Technologies of Politics and Control - User contributions [en]

Final Projects

2012-05-08T21:12:35Z

Aberg: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

'''Upload your file here: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Special:Upload Upload file]

Once you've uploaded your file, please link to it following the format below:

*Name:
*Title:
*Link:

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

===Submissions===
'''Name''': BSK342
'''Title''': Alternative Online Destinations: A Sample Review and Empirical Analysis.
'''Link''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/File:Alternative_Online_Destinations_-_A_Sample_Review_and_Empirical_Analysis.pdf
[[User:BSK342|BSK342]] 14:35, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

 
'''Name''': Abby Bergman 
'''Title''': Pinterest: Image Appropriation Norms 
'''Link''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/File:Bergman_Pinterest_Final_Project.pdf‎ 
[[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 17:11, 8 May 2012 (EDT)
 

'''Name''': Samantha Zakuto
'''Title''': Conduct Unbecoming: Four Case Studies on the Use of Facebook by Public Educators
'''Link''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/File:SamanthaZakutoFinalProject.pdf
--[[User:Szakuto|Szakuto]] 11:35, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

'''Name''': Sofia Gunawan
'''Title''': Believability: In Evolving Communication Dynamics
'''Link''': <changing title, link will be up shortly>
--[[User:Harvard212|Harvard212]] 12:23EST, 8 May 2012

'''Name''': Carl Fleming
'''Title''': Khan Academy: Will Online Education Revolutionize (Or Simply Marginalize)
Education for Developing Nations
'''Link''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/File:Carl_Fleming_Final_Project.docx
--[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 17:12, 6 May 2012 (EDT)

Name: James Harris
Title: “Decentralization of Grassroots Movements in the Internet Age”
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/File:James_Harris_Final_Project_FINAL.pdf
--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 13:01, 7 May 2012 (EDT)

'''Name''': Jeff Kimble
'''Title''': Amazon Awaits Your Feedback
'''Link''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/JK_Final_Paper2.docx [[User:JeffKimble|JeffKimble]] 22:32, 7 May 2012 (EDT

'''Name''': Emanuele Dominici
'''Title''': America's Indirect Support of Terrorism: Jihadi Websites
'''Link''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/File:Emanuele_LSTU_E-120_Final_Paper.pdf
--[[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 07:51, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

'''Name''': Alex Lloyd-Evans
'''Title''': Social Structure and Hierarchy on the Cracked.com Writer’s Forums
'''Link''': Paper: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/File:Alex_LE_Final_Paper.docx Data Tables: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/File:AlexLE_Research_Paper_Stats.xlsx [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 13:40, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

'''Name''': Louis Celli
'''Title''': The Android Revolution - Will Consumers Continue to be Satisfied Living in a Box?
'''Link''': Paper: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/File:Assignment_4_CELLI_Final.pdf
[[User:Louiscelli|Louiscelli]] 13:59, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

'''Name''': Jennifer Lopez 
'''Title''': The New Era of Online Activism: Why The Future of Power Is Us 
'''Link''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/File:LSTU_E-120_JenniferWLopez_FINAL_THESIS.pdf 
[[User:JennLopez|JennLopez]] 14:56, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

'''Name''': Manny Valerio 
'''Title''': Internet Fame 
'''Link''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/File:Final_Project_Internet_Fame.pdf 
[[User:Mvalerio|Mvalerio]] 16:05, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

 
Name: Alexis Ditkowsky 
Title: Sharing and Collaboration on Pinterest 
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/Spring2012-Berkman-Assignment5-DitkowskyAlexis.doc 
[[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 14:42, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

 
Name: Nicholas Thibodeau 
Title: Your Membership is: (ANONYMOUS) 
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/File:Thibodeau_Final_Project.pdf 
[[User:Nthib|Nthib]] 16:08, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

 
Name: Christopher Mejo 
Title: Online Education 411: Key Issues in Open Course Ware 
Link: http://ocw.drupalgardens.com/ 
[[User:chrism|chrism]] 16:11, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

 
Name:Julia Brav 
Title: Moderator Behavior on Ask MetaFilter 
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/File:JBrav_LSTU_E-120_Final_Paper.pdf 
(Please ignore all the extra uploads. Sorry!)
[[User:Jlynnping|Jlynnping]] 16:33, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

 
Name: Hope Solomon 
Title:Twitter: How Local Leaders Reach Constituents 
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/File:Hope_Solomon_Final_1..pdf 
[[User:Hds5|Hds5]] 16:51, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

Final Projects

2012-05-08T21:11:33Z

Aberg: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

'''Upload your file here: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Special:Upload Upload file]

Once you've uploaded your file, please link to it following the format below:

*Name:
*Title:
*Link:

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

===Submissions===
'''Name''': BSK342
'''Title''': Alternative Online Destinations: A Sample Review and Empirical Analysis.
'''Link''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/File:Alternative_Online_Destinations_-_A_Sample_Review_and_Empirical_Analysis.pdf
[[User:BSK342|BSK342]] 14:35, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

'''Name''': Abby Bergman
'''Title''': Pinterest: Image Appropriation Norms
'''Link''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/File:Bergman_Pinterest_Final_Project.pdf‎
[[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 17:11, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

'''Name''': Samantha Zakuto
'''Title''': Conduct Unbecoming: Four Case Studies on the Use of Facebook by Public Educators
'''Link''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/File:SamanthaZakutoFinalProject.pdf
--[[User:Szakuto|Szakuto]] 11:35, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

'''Name''': Sofia Gunawan
'''Title''': Believability: In Evolving Communication Dynamics
'''Link''': <changing title, link will be up shortly>
--[[User:Harvard212|Harvard212]] 12:23EST, 8 May 2012

'''Name''': Carl Fleming
'''Title''': Khan Academy: Will Online Education Revolutionize (Or Simply Marginalize)
Education for Developing Nations
'''Link''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/File:Carl_Fleming_Final_Project.docx
--[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 17:12, 6 May 2012 (EDT)

Name: James Harris
Title: “Decentralization of Grassroots Movements in the Internet Age”
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/File:James_Harris_Final_Project_FINAL.pdf
--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 13:01, 7 May 2012 (EDT)

'''Name''': Jeff Kimble
'''Title''': Amazon Awaits Your Feedback
'''Link''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/JK_Final_Paper2.docx [[User:JeffKimble|JeffKimble]] 22:32, 7 May 2012 (EDT

'''Name''': Emanuele Dominici
'''Title''': America's Indirect Support of Terrorism: Jihadi Websites
'''Link''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/File:Emanuele_LSTU_E-120_Final_Paper.pdf
--[[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 07:51, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

'''Name''': Alex Lloyd-Evans
'''Title''': Social Structure and Hierarchy on the Cracked.com Writer’s Forums
'''Link''': Paper: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/File:Alex_LE_Final_Paper.docx Data Tables: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/File:AlexLE_Research_Paper_Stats.xlsx [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 13:40, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

'''Name''': Louis Celli
'''Title''': The Android Revolution - Will Consumers Continue to be Satisfied Living in a Box?
'''Link''': Paper: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/File:Assignment_4_CELLI_Final.pdf
[[User:Louiscelli|Louiscelli]] 13:59, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

'''Name''': Jennifer Lopez 
'''Title''': The New Era of Online Activism: Why The Future of Power Is Us 
'''Link''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/File:LSTU_E-120_JenniferWLopez_FINAL_THESIS.pdf 
[[User:JennLopez|JennLopez]] 14:56, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

'''Name''': Manny Valerio 
'''Title''': Internet Fame 
'''Link''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/File:Final_Project_Internet_Fame.pdf 
[[User:Mvalerio|Mvalerio]] 16:05, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

 
Name: Alexis Ditkowsky 
Title: Sharing and Collaboration on Pinterest 
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/Spring2012-Berkman-Assignment5-DitkowskyAlexis.doc 
[[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 14:42, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

 
Name: Nicholas Thibodeau 
Title: Your Membership is: (ANONYMOUS) 
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/File:Thibodeau_Final_Project.pdf 
[[User:Nthib|Nthib]] 16:08, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

 
Name: Christopher Mejo 
Title: Online Education 411: Key Issues in Open Course Ware 
Link: http://ocw.drupalgardens.com/ 
[[User:chrism|chrism]] 16:11, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

 
Name:Julia Brav 
Title: Moderator Behavior on Ask MetaFilter 
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/File:JBrav_LSTU_E-120_Final_Paper.pdf 
(Please ignore all the extra uploads. Sorry!)
[[User:Jlynnping|Jlynnping]] 16:33, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

 
Name: Hope Solomon 
Title:Twitter: How Local Leaders Reach Constituents 
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/File:Hope_Solomon_Final_1..pdf 
[[User:Hds5|Hds5]] 16:51, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

File:Bergman Pinterest Final Project.pdf

2012-05-08T21:08:53Z

Aberg:

The Wikileaks Case

2012-04-24T20:04:06Z

Aberg: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}
'''April 24'''

In this class, we will address many of the issues surrounding the Wikileaks case. We will explore the technical, legal, regulatory, ethical and normative elements of the events leading up to and following the massive leak of US government documents made available via Wikileaks. The case touches upon and exemplifies many of the concepts and questions that are presented in the course and will offers us the opportunity to reflect, refine and consolidate the changes and challenges of digital media.

