Technologies of Politics and Control - User contributions [en]

Final Projects

2011-05-10T16:56:40Z

BrandonAndrzej: /* Submissions */

Final Projects

2011-05-10T16:56:24Z

BrandonAndrzej: /* Submissions */

Assignment 4 Peer Review

2011-05-07T23:23:07Z

BrandonAndrzej:

If you'd like to receive or give feedback from/to other students on your rough drafts, please submit them here.

----

Brandon A. Ceranowicz
Draft 2.2:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:A_Comparative_Study_of_Open_Source_Licenses_v2.2.doc
Slightly more professional than the last draft... would appreciate any feedback! Theoretical framework and conclusions still to go - these will be in draft 3.0.
[[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 16:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Brandon A. Ceranowicz
Draft 2.5:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:A_Comparative_Study_of_Open_Source_Licenses_v2.5.doc
Conclusion is live! Take a look. Theoretical framework still to come.
[[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 23:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

In this paper, Brandon skillfully guides a detailed tour of open source licenses. The composition's robust structure ably contains the fine points of the subject matter. There is enough information here for several projects. One possible new work would be a more generalized overview of open source licenses for the layman. Even in the paper's current format, a summary table comparing the basic aspects of the individual licenses would be useful. --[[User:SCL|SCL]] 18:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent advice! I have incorporated a visual representation of license content into the next draft.[[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 01:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Brandon A. Ceranowicz
Draft 3.0:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:A_Comparative_Study_of_Open_Source_Licenses_v3.0.doc
Theoretical framework is up; barring any major errors, this should be the final draft of the long form version - now I have to condense it into 10 pages... suggestions very much appreciated!

Brandon A. Cernaowicz
Final Draft (long version)
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:A_Comparative_Study_of_Open_Source_Licenses.doc
This is the completed long version. Abridged version to follow shortly.

Brandon A. Ceranowicz
Draft 1.0 (short version)
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:A_Comparative_Study_of_Open_Source_Licenses_%28short%29_v1.0.doc
This is a rough draft of the abridged version. The sourcing needs to be completely redone. (Also still a little long...)[[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 18:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Brandon A. Ceranowicz
Draft 1.1 (short)
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:A_Comparative_Study_of_Open_Source_Licenses_%28short%29_v1.1.doc
Sourcing fixed. This should be the final product, barring any feedback.
- [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 23:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Onyema Ajuogu: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Internet_infiltration_to_Nigeria_burden_of_cybercrime_to_ecommerce_assign-4.pdf Internet infiltration to Nigeria: burden of cyber-crime to e-commerce]

Onyema, this is a very interesting topic, but I would suggest for an academic paper you need to footnote in your paper information you have found from third party sources. Although you have original ideas, it gives your paper credibility to cite third party information you have used to develop the conclusions in your paper. [[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 16:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)]]

Onyema , All in all very interesting paper. May I suggest that you elaborate about the problems you refer to when you say, “SAT3 submarine cable system that is connecting Africa to India( of which both have had a significant problems).” Do you mean technology, social, political …? I suggest you be more explicit which will help as you lay out your arguments later in the paper.

Also, I saw a typo in your title, “The role National Law is plying.” I think you want “Playing.”

Thanks for the early preview. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 20:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Name: Guy
Title: The Transition to Next Generation 9-1-1 in North America
[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/The_Transition_to_Next_Generation_9-1-1_in_North_America_%28draft_May_6%29.pdf Link:]
Note: I am still working on my conclusions and I need to clean up endnotes, references etc.. I'll appreciate any comments. Thanks TGIF! --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 23:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Getting closer. [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/The_Transition_to_Next_Generation_9-1-1_in_North_America_%28draft_May_7%29.pdf Click here for May 7] version of my paper.
Good Luck everybody. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 20:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

-- Guy: Of negligable importance, I know, but don't you find the roman numerals to be a bit unwieldy? - [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 23:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Assignment 4 Peer Review

2011-05-07T23:18:02Z

BrandonAndrzej:

Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare

2011-05-07T16:51:27Z

BrandonAndrzej: /* 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''
|}
<br clear="right" />
</div>
'''May 3'''

Cybersecurity has been identified as one of the greatest challenges facing the United States today, but it is ill-defined and almost impossible to address. How can we frame this problem to better inspire solutions? How should government, military, businesses, and technologists approach the problem from different angles and do these different approaches work together?

