countries' different social networks. Since the filtering level of these countries varies, setting clear standards for comparing subjects, I think, might be quite crucial. From your project, selecting a proper social network website which can be considered as Facebook of the US would be an essence. Please let me know if you need any help with that.
--[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 03:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Michelle Forelle [[User:mcforelle|mcforelle]] 21:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: Online Video-Making Groups: Community, Copyright, Collaboration and Commercialism'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment2_Vimeo.pdf
**Comment: Michelle, I have never heard of Vimeo (this is where the Geico man asks me if I live in a cave), but I think you are onto something very interesting here. Perhaps when you tap the frequent contributors of the site, you can ask them why they post their videos on Vimeo instead YouTube, and if for a time, they did switch over to YouTube, and why? It looks like Vimeo started about a year before YouTube. Where did they share their videos before, or did they not? At the onset, Vimeo seems like a more serious bunch than Youtube, but let's see what you discover! [[User:Myra|Myra]] 21:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Thought this was a very interesting and challenging research topic. I work in the digital advertising space, and video has always been a tough nut to crack for clients. They are drawn to the "sight, sound and motion" element that made TV advertising so successful, but clearly the digital space opens possibilities for an entirely new set of formats beyond the :30 sec TV spot. I have used Vimeo for one of my client's campaigns, and it was the community-oriented nature of its architecture that made it particularly compelling. So, I'll be very curious to read your completed report! Also thought I'd share a helpful resource that summarizes the online video landscape (it's slightly dated, but you might find their case studies to be useful to your cross-analysis): [http://www.emarketer.com/blog/index.php/emarketer-webinar-evolving-online-video-landscape/ eMarketer]. Good luck! - Jessica [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 01:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I think this is a very interesting topic and i cannot wait till it is completed. There are so many other video sharing websites besides Youtube. Like Myra said, Vimeo seems to be for more serious users. Also they tend to target a specific group of fellow professionals. I wish I had chosen this topic. Good luck! --[[User:Joshuasurillo|Joshuasurillo]] 04:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Myra Garza [[User:Myra|Myra]]====
*'''Prospectus title: Preparing and Accommodating Millenials in the Workforce: Use of Social Media in Two Career Coaching Businesses'''
*'''Link to prospectus:'''http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Garza.M.Prospectus.doc
**Comment: Myra, this is a really interesting topic! I feel like this is exactly as narrow a case study as the professors were asking for. I'm jealous that you were able to identify such an relevant topic, lol! I look forward especially to reading the background research for this paper, as it is my understanding that minority youth are disproportionally represented on sites like Twitter; I'm eager to find out whether that rumor is true, and if so, what it means for the way these youth interact with and influence the hiring process. I'm also interested in hearing how these companies help steer the social use of the social media into the practical, career-building use. I'm curious to see if you find that the conclusions you are specific to urban youth or whether such tactics in career counseling are also applicable to suburban and rural kids too. Great prospectus, I really look forward to reading your paper! [[User:mcforelle|mcforelle]] 18:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I, too, think this is going to be a very interesting paper. There is such a need in the corporate community for young people who can help older executives use social media both within the organization for employees and outside the organization for the public and consumers. I would be interested in what the career objectives are for the clients of these two organizations. Are they interested in using their social media skills as part of their job requirements or are they looking for careers in various non-related fields? <<[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 01:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)>>
**Comment: Great topic, as I am sure many of us see on a daily basis the generational differences at work, and the need to involve and "catch" the millenial generation. I wonder if the two organizations will provide you with data on their success, and outreach numbers in the community? I look forward to seeing how this plays out. [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 01:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Myra - The influence of social media on both the job search process and in the workplace itself is a very powerful topic! If I am interpreting your prospectus correctly, it seems that your primary concern is with how, in practice, the two case study sites prepare Millenials for the proper use of social media in their job search/and work environments? If so, it might be interesting to connect with Human Resources representatives, to get a pulse on how their employee/recruitment policies have evolved due to the emergence of these new communication tools. In theory, I think there should likely be some alignment between the advice from the two websites and what HR is practicing. Separately, you also raise a very compelling distinction, which is that these businesses serve the needs of minority groups. I wonder if this may warrant its own stand-alone investigation. This way, you can truly dedicate your research towards how the workplace and job search process is shifting (and hopefully closing the gap) for minorities, as exemplified by the social media practices and guidelines from your 2 case study sites. In any case, this is indeed a substantial topic, so I look forward to seeing which direction you take it! - Jessica [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]]
***'' Response: Everyone--thanks so much for feedback! I actually am an HR professional myself, and I can tell you that a lot of HR and business literature out there encourages the bridging of generations at work--particularly with the use of technology. Easier said than done! So, I already have an interest in the broad topic and am hoping the two organizations will be willing to share their experiences teaching social media tactics to youth (for career purposes) and offer some insight on the specific needs of minority youth. I actually met the owner of CC4Kidz at a conference a few weeks ago, and after searching for similar organizations, I discovered The Youth Career Coach Inc. As Jessica indicated above, this topic will require some more narrowing down. Thanks!'' [[User:Myra|Myra]] 22:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Jose Uscanga====
*'''Prospectus Title: Cummunity reporting or social activism? The New Age of media reporting in Mexico.'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Jose_Uscanga_Assignment_-2.doc
**Comment: Jose, you have identified a truly compelling topic.
When you ask, “Is free press necessary for democracy?” many of us would say, obviously yes. Reading your prospectus though makes me wonder, “what do we mean today by a free press.” Does phenomenon such as Mexican citizens taking, “on the civic responsibility of alerting other citizens by providing detailed and unfiltered information,” redefine what we mean when we use the term press? I’ll be looking forward to reading your conclusions.
I’d also be interested to learn if you think there is something unique about Mexican culture that compels people to get involved. It seems to me that these citizen journalists are taking huge risks. Even less than the professional journalists, there would seem to be no safety net. After all isn’t it easy for the drug cartels to find out who is issuing the alerts. Is it a demographic trend, is it youth driven or does it span the population? Is it something unique about the way Mexican people relate to one another that makes people get involved? Thanks for taking on such an interesting and challenging topic. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 02:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Assignment 2 Submissions

2011-03-08T01:57:55Z

Gclinch: /* Name: Brian Smith Smithbc 23:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC) */

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; padding: 5px; text-align: left;">
<big>'''Assignments'''</big>

'''[[Assignment 1 Details and Reporting]]''' | [[Assignment 1 Submissions|Submissions]] 
''Due February 8''

'''[[Assignments#Assignment_2:_Prospectus| Assignment 2]]''' | [[Assignment 2 Submissions|Submissions]] 
''Due February 22''

'''[[Assignments#Assignment_3:_Project_Outline| Assignment 3]]''' | [[Assignment 3 Submissions|Submissions]] 
''Due March 22''

'''[[Assignment 4 Details and Links]]''' | [[Assignment 4 Submissions|Submissions]] 
''Due April 12''

'''[[Final Project]]''' | [[Final Projects|Submissions]] 
''Due May 10''

</div>
This assignment is due on February 22. Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (assignments submitted 4 days late or later will have a maximum grade of 1 point).

Please make sure the name of your file includes your name (example: Name_Assignment2.doc) to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment. ''The '''upload file''' link is to the left, under '''toolbox'''.'' Once you've uploaded your file, please link to it following the format below:

*Name:
*Prospectus title:
*Link to prospectus: (the file you uploaded)

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

===Comments===
Everyone will receive an additional participation grade for this assignment. You should read through everyone's proposals after they are uploaded and add constructive comments below the proposal on which you're commenting. Comments should be submitted by March 6 so you have time to incorporate them, if applicable, into your project outline. ('''Remember to sign your comments!''')

===Submissions===

----

====Name: Gagan Panjhazari --[[User:Gpanjhazari|Gpanjhazari]] 07:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: The Role of Censorship Of the Internet in the Egypt and Libya'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/GaganPanjhazari-Assignment2.txt
*Comment: You might want to check the article I posted on the Feb 22 assignment page that appeared in the New York Times. Might be helpful on your first topic. <<[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 00:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)>>
**Comment: Gagan, I find both of your topic choices interesting. I think the second one, regarding the ability to hold website creators responsible for their content, especially when said content could be considered treasonous, would be the best topic of the two. It is such an important question, the answer to the question will frame our national security for the future. With either topic, I look forward to reading your findings. [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 01:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
*Comment: Frontline, the PBS program, had an episode about the April 6 Movement in Egypt, including how it used the interent and mobile devices for organization and how it was forced to adapt when access was cut. There isn't a whole lot of detail here, but it might be a useful place to start. [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 02:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/revolution-in-cairo/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid
*''Comment:'' I like the second topic. It would be interesting to see if the treason charges are somehow being used to:
# silence Julian Assange
# scare others from doing the same thing
#*One thing you might look up for precedence is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers Pentagon Papers] [[User:Rakundig|Rakundig]]
**Hai!...I love your idea of covering the censorship and even internet blackouts at times in Egypt and Libya along with the role that social networking and tweeps had in organizing the recent protests, and ousting of Mubarak. This is a fascinating narrative to be sure. Here are a few links about a European internet activist group that has worked to provide low tech communication aid to the protesters. I hope they might be of use to you in your research. [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/02/egypts-internet-blackout-highlights-danger-weak|Egypt's Internet Blackouts Highlights Danger of Weak Links, Usefulness of Quick Links], [http://werebuild.eu/wiki/Egypt/Main_Page | werebuild.eu the Egyptian project page], [http://werebuild.eu/wiki/Libya/Main_Page | werebuild.eu, the Libyan project page], and [http://telecomix.org/ | telecomix.org] [http://globalvoicesonline.org/ | Global Voices]has done an outstanding job of covering these events as well. Best of luck![[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 01:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I agree with Deinous. Your topic is very time-appropriate and I cannot hide my excitement to read final results of the research! I believe it should be closely examined as an epitome of the Internet censorship by all of us who are taking this class. From my perspective, it seems that Egypt's Internet kill switch decision rather ignited people's movement toward democracy and protests. By the way, your prospectus includes primarily theoretical approaches to the topic. I would love to know which resources you are going to use in the course of the research. Depending on types of media, your research conclusions, I believe, can be various. Below is the article of the Economist that might be useful in your project. Good Luck! --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 10:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**[[http://www.economist.com/node/18112043 The Economist: Reaching for the kill switch]]
**Comment: Hi Gagan, both your topics are interesting. According to the description of the Final Project it should be built around one of the theoretical conceptions that we study during the course.So if you think about the conceptions that may apply to your topics, it will help you to chose one of two topics proposed by you and, perhaps, to generate your questions and hypothesis around the theoretical conception as the Final Project demand. [[Kristina Meshkova]], 5 March 2011.
**Comment: Gagan, great subjects! You should stick with the subject that interests you most. I suppose its the first one that you wrote about, the role of social media and networking in the revolutions. This is definitely a broad subject, but that doesn't mean you should throw it out, it means you should narrow it to a point that is achievable. A suggestion would be to pick one of the countries, and one of the social networks to drill deeper into. (i.e. the role that Facebook users played in the Egyptian revolution.) Then you need to think about what you will investigate. This project is supposed to be empirical, so you should find some way of observing or surveying the users or the events. This might be in the form of friending as many of the users who were involved in a particular event on Facebook. This should be a great project for you! [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Gagan,I think the same - great topics. I believe both of them are very current and it will be interesting to read your final project. It is very hard to comment your prospectus because it is apparent that you did a deep research and you are clear in what you want to research in final paper. It seems to me that first project seems to be more empirical than second one. Although it would be maybe more or less easier to find 'clear' answers for questions in second project. I do not know. When regards the topics, both of them are very current and you identified the questions very clearly. Good luck with your project...[[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 10:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I think thats remarkable. I do think your topic is a bit broad, as is mine, must a great start! This link might help as well-http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/29/technology/internet/29cutoff.html I wonder what role did social networks play in Egypts revolution. I know the Egyptian consulate in New York cut off web access, but you can still inquire via phone. Will they take this same route in the future?--[[User:Elishasurillo|Elishasurillo]] 04:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: This is a very serious and evolving topic that should be very fun and interesting to work on. It is very important to study the internet's effect on these countries because it could quite possibly happen to other countries. Just like the revolutionary furry spread from Egypt to Libya, it could easily spread to other countries either for the better of for the worse.--[[User:Joshuasurillo|Joshuasurillo]] 05:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Saam Batmanghelidj --'''[[User:Saambat|Saambat]] 10:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: The Effect of Synthetic World Communities on Real World Societies, Economies, and Copyright law'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Batmanghelidj_Final_Project_Prospectus.doc
**Comment: Hi Saam, I think your topic of synthetic or virtual worlds. I had a suggestion that you take a look at BitCoin (http://www.bitcoin.org/), this is an emerging technology that only started up a short time ago. It's a fascinating technology that deals with a new form of money (yes it can be exchanged for real money and is currently trading 1 for 1 with the US dollar). Some interesting things about it: uses public/private encryption keys, it's completely anonymous, it has great potential to circumvent certain banking regulation systems, it can be used to make real purchases, because of it's anonymity and cannot be tracked creates a security of privacy for the purchaser and seller. This also means could could be exploited by people not wanting transactions to be recorded. This technology really opens a virtual door of monetary exchange across the globe where any currency can be exchanged for BitCoins and then exchanged again into a different currency. This is just a top end look at it. It's already in use and some places accept this currency including some non-profit agencies for donation purposes. It also opens an easy way to laundry dirty money. Regards Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi , Saam. The topic is very interesting, but, I’m not sure that questions you want to answer will help you to develop the topic deeply and systemically: the questions are not in a strong correlation with your topic, I think they will not disclose the topic in full and from the main sides of it. You also use such phrase as “virtual property”, what do you mean by this? Is it the same as intellectual property? If yes, I think, it’s better to use the term “intellectual property”. You also pose such question as “How harmful is it for people to sell virtual items for real world monies, and to what extent is it harmful?” So you’ve already decided that it’s harmful, may be, it’s worth to give some arguments in your work why you decided it’s harmful. If you consider “the Synthetic World Communities” as the theoretical concept you want to use in the Final Project, you can try to determine the main features of this concept, then divide your hypothesis into three sphere ( society, economic and copyright law) and pose the main, in your opinion, questions in each of the spheres, regarding the theoretical basis you chose. [[Kristina Meshkova]], 5 March 2011.
**Comment: Saam, you've picked a fascinating topic. You've identified a rich field and topics; the challenge will actually be in narrowing it down to something observable, rather than reporting on what has already been written and explored. Pick one of the topics like virtual property trades and one of the sites like EVE Online and think through how you can observe what is happening in that cross-section. I look forward to reading this project! [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Kimberly Nevas --'''[[User:KimberlyNevas|KimberlyNevas]] 02:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: Can the U.S. Prosecute Julian Assange?'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Nevas_Kimberly_LSTU_E-120_Assignment_2.pdf
**Comment: Hi, Kimberly. Your topic is one of the essential questions I myself also want to closely observe and look for answers. Especially, considering the global impacts of Wikileaks, the prosecution of Assange is merely not confined to the jobs of the US Justice Department. Many governments are quite eager to punish him for revealing sensitive political/diplomatic issues, which might have significantly deterred their national agenda. Nonetheless, the 1st Amendment of the US and equivalent provisions existing in each country that guarantee freedom of speech are standing in the way of this very prosecution. So the question always comes down to this: are we going to sacrifice freedom of speech for a greater cause - usually national security? Are there certain limitations that media have to comply with in publishing their articles? I would love to see how this 21th version of the Zenger Trial will turn out. Good luck! Best, [[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 03:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: It might also be interesting to see if any other sites purporting to disclose sensitive information whether government or corporate have become more aggressive considering all the confusion about what to do with Julian Assange. Does his legal situation make these sites feel more confident regarding avoiding prosecution? <<[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 00:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)>>
**Comment: Your statement, "In this respect, Assange cannot be considered any more liable than the New York Times." is a bold one, which some might strongly disagree with, given Assange's postings and his refusal to censor, along with his use or threatened use of yet unreleased information as leverage to keep himself free. I look foward to reading your arguments regarding Assange, freedom of speech and the case law which supports your position. [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 01:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi, Kimberly. The problem you decided to consider in the Prospectus is really important and actual. But I think that the question “whether the Justice Department can prosecute Assange without damaging the U.S. free press as we know it”, that you pose describing the Problem is wider than the Research question. Perhaps, it’s worth to add the question “whether the Justice Department can prosecute Assange without damaging the U.S. free press as we know it”, to your Research question as the main one. And your present research question: Are the distribution methods adopted by Wikileaks for the dissemination of thousands of pages of classified U.S. documents structured so as to arm Julian Assange and his associates with a strong defense to prosecution under U.S. law?” will help you to answer your main question. Your present research question can be also considered as a research frame, so that you can explore the distribution methods of Wikileaks to answer if they really make the obstacles for the Justice Deparment to prosecute Assange and if yes to what extend; are the distribution methods of Wikileaks the main obstacles which do not permit the Justice Department to prosecute Assange or there are the other obstacles (for ex., with respect to the features of free press)? [[Kristina Meshkova]], 5 March, 2011.
**Comment: Kimberly, you have the beginnings of a good project here. I am interested in what you choose to use as your methodology and what you will choose to "observe" as part of this case study. One suggestion in particular is to look at the particular statements made by the U.S. papers in regards to why they believe their approach to printing the leaks are legal and any justifications they made in regard to accepting Assange's information. [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comments: Kimberly, that is an explosive topic! I bet you'll have lots of material! The qusetion is where did he commit the crimes if any. If in Australia, can they prosecute him? Or because they are U.S. cables, does the U.S.A. have jurisdiction? And who has the right to tell him he can or cannot post and release? The U.S.A. has to clearly stae how he broke the law. As far as I know, treason can only be a crime if commited by a citizen. Good work! --[[User:Elishasurillo|Elishasurillo]] 04:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Yes, very timely and interesting topic. One thing you might look up for precedence is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers Pentagon Papers] [[User:Rakundig|Rakundig]]

----

====Name: Jamil Buie====
*'''Prospectus Title: Profiteering via "Public Privacy" The use/misuse of your data'''
*'''Link to prospectus:'''http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:JBProject_Prospectus.pdf
**Comment: Hi Jamil, For me this is a an extremely important issue, I'm glad to see you're looking at it. I have a few pointers that may help uncover some things that are currently being looked at and something that was done in the UK back in 2008. Do a search for Phorm, BT implemented it in secrecy and it caused a big uproar. Also, it appears that ComCast is looking to implement it here in the US. It deals with deep level packet inspection. Not sure how tech savvy you are, but basically it comes down to an ISP looking at each packet users are sending out over their home connection. It is suppose to be done anonymously, however, it's invasive to the nth degree. Another technology that you might want to look at is the Evercookie. This can be used by websites that a user goes to, this then gathers information about a great number of browsing files that are on a system to ID the system. In the instance that a user cleans up his/her cookies, EverCookie will still be able to quickly identify you and place certain cookies back on your computer being able to keep tabs on the user. Regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi, Jamil. In your Prospectus, you write the following: “While most do understand that they are interacting with a third-party be it a site, search engine, or ISP they remain ignorant to how the data they’re providing is being farmed out or utilized in a commercial vein”. I can agree with you only partly: of course, we could not exclude the situations, when the data we provided are an object of unfair use, but it should be also mentioned that “the main players” of the Internet services do not ignore users, thus they stay uninformed about the way their data are used. For ex., Yahoo Privacy Policy http://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/details.html or Google Privacy http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacy/ In the question: What are the common guidelines and site best practices? you use such phrase as “site best practices”, that is very subjective category, as also the question: “Are consumers truly aware?”. Perhaps, it’s better to avoid such categories in your science research. [[Kristina Meshkova]], 5 March 2011.
**Comment: Jamil, we have similar interests and research topics. You are looking at the broad trail of information left by a typical internet user and the ways that trail is used. I am going narrower, specifically into the information gathered by location-based services to examine the associated privacy issues and assess the average consumer's perceptions of risks. If you are interested, I'd be willing to trade notes and help each other shape up the final project. Since we are doing similar topics, I would really appreciate your comments on my prospectus as well. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Very intrigued by your topic (and somewhat regretting not pursuing it myself!). I used to work as a targeting specialist at Yahoo!, and was floored by the amount of user data we had access to. Thought I'd share an extremely thorough [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703940904575395073512989404.html study] the WSJ put together not long ago, which summarizes the policies and efficacy of the major players in this space. Looking forward to reading your report on this very controversial and fascinating topic. - Jessica [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 03:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Uduak Patricia Okon====
*'''Prospectus Title: Web Pages/Blog Sites: Rights and Limitations-How free are you?'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Uduak_Patricia_Okon_Assign_2.pdf
**Comment: Hi Uduak, Your prospectus is very interesting. I look forward to seeing how your project comes together. But I have some comments that I would like to share, I hope my feedback is helpful.
**Re:
***In general, people are entitled to share facts if they don’t breach confidentiality or depict a real situation. This would depend on how citizen bloggers support their argument about their political commentary, whether it’s positive or negative. You need to remember that politicians are public figures, so the first amendment applies differently to them. Therefore the confidential circumstances that apply to the general population do not apply to politicians since they are not entitled to the same level of privacy. And citizen bloggers don’t have to adhere to the same circumstances as journalists to the best of my knowledge (I major in journalism and work in media in NYC) (i.e. it’s considered unethical for journalists to be bias if they’re not commentary writers. Also most journalists are not allowed to put political figure signs on their lawn, bumper sticker on their car, etc they need to push their feelings aside to accurately report the truth). I think the bigger issue is whether or not non-citizen bloggers can face defamatory lawsuits if there is proof they intentionally acted with malice? Or will future non-citizens bloggers have to abide by the same guidelines as employed journalists in the blogosphere working for CNN?
***Corporate law is an entirely different world. Because many corporations lie to promote their brand among many other issues on the internet, which is unethical to their consumers.
***I don’t think you should look into news websites like CNN, NY Times, etc because those are explicitly run by paid journalists (whom must adhere to strict guidelines about what they report) and comments are very restricted so the same type of freedom doesn’t apply to citizen journalists because official journalists also have code of ethics and have much more at stake.
***It's important to note that some citizen bloggers sell advertising on their blogs which might impede with how they portray a public figure on the net because they're getting paid. Formally employed journalists can't bias their stories based on relationships with advertisers because the editorial and advertising departments are seperate at news organizations.
***You, first need to narrow your focus because there is a huge difference between local mayors and congressional candidates, and citizen and non-citizen bloggers. (i.e. I think it would be interesting if you looked at how political figures use blogging as a form of position taking in Congress and compare cases of democratic and republican candidates on an issue like healthcare reform, education, etc. And the implications blogging has on Senators or Representatives relationships with their constituents).
**Comment: Uduak, very interesting subject. As you shape these ideas into a final project, one aspect to consider focusing on is to differentiate between a) the official "legal findings" of what bloggers can/cannot do vs. b) the unoffical "codes of conduct" being developed in the world of blogging. I think the unofficial codes would reflect the complex realities of the different types of bloggers, rather than the more simplistic legal concept of a blogger. One case to look at is the judge that was recently found to have been blogging anonymously [she thought :) ] about the case on which she herself was the sitting judge. I'll look for the URL to send you. I look forward to reading your project. [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Yaerin Kim [[User:Quill80|Quill80]] 02:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: OpenCourseWare(OCW) and its Impact: Case Study of MIT’s OCW'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment2_Kim.doc
**Comment: Hi Yaerin, I think this is a great topic. Being a part of F/OSS environment has pushed forward a number of wonderful software innovations. Scratch is an example of MIT's commitment to OCW. Scratch, though at first glance might appear comical, is actually a great tool to teach people the concepts of early stages of computer programming. I'm sure there are tons of other open source software that would interest you. I would suggest, if you have a spare computer or can run a virtual environment, downloading and running a Linux distribution like Ubuntu or Linux Mint. Then you can take a look at the rich repository of software that is completely free to install and use. Some of the software is not F/OSS, such as Adobe Reader, but the disclaimers of Left-Copied software is always clear. Anything that came from MIT would also give credit to that source even if it's been morphed. Best regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Yaerin, you've nicely narrowed down your topic to MIT OCW and assessing progress on the 3 goals. In the context of this course, it would really be interesting to narrow down even further to the third goal: the level of interaction of OCW users with the institutions that provide it. What are they and the users missing out on? We've already seen examples of digital communities developing and producing some amazing things and perhaps MIT is or should be seeking to turn OCW from content publishing into an active community. I look forward to reading about this in your project. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Yaerin. I think your topic is brilliantly targeted and focused on one of the distinct manifestations of peer collaboration - that is an open online course. I, myself, have greatly benefited from MIT OCW and Yale Open Course and thus look forward to see, specifically, the reasons why the participation rate of users is lingering at such low figures. Would it be too much to expect OCW to be an open education forum with lively discussions? In my opinion, the architectures of OCW and Yale Open Course are expressly posing limitations on interaction between users as there is no such place to share opinions. I am very much excited to read your final project! Best, --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 10:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: William Bauser --[[User:Wnb|Wnb]] 23:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: Modern Web Design and Civic Engagement: Access to Information and Community Development'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Wnb_assignment2.pdf
**Comment: This is an interesting topic -- you have a lot of avenues to explore! Among the sites you list, some are clearly partisan while others seem more altruistic. I would be interested to learn the contrast of methods used by each type. For example, what are the membership requirements? Does the site encourage a particular philosophy? Does a certain amount of selective cocooning take place? On the other side, how can an Internet based civic community be both neutral and vital? If it is only fact based then it won't be interesting. How does is promote community discussions without advocating a position? I'm sure you'll have to narrow the focus of your chosen topic and I thought this might be an interesting distinction you could use. [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 01:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi William: Sounds like a very interesting subject. I have two comments. First, it is clear you are looking at assessing how effective internet tools are in increasing engagement in the political process, but your last statement doesn't seem to fit. It seems like you'd also like to look at how effective they are in increasing the transparency of the political process as well and you'd have to clarify how those fit together. (IMO, engagement =/= transparency.) Second, I'd be interested in hearing more about your methodology, since most of the sites you mention would likely not share their data openly (perhaps I am wrong.) All the best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Brian Smith [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 23:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: Location-Based Services: Implications and Awareness of Effects on Consumer Privacy'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Brian_Smith_-_Assignment_2.pdf
**Comment: Greetings Brian! I found your research idea very creative and the methodology you are planning to utilize seems realistically achievable, although some instruments used by government and private marketing agencies are very difficult to trace and require special software and equipment. I have a topic idea that may coincide with a notion of privacy you are investigating, so I may cite your work in my project. What I found to be inconsistent is that your methods seem to be distant on the instrumental level from your hypothetical statements, that is, it is undetermined how your method will help to prove or reject either of your hypotheses. In fact, even doctorate dissertations attempting to either reject or accept only one hypothesis. It is in quantitative sciences we test several hypothesis in order to corroborate the validity of the expression or formula, etc., but not in the research as far as academic papers suggest. In terms of your definition of location, it is unclear whether your are talking about the IP address based location or mobile device based location, if it is about mobile device only (most hosts like schools and bosses may hunt for both mobile and the laptop IP to trace their employee or a student) then you need to state so in your research and in the proposal as well. I know one thing for sure that with arrival of the wireless technology it became much more harder for Federal agents to trace hackers: it is technologically more convenient to retain privacy through the public wireless router. I think you will benefit from setting up a singular and more definite hypothetic statement that will encapsulate the entire topic. In addition, you would make the research more productive and to the point if you will add the limitations to your research so that your process will have its bottom line. Check out this research, it could be helpful or at least you can retrieve some more sources from in-context citations: http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~adillon/Journals/Expertise-JASIS.htm Good Luck! --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 20:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Thank you, Vladimir - these are really helpful comments. I might ping you back for more details as I go through them each. Best, Brian'' [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

**Comment: Brian, the location of a caller is also one of the key pieces of information that is used by public safety officials when responding to emergencies. There is a long history of regulation related to the use of location information in the Enhanced 9-1-1 system. I know the location services that you are talking about in your paper are based upon the GPS capabilities in mobile devices, but you may benefit from understanding the history of location as you look at some of the politics surrounding these new services. There has been some recent political maneuvering related to the location information provided by telecommunications carriers for the purpose of Enhanced 9-1-1 since many have determined, as you say in your prospectus, that location information is a marketable commodity.

Here is a short explanation of how location is determined in Enhanced 9-1-1. If you were to need to dial 9-1-1 in an emergency, when your call is answered at the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) a software application retrieves information about your location from the Automatic Location Information (ALI) database. The ALI database – there are actually over 3,000 ALI databases in the US, but from a local jurisdiction only one is important - that is/are maintained on behalf of the government by various on-contract third parties. How information about your location gets populated in that database depends upon the device originating your call. For a traditional wired phone, the phone company is responsible to update your location when your phone is installed.

When you are calling from a mobile phone, there are actually two ways that your location is determined. One is GPS, but many mobile devices today still either don’t have GPS chips or the users don’t turn the GPS on for reasons that range from prolonging battery life to a belief that they are protecting their privacy (something that you may next see is an illusion). One way wireless location is determined is by the triangulation of two or more cell towers. A mobile phone is almost always in communication with two or more towers and an estimate can be made of your location by measuring distance as a function of signal strength. The other way is to integrate the GPS chip. For Enhanced 9-1-1, this actually turns out not to be as straight forward as one might think. This is because the GPS information is carried in the data channel of a phone. For many phones it isn’t possible to have both a concurrent voice call and a data transmission. This means that in order to retrieve the GPS data, the PSAP needs to disconnect the caller. Not the best situation in an emergency. [http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/wireless911srvc.html The FCC’s Wireless 911 Rules] currently specify that the phone carrier is required to be able to locate you within, “50 to 300 meters depending upon the type of location technology used.”

There is also a separate system for determining the location of a caller who is using a VoIP device (as in Skype) and another process for determining the location of a caller from within an enterprise organizations (such as a PBX extension).

Hope you find this of use. Let me know if I may clear up and points or answer any additional questions. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 01:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Yu Ri Jeong -- [[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 22:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: How manifestations of collective intelligence vary in different cultures and societies: Study on Naver Knowledge iN of South Korea in comparison with Wikipedia.'''
*'''Link to Prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Yu_Ri_Jeong_Internet_and_Society_Assignment_2_Prospectus.doc
**Comment: This is a really interesting topic! I hadn't known that South Korea had so strongly resisted the dominance of Wikipedia. I am curious, even if you do not include these questions in your paper, to hear what you think is unique about South Korea that it managed to create its own version of Wikipedia. Was it simply a question of timing, or is there something about South Korean Internet culture that allowed it to rally around its own creation. I also wonder what this means for Wikipedia. As a result of the lack of participation by South Korean Internet users, does Wikipedia suffer from a gap in information about South Korean culture, politics or society? I think the paper you have laid out in your prospectus is very thorough and complete, but I would love to hear your thoughts on these questions separately as you continue your research! [[User:Mcforelle|Mcforelle]] 19:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Dear Mcforelle, thank you for your kind words on my prospectus. I believe that the user-friendly manner of NKIN is encouraging Koreans to prefer it over Wikipedia. To elaborate, NKIN offers such an environment that participants can just write down their ideas without having to give much thought about the impacts of their posts. It is not that they have no responsibility in writing down articles; but they want to give information or advice as they do to their friends and family. The system of Wikipedia requires some duties such as learning of new Wiki codes. I believe that these factors are alienating Koreans from using Wiki. Furthermore, the under-activated usage rate of Korean Wiki is discouraging people to use it. --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 03:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Yuri! I think your research would reveal some very interesting points about the difference between the Korean Naver website and Wikipedia. If I may suggest, it would be interesting to analyze the difference in user demographic between the two websites. This would assist your analysis for Question #3. Also, since Naver seems to be a for-profit organization, it would be interesting to analyze how profitable NKin has been and contrast it to the non-profit model of Wikipedia. [[User:Quill80|Quill80]] 22:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Yaerin, thank you for your kind comments. Your suggestions include very important points which I might have ignored had it been not you! Truly, the demographic analysis of two websites and the comparison of them in terms of for-profit and non-profit will reveal some of the interesting characteristics of these open knowledge forums. Thank you! --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 03:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Yu Ri: This is a solid proposal for the project. I like how you've used the course themes as your areas of investigation and how you've narrowed down to two communities that you will compare, and even further to a set of articles with common subjects across the two communities. The only area of concern might be that your subject areas are pretty large in and of themselves (architectural elements, social norms & governance, membership, limits on expression, and national law.) If you can do all of those, then that's great, but you might think of narrowing to a smaller set. Otherwise, this proposal seems strong. Have fun! Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 08:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Smith. Thank you for spending your time in reading my prospectus. I absolutely agree with your concern. I wish to nail down the topic further, but am still not certain which theme to focus on as all the aspects matter most. I will keep you informed if I narrow down to the very specific topic! Thank you! --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 03:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: La Keisha Landrum [[User:llandrum|llandrum]] 21:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: Building a Sustainable News Org'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:LNLAssignment2.doc
**Comment: Hi La Keisha, It's good to see you're approaching this hot topic. I think most Americans are rather clueless about the current demise of the media or at least they are clueless as to why the media has been in a state of disintegration over the past 30 years. The newspaper companies came to late to the Internet forum and due to their lack of response they lost the "first-to-line" efforts in advertising & classified revenues. Aggregators and bloggers have only worsened the situation for major media, not to mention giants like Google and Craigslist drawing away advertising dollars. Still, a more important aspect is that experienced journalists need to continue to be supported in doing investigative reporting. Looking at detail as to how the different models of moving forward and the benefits might be speculative at this point, but we have seen some success stories in new ways to successfully report on current events. Regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hello La Kiesha! This is a very interesting and important topic for the future well being of journalism. According to your prospectus, it seems that you are interested in the profit aspect of the emergence of new internet-based journalism. If this is the case, it would be helpful if you can offer comparison in income for the aforementioned journalist. In other words, how much did these journalist as an employee of a traditional publisher and how much are they making now with their innovative website? Also, it would be interesting to know who is willing to patron these professional journalists. I think the lecture slides from March 1 would be very helpful as well. Good luck![[User:Quill80|Quill80]] 22:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi La Keisha, Bravo for taking on this topic. I like the fact that you are exploring success stories in online journalism. While journalism is undergoing fundamental changes, I think this is not just a doomsday scenario that dictates journalism will disappear. The newspaper existed for so long because, I believe, there is strong consumer demand for quality information. Just because the business model for supplying news is undergoing transformation doesn't mean that that demand is gone. My hypothesis is what we discussed in our last class: that the newspaper is being disaggregated and all the components will find their places as the changes shake out. There will be a place for classified ads, opinion articles, local fluff pieces, national news, international news, and yes, even, high-quality investigative reporting! It's just that they won't all be delivered by the same company, in the same vehicle, nor with the same business model anymore. As a side note for a case study check out the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. I'm not sure how successful it has been, but their story might be interesting to you in that they closed down their print publication and went entirely online with a shrunken staff. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 08:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Enjoyed reading your prospectus! Just read an article in [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/mar/05/huffington-post-aol The Guardian] that seems to resonate very well with your proposed topic. It highlights the business model Huffington Post created whereby a good portion of their content is via free contributions, and the ensuing backlash amongst some writers circles who feel they are under/uncompensated. Also, I noticed you touch on the concept of 'content farming,' and thought I'd reiterate an example I brought up in class, [http://www.demandmedia.com/ Demand Media]. It is the poster child for content farming in the media industry, so might be worth a glance. Good luck and hope this is helpful! - Jessica [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 18:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Jillian York [[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 21:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: Understanding "Lesbanon": Lebanon's Online Lesbian Community'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Understanding_Lesbanon.doc
**Comment: Hi Jillian. I found your approach to the project very interesting: based on your prospectus, it seems that you are studying an online society as a mirror to look into the real world. Your idea of examining the ways that homosexuality is expressed on the Internet would offer a glimpse to the country's customs and legal regulations is truly brilliant. I will look forward to seeing what kind of role the Internet is playing in Lebanon society for freedom of speech - especially for that of lesbians. Best, Yu Ri --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 03:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hey Jillian, I think this is such a great paper topic. I love how secretive communities can still operate out in the public through using the internet. The value of anonymity in this case seems like it must be very high, especially if there are governmental pressures keeping women from coming out. I had no idea that "Lesbanon" existed but it really does make perfect sense. Maybe if there are other communites out there like this, you could make a broader statement on the nature of coming out on the internet despite oppressive governments and societal norms. Otherwise, I think your question is quite reigned in and manageable in scope. I look forward to reading this paper when you're finished. [[User:Saambat|Saambat]] 18:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Jillian, this is a clever topic. I think in America, we often take for granted what the Civil Rights Movement did for communities beyond racial and sexual orientation lines--it really impacted our cultural norm mindset. The internet is not only release but '''power''' for those in disadvantaged or secretive communities the world over--especially when you are looking at two groups under different governments: the Lebanese and the diaspora. I am curious to read more. [[User:Myra|Myra]] 19:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Caroline McLoughlin [[User:Camcloughlin|Camcloughlin]] 21:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus title: Privacy and Society'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Assignment-2.pdf
**Comments: Caroline, I, too, was interested in writing a paper more inclined to policy arguments and Rebekah counseled me against it. I got the impression we are supposed to be more observant of communities and how they interact and work. If this is true, you might lean your paper more towards observing whether privacy policies are adequately disclosed on sites in the US and how they are different on Canadian sites. Is this difference due to the contrasting privacy legal frameworks in the two countries? Do participants react differently?This might also help narrow your topic which seems like alot of material to cover. All this being said, I find your topic very interesting and think it might be great to present it in something like a PowerPoint format. Would be the great beginnings of a law review article if you are a lawyer.[[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 21:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)]]
**Comment: Hi Caroline, we are interested in the same privacy subjects. Similar to Sjennings feedback, I tried to make mine more about observing a community, specifically consumers using location-based services, and less about policy. If you've got the understanding already to get into issues and policy, though, then it sounds like a great project. As I mentioned to Jamil Buie above, if you are interested, I'd be willing to trade notes and help each other shape up the final project. Since we are doing similar topics, I would really appreciate your comments on my prospectus as well. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name:Anthony Crowe [[User:Acrowe|Acrowe]]====
*'''Prospectus title: Tagging and Metadata on the Internet and in New Media'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Crowe_LSTUE120_2.doc
*Comments:
**Comment: I like that you've identified another means of content organization for study. I feel like tagging is going to be a rich topic, not only because of the ways people use it, but because of how it defines or redefines website architectures. I don't really know much about tags beyond their most obvious uses (and frankly, on in Twitter), so I am curious to see what kind of social rules you discover in your research. The only thing I might suggest is that, given the richness of your topic, that you not worry about studying superusers too deeply. I feel like a thorough study of tagging on the three main sites you've identified, which are pretty major sites, in addition to the other examples you'll be incorporating, will be more than enough data and analysis for a great paper. Unless perhaps I'm not understanding the particular lens through which you'll be approaching the superuser question? [[User:Mcforelle|Mcforelle]] 19:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I think this is a really fascinating and relatively untouched subject; I'm curious to learn the myriad ways tagging is used, both for public sharing and for semi-private sharing (e.g., cleverly devised tags that only a particular group is aware of) -- but I agree with the above commenter in that I'm not sure how the question of superusers fits in here; I think you might be better off narrowing the subject just to the question of tagging.[[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 16:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Vladimir Kruglyak --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 21:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus title: A Transparency of the U.S. Government in the Socio-Cyber Environment'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus.doc
**Comment: Vladimir, thank you for your resources. I have been reading your prospectus and found your approach as interesting as ambitious. To investigate wether the U.S. Government maintains Constitutional transparency and accountability for the tax money expenditures using e-government resources, that is a very well focused research and I can tell you are passionate about the topic, which makes the reading even more interesting. However, when you talk about conspiracy relating it with the internet resources, I have to disagree. I think power and conspiracy are long-time friends, governments have faced every kind of suspicions since they exist, but the importance of digital resources when it comes to spreading these suspicions cannot be denied, and that is why I think your research will face very interesting issues to deal with, as investigating the origin of "conspiracies" from a social point of view. Do you think the Internet is a cause or a consequence? I think about WikiLeaks, for example. The Internet had nothing to do with the origin of the cables, but made them become a "popular" topic, blurring the "secret" component of International Politics. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? We are talking about serious crimes becoming nearly gossip (we could talk further about a Spanish journalist murdered in Iraq and how Spanish and American Governments made a deal to make it look like an accident: that's on WikiLeaks). But now it looks like nothing happened. Amazon was selling the cables for Kindle, Julian Assange is to be extradited to Sweden in a week and I highly doubt any of the "accused" by, or thanks to, WikiLeaks, is to face trial. When you say that I am adressing a brave category of people ready to risk their lives for the "right cause", that is exactly the interesting thing about this. Why would someone get into trouble for nothing? However, it calls my attention that you take for granted that their cause is the right one. I see in your statement that you look pretty convinced about conspiracies when it comes to very sensitive and historic topics. You assume the defense of one group, don't you doubt that the cause may not always be the right one? I find your statement so determined that it becomes intriguing to me (it is really hard to me to be sure about something), I will be following your work with interest to get a better understanding of your point of view. In the meantime, I hope to receive more suggestions or resources you may find interesting to check out about this topic. Lorena Abuín. --[[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 21:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I see a potential flaw in your methodology, and find it potentially invasive of a web surfer's privacy. Collecting data by sniffing packets is rather dubious for your uses and can be construed as an abuse of networking tools. Trying to parse the IP addresses into geographical locations through a Whois database may be difficult to and inaccurate if users are using proxy based anonymizers such as Tor or i2p. It is for this reason, among others, that many people chose to use anonymizers when they surf. [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 04:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
***Vlaidmir: Thank you all for the creative comments addressed toward my prospectus, although the assignment says to add constructive suggestions which can help an author to improve his project. I think it is little bit unfair to help others reconstruct their idea and receive nothing in return. I guess that is all I can get from the general public. If however, someone in this course really knows about the internet traffic analysis, you are welcome to suggest substantial changes. --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 20:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Vladimir, I apologize if I said anything to upset or discouraged you in any way. I meant my comment to be constructive in raising an ethical question to your research methodology in regards to the privacy of web surfers. U can certainly observe and aggregate traffic through packet sniffing network tools, but I would not be so trusting in precise geographical locations of the IP addresses for the reasons that I mentioned. However, with a large enough sample you could perhaps get a general feel for regional traffic. [http://www.ethereal.com | Ethereal]is a popular easy to use modern analysis tool with good documentation, and may serve your purposes. Again, I meant no disrespect and look forward to your project evolving.[[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 21:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name:Corey MacDonald [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 20:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus title: Fringe Forums for the Under-represented'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus_Assignment_2_MacDonald.doc
**Comments: Wow! This is a great prospectus, I feel like these kinds of sites are the perfect places to be asking these questions. So many of the conversations we've had in class have centered around how to best facilitate legal social interactions. I'm excited to read your analysis of how semi-legal and illegal topics are handled by users, administrators and legal bodies on these forums. I'd be curious to see if legal action had ever been taken against the users of these sites, or whether the information posted on them had ever been used in legal action against someone else, like as evidence or tips on possible illegal goings-on? Are there any specific government agencies that track activity on these kinds of sites? Are any extra precautions taken to protect the anonymity of contributors? [[User:Mcforelle|Mcforelle]] 20:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comments: Hi Corey this is a interesting topic, the existence of sites like Erowid and “the chemical underground” highlight how (especially the US) government are losing the battle to control drug information. A “non-event” that may be of interest to you is the DEA making Microgram public in 2003. Microgram was a law enforcement restricted newsletter aimed at forensic chemists and its release made very little impact on the “chemical underground” due to the wealth of information on illicit drugs that was already available.
Here’s a link to an article that might be useful/interesting http://www.michaelerard.com/fulltext/2006/08/open_secrets_how_the_governmen.html [[User:Ltconnell|Ltconnell]] 20:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Richard (Rick) Kundiger --[[User:Rakundig|Rakundig]] 19:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus title: The Role of Bittorrent in the Internet Society'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Kundiger_Assignment_2_Research_Prospectus.pdf
**Comment: This is a great example of "code is law." You have a very powerful tool (the bittorrent protocol) which can be used for both good an illicit purposes. Your investigation of the different interests for and against its deployment should provide an excellent case study. Does a company or government have more of a right than an individual to control the protocols in use? Are those opposed to the protocol trying to protect the greater good of the Internet or their own financial interests? [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 01:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Rick, I also like this topic. One thing you could really expand upon is the use of P2P (point to point) connections has also drivin forward such technologies as Skype. This type of technology was also never intended to be used for illicit purposes, but then again the Internet was never designed to be used in many of the ways it is used today. VoIP actually breaks the TCP/IP model where packets were never intended to be treated in such a timely fashion. Another item is that it was used by WikiLeaks to keep Assange a bit more safe, which could be interpreted both good and bad. It's also amazing that the record industry had enough lobby power to take down some of the most famous P2P services. There's also the aspect that businesses deal with a very real threat of employees using bittorrent technologies. The executive that installs a P2P client and accidentally shares out his entire drive has been a very real issue for companies to combat. Further, then end use that also does something simular can share very personal information such as passport and bank account details with the world. Hope my comments have given you some help in this area of interest. Regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Mary Van Gils====
*'''Prospectus title: Yelp Case Study - Freedom of Expression'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus_-_Yelp_Study_Case.doc
**Comment: Wanted to make you aware as you investigate the external restriciton on freedom of expression regarding the Yelp site that there are also types of businesses which are regulated by state law as to how they may respond to reviews/complaints on sites like Yelp. If you look at my prospectus, you will note insurance companies are one of those types of businesses.[[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 15:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)]]
**Comment: Hi Mary - This is a fascinating subject - the tension between freedom to express opinions and libel as well as the possible manipulations. Your decision to use Yelp forums as a focal point is also a good idea. What is not clear to me what exactly you will be observing about the forums. It would be great to not only observe instances of the tension points, but also to find instances where free expression has been limited by external sources (not sure if you'll be able to get access to this if it's happened.) I really look forward to reading your project. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 06:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I think Yelp makes a really interesting case study for freedom of expression, but, as mentioned above, Yelp doesn't exactly seem ripe for external limiting of free expression (in the forums at least; reviews are a separate issue), rather, I would venture to guess that the vast majority of limiting speech on the site is in the interest of the TOS. Nevertheless, I think there's a fascinating question here, and plenty of existing evidence, particularly to the question of reviews/slander.[[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 16:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Susan Jennings [[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 15:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)]]====
*'''Prospectus title: Annuity Companies' Social Media Communities'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Annuity_Companies%27_Social_Media_Communities.doc
**Comments: Hi Susan, your subject area appears well-defined and methodology seems systematic. In addition to surveying the companies' online activities, I would really encourage you to speak to the compliance person or even a marketing person in those companies to see how their efforts are going. [You might find the marketing person easier to reach out to :) and get a response.] Additionally, is there any way to bring in the actual federal regulators in order to get their perspective on how new social media plays in their framework for regulation? It would be interesting to see if and how they are adapting to the new technologies. Have fun! Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Alan Davies-Gavin & Alex Solomon====
*'''Prospectus title: Architecture of Sites eHarmony and Match.com: contributions of membership data and effects on security and privacy.'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Assignment2ProjectProspectus.pdf
**Comment: Alan and Alex, I think your topic is fascinating and I wanted to chip in my 2 cents which might help your research. Considering the different natures of sites that ultimately sell the same product, I would consider looking at how the two compete in response to one another. By this I mean, is Match doing something that eHarmony isn, and therefore, is eHarmony a bit jealous and trying to get into their market? I know that eHarmony lauched their more casual spinoff "Jazzed.com" which is meant to steal people away from Match. Is Jazzed a suggestion that privacy isn't all that important to frustrated singles? I think that there are also rather large differences in target audience between the two competitors, with eHarmony focusing on a bit older, more conservative crowd while Match goes for the "single and ready to mingle."Also, perhaps look at each companies approach to user profile creation over time, have they changed at all and in what ways? This looks like it'll be an exciting project, I'm looking forward to what you find! ([[User:Lewtak|Lewtak]] 21:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC))
*** '' Response: Thanks Tym. I like your observations and I think they may well contribute to our research and final content. It's a good perspective that you bring to light. Alan'' --[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Kristina Meshkova====
*'''Prospectus title: A music sharing site - Grooveshark, Soundcloud, MySpace.'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignement_2_%28Kristina_Meshkova%29.pdf
*Comment: Hey Kristina, I think we have some similar ambitions in regards to our final project. Let's chat tonight if you have any interest in potentially working together [[User:Alex|Alex]] Bryan 14:31, 1 March 2011.
**Comment: Hello Kristina, I found your project very interesting and I am looking forward to see it evolve. I am particularly interested in how and why the streaming content services are so territory-limited, beyond of copyright, and how long will this model survive. In Europe we can use Spotify but instead there is no access to Pandora or Grooveshark, and vice versa. Same happens with Netflix or Hulu. However, Spotify is said to be preparing its expansion to the USA and some people talk about pression groups beyond record labels. I think it could be interesting to explore if there are some inter-continental lobbying activities or corporative deals regarding this issues. Best,[[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 12:00, 6 March 2011.