<onlyinclude>

==Readings==

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/TheWikiLeaksIncident.pdf Case Study: The Wikileaks Incident]

== Additional Resources==

</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==
April 24: The Wikileaks Case
[[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 17:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I have enjoyed reading this case. I did not know about the all thing,letters,etc. It is interesting to queston abouut which model is the best perfect free information or controlled or totally kept secret. For Assange, the only limit seems to be the life of people involved. However, the question further : in what are they involved. Is the cause fair? And then comes a moral judgement, non objective and maybe dangerous.

The other question is: Is the disclosure very interesting for most of the human being on earth? Does that really matter?

--[[User:Sab|Sab]] 15:38, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

Fascinating reading, really looking forward to our discussion in class. Also great to see a step-by-step description of the chain of events that took place and tying in Anonymous' efforts of pro-wikileaks internet activism especially in the case of Aaron Barr/HB Gary Federal. Brutal! On a side note, noticed Anonymous publicly posting a decompiled research copy of the Stuxnet virus was discussed. I'm sure many of you might have already seen/heard of the following story on 60 Minutes however, thought it was quite intriguing and will post here for you all to review [[http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7400904n&tag=mncol;lst;10 Stuxnet: Computer Worm Opens New Era of Warfare]][[User:JennLopez|JennLopez]] 12:19, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

The WikiLeaks case gained my immediate attention the day it started publishing secret material and therefore reading about it again is still fascinating in my opinion. I choose to look at the WIkiLeaks case in two different ways: on one side it is amazing how so much top secret information concerning the entire world was able to be publicly shared, and the entire legal process with its jurisdictional problems following the release of such information, and on the other side the incompetence on America’s part in giving access to top secret information to a clearly mentally ill soldier and then not being able to track the source until a convicted hacker in touch with Manning reported the information to the FBI. What I found to be really interesting and positive of the whole scandal was the part concerning the democratic rebellions following the leak of sensitive information concerning Arab countries. Its only thanks to public information that citizens of Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco, Libya etc. were able to understand that it was time to change the way they were ruled and overturn the tyrannical regimes. Information is indeed the future and the same Assange stated that the reason for releasing the information on his part was because “a race commenced between the governments who need to be reformed and the people who can reform them using the material.” [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 12:10, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

@JennLopez I completely agree, I thought the organization and explanation of the Wikileaks case was great. I particularly enjoyed the letters between Julian Assange and the Department of State. @Emanuele I also agree that the section about the Arab countries was interesting- to think that Assange in some way helped start the Arab Spring is incredible. Looking forward listening to the class discussion as well.--[[User:Szakuto|Szakuto]] 12:39, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

The Wikileaks case poses the interesting question of reporting versus national security, a question that I doubt would have been nearly as incendiary prior to 9/11. While reporters of the past have committed themselves to providing the public with all information they learn of (and therefore it is no mystery that Assange likens himself as a reporter), the turbulent nature of foreign policy (particularly in the Middle East) does raise ethical questions on what content should be published, and whether the consequences of publishing such information will lead to innocents or government officials being harmed. What was particularly problematic is that there was anecdotal evidence that Assange had originally decided on publishing the Manning files without redactions, and that his co-workers had to convince him otherwise. For a single man to have that much power to affect the lives of many agents in the field is disconcerting.

Furthermore, the “insurance file” that Assange had, and which he would publish if he was the subject of an investigation, added a new wrinkle to the concept of reporters relying on the dissemination of information rather than using information as legal protection that could jeopardize national security.

In terms of moral responsibility and security implications, Wikileaks reminds me of the photos that were taken a couple years ago of American soldiers photographing the body parts of dead Afghan soldiers. Given the hostile reaction to the Koran book-burning scandal, the news outlet who released these pictures almost certainly would have expected that additional American soldiers would be killed from outrage and reprisal and that those soldiers may otherwise have been spared had those photos not been released. These ethical problems are why wikileaks and Assange continue to be controversial.--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 12:44, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

What a great summary of the Wikileaks events, really interesting. Assange's devotion to his own personal power/personality definitely made the supposedly altruistic nature of his releases a lot more suspect and worrisome. Reading through these events again I was reminded how impressed I was with the NYTimes, the Guardian, and the other major papers in how they handled this. They really seem to have done the best they could at thinking through an extremely difficult situation and attempting to both honor their responsibilities as journalists and maintain a sense of responsibility for the results of their actions. This is definitely something we lose when the anonymous internet becomes the method of disseminating controversial information or news; no specially trained journalists are thinking through the implications of releasing each part of a story. That lack of filter can have serious consequences. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 13:05, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

Interesting study on the Wikileaks events. I wonder what Assange's intent truly was with the letter to the State Department? Would he really remove per their request? Was it maneuvering for the U.S. to mistakenly give up the rest of the information. I'm guessing Saudi intentions to bomb Iran put people in harm's way on a more national scale --- more than just individual people. [[User:Brendanlong|Brendanlong]] 13:33, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

It just amazes me how vulnerable and insecure data can be, as evidenced by Anonymous’s hacking and humiliation of HBGary Federal and Aaron Barr. The incident also proved to be embarrassing to the US government as well, as it was clearly ill-equipped to stop WikiLeaks, hacktivists, and jounals from publicizing sensitive data. Is this the way it must be to have open information and transparent government? @ Emanuele I also find it interesting that WikiLeaks allowed for revolutions to occur in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya. [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 14:01, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

Great article summarizing the WikiLeaks timeline of events. As someone with a Top Secret clearance I found the information on Manning’s background really disturbing. The military has an obligation to monitor those with access to classified material. The reading also magnified the discontent between an editor-in-chief for a newspaper vs. online journalism in regards to releasing sensitive information that could potentially cause harm to individuals. Do online journalists have less of an obligation to protect sources? Looking forward to our discussion in class tonight.
I also saw this article on CNN: Manning switches lawyers http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/24/justice/manning-military-hearing/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 --[[User:Hds5|Hds5]] 14:04, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

@Qdang I agree, data is extremely vulnerable. The Government has to take into account retaliation from hackers when trying to impose rules and regulations.--[[User:Hds5|Hds5]] 14:34, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

Great "step-by-step" breakdown of events. I found the part on the use of ECPA important, and wonder if the law will be changed. The power struggles surrounding Assange, as well as his personality in general, helped to cast doubt on his intentions (as @AlexLE mentioned).