Slides: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/IS2011-5.3.11-Cybersecurity_and_Cyberwarfare.pdf Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare]
<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==
* [http://www.lawfareblog.com/2010/12/senator-cardin%E2%80%99s-bill-to-explore-isp-enforcement-of-digital-security/ Jack Goldsmith: Senator Cardin’s Bill to Explore ISP Enforcement of Digital Security]
* [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ Zittrain, The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It; Chapter 3]
* [http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/17827_r1110_cyberwarfare_es.pdf Chatham House Report On Cyberwarfare - Executive Summary]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet Wikipedia entry on Stuxnet]

== Optional Readings ==
* Whitehouse.gov, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/cybersecurity Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative, Cyberspace Policy Review]
* Jack Goldsmith, [http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2010/1208_4th_amendment_goldsmith.aspx The Cyberthreat, Government Network Operations, and the Fourth Amendment]
* Jane Holl Lute and Bruce McConnell, [http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/02/dhs-op-ed/ Op-Ed: A Civil Perspective on Cybersecurity]
* Zittrain, [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=freedom-and-anonymity Freedom and Anonymity]
* Infoweek, [http://informationweek.com/news/security/attacks/229401866 Leaked Cables Indicate Chinese Military Hackers Attacked U.S.]
* CNET, [http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20055091-245.html Cyber attacks rise at critical infrastructure firms]
</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==

* [http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/publications/papers/view/-/id/967/ On Cyber Warfare]
A little early for this, but I would like to share this nice paper written by analysts and researchers at Chatham House. It's pretty fundamental, I would recommend it to anyone who encounters this subject for the very first time. --[[User:Jastifdonty|Jastify]] 22:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Great recommendation. I've added the executive summary to the required readings list. --[[User:Dardia|Dardia]] 23:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to submit this article to add to the discussion. I found it to be interesting. Cybersecurity is probably the most vital issue to our country's infrastructure today. The recent military operation to take out Osama bin Ladin would have failed miserably if knowledge of the raid was disclosed. To keep our intelligence reports under wraps should be among our highest priorities. While the government wages wars on three fronts at once, it is difficult but nessessary to ensure our reports stay out of our enemies hands. By blocking IP addresses and using more sophisticated encryption, we will be well on our way to protecting our great country. The world runs through the Internet, and so does our future. [http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1840000/1839688/p33-brenner.pdf?key1=1839688&key2=5956834031&coll=DL&dl=ACM&ip=74.90.79.253&CFID=18979663&CFTOKEN=55280022] [[User:Joshuasurillo|Joshuasurillo]] 01:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Cyberthreats are real and pervasive. The people within IT infrastructure have been fighting the battle for years. It makes no difference whether you work for a government, business or school – every domain (gov, com & edu) is under attack. Private business and the military arm of the government are the most concerned about security, so they were the first to adopt network access control and identity management. Security is enforced by verifying the identity of each user and device before allowing them to gain access to the network. This, of course, runs counter to the idea of a free, open and anonymous Internet. Yes, we can do a lot to protect the public by having the ISPs filter and block malware (search for SonicWALL and Blue Coat for examples) but it’s not enough to stop all breaches and wastes precious bandwidth. Our government recognizes this and is actively promoting what would become a national electronic identity “ecosystem.” (Their euphemism; see http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/NSTICstrategy_041511.pdf) Jack Goldsmith had some well reasoned arguments why we should expect more government controls. Finally, a good taxonomy of Internet security practices can be found in the pages of Chief Security Officer Magazine at http://www.csoonline.com/. [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]]