----

====Name:Vladimir Trojak-- [[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 20:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC) ====
*'''Prospectus title: Are different language groups consistent in what topics are permitted and what is removed?'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_2.pdf
**Comments: Hello Vladimir, Your proposal is intriguing and I am looking forward to see how it evolves. I did have a question about why do you think that all the Wikipedia policies should be the same in all the language communities? Thanks. --[[User:SCL|SCL]] 03:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. I hope it will turn in the way I expect:)I believe that in general they shoudl be the same, such as 'neutral point of view', 'verifiability'. Although there may be differences in other policies because of different laws, such as topics you can speak about. You have any suggestions?Thanks.[[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 18:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Faye Ryding [[User:FMRR|FMRR]] 23:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus title: Trolls and vandals on Epinions.com'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Faye_Ryding_Assignment_2.doc
**Comments: Hello Faye, I read your prospectus but had the following thought. What if the person belives they are in the right? Does that make them still a vandal? And can you outline excatly what recourses one can take against such offenders? What authority can someone make a complaint to? That last question brings us to a much bigger, more complex one. Who has the soveriegn rights over the web? The government? A trade federation? Or individual users? --[[User:Elishasurillo|Elishasurillo]] 04:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: [[User:Alex|Alex]] Bryan 16:59, 21 February 2011====
*'''Prospectus title: Groooveshark music application'''
*'''Link to prospectus''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus.pdf
**Comments: Hi, Alex. Sorry that didn't answer you earlier. Will be glad to discuss an opportunity to work together on the Final project. Let's discuss it next week in a chat room or via email. This is my email for the course: kristinam2907@gmail.com [[Kristina Meshkova]], 5 March 2011.
**Comment: Hello, Alex. I am very interested in the legal aspect of streaming content services. Have you considered to study this issue from a global point of view regarding a potential Grooveshark expansion? As I stated below Kristina's project, I think both of your prospects are very interesting, I will be following them. Good luck [[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 12:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Robert Cunningham====
*'''Prospectus title: The Archive Team'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Proposed_Paper_TopicCunningham.pdf
**Comment: Hi Robert! Interesting subject, you've narrowed down nicely on one particular group and your areas of interest should cover nicely what the group is and does nicely. Also, your methods seem achievable and will allow you to experience the group, not just observe it (one of the core challenges for many of the projects, including mine.) The one counsel I would give is to go back to the course material we've been discussing to tie the Archive Team back into the course themes. As examples, you could look at the incentive system for contributors, the group hierarchy and governance for control and decision-making, the architecture of the online tools they use, or the merging of offline and online worlds. Have fun! [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: [[Joshuasurillo]]====
*'''Prospectus title: The effect of government transparency websites- Wikileaks'''
*'''Link to prospectus:'''http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Harvard_assignment_2.doc
**Comment: Joshua, I am very much looking forward to your final product. Your position (or what I am assuming your postion to be) comes across very loud and clear in your prospectus. I wonder if you will reach an opinion as to where to draw the line on "free speech," or if no line should be drawn? My reading of your position if you were to define it today is that free speech must be protected at all costs and no limits are appropriate, at least that is the feeling I am left with from your prospectus. If wikileaks posted the location or identity of our undercover operatives in Iraq or elsewhere, would you support that? If not, what else would you feel would be "going to far?" I look forward to reading more from you. [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 01:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I will try to convey a more balanced and neutral argument in my final paper. I will weigh both sides of the argument and shed light on both. Hopefully, I will be able to come to a consensus. I would not support a decision by Wikileaks to disclose the location or identity of our undercover operatives in Iraq, but I do not believe it is our place to stop them. I believe the government should not be going after Wikileaks but they should be finding and prosecuting the actual leak; not the whistle blowing agency.--[[User:Joshuasurillo|Joshuasurillo]] 01:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Susan Lemont====
*'''Prospectus title: Why do people cultivate large online networks?'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Lemont_Prospectus.doc
*Comments:
**Comment: Unfortunately beyond the stated scope of your project (and not practical to include), but it would be interesting to see how your findings compare to similar surveys of Youtube users (who frequently seek comments, ratings, and channel subscriptions) and members of various online forums which award rankings, custom titles, "reputation", and other benefits to prominent posters based on peer imput. Good luck with this topic. (P.S. Also, it might be interesting try and determine what percentages of Facebook 'friends' of these users are A) people they know in real life vs. those relationships which are strictly online-only and B) what proportion of real life contacts were made prior to 'friending' vs. those which were made as a result of meeting virtually via facebook.) [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 04:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Susan, your research question is so basic that I am surprised no one else chose a topic towards this issue, since it is the basis of the new big business, social media. From an anthropological point of view, I find it very interesting and not enough explored, focusing the research into motivations: not what or when people share or live online, but why do they do it. Besides, I find your methodology very well planned and practical, although I have some doubts about the sincerity when it comes to explaining to someone you don't know why you have more than 200 friends. I will be following your work with interest, good luck! [[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 11:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
***Response: Thank you everyone for your insightful comments. I have changed my project and the new prospectus follows:

====Name: Susan Lemont --[[User:SCL|SCL]] 20:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: What conditions are conducive to successful commons based peer production?'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Peer_production_Lemont_030611.doc
**Comments: Hi Susan. I like the way you tie the course readings into your project and your "test" of the theoretical writings on a real-life subject. So much of what we study is based on the success stories but we often can learn more from the failures. It will be interesting to know whether some of Benckler's or Zittrain's critical success factors were missing or whether they were all there and the project did not succeed for other reasons. I look forward to reading more about this in your projects. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Chris Sura [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 03:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus title: The Java Community Process: How Does It Really Work?'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Chris_Sura_Assignment_2.pdf
**Comment: Admittedly, I knew nothing of JCP prior to reading your prospectus, but it's a pretty intriguing process. It does make us wonder who is really behind our machines, as most consumers of technology only see (and care about) the surface. I wish you luck in obtaining your inside info, and I look forward to seeing how it comes along! [[User:Myra|Myra]] 23:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Ed Arboleda [[User:Earboleda|Earboleda]] 04:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: Are there collective benefits for copyright owners, copyright infringers, and the general community; if copyright infringement is not enforced under specific circumstances on social media sites?'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Ed_Arboleda_Prospectus.pdf
**Comments: Hi Ed, I certainly believe that in specific instances that there can be collective benefits for infringers and owners of copyright. One example is the pirating of the UK run of the TV series Battlestar Gallactica in Australia in October 2004. When the show aired in Australia in January 2005 the ratings exceeded expectations due to “sampling” and word of mouth. Here’s a link to an article with more information http://www.mindjack.com/feature/piracy051305.html [[User:Ltconnell|Ltconnell]] 20:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Elisha Surillo====
* '''Prospectus title: The Tea Party and Internet Freedom'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_2.doc
**Comment: I'm confused. This link does not seem to take me to the correct prospectus? Elisha, could you update this to make sure I can access yours?
**Comment: Hai to the comment above: Elisha and I uploaded with the same file names so they are stacked alphabetically. My file is one that I would like to remove actually but do not know how, but in the meantime, Elisha's file is the second link. Sorry for any confusion. [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 02:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I don't believe the tea party is just confined to the older generation. I believe it to be a stronger movement that will soon grip the masses. By having such a strong presence on the internet this movment will propell itself forward. I believe this is just the begining of many other grassroots campains and parties.--[[User:Joshuasurillo|Joshuasurillo]] 04:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Sorry I would change the name but I don't know how. Sorry for the confusion!'' --[[User:Elishasurillo|Elishasurillo]] 04:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Brandon A. Ceranowicz - [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 08:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: A Comparative Study of Open Source Licenses'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:LSTU_E-120_Assignment_2_-_Prospectus_BAC.doc
**Comment: Hello Brandon! I think your topic can be very interesting. However I think it would be important for you to have a specific focus since the topic seems so broad. I don’t know how relevant this would be, but I suggest that you take a look at the Open Content License. (http://www.opencontent.org/opl.shtml) Good luck! [[User:Quill80|Quill80]] 22:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Lorena Abuín====
* '''Prospectus title: Contribution to prosecuted online activities (Anonymous, BitTorrent, WikiLeaks)'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_2_-_Lorena_Abu%C3%ADn.pdf
**Comment: I noticed that there is a lot of crossover between our topics. We are both addressing hacker communities, but from differing angles. I have acquired quite a bit of information about Anonymous and have listed the resources on my tentative reference page located just below here. Feel free to look and use anything from that list that may help you in your project. Also, the Anonymous page found in Wikipedia is quite good in understanding what the Anonymous phenomenon is. They are free agents often acting independently of each other and unaffiliated with one another under the umbrella name Anonymous. In other words, Anonymous is a concept more than an identifiable specific group. I also noticed you have listed pastebin as a resource. It is my suggestion to be careful with that, and try to find where that document was published. It could simply be the rantings of teenager enamored with the publicity of their antics and activity. The questionable authenticity of that write pad entry to me is found in the signature at the bottom. It should read: We are Anonymous/We are legion/We do not forgive/We do not forget/Expect us-always. Lastly, keep in mind that not all Anonymous hacktivity is criminal, that is just the part that gets sensationalized. There are many other cyber-activism efforts that take place under the name of Anonymous that are not criminal. Good luck, and I look forward to watching your project develope! -----=:) [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 23:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC) for the #datalove
**Comment: I found that some of your research objectives coincide with mine. I can assure you that people do use what is called "hacktivism" to oppose the lies and conspiracies of the U.S. Government. If you take a http://www.nogw.com/ alone you would be surprised how some of the secret documents happen to be available on line. For instance, the loan by the Wall Street Banks to finance Adolf Hitler's Army is not a secret nowadays because of the "hacktivism", although the fact and the document has been kept in secret from the Government of Soviet Union for decades. The role of the Jews in the mass murder of millions is proven with facts on the Holocaust denial web sites. I guess the major drive that motivates people to use their skill in the "wrong way" is to oppose the lie that is bigger in size and thus controls the legacy tools such as Media and Congress. Even children in New York City know that the twin towers were demolished by the "uniformed criminals" employed as the federal agents. Check out the list of literature on my prospectus and http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=46 is just one out of dozens web sites. The U.S Government had no reason to deploy troops anywhere at the cost of the taxpayers' dollars. Do you think other citizens do not realize this? They do, but they join others in this giant lie and say that it is a war on terror, and they say this at Law Schools, through the public media, and post it online. These people are indifferent and coward because they lie to themselves and the so called prosecuted activities is the only way to reveal the truth. In your research you are therefore addressing a brave category of people who are ready to risk their lives for the simple yet amazingly right cause - to reveal the corrupted syndicate of greedy liars who oppresses people with their tyrannic power and ability to prosecute. If you are not afraid to cooperate on this project in front of the university staff, then take a look at my proposal and let me know what do you think. I may give you a couple of additional sources and suggestions, but if you do not want to be involved in this type of a project, I will totally understand. Best! --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 10:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hai. Thanks for your response. I just thought that I would add that it is very important make the distinction between hackers and crackers. Unfortunately the media has not made this distinction clear and has tainted the meaning of the term hacker. In a nutshell, hackers create things and crackers break things. Most hackers look down upon crackers and dismiss them as technological bugs. Most hackers I know are not pleased with the criminal antics done in the name of Anonymous. It is true that collaborative write pads are in common use because of the ease to collaborate live together at once. Pastebin happens to not be one used for documents all that much though. It is mainly used to send larger pieces of text into chat protocols such as IRC without flooding the channel. Write pads such as typewith.me and piratepad.net are more common to use for group documents since the url is not made public and searchable, and is kept private among the group working on it. Also, an interesting comment about hacktivism made to me by a French hacker with whom I am in contact with simply and broadly described hacktivism as using technology to impact society. I think we must be careful, myself included, when we talk about cracker v. hackers. A classic document among hackers written and maintained by Eric Raymond, "[http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html How to Become a Hacker]" describes the difference quite well. [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 03:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Lorena. I think this is a great topic and I agree that you and Deinous seem to have a strong intersection of ideas. I think the comments I made under Deinous' posting are applicable here as well. It's good to see this topic having such strong discussion. Regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 04:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Hi, Alan, thanks a lot for your interest! I can't find your comments below deinous' prospect, and I would really like to check them.'' [[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 12:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I too went in search of Allen's comments and were unable to find them :( [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 18:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Margaret Tolerton [[User: deinous|deinous]]====
* '''Prospectus title: Jailbreaking appliance based gadgets and game consoles: the legal and generative implications'''
* '''Link to prospectus:'''http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:JailbreakingGadetsAndGamesConsoles.doc
**Comment: Margaret, thanks a lot for your offering. I could really use some inside information about this topic. About your suggestion, I chose pastebin as a reference looking for a way to begin my research. You are right when you say that accuracy is not guaranteed when it comes to this source, but my main objective is to test the general perception of internet community about "hacktivism", I want to read about it in forums, press articles comments... See what normal people think about this. Of course, not every "hacktivist" action is a ciber-crime, but I am particularly interested in motivations that lead people to engage in certain projects that could be prosecuted depending on the country, as uploading copyrighted contents. I am sure we could find a lot of profit-driven actions, but I want to get deeper in personal motivations, since there are many so-called "cyber-crimes" that have nothing to do with obtaining a profit, at least a tangible one. When reading your prospectus, I came up with something very interesting: "Happy to help others who are not as advanced?". I think solidarity plays a huge role of hacktivism communities, empowered by the feeling of being passionate about some topic. I guess the desire to share sprouts from passion, but I think that the need of feeling part of a community is also very important, especially when it comes to very well defined criminals such as sex offenders and very sensitive content uploaders, communities widely persecuted but, however, still huge. While my prospectus adopts a more anthropological point of view, I see yours as an inside work with very valuable information about hacktivism running. I look forward to see how your research evolves and to learn more about these communities from a privileged point of view. Please don't hesitate to make any suggestion you may consider, I am sure it will be very helpful for my research. Lorena Abuín. --[[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 21:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: LOL, I don't know how privileged my point of view is. I am more or less just another nerd with a computer on Friday and Saturday nights. In recent weeks I have come to feel as though the people of Telecomix have accepted me as one of their own though, as I have done a little public relations, fact checking, and some translations. Telecomix is very open about their work, and does not engage in illegal actions. Being mostly European, they lobby against, or for, various cyber laws to their respective Parliaments. What I meant though by my comment "happy too help others who are not as advanced" is that it is common for someone to ask a question of a technological nature and usually others jump in and help to solve the problem. For example, my switch over to Linux, I have been having quite a time configuring a few of my drivers, and getting used to working from a command line with unix syntax, and several people who know how to fix the problems will jump in and start coaching with many lulz along the way.[[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 03:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hello there. I am delighted and in part surprised to see a topic of this type. By type I mean it is heavily technological mission to retrieve a piece of real information from the community of real hackers. Not all software engineers employed by the government are able to intervene communication among the community of real hackers. You may however, catch a few portals where "I can do this, I can do that" type of conversations take place, but whether they really have done something interesting and indeed reveal their ideology is a big speculation. For this course, I believe, you need to change your frequency, sort of speak, and listen not for the hacking communities themselves, but for the actions they have already done. Actions speak lauder than words, as you may know. You you need to listen to the anti-thesis, that is, the counter part of the hacking group. In this country, among various subsequent agencies that keep control of all networks, the NSA sources will probably be the most beneficial to you, although I am not 100 percent sure about this. It is difficult to find something that is available to the public. Recall the scandal with pornographic downloads by the employees of the Trade Commission; this is just one out of million examples of the internet traffic control by the Feds. It is therefore the Feds who are on the opposite side of the argument with the hackers. By considering both ideology of the hackers and a counter-premise by the Feds you will have a full and comprehensive picture for your project. In short, I am proposing to search not only within the hackers community, which may only seem as community of hackers and give you a bogus information, but also find reports, chronicles, and cases exposed by the Feds. It may ultimately appear that it is the Feds who are vandals and trolls and who violate privacy and steal the tax money of the citizens. At least this is what my prospectus's sources can prove, but take a look at National Security Agency [http://www.nsa.gov/] web site. In the meantime, I will keep checking on your project and will try to give you more clues because your topic coincides with mine in many regards. --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 06:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Thank you for your response and comments. I will certainly take them into consideration. However, I feel that my views toward hacking are much broader than the criminality of a few, and that there should be more emphasis in part on the difference between hacking and cracking. I am one that still holds the traditional meaning of a hacker as one that is adept with the computer and often generates new creative uses for what is in front of them. As a result I am watching my topic shift a bit and focusing perhaps more on the difficulty that researchers have with the DMCA preventing them from publishing in full their findings, and the law of fair use. Over this past year we have watched the jailbreaking of an iPhone of iPad for the use of external software not approved by Apple go from being an illegal act to being justified as fair use. Although it will nullify any warranty of your gadget. Currently we are watching this same debate occur over the jailbreaking of the Sony PS3 to run Linux and homebrewed games. I am one that supports the fair use argument in that if you are clever enough to make your gadgetry do fun and interesting things beyond the uses that they are intended, then you should be able to do it--especially if you have no intention on using pirated software or make profit of any sort from it. As for an original angle, I am still waffling a bit, and welcome any further comments.====:)'' [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 17:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Margaret, Given your change in perspective of your project you may wish to explore the discussion of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization Tivoization] (if you have note already considered such). The question of, “Should manufacturers of hardware have the right to limit the use of software on their machines when that software included elements covered under versions of the GNU license?” seems a related and interesting debate. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 16:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Guy, thank you so much for your wonderfully concise thesis question! Sometimes it just takes the right little tweak to bring scattered thoughts together, and pondering the legal parameters of an open source kernel wrapped in a proprietary shell is a question I would very much like to spend some time on. Thanks again.'' [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 19:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Margaret, I am very glad you found my suggestion helpful. I look forward to your final output. It’s a really intriguing topic. Thanks for checking out web.alive (comment below). I didn’t play any role in developing it (wish I were that bright). My colleague [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiYi3iEBJNM Arn Hyndman] is the chief architect.

Your comment about, “test driving it among a group of ppl,” got me thinking. If we wished to, we could use the tool for a virtual study group. Would you be interested? Do you think others would be? It could be a great environment for classmates to meet and discuss the coursework.

Also, anyone who is working as a group in developing their project can use it to collaborate virtually. There are virtual white boards, web browsers that appear to be mounted on walls, desktop application sharing portals and other tools. I’ll be glad to meet folks in the environment and show how to use the tools. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 23:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Guy, I think using web.alive as a platform for a study group is a great idea. Perhaps you can make an announcement in class this week.'' [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 00:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Guy Clinch -- [[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 13:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title (updated Mar 6): The Personal Imperative: What is the role of the individual in shaping the future of cyberspace governance?'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Internet_and_Society_Assingment_2%28gclinch%29.pdf
***To my Classmates: Please note that after receiving feedback on my original prospectus I have created an updated version. My title has changed to The Personal Imperative: What is the role of the individual in shaping the future of cyberspace governance?
**Comment: I hope you will find this more focused and greater compelling. I will appreciate any additional comments and suggestions based on this new approach. Thank you, Guy --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 23:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
***It has occurred to me that in order to give me feedback on my proposal you may need to experience the web.alive environment. Please feel free to click on the following link and explore. http://apex.avayalive.com/715/html
I look forward to reading your ideas. Thank you. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 19:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hai Guy! I recently checked out web.alive and thought on first impression it was a nice sleek, useful, and intuitive application. Very well designed indeed. Were you one of the developers? I'm afraid that at this time I cannot offer much in the way of constructive criticism without test driving it among a group of ppl, but I do see it as a wonderful tool for distance business communication. [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 18:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Syed Yasir Shirazi [User: syedshirazi]====
* '''Prospectus title: Online Group Buying - Newly Emerging Business Model or Fad?'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Syed_Yasir_Shirazi-Assignment_2.pdf
**Comment: Syed, this is a really interesting topic, but I am concerned that it may be too broad. I feel like a question like yours would more likely take up a book than a paper to be completed over a single semestre! Perhaps you could look into a specific group-buying site rather than the concept as a whole, like Groupon or LivingSocial. It might even be interesting to compare the two. Or, are there sites in which users decide which company they want to solicit such coupons from, rather than having the site itself decide? Just some ideas to help you get this topic down to something manageable. Does this help at all? [[User:Mcforelle|Mcforelle]] 21:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Hi Michelle - Thanks for the feedback. I was actually planning to do a comparative study between a daily deal website (Groupon) versus a more traditional online retailer (Amazon or ebay) to see which model is more sustainable in terms of driving traffic and providing value. But your comments about 'websites that allow users to decide which company they want to solicit coupons from' has got me thinking now. Project is currently in Work-in-Process mode.Will keep everyone posted. Thanks - Yasir '' ~~[[User:syedshirazi|syedshirazi]] 22:14, 06 March 2011

----

====Name: Jessica Sanfilippo - [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 16:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: Transparency and Participation in Crowd Funding'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:JSanfilippo_Assignment_2.doc
**Comment: Hi Jessica,I think crowd funding is a fascinating topic, and there seem to be various types of crowd funding as you point out. Micro Loans and sites such as Kiva.com are also wonderful examples of crowd funding. I am probably over reaching, but I noticed that Syed Yasir A. Shirazi has a prospectus on Group Buying, and wonder if the two can be connected somehow? What if materials needed for a funded project on kickstarter.com for instance, could be purchased through groupon.com or a similar site? Regardless, I am looking forward to your findings around Crowd Funding (especially in the creative space).
**Comment: Hi Jessica: www.33needs.com is another website which would be of interest to you. You might want to take a look at it for ideas related to crowd-funding. Also, let me know if you would be interested in sharing thoughts regarding the final research project.My email id is sshirazi@fas.harvard.edu. Thanks - Yasir ~~[[User:syedshirazi|syedshirazi]] 21:24, 06 March 2011

----

====Name: Adriana Faria Torii [drifaria] and Anna Christiana Marinho C. Machado [([[User:Anna|Anna]] 17:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC))]====
*'''Prospectus title: Analysis of E-Government Practices in Brazil'''
*'''Link to prospectus:'''http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Faria_Marinho_Prospectus.pdf
**Comment: Hi Adriana and Anna - E-governance in an emerging country like Brazil is an attention-grabbing subject. As you have mentioned in your prospectus, in terms of audience, Brazil is amongst the top ten countries in the world (I think they have recently moved up to #5 in terms of total internet users). But that said, the overall internet penetration is pretty low (I think it is close to only 40% of the entire Brazilian population).
The G2C part of your project should provide an interesting analysis since concepts like e-voting work the best when the internet usage amongst citizenry is high. Brazil does not have uniformly high internet penetration across the entire county. Maybe you can differentiate the G2C aspect and compare between urban and rural populations because there will be different results (I believe) for effectiveness of such an ‘e-system’ amongst the 2 geographic segments. Also, you can include some analysis on mechanisms for ‘fraud detection’ for e-voting and e-tax filing processes. Thoughts on this link might be of interest to you: http://qssi.psu.edu/files/hidalgo.pdf. Looking forward to reading your final paper. ~~[[User:syedshirazi|syedshirazi]] 21:21, 03 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi, I believe you should also compare other countries E- Government practices to Brazil's. It might be interesting to see if there are any other governments polices similar to Brazil's. There might be a government with similar statistics, and by comparing them you might see another variable that might be affecting Brazil. --[[User:Joshuasurillo|Joshuasurillo]] 04:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Laura Connell [[User:Ltconnell|Ltconnell]] 18:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*''' Prospectus title: Does providing a legal alternative act as a deterrent to internet piracy?'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Laura_Connell_Assignment_2_Prospectus.pdf
**Comment: Laura, here is a link to a recent study that you may find of use:
[http://documents.envisional.com/docs/Envisional-Internet_Usage-Jan2011.pdf Envisional - Technical report: An Estimate of Infringing Use of the Internet] Hope you find this helpful --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 03:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Laura, glad to see this topic on the list. It's a tough topic as it could be looked at as requiring a world government organization to pass law enacting the crack down on stolen DRM'ed materials. At the same time there seems to be evidence that this type of activity does not hit the bottom line of Hollywood and other world producers of content. Manufacturers of CD and DVD technology has traditionally tried to work with the "Hollywoods" of the world only to be thwarted by the hacker. There seems to be a balance in the mix where the manufactures can create some hurdles for the most common user and at the same time not create a situation where users are not able to access valid content (such as putting in a DVD from Japan in a US DVD player and not being able to play the content). I think we're moving more and more toward online content like Netflix where the content is more controlled and the physical media is going away. Streaming content has some inherent properties that cannot be easily overcome, further, as long as the browser being used to support a new type of encryption technology, companies can make changes to security on the web server side when hackers have found an exploit. It's a very interesting topic, but I think any laws created would be done by people that do not fully understand the technology and also the laws have great potential to be outdated in a short amount of time if not written with enough foresight. Having said that, there has been a great deal of reduction in some types of sharing due to cases against people that have pirated DRM'ed media and also have had big impacts on many sites that traditionally have been an excellent source for finding pirated material. Regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Alokika Singh [[User:Singh singh|Singh singh]] 19:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[[User:Singhsingh]]====
*'''Prospectus title: Online Political Activism in India'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_II_22_feb..pdf
**Comment: Hi Alokika: I think your topic is very interesting. You can also draw a comparative line between roles of leading social/political leaders in India versus the role of ordinary internet users when it comes to acting as the leading force behind online social/political debate in India? A lot of times, it has been seen that individuals who don’t follow any hierarchy kick-off such bold campaigns. (Take the example of what happened in Egypt over the last six months. The online movement was sparked by ordinary folks and not any leading social or political figure).
I am curious to know whether the online ‘Pink Chaddi’ campaign was initiated by general users or spearheaded by a leading social organization in India. I suspect the former. So it will be interesting to see how the online debate has evolved in India.
Looking forward to reading your final analysis.~~[[User:syedshirazi|syedshirazi]] 20:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Don Hussey [[User:Donaldphussey|Donaldphussey]] 19:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: Online Crowd-Sourcing of Starbucks Product Development'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:LSTU_E-120_--Hussey_-_Asmt2.doc
**Comment: Don, this is a really ambitious project. I think it's a great idea for you to use your professional position to get your foot in the door with some of the people at Starbucks; I hope it works! My only concern with this project is that you are only focusing on the corporate side of this venture. Is there any way you can include information from participants or contributors to this site? Is there any way on this site that users can interact with each other, or is it a one-way interaction between contributors and Starbucks? ~~[[User:mcforelle|mcforelle]] 18:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Don, I also agree with mcforelle in that you should involve the contributors into your work. For example, if you look at those in support of Starbucks minis (lol)
http://mystarbucksidea.force.com/ideaview?id=08750000000H4DwAAK
you can ask them if they seriously feel more loyalty to the company based on their contributions--even if they never see their ideas come to fruition? Or do they merely want to be a part of the Starbucks online community? Or do they want bragging rights? Also, it might be interesting to briefly compare the Starbucks strategy--seeing the consumer/contributor as the catalyst of a new product--versus, say, the recent Dominos Pizza strategy--viewing the consumer/contributor as the rater of a finished product. This might allow you to connect the measurable (business performance) with the non-measurable (customer feedback)--the latter which now can be more accurately measured because of social media and online communities. All in all, I think you have great potential with this topic! [[User:Myra|Myra]] 20:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Re: methodology, [http://socialmention.com Social Mention] is a free tool you can use to track sentiment/mentions/posts related to Starbucks in various social spheres. Might be worth checking out as the mystarbucksidea project takes off, in order to see how this shapes their metrics! - Jessica [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 03:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Tym Lewtak [[User:lewtak|lewtak]] 21:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: User Generated Sites: Defining Superusers and Their Monetization'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Assignment_2.pdf
**Comment: Tymoteusz, I find you topic very interesting. I am wondering as a product of your research if you will study the proportion of individuals who are super users compared to commercial organizations using these tools. That is, in respect to commercial organizations using the various tools, how important is the individual? Over time, is the place of the individual becoming more or less important? I would suspect that part of this equation depends upon the rate at which people are able to monetize their involvement as much as how commercial organizations are co-opting the modalities. Is there a constant influx of new blood or will the ability of individuals to monetize their involvement decrease over time? It may be fascinating to see is this is an indication of a generative system over the long run or something that may peak and decline. Good luck! --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 03:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Gclinch, Thanks for all of your input! I initially didn't think to so much as include corporations, but taking a second glance at the subject you're right. I would be foolish to not look at motivations for companies and individuals alike to join sites as super-users. If I can find historical data on users from these sites, I'd like to especially take a look at whether it was individuals who joined first and became super-users, or if corporations jumped onto the "ball game" with individuals following. I suspect the latter isn't true, but I will try to distinguish between companies that joined these sites early on versus already popular companies that grew their earlier existent popularity.'' ([[User:Lewtak|Lewtak]] 21:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC))
**Comment: One thing that is very interesting about internet communities is the ability of certain super users to arise. You will find it in all communities from IRC to blogs to forums to games and so on. Normally these are the folks to spend 60+ hours a week on their system (might want to look up references on hours as it relates to superusers) and this is their exposure to the "outside" world. There are different kinds of super users as well. There are the mentors who want to help the community evolve and guide users in the right direction, gently correct them when they are wrong, and are just generally helpful. There are also the dictatorial power mongers who will ban, delete, disparage, etc... anything they don't like, no matter how small the violation or mistake may be. There are many super user personalities in between as well. These individuals do it because they want to do it, not because of pay. Sites that can entice a user community to police itself significantly reduces their overhead costs and still, normally, maintains a good site with good content and a happy user community. Unless, of course, they select a powerMAD person to be the superuser in which case everyone will eventually get upset and move to greener pastures. [[User:Rakundig|Rakundig]]

----

====Name: Denise Reed--[[User:Dreed07|-dreed07]] 21:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: A comparative study of user behavior on Chinese social networking sites with that of United States social networkers'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/REED_LSTU_E120_Assignment_2.doc
**Comment: Fascinating subject! I think that the differences between Chinese and USA based social networking sites is an area ripe for exploration, and one that could potentially shed a lot of light on the effects of government censorship on online communities. Some thoughts: differences in user behavior may be due to many different factors, including site architecture, demographics, and cultural influences. It would be worthwhile to explore the demographic differeces (such as age, socio-economic status, and geographic location) between different sites offering similar services in and outside of China. Furthermore, I wonder if it would be possible to obtain information on the behavior of Chinsese nationals using facebook prior to that site being banned in the PRC, and to compare it to that of non-Chinese nationals? Also, you might look into the social networking habits of users in Hong Kong, where Facebook and simmilar sites (IIRC) remain unblocked. Are their any social networking sites specifically targeted toward the Hong Kong community, and how do such sites differ from those in the rest of China? Finally, I notice that your links seem to be primarily in English. Direct access to Chinese social networking sites, and their users, in their native language would, I imagine, be extremely valuable to this project. [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 03:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I would love to see how your research will bloom at the end of the course. I am from South Korea but I have spent a considerable amount of time in China as my family runs business there. I usually stay in Beijing at least for a month every year and am naturally exposed to the Internet culture of China. As it is widely known, access to Facebook is blocked in the country and sometimes - I am not certain about the cause - access to Google is denied, which practically separates me from my online networks. You prospectus seems to cover general contrasting characteristics of two countries' different social networks. Since the filtering level of these countries varies, setting clear standards for comparing subjects, I think, might be quite crucial. From your project, selecting a proper social network website which can be considered as Facebook of the US would be an essence. Please let me know if you need any help with that.
--[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 03:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Michelle Forelle [[User:mcforelle|mcforelle]] 21:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: Online Video-Making Groups: Community, Copyright, Collaboration and Commercialism'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment2_Vimeo.pdf
**Comment: Michelle, I have never heard of Vimeo (this is where the Geico man asks me if I live in a cave), but I think you are onto something very interesting here. Perhaps when you tap the frequent contributors of the site, you can ask them why they post their videos on Vimeo instead YouTube, and if for a time, they did switch over to YouTube, and why? It looks like Vimeo started about a year before YouTube. Where did they share their videos before, or did they not? At the onset, Vimeo seems like a more serious bunch than Youtube, but let's see what you discover! [[User:Myra|Myra]] 21:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Thought this was a very interesting and challenging research topic. I work in the digital advertising space, and video has always been a tough nut to crack for clients. They are drawn to the "sight, sound and motion" element that made TV advertising so successful, but clearly the digital space opens possibilities for an entirely new set of formats beyond the :30 sec TV spot. I have used Vimeo for one of my client's campaigns, and it was the community-oriented nature of its architecture that made it particularly compelling. So, I'll be very curious to read your completed report! Also thought I'd share a helpful resource that summarizes the online video landscape (it's slightly dated, but you might find their case studies to be useful to your cross-analysis): [http://www.emarketer.com/blog/index.php/emarketer-webinar-evolving-online-video-landscape/ eMarketer]. Good luck! - Jessica [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 01:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I think this is a very interesting topic and i cannot wait till it is completed. There are so many other video sharing websites besides Youtube. Like Myra said, Vimeo seems to be for more serious users. Also they tend to target a specific group of fellow professionals. I wish I had chosen this topic. Good luck! --[[User:Joshuasurillo|Joshuasurillo]] 04:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Myra Garza [[User:Myra|Myra]]====
*'''Prospectus title: Preparing and Accommodating Millenials in the Workforce: Use of Social Media in Two Career Coaching Businesses'''
*'''Link to prospectus:'''http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Garza.M.Prospectus.doc
**Comment: Myra, this is a really interesting topic! I feel like this is exactly as narrow a case study as the professors were asking for. I'm jealous that you were able to identify such an relevant topic, lol! I look forward especially to reading the background research for this paper, as it is my understanding that minority youth are disproportionally represented on sites like Twitter; I'm eager to find out whether that rumor is true, and if so, what it means for the way these youth interact with and influence the hiring process. I'm also interested in hearing how these companies help steer the social use of the social media into the practical, career-building use. I'm curious to see if you find that the conclusions you are specific to urban youth or whether such tactics in career counseling are also applicable to suburban and rural kids too. Great prospectus, I really look forward to reading your paper! [[User:mcforelle|mcforelle]] 18:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I, too, think this is going to be a very interesting paper. There is such a need in the corporate community for young people who can help older executives use social media both within the organization for employees and outside the organization for the public and consumers. I would be interested in what the career objectives are for the clients of these two organizations. Are they interested in using their social media skills as part of their job requirements or are they looking for careers in various non-related fields? <<[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 01:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)>>
**Comment: Great topic, as I am sure many of us see on a daily basis the generational differences at work, and the need to involve and "catch" the millenial generation. I wonder if the two organizations will provide you with data on their success, and outreach numbers in the community? I look forward to seeing how this plays out. [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 01:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Myra - The influence of social media on both the job search process and in the workplace itself is a very powerful topic! If I am interpreting your prospectus correctly, it seems that your primary concern is with how, in practice, the two case study sites prepare Millenials for the proper use of social media in their job search/and work environments? If so, it might be interesting to connect with Human Resources representatives, to get a pulse on how their employee/recruitment policies have evolved due to the emergence of these new communication tools. In theory, I think there should likely be some alignment between the advice from the two websites and what HR is practicing. Separately, you also raise a very compelling distinction, which is that these businesses serve the needs of minority groups. I wonder if this may warrant its own stand-alone investigation. This way, you can truly dedicate your research towards how the workplace and job search process is shifting (and hopefully closing the gap) for minorities, as exemplified by the social media practices and guidelines from your 2 case study sites. In any case, this is indeed a substantial topic, so I look forward to seeing which direction you take it! - Jessica [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]]
***'' Response: Everyone--thanks so much for feedback! I actually am an HR professional myself, and I can tell you that a lot of HR and business literature out there encourages the bridging of generations at work--particularly with the use of technology. Easier said than done! So, I already have an interest in the broad topic and am hoping the two organizations will be willing to share their experiences teaching social media tactics to youth (for career purposes) and offer some insight on the specific needs of minority youth. I actually met the owner of CC4Kidz at a conference a few weeks ago, and after searching for similar organizations, I discovered The Youth Career Coach Inc. As Jessica indicated above, this topic will require some more narrowing down. Thanks!'' [[User:Myra|Myra]] 22:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Jose Uscanga====
*'''Prospectus Title: Cummunity reporting or social activism? The New Age of media reporting in Mexico.'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Jose_Uscanga_Assignment_-2.doc
**Comment: Jose, you have identified a truly compelling topic.
When you ask, “Is free press necessary for democracy?” many of us would say, obviously yes. Reading your prospectus though makes me wonder, “what do we mean today by a free press.” Does phenomenon such as Mexican citizens taking, “on the civic responsibility of alerting other citizens by providing detailed and unfiltered information,” redefine what we mean when we use the term press? I’ll be looking forward to reading your conclusions.
I’d also be interested to learn if you think there is something unique about Mexican culture that compels people to get involved. It seems to me that these citizen journalists are taking huge risks. Even less than the professional journalists, there would seem to be no safety net. After all isn’t it easy for the drug cartels to find out who is issuing the alerts. Is it a demographic trend, is it youth driven or does it span the population? Is it something unique about the way Mexican people relate to one another that makes people get involved? Thanks for taking on such an interesting and challenging topic. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 02:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Assignment 2 Submissions

2011-03-08T01:56:51Z

Gclinch: /* Name: Brian Smith Smithbc 23:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC) */

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; padding: 5px; text-align: left;">
<big>'''Assignments'''</big>

'''[[Assignment 1 Details and Reporting]]''' | [[Assignment 1 Submissions|Submissions]] 
''Due February 8''

'''[[Assignments#Assignment_2:_Prospectus| Assignment 2]]''' | [[Assignment 2 Submissions|Submissions]] 
''Due February 22''

'''[[Assignments#Assignment_3:_Project_Outline| Assignment 3]]''' | [[Assignment 3 Submissions|Submissions]] 
''Due March 22''

'''[[Assignment 4 Details and Links]]''' | [[Assignment 4 Submissions|Submissions]] 
''Due April 12''

'''[[Final Project]]''' | [[Final Projects|Submissions]] 
''Due May 10''

</div>
This assignment is due on February 22. Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (assignments submitted 4 days late or later will have a maximum grade of 1 point).

Please make sure the name of your file includes your name (example: Name_Assignment2.doc) to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment. ''The '''upload file''' link is to the left, under '''toolbox'''.'' Once you've uploaded your file, please link to it following the format below:

*Name:
*Prospectus title:
*Link to prospectus: (the file you uploaded)

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

===Comments===
Everyone will receive an additional participation grade for this assignment. You should read through everyone's proposals after they are uploaded and add constructive comments below the proposal on which you're commenting. Comments should be submitted by March 6 so you have time to incorporate them, if applicable, into your project outline. ('''Remember to sign your comments!''')

