Technologies of Politics and Control - User contributions [en]

Hacking, Hackers, and Hacktivism

2013-04-09T17:32:54Z

Johnathan Merkwan: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 9'''

Spend five minutes with anyone who studies “hackers” and you will quickly learn that the term is used to define a wide array of discrete subcultures, from homebrew computer programmers all the way through to military-industrial network vulnerability experts. If there is one unifying characteristic amongst all of these cultures (and there may not be), it is most likely the acknowledgement between these groups that the limitations imposed by code as a mode of regulating behavior can, and should, be subverted. Today we look to hackers, who they are, what they do, and what rules and norms govern those who do not recognize code as a governing influence.

Our guest speaker this week will be [http://civic.mit.edu/users/msauter Molly Sauter], a student at MIT's Comparative Media Studies program and researcher at MIT's Center for Civic Media, who has written and spoken extensively about cultural perception of hackers.

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==

* [http://gabriellacoleman.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Coleman-Phreaks-Hackers-Trolls.pdf Gabriella Coleman, Phreaks, Hackers, and Trolls: The Politics of Transgression and Spectacle (from ''The Social Media Reader'')]

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Payback Wikipedia, Operation Payback]

* [http://vimeo.com/46450688 Molly Sauter, Activist DDOS Campaigns: When Similes and Metaphors Fail] (video, watch from to 1:56 to 21:44)

:* Sauter uses the term "DDoS" throughout. This is an abbreviation for "distributed denial of service," a specific form of attack to a web server described in more detail [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDos#Distributed_attack here].

* [http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/docs/ccmanual.pdf United States Department of Justice, Prosecuting Computer Crimes] (read pages 1-11: Introduction to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and Key Definitions)

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sundevil Wikipedia, Operation Sundevil]

* [http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/secrecy-surrounding-zero-day-exploits-industry-spurs-calls-for-government-oversight/2012/09/01/46d664a6-edf7-11e1-afd6-f55f84bc0c41_story.html James Ball, Secrecy Surrounding “Zero-Day Exploits” Industry Spurs Calls for Government Oversight]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/576-the-cyber-war-threat-has-been-grossly-exaggerated Intelligence Squared Debate: "The Cyberwar Threat Has Been Grossly Exaggerated"] (an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford-Style_debate#Oxford-Style_debate Oxford-style debate] with Marc Rotenberg, Bruce Schneier, Mike McConnell, and Jonathan Zittrain; watch the video of the debate)

* [https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-parties-use-influence-to-halt-operation-payback-101120/ TorrentFreak, Pirate Parties Use Influence to Halt Anonymous’ Operation Payback]

* [https://soundcloud.com/bwalker/doing-it-for-the-lulz Benjamen Walker, Doing it for the LULZ (from ''Too Much Information'')] (11:00 to 22:45 only, language at times is NSFW)

* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/interactive/events/2012/10/soghoian Christopher Soghoian, The Growing Trade in Software Security Exploits]

* [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/technology/chinese-hackers-infiltrate-new-york-times-computers.html?_r=0 Nicole Perlroth, Hackers in China Attacked The Times for Last 4 Months (''New York Times'')]

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== Class Discussion ==
<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">'''Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:Asellars|Asellars]] 15:29, 21 January 2013 (EST)'''</div>

I was particularly interested in this week's reading: United States Department of Justice, Prosecuting Computer Crimes it was interesting to see the amount of amendments as the years went by that the federal government attempted to control the internet behaviors of the public. This reading relates closely with my topic for my final paper of the governments control on a macro level in contrast to my paper which exams a small micro community that the federal government is attempting to control. In the readings it appears as if the government reacts in the way of a bell shape curve. Initially they are reactive in nature to something that they are late in response to, then they build up the momentum with legislation, then they continue to amend this legislation to be more and more restrictive until overregulation takes place. The federal government should look into addressing this method of over regulation for it does not protect the public from hackers or those that intend to do wrong, as much as it hurts the freedoms of the public citizens. [[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 10:49, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

*****

Computer Hacking! Whether done for national intelligence reasons, protesting for civil rights, or simply causing disarray, hacking is now a common reality. The articles and video this week shed light on various hacking attributes. For this post, I’d like to address two: ''the relationship between hacking and activism (hacktivism), and identify theft.''

As noted in Molly Sauter’s presentation, a primary goal of hacking is to attract media coverage that reveals the identity of those participating in a given action. This concept is an interesting one to consider from a retrospective viewpoint: before the Internet, how did information about public officials or public entities leak in the same manner? Did the same amount of information spill? Or, was there a much greater sense of privacy throughout industries, the government, and civil life? Mass media is a powerful mechanism that can "change the word" overnight, but how can we examine the interplay between the Internet and media? From one perspective, they are the same: messages spread quickly to large audiences across both avenues. From another perspective, the Internet acts as a stimulus that shapes media coverage. In other words, it's the first stepping-stone that turns privacy into publicity, which can begin through hacking.

As defined on the Wikipedia page [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacktivism], ''"Hacktivism is the use of computers and computer networks to promote political ends, chiefly free speech, human rights, and information ethics."'' One important characteristic to consider with hacktivism, however, is "perspective." It’s all about one’s perspective surrounding a given "hacktivist's act:" those who believe they are simply exercising their freedom of speech may inevitably be committing felonies that destroy other people's identity or an organizations' operations. Hacking Iran's nuclear system is much different than hacking someone's bank account, but at the same time they're both deceitful, correct? When we think about activism, we think "good:" activists fight toward a common cause to create positive change in society (most commonly). When we think about hacktivism, however, ''good'' is not always the first thing that comes to mind. What do you think about the interplay with these two words? Can they mean the same thing or are they always different?

The second point I’d like to address is "privacy." When examining confidentiality today, I often ask myself what is truly private online? The article about China infiltrating the New York Times, or the reference about hacking Sarah Pallin's personal information illustrates that none of us are truly safe from being hacked. Emails are not private; Facebook is not private; and to certain extent, passwords are not private. With this in mind, how can we protect ourselves from identity theft? How can we create passwords that are impossible to hack? How can we protect our online identity (i.e., our real-world identity)? As we all file our 2012 taxes, for example, consider IRS refund fraud....Citizens with no IT background are able to earn tens of thousands of dollars through online hacking; and the majority are never caught. Are these types of hackers also hacktivists, because their united behind a common cause? What defines a hacker vs. a hacktivist? Why is it OK to invade one person’s or organization’s privacy, but not another’s? Is it OK when the vast majority disagree with a person's viewpoint, or a country's ideals, or a company's mission? Or, is hacking always wrong?

