Technologies of Politics and Control - User contributions [en]

Final Projects

2012-05-08T11:51:54Z

Emanuele: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

'''Upload your file here: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:Upload Upload file]

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

*Name:
*Title:
*Link:

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

===Submissions===

'''Name''': Carl Fleming
'''Title''': Khan Academy: Will Online Education Revolutionize (Or Simply Marginalize)
Education for Developing Nations
'''Link''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Carl_Fleming_Final_Project.docx
--[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 17:12, 6 May 2012 (EDT)

Name: James Harris
Title: “Decentralization of Grassroots Movements in the Internet Age”
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:James_Harris_Final_Project_FINAL.pdf
--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 13:01, 7 May 2012 (EDT)

'''Name''': Jeff Kimble
'''Title''': Amazon Awaits Your Feedback
'''Link''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/JK_Final_Paper2.docx [[User:JeffKimble|JeffKimble]] 22:32, 7 May 2012 (EDT)

'''Name''': Emanuele Dominici
'''Title''': America's Indirect Support of Terrorism: Jihadi Websites
'''Link''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Emanuele_LSTU_E-120_Final_Paper.pdf
--[[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 07:51, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

Final Projects

2012-05-08T11:49:55Z

Emanuele: /* Submissions */

Extra Credit Submissions

2012-05-01T13:04:03Z

Emanuele: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

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

Link to your extra credit below (either by [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:Upload uploading it to the wiki] or by linking to an external site) or indicate that you'd like to present your final paper. Please provide a short description of your project/the presentation you plan to give.

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

==Submissions==

Name: Emanuele Dominici 
Project Title: America’s Aid to Terrorism: Supporting Jihadi Websites 
Extra Credit Link:[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:LSTU_E-120_Extra_Credit.pptx ] 
Link to YouTube Video: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ppk9sGu-zf8&feature=youtu.be]

The Wikileaks Case

2012-04-24T16:10:51Z

Emanuele: /* Class Discussion */

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

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

<onlyinclude>

==Readings==

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/TheWikiLeaksIncident.pdf Case Study: The Wikileaks Incident]

== Additional Resources==

</onlyinclude>

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

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

== Links ==

Assignment 4 Submissions

2012-04-17T13:42:11Z

Emanuele: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

This assignment is due on April 17. Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (assignments submitted 4 days late or later will have a maximum grade of 1 point).

'''Upload your rough draft here: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:Upload Upload file]'''

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

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

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

==Submissions==

{{AssignmentInfo|Jeff Kimble|Assignment 4: Final Paper Rough Draft|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Jeff_Kimble_Rough_Draft2.doc}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Alex Lloyd-Evans|Assignment 4: Final Paper Rough Draft|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:Alex_Lloyd-Evans_Assignment_4_%28Rough_Draft%29.pdf}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Samantha Zakuto|Assignment 4: Final Paper Rough Draft|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:Assignment4SamanthaZakuto.pdf}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Emanuele Dominici|Assignment 4: Final Paper Rough Draft|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:Emanuele_Assignment_4.doc}}

Internet Infrastructure and Regulation

2012-04-17T13:36:22Z

Emanuele: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}
'''April 17'''

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.

==Assignments==

[[Assignments#Assignment 4: Rough Draft and Bonus AV Credit|Assignment 4 due]]

<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 ==
April 17: Internet Infrastructure and Regulation
[[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 17:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting article in Slate that's basically a profile of "_why" (a well known programmer/sort of folk hero in that online community before he disappeared off the web one day) but also goes into the problem of of the "Little Coder's Predicament" quite a bit since that was one of the main things _why was interested in. That predicament is the lack of accessibility to the code behind the devices we use so often; it is incredibly easy and intuitive to play Angry Birds on your phone or use Excel on your laptop, but hard (and getting harder) to learn how to access and manipulate the code that creates and alters those sorts of programs.

This is an issue that has come up quite a bit in class, and I thought the author does a good job of explaining some neat tools for the layman to use to get into programming. The article is a fun read and touches on a lot of issues of public v. private online, identity online, the importance of being a creator and not just a consumer, etc. Thought you all might enjoy!

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2012/03/ruby_ruby_on_rails_and__why_the_disappearance_of_one_of_the_world_s_most_beloved_computer_programmers_.html
-[[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 22:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Off topic for this week's class but I saw this article hit the Washington Post and thought it was an interesting read for those interested in Copyright and internet sales.http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/thai-students-money-making-effort-at-center-of-supreme-court-copyright-case/2012/04/16/gIQAJHqQLT_story.html?hpid=z3
--[[User:Hds5|Hds5]] 18:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

This week's readings brings up an interesting point on national safety. Government agencies other organizations could stand to do a better job notifying the public via the internet when national disasters arise. In times of disaster, notifying the public via internet alerts seems like a very efficient way to spread information quickly. -- [[ --[[User:Szakuto|Szakuto]] 11:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)]]

This week’s articles were like always very interesting and thought-stimulating. I really enjoyed reading the first article concerning broadband and the US government’s plan back in 2009 to make it accessible to all Americans. Even though many criticized the fact that at the time 100 million Americans didn’t have broadband, we must not forget the huge improvements that took place in the last two decades. I personally grew up with no broadband and with a computer which would run Windows 3.1 so from the ‘80s until now I personally see a huge improvement and I believe it is just a matter of time that the whole world will have broadband and at that point a newer technology will become available. The second article was by far the most fascinating. I had recently watched a documentary on technological advances and healthcare, and how easy it would be to do most things via internet like sending results and interacting with doctors. For what concerns education, I believe we have started making some good progress only recently and not very many institutions offer online learning. Homeland Security is definitely the most important aspect which we should invest in, in my opinion and we are far behind many of our European and Asian colleagues. The third article is exactly what I was talking about in terms of future technological advancements and it explains both plans and practices of countries other than the United States. The article on Net Neutrality was also pretty interesting and it perfectly explained its purpose in a simplistic way, which is appreciated by someone like myself who isn’t exactly a computer expert. The article on Internet Freedom has a very amusing title and I must say it is perfect for that topic. I still think it is very difficult to talk about internet freedom and government intrusion and I believe we will still be talking about this in the near future. The YouTube video about Hands Off the Internet was again in my opinion an amusing and simple way of portraying and conveying a message and I believe this to be a good way of doing so. Overall Governmental intrusion is and will be a serious and durable debate in the future. [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 13:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

== Links from Class ==

Internet and Democracy: The Sequel

2012-04-10T10:47:32Z

Emanuele: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}
'''April 10'''

A decade ago, the Internet was widely seen as a means to diminish the power of countries to regulate the flow of ideas and information. However, we have witnessed the resurgence of national sovereignty in cyberspace, with many countries now resorting to a combination of technology, law and intimidation to reign in the spread of free speech via the Net. Often aided by the technological support of the private sector in the United States, for this class, we will debate the ethics, practicality and implications of Internet censorship.

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2011/Evolving_Landscape_Internet_Control Roberts et al. Evolving Landscape of Internet Control]
* Read John Palfrey and Jonathan Zittrain: [http://opennet.net/sites/opennet.net/files/Deibert_06_Ch05_103-122.pdf Reluctant Gatekeepers: Corporate Ethics on a Filtered Internet]
* [http://opennet.net/sites/opennet.net/files/PolicingContent.pdf Jill York, Policing Content in the Quasi-public Sphere]
* Take a look at the [http://opennet.net/blog ONI blog]

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act DMCA 512 - the safe harbor provision]
* [https://www.eff.org/takedowns EFF's Hall of Shame]
* [http://www.copyhype.com/2012/04/viacom-v-youtube-the-second-circuits-decision/ Copyhype on Viacom v. YouTube: The Second Circuit’s Decision]

== Additional Resources ==

</onlyinclude>
== Class Discussion ==
April 10: Internet and Democracy: The Sequel
[[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 17:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I was surprised by the numbers from the "Evolving Landscape..." reading as far as how normal people use the internet in restrictive countries. We tend to think of the internet as this powerful tool to access multicultural views and information, especially if you live in a censorious society. This neglects the fact that around 80% of the websites I use/read/visit commonly are based out of the U.S., and 99% are English-language, so why would that be substantially different for someone from China? Part of our assumption that this resource is so valuable is that people would want to read the same info we are, because it is presumably the best (and to be fair it at least quite often is, as far as the areas it actually covers). But that often is not the info most relevant to those readers.

The shockingly low % (1% at a guess by the reading) of people in China, for example, who are using circumvention tools makes a lot more sense when you realize that internal Chinese sites like youku fill the vast majority of their internet needs, and that specifically Chinese concepts and constructs like microblogging avoid censors through a much more realistic approach to political censorship for the average internet user there. This is troubling in light of the conclusion that censoring technologies may now be outstripping circumvention technologies/abilities of average internet users to avoid censorship/attack/tracking. The solution of aggressively empowering a small group of activists, who would then spread messages through the local networks, seems to me to be a good one. It does place those activists at even more risk by further singling them out though, and obviously detracts from the crowd-sourcing type benefits that are at the heart of the internet's value.

I'm looking forward to discussing in class the balance of an international company's responsibility to its shareholders to create profit and remain competitive v. its responsibility to its original nation's norms/laws/etc. v. its responsibility to to an international "human rights" type code for the internet, regardless of where it comes from or where it's serving.

There are always arguments to be made for profit above all else, and what if trying too hard to be moral lowers your profits to where an 100% immoral (in relation to these internet issues) company corners the market? Then your idealism ruined you AND actively hurt online rights, since you left the door open for someone far worse than yourself to control that chunk of the web. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 17:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The first article for this week’s class was concise yet powerful and true. The internet has definitely become a very important battlefield and it can become a powerful weapon if used in certain ways. We can simply think of the number of people who read newspapers these days compared to blogs, forums and other online discussion boards where information can be, and it is very often, distorted. Other than this, the article was very useful for understanding political implications concerning the use of the internet, especially the ones that take place in Countries where freedom of speech is often denied by dictatorial governments. The Zittrain/Palfrey article was very interesting especially when depicting a hypothetical yet realistic situation at the beginning. For us westerners it is very hard to imagine what it would be like to be censored for futile reasons, or be controlled by governments and even be at risk of incarceration for writing something so harmless but fundamental like “democracy” in China. The third article was also very interesting and I personally could identify myself only with Facebook because I don’t use any other social network. What has been said is true but I believe that it can be very easy to avoid detection on Facebook if something against the rules were to take place. As the article has already said, anonymity is a very common practice on Facebook and I personally think that the Facebook staff doesn’t really spend that much time searching for irregularities, especially since they have created the “flag” option where users become a sort of citizen watch to report violations themselves. The ONI blog revealed some very attention-grabbing news about the internet but my attention was directed to the headline regarding CISPA and how people think it will become a new SOPA or PIPA. I have personally read the entire bill and I don’t think it can be considered similar at all. There have been a number of emails sent around the internet asking to sign a petition against CISPA for a series of reasons which turn out to be completely untrue, therefore one can really understand how emails, blogs and other internet tools can provide misinformation and make people believe something that isn’t true. I agree on the creation of the Safe Harbor Provision but I still think that ISPs or OSPs should also be vigilant 24/7 on what material is posted on their sites and take adequate countermeasures to stop illegal activity without waiting to actually be caught by the government or law enforcement agencies. The hall of shame was perhaps the most interesting website this week because it shows something which I am writing about in my research paper for this class and that is: Shaming ISPs in an attempt to stop illegal activities. The Viacom v. YouTube case was and still is very interesting. At first the court ruled in favor of YouTube but during the appeal it seems that both Viacom and YouTube can consider themselves victorious even though both losing something. It will be very interesting to see what happens next to this important case. [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 10:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

== Links ==

Control and Code: Privacy Online

2012-04-03T16:14:16Z

Emanuele: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}
'''April 3'''

Code is law; the architecture of the Internet and the software that runs on it will determine to a large extent how the Net is regulated in a way that goes far deeper than legal means could ever achieve (or at least ever achieve alone). Technological advances have also produced many tempting options for regulation and surveillance that may severely alter the balance of privacy, access to information and sharing of intellectual property. By regulating behavior, technological architectures or codes embed different values and political choices. Yet code is often treated as a technocratic affair, or something best left to private economic actors pursuing their own interests. If code is law, then control of code is power. If important questions of social ordering are at stake, shouldn't the design and development of code be brought within the political process? In this class we delve into the technological alternatives that will shape interactions over the Internet, as well as the implications of each on personal freedom, privacy and combating cyber-crime.

