Technologies of Politics and Control - User contributions [en]

Final Projects

2011-05-06T08:52:27Z

VladimirTrojak: /* Submissions */

File:Final project vladimir trojak.pdf

2011-05-06T08:50:55Z

VladimirTrojak:

Assignment 4 Submissions

2011-04-12T20:26:47Z

VladimirTrojak: /* Submissions */

File:Assignment 4 Vladimir Trojak.pdf

2011-04-12T20:19:51Z

VladimirTrojak:

Internet Infrastructure and Regulation

2011-03-29T14:24:56Z

VladimirTrojak: /* Thoughts on Net Neutrality and Open Access */

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

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

<onlyinclude>
==Readings==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Optional Readings==

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

== Class Discussion ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regulating Speech Online

2011-03-22T16:56:50Z

VladimirTrojak: /* Class Discussion */

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

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

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

==Assignments==

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

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==

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

== Optional Readings ==

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

==Class Discussion ==

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

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

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

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

== Links from Class ==

Regulating Speech Online

2011-03-22T16:56:36Z

VladimirTrojak: /* Class Discussion */

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

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

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

==Assignments==

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

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==

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

== Optional Readings ==

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

==Class Discussion ==

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

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

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

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

== Links from Class ==

Assignment 3 Submissions

2011-03-19T18:10:31Z

VladimirTrojak: /* Submissions */

File:Vladimir TrojakAssignment 3.pdf

2011-03-19T18:06:56Z

VladimirTrojak:

Assignment 2 Submissions

2011-03-13T09:03:04Z

VladimirTrojak: /* Name: Jamil Buie */

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

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

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

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

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

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

</div>

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

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

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

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

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

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

===Submissions===

----

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

----

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

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

**Comment: I am sorry if I am posting belated remarks but it seems that your topic, along with many other topics related to this type of mental state, overlooks the origins of the same sex attraction for males - pederasty, which by nature can affect the mind set of the near situated females. It is widely argued in the world, may be not in the U.S., that the same sex attraction among men is not a genetic phenomenon but rather is the bodily stigma imposed either during the childhood or during the adultery. In majority cases, with a few exceptions, neither adult nor a child is able to recall the first same sex sexual experience which decisively suggests on the unconscious act under the influence of a sedative and/or somnolent medicine. In scholarly papers similar to this you may find the old and new findings that can explain both the political and biological causes of the same sex mental and physical attraction: http://www.ched.uq.edu.au/index.html?page=39750&pid=0 --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 06:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

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

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

Assignment 2 Submissions

2011-03-08T21:54:42Z

VladimirTrojak: /* Name: Saam Batmanghelidj --Saambat 10:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC) */

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

===Submissions===

----

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

----

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

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

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

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

Assignment 2 Submissions

2011-03-06T10:43:24Z

VladimirTrojak: /* Submissions */

Assignment 2 Submissions

2011-03-01T18:11:51Z

VladimirTrojak: /* Submissions */

Assignment 2 Submissions

2011-02-20T20:01:23Z

VladimirTrojak: /* Submissions */

File:Assignment 2.pdf

2011-02-20T19:53:35Z

VladimirTrojak:

Group Project Page

2011-02-16T01:12:03Z

VladimirTrojak: /* Group Project Proposals/Requests */

'''Students have the option of working in groups for [[Assignments|Assignments 2-4 and the Final Project]].''' Working in a group can be fun and productive and should enable the participants to take their topic farther than an individual. Students should also consider the time required to coordinate their activities and potential complications of group work. A majority of students in previous classes have had a good experience working in groups.

The maximum group size is three. Those that wish to work in a group will be responsible for forming and organizing the group by March 1 at the latest. For those that choose to work in a group, it is essential to come to a clear understanding within the group how the work will be shared. There is an additional class requirement for those that work in a group: each group must submit a statement that describes the contribution of each member of the group.

'''Prospective groups should submit a short paragraph to [mailto:internetsociety2011@gmail.com internetsociety2011 at gmail dot com] by March 1 explaining why a group approach to their proposed topic for the final project makes sense.'''

Looking to form a group or join a group? Need a partner? Submit your information below.

==Group Project Proposals/Requests==

* I'd be interested in finding a collaborator. My name and project description here.

- Sounds interesting! Please contact me. If you prefer to not post contact info here, TFs can provide email addresses.

* Project 2 here....

Group Project Page

2011-02-15T11:17:29Z

VladimirTrojak:

* I'd be interested in finding a collaborator. My name and project description here.

- Sounds interesting! Please contact me. If you prefer to not post contact info here, TFs can provide email addresses.

* Project 2 here....

Hello,
my name is Vladimir Trojak (this is for email purposes at the end of message) and I am interested in creating a group for Assignments 2-4 and the Final Project as well. Since I am curently in Edinburgh, Scotland, our future communication can be only via Internet. If you want to know who am I, check my profile [here [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/List_of_User_Profiles#VladimirTrojak]], you can take a look on my assignment 1 and if you interested send me friend request and we can talk on facebook:)

From 'Project Ideas' I would like to work on 'Facebook groups'. The reason is that I am familiar with this environment, as millions of others. I do not use flickr, do not play WOW and do not feed digital chickens so I would not like go into that topics.

As indicated on course webpage, 'finding appropriate research questions is often the most complex and time consuming process' and therefore I can not provide at this stage some final ideas. But what might be worthy of discussion here is for instance whether there is a logic in facebook groups (hundreeds of WOW groups, dislike button groups or even largest facebook groups etc.). Another idea might be why to create google group and not like page, its pros and cons, how users see groups and like pages. Freedom of expression might be also interesting topic.
These are only initial hints I wanted to put forward. In next couple of days I will do more deeper research.