I've asked a lot of questions in this post, because hacking in another complex topic to dissect. Many of us "live online," and for that reason I question what will happen in the near- and long-term as our day-to-day lives become even more virtual. No matter how vigilant we are, no matter how many times we change our password, and no matter how many password characters we use, we may all, eventually, be hacked! [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:28, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

Having been a student, practitioner as a criminal and Constitutional lawyer, a teacher, a journalism and most importantly an observer of government and political behavior along with these touching subjects of invasion of privacy, free speech, independence, communication, and what should be a global effort at cooperation for the advancement of the entire society, for over 50 years *yee gads, I must be old) I have seen government in action, in inaction and pretending it is in action. The latter is the rule, not the exception. Our elected officials and the real powers behind the throne, non-elected officials and lobbyists create a proverbial chicken coup run by the fox. The top echelon of elected officials are figureheads who revel in their fame, power and fortune, Whether it be going through the motions at airport security, or passing insignificant laws that are more bark than bite that they expertly market to create the impression of having meat behind them they exist in their ivory towers. The problem in this country particularly is that most of us are fat cats living a lifestyle greater than an society before and really do not want to upset the real status quo. So they sit back for the most part and not rock the boat. The Dutch 350 years ago could not care if Holland or England was in power, so long as they were left alone to do their business. In Sicily where my ancestors lived the so-called "Mafia" operated in a way much like the American Dutch, but of course in a much more violent and way to control others. Sicily has been "governed" due to its strategic location along the first major trade routes by virtually every seagoing power of the last two millenniums, but early in the 2nd A.D. the Mafia was formed and since until recent attacks by the government as their power lessened has existed as the real governing body.

What does this all have to do with the Internet and government control. I will tell you, it is a similar scenario, a similar mathematical formula in which the power is in the people, but until the people stop being conned they will never take it. Now, I am not and hope I do not sound like a Communist by our principals claims that we are a country, "By and for the People," and our only hope and salvation as a society is to wake up and become active participants and uncover the charades we are subject to by those we elect who under the color of authority are paper pushers.
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 12:24, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
****
In my view, major corporations and government security departments have acknowledged that hacker break-ins are out of control within the Internet arena. Some companies are too fearful to join networks due to diverse software programs that could develop ample growing problems. Computer security in our days, is portrayed within usage of difficult passcode, however, is it enough? Hackers seem to carry the responsibility of security break-in, however are they truly liable for company’s loss? As clients demand security of their assets, the vulnerability of security breach highlights that it could not be protected eternally. Ample amount of money is spent on protecting devices that target the hackers, however do these systems support this protection, and why it is still an issue? With the advent of modern law, the characteristics of this issue seem to lack a common ground, which hackers and diverse security programs rely upon. And what are the rights of the government to seize documents and computer ware in case of the hacking incident? The responsibilities of system operators seem to be quite inadequate in comparison to a “true” right for protection. Current law acknowledges that a new threat is emerging where computer “criminals” would potentially be capable of industrial espionage and damaging infrastructures. How could the current law be altered or improved upon these various hacking frameworks? And what would be considered a freedom of information in this matter? How could the unauthorized theft be the primary focus of diverse corporation? And how vulnerability of various security measures could prevent drastic corporate or governmental invasions?
[[User:User777|user777]] 12:46, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

***

Discussion: Last week I succeeded at programming the wiki to not include my name when I signed it, as required; this week I have a discussion about radicalism and hackers and the knowledge of a cat. So in reviewing the substance of this assignment I have realized that the understanding on the wall of this page is the problem not the other way around. Therefore this is not the conclusion,. A bit of haste will make anyone impuctual as I have just demonstrate. Now I will discuss the necessity for review: Jonathan Zittrian is not a type of ready made rice snack in the grocer aisle or the Webster of deconstructivist lexicography, and memory loss, he was pretending to be Dave Navarro not Jimmy Fallon. I have a cat named Nipper, she loved the lecture about internet attacks. If anyone of you think this is Wall Street, think again! This is how my cat thinks. So I guess that the problem is not the computer, but, merely the author of the program and this association is FALSE. So basically, I am hot and ready for a frozen pizza but I cannot remember the brand. I guess my computer has a memory problem. That is my goal as I continue on the last assignment (which I received a 1 on, if people missed that comment [last week]).[[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 13:32, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

***

Peer Production: Development from the Edges and from the Crowd

2013-04-02T17:14:22Z

Johnathan Merkwan: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 2'''

Beyond merely providing a forum for political activism, scholars are increasingly aware of the benefits the Internet provides as a mode of production. How can the Internet help us make things together? How much hierarchy and control is needed to produce? How good is the material that peer production creates? And finally, what are the risks to producers (and society) inherent to peer production?

Our special guest this week will be [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jhergueux Jérôme Hergueux], a fellow at the Berkman Center, who specializes in behavioral economics and online social spaces.

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==

* [http://video.mit.edu/watch/news-information-and-the-wealth-of-networks-9187/ Yochai Benkler, News, Information and the Wealth of Networks] (video, watch from 8:32 to 26:07)

:* if you’re not familiar, you may want to spend a little time looking at Wikipedia’s entry on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seti@home Seti@home].

* [http://www.randomhouse.com/features/wisdomofcrowds/excerpt.html James Surowiecki, ''The Wisdom of Crowds''] (read excerpt)

* [http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2006/11/30/cass-sunsteins-infotopia/ Ethan Zuckerman, Review of Cass Sunstein’s “Infotopia”]

* [http://web.media.mit.edu/~cebrian/p78-tang.pdf John Tang et al, Reflecting on the DARPA Red Balloon Challenge (''Communications of the ACM'')]

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uJWwLVkKTU Jonathan Zittrain, Minds for Sale] (video, watch all)

== Optional Readings ==

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia Wikipedia, Reliability of Wikipedia]

* [http://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/democ1.htm Eric Von Hippel, ''Democratizing Innovation''] (Chapter 1, focus on pages 1-3 and 13-15, skim rest)

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== Class Discussion ==
<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">'''Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:Asellars|Asellars]] 15:29, 21 January 2013 (EST)'''</div>

