Technologies of Politics and Control - User contributions [en]

Extra Credit Submissions

2012-05-02T03:39:49Z

BlakeGeno: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

'''This assignment is due on May 1.''' Students who submit extra credit projects will receive a one-point increase in their final project grade.

Link to your extra credit below (either by [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Special:Upload uploading it to the wiki] or by linking to an external site) or indicate that you'd like to present your final paper. Please provide a short description of your project/the presentation you plan to give.

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:Blake Geno 
Project Title: Employer use of Facebook: Legitimate Behavior or an Unacceptable Invasion? 
I would like to present this in class, as a brief discussion with accompanying illustrations on power point. 
[[User:BlakeGeno|BlakeGeno]] 23:39, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

Name:Fabian Celis 
Project Title: The Open University Online Community 
Link to the Podcast: [http://archive.org/details/TheOpenUniversityOnlineCommunity] 
[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 22:34, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

Name: Sab 
Project Title: Free Online High-Quality Education: The Next Revolution on Internet? The Blue Ocean Strategy 
Link to the screencast: [http://www.screenr.com/7EC8] 
--[[User:Sab|Sab]] 18:44, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

Name: Samantha Zakuto 
Project Title: A Turkish Teacher's Perspective to School Administrators Limiting Facebook Usage 
Link to YouTube Video: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cfjKSdV8hE&feature=youtu.be] 
--[[User:Szakuto|Szakuto]] 14:39, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

Name: Emanuele Dominici 
Project Title: America’s Aid to Terrorism: Supporting Jihadi Websites 
Extra Credit Link:[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/File:LSTU_E-120_Extra_Credit.pptx ] 
Link to YouTube Video: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ppk9sGu-zf8&feature=youtu.be] 

Name: Julia Brav 
I would like to present my paper on May 8. I'll be discussing my paper by using visual examples of situations on AskMetaFilter. [[User:Jlynnping|Jlynnping]] 10:22, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

Assignment 3 Submissions

2012-03-22T03:28:19Z

BlakeGeno: /* 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 |BlakeGeno |Online Privacy and Employment Screening |http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:BlakeGeno_Assignment3.odt}}
[[User:BlakeGeno|BlakeGeno]] 03:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

{{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 |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|Priscila Lollo and André Pase|When two worlds collide, the role of law in online and high definition video in Brazil|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/Assignment3_andrepase_priscilalollo.pdf}}

{{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:BlakeGeno Assignment3.odt

2012-03-22T03:20:08Z

BlakeGeno:

Collective Action and Decision-making

2012-03-19T18:03:42Z

BlakeGeno: /* Optional Readings */

{{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)

== Links ==

New and Old Media, Participation, and Information

2012-03-04T07:00:43Z

BlakeGeno: /* 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
* [https://secure.nmmstream.net/anon.newmediamill/aspen/kcfinalenglishbookweb.pdf 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)

== Links from Class ==

New and Old Media, Participation, and Information

2012-03-04T06:57:03Z

BlakeGeno: /* Class Discussion */

Assignment 2 Submissions

2012-02-21T20:58:08Z

BlakeGeno: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

===Submission Instructions===
This assignment is due on February 21. 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/is2012/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. '''Please remember to sign your comments!'''

===Submissions===

Name: Blake Geno 
Prospectus: Anonymity, Privacy and Evolving Tools
[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Blakegeno_prospectus.odt] 
[[User:BlakeGeno|BlakeGeno]] 20:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Comments: 

Name: Abby Bergman 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:ABergman_Prospectus.pdf Pinterest: Visually Arrested] 
Research Focus: [http://www.pinterest.com/ Pinterest] and Copyright Infringement 
[[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 19:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Comments: 

 Name: Fabian Celis J 
Prospectus title: The Role of the Internet in Distance Education: The Open University Case 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Fabian_Celis_Assignment_2.doc Final Project Prospectus] 
[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 19:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Comments: 

 Name: André Pase and Priscila Lollo 
Prospectus title: When two worlds collide, digital TV and online video in an age of transformation 
Research Focus: online video x tv 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Assigment2_andrepase_priscilalollo.pdf Assignment 2] 
[[User:Andrepase|Andrepase]] 20:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 
Comments: 

 Name: Alexis Ditkowsky 
Prospectus title: [http://pinterest.com/ Pinterest] 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Spring2012-BerkmanAssignment2-DitkowskyAlexis.pdf Final Project Prospectus] 
Comments: 

Hi Alexis,

I would like to offer two sources which may be useful to supplement your research. The first, the Millennium Development Goals (MDG), are a list of 8 goals adopted by the United Nations in an effort to eradicate poverty by the year 2015. Several of the goals involve online access for poor countries, and one goal specifically addresses gender equality. [http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals Millennium Goals Main Site] And the second source, [http://www.tigweb.org Taking IT Global], is rich in content and will provide a wealth of information and resource material. Good luck with your project, it looks interesting and informative.[[User:Louiscelli|Louiscelli]] 
...................................................

 

Name: James Harris 
Prospectus title: The Internet and “Bridging the Gap” in Politics 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:James_Harris_Assignment_2.doc Prospectus] 
--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC) 
Comments: 

Hi James,

I love the concept, I’m just a little fuzzy on the thesis. Is the main focus going to concentrate on the elected-official/constituent relationship, or the paradigm shift of political campaign support? [[User:Louiscelli|Louiscelli]] 
.................................................

 

Name: Alex Lloyd-Evans 
Prospectus Title: Social Structure's on the Writer's Forums of Cracked.com 
Research Focus: [http://www.cracked.com/ Cracked] 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:AlexLE_Assignment_2.pdf Final Project Prospectus] 
Comments: 

Hi Alex,

Is this line correct – “free to enter forum”? I don’t understand what that means. This looks like it will be an interesting project. I wonder if the editors will be surprised by your findings, or possibly take issue with your conclusion, depending on the outcome. I am really looking forward to reading your paper.[[User:Louiscelli|Louiscelli]]
...................................................

 

Name: Jeff Kimble 
Prospectus title: Internet E-Commerce 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Jeff_Kimble_--_Assignment_2.doc] 
[[User:JeffKimble|JeffKimble]] 14:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 
Comments: 

Hi Jeff,

While I am sure there will be plenty of studies that address this, it will be nice to see the data synthesized, analyzed, and compacted into a short paper. You certainly will have lots of data to pour through. I will be particularly interested in some of your research as it will complement my project as well. Good luck, and if I run across any statistics that may be beneficial to your research, I’ll be sure to forward it along.[[User:Louiscelli|Louiscelli]] 
....................................................

 

Name: Louis Celli 
Prospectus title: e-commerce Taxation 
Prospectus:[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/Assignment_2_CELLI_Research_Prospectus.doc The Future of e-commerce Taxation] 
Comments:

 

Name: Emanuele Dominici 
Prospectus title: Terrorist Websites 
Prospectus:[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Emanuele_Assignment_2.doc Final Project Prospectus] 
Comments: 
[[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 16:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 

Hi Emanuele,

This is going to be an exciting paper indeed. This is a whopper and you might have trouble containing it to 10 pages. The First Amendment question might be a great place to start, then begin to wind in the Patriot act, while comparing it to the Espionage act of 1917. I can’t wait to read this paper, good luck![[User:Louiscelli|Louiscelli]] 
....................................................

 

Name: Julia Brav 
Prospectus title: [http://ask.metafilter.com/ Ask MetaFilter] 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:JBrav_LSTU_E-120_Assignment_2.pdf Prospectus] 
Comments: 
[[User:Jlynnping|Jlynnping]] 17:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Jlynnping

 Name: Samantha Zakuto 
Prospectus title: Managing a Flexible Work/Life Balance: Legal Ramifications of Facebook 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:2012_02_-_SZakuto_Prospectus.doc Prospectus] 
Comments: 

Name: Nicholas Thibodeau 
Prospectus title: Anonymous 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Thibodeau_Assignment_2.pdf] 
Comments: 
[[User:Nthib|Nthib]] 17:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Quynh Dang 
Prospectus title: [http://answers.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Agj1j2NWf7soiMwgqNKlvo6e5HNG;_ylv=3 Yahoo! Answers] 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Quynh_Dang_Prospectus.doc Prospectus] 
Comments: 
[[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 18:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Christopher Mejo 
Prospectus title: Building a New Online Community in Drupal 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/Final_project_prospectus.doc Prospectus] 
Comments: 
[[User:chrism|chrism]] 18:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Brendan Long 
Prospectus title: Question & Answer Website Services and the Impact of Social Media 
Prospectus:[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/Final_Project_Prospectus_-_Long%2C_Brendan.doc Prospectus] 
Comments: 
[[User:Brendanlong|Brendanlong]] 19:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Hope Solomon 
Prospectus title: Communicating with Constituents through Twitter 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Assignment_2_Hope_Solomon.doc Prospectus] 
Comments: 
[[User:Hds5|Hds5]] 14:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Yerzhan Temirbulatov 
Prospectus title: Endless war on piracy 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:YerzhanTemirbulatov_EndlessWarOnPiracy.doc Prospectus] 
Comments: 
[[User:Erzhik|Erzhik]] 20:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Blakegeno prospectus.odt

2012-02-21T20:52:30Z

BlakeGeno:

New Economic Models

2012-02-14T20:55:55Z

BlakeGeno: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 14'''

The rise of the networked economy is changing economic possibilities around the world. From the call centers in India to eBay and the new Internet entrepreneurs, there are many signs that suggest a flatter world fueled by innovative production and marketing strategies. In this session, we will explore the promise and reality of the changing economic tides associated with rising Internet use including those marketing to the long tail and the new oligopolists.

<onlyinclude>

==Readings==

* Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble Dot-com Bubble]
* Chris Anderson, [http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html The Long Tail]
* Kevin Kelly, [http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/01/better_than_fre.php Better than Free]
* Eric von Hippel:
** The Economics of Open Content Symposium: New Models of Creative Production in the Digital Age Collaboration and the Marketplace - '''Video stream of the 30-minute presentation: [http://forum-network.org/lecture/boston-ideas-2005-eric-von-hippel new improved link!]''' (requires [http://real.com/ RealPlayer]). See below for alternate links to the presentation in video and audio format.
** [http://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/books/DI/Chapter8.pdf Democratizing Innovation, Chapter 8: Adapting Policy to User Innovation]

== Additional Resources==
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Tail "Wikipedia Long Tail"]
* Free by Chris Anderson[http://www.audible.com/adbl/site/products/ProductDetail.jsp?]
* Larry Lessig's [http://codev2.cc/ Code 2.0]

</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==

I have two thoughts relating this week's reading to the larger world.
The first is a re-synthesis of other ideas, in that the internet has not really so much created new things as it has amplified already existing phenomena. Media sharing has been around nearly as long as the media itself. In the 80's, the band Metallica encouraged fans to make copies of their music (on cassette tapes) and hand them out to friends. I remember my own friends and relatives trading albums on cassettes and mix tapes. My grandmother had a set up to easily copy VHS tapes at home. She would rent movies, and copy them for later. Certain movies that were more popular were often purchased, since it made them easier to find (my grandmother had a cataloging system, where every tape was numbered, with the movies that were on each tape listed both on the tape, and recorded in a notebook - just looking for the right tape cover was much easier), and better quality. Sure, the movie companies didn't make as much money as if she had bought all of the movies, but then again, she bought much more than she would have otherwise. The only real difference now, is that it is easier, more widespread, more exhaustive, and easier to see.