Even with additional security measures instituted, there will always be someone looking for a way around it. Jack Goldsmith's suggestion (suggested earlier by Zittrain), that additional measures be placed at the ISP level brings in significant risk to the ISPs. What if the measures are put in place and something (inevitably) gets through? Are the ISPs then liable for this? Hacking and break-ins will continue to occur even at some of the most "secure" sites. RSA, an industry security leader recently had their systems compromised, which led to information being extracted from their systems. The fact that extremely sophisticated and targeted attacks can happen at secure Nuclear Power plants (Stuxnet worm), means that ISPs have would have their hands full with any targeted attack.
http://www.rsa.com/node.aspx?id=3872 [[User:Earboleda|Earboleda]]

Although cyberthreats are real and eminent issues, there are not enough resources, mostly human, for countermeasures. In the United States, lack of expert computer scientists in the field of information security poses a serious problem in appropriately handling cyberwarfare. Rouge states such as North Korea rather have a lead on cyberwarfare preparation. I assume that first of all there needs to be a wider recognition for cyberthreats and a determined agreement toward dealing with this "fifth domain of warfare". --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 21:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The Chatham House report is concerned that there isn't enough political control over the direction of cybersecurity and cyberwarfare initiatives due to the impenetrability of the technical details - that, as they put it, "the chief engineer" is driving the boat. I find this ironic (though not necessarily invalid); my first instinct is to be more concerned about know-knothing politicians trying to steer when they don't understand how the ship works or what direction it should go in. Still, education of the polical class, in either case, is the logical solution. - [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 16:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick rehash of something I was pondering in class: We have read about Lessig’s "free culture" (as opposed to permissions culture) as well as Benkler's "sharing nicely" and peer-production models. My project has been on Free and Open Source Software licensing. All this points to the value of sharing, open source business models, and weaker intellectual property rights. IP protections, however, have grown increasingly stronger. What if, I was thinking, we are never really able to secure the net? What will it mean when nation-states and other actors are constantly engaged in strategic and industrial espionage? Will we see, essentially, a culture of sharing "not-nicely" where theft of trade secrets and copying of patent and copyrighted materials regularly occurs outside the reach of law enforcement? Will companies reliant on proprietary business models be pushed more towards open source ones? Will we see the death of copyright as we know it? - [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 16:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

== Links ==
If you'd like to help us with the collection of data regarding online dating sites please take our survey, it's anonymous.
Online Dating site Survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/28VMJWX
--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 17:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare

2011-05-07T16:40:25Z

2011-04-13T01:04:25Z

BrandonAndrzej: /* Submissions */

2011-03-22T18:41:23Z

BrandonAndrzej: /* Submissions */

Assignment 3 Submissions

2011-03-22T18:31:33Z

BrandonAndrzej: /* Submissions */

2011-02-22T08:29:22Z

BrandonAndrzej: /* Submissions */

Assignment 2 Submissions

2011-02-22T08:21:22Z

BrandonAndrzej: /* Submissions */

Peer Production and Collaboration

2011-02-15T00:57:15Z

BrandonAndrzej: /* Class Discussion */ Added thoughts on wikipedia

<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''
|}
<br clear="right" />
</div>
'''February 15'''
<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">'''Note: To make up for the snow day on February 1, tonight's class will run an extra hour, until 8:30pm.'''</div>
The free software movement is one example of a trend towards distributed volunteer networks of individuals collaborating on collective projects that were formerly the domain of the for-profit private sector. In this session, we explore how far such peer production can go in redefining the economic and social structures of modern society.