@Hds5 -- I think that online journalists don't necessarily hold themselves to the same "rules" as print journalists. Perhaps it's something to do with legal ambiguity of the web. [[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 16:02, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

Very interesting case study. It is great to have the players, timeline and full summary of events in one place to truly see the imapact of this event. Of greatest interest to me (like Qdang mentioned above) is the fact that WikiLeaks appears to have helped set the stage for revolutions to occur in northern Africa and the Middle East. I look forward to the discussion. [[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 14:45, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

Great article and great summary of events as they occurred. While I was aware of many things that occurred that time, I wasn't aware of few aspects on Wiki until now. Also, I am surprised how easy Top Secret information like that can be leaked and hacked into, which raises questions of how secure data like that is. I was also surprised that that out of all these websites including government ones, Amazon was the only one that could not be hacked. This also raises questions why US government websites can be so easily hacked when compared to Amazon. Shouldn't it be the other way round? While the material did spread, I think US government did a decent job at suppressing that information from going all out. The article also showed great difference between paper journalism and internet journalism. Given that many Wikileaks employees didn't like Assange's stand of releasing such information, it seems that Assange was doing everything possible to get as much media attention as possible even if it meant his own downfall. Great article, and looking forward to class discussions.
[[User:Erzhik|Erzhik]] 15:23, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

Besides the very good explanation of the facts in a brief and concise way in this article, what I most like from the Wikileaks case is that it covers many topics we have been discussing in class. We saw the importance of redacting online when we addressed regulation speech online. I agree when the article explains that The New York Times and The Guardian newspapers blamed Wikileaks for releasing the cables without revising how they should be written, putting at risk several people, including the US forces. This was the reason Jester did hacktivism for good, in order to support the privacy of the people. Also we can see how important normativity is on the Internet, and in this case we see another example of these regulations: the ECPA Subpoenas the government has used to access the accounts of important implicated persons in the Wikileaks problem. Finally, we covered collective decision and democracy in past classes, and what more impressed me from the case was that the Tunisia protests began due to some of the Wikileaks’ cables about the Tunisian government. Therefore, as it is stated in the article, part of the Arab Spring was triggered by the information spread through the cables of Wikileaks. Unbelievable! Looking forward to discussing this case[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 15:58, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

== Links ==

The Wikileaks Case

2012-04-24T20:02:57Z

Aberg: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}
'''April 24'''

In this class, we will address many of the issues surrounding the Wikileaks case. We will explore the technical, legal, regulatory, ethical and normative elements of the events leading up to and following the massive leak of US government documents made available via Wikileaks. The case touches upon and exemplifies many of the concepts and questions that are presented in the course and will offers us the opportunity to reflect, refine and consolidate the changes and challenges of digital media.

<onlyinclude>

==Readings==

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/TheWikiLeaksIncident.pdf Case Study: The Wikileaks Incident]

== Additional Resources==

</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==
April 24: The Wikileaks Case
[[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 17:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I have enjoyed reading this case. I did not know about the all thing,letters,etc. It is interesting to queston abouut which model is the best perfect free information or controlled or totally kept secret. For Assange, the only limit seems to be the life of people involved. However, the question further : in what are they involved. Is the cause fair? And then comes a moral judgement, non objective and maybe dangerous.

The other question is: Is the disclosure very interesting for most of the human being on earth? Does that really matter?

--[[User:Sab|Sab]] 15:38, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

Fascinating reading, really looking forward to our discussion in class. Also great to see a step-by-step description of the chain of events that took place and tying in Anonymous' efforts of pro-wikileaks internet activism especially in the case of Aaron Barr/HB Gary Federal. Brutal! On a side note, noticed Anonymous publicly posting a decompiled research copy of the Stuxnet virus was discussed. I'm sure many of you might have already seen/heard of the following story on 60 Minutes however, thought it was quite intriguing and will post here for you all to review [[http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7400904n&tag=mncol;lst;10 Stuxnet: Computer Worm Opens New Era of Warfare]][[User:JennLopez|JennLopez]] 12:19, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

The WikiLeaks case gained my immediate attention the day it started publishing secret material and therefore reading about it again is still fascinating in my opinion. I choose to look at the WIkiLeaks case in two different ways: on one side it is amazing how so much top secret information concerning the entire world was able to be publicly shared, and the entire legal process with its jurisdictional problems following the release of such information, and on the other side the incompetence on America’s part in giving access to top secret information to a clearly mentally ill soldier and then not being able to track the source until a convicted hacker in touch with Manning reported the information to the FBI. What I found to be really interesting and positive of the whole scandal was the part concerning the democratic rebellions following the leak of sensitive information concerning Arab countries. Its only thanks to public information that citizens of Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco, Libya etc. were able to understand that it was time to change the way they were ruled and overturn the tyrannical regimes. Information is indeed the future and the same Assange stated that the reason for releasing the information on his part was because “a race commenced between the governments who need to be reformed and the people who can reform them using the material.” [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 12:10, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

@JennLopez I completely agree, I thought the organization and explanation of the Wikileaks case was great. I particularly enjoyed the letters between Julian Assange and the Department of State. @Emanuele I also agree that the section about the Arab countries was interesting- to think that Assange in some way helped start the Arab Spring is incredible. Looking forward listening to the class discussion as well.--[[User:Szakuto|Szakuto]] 12:39, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

The Wikileaks case poses the interesting question of reporting versus national security, a question that I doubt would have been nearly as incendiary prior to 9/11. While reporters of the past have committed themselves to providing the public with all information they learn of (and therefore it is no mystery that Assange likens himself as a reporter), the turbulent nature of foreign policy (particularly in the Middle East) does raise ethical questions on what content should be published, and whether the consequences of publishing such information will lead to innocents or government officials being harmed. What was particularly problematic is that there was anecdotal evidence that Assange had originally decided on publishing the Manning files without redactions, and that his co-workers had to convince him otherwise. For a single man to have that much power to affect the lives of many agents in the field is disconcerting.

Furthermore, the “insurance file” that Assange had, and which he would publish if he was the subject of an investigation, added a new wrinkle to the concept of reporters relying on the dissemination of information rather than using information as legal protection that could jeopardize national security.

In terms of moral responsibility and security implications, Wikileaks reminds me of the photos that were taken a couple years ago of American soldiers photographing the body parts of dead Afghan soldiers. Given the hostile reaction to the Koran book-burning scandal, the news outlet who released these pictures almost certainly would have expected that additional American soldiers would be killed from outrage and reprisal and that those soldiers may otherwise have been spared had those photos not been released. These ethical problems are why wikileaks and Assange continue to be controversial.--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 12:44, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

What a great summary of the Wikileaks events, really interesting. Assange's devotion to his own personal power/personality definitely made the supposedly altruistic nature of his releases a lot more suspect and worrisome. Reading through these events again I was reminded how impressed I was with the NYTimes, the Guardian, and the other major papers in how they handled this. They really seem to have done the best they could at thinking through an extremely difficult situation and attempting to both honor their responsibilities as journalists and maintain a sense of responsibility for the results of their actions. This is definitely something we lose when the anonymous internet becomes the method of disseminating controversial information or news; no specially trained journalists are thinking through the implications of releasing each part of a story. That lack of filter can have serious consequences. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 13:05, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

Interesting study on the Wikileaks events. I wonder what Assange's intent truly was with the letter to the State Department? Would he really remove per their request? Was it maneuvering for the U.S. to mistakenly give up the rest of the information. I'm guessing Saudi intentions to bomb Iran put people in harm's way on a more national scale --- more than just individual people. [[User:Brendanlong|Brendanlong]] 13:33, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

It just amazes me how vulnerable and insecure data can be, as evidenced by Anonymous’s hacking and humiliation of HBGary Federal and Aaron Barr. The incident also proved to be embarrassing to the US government as well, as it was clearly ill-equipped to stop WikiLeaks, hacktivists, and jounals from publicizing sensitive data. Is this the way it must be to have open information and transparent government? @ Emanuele I also find it interesting that WikiLeaks allowed for revolutions to occur in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya. [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 14:01, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

Great article summarizing the WikiLeaks timeline of events. As someone with a Top Secret clearance I found the information on Manning’s background really disturbing. The military has an obligation to monitor those with access to classified material. The reading also magnified the discontent between an editor-in-chief for a newspaper vs. online journalism in regards to releasing sensitive information that could potentially cause harm to individuals. Do online journalists have less of an obligation to protect sources? Looking forward to our discussion in class tonight.
I also saw this article on CNN: Manning switches lawyers http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/24/justice/manning-military-hearing/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 --[[User:Hds5|Hds5]] 14:04, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

@Qdang I agree, data is extremely vulnerable. The Government has to take into account retaliation from hackers when trying to impose rules and regulations.--[[User:Hds5|Hds5]] 14:34, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

Great "step-by-step" breakdown of events. I found the part on the use of ECPA important, and wonder if the law will be changed. The power struggles surrounding Assange, as well as his personality in general, helped to cast doubt on his intentions (as @AlexLE mentioned).