I really enjoyed Surowiecki's "The Wisdom of Crowds" and how it spoke to the potential superiority of aggregated and averaged knowledge. Due to the rise in portable and mobile computing, the internet has provided a fantastic forum for big data to be collected and analyzed. I personally believe that as the world experiences greater globalization and an increased democratic forum for information sharing, we achieve greater solutions. I found the end of the article particularly interesting as the simulated maze/node experiment highlighted the "mob mentality" vs. the average of individual paths. It's quite astonishing that the "mob mentality" path, using the majority's decision at each node, achieved the original solution. I think that the growth in crowdsourcing and big data will become a huge focal point and resource for research over the next 10 to 15 years. In contrast, I thought Zuckerman's "My Heart's in Accra" brought up various thought provoking questions regarding ideological cocooning. However, I think the chief undermining piece to his study is that most individuals do not belong to only one blog. And if the study were to be done on aggregators of multiple blogs, than I believe different questions and concerns may have been raised or alleviated. I am a big fan of aggregated analysis like macroeconomic market bets. After all it was this philosophy and mentality that gave George Soros his fortune. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 15:39, 1 April 2013 (EDT)

*****

The notion of crowdsourcing is an interesting phenomenon in the current digital era, shedding light on an important question: ''what does the future behold?''

Zittrain’s lecture was great! I liked hearing about new virtual work methodologies, some of which I hadn't been exposed to in the past. Whether working online to take orders for a fast food restaurant thousands of miles away, adding comments to blogs, or turking via Amazon’s platform, each Internet employment activity is unique. As I watched Zittrain’s lecture and read the articles this week, I couldn't help but think about the future, 25 years from now. The ideas, approaches, and practices outlined in our readings/videos were considered science-fiction when my parents were children; and will most likely be seen as archaic when my children look back on today. That said, our lives not only revolve around technology, but it’s challenging to comprehend where technology will be decades from now. For example, working from home is common for people worldwide, but before the Internet it was a far-reaching reality.

The idea of crowdsourcing and its relationship to teamwork is also an interesting concept to consider. Teamwork usually means working together as a cohesive group, whether virtual or in-person, driving toward a specific goal. However, based on the readings, teamwork may be evolving in which people share thoughts and ideas separately, in-line with a common end, but not necessarily working together. The maze and jellybean examples from [[The Wisdom of Crowds]] show how puzzles can be solved when the average response is calculated. However, in neither example were the groups working together, yet the majority train-of-thought led to the most streamlined/correct answer. What do others think about this model? People’s minds may work alike to solve a given problem, but not necessarily when working cohesively. ''"[Social networks] have enabled crowdsourcing—aggregating bits of information across a large number of users to create productive value—as a popular mechanism for creating encyclopedias of information (such as Wikipedia) and solving other highly distributed problems"'' (Tang et al., 78). Has teamwork improved due to crowdsourcing, has it declined, or is this simply another form of teamwork?

Zittrain concluded his lecture on a perfect note—the future surrounding online communication is unknown, because creativity is always changing. Many of the concepts he set forth are ever-evolving in a similar manner: human intelligence, mechanical turking and associated incentives, obtaining online elite status (e.g., Yelp/Trip Advisor elites), and freely engaging in open-source communication leads to countless possibilities. His ending statement about opportunity costs is a final point to consider: now that we can accomplish things 24/7 (online), what other attributes in life are scarified? Furthermore, as production increases through online means, what future attributes will be scarified?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts! [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:09, 2 April 2013 (EDT)

*****

I found this information this week much more informative than the week before, and judging by my participation grade, there is some things for me to learn. Here is what this lesson taught me: there is such thing as phishing and internet piracy, and that this has much to do with the idea of intellectual property. This may seem useless but I realized, context is important before history. Historical materialism, as I witnessed within this homework was contra-ed by a more verbal "oral history". These two platforms were at odds.

Now, most of the people seemed to have Apple computers in these lectures and the doubt that arises is due to the actual machine program they were running. I am in no position to directly quote or to recollect the idea that maybe Steve Jobs was the problem.

With regard to the overall lecture I found the timing on the final video, categorically, "top to bottom", to have a time lapse, as I had expected but now just realized then before.

So overall, these are some ideas I have to raise my score from a 1 on my proposal to maybe something average or less radical, because, maybe average is not always "regression to the mean".13:14, 2 April 2013 (EDT)

Collective Action, Politics, and Protests

2013-03-26T16:55:53Z

Johnathan Merkwan: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''March 26'''

Last class we learned about SOPA, and the fear that it engendered in many Internet commentators. Today we’ll start by looking at how anti-SOPA activists were mobilized on the Internet to effectively stop the implementation of this legislation. This will serve as a touchstone for other reading about use of the Internet in collective action, political protests, and the role of private corporations in protecting and facilitating this discourse across the globe.

We will be joined in the beginning of class by [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/oodewale Oluwaseun "Egghead" Odewale], a fellow at the Berkman Center and an expert on West African elections and civil affairs.

<onlyinclude>

== Assignments ==

As a reminder, [[Assignments#Assignment_3:_Project_Outline|Assignment 3]] is due ''before class'' today. You can submit that assignment [[Assignment 3 Submissions|here]].

== Readings/Watchings ==

* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNP9f8geCWA Yochai Benkler, SOPA/PIPA: A Case Study in Networked Discourse and Activism] (approx. 16 mins., watch all)

* [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]

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

* [http://www.thenation.com/article/new-study-liberals-more-open-conservatives-online%23 Ari Melber, New Study: Liberals More Open Than Conservatives Online]

* [http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2012/04/20/the-tweetbomb-and-the-ethics-of-attention/ Ethan Zuckerman, The Tweetbomb and the Ethics of Attention]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgh2dFngFsg Aaron Swartz, How We Stopped SOPA]

* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2010/Tale_Two_Blogospheres_Discursive_Practices_Left_Right Yochai Benkler and Aaron Shaw, A Tale of Two Blogospheres: Discursive Practices on the Left and Right]

* [http://opennet.net/sites/opennet.net/files/PolicingContent.pdf Jillian York, Policing Content in the Quasi-Public Sphere] (focus on the Introduction, and “Social Media: Privacy Companies, Public Responsibilities”)

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== Class Discussion ==
<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">'''Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:Asellars|Asellars]] 15:29, 21 January 2013 (EST)'''</div>

This may be more suited to the subject of the last two classes, but I feel since the general subject of this entire class is Internet regulation I believe it is relevnt.