The second is that my wife and I often observe to each other that while companies are often most concerned about owning the most market share, or getting the largest profit per unit, what really should matter is if any individual thing is profitable. It is ok to have a portion of the business that is less profitable, so long as it is still is profitable in the first place. It doesn't matter if an individual item is hugely profitable, so long as once all the costs have been payed, the item makes money.
One example of this would be the breakdown of the starsplay/ netflix arangement. Stars Play wanted to deal with netflix like a cable company, making individuals who wanted the extra content pay separately for it. Netflix wanted to outright license the Stars Play content, rather than start a two tier pricing scheme. Because SP didn't want to compromise, there was no deal. I, for one, never intend on accessing SP content elsewhere (and certainly not paying for it), do not have a cable tv subscription that has access to it, and would not have paid extra for it if they had gotten netflix to budge. There are far too many interesting titles for me to watch that, while it might not be exactly what I wanted, costs me nothing additional. SP meanwhile, loses out on my little sliver of what netflix would have payed them. Sure, they wouldn't have made as much money per unit, but they would have made money they wouldn't have made otherwise.
[[User:BlakeGeno|BlakeGeno]] 20:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I really loved the Wired article and its point that this next era will be more about “misses” than “hits.” The internet and new technology remove almost all the related costs that created this all-or-nothing dichotomy; once I read it, it seems so obvious to realize that “misses” still can generate reasonable profits, just not ones that could overcome the expenses inherent in our older distribution systems (movie theater, an actual record store in a small town, etc.). The concept of the Long Tail and the 3 Major Business Rules he gives at the end are all great.

I’m a reasonably expense-conscious person in the just post-college age range with a low income, but I am also quite active in pursuing media I enjoy (movies, tv shows, music, books). With so much available free online (illegally) I tend to only pay (whether by actually paying or by getting it through a medium that provides ad revenue directly to the creator) for around 1/3 of all the media I enjoy. Those are the songs by artists I like best and truly want to support, or the movies that I am so impressed with that I want to contribute to their box office take and that simplemindedly measured “success.” Following the second Long Tail Rule, I would be very happy to pay SOMETHING for almost everything I enjoy. Lowering the prices dramatically or providing a “pay what you feel” option would actually increase what I’m happy to pay pretty significantly. And I know this is totally anecdotal, but I feel like most of my peers have the same sentiment.

Does that sound about right to everyone else in the class? Would you pay at least something for everything if that was an option?

Democratizing Innovation echoes a lot of discussions/other readings we have had about the importance of having both the manufacturers and users able and willing to innovate. The phrase “Policy makers should be aware of ‘collateral damage’ that may be inflicted on user innovation by legislation aimed at other targets“ really summed it up well for me. As cliché as it is now, “thinking outside the box” is sometimes only possible when people have the ability to ignore the boundaries that create that box. This is something very difficult for major organizations or corporations to do, but easy for individuals. Unfortunately, with acts like SOPA even being proposed, we seem to be moving in to opposite direction of the more user-innovation focused world the chapter argues for.

And just briefly on the dot com crash: I’ve studied the housing bubble/foreclosure crisis quite a bit in the past few years, but was too young to really grasp what was happening with these comparably massive dot com crashes at the time. This look back was pretty jarring. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 17:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I personally had no knowledge al all of the dot-com bubble system. It seems to me that these bubbles were more of a financial scheme rather than a legally oriented invention. Creating something that people will invest in just because of the e- prefix or the .com at the end seems a bit naïve and risky but surprisingly enough many people fell for this and as a result some made money but the majority lost their funds and companies went bankrupt. I really enjoyed reading the Long Tail article. I never would have guessed that thanks to modern systems such as the internet and Amazon.com for example, old hits or even more surprisingly “misses” would turn out to be hits. I often noticed while buying merchandise on Amazon.com that at the bottom of the page it would show me related items and trends and I must admit that a few times while buying books or DVDs specifically, I have also bought related items suggested by Amazon. Another article that I enjoyed reading was the one Better than Free since I agree with the author and find myself in similar situations. I believe that most people emphasize one of the generatives rather than all eight of them. Personally I like having something immediately delivered to me rather than doing several searches for something that would take me time, and therefore I also agree with the Findability generative as well. I also enjoyed the last article and found it to be really accurate. Users looking for or in need of a certain device either continued with their lives without it or in the case of the article, built it or developed it themselves…the majority of inventions are user centered rather than discovered and developed by manufacturers . I personally think that some of the most important inventions took place because of the user’s need for a given device. Large corporations don’t usually see what people could use on an everyday basis but aim to invent spectacular devices in order to sell and make profits. [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 16:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

@AlexLe I wanted to reply to your question about paying at least something for everything if it's presented as an option. My husband and I developed a catchphrase while traveling that went something like, "Why won't you let me pay you??!!" Sometimes this had to do with things like trying to find a place where we could do (or pay someone to do) laundry but oftentimes it had to do with companies not getting their act together online. One classic (hypothetical, of course) example was when my husband wanted to read a particular comic book while we were in Malaysia. So he went to the publisher's website and searched for it. They didn't have any digital copies and print copies weren't available either (not that they would have been much use to him in Asia). So he then went "elsewhere" and found exactly what he was looking for. He even contemplated sending money directly to the author because he really liked the guy's work and wanted him to get something for his efforts. Generally speaking, we try to go through proper channels first but if those don't work, we'll take our business elsewhere.

To get a little Cluetrain Manifesto, companies are shooting themselves in the foot if they think they can sit back and dictate the terms of their relationships with consumers. Yes, the profit margins may be smaller to offer products online in easily reproducible formats, but companies are effectively putting themselves out of business by not acting as useful intermediaries. Kevin Kelly does a great job of highlighting the potential value-adds of intermediaries in "Better than Free", while Chris Anderson explores the significant profit opportunities available to companies that exploit the long tail. If companies invested as much time and energy in getting ahead of the on-demand media delivery curve as they did fighting for control of an antiquated relationship between producers and consumers that consumers are opting out of anyway, then those companies might actually have a shot of staying in business for the next five years. /rant
[[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 04:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

"Power of the Preview"

During high school, the internet was in its infancy. Therefore the accessibility of lesser-known artists to sell their songs/albums in the open market was limited. I have been involved in music throughout my life and a band’s path to creating a commercial album has been a challenging and structured process starting with signing up with a label, providing upfront costs for production, pressing CD's and so on. In this digital age where physical CD's are no longer required and home studio technology has advanced, the costs to produce an album are certainly less. While I am not familiar with popular music sites such as Rhapsody, I know that iTunes is quite accessible in allowing independent musicians sell their songs on their platform.

In addition to the algorithmic recommendations that have created the Long Tail, I also believe that the “preview” function is also vitally important. To hear a segment of a song is particularly powerful for the Long Tail effect (i.e. iTunes). Prior to the music digital media age, the only way that a listener could preview a more obscure band was by listening to the album through others or seeing live shows. Therefore consumers were less likely to pay full price for an entire album from a band that they were wholly unfamiliar with. However the ability for consumers to hear parts of songs has undoubtedly contributed to the Long Tail affect.--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 17:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I find that the generative qualities immediacy, personalization, accessibility, and findability allow Youtube, online radio, and Netflix to become my main source for entertainment in the free copies world. I no longer depend on my TV, which had limited shows and a fixed schedule. On the contrary, I can basically find any video on Youtube and watch them for free. With a Youtube account, I can create a play list and watch my favorite videos at my convenience. I had also watched many seasons of America’s Next Top Model on Youtube for free.
I remember the days when I had to call into a local radio station to request them to play my favorite song. Now, I can just go on Youtube and watch/listen to my favorite songs. I also no longer feel the need to run to a store to buy a favorite CD or the need to purchase my favorite songs. I also appreciate the fact that I can stream my favorite local radio station online, even when I am out of the local range. Netflix is another example of a convenience source to access shows and movies instantly. [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 04:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I enjoyed the Technium article that mentioned the generative qualities that favor the consumer. Companies like Amazon and Wikipedia embody these qualities the most, with Amazon give us a great example of the Long Tail. As a superstore, Amazon has an incredible amount of adaptability and ability to connect buyers and sellers. Lots of items bought off Amazon are from other sellers they do business with so they are just connecting you to them. I do wish Kevin Kelly touched on advertising which he admittedly omitted. Perhaps he wanted to avoid the discussion of consumer versus producer driven demand and who shaped or steered these generative forces more. [[User:Brendanlong|Brendanlong]] 06:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The properties of generative innovation that von Hipple spoke of is quite eye opening, albeit not unexpected. The shift from manufacturing standards to user generative improvements reflects the long tail effect spoke of in the other articles. Unfortunately it seems as though most companies and manufacturers adhere to the antiquated principles of limitation. Von Hipple is quite clear when he states that many of the users and innovators seek a shift of the current legal precedents set through patent law and copyrights. As he noted, the physical world costs time, money, actual physical stuff to be modified. But in the virtual world, anything can be copied and modified without the need for physical items, or even R&D, since that can come through democratization of innovation. Because the virtual world inside computers allows for instant copying and modification, and since the internet allows for the instant communication and copying between systems, the long tail is not only enabled, but it allows for instant results at virtually no cost. But it is precisely because it is virtual and it avoids cost (or profit for that matter) that the application of laws and practices that rule a world of normal distribution don’t apply. Those laws apply to systems of manufacture in which it is difficult or costly to enable that manufacture. One in which all users can be grouped into large groups, instead of millions of small ones. As the world moves closer and closer to the singularity, the laws and rules of the physical world need to be modified in order to account for the virtual world, or new laws and regulations need to be made, ones which address the difficulties of controlling the long tail. And I don’t really see that happening because of the rights that would be infringed upon (freedom of speech, press, expression, et al.).[[User:Nthib|Nthib]] 20:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way here is a link to "Free" by Chris Anderson: http://books.google.com/books?id=lLZbXN2odVYC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_navlinks_s#v=onepage&q&f=false [[User:Brendanlong|Brendanlong]] 20:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

== Links ==

Assignment 1 Submissions

2012-02-07T22:31:25Z

BlakeGeno: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

===Submission Instructions===
Please make sure the name of your file includes your name (example: Name_Assignment1.doc) to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment. Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (final deadline: Tuesday, February 7, 5:30pm ET).