===Submissions===

----

====Name: Gagan Panjhazari --[[User:Gpanjhazari|Gpanjhazari]] 07:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: The Role of Censorship Of the Internet in the Egypt and Libya'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/GaganPanjhazari-Assignment2.txt
*Comment: You might want to check the article I posted on the Feb 22 assignment page that appeared in the New York Times. Might be helpful on your first topic. <<[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 00:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)>>
**Comment: Gagan, I find both of your topic choices interesting. I think the second one, regarding the ability to hold website creators responsible for their content, especially when said content could be considered treasonous, would be the best topic of the two. It is such an important question, the answer to the question will frame our national security for the future. With either topic, I look forward to reading your findings. [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 01:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
*Comment: Frontline, the PBS program, had an episode about the April 6 Movement in Egypt, including how it used the interent and mobile devices for organization and how it was forced to adapt when access was cut. There isn't a whole lot of detail here, but it might be a useful place to start. [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 02:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/revolution-in-cairo/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid
*''Comment:'' I like the second topic. It would be interesting to see if the treason charges are somehow being used to:
# silence Julian Assange
# scare others from doing the same thing
#*One thing you might look up for precedence is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers Pentagon Papers] [[User:Rakundig|Rakundig]]
**Hai!...I love your idea of covering the censorship and even internet blackouts at times in Egypt and Libya along with the role that social networking and tweeps had in organizing the recent protests, and ousting of Mubarak. This is a fascinating narrative to be sure. Here are a few links about a European internet activist group that has worked to provide low tech communication aid to the protesters. I hope they might be of use to you in your research. [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/02/egypts-internet-blackout-highlights-danger-weak|Egypt's Internet Blackouts Highlights Danger of Weak Links, Usefulness of Quick Links], [http://werebuild.eu/wiki/Egypt/Main_Page | werebuild.eu the Egyptian project page], [http://werebuild.eu/wiki/Libya/Main_Page | werebuild.eu, the Libyan project page], and [http://telecomix.org/ | telecomix.org] [http://globalvoicesonline.org/ | Global Voices]has done an outstanding job of covering these events as well. Best of luck![[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 01:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I agree with Deinous. Your topic is very time-appropriate and I cannot hide my excitement to read final results of the research! I believe it should be closely examined as an epitome of the Internet censorship by all of us who are taking this class. From my perspective, it seems that Egypt's Internet kill switch decision rather ignited people's movement toward democracy and protests. By the way, your prospectus includes primarily theoretical approaches to the topic. I would love to know which resources you are going to use in the course of the research. Depending on types of media, your research conclusions, I believe, can be various. Below is the article of the Economist that might be useful in your project. Good Luck! --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 10:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**[[http://www.economist.com/node/18112043 The Economist: Reaching for the kill switch]]
**Comment: Hi Gagan, both your topics are interesting. According to the description of the Final Project it should be built around one of the theoretical conceptions that we study during the course.So if you think about the conceptions that may apply to your topics, it will help you to chose one of two topics proposed by you and, perhaps, to generate your questions and hypothesis around the theoretical conception as the Final Project demand. [[Kristina Meshkova]], 5 March 2011.
**Comment: Gagan, great subjects! You should stick with the subject that interests you most. I suppose its the first one that you wrote about, the role of social media and networking in the revolutions. This is definitely a broad subject, but that doesn't mean you should throw it out, it means you should narrow it to a point that is achievable. A suggestion would be to pick one of the countries, and one of the social networks to drill deeper into. (i.e. the role that Facebook users played in the Egyptian revolution.) Then you need to think about what you will investigate. This project is supposed to be empirical, so you should find some way of observing or surveying the users or the events. This might be in the form of friending as many of the users who were involved in a particular event on Facebook. This should be a great project for you! [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Gagan,I think the same - great topics. I believe both of them are very current and it will be interesting to read your final project. It is very hard to comment your prospectus because it is apparent that you did a deep research and you are clear in what you want to research in final paper. It seems to me that first project seems to be more empirical than second one. Although it would be maybe more or less easier to find 'clear' answers for questions in second project. I do not know. When regards the topics, both of them are very current and you identified the questions very clearly. Good luck with your project...[[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 10:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I think thats remarkable. I do think your topic is a bit broad, as is mine, must a great start! This link might help as well-http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/29/technology/internet/29cutoff.html I wonder what role did social networks play in Egypts revolution. I know the Egyptian consulate in New York cut off web access, but you can still inquire via phone. Will they take this same route in the future?--[[User:Elishasurillo|Elishasurillo]] 04:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: This is a very serious and evolving topic that should be very fun and interesting to work on. It is very important to study the internet's effect on these countries because it could quite possibly happen to other countries. Just like the revolutionary furry spread from Egypt to Libya, it could easily spread to other countries either for the better of for the worse.--[[User:Joshuasurillo|Joshuasurillo]] 05:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Saam Batmanghelidj --'''[[User:Saambat|Saambat]] 10:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: The Effect of Synthetic World Communities on Real World Societies, Economies, and Copyright law'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Batmanghelidj_Final_Project_Prospectus.doc
**Comment: Hi Saam, I think your topic of synthetic or virtual worlds. I had a suggestion that you take a look at BitCoin (http://www.bitcoin.org/), this is an emerging technology that only started up a short time ago. It's a fascinating technology that deals with a new form of money (yes it can be exchanged for real money and is currently trading 1 for 1 with the US dollar). Some interesting things about it: uses public/private encryption keys, it's completely anonymous, it has great potential to circumvent certain banking regulation systems, it can be used to make real purchases, because of it's anonymity and cannot be tracked creates a security of privacy for the purchaser and seller. This also means could could be exploited by people not wanting transactions to be recorded. This technology really opens a virtual door of monetary exchange across the globe where any currency can be exchanged for BitCoins and then exchanged again into a different currency. This is just a top end look at it. It's already in use and some places accept this currency including some non-profit agencies for donation purposes. It also opens an easy way to laundry dirty money. Regards Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi , Saam. The topic is very interesting, but, I’m not sure that questions you want to answer will help you to develop the topic deeply and systemically: the questions are not in a strong correlation with your topic, I think they will not disclose the topic in full and from the main sides of it. You also use such phrase as “virtual property”, what do you mean by this? Is it the same as intellectual property? If yes, I think, it’s better to use the term “intellectual property”. You also pose such question as “How harmful is it for people to sell virtual items for real world monies, and to what extent is it harmful?” So you’ve already decided that it’s harmful, may be, it’s worth to give some arguments in your work why you decided it’s harmful. If you consider “the Synthetic World Communities” as the theoretical concept you want to use in the Final Project, you can try to determine the main features of this concept, then divide your hypothesis into three sphere ( society, economic and copyright law) and pose the main, in your opinion, questions in each of the spheres, regarding the theoretical basis you chose. [[Kristina Meshkova]], 5 March 2011.
**Comment: Saam, you've picked a fascinating topic. You've identified a rich field and topics; the challenge will actually be in narrowing it down to something observable, rather than reporting on what has already been written and explored. Pick one of the topics like virtual property trades and one of the sites like EVE Online and think through how you can observe what is happening in that cross-section. I look forward to reading this project! [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Kimberly Nevas --'''[[User:KimberlyNevas|KimberlyNevas]] 02:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: Can the U.S. Prosecute Julian Assange?'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Nevas_Kimberly_LSTU_E-120_Assignment_2.pdf
**Comment: Hi, Kimberly. Your topic is one of the essential questions I myself also want to closely observe and look for answers. Especially, considering the global impacts of Wikileaks, the prosecution of Assange is merely not confined to the jobs of the US Justice Department. Many governments are quite eager to punish him for revealing sensitive political/diplomatic issues, which might have significantly deterred their national agenda. Nonetheless, the 1st Amendment of the US and equivalent provisions existing in each country that guarantee freedom of speech are standing in the way of this very prosecution. So the question always comes down to this: are we going to sacrifice freedom of speech for a greater cause - usually national security? Are there certain limitations that media have to comply with in publishing their articles? I would love to see how this 21th version of the Zenger Trial will turn out. Good luck! Best, [[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 03:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: It might also be interesting to see if any other sites purporting to disclose sensitive information whether government or corporate have become more aggressive considering all the confusion about what to do with Julian Assange. Does his legal situation make these sites feel more confident regarding avoiding prosecution? <<[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 00:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)>>
**Comment: Your statement, "In this respect, Assange cannot be considered any more liable than the New York Times." is a bold one, which some might strongly disagree with, given Assange's postings and his refusal to censor, along with his use or threatened use of yet unreleased information as leverage to keep himself free. I look foward to reading your arguments regarding Assange, freedom of speech and the case law which supports your position. [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 01:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi, Kimberly. The problem you decided to consider in the Prospectus is really important and actual. But I think that the question “whether the Justice Department can prosecute Assange without damaging the U.S. free press as we know it”, that you pose describing the Problem is wider than the Research question. Perhaps, it’s worth to add the question “whether the Justice Department can prosecute Assange without damaging the U.S. free press as we know it”, to your Research question as the main one. And your present research question: Are the distribution methods adopted by Wikileaks for the dissemination of thousands of pages of classified U.S. documents structured so as to arm Julian Assange and his associates with a strong defense to prosecution under U.S. law?” will help you to answer your main question. Your present research question can be also considered as a research frame, so that you can explore the distribution methods of Wikileaks to answer if they really make the obstacles for the Justice Deparment to prosecute Assange and if yes to what extend; are the distribution methods of Wikileaks the main obstacles which do not permit the Justice Department to prosecute Assange or there are the other obstacles (for ex., with respect to the features of free press)? [[Kristina Meshkova]], 5 March, 2011.
**Comment: Kimberly, you have the beginnings of a good project here. I am interested in what you choose to use as your methodology and what you will choose to "observe" as part of this case study. One suggestion in particular is to look at the particular statements made by the U.S. papers in regards to why they believe their approach to printing the leaks are legal and any justifications they made in regard to accepting Assange's information. [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comments: Kimberly, that is an explosive topic! I bet you'll have lots of material! The qusetion is where did he commit the crimes if any. If in Australia, can they prosecute him? Or because they are U.S. cables, does the U.S.A. have jurisdiction? And who has the right to tell him he can or cannot post and release? The U.S.A. has to clearly stae how he broke the law. As far as I know, treason can only be a crime if commited by a citizen. Good work! --[[User:Elishasurillo|Elishasurillo]] 04:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Yes, very timely and interesting topic. One thing you might look up for precedence is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers Pentagon Papers] [[User:Rakundig|Rakundig]]

----

====Name: Jamil Buie====
*'''Prospectus Title: Profiteering via "Public Privacy" The use/misuse of your data'''
*'''Link to prospectus:'''http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:JBProject_Prospectus.pdf
**Comment: Hi Jamil, For me this is a an extremely important issue, I'm glad to see you're looking at it. I have a few pointers that may help uncover some things that are currently being looked at and something that was done in the UK back in 2008. Do a search for Phorm, BT implemented it in secrecy and it caused a big uproar. Also, it appears that ComCast is looking to implement it here in the US. It deals with deep level packet inspection. Not sure how tech savvy you are, but basically it comes down to an ISP looking at each packet users are sending out over their home connection. It is suppose to be done anonymously, however, it's invasive to the nth degree. Another technology that you might want to look at is the Evercookie. This can be used by websites that a user goes to, this then gathers information about a great number of browsing files that are on a system to ID the system. In the instance that a user cleans up his/her cookies, EverCookie will still be able to quickly identify you and place certain cookies back on your computer being able to keep tabs on the user. Regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi, Jamil. In your Prospectus, you write the following: “While most do understand that they are interacting with a third-party be it a site, search engine, or ISP they remain ignorant to how the data they’re providing is being farmed out or utilized in a commercial vein”. I can agree with you only partly: of course, we could not exclude the situations, when the data we provided are an object of unfair use, but it should be also mentioned that “the main players” of the Internet services do not ignore users, thus they stay uninformed about the way their data are used. For ex., Yahoo Privacy Policy http://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/details.html or Google Privacy http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacy/ In the question: What are the common guidelines and site best practices? you use such phrase as “site best practices”, that is very subjective category, as also the question: “Are consumers truly aware?”. Perhaps, it’s better to avoid such categories in your science research. [[Kristina Meshkova]], 5 March 2011.
**Comment: Jamil, we have similar interests and research topics. You are looking at the broad trail of information left by a typical internet user and the ways that trail is used. I am going narrower, specifically into the information gathered by location-based services to examine the associated privacy issues and assess the average consumer's perceptions of risks. If you are interested, I'd be willing to trade notes and help each other shape up the final project. Since we are doing similar topics, I would really appreciate your comments on my prospectus as well. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Very intrigued by your topic (and somewhat regretting not pursuing it myself!). I used to work as a targeting specialist at Yahoo!, and was floored by the amount of user data we had access to. Thought I'd share an extremely thorough [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703940904575395073512989404.html study] the WSJ put together not long ago, which summarizes the policies and efficacy of the major players in this space. Looking forward to reading your report on this very controversial and fascinating topic. - Jessica [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 03:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Uduak Patricia Okon====
*'''Prospectus Title: Web Pages/Blog Sites: Rights and Limitations-How free are you?'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Uduak_Patricia_Okon_Assign_2.pdf
**Comment: Hi Uduak, Your prospectus is very interesting. I look forward to seeing how your project comes together. But I have some comments that I would like to share, I hope my feedback is helpful.
**Re:
***In general, people are entitled to share facts if they don’t breach confidentiality or depict a real situation. This would depend on how citizen bloggers support their argument about their political commentary, whether it’s positive or negative. You need to remember that politicians are public figures, so the first amendment applies differently to them. Therefore the confidential circumstances that apply to the general population do not apply to politicians since they are not entitled to the same level of privacy. And citizen bloggers don’t have to adhere to the same circumstances as journalists to the best of my knowledge (I major in journalism and work in media in NYC) (i.e. it’s considered unethical for journalists to be bias if they’re not commentary writers. Also most journalists are not allowed to put political figure signs on their lawn, bumper sticker on their car, etc they need to push their feelings aside to accurately report the truth). I think the bigger issue is whether or not non-citizen bloggers can face defamatory lawsuits if there is proof they intentionally acted with malice? Or will future non-citizens bloggers have to abide by the same guidelines as employed journalists in the blogosphere working for CNN?
***Corporate law is an entirely different world. Because many corporations lie to promote their brand among many other issues on the internet, which is unethical to their consumers.
***I don’t think you should look into news websites like CNN, NY Times, etc because those are explicitly run by paid journalists (whom must adhere to strict guidelines about what they report) and comments are very restricted so the same type of freedom doesn’t apply to citizen journalists because official journalists also have code of ethics and have much more at stake.
***It's important to note that some citizen bloggers sell advertising on their blogs which might impede with how they portray a public figure on the net because they're getting paid. Formally employed journalists can't bias their stories based on relationships with advertisers because the editorial and advertising departments are seperate at news organizations.
***You, first need to narrow your focus because there is a huge difference between local mayors and congressional candidates, and citizen and non-citizen bloggers. (i.e. I think it would be interesting if you looked at how political figures use blogging as a form of position taking in Congress and compare cases of democratic and republican candidates on an issue like healthcare reform, education, etc. And the implications blogging has on Senators or Representatives relationships with their constituents).
**Comment: Uduak, very interesting subject. As you shape these ideas into a final project, one aspect to consider focusing on is to differentiate between a) the official "legal findings" of what bloggers can/cannot do vs. b) the unoffical "codes of conduct" being developed in the world of blogging. I think the unofficial codes would reflect the complex realities of the different types of bloggers, rather than the more simplistic legal concept of a blogger. One case to look at is the judge that was recently found to have been blogging anonymously [she thought :) ] about the case on which she herself was the sitting judge. I'll look for the URL to send you. I look forward to reading your project. [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Yaerin Kim [[User:Quill80|Quill80]] 02:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: OpenCourseWare(OCW) and its Impact: Case Study of MIT’s OCW'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment2_Kim.doc
**Comment: Hi Yaerin, I think this is a great topic. Being a part of F/OSS environment has pushed forward a number of wonderful software innovations. Scratch is an example of MIT's commitment to OCW. Scratch, though at first glance might appear comical, is actually a great tool to teach people the concepts of early stages of computer programming. I'm sure there are tons of other open source software that would interest you. I would suggest, if you have a spare computer or can run a virtual environment, downloading and running a Linux distribution like Ubuntu or Linux Mint. Then you can take a look at the rich repository of software that is completely free to install and use. Some of the software is not F/OSS, such as Adobe Reader, but the disclaimers of Left-Copied software is always clear. Anything that came from MIT would also give credit to that source even if it's been morphed. Best regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Yaerin, you've nicely narrowed down your topic to MIT OCW and assessing progress on the 3 goals. In the context of this course, it would really be interesting to narrow down even further to the third goal: the level of interaction of OCW users with the institutions that provide it. What are they and the users missing out on? We've already seen examples of digital communities developing and producing some amazing things and perhaps MIT is or should be seeking to turn OCW from content publishing into an active community. I look forward to reading about this in your project. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Yaerin. I think your topic is brilliantly targeted and focused on one of the distinct manifestations of peer collaboration - that is an open online course. I, myself, have greatly benefited from MIT OCW and Yale Open Course and thus look forward to see, specifically, the reasons why the participation rate of users is lingering at such low figures. Would it be too much to expect OCW to be an open education forum with lively discussions? In my opinion, the architectures of OCW and Yale Open Course are expressly posing limitations on interaction between users as there is no such place to share opinions. I am very much excited to read your final project! Best, --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 10:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: William Bauser --[[User:Wnb|Wnb]] 23:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: Modern Web Design and Civic Engagement: Access to Information and Community Development'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Wnb_assignment2.pdf
**Comment: This is an interesting topic -- you have a lot of avenues to explore! Among the sites you list, some are clearly partisan while others seem more altruistic. I would be interested to learn the contrast of methods used by each type. For example, what are the membership requirements? Does the site encourage a particular philosophy? Does a certain amount of selective cocooning take place? On the other side, how can an Internet based civic community be both neutral and vital? If it is only fact based then it won't be interesting. How does is promote community discussions without advocating a position? I'm sure you'll have to narrow the focus of your chosen topic and I thought this might be an interesting distinction you could use. [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 01:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi William: Sounds like a very interesting subject. I have two comments. First, it is clear you are looking at assessing how effective internet tools are in increasing engagement in the political process, but your last statement doesn't seem to fit. It seems like you'd also like to look at how effective they are in increasing the transparency of the political process as well and you'd have to clarify how those fit together. (IMO, engagement =/= transparency.) Second, I'd be interested in hearing more about your methodology, since most of the sites you mention would likely not share their data openly (perhaps I am wrong.) All the best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Brian Smith [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 23:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: Location-Based Services: Implications and Awareness of Effects on Consumer Privacy'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Brian_Smith_-_Assignment_2.pdf
**Comment: Greetings Brian! I found your research idea very creative and the methodology you are planning to utilize seems realistically achievable, although some instruments used by government and private marketing agencies are very difficult to trace and require special software and equipment. I have a topic idea that may coincide with a notion of privacy you are investigating, so I may cite your work in my project. What I found to be inconsistent is that your methods seem to be distant on the instrumental level from your hypothetical statements, that is, it is undetermined how your method will help to prove or reject either of your hypotheses. In fact, even doctorate dissertations attempting to either reject or accept only one hypothesis. It is in quantitative sciences we test several hypothesis in order to corroborate the validity of the expression or formula, etc., but not in the research as far as academic papers suggest. In terms of your definition of location, it is unclear whether your are talking about the IP address based location or mobile device based location, if it is about mobile device only (most hosts like schools and bosses may hunt for both mobile and the laptop IP to trace their employee or a student) then you need to state so in your research and in the proposal as well. I know one thing for sure that with arrival of the wireless technology it became much more harder for Federal agents to trace hackers: it is technologically more convenient to retain privacy through the public wireless router. I think you will benefit from setting up a singular and more definite hypothetic statement that will encapsulate the entire topic. In addition, you would make the research more productive and to the point if you will add the limitations to your research so that your process will have its bottom line. Check out this research, it could be helpful or at least you can retrieve some more sources from in-context citations: http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~adillon/Journals/Expertise-JASIS.htm Good Luck! --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 20:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Thank you, Vladimir - these are really helpful comments. I might ping you back for more details as I go through them each. Best, Brian'' [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

**Comment: Brian, the location of a caller is also one of the key pieces of information that is used by public safety officials when responding to emergencies. There is a long history of regulation related to the use of location information in the Enhanced 9-1-1 system. I know the location services that you are talking about in your paper are based upon the GPS capabilities in mobile devices, but you may benefit from understanding the history of location as you look at some of the politics surrounding these new services. There has been some recent political maneuvering related to the location information provided by telecommunications carriers for the purpose of Enhanced 9-1-1 since many have determined, as you say in your prospectus, that location information is a marketable commodity.

**Here is a short explanation of how location is determined in Enhanced 9-1-1. If you were to need to dial 9-1-1 in an emergency, when your call is answered at the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) a software application retrieves information about your location from the Automatic Location Information (ALI) database. The ALI database – there are actually over 3,000 ALI databases in the US, but from a local jurisdiction only one is important - that is/are maintained on behalf of the government by various on-contract third parties. How information about your location gets populated in that database depends upon the device originating your call. For a traditional wired phone, the phone company is responsible to update your location when your phone is installed.

**When you are calling from a mobile phone, there are actually two ways that your location is determined. One is GPS, but many mobile devices today still either don’t have GPS chips or the users don’t turn the GPS on for reasons that range from prolonging battery life to a belief that they are protecting their privacy (something that you may next see is an illusion). One way wireless location is determined is by the triangulation of two or more cell towers. A mobile phone is almost always in communication with two or more towers and an estimate can be made of your location by measuring distance as a function of signal strength. The other way is to integrate the GPS chip. For Enhanced 9-1-1, this actually turns out not to be as straight forward as one might think. This is because the GPS information is carried in the data channel of a phone. For many phones it isn’t possible to have both a concurrent voice call and a data transmission. This means that in order to retrieve the GPS data, the PSAP needs to disconnect the caller. Not the best situation in an emergency. [http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/wireless911srvc.html The FCC’s Wireless 911 Rules] currently specify that the phone carrier is required to be able to locate you within, “50 to 300 meters depending upon the type of location technology used.”

**There is also a separate system for determining the location of a caller who is using a VoIP device (as in Skype) and another process for determining the location of a caller from within an enterprise organizations (such as a PBX extension).

Hope you find this of use. Let me know if I may clear up and points or answer any additional questions. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 01:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Yu Ri Jeong -- [[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 22:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: How manifestations of collective intelligence vary in different cultures and societies: Study on Naver Knowledge iN of South Korea in comparison with Wikipedia.'''
*'''Link to Prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Yu_Ri_Jeong_Internet_and_Society_Assignment_2_Prospectus.doc
**Comment: This is a really interesting topic! I hadn't known that South Korea had so strongly resisted the dominance of Wikipedia. I am curious, even if you do not include these questions in your paper, to hear what you think is unique about South Korea that it managed to create its own version of Wikipedia. Was it simply a question of timing, or is there something about South Korean Internet culture that allowed it to rally around its own creation. I also wonder what this means for Wikipedia. As a result of the lack of participation by South Korean Internet users, does Wikipedia suffer from a gap in information about South Korean culture, politics or society? I think the paper you have laid out in your prospectus is very thorough and complete, but I would love to hear your thoughts on these questions separately as you continue your research! [[User:Mcforelle|Mcforelle]] 19:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Dear Mcforelle, thank you for your kind words on my prospectus. I believe that the user-friendly manner of NKIN is encouraging Koreans to prefer it over Wikipedia. To elaborate, NKIN offers such an environment that participants can just write down their ideas without having to give much thought about the impacts of their posts. It is not that they have no responsibility in writing down articles; but they want to give information or advice as they do to their friends and family. The system of Wikipedia requires some duties such as learning of new Wiki codes. I believe that these factors are alienating Koreans from using Wiki. Furthermore, the under-activated usage rate of Korean Wiki is discouraging people to use it. --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 03:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Yuri! I think your research would reveal some very interesting points about the difference between the Korean Naver website and Wikipedia. If I may suggest, it would be interesting to analyze the difference in user demographic between the two websites. This would assist your analysis for Question #3. Also, since Naver seems to be a for-profit organization, it would be interesting to analyze how profitable NKin has been and contrast it to the non-profit model of Wikipedia. [[User:Quill80|Quill80]] 22:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Yaerin, thank you for your kind comments. Your suggestions include very important points which I might have ignored had it been not you! Truly, the demographic analysis of two websites and the comparison of them in terms of for-profit and non-profit will reveal some of the interesting characteristics of these open knowledge forums. Thank you! --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 03:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Yu Ri: This is a solid proposal for the project. I like how you've used the course themes as your areas of investigation and how you've narrowed down to two communities that you will compare, and even further to a set of articles with common subjects across the two communities. The only area of concern might be that your subject areas are pretty large in and of themselves (architectural elements, social norms & governance, membership, limits on expression, and national law.) If you can do all of those, then that's great, but you might think of narrowing to a smaller set. Otherwise, this proposal seems strong. Have fun! Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 08:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Smith. Thank you for spending your time in reading my prospectus. I absolutely agree with your concern. I wish to nail down the topic further, but am still not certain which theme to focus on as all the aspects matter most. I will keep you informed if I narrow down to the very specific topic! Thank you! --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 03:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: La Keisha Landrum [[User:llandrum|llandrum]] 21:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: Building a Sustainable News Org'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:LNLAssignment2.doc
**Comment: Hi La Keisha, It's good to see you're approaching this hot topic. I think most Americans are rather clueless about the current demise of the media or at least they are clueless as to why the media has been in a state of disintegration over the past 30 years. The newspaper companies came to late to the Internet forum and due to their lack of response they lost the "first-to-line" efforts in advertising & classified revenues. Aggregators and bloggers have only worsened the situation for major media, not to mention giants like Google and Craigslist drawing away advertising dollars. Still, a more important aspect is that experienced journalists need to continue to be supported in doing investigative reporting. Looking at detail as to how the different models of moving forward and the benefits might be speculative at this point, but we have seen some success stories in new ways to successfully report on current events. Regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hello La Kiesha! This is a very interesting and important topic for the future well being of journalism. According to your prospectus, it seems that you are interested in the profit aspect of the emergence of new internet-based journalism. If this is the case, it would be helpful if you can offer comparison in income for the aforementioned journalist. In other words, how much did these journalist as an employee of a traditional publisher and how much are they making now with their innovative website? Also, it would be interesting to know who is willing to patron these professional journalists. I think the lecture slides from March 1 would be very helpful as well. Good luck![[User:Quill80|Quill80]] 22:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi La Keisha, Bravo for taking on this topic. I like the fact that you are exploring success stories in online journalism. While journalism is undergoing fundamental changes, I think this is not just a doomsday scenario that dictates journalism will disappear. The newspaper existed for so long because, I believe, there is strong consumer demand for quality information. Just because the business model for supplying news is undergoing transformation doesn't mean that that demand is gone. My hypothesis is what we discussed in our last class: that the newspaper is being disaggregated and all the components will find their places as the changes shake out. There will be a place for classified ads, opinion articles, local fluff pieces, national news, international news, and yes, even, high-quality investigative reporting! It's just that they won't all be delivered by the same company, in the same vehicle, nor with the same business model anymore. As a side note for a case study check out the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. I'm not sure how successful it has been, but their story might be interesting to you in that they closed down their print publication and went entirely online with a shrunken staff. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 08:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Enjoyed reading your prospectus! Just read an article in [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/mar/05/huffington-post-aol The Guardian] that seems to resonate very well with your proposed topic. It highlights the business model Huffington Post created whereby a good portion of their content is via free contributions, and the ensuing backlash amongst some writers circles who feel they are under/uncompensated. Also, I noticed you touch on the concept of 'content farming,' and thought I'd reiterate an example I brought up in class, [http://www.demandmedia.com/ Demand Media]. It is the poster child for content farming in the media industry, so might be worth a glance. Good luck and hope this is helpful! - Jessica [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 18:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Jillian York [[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 21:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: Understanding "Lesbanon": Lebanon's Online Lesbian Community'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Understanding_Lesbanon.doc
**Comment: Hi Jillian. I found your approach to the project very interesting: based on your prospectus, it seems that you are studying an online society as a mirror to look into the real world. Your idea of examining the ways that homosexuality is expressed on the Internet would offer a glimpse to the country's customs and legal regulations is truly brilliant. I will look forward to seeing what kind of role the Internet is playing in Lebanon society for freedom of speech - especially for that of lesbians. Best, Yu Ri --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 03:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hey Jillian, I think this is such a great paper topic. I love how secretive communities can still operate out in the public through using the internet. The value of anonymity in this case seems like it must be very high, especially if there are governmental pressures keeping women from coming out. I had no idea that "Lesbanon" existed but it really does make perfect sense. Maybe if there are other communites out there like this, you could make a broader statement on the nature of coming out on the internet despite oppressive governments and societal norms. Otherwise, I think your question is quite reigned in and manageable in scope. I look forward to reading this paper when you're finished. [[User:Saambat|Saambat]] 18:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Jillian, this is a clever topic. I think in America, we often take for granted what the Civil Rights Movement did for communities beyond racial and sexual orientation lines--it really impacted our cultural norm mindset. The internet is not only release but '''power''' for those in disadvantaged or secretive communities the world over--especially when you are looking at two groups under different governments: the Lebanese and the diaspora. I am curious to read more. [[User:Myra|Myra]] 19:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Caroline McLoughlin [[User:Camcloughlin|Camcloughlin]] 21:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus title: Privacy and Society'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Assignment-2.pdf
**Comments: Caroline, I, too, was interested in writing a paper more inclined to policy arguments and Rebekah counseled me against it. I got the impression we are supposed to be more observant of communities and how they interact and work. If this is true, you might lean your paper more towards observing whether privacy policies are adequately disclosed on sites in the US and how they are different on Canadian sites. Is this difference due to the contrasting privacy legal frameworks in the two countries? Do participants react differently?This might also help narrow your topic which seems like alot of material to cover. All this being said, I find your topic very interesting and think it might be great to present it in something like a PowerPoint format. Would be the great beginnings of a law review article if you are a lawyer.[[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 21:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)]]
**Comment: Hi Caroline, we are interested in the same privacy subjects. Similar to Sjennings feedback, I tried to make mine more about observing a community, specifically consumers using location-based services, and less about policy. If you've got the understanding already to get into issues and policy, though, then it sounds like a great project. As I mentioned to Jamil Buie above, if you are interested, I'd be willing to trade notes and help each other shape up the final project. Since we are doing similar topics, I would really appreciate your comments on my prospectus as well. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name:Anthony Crowe [[User:Acrowe|Acrowe]]====
*'''Prospectus title: Tagging and Metadata on the Internet and in New Media'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Crowe_LSTUE120_2.doc
*Comments:
**Comment: I like that you've identified another means of content organization for study. I feel like tagging is going to be a rich topic, not only because of the ways people use it, but because of how it defines or redefines website architectures. I don't really know much about tags beyond their most obvious uses (and frankly, on in Twitter), so I am curious to see what kind of social rules you discover in your research. The only thing I might suggest is that, given the richness of your topic, that you not worry about studying superusers too deeply. I feel like a thorough study of tagging on the three main sites you've identified, which are pretty major sites, in addition to the other examples you'll be incorporating, will be more than enough data and analysis for a great paper. Unless perhaps I'm not understanding the particular lens through which you'll be approaching the superuser question? [[User:Mcforelle|Mcforelle]] 19:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I think this is a really fascinating and relatively untouched subject; I'm curious to learn the myriad ways tagging is used, both for public sharing and for semi-private sharing (e.g., cleverly devised tags that only a particular group is aware of) -- but I agree with the above commenter in that I'm not sure how the question of superusers fits in here; I think you might be better off narrowing the subject just to the question of tagging.[[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 16:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Vladimir Kruglyak --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 21:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus title: A Transparency of the U.S. Government in the Socio-Cyber Environment'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus.doc
**Comment: Vladimir, thank you for your resources. I have been reading your prospectus and found your approach as interesting as ambitious. To investigate wether the U.S. Government maintains Constitutional transparency and accountability for the tax money expenditures using e-government resources, that is a very well focused research and I can tell you are passionate about the topic, which makes the reading even more interesting. However, when you talk about conspiracy relating it with the internet resources, I have to disagree. I think power and conspiracy are long-time friends, governments have faced every kind of suspicions since they exist, but the importance of digital resources when it comes to spreading these suspicions cannot be denied, and that is why I think your research will face very interesting issues to deal with, as investigating the origin of "conspiracies" from a social point of view. Do you think the Internet is a cause or a consequence? I think about WikiLeaks, for example. The Internet had nothing to do with the origin of the cables, but made them become a "popular" topic, blurring the "secret" component of International Politics. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? We are talking about serious crimes becoming nearly gossip (we could talk further about a Spanish journalist murdered in Iraq and how Spanish and American Governments made a deal to make it look like an accident: that's on WikiLeaks). But now it looks like nothing happened. Amazon was selling the cables for Kindle, Julian Assange is to be extradited to Sweden in a week and I highly doubt any of the "accused" by, or thanks to, WikiLeaks, is to face trial. When you say that I am adressing a brave category of people ready to risk their lives for the "right cause", that is exactly the interesting thing about this. Why would someone get into trouble for nothing? However, it calls my attention that you take for granted that their cause is the right one. I see in your statement that you look pretty convinced about conspiracies when it comes to very sensitive and historic topics. You assume the defense of one group, don't you doubt that the cause may not always be the right one? I find your statement so determined that it becomes intriguing to me (it is really hard to me to be sure about something), I will be following your work with interest to get a better understanding of your point of view. In the meantime, I hope to receive more suggestions or resources you may find interesting to check out about this topic. Lorena Abuín. --[[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 21:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I see a potential flaw in your methodology, and find it potentially invasive of a web surfer's privacy. Collecting data by sniffing packets is rather dubious for your uses and can be construed as an abuse of networking tools. Trying to parse the IP addresses into geographical locations through a Whois database may be difficult to and inaccurate if users are using proxy based anonymizers such as Tor or i2p. It is for this reason, among others, that many people chose to use anonymizers when they surf. [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 04:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
***Vlaidmir: Thank you all for the creative comments addressed toward my prospectus, although the assignment says to add constructive suggestions which can help an author to improve his project. I think it is little bit unfair to help others reconstruct their idea and receive nothing in return. I guess that is all I can get from the general public. If however, someone in this course really knows about the internet traffic analysis, you are welcome to suggest substantial changes. --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 20:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Vladimir, I apologize if I said anything to upset or discouraged you in any way. I meant my comment to be constructive in raising an ethical question to your research methodology in regards to the privacy of web surfers. U can certainly observe and aggregate traffic through packet sniffing network tools, but I would not be so trusting in precise geographical locations of the IP addresses for the reasons that I mentioned. However, with a large enough sample you could perhaps get a general feel for regional traffic. [http://www.ethereal.com | Ethereal]is a popular easy to use modern analysis tool with good documentation, and may serve your purposes. Again, I meant no disrespect and look forward to your project evolving.[[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 21:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name:Corey MacDonald [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 20:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus title: Fringe Forums for the Under-represented'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus_Assignment_2_MacDonald.doc
**Comments: Wow! This is a great prospectus, I feel like these kinds of sites are the perfect places to be asking these questions. So many of the conversations we've had in class have centered around how to best facilitate legal social interactions. I'm excited to read your analysis of how semi-legal and illegal topics are handled by users, administrators and legal bodies on these forums. I'd be curious to see if legal action had ever been taken against the users of these sites, or whether the information posted on them had ever been used in legal action against someone else, like as evidence or tips on possible illegal goings-on? Are there any specific government agencies that track activity on these kinds of sites? Are any extra precautions taken to protect the anonymity of contributors? [[User:Mcforelle|Mcforelle]] 20:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comments: Hi Corey this is a interesting topic, the existence of sites like Erowid and “the chemical underground” highlight how (especially the US) government are losing the battle to control drug information. A “non-event” that may be of interest to you is the DEA making Microgram public in 2003. Microgram was a law enforcement restricted newsletter aimed at forensic chemists and its release made very little impact on the “chemical underground” due to the wealth of information on illicit drugs that was already available.
Here’s a link to an article that might be useful/interesting http://www.michaelerard.com/fulltext/2006/08/open_secrets_how_the_governmen.html [[User:Ltconnell|Ltconnell]] 20:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Richard (Rick) Kundiger --[[User:Rakundig|Rakundig]] 19:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus title: The Role of Bittorrent in the Internet Society'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Kundiger_Assignment_2_Research_Prospectus.pdf
**Comment: This is a great example of "code is law." You have a very powerful tool (the bittorrent protocol) which can be used for both good an illicit purposes. Your investigation of the different interests for and against its deployment should provide an excellent case study. Does a company or government have more of a right than an individual to control the protocols in use? Are those opposed to the protocol trying to protect the greater good of the Internet or their own financial interests? [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 01:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Rick, I also like this topic. One thing you could really expand upon is the use of P2P (point to point) connections has also drivin forward such technologies as Skype. This type of technology was also never intended to be used for illicit purposes, but then again the Internet was never designed to be used in many of the ways it is used today. VoIP actually breaks the TCP/IP model where packets were never intended to be treated in such a timely fashion. Another item is that it was used by WikiLeaks to keep Assange a bit more safe, which could be interpreted both good and bad. It's also amazing that the record industry had enough lobby power to take down some of the most famous P2P services. There's also the aspect that businesses deal with a very real threat of employees using bittorrent technologies. The executive that installs a P2P client and accidentally shares out his entire drive has been a very real issue for companies to combat. Further, then end use that also does something simular can share very personal information such as passport and bank account details with the world. Hope my comments have given you some help in this area of interest. Regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Mary Van Gils====
*'''Prospectus title: Yelp Case Study - Freedom of Expression'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus_-_Yelp_Study_Case.doc
**Comment: Wanted to make you aware as you investigate the external restriciton on freedom of expression regarding the Yelp site that there are also types of businesses which are regulated by state law as to how they may respond to reviews/complaints on sites like Yelp. If you look at my prospectus, you will note insurance companies are one of those types of businesses.[[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 15:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)]]
**Comment: Hi Mary - This is a fascinating subject - the tension between freedom to express opinions and libel as well as the possible manipulations. Your decision to use Yelp forums as a focal point is also a good idea. What is not clear to me what exactly you will be observing about the forums. It would be great to not only observe instances of the tension points, but also to find instances where free expression has been limited by external sources (not sure if you'll be able to get access to this if it's happened.) I really look forward to reading your project. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 06:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I think Yelp makes a really interesting case study for freedom of expression, but, as mentioned above, Yelp doesn't exactly seem ripe for external limiting of free expression (in the forums at least; reviews are a separate issue), rather, I would venture to guess that the vast majority of limiting speech on the site is in the interest of the TOS. Nevertheless, I think there's a fascinating question here, and plenty of existing evidence, particularly to the question of reviews/slander.[[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 16:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Susan Jennings [[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 15:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)]]====
*'''Prospectus title: Annuity Companies' Social Media Communities'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Annuity_Companies%27_Social_Media_Communities.doc
**Comments: Hi Susan, your subject area appears well-defined and methodology seems systematic. In addition to surveying the companies' online activities, I would really encourage you to speak to the compliance person or even a marketing person in those companies to see how their efforts are going. [You might find the marketing person easier to reach out to :) and get a response.] Additionally, is there any way to bring in the actual federal regulators in order to get their perspective on how new social media plays in their framework for regulation? It would be interesting to see if and how they are adapting to the new technologies. Have fun! Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Alan Davies-Gavin & Alex Solomon====
*'''Prospectus title: Architecture of Sites eHarmony and Match.com: contributions of membership data and effects on security and privacy.'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Assignment2ProjectProspectus.pdf
**Comment: Alan and Alex, I think your topic is fascinating and I wanted to chip in my 2 cents which might help your research. Considering the different natures of sites that ultimately sell the same product, I would consider looking at how the two compete in response to one another. By this I mean, is Match doing something that eHarmony isn, and therefore, is eHarmony a bit jealous and trying to get into their market? I know that eHarmony lauched their more casual spinoff "Jazzed.com" which is meant to steal people away from Match. Is Jazzed a suggestion that privacy isn't all that important to frustrated singles? I think that there are also rather large differences in target audience between the two competitors, with eHarmony focusing on a bit older, more conservative crowd while Match goes for the "single and ready to mingle."Also, perhaps look at each companies approach to user profile creation over time, have they changed at all and in what ways? This looks like it'll be an exciting project, I'm looking forward to what you find! ([[User:Lewtak|Lewtak]] 21:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC))
*** '' Response: Thanks Tym. I like your observations and I think they may well contribute to our research and final content. It's a good perspective that you bring to light. Alan'' --[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Kristina Meshkova====
*'''Prospectus title: A music sharing site - Grooveshark, Soundcloud, MySpace.'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignement_2_%28Kristina_Meshkova%29.pdf
*Comment: Hey Kristina, I think we have some similar ambitions in regards to our final project. Let's chat tonight if you have any interest in potentially working together [[User:Alex|Alex]] Bryan 14:31, 1 March 2011.
**Comment: Hello Kristina, I found your project very interesting and I am looking forward to see it evolve. I am particularly interested in how and why the streaming content services are so territory-limited, beyond of copyright, and how long will this model survive. In Europe we can use Spotify but instead there is no access to Pandora or Grooveshark, and vice versa. Same happens with Netflix or Hulu. However, Spotify is said to be preparing its expansion to the USA and some people talk about pression groups beyond record labels. I think it could be interesting to explore if there are some inter-continental lobbying activities or corporative deals regarding this issues. Best,[[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 12:00, 6 March 2011.