Having read several times Andy Sellers artful and very information article entitled "The In Rem Forfeiture of Copyright-Infringing Domain names several things strike he hard, bsaed in part of my own
experiences as a political scientist and criminal and constitutional trial and appellate lawyer.

First of all our government seems really ticked off to reduce this to simple language that the Internet has taken away our imperialistic policies going back before the Monroe Doctrine. We always believe our way is the the best way and they try to communicate "It is our way or the highway," except the Information Highway is not what they mean. This highway takes away sovereign and imperialistic powers all the countries of the world try to impose on their own people and each other.

The government's faulty and frivolous attempt to control the behavior of the rest of the world through Internet control is almost a case of 21st century McCartyism. There efforts are like throwing away the baby with the bathwater. In criminal caes many states, particularly CA where I practiced have a process where a preliminary hearing is held to determine if there is probable cause to try an alleged criminal in a higher court. But the in rem process to shut down websites by enforcing forfeiture procedures is very different. Here on evidence that would not even be admitted into evidence at a preliminary hearing is allowed to not only justify prosecution, but to try in absentia the alleged perpertrators and even their victimes without benefit of any enforcement of equal protection or due process.

Americans are blessed with "inalienable rights" that few, if any other peoples have. Yet because we do not have control of those in those other societies we penalize our own people by taking property and putting restraints on them other people do not have. We give a competitive economic advantage, just as we do to companies that circumvent American labor and environmental laws who are allowed to hire individuals and companies in less restrictive countries. Our labor forces and manufacturers are penalized because they cannot compete.

The Internet has taken away the powers of the American law enforcement officials and even the United States Supreme Court because they have no jurisdiction over foreign jurisdictions and people. Here again, it is a matter of those who design new technologies racing to benefit from it with little attention given to the effect of poor planning, The FDA works in the exact opposite way when certifying food or drugs by making the process so slow that by the time they certify a drug thousands who could have been free of pain or even having their lives saved lose out as it is too late. We need a happy medium. As long as technology means not the advancement of the society, but to those privileged few who benefit financially from it the entire society will crumble.
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 13:05, 13 March 2013 (EDT)

I found the lecture by Yochai Benkler very interesting. The discussion of the evolution of the internet from a weak sphere to an extensive network of organizations influencing politics and government on many levels through technology, was intriguing to say the least. It helped me shape my final paper topic to be more specific in the way I was envisioning it. This reshaping of markets and how the internet influences everything is really changing the world and how we communicate around the world is seen in my business everyday and will only continue. The future could bring with it a world of information where creativity and innovation could lead towards unbelievable results, or the global powers can be can inflict regulation and their legal might to stunt the massive growth potential. [[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 05:40, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

*****

There is obvious controversy surrounding Kony 2012. Some believe that donations were not used for a worthwhile cause; others question the validity of the campaign based on the outcome (Kony was not captured in 2012); and many believe that this movement represented a western point of view, too detached from the realities of rural Africa. Whether you support or negate this crusade, my objective with this post is to examine the Kony-movement from the perspective of online social media. In other words, if we step-back and evaluate the facets of social media in this context, it’s easy to understand the power behind this mass-communication methodology. In today's world, "word" travels at the speed of light!

To support my claims, I selected a few quotes from our readings:

''"['Slacktivists'] are acting, symbolically and in a small way, in a sphere that has traditionally been closed off to 'the masses....We are a highly-symbolic, group-oriented species and signaling our preferences—to others—is a key dimension of human action. Hence, there is no ‘activism’ that does not have a strong symbolic side. [T]oday’s ‘meaningless click’ is actually a form of symbolic action which may form the basis of tomorrow’s other kind of action" (Zeynep, 2012).''

This is a powerful concept from the social media perspective. How much does a "click" really matter? As we surf the web, we come across thousands of messages, stemming from diverse sources, across countless platforms. We often take little action, beyond the click of a mouse. However, if we evaluate activism through a social media lens, awareness can ultimately make a positive societal impact, maybe not today, but down the road. In other words, watching Kony 2012 caused millions of people to take action, from politicians, to celebrities, to everyday citizens. The vast majority had never heard about Kony before this video went viral, even though he had been committing war crimes for 25+ years; and through social media, he became famous overnight. This movement, therefore, epitomizes the Internet reality we live in today—anyone can build awareness through online venues, and through awareness masses of people can take action.

''"It would not be surprising if the intensity of the attention to this video—as well as the intensity of the backlash—did not become just such a moment for many future leaders. The kids are listening, maybe to a simplistic message, maybe to a misguided cause. But some portion of them will keep looking, listening and learning. Such moments have long-terms consequences" (Zeynep, 2012).''

Symbolic power can undeniably lead to other types of power, which, as noted above, can stem from social media. Online messaging generates new realizations for those who live in shutoff realities. Before the Internet and social media communication, teenagers living in small towns throughout the U.S. were not necessarily over-exposed to global societal visions, as outlined in the Kony video; and if they were exposed to movements such as this one, it happened at a much slower pace. Today, social news travels quickly, world controversies ignite overnight, and societal uprisings can be witnessed in real-time. As a result, we have become more interconnected, and the foundation of this unification is social media. Does this mean people will now become more open to differing perspectives? Does this mean those who live in non-cultured worlds will soon become more cultured? Will social media ultimately bring more diverse groups together, on a common ground?

An important chain-reaction from the Kony video is worth highlighting: building awareness through social media leads to a broader audience that wishes to generate change; a broader audience is thus motivated to contact elected officials; based on mass influence, elected officials find the need to place new controversies on the public agenda; and as a result, action is taken (e.g., Obama sent troops to Africa to work with Uganda's soldiers). Although online communities may differ among parties and groups, as outlined in the article [[Liberals More Open Than Conservatives Online]], people are inevitably taking action when influenced online. Therefore, in reference to the "slaktivist" connotation above, action can, and often does emerge through online awareness. Creating a "switch" in people’s minds begins through influence; influence expands when masses unite behind a common cause; and causes spread quickly through online social media. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 09:41, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

Free speech like so many of the "inalienable" rights that the United States Constitution guarantees to those within the jurisdiction and influence of the United States is always a two-edged sword. It is sometimes a shield to protect and hide a sword. Wherever and whenever a right or even in some cases merely a privilege is given, there will always be factions that abuse it. The social media is not always very social and has in many cases become tools for those without necessarily having roles that benefit the society or societies in general. Back when it started there were many and probably still are today who believed that it was simply a screen for pornography. I am current doing my Final Project on Wikipedia and while my research is early and very incomplete I have already formed an opinion that I reserve the right to change as I obtain more data that in many ways it is hypocritical and a vehicle under color of free speech and free content for those with their own agenda. You can draw more flies with honey than vinegar and many of these social networks and communities are skilled at doing just that.