<onlyinclude>
==Readings==

* [http://www.access-controlled.net/wp-content/PDFs/chapter-3.pdf John Palfrey and Hal Roberts, The EU Data Retention Directive in an Era of Internet Surveillance]
* [http://www.bitsbook.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/chapter2.pdf Abelson, Ledeen, Lewis, Blown to Bits, Chapter 2: Naked in the Sunlight: Privacy Lost, Privacy Abandoned]
* [http://futureoftheinternet.org/download Jonathan Zittrain, Future of the Internet, Chapter 9: Privacy 2.0]
* [http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/privacy/Privacy_brand_warr2.html Warren and Brandeis, The Right to Privacy]

==Optional Readings==

* [http://www.danah.org/papers/talks/2010/SXSW2010.html "Making Sense of Privacy and Publicity." Transcript of talk given by Danah Boyd at SXSW. Austin, Texas, March 13, 2010]
* [http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-295.html Solveig Singleton, Privacy as Censorship (CATO)]
* [https://www.socialtext.net/codev2/privacy Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0: Privacy]
* http://paranoia.dubfire.net/2009/12/8-million-reasons-for-real-surveillance.html
* [http://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0610105 Narayanan and Shmatikov, How To Break Anonymity of the Netflix Prize Dataset]
* [http://ilpubs.stanford.edu:8090/361/1/1998-8.pdf Brin and Page, The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine]
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/business/media/26privacy.html Noam Cohen, It’s Tracking Your Every Move and You May Not Even Know (NYTimes, March 26, 2011)]
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_flesh_search_engine
</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==
April 3: Control and Code: Privacy Online
[[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 17:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

This NYTimes article about surveillance over a variety of technological mediums in Great Britain could easily be another piece of HW for tomorrow's class if anyone is interested: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/world/europe/british-government-eavesdropping-plans-draw-protest.html?hp

Interesting about Hotspot Shield, I definitely was one of the people who used it and got the impression it was private without actually noticing what it allowed AnchorFree to track. On the other hand, I'm not at all surprised by the level of intentionally misleading speech Google employs to explain its (lack of) privacy protections by taking some extremely literal approaches to what they do or don't collect. If you have all of the components of a bomb and the ability to create it, it is a little misleading to say "I do not have a bomb in my possession in any way." I doubt the police would agree with this literally correct statement. That's what Google is doing when it says it doesn't collect personal info... it just collects all of the resources needed to immediately extrapolate that personal info, which it may or may not do any time it pleases.

There is still always the problem of information overload: it's no longer what info you can collect (since, as Google shows, you can get basically anything from the average user), but rather how good you are at searching and parsing it into something useful. There is also the issue that, like we discussed with the value of immediacy over accuracy in news reporting through Twitter, it is quite possible for people with good intentions to ruin someone's privacy and safety through a rush to judgement. Look at the Trayvon case, where someone (I think it was Spike Lee?) tweeted what he though was the home address of Trayvon's killer and it ended up being the residence of an older couple who had to leave in fear for their lives. When everything is accessible, massive mistakes can be made in the space of a keystroke, and cannot be undone so easily.

I worry about the word "consent" in terms of the information we share through our technology nowadays. We lose a right to privacy when we intentionally share information with the public; we consent to have that data known. But how many people understand what they are sharing by having a smartphone/GPS in their pocket 24/7? Is the fine print in the cell phone contract enough to count as consent? What about the location tags if I post to Facebook from my phone? How do we measure the level of understanding an individual has of what their technology is broadcasting about them and decide if it counted as "informed consent?"

This week’s articles were so far the most interesting and appealing to me. The first article about the European Union and their Telecom surveillance was very accurate. The big difference between Europe and the United States in this matter is that unlike the US Government, most European governments are “spying” on their citizens through phone taps and the internet even when national security isn’t at risk. The best example of this are the numerous phone and computer taps applied to VIPs and politicians in Italy especially. The second article was also very fascinating especially when it cited George Orwell’s 1984. I fully agree with what is written in the article and I believe that people nowadays might complain about Government intrusion and their violation of our privacy, but to a certain extent people who use Facebook or even worse, Twitter to always let people know where they are or what they are having for breakfast, are the people who really shouldn’t have anything to say against governmental surveillance. I live in Italy and history has taught us that the biggest Mafia bosses like Toto’ Riina and Bernardo Provenzano were able to hide for decades without being tracked because they didn’t use technological instruments for communicating, but the famous “pizzini” which were pieces of paper with written commands passed on from man to man without being intercepted or tracked by the police. The Privacy 2.0 article was also interesting and I particularly liked reading the 1973 blue-ribbon panel report regarding the relationship between people and organizations/institutions where a physical person is starting to become simply a name on a computer file. I have experienced this to some extent in terms of job searching. I would describe myself as being a very charismatic person with a decent resume for my age, but unfortunately most jobs I have applied to in the past use an online application system where you just send in your resume and then wait for an improbable interview. I always feel as if I could really advertise myself well if I was given a chance to meet personally with an employer but so far this has not been the case, and I personally blame technology. The article written by Supreme Court Justices Warren and Brandeis was very eloquent and truthful. When I used to take Constitutional Law in college, I was always reminded by my professor that in the US Constitution there is no such word as “privacy”, even though it is one of the biggest legal issues concerning everyday citizens. [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 16:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

== Links ==

Internet and Democracy

2012-03-27T18:05:05Z

Emanuele: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}
'''March 27'''

Digital tools are seen as playing a major part in political activities and revolutions around the world from the Green Revolution in Iran to the recent events in the Middle East and North Africa. In this class, we'll explore the role of the Internet in political organizing, social movements and popular protests, and the potential impact of digital tools on governance.

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==

* [http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/11/a-new-theory-for-the-foreign-policy-frontier-collaborative-power/249260/ Anne-Marie Slaughter, A New Theory for the Foreign Policy Frontier: Collaborative Power]

* [http://technosociology.org/?p=566INSERT Zeynep Tufekci, The #freemona Perfect Storm: Dissent and the Networked Public Sphere]

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2012/exploring_russian_cyberspace Alexanyan et al, Exploring Russian Cyberspace: Digitally-Mediated Collective Action and the Networked Public Sphere]

* [http://technosociology.org/?p=904 Zeynep Tufekci, #Kony2012, Understanding Networked Symbolic Action & Why Slacktivism is Conceptually Misleading]

* [http://blog.socialflow.com/post/7120244932/data-viz-kony2012-see-how-invisible-networks-helped-a-campaign-capture-the-worlds-attention Gilad Lotan, KONY2012: See How Invisible Networks Helped a Campaign Capture the World’s Attention]

== Additional Resources ==

* [http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell Malcolm Gladwell, Why the revolution will not be tweeted.]

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Mapping_the_Arabic_Blogosphere_0.pdf Etling, Kelly, Faris and Palfrey, Mapping the Arabic Blogosphere: Politics, Culture and Dissent]

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2008/Mapping_Irans_Online_Public Etling and Kelly, Mapping Iran's Online Public]

* [http://ui04e.moit.tufts.edu/forum/archives/pdfs/32-2pdfs/Faris-Etling_32-2.pdf Faris, Etling, Madison and the Smart Mob: The Promise and Limitations of the Internet for Democracy]

* [http://rosebellkagumire.com/2012/03/08/kony2012-my-response-to-invisible-childrens-campaign/ Rosebell Kagumire, Kony2012; My response to Invisible Children’s campaign]

* [http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/a_letter_from_uganda_on_kony2012_20120315/ Sara Weschler, A Letter From Uganda on #Kony2012]

</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==

March 27: Internet and Democracy
[[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 17:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Great analysis in the Social Flow Blog about the Kony2012 campaign. This reading made me realize the two powerful ingredients for the skyrocketing spread of an online message: pre-existing networks and philanthropy tactics. I had seen the video a few weeks ago and felt inclined to participate. I think anything that has to do with children is touching for the people, also for me; but at the same time I was wondering how this campaign, and no others--because injustice is present in a number of cases around the world--succeeded in the gathering of all that people, and these two ingredients led me to the Eureka solution. I think it's very interesting from the marketing point of view, and for sure marketers have analyzed the Kony2012 campaign, as they have done in the social networks.

As for the Russian reading, What most interested me about it was the networked public sphere phenomenon in practice, in which when an issue is considered to be from public importance online activists take action—like the Khimki forest campaign, the drivers’ movement and the Anti-Seliger protests. From my point of view this will continually help in the building of real democracies in which people can participate and their voices are heard. In the Russian case, this shift is happening and having success due to the low level of support that the people have for institutions, and it is something to be expected not only in Russia but also around the world. Not far away, this situation led the Middle East towards the Arab Spring, in which social networks participation was crucial to detonate the revolutions.[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 22:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I had read the Gladwell article before and just seeing his name in the list of readings lead me back to it first (who doesn't always want to read a Gladwell piece?). I also generally agree with his conclusions about the limitations of social media and had arrived at roughly the same place in some of our earlier class discussions. As a result, I feel like my reading of the other materials was mostly through that skeptical lens. I very much agree that the degree of effort, true commitment, and genuine impact is extremely different on Twitter vs. in real life, and while that should be quite obvious it sometimes seems like it gets disregarded during our current age of adoration of social media and Twitter in particular. His explanation of how strong vs weak social connections play into that difference in true commitment was an interesting next step in understanding protest and activism both through social media and in our physical daily lives.