@Hds5 -- I think that online journalists don't necessarily hold themselves to the same "rules" as print journalists. Perhaps it's something to do with legal ambiguity on the web. [[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 16:02, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

Very interesting case study. It is great to have the players, timeline and full summary of events in one place to truly see the imapact of this event. Of greatest interest to me (like Qdang mentioned above) is the fact that WikiLeaks appears to have helped set the stage for revolutions to occur in northern Africa and the Middle East. I look forward to the discussion. [[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 14:45, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

Great article and great summary of events as they occurred. While I was aware of many things that occurred that time, I wasn't aware of few aspects on Wiki until now. Also, I am surprised how easy Top Secret information like that can be leaked and hacked into, which raises questions of how secure data like that is. I was also surprised that that out of all these websites including government ones, Amazon was the only one that could not be hacked. This also raises questions why US government websites can be so easily hacked when compared to Amazon. Shouldn't it be the other way round? While the material did spread, I think US government did a decent job at suppressing that information from going all out. The article also showed great difference between paper journalism and internet journalism. Given that many Wikileaks employees didn't like Assange's stand of releasing such information, it seems that Assange was doing everything possible to get as much media attention as possible even if it meant his own downfall. Great article, and looking forward to class discussions.
[[User:Erzhik|Erzhik]] 15:23, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

Besides the very good explanation of the facts in a brief and concise way in this article, what I most like from the Wikileaks case is that it covers many topics we have been discussing in class. We saw the importance of redacting online when we addressed regulation speech online. I agree when the article explains that The New York Times and The Guardian newspapers blamed Wikileaks for releasing the cables without revising how they should be written, putting at risk several people, including the US forces. This was the reason Jester did hacktivism for good, in order to support the privacy of the people. Also we can see how important normativity is on the Internet, and in this case we see another example of these regulations: the ECPA Subpoenas the government has used to access the accounts of important implicated persons in the Wikileaks problem. Finally, we covered collective decision and democracy in past classes, and what more impressed me from the case was that the Tunisia protests began due to some of the Wikileaks’ cables about the Tunisian government. Therefore, as it is stated in the article, part of the Arab Spring was triggered by the information spread through the cables of Wikileaks. Unbelievable! Looking forward to discussing this case[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 15:58, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

== Links ==

Assignment 4 Submissions

2012-04-18T03:59:21Z

Aberg: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

This assignment is due on April 17. 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).

'''Upload your rough draft here: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Special:Upload Upload file]'''

'''If you'd like peer feedback on an updated version of your rough draft, you can submit it here: [[Assignment 4 Peer Review]]'''

Please make sure the name of your file includes your name (example: Name_Assignment4.doc) to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment. Please follow the format below:

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

==Submissions==

{{AssignmentInfo|Fabian Celis|Assignment 4: Final Paper Rough Draft|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Assignment_4_Fabian_Celis.doc}}
--[[User:Fabian Celis|Fabian Celis]] 23:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

{{AssignmentInfo|Sab|Assignment 4: Final Paper Rough Draft|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Assignment_4.doc.pdf}}
--[[User:Sab|Sab]] 22:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

{{AssignmentInfo|Abby Bergman|Assignment 4: Final Paper Rough Draft|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:ABergman_Pinterest_Rough_Draft_(1).doc}} [[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 03:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)‎

/*********************************************************************************

/*Name: BSK342

/*Description: Assignment 4: Rough Rough Rough Draft

/*Link to Outline: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/Bsk342_Assignment_4.pdf

/*[[User:BSK342|BSK342]] 21:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

/*********************************************************************************/

{{AssignmentInfo|Stefan Cheplick|Assignment 4: Final Paper Rough Draft|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/OpenFinance_and_StockTwits_Stefan_Cheplick_Internet_and_Societ.doc}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Harvard212|Assignment 4: Rough Draft|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:LSTUAssignment4SGunawan.pdf}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Jeff Kimble|Assignment 4: Final Paper Rough Draft|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/Jeff_Kimble_Rough_Draft2.doc}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Alex Lloyd-Evans|Assignment 4: Final Paper Rough Draft|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Alex_Lloyd-Evans_Assignment_4_%28Rough_Draft%29.pdf}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Samantha Zakuto|Assignment 4: Final Paper Rough Draft|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Assignment4SamanthaZakuto.pdf}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Emanuele Dominici|Assignment 4: Final Paper Rough Draft|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Emanuele_Assignment_4.doc}}

{{AssignmentInfo|James Harris|Assignment 4: Final Paper Rough Draft|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:James_Harris_-_Final_Project_Draft.doc}}--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 16:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

{{AssignmentInfo|Alexis Ditkowsky|Assignment 4: Final Paper Rough Draft|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/Spring2012-Berkman-Assignment4-DitkowskyAlexis_%281%29.pdf}}
[[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 17:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

{{AssignmentInfo|Julia Brav|Assignment 4: Final Paper Rough Draft|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/JBrav_LSTU_Final_Paper_Draft.pdf}}[[User:Jlynnping|Jlynnping]] 19:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

{{AssignmentInfo|Jennifer Lopez|Assignment 4 Project Rough Draft|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:LSTU_E-120_JenniferWLopez_Assignment_4.pdf}}[[User:JennLopez|JennLopez]] 21:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

{{AssignmentInfo|Brendan Long / Quynh Dang|Assignment 4 Project Draft|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/ResearchProjectDraft.pdf}}[[User:Brendanlong|Brendanlong]]
19:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

{{AssignmentInfo|Yerzhan Temirbulatov|Assignment 4: Final Paper Rough Draft|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Yerzhan_Temirbulatov_FinalDraft.doc}}
[[User:Erzhik|Erzhik]] 20:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

{{AssignmentInfo|Hope Solomon|Assignment 4 Project
Draft|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Hope_Solomon_Assignment_4.doc}}
--[[User:Hds5|Hds5]] 21:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

{{AssignmentInfo|Carl Fleming|Assignment 4 Project
Draft|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Fleming_Assignment_4.doc}}
--[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 21:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

{{AssignmentInfo|Marjolein Siegenthaler|Assignment 4 Project
Draft|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Assignment_4_Marjolein_Siegenthaler.doc‎}}
[[[User:MSS|MSS]] 22:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)]

{{AssignmentInfo|Nicholas Thibodeau|Assignment 4 Project Draft
|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Thibodeau_Assignment_4.pdf‎}}
[[User:Nthib|Nthib]] 23:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

{{AssignmentInfo|David Taber|Assignment 4 Project Draft
|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Final_project_draft.odt}}
[[User:David Taber|David Taber]] 01:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

2012-03-21T03:38:38Z

Aberg: uploaded a new version of "Image:Abergman Assignment 3.rtf"

Assignment 3 Submissions

2012-03-21T03:31:03Z

Aberg: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

This assignment is due on March 20. 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_Assignment3.doc) to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment. '''Upload your file here: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Special:Upload Upload file]'''

Once you've uploaded your file, please link to it following the format below:

*Name:
*Description:
*Link to your outline: (the file you uploaded)

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

==Submission Instructions==

*Name:
*Description:
*Link to your outline:

Optionally you can use a new template to create a title box for your assignment. In order to do this use the following format:
<pre>
{{AssignmentInfo|Name|My assignment description|Link to your file}}
</pre>

If used properly you should see the following:
{{AssignmentInfo|My Name|My assignment description|http://foo.bar}}

You may also use some new templates for comments and responses.

<pre>
{{Comment|type your comment here}}
</pre>

Should look like:
{{Comment|Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor inviduntut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. }}

You can enter a response in a similar way:
<pre>
{{Response|type your response here}}
</pre>
Should look like:
{{Response|thank you very much for commenting on my assignment.}}

==Submissions==

{{AssignmentInfo|Just Johnny|Assignment 3: The Social Network|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Johnny_Assignment3.doc}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Abby Bergman [[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 03:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)|(Assignment 3) Pinterest and Tumblr: Visually Arrested |http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Abergman_Assignment_3.rtf}}

/*********************************************************************************

/*Name: BSK342

/*Description: Assignment 3: Project Outline

/*Link to Outline: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:BSK342assignment3.pdf

/*[[User:BSK342|BSK342]] 19:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

/*********************************************************************************/
{{AssignmentInfo|Sab|Assignment 3: Free Online High-Quality Education: The Next Revolution on Internet?
The Blue Ocean Strategy|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Sab_Assignment_3.pdf}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Fabian Celis|Assignment 3: The Open University's Communities|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:OU_Outline_Fabian_Celis.doc}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Stefan Cheplick|Assignment 3: Social Finance and StockTwits|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/Assingment_3_StockTwits_Social_Finance_by_SC.doc}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Jeff Kimble|Assignment 3: eCommerce through the lens of Amazon|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/Jeff_Kimble_--_Assignment_3.doc}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Alexis Ditkowsky|Assignment 3: Collaborative Boards on Pinterest: Clearly Not a Primary Function of the Site|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/Spring2012-Berkman-Assignment3-DitkowskyAlexis.pdf}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Harvard212|Message Efficacy on Broad Spectrum Platforms|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Harvard212_Assignment3.pdf}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Emanuele Dominici|Assignment 3: Jihadi Websites and US Counter-Terrorism Strategies|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Emanuele_Assignment_3.doc}}