This particular controversial film is an exercise of free speech, but no more so that the millions who protested against the Czar in Russia a century ago. However, today it does not always take such a demonstration or one in Tiananen Square in 1989 to get results and even spark a revolution. The Internet has become a mighty sword and those who fear challenged by what they perceive as evilness behind it must standup and be heard and counter anything they disagree with or else that will be considered the conventional wisdom and prevailing beliefs.
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 10:19, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

When reading (and re-watching the video) the Kony controversy, the full impact of the Internet once again permeated. I hadn't realized that it had only taken 6 days for the YouTube video to go viral - I knew it was quick but hadn't logged the short time frame.
How we use the web and its far reaching effects has gone beyond what most of us imagined. With the need to be heard, societies have taken to online communication. Asking ourselves what the value of the economic impact to that video was - and the negative impact of what happened afterwards - we ponder how the impact of that free speech is worth while. Group think in a situation like that can, and often is harmful and doesn't achieve purpose in its purest form.
Push and pull is inevitable in societies -- and having complete "freedom" is a utopian view point to say the least.

However the construct of the web at it's best allows ideas and discourse to be presented allowing for constant conversation of how to make things better/fair/just etc.

The downfall is that, to quote a very old philosopher, "Happy is the country that has a hero, unhappy is the country that needs one."(Plato) Millions of people piled on the "Get Kony" objective, and the pureness of the objective, to raise the profile of the invisible children of Uganda, became a moment in time after the creator of the video had a very public meltdown. That became the story, not the plight of the children...Another example was whe Iran was making some progress with the green revolution, Michael Jackson's untimely death all but wiped the plight of that country off the front page and did a great deal to oppress that movement .... the point being that sometimes sensationalism seems to overrule the true freedom of how we could be using the web to advance change.
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 12:06, 26 March 2013 (EDT) Caroline
***

The lecture about the evolution of the Internet in contrast with SOPA and PIPA was quite interesting to listen. The PIPA act is viewed as a grant to the social and political reforms that enables the facilitation of piracy. Although many are opposed to both SOPA and PIPA Act, there is ample benefit that implements the decrease of the piracy rate in the United States along with the careful consideration of copyright effect. In my view, SOPA and PIPA would make diverse websites more inaccessible, which would prevent users for exercising their freedom of speech. Social problems would ultimately cost millions of dollars to support new technologies. These bills do portray an infringing benefit for copyright and pirated material that could distress the entertainment industry within the www. Most Internet users enjoy the freedom to surf, post, and explore the Internet, however online piracy is a real problem that Congress sees it as an issue. The debate about censorship involves diverse major bills that are designed to stop the copyright and piracy, but is it enough? Ample companies seek protection rights to their product or good, how limited the implication of censorship could come along? The vast majority of users seem to react on serious revisions to protect our rights as citizens, which will introduce a new prospective premise within the usage on free knowledge, and “limited” expression of speech. [[User:User777|user777]] 12:15, 26 March 2013 (EDT)
***

Today the readings were fabulous; if I do say so myself. I thought about a lot. This deepest thoughts I had were about the power of the doctoral degree. I just realized that there is always competition and that a doctoral degree makes a person better to socialize with others of the same dignity.

Now, with this having been said, read the following:

"There was an apple that was a mango, it said to a comma, "Where is your period?". The comma said, that period is not required, because we are all useful"

- the previous quotation is not the opinion of this author, yet is used to illustrate nothing, since it is a translation of thought, to media, then reanalyzed by a different person's virtual "avatar", if we may.

Does this require a doctorate of English? Is computer language actually censored, or is it sentured? This type of problem, the articles discussed, but the metaphysics of this diaspora is not implicitly "bit for bit".

I am excited for lecture today, and above all, and not a supremacist. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 12:55, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

Assignment 3 Submissions

2013-03-26T16:50:04Z

Johnathan Merkwan: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

This assignment is due on March 26. 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 name your file "wikiusername_Assignment3," where "wikiusername" is replaced with your username, to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment or causing errors in the Wiki by including forbidden characters.'' So if your username is "jdoe" and your file is a Word document your file should be named "jdoe_Assignment3.doc."

'''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 or pseudonym:
*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 or pseudonym:
*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://yourlinkhere}}

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.}}

'''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.'''

==Submissions==

{{AssignmentInfo|Asmith|A Few Bad Apples: Grappling with Troublesome Users on Diaspora|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Asmith_Assignment3.pdf}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Milenagrado|How does Reclame Aqui avoid bias?|
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Milenagrado_assignment_3_.doc|File: Milenagrado_assignment_3_.doc}} [[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 21:10, 25 March 2013 (EDT)

{{AssignmentInfo|RichCacioppo|Hypocritical or Sincere Users and Restrictions of Free Speech|
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Hypocritical_or_Sincere_Users_and_Restrictions_of_Free_Speech.pdf}}
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 08:12, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

{{AssignmentInfo|Maria Jurado|Internet regulation in Argentina, the case of Taringa!|
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Maria_Jurado_Assignment3.pdf}} --[[User:Maria|Maria]] 09:16, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

{{AssignmentInfo|TAG Interesting Comments|Does The SEC Need To Control & Censor The Message Board Community?|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:TAG_LSTU_Assignment_3.docx}}[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 09:54, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

{{AssignmentInfo|Muromi|Surviving in the Grey Zone Between Copyright Regimes|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Muromi_Assignment_3.doc}}

{{AssignmentInfo|AaronEttl|Compromising Crowdfunding Through Copyright Law|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:AaronEttl_Assignment3.docx}} [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 11:31, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

{{AssignmentInfo|Zak Paster|Online Giving: A New Fundraising Era|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Zak_Paster_Assignment_3_Online_Giving-A_New_Fundraising_Era_3-26-13.pdf}} [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:37, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

{{AssignmentInfo|DearAlice|One Company, Different Social Media Platforms, Different Conversations|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Dear_Alice_Assignment3.docx}}--[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 11:42, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

{{AssignmentInfo|Johnathan Merkwan|Exploring Facebook and Casey Anthony|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment_3.docx}} [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 12:50, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

Copyright Part 2: Enforcement and Balances

2013-03-12T21:41:06Z

Johnathan Merkwan: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''March 12'''

Digital technologies spawned the proliferation of sharing of media and music, which has led to a number of controversial legal and technological strategies for control and copyright enforcement. “Controversial” may be putting it lightly; the ongoing fight between copyright owners and Internet evangelists is one of the most popularly debated fights surrounding Internet control.