That all being said, I still was very impressed by the #freeMona campaign and its results. I like that the various pieces we read on it acknowledged that it was more or less a perfect storm of connected individuals and important relationships along with Twitter and that Twitter was not the be-all end-all savior in a vacuum, but it still seemed undeniable that this was the power of Twitter in action. The main point to me is that Twitter was used as the connective piece; a hashtag alone did not free her. What it did was inform and motivate a large group of people, and included in that group were a few with the existing power and connections to allow them to call the state department, arrange to send help, etc., and in the end that freed her. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 13:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to share this ''New York Times'' article - "[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/business/media/hashtag-activism-and-its-limits.html?src=recg Hashtag Activism, and Its Limits]" - since it complemented the discussion last week about barriers to entry for digital activism. [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 00:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I liked Zynep's article and the term "slacktivists." I believe Kony 2012 was a large group of non-activists taking symbolic action. I had heard of Invisible Children before the Kony 2012 youtube video and had done some research on the organization. Full disclosure I am not a huge fan of the organization but I admit I still jumped on the Kony 2012 bandwagon for one reason - a genius PR/Marketing campaign. There is a lot to learn from this organization and how an effective Twitter campaign can sustain... if only for a short time. I look forward to our discussion in tonight's class.--[[User:Hds5|Hds5]] 14:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Social media (and Twitter for our discussions, has two affects when it comes to the user communicating a sentiment or action (versus any particular target government responding to such communications or actions). Either it creates a new cultural/political/geopolitical phenomenon that otherwise would not have existed in its identity without the existence of social media or that these transactions and movements have already existed for years but has allowed for “quicker” responses and actions as Zeynep points out.

Besides rapidity, I also think that social media has empowered individuals to become more politically active, which I believe is somewhat independent of the “quicker” hypothesis. While the example of Mona and the massive Twitter movement between journalists and state officials was sped up through almost instantaneous communications through Twitter, I surmise that those communications may have occurred to some degree (but in different modalities). But the Egyptian uprising is an example of people becoming more empowered through social media by reading or writing Twitter feeds as the events unfolded and therefore forming “complex, diverse and ad hoc networks” as Zeynep indicates as “dynamics of a global campaign.” But the formation of those networks relies not necessarily on the collective entity but of a collection of individuals empowered to join and participate in those networks. --[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 16:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Great readings this week - looking forward to our discussion in class and very much interested in your perspectives as this week's topic fits right in with my project. I attended a conference yesterday hosted by Digital Democracy and the New American Tavern titled, "The Impact of KONY2012" with a couple representatives from Invisible Children and additional experts. I'll share with you what was discussed where the focus was mostly with: lessons we can learn from what worked about Kony2012, critiques of the campaign, the film, IC, and the larger issues they point to, what it means moving forward for non-profits, etc.[[User:JennLopez|JennLopez]] 17:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

'''Slaughter’s Article'''Relational Power: 1. COMMANDING CHANGE = getting people or groups to do things they don't want to do. 2. “CONTROLLING AGENDAS” = framing "agendas for action that make others' preferences seem irrelevant or out of bounds." 3. “SHAPING PREFERENCES”= using "ideas, beliefs, and culture to shape basic beliefs, perceptions and preferences."
Please explain how Dec. of Independence is soft power? This is a government document, handed down as law. I interpreted soft power as the draw that led to hard power, which is what I thought the Declaration would be considered.
“power with” vs “power over” = difference in collaborative power. This was the difference I noted in (something we discussed last class) but wasn’t highlighted
Relational vs collaborative powers = force vs choice?

'''freemona'''Debate over released (mentioned in above article): I would think that the twitter campaign had a huge impact on the result. Side question: how did she tweet she was beaten and detained? Someone else for her?
My takeaway: another extension of users leveraging technology (or perhaps the ability of technology to travel with people) into other countries with less technology to be used as news.
Cause/Effect Debate: Connected Users creating their own news versus topdown traditional newspapers (last class discussion)

'''Alexanyan/Professor/Others'''Russian Politics and Twitter, Blogosphere, etc: “The Russian political blogosphere supports more cross-linking debate than others we have studied (including the U.S. and Iranian), and appears less subject to the formation of self-referential ‘echo chambers”
“The online ‘news diet’ of Russian bloggers is more independent, international, and oppositional than that of Russian Internet users overall, and far more so than that of non-Internet users, who are more reliant upon state-controlled federal TV channels”
“Popular political YouTube videos focus on corruption and abuse of power by elites, the government, and the police”
These findings seem to support that Russia is embracing democracy and the old guard (which still apparently has a presence according to U.S. Media) is losing strength.

'''Kony2012'''Author: “Further, all human societies operate in a world of socially-constructed norms and ideals” ---- no mention of architecture
I may argue that slacktivism does contain some harms ---it seems the author doesn’t want to answer any criticisms of it, but just purely defend the symbolic nature of slacktivism even if the information is not accurate. Boy who cried wolf? I think it’s important for information to be accurate. I think people demand the truth, and more importantly are infuriated when they find out facts are different after they’ve went along with something (Iraq). We are pulling out of Iraq (long term view has yet to decide if this will be adverse or not).
As for Kony itself, we all know what its currently known for due to incident with leader arrest --- which further gives discussion to the effects of activism turned slacktivism. Going back to why we have the phrase slacktivism is because of “mistakes” made in the original reporting.
[[User:Brendanlong|Brendanlong]] 17:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The articles I read for this week’s class were very intriguing and fascinating, especially since my final project deals with this argument to some extent. The first article was very interesting in general but it really got me thinking about the recent middle eastern and African dictatorships which have been overthrown by the people who gained access to mass media and communication systems to finally change an unpleasant system. The second article as well was very interesting and powerful in demonstrating the importance of the media and in this specific case social networks like Twitter. The article concerning Russia was fascinating in one sense but sad in another. I know for certain that what happens in Russia (politically speaking) is only a mask of what really happens and what people really think about the Government. Although it may seem that there is a certain freedom in the use of the internet, the truth is very far from this, the only difference is that what really happens is kept a secret most of the time, and those very few who are able to escape torture, prison and political assassinations, are able to flee and tell the world about their experiences. I really enjoyed Zeynep Tufekci’s article on Kony 2012 and I do agree with her totally for what concerns getting people to pay attention to what really is important and not just mundane activities but I feel that for the majority of the population at least now that is not the case nor will it be in the near future. It is often hard to convince the average person that there are extremely important issues out there which apparently don’t touch him but in order to change the system, should. The last article on Kony 2012 was also very interesting but my personal view on this matter is that I don’t believe that simply “sharing” or “liking” the campaign video will actually do anything to change the situation. Clicking “share” in my opinion is just a way of saying: ok, I saw it! But the question is: now what are you going to do? And the answer in my opinion is: nothing, just going to continue tweeting or posting about the next sport event etc. I might seem a bit too skeptical but this is my personal, and perhaps wrong, opinion on the matter at hand. [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 18:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

== Links ==

Assignment 3 Submissions

2012-03-20T13:45:09Z

Emanuele: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

This assignment is due on March 20. Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (assignments submitted 4 days late or later will have a maximum grade of 1 point).

Please make sure the name of your file includes your name (example: Name_Assignment3.doc) to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment. '''Upload your file here: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:Upload Upload file]'''

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

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

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

==Submission Instructions==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Submissions==
{{AssignmentInfo|Jeff Kimble|Assignment 3: eCommerce through the lens of Amazon|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Jeff_Kimble_--_Assignment_3.doc}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Alexis Ditkowsky|Assignment 3: Collaborative Boards on Pinterest: Clearly Not a Primary Function of the Site|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Spring2012-Berkman-Assignment3-DitkowskyAlexis.pdf}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Harvard212|Message Efficacy on Broad Spectrum Platforms|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:Harvard212_Assignment3.pdf}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Emanuele Dominici|Assignment 3: Jihadi Websites and US Counter-Terrorism Strategies|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:Emanuele_Assignment_3.doc}}

<pre>
{{Response|type your response here}}
</pre>
Should look like:
{{Response|thank you very much for commenting on my assignment.}}

Collective Action and Decision-making

2012-03-19T18:12:02Z

Emanuele: /* Class Discussion */

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

Mass collaboration and the aggregation of information enable potentially profound changes in business and politics. In this class, we will compare and contrast the transformations in economic life and collective decision-making processes brought on the information revolution. The discussions will also explore the role of open information systems on business and the scope for greater transparency and participation in government, politics and public life.

==Assignments==

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

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==
* James Surowiecki, [http://www.randomhouse.com/features/wisdomofcrowds/excerpt.html Wisdom of Crowds (excerpt)]
**[http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/22/books/review/0523books-mclemee.html?ex=1400644800&en=43bc95eb638bfed2&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND NYT Review]
* [http://ethanzuckerman.com/blog/?p=1125 Ethan Zuckerman's blog review of Infotopia] Great summary of the issues in the book.

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseer.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.59.9009%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=IHRnT8TLOe-00QHH5YSHCA&usg=AFQjCNERO0GwXWc7DLWZwSaqnjjjMTWMYg Divided They Blog] - a paper showing trackbacks between political blogs, mentioned by Ethan Zuckerman in his review of Cass Sunstein's Infotopia
</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==

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

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

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

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

== Links ==

New and Old Media, Participation, and Information

2012-03-05T15:21:53Z

Emanuele: /* Class Discussion */

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

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

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

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

== Optional Readings ==

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

== Class Discussion ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Links from Class ==

Assignment 2 Submissions

2012-03-05T11:21:29Z

Emanuele: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

===Submission Instructions===
This assignment is due on February 21. Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (assignments submitted 4 days late or later will have a maximum grade of 1 point).

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

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

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

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

===Submissions===
Name: Sab 
Prospectus:
Free Online High-Quality Education: The Next Revolution on Internet?[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Sab_Assignment_2.doc_-_Copie.doc] 
--[[User:Sab|Sab]] 13:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Comments: 

Hi Sabrina, I find your topic very interesting! I am curious to find out how the lack of interaction between students and teachers affect the quality of online versus offline education, and how you are going to measure it? Or if you are interested in exploring how the lack of students and teachers interaction affect the quality of education, I suggest comparing a community with interaction to one without. Best, Quynh. [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 22:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Make sure to narrow your thesis to something you can study and argue in a quantifiable way, but this sounds like an interesting concept. How much will you be using our specific class as a source? [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sab. You picked a wonderful topic. I completed most of my undergraduate degree through distance education, and had experienced DL at various institutions and levels. I am glad to see someone is interested in the rich opportunities DL offers.

This prospectus covers a lot of topics. With the 10-page limit you may want to narrow down to one or two. I suggest

A. the first thing you could do is to define your subject – free online education websites (e.g. MIT OpenCourseWare, Ted Talk, etc) or DL facilitated by educational institutions (e.g. Harvard Extension School, University of London International Programmes, etc), as both serve different purposes and are operated differently.

B. Out of all the areas you wish to explore, I personally would love to read about “the economic model of free online education websites” as well as “the construction of the teacher and student interactive community”. I think the quality of education and professionalism of teachers are really institution-dependent. HES here is a leader in providing quality education and best teachers because the school obviously would not like to mess up the Harvard name *grin*. But I can imagine certain institutions may not stick to the same ideal. So I personally do not find this issue worthy of much ponderance.

As for copyright of the lectures, I think it’s an interesting issue as well. I’ve once asked Professor Allan Ryan, Harvard’s IP lawyer and the instructor of HES’ IP and Media Law courses, whether obtaining the copyright of the material we use in the DE courses is an issue. He replied that luckily , the US has a law that says using copyrighted material for educational purposes is considered fair use. So we are covered in most aspects. The relevant laws are 1) Technology, Education and Copyright Harmonization Act of 2002, and 2) amendment to the US Copyright Law section 110(2). Hope this information helps!