''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:
* Link to rule: (the Wikipedia editing policy you chose)
* Link to article: (the Wikipedia article you edited)
* Link to report: (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].

===Submissions===

Name: Yerzhan Temirbulatov 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaupload Megaupload] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:YerzhanTemirbulatov_Assignment1.doc Assignment 1] 
[[User:Erzhik|Erzhik]] 21:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Blake Geno 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research No Original Research] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adderall#Adderall_XR] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:LSTU_Assign_-1.odt] 

Name: Fabiancelisj 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research No Original Research] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boutique_hotel Boutique Hotel] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Fabian_Assignment1.doc Assignment 1] 
[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 21:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: BSK342 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Esserman Marc Esserman] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/?title=Image:Bsk342assignment0.pdf&oldid=7427 Assignment 1] 
[[User:BSK342|BSK342]] 21:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Harvard 212 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: Public Good [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good Public Good] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Harvard212_Assignment1.pdf Assignment 1] 
[[User:Harvard212|Harvard212]] 12:09 EST, 7 February 2012

Name: Alexis Ditkowsky 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-Pesa M-Pesa] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Spring2012-BerkmanWikipediaAssignment1-DitkowskyAlexis.pdf Assignment 1] 
[[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 17:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Jeff Kimble 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Jeff_Kimble_--_Assignment_1.doc] 
[[User:JeffKimble|JeffKimble]] 19:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Abby Bergman 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research No Original Research] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_divide_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China Digital Divide in the PRC] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Bergman_Assignment_1.doc Assignment 1] 
[[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 02:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Alex Lloyd-Evans 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1956 United States presidential election, 1956] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:AlexLE_Assignment_1.pdf Assignment 1] 
[[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 15:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Emanuele Dominici 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio Operation Gladio] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Emanuele_Assignment_1.doc Assignment 1] 
[[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 16:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: James Harris 
Rule:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles Ownership of Articles] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Republican_primary,_2012 Florida Republican Primary, 2012] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:James_Harris_Assignment_1.doc Assignment 1] 
--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 23:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Hope Solomon 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good] 
Report:[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Assignment_-1.doc] 
[[User:Hds5]] 23:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Christopher Mejo 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drupal Drupal] 
Report:[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/LSTU_Assignment-1.doc] 
[[User:chrism]] 22:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name:Gregorian Hawke 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy] 
Article:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama] 
Report:[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Ignore_all_Rules_%28Assign_1_-Gregor%29.odt] 
[[User:chrism]] 22:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

== Headline text ==

Name: Quynh Dang 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_cuisine Vietnamese Cuisine] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/QuynhDang_Assignment_1.doc Assignment 1] 
[[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 05:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Jennifer W. Lopez 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Change.org Change.org] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:LSTU_E-120_JenniferWLopez_Assignment_1.pdf Assignment 1] 
[[User:JennLopez|JennLopez]] 08:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Julia Brav 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research No Original Research] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finger_knitting Finger Knitting] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:JBrav_LSTU_E-120_Assignment_1.pdf Assignment 1] 
[[User:Jlynnping|Jlynnping]] 16:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: André Pase 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research No Original Research] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul_Calibur_V Soul Calibur V] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Andre_pase_assigment1.doc Assignment 1] 

Name: Priscila Lollo 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniella_Cicarelli Daniela Cicarelli] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Priscila_Lollo_Assignment_1.doc Assignment 1] 

Name: David Taber 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles Ownership of Articles] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_war Culture War] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:David_Taber_Assignment_1.odt Assignment 1] 
[[User:David Taber|David Taber]] 17:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Marjolein Siegenthaler 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles Ownership of Articles] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_Netherlands Copyright Law of the Netherlands] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Assignment_1_Marjolein_Siegenthaler.doc Assignment 1] 
[[User:MSS|MSS]] 17:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Carl Fleming 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLPC One Laptop Per Child] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Fleming_Assignment_1.doc Assignment 1] 
[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 17:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name:Nicholas Thibodeau 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: Public Good [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech Free Speech] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:NJThibodeau_Assignment_1.pdf Assignment 1] 
[[User:Nthib|Nthib]] 18:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Brendan Long 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Hamilton_Gordon Albert Hamilton Gordon] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/Assignment_1_-_Long%2C_Brendan.doc Assignment 1] 
[[User:Brendanlong|Brendanlong]] 19:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Samantha Zakuto 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLPC One Laptop Per Child] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Assignment_1_Samantha_Zakuto.doc Assignment 1] 
[[User:szakuto]] 19:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Manuel Valerio 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shire_plc] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:MValerio_assignment1.pdf] 
[[User:Mvalerio|Mvalerio]] 20:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: TBaechel 
Rule: Citing Sources [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources] 
Article: St. John's College [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._John%27s_College_(United_States)] 
Report: Assignment 1: Wikipedia [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Johnny_Assignment1.doc] 
[[User:TBaechel]] 20:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC

Name: Just Johnny 
Rule: Ownership of Articles [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles Ownership of Articles] 
Article: Prince Harry [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_harry] 
Report: Assignment 1: Wikipedia [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Baechel_Assignment_1_E120.pdf] 
[[User:Just Johnny]] 20:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

'''Name''': Mike Brant

'''Rule''': Neutral Point of View [[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] ]]

'''Article''': One Laptop per Child [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLPC]

'''Report''':Mike Brant_ Assignment One [[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Mike_Brant_Assignment_One.doc.doc]]
[[User:Mike|Mike]] 21:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

File:LSTU Assign -1.odt

2012-02-07T22:28:48Z

BlakeGeno: Blake Geno Assignment1

Blake Geno Assignment1

Regulating Speech Online

2012-02-07T21:41:47Z

BlakeGeno: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 7'''

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.

'''[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/IS2012_Feb7.pdf Download this week's slides] (PDF)'''

==Assignments==

[[Assignments#Assignment_1:_Wikipedia|Assignment 1]] due

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==

* [http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/defamation Citizen Media Law Project Legal Guide: Defamation]
* [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://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]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_Evil#Libel_controversy Wikipedia entry on ''Funding Evil''] (focus on "libel controversy" section)
* [http://iheid.revues.org/321 The SWIFT Affair]

== Optional Readings ==

* [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://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/technology/companies/25google.html Larger Threat is Seen in Google Case NYT]
* [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 ==
In light of the assignment due today, I thought people would enjoy some great (and surprisingly insightful) web comics:
[http://xkcd.com/978/ citogenesis]
[http://xkcd.com/903/ extended mind]
[http://xkcd.com/214/ the problem with Wikipedia]
[http://xkcd.com/285/ Wikipedia Protester]

The first is especially pertinent, at least for my rule.
[[User:BlakeGeno|BlakeGeno]] 21:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/07/19/national/main20080685.shtml

During our last class we discussed the hacking group Anonymous. One of the concerns raised in the class addressed ramifications for hacking and the belief that these types of attacks are not pursued by law enforcement. As it turns out the FBI has been arresting members of this group and seizing their equipment. In addition to the written story there is a video interview (link above) of the self-proclaimed leader of Anonymous, Commander X, where he likens this groups activity to the sit-ins during protests in the 50’s and 60’s when the nation was advocating for civil rights.

Two (conflicting) thoughts:

1. I appreciate the analogy and disagree with the announcer who dismisses the likeness out-of-hand.

2. I would agree with the analogy if, indeed, each “request for information” were being initiated by a separate and distinct person exercising their individual right to voice their concern.

The CDA Section 230 is a very crucial starting point of discussion for nowadays legal online processes. As John Palfrey exposed, time has passed and different situations have happened since the creation of it, and it's likely that those who created it didn't anticipate the immunity provided by this document. Although I agree with Adam that Section 230 has been crucial to the success of the Internet, I feel inclined to support John Palfrey in his ideas of re-examine it. He provides strong arguments to support his ideas, saying for example that although it would be less speech and innovation opportunities, it is a trade-off that has to be made. Since in some cases it is relatively easy to change from an online distributor to a online publisher, shielding intermediaries, I think Section 230 has to be changed. Also, I like John Plalfrey's idea that the great innovation would be present, in terms of technical safety measures to protect kids. Although in the article he referred to kid's safety, I believe this idea can be extended to the other online legal discussions. [[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 20:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

These computers, servers, and platforms are designed to accommodate millions of simultaneous, legitimate, requests. I don’t believe that there are millions of Anonymous members initiating these requests, rather a handful of protesters mimicking multiple users. So in this case the analogy fails as “the people” are not adequately represented through a First Amendment protection to assemble. A more accurate analogy would be that two or three individuals went to Woolworths lunch counter to “sit-in” but each brought with them 150 manikins with made-up names, claiming that these were their friends in support. Lastly, I’m not sure that I completely buy the idea that their hacking methods are simply an overwhelming volume of requests for information. I believe that the method by which these attacks were initiated were a bit more technically complicated than that.[[User:Louiscelli|Louiscelli]] 13:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

RE Louiscelli on Anonymous Article: As far as I know, the basic idea behind the attacks is no different than when any page receives a surge in traffic that crashes their servers. It's coordinated, yes, but so is any form of protest. If that is the case, then I see no problem with the basic idea. How it is carried out however, is much more likely to be troublesome. Again, so far as I know, a botnet attack would be the most likely form of attack. This involves basically conscripting other users computers for the attack. I'm sure there are many other ways to accomplish a similar effect, but I doubt any of them are anything I could approve of, short of installing massive server banks in your basement. Of course, I could be wrong on all counts here.

That leads me to a more general point, which is that whenever it comes to regulating speech online (or even in the real world, much of the time), I on one hand see why some want to tighten the restrictions around speech, at least on the extremes. On the other hand, I don't see any practical (or non-arbitrary) way of drawing a line, or any practical ways of enforcing it that aren't worse than what the restrictions would be seeking to stop. And then I also see the positives, even from information that supposedly "clearly" should not be available.