<onlyinclude>
==Readings==
* Yochai Benkler, [http://mitworld.mit.edu/play/394/ News, Information and the Wealth of Networks] (watch from 8:32 to 26:07)
* Zittrain, [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/13 Chapter 4: The Generative Pattern]
* Joseph Reagle, [http://reagle.org/joseph/2010/06/reagle-nrhm-special-collab-norms.html ”Be Nice”: Wikipedia Norms for Supportive Communication]

== Additional Resources==
The following audio streams from NPR may be interesting:
* [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4986453 Wikipedia, Open Source and the Future of the Web]
* [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6051103 Wikipedia Wins Users and Critics by Jenny Lawton]
* [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4506421 Wikipedia's Growth Comes with Concerns by Laura Sydell]
</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==

Listening to, and reading, various pieces on Wikipedia I am struck by the amount of effort that Jimmy Wales seems to put into promoting the idea of Wikipedia as, to paraphrase, "a close-knit community of dedicated users" with emphasis on user reputation and his role as "benevolent dictator", and distancing himself from the more "democratic" (read: anonymous contributors) aspects of the site which (I assume) are generally the first things that come to most peoples' minds when Wikipedia is mentioned. I wonder if this attitude was always a core part of the site's conception, or whether it was developed in response to outside criticism of the encyclopedia’s (lack of) credibility. Or if it is merely an accurate description of how the site has evolved... I would hazard to guess that Wikipedia, despite what Mr. Wales may say, is *both* a close-knit community *and* a conglomeration of faceless, unorganized (naturally organizing?) "ants"; I doubt the site could survive without both aspects. I am also struck by the parallel between this view and the criticism of Wikipedia skeptics: they see "peer review" being essential, where a "peer" is a responsible member of the academic community, while Mr. Wales sees "peer review" as equally essential, only with "peer" defined as a responsible member of the Wikipedia community. I wonder that seems to occur to no one that the "Wikipedia community" (let alone the "faceless ants") might very well contain those self-same learned academics who compose and edit articles for Britanica. And if companies are hiring PR agents to "protect" their image on Wikipedia, then I wonder why University faculties have not taken it upon themselves to jointly, publicly venture into Wikipedia to improve the quality of the articles found there in. Surely, after 10 years we should have started to take this thing seriously.
[[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 00:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

== Links ==
Chris Anderson: [http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.07/people.html People Power]

Business Week: [http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_25/b3938601.htm The Power of Us]

Nasa: [http://clickworkers.arc.nasa.gov/top Clickworkers Study]
* the link to the NASA Clickworkers Study seems to be broken. Here is a link to the [http://www.nasa.gov/open/plan/peo.html program's home page] --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 13:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yochai Benkler's Seminal Work on Peer Production: [http://www.benkler.org/CoasesPenguin.html Coase's Penguin]

Jimbo Wales: [http://webcast.oii.ox.ac.uk/?view=Webcast&ID=20050711_76 Talk on the Wikipedia Community]

User talk:BrandonAndrzej

2011-02-08T09:09:11Z

BrandonAndrzej: New page: This is a talk page!

This is a talk page!

User:BrandonAndrzej

2011-02-08T08:56:55Z

BrandonAndrzej: New page: 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 interes...

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.

- Brandon

Assignment 1 Submissions

2011-02-08T08:55:41Z

BrandonAndrzej: /* Submissions */ Submitted Assignment 1 at 3:55 EST

Assignment 1 Submissions

2011-02-08T03:52:22Z

BrandonAndrzej: /* Submissions */

Paradigms for Studying the Internet

2011-02-06T00:14:16Z

BrandonAndrzej: /* Class Discussion */ added some spaces for readability

<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''
|}
<br clear="right" />
</div>
'''February 1'''
<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">'''Note: Due to snow in Cambridge, class is canceled today. To make up for the cancellation, we'll be adding an hour to each of the next two class sessions (February 8 and 15).'''</div>
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

[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/weekinreview/30shane.html Spotlight Again Falls on Web Tools and Change - article on how repressive regimes can use the internet and new media to their advantage]

== 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)