----

====Name:Vladimir Trojak-- [[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 20:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC) ====
*'''Prospectus title: Are different language groups consistent in what topics are permitted and what is removed?'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_2.pdf
**Comments: Hello Vladimir, Your proposal is intriguing and I am looking forward to see how it evolves. I did have a question about why do you think that all the Wikipedia policies should be the same in all the language communities? Thanks. --[[User:SCL|SCL]] 03:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. I hope it will turn in the way I expect:)I believe that in general they shoudl be the same, such as 'neutral point of view', 'verifiability'. Although there may be differences in other policies because of different laws, such as topics you can speak about. You have any suggestions?Thanks.[[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 18:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Faye Ryding [[User:FMRR|FMRR]] 23:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus title: Trolls and vandals on Epinions.com'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Faye_Ryding_Assignment_2.doc
**Comments: Hello Faye, I read your prospectus but had the following thought. What if the person belives they are in the right? Does that make them still a vandal? And can you outline excatly what recourses one can take against such offenders? What authority can someone make a complaint to? That last question brings us to a much bigger, more complex one. Who has the soveriegn rights over the web? The government? A trade federation? Or individual users? --[[User:Elishasurillo|Elishasurillo]] 04:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: [[User:Alex|Alex]] Bryan 16:59, 21 February 2011====
*'''Prospectus title: Groooveshark music application'''
*'''Link to prospectus''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus.pdf
**Comments: Hi, Alex. Sorry that didn't answer you earlier. Will be glad to discuss an opportunity to work together on the Final project. Let's discuss it next week in a chat room or via email. This is my email for the course: kristinam2907@gmail.com [[Kristina Meshkova]], 5 March 2011.
**Comment: Hello, Alex. I am very interested in the legal aspect of streaming content services. Have you considered to study this issue from a global point of view regarding a potential Grooveshark expansion? As I stated below Kristina's project, I think both of your prospects are very interesting, I will be following them. Good luck [[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 12:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Robert Cunningham====
*'''Prospectus title: The Archive Team'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Proposed_Paper_TopicCunningham.pdf
**Comment: Hi Robert! Interesting subject, you've narrowed down nicely on one particular group and your areas of interest should cover nicely what the group is and does nicely. Also, your methods seem achievable and will allow you to experience the group, not just observe it (one of the core challenges for many of the projects, including mine.) The one counsel I would give is to go back to the course material we've been discussing to tie the Archive Team back into the course themes. As examples, you could look at the incentive system for contributors, the group hierarchy and governance for control and decision-making, the architecture of the online tools they use, or the merging of offline and online worlds. Have fun! [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: [[Joshuasurillo]]====
*'''Prospectus title: The effect of government transparency websites- Wikileaks'''
*'''Link to prospectus:'''http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Harvard_assignment_2.doc
**Comment: Joshua, I am very much looking forward to your final product. Your position (or what I am assuming your postion to be) comes across very loud and clear in your prospectus. I wonder if you will reach an opinion as to where to draw the line on "free speech," or if no line should be drawn? My reading of your position if you were to define it today is that free speech must be protected at all costs and no limits are appropriate, at least that is the feeling I am left with from your prospectus. If wikileaks posted the location or identity of our undercover operatives in Iraq or elsewhere, would you support that? If not, what else would you feel would be "going to far?" I look forward to reading more from you. [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 01:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I will try to convey a more balanced and neutral argument in my final paper. I will weigh both sides of the argument and shed light on both. Hopefully, I will be able to come to a consensus. I would not support a decision by Wikileaks to disclose the location or identity of our undercover operatives in Iraq, but I do not believe it is our place to stop them. I believe the government should not be going after Wikileaks but they should be finding and prosecuting the actual leak; not the whistle blowing agency.--[[User:Joshuasurillo|Joshuasurillo]] 01:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Susan Lemont====
*'''Prospectus title: Why do people cultivate large online networks?'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Lemont_Prospectus.doc
*Comments:
**Comment: Unfortunately beyond the stated scope of your project (and not practical to include), but it would be interesting to see how your findings compare to similar surveys of Youtube users (who frequently seek comments, ratings, and channel subscriptions) and members of various online forums which award rankings, custom titles, "reputation", and other benefits to prominent posters based on peer imput. Good luck with this topic. (P.S. Also, it might be interesting try and determine what percentages of Facebook 'friends' of these users are A) people they know in real life vs. those relationships which are strictly online-only and B) what proportion of real life contacts were made prior to 'friending' vs. those which were made as a result of meeting virtually via facebook.) [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 04:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Susan, your research question is so basic that I am surprised no one else chose a topic towards this issue, since it is the basis of the new big business, social media. From an anthropological point of view, I find it very interesting and not enough explored, focusing the research into motivations: not what or when people share or live online, but why do they do it. Besides, I find your methodology very well planned and practical, although I have some doubts about the sincerity when it comes to explaining to someone you don't know why you have more than 200 friends. I will be following your work with interest, good luck! [[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 11:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
***Response: Thank you everyone for your insightful comments. I have changed my project and the new prospectus follows:

====Name: Susan Lemont --[[User:SCL|SCL]] 20:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: What conditions are conducive to successful commons based peer production?'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Peer_production_Lemont_030611.doc
**Comments: Hi Susan. I like the way you tie the course readings into your project and your "test" of the theoretical writings on a real-life subject. So much of what we study is based on the success stories but we often can learn more from the failures. It will be interesting to know whether some of Benckler's or Zittrain's critical success factors were missing or whether they were all there and the project did not succeed for other reasons. I look forward to reading more about this in your projects. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Chris Sura [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 03:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus title: The Java Community Process: How Does It Really Work?'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Chris_Sura_Assignment_2.pdf
**Comment: Admittedly, I knew nothing of JCP prior to reading your prospectus, but it's a pretty intriguing process. It does make us wonder who is really behind our machines, as most consumers of technology only see (and care about) the surface. I wish you luck in obtaining your inside info, and I look forward to seeing how it comes along! [[User:Myra|Myra]] 23:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Ed Arboleda [[User:Earboleda|Earboleda]] 04:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: Are there collective benefits for copyright owners, copyright infringers, and the general community; if copyright infringement is not enforced under specific circumstances on social media sites?'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Ed_Arboleda_Prospectus.pdf
**Comments: Hi Ed, I certainly believe that in specific instances that there can be collective benefits for infringers and owners of copyright. One example is the pirating of the UK run of the TV series Battlestar Gallactica in Australia in October 2004. When the show aired in Australia in January 2005 the ratings exceeded expectations due to “sampling” and word of mouth. Here’s a link to an article with more information http://www.mindjack.com/feature/piracy051305.html [[User:Ltconnell|Ltconnell]] 20:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Elisha Surillo====
* '''Prospectus title: The Tea Party and Internet Freedom'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_2.doc
**Comment: I'm confused. This link does not seem to take me to the correct prospectus? Elisha, could you update this to make sure I can access yours?
**Comment: Hai to the comment above: Elisha and I uploaded with the same file names so they are stacked alphabetically. My file is one that I would like to remove actually but do not know how, but in the meantime, Elisha's file is the second link. Sorry for any confusion. [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 02:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I don't believe the tea party is just confined to the older generation. I believe it to be a stronger movement that will soon grip the masses. By having such a strong presence on the internet this movment will propell itself forward. I believe this is just the begining of many other grassroots campains and parties.--[[User:Joshuasurillo|Joshuasurillo]] 04:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Sorry I would change the name but I don't know how. Sorry for the confusion!'' --[[User:Elishasurillo|Elishasurillo]] 04:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Brandon A. Ceranowicz - [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 08:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: A Comparative Study of Open Source Licenses'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:LSTU_E-120_Assignment_2_-_Prospectus_BAC.doc
**Comment: Hello Brandon! I think your topic can be very interesting. However I think it would be important for you to have a specific focus since the topic seems so broad. I don’t know how relevant this would be, but I suggest that you take a look at the Open Content License. (http://www.opencontent.org/opl.shtml) Good luck! [[User:Quill80|Quill80]] 22:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Lorena Abuín====
* '''Prospectus title: Contribution to prosecuted online activities (Anonymous, BitTorrent, WikiLeaks)'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_2_-_Lorena_Abu%C3%ADn.pdf
**Comment: I noticed that there is a lot of crossover between our topics. We are both addressing hacker communities, but from differing angles. I have acquired quite a bit of information about Anonymous and have listed the resources on my tentative reference page located just below here. Feel free to look and use anything from that list that may help you in your project. Also, the Anonymous page found in Wikipedia is quite good in understanding what the Anonymous phenomenon is. They are free agents often acting independently of each other and unaffiliated with one another under the umbrella name Anonymous. In other words, Anonymous is a concept more than an identifiable specific group. I also noticed you have listed pastebin as a resource. It is my suggestion to be careful with that, and try to find where that document was published. It could simply be the rantings of teenager enamored with the publicity of their antics and activity. The questionable authenticity of that write pad entry to me is found in the signature at the bottom. It should read: We are Anonymous/We are legion/We do not forgive/We do not forget/Expect us-always. Lastly, keep in mind that not all Anonymous hacktivity is criminal, that is just the part that gets sensationalized. There are many other cyber-activism efforts that take place under the name of Anonymous that are not criminal. Good luck, and I look forward to watching your project develope! -----=:) [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 23:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC) for the #datalove
**Comment: I found that some of your research objectives coincide with mine. I can assure you that people do use what is called "hacktivism" to oppose the lies and conspiracies of the U.S. Government. If you take a http://www.nogw.com/ alone you would be surprised how some of the secret documents happen to be available on line. For instance, the loan by the Wall Street Banks to finance Adolf Hitler's Army is not a secret nowadays because of the "hacktivism", although the fact and the document has been kept in secret from the Government of Soviet Union for decades. The role of the Jews in the mass murder of millions is proven with facts on the Holocaust denial web sites. I guess the major drive that motivates people to use their skill in the "wrong way" is to oppose the lie that is bigger in size and thus controls the legacy tools such as Media and Congress. Even children in New York City know that the twin towers were demolished by the "uniformed criminals" employed as the federal agents. Check out the list of literature on my prospectus and http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=46 is just one out of dozens web sites. The U.S Government had no reason to deploy troops anywhere at the cost of the taxpayers' dollars. Do you think other citizens do not realize this? They do, but they join others in this giant lie and say that it is a war on terror, and they say this at Law Schools, through the public media, and post it online. These people are indifferent and coward because they lie to themselves and the so called prosecuted activities is the only way to reveal the truth. In your research you are therefore addressing a brave category of people who are ready to risk their lives for the simple yet amazingly right cause - to reveal the corrupted syndicate of greedy liars who oppresses people with their tyrannic power and ability to prosecute. If you are not afraid to cooperate on this project in front of the university staff, then take a look at my proposal and let me know what do you think. I may give you a couple of additional sources and suggestions, but if you do not want to be involved in this type of a project, I will totally understand. Best! --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 10:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hai. Thanks for your response. I just thought that I would add that it is very important make the distinction between hackers and crackers. Unfortunately the media has not made this distinction clear and has tainted the meaning of the term hacker. In a nutshell, hackers create things and crackers break things. Most hackers look down upon crackers and dismiss them as technological bugs. Most hackers I know are not pleased with the criminal antics done in the name of Anonymous. It is true that collaborative write pads are in common use because of the ease to collaborate live together at once. Pastebin happens to not be one used for documents all that much though. It is mainly used to send larger pieces of text into chat protocols such as IRC without flooding the channel. Write pads such as typewith.me and piratepad.net are more common to use for group documents since the url is not made public and searchable, and is kept private among the group working on it. Also, an interesting comment about hacktivism made to me by a French hacker with whom I am in contact with simply and broadly described hacktivism as using technology to impact society. I think we must be careful, myself included, when we talk about cracker v. hackers. A classic document among hackers written and maintained by Eric Raymond, "[http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html How to Become a Hacker]" describes the difference quite well. [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 03:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Lorena. I think this is a great topic and I agree that you and Deinous seem to have a strong intersection of ideas. I think the comments I made under Deinous' posting are applicable here as well. It's good to see this topic having such strong discussion. Regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 04:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Hi, Alan, thanks a lot for your interest! I can't find your comments below deinous' prospect, and I would really like to check them.'' [[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 12:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I too went in search of Allen's comments and were unable to find them :( [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 18:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Margaret Tolerton [[User: deinous|deinous]]====
* '''Prospectus title: Jailbreaking appliance based gadgets and game consoles: the legal and generative implications'''
* '''Link to prospectus:'''http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:JailbreakingGadetsAndGamesConsoles.doc
**Comment: Margaret, thanks a lot for your offering. I could really use some inside information about this topic. About your suggestion, I chose pastebin as a reference looking for a way to begin my research. You are right when you say that accuracy is not guaranteed when it comes to this source, but my main objective is to test the general perception of internet community about "hacktivism", I want to read about it in forums, press articles comments... See what normal people think about this. Of course, not every "hacktivist" action is a ciber-crime, but I am particularly interested in motivations that lead people to engage in certain projects that could be prosecuted depending on the country, as uploading copyrighted contents. I am sure we could find a lot of profit-driven actions, but I want to get deeper in personal motivations, since there are many so-called "cyber-crimes" that have nothing to do with obtaining a profit, at least a tangible one. When reading your prospectus, I came up with something very interesting: "Happy to help others who are not as advanced?". I think solidarity plays a huge role of hacktivism communities, empowered by the feeling of being passionate about some topic. I guess the desire to share sprouts from passion, but I think that the need of feeling part of a community is also very important, especially when it comes to very well defined criminals such as sex offenders and very sensitive content uploaders, communities widely persecuted but, however, still huge. While my prospectus adopts a more anthropological point of view, I see yours as an inside work with very valuable information about hacktivism running. I look forward to see how your research evolves and to learn more about these communities from a privileged point of view. Please don't hesitate to make any suggestion you may consider, I am sure it will be very helpful for my research. Lorena Abuín. --[[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 21:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: LOL, I don't know how privileged my point of view is. I am more or less just another nerd with a computer on Friday and Saturday nights. In recent weeks I have come to feel as though the people of Telecomix have accepted me as one of their own though, as I have done a little public relations, fact checking, and some translations. Telecomix is very open about their work, and does not engage in illegal actions. Being mostly European, they lobby against, or for, various cyber laws to their respective Parliaments. What I meant though by my comment "happy too help others who are not as advanced" is that it is common for someone to ask a question of a technological nature and usually others jump in and help to solve the problem. For example, my switch over to Linux, I have been having quite a time configuring a few of my drivers, and getting used to working from a command line with unix syntax, and several people who know how to fix the problems will jump in and start coaching with many lulz along the way.[[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 03:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hello there. I am delighted and in part surprised to see a topic of this type. By type I mean it is heavily technological mission to retrieve a piece of real information from the community of real hackers. Not all software engineers employed by the government are able to intervene communication among the community of real hackers. You may however, catch a few portals where "I can do this, I can do that" type of conversations take place, but whether they really have done something interesting and indeed reveal their ideology is a big speculation. For this course, I believe, you need to change your frequency, sort of speak, and listen not for the hacking communities themselves, but for the actions they have already done. Actions speak lauder than words, as you may know. You you need to listen to the anti-thesis, that is, the counter part of the hacking group. In this country, among various subsequent agencies that keep control of all networks, the NSA sources will probably be the most beneficial to you, although I am not 100 percent sure about this. It is difficult to find something that is available to the public. Recall the scandal with pornographic downloads by the employees of the Trade Commission; this is just one out of million examples of the internet traffic control by the Feds. It is therefore the Feds who are on the opposite side of the argument with the hackers. By considering both ideology of the hackers and a counter-premise by the Feds you will have a full and comprehensive picture for your project. In short, I am proposing to search not only within the hackers community, which may only seem as community of hackers and give you a bogus information, but also find reports, chronicles, and cases exposed by the Feds. It may ultimately appear that it is the Feds who are vandals and trolls and who violate privacy and steal the tax money of the citizens. At least this is what my prospectus's sources can prove, but take a look at National Security Agency [http://www.nsa.gov/] web site. In the meantime, I will keep checking on your project and will try to give you more clues because your topic coincides with mine in many regards. --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 06:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Thank you for your response and comments. I will certainly take them into consideration. However, I feel that my views toward hacking are much broader than the criminality of a few, and that there should be more emphasis in part on the difference between hacking and cracking. I am one that still holds the traditional meaning of a hacker as one that is adept with the computer and often generates new creative uses for what is in front of them. As a result I am watching my topic shift a bit and focusing perhaps more on the difficulty that researchers have with the DMCA preventing them from publishing in full their findings, and the law of fair use. Over this past year we have watched the jailbreaking of an iPhone of iPad for the use of external software not approved by Apple go from being an illegal act to being justified as fair use. Although it will nullify any warranty of your gadget. Currently we are watching this same debate occur over the jailbreaking of the Sony PS3 to run Linux and homebrewed games. I am one that supports the fair use argument in that if you are clever enough to make your gadgetry do fun and interesting things beyond the uses that they are intended, then you should be able to do it--especially if you have no intention on using pirated software or make profit of any sort from it. As for an original angle, I am still waffling a bit, and welcome any further comments.====:)'' [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 17:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Margaret, Given your change in perspective of your project you may wish to explore the discussion of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization Tivoization] (if you have note already considered such). The question of, “Should manufacturers of hardware have the right to limit the use of software on their machines when that software included elements covered under versions of the GNU license?” seems a related and interesting debate. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 16:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Guy, thank you so much for your wonderfully concise thesis question! Sometimes it just takes the right little tweak to bring scattered thoughts together, and pondering the legal parameters of an open source kernel wrapped in a proprietary shell is a question I would very much like to spend some time on. Thanks again.'' [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 19:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Margaret, I am very glad you found my suggestion helpful. I look forward to your final output. It’s a really intriguing topic. Thanks for checking out web.alive (comment below). I didn’t play any role in developing it (wish I were that bright). My colleague [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiYi3iEBJNM Arn Hyndman] is the chief architect.

Your comment about, “test driving it among a group of ppl,” got me thinking. If we wished to, we could use the tool for a virtual study group. Would you be interested? Do you think others would be? It could be a great environment for classmates to meet and discuss the coursework.

Also, anyone who is working as a group in developing their project can use it to collaborate virtually. There are virtual white boards, web browsers that appear to be mounted on walls, desktop application sharing portals and other tools. I’ll be glad to meet folks in the environment and show how to use the tools. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 23:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Guy, I think using web.alive as a platform for a study group is a great idea. Perhaps you can make an announcement in class this week.'' [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 00:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Guy Clinch -- [[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 13:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title (updated Mar 6): The Personal Imperative: What is the role of the individual in shaping the future of cyberspace governance?'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Internet_and_Society_Assingment_2%28gclinch%29.pdf
***To my Classmates: Please note that after receiving feedback on my original prospectus I have created an updated version. My title has changed to The Personal Imperative: What is the role of the individual in shaping the future of cyberspace governance?
**Comment: I hope you will find this more focused and greater compelling. I will appreciate any additional comments and suggestions based on this new approach. Thank you, Guy --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 23:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
***It has occurred to me that in order to give me feedback on my proposal you may need to experience the web.alive environment. Please feel free to click on the following link and explore. http://apex.avayalive.com/715/html
I look forward to reading your ideas. Thank you. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 19:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hai Guy! I recently checked out web.alive and thought on first impression it was a nice sleek, useful, and intuitive application. Very well designed indeed. Were you one of the developers? I'm afraid that at this time I cannot offer much in the way of constructive criticism without test driving it among a group of ppl, but I do see it as a wonderful tool for distance business communication. [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 18:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Syed Yasir Shirazi [User: syedshirazi]====
* '''Prospectus title: Online Group Buying - Newly Emerging Business Model or Fad?'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Syed_Yasir_Shirazi-Assignment_2.pdf
**Comment: Syed, this is a really interesting topic, but I am concerned that it may be too broad. I feel like a question like yours would more likely take up a book than a paper to be completed over a single semestre! Perhaps you could look into a specific group-buying site rather than the concept as a whole, like Groupon or LivingSocial. It might even be interesting to compare the two. Or, are there sites in which users decide which company they want to solicit such coupons from, rather than having the site itself decide? Just some ideas to help you get this topic down to something manageable. Does this help at all? [[User:Mcforelle|Mcforelle]] 21:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Hi Michelle - Thanks for the feedback. I was actually planning to do a comparative study between a daily deal website (Groupon) versus a more traditional online retailer (Amazon or ebay) to see which model is more sustainable in terms of driving traffic and providing value. But your comments about 'websites that allow users to decide which company they want to solicit coupons from' has got me thinking now. Project is currently in Work-in-Process mode.Will keep everyone posted. Thanks - Yasir '' ~~[[User:syedshirazi|syedshirazi]] 22:14, 06 March 2011

----

====Name: Jessica Sanfilippo - [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 16:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: Transparency and Participation in Crowd Funding'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:JSanfilippo_Assignment_2.doc
**Comment: Hi Jessica,I think crowd funding is a fascinating topic, and there seem to be various types of crowd funding as you point out. Micro Loans and sites such as Kiva.com are also wonderful examples of crowd funding. I am probably over reaching, but I noticed that Syed Yasir A. Shirazi has a prospectus on Group Buying, and wonder if the two can be connected somehow? What if materials needed for a funded project on kickstarter.com for instance, could be purchased through groupon.com or a similar site? Regardless, I am looking forward to your findings around Crowd Funding (especially in the creative space).
**Comment: Hi Jessica: www.33needs.com is another website which would be of interest to you. You might want to take a look at it for ideas related to crowd-funding. Also, let me know if you would be interested in sharing thoughts regarding the final research project.My email id is sshirazi@fas.harvard.edu. Thanks - Yasir ~~[[User:syedshirazi|syedshirazi]] 21:24, 06 March 2011

----

====Name: Adriana Faria Torii [drifaria] and Anna Christiana Marinho C. Machado [([[User:Anna|Anna]] 17:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC))]====
*'''Prospectus title: Analysis of E-Government Practices in Brazil'''
*'''Link to prospectus:'''http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Faria_Marinho_Prospectus.pdf
**Comment: Hi Adriana and Anna - E-governance in an emerging country like Brazil is an attention-grabbing subject. As you have mentioned in your prospectus, in terms of audience, Brazil is amongst the top ten countries in the world (I think they have recently moved up to #5 in terms of total internet users). But that said, the overall internet penetration is pretty low (I think it is close to only 40% of the entire Brazilian population).
The G2C part of your project should provide an interesting analysis since concepts like e-voting work the best when the internet usage amongst citizenry is high. Brazil does not have uniformly high internet penetration across the entire county. Maybe you can differentiate the G2C aspect and compare between urban and rural populations because there will be different results (I believe) for effectiveness of such an ‘e-system’ amongst the 2 geographic segments. Also, you can include some analysis on mechanisms for ‘fraud detection’ for e-voting and e-tax filing processes. Thoughts on this link might be of interest to you: http://qssi.psu.edu/files/hidalgo.pdf. Looking forward to reading your final paper. ~~[[User:syedshirazi|syedshirazi]] 21:21, 03 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi, I believe you should also compare other countries E- Government practices to Brazil's. It might be interesting to see if there are any other governments polices similar to Brazil's. There might be a government with similar statistics, and by comparing them you might see another variable that might be affecting Brazil. --[[User:Joshuasurillo|Joshuasurillo]] 04:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Laura Connell [[User:Ltconnell|Ltconnell]] 18:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*''' Prospectus title: Does providing a legal alternative act as a deterrent to internet piracy?'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Laura_Connell_Assignment_2_Prospectus.pdf
**Comment: Laura, here is a link to a recent study that you may find of use:
[http://documents.envisional.com/docs/Envisional-Internet_Usage-Jan2011.pdf Envisional - Technical report: An Estimate of Infringing Use of the Internet] Hope you find this helpful --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 03:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Laura, glad to see this topic on the list. It's a tough topic as it could be looked at as requiring a world government organization to pass law enacting the crack down on stolen DRM'ed materials. At the same time there seems to be evidence that this type of activity does not hit the bottom line of Hollywood and other world producers of content. Manufacturers of CD and DVD technology has traditionally tried to work with the "Hollywoods" of the world only to be thwarted by the hacker. There seems to be a balance in the mix where the manufactures can create some hurdles for the most common user and at the same time not create a situation where users are not able to access valid content (such as putting in a DVD from Japan in a US DVD player and not being able to play the content). I think we're moving more and more toward online content like Netflix where the content is more controlled and the physical media is going away. Streaming content has some inherent properties that cannot be easily overcome, further, as long as the browser being used to support a new type of encryption technology, companies can make changes to security on the web server side when hackers have found an exploit. It's a very interesting topic, but I think any laws created would be done by people that do not fully understand the technology and also the laws have great potential to be outdated in a short amount of time if not written with enough foresight. Having said that, there has been a great deal of reduction in some types of sharing due to cases against people that have pirated DRM'ed media and also have had big impacts on many sites that traditionally have been an excellent source for finding pirated material. Regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Alokika Singh [[User:Singh singh|Singh singh]] 19:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[[User:Singhsingh]]====
*'''Prospectus title: Online Political Activism in India'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_II_22_feb..pdf
**Comment: Hi Alokika: I think your topic is very interesting. You can also draw a comparative line between roles of leading social/political leaders in India versus the role of ordinary internet users when it comes to acting as the leading force behind online social/political debate in India? A lot of times, it has been seen that individuals who don’t follow any hierarchy kick-off such bold campaigns. (Take the example of what happened in Egypt over the last six months. The online movement was sparked by ordinary folks and not any leading social or political figure).
I am curious to know whether the online ‘Pink Chaddi’ campaign was initiated by general users or spearheaded by a leading social organization in India. I suspect the former. So it will be interesting to see how the online debate has evolved in India.
Looking forward to reading your final analysis.~~[[User:syedshirazi|syedshirazi]] 20:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Don Hussey [[User:Donaldphussey|Donaldphussey]] 19:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: Online Crowd-Sourcing of Starbucks Product Development'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:LSTU_E-120_--Hussey_-_Asmt2.doc
**Comment: Don, this is a really ambitious project. I think it's a great idea for you to use your professional position to get your foot in the door with some of the people at Starbucks; I hope it works! My only concern with this project is that you are only focusing on the corporate side of this venture. Is there any way you can include information from participants or contributors to this site? Is there any way on this site that users can interact with each other, or is it a one-way interaction between contributors and Starbucks? ~~[[User:mcforelle|mcforelle]] 18:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Don, I also agree with mcforelle in that you should involve the contributors into your work. For example, if you look at those in support of Starbucks minis (lol)
http://mystarbucksidea.force.com/ideaview?id=08750000000H4DwAAK
you can ask them if they seriously feel more loyalty to the company based on their contributions--even if they never see their ideas come to fruition? Or do they merely want to be a part of the Starbucks online community? Or do they want bragging rights? Also, it might be interesting to briefly compare the Starbucks strategy--seeing the consumer/contributor as the catalyst of a new product--versus, say, the recent Dominos Pizza strategy--viewing the consumer/contributor as the rater of a finished product. This might allow you to connect the measurable (business performance) with the non-measurable (customer feedback)--the latter which now can be more accurately measured because of social media and online communities. All in all, I think you have great potential with this topic! [[User:Myra|Myra]] 20:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Re: methodology, [http://socialmention.com Social Mention] is a free tool you can use to track sentiment/mentions/posts related to Starbucks in various social spheres. Might be worth checking out as the mystarbucksidea project takes off, in order to see how this shapes their metrics! - Jessica [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 03:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Tym Lewtak [[User:lewtak|lewtak]] 21:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: User Generated Sites: Defining Superusers and Their Monetization'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Assignment_2.pdf
**Comment: Tymoteusz, I find you topic very interesting. I am wondering as a product of your research if you will study the proportion of individuals who are super users compared to commercial organizations using these tools. That is, in respect to commercial organizations using the various tools, how important is the individual? Over time, is the place of the individual becoming more or less important? I would suspect that part of this equation depends upon the rate at which people are able to monetize their involvement as much as how commercial organizations are co-opting the modalities. Is there a constant influx of new blood or will the ability of individuals to monetize their involvement decrease over time? It may be fascinating to see is this is an indication of a generative system over the long run or something that may peak and decline. Good luck! --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 03:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Gclinch, Thanks for all of your input! I initially didn't think to so much as include corporations, but taking a second glance at the subject you're right. I would be foolish to not look at motivations for companies and individuals alike to join sites as super-users. If I can find historical data on users from these sites, I'd like to especially take a look at whether it was individuals who joined first and became super-users, or if corporations jumped onto the "ball game" with individuals following. I suspect the latter isn't true, but I will try to distinguish between companies that joined these sites early on versus already popular companies that grew their earlier existent popularity.'' ([[User:Lewtak|Lewtak]] 21:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC))
**Comment: One thing that is very interesting about internet communities is the ability of certain super users to arise. You will find it in all communities from IRC to blogs to forums to games and so on. Normally these are the folks to spend 60+ hours a week on their system (might want to look up references on hours as it relates to superusers) and this is their exposure to the "outside" world. There are different kinds of super users as well. There are the mentors who want to help the community evolve and guide users in the right direction, gently correct them when they are wrong, and are just generally helpful. There are also the dictatorial power mongers who will ban, delete, disparage, etc... anything they don't like, no matter how small the violation or mistake may be. There are many super user personalities in between as well. These individuals do it because they want to do it, not because of pay. Sites that can entice a user community to police itself significantly reduces their overhead costs and still, normally, maintains a good site with good content and a happy user community. Unless, of course, they select a powerMAD person to be the superuser in which case everyone will eventually get upset and move to greener pastures. [[User:Rakundig|Rakundig]]

----

====Name: Denise Reed--[[User:Dreed07|-dreed07]] 21:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: A comparative study of user behavior on Chinese social networking sites with that of United States social networkers'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/REED_LSTU_E120_Assignment_2.doc
**Comment: Fascinating subject! I think that the differences between Chinese and USA based social networking sites is an area ripe for exploration, and one that could potentially shed a lot of light on the effects of government censorship on online communities. Some thoughts: differences in user behavior may be due to many different factors, including site architecture, demographics, and cultural influences. It would be worthwhile to explore the demographic differeces (such as age, socio-economic status, and geographic location) between different sites offering similar services in and outside of China. Furthermore, I wonder if it would be possible to obtain information on the behavior of Chinsese nationals using facebook prior to that site being banned in the PRC, and to compare it to that of non-Chinese nationals? Also, you might look into the social networking habits of users in Hong Kong, where Facebook and simmilar sites (IIRC) remain unblocked. Are their any social networking sites specifically targeted toward the Hong Kong community, and how do such sites differ from those in the rest of China? Finally, I notice that your links seem to be primarily in English. Direct access to Chinese social networking sites, and their users, in their native language would, I imagine, be extremely valuable to this project. [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 03:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I would love to see how your research will bloom at the end of the course. I am from South Korea but I have spent a considerable amount of time in China as my family runs business there. I usually stay in Beijing at least for a month every year and am naturally exposed to the Internet culture of China. As it is widely known, access to Facebook is blocked in the country and sometimes - I am not certain about the cause - access to Google is denied, which practically separates me from my online networks. You prospectus seems to cover general contrasting characteristics of two countries' different social networks. Since the filtering level of these countries varies, setting clear standards for comparing subjects, I think, might be quite crucial. From your project, selecting a proper social network website which can be considered as Facebook of the US would be an essence. Please let me know if you need any help with that.
--[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 03:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Michelle Forelle [[User:mcforelle|mcforelle]] 21:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: Online Video-Making Groups: Community, Copyright, Collaboration and Commercialism'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment2_Vimeo.pdf
**Comment: Michelle, I have never heard of Vimeo (this is where the Geico man asks me if I live in a cave), but I think you are onto something very interesting here. Perhaps when you tap the frequent contributors of the site, you can ask them why they post their videos on Vimeo instead YouTube, and if for a time, they did switch over to YouTube, and why? It looks like Vimeo started about a year before YouTube. Where did they share their videos before, or did they not? At the onset, Vimeo seems like a more serious bunch than Youtube, but let's see what you discover! [[User:Myra|Myra]] 21:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Thought this was a very interesting and challenging research topic. I work in the digital advertising space, and video has always been a tough nut to crack for clients. They are drawn to the "sight, sound and motion" element that made TV advertising so successful, but clearly the digital space opens possibilities for an entirely new set of formats beyond the :30 sec TV spot. I have used Vimeo for one of my client's campaigns, and it was the community-oriented nature of its architecture that made it particularly compelling. So, I'll be very curious to read your completed report! Also thought I'd share a helpful resource that summarizes the online video landscape (it's slightly dated, but you might find their case studies to be useful to your cross-analysis): [http://www.emarketer.com/blog/index.php/emarketer-webinar-evolving-online-video-landscape/ eMarketer]. Good luck! - Jessica [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 01:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I think this is a very interesting topic and i cannot wait till it is completed. There are so many other video sharing websites besides Youtube. Like Myra said, Vimeo seems to be for more serious users. Also they tend to target a specific group of fellow professionals. I wish I had chosen this topic. Good luck! --[[User:Joshuasurillo|Joshuasurillo]] 04:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Myra Garza [[User:Myra|Myra]]====
*'''Prospectus title: Preparing and Accommodating Millenials in the Workforce: Use of Social Media in Two Career Coaching Businesses'''
*'''Link to prospectus:'''http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Garza.M.Prospectus.doc
**Comment: Myra, this is a really interesting topic! I feel like this is exactly as narrow a case study as the professors were asking for. I'm jealous that you were able to identify such an relevant topic, lol! I look forward especially to reading the background research for this paper, as it is my understanding that minority youth are disproportionally represented on sites like Twitter; I'm eager to find out whether that rumor is true, and if so, what it means for the way these youth interact with and influence the hiring process. I'm also interested in hearing how these companies help steer the social use of the social media into the practical, career-building use. I'm curious to see if you find that the conclusions you are specific to urban youth or whether such tactics in career counseling are also applicable to suburban and rural kids too. Great prospectus, I really look forward to reading your paper! [[User:mcforelle|mcforelle]] 18:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I, too, think this is going to be a very interesting paper. There is such a need in the corporate community for young people who can help older executives use social media both within the organization for employees and outside the organization for the public and consumers. I would be interested in what the career objectives are for the clients of these two organizations. Are they interested in using their social media skills as part of their job requirements or are they looking for careers in various non-related fields? <<[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 01:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)>>
**Comment: Great topic, as I am sure many of us see on a daily basis the generational differences at work, and the need to involve and "catch" the millenial generation. I wonder if the two organizations will provide you with data on their success, and outreach numbers in the community? I look forward to seeing how this plays out. [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 01:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Myra - The influence of social media on both the job search process and in the workplace itself is a very powerful topic! If I am interpreting your prospectus correctly, it seems that your primary concern is with how, in practice, the two case study sites prepare Millenials for the proper use of social media in their job search/and work environments? If so, it might be interesting to connect with Human Resources representatives, to get a pulse on how their employee/recruitment policies have evolved due to the emergence of these new communication tools. In theory, I think there should likely be some alignment between the advice from the two websites and what HR is practicing. Separately, you also raise a very compelling distinction, which is that these businesses serve the needs of minority groups. I wonder if this may warrant its own stand-alone investigation. This way, you can truly dedicate your research towards how the workplace and job search process is shifting (and hopefully closing the gap) for minorities, as exemplified by the social media practices and guidelines from your 2 case study sites. In any case, this is indeed a substantial topic, so I look forward to seeing which direction you take it! - Jessica [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]]
***'' Response: Everyone--thanks so much for feedback! I actually am an HR professional myself, and I can tell you that a lot of HR and business literature out there encourages the bridging of generations at work--particularly with the use of technology. Easier said than done! So, I already have an interest in the broad topic and am hoping the two organizations will be willing to share their experiences teaching social media tactics to youth (for career purposes) and offer some insight on the specific needs of minority youth. I actually met the owner of CC4Kidz at a conference a few weeks ago, and after searching for similar organizations, I discovered The Youth Career Coach Inc. As Jessica indicated above, this topic will require some more narrowing down. Thanks!'' [[User:Myra|Myra]] 22:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Jose Uscanga====
*'''Prospectus Title: Cummunity reporting or social activism? The New Age of media reporting in Mexico.'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Jose_Uscanga_Assignment_-2.doc
**Comment: Jose, you have identified a truly compelling topic.
When you ask, “Is free press necessary for democracy?” many of us would say, obviously yes. Reading your prospectus though makes me wonder, “what do we mean today by a free press.” Does phenomenon such as Mexican citizens taking, “on the civic responsibility of alerting other citizens by providing detailed and unfiltered information,” redefine what we mean when we use the term press? I’ll be looking forward to reading your conclusions.
I’d also be interested to learn if you think there is something unique about Mexican culture that compels people to get involved. It seems to me that these citizen journalists are taking huge risks. Even less than the professional journalists, there would seem to be no safety net. After all isn’t it easy for the drug cartels to find out who is issuing the alerts. Is it a demographic trend, is it youth driven or does it span the population? Is it something unique about the way Mexican people relate to one another that makes people get involved? Thanks for taking on such an interesting and challenging topic. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 02:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Assignment 2 Submissions

2011-03-08T01:55:17Z

Gclinch: /* Name: Brian Smith Smithbc 23:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC) */

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; padding: 5px; text-align: left;">
<big>'''Assignments'''</big>

'''[[Assignment 1 Details and Reporting]]''' | [[Assignment 1 Submissions|Submissions]] 
''Due February 8''

'''[[Assignments#Assignment_2:_Prospectus| Assignment 2]]''' | [[Assignment 2 Submissions|Submissions]] 
''Due February 22''

'''[[Assignments#Assignment_3:_Project_Outline| Assignment 3]]''' | [[Assignment 3 Submissions|Submissions]] 
''Due March 22''

'''[[Assignment 4 Details and Links]]''' | [[Assignment 4 Submissions|Submissions]] 
''Due April 12''

'''[[Final Project]]''' | [[Final Projects|Submissions]] 
''Due May 10''

</div>
This assignment is due on February 22. Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (assignments submitted 4 days late or later will have a maximum grade of 1 point).

Please make sure the name of your file includes your name (example: Name_Assignment2.doc) to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment. ''The '''upload file''' link is to the left, under '''toolbox'''.'' Once you've uploaded your file, please link to it following the format below:

*Name:
*Prospectus title:
*Link to prospectus: (the file you uploaded)

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

===Comments===
Everyone will receive an additional participation grade for this assignment. You should read through everyone's proposals after they are uploaded and add constructive comments below the proposal on which you're commenting. Comments should be submitted by March 6 so you have time to incorporate them, if applicable, into your project outline. ('''Remember to sign your comments!''')

===Submissions===

----

====Name: Gagan Panjhazari --[[User:Gpanjhazari|Gpanjhazari]] 07:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: The Role of Censorship Of the Internet in the Egypt and Libya'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/GaganPanjhazari-Assignment2.txt
*Comment: You might want to check the article I posted on the Feb 22 assignment page that appeared in the New York Times. Might be helpful on your first topic. <<[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 00:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)>>
**Comment: Gagan, I find both of your topic choices interesting. I think the second one, regarding the ability to hold website creators responsible for their content, especially when said content could be considered treasonous, would be the best topic of the two. It is such an important question, the answer to the question will frame our national security for the future. With either topic, I look forward to reading your findings. [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 01:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
*Comment: Frontline, the PBS program, had an episode about the April 6 Movement in Egypt, including how it used the interent and mobile devices for organization and how it was forced to adapt when access was cut. There isn't a whole lot of detail here, but it might be a useful place to start. [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 02:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/revolution-in-cairo/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid
*''Comment:'' I like the second topic. It would be interesting to see if the treason charges are somehow being used to:
# silence Julian Assange
# scare others from doing the same thing
#*One thing you might look up for precedence is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers Pentagon Papers] [[User:Rakundig|Rakundig]]
**Hai!...I love your idea of covering the censorship and even internet blackouts at times in Egypt and Libya along with the role that social networking and tweeps had in organizing the recent protests, and ousting of Mubarak. This is a fascinating narrative to be sure. Here are a few links about a European internet activist group that has worked to provide low tech communication aid to the protesters. I hope they might be of use to you in your research. [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/02/egypts-internet-blackout-highlights-danger-weak|Egypt's Internet Blackouts Highlights Danger of Weak Links, Usefulness of Quick Links], [http://werebuild.eu/wiki/Egypt/Main_Page | werebuild.eu the Egyptian project page], [http://werebuild.eu/wiki/Libya/Main_Page | werebuild.eu, the Libyan project page], and [http://telecomix.org/ | telecomix.org] [http://globalvoicesonline.org/ | Global Voices]has done an outstanding job of covering these events as well. Best of luck![[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 01:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I agree with Deinous. Your topic is very time-appropriate and I cannot hide my excitement to read final results of the research! I believe it should be closely examined as an epitome of the Internet censorship by all of us who are taking this class. From my perspective, it seems that Egypt's Internet kill switch decision rather ignited people's movement toward democracy and protests. By the way, your prospectus includes primarily theoretical approaches to the topic. I would love to know which resources you are going to use in the course of the research. Depending on types of media, your research conclusions, I believe, can be various. Below is the article of the Economist that might be useful in your project. Good Luck! --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 10:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**[[http://www.economist.com/node/18112043 The Economist: Reaching for the kill switch]]
**Comment: Hi Gagan, both your topics are interesting. According to the description of the Final Project it should be built around one of the theoretical conceptions that we study during the course.So if you think about the conceptions that may apply to your topics, it will help you to chose one of two topics proposed by you and, perhaps, to generate your questions and hypothesis around the theoretical conception as the Final Project demand. [[Kristina Meshkova]], 5 March 2011.
**Comment: Gagan, great subjects! You should stick with the subject that interests you most. I suppose its the first one that you wrote about, the role of social media and networking in the revolutions. This is definitely a broad subject, but that doesn't mean you should throw it out, it means you should narrow it to a point that is achievable. A suggestion would be to pick one of the countries, and one of the social networks to drill deeper into. (i.e. the role that Facebook users played in the Egyptian revolution.) Then you need to think about what you will investigate. This project is supposed to be empirical, so you should find some way of observing or surveying the users or the events. This might be in the form of friending as many of the users who were involved in a particular event on Facebook. This should be a great project for you! [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Gagan,I think the same - great topics. I believe both of them are very current and it will be interesting to read your final project. It is very hard to comment your prospectus because it is apparent that you did a deep research and you are clear in what you want to research in final paper. It seems to me that first project seems to be more empirical than second one. Although it would be maybe more or less easier to find 'clear' answers for questions in second project. I do not know. When regards the topics, both of them are very current and you identified the questions very clearly. Good luck with your project...[[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 10:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I think thats remarkable. I do think your topic is a bit broad, as is mine, must a great start! This link might help as well-http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/29/technology/internet/29cutoff.html I wonder what role did social networks play in Egypts revolution. I know the Egyptian consulate in New York cut off web access, but you can still inquire via phone. Will they take this same route in the future?--[[User:Elishasurillo|Elishasurillo]] 04:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: This is a very serious and evolving topic that should be very fun and interesting to work on. It is very important to study the internet's effect on these countries because it could quite possibly happen to other countries. Just like the revolutionary furry spread from Egypt to Libya, it could easily spread to other countries either for the better of for the worse.--[[User:Joshuasurillo|Joshuasurillo]] 05:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Saam Batmanghelidj --'''[[User:Saambat|Saambat]] 10:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: The Effect of Synthetic World Communities on Real World Societies, Economies, and Copyright law'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Batmanghelidj_Final_Project_Prospectus.doc
**Comment: Hi Saam, I think your topic of synthetic or virtual worlds. I had a suggestion that you take a look at BitCoin (http://www.bitcoin.org/), this is an emerging technology that only started up a short time ago. It's a fascinating technology that deals with a new form of money (yes it can be exchanged for real money and is currently trading 1 for 1 with the US dollar). Some interesting things about it: uses public/private encryption keys, it's completely anonymous, it has great potential to circumvent certain banking regulation systems, it can be used to make real purchases, because of it's anonymity and cannot be tracked creates a security of privacy for the purchaser and seller. This also means could could be exploited by people not wanting transactions to be recorded. This technology really opens a virtual door of monetary exchange across the globe where any currency can be exchanged for BitCoins and then exchanged again into a different currency. This is just a top end look at it. It's already in use and some places accept this currency including some non-profit agencies for donation purposes. It also opens an easy way to laundry dirty money. Regards Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi , Saam. The topic is very interesting, but, I’m not sure that questions you want to answer will help you to develop the topic deeply and systemically: the questions are not in a strong correlation with your topic, I think they will not disclose the topic in full and from the main sides of it. You also use such phrase as “virtual property”, what do you mean by this? Is it the same as intellectual property? If yes, I think, it’s better to use the term “intellectual property”. You also pose such question as “How harmful is it for people to sell virtual items for real world monies, and to what extent is it harmful?” So you’ve already decided that it’s harmful, may be, it’s worth to give some arguments in your work why you decided it’s harmful. If you consider “the Synthetic World Communities” as the theoretical concept you want to use in the Final Project, you can try to determine the main features of this concept, then divide your hypothesis into three sphere ( society, economic and copyright law) and pose the main, in your opinion, questions in each of the spheres, regarding the theoretical basis you chose. [[Kristina Meshkova]], 5 March 2011.
**Comment: Saam, you've picked a fascinating topic. You've identified a rich field and topics; the challenge will actually be in narrowing it down to something observable, rather than reporting on what has already been written and explored. Pick one of the topics like virtual property trades and one of the sites like EVE Online and think through how you can observe what is happening in that cross-section. I look forward to reading this project! [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Kimberly Nevas --'''[[User:KimberlyNevas|KimberlyNevas]] 02:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: Can the U.S. Prosecute Julian Assange?'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Nevas_Kimberly_LSTU_E-120_Assignment_2.pdf
**Comment: Hi, Kimberly. Your topic is one of the essential questions I myself also want to closely observe and look for answers. Especially, considering the global impacts of Wikileaks, the prosecution of Assange is merely not confined to the jobs of the US Justice Department. Many governments are quite eager to punish him for revealing sensitive political/diplomatic issues, which might have significantly deterred their national agenda. Nonetheless, the 1st Amendment of the US and equivalent provisions existing in each country that guarantee freedom of speech are standing in the way of this very prosecution. So the question always comes down to this: are we going to sacrifice freedom of speech for a greater cause - usually national security? Are there certain limitations that media have to comply with in publishing their articles? I would love to see how this 21th version of the Zenger Trial will turn out. Good luck! Best, [[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 03:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: It might also be interesting to see if any other sites purporting to disclose sensitive information whether government or corporate have become more aggressive considering all the confusion about what to do with Julian Assange. Does his legal situation make these sites feel more confident regarding avoiding prosecution? <<[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 00:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)>>
**Comment: Your statement, "In this respect, Assange cannot be considered any more liable than the New York Times." is a bold one, which some might strongly disagree with, given Assange's postings and his refusal to censor, along with his use or threatened use of yet unreleased information as leverage to keep himself free. I look foward to reading your arguments regarding Assange, freedom of speech and the case law which supports your position. [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 01:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi, Kimberly. The problem you decided to consider in the Prospectus is really important and actual. But I think that the question “whether the Justice Department can prosecute Assange without damaging the U.S. free press as we know it”, that you pose describing the Problem is wider than the Research question. Perhaps, it’s worth to add the question “whether the Justice Department can prosecute Assange without damaging the U.S. free press as we know it”, to your Research question as the main one. And your present research question: Are the distribution methods adopted by Wikileaks for the dissemination of thousands of pages of classified U.S. documents structured so as to arm Julian Assange and his associates with a strong defense to prosecution under U.S. law?” will help you to answer your main question. Your present research question can be also considered as a research frame, so that you can explore the distribution methods of Wikileaks to answer if they really make the obstacles for the Justice Deparment to prosecute Assange and if yes to what extend; are the distribution methods of Wikileaks the main obstacles which do not permit the Justice Department to prosecute Assange or there are the other obstacles (for ex., with respect to the features of free press)? [[Kristina Meshkova]], 5 March, 2011.
**Comment: Kimberly, you have the beginnings of a good project here. I am interested in what you choose to use as your methodology and what you will choose to "observe" as part of this case study. One suggestion in particular is to look at the particular statements made by the U.S. papers in regards to why they believe their approach to printing the leaks are legal and any justifications they made in regard to accepting Assange's information. [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comments: Kimberly, that is an explosive topic! I bet you'll have lots of material! The qusetion is where did he commit the crimes if any. If in Australia, can they prosecute him? Or because they are U.S. cables, does the U.S.A. have jurisdiction? And who has the right to tell him he can or cannot post and release? The U.S.A. has to clearly stae how he broke the law. As far as I know, treason can only be a crime if commited by a citizen. Good work! --[[User:Elishasurillo|Elishasurillo]] 04:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Yes, very timely and interesting topic. One thing you might look up for precedence is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers Pentagon Papers] [[User:Rakundig|Rakundig]]