{{AssignmentInfo|James Harris|Assignment 3: Digital Grassroots Campaigning|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:James_Harris_-_Assignment_-3_-_Outline.rtf}}--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 16:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

{{AssignmentInfo|Louis Celli|Assignment 3: The Android Revolution|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/Assignment_3_CELLI_Outline_NEW_PROJECT.pdf}}

{{AssignmentInfo|David Taber|Assignment 3: Coffee Shop v. Grocery Store: How architecture and code affect conversations on local news sites|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:David_Taber_outline_E-120.odt}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Marjolein Siegenthaler|Assignment 3: Outline project Airbnb.com|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Assignment_3_Marjolein_Siegenthaler.doc}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Samantha Zakuto |Assignment 3: Social Media: The Public School Teacher's Edition |//http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Assignment3SamanthaZakuto.pdf}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Yerzhan Temirbulatov |Assignment 3: Endless War On Piracy |http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Yerzhan_Temirbulatov_Assignment3.doc}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Mike Brant|Assignment 3: Outline Are Youth Movements Moved by Online Communities?|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Mike_Brant_Assignment_3.doc}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Alex Lloyd-Evans|Assignment 3: The Cracked Writer's Forums|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Lloyd-Evans_Assignment_3_%28Outline%29.pdf}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Jennifer Lopez|Assignment 3: The New Era of Online Activism: The Future of Power is Us|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:LSTU_E-120_JenniferWLopez_Assignment_3.pdf}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Manuel Valerio|Assignment 3: Internet, fame and speed to Market |http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:MPValerio_Assignment-3_Outline.pdf}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Hope Solomon|Assignment 3: What Makes a Twitter Account Effective for Local Political Leaders?
|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:HopeDSolomonAssignment3.doc}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Brendan Long & Quynh Dang|Assignment 3: Differences in Site Operation and Community of Q&A Websites|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/Assignment_3_-_Quynh_Dang%2C_Brendan_Long.doc}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Cheda Martis|Assignment 3: How The Internet Has Change Social, Civic, and Charitable Involvement |http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Assignment_3_Final_Project_Outline-_Cheda_Martis.pdf}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Nicholas Thibodeau|Assignment 3: (ANONYMOUS) |http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Thibodeau_assignment_3.pdf}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Gregorian Hawke|My third assignment|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Assignment_3_v0.5_%28_-Gregorian%29.odt}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Carl Fleming|Assignment 3|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Fleming_Assignment_3.doc}}

File:Abergman Assignment 3.rtf

2012-03-21T03:24:57Z

Aberg:

Collective Action and Decision-making

2012-03-20T18:25:15Z

Aberg: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}
'''March 20'''

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_3:_Project_Outline|Assignment 3 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://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseer.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.59.9009%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=IHRnT8TLOe-00QHH5YSHCA&usg=AFQjCNERO0GwXWc7DLWZwSaqnjjjMTWMYg 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 ==

March 20: Collective Action and Decision-making
[[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 17:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Even though group intelligence is more difficult to measure than individual intelligence, I do believe that a crowd can outsmart a genius. Imagine for example, if a very intelligent physicist is isolated and only surrounded by other physicists, he/she maybe outstanding in this field, but is limited to what he/she can do. However, when allowed to collaborate with cell and molecular biologists, chemists, mechanical and electrical engineers, medical doctors, veterinarians, etc… a physicist learns to conduct cell mechanics, biophysics, molecular and biochemical experiments, and has the potential to solve health problems, such as coming up with a drug to relax airway smooth muscle cells during an asthma attack. When a group of diverse individuals collaborate, they can solve problems that they otherwise cannot solve individually. The internet has allowed this collaboration to increase globally through technologies such as Skype and E-mail. In some instances, group intelligence depends on its structure and dynamics. For example, Megan Garber, from Nieman Lab, reported that MIT researchers found that “[g]roup intelligence is correlated…with emotional intelligence, http://www.niemanlab.org/2011/05/mit-management-professor-tom-malone-on-collective-intelligence-and-the-genetic-structure-of-groups/. The researchers concluded that a group is more intelligent and is more likely to solve difficult problems when there are more women in it. Simply placing very smart individuals together in a group does not make a group smarter.
When I think of a very intelligent individual or genius, I think of my lab principal investigator, who has the ability to lead his lab members and make important decisions. However, he would have not made an informed decision without hearing the lab members deliberate. [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 15:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I like the connection between the reality of crowd intelligence in "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" or marble-jar guessing and the concept of blog aggregates and online communities. It seems like this is a good argument against the dangers of cocooning at some levels. While a given blog/website community is likely there because they all subscribe to a certain set of interests or views, at least you know that if you're going to a big one you're probably getting the very best and most cohesive expression of those concepts. It may not make them right, but it adds value to them as a tool for educating yourself. Aggregates also will provide a balance to the problem that 1 or 2 of every group of 50 people will actually be more accurate than the group at guessing the number of marbles... but only in that one specific trial. If you follow one blogger religiously you are susceptible to their blind spots and moments where they were simply wrong. If you follow a collection of sites and blogs you will be exposed to the correct answers to most questions; whether you realize which is the correct answer is up to you haha. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 14:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The articles that we had to read for this week were very interesting to me. I really enjoyed how the first article focused on statistics regarding various experiments and “Who wants to be a millionaire”, a program which I personally loved watching. Even though I respect and find very interesting the point made regarding the percentages being higher and closer to the correct answer for groups and less accurate for individuals, I don’t agree. Math and Statistics aren’t my field and I must admit that I’m not very good at any of them but I feel off the top of my head that it is quite obvious that a group would obtain a higher and more accurate score than an individual because the general population or “average Joe” is likely to get fairly close to the right answer which can be higher or lower but of course adding all the higher scores to the lower ones, I find it to be mathematically obvious that we shall obtain an approximately correct average score. Therefore this being said I find the “Condorcet Jury Theorem”, mentioned in the third article to pretty much respect my personal opinion on the subject. In conclusion I very much enjoyed these articles and I find that in some way these theories emphasizing on group work and force are exactly what Democracy is about. [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 18:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Collective action affects us everyday (or at least those of us that read news, shop, or blog online). For instance, if you use Reddit, most likely you're reading posts on the front page that were up-voted--a form of collective action. Zuckerman's article also points out "Amazon's collaborative filtering recs and Google's page rank algorithm." This had a huge effect on business (as we read in the long tail article, for example).

Sunstein has a valid point with ideological cocoons, but does seem flawed. I agree with Zuckerman and the others who labeled his idea as "alarmist." While it's entirely possible (as "Divided they Blog" suggests) for people to seek out news and sites with similar ideologies and have their beliefs continually reinforced, that is not necessarily the way most people 'read the news.' Greater exposure to new ideas or newspapers/news from far away, like the readings said, is a benefit that far outweighs the risk of people forming an ideological cocoon. [[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 18:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I realize we'll probably dig deeper into the topics of collective action and decision-making in the "Internet and Democracy" classes but I'd love to have a longer reading list on this topic. If anyone has any additional recommendations, please share. Thanks! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 13:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

== Links ==

New and Old Media, Participation, and Information

2012-03-05T22:22:42Z

Aberg: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}
'''March 6'''

The profusion of low-cost media production and distribution has led to the rise of an alternative citizen-led media sector. Is this a passing fad of enthusiastic amateurs or the beginning of a fundamental restructuring of the way media and news are produced and consumed? Will the current trends lead to more information, better information, and better informed people or to an infinite stream of unreliable chatter? Will it lead to a more politically engaged populace or to an increasingly polarized society that picks its sources of information to match its biases and ignorance?

==Assignments==
Planning to [[Group Project Page|work in a group]]? Let us know by this Friday, March 9 by emailing the instructors with a short paragraph explaining why a group approach to your proposed topic for the final project makes sense.

