Technologies of Politics and Control - User contributions [en]

Final Projects

2012-05-08T20:11:26Z

Chrism:

{{AssignmentCal}}

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

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

*Name:
*Title:
*Link:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

File:Final project prospectus.doc

2012-02-21T18:43:12Z

Chrism: uploaded a new version of "Image:Final project prospectus.doc"

Assignment 2 Submissions

2012-02-21T18:42:50Z

Chrism: /* 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: 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)

File:Final project prospectus.doc

2012-02-21T18:38:21Z

Chrism:

Assignment 1 Submissions

2012-02-07T22:14:47Z

Chrism: /* 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: 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)

== 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 Assignment-1.doc

2012-02-07T22:10:36Z

Chrism:

Regulating Speech Online

2012-02-07T19:33:44Z

Chrism: /* 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.

==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 ==
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.

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

== Links from Class ==

Regulating Speech Online

2012-02-07T19:32:14Z

Chrism: /* Class Discussion */