----

====Name: Jamil Buie====
*'''Prospectus Title: Profiteering via "Public Privacy" The use/misuse of your data'''
*'''Link to prospectus:'''http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:JBProject_Prospectus.pdf
**Comment: Hi Jamil, For me this is a an extremely important issue, I'm glad to see you're looking at it. I have a few pointers that may help uncover some things that are currently being looked at and something that was done in the UK back in 2008. Do a search for Phorm, BT implemented it in secrecy and it caused a big uproar. Also, it appears that ComCast is looking to implement it here in the US. It deals with deep level packet inspection. Not sure how tech savvy you are, but basically it comes down to an ISP looking at each packet users are sending out over their home connection. It is suppose to be done anonymously, however, it's invasive to the nth degree. Another technology that you might want to look at is the Evercookie. This can be used by websites that a user goes to, this then gathers information about a great number of browsing files that are on a system to ID the system. In the instance that a user cleans up his/her cookies, EverCookie will still be able to quickly identify you and place certain cookies back on your computer being able to keep tabs on the user. Regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi, Jamil. In your Prospectus, you write the following: “While most do understand that they are interacting with a third-party be it a site, search engine, or ISP they remain ignorant to how the data they’re providing is being farmed out or utilized in a commercial vein”. I can agree with you only partly: of course, we could not exclude the situations, when the data we provided are an object of unfair use, but it should be also mentioned that “the main players” of the Internet services do not ignore users, thus they stay uninformed about the way their data are used. For ex., Yahoo Privacy Policy http://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/details.html or Google Privacy http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacy/ In the question: What are the common guidelines and site best practices? you use such phrase as “site best practices”, that is very subjective category, as also the question: “Are consumers truly aware?”. Perhaps, it’s better to avoid such categories in your science research. [[Kristina Meshkova]], 5 March 2011.
**Comment: Jamil, we have similar interests and research topics. You are looking at the broad trail of information left by a typical internet user and the ways that trail is used. I am going narrower, specifically into the information gathered by location-based services to examine the associated privacy issues and assess the average consumer's perceptions of risks. If you are interested, I'd be willing to trade notes and help each other shape up the final project. Since we are doing similar topics, I would really appreciate your comments on my prospectus as well. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Very intrigued by your topic (and somewhat regretting not pursuing it myself!). I used to work as a targeting specialist at Yahoo!, and was floored by the amount of user data we had access to. Thought I'd share an extremely thorough [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703940904575395073512989404.html study] the WSJ put together not long ago, which summarizes the policies and efficacy of the major players in this space. Looking forward to reading your report on this very controversial and fascinating topic. - Jessica [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 03:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Uduak Patricia Okon====
*'''Prospectus Title: Web Pages/Blog Sites: Rights and Limitations-How free are you?'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Uduak_Patricia_Okon_Assign_2.pdf
**Comment: Hi Uduak, Your prospectus is very interesting. I look forward to seeing how your project comes together. But I have some comments that I would like to share, I hope my feedback is helpful.
**Re:
***In general, people are entitled to share facts if they don’t breach confidentiality or depict a real situation. This would depend on how citizen bloggers support their argument about their political commentary, whether it’s positive or negative. You need to remember that politicians are public figures, so the first amendment applies differently to them. Therefore the confidential circumstances that apply to the general population do not apply to politicians since they are not entitled to the same level of privacy. And citizen bloggers don’t have to adhere to the same circumstances as journalists to the best of my knowledge (I major in journalism and work in media in NYC) (i.e. it’s considered unethical for journalists to be bias if they’re not commentary writers. Also most journalists are not allowed to put political figure signs on their lawn, bumper sticker on their car, etc they need to push their feelings aside to accurately report the truth). I think the bigger issue is whether or not non-citizen bloggers can face defamatory lawsuits if there is proof they intentionally acted with malice? Or will future non-citizens bloggers have to abide by the same guidelines as employed journalists in the blogosphere working for CNN?
***Corporate law is an entirely different world. Because many corporations lie to promote their brand among many other issues on the internet, which is unethical to their consumers.
***I don’t think you should look into news websites like CNN, NY Times, etc because those are explicitly run by paid journalists (whom must adhere to strict guidelines about what they report) and comments are very restricted so the same type of freedom doesn’t apply to citizen journalists because official journalists also have code of ethics and have much more at stake.
***It's important to note that some citizen bloggers sell advertising on their blogs which might impede with how they portray a public figure on the net because they're getting paid. Formally employed journalists can't bias their stories based on relationships with advertisers because the editorial and advertising departments are seperate at news organizations.
***You, first need to narrow your focus because there is a huge difference between local mayors and congressional candidates, and citizen and non-citizen bloggers. (i.e. I think it would be interesting if you looked at how political figures use blogging as a form of position taking in Congress and compare cases of democratic and republican candidates on an issue like healthcare reform, education, etc. And the implications blogging has on Senators or Representatives relationships with their constituents).
**Comment: Uduak, very interesting subject. As you shape these ideas into a final project, one aspect to consider focusing on is to differentiate between a) the official "legal findings" of what bloggers can/cannot do vs. b) the unoffical "codes of conduct" being developed in the world of blogging. I think the unofficial codes would reflect the complex realities of the different types of bloggers, rather than the more simplistic legal concept of a blogger. One case to look at is the judge that was recently found to have been blogging anonymously [she thought :) ] about the case on which she herself was the sitting judge. I'll look for the URL to send you. I look forward to reading your project. [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Yaerin Kim [[User:Quill80|Quill80]] 02:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: OpenCourseWare(OCW) and its Impact: Case Study of MIT’s OCW'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment2_Kim.doc
**Comment: Hi Yaerin, I think this is a great topic. Being a part of F/OSS environment has pushed forward a number of wonderful software innovations. Scratch is an example of MIT's commitment to OCW. Scratch, though at first glance might appear comical, is actually a great tool to teach people the concepts of early stages of computer programming. I'm sure there are tons of other open source software that would interest you. I would suggest, if you have a spare computer or can run a virtual environment, downloading and running a Linux distribution like Ubuntu or Linux Mint. Then you can take a look at the rich repository of software that is completely free to install and use. Some of the software is not F/OSS, such as Adobe Reader, but the disclaimers of Left-Copied software is always clear. Anything that came from MIT would also give credit to that source even if it's been morphed. Best regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Yaerin, you've nicely narrowed down your topic to MIT OCW and assessing progress on the 3 goals. In the context of this course, it would really be interesting to narrow down even further to the third goal: the level of interaction of OCW users with the institutions that provide it. What are they and the users missing out on? We've already seen examples of digital communities developing and producing some amazing things and perhaps MIT is or should be seeking to turn OCW from content publishing into an active community. I look forward to reading about this in your project. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Yaerin. I think your topic is brilliantly targeted and focused on one of the distinct manifestations of peer collaboration - that is an open online course. I, myself, have greatly benefited from MIT OCW and Yale Open Course and thus look forward to see, specifically, the reasons why the participation rate of users is lingering at such low figures. Would it be too much to expect OCW to be an open education forum with lively discussions? In my opinion, the architectures of OCW and Yale Open Course are expressly posing limitations on interaction between users as there is no such place to share opinions. I am very much excited to read your final project! Best, --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 10:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: William Bauser --[[User:Wnb|Wnb]] 23:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: Modern Web Design and Civic Engagement: Access to Information and Community Development'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Wnb_assignment2.pdf
**Comment: This is an interesting topic -- you have a lot of avenues to explore! Among the sites you list, some are clearly partisan while others seem more altruistic. I would be interested to learn the contrast of methods used by each type. For example, what are the membership requirements? Does the site encourage a particular philosophy? Does a certain amount of selective cocooning take place? On the other side, how can an Internet based civic community be both neutral and vital? If it is only fact based then it won't be interesting. How does is promote community discussions without advocating a position? I'm sure you'll have to narrow the focus of your chosen topic and I thought this might be an interesting distinction you could use. [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 01:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi William: Sounds like a very interesting subject. I have two comments. First, it is clear you are looking at assessing how effective internet tools are in increasing engagement in the political process, but your last statement doesn't seem to fit. It seems like you'd also like to look at how effective they are in increasing the transparency of the political process as well and you'd have to clarify how those fit together. (IMO, engagement =/= transparency.) Second, I'd be interested in hearing more about your methodology, since most of the sites you mention would likely not share their data openly (perhaps I am wrong.) All the best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Brian Smith [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 23:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: Location-Based Services: Implications and Awareness of Effects on Consumer Privacy'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Brian_Smith_-_Assignment_2.pdf
**Comment: Greetings Brian! I found your research idea very creative and the methodology you are planning to utilize seems realistically achievable, although some instruments used by government and private marketing agencies are very difficult to trace and require special software and equipment. I have a topic idea that may coincide with a notion of privacy you are investigating, so I may cite your work in my project. What I found to be inconsistent is that your methods seem to be distant on the instrumental level from your hypothetical statements, that is, it is undetermined how your method will help to prove or reject either of your hypotheses. In fact, even doctorate dissertations attempting to either reject or accept only one hypothesis. It is in quantitative sciences we test several hypothesis in order to corroborate the validity of the expression or formula, etc., but not in the research as far as academic papers suggest. In terms of your definition of location, it is unclear whether your are talking about the IP address based location or mobile device based location, if it is about mobile device only (most hosts like schools and bosses may hunt for both mobile and the laptop IP to trace their employee or a student) then you need to state so in your research and in the proposal as well. I know one thing for sure that with arrival of the wireless technology it became much more harder for Federal agents to trace hackers: it is technologically more convenient to retain privacy through the public wireless router. I think you will benefit from setting up a singular and more definite hypothetic statement that will encapsulate the entire topic. In addition, you would make the research more productive and to the point if you will add the limitations to your research so that your process will have its bottom line. Check out this research, it could be helpful or at least you can retrieve some more sources from in-context citations: http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~adillon/Journals/Expertise-JASIS.htm Good Luck! --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 20:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Thank you, Vladimir - these are really helpful comments. I might ping you back for more details as I go through them each. Best, Brian'' [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

**Comment: Brian, the location of a caller is also one of the key pieces of information that is used by public safety officials when responding to emergencies. There is a long history of regulation related to the use of location information in the Enhanced 9-1-1 system. I know the location services that you are talking about in your paper are based upon the GPS capabilities in mobile devices, but you may benefit from understanding the history of location as you look at some of the politics surrounding these new services. There has been some recent political maneuvering related to the location information provided by telecommunications carriers for the purpose of Enhanced 9-1-1 since many have determined, as you say in your prospectus, that location information is a marketable commodity.

Here is a short explanation of how location is determined in Enhanced 9-1-1. If you were to need to dial 9-1-1 in an emergency, when your call is answered at the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) a software application retrieves information about your location from the Automatic Location Information (ALI) database. The ALI database – there are actually over 3,000 ALI databases in the US, but from a local jurisdiction only one is important - that is/are maintained on behalf of the government by various on-contract third parties. How information about your location gets populated in that database depends upon the device originating your call. For a traditional wired phone, the phone company is responsible to update your location when your phone is installed.

When you are calling from a mobile phone, there are actually two ways that your location is determined. One is GPS, but many mobile devices today still either don’t have GPS chips or the users don’t turn the GPS on for reasons that range from prolonging battery life to a belief that they are protecting their privacy (something that you may next see is an illusion). One way wireless location is determined is by the triangulation of two or more cell towers. A mobile phone is almost always in communication with two or more towers and an estimate can be made of your location by measuring distance as a function of signal strength. The other way is to integrate the GPS chip. For Enhanced 9-1-1, this actually turns out not to be as straight forward as one might think. This is because the GPS information is carried in the data channel of a phone. For many phones it isn’t possible to have both a concurrent voice call and a data transmission. This means that in order to retrieve the GPS data, the PSAP needs to disconnect the caller. Not the best situation in an emergency. [http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/wireless911srvc.html The FCC’s Wireless 911 Rules] currently specify that the phone carrier is required to be able to locate you within, “50 to 300 meters depending upon the type of location technology used.”

There is also a separate system for determining the location of a caller who is using a VoIP device (as in Skype) and another process for determining the location of a caller from within an enterprise organizations (such as a PBX extension).

Hope you find this of use. Let me know if I may clear up and points or answer any additional questions. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 01:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Yu Ri Jeong -- [[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 22:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: How manifestations of collective intelligence vary in different cultures and societies: Study on Naver Knowledge iN of South Korea in comparison with Wikipedia.'''
*'''Link to Prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Yu_Ri_Jeong_Internet_and_Society_Assignment_2_Prospectus.doc
**Comment: This is a really interesting topic! I hadn't known that South Korea had so strongly resisted the dominance of Wikipedia. I am curious, even if you do not include these questions in your paper, to hear what you think is unique about South Korea that it managed to create its own version of Wikipedia. Was it simply a question of timing, or is there something about South Korean Internet culture that allowed it to rally around its own creation. I also wonder what this means for Wikipedia. As a result of the lack of participation by South Korean Internet users, does Wikipedia suffer from a gap in information about South Korean culture, politics or society? I think the paper you have laid out in your prospectus is very thorough and complete, but I would love to hear your thoughts on these questions separately as you continue your research! [[User:Mcforelle|Mcforelle]] 19:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Dear Mcforelle, thank you for your kind words on my prospectus. I believe that the user-friendly manner of NKIN is encouraging Koreans to prefer it over Wikipedia. To elaborate, NKIN offers such an environment that participants can just write down their ideas without having to give much thought about the impacts of their posts. It is not that they have no responsibility in writing down articles; but they want to give information or advice as they do to their friends and family. The system of Wikipedia requires some duties such as learning of new Wiki codes. I believe that these factors are alienating Koreans from using Wiki. Furthermore, the under-activated usage rate of Korean Wiki is discouraging people to use it. --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 03:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Yuri! I think your research would reveal some very interesting points about the difference between the Korean Naver website and Wikipedia. If I may suggest, it would be interesting to analyze the difference in user demographic between the two websites. This would assist your analysis for Question #3. Also, since Naver seems to be a for-profit organization, it would be interesting to analyze how profitable NKin has been and contrast it to the non-profit model of Wikipedia. [[User:Quill80|Quill80]] 22:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Yaerin, thank you for your kind comments. Your suggestions include very important points which I might have ignored had it been not you! Truly, the demographic analysis of two websites and the comparison of them in terms of for-profit and non-profit will reveal some of the interesting characteristics of these open knowledge forums. Thank you! --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 03:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Yu Ri: This is a solid proposal for the project. I like how you've used the course themes as your areas of investigation and how you've narrowed down to two communities that you will compare, and even further to a set of articles with common subjects across the two communities. The only area of concern might be that your subject areas are pretty large in and of themselves (architectural elements, social norms & governance, membership, limits on expression, and national law.) If you can do all of those, then that's great, but you might think of narrowing to a smaller set. Otherwise, this proposal seems strong. Have fun! Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 08:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Smith. Thank you for spending your time in reading my prospectus. I absolutely agree with your concern. I wish to nail down the topic further, but am still not certain which theme to focus on as all the aspects matter most. I will keep you informed if I narrow down to the very specific topic! Thank you! --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 03:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: La Keisha Landrum [[User:llandrum|llandrum]] 21:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: Building a Sustainable News Org'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:LNLAssignment2.doc
**Comment: Hi La Keisha, It's good to see you're approaching this hot topic. I think most Americans are rather clueless about the current demise of the media or at least they are clueless as to why the media has been in a state of disintegration over the past 30 years. The newspaper companies came to late to the Internet forum and due to their lack of response they lost the "first-to-line" efforts in advertising & classified revenues. Aggregators and bloggers have only worsened the situation for major media, not to mention giants like Google and Craigslist drawing away advertising dollars. Still, a more important aspect is that experienced journalists need to continue to be supported in doing investigative reporting. Looking at detail as to how the different models of moving forward and the benefits might be speculative at this point, but we have seen some success stories in new ways to successfully report on current events. Regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hello La Kiesha! This is a very interesting and important topic for the future well being of journalism. According to your prospectus, it seems that you are interested in the profit aspect of the emergence of new internet-based journalism. If this is the case, it would be helpful if you can offer comparison in income for the aforementioned journalist. In other words, how much did these journalist as an employee of a traditional publisher and how much are they making now with their innovative website? Also, it would be interesting to know who is willing to patron these professional journalists. I think the lecture slides from March 1 would be very helpful as well. Good luck![[User:Quill80|Quill80]] 22:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi La Keisha, Bravo for taking on this topic. I like the fact that you are exploring success stories in online journalism. While journalism is undergoing fundamental changes, I think this is not just a doomsday scenario that dictates journalism will disappear. The newspaper existed for so long because, I believe, there is strong consumer demand for quality information. Just because the business model for supplying news is undergoing transformation doesn't mean that that demand is gone. My hypothesis is what we discussed in our last class: that the newspaper is being disaggregated and all the components will find their places as the changes shake out. There will be a place for classified ads, opinion articles, local fluff pieces, national news, international news, and yes, even, high-quality investigative reporting! It's just that they won't all be delivered by the same company, in the same vehicle, nor with the same business model anymore. As a side note for a case study check out the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. I'm not sure how successful it has been, but their story might be interesting to you in that they closed down their print publication and went entirely online with a shrunken staff. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 08:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Enjoyed reading your prospectus! Just read an article in [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/mar/05/huffington-post-aol The Guardian] that seems to resonate very well with your proposed topic. It highlights the business model Huffington Post created whereby a good portion of their content is via free contributions, and the ensuing backlash amongst some writers circles who feel they are under/uncompensated. Also, I noticed you touch on the concept of 'content farming,' and thought I'd reiterate an example I brought up in class, [http://www.demandmedia.com/ Demand Media]. It is the poster child for content farming in the media industry, so might be worth a glance. Good luck and hope this is helpful! - Jessica [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 18:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Jillian York [[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 21:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: Understanding "Lesbanon": Lebanon's Online Lesbian Community'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Understanding_Lesbanon.doc
**Comment: Hi Jillian. I found your approach to the project very interesting: based on your prospectus, it seems that you are studying an online society as a mirror to look into the real world. Your idea of examining the ways that homosexuality is expressed on the Internet would offer a glimpse to the country's customs and legal regulations is truly brilliant. I will look forward to seeing what kind of role the Internet is playing in Lebanon society for freedom of speech - especially for that of lesbians. Best, Yu Ri --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 03:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hey Jillian, I think this is such a great paper topic. I love how secretive communities can still operate out in the public through using the internet. The value of anonymity in this case seems like it must be very high, especially if there are governmental pressures keeping women from coming out. I had no idea that "Lesbanon" existed but it really does make perfect sense. Maybe if there are other communites out there like this, you could make a broader statement on the nature of coming out on the internet despite oppressive governments and societal norms. Otherwise, I think your question is quite reigned in and manageable in scope. I look forward to reading this paper when you're finished. [[User:Saambat|Saambat]] 18:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Jillian, this is a clever topic. I think in America, we often take for granted what the Civil Rights Movement did for communities beyond racial and sexual orientation lines--it really impacted our cultural norm mindset. The internet is not only release but '''power''' for those in disadvantaged or secretive communities the world over--especially when you are looking at two groups under different governments: the Lebanese and the diaspora. I am curious to read more. [[User:Myra|Myra]] 19:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Caroline McLoughlin [[User:Camcloughlin|Camcloughlin]] 21:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus title: Privacy and Society'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Assignment-2.pdf
**Comments: Caroline, I, too, was interested in writing a paper more inclined to policy arguments and Rebekah counseled me against it. I got the impression we are supposed to be more observant of communities and how they interact and work. If this is true, you might lean your paper more towards observing whether privacy policies are adequately disclosed on sites in the US and how they are different on Canadian sites. Is this difference due to the contrasting privacy legal frameworks in the two countries? Do participants react differently?This might also help narrow your topic which seems like alot of material to cover. All this being said, I find your topic very interesting and think it might be great to present it in something like a PowerPoint format. Would be the great beginnings of a law review article if you are a lawyer.[[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 21:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)]]
**Comment: Hi Caroline, we are interested in the same privacy subjects. Similar to Sjennings feedback, I tried to make mine more about observing a community, specifically consumers using location-based services, and less about policy. If you've got the understanding already to get into issues and policy, though, then it sounds like a great project. As I mentioned to Jamil Buie above, if you are interested, I'd be willing to trade notes and help each other shape up the final project. Since we are doing similar topics, I would really appreciate your comments on my prospectus as well. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name:Anthony Crowe [[User:Acrowe|Acrowe]]====
*'''Prospectus title: Tagging and Metadata on the Internet and in New Media'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Crowe_LSTUE120_2.doc
*Comments:
**Comment: I like that you've identified another means of content organization for study. I feel like tagging is going to be a rich topic, not only because of the ways people use it, but because of how it defines or redefines website architectures. I don't really know much about tags beyond their most obvious uses (and frankly, on in Twitter), so I am curious to see what kind of social rules you discover in your research. The only thing I might suggest is that, given the richness of your topic, that you not worry about studying superusers too deeply. I feel like a thorough study of tagging on the three main sites you've identified, which are pretty major sites, in addition to the other examples you'll be incorporating, will be more than enough data and analysis for a great paper. Unless perhaps I'm not understanding the particular lens through which you'll be approaching the superuser question? [[User:Mcforelle|Mcforelle]] 19:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I think this is a really fascinating and relatively untouched subject; I'm curious to learn the myriad ways tagging is used, both for public sharing and for semi-private sharing (e.g., cleverly devised tags that only a particular group is aware of) -- but I agree with the above commenter in that I'm not sure how the question of superusers fits in here; I think you might be better off narrowing the subject just to the question of tagging.[[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 16:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Vladimir Kruglyak --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 21:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus title: A Transparency of the U.S. Government in the Socio-Cyber Environment'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus.doc
**Comment: Vladimir, thank you for your resources. I have been reading your prospectus and found your approach as interesting as ambitious. To investigate wether the U.S. Government maintains Constitutional transparency and accountability for the tax money expenditures using e-government resources, that is a very well focused research and I can tell you are passionate about the topic, which makes the reading even more interesting. However, when you talk about conspiracy relating it with the internet resources, I have to disagree. I think power and conspiracy are long-time friends, governments have faced every kind of suspicions since they exist, but the importance of digital resources when it comes to spreading these suspicions cannot be denied, and that is why I think your research will face very interesting issues to deal with, as investigating the origin of "conspiracies" from a social point of view. Do you think the Internet is a cause or a consequence? I think about WikiLeaks, for example. The Internet had nothing to do with the origin of the cables, but made them become a "popular" topic, blurring the "secret" component of International Politics. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? We are talking about serious crimes becoming nearly gossip (we could talk further about a Spanish journalist murdered in Iraq and how Spanish and American Governments made a deal to make it look like an accident: that's on WikiLeaks). But now it looks like nothing happened. Amazon was selling the cables for Kindle, Julian Assange is to be extradited to Sweden in a week and I highly doubt any of the "accused" by, or thanks to, WikiLeaks, is to face trial. When you say that I am adressing a brave category of people ready to risk their lives for the "right cause", that is exactly the interesting thing about this. Why would someone get into trouble for nothing? However, it calls my attention that you take for granted that their cause is the right one. I see in your statement that you look pretty convinced about conspiracies when it comes to very sensitive and historic topics. You assume the defense of one group, don't you doubt that the cause may not always be the right one? I find your statement so determined that it becomes intriguing to me (it is really hard to me to be sure about something), I will be following your work with interest to get a better understanding of your point of view. In the meantime, I hope to receive more suggestions or resources you may find interesting to check out about this topic. Lorena Abuín. --[[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 21:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I see a potential flaw in your methodology, and find it potentially invasive of a web surfer's privacy. Collecting data by sniffing packets is rather dubious for your uses and can be construed as an abuse of networking tools. Trying to parse the IP addresses into geographical locations through a Whois database may be difficult to and inaccurate if users are using proxy based anonymizers such as Tor or i2p. It is for this reason, among others, that many people chose to use anonymizers when they surf. [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 04:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
***Vlaidmir: Thank you all for the creative comments addressed toward my prospectus, although the assignment says to add constructive suggestions which can help an author to improve his project. I think it is little bit unfair to help others reconstruct their idea and receive nothing in return. I guess that is all I can get from the general public. If however, someone in this course really knows about the internet traffic analysis, you are welcome to suggest substantial changes. --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 20:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Vladimir, I apologize if I said anything to upset or discouraged you in any way. I meant my comment to be constructive in raising an ethical question to your research methodology in regards to the privacy of web surfers. U can certainly observe and aggregate traffic through packet sniffing network tools, but I would not be so trusting in precise geographical locations of the IP addresses for the reasons that I mentioned. However, with a large enough sample you could perhaps get a general feel for regional traffic. [http://www.ethereal.com | Ethereal]is a popular easy to use modern analysis tool with good documentation, and may serve your purposes. Again, I meant no disrespect and look forward to your project evolving.[[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 21:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name:Corey MacDonald [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 20:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus title: Fringe Forums for the Under-represented'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus_Assignment_2_MacDonald.doc
**Comments: Wow! This is a great prospectus, I feel like these kinds of sites are the perfect places to be asking these questions. So many of the conversations we've had in class have centered around how to best facilitate legal social interactions. I'm excited to read your analysis of how semi-legal and illegal topics are handled by users, administrators and legal bodies on these forums. I'd be curious to see if legal action had ever been taken against the users of these sites, or whether the information posted on them had ever been used in legal action against someone else, like as evidence or tips on possible illegal goings-on? Are there any specific government agencies that track activity on these kinds of sites? Are any extra precautions taken to protect the anonymity of contributors? [[User:Mcforelle|Mcforelle]] 20:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comments: Hi Corey this is a interesting topic, the existence of sites like Erowid and “the chemical underground” highlight how (especially the US) government are losing the battle to control drug information. A “non-event” that may be of interest to you is the DEA making Microgram public in 2003. Microgram was a law enforcement restricted newsletter aimed at forensic chemists and its release made very little impact on the “chemical underground” due to the wealth of information on illicit drugs that was already available.
Here’s a link to an article that might be useful/interesting http://www.michaelerard.com/fulltext/2006/08/open_secrets_how_the_governmen.html [[User:Ltconnell|Ltconnell]] 20:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Richard (Rick) Kundiger --[[User:Rakundig|Rakundig]] 19:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus title: The Role of Bittorrent in the Internet Society'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Kundiger_Assignment_2_Research_Prospectus.pdf
**Comment: This is a great example of "code is law." You have a very powerful tool (the bittorrent protocol) which can be used for both good an illicit purposes. Your investigation of the different interests for and against its deployment should provide an excellent case study. Does a company or government have more of a right than an individual to control the protocols in use? Are those opposed to the protocol trying to protect the greater good of the Internet or their own financial interests? [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 01:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Rick, I also like this topic. One thing you could really expand upon is the use of P2P (point to point) connections has also drivin forward such technologies as Skype. This type of technology was also never intended to be used for illicit purposes, but then again the Internet was never designed to be used in many of the ways it is used today. VoIP actually breaks the TCP/IP model where packets were never intended to be treated in such a timely fashion. Another item is that it was used by WikiLeaks to keep Assange a bit more safe, which could be interpreted both good and bad. It's also amazing that the record industry had enough lobby power to take down some of the most famous P2P services. There's also the aspect that businesses deal with a very real threat of employees using bittorrent technologies. The executive that installs a P2P client and accidentally shares out his entire drive has been a very real issue for companies to combat. Further, then end use that also does something simular can share very personal information such as passport and bank account details with the world. Hope my comments have given you some help in this area of interest. Regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Mary Van Gils====
*'''Prospectus title: Yelp Case Study - Freedom of Expression'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus_-_Yelp_Study_Case.doc
**Comment: Wanted to make you aware as you investigate the external restriciton on freedom of expression regarding the Yelp site that there are also types of businesses which are regulated by state law as to how they may respond to reviews/complaints on sites like Yelp. If you look at my prospectus, you will note insurance companies are one of those types of businesses.[[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 15:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)]]
**Comment: Hi Mary - This is a fascinating subject - the tension between freedom to express opinions and libel as well as the possible manipulations. Your decision to use Yelp forums as a focal point is also a good idea. What is not clear to me what exactly you will be observing about the forums. It would be great to not only observe instances of the tension points, but also to find instances where free expression has been limited by external sources (not sure if you'll be able to get access to this if it's happened.) I really look forward to reading your project. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 06:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I think Yelp makes a really interesting case study for freedom of expression, but, as mentioned above, Yelp doesn't exactly seem ripe for external limiting of free expression (in the forums at least; reviews are a separate issue), rather, I would venture to guess that the vast majority of limiting speech on the site is in the interest of the TOS. Nevertheless, I think there's a fascinating question here, and plenty of existing evidence, particularly to the question of reviews/slander.[[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 16:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Susan Jennings [[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 15:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)]]====
*'''Prospectus title: Annuity Companies' Social Media Communities'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Annuity_Companies%27_Social_Media_Communities.doc
**Comments: Hi Susan, your subject area appears well-defined and methodology seems systematic. In addition to surveying the companies' online activities, I would really encourage you to speak to the compliance person or even a marketing person in those companies to see how their efforts are going. [You might find the marketing person easier to reach out to :) and get a response.] Additionally, is there any way to bring in the actual federal regulators in order to get their perspective on how new social media plays in their framework for regulation? It would be interesting to see if and how they are adapting to the new technologies. Have fun! Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Alan Davies-Gavin & Alex Solomon====
*'''Prospectus title: Architecture of Sites eHarmony and Match.com: contributions of membership data and effects on security and privacy.'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Assignment2ProjectProspectus.pdf
**Comment: Alan and Alex, I think your topic is fascinating and I wanted to chip in my 2 cents which might help your research. Considering the different natures of sites that ultimately sell the same product, I would consider looking at how the two compete in response to one another. By this I mean, is Match doing something that eHarmony isn, and therefore, is eHarmony a bit jealous and trying to get into their market? I know that eHarmony lauched their more casual spinoff "Jazzed.com" which is meant to steal people away from Match. Is Jazzed a suggestion that privacy isn't all that important to frustrated singles? I think that there are also rather large differences in target audience between the two competitors, with eHarmony focusing on a bit older, more conservative crowd while Match goes for the "single and ready to mingle."Also, perhaps look at each companies approach to user profile creation over time, have they changed at all and in what ways? This looks like it'll be an exciting project, I'm looking forward to what you find! ([[User:Lewtak|Lewtak]] 21:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC))
*** '' Response: Thanks Tym. I like your observations and I think they may well contribute to our research and final content. It's a good perspective that you bring to light. Alan'' --[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Kristina Meshkova====
*'''Prospectus title: A music sharing site - Grooveshark, Soundcloud, MySpace.'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignement_2_%28Kristina_Meshkova%29.pdf
*Comment: Hey Kristina, I think we have some similar ambitions in regards to our final project. Let's chat tonight if you have any interest in potentially working together [[User:Alex|Alex]] Bryan 14:31, 1 March 2011.
**Comment: Hello Kristina, I found your project very interesting and I am looking forward to see it evolve. I am particularly interested in how and why the streaming content services are so territory-limited, beyond of copyright, and how long will this model survive. In Europe we can use Spotify but instead there is no access to Pandora or Grooveshark, and vice versa. Same happens with Netflix or Hulu. However, Spotify is said to be preparing its expansion to the USA and some people talk about pression groups beyond record labels. I think it could be interesting to explore if there are some inter-continental lobbying activities or corporative deals regarding this issues. Best,[[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 12:00, 6 March 2011.

----

====Name:Vladimir Trojak-- [[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 20:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC) ====
*'''Prospectus title: Are different language groups consistent in what topics are permitted and what is removed?'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_2.pdf
**Comments: Hello Vladimir, Your proposal is intriguing and I am looking forward to see how it evolves. I did have a question about why do you think that all the Wikipedia policies should be the same in all the language communities? Thanks. --[[User:SCL|SCL]] 03:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. I hope it will turn in the way I expect:)I believe that in general they shoudl be the same, such as 'neutral point of view', 'verifiability'. Although there may be differences in other policies because of different laws, such as topics you can speak about. You have any suggestions?Thanks.[[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 18:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Faye Ryding [[User:FMRR|FMRR]] 23:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus title: Trolls and vandals on Epinions.com'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Faye_Ryding_Assignment_2.doc
**Comments: Hello Faye, I read your prospectus but had the following thought. What if the person belives they are in the right? Does that make them still a vandal? And can you outline excatly what recourses one can take against such offenders? What authority can someone make a complaint to? That last question brings us to a much bigger, more complex one. Who has the soveriegn rights over the web? The government? A trade federation? Or individual users? --[[User:Elishasurillo|Elishasurillo]] 04:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: [[User:Alex|Alex]] Bryan 16:59, 21 February 2011====
*'''Prospectus title: Groooveshark music application'''
*'''Link to prospectus''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus.pdf
**Comments: Hi, Alex. Sorry that didn't answer you earlier. Will be glad to discuss an opportunity to work together on the Final project. Let's discuss it next week in a chat room or via email. This is my email for the course: kristinam2907@gmail.com [[Kristina Meshkova]], 5 March 2011.
**Comment: Hello, Alex. I am very interested in the legal aspect of streaming content services. Have you considered to study this issue from a global point of view regarding a potential Grooveshark expansion? As I stated below Kristina's project, I think both of your prospects are very interesting, I will be following them. Good luck [[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 12:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Robert Cunningham====
*'''Prospectus title: The Archive Team'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Proposed_Paper_TopicCunningham.pdf
**Comment: Hi Robert! Interesting subject, you've narrowed down nicely on one particular group and your areas of interest should cover nicely what the group is and does nicely. Also, your methods seem achievable and will allow you to experience the group, not just observe it (one of the core challenges for many of the projects, including mine.) The one counsel I would give is to go back to the course material we've been discussing to tie the Archive Team back into the course themes. As examples, you could look at the incentive system for contributors, the group hierarchy and governance for control and decision-making, the architecture of the online tools they use, or the merging of offline and online worlds. Have fun! [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: [[Joshuasurillo]]====
*'''Prospectus title: The effect of government transparency websites- Wikileaks'''
*'''Link to prospectus:'''http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Harvard_assignment_2.doc
**Comment: Joshua, I am very much looking forward to your final product. Your position (or what I am assuming your postion to be) comes across very loud and clear in your prospectus. I wonder if you will reach an opinion as to where to draw the line on "free speech," or if no line should be drawn? My reading of your position if you were to define it today is that free speech must be protected at all costs and no limits are appropriate, at least that is the feeling I am left with from your prospectus. If wikileaks posted the location or identity of our undercover operatives in Iraq or elsewhere, would you support that? If not, what else would you feel would be "going to far?" I look forward to reading more from you. [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 01:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I will try to convey a more balanced and neutral argument in my final paper. I will weigh both sides of the argument and shed light on both. Hopefully, I will be able to come to a consensus. I would not support a decision by Wikileaks to disclose the location or identity of our undercover operatives in Iraq, but I do not believe it is our place to stop them. I believe the government should not be going after Wikileaks but they should be finding and prosecuting the actual leak; not the whistle blowing agency.--[[User:Joshuasurillo|Joshuasurillo]] 01:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Susan Lemont====
*'''Prospectus title: Why do people cultivate large online networks?'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Lemont_Prospectus.doc
*Comments:
**Comment: Unfortunately beyond the stated scope of your project (and not practical to include), but it would be interesting to see how your findings compare to similar surveys of Youtube users (who frequently seek comments, ratings, and channel subscriptions) and members of various online forums which award rankings, custom titles, "reputation", and other benefits to prominent posters based on peer imput. Good luck with this topic. (P.S. Also, it might be interesting try and determine what percentages of Facebook 'friends' of these users are A) people they know in real life vs. those relationships which are strictly online-only and B) what proportion of real life contacts were made prior to 'friending' vs. those which were made as a result of meeting virtually via facebook.) [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 04:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Susan, your research question is so basic that I am surprised no one else chose a topic towards this issue, since it is the basis of the new big business, social media. From an anthropological point of view, I find it very interesting and not enough explored, focusing the research into motivations: not what or when people share or live online, but why do they do it. Besides, I find your methodology very well planned and practical, although I have some doubts about the sincerity when it comes to explaining to someone you don't know why you have more than 200 friends. I will be following your work with interest, good luck! [[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 11:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
***Response: Thank you everyone for your insightful comments. I have changed my project and the new prospectus follows:

====Name: Susan Lemont --[[User:SCL|SCL]] 20:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: What conditions are conducive to successful commons based peer production?'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Peer_production_Lemont_030611.doc
**Comments: Hi Susan. I like the way you tie the course readings into your project and your "test" of the theoretical writings on a real-life subject. So much of what we study is based on the success stories but we often can learn more from the failures. It will be interesting to know whether some of Benckler's or Zittrain's critical success factors were missing or whether they were all there and the project did not succeed for other reasons. I look forward to reading more about this in your projects. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Chris Sura [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 03:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus title: The Java Community Process: How Does It Really Work?'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Chris_Sura_Assignment_2.pdf
**Comment: Admittedly, I knew nothing of JCP prior to reading your prospectus, but it's a pretty intriguing process. It does make us wonder who is really behind our machines, as most consumers of technology only see (and care about) the surface. I wish you luck in obtaining your inside info, and I look forward to seeing how it comes along! [[User:Myra|Myra]] 23:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Ed Arboleda [[User:Earboleda|Earboleda]] 04:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: Are there collective benefits for copyright owners, copyright infringers, and the general community; if copyright infringement is not enforced under specific circumstances on social media sites?'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Ed_Arboleda_Prospectus.pdf
**Comments: Hi Ed, I certainly believe that in specific instances that there can be collective benefits for infringers and owners of copyright. One example is the pirating of the UK run of the TV series Battlestar Gallactica in Australia in October 2004. When the show aired in Australia in January 2005 the ratings exceeded expectations due to “sampling” and word of mouth. Here’s a link to an article with more information http://www.mindjack.com/feature/piracy051305.html [[User:Ltconnell|Ltconnell]] 20:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Elisha Surillo====
* '''Prospectus title: The Tea Party and Internet Freedom'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_2.doc
**Comment: I'm confused. This link does not seem to take me to the correct prospectus? Elisha, could you update this to make sure I can access yours?
**Comment: Hai to the comment above: Elisha and I uploaded with the same file names so they are stacked alphabetically. My file is one that I would like to remove actually but do not know how, but in the meantime, Elisha's file is the second link. Sorry for any confusion. [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 02:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I don't believe the tea party is just confined to the older generation. I believe it to be a stronger movement that will soon grip the masses. By having such a strong presence on the internet this movment will propell itself forward. I believe this is just the begining of many other grassroots campains and parties.--[[User:Joshuasurillo|Joshuasurillo]] 04:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Sorry I would change the name but I don't know how. Sorry for the confusion!'' --[[User:Elishasurillo|Elishasurillo]] 04:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Brandon A. Ceranowicz - [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 08:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: A Comparative Study of Open Source Licenses'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:LSTU_E-120_Assignment_2_-_Prospectus_BAC.doc
**Comment: Hello Brandon! I think your topic can be very interesting. However I think it would be important for you to have a specific focus since the topic seems so broad. I don’t know how relevant this would be, but I suggest that you take a look at the Open Content License. (http://www.opencontent.org/opl.shtml) Good luck! [[User:Quill80|Quill80]] 22:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Lorena Abuín====
* '''Prospectus title: Contribution to prosecuted online activities (Anonymous, BitTorrent, WikiLeaks)'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_2_-_Lorena_Abu%C3%ADn.pdf
**Comment: I noticed that there is a lot of crossover between our topics. We are both addressing hacker communities, but from differing angles. I have acquired quite a bit of information about Anonymous and have listed the resources on my tentative reference page located just below here. Feel free to look and use anything from that list that may help you in your project. Also, the Anonymous page found in Wikipedia is quite good in understanding what the Anonymous phenomenon is. They are free agents often acting independently of each other and unaffiliated with one another under the umbrella name Anonymous. In other words, Anonymous is a concept more than an identifiable specific group. I also noticed you have listed pastebin as a resource. It is my suggestion to be careful with that, and try to find where that document was published. It could simply be the rantings of teenager enamored with the publicity of their antics and activity. The questionable authenticity of that write pad entry to me is found in the signature at the bottom. It should read: We are Anonymous/We are legion/We do not forgive/We do not forget/Expect us-always. Lastly, keep in mind that not all Anonymous hacktivity is criminal, that is just the part that gets sensationalized. There are many other cyber-activism efforts that take place under the name of Anonymous that are not criminal. Good luck, and I look forward to watching your project develope! -----=:) [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 23:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC) for the #datalove
**Comment: I found that some of your research objectives coincide with mine. I can assure you that people do use what is called "hacktivism" to oppose the lies and conspiracies of the U.S. Government. If you take a http://www.nogw.com/ alone you would be surprised how some of the secret documents happen to be available on line. For instance, the loan by the Wall Street Banks to finance Adolf Hitler's Army is not a secret nowadays because of the "hacktivism", although the fact and the document has been kept in secret from the Government of Soviet Union for decades. The role of the Jews in the mass murder of millions is proven with facts on the Holocaust denial web sites. I guess the major drive that motivates people to use their skill in the "wrong way" is to oppose the lie that is bigger in size and thus controls the legacy tools such as Media and Congress. Even children in New York City know that the twin towers were demolished by the "uniformed criminals" employed as the federal agents. Check out the list of literature on my prospectus and http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=46 is just one out of dozens web sites. The U.S Government had no reason to deploy troops anywhere at the cost of the taxpayers' dollars. Do you think other citizens do not realize this? They do, but they join others in this giant lie and say that it is a war on terror, and they say this at Law Schools, through the public media, and post it online. These people are indifferent and coward because they lie to themselves and the so called prosecuted activities is the only way to reveal the truth. In your research you are therefore addressing a brave category of people who are ready to risk their lives for the simple yet amazingly right cause - to reveal the corrupted syndicate of greedy liars who oppresses people with their tyrannic power and ability to prosecute. If you are not afraid to cooperate on this project in front of the university staff, then take a look at my proposal and let me know what do you think. I may give you a couple of additional sources and suggestions, but if you do not want to be involved in this type of a project, I will totally understand. Best! --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 10:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hai. Thanks for your response. I just thought that I would add that it is very important make the distinction between hackers and crackers. Unfortunately the media has not made this distinction clear and has tainted the meaning of the term hacker. In a nutshell, hackers create things and crackers break things. Most hackers look down upon crackers and dismiss them as technological bugs. Most hackers I know are not pleased with the criminal antics done in the name of Anonymous. It is true that collaborative write pads are in common use because of the ease to collaborate live together at once. Pastebin happens to not be one used for documents all that much though. It is mainly used to send larger pieces of text into chat protocols such as IRC without flooding the channel. Write pads such as typewith.me and piratepad.net are more common to use for group documents since the url is not made public and searchable, and is kept private among the group working on it. Also, an interesting comment about hacktivism made to me by a French hacker with whom I am in contact with simply and broadly described hacktivism as using technology to impact society. I think we must be careful, myself included, when we talk about cracker v. hackers. A classic document among hackers written and maintained by Eric Raymond, "[http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html How to Become a Hacker]" describes the difference quite well. [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 03:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Lorena. I think this is a great topic and I agree that you and Deinous seem to have a strong intersection of ideas. I think the comments I made under Deinous' posting are applicable here as well. It's good to see this topic having such strong discussion. Regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 04:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Hi, Alan, thanks a lot for your interest! I can't find your comments below deinous' prospect, and I would really like to check them.'' [[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 12:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I too went in search of Allen's comments and were unable to find them :( [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 18:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Margaret Tolerton [[User: deinous|deinous]]====
* '''Prospectus title: Jailbreaking appliance based gadgets and game consoles: the legal and generative implications'''
* '''Link to prospectus:'''http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:JailbreakingGadetsAndGamesConsoles.doc
**Comment: Margaret, thanks a lot for your offering. I could really use some inside information about this topic. About your suggestion, I chose pastebin as a reference looking for a way to begin my research. You are right when you say that accuracy is not guaranteed when it comes to this source, but my main objective is to test the general perception of internet community about "hacktivism", I want to read about it in forums, press articles comments... See what normal people think about this. Of course, not every "hacktivist" action is a ciber-crime, but I am particularly interested in motivations that lead people to engage in certain projects that could be prosecuted depending on the country, as uploading copyrighted contents. I am sure we could find a lot of profit-driven actions, but I want to get deeper in personal motivations, since there are many so-called "cyber-crimes" that have nothing to do with obtaining a profit, at least a tangible one. When reading your prospectus, I came up with something very interesting: "Happy to help others who are not as advanced?". I think solidarity plays a huge role of hacktivism communities, empowered by the feeling of being passionate about some topic. I guess the desire to share sprouts from passion, but I think that the need of feeling part of a community is also very important, especially when it comes to very well defined criminals such as sex offenders and very sensitive content uploaders, communities widely persecuted but, however, still huge. While my prospectus adopts a more anthropological point of view, I see yours as an inside work with very valuable information about hacktivism running. I look forward to see how your research evolves and to learn more about these communities from a privileged point of view. Please don't hesitate to make any suggestion you may consider, I am sure it will be very helpful for my research. Lorena Abuín. --[[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 21:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: LOL, I don't know how privileged my point of view is. I am more or less just another nerd with a computer on Friday and Saturday nights. In recent weeks I have come to feel as though the people of Telecomix have accepted me as one of their own though, as I have done a little public relations, fact checking, and some translations. Telecomix is very open about their work, and does not engage in illegal actions. Being mostly European, they lobby against, or for, various cyber laws to their respective Parliaments. What I meant though by my comment "happy too help others who are not as advanced" is that it is common for someone to ask a question of a technological nature and usually others jump in and help to solve the problem. For example, my switch over to Linux, I have been having quite a time configuring a few of my drivers, and getting used to working from a command line with unix syntax, and several people who know how to fix the problems will jump in and start coaching with many lulz along the way.[[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 03:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hello there. I am delighted and in part surprised to see a topic of this type. By type I mean it is heavily technological mission to retrieve a piece of real information from the community of real hackers. Not all software engineers employed by the government are able to intervene communication among the community of real hackers. You may however, catch a few portals where "I can do this, I can do that" type of conversations take place, but whether they really have done something interesting and indeed reveal their ideology is a big speculation. For this course, I believe, you need to change your frequency, sort of speak, and listen not for the hacking communities themselves, but for the actions they have already done. Actions speak lauder than words, as you may know. You you need to listen to the anti-thesis, that is, the counter part of the hacking group. In this country, among various subsequent agencies that keep control of all networks, the NSA sources will probably be the most beneficial to you, although I am not 100 percent sure about this. It is difficult to find something that is available to the public. Recall the scandal with pornographic downloads by the employees of the Trade Commission; this is just one out of million examples of the internet traffic control by the Feds. It is therefore the Feds who are on the opposite side of the argument with the hackers. By considering both ideology of the hackers and a counter-premise by the Feds you will have a full and comprehensive picture for your project. In short, I am proposing to search not only within the hackers community, which may only seem as community of hackers and give you a bogus information, but also find reports, chronicles, and cases exposed by the Feds. It may ultimately appear that it is the Feds who are vandals and trolls and who violate privacy and steal the tax money of the citizens. At least this is what my prospectus's sources can prove, but take a look at National Security Agency [http://www.nsa.gov/] web site. In the meantime, I will keep checking on your project and will try to give you more clues because your topic coincides with mine in many regards. --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 06:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Thank you for your response and comments. I will certainly take them into consideration. However, I feel that my views toward hacking are much broader than the criminality of a few, and that there should be more emphasis in part on the difference between hacking and cracking. I am one that still holds the traditional meaning of a hacker as one that is adept with the computer and often generates new creative uses for what is in front of them. As a result I am watching my topic shift a bit and focusing perhaps more on the difficulty that researchers have with the DMCA preventing them from publishing in full their findings, and the law of fair use. Over this past year we have watched the jailbreaking of an iPhone of iPad for the use of external software not approved by Apple go from being an illegal act to being justified as fair use. Although it will nullify any warranty of your gadget. Currently we are watching this same debate occur over the jailbreaking of the Sony PS3 to run Linux and homebrewed games. I am one that supports the fair use argument in that if you are clever enough to make your gadgetry do fun and interesting things beyond the uses that they are intended, then you should be able to do it--especially if you have no intention on using pirated software or make profit of any sort from it. As for an original angle, I am still waffling a bit, and welcome any further comments.====:)'' [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 17:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Margaret, Given your change in perspective of your project you may wish to explore the discussion of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization Tivoization] (if you have note already considered such). The question of, “Should manufacturers of hardware have the right to limit the use of software on their machines when that software included elements covered under versions of the GNU license?” seems a related and interesting debate. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 16:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Guy, thank you so much for your wonderfully concise thesis question! Sometimes it just takes the right little tweak to bring scattered thoughts together, and pondering the legal parameters of an open source kernel wrapped in a proprietary shell is a question I would very much like to spend some time on. Thanks again.'' [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 19:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Margaret, I am very glad you found my suggestion helpful. I look forward to your final output. It’s a really intriguing topic. Thanks for checking out web.alive (comment below). I didn’t play any role in developing it (wish I were that bright). My colleague [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiYi3iEBJNM Arn Hyndman] is the chief architect.

Your comment about, “test driving it among a group of ppl,” got me thinking. If we wished to, we could use the tool for a virtual study group. Would you be interested? Do you think others would be? It could be a great environment for classmates to meet and discuss the coursework.

Also, anyone who is working as a group in developing their project can use it to collaborate virtually. There are virtual white boards, web browsers that appear to be mounted on walls, desktop application sharing portals and other tools. I’ll be glad to meet folks in the environment and show how to use the tools. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 23:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Guy, I think using web.alive as a platform for a study group is a great idea. Perhaps you can make an announcement in class this week.'' [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 00:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Guy Clinch -- [[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 13:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title (updated Mar 6): The Personal Imperative: What is the role of the individual in shaping the future of cyberspace governance?'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Internet_and_Society_Assingment_2%28gclinch%29.pdf
***To my Classmates: Please note that after receiving feedback on my original prospectus I have created an updated version. My title has changed to The Personal Imperative: What is the role of the individual in shaping the future of cyberspace governance?
**Comment: I hope you will find this more focused and greater compelling. I will appreciate any additional comments and suggestions based on this new approach. Thank you, Guy --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 23:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
***It has occurred to me that in order to give me feedback on my proposal you may need to experience the web.alive environment. Please feel free to click on the following link and explore. http://apex.avayalive.com/715/html
I look forward to reading your ideas. Thank you. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 19:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hai Guy! I recently checked out web.alive and thought on first impression it was a nice sleek, useful, and intuitive application. Very well designed indeed. Were you one of the developers? I'm afraid that at this time I cannot offer much in the way of constructive criticism without test driving it among a group of ppl, but I do see it as a wonderful tool for distance business communication. [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 18:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Syed Yasir Shirazi [User: syedshirazi]====
* '''Prospectus title: Online Group Buying - Newly Emerging Business Model or Fad?'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Syed_Yasir_Shirazi-Assignment_2.pdf
**Comment: Syed, this is a really interesting topic, but I am concerned that it may be too broad. I feel like a question like yours would more likely take up a book than a paper to be completed over a single semestre! Perhaps you could look into a specific group-buying site rather than the concept as a whole, like Groupon or LivingSocial. It might even be interesting to compare the two. Or, are there sites in which users decide which company they want to solicit such coupons from, rather than having the site itself decide? Just some ideas to help you get this topic down to something manageable. Does this help at all? [[User:Mcforelle|Mcforelle]] 21:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Hi Michelle - Thanks for the feedback. I was actually planning to do a comparative study between a daily deal website (Groupon) versus a more traditional online retailer (Amazon or ebay) to see which model is more sustainable in terms of driving traffic and providing value. But your comments about 'websites that allow users to decide which company they want to solicit coupons from' has got me thinking now. Project is currently in Work-in-Process mode.Will keep everyone posted. Thanks - Yasir '' ~~[[User:syedshirazi|syedshirazi]] 22:14, 06 March 2011

----

====Name: Jessica Sanfilippo - [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 16:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: Transparency and Participation in Crowd Funding'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:JSanfilippo_Assignment_2.doc
**Comment: Hi Jessica,I think crowd funding is a fascinating topic, and there seem to be various types of crowd funding as you point out. Micro Loans and sites such as Kiva.com are also wonderful examples of crowd funding. I am probably over reaching, but I noticed that Syed Yasir A. Shirazi has a prospectus on Group Buying, and wonder if the two can be connected somehow? What if materials needed for a funded project on kickstarter.com for instance, could be purchased through groupon.com or a similar site? Regardless, I am looking forward to your findings around Crowd Funding (especially in the creative space).
**Comment: Hi Jessica: www.33needs.com is another website which would be of interest to you. You might want to take a look at it for ideas related to crowd-funding. Also, let me know if you would be interested in sharing thoughts regarding the final research project.My email id is sshirazi@fas.harvard.edu. Thanks - Yasir ~~[[User:syedshirazi|syedshirazi]] 21:24, 06 March 2011

----

====Name: Adriana Faria Torii [drifaria] and Anna Christiana Marinho C. Machado [([[User:Anna|Anna]] 17:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC))]====
*'''Prospectus title: Analysis of E-Government Practices in Brazil'''
*'''Link to prospectus:'''http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Faria_Marinho_Prospectus.pdf
**Comment: Hi Adriana and Anna - E-governance in an emerging country like Brazil is an attention-grabbing subject. As you have mentioned in your prospectus, in terms of audience, Brazil is amongst the top ten countries in the world (I think they have recently moved up to #5 in terms of total internet users). But that said, the overall internet penetration is pretty low (I think it is close to only 40% of the entire Brazilian population).
The G2C part of your project should provide an interesting analysis since concepts like e-voting work the best when the internet usage amongst citizenry is high. Brazil does not have uniformly high internet penetration across the entire county. Maybe you can differentiate the G2C aspect and compare between urban and rural populations because there will be different results (I believe) for effectiveness of such an ‘e-system’ amongst the 2 geographic segments. Also, you can include some analysis on mechanisms for ‘fraud detection’ for e-voting and e-tax filing processes. Thoughts on this link might be of interest to you: http://qssi.psu.edu/files/hidalgo.pdf. Looking forward to reading your final paper. ~~[[User:syedshirazi|syedshirazi]] 21:21, 03 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi, I believe you should also compare other countries E- Government practices to Brazil's. It might be interesting to see if there are any other governments polices similar to Brazil's. There might be a government with similar statistics, and by comparing them you might see another variable that might be affecting Brazil. --[[User:Joshuasurillo|Joshuasurillo]] 04:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Laura Connell [[User:Ltconnell|Ltconnell]] 18:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*''' Prospectus title: Does providing a legal alternative act as a deterrent to internet piracy?'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Laura_Connell_Assignment_2_Prospectus.pdf
**Comment: Laura, here is a link to a recent study that you may find of use:
[http://documents.envisional.com/docs/Envisional-Internet_Usage-Jan2011.pdf Envisional - Technical report: An Estimate of Infringing Use of the Internet] Hope you find this helpful --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 03:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Laura, glad to see this topic on the list. It's a tough topic as it could be looked at as requiring a world government organization to pass law enacting the crack down on stolen DRM'ed materials. At the same time there seems to be evidence that this type of activity does not hit the bottom line of Hollywood and other world producers of content. Manufacturers of CD and DVD technology has traditionally tried to work with the "Hollywoods" of the world only to be thwarted by the hacker. There seems to be a balance in the mix where the manufactures can create some hurdles for the most common user and at the same time not create a situation where users are not able to access valid content (such as putting in a DVD from Japan in a US DVD player and not being able to play the content). I think we're moving more and more toward online content like Netflix where the content is more controlled and the physical media is going away. Streaming content has some inherent properties that cannot be easily overcome, further, as long as the browser being used to support a new type of encryption technology, companies can make changes to security on the web server side when hackers have found an exploit. It's a very interesting topic, but I think any laws created would be done by people that do not fully understand the technology and also the laws have great potential to be outdated in a short amount of time if not written with enough foresight. Having said that, there has been a great deal of reduction in some types of sharing due to cases against people that have pirated DRM'ed media and also have had big impacts on many sites that traditionally have been an excellent source for finding pirated material. Regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Alokika Singh [[User:Singh singh|Singh singh]] 19:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[[User:Singhsingh]]====
*'''Prospectus title: Online Political Activism in India'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_II_22_feb..pdf
**Comment: Hi Alokika: I think your topic is very interesting. You can also draw a comparative line between roles of leading social/political leaders in India versus the role of ordinary internet users when it comes to acting as the leading force behind online social/political debate in India? A lot of times, it has been seen that individuals who don’t follow any hierarchy kick-off such bold campaigns. (Take the example of what happened in Egypt over the last six months. The online movement was sparked by ordinary folks and not any leading social or political figure).
I am curious to know whether the online ‘Pink Chaddi’ campaign was initiated by general users or spearheaded by a leading social organization in India. I suspect the former. So it will be interesting to see how the online debate has evolved in India.
Looking forward to reading your final analysis.~~[[User:syedshirazi|syedshirazi]] 20:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Don Hussey [[User:Donaldphussey|Donaldphussey]] 19:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: Online Crowd-Sourcing of Starbucks Product Development'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:LSTU_E-120_--Hussey_-_Asmt2.doc
**Comment: Don, this is a really ambitious project. I think it's a great idea for you to use your professional position to get your foot in the door with some of the people at Starbucks; I hope it works! My only concern with this project is that you are only focusing on the corporate side of this venture. Is there any way you can include information from participants or contributors to this site? Is there any way on this site that users can interact with each other, or is it a one-way interaction between contributors and Starbucks? ~~[[User:mcforelle|mcforelle]] 18:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Don, I also agree with mcforelle in that you should involve the contributors into your work. For example, if you look at those in support of Starbucks minis (lol)
http://mystarbucksidea.force.com/ideaview?id=08750000000H4DwAAK
you can ask them if they seriously feel more loyalty to the company based on their contributions--even if they never see their ideas come to fruition? Or do they merely want to be a part of the Starbucks online community? Or do they want bragging rights? Also, it might be interesting to briefly compare the Starbucks strategy--seeing the consumer/contributor as the catalyst of a new product--versus, say, the recent Dominos Pizza strategy--viewing the consumer/contributor as the rater of a finished product. This might allow you to connect the measurable (business performance) with the non-measurable (customer feedback)--the latter which now can be more accurately measured because of social media and online communities. All in all, I think you have great potential with this topic! [[User:Myra|Myra]] 20:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Re: methodology, [http://socialmention.com Social Mention] is a free tool you can use to track sentiment/mentions/posts related to Starbucks in various social spheres. Might be worth checking out as the mystarbucksidea project takes off, in order to see how this shapes their metrics! - Jessica [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 03:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Tym Lewtak [[User:lewtak|lewtak]] 21:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: User Generated Sites: Defining Superusers and Their Monetization'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Assignment_2.pdf
**Comment: Tymoteusz, I find you topic very interesting. I am wondering as a product of your research if you will study the proportion of individuals who are super users compared to commercial organizations using these tools. That is, in respect to commercial organizations using the various tools, how important is the individual? Over time, is the place of the individual becoming more or less important? I would suspect that part of this equation depends upon the rate at which people are able to monetize their involvement as much as how commercial organizations are co-opting the modalities. Is there a constant influx of new blood or will the ability of individuals to monetize their involvement decrease over time? It may be fascinating to see is this is an indication of a generative system over the long run or something that may peak and decline. Good luck! --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 03:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Gclinch, Thanks for all of your input! I initially didn't think to so much as include corporations, but taking a second glance at the subject you're right. I would be foolish to not look at motivations for companies and individuals alike to join sites as super-users. If I can find historical data on users from these sites, I'd like to especially take a look at whether it was individuals who joined first and became super-users, or if corporations jumped onto the "ball game" with individuals following. I suspect the latter isn't true, but I will try to distinguish between companies that joined these sites early on versus already popular companies that grew their earlier existent popularity.'' ([[User:Lewtak|Lewtak]] 21:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC))
**Comment: One thing that is very interesting about internet communities is the ability of certain super users to arise. You will find it in all communities from IRC to blogs to forums to games and so on. Normally these are the folks to spend 60+ hours a week on their system (might want to look up references on hours as it relates to superusers) and this is their exposure to the "outside" world. There are different kinds of super users as well. There are the mentors who want to help the community evolve and guide users in the right direction, gently correct them when they are wrong, and are just generally helpful. There are also the dictatorial power mongers who will ban, delete, disparage, etc... anything they don't like, no matter how small the violation or mistake may be. There are many super user personalities in between as well. These individuals do it because they want to do it, not because of pay. Sites that can entice a user community to police itself significantly reduces their overhead costs and still, normally, maintains a good site with good content and a happy user community. Unless, of course, they select a powerMAD person to be the superuser in which case everyone will eventually get upset and move to greener pastures. [[User:Rakundig|Rakundig]]

----

====Name: Denise Reed--[[User:Dreed07|-dreed07]] 21:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: A comparative study of user behavior on Chinese social networking sites with that of United States social networkers'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/REED_LSTU_E120_Assignment_2.doc
**Comment: Fascinating subject! I think that the differences between Chinese and USA based social networking sites is an area ripe for exploration, and one that could potentially shed a lot of light on the effects of government censorship on online communities. Some thoughts: differences in user behavior may be due to many different factors, including site architecture, demographics, and cultural influences. It would be worthwhile to explore the demographic differeces (such as age, socio-economic status, and geographic location) between different sites offering similar services in and outside of China. Furthermore, I wonder if it would be possible to obtain information on the behavior of Chinsese nationals using facebook prior to that site being banned in the PRC, and to compare it to that of non-Chinese nationals? Also, you might look into the social networking habits of users in Hong Kong, where Facebook and simmilar sites (IIRC) remain unblocked. Are their any social networking sites specifically targeted toward the Hong Kong community, and how do such sites differ from those in the rest of China? Finally, I notice that your links seem to be primarily in English. Direct access to Chinese social networking sites, and their users, in their native language would, I imagine, be extremely valuable to this project. [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 03:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I would love to see how your research will bloom at the end of the course. I am from South Korea but I have spent a considerable amount of time in China as my family runs business there. I usually stay in Beijing at least for a month every year and am naturally exposed to the Internet culture of China. As it is widely known, access to Facebook is blocked in the country and sometimes - I am not certain about the cause - access to Google is denied, which practically separates me from my online networks. You prospectus seems to cover general contrasting characteristics of two countries' different social networks. Since the filtering level of these countries varies, setting clear standards for comparing subjects, I think, might be quite crucial. From your project, selecting a proper social network website which can be considered as Facebook of the US would be an essence. Please let me know if you need any help with that.
--[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 03:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Michelle Forelle [[User:mcforelle|mcforelle]] 21:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: Online Video-Making Groups: Community, Copyright, Collaboration and Commercialism'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment2_Vimeo.pdf
**Comment: Michelle, I have never heard of Vimeo (this is where the Geico man asks me if I live in a cave), but I think you are onto something very interesting here. Perhaps when you tap the frequent contributors of the site, you can ask them why they post their videos on Vimeo instead YouTube, and if for a time, they did switch over to YouTube, and why? It looks like Vimeo started about a year before YouTube. Where did they share their videos before, or did they not? At the onset, Vimeo seems like a more serious bunch than Youtube, but let's see what you discover! [[User:Myra|Myra]] 21:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Thought this was a very interesting and challenging research topic. I work in the digital advertising space, and video has always been a tough nut to crack for clients. They are drawn to the "sight, sound and motion" element that made TV advertising so successful, but clearly the digital space opens possibilities for an entirely new set of formats beyond the :30 sec TV spot. I have used Vimeo for one of my client's campaigns, and it was the community-oriented nature of its architecture that made it particularly compelling. So, I'll be very curious to read your completed report! Also thought I'd share a helpful resource that summarizes the online video landscape (it's slightly dated, but you might find their case studies to be useful to your cross-analysis): [http://www.emarketer.com/blog/index.php/emarketer-webinar-evolving-online-video-landscape/ eMarketer]. Good luck! - Jessica [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 01:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I think this is a very interesting topic and i cannot wait till it is completed. There are so many other video sharing websites besides Youtube. Like Myra said, Vimeo seems to be for more serious users. Also they tend to target a specific group of fellow professionals. I wish I had chosen this topic. Good luck! --[[User:Joshuasurillo|Joshuasurillo]] 04:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Myra Garza [[User:Myra|Myra]]====
*'''Prospectus title: Preparing and Accommodating Millenials in the Workforce: Use of Social Media in Two Career Coaching Businesses'''
*'''Link to prospectus:'''http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Garza.M.Prospectus.doc
**Comment: Myra, this is a really interesting topic! I feel like this is exactly as narrow a case study as the professors were asking for. I'm jealous that you were able to identify such an relevant topic, lol! I look forward especially to reading the background research for this paper, as it is my understanding that minority youth are disproportionally represented on sites like Twitter; I'm eager to find out whether that rumor is true, and if so, what it means for the way these youth interact with and influence the hiring process. I'm also interested in hearing how these companies help steer the social use of the social media into the practical, career-building use. I'm curious to see if you find that the conclusions you are specific to urban youth or whether such tactics in career counseling are also applicable to suburban and rural kids too. Great prospectus, I really look forward to reading your paper! [[User:mcforelle|mcforelle]] 18:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I, too, think this is going to be a very interesting paper. There is such a need in the corporate community for young people who can help older executives use social media both within the organization for employees and outside the organization for the public and consumers. I would be interested in what the career objectives are for the clients of these two organizations. Are they interested in using their social media skills as part of their job requirements or are they looking for careers in various non-related fields? <<[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 01:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)>>
**Comment: Great topic, as I am sure many of us see on a daily basis the generational differences at work, and the need to involve and "catch" the millenial generation. I wonder if the two organizations will provide you with data on their success, and outreach numbers in the community? I look forward to seeing how this plays out. [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 01:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Myra - The influence of social media on both the job search process and in the workplace itself is a very powerful topic! If I am interpreting your prospectus correctly, it seems that your primary concern is with how, in practice, the two case study sites prepare Millenials for the proper use of social media in their job search/and work environments? If so, it might be interesting to connect with Human Resources representatives, to get a pulse on how their employee/recruitment policies have evolved due to the emergence of these new communication tools. In theory, I think there should likely be some alignment between the advice from the two websites and what HR is practicing. Separately, you also raise a very compelling distinction, which is that these businesses serve the needs of minority groups. I wonder if this may warrant its own stand-alone investigation. This way, you can truly dedicate your research towards how the workplace and job search process is shifting (and hopefully closing the gap) for minorities, as exemplified by the social media practices and guidelines from your 2 case study sites. In any case, this is indeed a substantial topic, so I look forward to seeing which direction you take it! - Jessica [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]]
***'' Response: Everyone--thanks so much for feedback! I actually am an HR professional myself, and I can tell you that a lot of HR and business literature out there encourages the bridging of generations at work--particularly with the use of technology. Easier said than done! So, I already have an interest in the broad topic and am hoping the two organizations will be willing to share their experiences teaching social media tactics to youth (for career purposes) and offer some insight on the specific needs of minority youth. I actually met the owner of CC4Kidz at a conference a few weeks ago, and after searching for similar organizations, I discovered The Youth Career Coach Inc. As Jessica indicated above, this topic will require some more narrowing down. Thanks!'' [[User:Myra|Myra]] 22:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Jose Uscanga====
*'''Prospectus Title: Cummunity reporting or social activism? The New Age of media reporting in Mexico.'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Jose_Uscanga_Assignment_-2.doc
**Comment: Jose, you have identified a truly compelling topic.
When you ask, “Is free press necessary for democracy?” many of us would say, obviously yes. Reading your prospectus though makes me wonder, “what do we mean today by a free press.” Does phenomenon such as Mexican citizens taking, “on the civic responsibility of alerting other citizens by providing detailed and unfiltered information,” redefine what we mean when we use the term press? I’ll be looking forward to reading your conclusions.
I’d also be interested to learn if you think there is something unique about Mexican culture that compels people to get involved. It seems to me that these citizen journalists are taking huge risks. Even less than the professional journalists, there would seem to be no safety net. After all isn’t it easy for the drug cartels to find out who is issuing the alerts. Is it a demographic trend, is it youth driven or does it span the population? Is it something unique about the way Mexican people relate to one another that makes people get involved? Thanks for taking on such an interesting and challenging topic. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 02:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Assignment 2 Submissions

2011-03-06T23:06:20Z

Gclinch: /* Submissions */ Response to Margaret and an update of my prospectus submission

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; padding: 5px; text-align: left;">
<big>'''Assignments'''</big>

'''[[Assignment 1 Details and Reporting]]''' | [[Assignment 1 Submissions|Submissions]] 
''Due February 8''

'''[[Assignments#Assignment_2:_Prospectus| Assignment 2]]''' | [[Assignment 2 Submissions|Submissions]] 
''Due February 22''

'''[[Assignments#Assignment_3:_Project_Outline| Assignment 3]]''' | [[Assignment 3 Submissions|Submissions]] 
''Due March 22''

'''[[Assignment 4 Details and Links]]''' | [[Assignment 4 Submissions|Submissions]] 
''Due April 12''

'''[[Final Project]]''' | [[Final Projects|Submissions]] 
''Due May 10''

</div>
This assignment is due on February 22. Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (assignments submitted 4 days late or later will have a maximum grade of 1 point).

Please make sure the name of your file includes your name (example: Name_Assignment2.doc) to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment. ''The '''upload file''' link is to the left, under '''toolbox'''.'' Once you've uploaded your file, please link to it following the format below:

*Name:
*Prospectus title:
*Link to prospectus: (the file you uploaded)

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

===Comments===
Everyone will receive an additional participation grade for this assignment. You should read through everyone's proposals after they are uploaded and add constructive comments below the proposal on which you're commenting. Comments should be submitted by March 6 so you have time to incorporate them, if applicable, into your project outline. ('''Remember to sign your comments!''')

===Submissions===
*Name: Gagan Panjhazari --[[User:Gpanjhazari|Gpanjhazari]] 07:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus Title: The Role of Censorship Of the Internet in the Egypt and Libya
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/GaganPanjhazari-Assignment2.txt
*Comment: You might want to check the article I posted on the Feb 22 assignment page that appeared in the New York Times. Might be helpful on your first topic. <<[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 00:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)>>

*Comment: Gagan, I find both of your topic choices interesting. I think the second one, regarding the ability to hold website creators responsible for their content, especially when said content could be considered treasonous, would be the best topic of the two. It is such an important question, the answer to the question will frame our national security for the future. With either topic, I look forward to reading your findings. [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 01:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
*Comment: Frontline, the PBS program, had an episode about the April 6 Movement in Egypt, including how it used the interent and mobile devices for organization and how it was forced to adapt when access was cut. There isn't a whole lot of detail here, but it might be a useful place to start. [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 02:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/revolution-in-cairo/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid

*Hai!...I love your idea of covering the censorship and even internet blackouts at times in Egypt and Libya along with the role that social networking and tweeps had in organizing the recent protests, and ousting of Mubarak. This is a fascinating narrative to be sure. Here are a few links about a European internet activist group that has worked to provide low tech communication aid to the protesters. I hope they might be of use to you in your research. [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/02/egypts-internet-blackout-highlights-danger-weak|Egypt's Internet Blackouts Highlights Danger of Weak Links, Usefulness of Quick Links], [http://werebuild.eu/wiki/Egypt/Main_Page | werebuild.eu the Egyptian project page], [http://werebuild.eu/wiki/Libya/Main_Page | werebuild.eu, the Libyan project page], and [http://telecomix.org/ | telecomix.org] [http://globalvoicesonline.org/ | Global Voices]has done an outstanding job of covering these events as well. Best of luck![[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 01:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

*Comment: I agree with Deinous. Your topic is very time-appropriate and I cannot hide my excitement to read final results of the research! I believe it should be closely examined as an epitome of the Internet censorship by all of us who are taking this class. From my perspective, it seems that Egypt's Internet kill switch decision rather ignited people's movement toward democracy and protests. By the way, your prospectus includes primarily theoretical approaches to the topic. I would love to know which resources you are going to use in the course of the research. Depending on types of media, your research conclusions, I believe, can be various. Below is the article of the Economist that might be useful in your project. Good Luck! --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 10:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

-[[http://www.economist.com/node/18112043 The Economist: Reaching for the kill switch]]

*Comment: Hi Gagan, both your topics are interesting. According to the description of the Final Project it should be built around one of the theoretical conceptions that we study during the course.So if you think about the conceptions that may apply to your topics, it will help you to chose one of two topics proposed by you and, perhaps, to generate your questions and hypothesis around the theoretical conception as the Final Project demand. [[Kristina Meshkova]], 5 March 2011.

*Comment: Gagan, great subjects! You should stick with the subject that interests you most. I suppose its the first one that you wrote about, the role of social media and networking in the revolutions. This is definitely a broad subject, but that doesn't mean you should throw it out, it means you should narrow it to a point that is achievable. A suggestion would be to pick one of the countries, and one of the social networks to drill deeper into. (i.e. the role that Facebook users played in the Egyptian revolution.) Then you need to think about what you will investigate. This project is supposed to be empirical, so you should find some way of observing or surveying the users or the events. This might be in the form of friending as many of the users who were involved in a particular event on Facebook. This should be a great project for you! [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

*Comment: Hi Gagan,I think the same - great topics. I believe both of them are very current and it will be interesting to read your final project. It is very hard to comment your prospectus because it is apparent that you did a deep research and you are clear in what you want to research in final paper. It seems to me that first project seems to be more empirical than second one. Although it would be maybe more or less easier to find 'clear' answers for questions in second project. I do not know. When regards the topics, both of them are very current and you identified the questions very clearly. Good luck with your project...[[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 10:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

*Name: Saam Batmanghelidj --[[User:Saambat|Saambat]] 10:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus Title: The Effect of Synthetic World Communities on Real World Societies, Economies, and Copyright law
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Batmanghelidj_Final_Project_Prospectus.doc

*Comment: Hi Saam, I think your topic of synthetic or virtual worlds. I had a suggestion that you take a look at BitCoin (http://www.bitcoin.org/), this is an emerging technology that only started up a short time ago. It's a fascinating technology that deals with a new form of money (yes it can be exchanged for real money and is currently trading 1 for 1 with the US dollar). Some interesting things about it: uses public/private encryption keys, it's completely anonymous, it has great potential to circumvent certain banking regulation systems, it can be used to make real purchases, because of it's anonymity and cannot be tracked creates a security of privacy for the purchaser and seller. This also means could could be exploited by people not wanting transactions to be recorded. This technology really opens a virtual door of monetary exchange across the globe where any currency can be exchanged for BitCoins and then exchanged again into a different currency. This is just a top end look at it. It's already in use and some places accept this currency including some non-profit agencies for donation purposes. It also opens an easy way to laundry dirty money. Regards Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

*Comment: Hi , Saam. The topic is very interesting, but, I’m not sure that questions you want to answer will help you to develop the topic deeply and systemically: the questions are not in a strong correlation with your topic, I think they will not disclose the topic in full and from the main sides of it. You also use such phrase as “virtual property”, what do you mean by this? Is it the same as intellectual property? If yes, I think, it’s better to use the term “intellectual property”. You also pose such question as “How harmful is it for people to sell virtual items for real world monies, and to what extent is it harmful?” So you’ve already decided that it’s harmful, may be, it’s worth to give some arguments in your work why you decided it’s harmful. If you consider “the Synthetic World Communities” as the theoretical concept you want to use in the Final Project, you can try to determine the main features of this concept, then divide your hypothesis into three sphere ( society, economic and copyright law) and pose the main, in your opinion, questions in each of the spheres, regarding the theoretical basis you chose. [[Kristina Meshkova]], 5 March 2011.

*Comment: Saam, you've picked a fascinating topic. You've identified a rich field and topics; the challenge will actually be in narrowing it down to something observable, rather than reporting on what has already been written and explored. Pick one of the topics like virtual property trades and one of the sites like EVE Online and think through how you can observe what is happening in that cross-section. I look forward to reading this project! [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

*Name: Kimberly Nevas --[[User:KimberlyNevas|KimberlyNevas]] 02:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus Title: Can the U.S. Prosecute Julian Assange?
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Nevas_Kimberly_LSTU_E-120_Assignment_2.pdf

*Comment: It might also be interesting to see if any other sites purporting to disclose sensitive information whether government or corporate have become more aggressive considering all the confusion about what to do with Julian Assange. Does his legal situation make these sites feel more confident regarding avoiding prosecution? <<[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 00:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)>>

*Comment: Your statement, "In this respect, Assange cannot be considered any more liable than the New York Times." is a bold one, which some might strongly disagree with, given Assange's postings and his refusal to censor, along with his use or threatened use of yet unreleased information as leverage to keep himself free. I look foward to reading your arguments regarding Assange, freedom of speech and the case law which supports your position. [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 01:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

*Comment: Hi, Kimberly. The problem you decided to consider in the Prospectus is really important and actual. But I think that the question “whether the Justice Department can prosecute Assange without damaging the U.S. free press as we know it”, that you pose describing the Problem is wider than the Research question. Perhaps, it’s worth to add the question “whether the Justice Department can prosecute Assange without damaging the U.S. free press as we know it”, to your Research question as the main one. And your present research question: Are the distribution methods adopted by Wikileaks for the dissemination of thousands of pages of classified U.S. documents structured so as to arm Julian Assange and his associates with a strong defense to prosecution under U.S. law?” will help you to answer your main question. Your present research question can be also considered as a research frame, so that you can explore the distribution methods of Wikileaks to answer if they really make the obstacles for the Justice Deparment to prosecute Assange and if yes to what extend; are the distribution methods of Wikileaks the main obstacles which do not permit the Justice Department to prosecute Assange or there are the other obstacles (for ex., with respect to the features of free press)? [[Kristina Meshkova]], 5 March, 2011.

*Comment: Kimberly, you have the beginnings of a good project here. I am interested in what you choose to use as your methodology and what you will choose to "observe" as part of this case study. One suggestion in particular is to look at the particular statements made by the U.S. papers in regards to why they believe their approach to printing the leaks are legal and any justifications they made in regard to accepting Assange's information. [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

*Name: Jamil Buie
*Prospectus Title: Profiteering via "Public Privacy" The use/misuse of your data
*Link to prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:JBProject_Prospectus.pdf

*Comment: Hi Jamil, For me this is a an extremely important issue, I'm glad to see you're looking at it. I have a few pointers that may help uncover some things that are currently being looked at and something that was done in the UK back in 2008. Do a search for Phorm, BT implemented it in secrecy and it caused a big uproar. Also, it appears that ComCast is looking to implement it here in the US. It deals with deep level packet inspection. Not sure how tech savvy you are, but basically it comes down to an ISP looking at each packet users are sending out over their home connection. It is suppose to be done anonymously, however, it's invasive to the nth degree. Another technology that you might want to look at is the Evercookie. This can be used by websites that a user goes to, this then gathers information about a great number of browsing files that are on a system to ID the system. In the instance that a user cleans up his/her cookies, EverCookie will still be able to quickly identify you and place certain cookies back on your computer being able to keep tabs on the user. Regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

*Comment: Hi, Jamil. In your Prospectus, you write the following: “While most do understand that they are interacting with a third-party be it a site, search engine, or ISP they remain ignorant to how the data they’re providing is being farmed out or utilized in a commercial vein”. I can agree with you only partly: of course, we could not exclude the situations, when the data we provided are an object of unfair use, but it should be also mentioned that “the main players” of the Internet services do not ignore users, thus they stay uninformed about the way their data are used. For ex., Yahoo Privacy Policy http://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/details.html or Google Privacy http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacy/ In the question: What are the common guidelines and site best practices? you use such phrase as “site best practices”, that is very subjective category, as also the question: “Are consumers truly aware?”. Perhaps, it’s better to avoid such categories in your science research. [[Kristina Meshkova]], 5 March 2011.

*Comment: Jamil, we have similar interests and research topics. You are looking at the broad trail of information left by a typical internet user and the ways that trail is used. I am going narrower, specifically into the information gathered by location-based services to examine the associated privacy issues and assess the average consumer's perceptions of risks. If you are interested, I'd be willing to trade notes and help each other shape up the final project. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

*Name: Uduak Patricia Okon
*Prospectus Title: Web Pages/Blog Sites: Rights and Limitations-How free are you?
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Uduak_Patricia_Okon_Assign_2.pdf

*Comment: Hi Uduak, Your prospectus is very interesting. I look forward to seeing how your project comes together. But I have some comments that I would like to share, I hope my feedback is helpful.

Re:
- In general, people are entitled to share facts if they don’t breach confidentiality or depict a real situation. This would depend on how citizen bloggers support their argument about their political commentary, whether it’s positive or negative. You need to remember that politicians are public figures, so the first amendment applies differently to them. Therefore the confidential circumstances that apply to the general population do not apply to politicians since they are not entitled to the same level of privacy. And citizen bloggers don’t have to adhere to the same circumstances as journalists to the best of my knowledge (I major in journalism and work in media in NYC) (i.e. it’s considered unethical for journalists to be bias if they’re not commentary writers. Also most journalists are not allowed to put political figure signs on their lawn, bumper sticker on their car, etc they need to push their feelings aside to accurately report the truth). I think the bigger issue is whether or not non-citizen bloggers can face defamatory lawsuits if there is proof they intentionally acted with malice? Or will future non-citizens bloggers have to abide by the same guidelines as employed journalists in the blogosphere working for CNN?
- Corporate law is an entirely different world. Because many corporations lie to promote their brand among many other issues on the internet, which is unethical to their consumers.
- I don’t think you should look into news websites like CNN, NY Times, etc because those are explicitly run by paid journalists (whom must adhere to strict guidelines about what they report) and comments are very restricted so the same type of freedom doesn’t apply to citizen journalists because official journalists also have code of ethics and have much more at stake.
- It's important to note that some citizen bloggers sell advertising on their blogs which might impede with how they portray a public figure on the net because they're getting paid. Formally employed journalists can't bias their stories based on relationships with advertisers because the editorial and advertising departments are seperate at news organizations.
- You, first need to narrow your focus because there is a huge difference between local mayors and congressional candidates, and citizen and non-citizen bloggers. (i.e. I think it would be interesting if you looked at how political figures use blogging as a form of position taking in Congress and compare cases of democratic and republican candidates on an issue like healthcare reform, education, etc. And the implications blogging has on Senators or Representatives relationships with their constituents).