<onlyinclude>
==Readings==
* John Nichols and Robert W. McChesney, [http://www.thenation.com/article/death-and-life-great-american-newspapers The Life and Death of Great American Newspapers]
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Overview_MR.pdf Media Re:public Overview] - Read at least the executive summary
* [http://www.knightcomm.org/read-the-report-and-comment/ Knight Commission Report on Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy] - Read at least the executive summary, recommendations and conclusions
* Nieman Journalism Lab, [http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/06/four-crowdsourcing-lessons-from-the-guardians-spectacular-expenses-scandal-experiment/ Four crowdsourcing lessons from the Guardian’s (spectacular) expenses-scandal experiment]
* [http://sunlightfoundation.com/ Sunlight Foundation website] - just look around the site to see what they are up to
* Pennenberg, [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/28/AR2011012803042.html WikiLeaks' Julian Assange: 'Anarchist,' 'agitator,' 'arrogant' and a journalist]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://www.ftc.gov/opp/workshops/news/jun15/docs/new-staff-discussion.pdf FTC Staff Discussion Draft, Potential Policy Recommendations to Support the Reinvention of Journalism] - just skim it
* Leonard Downie, Jr., and Michael Schudson, [http://www.cjr.org/reconstruction/the_reconstruction_of_american.php?page=all The Reconstruction of American Journalism]
* [http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/wemedia/book/index.csp We The Media, Dan Gillmor] (the [http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/wemedia/book/ch00.pdf Introduction] is a good start, so to speak)
* [http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2005/01/21/berk_essy.html Jay Rosen, Bloggers vs. Journalists Is Over]
* [http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_how_cellphones_twitter_facebook_can_make_history.html Shirky on Social Media]
</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==

What do people think of "The Death and Life of the Great American Newspaper"?

I thought the author's first premise was that these old media outlets have an intrinsic value and should continue to exist. To be rather reactive and harsh, let them die. If they can't cope, good riddance. To be a bit more diplomatic, reasonable, and thoughtful, I think a basic flaw in his ideas is this idea that 'old media' as we think of it, that is these institutions like the NYTimes, WAPost, Time Mag, etc., were always there. The author talks about people coming to the US in the 1830s and being impressed with the number and quality of periodicals; but it wasn't even "professional" journalists as we think of them. It wasn't newsrooms of paid writers being directed by editors. It was what we think of as "citizen" journalists. At that period, there weren't the large industrial printing presses: It was movable type plate presses. So, the cost of physically producing a copy was roughly the same whatever the scale. After the industrial revolution, when steam began powering large presses, it became very marginally cheap to product a single print copy. So, if you were large, you could print them cheaper, and if you were small, you couldn't compete on price. A "citizen" paper couldn't hope to compete, largely because of the high barrier to entry with a mechanized press. Hence, the rise of large papers. The internet has taken us back to where the cost of publishing a given piece is the same for everyone. I think that this distinction between "citizen" and "professional" journalist is false. If you're reporting original news, you're a journalist. If you offer original analysis, you're a journalist.

So, then it comes to actually finding a solution to the quandary of actually getting good journalism in people's hands (or screens). Here I found the author's solutions to be, not only flawed in respect to my above premise, but also rather complicated and disturbingly focused on preserving physical periodicals out of principal. Subsidize mail distributions? That's the whole purpose of the internet. Still, I do see the need for someplace people can publish and read good news. Blogs don't usually work so well, because good writing and research takes time and effort. In order to keep a blog relevant, it really needs at least a weekly story. Most people would probably not be interested in publishing more than a story or two a year. I've certainly come across some great blogs, especially those run by a few professionals writing about news in their field. "science based medicine", for example, has some of the best medical reporting around, especially if you want the skeptical version. It helps that it has several contributors as well. But overall, quality control is still an issue, as is finding information centrally. One solution might be say, an online newspaper, with either paid or at lease vetted editors that accept user submitted stories, check facts, ensure that the story is at lease in some semblance well written, factually correct (at least generally), and basically edits what stories are published. They could also (as online publications already frequently do) update the stories easily as more facts come to light, or other users check facts, etc. I know that no individual component of this idea is new; it's sort of wiki meets blog applied to a newspaper format online, but I haven't seen it applied in this manner yet. It's not a perfect idea, but it's a whole lot more sensical than subsidies for newspaper subscription and other convoluted government fixes.

Am I crazy here? Anyone else have any counters or solutions to the author's ideas?
[[User:BlakeGeno|BlakeGeno]] 07:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

March 6: New and Old Media, Participation, and Information
[[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 17:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Knight Commission Report on Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy link: http://www.knightcomm.org/executive-summary/ [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 04:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

What do people think of "The Death and Life of the Great American Newspaper"?
I thought the author's first premise was that these old media outlets have an intrinsic value and should continue to exist. To be rather reactive and harsh, let them die. If they can't cope, good riddance. To be a bit more diplomatic, reasonable, and thoughtful, I think a basic flaw in his ideas is this idea that 'old media' as we think of it, that is these institutions like the NYTimes, WAPost, Time Mag, etc., were always there. The author talks about people coming to the US in the 1830s and being impressed with the number and quality of periodicals; but it wasn't even "professional" journalists as we think of them. It wasn't newsrooms of paid writers being directed by editors. It was what we think of as "citizen" journalists. At that period, there weren't the large industrial printing presses: It was movable type plate presses. So, the cost of physically producing a copy was roughly the same whatever the scale. After the industrial revolution, when steam began powering large presses, it became very marginally cheap to product a single print copy. So, if you were large, you could print them cheaper, and if you were small, you couldn't compete on price. A "citizen" paper couldn't hope to compete, largely because of the high barrier to entry with a mechanized press. Hence, the rise of large papers. The internet has taken us back to where the cost of publishing a given piece is the same for everyone. I think that this distinction between "citizen" and "professional" journalist is false. If you're reporting original news, you're a journalist. If you offer original analysis, you're a journalist.

So, then it comes to actually finding a solution to the quandary of actually getting good journalism in people's hands (or screens). Here I found the author's solutions to be, not only flawed in respect to my above premise, but also rather complicated and disturbingly focused on preserving physical periodicals out of principal. Subsidize mail distributions? That's the whole purpose of the internet. Still, I do see the need for someplace people can publish and read good news. Blogs don't usually work so well, because good writing and research takes time and effort. In order to keep a blog relevant, it really needs at least a weekly story. Most people would probably not be interested in publishing more than a story or two a year. I've certainly come across some great blogs, especially those run by a few professionals writing about news in their field. "science based medicine", for example, has some of the best medical reporting around, especially if you want the skeptical version. It helps that it has several contributors as well. But overall, quality control is still an issue, as is finding information centrally. One solution might be say, an online newspaper, with either paid or at lease vetted editors that accept user submitted stories, check facts, ensure that the story is at lease in some semblance well written, factually correct (at least generally), and basically edits what stories are published. They could also (as online publications already frequently do) update the stories easily as more facts come to light, or other users check facts, etc. I know that no individual component of this idea is new; it's sort of wiki meets blog applied to a newspaper format online, but I haven't seen it applied in this manner yet. It's not a perfect idea, but it's a whole lot more sensical than subsidies for newspaper subscription and other convoluted government fixes.