Hi Sabrina, your project seems very interesting and I have always thought about education, degrees and online programs. I personally think that if a person wants an education he or she can do that either by means of a computer or by going to a library. On the other hand we must consider today’s job market and the requirements (degrees) to meet in order to obtain a good job. I am curious to read your findings and I would like to wish you good luck on your paper. [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 11:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

--[[User:YHHsiao|YHHsiao]] 10:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: You-Hwa Hsiao 
Prospectus:
ACTA and the protests – a reaction to the governmental control extending into the cyber world[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Hsiao_assignment2.pdf] 
Comments: 
Hi You-Hwa, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) sounds like a very interesting topic. I'm curious to hear more about how you plan to monitor the anti-ACTA community while you explore the impact of ACTA on online behavior. Have fun! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 19:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 

I like your prospectus and your topic is relevant. In particular, I find it interesting that hacking and cyberattacks are viewed as a sign of protest and that this protest element has assumed nontraditional forms. I think that you are covering a lot of ground with your thesis and you may want to focus on a particular dimension of ACTA/response to ACTA.
--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I really like how you're exploring some issues of online vs. physical life in your topic. I'm interested to see not just how your project develops but how your subject develops between now and the end of the course; it's such a current and evolving thing that you may get to study some really great major events related to it even in such a short span of time! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 23:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I think your topic is very relevant and I look forward to reading you paper. I am very curious to learn about these common (are they?) norms and values of the people in the virtual world vs those in the physical world and what it is exactly that they are protesting against [[User:MSS|MSS]] 16:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I think your topic is very much related to the course and I will suggest the Lessig framework. I will also be interested in profiling the internet users that protest on and offline. Good luck!--[[User:Sab|Sab]] 18:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi You-Hwa, you raised many interesting questions in your prospectus. I am interested in finding out how the ACTA impact online behaviors, specifically, what are they trying to protect with the opposition? [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 10:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: Harvard212 
Prospectus: Being Nice and Free Speech on the Internet[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Harvard212_Assignment2.pdf] 
[[User:Harvard212|Harvard212]] 16:34 EST, 21 February 2012 
Comments: 
Hi @Harvard212, I'd love to hear more about the community you plan to study. It sounds like you've lined up a good framework for starting your review and it's now a matter of narrowing down the scope. Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 19:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC) 

Agreed, this is certainly an interesting concept (what does "nice" mean? what are its implications? is it universal?) and I'll be interested to see how you narrow it down to a controlled topic for study. Be careful not to give yourself too much; tons of background research is great but its real value often comes when you can focus it on something very specific [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 23:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sofia, I like your project very much but I too feel that it might be a bit too extensive. My suggestion would be to focus more on a single or few specific parts and then it will definitely be a great paper. [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 11:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Your project is ambitious and deals with philosophical/sociological questions regarding the expansive internet and how norms can benefit the entire community. While I am not sure if a general set of norms can be established with millions of users from across the world with their own agendas and online needs, obviously Wikipedia would be a good example of norms being established and these norms are established within the websites themselves. Are you focusing more on norms or norms "as set by law"? How do norms of one website vary with another similar website based on the needs of the consumer? Good start.
--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting topic. Very curious to see if you are able to find an universal meaning of "nice". I do hope you have found someone to work in a group with, as this seems like a very extensive topic and corresponding reasearch. Good luck! [[User:MSS|MSS]] 17:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Harvard212, Interesting topic, but to narrow it down, I suggest choosing an online community, such as Wikipedia, and see how the "be nice" rule plays out. [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 11:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: BSK342 
Prospectus: Community, Architecture, and Regulation in the Something Awful Forum Space
[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:Bsk342assignment2.pdf] 
[[User:BSK342|BSK342]] 21:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 
Comments: 
Cool topic. I'm particularly interested in what you observe/learn about people's willingness to pay for additional services. So often websites/applications/businesses struggle with how to monetize a good idea - perhaps your research will shed some light on this for managers of online communities. Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 19:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 

I think your project sounds interesting and you are asking many questions that applies to all types of forums and online social behavior. Although I am not familiar with the Something Awful forums, I agree with Aditkowsky that it is interesting that the site does charge a subscription fee to post comments. This could be an interesting point of departure. Is the quality of the content stronger if people are paying for access? Does the subscription fee filter out those who may not be as serious about the forum? Good work.
--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I definitely remember SA as a site I visited a lot when I was younger, I'm really looking forward to hearing what it has evolved into during the past years! The focus on how sites manage to monetize themselves is a very good one, and one that always seems to be such a make or break moment. I feel like SA is a place that tends to cater towards younger and more internet savvy viewers/members... how does that affect the process of attempting to gain profit off of it? Are they more likely to pay to support something they care about, or are they less likely than an older person with less internet experience who is used to paying for everything? Have fun! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 23:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting topic. There are many of these sites which have proliferated content across the WWW. Although, I see it in trends. Goregallery was one of these sites, then it was worth1000, something awful, and so on. I think that users get a laugh out of it. It used to be emails, then it was myspace, facebook, and so on and so forth. Perhaps there is something more human in needing to share these laughs based in norms?
[[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 03:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I am also particularly interested on the monetary part of your research questions. Will quality be better when paid for? Will people feel even more connected to the forum when they pay for it (us vs them?) Would it be the same if they made it free or the amount to be paid at the discretion of the user (the article of Chris Anderson,"the Long Tail" see class readings for February 14, 2012 might be useful.[[User:MSS|MSS]] 17:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Blake Geno 
Prospectus: Anonymity, Privacy and Evolving Tools
[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:Blakegeno_prospectus.odt] 
[[User:BlakeGeno|BlakeGeno]] 20:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Comments: 
Hi Blake, in thinking about your project, it might be interesting to select a few sites using [http://developers.facebook.com/blog/post/108/ facebook connect] and evaluate how this option can impact user privacy and anonymity. It seems like this could sync up with the themes you discuss in your prospectus while also narrowing the scope. Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 20:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 

Hello Blake. Your project does pose some significant questions as to the types of data that sites like Facebook collect and what that information is used for. You can define the goal of collecting information into two categories; positive (improving the user experience) and negative (selling the information for marketing purposes). Great research question. Hopefully you will be able to focus on more specific dimension of this important.
--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm interested in how exactly you are going to go about this. It could be really neat to create a whole persona with the relevant info that a website wants and then try and link it across a large number of sites that demand a log in/personal info/etc. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 23:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Blake, Very interesting topic! Facebook was recently the focus of CNBC 60 min., and lights were shed on the topics you are discussing in our paper, especially the targeted adversising. In the show, I remember someone saying that FB advertising was an entirely different ballgame, as people on Facebook are not travelling from A to B but like to stay on the FB page and thus "want" to be distracted by advertising, whereas advertising in a traditional way aims on how to advertise for people who are going from one website to another and are not looking for distraction. I think that this would be very intersting for your project. If you google Facebook, CNBC and 60 min, you will probably find the show. Also, this article I just read on Forbes by Kashmir Hill, called "Facebook user unwittingly becomes sex lube pitchman thanks to sponsored stories", dated Feb 28, 2012, may interest you. [[User:MSS|MSS]] 17:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Blake, your prospectus is thought-provoking and as a Facebook user I would be very interested in your findings. I do however feel that it could get a bit complicated for what concerns the appropriate research but keep up with the good work. Good luck! [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 11:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: Abby Bergman 
Prospectus Title: Pinterest: Visually Arrested 
Link to Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:ABergman_Prospectus.pdf] 
[[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 19:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 Comments: 
Hi Abby, I applaud you for finding something meaty to explore with Pinterest. I'm curious as to how you will monitor instances of reported infringement on the site. Perhaps you could figure out which companies complain the most and then intentionally post their images so you can experience Pinterest's process for addressing potential infringement firsthand? (Maybe run that by one of the lawyers in class first....) Have fun! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 20:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 

I think you raise some important questions in regards to copyright laws and Fair Use. Your questions are relevant and you have a good thesis question. I checked out pinterest.com for the first time now and I think the Fair Use argument is validated. Good job with the prospectus!
--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

This seems like a really well thought out project; you know exactly the frame you want to look at this through and I think you'll come up with some very relevant conclusions. Studying a site that is still on its way up will definitely give you a chance to keep this going and check your theories against what happens with Pinterest over the next year or two! Good luck! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 23:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting! Your topic, questions and overall frame are very clear. Very curious about the outcome, I would think the hosting aspect is the sting. Good luck! [[User:MSS|MSS]] 17:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Jennifer Lopez 
Prospectus title: The New Era of Online Activism 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:LSTU_E-120_JenniferWLopez_Assignment_2.pdf Final Project Prospectus] [[User:JennLopez|JennLopez]] 21:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 
Comments:
Hi Jennifer, I'm very much looking forward to seeing your video interviews once they come together. In additional to the perspectives of founders, I'm also interested to hear more from the participants in the campaigns you study. Perhaps you could reach out to community members as well. Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 20:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 

Interviews is a neat way to go about this project and this is an issue that always bothers me; just how much does power or activism on the internet translate to real impacts on people's lives? Be careful to research without being biased though; as much as I generally agree with you that online activism is real-world effective, there may be some instances where it wasn't, and that could be just as interesting! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 23:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Your topic is very relevant with the current affairs of United States and the world. I think it is safe to conclude that online protest movements are making a serious impact on political and social issues. As you continue your research, I would focus on how online protest movements are effective. I think your reference to Benkler's work is a good step in that direction. I think you should also explore the notion of empowerment and whether online protest sites may foster personal empowerment in the same and different ways as more traditional protest movements. What mechanisms were the same and different with the SOPA, Susan Komen and Bank of America online movements?
--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 23:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting! Looking forward to see the video's! I second the idea of Aditkowsky with regard to the views of actual participants and also if these differ from the views of the founders. Good luck! [[User:MSS|MSS]] 17:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Just Johnny 
Prospectus: Assignmnt 2
[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:Johnny_Assignment2.doc The Social Network] 
Comments: A social network will be constructed for the course. Feel free to contact, as this may be a possible group project. [[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 21:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 
Hi @Just Johnny, I'm intrigued by your idea for creating a social network. You write that "code will be the law which dictates behavior within the site". I'd love to hear more about the underlying concept and specific vision for the site and how you plan to restrict choice and behavior through code. Also, what is the appeal of your site vs. the numerous other social networking sites and forums available to users? What is your value proposition? Looking forward to seeing how your site evolves over the rest of the semester. [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 20:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 
You certainly are undertaking an ambitious project and I think your conclusions can be fascinating. I agree with a few points/questions made by Aditkowsky. From what I gather, you would like to create a Wikipedia-esque social network in which the content/services are generated by the users in a dynamic environment. You also mentioned that a screening process may be required to preserve the integrity of the site. Is this site intended to be a study or actually lead to a practical site that people would want to join? If so, I would imagine that some core service or services may need to be created to attract and motivate users to contribute to the site (i.e. Wikipedia and information). Good luck on this very ambitious concept.
--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 23:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

As the others have mentioned, wow! Very difficult and ambitious project, I'll definitely be following it closely. As Jimmyh mentioned, are you shooting for a broader appeal or do you think you will need to tweak your concept to focus heavily on one area in order to carve out a niche for yourself? [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 23:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Very ambitious and interesting indeed! It is however not really clear to me what it is what your aiming for directly, as the focus seems pretty broad. Very curious to see how this project will turn out. Good luck with narrowing it down.
[[User:MSS|MSS]] 19:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Fabian Celis J 
Prospectus title: The Role of the Internet in Distance Education: The Open University Case 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:Fabian_Celis_Assignment_2.doc Final Project Prospectus] 
[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 19:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 
Comments: 
Hi Fabian, studying distance learning in the Internet age seems like a great topic - and very appropriate - for this class. One aspect that I'd like to hear more about is the creation of a classroom community despite geography. You might even consider using our class as a test case. For example, I attend class in person but for the past two weeks, I've been using Adobe Connect to participate in the robust discussion that's happening among students who are primarily not in the classroom. In a hybrid class like ours, how do you break down the wall that separates "distance" and "in-person" students to create a more cohesive community? What architecture, systems, and culture do you need to make it work? [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 20:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 

I know you are attending this class (whether online or in person) but is there a chance you could also take the time to really dig into OU? It would be interesting to see the different ways people that use it view it as a resource; clearly everyone does not approach it with the same background, goals, or skills [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 23:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Distance education is a great aspect of how the internet has changed how we learn as individuals. I took my first live online course last semester using a program called Elluminate and I would check out how these types of interfaces can change the entire process of how classes (particularly discussion-based classes) are taught and how students can interact with other individuals from across the whole country and the entire world. A comparison of how unique methodologies specific to online education improves the entire classroom experience when compared to traditional in-classroom methods would be a good approach. Great subject and good luck with your work.