Take Wikileaks, for example. I can see why the Pentagon wanted to keep the data secret (especially in its raw form). I understand taking legal action against the person who illegally leaked the documents, since it is military law acting on military personnel, in marshal courts. On the other hand, I think that the availability of information on Wikileaks has been a great thing, especially in terms of the very real threat to government of ordinary people learning what is happening out of the public eye. Then, in a practical note, I don't see any way of censoring any part of the network without trampling on what makes it so important. First off, you have so many content generators (even down to tweets) that there's no possible way to get human eyes on every bit, or even any significant amount of, information that would be potentially censored under even the mildest restrictions. Machines don't do a great job at judgement. A computer can't tell the difference between a plot to blow up a government building and a discussion on how overblown fears of terrorism are causing us to lose our civil rights. Then on a more ethical line, there's always the question of who decides what the thresholds are.

On one hand, I see why the government would want to keep information secret; on the other, I don't think they can without stopping valuable whistle blowers. On one hand I realize that copyright holders want to protect their work; On the other, I see how even now, even the little bit of enforcement that is happening hinders fair use and legitimate access. On one hand, I agree that people should be able to sue malicious bloggers; on the other, I don't think bloggers should enjoy any less protection than any other publication. In the end, I just end up seeing the less restricted flow of information as far more beneficial than harmful, and the harms from less restriction as the least evil option. That was the conclusion I came to once again with this week's reading.
[[User:BlakeGeno|BlakeGeno]] 13:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

@Louiscelli, nice find on that article. I agree with you that it seems a bit disingenuous for hackers like Anonymous to claim that they have very broad protest-type support when in fact most of their major actions are committed by a small and central group. As a devil's advocate thought experiment though, is this simply a difference of opportunity? That is, it's physically easy for almost any person to walk into a diner and conduct a "sit-in" to support their views. It is physically (in terms of technical skill) much much harder to have the hacking skills necessary to do the things Anonymous has been doing. It seems possible that their protests are conducted by such a small group of people simply because those are all of the people who possess those skills, and not because those are all of the people who support the protest. From a purely social protest perspective, their point is no less theoretically valid simply because it is one that is hard to physically make.

From the readings, I really enjoyed the dialogue on online obscenity/CDA230/possible increased liability for online service providers; I found myself agreeing largely with Thierer that increased liability would be a bad Pandora's Box to open. Palfrey says that he agrees many cases would be brought from every conceivable direction if liability for providers was opened up wider, but he counters that most providers would be fully protected from liability even with the practices they follow now and extensive litigation could also have some positive effects as a motivator. My concern with this argument is that cases can be (and sometimes are) brought for bad reasons, knowing they will fail, but a plaintiff with massive wealth can still keep them alive almost indefinitely, at great expense (in time, money, and bad press)to the defendant. Especially in a clash between the wide-open individual innovation possible on the internet and various wealthy real world entities that have agendas to pursue, this sort of legal bullying could stifle all but the most established and wealthy internet innovators, seriously harming the most positive aspect of the internet.

Funding Evil's various details provided an interesting look at how the problem of different geography and law systems can become tangled up and sometimes abused when internet content is at issue. I'm very troubled by the idea that a wealthy individual or group could always create themselves some business interests in a country with very harsh libel standards and then use that as a basis to go after people online through that favorable court system. On a related international-type note, I'm amazed that I've never heard of SWIFT before or realized how thoroughly it controls information about the vast majority of global finance. Well done them for so successfully pursuing their goal of staying out of the headlines, and amazing that it was possible in this internet age. Don't want to turn this too political, but it amused me that American conservatives/Republicans were outraged at the NY Times publication of info about this network and how the U.S. was using it to track terrorist financing but not at all about SWIFT itself... Isn't a massive, monolithic, European entity that almost fully controls an entire aspect of life even for Americans the exact thing every Republican presidential candidate has been railing against when the subject is changed from "global finance" to "health care"? [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 19:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The articles we were asked to read for this week’s class were extremely interesting and got me thinking on several matters. As a student with a legal background and pursuing a Master’s degree in the field of law, the articles I read were very relevant to my field of study. I enjoyed reading about defamation and free speech in general but what really got me interested were the last three articles. The dialogue between John Palfrey and Adam Thierer regarding the regulation of online obscenity and protection under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act raised some very valid points on both sides. After reading the whole article I do however feel more close to the points raised by John Palfrey. I personally feel that even though Social Networks and other ISP are not responsible for what other people do in their sites, I feel that obscenity and other issues regarding minors especially would be limited if not eliminate if the site creators were not protected by the CDA. If they felt as if they could possibly be charged with a crime, I am sure that they would make their websites more secure and try to filter the usage of these websites by wrongdoers. For what concerns the Funding Evil article, I feel that the author should have been more careful in regards to her statements since nowadays even though a book, object or any other product is not sold outside a given country, thanks to the internet it is still possible to gain access to it. Her book wasn’t meant to be sold or published in the United Kingdom but somehow people did buy the book and in my opinion she should have thought of that earlier before writing defamatory statements about Mr. Mahfouz. By doing some research on the author I did find out that she is quite an expert on the matter and therefore I am sure there were valid reasons to back up her statements even though they were never proved. Writing something which doesn’t break the law in one country but does in another reminds me of the series of Danish cartoons designed a few years ago where Islam was made fun of, and the reactions that occurred from the middle east where such offense was a violation of their law. The Swift affair however was the most interesting article in my opinion because I was able to learn more about such system but also to learn about what was done by the CIA to fight terror. This summer while I was in a middle eastern country I had the pleasure to meet and spend a week with people from the Canadian Special Forces and some U.S. Government employees and we often talked about ways of fighting terrorism, especially in modern times. What we all agreed on was to eliminate the funds for terrorism by hitting the funders, therefore this article was really fascinating to me in order to understand how the CIA has been working on SWIFT databases in order to do so. What I don’t agree on, however is the fact that the US Government were only allowed to search terrorism cases. I don’t agree because I am confident that much funding is done through drug trafficking and arms dealing, especially since these limits have been publicized thanks to the media. [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 15:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
For Commander X liken his group’s activities to the “sit-ins” advocating for civil rights is a slap in our faces. There’s absolutely no connection between hacking no matter the cause and civil rights; If the deeds of Anonymous contained a shred of nobility, they would put their faces on media outlets, and their peers would cheer them on.
It is my opinion that Anonymous has other ulterior motives in what they do. I am happy to see that the FBI is up to speed with technology, where people and groups like Anonymous are arrested and hopefully prosecuted. Sophia February 6, 2012 10:30 (UTC)

The group Anonymous has been followed closely by law enforcement officials around the globe. In fact, on February 3, 2012, [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ryq1v-cLHrk Anonymous posted a conference call between the FBI and Scotland Yard] discussing the group’s members and the response by law enforcement. It seems there is an organized global campaign to identify and arrest Anonymous members that are participating in “hacktivism”.

A DDoS attack works by overloading servers and thus forcing them to become unresponsive. It is not that Anonymous has millions of followers sending these requests to various websites, but that Anonymous is mimicking legitimate requests. Anonymous uses an open source application called Low Orbit Ion Cannon (LOIC) to accomplish DDOS attacks. Recently, a LOIC application has been written in JavaScript, allowing web browsers to run the software without any downloads. This allows Anonymous to use the resources of unsuspecting and non-committing users to accomplish their DDoS attacks.

This is what I believe to be the crux of the problem. That is, as a hacktivism organization, does Anonymous have the right to use unsuspecting Internet users to accomplish their goals? Anonymous likens their actions to sit-ins during the civil rights movement but everyone who sat in made the conscious choice to participate. That is not the case today with Anonymous.

Even though there is more skill required for a DDoS attack than participating in a sit-in as protestors did during the civil rights movement, I don’t think that knowledge barrier is a justification to take advantage of a user’s resources that are not actively protesting with your organization.

I don’t think that Anonymous would be as successful if they did not take advantage of other users not affiliated with their group. By definition of a DDoS, you need massive resources to take down a website. In contrast, a sit in can be effective with a handful of protestors.

While Anonymous needs the resources of others to have successful DDoS attacks, I don’t think that alone negates the activism they participate in. A successful DDoS requires massive resources. Without pooling bandwidth from multiple users, the DDoS would not be successful. The fact is that Anonymous acquired the bandwidth and directed it at targeted servers to participate in the activism they deem worthy. I don’t think we should claim that their group is any less of a protest organization because they don’t have the millions of members required to produce DDoS attacks. [[User:chrism|chrism]] February 7, 2012 19:33 UTC

While I had written a lengthy response to the Anonymous article, unfortunately, @chrism explained a lot of what I had written. However, let me go further and state that Anonymous is not the organization that it is purported to be. While tools like LOIC enable greater numbers to participate in DDoS attacks, each attack is not an organized effort. The members of Anonymous do not necessarily know one another, they do not have to speak the same language, nor even live in the same country. Any individual can be a member of Anonymous so long as they have a computer and an internet connection. The mechanics of their operation is fairly simple once understood. Using message board services like 4chan, individuals are able to anonymously suggest sites for attacks. Once a site is agreed upon, which usually relates to the suppression of freedom on the internet, such as PayPal, who gave in to the pressures of cutting off Wikileaks, or the MPAA and RIAA after MegaUpload went under, those anonymous individuals use an anonymizing services such as Tor, LOIC and others to make their attacks. Then someone somewhere uses the name Anonymous to claim the attack.

It's simple in its design, and since the internet is a globally connected community, members of Anonymous can live anywhere there is an internet connection, and do not necessarily have to be American. Even still further, members of Anonymous do not have to know one another, nor do they have to be experienced computer hackers, or for that matter, good at all with computers. They could be a thirteen year old kid who was shown how to use this basic program for simple executions, which might only appear to him as minute acts of vandalism. The repercussions of which, however, are far greater. But it still stand that the group known as Anonymous is a loosely based group of like-minded individuals from anywhere. The group is exceptionally fluid, and while Commander X claims he orchestrated attacks, in reality it was the collective consensus of unaffiliated individuals that made it happen, not some organized crime syndicate.

@chrism, while I do like what you have added, it needs to be clarified that a huge number of individual computers had to have been used for the DDoS attacks to be effective. I don't disagree that LOIC was used. But I wish to broaden my horizons to areas outside of the U.S. to the countries that would like to see American Corporations fail. I'm not suggesting that LOIC and DDoS attacks are orchestrated by foreign military cyber-warfare divisions, but I could see a bunch of Europeans or Asians not caring if an American corporation was taken out, so they go ahead and cooperate with the Anonymous attack. [[User:Nthib|Nthib]] 20:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I found the arguments between Palfrey and Thierer most interesting in this week’s readings. I agree with Palfrey that a hands-off approach to online security by the government is of concern. I feel that there should be more regulation to protect people’s privacy and child safety online. However, how and to what extent should we fiddle with Section 230? So, I am torn between these two views and also agree that online restriction would lead to less innovation. I think that the consumers, such as the parents, can take more initiative to monitor and protect their children’s online safety. For example, they can restrict a child from using Facebook if they feel that he/she may be harmed for visiting social networking sites. [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 20:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

== Links from Class ==

Regulating Speech Online

2012-02-07T13:28:21Z

BlakeGeno: /* Class Discussion */

Paradigms for Studying the Internet

2012-01-31T18:50:10Z

BlakeGeno: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''January 31'''

Before we can even begin exploring the who's, what's, and why's -- we need to answer the critical question of '''how.''' Indeed, the phrase "studying the web" could embrace a staggering world of possible routes to explore, even before beginning to examine its relationship with society and culture. We need something to guide us through this massive field of (very interesting!) foxholes, and link the ideas we encounter into a consistent piece. We need some kind of structure to allow us to ''understand'' what we are looking at, the same way a chemist thinks of things in terms of atoms and molecules, or a philosopher can think about things in terms of schools of thought.