Principal ideas expressed “The Cluetrain Manifesto“ and „The Great Failure of Wikipedia” I have found in sharp contradiction. The “Cluetrainers” consider the conversation and trading of information and traverse of ideas over the Internet as the essence for present corporations, markets and cultures. On the other hand the author of “Great Failure of Wikipedia” considers gathering and structuring information through communication of masses over the Internet as a work of “wonks”, “twiddlers”, which amount to “ procedural whackjobs”.
The clash between these two ideological approaches to the essence of the Internet remind me challenges between the governance of majority expressed in democracy and democratic system and governance of elite represented by oligarchic system. These two philosophical, sociological and political approaches are well reasoned and analyzed in the work of Jose Ortega y Gasset “ The Revolt of the Masses” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/José_Ortega_y_Gasset).
To make a short summary of this scholar ś ideas, only elite “content generators” formed by some “barriers of entry” could produces welfare “content” in all aspects of human society “the Internet”. I believe that this struggle would never have the winner. [[User:Zholakova|Zholakova]] 21:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the concept of a “borderless Internet,” the article [http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly.msp?id=961 Digital Borders] claims it is reflective of both government and consumer pressure for an Internet that conforms to their individual preferences and laws. I would also argue that such filtered content delivery also arose out of huge corporate demand. Yahoo! has a wealth of user data (geographic, demographic, behavioral, etc) at its disposal, and advertisers are willing to pay a premium to be able to leverage that. So, while a formidable blow to Internet freedom, Mr. Yang and his company have ultimately benefited greatly from the byproduct of their legal defeat, which is a highly profitable business in localized content delivery.

This also raises the controversial topic of how relevant is ''too'' relevant. Internet consumers are keenly aware that their personal information is being collected and repurposed, but it does not seem the boundaries are permanently drawn yet. [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 19:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I just had some initial comments before we discuss further in class. Digital technology and the Internet have revolutionized the cross-border communication and information sharing, and this has benefited everyone unimaginably. However, the Internet also has created many great issues and problems that are very serious and threatening (i.e. privacy issues, cyber-terrorism, support for terrorism and other criminal activities, etc.). In order to maximize/protect the benefits and minimize/eliminate damages caused by the Internet, I feel that law, regulation and censorship sometimes are necessary. Anarchy eventually leads to destruction, and I do not think the cyberspace is an exception. Thus, I was a bit uncomfortable with the ideas portrayed in either the [http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~zs/decl.html Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace] or the [http://www.cluetrain.com Cluetrain Manifesto]. Moreover, as discussed in the [http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly.msp?id=961 Digital Borders], there are vast differences in laws, regulations, cultures and traditions among countries around the world, and they must be respected in the cyberspace as they are aimed to be as such in the “real world.” Through this course, I hope I can gain more ideas about the extent to which the Internet should be regulated and controlled by governments.[[User:Edwardshinp|Edwardshinp]] 17:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The idea of a free, humanistic and borderless Internet expressed in the Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace and Cluetrain Manifesto is simply romantic but naïve idealism. Certainly the Internet is a wonderfully powerful communication medium, but we must recognize that it stands upon the shoulders of television, radio and the various printed media. Egyptians are using twitter to challenge Hosni Mubarak’s authority in the same way Thomas Paine printed Common Sense to challenge the authority of King George III. But the Internet can just as easily be used as a tool of government to monitor and control its people. Benkler (The Wealth of Networks), Goldsmith and Wu (Digital Borders) understand the reality that government regulation of the Internet is a natural and inevitable process, and that it’s a messy business. The ubiquitous nature of the Internet means that it will be subject to both international and every sovereign state’s laws simultaneously. Of this there can be no doubt, as we have already seen Egypt’s “kill switch” in action. [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 20:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Some thoughts regarding Wikipedia: Wikipedia presents itself as a "democratic entity” - one which gathers its content from users around the globe and allows everyone to freely participate. However, many observers (such as in the BBC Worldservice documentary) have noted that the majority Wikipedia's content is derived from a relatively small number of regular users. The picture painted is one of an oligarchy where a limited number of "elite" users control the content of the encyclopedia via enforcement strict of policy rules, essentially erecting barriers to casual users. I am trying to reconcile this picture with that painted by Jason's Scott's "Great Failure of Wikipedia", in he describes a small number of "content generators" under siege from a great mass of "wonks, twiddlers, and procedural whackjobs" who are essentially negative contributors to the site. "Content generators" become "content defenders", with only those few contributors willing to put extensive effort into protecting their content actually seeing that content become (more or less) permanent additions to the encyclopedia. I am unsure of how accurate this depiction (or either depiction, for that matter) is... The central question here is whether the "elite" users generating the majority of the content are also the users most active in enforcing policy/policing entry barriers, or whether these roles are largely divided between separate user populations. [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 00:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Some (pessimistic) links regarding social networking technologies and political change:
First, a blog post dismissive of the impact of the internet and social networks in the current crisis in Egypt:
"Tell Mubarak we don't need his damn internet" http://www.al-bab.com/blog/2011/blog1102c.htm
Second, a Slate Magazine book review looking at the way politically repressive regimes are using the internet and social networks to their advantage:
Evgeny Morozov's The Net Delusion http://www.slate.com/id/2281743/
[[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 00:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Paradigms for Studying the Internet