More important is to create good working team so next assignmets will go smoothly:). In the case you interested in Facebook groups but from another prospective, I am open to any kind of change. If you interested, just leave you comment here, find me on facebook, or send me an email at myname.mysurname@gmail.com . Originally I forgot to sign the post. Here it is. --[[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 11:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Group Project Page

2011-02-13T21:08:20Z

VladimirTrojak:

Assignment 1 Submissions

2011-02-08T13:50:34Z

VladimirTrojak: /* Submissions */

File:Assignment 1 wikipedia report.pdf

2011-02-08T13:48:48Z

VladimirTrojak:

List of User Profiles

2011-02-01T15:56:29Z

VladimirTrojak: /* VladimirTrojak */

This is a list of user profiles on this wiki. Until a consensus on policy is come to, this listing will be voluntary.

This page differs from the [[Special:ListUsers|User List]] page in that this page contains only active profiles of individuals who wish to contribute to this wiki. Please add yourself by clicking on the appropriate edit button next to the letter range that corresponds to your user name.

==Users==

===A-G===
=====adavies01=====
I'm Alan Davies-Gavin. I'm an ALB candidate in computer science. I've worked in the IT field for a number of years and am now returning to finish my BA. I'm originally from NH, and have lived on the west coast and Europe. I'm actually used to reading blogs for information, I'm not actually a blogger (subject to change). I do have a lot to say on the subject matter that we'll be covering and I'm also looking forward to discussions.

=====alexleavitt=====
I am a research assistant at Microsoft Research, as well as a researcher for the Comparative Media Studies department at MIT, Microsoft Entertainment & Devices, and the Web Ecology Project. I graduated Boston University in 2009, and I am currently applying to graduate school.

=====Alexsolomon=====
I'm an ALB degree candidate at Harvard Extension School (Concentration: Humanities, Field of study: Journalism, Citation: Business/Marketing). I'm originally from Toronto, Canada. But I currently work as a public relations (PR) coordinator at an elite PR firm in Manhattan and I live in Manhattan too. I'm also an avid fashion blogger, and Twitter and Facebook user.

=====BrandonAndrzej=====
A former ex-patriot English teacher, I have returned to the US with the intention of perusing a degree in international law. I have a deep and abiding love for history and a strong interest in things geo-political.

=====Dardia=====
I am a fellow at the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ Berkman Center for Internet & Society] and the director of the [http://dmlp.org/ Digital Media Law Project]. In a past life I was assistant counsel at The Washington Post and before that was an associate at Williams & Connolly in Washington, DC, where I handled a range of intellectual property and media litigation.

=====donaldphussey=====
I am an ALB student in Social Sciences with a focus in Government. By day, I am an SVP for Global Internet Strategy for a big bank. I live in New York and am attending online.

=====Earboleda=====
I work for a large financial institution in the Northeast, and will be attending class on-site and online.

=====Gclinch=====
My name is Guy Clinch. I create communications technology solutions solving problems for organizations across the globe. I specialize in helping government agencies use communications solutions to serve the requirements of their citizens. Should you be interested: [http://www.avaya.com/blogs/archives/author/authord18df/ My blog], [http://www.linkedin.com/in/guywclinch my professional profile] Looking forward to sharing a dynamic and engaging semester!

===H-M===
=====Jastify=====
My name is Sergey, I am a recent graduate from Moscow State University. Here to get some perspective on the subject which interests me quit a lot.

=====Jedmonds=====
My name is Jennifer Edmonds. I am a Legislative Analyst with the State of California. This is my first semester at the Harvard Extension, and although I would love to attend class in person, because of my locale, I am forced to participate asynchronously. I'm looking forward to achieving a better understanding of the government's current role in technology and the issues that will influence its future involvement.

=====KimberlyNevas=====
I am an ALB candidate focusing primarily on economics and law. I took a year off from college to be a newspaper reporter in Connecticut. My dad is a fan of the Berkman Center and recommended I take this class.

===N-S===

=====RebekahHeacock=====
I'm a project coordinator at the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ Berkman Center for Internet & Society] and the co-director of the [http://transparency.globalvoicesonline.org/ Technology for Transparency Network]. I recently graduated from the Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs, where I studied the relationship between communications technologies and development.

=====RobertCu=====
I'm a card carrying member of the eff and the fsf and one of the inaugural viewers of zdtv. I went to the same prep school as the founder of wired magazine and personally lobbied she get a well deserved alumni award. I've attended many different colleges everywhere from st. johns college the great books school in Annapolis where I had a dsl line installed to my dorm room giving me more bandwidth then the rest of campus combined, to where I am now, the Harvard extension school where I am a alb degree candidate. Even though I'm conversant in python, html, c++, and ti-basic I'm a humanities concentrator. My favorite authors are Borges, O'brien, Doctorow(cory not e.l), Aristotle, and Lessig.

=====Saambat=====
Currently, I work at the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory at MIT managing annotations for computational linguistics research. I'm here at the Extension School to finish up my BLA, and this is my last semester. Of course, the internet is a large part of my life, much like many others, and I seek to better understand the beast and how it is controlled.

===T-Z===
=====VladimirTrojak=====
Hello, my name is Vladimir. I am from Slovakia (It is not Slovenia:)). After finishing law school in Slovakia I applied for LL.M. degree in IT/IP Law to Leibniz University Hannover, Germany where I spent winter semester. This semester I am spending as a visiting student at University of Edinburgh, UK, where I do only IP Law.