*Comment: Uduak, very interesting subject. As you shape these ideas into a final project, one aspect to consider focusing on is to differentiate between a) the official "legal findings" of what bloggers can/cannot do vs. b) the unoffical "codes of conduct" being developed in the world of blogging. I think the unofficial codes would reflect the complex realities of the different types of bloggers, rather than the more simplistic legal concept of a blogger. One case to look at is the judge that was recently found to have been blogging anonymously [she thought :) ] about the case on which she herself was the sitting judge. I'll look for the URL to send you. I look forward to reading your project. [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

*Name: Yaerin Kim [[User:Quill80|Quill80]] 02:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus Title: OpenCourseWare(OCW) and its Impact: Case Study of MIT’s OCW
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment2_Kim.doc

*Comment: Hi Yaerin, I think this is a great topic. Being a part of F/OSS environment has pushed forward a number of wonderful software innovations. Scratch is an example of MIT's commitment to OCW. Scratch, though at first glance might appear comical, is actually a great tool to teach people the concepts of early stages of computer programming. I'm sure there are tons of other open source software that would interest you. I would suggest, if you have a spare computer or can run a virtual environment, downloading and running a Linux distribution like Ubuntu or Linux Mint. Then you can take a look at the rich repository of software that is completely free to install and use. Some of the software is not F/OSS, such as Adobe Reader, but the disclaimers of Left-Copied software is always clear. Anything that came from MIT would also give credit to that source even if it's been morphed. Best regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

*Comment: Yaerin, you've nicely narrowed down your topic to MIT OCW and assessing progress on the 3 goals. In the context of this course, it would really be interesting to narrow down even further to the third goal: the level of interaction of OCW users with the institutions that provide it. What are they and the users missing out on? We've already seen examples of digital communities developing and producing some amazing things and perhaps MIT is or should be seeking to turn OCW from content publishing into an active community. I look forward to reading about this in your project. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

*Comment: Hi Yaerin. I think your topic is brilliantly targeted and focused on one of the distinct manifestations of peer collaboration - that is an open online course. I, myself, have greatly benefited from MIT OCW and Yale Open Course and thus look forward to see, specifically, the reasons why the participation rate of users is lingering at such low figures. Would it be too much to expect OCW to be an open education forum with lively discussions? In my opinion, the architectures of OCW and Yale Open Course are expressly posing limitations on interaction between users as there is no such place to share opinions. I am very much excited to read your final project! Best, --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 10:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

*Name: William Bauser -- [[User:Wnb|Wnb]] 23:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus Title: Modern Web Design and Civic Engagement: Access to Information and Community Development
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Wnb_assignment2.pdf

*Comment: This is an interesting topic -- you have a lot of avenues to explore! Among the sites you list, some are clearly partisan while others seem more altruistic. I would be interested to learn the contrast of methods used by each type. For example, what are the membership requirements? Does the site encourage a particular philosophy? Does a certain amount of selective cocooning take place? On the other side, how can an Internet based civic community be both neutral and vital? If it is only fact based then it won't be interesting. How does is promote community discussions without advocating a position? I'm sure you'll have to narrow the focus of your chosen topic and I thought this might be an interesting distinction you could use. [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 01:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

*Comment: Hi William: Sounds like a very interesting subject. I have two comments. First, it is clear you are looking at assessing how effective internet tools are in increasing engagement in the political process, but your last statement doesn't seem to fit. It seems like you'd also like to look at how effective they are in increasing the transparency of the political process as well and you'd have to clarify how those fit together. (IMO, engagement =/= transparency.) Second, I'd be interested in hearing more about your methodology, since most of the sites you mention would likely not share their data openly (perhaps I am wrong.) All the best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

*Name: Brian Smith [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 23:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus Title: Location-Based Services: Implications and Awareness of Effects on Consumer Privacy
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Brian_Smith_-_Assignment_2.pdf

*Comment: Greetings Brian! I found your research idea very creative and the methodology you are planning to utilize seems realistically achievable, although some instruments used by government and private marketing agencies are very difficult to trace and require special software and equipment. I have a topic idea that may coincide with a notion of privacy you are investigating, so I may cite your work in my project. What I found to be inconsistent is that your methods seem to be distant on the instrumental level from your hypothetical statements, that is, it is undetermined how your method will help to prove or reject either of your hypotheses. In fact, even doctorate dissertations attempting to either reject or accept only one hypothesis. It is in quantitative sciences we test several hypothesis in order to corroborate the validity of the expression or formula, etc., but not in the research as far as academic papers suggest. In terms of your definition of location, it is unclear whether your are talking about the IP address based location or mobile device based location, if it is about mobile device only (most hosts like schools and bosses may hunt for both mobile and the laptop IP to trace their employee or a student) then you need to state so in your research and in the proposal as well. I know one thing for sure that with arrival of the wireless technology it became much more harder for Federal agents to trace hackers: it is technologically more convenient to retain privacy through the public wireless router. I think you will benefit from setting up a singular and more definite hypothetic statement that will encapsulate the entire topic. In addition, you would make the research more productive and to the point if you will add the limitations to your research so that your process will have its bottom line. Check out this research, it could be helpful or at least you can retrieve some more sources from in-context citations: http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~adillon/Journals/Expertise-JASIS.htm Good Luck! --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 20:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
*Thank you, Vladimir - these are really helpful comments. I might ping you back for more details as I go through them each. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

*Name: Yu Ri Jeong --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 22:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus Title: How manifestations of collective intelligence vary in different cultures and societies: Study on Naver Knowledge iN of South Korea in comparison with Wikipedia.
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Yu_Ri_Jeong_Internet_and_Society_Assignment_2_Prospectus.doc
*Comment: This is a really interesting topic! I hadn't known that South Korea had so strongly resisted the dominance of Wikipedia. I am curious, even if you do not include these questions in your paper, to hear what you think is unique about South Korea that it managed to create its own version of Wikipedia. Was it simply a question of timing, or is there something about South Korean Internet culture that allowed it to rally around its own creation. I also wonder what this means for Wikipedia. As a result of the lack of participation by South Korean Internet users, does Wikipedia suffer from a gap in information about South Korean culture, politics or society? I think the paper you have laid out in your prospectus is very thorough and complete, but I would love to hear your thoughts on these questions separately as you continue your research! [[User:Mcforelle|Mcforelle]] 19:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

*Comment: Hi Yuri! I think your research would reveal some very interesting points about the difference between the Korean Naver website and Wikipedia. If I may suggest, it would be interesting to analyze the difference in user demographic between the two websites. This would assist your analysis for Question #3. Also, since Naver seems to be a for-profit organization, it would be interesting to analyze how profitable NKin has been and contrast it to the non-profit model of Wikipedia. [[User:Quill80|Quill80]] 22:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

*Comment: Yu Ri: This is a solid proposal for the project. I like how you've used the course themes as your areas of investigation and how you've narrowed down to two communities that you will compare, and even further to a set of articles with common subjects across the two communities. The only area of concern might be that your subject areas are pretty large in and of themselves (architectural elements, social norms & governance, membership, limits on expression, and national law.) If you can do all of those, then that's great, but you might think of narrowing to a smaller set. Otherwise, this proposal seems strong. Have fun! Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 08:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

*Name: La Keisha Landrum [[User:llandrum|llandrum]] 21:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus Title: Building a Sustainable News Org
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:LNLAssignment2.doc

*Comment: Hi La Keisha, It's good to see you're approaching this hot topic. I think most Americans are rather clueless about the current demise of the media or at least they are clueless as to why the media has been in a state of disintegration over the past 30 years. The newspaper companies came to late to the Internet forum and due to their lack of response they lost the "first-to-line" efforts in advertising & classified revenues. Aggregators and bloggers have only worsened the situation for major media, not to mention giants like Google and Craigslist drawing away advertising dollars. Still, a more important aspect is that experienced journalists need to continue to be supported in doing investigative reporting. Looking at detail as to how the different models of moving forward and the benefits might be speculative at this point, but we have seen some success stories in new ways to successfully report on current events. Regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

*Comment: Hello La Kiesha! This is a very interesting and important topic for the future well being of journalism. According to your prospectus, it seems that you are interested in the profit aspect of the emergence of new internet-based journalism. If this is the case, it would be helpful if you can offer comparison in income for the aforementioned journalist. In other words, how much did these journalist as an employee of a traditional publisher and how much are they making now with their innovative website? Also, it would be interesting to know who is willing to patron these professional journalists. I think the lecture slides from March 1 would be very helpful as well. Good luck![[User:Quill80|Quill80]] 22:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

*Comment: Hi La Keisha, Bravo for taking on this topic. I like the fact that you are exploring success stories in online journalism. While journalism is undergoing fundamental changes, I think this is not just a doomsday scenario that dictates journalism will disappear. The newspaper existed for so long because, I believe, there is strong consumer demand for quality information. Just because the business model for supplying news is undergoing transformation doesn't mean that that demand is gone. My hypothesis is what we discussed in our last class: that the newspaper is being disaggregated and all the components will find their places as the changes shake out. There will be a place for classified ads, opinion articles, local fluff pieces, national news, international news, and yes, even, high-quality investigative reporting! It's just that they won't all be delivered by the same company, in the same vehicle, nor with the same business model anymore. As a side note for a case study check out the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. I'm not sure how successful it has been, but their story might be interesting to you in that they closed down their print publication and went entirely online with a shrunken staff. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 08:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

*Comment: Enjoyed reading your prospectus! Just read an article in [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/mar/05/huffington-post-aol The Guardian] that seems to resonate very well with your proposed topic. It highlights the business model Huffington Post created whereby a good portion of their content is via free contributions, and the ensuing backlash amongst some writers circles who feel they are under/uncompensated. Also, I noticed you touch on the concept of 'content farming,' and thought I'd reiterate an example I brought up in class, [http://www.demandmedia.com/ Demand Media]. It is the poster child for content farming in the media industry, so might be worth a glance. Good luck and hope this is helpful! - Jessica [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 18:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

*Name: Jillian York[[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 21:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus Title: Understanding "Lesbanon": Lebanon's Online Lesbian Community
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Understanding_Lesbanon.doc
Comment: Hey Jillian, I think this is such a great paper topic. I love how secretive communities can still operate out in the public through using the internet. The value of anonymity in this case seems like it must be very high, especially if there are governmental pressures keeping women from coming out. I had no idea that "Lesbanon" existed but it really does make perfect sense. Maybe if there are other communites out there like this, you could make a broader statement on the nature of coming out on the internet despite oppressive governments and societal norms. Otherwise, I think your question is quite reigned in and manageable in scope. I look forward to reading this paper when you're finished. [[User:Saambat|Saambat]] 18:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Jillian, this is a clever topic. I think in America, we often take for granted what the Civil Rights Movement did for communities beyond racial and sexual orientation lines--it really impacted our cultural norm mindset. The internet is not only release but '''power''' for those in disadvantaged or secretive communities the world over--especially when you are looking at two groups under different governments: the Lebanese and the diaspora. I am curious to read more. [[User:Myra|Myra]] 19:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

*Name: Caroline McLoughlin[[User:Camcloughlin|Camcloughlin]] 21:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus title: Privacy and Society
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Assignment-2.pdf
*Comments: Caroline, I, too, was interested in writing a paper more inclined to policy arguments and Rebekah counseled me against it. I got the impression we are supposed to be more observant of communities and how they interact and work. If this is true, you might lean your paper more towards observing whether privacy policies are adequately disclosed on sites in the US and how they are different on Canadian sites. Is this difference due to the contrasting privacy legal frameworks in the two countries? Do participants react differently?This might also help narrow your topic which seems like alot of material to cover. All this being said, I find your topic very interesting and think it might be great to present it in something like a PowerPoint format. Would be the great beginnings of a law review article if you are a lawyer.[[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 21:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)]]

*Name:Anthony Crowe [[User:Acrowe|Acrowe]]
*Prospectus title: Tagging and Metadata on the Internet and in New Media
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Crowe_LSTUE120_2.doc
*Comments:

I like that you've identified another means of content organization for study. I feel like tagging is going to be a rich topic, not only because of the ways people use it, but because of how it defines or redefines website architectures. I don't really know much about tags beyond their most obvious uses (and frankly, on in Twitter), so I am curious to see what kind of social rules you discover in your research. The only thing I might suggest is that, given the richness of your topic, that you not worry about studying superusers too deeply. I feel like a thorough study of tagging on the three main sites you've identified, which are pretty major sites, in addition to the other examples you'll be incorporating, will be more than enough data and analysis for a great paper. Unless perhaps I'm not understanding the particular lens through which you'll be approaching the superuser question? [[User:Mcforelle|Mcforelle]] 19:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

*Name: Vladimir Kruglyak --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 21:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus title: A Transparency of the U.S. Government in the Socio-Cyber Environment
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus.doc

Vladimir, thank you for your resources. I have been reading your prospectus and found your approach as interesting as ambitious. To investigate wether the U.S. Government maintains Constitutional transparency and accountability for the tax money expenditures using e-government resources, that is a very well focused research and I can tell you are passionate about the topic, which makes the reading even more interesting. However, when you talk about conspiracy relating it with the internet resources, I have to disagree. I think power and conspiracy are long-time friends, governments have faced every kind of suspicions since they exist, but the importance of digital resources when it comes to spreading these suspicions cannot be denied, and that is why I think your research will face very interesting issues to deal with, as investigating the origin of "conspiracies" from a social point of view. Do you think the Internet is a cause or a consequence? I think about WikiLeaks, for example. The Internet had nothing to do with the origin of the cables, but made them become a "popular" topic, blurring the "secret" component of International Politics. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? We are talking about serious crimes becoming nearly gossip (we could talk further about a Spanish journalist murdered in Iraq and how Spanish and American Governments made a deal to make it look like an accident: that's on WikiLeaks). But now it looks like nothing happened. Amazon was selling the cables for Kindle, Julian Assange is to be extradited to Sweden in a week and I highly doubt any of the "accused" by, or thanks to, WikiLeaks, is to face trial. When you say that I am adressing a brave category of people ready to risk their lives for the "right cause", that is exactly the interesting thing about this. Why would someone get into trouble for nothing? However, it calls my attention that you take for granted that their cause is the right one. I see in your statement that you look pretty convinced about conspiracies when it comes to very sensitive and historic topics. You assume the defense of one group, don't you doubt that the cause may not always be the right one? I find your statement so determined that it becomes intriguing to me (it is really hard to me to be sure about something), I will be following your work with interest to get a better understanding of your point of view. In the meantime, I hope to receive more suggestions or resources you may find interesting to check out about this topic. Lorena Abuín. --[[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 21:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I see a potential flaw in your methodology, and find it potentially invasive of a web surfer's privacy. Collecting data by sniffing packets is rather dubious for your uses and can be construed as an abuse of networking tools. Trying to parse the IP addresses into geographical locations through a Whois database may be difficult to and inaccurate if users are using proxy based anonymizers such as Tor or i2p. It is for this reason, among others, that many people chose to use anonymizers when they surf. [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 04:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all for the creative comments addressed toward my prospectus, although the assignment says to add constructive suggestions which can help an author to improve his project. I think it is little bit unfair to help others reconstruct their idea and receive nothing in return. I guess that is all I can get from the general public. If however, someone in this course really knows about the internet traffic analysis, you are welcome to suggest substantial changes. --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 20:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Vladimir, I apologize if I said anything to upset or discouraged you in any way. I meant my comment to be constructive in raising an ethical question to your research methodology in regards to the privacy of web surfers. U can certainly observe and aggregate traffic through packet sniffing network tools, but I would not be so trusting in precise geographical locations of the IP addresses for the reasons that I mentioned. However, with a large enough sample you could perhaps get a general feel for regional traffic. [http://www.ethereal.com | Ethereal]is a popular easy to use modern analysis tool with good documentation, and may serve your purposes. Again, I meant no disrespect and look forward to your project evolving.[[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 21:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

*Name:Corey MacDonald [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 20:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus title: Fringe Forums for the Under-represented
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus_Assignment_2_MacDonald.doc
*Comments:

Wow! This is a great prospectus, I feel like these kinds of sites are the perfect places to be asking these questions. So many of the conversations we've had in class have centered around how to best facilitate legal social interactions. I'm excited to read your analysis of how semi-legal and illegal topics are handled by users, administrators and legal bodies on these forums. I'd be curious to see if legal action had ever been taken against the users of these sites, or whether the information posted on them had ever been used in legal action against someone else, like as evidence or tips on possible illegal goings-on? Are there any specific government agencies that track activity on these kinds of sites? Are any extra precautions taken to protect the anonymity of contributors? [[User:Mcforelle|Mcforelle]] 20:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Corey this is a interesting topic, the existence of sites like Erowid and “the chemical underground” highlight how (especially the US) government are losing the battle to control drug information. A “non-event” that may be of interest to you is the DEA making Microgram public in 2003. Microgram was a law enforcement restricted newsletter aimed at forensic chemists and its release made very little impact on the “chemical underground” due to the wealth of information on illicit drugs that was already available.
Here’s a link to an article that might be useful/interesting http://www.michaelerard.com/fulltext/2006/08/open_secrets_how_the_governmen.html [[User:Ltconnell|Ltconnell]] 20:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

*Name: Richard (Rick) Kundiger --[[User:Rakundig|Rakundig]] 19:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus title: The Role of Bittorrent in the Internet Society
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Kundiger_Assignment_2_Research_Prospectus.pdf
*Comment: This is a great example of "code is law." You have a very powerful tool (the bittorrent protocol) which can be used for both good an illicit purposes. Your investigation of the different interests for and against its deployment should provide an excellent case study. Does a company or government have more of a right than an individual to control the protocols in use? Are those opposed to the protocol trying to protect the greater good of the Internet or their own financial interests? [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 01:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

*Comment: Hi Rick, I also like this topic. One thing you could really expand upon is the use of P2P (point to point) connections has also drivin forward such technologies as Skype. This type of technology was also never intended to be used for illicit purposes, but then again the Internet was never designed to be used in many of the ways it is used today. VoIP actually breaks the TCP/IP model where packets were never intended to be treated in such a timely fashion. Another item is that it was used by WikiLeaks to keep Assange a bit more safe, which could be interpreted both good and bad. It's also amazing that the record industry had enough lobby power to take down some of the most famous P2P services. There's also the aspect that businesses deal with a very real threat of employees using bittorrent technologies. The executive that installs a P2P client and accidentally shares out his entire drive has been a very real issue for companies to combat. Further, then end use that also does something simular can share very personal information such as passport and bank account details with the world. Hope my comments have given you some help in this area of interest. Regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

*Name: Mary Van Gils
*Prospectus title: Yelp Case Study - Freedom of Expression
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus_-_Yelp_Study_Case.doc
*Comment: Wanted to make you aware as you investigate the external restriciton on freedom of expression regarding the Yelp site that there are also types of businesses which are regulated by state law as to how they may respond to reviews/complaints on sites like Yelp. If you look at my prospectus, you will note insurance companies are one of those types of businesses.[[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 15:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)]]

*Name: Susan Jennings [[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 15:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)]]
*Prospectus title: Annuity Companies' Social Media Communities
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Annuity_Companies%27_Social_Media_Communities.doc

----

*Name: Alan Davies-Gavin & Alex Solomon
*Prospectus title: Architecture of Sites eHarmony and Match.com: contributions of membership data and effects on security and privacy.
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Assignment2ProjectProspectus.pdf

Alan and Alex, I think your topic is fascinating and I wanted to chip in my 2 cents which might help your research. Considering the different natures of sites that ultimately sell the same product, I would consider looking at how the two compete in response to one another. By this I mean, is Match doing something that eHarmony isn, and therefore, is eHarmony a bit jealous and trying to get into their market? I know that eHarmony lauched their more casual spinoff "Jazzed.com" which is meant to steal people away from Match. Is Jazzed a suggestion that privacy isn't all that important to frustrated singles? I think that there are also rather large differences in target audience between the two competitors, with eHarmony focusing on a bit older, more conservative crowd while Match goes for the "single and ready to mingle."Also, perhaps look at each companies approach to user profile creation over time, have they changed at all and in what ways? This looks like it'll be an exciting project, I'm looking forward to what you find! ([[User:Lewtak|Lewtak]] 21:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC))

* Thanks Tym. I like your observations and I think they may well contribute to our research and final content. It's a good perspective that you bring to light. Alan --[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

*Name: Kristina Meshkova
*Prospectus title: A music sharing site - Grooveshark, Soundcloud, MySpace.
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignement_2_%28Kristina_Meshkova%29.pdf
*Comment: Hey Kristina, I think we have some similar ambitions in regards to our final project. Let's chat tonight if you have any interest in potentially working together [[User:Alex|Alex]] Bryan 14:31, 1 March 2011.

Hello Kristina, I found your project very interesting and I am looking forward to see it evolve. I am particularly interested in how and why the streaming content services are so territory-limited, beyond of copyright, and how long will this model survive. In Europe we can use Spotify but instead there is no access to Pandora or Grooveshark, and vice versa. Same happens with Netflix or Hulu. However, Spotify is said to be preparing its expansion to the USA and some people talk about pression groups beyond record labels. I think it could be interesting to explore if there are some inter-continental lobbying activities or corporative deals regarding this issues. Best,[[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 12:00, 6 March 2011.

*Name:Vladimir Trojak--[[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 20:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus title: Are different language groups consistent in what topics are permitted and what is removed?
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_2.pdf
*Comments: Hello Vladimir, Your proposal is intriguing and I am looking forward to see how it evolves. I did have a question about why do you think that all the Wikipedia policies should be the same in all the language communities? Thanks. --[[User:SCL|SCL]] 03:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. I hope it will turn in the way I expect:)I believe that in general they shoudl be the same, such as 'neutral point of view', 'verifiability'. Although there may be differences in other policies because of different laws, such as topics you can speak about. You have any suggestions?Thanks.[[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 18:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

*Name: Faye Ryding [[User:FMRR|FMRR]] 23:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus title: Trolls and vandals on Epinions.com
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Faye_Ryding_Assignment_2.doc

*Name: [[User:Alex|Alex]] Bryan 16:59, 21 February 2011
*Prospectus title: Groooveshark music application
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus.pdf
*Comments: Hi, Alex. Sorry that didn't answer you earlier. Will be glad to discuss an opportunity to work together on the Final project. Let's discuss it next week in a chat room or via email. This is my email for the course: kristinam2907@gmail.com [[Kristina Meshkova]], 5 March 2011.

Hello, Alex. I am very interested in the legal aspect of streaming content services. Have you considered to study this issue from a global point of view regarding a potential Grooveshark expansion? As I stated below Kristina's project, I think both of your prospects are very interesting, I will be following them. Good luck [[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 12:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

*Name: Robert Cunningham
*Prospectus title: The Archive Team
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Proposed_Paper_TopicCunningham.pdf

*Name: [[Joshuasurillo]]
*Prospectus title: The effect of government transparency websites- Wikileaks
*Link to prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Harvard_assignment_2.doc
*Comment: Joshua, I am very much looking forward to your final product. Your position (or what I am assuming your postion to be) comes across very loud and clear in your prospectus. I wonder if you will reach an opinion as to where to draw the line on "free speech," or if no line should be drawn? My reading of your position if you were to define it today is that free speech must be protected at all costs and no limits are appropriate, at least that is the feeling I am left with from your prospectus. If wikileaks posted the location or identity of our undercover operatives in Iraq or elsewhere, would you support that? If not, what else would you feel would be "going to far?" I look forward to reading more from you. [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 01:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

*Name: Susan Lemont
*Prospectus title: Why do people cultivate large online networks?
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Lemont_Prospectus.doc
*Comments:

Unfortunately beyond the stated scope of your project (and not practical to include), but it would be interesting to see how your findings compare to similar surveys of Youtube users (who frequently seek comments, ratings, and channel subscriptions) and members of various online forums which award rankings, custom titles, "reputation", and other benefits to prominent posters based on peer imput. Good luck with this topic. (P.S. Also, it might be interesting try and determine what percentages of Facebook 'friends' of these users are A) people they know in real life vs. those relationships which are strictly online-only and B) what proportion of real life contacts were made prior to 'friending' vs. those which were made as a result of meeting virtually via facebook.) [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 04:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Susan, your research question is so basic that I am surprised no one else chose a topic towards this issue, since it is the basis of the new big business, social media. From an anthropological point of view, I find it very interesting and not enough explored, focusing the research into motivations: not what or when people share or live online, but why do they do it. Besides, I find your methodology very well planned and practical, although I have some doubts about the sincerity when it comes to explaining to someone you don't know why you have more than 200 friends. I will be following your work with interest, good luck! [[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 11:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your insightful comments. I have changed my project and the new prospectus follows:

* Name: Susan Lemont --[[User:SCL|SCL]] 20:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: What conditions are conducive to successful commons based peer production?
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Peer_production_Lemont_030611.doc
*Comments:

*Name: Chris Sura [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 03:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus title: The Java Community Process: How Does It Really Work?
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Chris_Sura_Assignment_2.pdf

* Name: Ed Arboleda [[User:Earboleda|Earboleda]] 04:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: Are there collective benefits for copyright owners, copyright infringers, and the general community; if copyright infringement is not enforced under specific circumstances on social media sites?
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Ed_Arboleda_Prospectus.pdf

Comments:

Hi Ed, I certainly believe that in specific instances that there can be collective benefits for infringers and owners of copyright. One example is the pirating of the UK run of the TV series Battlestar Gallactica in Australia in October 2004. When the show aired in Australia in January 2005 the ratings exceeded expectations due to “sampling” and word of mouth. Here’s a link to an article with more information http://www.mindjack.com/feature/piracy051305.html [[User:Ltconnell|Ltconnell]] 20:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

* Name: Elisha Surillo
* Prospectus title: The Tea Party and Internet Freedom
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_2.doc
* Comments:

I'm confused. This link does not seem to take me to the correct prospectus? Elisha, could you update this to make sure I can access yours?

Hai to the comment above: Elisha and I uploaded with the same file names so they are stacked alphabetically. My file is one that I would like to remove actually but do not know how, but in the meantime, Elisha's file is the second link. Sorry for any confusion. [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 02:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

* Name: Brandon A. Ceranowicz - [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 08:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: A Comparative Study of Open Source Licenses
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:LSTU_E-120_Assignment_2_-_Prospectus_BAC.doc
*Comment: Hello Brandon! I think your topic can be very interesting. However I think it would be important for you to have a specific focus since the topic seems so broad. I don’t know how relevant this would be, but I suggest that you take a look at the Open Content License. (http://www.opencontent.org/opl.shtml) Good luck! [[User:Quill80|Quill80]] 22:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

* Name: Lorena Abuín
* Prospectus title: Contribution to prosecuted online activities (Anonymous, BitTorrent, WikiLeaks)
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_2_-_Lorena_Abu%C3%ADn.pdf

I noticed that there is a lot of crossover between our topics. We are both addressing hacker communities, but from differing angles. I have acquired quite a bit of information about Anonymous and have listed the resources on my tentative reference page located just below here. Feel free to look and use anything from that list that may help you in your project. Also, the Anonymous page found in Wikipedia is quite good in understanding what the Anonymous phenomenon is. They are free agents often acting independently of each other and unaffiliated with one another under the umbrella name Anonymous. In other words, Anonymous is a concept more than an identifiable specific group. I also noticed you have listed pastebin as a resource. It is my suggestion to be careful with that, and try to find where that document was published. It could simply be the rantings of teenager enamored with the publicity of their antics and activity. The questionable authenticity of that write pad entry to me is found in the signature at the bottom. It should read: We are Anonymous/We are legion/We do not forgive/We do not forget/Expect us-always. Lastly, keep in mind that not all Anonymous hacktivity is criminal, that is just the part that gets sensationalized. There are many other cyber-activism efforts that take place under the name of Anonymous that are not criminal. Good luck, and I look forward to watching your project develope! -----=:) [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 23:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC) for the #datalove

I found that some of your research objectives coincide with mine. I can assure you that people do use what is called "hacktivism" to oppose the lies and conspiracies of the U.S. Government. If you take a http://www.nogw.com/ alone you would be surprised how some of the secret documents happen to be available on line. For instance, the loan by the Wall Street Banks to finance Adolf Hitler's Army is not a secret nowadays because of the "hacktivism", although the fact and the document has been kept in secret from the Government of Soviet Union for decades. The role of the Jews in the mass murder of millions is proven with facts on the Holocaust denial web sites. I guess the major drive that motivates people to use their skill in the "wrong way" is to oppose the lie that is bigger in size and thus controls the legacy tools such as Media and Congress. Even children in New York City know that the twin towers were demolished by the "uniformed criminals" employed as the federal agents. Check out the list of literature on my prospectus and http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=46 is just one out of dozens web sites. The U.S Government had no reason to deploy troops anywhere at the cost of the taxpayers' dollars. Do you think other citizens do not realize this? They do, but they join others in this giant lie and say that it is a war on terror, and they say this at Law Schools, through the public media, and post it online. These people are indifferent and coward because they lie to themselves and the so called prosecuted activities is the only way to reveal the truth. In your research you are therefore addressing a brave category of people who are ready to risk their lives for the simple yet amazingly right cause - to reveal the corrupted syndicate of greedy liars who oppresses people with their tyrannic power and ability to prosecute. If you are not afraid to cooperate on this project in front of the university staff, then take a look at my proposal and let me know what do you think. I may give you a couple of additional sources and suggestions, but if you do not want to be involved in this type of a project, I will totally understand. Best! --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 10:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hai. Thanks for your response. I just thought that I would add that it is very important make the distinction between hackers and crackers. Unfortunately the media has not made this distinction clear and has tainted the meaning of the term hacker. In a nutshell, hackers create things and crackers break things. Most hackers look down upon crackers and dismiss them as technological bugs. Most hackers I know are not pleased with the criminal antics done in the name of Anonymous. It is true that collaborative write pads are in common use because of the ease to collaborate live together at once. Pastebin happens to not be one used for documents all that much though. It is mainly used to send larger pieces of text into chat protocols such as IRC without flooding the channel. Write pads such as typewith.me and piratepad.net are more common to use for group documents since the url is not made public and searchable, and is kept private among the group working on it. Also, an interesting comment about hacktivism made to me by a French hacker with whom I am in contact with simply and broadly described hacktivism as using technology to impact society. I think we must be careful, myself included, when we talk about cracker v. hackers. A classic document among hackers written and maintained by Eric Raymond, "[http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html How to Become a Hacker]" describes the difference quite well. [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 03:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
*Comment: Hi Lorena. I think this is a great topic and I agree that you and Deinous seem to have a strong intersection of ideas. I think the comments I made under Deinous' posting are applicable here as well. It's good to see this topic having such strong discussion. Regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 04:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Alan, thanks a lot for your interest! I can't find your comments below deinous' prospect, and I would really like to check them. [[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 12:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I too went in search of Allen's comments and were unable to find them :( [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 18:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

* Name: Margaret Tolerton [[User: deinous|deinous]]
* Prospectus title: Hackers, hacking groups, and Hacktivism: Anonymous v. Telecomix as a case study
* Link to prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:JailbreakingGadetsAndGamesConsoles.doc

Margaret, thanks a lot for your offering. I could really use some inside information about this topic. About your suggestion, I chose pastebin as a reference looking for a way to begin my research. You are right when you say that accuracy is not guaranteed when it comes to this source, but my main objective is to test the general perception of internet community about "hacktivism", I want to read about it in forums, press articles comments... See what normal people think about this. Of course, not every "hacktivist" action is a ciber-crime, but I am particularly interested in motivations that lead people to engage in certain projects that could be prosecuted depending on the country, as uploading copyrighted contents. I am sure we could find a lot of profit-driven actions, but I want to get deeper in personal motivations, since there are many so-called "cyber-crimes" that have nothing to do with obtaining a profit, at least a tangible one. When reading your prospectus, I came up with something very interesting: "Happy to help others who are not as advanced?". I think solidarity plays a huge role of hacktivism communities, empowered by the feeling of being passionate about some topic. I guess the desire to share sprouts from passion, but I think that the need of feeling part of a community is also very important, especially when it comes to very well defined criminals such as sex offenders and very sensitive content uploaders, communities widely persecuted but, however, still huge. While my prospectus adopts a more anthropological point of view, I see yours as an inside work with very valuable information about hacktivism running. I look forward to see how your research evolves and to learn more about these communities from a privileged point of view. Please don't hesitate to make any suggestion you may consider, I am sure it will be very helpful for my research. Lorena Abuín. --[[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 21:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

LOL, I don't know how privileged my point of view is. I am more or less just another nerd with a computer on Friday and Saturday nights. In recent weeks I have come to feel as though the people of Telecomix have accepted me as one of their own though, as I have done a little public relations, fact checking, and some translations. Telecomix is very open about their work, and does not engage in illegal actions. Being mostly European, they lobby against, or for, various cyber laws to their respective Parliaments. What I meant though by my comment "happy too help others who are not as advanced" is that it is common for someone to ask a question of a technological nature and usually others jump in and help to solve the problem. For example, my switch over to Linux, I have been having quite a time configuring a few of my drivers, and getting used to working from a command line with unix syntax, and several people who know how to fix the problems will jump in and start coaching with many lulz along the way.[[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 03:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello there. I am delighted and in part surprised to see a topic of this type. By type I mean it is heavily technological mission to retrieve a piece of real information from the community of real hackers. Not all software engineers employed by the government are able to intervene communication among the community of real hackers. You may however, catch a few portals where "I can do this, I can do that" type of conversations take place, but whether they really have done something interesting and indeed reveal their ideology is a big speculation. For this course, I believe, you need to change your frequency, sort of speak, and listen not for the hacking communities themselves, but for the actions they have already done. Actions speak lauder than words, as you may know. You you need to listen to the anti-thesis, that is, the counter part of the hacking group. In this country, among various subsequent agencies that keep control of all networks, the NSA sources will probably be the most beneficial to you, although I am not 100 percent sure about this. It is difficult to find something that is available to the public. Recall the scandal with pornographic downloads by the employees of the Trade Commission; this is just one out of million examples of the internet traffic control by the Feds. It is therefore the Feds who are on the opposite side of the argument with the hackers. By considering both ideology of the hackers and a counter-premise by the Feds you will have a full and comprehensive picture for your project. In short, I am proposing to search not only within the hackers community, which may only seem as community of hackers and give you a bogus information, but also find reports, chronicles, and cases exposed by the Feds. It may ultimately appear that it is the Feds who are vandals and trolls and who violate privacy and steal the tax money of the citizens. At least this is what my prospectus's sources can prove, but take a look at National Security Agency [http://www.nsa.gov/] web site. In the meantime, I will keep checking on your project and will try to give you more clues because your topic coincides with mine in many regards. --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 06:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and comments. I will certainly take them into consideration. However, I feel that my views toward hacking are much broader than the criminality of a few, and that there should be more emphasis in part on the difference between hacking and cracking. I am one that still holds the traditional meaning of a hacker as one that is adept with the computer and often generates new creative uses for what is in front of them. As a result I am watching my topic shift a bit and focusing perhaps more on the difficulty that researchers have with the DMCA preventing them from publishing in full their findings, and the law of fair use. Over this past year we have watched the jailbreaking of an iPhone of iPad for the use of external software not approved by Apple go from being an illegal act to being justified as fair use. Although it will nullify any warranty of your gadget. Currently we are watching this same debate occur over the jailbreaking of the Sony PS3 to run Linux and homebrewed games. I am one that supports the fair use argument in that if you are clever enough to make your gadgetry do fun and interesting things beyond the uses that they are intended, then you should be able to do it--especially if you have no intention on using pirated software or make profit of any sort from it. As for an original angle, I am still waffling a bit, and welcome any further comments.====:)[[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 17:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Margaret, Given your change in perspective of your project you may wish to explore the discussion of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization Tivoization] (if you have note already considered such). The question of, “Should manufacturers of hardware have the right to limit the use of software on their machines when that software included elements covered under versions of the GNU license?” seems a related and interesting debate. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 16:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Guy, thank you so much for your wonderfully concise thesis question! Sometimes it just takes the right little tweak to bring scattered thoughts together, and pondering the legal parameters of an open source kernel wrapped in a proprietary shell is a question I would very much like to spend some time on. Thanks again.[[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 19:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Margaret, I am very glad you found my suggestion helpful. I look forward to your final output. It’s a really intriguing topic. Thanks for checking out web.alive (comment below). I didn’t play any role in developing it (wish I were that bright). My colleague [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiYi3iEBJNM Arn Hyndman] is the chief architect.

Your comment about, “test driving it among a group of ppl,” got me thinking. If we wished to, we could use the tool for a virtual study group. Would you be interested? Do you think others would be? It could be a great environment for classmates to meet and discuss the coursework.

Also, anyone who is working as a group in developing their project can use it to collaborate virtually. There are virtual white boards, web browsers that appear to be mounted on walls, desktop application sharing portals and other tools. I’ll be glad to meet folks in the environment and show how to use the tools. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 23:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

* Name: Guy Clinch --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 13:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title (updated Mar 6): The Personal Imperative: What is the role of the individual in shaping the future of cyberspace governance?
* Link to prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Internet_and_Society_Assingment_2%28gclinch%29.pdf

- To my Classmates: Please note that after receiving feedback on my original prospectus I have created an updated version. My title has changed to The Personal Imperative: What is the role of the individual in shaping the future of cyberspace governance?

I hope you will find this more focused and greater compelling. I will appreciate any additional comments and suggestions based on this new approach. Thank you, Guy --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 23:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

- It has occurred to me that in order to give me feedback on my proposal you may need to experience the web.alive environment. Please feel free to click on the following link and explore. http://apex.avayalive.com/715/html
I look forward to reading your ideas. Thank you. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 19:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hai Guy! I recently checked out web.alive and thought on first impression it was a nice sleek, useful, and intuitive application it is. Very well designed indeed. Were you one of the developers? I'm afraid that at this time I cannot offer much in the way of constructive criticism without test driving it among a group of ppl, but I do see it as a wonderful tool for distance business communication. [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 18:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

* Name: Syed Yasir Shirazi [User: syedshirazi]
* Prospectus title: Online Group Buying - Newly Emerging Business Model or Fad?
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Syed_Yasir_Shirazi-Assignment_2.pdf
* Comments:

Syed, this is a really interesting topic, but I am concerned that it may be too broad. I feel like a question like yours would more likely take up a book than a paper to be completed over a single semestre! Perhaps you could look into a specific group-buying site rather than the concept as a whole, like Groupon or LivingSocial. It might even be interesting to compare the two. Or, are there sites in which users decide which company they want to solicit such coupons from, rather than having the site itself decide? Just some ideas to help you get this topic down to something manageable. Does this help at all? [[User:Mcforelle|Mcforelle]] 21:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

* Name: Jessica Sanfilippo - [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 16:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: Transparency and Participation in Crowd Funding
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:JSanfilippo_Assignment_2.doc

Hi Jessica,I think crowd funding is a fascinating topic, and there seem to be various types of crowd funding as you point out. Micro Loans and sites such as Kiva.com are also wonderful examples of crowd funding. I am probably over reaching, but I noticed that Syed Yasir A. Shirazi has a prospectus on Group Buying, and wonder if the two can be connected somehow? What if materials needed for a funded project on kickstarter.com for instance, could be purchased through groupon.com or a similar site? Regardless, I am looking forward to your findings around Crowd Funding (especially in the creative space).

*Name: Adriana Faria Torii [drifaria] and Anna Christiana Marinho C. Machado [([[User:Anna|Anna]] 17:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC))]
*Prospectus title: Analysis of E-Government Practices in Brazil
*Link to prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Faria_Marinho_Prospectus.pdf

Hi Adriana and Anna - E-governance in an emerging country like Brazil is an attention-grabbing subject. As you have mentioned in your prospectus, in terms of audience, Brazil is amongst the top ten countries in the world (I think they have recently moved up to #5 in terms of total internet users). But that said, the overall internet penetration is pretty low (I think it is close to only 40% of the entire Brazilian population).
The G2C part of your project should provide an interesting analysis since concepts like e-voting work the best when the internet usage amongst citizenry is high. Brazil does not have uniformly high internet penetration across the entire county. Maybe you can differentiate the G2C aspect and compare between urban and rural populations because there will be different results (I believe) for effectiveness of such an ‘e-system’ amongst the 2 geographic segments. Also, you can include some analysis on mechanisms for ‘fraud detection’ for e-voting and e-tax filing processes. Thoughts on this link might be of interest to you: http://qssi.psu.edu/files/hidalgo.pdf. Looking forward to reading your final paper. ~~[[User:syedshirazi|syedshirazi]] 21:21, 03 March 2011 (UTC)

* Name: Laura Connell [[User:Ltconnell|Ltconnell]] 18:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: Does providing a legal alternative act as a deterrent to internet piracy?
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Laura_Connell_Assignment_2_Prospectus.pdf

Laura, here is a link to a recent study that you may find of use:
[http://documents.envisional.com/docs/Envisional-Internet_Usage-Jan2011.pdf Envisional - Technical report: An Estimate of Infringing Use of the Internet]

Hope you find this helpful --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 03:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

*Comment: Hi Laura, glad to see this topic on the list. It's a tough topic as it could be looked at as requiring a world government organization to pass law enacting the crack down on stolen DRM'ed materials. At the same time there seems to be evidence that this type of activity does not hit the bottom line of Hollywood and other world producers of content. Manufacturers of CD and DVD technology has traditionally tried to work with the "Hollywoods" of the world only to be thwarted by the hacker. There seems to be a balance in the mix where the manufactures can create some hurdles for the most common user and at the same time not create a situation where users are not able to access valid content (such as putting in a DVD from Japan in a US DVD player and not being able to play the content). I think we're moving more and more toward online content like Netflix where the content is more controlled and the physical media is going away. Streaming content has some inherent properties that cannot be easily overcome, further, as long as the browser being used to support a new type of encryption technology, companies can make changes to security on the web server side when hackers have found an exploit. It's a very interesting topic, but I think any laws created would be done by people that do not fully understand the technology and also the laws have great potential to be outdated in a short amount of time if not written with enough foresight. Having said that, there has been a great deal of reduction in some types of sharing due to cases against people that have pirated DRM'ed media and also have had big impacts on many sites that traditionally have been an excellent source for finding pirated material. Regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

*Name: Alokika Singh [[User:Singh singh|Singh singh]] 19:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[[User:Singhsingh]]
*Prospectus title: Online Political Activism in India
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_II_22_feb..pdf

Hi Alokika: I think your topic is very interesting. You can also draw a comparative line between roles of leading social/political leaders in India versus the role of ordinary internet users when it comes to acting as the leading force behind online social/political debate in India? A lot of times, it has been seen that individuals who don’t follow any hierarchy kick-off such bold campaigns. (Take the example of what happened in Egypt over the last six months. The online movement was sparked by ordinary folks and not any leading social or political figure).
I am curious to know whether the online ‘Pink Chaddi’ campaign was initiated by general users or spearheaded by a leading social organization in India. I suspect the former. So it will be interesting to see how the online debate has evolved in India.
Looking forward to reading your final analysis.~~[[User:syedshirazi|syedshirazi]] 20:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

* Name: Don Hussey [[User:Donaldphussey|Donaldphussey]] 19:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: Online Crowd-Sourcing of Starbucks Product Development
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:LSTU_E-120_--Hussey_-_Asmt2.doc
* Comments:

Don, this is a really ambitious project. I think it's a great idea for you to use your professional position to get your foot in the door with some of the people at Starbucks; I hope it works! My only concern with this project is that you are only focusing on the corporate side of this venture. Is there any way you can include information from participants or contributors to this site? Is there any way on this site that users can interact with each other, or is it a one-way interaction between contributors and Starbucks? ~~[[User:mcforelle|mcforelle]] 18:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Don, I also agree with mcforelle in that you should involve the contributors into your work. For example, if you look at those in support of Starbucks minis (lol)
http://mystarbucksidea.force.com/ideaview?id=08750000000H4DwAAK

you can ask them if they seriously feel more loyalty to the company based on their contributions--even if they never see their ideas come to fruition? Or do they merely want to be a part of the Starbucks online community? Or do they want bragging rights? Also, it might be interesting to briefly compare the Starbucks strategy--seeing the consumer/contributor as the catalyst of a new product--versus, say, the recent Dominos Pizza strategy--viewing the consumer/contributor as the rater of a finished product. This might allow you to connect the measurable (business performance) with the non-measurable (customer feedback)--the latter which now can be more accurately measured because of social media and online communities. All in all, I think you have great potential with this topic! [[User:Myra|Myra]] 20:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

* Name: Tym Lewtak [[User:lewtak|lewtak]] 21:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: User Generated Sites: Defining Superusers and Their Monetization
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Assignment_2.pdf

Tymoteusz, I find you topic very interesting.

I am wondering as a product of your research if you will study the proportion of individuals who are super users compared to commercial organizations using these tools. That is, in respect to commercial organizations using the various tools, how important is the individual? Over time, is the place of the individual becoming more or less important? I would suspect that part of this equation depends upon the rate at which people are able to monetize their involvement as much as how commercial organizations are co-opting the modalities. Is there a constant influx of new blood or will the ability of individuals to monetize their involvement decrease over time?