This class will explore different frameworks for studying the web, which will structure both the discussion and topic matter covered in the course, as well as the methodology that you should apply to your assignments.

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==

* [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks_Chapter_11.pdf Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks] (Read pages 379-396. The rest of this chapter expands the discussions of each layer in more detail, if you want to read more about them)

* [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/13 Jonathan Zittrain, The Future of the Internet, Chapter 4,The Generative Pattern]

* [https://www.socialtext.net/codev2/what_things_regulate Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0, Chapter 7, What Things Regulate]

== Optional Readings ==

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

For people interested in a more technical primer on the architecture of the web, how email works, etc. check out ethan zuckerman and andrew mclaughlin's [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/digitaldemocracy/internetarchitecture.html Introduction to Internet Architecture and Institutions]

== Class Discussion ==
Lessig’s view on the “Principle of Bovinity” with regards to steering the mass toward a way of being or thinking is an appropriate thought. However, in this unique situation, as opposed to the examples given of the past (i.e. seatbelts, discrimination, drugs, etc), internet regulation has an inherent property of being connected. What I mean to say is that you may steer groups toward a thought or way of being through whatever means (architecture, laws, norms, market) for after a while, they will be disconnected from the original pioneering idea. With regards to the internet though, there just seems to be too many means of communication that the original ideas will continue to be re-introduced, and hence the mass will never forget. [[User:Mvalerio|Mvalerio]] 17:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I find it very interesting to observe Lessig's constraints in action. I also find some of the examples troubling, and the likelihood of feedback loops disturbing. Take for example, privacy policies and user license agreements. As people get used to the idea of having information online, such as facebook or the now largely irrelevant myspace, internet privacy becomes less of a priority. The social norm becomes a lower expectation of privacy. Since few people thoroughly read privacy policies anyway, a company can start putting things in them that are not in the user's best interest. This becomes the market norm, because it gives a company a slight competitive edge. Because it helps them to become better integrated, companies now start encoding this lower level of privacy into their applications. Now, users may figure out what is happening, but because it is less outside of their societal norms, consumers shrug, say everyone else is doing it (market norm), and maybe things wouldn't work the same without doing things this way (architecture), and change their societal norms. Meanwhile, laws are kept nonrestrictive, because the companies make money from this level of expectations (market constraints acting on legal constraints), there is little pressure from consumers (societal constraints), and it would be difficult to figure out how to do it anyway because of how things are programed (architecture).

I'm not saying that this pattern has to happen, but it certainly can. As a change gains momentum, it can become very difficult to stop. I wonder if there is any particular constraint that is more or less likely to change the others.

*Edit: Speak of the devil. Last year,[http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebooks_zuckerberg_says_the_age_of_privacy_is_ov.php Mark Zuckerberg declaring that societal norms had changed with regards to privacy], right after facebook changed its architecture to force that trend.

[[User:BlakeGeno|BlakeGeno]] 05:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure this is exactly how we're supposed to use this section, but I though I'd post a few of my thoughts on the readings for comment and discussion, and I'd love any criticism since I'm not someone with much of a background at all in these areas:

The point in Benkler about Lessig's "Principle of Bovinity" highlighted one of the most interesting aspects of the readings to me: How easy it is to fall into the trap of oversimplifying and assuming that a lot of these issues of control and technology boil down to what will be a recognizable total victory for one side and total defeat for the other. The ratio of creators of technology to consumers does not have to become fully in favor of the business/government creators in order for them to win; it just has to get close enough, resulting in a herd of consumers who are unable to break out of their pattern of accepting technologies exactly as they are when purchased. This reduces the generativity (from Zittrain) that can produce the sort of unanticipated evolutions and improvements that drive technology and innovation forward, often in ways that are more to the benefit of the public than to the groups who are trying to impose their specific type of control.

Indirect and hidden regulation of how these technological resources are used is troubling not only because it (obviously) attempts to stifle this sort of unintentional and often subversive innovation but also because it (less obviously) has a major effect that we often cannot easily perceive on the forces that control our interactions and creations online (law/norms/architecture/market/etc., from Lessig). None of those forces exist in a vacuum. So, not only is one possible outcome to the current technological/cultural upheaval a victory for the strictly control-oriented creators where the majority of people become simple consumers, it is quite possible that many will not even notice the driving factor behind that change. As someone who isn't very adept at using the internet as a creator anyway, that was a troubling conclusion for me.

On a mostly unrelated note, the other most interesting aspect of the readings for me came in Zittrain, where he noted that while the PC and Internet are almost endlessly adaptable, we have often been dealing with problems by making the problems RELATIVELY smaller, and not actually in any way solved (his examples being increased bandwidth for ISPs to deal with spam and more computing cycles for PCs to deal with malware). This reminded me of a presentation I just saw that was given by the head of the EPA for the New England region. He pointed out that for the last 30 years or so, the EPA was solving problems with an equal level of total disregard for sustainability. If water was dirty, create a water plant to purify it, and who cares how much power that takes! It is only in the last few years that a realization has really taken hold that we are unsustainably wasting energy, even in the pursuit of worthwhile results. Now, for example, some purifying plants are being powered by solar, not coal, with the same direct results (pure water) and much better side benefits (no pollution, endlessly renewable resource). Early on in any new field or technology, it is easy to simply minimize and defer issues, but that practice is never sustainable, and a day will come when specific problems actually have to be solved. It would be nice if we could all do ourselves a favor and reach that point voluntarily for internet/computing, and not through necessity. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 21:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I really appreciated Benkler’s exploration of how the "industrial producers of information" have a vested commercial interest in controlling information and communication at the expense of the commons, and how the US Government’s focus has been on restricting freedoms as opposed to upholding rights (Lessig). To appropriate language from the 9/11 Commission Report [http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Exec.htm], many Internet users believe the “need to share” trumps the “need to know”, which is disruptive to the off-line status quo that clearly delineates between producers and consumers.

The idea of “need to share” also has important tie-ins to innovation and collaboration, two benefits of an unrestricted (or minimally restricted) Internet that are currently threatened. Benkler questions the concept of innovation based on exclusive rights as opposed to innovation from commons- and services-based sources, and the legal framework for valuing the former over the latter. Additionally, to mash-up Zittrain and Lessig, the features and benefits of a “generative” system - leverage, adaptability, ease of mastery, and transferability - can be seriously constrained by the interaction of law, social norms, the market, and architecture on users.

All of this leads me to wonder why more companies don’t see disruption as opportunity rather than a crisis. The marketplace is clearly communicating to them that their current model is headed for obsolescence and that this might be a great opportunity to build on some of the ideas and innovations already floating around. It’s also interesting to me that the US’s “capitalist” system seems more willing to protect current industry leaders than to step back and permit a true competition over ideas and users in the marketplace.

@AlexLE Thanks for bringing up the insidious impact that a lack of accountability/transparency can have on "law/norms/architecture/market." There were so many great topics in this week's readings - looking forward to discussing them in class.
[[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 19:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Once again, I enjoyed reading Zittrain’s discussion of generativity, which he defined in terms of “unfiltered contributions” from a wide-range of diverse audiences leading to “unanticipated change”.

Especially interesting was his discussion of the “generative pattern,” which demonstrates how an idea, such as Wordpress blogging software (which I use daily), can start in relative obscurity. When first launched, it was only partially developed, yet it was put out on the internet for others to use (and fix later, another use of the procrastination principle). As with other open source projects like OpenOffice, contribution to the Wordpress community is encouraged, which results in even greater use. According to the Wordpress developer's site, updates to the software are made nearly every single day.

As with other generative software, when Wordpress was launched, no one could have foreseen the “unanticipated change” brought about by the widespread use of this blogging software. But, as with other generative technologies, people new to the neighborhood have started abusing the "openness" of the system. One such example is the wide-spread use of Wordpress software (free, easy to use) to host spam sites and scraper websites. To help curtail these abuses, the Wordpress community created an easy form for people to report spammers (http://en.wordpress.com/report-spam/). This is just one example of the Wordpress community’s attempt to curtail abuse. Another issue frequently discussed on Wordpress forums is the unreliability of many plug-ins created by amateur developers. Trusting users (such as myself) have discovered the hard way that installing a Wordpress plugin can have a catastrophic impact on your blog (the dreaded socket error). Undoubtedly, according to Zittrain's concept of a generative pattern, there will be more and more movement towards “enclosure” in the Wordpress community to prevent such abuses going forward.

Lessig’s discussion of the four types of regulation and their interdependence was also enlightening. Clearly, undesirable behavior on the internet can be curtailed by more than one means. Of course, this brings SOPA and PIPA legislation to mind, making one wonder if there is a better way to attain the same goal without directly threatening punishment for the undesirable behavior.

Perhaps an indirect approach, for example, altering the social norm, could be just as effective. For many Americans, sharing software and music is seen as perfectly acceptable behavior. People like to share things they enjoy with other people. However, if doing so becomes unacceptable in the eyes of most Americans, overall behavior would start to change. Clearly, this is a complex issue, but Lessig does an excellent job of communicating alternatives to direct legislation, which often has far-reaching consequences, far beyond the original scope of what was intended by the law. [[User:Joymiller|Joymiller]] 02:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Benkler’s essay on laws that regulate the internet is interesting in the sense that our internet behavior with the internet can be seen as a reaction to regulations. We logically believe our online behavior is based on our own desires and consumer needs when in fact our behavior can be a function of the copyright infringement laws imposed upon us. Benkler indicates that “laws do affect human behavior by changing the payoffs to regulated actions directly” and that “they also shape social norms” (386). The jaywalking example is effective in demonstrating how a variety of other behaviors can be affected by a law.