Am I crazy here? Anyone else have any counters or solutions to the author's ideas?
[[User:BlakeGeno|BlakeGeno]] 06:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

@ BlakeGeno: You are not crazy for bringing up an interesting point! However, I would like to counter your argument against subsidizing mail distributions, because it is way to sustain skilled journalism. In addition, if the goal is to inform all communities, then we do not want to exclude those who but are not tech savvy. [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 20:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The readings for this week’s class were very interesting and got me thinking about many of the topics covered. The article regarding the Life and Death of Great American Newspapers was one of the most interesting since it touched a subject which always got me curious. I personally am a fan of the newspaper that one can touch rather than the online version and I do agree that in the near future there might be only an online version but I do feel that at least to some extent, the fault can be of the newspapers as well. Several newspapers and magazines set up their own website where people can access information for free. So why would someone want to spend money and buy the paper version when they can obtain the same information online on the website of the same paper? The article concerning the Guardian was also very interesting and true in my opinion. However out of the four great pieces of advice I personally feel that the most important is the one regarding the fact that the work is free so it should be fun for people. I would be definitely eager to do something free but fun and transforming the process in a sort of videogame is also a very productive way of doing so. Sunlightfoundation.org was a pretty cool website to visit, but my favorite part was the Poligraft especially the part stating that you can “Simply paste the URL or text of a news article, blog post or press release and Poligraft will create an enhanced view of the people, organizations and relationships described within it.” I found the article on Julian Assange really interesting and after reading it, it got me into a research mode on the subject to search for additional info on Wikileaks. In regards to Assange’s person I am firmly against what he has done and what he represents but from a legal perspective I feel that he cannot be deprived of the title of journalist. While intelligence professionals, military personnel and other related government officials to a certain extent have to keep government secrets to themselves and must swear to protect them and not reveal classified information, a regular person especially not a citizen of the United States isn’t in my opinion subject to such regulation. [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 15:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

John Nichols and Robert W. McChesney's The Death and Life of Great American Newspapers, is a candid reminder on the sad state of real journalism in an age when media corporations are concerned more with the bottom line than cutting-edge journalism. I think that it is important to understand how we choose to receive our daily news in order to better clarify the roadblocks for journalists today. For me, I prefer to view headline news on the internet instead of a newspaper because I can easily access news stories with a click of a button as well as cycle through any relevant photos. Many of the stories are succinct and straight to the point and cnn.com is my website of choice. I may augment the daily headlines with cable news television programming, or even explore the internet for interesting blogs if I have the time. All of this may consume 1-2 hours of my time each day and I am not sure most Americans have this time.
If the main concern by the authors is to reboot truly comprehensive and compelling journalism that covers gaps in current reporting, they must also understand that the only engine for achieving such a goal is to increase the consumer demand for such reporting. While pumping government dollars into subsidizing news organizations or providing newspaper tax credits to individuals may moderately expand viewership (and financially prop the journalistic craft), the goal should be to analyze behaviors, time, consumer trends and find ways to convince a consumer base that news is much more than headlines and TV viewership.
--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 17:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that citizen-led media is a good thing for journalism and news consumers. I don't think it will entirely replace old media, and I hope it doesn't because I'm sure the people who don't have access to the internet will be left out, among other reasons. Also, many news stories found on social media, blogs, etc, were originally reported by traditional media outlets. While an influx of ordinary citizens producing news may lead to some lower quality news stories, I don't think the news will end up as an "infinite stream of unreliable chatter." The new media phenomenon is helping to transform old media into a more "participatory and collaborative" reporting venture. (CJR) New media has caused old media to restructure and innovate, and that is always a good thing. With so many sources of news (blogs, traditional news outlets, social media), many different agendas can be heard/read/viewed. Additionally, new media has the ability to report on small stories that aren't usually reported in old media outlets that would otherwise be overlooked.

Americans are more politically engaged than citizens of other Western/developed countries already, and citizen-led media is a natural step in the direction of higher political engagement. I don't think that "too much news" will lead to a more polarized society, but it may lead to more misinformation. However, there has always been misinformation in the news and I don't see this new form of alternative citizen-led media causing a larger gap between real news and misinformation. Neither old media or new media are immune to scandals, either. Traditional journalists are hailed as superior to ordinary citizens because they can monitor and police news stories better, picking out facts from falsehoods. The Guardian article offers a good example of the other side of the coin. In response to "The Death and Life of Great American Newspapers," I think government subsidies should not be used in the news industry and I don't think that is a sustainable option for newspapers. [[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 22:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

== Links from Class ==

Copyright in Cyberspace

2012-02-28T18:47:12Z

Aberg: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}
'''February 28'''

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.

<onlyinclude>
== Required Readings ==

* [http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 1, "Copyright Basics" (.pdf)]
* [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 17 U.S.C. § 107 (“Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use”)]
* [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 17 U.S.C. § 512(c) (“Information Residing on Systems or Networks at Direction of Users”)]
* [http://www.bloomsburyacademic.com/view/Remix_9781849662505/chapter-ba-9781849662505-chapter-0001.xml Lawrence Lessig, Remix, Bloombsbury Academic (2008) (CC BY-NC 3.0), Ch. 1, "Introduction"]
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/24/technology/24google.html Miguel Helft, "Judge Sides with Google in Viacom Video Suit," NYTimes.com (June 23, 2010)]
* [http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2011/12/copyright-infringement-defendants-turn-the-table-on-righthaven335.html Jeffrey D. Neuburger, "Copyright Infringement Defendants Turn the Table on Righthaven," Mediashift (December 1, 2011)]
* [http://www.boston.com/ae/specials/culturedesk/2010/11/cooks_source_probably_shutting.html Steve Greenlee, "Cooks Source probably shutting down," Boston Globe CultureDesk (November 17, 2010)]
* [http://futureoftheinternet.org/reading-sopa Jonathan Zittrain, Kendra Albert, and Alicia Solow-Niederman, "A Close Look at SOPA," The Future of the Internet Blog (December 2, 2011)]
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/opinion/what-wikipedia-wont-tell-you.html?_r=2 Cary Sherman, "What Wikipedia Won't Tell You," NY Times (February 7, 2012)]
* [http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120208/01453517694/riaa-totally-out-touch-lashes-out-google-wikipedia-everyone-who-protested-sopapipa.shtml Mike Masnick, "RIAA Totally Out of Touch: Lashes Out At Google, Wikipedia And Everyone Who Protested SOPA/PIPA," TechDirt (February 8, 2012)]

== 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 ==

Wanted to share this informative article from Life Hacker [http://lifehacker.com/5888488/how-youre-breaking-the-law-every-day-and-what-you-can-do-about-it?utm_source=Lifehacker+Newsletter&utm_campaign=e57b84fd87-UA-142218-1&utm_medium=email "How You’re Breaking the Law Every Day (and What You Can Do About It)"] that gives a general overview of copyright law, how to protect yourself, (with an illustration of "derivative works" featuring Hitler) & talks about Lessig's bit on Breitz, Girl Talk, and "quoting."
[[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 18:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to share an interesting post from The Wall Street Journal Law Blog on trademark infringement and online shaming: [http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/02/23/shame-on-you-trademark-holders/ Shame on You, Trademark Holders] 
[[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 14:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

A relevant article for this week is one about [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/24/technology/24google.html?pagewanted=2 domain name seizures]. Also, muckrock.com filed a FOIA request on behalf of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz Aaron Swartz] (founder of Demand Progress, or maybe better known for his break in to JSTOR @ MIT and subsequent arrest a couple years ago) with the DHS requesting [http://www.muckrock.com/foi/view/united-states-of-america/domain-name-seizures/329/ records related to domain name seizures of many websites]. I am kind of blown away by this practice and fairly certain it would have happened more frequently if SOPA had been passed.

Now, turning my attention to this week's readings. Is it just me, or does Cary Sherman and his misinformation/twisted view of reality remind anyone else of Fox news? Anyways, the Intro to Lessig's "Remix" touched on a few (well, a lot) things that I found very interesting. I liked his exploration of creativity and the description of music as more interactive. Music is very much about its audience, and how that audience interprets and interacts with said music. To me, this helps to show how the current copyright statute is archaic in a sense. The bit about Breitz's issues with the Lennon installment shed light on the true (and many times ugly) face of copyright holders and the entertainment industry. Unfortunately, it does seem to be the case that the "collateral damage" in these instances is creativity, as Lessig wrote. Breitzs' installments (which I saw in Berlin) were wonderful, and I'm surprised Ono didn't respond like Marley's widow, Rita. At least Breitz persevered and touched the lives of the fans and exhibit viewers.

I very much enjoyed the article that responded to Sherman's op ed piece. The government and the entertainment industry have not been able to keep up with the net. The net is too transformative for bureaucracy and old fashioned "cronyism." Even the VCR was labeled "pirate technology" (from "Remix") at one point. I think it will take awhile for the laws, policies, and the entertainment industry to catch up with the generativity of the net. Heck, it took America awhile to come to terms with Elvis' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelvic_thrust pelvic thrust]. [[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 23:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

February 28: Copyright in Cyberspace
[[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 17:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been waiting for the right time to share this link, I think this is it. Whenever TPB (The pirate bay) gets send a cease and desist letter they post it and their (often funny) response here [http://thepiratebay.se/legal]. (Some replies contain NSFW language). 
[[User:Gregor|Gregor]] 14:21, 27 Febuary 2012 (UTC)

I have been particularly sensitive of copyright laws since I am interested in music recording and video. Lawrence Lessig’s article ''Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy'' does bring up an important point; do companies really stand to lose profits by targeting artists who may use short clips of their copyrighted material or are these cases mostly based on ideology and principle with little concern for lost profits? In the case of Stephanie Lenz and the Youtube video of her child dancing to Prince, clearly Lessig is correct in pointing out that the inclusion of Prince music in the video would not cut into the album sales. The clip was short and the sound quality was poor. In fact, popularizing the clip through the video could only broaden interest in Prince’s music and may lead to additional sales.