This class focuses on how copyright is enforced online, with particular emphasis on the "notice-and-takedown" provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"), which 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 class will also look to the now-famous fight concerning SOPA and PIPA, and other attempts to more strictly regulate against online piracy.

Special guest speaker this week is [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/aholland Adam Holland], a project coordinator here at Berkman who runs [http://chillingeffects.org/ Chilling Effects].

<onlyinclude>
== Readings/Watchings ==

* Digital Media Law Project, [http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/copyright-claims-based-user-content Claims Based on User Content] and [http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/protecting-yourself-against-copyright-claims-based-user-content Protecting Yourself Against Copyright Claims Based on User Content]

* [https://www.eff.org/takedowns Electronic Frontier Foundation, Takedown Hall of Shame] (peruse)

* Chilling Effects, [http://www.chillingeffects.org/about About] and peruse the [http://www.chillingeffects.org/weather.cgi weather reports].

* [http://paidcontent.org/2013/02/24/how-google-did-the-right-thing-with-the-nascar-crash-video-and-why-it-matters/ Matthew Ingram, Paid Content, How Google did the right thing with the NASCAR crash video, and why it matters]

* [https://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120405/11221818390/perspective-complexities-copyright-creativity-victim-infringement.shtml Erin McKeown, A Perspective On the Complexities of Copyright and Creativity from a Victim of Infringement]

'''Case Study: SOPA/PIPA'''
:* [http://futureoftheinternet.org/reading-sopa Jonathan Zittrain, Kendra Albert, and Alicia Solow-Niederman, A Close Look at SOPA]
:* [http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2012/01/15/mit-media-lab-opposes-sopa-pipa/ Ethan Zuckerman and Joi Ito, MIT Media Lab Opposes SOPA, PIPA]

'''Case Study: ISP "Six Strikes"'''
:* [http://www.onthemedia.org/2013/feb/01/copyright-alert-system-and-six-strikes/ Brooke Gladstone, On The Media, Interview with Jill Lesser of Center for Copyright Information]
:* [http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2013/02/25/the-6-likely-impact-of-six-strikes/ Jonathan Bailey, Plagiarism Today, The 6 Likely Impact of Six Strikes]

== Optional Readings ==

* [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1835604 Andy Sellars, Seized Sites: The In Rem Forfeiture of Copyright-Infringing Domain Names]

* [http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2011/02/02/super-bust-due-process-and-domain-name-seizure.html Wendy Seltzer, Super Bust: Due Process and Domain Name Seizure]

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== Class Discussion ==
<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">'''Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:Asellars|Asellars]] 15:29, 21 January 2013 (EST)'''</div>

Google's decision concerning the horrific video posted in Matthew Ingram', Paid Content, How Google did the right thing with the NASCAR crash video, and why it matters, raises an interesting question. Google has now assumed the role of immediate arbiter in terms of determining what is and is not copyright infringement. I understand the point that the student who took the video at the NASCAR event created his own copyrighted document when he created the video, but NASCAR's counter, that it had a contractual right to the content of the video pursuant to the valid contract on the ticket the customer purchased would seem to have some merit to it. Google in accepting the customer's rights over NASCAR's contractual rights has effectively made a legal decision that will cause brand damage to NASCAR. I can see how NASCAR could claim these damages against Google in a suit.
I suppose this is just another example of how powerful Google has become in determining what average Westerner's will see on the internet. A quick Google search for the word 'nude' will have google proffering you thousands of images and videos of porn, which is easily accessible by minors. Google IS the way that we all access the internet, given its prevalance in our lives I'd be surprised if the government doesn't create more formality in Google's decision making processes with regards to copyright, freedom of speech, protection of minors, and all sorts of other legal issues that Google is now deciding for society. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 10:35, 3 March 2013 (EST)

:Thanks again for the great comments, Josh. The specific question about the validity of any "back of the ticket" attempt to assign copyright is an interesting one. My read on it, based on [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/204 this section] of the Copyright Act, would be that a total assignment to NASCAR would be invalid in the United States, as assignment of copyright requires a signed writing. This applies only to ''assignment'' however, (i.e., a total transfer of copyright ownership, which in the US would also mean the loss of rights in the original videographer). It could be that this ticket grants NASCAR a non-exclusive license to use the video, but the copyright owner would remain the videographer - meaning both that the original videographer would have the right to post the video on YouTube and NASCAR would not have standing to assert copyright in a lawsuit or through the DMCA. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 09:33, 11 March 2013 (EDT)

::Hi Andy, you might be right that the copyright wasn't transferred in the situaution. But if NASCAR paid a bunch of wall-street lawyers to argue that it was, you can bet that they would at least put the student through his paces in proving that he owned the copyright. Off the top of my head, I would investigate whether he purchased the ticket with credit cards and signed the receipt and whether that qualifies as a signature for the purposes of the act. I'd also note that a competing broadcaster would almost certainly be banned from setting up a high tower and televising the races without a licence, one would think similar legal arguments would apply. If he tried to record and broadcast the entire event on Youtube there would likely be some law against that. In any event, the point was that Google immediately decided the dispute between the parties without guidance from the Courts, and given how often they do this I'd be surprised if the government doesn't step in to monitor them more in the future. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 16:26, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

:::Were NASCAR to do that expect me to argue the case for the student pro bono. :-) (By the way, the credit card slip argument was the best I could come up with as to a writing, but I think it's a failure as well.) More seriously, NASCAR can always exercise the rights of trespass law and remove someone once their presence was no longer welcome – and that right is what keeps NBC from cutting into Fox's exclusive coverage by buying a ticket and showing up. As to Google's role, it's worth nothing that Google's decision was not without a risk – by exercising its own discretion there what they did was remove their chance to benefit from the DMCA safe harbor, and thus exposing themselves for a potential contributory liability claim by hosting the material. Their decision to take that risk is very interesting, and not unlike how they would approach any other liability question outside of the DMCA world – they are immune from suit either way, and opt to decide based on their own interests. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 17:00, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