List of User Profiles

2011-02-01T15:55:43Z

VladimirTrojak: /* Users */

Paradigms for Studying the Internet

2011-02-01T15:46:20Z

VladimirTrojak: /* Class Discussion */

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

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 propose and develop one framework for 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://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~zs/decl.html John Perry Barlow, A Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace]

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

== Optional Readings ==

* [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]
</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]

Some fred turner resources: [http://blip.tv/file/125930 video presentation], [http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mediaberkman/2006/12/01/from-counterculture-to-cyberculture-the-rise-of-digital-utopianism/ audio presentation], and [http://www.stanford.edu/group/fredturner/cgi-bin/drupal/ homepage]

[http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Welcome_to_Citizendium Citizendium]

Jason Scott on [http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/808 The Great Failure of Wikipedia] (2004)

[http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/012611-internet-providers-are-the-new.html Internet providers are the new secret police, says report]

[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31link.html Define Gender Gap? Look Up Wikipedia's Contributor List]

[http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/open-source-fail Open Source #FAIL]

"For all its allure, the Internet can be a dangerous place with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets." - US Senator Joe Lieberman, chairman of the U.S. Homeland Security Committee [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1352375/Plan-Obama-kill-switch-powers-cut-internet-access-event-national-cyber-crisis.html Call to give Obama 'kill switch' powers to cut internet access in the event of national cyber crisis] 1 Feb 2011

== Class Discussion ==
<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:RebekahHeacock|RebekahHeacock]] 14:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)'''</div>

While reading this Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace i can not shake a thought of Technological Singularity which is supposed to come by the earliest estimates around the year 2020... Science fiction or a true possibility? --[[User:Jastify|Jastify]] 22:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Although Wikipedia offers knowledge on extensive topics, holding the better model, is there not a huge concern that there is no longer postings of validated facts versus mere opinion?

Here is a link to the BBC World Service documentary Wikipedia at 10 - a 22.5 minute retrospective on the occasion of Wikipedia’s 10th anniversary. It covers a number of topics, some of which may be relevant to the upcoming Wikipedia editing assignment. ''(Reposted from the January 25th discussion page, as it seems more appropriate here. - BrandonAndrzej)''

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/documentaries/2011/01/110111_wikipedia_at_10.shtml

The rhetorical use of the euphemism of the monolithic corporation in the [http://www.cluetrain.com/ Cluetrain Manifesto] undermines the effectiveness its message. Thesis number two states, “Markets consist of human beings...” Last time I looked, so do corporations.

In fact corporations are highly organized social creatures with diverse internal cultures, rules, mores and recognized standards of behavior. They respond to a broad spectrum of internal and external influence. If only solving today’s problems were so easy as to point our finger and say “off with their heads.” The real challenge, however, is much more complicated and a matter of personal responsibility.

Corporations come in all flavors. Some are highly democratic. As requirements of participating in the public capital markets all have democratic institutions: a constitution (articles of incorporation), boards of directors, shareholders, external advocates and most importantly customers. The Manifesto takes the all too easy out of blaming the generic “them.” The truth is that the reason corporations are as they are today is because the majority of corporate stakeholders abdicate their responsibility to guide the direction of the organization through exercise of their enfranchisement as shareholders and customers.

The behavior of corporations is a function of ''our'' collective actions and inactions. We have cheap goods made by slave labor because in the exercise of our conspicuous consumption we don’t want to - or without sacrificing our consumption volume can’t afford to - pay the price of having the same goods manufactured by the un-oppressed. The result is that we send our dollars to evil places rather than fund the social infrastructure that improves the standard of living of more humane societies.

Further we have out-of-control executive salaries, unrestrained executive actions, boards of directors driven by motivations other than the interests of the shareholders and other unsavory corporate behaviors because we fail to fulfill our responsibilities. Too few read the prospectus, attend shareholder meetings, or even vote shares beyond granting proxy to the someone else. I am guilty as charged because like so many, I seek to maximize my ability to profit by pooling my finances in investment cartels and leaving decision making to fund managers, investment advisors and other members of the vested interest.

Many say we need more regulations. I say we have the regulations that we desire. This is true because through our collective actions we drive corporate investment decisions. If we did not want corporations to spend scarce investment dollars to employ the more than 45,000 lobbyists in Washington who water down and fight against regulation, the corporations would find other places to invest. If instead we used our purchasing power and shareholder votes to direct investment elsewhere, there it would flow.

The Icelandic version of Microsoft Windows mentioned in [http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly.msp?id=961 Digital Borders] proves the point. On the other hand our abdication of this power as Digital Borders expresses results in the fact that the, “[http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly.msp?id=961 technologies of control in China are essentially the same technologies designed to satisfy consumer demand for geographically tailored Internet products.]” Due in part to our marketplace behaviors, oppressors are given the tools they so effectively use as an unintended consequence of our desire for applications to tell us how many of our friends are in close proximity who might be interested in a game of beer pong.

Chasing our dollars and with our benign assent, corporations have followed the instruction we have given them. Let’s stop blaming “them;” for we are them and start taking responsibility for the results of our actions. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 00:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Enjoyed watching the BBC anniversay documentary on Wikipedia. As businesses start to utilize this media, I wonder how the controls put in place by Wikipedia for neutral content can possibly be effective. I compared an entry for the holding company for which the company where I am employed is a subsidiary and compared it to one of our competitors. The difference was substantial. The competitor's had a distinct advertising (promotion) flavor along with company's graphics on the right hand border of the page. My company's was a four sentence historical overview providing little relevant information to any potential customer or employee. After checking with our PR Department, I was told no one in the company had written the posting. They assume it was done by a third party contributor. Just by comparing these two companies, the lack of uniformity is readily apparent.--[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 20:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC) sjennings

Hello. First remark is concerning [http://www.cluetrain.com/ Cluetrain Manifesto]. These 3 'Conversations among human beings sound human. They are conducted in a human voice.' I think that big part of our current comminucation has a sound of 'message' or 'MS Outlook Email Sound' if you know what I mean. Sad, but true.