When I look back at major changes in my online behavior as a result of copyright laws, iTunes comes to mind. Naturally I have been concerned about any ramifications related to illegally downloading software. The copyright laws required the end users to purchase entire albums which can restrict access to newer, lesser-known music; Apple responded to these laws by providing a legal service that allowed for individual songs to be previewed and downloaded, and the nature of our internet behavior, particularly concerning internet music exploration changed, all because of internet laws. How we view music and the internet now is fundamentally different than prior to iTunes. [[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 17:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

All of the readings for this week were very interesting and were able to get me thinking about how some of the concepts cited in the works can be tied to my everyday usage of certain programs. At one point in the Benkler article it almost seems to me that the author is trying to give a symbolical picture of two entities such as the big industries or the "giants", and their opposition formed by the majority of the population, in a perennial contrast. On one hand, the big industries are trying to protect their economic interests, while on the other hand, the majority of the population is trying to resist against this forced regulation. It also seems to me that when something new is discovered for the first time, as soon as people learn about such unregulated and innovative feature, they try to exploit it to their own benefit. But after some time, the founders or industries realize that they have to protect their "money making machines" from public and unregulated usage; therefore laws in regards are passed, patents are deposited, trademarks are extended etc. in order to contrast this phenomenon. I personally recall what was done in order to fight or at least limit piracy in the music industry a few years ago. Once, anyone was able to illegally download music from programs such as "emule" or "bearshare", where chances of actually getting caught were very little but at the same time these actions violated certain federal laws enforced by the F.B.I. So what has been done after that, was that instead of downloading illegal music, which would "violate the law" and also result risky for what concerns contracting computer viruses, was transformed in a just process where songs could be bought for one dollar or so on specific programs, the most famous being "iTunes". This allows artists to make some profit from their work but at the same time it allowed people to buy the songs at a cheap price and most importantly, in a legal manner. For what concerns "sharing", I once heard by a friend that "if you upload material on a specific program, you are allowed to download other stuff without facing legal charges", but then the question is: how does someone regulate that "material sharing"? it was very easy for anyone to just download without uploading anything in return. But returning to the authors, the most interesting part for me was Lessig's "principle of bovinity", described by Benkler and how he explains the principle of controlling a large number of people or animals in a metaphorical sense with little resources and very few rules, although constantly enforced. In conclusion I personally think that the whole process of protecting and regulating the usage of a given site or program is just part of a never ending cycle where someone creates a program for instance, which will be then used and abused, with subsequent establishment of laws and protection which will just be overcome and the whole cycle will start again. Perhaps this is a pessimistic view of how things are actually functioning but my feel is that this process is just like a virus vs. antivirus eternal battle. [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 18:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I found the readings very thought provoking. In “What Things Regulate”, I found it really interesting how the author evaluates threat to liberty. It is interesting how norms, law, market and architecture provide a powerful combination for regulation. The contrast between norms and law was quite insightful and I was left wondering how in our life, norms rule our behavior. I agree with author’s opinion that state should not be using nontransparent means when transparent means are available. I spent some time arguing why the government would feel compelled to use non-transparent means. How would they defend using such means.
In Benkler’s article, discussion on enclosure and openness seems very relevant and could be applied to real life example. Facebook succeeded over MySpace due to its open platform. iPhone gained much of its popularity due to the applications developed on open platform. It is worth evaluating how Eclosure restricts creativity and innovation? Is it worth for the little girl to spend time on replacing her picture frame by frame in the clip of movie Schindler’s List? It is interesting to see how the regulations would evolve with today’s technological advancements and the very need to share. Recent strikes by Wikipedia and Google point out to that very conflict between the government and technology. [[User:Pgaur|Pgaur]] 17:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Paradigms for Studying the Internet

2012-01-31T05:08:01Z

BlakeGeno: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''January 31'''

Before we can even begin exploring the who's, what's, and why's -- we need to answer the critical question of '''how.''' Indeed, the phrase "studying the web" could embrace a staggering world of possible routes to explore, even before beginning to examine its relationship with society and culture. We need something to guide us through this massive field of (very interesting!) foxholes, and link the ideas we encounter into a consistent piece. We need some kind of structure to allow us to ''understand'' what we are looking at, the same way a chemist thinks of things in terms of atoms and molecules, or a philosopher can think about things in terms of schools of thought.

This class will explore different frameworks for studying the web, which will structure both the discussion and topic matter covered in the course, as well as the methodology that you should apply to your assignments.

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==

* [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks_Chapter_11.pdf Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks] (Read pages 379-396. The rest of this chapter expands the discussions of each layer in more detail, if you want to read more about them)

* [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/13 Jonathan Zittrain, The Future of the Internet, Chapter 4,The Generative Pattern]

* [https://www.socialtext.net/codev2/what_things_regulate Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0, Chapter 7, What Things Regulate]

== Optional Readings ==

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

For people interested in a more technical primer on the architecture of the web, how email works, etc. check out ethan zuckerman and andrew mclaughlin's [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/digitaldemocracy/internetarchitecture.html Introduction to Internet Architecture and Institutions]

== Class Discussion ==

I find it very interesting to observe Lessig's constraints in action. I also find some of the examples troubling, and the likelihood of feedback loops disturbing. Take for example, privacy policies and user license agreements. As people get used to the idea of having information online, such as facebook or the now largely irrelevant myspace, internet privacy becomes less of a priority. The social norm becomes a lower expectation of privacy. Since few people thoroughly read privacy policies anyway, a company can start putting things in them that are not in the user's best interest. This becomes the market norm, because it gives a company a slight competitive edge. Because it helps them to become better integrated, companies now start encoding this lower level of privacy into their applications. Now, users may figure out what is happening, but because it is less outside of their societal norms, consumers shrug, say everyone else is doing it (market norm), and maybe things wouldn't work the same without doing things this way (architecture), and change their societal norms. Meanwhile, laws are kept nonrestrictive, because the companies make money from this level of expectations (market constraints acting on legal constraints), there is little pressure from consumers (societal constraints), and it would be difficult to figure out how to do it anyway because of how things are programed (architecture).

I'm not saying that this pattern has to happen, but it certainly can. As a change gains momentum, it can become very difficult to stop. I wonder if there is any particular constraint that is more or less likely to change the others.

[[User:BlakeGeno|BlakeGeno]] 05:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure this is exactly how we're supposed to use this section, but I though I'd post a few of my thoughts on the readings for comment and discussion, and I'd love any criticism since I'm not someone with much of a background at all in these areas:

The point in Benkler about Lessig's "Principle of Bovinity" highlighted one of the most interesting aspects of the readings to me: How easy it is to fall into the trap of oversimplifying and assuming that a lot of these issues of control and technology boil down to what will be a recognizable total victory for one side and total defeat for the other. The ratio of creators of technology to consumers does not have to become fully in favor of the business/government creators in order for them to win; it just has to get close enough, resulting in a herd of consumers who are unable to break out of their pattern of accepting technologies exactly as they are when purchased. This reduces the generativity (from Zittrain) that can produce the sort of unanticipated evolutions and improvements that drive technology and innovation forward, often in ways that are more to the benefit of the public than to the groups who are trying to impose their specific type of control.

Indirect and hidden regulation of how these technological resources are used is troubling not only because it (obviously) attempts to stifle this sort of unintentional and often subversive innovation but also because it (less obviously) has a major effect that we often cannot easily perceive on the forces that control our interactions and creations online (law/norms/architecture/market/etc., from Lessig). None of those forces exist in a vacuum. So, not only is one possible outcome to the current technological/cultural upheaval a victory for the strictly control-oriented creators where the majority of people become simple consumers, it is quite possible that many will not even notice the driving factor behind that change. As someone who isn't very adept at using the internet as a creator anyway, that was a troubling conclusion for me.

On a mostly unrelated note, the other most interesting aspect of the readings for me came in Zittrain, where he noted that while the PC and Internet are almost endlessly adaptable, we have often been dealing with problems by making the problems RELATIVELY smaller, and not actually in any way solved (his examples being increased bandwidth for ISPs to deal with spam and more computing cycles for PCs to deal with malware). This reminded me of a presentation I just saw that was given by the head of the EPA for the New England region. He pointed out that for the last 30 years or so, the EPA was solving problems with an equal level of total disregard for sustainability. If water was dirty, create a water plant to purify it, and who cares how much power that takes! It is only in the last few years that a realization has really taken hold that we are unsustainably wasting energy, even in the pursuit of worthwhile results. Now, for example, some purifying plants are being powered by solar, not coal, with the same direct results (pure water) and much better side benefits (no pollution, endlessly renewable resource). Early on in any new field or technology, it is easy to simply minimize and defer issues, but that practice is never sustainable, and a day will come when specific problems actually have to be solved. It would be nice if we could all do ourselves a favor and reach that point voluntarily for internet/computing, and not through necessity. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 21:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I really appreciated Benkler’s exploration of how the "industrial producers of information" have a vested commercial interest in controlling information and communication at the expense of the commons, and how the US Government’s focus has been on restricting freedoms as opposed to upholding rights (Lessig). To appropriate language from the 9/11 Commission Report [http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Exec.htm], many Internet users believe the “need to share” trumps the “need to know”, which is disruptive to the off-line status quo that clearly delineates between producers and consumers.

The idea of “need to share” also has important tie-ins to innovation and collaboration, two benefits of an unrestricted (or minimally restricted) Internet that are currently threatened. Benkler questions the concept of innovation based on exclusive rights as opposed to innovation from commons- and services-based sources, and the legal framework for valuing the former over the latter. Additionally, to mash-up Zittrain and Lessig, the features and benefits of a “generative” system - leverage, adaptability, ease of mastery, and transferability - can be seriously constrained by the interaction of law, social norms, the market, and architecture on users.

All of this leads me to wonder why more companies don’t see disruption as opportunity rather than a crisis. The marketplace is clearly communicating to them that their current model is headed for obsolescence and that this might be a great opportunity to build on some of the ideas and innovations already floating around. It’s also interesting to me that the US’s “capitalist” system seems more willing to protect current industry leaders than to step back and permit a true competition over ideas and users in the marketplace.

@AlexLE Thanks for bringing up the insidious impact that a lack of accountability/transparency can have on "law/norms/architecture/market." There were so many great topics in this week's readings - looking forward to discussing them in class.
[[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 19:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Once again, I enjoyed reading Zittrain’s discussion of generativity, which he defined in terms of “unfiltered contributions” from a wide-range of diverse audiences leading to “unanticipated change”.

Especially interesting was his discussion of the “generative pattern,” which demonstrates how an idea, such as Wordpress blogging software (which I use daily), can start in relative obscurity. When first launched, it was only partially developed, yet it was put out on the internet for others to use (and fix later, another use of the procrastination principle). As with other open source projects like OpenOffice, contribution to the Wordpress community is encouraged, which results in even greater use. According to the Wordpress developer's site, updates to the software are made nearly every single day.