--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 23:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Great topic, very current. I agree with Jimmyh that a comparison to traditional class room education would be very interesting. Looking forward to see how this turns out. [[User:MSS|MSS]] 02:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: André Pase and Priscila Lollo 
Prospectus title: When two worlds collide, digital TV and online video in an age of transformation 
Research Focus: online video x tv 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:Assigment2_andrepase_priscilalollo.pdf Assignment 2] 
[[User:Andrepase|Andrepase]] 20:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 
Comments: 
Hi André and Priscilla, I'm looking forward to learning more about how the Brazilian government and Brazilian companies and users are adapting to the changes in video delivery systems. I'm curious to hear more about the framework you plan to use for exploring the topic and I was also wondering if there is a specific community that you plan to follow. Since much of the class' focus seems to be on US and European examples, I think the Brazilian focus will be very interesting. Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 20:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 

Agreed with Alexis, having this focus outside of the general scope of the class will be a great resource for all of us as far as a fresh perspective and (probably) some interesting takes on the same issues that we haven't considered! I'll be curious to see how the flow of information and law and etc. go back and forth in Brazil and this Brazilian online space. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 23:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I am really fond of your dual country approach too! Maybe for a community you can use You Tube users vs a Brazilian equivalent (if any)? [[User:MSS|MSS]] 02:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Your topic certainly has wide applications to how we view television in the modern age and legal discussions will certainly abound as a result. While I sense that you are examining the laws and market dynamics of the Brazilian model, I think you may want to hone in on a particular aspect of law as it relates to online television. Does a particular legal or governing aspect of the Brazilian model properly address piracy? How does the market shape the governance of online television? --[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 19:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: Alexis Ditkowsky 
Prospectus title: [http://pinterest.com/ Pinterest] 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Spring2012-BerkmanAssignment2-DitkowskyAlexis.pdf Final Project Prospectus] 
Comments: 
Hi Alexis,
I would like to offer two sources which may be useful to supplement your research. The first, the Millennium Development Goals (MDG), are a list of 8 goals adopted by the United Nations in an effort to eradicate poverty by the year 2015. Several of the goals involve online access for poor countries, and one goal specifically addresses gender equality. [http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals Millennium Goals Main Site] And the second source, [http://www.tigweb.org Taking IT Global], is rich in content and will provide a wealth of information and resource material. Good luck with your project, it looks interesting and informative.[[User:Louiscelli|Louiscelli]] 

@Louiscelli Thanks so much! I will check these out. [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 20:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC) 

That's fascinating that 80% of Pinterest users are women; do you think that this gender ratio will become more balanced as pinterest gains public fame/acceptance? I'd love to see how far you can push "off brand" uses of the site since I am always very interested in the (often incredibly clever or useful) ways in which sites end up providing something totally outside their original concept. Good luck! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 23:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alexis, great topic! As for sites for marginalized communities by and for (mostly) women, maybe "gardenmoms" is also an interesting community to explore. It is a parenting resource website, where parents (mostly moms) ask questions to one another and exchange information. I am a member myself and think it may be right up your alley. Good luck! [[User:MSS|MSS]] 03:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Pinterest does sound powerful from my limited familiarity with the website and I think your approach toward examining social norms should lead to interesting conclusions.What social norms you are focusing on? You mentioned the discrepancies between males and females in internet usage. Is this a particular norm that you will be focusing on? What feature are you examining in the "community versus collection of individuals" norm? Sounds like an interesting topic and good luck!--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 19:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Alexis, sounds like a great project and already from your prospectus I have learned things that I wasn’t aware of. I agree with Louis on his suggestion of looking at the UN and their info. Good luck on your project! [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 11:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: James Harris 
Prospectus title: The Internet and “Bridging the Gap” in Politics 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:James_Harris_Assignment_2.doc Prospectus] 
--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC) 
Comments: 
Hi James,
I love the concept, I’m just a little fuzzy on the thesis. Is the main focus going to concentrate on the elected-official/constituent relationship, or the paradigm shift of political campaign support? [[User:Louiscelli|Louiscelli]] 
Hi James, this is a great topic not only because of the timing but also because online campaigning and fundraising have had four years to evolve since the Dean and Obama campaigns in 2007/2008. One aspect you might decide to hone in on is the relationship of politicians to their constituents on their social networking sites. For example, Sarah Palin has been known to ban commenters who disagree with her viewpoint and Anthony Weiner used twitter to send provocative messages to his followers. Those are two high-profile ways of engaging or disengaging with followers but it might be interesting to look at a politician or two who actively foster an online community and respond thoughtfully and collaboratively to criticism vs. politicians who use social media as a one-way communications street. Have fun! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 22:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 

Taking the idea of evolution of online fundraising and campaigning, and their effects, even farther, I was reading today that one of the Republican party leadership's major reasons for supporting SuperPACs (besides the obvious) is that they felt it evened the playing field against Obama moneywise. Even though he too obviously benefits from major donations to his SuperPACs, some Republican strategists explained that the gap between his ability to raise millions in small increments and the ability of any Repub. candidate to try and do the same was just far too large to overcome. So, Citizen's United is also in some ways related to this topic! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 23:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Great topic! As for different marketing on FB, please see my comments on Blakes prospectus above. I also very interested to see how the quick spread of information influences the political process, as this is indeed a (relative) novum, especially in politics. [[User:MSS|MSS]] 04:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: Alex Lloyd-Evans 
Prospectus Title: Social Structure's on the Writer's Forums of Cracked.com 
Research Focus: [http://www.cracked.com/ Cracked] 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:AlexLE_Assignment_2.pdf Final Project Prospectus] 
Comments: 
Hi Alex,
Is this line correct – “free to enter forum”? I don’t understand what that means. This looks like it will be an interesting project. I wonder if the editors will be surprised by your findings, or possibly take issue with your conclusion, depending on the outcome. I am really looking forward to reading your paper.[[User:Louiscelli|Louiscelli]] 

@Louiscelli I was trying to express that it is a closed forum in that you need an invite to enter, but that the invite is freely given as long as you bother to ask for it; thus it is a "free to enter" forum but not a totally open one. I just phrased it terribly awkwardly. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 23:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alex, unsolicited suggestion here but it would be really funny if your final project was formatted like a Cracked article and you gave the class an opportunity to post comments before the final submission. Then you could pull together a final version and comment on the process as it relates back to Cracked. Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 22:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alex, great topic, very curious to see what your outcomes will be, especially on the question who decides and (maybe even more) on what grounds and how static vs dynamics plays a role in that aspect. I second Alexis' idea of a Cracked article format. Good luck![[User:MSS|MSS]] 03:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Alex, you have an interesting challenge with your empirical research project since the answers to your research questions will require you to be actively involved in the whole article submission process. Do you plan on approaching the website in a similar way that the class approached the Wikipedia assignment? Good luck!--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alex, your project seems very fun and interesting. I wasn’t aware of cracked.com before reading your prospectus. I would definitely suggest looking at the 1st amendment of the constitution but because of the complexity of the subject you could also consider looking at specific Supreme Court decisions. Good luck! [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 11:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Jeff Kimble 
Prospectus title: Internet E-Commerce 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:Jeff_Kimble_--_Assignment_2.doc] 
[[User:JeffKimble|JeffKimble]] 14:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 
Comments: 
Hi Jeff,
While I am sure there will be plenty of studies that address this, it will be nice to see the data synthesized, analyzed, and compacted into a short paper. You certainly will have lots of data to pour through. I will be particularly interested in some of your research as it will complement my project as well. Good luck, and if I run across any statistics that may be beneficial to your research, I’ll be sure to forward it along.[[User:Louiscelli|Louiscelli]] 

Be careful not to get too broad with your data collection and lose sight of a focus, but this sounds really neat. One interesting aspect might be considering age. Aditkowsky's comment about the difference between perception and reality with online markets and community rings true to me, and I think the fact that I'm 22 has a lot to do with that. My parents are 65 and no force on Earth could convince them to use an online market over a brick and mortar one if there was any conceivable chance that the good existed in both formats. Anyway, enjoy! I'm looking forward to reading your results. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 21:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jeff, one thing you might consider exploring is how some people feel that e-commerce signals the end of a community even though many e-commerce sites actually promote a sense of community (e.g. etsy) and bring people together in spite of their geographical differences. This [http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2011/12/independent_bookstores_vs_amazon_buying_books_online_is_better_for_authors_better_for_the_economy_and_better_for_you_.html Slate article] and the flurry of comments might be interesting for you to check out, although it doesn't focus on the online community angle. Cheers! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 22:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You have a great topic and I like your approach. From what I can tell, you are dealing with a variety of discussion topics. From a personal standpoint, I would recommend focusing on how online shopping has changed consumer behavior. This direct can provide great insight into how these online sites market themselves. Good topic and good luck! --[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 19:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Louis Celli 
Prospectus title: e-commerce Taxation 
Prospectus:[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Assignment_2_CELLI_Research_Prospectus.doc The Future of e-commerce Taxation] 
Comments: 
Hi Louis, your project sounds really interesting - I'm looking forward to seeing how your research comes together and what your final recommendations are. The scope does seem a bit daunting, though. Perhaps you could focus in on the impact to sellers and buyers, for example, and on the changed transaction experience for users. Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 23:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 