Another remark is about [http://ww2.cs.mu.oz.au/~zs/decl.html A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace].'You claim there are problems among us that you need to solve.[...]...governance will arise according to the conditions of our world, not yours. Our world is different.' I think this is very good statement for discussion. I am not sure to what extend Internet shoudl be independent from real world. Should not be there governing rules? Should it be for intance ISP who decides what they do with my personal data, or information about what kind of webpages I visit, or even where am I located?We do not need any law for that?
We do not need Ecommerce directive or DMCA in US? I am not sure whether I get it right but to me it looks like declaration wanted to say somethink like we do not need them (nbot particular those ones but in general). Any suggestions?
--[[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 15:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction

2011-02-01T08:29:21Z

VladimirTrojak: /* Class Discussion */

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

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") ==

Part I

To frame the issues we will be talking about in this class and to get the discussion going, we'll start with the recent controversy involving [http://wikileaks.ch Wikileaks]. Take some time to read through the articles below. Come to class prepared to answer the following questions and to pose some questions of your own.

* What is Wikileaks? Is it a journalism organization? A terrorist organization? A criminal syndicate?
* Do we need an organization like Wikileaks?
* What kind of arguments would you make to support your position one way or the other?
* What was the U.S.'s (and the world's) response to Wikileaks' disclosure of diplomatic cables?
* What are the legal and/or free speech implications involved in the decision by Amazon to stop hosting the Wikileaks site?
* What do you think the debate concerning Wikileaks shows about the nature of the Internet?

Part II

* What are the most significant changes associated with the spread of digital technologies?
In a few sentences, please offer 2-3 examples in the Class Discussion section below or be prepared to offer them during class.

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==
* [http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/26875/ MIT Technology Review: Everything You Need to Know About Wikileaks]
* [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703785704575643431883607708.html# Wall Street Journal: To Publish Leaks Or Not to Publish?]
* [http://www.salon.com/technology/dan_gillmor/2010/12/03/the_net_s_soft_underbelly/index.html Salon: Online, the censors are scoring big wins]
* [http://gigaom.com/2010/12/04/like-it-or-not-wikileaks-is-a-media-entity/ GigaOm: Like It or Not, WikiLeaks is a Media Entity]
* [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/dec/06/western-democracies-must-live-with-leaks Guardian: Live with the WikiLeakable world or shut down the net. It's your choice]

== Optional Readings ==
* [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/12/amazon-and-wikileaks-first-amendment-only-strong EFF: Amazon and WikiLeaks - Online Speech is Only as Strong as the Weakest Intermediary]
* [http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/shield/ Wired: Lieberman Introduces Anti-WikiLeaks Legislation]
* [http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/11/30/wikileaks Salon: WikiLeaks reveals more than just government secrets]
* [http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2010/12/wikileaks-and-the-long-haul/ Clay Shirky: Wikileaks and the Long Haul]
* [http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/julius-baer-bank-and-trust-v-wikileaks Citizen Media Law Project: Julius Baer Bank and Trust v. Wikileaks]
* [http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mediaberkman/2010/12/08/radio-berkman-171/ MediaBerkman: Wikileaks and the Information Wars]
* [http://articles.cnn.com/2010-12-02/opinion/mackinnon.wikileaks.amazon_1_wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-lieberman-youtube?_s=PM:OPINION Rebecca MacKinnon: WikiLeaks, Amazon and the new threat to internet speech]
* Coverage of the cables themselves by the NYT [http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/world/statessecrets.html/], Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/the-us-embassy-cables], Der Spiegel [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/the-us-embassy-cables]
</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

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

- Your ideas here...

The ways in which these mediums have changed how we relate to each other can certainly be seen to have both positive and negative connotations. In the age of 'instant information" we should question how much is worthy of our attention on first blush, and what is really noise and a waste of time. Those that manage the digital medium as opposed to it managing them are the real winners in the availability of opportunities.

However some of the most positive aspects can be seen in our new ability to see other countries through the lens of information from citizens themselves and this has inspired a higher spirit of collaboration the world over.

The uprising in Iran a couple of years ago, would never have gotten the world attention that it did before the advent of the social mediums that allowed the demonstrations to be viewed by millions. The Haiti earthquake (and many other disasters) and the quickness of the response was helped by the instant donation portals that were set up to facilitate monies where they were most required. Doctors collaborating around the world on cases and learning from those experiences is another example of how we grow our cultures for the good.

A "virtual choir" of 12 different countries bringing singers together showed a true spirit of co-operation among peoples.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7o7BrlbaDs

We have choices in how we use all these mediums and yes there will always be an disturbing and dark aspects to it but looking at all the possibilities we have a world of substantive opportunities. --camcloughlin

The most significant change associated with digital technologies is precisely how pervasive the changes are. These technologies affect the manner and effect of how we conduct ourselves in society: the way we read and learn, are entertained, communicate, interact professionally and personally, and express ourselves. As such much of our existing laws and norms need to be rethought, reinterpreted, and rewritten. This sort of technological change has happened before (i.e. printing press or radio) but never at such a scale and speed.

To focus on these digital technologies specifically, the biggest impacts come from their reach, social nature, and longevity. First, due to being replicable and instantaneous, a person or group using digital technologies can reach a massive audience with their message, around the world, through many channels. Second, given the ability to continuously publish and others to respond, over time a single message can grow into a dialogue which can grow into a living social conversation, and ultimately coordinated action. Third, the ability now exists to have a permanent, discoverable, and recorded conversation. These are all tremendous changes to the way societies function. --[[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 13:08, 25 January 2011 (PST)