As with other generative software, when Wordpress was launched, no one could have foreseen the “unanticipated change” brought about by the widespread use of this blogging software. But, as with other generative technologies, people new to the neighborhood have started abusing the "openness" of the system. One such example is the wide-spread use of Wordpress software (free, easy to use) to host spam sites and scraper websites. To help curtail these abuses, the Wordpress community created an easy form for people to report spammers (http://en.wordpress.com/report-spam/). This is just one example of the Wordpress community’s attempt to curtail abuse. Another issue frequently discussed on Wordpress forums is the unreliability of many plug-ins created by amateur developers. Trusting users (such as myself) have discovered the hard way that installing a Wordpress plugin can have a catastrophic impact on your blog (the dreaded socket error). Undoubtedly, according to Zittrain's concept of a generative pattern, there will be more and more movement towards “enclosure” in the Wordpress community to prevent such abuses going forward.

Lessig’s discussion of the four types of regulation and their interdependence was also enlightening. Clearly, undesirable behavior on the internet can be curtailed by more than one means. Of course, this brings SOPA and PIPA legislation to mind, making one wonder if there is a better way to attain the same goal without directly threatening punishment for the undesirable behavior.

Perhaps an indirect approach, for example, altering the social norm, could be just as effective. For many Americans, sharing software and music is seen as perfectly acceptable behavior. People like to share things they enjoy with other people. However, if doing so becomes unacceptable in the eyes of most Americans, overall behavior would start to change. Clearly, this is a complex issue, but Lessig does an excellent job of communicating alternatives to direct legislation, which often has far-reaching consequences, far beyond the original scope of what was intended by the law. [[User:Joymiller|Joymiller]] 02:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Benkler’s essay on laws that regulate the internet is interesting in the sense that our internet behavior with the internet can be seen as a reaction to regulations. We logically believe our online behavior is based on our own desires and consumer needs when in fact our behavior can be a function of the copyright infringement laws imposed upon us. Benkler indicates that “laws do affect human behavior by changing the payoffs to regulated actions directly” and that “they also shape social norms” (386). The jaywalking example is effective in demonstrating how a variety of other behaviors can be affected by a law.

When I look back at major changes in my online behavior as a result of copyright laws, iTunes comes to mind. Naturally I have been concerned about any ramifications related to illegally downloading software. The copyright laws required the end users to purchase entire albums which can restrict access to newer, lesser-known music; Apple responded to these laws by providing a legal service that allowed for individual songs to be previewed and downloaded, and the nature of our internet behavior, particularly concerning internet music exploration changed, all because of internet laws. How we view music and the internet now is fundamentally different than prior to iTunes. [[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 17:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

All of the readings for this week were very interesting and were able to get me thinking about how some of the concepts cited in the works can be tied to my everyday usage of certain programs. At one point in the Benkler article it almost seems to me that the author is trying to give a symbolical picture of two entities such as the big industries or the "giants", and their opposition formed by the majority of the population, in a perennial contrast. On one hand, the big industries are trying to protect their economic interests, while on the other hand, the majority of the population is trying to resist against this forced regulation. It also seems to me that when something new is discovered for the first time, as soon as people learn about such unregulated and innovative feature, they try to exploit it to their own benefit. But after some time, the founders or industries realize that they have to protect their "money making machines" from public and unregulated usage; therefore laws in regards are passed, patents are deposited, trademarks are extended etc. in order to contrast this phenomenon. I personally recall what was done in order to fight or at least limit piracy in the music industry a few years ago. Once, anyone was able to illegally download music from programs such as "emule" or "bearshare", where chances of actually getting caught were very little but at the same time these actions violated certain federal laws enforced by the F.B.I. So what has been done after that, was that instead of downloading illegal music, which would "violate the law" and also result risky for what concerns contracting computer viruses, was transformed in a just process where songs could be bought for one dollar or so on specific programs, the most famous being "iTunes". This allows artists to make some profit from their work but at the same time it allowed people to buy the songs at a cheap price and most importantly, in a legal manner. For what concerns "sharing", I once heard by a friend that "if you upload material on a specific program, you are allowed to download other stuff without facing legal charges", but then the question is: how does someone regulate that "material sharing"? it was very easy for anyone to just download without uploading anything in return. But returning to the authors, the most interesting part for me was Lessig's "principle of bovinity", described by Benkler and how he explains the principle of controlling a large number of people or animals in a metaphorical sense with little resources and very few rules, although constantly enforced. In conclusion I personally think that the whole process of protecting and regulating the usage of a given site or program is just part of a never ending cycle where someone creates a program for instance, which will be then used and abused, with subsequent establishment of laws and protection which will just be overcome and the whole cycle will start again. Perhaps this is a pessimistic view of how things are actually functioning but my feel is that this process is just like a virus vs. antivirus eternal battle. [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 18:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction

2012-01-24T19:18:17Z

BlakeGeno: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}
'''January 24'''

The Net has great potential for “good” (e.g. innovation, economic growth, education, and access to information), and likewise is a great platform for the bawdy, tawdry and illegal. Is this platform about fundamental social, political and economic change, or about easier access to pornography, cheap pharmaceuticals, free music and poker at home? This question leads us to a host of interesting issues that weave their way through the course related to openness, access, regulatory control, free speech, anonymity, intellectual property rights, democracy, transparency, norms and values, economic and cultural change, and cyber-terrorism, as well as scamsters and thieves.

== Preparation (Assignment "Zero") ==

* Reflect on what you believe are the most significant social, cultural, political or economic changes associated with the spread of digital technologies?
In a few sentences, please offer 2-3 examples in the Class Discussion section below and be prepared to discuss them during class.

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==

* [http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~zs/decl.html John Perry Barlow, A Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace]

* [http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly.msp?id=961 Jack Goldsmith & Tim Wu, Digital Borders]

* [http://futureoftheinternet.org/ Jonathan Zittrain, The Future of the Internet - Chapters 1 & 2]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://www.cluetrain.com Chris Locke, Doc Searls & David Weinberger, Cluetrain Manifesto] (just the manifesto)

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Class Discussion ==
''The most significant changes and challenges brought on by digital technologies.''

- Your ideas here...

<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">'''Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:RobF|RobF]] 14:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)'''</div>

The largest changes I see are in expectations and perceptions of the world, especially resulting from the amount of, and lack of standardization and quality controls on information available. I will use the hypothetical example of a car company to illustrate: Because there is so much information available on this hypothetical car company, anything that happens, whether good or bad, has the potential to be widely publicized. Let's say they have a part that failed on some cars, and instituted a recall. In the past, if this was a small issue, it could be done quietly. With the easy access to information, what was previously a small recall, only impacting a few customers (inevitable with such a complex product), it may make big news. Or it may go unnoticed in the flood of information available, even if it was in reality, rather serious. If a potential customer is trying to decide on a car to buy, they may learn of this recall, and have second thoughts. This may be for legitimate reasons, or it may be something that is not the company's fault, and possibly other companies the customer is considering may even be much worse. But, seeing this safety recall, and becoming concerned, the potential customer may now purchase a car from a competitor. The information in an improper context may give the customer a false impression. It may also be something that is not normally considered important. A dashboard gizmo may be something most car companies don't normally consider as important, and doesn't undergo as rigorous as testing. A simple recall, and the problem is a non-issue safety wise. But that's not how the customer perceives it. A similar example can be found in employers screening job applicants with a web search. If there are say, embarrassing photos found of the applicant at a party in college, this may seriously harm the applicant's chances. All the while, the other 4 applicants may have even worse pictures, but they simply don't come up to the top of the search results. These types of possibilities change both how we perceive the world, and what we expect out of entities in the world, because of the mere possibility of data being discovered. [[User:BlakeGeno|BlakeGeno]] 19:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I think digital technologies' most significant effects so far have included fundamentally altering how people view themselves w/r/t society as a whole. Previously people viewed themselves as either being recognized or ignored by media that monopolized the civic discourse on many levels, now there are plenty of platforms for people to present themselves and be legitimated on their own terms. Tools and platforms for creating and distributing art (movies, music, podcasts etc.) certainly play a role in that, but so have social networking platforms, where folks can connect with other like-minded people and coordinate brick and mortar, face-to-face interactions (movie screenings, lectures, art shows, discussion groups, etc.)[[User:David Taber|David Taber]] 04:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Despite the assigned articles we just read about some of the ways governments try to limit online activity and sharing, to me the most significant changes brought about by the spread of digital technologies are all related to freedom of information and the vast amount of information now accessible. This has political implications in both huge and radical ways (like the way Twitter is used as a organizing tool in many of the Arab Spring movements) and in smaller ways that fit within existing political structures but empower the average person much more (with the internet, I can check any American Senator's voting record, write a letter directly to my congresswoman, etc.). It also has cultural and social implications in the way ideas spread and are shared and altered. Regardless of where you are born or living, you can find people who hold almost any political/social/cultural/religious views online somewhere, and make that your primary community, rather than the one you physically live in. The sheer amount of information and connectedness made possible by the spread of digital technology are at the heart of most major changes based off that technology. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 16:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Freedom. Users have the ability to post any piece of information they wish using digital technologies. This platform is free and happens in real time causing an immediate impact. Put to good use these, digital technologies such as Twitter can connect high school friends in a matter of minutes. Likewise, the same communication method could be used to post a video bullying classmates for being different. The impact of both situations is immediate and with real consequences. The question remains how much policing is necessary to continue maintaining an accessible environment. HopeS 17:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

"Perfect enforcement" by the government utilizing the internet and the growing number of tethering devices is a an area of interest of mine. One would be wise to question the extent to which we are likely to be monitored by the government, knowingly or unknowingly, as technology grows. In addition, I am also interested in the drastic political change that social media is capable of spurring. I am interested in learning more about the extent to which governments may be involved, now and in the future. Lastly, I would like to explore potential innovative educational opportunities that may be created in developing nations with the advent of virtual classrooms and online academies. [[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 22:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace treats the internet as if it were a public good. However, it does not consider that the Internet is not free and therefore it can and will be regulated to a certain extent. Governments will seek to regulate the Internet on some issues, while corporations that subsidize news, Web content, and even access - via mobile devices will censor the net on other issues. The remaining "free space" of the Internet and pressure that the public at large can apply to advertisers and commercial interests that build out the infrastructure access to the web, is the space that will be left over for this utopian "social contract" that will enforce Web behavior. Demands for increased access and less regulation will be met with the challenges of governments and entities that will provide that infrastructure, perhaps shaping the Internet in a very different way, and this is what I see as the next big challenge of the digital age. ˜˜˜˜ Rberk2012 20:27 January 23, 2012