****

I find the legislation and history on copyright law and infringement extremely confusing. It seems as if SOPA and PIPA would have completely negated major aspects of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. I share the belief that the propositions of those bills would have limited innovation. Had SOPA/PIPA have passed, I think the case of Vietnamese accessing Facebook shows that there exists markets in foreign regions that will engage in illegal means of accessing those domain names. I also was interested in the "backdoor" that sites like youtube have for content providers to remove infringed material. What other "backdoors" exist regarding copyright law and content infrastructure? [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 18:24, 10 March 2013 (EDT)

:That's a really good point, Aaron. Thanks for mentioning it. You should definitely ask Adam about the YouTube ContentID system that they have used as an overlap to the DMCA, and what sort of problems he's seen in its implementation. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 09:33, 11 March 2013 (EDT)

****

As we study copyright, it is important to note that copyright and in fact all intellectual property laws ... patents, trademarks, trade secrets along with copyrights are in fact limitations of free speech. But the latter is not open and unlimited. Free speech has been called the core all truly democratic nations. What qualifies as a democracy is but another issue difficult if not impossible to determine depending on the definition and myriad of points of view. One estimate is 132. Regardless, given there are an estimated 350-500 million Internet users in China alone, more than every man, woman and child in United States combined, designing and controlling an Internet as a vehicle for democratic nations alone will guarantee it will reach less than half of the world's population. But even in so-called democracies free speech is not unlimited. It is qualified and limited by the need for national securities and compelling interests, the the universal rather than the individual interest, moral fiber, sensititivity, defamatory laws and the damages that can often occur by uncontrolled exposure and disclosure of information that can do more damage than good. Some control is necessary to maintain order and prevent a disorganized free for all in an attempt to exercise free speech which many do only to exercise the principal and fight to assert their own freedom of expression, regardless of the consequences.

Intellectual property laws are intended to reward those who have created things with the sweat of their brow, the absence of which will quell any incentive and to enrich the social. Without intellectual property laws mankind over the last few ages of the Industrial and now Information Revolutions would have been relegated to pre-18th century technological, communication and transportation breakthroughs. Art and science would have been inhibited. So what is needed is a proper balance between individual freedom and the good of society.

[[User:Rich|Rich]] 08:05, 11 March 2013 (EDT)

:The balance between copyright and free speech is a fascinating one. There are two [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=eldred+v.+ashcroft&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22&case=12147684852241107557&scilh=0 very significant] [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=Golan+v.+Holder&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22&case=3239612723066820072&scilh=0 Supreme Court cases] on point - and in general the conclusion of the Supreme Court is that copyright itself does not violate the First Amendment (Justice O'Connor in another case famously called it the "engine of free expression"), but only as long as it includes the "traditional contours" or fair use and the idea-expression dichotomy. While this does mean as a practical matter that substantive challenges to copyright laws will not win in US courts, we tend to impose ''procedural'' protections for categorically unprotected speech that had a serious role to play in the SOPA/PIPA debate, as well as "Operation in our Sites" mentioned in the additional reading. As to whether copyright is meant to reward the "sweat of the brow," I think that it certainly informs the desire to make copyright laws, but we know from [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=Fesit+v.+Rural&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22&case=1195336269698056315&scilh=0 other Supreme Court precedent] that labor alone is not enough to obtain copyright protection in a work - it is instead the contribution of original expression that merits protection under the American system. Thanks for sharing! [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 09:33, 11 March 2013 (EDT)

****

The DCMA and Safe Harbor Act seem a useful alterternative to the report of Germany blocking for example the meteor video from Russia because there was music playing faintly in the background. Being able to post that you do not own the copyright, make no money off of it, and simply are posting for entertainment is a very familiar story on YouTube when perusing for videos. The NASCAR accident video seems a matter of due diligence so they could protect themselves from liability from the victims claiming NASCAR did not try to stop people videoing their injuries while on NASCAR property during an event. The Slung Lo example showed me the difficulty of implementing copyright infringement in court when not represented by a large company, as the commentary on the Copyright Alert System and Six Strikes alluded to and in other commentaries online regarding Six Strikes weaknesses. SOPA and PIPA I understand wish to protect property, but how many people have links to copyrighted material? On YouTube, Facebook, and blogs? What if you send a copyrighted link by email? SOPA and PIPA would send a chilling effect throughout the internet that would actually drive down the amount of internet use. CAS would keep track of violations, and a user would have to be so careful to not get six strikes as employers could access who is some type of "criminal" copyright infringer according to a extra-judicial body such as CAS. There has got to be a better way. Ultimately, those who wish to profit off of internet content and sharing must post some type of copyright mark on their creation that says to all users with a symbol, this can never be shared without permission, for any reason. However, when one enters the public space, one has to understand that some type of sharing and infringement of ideas is going to occur for non-profit reasons. This should be encouraged. Perhaps the line should only be drawn when content is used for profit. In any case, if one puts out material publically for their own gratification, one should expect that it is going to be copied. If one wishes to protect those creation rights, a bundle of legal rights through copyright law is already available through access to the courts, without over regulating the internet that is literally opening an entire new world to a global population that has lived in isolation for too long.
[[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 03:18, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

****

The First Amendment is an American legal concept,albeit free speech is global. Intellectual property rights are infringements on free speech, albeit necessary to accomplish the purposes of patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets which are to encourage advancements in the arts and scientists while assuring and creating incentives for those who create new ideas and products. The antithesis of organization and control is total independence and free will. If there are not safeguards in place to organize and monitor free speech chaos will follow. I think it was once said that more deaths and injuries have been caused by the written and spoken word than all the guns every made.