This sounds very ambitious and interesting, not to mention extremely relevant. The flat tax concept sounds workable and I'm definitely looking forward to seeing your results; I also selfishly hope you really delve into the legal/historical precedents for all of this quite a lot, since I love history and I feel like that's an area that could bear quite a lot of original thought. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 21:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Louis, I really like your topic a lot. I think it is great that you are actually doing research to reach an potential taxation solution/recommendation, which I assume will form the basis of your argument. Good work!--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 19:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Louis your project seems very interesting and it will be definitely exploring a very problematic world. I was just curious of one aspect, and I hope I didn’t get this wrong but you are trying to develop a tax system for all of the 50 states correct? And if so, my feelings are that it could be a bit complicated to have all 50 states agree on one tax rate. Do you think this will be a major issue or it can easily be overcome? Also, you probably have thought of this already since you mentioned constitutional aspects but I just thought of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 while first reading your prospectus. Anyways it sounds really interesting and I will have great pleasure in reading it once it will be completed. Good luck! [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 11:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: Emanuele Dominici 
Prospectus title: Terrorist Websites 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:Emanuele_Assignment_2.doc Final Project Prospectus] 
Comments: 
[[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 16:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 
Hi Emanuele,
This is going to be an exciting paper indeed. This is a whopper and you might have trouble containing it to 10 pages. The First Amendment question might be a great place to start, then begin to wind in the Patriot act, while comparing it to the Espionage act of 1917. I can’t wait to read this paper, good luck![[User:Louiscelli|Louiscelli]] 
Hi Emanuele, very interesting topic. I'm trying to remember the show I listened to over the summer about infiltrating online forums that are used for recruiting new members. The story also touched on the use of video games for recruitment. I'll send the link once I remember what the show is.... Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 23:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I wish I'd had this idea/had the sort of expertise and background you do to do it justice. I'm curious about how you'll make distinctions between "terrorist websites" that exist with the specific purpose of encouraging/recruiting to/supporting terrorism and simply anti-U.S. or very pro-militant Islam. The line is so blurry as to barely exist in most cases, which is obviously where the gov't runs into so much trouble in these types of efforts. Really looking forward to this one. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 21:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Emanuele, You are engaging into a very difficult and complex element of the internet. The American-born cleric who was recently killed in Yemen heavily relied on the internet to communicate with terrorists and many of the foiled terrorist attempts are linked to him. I think he would be a good starting point in your research. Good luck.
--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 19:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your precious advice and nice comments, I will definitely take into consideration your comments and I do realize that I have to narrow it down a bit. Thanks again![[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 11:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Julia Brav 
Prospectus title: [http://ask.metafilter.com/ Ask MetaFilter] 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:JBrav_LSTU_E-120_Assignment_2.pdf Prospectus] 
Comments: 
[[User:Jlynnping|Jlynnping]] 17:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Jlynnping
 
Hi Julia, I really like how interactive your project is and how participating in the community is an important part of your research methodology. While moderation and desire for quality are two reasons why people might choose Ask MeFi over other sites, I'd be curious to hear more about how you find the quality and depth of responses on the site. For example, while other Q&A sites might be more of a free-for-all, are there times when quantity is of greater benefit than tightly proscribed quality? Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 01:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, I'm still not convinced that I'd be willing to pay the $5 when it's so easy to get info from other sources on the web, especially if you know how to look. I like how involved in one community your project is (mine is similar in that I'm really trying to get a feel for a specific site and a specific group). I'm interested to hear more about how their process works! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 21:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Your paper sounds fairly broad at this point. I think it is interesting how the website moderators are actively involved with the content of the website and how they interact or dictate the social norms would be interesting. Good luck.--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 19:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

 Name: Samantha Zakuto 
Prospectus title: Managing a Flexible Work/Life Balance: Legal Ramifications of Facebook 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:2012_02_-_SZakuto_Prospectus.doc Prospectus] 
Comments: 
Hi Samantha, this is a really interesting topic and there are numerous directions you could take it. If you're interested in honing in on the relationship between offline and online behavior and speech, I can send over a bunch of readings about student free speech in schools. Additionally, the boundary between online/in school is still hotly debated - the Supreme Court recently refused to hear appeals related to online attacks against school officials and students ([http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/17/court-rejects-appeals-in-_0_n_1210399.html Huffington Post]). Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 02:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting idea that is sadly relevant to my life and I suspect many others in the class. I don't really like having a Facebook and I police it pretty carefully, but it's also the only way I have of contacting the vast majority of people who are my Facebook friends. I'm especially interested on the ways in which the location you access a site from (home vs. school or work) can impact how liable you are for punishment. That is a very interesting and muddy intersection of internet life and brick and mortar life. Good luck! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 21:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Your topic is very interesting and pertinent to many issues we face today. I think that there is a battle between free speech and the effects of that free speech in the professional sphere. Even though, say, a school teacher does have the constitutional freedom to write some bigoted post on his or her Facebook page, the effects of that speech can be pronounced on that person's school. In a number of cases, teachers are either suspended or dismissed for Facebook comments in which there are two sides; those who say that he is simply exercising free speech and those who believe that no one of that opinion should be teaching children. Interesting topic.--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Nicholas Thibodeau 
Prospectus title: Anonymous 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:Thibodeau_Assignment_2.pdf] 
Comments: 
[[User:Nthib|Nthib]] 17:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 
Hi Nicholas, I'm looking forward to learning more about Anonymous in your final report. While this may lead you to murky legal waters, it would be cool if you could find a way to engage with the community in some way, or at least explore the process of how one becomes a part of Anonymous. Here's what came up first when I Googled "how do you join anonymous": [http://thehackernews.com/2011/03/how-to-join-anonymous-hacker-identity.html The Hacker News]. It's very Matrix-y. Have fun! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 02:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 

Absolutely something I want to learn more about, looking forward to this. If you find a way to contact them (or research this otherwise but not sure how you would) I'm very curious about the number of people versus the actions performed by Anonymous. Is it a broad based group? Is it just a few key individuals who do the most high-profile things, simply supported by a large group that agrees with those actions? etc. Good luck finding them! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 21:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Nicholas. Your topic sounds challenging since there doesn't seem to be a spokesman representing this movement or public statements. You will also be exploring how the "political protest" intersects with online technology. Are there other hacker groups like Anonymous? Are their tactics the same or different than Anonymous? Good luck with your research. --[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: Quynh Dang 
Prospectus title: [http://answers.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Agj1j2NWf7soiMwgqNKlvo6e5HNG;_ylv=3 Yahoo! Answers] 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:Quynh_Dang_Prospectus.doc Prospectus] 
Comments: 
[[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 18:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 
Hi Quynh, two things come to mind when reading your prospectus. 1) What's the value to you of having more points, particularly since there isn't a chat function and the users are anonymous? 2) You might want to connect with Julia Brav, who is evaluating Ask MetaFilter. Perhaps you could develop some sort of collaboration? Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 02:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Definitely talk to Julia Brav, you have an interesting opposite to her project's subject in some ways, especially with what behaviors are encouraged within the site. I assume that simply by getting so much information, sheer mass filters out the worst effects of a totally open system... but maybe not? The point system seems like an equal motivator to both useful and spammy and unhelpful activities, so I'll be curious what your conclusions are about how that plays out in actuality. Good luck with your research! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Quynh. I think ''Yahoo! Answers'' is an interesting site that I have participated in. One of the problems with ''Yahoo! Answers'' (which I do not find with other sites such as Wikipedia) is that the validity of the answers provided is based on the number of answers submitted (as well as the rating system which you described). I have participated in Yahoo Answers in the past and often receive 2-3 answers at the most, which doesn't make me feel confident that I am getting the right answer. I think a fascinating point of focus is the "competitive" element of the scoring. Do gaining points and achieving different levels encourage better answers or cause competitive respondents to provide less accurate answers for the mere aspiration of gaining points? Good luck with your project. --[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Christopher Mejo 
Prospectus title: Building a New Online Community in Drupal 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Final_project_prospectus.doc Prospectus] 
Comments: 
[[User:chrism|chrism]] 18:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 
Hi Christopher, I'm curious to hear more about how you plan to attract readers and community members to your site. What's the value proposition? Do people want financial and investment advice from their peers? Who is your target audience and what sites are they currently engaging with and how are they engaging with them? Developing your own site and attracting users in the next two months is quite an undertaking - maybe there's a way to explore the issues you raise in your prospectus by looking at existing forums for where people discuss finance? I can't say I go to this kind of site myself but [http://www.finance30.com/ Finance 3.0] came up during a Google search as did this article [http://www.accountingdegree.com/blog/2009/50-awesome-social-networks-for-finance-geeks/ 50 Awesome Social Networks for Finance Geeks]. Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 02:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed @Aditkowsky, I'll be interested to see what approach you take towards building up site membership. You may want to find a more specific niche that you notice is going unfulfilled on some of the main financial websites. I'm also interested that you're intentionally using advertising from day 1- it'd be great if you could find some way to get feedback from site viewers on how that affects their feelings about the site as a whole. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 21:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Your project sounds very challenging and will require a detailed understanding of programming which I assume you have. As I understand it, the niche of the site will be economics/investment. I would be interested in knowing whether governance techniques for other sites will be the same for an investment basics site. One can only assume that the nature of governance (and the personal information provided) will be different between a financial site and say a video game or online game site (perhaps not).--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Brendan Long 
Prospectus title: Question & Answer Website Services and the Impact of Social Media 
Prospectus:[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Final_Project_Prospectus_-_Long%2C_Brendan.doc Prospectus] 
Comments: 
[[User:Brendanlong|Brendanlong]] 19:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

 
Hi Brendan,
Cool idea. I’m not on facebook, so I wasn’t aware that there was a separate section for answer seekers. I use dedicated Q & A sites quite a bit. The one’s that make me register before looking at them, I usually pass by. Mostly, I use sites dedicated to Android programming, other IT community sites, specific auto repair questions, and one legal questions site. On two occasions, I paid a small fee for “good” answers on JustAnswers.com.
The sites I have found to be credible and useful are; avvo (A V V O - looks like a W when they are close together).com for legal questions, JustAnswer.com (this is the site where I agreed to “donate” a token fee for a correct answer), forum.xda-developers.com for some of my Android questions, liliputing.com (again for Android), and Cyanogenmod.com (yep, again for Android stuff).
It’s been my experience that experts tend to collect in likeminded online communities. I’m not sure what social network sites offer, but I think that intrinsically technical question seekers might need to go outside of the general social network platform in search of community sites dedicated to the specific topic. It will be a really interesting study – I’m looking forward to seeing your results. Best of luck. [[User:Louiscelli|Louiscelli]] 
Hi Brendan, Julia Brav and Quynh Dang are also looking at aspects of Q&A sites - it might be fun to try to find a way to work with them. In terms of your prospectus, I'm most intrigued by how successful Q&A is on social networking sites. What are the benefits and challenges? And how much is success dependent on your personal ability to engage your friends/contacts/followers vs. a larger community's engagement with a dedicated Q&A site? [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 02:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems one like one major thing that the Q and A sites have going for them is that they've managed to entrench themselves in certain communities already; fans of certain types of video games know the best sites, engineers know the best sites for that, etc. It'll be interesting to see what you find with social media sites and how they are going to try and balance their broad appeal with an attempt to create very specifically useful Q and A sections. Good luck! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