In the case of Gregg Gillis who remixed existing clips, I think his response to the copyright infringement law suit was apt; “This wasn’t something like a bootlegging case.” While Gillis’s music involves hundreds of different clips and I can only assume that no one single clip defines an entire song, certain copyright infringement cases are trickier. For example, rapper Vanilla Ice’s hit song ''Ice Ice Baby'' clearly took the entire bass line of the Queen song “Under Pressure” and used the clip repeatedly throughout the song. While Vanilla Ice never credited Queen, he would ultimately be forced to pay royalties. Therefore it may be a little more nuanced between Gillis’s case where the sum of the clips is more important than any one clip and Vanilla Ice’s situation where a single clip makes up the entire song.
--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 17:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I found this week’s articles very interesting. Copyright has always been an interesting subject to me and I have found myself once doing extensive research on it and involving my lawyers as well for a specific case which I thought to be copyright infringement. Right out of college I found a temporary job working in a museum in Rome, Italy. In the meantime a photographic contest ended with a winning picture of an area of the Museum which had me at the center of it walking away from the photographer with no idea that I was in it. At first when I found out I thought it was simply funny but then the Museum started using that picture for numerous publications and advertising it in subway stations and around the city. Everyone knew it was me and all my friends recognized me; the Museum director even complimented me but when I talked to my lawyers to find out whether or not it was an infringement of copyright laws, I was told that it was indeed but unfortunately since my head was turned it wasn’t that easy to determine whether or not the subject in the picture was actually me. I also enjoyed Lessig’s article especially the sections concerning John Lennon since I am also a big fan and the first story about the 18 month old child dancing to Prince. In the article it said that the child was recorded for about 29 seconds and I must say that regardless of the other possible issues concerning the case, I have listened hundreds of times to songs for free on websites like amazon.com which reproduce quotes or samples for 30 seconds and allow you to listen to all of their repertoire for that time as many times as one wants. For what concerns Helft’s article on Google’s victory, I don’t know if I really agree with it and the Safe Harbor clause in general. It was always said that “ignorance of the law is no excuse” so why would someone be protected for not controlling what is infringing the law and what isn’t on their own website? I still have trouble understanding this decision. About the Cooks Source article instead, I think that if someone published their story online, then they would at least have to be notified if someone would like to use it for their own purpose. In the articles talking about SOPA and PIPA and the misleading and biased information found on Wikipedia I thought a lot about our first assignment and how Wikipedia does have rules but as we can see once again, many users do not respect them and then cause public disputes. Once again, I think that Wikipedia should find a way to better enforce their rules and take care of any articles which infringe their policies somehow. [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 18:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

"That’s partly because “old media” draws a line between “news” and “editorial.” Apparently, Wikipedia and Google don’t recognize the ethical boundary between the neutral reporting of information and the presentation of editorial opinion as fact. " -Cary H. Sherman.

That quote felt pretty representative to me of how intentionally blind Sherman seemed to be making himself in that NYTimes op-ed. Has he seen Fox News or MSNBC? It's difficult to find a headline or story on either that isn't skewed pretty heavily towards that networks opinion on the political issues of the day. Ditto Wall Street Journal (spent at least 2 weeks pretending the Murdoch phone tapping case didn't exist) and many many other newspapers. The response article did a great job responding to his claims and bringing up the point that it is NOT "democracy" to have major industries create, fund, and often even write major bills that lawmakers then pass out of fear of angering major powers. It isn't necessarily good that a massive internet spasm of anger can have the same sort of effect, but at least it proved it can sometimes counter the more traditional abuses of power and influence. Until we arrive at independent and thoughtful politicians who aren't beholden to fundraising reality (here's my plug for election reform, national popular vote, and capped public campaign funding) the internet is a valuable resource for leveling the playing field.

One thread through a lot of the articles was the way that this new frontier sometimes flip-flops or skews the traditional power dynamics. In one article we saw a big company bullying individual bloggers for profit, but in another we saw Google and Youtube triumphing over Viacom in a very similar way that also benefited the little people of the internet... not least the average users who so constantly depend on Youtube for the service it has come to dominate. In other cases, Google is the giant invading our privacy, and at other times an individual, a blogger or a group actually spend their whole time online spreading lies or spewing hatred, or even just writing viruses to ruin everyone else's day. Depending on the issue, and the exact circumstances, it can be hard to see who is David and who Goliath... and who we should be rooting for. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

--I agree with AlexLE that it is sometimes difficult to know who to root for. It seems to be more clearly divided right now between old media and new media, but I think that will change in upcoming years with some of the new media becoming more "evil." What do you guys think about Google's massive bundling of products/services and new service terms? Are they the next "evil?" A throwback to our first class meeting: [http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/french-regulator-warns-google-privacy-policy-15807618#.T00d7coZ8nU Google's new privacy policy may violate EU rules] [[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 18:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyright, intended to protect creative work by giving authors or creators exclusive rights, in some cases hinders creativity. Well put by Lessig, obtaining legal permission is a time consuming process, which impedes collaboration and generation of new ideas. I feel that copyright should protect from stealing, such as direct piracy of music and sharing those files with others. However, I agree with the idea that fair use should be “transformative,” taking an original work and adding new ideas and opinions to it. The use of original work as the “raw material” promotes creativity, as in Girl Talk’s remixes and SilviaO’s voice. Another example is by Neuburger, who believes that inventing a Barbie doll requires more creative work than editorial opinions, and posting of such on a website increases “discussion and exploration.” [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 18:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Lessig really laid out a great example of the ridiculous extremes a money-driven corporation will go to, in order to protect their “bottom line” of profit. It evades common sense, as he made clear by his pointing to the fact that the lawyer fees incurred in warning the mother who shared the video far excelled any possible damages or loss of profit she could have caused. The example of Beitz and the reactions of different copyright holders really shines the light again on human nature. Some people just care about business, seeming to have little concern for art, creativity, or what the artist probably really cared about in the first place, while others are just more human, as could be seen in the difference between Yoko Ono and Rita Marley. Obviously new possibilities for creativity, free from the constraints of the traditional controlling powers, is considered an exciting new horizon by some, and a menace by those who have controlled the entertainment industry until now. It seems to me that trying to stop this new movement is like trying to stop the rain. You might stop a few drops only, and anyway, the rain is beneficial.
I was glad that Google stood up to Viacom. I do agree that copyrights have their place, and that the concept of asking someone permission to use their material is right, but the voice that Youtube and other such media provides for individuals to express themselves, is also an important new element in society, and should be protected. There must be a balance. If control is too extreme, we lose elements of freedom of speech.
About the SOPA/PIPA debate, it does seem apparent to me that those who have been on top, making the money, want to stay there, and as often happens, have ways to manipulate the lawmakers to favor them. I find it hard to trust someone like Cary Sherman, who is good with words, but does not seem to tell the whole story or distorts it to the public. Of course there should be reasonable copyright protection for artists and intellectual property owners, but looking at those laws and Jonathan Zittrain’s comments on them, it seems that the intention of those laws is not to protect anyone, but to control everyone.[[User:Mike|Mike]] 17:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I too enjoyed the article responding to Sherman's piece. I recently came back from a conference on leadership and innovation where nearly everyone in the audience was in agreement that government has been unable to keep up with not only the generativity of the internet, but also the generativity of entrepreneurship as a whole. There was a large cry for government to step up to the plate and get ahead of the curve in order to create structures and frameworks within which the internet and entrepreneurs can grow. At present, we either lack structures, have antiquated structures or have created forwardlooking structures that undercut much of what innovators are trying to accomplsih. This must be addressed before larger issues and collapses occur.
[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 18:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

== Links ==

Copyright in Cyberspace

2012-02-28T18:39:29Z

Assignment 2 Submissions

2012-02-21T19:58:34Z

Aberg: /* Submissions */

Assignment 2 Submissions

2012-02-21T19:55:55Z

Aberg: /* Submissions */