The evolution of digital technology is much like a hot war. As the Developer or Engineer creates, the digital Guerrilla works to free the technology. The greater the advance of the tools made available to the masses it becomes more and more difficult to protect an idea. One could say that ultimately the ideas are improved by the unconstrained "testing" digital liberator/Hackers subject digital creations to. --[[User:Buie|Buie]] 20:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Improvements in digital technologies and the pace at which they are happening are making it increasingly more difficult for companies to innovate and compete. Investing in research initiatives are at the forefront while still trying to devote resources to building that next biggest thing that will reach the largest number of users.--[[User:Dreed07|-dreed07]] 19:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe the biggest changes associated with digital technologies have to do with communication. Everything from the way we interact with each other on a social level to the way that businesses and governments are conducted has been changed with the advancements of digital technology. More time is spent communicating digitally than in person; people are spending more time in online communities than their physical communities. The world is rapidly becoming a smaller place; it’s easier, cheaper, and faster to communicate with people around the world by email, texting, Skype, Facebook, Twitter, ect. You can instantly exchange ideas/knowledge with people and broadcast your opinions. Furthermore, there is more pressure to keep up with the rapidly changing communication technologies (for social or business purposes) for fear of being left behind. [[User:FMRR|FMRR]] 19:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Digital technology not only changes how we get information, but how we relate as individuals, how companies do business and communicate with customers, employees, and investors, and how citizens relate and interact with their governments. Other have commented on privacy and censorship concerns, but the effect on business and the challenges a business faces with this communication and information boom has left many corporations scrambling. If incorrect information is disseminated on the web, a business is not as free as an individual to respond (if it can even do so quickly enough). Outdated government regulation enacted before the digital world was created can work to restrict how a company responds or has dialogue with the misinformed disseminators.

“Today we can influence each other more easily than ever before because our media is digital, it can reach anything that has a screen. And nearly anything with a screen can also be published from — we have a two way media.” [http://www.zdnet.com/blog/foremski/will-a-fragmented-media-lead-to-a-flowering-of-culture/971]

In thinking about the Internet as a medium, I believe the most profound changes derived from the shift to digital media is the introduction of a communication stream that is now (1) highly fragmented, (2) immediate, and (3) conversational in nature.

# We’ve evolved from a finite and more easy to regulate roster of tens/hundreds of traditional news media sources, to billions of websites. Today, the average citizen has a public voice, forcing us to challenge our notions of what is considered “journalism.” There are both opportunities (i.e., innovative thought and talent can emerge) and challenges (i.e., inundation, how to regulate, varied levels of credibility, etc.) inherent in this kind of landscape.
# Additionally, the pace of media consumption has become extremely rapid. We’ve become a culture that is accustomed to the instant accessibility of information.
# Finally, media is now social. The concept of “wiki”-based information sources means that we can interact with the information we consume, and the viral nature of the Internet lends to an ease of content ‘shareability’. Media communication is no longer a one-way stream. -- [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 15:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I think one of the most significant challenges we face moving forward with regard to digital technology is the security. Not just private citizens but governments and corporations around the world are becoming more heavily dependent on it. Consequences of any major digital disaster (i.e. caused by cyber-terrorism or any unexpected failure) could be severe to an unimaginable level as the digital world gets more complex and interdependent within. --[[User:Edwardshinp|Edwardshinp]] 13:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Edwardshinp regarding security. It's not just an issue of security of financial data for transactions, but we are looking at national security, corporate espionage, etc. Anything where we're engaging in the sharing of information. --[[User:Dreed07|-dreed07]] 19:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

One of the most significant challenges is defining what constitutes privacy of users. Facebook continually redefines the concept of what information is private for its users. As we get more social and increases in attempts by online organizations to bring a more personal experience to the user, this will continue to be a challenge. --[[User:Dreed07|-dreed07]] 03:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

As dreed07 said, I think the same. PRIVACY. I would say lack of privacy. ([[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 08:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC))

* [http://www.google.org/flutrends/ Google Flu Trends]

Google has stuck into out lives quite firmly. I mean, than Google predict something better than government entities (CDC) just by running an algorithm and analyzing few searches... On some level that is the best example of how dependent on the Internet we became. I am not saying that's a bad thing, people before me told the same thing about electricity. Times are changing and that is a progress none the less. But shouldn't we be a little more careful, stop for a second and have a look on what we were actually doing for the last 20 years? Can the Internet be our own Frankenstein monster? :) --[[User:Jastify|Jastify]] 00:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

We've talked about how an organization such as Wikileaks scores points for transparency by throwing [http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2010/12/05/truth-is-not-enough/ "grit"] in the government machine, but I'm also impressed by what ''is'' officially available online. Old classmates and I fondly recall hours spent on state-wide judiciary searches that revealed uppity prep school teachers as felons, perverts and drunks--and sometimes explained mysterious classroom absences. Clickable property records: liens, takings and all, immortalize for peekers embarrassing proof of habitual poor decisions, or just a temporary rough patch. And lest anyone forget that accountability means everybody, constituents can roam the virtual "halls of shame" of de-certified police officers.

As for a challenge presented by digital media, it seems very easy to become absorbed by myriad micro-tasks (i.e. micro-blogging) of dubious value that sap time and productivity. About a year ago, I sat in on a conference at Yale Law. Up in the nosebleed section, I had a decent view of the panelists onstage, as well as about 70 hunched, frenetic Tweeters in between. Having myself never Tweeted nor been Tweeted at, I was puzzled as to what they were so furiously punching into their laptops, pausing only when a pod of genial-looking sperm whales appeared and temporarily halted operations. Months later, I happened upon a slew of the Tweeters' work and was disappointed. Each was responsible for hours and hundreds of blurbs that amounted to little more than scores of parallel transcriptions of the entire day's worth of speakers. Never mind that the conference was streamed live online, archived and outlined in bullet points, nor the fact that many of the Twits were Tweeting at one another. At best, it was an exercise in the sillies; at worst, a mass lapse in auditorium etiquette. --[[User:KimberlyNevas|KimberlyNevas]] 15:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Social networking has opened a new level of communications that no one would have ever dreamed of. I believe it is a tremendous blessing that has and will continue to change our world. It has opened up nations that otherwise would have been totally secluded and shut-in. But this is a new era. An era where nations can now protest and receive support and empathy from other nations. Right now, as we speak we are witnessing history in the making. We are part of a revolution that we have only read about in history textbooks.