It may be fascinating to see is this is an indication of a generative system over the long run or something that may peak and decline. Good luck! --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 03:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Gclinch, Thanks for all of your input! I initially didn't think to so much as include corporations, but taking a second glance at the subject you're right. I would be foolish to not look at motivations for companies and individuals alike to join sites as super-users. If I can find historical data on users from these sites, I'd like to especially take a look at whether it was individuals who joined first and became super-users, or if corporations jumped onto the "ball game" with individuals following. I suspect the latter isn't true, but I will try to distinguish between companies that joined these sites early on versus already popular companies that grew their earlier existent popularity. ([[User:Lewtak|Lewtak]] 21:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC))

* Name: Denise Reed--[[User:Dreed07|-dreed07]] 21:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: A comparative study of user behavior on Chinese social networking sites with that of United States social networkers
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/REED_LSTU_E120_Assignment_2.doc
* Comments:

Fascinating subject! I think that the differences between Chinese and USA based social networking sites is an area ripe for exploration, and one that could potentially shed a lot of light on the effects of government censorship on online communities. Some thoughts: differences in user behavior may be due to many different factors, including site architecture, demographics, and cultural influences. It would be worthwhile to explore the demographic differeces (such as age, socio-economic status, and geographic location) between different sites offering similar services in and outside of China. Furthermore, I wonder if it would be possible to obtain information on the behavior of Chinsese nationals using facebook prior to that site being banned in the PRC, and to compare it to that of non-Chinese nationals? Also, you might look into the social networking habits of users in Hong Kong, where Facebook and simmilar sites (IIRC) remain unblocked. Are their any social networking sites specifically targeted toward the Hong Kong community, and how do such sites differ from those in the rest of China? Finally, I notice that your links seem to be primarily in English. Direct access to Chinese social networking sites, and their users, in their native language would, I imagine, be extremely valuable to this project. [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 03:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I would love to see how your research will bloom at the end of the course. I am from South Korea but I have spent a considerable amount of time in China as my family runs business there. I usually stay in Beijing at least for a month every year and am naturally exposed to the Internet culture of China. As it is widely known, access to Facebook is blocked in the country and sometimes - I am not certain about the cause - access to Google is denied, which practically separates me from my online networks. You prospectus seems to cover general contrasting characteristics of two countries' different social networks. Since the filtering level of these countries varies, setting clear standards for comparing subjects, I think, might be quite crucial. From your project, selecting a proper social network website which can be considered as Facebook of the US would be an essence. Please let me know if you need any help with that.
--[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 03:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

* Name: Michelle Forelle [[User:mcforelle|mcforelle]] 21:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: Online Video-Making Groups: Community, Copyright, Collaboration and Commercialism
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment2_Vimeo.pdf
* Comments:

Michelle, I have never heard of Vimeo (this is where the Geico man asks me if I live in a cave), but I think you are onto something very interesting here. Perhaps when you tap the frequent contributors of the site, you can ask them why they post their videos on Vimeo instead YouTube, and if for a time, they did switch over to YouTube, and why? It looks like Vimeo started about a year before YouTube. Where did they share their videos before, or did they not? At the onset, Vimeo seems like a more serious bunch than Youtube, but let's see what you discover! [[User:Myra|Myra]] 21:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

*Name: Myra Garza [[User:Myra|Myra]]
*Prospectus title: Preparing and Accommodating Millenials in the Workforce: Use of Social Media in Two Career Coaching Businesses
*Link to prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Garza.M.Prospectus.doc
*Comments:

Myra, this is a really interesting topic! I feel like this is exactly as narrow a case study as the professors were asking for. I'm jealous that you were able to identify such an relevant topic, lol! I look forward especially to reading the background research for this paper, as it is my understanding that minority youth are disproportionally represented on sites like Twitter; I'm eager to find out whether that rumor is true, and if so, what it means for the way these youth interact with and influence the hiring process. I'm also interested in hearing how these companies help steer the social use of the social media into the practical, career-building use. I'm curious to see if you find that the conclusions you are specific to urban youth or whether such tactics in career counseling are also applicable to suburban and rural kids too. Great prospectus, I really look forward to reading your paper! [[User:mcforelle|mcforelle]] 18:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I, too, think this is going to be a very interesting paper. There is such a need in the corporate community for young people who can help older executives use social media both within the organization for employees and outside the organization for the public and consumers. I would be interested in what the career objectives are for the clients of these two organizations. Are they interested in using their social media skills as part of their job requirements or are they looking for careers in various non-related fields? <<[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 01:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)>>

Great topic, as I am sure many of us see on a daily basis the generational differences at work, and the need to involve and "catch" the millenial generation. I wonder if the two organizations will provide you with data on their success, and outreach numbers in the community? I look forward to seeing how this plays out. [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 01:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Myra - The influence of social media on both the job search process and in the workplace itself is a very powerful topic! If I am interpreting your prospectus correctly, it seems that your primary concern is with how, in practice, the two case study sites prepare Millenials for the proper use of social media in their job search/and work environments? If so, it might be interesting to connect with Human Resources representatives, to get a pulse on how their employee/recruitment policies have evolved due to the emergence of these new communication tools. In theory, I think there should likely be some alignment between the advice from the two websites and what HR is practicing. Separately, you also raise a very compelling distinction, which is that these businesses serve the needs of minority groups. I wonder if this may warrant its own stand-alone investigation. This way, you can truly dedicate your research towards how the workplace and job search process is shifting (and hopefully closing the gap) for minorities, as exemplified by the social media practices and guidelines from your 2 case study sites. In any case, this is indeed a substantial topic, so I look forward to seeing which direction you take it! - Jessica [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]]

Everyone--thanks so much for feedback! I actually am an HR professional myself, and I can tell you that a lot of HR and business literature out there encourages the bridging of generations at work--particularly with the use of technology. Easier said than done! So, I already have an interest in the broad topic and am hoping the two organizations will be willing to share their experiences teaching social media tactics to youth (for career purposes) and offer some insight on the specific needs of minority youth. I actually met the owner of CC4Kidz at a conference a few weeks ago, and after searching for similar organizations, I discovered The Youth Career Coach Inc. As Jessica indicated above, this topic will require some more narrowing down. Thanks! [[User:Myra|Myra]] 22:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

*Name: Jose Uscanga
*Prospectus Title: Cummunity reporting or social activism? The New Age of media reporting in Mexico.
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Jose_Uscanga_Assignment_-2.doc

Jose, you have identified a truly compelling topic.

When you ask, “Is free press necessary for democracy?” many of us would say, obviously yes. Reading your prospectus though makes me wonder, “what do we mean today by a free press.” Does phenomenon such as Mexican citizens taking, “on the civic responsibility of alerting other citizens by providing detailed and unfiltered information,” redefine what we mean when we use the term press? I’ll be looking forward to reading your conclusions.

I’d also be interested to learn if you think there is something unique about Mexican culture that compels people to get involved. It seems to me that these citizen journalists are taking huge risks. Even less than the professional journalists, there would seem to be no safety net. After all isn’t it easy for the drug cartels to find out who is issuing the alerts. Is it a demographic trend, is it youth driven or does it span the population? Is it something unique about the way Mexican people relate to one another that makes people get involved? Thanks for taking on such an interesting and challenging topic. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 02:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Internet and Society Assingment 2(gclinch).pdf

2011-03-06T22:55:21Z

Gclinch: uploaded a new version of "Image:Internet and Society Assingment 2(gclinch).pdf": fixed typos: This project will attempt to answer the question: what is the role of the individual in shaping the future of cyberspace governance? By extension the answer

In my final project I wish to explore what I consider to be the most important of these concepts by leveraging a technology called web.alive. I wish to use web.alive to conduct a virtual Socratic dialog within the environment that explores the concepts discussed in the class. The dialog will consist of a conversation between an avatar and other multimedia sources of information including mashups of video clips and other information available demonstrating the ideas we are studying in class.

File:Internet and Society Assingment 2(gclinch).pdf

2011-03-06T22:03:42Z

Gclinch: uploaded a new version of "Image:Internet and Society Assingment 2(gclinch).pdf": This project will attempt to answer the question: what is the role of the individual in shaping the future of cyberspace governance? By extension the answer will impact

User:Gclinch

2011-03-05T17:15:58Z

Gclinch: Short greeting, links to info about me and a set of excerpts from recent blogs to allow my classmates a glimpse inside my head. ;- )

My name is Guy Clinch. I create communications technology solutions solving problems for organizations across the globe. I specialize in helping government agencies use communications solutions to serve the requirements of their citizens. Should you be interested you may view [http://www.linkedin.com/in/guywclinch my professional profile]

I am really enjoying sharing with you all in this dynamic and engaging semester!

Below are a few excerpts from my recent blog posts (the most recent inspired by some of the topics we have discussed in class):

[http://www.avaya.com/blogs/archives/2011/02/information-anarchy.html Information Anarchy!]
Today even the smallest of businesses is subject to a global conversation. Even if a business is not on the World Wide Web, their customers are. In the marketplace of ideas, communications today are multidimensional, complex and powerful. If you don't believe me, seek out Hosni Mubarak...

[http://www.avaya.com/blogs/archives/2011/02/happy-1-1-2-day.html Happy 1-1-2 Day]
Today is 1-1-2 day in the European Union. For those living in countries on the European Continent and those who may travel there, 1-1-2 is a very important number. It is akin to 9-1-1 in North America. It is the code that if dialed within most places in European from any mobile device and most land based telecommunications devices will link you without cost to local public safety resources…

[http://www.avaya.com/blogs/archives/2011/01/the-power-of-the-customersupplier-dialectic.html The Power of the Customer/Supplier Dialectic]
The relationships between a company and its customers are loaded with complex dynamics. The level of complexity in relationships between organizations is never more intense than in industries where what are supplied to the customer includes solutions that become part of the customer's value chain. Fear and loathing to rage are the spectrum of possible outcomes from bad performance by a solution vendor and their customer. In this way customer and vendor share a mutual destiny. Some vendors luckier than others when it comes to the commercial loyalty that embraces the organization...

[http://www.avaya.com/blogs/archives/2010/10/-its-clouds-illusions-i-recall.html ... it's clouds illusions I recall ...]
Like the sound of distant thunder on a summer's evening, cloud-based application delivery has echoed from afar for quite some time. The accuracy of the forecasts about what cloud will mean to the business enterprise has paralleled the nightly news weather forecast. Much like the way the weatherman seems to gets smarter as the day of the event gets closer in time, clarity may soon emerge for what this all means...

Assignment 2 Submissions

2011-03-05T16:54:25Z

Gclinch: /* Submissions */ suggestion to Margaret

Assignment 2 Submissions

2011-03-03T19:25:45Z

Gclinch: /* Submissions */

Assignment 2 Submissions

2011-03-03T19:24:05Z

Gclinch: /* Submissions */ updtaed my info

Assignment 2 Submissions

2011-03-01T03:47:09Z

Gclinch: /* Submissions */

Assignment 2 Submissions

2011-03-01T03:26:16Z

Gclinch: /* Submissions */ response to Tym Lewtak Prospectus - User Generated Sites: Defining Superusers and Their Monetization

Assignment 2 Submissions

2011-03-01T02:57:23Z

Gclinch: /* Submissions */ response to Jose Uscanga prospectus: Community reporting or social activism? The New Age of media reporting in Mexico.

Assignment 2 Submissions

2011-02-22T13:23:04Z

Gclinch: /* Submissions */

Assignment 2 Submissions

2011-02-22T13:22:38Z

Gclinch: /* Submissions */ Assignment 2 submission info

File:Internet and Society Assingment 2(gclinch).pdf

2011-02-22T13:18:48Z

Gclinch: In my final project I wish to explore what I consider to be the most important of these concepts by leveraging a technology called web.alive. I wish to use web.alive to conduct a virtual Socratic dialog within the environment that explores the concepts di

Collective Action and Decision-making

2011-02-22T00:24:18Z

Gclinch: /* Class Discussion */ answer to Yu Ri

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
 
</div>
'''February 22'''

Mass collaboration and the aggregation of information enable potentially profound changes in business and politics. In this class, we will compare and contrast the transformations in economic life and collective decision-making processes brought on the information revolution. The discussions will also explore the role of open information systems on business and the scope for greater transparency and participation in government, politics and public life.

==Assignments==

[[Assignments#Assignment_2:_Prospectus|Assignment 2]] due

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==
* James Surowiecki, [http://www.randomhouse.com/features/wisdomofcrowds/excerpt.html Wisdom of Crowds (excerpt)]
**[http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/22/books/review/0523books-mclemee.html?ex=1400644800&en=43bc95eb638bfed2&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND NYT Review]

* [http://ethanzuckerman.com/blog/?p=1125 Ethan Zuckerman's blog review of Infotopia] Great summary of the issues in the book.

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers Federalist Papers] published under the pseudonym Publius.
* [http://www.blogpulse.com/papers/2005/AdamicGlanceBlogWWW.pdf Divided They Blog] - a paper showing trackbacks between political blogs, mentioned by Ethan Zuckerman in his review of Cass Sunstein's Infotopia
</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==
Link to article in today's NY Times regarding Egypt's shut down during the revolution of internet within its borders:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/16/technology/16internet.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hp
<<[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 15:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)>>

In reading the Surowiecki excerpt and the summary on Zuckerman's Infotopia I think it is apparent that they are discussing apples and oranges. Surowiecki is concentrating on the crowd's ability to accurately determine a correct answer to a specific question governed by a certain criteria (e.g. how many beans in this jar or which one of these four possible answers is correct). Zuckerman, on the other hand, is looking at the human behavior and ideology aspect which has no defined criteria or "right" answer. When asking the crowd what their opinion is regarding a particular issue the answers will undoubtedly depend on the individual's personal beliefs and past experiences which vary greatly from person to person. If the ideological question is framed in such a way that there is a limited selection of answers, such as in polling, the individuals will gravitate towards the answer which most fits their personal belief. While this will allow for an analysis of what the "majority" of the crowd prefers it does not necessarily mean that majority is correct. Once the human condition is allowed to enter the equation the ability to determine what is correct vs. what is preferred is gone.
--[[User:Rakundig|Rakundig]] 10:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

'''Dear''' Fellow Internet and Society Classmates:

I am writing with a proposal. February 22 will be our forth meeting as a class which marks the milestone that we are more than one quarter of the way through the material we will study during the semester.

During the last several classes we have studied examples of commons based production including Wikipedia and we are using a wiki based tool for asynchronous class discussions.

Not to take anything away from the quality of the content of those contributions, one thing that has been missing is a structure and purpose.

My proposal is that starting this week we begin to put into practice some of the things that we have learned to date. That is, below I have constructed a set of notes on what I have taken away from the class. I invite you in the spirit of Wikipedia to edit, comment upon, contribute to and in other ways improve what I have written in a collaborative search for a common understanding of the materials presented in this course.

If you are so inclined, I ask you to follow a small set of basic tenets that are described on the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/edit/Talk:Collective_Action_and_Decision-making Discussion page].

I hope that you will join me in this project. I believe a commons based approach to summarize what we have learned so far will benefit us all in translating the great information Rob and David have introduced to us. No two of us have walked away from any class discussion nor reading, nor listening, nor viewing with the exact same perception of what has been discussed. Below presents a opportunity for us all, those who gather in Cambridge and those who participate at a distance, to come to a closer mutual understanding.

Join me below to flesh out what I have begun. Add references that I have missed, correct statements that are in accurate, add your unique insight so that we can all come to a better common understanding.

Thank you in advance for your willingness to participate.

Guy --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 04:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

You can certainly count on my support and participation! I think it's a great idea to summarize what we have learned 'in a mass collaboration approach'; nonetheless, I consider that it would be much better if we can create another page to aggregate all the information from lectures apart from opinions or questions of the discussion section. I might have interpreted your purpose in an unexpected way, so please do not hesitate to share your brilliant ideas! Thank you. --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 08:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/User:Yu_Ri Yu Ri] , Thank you for your kind words. You have interpreted my purpose exactly. Are you suggesting that the topic of Internet and Society would make a good Wikipedia article? If so, I agree. I checked and someone looks to have begun [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_and_Society one on this exact topic], but contributed only a small amount and has not been modified the informing since 2009. Would you suggest we pick up where that author left off? --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 00:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

++++

To use the term from economics, this course is built “on the shoulder of giants.” The three main giants are [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zittrain Jonathan Zittrain], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig Lawrence Lessig], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yochai_Benkler Yochai Benkler]. The course is also supplemented by a number of other influential thinkers who will be mentioned below.

Each of these individuals has contributed a block in the foundation of a set of tools that we students can use to understand the effects that digital technologies are having on our society, culture, government and personal lives today and into the future.

Rob told us that the best way to absorb this material is to begin with Zittrain, progress to Lessig and build to Benkler. Along the way we will interject relevant references to other influential thinkers.

In his book, [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/6 The Future of the Internet: and how to stop it] Jonathan Zittrain begins by describing how the Internet emerged at a time when inexpensive fully customizable multiuse computers became available to large numbers of technology tinkerers. The proliferation of these plastic (in the sense of the word that means malleable) platforms combined with unexpected success of the Internet Protocol for connecting these powerhouses of innovation together to link people across time and distance allowed the property of Generativity to emerge.

Defined as, “[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generativity an independent ability to create, generate, or produce new content unique to that system without additional help or input from the system's original creators]” the generative properties of the Internet allowed it to attain “[http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/8#2 mainstream dominance] over [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/8#1 proprietary barons such as AOL, CompuServe, and Prodigy.]”

Zittrain describe the following five properties of generativity as important to our discussion: Leverage, Adaptability, Ease of mastery, Accessibility and Transferability.

Important to beginning to build our model, Zittrain describes how the “[http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/13#1 hourglass architecture]” of the internet facilitated generativity through a layering property that broke the network into three logical layers. The hourglass is an intellectual concept and not a tangible thing. It helps people who wish to create innovations to focus on their specialty without needing to be concerned how other pieces of the puzzle that are necessary to make things happen work. Layers communicate with each other based on a set of properties that are native to each layer and understood by the others. In essence a digital [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto Esperanto] or commonly understood language between layers.

The model features “[http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/13#3 an ‘application layer,’ representing the tasks people might want to perform on the network].” The foundation of the hourglass is “[http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/13#3 the ‘physical layer,’ the actual wires or airwaves over which data will flow].”

The middle layer is where the true ingenuity of the model lives. It is “[http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/13#3 the ‘protocol layer,’ which establishes consistent ways for data to flow so that the sender, the receiver, and anyone necessary in the middle can know the basics of who the data is from and where the data is going].”

Combined the power of the plastic processing platforms on the edge and unrestrained flow of information across the digital network unleashed a wave of innovation and creativity never before seen in the history of humanity.
There is more important information in Zittrain’s about how the combination of economic, cultural security concerns and other forces are today combining to extinguish the generative nature that the Internet created. I am sure we will return to these topics later in the course.

The next element of our foundational model comes from Lawrence Lessig. In his book [http://codev2.cc/download+remix/Lessig-Codev2.pdf Code: version 2.0] professor Lessig describes that the Internet is what it is because of decisions that have been made by the designers of the system about how the system will work. This means that the Internet is not of some natural evolution or from some divine design, it is a creation of human invention.

In the early days of the Internet there was an overriding ethos that the Internet was ungovernable and beyond regulation. Notable thinkers including [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Perry_Barlow John Perry Barlow] spoke “behalf of the future” to say, “[http://ww2.cs.mu.oz.au/~zs/decl.html no moral right to rule us nor do you possess any methods of enforcement .]“

Lessig defeats the claim of no methods of control by describing a combination of factors including commercial motivations, user acquiescence to improve convenience, security, regulatory and other concerns that have resulted in innovation in the application layer that in turn has resulted in the implementation of features that are creating the opportunity for significant control.

We also discussed how [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Goldsmith Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Wu Columbia Law School Tim Wu] showed not only do laws of local jurisdictions impose regulation on the internet and its users so do local geographical cultural and other factors [http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly.msp?id=961].

Lessig describes how the cumulative effect of Markets, Laws, Social norms result in the equation that Code = law. In other words, the decisions made by those who create the underlying code that makes the Internet possible result in a cumulative effect of establishing governance. The format of that governance is a direct result of the conscious choices made by those who design and implement the system. The decisions on what goes into the code are a result of Markets, Laws and Social norms.

The third element of the foundation of the way we are describing the effects of digital technologies on our society comes from the seminal work by Yochai Benkler, [http://yupnet.org/benkler/ The Wealth of Networks]. Benkler informs us that digital technologies are creating an environment in which a, "[http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/396 radical decentralization of capitalization and computing resources is allowing every connected person, some 600 million to a billion people, to have the means to engage in info knowledge and cultural production].” Benkler argues that the “industrial information economy” is giving way to a new model of human contribution based upon a “commons” approach to innovation.

He painstakingly documents how the system for protecting what is commonly known as intellectual property that was originally meant to foster economic growth is actually considerable less efficient on a macroeconomic level than a model in which innovation is freely contributed.

Benkler argues that the prevailing theory of protecting an individual and organization’s right to control how their innovations are used (and influence how they are compensated for such use) creates such considerable transaction costs for those who might otherwise build upon previous innovations to create new products, services, works of art and other contributions to the betterment of society as a whole that they choose not to do so because of the imposed cost burden.
Benkler provides numerous examples that show how a commons based approach has resulted in significantly better, richer and more beneficial layers of innovation.

[http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/01/better_than_fre.php# Kevin Kelly] demonstrates that in a “Benkleresque” world where information might be freer and ideas less subject to the artificial scarcity created by “Intellectual Property and Copyright” laws overall wealth in the economy would be greater due to the generative effects discussed by Zittrain. Kelly states that producers would still be enriched because people are still be willing to pay monies associated to various factor involved in the conveyance of information. In additional new forms of distribution would further increase overall good.

Along the way we have also talked about several recurring themes.

These include:

- Internet infrastructure which is foundational, multipurpose;

- Innovation and public spaces

- Networks, openness, distributed, decentralized

- Digital disruption: challenges to existing institutions

Under the topic of Digital disruption, we talked about how the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble dot-com bubble]" a surge in financial speculation in digital technologies from roughly 1995 to 2000 resulted in a financial market crash that disrupted economies across the globe.

We discussed how Chris Anderson, author and editor-in-chief of Wired Magazine has shown how digital technologies have unleashed a “[http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html long tail of innovation]” that is resulting in fundamental shifts in markets.

[http://forum-network.org/lecture/boston-ideas-2005-eric-von-hippel Eric von Hippel] shows, in relative parallel to the Benkler proposition, that digital technologies are empowering society and increasing social welfare by shifting innovation up into the user layer. That is digital technologies are shifting the source of innovations from the traditional manufacturer to user generated creation. He shows how end users, who know intimately more about the ways something is important and how it can be improved are becoming a dynamic source for new creation and improvement.

== Links ==
* [http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_how_cellphones_twitter_facebook_can_make_history.html/ Clay Shirky TED Talk]
* [http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/feb2007/id20070201_774736.htm goldcorp story] (worth reading)

Collective Action and Decision-making

2011-02-20T15:12:45Z

Gclinch: /* Class Discussion */ uddated one URL

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
 
</div>
'''February 22'''

Mass collaboration and the aggregation of information enable potentially profound changes in business and politics. In this class, we will compare and contrast the transformations in economic life and collective decision-making processes brought on the information revolution. The discussions will also explore the role of open information systems on business and the scope for greater transparency and participation in government, politics and public life.

==Assignments==

[[Assignments#Assignment_2:_Prospectus|Assignment 2]] due

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==
* James Surowiecki, [http://www.randomhouse.com/features/wisdomofcrowds/excerpt.html Wisdom of Crowds (excerpt)]
**[http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/22/books/review/0523books-mclemee.html?ex=1400644800&en=43bc95eb638bfed2&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND NYT Review]

* [http://ethanzuckerman.com/blog/?p=1125 Ethan Zuckerman's blog review of Infotopia] Great summary of the issues in the book.

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers Federalist Papers] published under the pseudonym Publius.
* [http://www.blogpulse.com/papers/2005/AdamicGlanceBlogWWW.pdf Divided They Blog] - a paper showing trackbacks between political blogs, mentioned by Ethan Zuckerman in his review of Cass Sunstein's Infotopia
</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==
Link to article in today's NY Times regarding Egypt's shut down during the revolution of internet within its borders:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/16/technology/16internet.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hp
<<[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 15:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)>>

In reading the Surowiecki excerpt and the summary on Zuckerman's Infotopia I think it is apparent that they are discussing apples and oranges. Surowiecki is concentrating on the crowd's ability to accurately determine a correct answer to a specific question governed by a certain criteria (e.g. how many beans in this jar or which one of these four possible answers is correct). Zuckerman, on the other hand, is looking at the human behavior and ideology aspect which has no defined criteria or "right" answer. When asking the crowd what their opinion is regarding a particular issue the answers will undoubtedly depend on the individual's personal beliefs and past experiences which vary greatly from person to person. If the ideological question is framed in such a way that there is a limited selection of answers, such as in polling, the individuals will gravitate towards the answer which most fits their personal belief. While this will allow for an analysis of what the "majority" of the crowd prefers it does not necessarily mean that majority is correct. Once the human condition is allowed to enter the equation the ability to determine what is correct vs. what is preferred is gone.
--[[User:Rakundig|Rakundig]] 10:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

'''Dear''' Fellow Internet and Society Classmates:

I am writing with a proposal. February 22 will be our forth meeting as a class which marks the milestone that we are more than one quarter of the way through the material we will study during the semester.

During the last several classes we have studied examples of commons based production including Wikipedia and we are using a wiki based tool for asynchronous class discussions.

Not to take anything away from the quality of the content of those contributions, one thing that has been missing is a structure and purpose.

My proposal is that starting this week we begin to put into practice some of the things that we have learned to date. That is, below I have constructed a set of notes on what I have taken away from the class. I invite you in the spirit of Wikipedia to edit, comment upon, contribute to and in other ways improve what I have written in a collaborative search for a common understanding of the materials presented in this course.

If you are so inclined, I ask you to follow a small set of basic tenets that are described on the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/edit/Talk:Collective_Action_and_Decision-making Discussion page].

I hope that you will join me in this project. I believe a commons based approach to summarize what we have learned so far will benefit us all in translating the great information Rob and David have introduced to us. No two of us have walked away from any class discussion nor reading, nor listening, nor viewing with the exact same perception of what has been discussed. Below presents a opportunity for us all, those who gather in Cambridge and those who participate at a distance, to come to a closer mutual understanding.

Join me below to flesh out what I have begun. Add references that I have missed, correct statements that are in accurate, add your unique insight so that we can all come to a better common understanding.

Thank you in advance for your willingness to participate.

Guy --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 04:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

You can certainly count on my support and participation! I think it's a great idea to summarize what we have learned 'in a mass collaboration approach'; nonetheless, I consider that it would be much better if we can create another page to aggregate all the information from lectures apart from opinions or questions of the discussion section. I might have interpreted your purpose in an unexpected way, so please do not hesitate to share your brilliant ideas! Thank you. --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 08:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

++++

To use the term from economics, this course is built “on the shoulder of giants.” The three main giants are [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zittrain Jonathan Zittrain], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig Lawrence Lessig], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yochai_Benkler Yochai Benkler]. The course is also supplemented by a number of other influential thinkers who will be mentioned below.

Each of these individuals has contributed a block in the foundation of a set of tools that we students can use to understand the effects that digital technologies are having on our society, culture, government and personal lives today and into the future.

Rob told us that the best way to absorb this material is to begin with Zittrain, progress to Lessig and build to Benkler. Along the way we will interject relevant references to other influential thinkers.

In his book, [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/6 The Future of the Internet: and how to stop it] Jonathan Zittrain begins by describing how the Internet emerged at a time when inexpensive fully customizable multiuse computers became available to large numbers of technology tinkerers. The proliferation of these plastic (in the sense of the word that means malleable) platforms combined with unexpected success of the Internet Protocol for connecting these powerhouses of innovation together to link people across time and distance allowed the property of Generativity to emerge.

Defined as, “[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generativity an independent ability to create, generate, or produce new content unique to that system without additional help or input from the system's original creators]” the generative properties of the Internet allowed it to attain “[http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/8#2 mainstream dominance] over [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/8#1 proprietary barons such as AOL, CompuServe, and Prodigy.]”

Zittrain describe the following five properties of generativity as important to our discussion: Leverage, Adaptability, Ease of mastery, Accessibility and Transferability.

Important to beginning to build our model, Zittrain describes how the “[http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/13#1 hourglass architecture]” of the internet facilitated generativity through a layering property that broke the network into three logical layers. The hourglass is an intellectual concept and not a tangible thing. It helps people who wish to create innovations to focus on their specialty without needing to be concerned how other pieces of the puzzle that are necessary to make things happen work. Layers communicate with each other based on a set of properties that are native to each layer and understood by the others. In essence a digital [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto Esperanto] or commonly understood language between layers.

The model features “[http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/13#3 an ‘application layer,’ representing the tasks people might want to perform on the network].” The foundation of the hourglass is “[http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/13#3 the ‘physical layer,’ the actual wires or airwaves over which data will flow].”

The middle layer is where the true ingenuity of the model lives. It is “[http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/13#3 the ‘protocol layer,’ which establishes consistent ways for data to flow so that the sender, the receiver, and anyone necessary in the middle can know the basics of who the data is from and where the data is going].”

Combined the power of the plastic processing platforms on the edge and unrestrained flow of information across the digital network unleashed a wave of innovation and creativity never before seen in the history of humanity.
There is more important information in Zittrain’s about how the combination of economic, cultural security concerns and other forces are today combining to extinguish the generative nature that the Internet created. I am sure we will return to these topics later in the course.

The next element of our foundational model comes from Lawrence Lessig. In his book [http://codev2.cc/download+remix/Lessig-Codev2.pdf Code: version 2.0] professor Lessig describes that the Internet is what it is because of decisions that have been made by the designers of the system about how the system will work. This means that the Internet is not of some natural evolution or from some divine design, it is a creation of human invention.

In the early days of the Internet there was an overriding ethos that the Internet was ungovernable and beyond regulation. Notable thinkers including [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Perry_Barlow John Perry Barlow] spoke “behalf of the future” to say, “[http://ww2.cs.mu.oz.au/~zs/decl.html no moral right to rule us nor do you possess any methods of enforcement .]“

Lessig defeats the claim of no methods of control by describing a combination of factors including commercial motivations, user acquiescence to improve convenience, security, regulatory and other concerns that have resulted in innovation in the application layer that in turn has resulted in the implementation of features that are creating the opportunity for significant control.

We also discussed how [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Goldsmith Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Wu Columbia Law School Tim Wu] showed not only do laws of local jurisdictions impose regulation on the internet and its users so do local geographical cultural and other factors [http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly.msp?id=961].

Lessig describes how the cumulative effect of Markets, Laws, Social norms result in the equation that Code = law. In other words, the decisions made by those who create the underlying code that makes the Internet possible result in a cumulative effect of establishing governance. The format of that governance is a direct result of the conscious choices made by those who design and implement the system. The decisions on what goes into the code are a result of Markets, Laws and Social norms.

The third element of the foundation of the way we are describing the effects of digital technologies on our society comes from the seminal work by Yochai Benkler, [http://yupnet.org/benkler/ The Wealth of Networks]. Benkler informs us that digital technologies are creating an environment in which a, "[http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/396 radical decentralization of capitalization and computing resources is allowing every connected person, some 600 million to a billion people, to have the means to engage in info knowledge and cultural production].” Benkler argues that the “industrial information economy” is giving way to a new model of human contribution based upon a “commons” approach to innovation.

He painstakingly documents how the system for protecting what is commonly known as intellectual property that was originally meant to foster economic growth is actually considerable less efficient on a macroeconomic level than a model in which innovation is freely contributed.

Benkler argues that the prevailing theory of protecting an individual and organization’s right to control how their innovations are used (and influence how they are compensated for such use) creates such considerable transaction costs for those who might otherwise build upon previous innovations to create new products, services, works of art and other contributions to the betterment of society as a whole that they choose not to do so because of the imposed cost burden.
Benkler provides numerous examples that show how a commons based approach has resulted in significantly better, richer and more beneficial layers of innovation.

[http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/01/better_than_fre.php# Kevin Kelly] demonstrates that in a “Benkleresque” world where information might be freer and ideas less subject to the artificial scarcity created by “Intellectual Property and Copyright” laws overall wealth in the economy would be greater due to the generative effects discussed by Zittrain. Kelly states that producers would still be enriched because people are still be willing to pay monies associated to various factor involved in the conveyance of information. In additional new forms of distribution would further increase overall good.

Along the way we have also talked about several recurring themes.

These include:

- Internet infrastructure which is foundational, multipurpose;

- Innovation and public spaces

- Networks, openness, distributed, decentralized

- Digital disruption: challenges to existing institutions

Under the topic of Digital disruption, we talked about how the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble dot-com bubble]" a surge in financial speculation in digital technologies from roughly 1995 to 2000 resulted in a financial market crash that disrupted economies across the globe.

We discussed how Chris Anderson, author and editor-in-chief of Wired Magazine has shown how digital technologies have unleashed a “[http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html long tail of innovation]” that is resulting in fundamental shifts in markets.

[http://forum-network.org/lecture/boston-ideas-2005-eric-von-hippel Eric von Hippel] shows, in relative parallel to the Benkler proposition, that digital technologies are empowering society and increasing social welfare by shifting innovation up into the user layer. That is digital technologies are shifting the source of innovations from the traditional manufacturer to user generated creation. He shows how end users, who know intimately more about the ways something is important and how it can be improved are becoming a dynamic source for new creation and improvement.

== Links ==
* [http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_how_cellphones_twitter_facebook_can_make_history.html/ Clay Shirky TED Talk]
* [http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/feb2007/id20070201_774736.htm goldcorp story] (worth reading)

Collective Action and Decision-making

2011-02-20T04:06:54Z

Gclinch: /* Class Discussion */ initiated discussion of a 1Q summary of the class

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
 
</div>
'''February 22'''

Mass collaboration and the aggregation of information enable potentially profound changes in business and politics. In this class, we will compare and contrast the transformations in economic life and collective decision-making processes brought on the information revolution. The discussions will also explore the role of open information systems on business and the scope for greater transparency and participation in government, politics and public life.

==Assignments==

[[Assignments#Assignment_2:_Prospectus|Assignment 2]] due

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==
* James Surowiecki, [http://www.randomhouse.com/features/wisdomofcrowds/excerpt.html Wisdom of Crowds (excerpt)]
**[http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/22/books/review/0523books-mclemee.html?ex=1400644800&en=43bc95eb638bfed2&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND NYT Review]

* [http://ethanzuckerman.com/blog/?p=1125 Ethan Zuckerman's blog review of Infotopia] Great summary of the issues in the book.

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers Federalist Papers] published under the pseudonym Publius.
* [http://www.blogpulse.com/papers/2005/AdamicGlanceBlogWWW.pdf Divided They Blog] - a paper showing trackbacks between political blogs, mentioned by Ethan Zuckerman in his review of Cass Sunstein's Infotopia
</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==
Link to article in today's NY Times regarding Egypt's shut down during the revolution of internet within its borders:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/16/technology/16internet.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hp
<<[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 15:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)>>

In reading the Surowiecki excerpt and the summary on Zuckerman's Infotopia I think it is apparent that they are discussing apples and oranges. Surowiecki is concentrating on the crowd's ability to accurately determine a correct answer to a specific question governed by a certain criteria (e.g. how many beans in this jar or which one of these four possible answers is correct). Zuckerman, on the other hand, is looking at the human behavior and ideology aspect which has no defined criteria or "right" answer. When asking the crowd what their opinion is regarding a particular issue the answers will undoubtedly depend on the individual's personal beliefs and past experiences which vary greatly from person to person. If the ideological question is framed in such a way that there is a limited selection of answers, such as in polling, the individuals will gravitate towards the answer which most fits their personal belief. While this will allow for an analysis of what the "majority" of the crowd prefers it does not necessarily mean that majority is correct. Once the human condition is allowed to enter the equation the ability to determine what is correct vs. what is preferred is gone.
--[[User:Rakundig|Rakundig]] 10:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

'''Dear''' Fellow Internet and Society Classmates:

I am writing with a proposal. February 22 will be our forth meeting as a class which marks the milestone that we are more than one quarter of the way through the material we will study during the semester.

During the last several classes we have studied examples of commons based production including Wikipedia and we are using a wiki based tool for asynchronous class discussions.

Not to take anything away from the quality of the content of those contributions, one thing that has been missing is a structure and purpose.

My proposal is that starting this week we begin to put into practice some of the things that we have learned to date. That is, below I have constructed a set of notes on what I have taken away from the class. I invite you in the spirit of Wikipedia to edit, comment upon, contribute to and in other ways improve what I have written in a collaborative search for a common understanding of the materials presented in this course.

If you are so inclined, I ask you to follow a small set of basic tenets that are described on the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/edit/Talk:Collective_Action_and_Decision-making Discussion page].

I hope that you will join me in this project. I believe a commons based approach to summarize what we have learned so far will benefit us all in translating the great information Rob and David have introduced to us. No two of us have walked away from any class discussion nor reading, nor listening, nor viewing with the exact same perception of what has been discussed. Below presents a opportunity for us all, those who gather in Cambridge and those who participate at a distance, to come to a closer mutual understanding.

Join me below to flesh out what I have begun. Add references that I have missed, correct statements that are in accurate, add your unique insight so that we can all come to a better common understanding.

Thank you in advance for your willingness to participate.

Guy --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 04:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

++++

To use the term from economics, this course is built “on the shoulder of giants.” The three main giants are [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zittrain Jonathan Zittrain], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig Lawrence Lessig], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yochai_Benkler Yochai Benkler]. The course is also supplemented by a number of other influential thinkers who will be mentioned below.

Each of these individuals has contributed a block in the foundation of a set of tools that we students can use to understand the effects that digital technologies are having on our society, culture, government and personal lives today and into the future.

Rob told us that the best way to absorb this material is to begin with Zittrain, progress to Lessig and build to Benkler. Along the way we will interject relevant references to other influential thinkers.

In his book, [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/6 The Future of the Internet: and how to stop it] Jonathan Zittrain begins by describing how the Internet emerged at a time when inexpensive fully customizable multiuse computers became available to large numbers of technology tinkerers. The proliferation of these plastic (in the sense of the word that means malleable) platforms combined with unexpected success of the Internet Protocol for connecting these powerhouses of innovation together to link people across time and distance allowed the property of Generativity to emerge.

Defined as, “[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generativity an independent ability to create, generate, or produce new content unique to that system without additional help or input from the system's original creators]” the generative properties of the Internet allowed it to attain “[http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/8#2 mainstream dominance] over [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/8#1 proprietary barons such as AOL, CompuServe, and Prodigy.]”

Zittrain describe the following five properties of generativity as important to our discussion: Leverage, Adaptability, Ease of mastery, Accessibility and Transferability.

Important to beginning to build our model, Zittrain describes how the “[http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/13#1 hourglass architecture]” of the internet facilitated generativity through a layering property that broke the network into three logical layers. The hourglass is an intellectual concept and not a tangible thing. It helps people who wish to create innovations to focus on their specialty without needing to be concerned how other pieces of the puzzle that are necessary to make things happen work. Layers communicate with each other based on a set of properties that are native to each layer and understood by the others. In essence a digital [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto Esperanto] or commonly understood language between layers.

The model features “[http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/13#3 an ‘application layer,’ representing the tasks people might want to perform on the network].” The foundation of the hourglass is “[http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/13#3 the ‘physical layer,’ the actual wires or airwaves over which data will flow].”

The middle layer is where the true ingenuity of the model lives. It is “[http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/13#3 the ‘protocol layer,’ which establishes consistent ways for data to flow so that the sender, the receiver, and anyone necessary in the middle can know the basics of who the data is from and where the data is going].”

Combined the power of the plastic processing platforms on the edge and unrestrained flow of information across the digital network unleashed a wave of innovation and creativity never before seen in the history of humanity.
There is more important information in Zittrain’s about how the combination of economic, cultural security concerns and other forces are today combining to extinguish the generative nature that the Internet created. I am sure we will return to these topics later in the course.

The next element of our foundational model comes from Lawrence Lessig. In his book [http://codev2.cc/download+remix/Lessig-Codev2.pdf Code: version 2.0] professor Lessig describes that the Internet is what it is because of decisions that have been made by the designers of the system about how the system will work. This means that the Internet is not of some natural evolution or from some divine design, it is a creation of human invention.

In the early days of the Internet there was an overriding ethos that the Internet was ungovernable and beyond regulation. Notable thinkers including [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Perry_Barlow John Perry Barlow] spoke “behalf of the future” to say, “[http://ww2.cs.mu.oz.au/~zs/decl.html no moral right to rule us nor do you possess any methods of enforcement .]“

Lessig defeats the claim of no methods of control by describing a combination of factors including commercial motivations, user acquiescence to improve convenience, security, regulatory and other concerns that have resulted in innovation in the application layer that in turn has resulted in the implementation of features that are creating the opportunity for significant control.

We also discussed how [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Goldsmith Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Wu Columbia Law School Tim Wu] showed not only do laws of local jurisdictions impose regulation on the internet and its users so do local geographical cultural and other factors [http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly.msp?id=961].

Lessig describes how the cumulative effect of Markets, Laws, Social norms result in the equation that Code = law. In other words, the decisions made by those who create the underlying code that makes the Internet possible result in a cumulative effect of establishing governance. The format of that governance is a direct result of the conscious choices made by those who design and implement the system. The decisions on what goes into the code are a result of Markets, Laws and Social norms.

The third element of the foundation of the way we are describing the effects of digital technologies on our society comes from the seminal work by Yochai Benkler, [http://yupnet.org/benkler/ The Wealth of Networks]. Benkler informs us that digital technologies are creating an environment in which a, "radical decentralization of capitalization and computing resources is allowing every connected person, some 600 million to a billion people, to have the means to engage in info knowledge and cultural production.” Benkler argues that the “industrial information economy” is giving way to a new model of human contribution based upon a “commons” approach to innovation.

He painstakingly documents how the system for protecting what is commonly known as intellectual property that was originally meant to foster economic growth is actually considerable less efficient on a macroeconomic level than a model in which innovation is freely contributed.

Benkler argues that the prevailing theory of protecting an individual and organization’s right to control how their innovations are used (and influence how they are compensated for such use) creates such considerable transaction costs for those who might otherwise build upon previous innovations to create new products, services, works of art and other contributions to the betterment of society as a whole that they choose not to do so because of the imposed cost burden.
Benkler provides numerous examples that show how a commons based approach has resulted in significantly better, richer and more beneficial layers of innovation.

[http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/01/better_than_fre.php# Kevin Kelly] demonstrates that in a “Benkleresque” world where information might be freer and ideas less subject to the artificial scarcity created by “Intellectual Property and Copyright” laws overall wealth in the economy would be greater due to the generative effects discussed by Zittrain. Kelly states that producers would still be enriched because people are still be willing to pay monies associated to various factor involved in the conveyance of information. In additional new forms of distribution would further increase overall good.

Along the way we have also talked about several recurring themes.

These include:

- Internet infrastructure which is foundational, multipurpose;

- Innovation and public spaces

- Networks, openness, distributed, decentralized

- Digital disruption: challenges to existing institutions

Under the topic of Digital disruption, we talked about how the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble dot-com bubble]" a surge in financial speculation in digital technologies from roughly 1995 to 2000 resulted in a financial market crash that disrupted economies across the globe.

We discussed how Chris Anderson, author and editor-in-chief of Wired Magazine has shown how digital technologies have unleashed a “[http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html long tail of innovation]” that is resulting in fundamental shifts in markets.

[http://forum-network.org/lecture/boston-ideas-2005-eric-von-hippel Eric von Hippel] shows, in relative parallel to the Benkler proposition, that digital technologies are empowering society and increasing social welfare by shifting innovation up into the user layer. That is digital technologies are shifting the source of innovations from the traditional manufacturer to user generated creation. He shows how end users, who know intimately more about the ways something is important and how it can be improved are becoming a dynamic source for new creation and improvement.

== Links ==
* [http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_how_cellphones_twitter_facebook_can_make_history.html/ Clay Shirky TED Talk]
* [http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/feb2007/id20070201_774736.htm goldcorp story] (worth reading)