2011-02-06T00:13:08Z

BrandonAndrzej: /* 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''
|}
<br clear="right" />
</div>
'''February 1'''
<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">'''Note: Due to snow in Cambridge, class is canceled today. To make up for the cancellation, we'll be adding an hour to each of the next two class sessions (February 8 and 15).'''</div>
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

[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/weekinreview/30shane.html Spotlight Again Falls on Web Tools and Change - article on how repressive regimes can use the internet and new media to their advantage]

== 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)

Principal ideas expressed “The Cluetrain Manifesto“ and „The Great Failure of Wikipedia” I have found in sharp contradiction. The “Cluetrainers” consider the conversation and trading of information and traverse of ideas over the Internet as the essence for present corporations, markets and cultures. On the other hand the author of “Great Failure of Wikipedia” considers gathering and structuring information through communication of masses over the Internet as a work of “wonks”, “twiddlers”, which amount to “ procedural whackjobs”.
The clash between these two ideological approaches to the essence of the Internet remind me challenges between the governance of majority expressed in democracy and democratic system and governance of elite represented by oligarchic system. These two philosophical, sociological and political approaches are well reasoned and analyzed in the work of Jose Ortega y Gasset “ The Revolt of the Masses” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/José_Ortega_y_Gasset).
To make a short summary of this scholar ś ideas, only elite “content generators” formed by some “barriers of entry” could produces welfare “content” in all aspects of human society “the Internet”. I believe that this struggle would never have the winner. [[User:Zholakova|Zholakova]] 21:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the concept of a “borderless Internet,” the article [http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly.msp?id=961 Digital Borders] claims it is reflective of both government and consumer pressure for an Internet that conforms to their individual preferences and laws. I would also argue that such filtered content delivery also arose out of huge corporate demand. Yahoo! has a wealth of user data (geographic, demographic, behavioral, etc) at its disposal, and advertisers are willing to pay a premium to be able to leverage that. So, while a formidable blow to Internet freedom, Mr. Yang and his company have ultimately benefited greatly from the byproduct of their legal defeat, which is a highly profitable business in localized content delivery.