So your main goal is to examine how social media can influence the popularity (and authenticity) of Q & A sites? I would imagine that social media can be viewed as a means for advertising or popularizing Q & A sites. Would your focus be on how users of a Q & A site may choose to popularize that site through their Facebook or twitter accounts? One interesting point may be to examine the behavior of users who choose to popularize Q & A sites through social media. Do they feel that a certain answer is significant that everyone should know? Is a certain type of answer or topic the reason why they would likely integrate social media? --[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Hope Solomon 
Prospectus title: Communicating with Constituents through Twitter 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:Assignment_2_Hope_Solomon.doc Prospectus] 
Comments: 
[[User:Hds5|Hds5]] 14:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 
Hi Hope, this is a great topic and I look forward to following your research for the rest of the semester. It might be helpful to identify different kinds of twitter "engagement" and make an attempt at quantifying them. For example, how many @ replies are there vs. general status updates? Is there some way to evaluate the "quality" of the tweets? Do the politicians make use of hashtags and, if so, to what effect? It might also be interesting to note the number of followers at the start and end of the project. And finally, by the end of the project, do you have any best practices for politicians for how to engage their community and get (or at least seem like you're getting) things done? Have fun! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 02:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Great idea- how will you deal with the fact that many politicians Twitter feeds are at least partially actually managed by a series of pr experts/interns who follow set instructions for the material they post? I obviously don't know if this is true for the specific ones you mentioned, but it would be an interesting extra layer where the format of the site actually creates a false sense of closeness for subscribers. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Great topic!Is Twitter more a tool for the politicians to advertise themselves rather than an interactive tool between constituent and politician? Is there solid evidence that Twitter really has initiated change (constituent protest on Twitter leads to reforms by politician)? I look forward to reading your paper. --[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Yerzhan Temirbulatov 
Prospectus title: Endless war on piracy 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:YerzhanTemirbulatov_EndlessWarOnPiracy.doc Prospectus] 
Comments: 
[[User:Erzhik|Erzhik]] 20:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 
Hi Yerzhan, I'm very interested in the discussion of Russian torrent sites, particularly since so much of the class discussion is geared toward the US. I'd love to see a comparison between a site like Megaupload and the leading Russian torrent sites, and I'd also love to learn more about emergence of Tribler and its potential impact on file sharing. Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 02:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Your topic certainly is relevant to the course discussion. I am not sure if it will be too challenging to analyze the effects of the megaupload closure since the arrests occurred not too long ago (maybe I'm underestimating the dynamic quality of the internet). Good luck with your work. --[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting extension of the discussions we've had in class, I'll be interested to see how good the statistics you can find are. Is this the sort of thing where the given statistics are totally trustworthy? [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Tara Baechel 
Prospectus title: The Internet, Adoption and the Privacy of Minors 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:Baechel_Assignment_2.pdf Prospectus] 
Comments: 
[[User:TBaechel]] 21:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 
Hi Tara, I think you raise really interesting questions about whether the release of private information online helps or hinders adoption agencies' marketing efforts. I might suggest that instead using fundraising websites set up by parents as a complement to your main research topic, you could look to forums/discussion boards that include potential and current adoptive parents. What can you learn about their preferences from monitoring those communities? What might adoption agencies learn that could affect the way they communicate with parents pursuing adoption? Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 02:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Your topic is powerful. My brother adopted two children many years ago and he never had this wealth of information on perspective children. I think that moral issues may arise (as you mentioned) regarding the type and amount of information released concerning these children, both in the adoption process and many years later when these children are part of the internet public record. Hopefully you will be able to find more focus as you continue your research. --[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting, and the point about this information coming back to haunt the children later in their life is a very strong one that hadn't occurred to me. Do you think that the lack of information, while better for the children, may actually deter potential parents to some degree? I know adoption is something that people generally are very committed to if they are considering it, but would a lack of information actually hinder the ability of some sites/groups to draw in possible adoptive parents? [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tara, from your prospectus, your project seems very interesting but also very difficult. I have some knowledge even though limited of the minors world and legal issues. I worked in the DA’s Office Domestic Violence Unit and I personally encountered many problems regarding information and minors. Because of this, I am very eager to read your final project once it is completed. Good luck! [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 11:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Manuel Valerio 
Prospectus title: Internet, fame and speed to Market 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:MPValerio_Assignment-2_Internet_Fame.pdf] 
Comments: 
[[User:Mvalerio|Mvalerio]] 21:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 
Hi Manuel, in addition to the ideas you raise in your prospectus, I'd be interested in hear more about the specific role of an online community (or communities) in propelling a person or product to prominence. What quality of the community and what actions taken by the users contributed to the outcome? Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 16:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Manuel, I did not really get your research question. What answer are you planning to give? How do you plan to sue Lessig framework. I am unsure about the claim that it is really new and the role of internet. I will maybe also see the connection with other media such as tv shows. Best of luck!!!--[[User:Sab|Sab]] 15:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Your topic is interesting and I too have wondered how the internet has sped up fame for a particular star. You seem to be focusing on blogging, which may pose complications since there are many other online avenues that can contribute to the rise of a popular musician or actor. To separate blogs from youtube, review sites and music sites may be challenging. Are you focusing on the collective blogsphere of amateur individuals, or professional blogs written by well-known bloggers?--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

One interesting aspect of this is whether the "fame" produced by an internet-fueled sudden rise to stardom is as permanent as fame that came through more traditional channels would be. Look at the Lana Del Rey pushback with her terrible performance on SNL; since then she has done much better on Letterman, but her album has been regarded critically as pretty average, and that sudden internet fame may end up disappearing as quickly as it came. Blogs are very focused in the moment, especially pop-culture ones. Is that really conducive to creating long-lasting success? I'm really looking forward to reading this one. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Marjolein Siegenthaler 
Prospectus name: Airbnb.com 
Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:Assignment_2_Marjolein_Siegenthaler.doc 
Comments: [[User:MSS|MSS]] 22:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 
Hi Marjolein, I think looking at the rules and norms for airbnb is a great topic. You might consider looking at [http://www.couchsurfing.org/ Couchsurfing.org] as a point of comparison since the culture explicitly values the connection between hosts and guests. Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 16:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Marjolein, I am personally interested in your subject because few days ago a friend of mine told me to put my vocational house on it. Regarding, your question, I will also check what kind of policy do airbnb put in place to refrain such behavior, like credit card number given to the police, check of the identity, etc? And how does this comply with the protection of privacy? I like the idea of Adi to compare policy with other similar websites. Best of luck.--[[User:Sab|Sab]] 14:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Great research questions, this seems like a nightmare of potential legal problems that could be tied up across different national systems. What if they went back to their country before you realized they damaged your home? How do you even get at them? But at the same time, it seems like the site would be wise to totally protect itself from any liability, and function only as an intermediary, with no guarantee. If they could be found responsible for damages they'd be doomed, and very open to possible scamming too. Neat project. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Gregorian Hawke 
Prospectus name: twentymine.com 
Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:Talk_to_Strangers_v1.0.odt 
Comments: 
Hi Gregorian, I love your Minecraft story and I think it would be very interesting to focus in on this community. Maybe you could look specifically at your own relationship with the members of your sub-community and the ways in which you built trust through gaming together. Have fun! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 16:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Gregor, Your idea and the way you connect the “small talk” and the trust that can come up from it is interesting. Some features of the some community seem to increase the trust between the users. I will be very interested in the result of your study. And if, except yourself, other users have similar experiences to share. I never did! Good luck
--[[User:Sab|Sab]] 14:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey Gregorian, I think the idea of looking at the internet as a forum for non-monetary, trust-based material exchanges is a good one. It would be great if there was one community you could look at where those exchanges have succeeded and failed, or where there are formal or informal criteria for when a level of trust has been established to allow a transaction to take place. [[User:David Taber|David Taber]] 19:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Great anecdote from Minecraft! You may want to come up with a very simple survey to measure "trust," ie. a number scale from 1 to 10 and they rate how much they would trust a stranger in real life, in Minecraft, on a gaming forum, etc. Might help you to quantify answers a little better. I know this will be a fun one to read! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Mike Brant 
Prospectus Title: Children for Peace/Youth for Peace Online Community 
Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:Children_for_Peace-Youth_for_Peace_Online_Community_-Mike_Brant.doc 
[[User:Mike|Mike]] 22:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 
Hi Mike, you raise some interesting points in your prospectus. I wonder about some of the challenges of using an online platform for engagement with kids (at least in the US, there are [http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/coppafaqs.shtm lots of rules] governing communications to children under the age of 13) and about how you might connect with kids/youth who have limited or no access to the Internet. Perhaps your research will help address some of those issues. Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 16:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Mike, if I have well understood your objective is to create a community of children willing peace and acting in different way for it. Your research question is about the online norms to regulate this community? As a consequence, I would rather stick on this and see the censorship issues and also investigate on how to deal with kids rather than go to see the success of peace teaching in the world which is a totally different and hard subject? Best of luck!! By the way, no website yet about this project?--[[User:Sab|Sab]] 14:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Mike, if there is another website you know of that is focused on fostering international dialogue amongst youth, you might want to just focus on that one community? [[User:David Taber|David Taber]] 19:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that a site that children could actually access and participate in would need to have stronger regulation than just "golden rule" and the basic Wikipedia sort of social contract, as successful as it has been. This may be my bit more pessimistic view of human nature online, but I think that it is hard to market a site related to youth and children if they can't participate much on it, and hard to market a site children can participate in without pretty clear and strong protections for them... I'll be interested to see what you conclude. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: David Taber 
Prospectus: Coffee Shop vs. Grocery Store: Where and how local news is discussed on the web
[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:David_Taber_prospectus_E-120.odt] 
Comments 
[[User:David Taber|David Taber]] 16:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC) 
I could have sworn I uploaded this on Tuesday, but it appears I forgot to hit submit. Sorry! 
Hi David, I really like your concept and I think it also touches on the issue of fair use we read about this week. It might also be interesting to note how much of the original article is reposted and how much additional commentary Universal Hub makes on the article. I've found that commentors can often be negligent when it comes to reading the original source so you might want to take that into consideration when evaluating the differences in comments. Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 16:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear David, I thing you have found there a real way to compare 2 comparable materials and will have great and maybe unexpected results. What will be interesting is if you find comments from a common commentator to see the difference in the speech depending on the website. I would also link your comparison to the difference in the tons adopted by both websites that can influence the content of the comments left. Best of luck!
--[[User:Sab|Sab]] 14:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

What a great way to be able to study the effect of the form information is presented in, nice idea. My instinct is that certain people will heavily trust one or the other more, even if the same info is given in both. I'm also interested in how certain info (say a very serious and depressing story) would be altered in order to fit into both? How does that work, if a particular story doesn't really feel natural to appear on the Hub site? [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 

 
Name: Carl Fleming 
Prospectus Title: Khan Academy 
Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:Fleming_Assignment_2.doc 
[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 18:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Comments 
I am very amazed to discover your prospectus as it is very similar to mine. Regarding your first question I am wondering if the success of the Academy lies on the architecture, your answer will be very interesting to me, or if it lies on the way Kahn taught the subject. My feeling is that the second option is the right one. As for your second question, this article and especially the comments associated to it can help you to get some answer. http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/07/ff_khan/all/1
As for me, Kahn Academy is a wonderful free supplement to traditional offline education but does not reach the objective targeted. This is, as Gates says, a first step to the Revolution.
I like your research questions but I am losing some logical links with the methodology used. Why not focusing on the use of the Academy in the traditional education space in California, and check the result of the evaluation, if any, on “impoverished” students.
Same for “Critique of the Academy”, I do not see the link. I would rather focus on the constructivism, the interactivity and the quality of the teaching (cf. the article).
 --[[User:Sab|Sab]] 13:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting question, I'm glad so many people are focusing on education from a variety of different angles. I feel like some very relevant conclusions could be drawn from compiling the 5 or so different reports that look at the intersections of internet and education. Good luck! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Copyright in Cyberspace

2012-02-27T18:13:55Z

Emanuele: /* Class Discussion */

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

The Internet has enabled individuals to become involved in the production of media and to distribute their contributions widely at a very low cost. The former bastion of the entertainment industry is opening up to what many are calling a democratization of culture. The copyright doctrine of fair use seemingly bolsters the right to "recut, reframe, and recycle" previous works, but the protection fair use gives to those re-purposing copyrighted material is notoriously uncertain.