Egypt is a prime example that happens to be in the forefront of our minds. We are seeing a nation change and evolve. Whether for good or for worse, we are all witnesses. We are watching a government crumble right before our eyes; and the Internet is playing a monumental role in this!

It is our responsibility to nurture and protect this instrument of progress and change. We have a mechanism that has the ability to shrink the world. We now can convey messages that once were deemed unfathomable and impossible to distribute. Of course, governments want a position of control over such a tool; but like our forefathers we cannot allow that. Just like they defended their freedom of speech, we must defend ours too. It is the same principle with a modern twist. Instead of the printing press, it is now blogs. Instead of town hall meetings, it is now twitter. Like everything thing else in our ever evolving world the press has become faster and more efficient. The media has now modernized and caught up with the times.
--[[User:Joshuasurillo|Joshuasurillo]] 04:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

''Please use this space for comments/discussion you would like to share with the rest of the class.''

* [http://pressthink.org/2010/07/the-afghanistan-war-logs-released-by-wikileaks-the-worlds-first-stateless-news-organization/ The World's First Stateless News Organization]
* [http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russias-own-wikileaks-takes-off/429370.html Russia's Own WikiLeaks Takes Off]
The idea of "Stateless News Organizations" seems to be getting around... In my country though it's a little less sophisticated... --[[User:Jastify|Jastify]] 15:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, Rosen’s prediction of the public’s reaction to the release of the Afghanistan War logs was spot on. These logs, in my opinion, did not receive enough attention or create the amount of outrage they deserved. Because they exposed a distasteful problem, an uncomfortable public chose to turn a blind eye. --[[User:Jedmonds|Jedmonds]] 20:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The economic impact of the Internet and digital technologies can be significant. Outsourcing job functions to countries outside the United States for instance, was facilitated in part by the ability of the Internet to deliver real time data across the globe. IP telephony, high speed video and data transmitted on the Internet allowed for workers to be “virtual”, anywhere in the world. This created cost savings and efficiencies for corporations while fueling growth in emerging countries. Domestically, this has lead to displaced workers and job losses across many fields. --Earboleda

“Is Wikileaks a journalism organization? A terrorist organization? A criminal syndicate?” IMO Wikileaks is none of the above. What Wikileaks can be described as is one of several recent examples of the ways in which communications technologies are fundamentally changing the nature of life on the planet. It’s part of an incomplete definition that will be building in complexity for some time into the future.

We live in an environment today in which the sum total of human experience virtually floats in the air around us. Need directions, google it. Want to see what it will look like when you turn the corner at the next intersection, click to a 360 degree view. Wish to know what historical figure may have lived in that ancient building by the park, if there isn’t today, sometime in the near future there will be a website, wiki, webcam, historical archive, building plans, public utility schematics, images of deeds, mortgage documents, tax information, holographic immersive experiences …

Piece by piece we are collectively constructing a virtual copy of the world. More than a copy, it contains layers from this moment stretching into the past and other contextual information impossible to obtain a mere few years ago.

I worry when it is said that Assange is not "about letting sunlight into the room so much as about throwing grit in the machine." [http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/26875/?a=f]. With that kind of philosophy it seems the opportunity to cause harm is far greater than that for good.

If on the other hand Wikileaks becomes or spawns places of free and open communications where transparency reigns and people of conviction can become free to disclose information that brings light into what today are dark crevices, we’ll all be better off. If not, we need to worry.

We need also worry about as Brandon Palmen says, “an incomplete and skewed portrayal of fact.” [http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2010/12/05/truth-is-not-enough/] Actions that result from reliance on the incomplete picture will have unintended consequences. This is true whether a skewed view is intentional or as a function of where we are with respect to construction of the new virtual copy of our world.

Do we need an organization like Wikileaks? The truth is that there will soon be many versions of Wikileaks with many different degrees of completeness ranging along a spectrum from purely altruistic to undeniably evil. It will be up to the individual and the establishment to decide on which version of reality we each choose to believe and act upon. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 02:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I would contribute to what my classmates have alredy said about “Is Wikileaks a journalism organization? A terrorist organization? A criminal syndicate?”.

I am sure there are number of people who would go for first, second and third option. It depends from which point of view we are looking at wikileaks. Sometimes term whistleblower or some intermediary is enough. I am sure that sometimes it is very questionable and wikileaks might be regarded as a journalist. I am sure that some politicians would also use terms like terrorist or criminal.

Do we need an organization like Wikileaks?
I would answer with the question. Shoul we know about wrongdoing, killing, torture, corruption and tax evasion? Should we know what is really going on like in 'Collateral murder video'?

Those are arguments for wikileaks, however to put one argument why we could be afraid sometimes is following:
“Everybody will be leaking dirt on everybody,” Rassudov [http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russias-own-wikileaks-takes-off/429370.html]
This is what concerns me a bit. ([[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 08:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC))

The Wikileaks controversy is one of many examples how much the Internet has changed the entire world. I am sure I will develop more ideas about regulating or not regulating what is out there in the Internet as this class progresses, but in terms of Wikileaks, I am still fundamentally puzzled as to how those confidential information has eventually gotten into the hands of Assange or Wikileaks from the first place. My point is if the government wants to protect certain information, it is the government's own responsibility to do so via strict prevention measures. And I suspect that this fundamentally has nothing to do with the control of the Internet or digital media. You can't just blame and impose everything on Wikileaks because it was simply living up to its whole purpose of establishment--exposing certain types of political information to the public as a new digital medium (in this respect, I don't see any difference among Wikileaks, WSJ or NYT). I definitely do think that some of the information released through Wikileaks were inappropriate and damaging to the national security, which ultimately is not in the best interest of the American people. I support the government's non-disclosure of certain information for national interest and safety. One should not assume that government transparency is always desirable and healthy (as Assange does seem to believe so), even in a democratic society. However, imposing anything on Wikileaks, whether constitutionally legal or illegal (i.e. Lieberman's actions), is just not the right way to handle the "mess." Take out the roots of the problem whatever they are--not Wikileaks. --[[User:Edwardshinp|Edwardshinp]] 15:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

A couple of months post-Wikileaks, and we're already seeing various similar organizations and entities (and even instances of leaking) crop up; while I don't support all of WikiLeaks' leaks necessarily, I do support the overall idea of information leaking; and in the case of, for example, the Palestine Papers (recently leaked to Al Jazeera), think that it can be very effective in demonstrating hypocrisy in governments.