I believe the most significant change brought forth by the internet has been the globalization of the marketplace. First, firms now have the capacity to do business without any real barriers, and in real-time. A small business in Germany, for instance, can now conduct business with a small business in the United States. Communication barriers have been eliminated. Firms can communicate with each other cost-effectively and immediately through things like Skype/VOIP and email. This also holds true for the business-to-customer relationship with the substantial role eCommerce plays for the majority of the population. Secondly, I believe the dissemination of information is another significant change. Questions and curiosities that may have taken a vast amount of personal time and research can now be accessed almost instantaneously via a cell phone with apps like Wikipedia. Similarly, one can even attend school without ever stepping foot into a classroom. [[User:JeffKimble|JeffKimble]] 02:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

With digital technologies, access to information is available for everyone to access immediately. This can have both positive and negative consequences, depending on your vantage point. Consider WikiLeaks.org: For the government, it represents a gross breach of national security, but for concerned citizens, such organizations provide a public service, forcing the government to be more transparent. This raises a number of important questions regarding freedom of speech, privacy, regulatory controls, and even third parties on the web that host or store popular/unpopular content on their servers. Who has the authority to say what content is appropriate for public consumption? Anyone with access to the internet can publish anything they want, and unlike WikiLeaks, may make no attempt at redacting sensitive material. As Zittrain points out, the internet was designed to be “generative”; it was created to “accept any contribution”. Should the government have the power to censor such content, even if it stored outside of U.S. jurisdiction? If so, where does this censorship end? [[User:Joymiller|Joymiller]] 02:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Instant consumption of accessible information in an international context. Users have the ability to obtain as well as post unfiltered real-time data through an assortment of social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook. As the speed of information increases through these media sources, it becomes more difficult to verify the legitimacy of these sites. Readers must process the unfiltered information analytically and are obligated to perform own due diligence. Big business and government have acknowledged the use of social media as a tool to create a more efficient marketing plan through sentiment analysis. [[User:Szakuto|Szakuto]] 02:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I am very interested in the digital divide from generational, economic, and geographic perspectives. When I was living in South Africa, the impact of slow, unreliable, and expensive Internet controlled by an entrenched monopoly had a very noticeable effect on my organization's ability to meet international expectations and on the degree to which people were willing and able to interact with new technologies. As certain regions blaze ahead digitally, it seems that other regions will only fall further behind the rapidly increasing expectations for connectivity, productivity, and innovation. I’m reminded of a section of Paul Collier’s The Bottom Billion (which I admittedly haven’t read recently so apologies for mangling this) where he discusses a window in the the 1970s where Africa had an opportunity to be competitive with Asia in manufacturing and the textile industry but, missing its opportunity, was unable to find a competitive toehold later resulting in severe economic ramifications. I’m interested in exploring how disparities in opportunity and access can be addressed and how the egalitarian, democratic ideals of many Internet users can be leveraged to reach out to people who are currently excluded from the system. [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 02:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The most significant changes brought on by digital technologies have been the increased ease-of-access to information around the world, the result of which has been a domino effect still taking place. The transfer of technology that is studied in economics, where a lesser developed country gains from the investment of a richer one, is taking place in the form of the spread of information around the world. This mass transfer has triggered milestone events in academics, economics, science and government. Significant challenges that may come from these rapidly developing technologies will be a divide on the interpretation of what they were developed for ("social" news vs traditional news media) and ultimately if they can be used to improve the quality of life for the majority of people. [[User:Brendanlong|Brendanlong]] 02:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the most significant changes that digital technologies brought on us, is how we access information we are looking for. In the past, we relied on books and libraries to provide us with any kind of information even though most of it was outdated, but today we can gain access to any type of information within minutes and information that is up to date and always updating. With this, of course we have noticed challenges it has given us. We cannot know what information is reliable, and which is not. [[User:Erzhik|Erzhik]] 11:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

In the recent years, advances in the digital technologies have changed the world communicate and the way we live. Information are accessible at our palm. It has decrease the distance of time and space as communication is now very convenient with the creation of smartphones and the various social media people use to keep in touch with each other. We also moved from being passive consumers to active creators of news which were not available for us before. The interactions we experience through the technology also created a new common ground for us to understand different culture and people from all around the world. However, the advantages of these connections also bring into light many questions. For examples, how those informations are used and where to draw the line of privacy in regards to what we share. [[User:Selina2012|Selina2012]] 14:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe that people’s lives have changed drastically over the past years because of the Internet. From my point of view, I don’t need to go out and buy a newspaper to know what is going on, but simply turn on my computer and go on Wikipedia or any news website. Another example concerns communication; I live in Italy and yet I can follow lectures and be enrolled in a degree program without having to physically be in the classroom. A few years ago I interned at the District Attorney’s Office, and among other duties I was asked to search for criminal history of certain suspects; what I thought would be a lengthy task, involving thousands of paper files, actually took me less than a minute by accessing a specific online database. In conclusion, I feel that digital technologies have made life easier and have allowed people with limited resources to gain knowledge by simply surfing the web. [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 16:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC) Emanuele

While Arab Spring and Wikileaks immediately jump to mind when I think of major events and changes that were enabled by digital technologies, only recently did those events became a real force. While the freedom to immediately access an abundant amount of information (and information overload) in many countries is certainly a significant change brought on by digital technologies, the community should be seriously considered as well. I think our sense of community, for good and bad, has changed with the advent of digital technologies. You can be connected to so many people over the Internet in an instant and your community is independent of your geographical location. Examples include blogging, social platforms like Facebook, MMOs like WoW and Call of Duty, Quora, Reddit, and Internet Relay Chat (and tons more!). [[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 05:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The most profound challenges visible today regarding the advent of dynamic digital technologies seems to be the wanton attempts at futilely regulating internet access and use, (e.g. Stop Online Piracy Act, [SOPA], Protect Intellectual Property Act, [PIPA]), and a topic that Cory Doctorow refers to as "The Coming War on General Computation" (a topic that the introduction of Jonathan Zittrain's book, which has conveniently been assigned as required reading for this course, hints at discussing in some depth). The debate on legislature like SOPA and PIPA arrives at a question quite familiar to the citizens of a post 9/11 society (Patriot Act, NDAA 2012), should individual freedoms, privacy, or constitutional rights be violated in the interest of the rights of copyright holders or government interests? The answer, it seems, should of course be no. The debate, however, is somehow being held on the floors of the United States Congress, and Senate. With regard to general purpose computers, the discussion circles around special purpose devices. Zittrain calls the iPhone and the XBox "sterile appliances tethered to a network of control." Perhaps he's right, as mobile devices recently took heat for hosting key logging/location monitoring software made to fit on your cute little smartphone by Carrier IQ. Similarly Sony took heat for prosecuting hacker George "Geohotz" Hotz and Alex Egorenkov "graf_chokolo" of "fail0verflow" for installing Linux onto the Playstation 3 after Sony removed their "Other OS" support. The topic under debate here, should individuals be able to use something they purchased in legal ways to do whatever they see fit? Ultimately the challenges we face are indicative of the greatest advent to come out of the Technological Revolution, the ability for individuals to disseminate information and rally support against corporate and government interests.

Doctorow, Cory. "The Coming War on General Computation" Keynote Speech 28c3 Conference 2011. Video. Web 1/24/2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg

Doctorow, Cory. "The Coming War on General Computation" Keynote Speech 28c3 Conference 2011 Transcript. Web 1/24/2012.

https://github.com/jwise/28c3-doctorow/blob/master/transcript.md

Kravets, David. "Carrier IQ Explains Secret Monitoring Software to FTC, FCC" Wired 14 Dec 2011. Web 1/24/2012.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/carrieriq-ftc-fcc/

Wikipedia. "Sony Computer Entertainment America v. George Hotz." Web 1/24/2012.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Computer_Entertainment_America_v._George_Hotz

Zittrain, Jonathan ''The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It.'' Introduction. 2008 Yale University Press. HTML Version. Web 1/24/2012.

http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/6

[[User:BSK342|BSK342]] 16:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that digital technologies have increased the pace of life. For instance, a letter sent by original mail takes much longer to receive than one sent by email. This means that you can (and are expected to) reply much sooner too. Further, I think that digital technologies require a different set of skills for various professions. I am originally from The Netherlands and used to be a lawyer there. I find that it is not not only important how much you know, but also how fast you can find something, e.g. case law, rules and regulations or any informaton about a person or a company. The internet, but also various other (digital) databases, have made the latter much easier. The ability to use these digital technologies have become very important. Digital technologies have also a big impact on maintaining relationships. I live and have lived on another continent and in a different time zone for almost two years now, but thanks to Skype, Facebook, Linkedin, Whatsapp and email, I am still very much involved in and informed on the lives of my friends, family and former colleagues overseas.[[User:Marjolein Siegenthaler|Marjolein Siegenthaler]] 18:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

In the social sphere, I would say that digital technology has brought people closer together because it is so much easier to communicate by email. There are even fast and, it seems, often successful services for mates to find each other.
In all of the social, cultural, and political areas, I think it is easier to sway the masses with trends and fashions, and many people easily follow along with whatever is portrayed as the in thing. News reaches people more quickly, and can easily be manipulated, depending on who is in control of the media. On the other side of the coin, social media such as Face Book, Skype, and Youtube make it possible for many opinions to be aired publicly, not only the voice of the news media. These capabilities were not so readily available before the spread of digital technologies.
Trade and commerce can be transacted much more quickly than ever before over the internet.[[User:Mike|Mike]] 18:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I would be quite remiss if I did not mention the numerous freedoms that digital technology, the internet included, provides. Not only is communication enabled on a greater, more accessible, real-time platform, but also the freedom of the content of that communication. While these freedoms have granted exceptional benefits, ranging from market-level trading (as is done between the European, East Asian, and American Markets), to revolutionary movements (the Arab Spring), they also come with drawbacks. These drawbacks are based upon the legal standing of communication in those countries where it can be an issue. Once digital technology is broken down to its basic form, it is merely a means of communication, no different than a print newspaper, a poster board, a phonograph, or a TV or radio signal. All of these forms of communication have limits on their communication, either through decency laws, copyright protection, or FCC regulation. The internet, or any digital medium for that matter, does not necessarily fall under a specific, current legal code, particularly because of the anonymity of the internet, including the anonymity of nationality. Unfortunately old legislation that is applied to current digital medium was written for tangible, real items, rather than virtual items as a digital medium. This creates the problem of controlling or regulating that medium to conform to established standards for non-digital medium, and unfortunately, that is increasingly difficult given the propensity of the digital world to exist outside of borders, and outside of jurisdictions.[[User:Nthib|Nthib]] 18:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)