This also raises the controversial topic of how relevant is ''too'' relevant. Internet consumers are keenly aware that their personal information is being collected and repurposed, but it does not seem the boundaries are permanently drawn yet. [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 19:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I just had some initial comments before we discuss further in class. Digital technology and the Internet have revolutionized the cross-border communication and information sharing, and this has benefited everyone unimaginably. However, the Internet also has created many great issues and problems that are very serious and threatening (i.e. privacy issues, cyber-terrorism, support for terrorism and other criminal activities, etc.). In order to maximize/protect the benefits and minimize/eliminate damages caused by the Internet, I feel that law, regulation and censorship sometimes are necessary. Anarchy eventually leads to destruction, and I do not think the cyberspace is an exception. Thus, I was a bit uncomfortable with the ideas portrayed in either the [http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~zs/decl.html Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace] or the [http://www.cluetrain.com Cluetrain Manifesto]. Moreover, as discussed in the [http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly.msp?id=961 Digital Borders], there are vast differences in laws, regulations, cultures and traditions among countries around the world, and they must be respected in the cyberspace as they are aimed to be as such in the “real world.” Through this course, I hope I can gain more ideas about the extent to which the Internet should be regulated and controlled by governments.[[User:Edwardshinp|Edwardshinp]] 17:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The idea of a free, humanistic and borderless Internet expressed in the Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace and Cluetrain Manifesto is simply romantic but naïve idealism. Certainly the Internet is a wonderfully powerful communication medium, but we must recognize that it stands upon the shoulders of television, radio and the various printed media. Egyptians are using twitter to challenge Hosni Mubarak’s authority in the same way Thomas Paine printed Common Sense to challenge the authority of King George III. But the Internet can just as easily be used as a tool of government to monitor and control its people. Benkler (The Wealth of Networks), Goldsmith and Wu (Digital Borders) understand the reality that government regulation of the Internet is a natural and inevitable process, and that it’s a messy business. The ubiquitous nature of the Internet means that it will be subject to both international and every sovereign state’s laws simultaneously. Of this there can be no doubt, as we have already seen Egypt’s “kill switch” in action. [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 20:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Some thoughts regarding Wikipedia: Wikipedia presents itself as a "democratic entity” - one which gathers its content from users around the globe and allows everyone to freely participate. However, many observers (such as in the BBC Worldservice documentary) have noted that the majority Wikipedia's content is derived from a relatively small number of regular users. The picture painted is one of an oligarchy where a limited number of "elite" users control the content of the encyclopedia via enforcement strict of policy rules, essentially erecting barriers to casual users. I am trying to reconcile this picture with that painted by Jason's Scott's "Great Failure of Wikipedia", in he describes a small number of "content generators" under siege from a great mass of "wonks, twiddlers, and procedural whackjobs" who are essentially negative contributors to the site. "Content generators" become "content defenders", with only those few contributors willing to put extensive effort into protecting their content actually seeing that content become (more or less) permanent additions to the encyclopedia. I am unsure of how accurate this depiction (or either depiction, for that matter) is... The central question here is whether the "elite" users generating the majority of the content are also the users most active in enforcing policy/policing entry barriers, or whether these roles are largely divided between separate user populations. [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 00:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Some (pessimistic) links regarding social networking technologies and political change:
First, a blog post dismissive of the impact of the internet and social networks in the current crisis in Egypt:
"Tell Mubarak we don't need his damn internet" http://www.al-bab.com/blog/2011/blog1102c.htm
Second, a Slate Magazine book review looking at the way politically repressive regimes are using the internet and social networks to their advantage:
Evgeny Morozov's The Net Delusion http://www.slate.com/id/2281743/
[[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 00:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Paradigms for Studying the Internet

2011-02-06T00:04:02Z

BrandonAndrzej: /* Class Discussion */ added comment on Wikipedia

<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''
|}
<br clear="right" />
</div>
'''February 1'''
<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">'''Note: Due to snow in Cambridge, class is canceled today. To make up for the cancellation, we'll be adding an hour to each of the next two class sessions (February 8 and 15).'''</div>
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

[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/weekinreview/30shane.html Spotlight Again Falls on Web Tools and Change - article on how repressive regimes can use the internet and new media to their advantage]

== 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)

Principal ideas expressed “The Cluetrain Manifesto“ and „The Great Failure of Wikipedia” I have found in sharp contradiction. The “Cluetrainers” consider the conversation and trading of information and traverse of ideas over the Internet as the essence for present corporations, markets and cultures. On the other hand the author of “Great Failure of Wikipedia” considers gathering and structuring information through communication of masses over the Internet as a work of “wonks”, “twiddlers”, which amount to “ procedural whackjobs”.
The clash between these two ideological approaches to the essence of the Internet remind me challenges between the governance of majority expressed in democracy and democratic system and governance of elite represented by oligarchic system. These two philosophical, sociological and political approaches are well reasoned and analyzed in the work of Jose Ortega y Gasset “ The Revolt of the Masses” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/José_Ortega_y_Gasset).
To make a short summary of this scholar ś ideas, only elite “content generators” formed by some “barriers of entry” could produces welfare “content” in all aspects of human society “the Internet”. I believe that this struggle would never have the winner. [[User:Zholakova|Zholakova]] 21:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the concept of a “borderless Internet,” the article [http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly.msp?id=961 Digital Borders] claims it is reflective of both government and consumer pressure for an Internet that conforms to their individual preferences and laws. I would also argue that such filtered content delivery also arose out of huge corporate demand. Yahoo! has a wealth of user data (geographic, demographic, behavioral, etc) at its disposal, and advertisers are willing to pay a premium to be able to leverage that. So, while a formidable blow to Internet freedom, Mr. Yang and his company have ultimately benefited greatly from the byproduct of their legal defeat, which is a highly profitable business in localized content delivery.