I also take serious issue with the handling of WikiLeaks by American companies Amazon, Mastercard, PayPal, EasyDNS, and Tableau. All acted under potential pressure from Sen. Joe Lieberman, and the vast majority gave "copyright infringement" as their excuse, more or less. If we excuse this behavior in the instance of WikiLeaks, then we're headed down a slippery slope: Do we then excuse similar intermediary censorship when levied against a human rights organization? [[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 22:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I consider as the major challenge for E-industry the adoption of basic ethical standards/rules to be applicable for and followed by each provider as well as an user. Those rules should go far beyond and should be independent from a governance scope given by a local jurisdiction (something alike Wikipedia core content policies). The element of self-regulation emanated by the industry itself might be (a) an effective interpretation tool for numberless requests imposed for pursue of e-industry in particular jurisdiction (see link), (b) could prevent or diminish negative effects of state regulation or attempts of over-regulation or could help to constructively handle occurrence of case like Wikeleaks. Further, Internet as the major source of information and widely used communication tool has changed significantly quality and content of communication all over the world. This new phenomena already has and will have an overwhelming social and cultural impact on mankind and human interaction.

In my opinion, if we use the standard definition of what constitutes a "media organization" based on U.S. Code Title 2, Section 1602, a person or entity engaged in disseminating information to the general public through a newspaper, magazine, other publication, radio, television, cable television, or other medium of mass communication; then Wikileaks is just that and would be entitled to protections as such. I don't agree with the way Wikileaks is carrying out it's mission on a philosophical level. There are other means that could be used to promote and encourage transparency in government without endangering people's lives. --[[User:Dreed07|-dreed07]] 20:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiLeaks is a content provider. They are not terrorists because they do not attempt to destroy or disrupt the Internet. They are simply providing content which some people find objectionable. If we set aside the question of how they obtained the information then the remaining question is whether they have a legal or moral right to disseminate it. WikiLeaks is not based in the U.S. so it is not subject to U.S. laws. They are not publishing credit card or social security numbers. They are not publishing copyrighted or proprietary material. They are editorializing, but that is still the prerogative of a free press. They at least showed some self-restraint by selectively publishing what they felt to be newsworthy and redacted sensitive information that could bring harm to others. They are not in the same league as the New York Times. They are not even writing their own stories. But they are taking an editorial position by selecting which content to provide, which gives them some claim to being a journalism organization.
-Chris Sura

Just wanted to add a comment to today’s in-class discussion which did not make it in due to time constraints. The seminar ended on the question of what measures the US government could or should (from a legal and ethical perspective) take in dealing with the leak of classified diplomatic data via Wikileaks. The question was predicated on the (generous) assumption that the leaked material had little to no serious material impact on US security or diplomatic interests. An obvious caveat to that assumption is the fact that only a small number of the diplomatic cables in question have be released thus far, preventing us from knowing the full impact the leaks may have in the future. Perhaps a less obvious caveat is that it is extremely difficult for those of us without diplomatic credentials to tell what sort of damage has been done in terms of the US’s international diplomatic relations, where the effects may be more subtle and less obvious to the public; certainly, there seems to be little evidence of direct damage to the US itself… however, that does not necessarily mean the released materials are without serious impact. A number of pundits, Andrew Sullivan for one example, have ascribed to Wikileaks cables a prominent (though perhaps not a driving) role in the so-called “Jasmine Revolution” in Tunisia which ousted president Ben Ali and toppled his government this January. Obviously these events are of enormous import to Tunisians around the globe, and may have a significant effect on Africa and the Arab world, and thus geo-politics as a whole. While the potential future ramifications for US foreign policy are difficult to calculate, in terms of immediate impact it should be noted the president Ben Ali was considered to be an important US ally in North Africa, and his ousting may have consequences for the US government’s anti-terrorism efforts in that region. (That is not to say that the overall impact will be negative; one hopes that the Jasmine Revolution will work out for the best for both the US government and, perhaps more importantly, the people of Tunisia. The effects, however, remain to be seen.) -BrandonAndrzej

Here are links to the topic being discussed on Andrew Sullivan’s Atlantic blog:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/01/tunisias-wikileaks-revolution.html

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/01/a-wikileaks-revolution.html

During the discussion that ended the class (26-Jan-11) several argued that officials of the US Government were justified in taking actions against private citizens and organizations in response to Wikileaks. This bothers me to the point of losing sleep. It is outrageous that officials of the US government felt it within their power, without any legal due process, to use the power invested in them by the people to intimidate private organizations into taking steps to deny access to information once it had become readily available. Far beyond “a terminal case of hubris” as described by John Naughton in his article in the Guardian, [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/dec/06/western-democracies-must-live-with-leaks], US senator Joseph Lieberman’s actions to intimidate private organizations including Amazon and Paypal into removing Wikileaks content is an outrageous and possibly illegal abuse of the power given to him when he was elected to represent a small segment of the US population in the national congress.

Regardless of whether his intentions could be viewed by some a noble, we live in a society that is ruled by law. There are processes to be followed. Senator Lieberman availed himself of some of those processes when he filed Securing Human Intelligence and Enforcing Lawful Dissemination (SHIELD Act) [http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/shield/#].We should all be incredulous that beyond this Senator Lieberman used his positions in congress to directly contact commercial organizations intimidating them with veiled threats that the US government would use its power against them should they not comply to his personal vision of how they should conduct their private business. There are numerous judicial and administrative options available through legal due process of US Law that Senator Lieberman could have used. The fact that he did not is an outrageous abuse of power.