Digital and file-sharing technologies also spawned the proliferation of sharing of media and music, which has led to a number of controversial legal and technological strategies. The "notice-and-takedown" provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") allow Internet service providers to limit their liability for the copyright infringements of their users if the ISPs expeditiously remove material in response to complaints from copyright owners. The DMCA provides for counter-notice and "put-back" of removed material, but some argue that the statutory mechanism can chill innovative, constitutionally-protected speech.

This class provides an overview of some major copyright law concepts and takes up some of the issues swirling around copyright in cyberspace.

<onlyinclude>
== Required Readings ==

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

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2011/02/02/super-bust-due-process-and-domain-name-seizure.html Super Bust: Due Process and Domain Name Seizure]
* [http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/comics1 Creative Commons: A Spectrum of Rights (comic)]
* [http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/recut_reframe_recycle/ Center for Social Media, Recut, Reframe, Recyle] (full report optional)
* [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8647956476676426155&q=545+U.S.+913&hl=en&as_sdt=2002 MGM v. Grokster, 545 U.S. 913 (2005)] (Sec. II, pp. 928 - 937)
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/nyregion/09potter.html?_r=1 "Rowling Wins Lawsuit Against Potter Lexicon" (J. Eligon, NY Times, 9/8/08)]
* [http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/830/index.html New York Times Bits Blog: Mixing It Up Over Remixes and Fair Use]
* [http://www.eff.org/files/20030926_unsafe_harbors.pdf EFF, Unsafe Harbors: Abusive DMCA Subpoenas and Takedown Demands]
* [http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/03/15/concrete-steps-congress-can-take-protect-americas-intellectual-property The White House Blog: Concrete Steps Congress Can Take to Protect America's Intellectual Property]
</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Links ==

Assignment 2 Submissions

2012-02-21T16:06:48Z

Emanuele: /* Submissions */

Peer Production and Collaboration

2012-02-21T15:51:15Z

Emanuele: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}
'''February 21'''

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.

==Assignments==

[[Assignments#Assignment_2:_Prospectus|Assignment 2]] due

==Readings==

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

== Additional Resources==
Joseph Reagle's book: [http://reagle.org/joseph/2010/gfc/ Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia]

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 ==

February 21: Peer Production and Collaboration

[[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 17:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Great discussion with Yochai Benkler on economics of social production and politics. The Diebold example is a perfect indication of showing how this system of the “structured web” is effective in "offering visibility to more people" and easier for each "individual and small group to speak and be heard." Has anyone by chance seen the HBO documentary, ''Hacking Democracy''? If not, check it out ([[http://www.wanttoknow.info/electionsvideodocumentary]]), which gives a more in depth and detailed insight into the investigation Bev Harris and her associate Kathleen Wynne (Black Box Voting, Inc.) did to expose security weaknesses in electronic voting systems. Also demonstrates the "battle with institutional ecology" and how Benkler indicated the law usually "favors the incumbents and institutions” which is what you see happening in Harris’ case. Imagine if Harris would have started this investigation now with the increasing amount of online power that stems from individuals in the social sphere? Or for example, what we’ve recently seen with the power of public influence on legislation like SOPA/PIPA or with the Komen debacle. Could Harris have gone further or have state/county officials act much quicker? Possibly. I do agree and believe that it is easier to make a change or create these ''movements'' where “networked” individuals are banding together to act for various reasons be it politics, social injustice, etc and as Benkler puts it now on a “global, not only local" scale. [[User:JennLopez|JennLopez]] 23:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Very impressive points by Benkler, great summation. I'm very curious about his idea that even further expansion of the sorts of things that are peer sourced will continue inexorably. I agree with him, but I can't see how that will work in some cases where the goods are too integral to a specific industry or company's survival. It may be well and good that the online group can produce wiki entries or sift through pictures of Mars, but what happens when the task that needs to be completed is one that only a small handful of extremely highly trained experts can do? What about heart surgery techniques, or certain complex nuclear systems? The examples I make aren't perfect but I hope the point is clear. Those experts need a large framework both to be created and supported as they work (through the large cost of schooling, training, getting experience, sustaining work with expensive materials, etc.) Whether the companies pay that or whether the "future experts" pay it themselves with the promise of a high-paying job that will recoup their expenses when they become full experts, that is still a very very expensive system. Can it exist in a world where there is so much less profit attached, and where the other functions that company used to perform and fill its coffers with are now totally outsourced to the online crowd? I know this is in some ways a rehashing of the classic "Innovation is Good and Can Happen Free!! vs. You Have To Allow Patents and Profit or Innovation Dies!!" argument, but I'm curious about the ripple effect that can have. ([[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC))

I found Yochai Benkler’s speech to be very interesting, especially when he talked about individuals’ contribution to information in the BBC example that he gave. Another interesting aspect was that concerning democracy and the open sources of information. For what concerns the Reagle article on Wikipedia, I found it to be very true. I have noticed on various occasions that disputes are very common over Wikipedia articles and they can be characterized by a variety of reasons going from differing personal ideals to politics and many other issues. The point is that people should focus more on the reason for which Wikipedia was created and put aside hatred and personal issues/debates and cooperate to make Wikipedia a better source of learning and not a forum where an online battle should take place. I really enjoyed the statement regarding conflict as being “Addictive as cocaine” and totally agree with it since human beings are attracted to conflict to a certain extent. I also agree with Reagle when he states that “The relative “anarchy” of wiki culture, the malleability of Wikipedia content, the pseudonymity of contributors, and its consensus-based decision-making make Wikipedia particularly vulnerable to such strategic action.” [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 15:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

== Links ==

New Economic Models

2012-02-12T16:50:38Z

Emanuele: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 14'''

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

<onlyinclude>

==Readings==

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

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

</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Links ==

Assignment 1 Submissions

2012-02-06T16:29:01Z

Emanuele: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

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

''The '''upload file''' link is to the left, under '''toolbox'''.'' Once you've uploaded your file, please link to it following the format below:

* Name:
* Link to rule: (the Wikipedia editing policy you chose)
* Link to article: (the Wikipedia article you edited)
* Link to report: (the file you uploaded)

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

===Submissions===
Name: Alexis Ditkowsky 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-Pesa M-Pesa] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:Spring2012-BerkmanWikipediaAssignment1-DitkowskyAlexis.pdf Assignment 1] 
[[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 17:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Abby Bergman 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research No Original Research] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_divide_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China Digital Divide in the PRC] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:WA_1_article.doc Assignment 1] 
[[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 02:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Alex Lloyd-Evans 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1956 United States presidential election, 1956] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:AlexLE_Assignment_1.pdf Assignment 1] 
[[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 15:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Emanuele Dominici 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio Operation Gladio] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:Emanuele_Assignment_1.doc Assignment 1] 
[[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 16:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Regulating Speech Online

2012-02-06T15:58:19Z

Emanuele: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 7'''

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

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

==Assignments==

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

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==

* [http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/defamation Citizen Media Law Project Legal Guide: Defamation]
* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1625820 David Ardia, Free Speech Savior or Shield for Scoundrels: An Empirical Study of Intermediary Immunity Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act] (Parts I & II)
* [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000230----000-.html Communications Decency Act § 230]
* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/a-friendly-exchange-about-the-future-of-online-liability.ars John Palfrey and Adam Thierer, "Dialogue: The Future of Online Obscenity and Social Networks," Ars Technica, March 5, 2009, read all]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_Evil#Libel_controversy Wikipedia entry on ''Funding Evil''] (focus on "libel controversy" section)
* [http://iheid.revues.org/321 The SWIFT Affair]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2009/02/11/Two-Lawyers-Fight-Cyber-Bullying/index.html David Margolick, "Slimed Online," Portfolio.com, February 11, 2009, read all]
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/technology/companies/25google.html Larger Threat is Seen in Google Case NYT]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union Wikipedia on Reno v. ACLU]
* [http://www.socialtext.net/codev2/index.cgi?free_speech Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0, Chapter 12: Free Speech]
* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1689865 David Ardia, Reputation in a Networked World: Revisiting the Social Foundations of Defamation Law] (Part III)
</onlyinclude>

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

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

Two (conflicting) thoughts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The articles we were asked to read for this week’s class were extremely interesting and got me thinking on several matters. As a student with a legal background and pursuing a Master’s degree in the field of law, the articles I read were very relevant to my field of study. I enjoyed reading about defamation and free speech in general but what really got me interested were the last three articles. The dialogue between John Palfrey and Adam Thierer regarding the regulation of online obscenity and protection under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act raised some very valid points on both sides. After reading the whole article I do however feel more close to the points raised by John Palfrey. I personally feel that even though Social Networks and other ISP are not responsible for what other people do in their sites, I feel that obscenity and other issues regarding minors especially would be limited if not eliminate if the site creators were not protected by the CDA. If they felt as if they could possibly be charged with a crime, I am sure that they would make their websites more secure and try to filter the usage of these websites by wrongdoers. For what concerns the Funding Evil article, I feel that the author should have been more careful in regards to her statements since nowadays even though a book, object or any other product is not sold outside a given country, thanks to the internet it is still possible to gain access to it. Her book wasn’t meant to be sold or published in the United Kingdom but somehow people did buy the book and in my opinion she should have thought of that earlier before writing defamatory statements about Mr. Mahfouz. By doing some research on the author I did find out that she is quite an expert on the matter and therefore I am sure there were valid reasons to back up her statements even though they were never proved. Writing something which doesn’t break the law in one country but does in another reminds me of the series of Danish cartoons designed a few years ago where Islam was made fun of, and the reactions that occurred from the middle east where such offense was a violation of their law. The Swift affair however was the most interesting article in my opinion because I was able to learn more about such system but also to learn about what was done by the CIA to fight terror. This summer while I was in a middle eastern country I had the pleasure to meet and spend a week with people from the Canadian Special Forces and some U.S. Government employees and we often talked about ways of fighting terrorism, especially in modern times. What we all agreed on was to eliminate the funds for terrorism by hitting the funders, therefore this article was really fascinating to me in order to understand how the CIA has been working on SWIFT databases in order to do so. What I don’t agree on, however is the fact that the US Government were only allowed to search terrorism cases. I don’t agree because I am confident that much funding is done through drug trafficking and arms dealing, especially since these limits have been publicized thanks to the media. [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 15:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

== Links from Class ==

Paradigms for Studying the Internet

2012-01-30T18:56:54Z

Emanuele: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''January 31'''

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

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

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==

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

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

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

== Optional Readings ==

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

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

== Class Discussion ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction

2012-01-24T16:05:49Z

Emanuele: /* Class Discussion */

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

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

== Preparation (Assignment "Zero") ==

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

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==

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

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

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

== Optional Readings ==

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

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

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

- Your ideas here...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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