This also raises the controversial topic of how relevant is ''too'' relevant. Internet consumers are keenly aware that their personal information is being collected and repurposed, but it does not seem the boundaries are permanently drawn yet. [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 19:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I just had some initial comments before we discuss further in class. Digital technology and the Internet have revolutionized the cross-border communication and information sharing, and this has benefited everyone unimaginably. However, the Internet also has created many great issues and problems that are very serious and threatening (i.e. privacy issues, cyber-terrorism, support for terrorism and other criminal activities, etc.). In order to maximize/protect the benefits and minimize/eliminate damages caused by the Internet, I feel that law, regulation and censorship sometimes are necessary. Anarchy eventually leads to destruction, and I do not think the cyberspace is an exception. Thus, I was a bit uncomfortable with the ideas portrayed in either the [http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~zs/decl.html Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace] or the [http://www.cluetrain.com Cluetrain Manifesto]. Moreover, as discussed in the [http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly.msp?id=961 Digital Borders], there are vast differences in laws, regulations, cultures and traditions among countries around the world, and they must be respected in the cyberspace as they are aimed to be as such in the “real world.” Through this course, I hope I can gain more ideas about the extent to which the Internet should be regulated and controlled by governments.[[User:Edwardshinp|Edwardshinp]] 17:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The idea of a free, humanistic and borderless Internet expressed in the Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace and Cluetrain Manifesto is simply romantic but naïve idealism. Certainly the Internet is a wonderfully powerful communication medium, but we must recognize that it stands upon the shoulders of television, radio and the various printed media. Egyptians are using twitter to challenge Hosni Mubarak’s authority in the same way Thomas Paine printed Common Sense to challenge the authority of King George III. But the Internet can just as easily be used as a tool of government to monitor and control its people. Benkler (The Wealth of Networks), Goldsmith and Wu (Digital Borders) understand the reality that government regulation of the Internet is a natural and inevitable process, and that it’s a messy business. The ubiquitous nature of the Internet means that it will be subject to both international and every sovereign state’s laws simultaneously. Of this there can be no doubt, as we have already seen Egypt’s “kill switch” in action. [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 20:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Some thoughts regarding Wikipedia: Wikipedia presents itself as a "democratic entity” - one which gathers its content from users around the globe and allows everyone to freely participate. However, many observers (such as in the BBC Worldservice documentary) have noted that the majority Wikipedia's content is derived from a relatively small number of regular users. The picture painted is one of an oligarchy where a limited number of "elite" users control the content of the encyclopedia via enforcement strict of policy rules, essentially erecting barriers to casual users. I am trying to reconcile this picture with that painted by Jason's Scott's "Great Failure of Wikipedia", in he describes a small number of "content generators" under siege from a great mass of "wonks, twiddlers, and procedural whackjobs" who are essentially negative contributors to the site. "Content generators" become "content defenders", with only those few contributors willing to put extensive effort into protecting their content actually seeing that content become (more or less) permanent additions to the encyclopedia. I am unsure of how accurate this depiction (or either depiction, for that matter) is... The central question here is whether the "elite" users generating the majority of the content are also the users most active in enforcing policy/policing entry barriers, or whether these roles are largely divided between separate user populations. [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 00:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)