Senator Lieberman’s actions are just the tip of the iceberg of official reaction that was untoward and possible illegal. The actions of agencies such as the State Department - who are invested by the citizenry with even less official power than a US Senator - in contacting private individuals and intimidating them to not exercise their freedom of expression are even more outrageous. The gentleman in class who said that even his company was contacted and threatened should shout to all of us how far we have traveled down a slippery slope with regards to the fundamental rights upon which US society is based. The fact that there seemed to be acquiescence to these concepts during the class discussion, especially taking place in a building that is just steps away from the Harvard Law School, is of great concern to me.

What is your opinion? --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 12:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to contribute to the discussion of: Do we need an organisation like Wikileaks?

I agree that the ethos behind Wikileaks of exposing unethical government behaviour is a necessary component in establishing accountability; however, the longer-term implications of Wikileaks are (potentially) opposed to the initial aim. If governments go to extreme lengths to protect information from whistleblowers then this will lead to compartmentalisation of information and a decline in cooperation between agencies. Wikileaks may catalyse the creation of a political culture that is suspicious of information sharing where diplomacy cannot operate effectively.

A question posed on the Guardian’s 'Live Q&A with Julian Assange' by JAnthony aimed to ask Julian Assange whether Wikileaks should be held accountable for hampering diplomatic efforts – went unanswered.

“I am a former British diplomat. In the course of my former duties I helped to coordinate multilateral action against a brutal regime in the Balkans, impose sanctions on a renegade state threatening ethnic cleansing, and negotiate a debt relief programme for an impoverished nation. None of this would have been possible without the security and secrecy of diplomatic correspondence, and the protection of that correspondence from publication under the laws of the UK and many other liberal and democratic states. An embassy which cannot securely offer advice or pass messages back to London is an embassy which cannot operate. Diplomacy cannot operate without discretion and the protection of sources. This applies to the UK and the UN as much as the US. In publishing this massive volume of correspondence, Wikileaks is not highlighting specific cases of wrongdoing but undermining the entire process of diplomacy. If you can publish US cables then you can publish UK telegrams and UN emails.

My question to you is: why should we not hold you personally responsible when next an international crisis goes unresolved because diplomats cannot function. ” http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/dec/03/julian-assange-wikileaks [[User:Ltconnell|Ltconnell]] 22:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

-----

Hi you all. Just saw that on the NYT, it might interest you:
The New York Times on dealing with Assange and the secrets -- http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/magazine/30Wikileaks-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1 [[User:Coelhol|lu coelho]]

In my opinion one of the most significant changes associated with the Internet and digital technologies is the huge content availability and the low cost to get information. This “revolution“ is also redefining: monetary transaction (as we can see through the massive growth of e-commerce websites due to low cost of transaction and low cost of distribution), social relationship (how users are sticky to facebook, twitter, blogs, etc…), communication (high level of interaction through “new”channels such as email, voice over Internet protocol, instant messages, etc…), entertainment (access to a huge library content = long tail. E.g. Netflix, Hulu, Youtube), etc…We are definitely in the beginning of this revolution since the value proposition the internet can add has still much room to grow. [[User:DriFaria|Adriana Torii]]

My feeling is that Wikileaks is an unstable medium for providing an essential watchdog function overseeing government activity. There is a need for some kind of independant body that checks the scope of the governments autonomy, but conceding this responsibility to a rogue, pirate entity does seem to legitimize some of the governments concern over jeopardizing the safety of individuals who should not be sacrificed for the errors of those higher ranking officials overstepping the intended restrictions on their authority and influence. Unfortunately I cannot offer much in the way of a practical solution for balancing off the dangers on either end of the spectrum in the Wikileaks situation. The slope seems to slip down in both directions. Smudge24

Thinking about how the internet has changed our society two things immediately come to mind. First, from the perspective of an average US consumer, I feel that there is undeniable evidence that suggests that the internet has flattened the global marketplace. Goods from all areas of the world are now just an effortless click away. Even our methods of shopping have drastically changed from typical in-store shopping and mail-order catalogs, to instant online price comparisons of the same good between hundreds of online retailers. This continual instant access to nearly any good has shifted our societies towards more hasty and instant desires - in a way, I argue, we have all become more impatient. Things that at one point could have been considered expendable extras are now at the center of entire business models. Second, I have given some thought to the way in which the medical community has been changed with the advent of the internet. Specifically, I find it revolutionary how access to medical information has been simplified to be understood by nearly anyone with a mouse and a keyboard. The ability to pre-diagnose oneself and have instantaneous access to potential medical solutions is something that could prove revolutionary in countries that are in early development stages. Furthermore, learning medical terminology and processes (i.e. similar to med school) is simplified and made much less expensive - allowing a lower boundary to entry into the field. [[User:Lewtak|Lewtak]] 02:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe our government has gone after the wrong target. They should be after the source of the leaks. Wikileaks is just an emissary and a conduit of information. The government wants to shoot the messenger while they should be instead hunting for the origin of the message. If they have such a gripe on people exchanging information, they should attempt to find the actually leak and plug it. If the government is successful in stopping Wikileaks, there will be another messenger in its wake eagerly conveying information from a leak. Until the original leak has been extinguished, the government will continue to have it's information published and made public.--[[User:Joshuasurillo|Joshuasurillo]] 04:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

== Other Useful Links ==

Here is a link to the BBC World Service documentary ''Wikipedia at 10'' - a 22.5 minute retrospective on the occasion of Wikipedia’s 10th anniversary. It covers a number of topics, some of which may be relevant to the upcoming Wikipedia editing assignment.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/documentaries/2011/01/110111_wikipedia_at_10.shtml