On last week's discussion board I posted my comments on this subject in ore depth, so I will not repeat them here, other than to again empathize that free speech is part of global communication that the Internet provides and all societies do not welcome it with open arms so if we are to get the rest of the world to coordinate the great potential of the Internet, we need to compromise even our most cherished personal right.
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 08:18, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

****

While I am all in favour of free speech, I guess I have to add - "to a point".
In the article about the Nascar video being reinstated, it seemed to be touted as some great victory for copyright and free speech that it was re-released after being pulled. Here is my issue with that and all other like situations. What about the right of the victim (or any individual) that has been hurt or worse and is then immortalized on video or in pictures trapped under a burning tire etc. In the interests of full disclosure, a member of my family was killed in a serious car accident which resulted in a building partially falling on top of his vehicle. It was bad enough to see the pictures of the car after he had been pulled out, but I can't imagine how horrible it would be to be the relative of that person and see pictures of him. Freedom of speech is a gift and a wonderful thing, but in this age of instant pictures and video should we not be more sensitive to the lives attached (specifically) to tragedy? What good does it do in the broader debate about freedom when the rights of the individual, who may not be able to speak for themselves, are not consulted. I suggest that maybe that isn't freedom of speech as much as sensationalism although I am sure others would argue differently. Life seems to swing in a pendulum. Maybe my descendants will move back to a more closed society if one major event that I can't project pushes the value system of the majority to say enough. I'm not sure and I would welcome any comments. [[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 09:43, 12 March 2013 (EDT) Caroline

:That's a great point, Caroline. We'll be turning to privacy in more depth in [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Privacy April]. The decision to post something like that or not is certainly one that has some precedent - and every time there is a horrific event captured on camera there are extensive discussions concerning whether it should be posted. And, for what it's worth, YouTube does reserve the right in its [http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines community guidelines] to regulate those things on its end - that said, we've already seen and will see again the weaknesses in relying on intermediary censorship to solve content issues. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 11:46, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

::I, too, was going to make Caroline's point regarding the treatment of the footage of a violent injury or death. It seems to me that the fact that it depicts somebody's death would be sufficient justification to take the video down, assuming there was nothing newsworthy about the incident. Are we really surprised that NASCAR driving is dangerous? Do we need to see someone's grisly and gruesome death for evidence? Wouldn't words suffice? Doesn't Google, through YouTube, get to determine what they do and do not host on their servers? Are we confusing editing and good taste with censorship?[[User:Raven|Raven]] 13:17, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

:::This is a small point, but I don't think the video actually depicts a person's death. There were a few serious injuries in the crash, but no one was killed. (At least my search of the news finds no such reporting.) And while the crash is troubling to watch (we certainly aren't requiring you to watch it, but it is embedded in the article for today's reading), it also is highly informative. The public outcry from the NASCAR video's wide circulation resulted in [http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nascar/2013/02/23/huge-car-crash-mars-nationwide-series-race-at-daytona/1941529/ reform to spectator conditions at NASCAR events]. Would words have sufficed? Possibly. And is Google serving as the ultimate arbiter right now? Definitely. But there are scores of examples in our history of when it took the world seeing a horrific situation in order to motivate action, so regardless of who makes the decision there are compelling reasons on both sides for having it disseminated or not. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 13:40, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

::::It's totally possible that the fact that it wasn't the scene of a death was evident to anyone viewing the clip closely. I just didn't watch closely. And I do appreciate the need to pressure event sponsors to ensure adequate public safety, especially if the attendees lack the good sense to manage that aspect of self-preservation for themselves. But must Google earn advertising revenue from the repeated viewing of another's misfortune? Or must Google pay for the hosting of such a video, if they cannot or will not earn revenue from hosting it? I don't think your point about whether we are viewing a death or a severe injury or merely a prolonged hospital stay is a minor one. I also don't think that we've been given enough evidence that Google has an obligation to host the video. However, I am willing to learn that that is because I haven't been paying sufficient attention. I don't mean to take censorship lightly, I hope that I don't. Nor do I mean to say that we should have some public morals squad, out removing videos that offend. I wouldn't want that either. I just would like to understand more clearly why it is in our best interests to tell Google what they can and cannot host on their servers, when what they are hosting could be offensive to many and the value the content provides to anyone is not clear. If you say that the existence of that video on YouTube saved lives, or provided some other public good, and you also say that we, the public, have given Google something other than our time and attention, something valuable that gives us the right to insist that they provide bandwidth to save lives, then ok. I can get behind that. [[User:Raven|Raven]] 14:51, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

:::::That's a great set of points. As to Google's right or reason for hosting it on YouTube, all I would add for perspective is the practical fact that having websites like YouTube substantially lowers the barriers to entry for participation online. (Imagine how tough a space this would be if everyone had to understand web publishing from DNS registration and CNAME setup through FTP through HTML in order to have a web page.) So all forms of online publication platforms - YouTube, Blogger, Twitter, Wordpress, Tumblr, Facebook, etc. – all serve an important value-added in that they lower the technical literacy necessary to get material online, and provide a platform that increases the likelihood that at least some network of people will see it. They, in effect, become the public squares of the online world. Should the profit, should they not, should they or the users decide what goes into the public debate – these are the really, really tough questions that we face now. What Section 230 does in the defamation/privacy world and Section 512 does in the copyright world is push a lot of the liability – and thus a lot of the legal pressure on the decisionmaking process, onto the user. But this doesn't mean the social media spaces will simply do what the user does – it can also mean that they can exercise their own editorial judgment based on their own values, and there's not much we can do as users to persuade them to change their mind. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 17:05, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

****

Interesting reading for today’s class. In my view, the right to a free speech is the right to express ones’ thoughts without any alternative censorship by the government. But main questions are: does the first amendment protect imply the right to hear the speech? The Copyright Clause itself is an expressional of First Amendment values that powers congressional rights under free speech principle. How to treat unexceptional impulse of copyright that embraces the coherence of the First Amendment? Copyright law includes a number of free speech accommodations that requires a scheme of originality, but what are the principles of copyright legislation? In my view, the questions should bot be whether the challenged law is consistent with unchallenged laws but instead whether the challenged law is consistent with the Copyright Clause (whereas consistency also comes with a priority of values). Intersection of these domains, have the same values that are conflicting with each other within their constitutional accommodations of law.
[[User:User777|user777]] 11:26, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

:The First Amendment, as it has been interpreted by the courts, includes within it a degree of a "right to be heard," but that has been limited in most circumstances to making sure that free speech rights are not pyrrhic by being without an audience - it does not generally allow an affirmative right of access to a particular fora other than certain publicly owned spaces (of which the Internet is not one). The degree to which the judiciary will exercise oversight over whether legislative action is consistent with the Copyright Clause is very, very weak, as was established in the [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=eldred+v.+ashcroft&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22&case=12147684852241107557&scilh=0 same case] I flagged to Rich above. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 11:46, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

****

Most arguments calling for stronger copyright right enforcement - such as those that support SOPA, PIPA, and the 6-strikes Copyright Alert System - base their argument on the billions of dollars lost to piracy, which itself can be divided to estimate the number of jobs lost in the United States.The two questions I always wonder are: are these numbers being exaggerated by the entertainment industry? And do these numbers truly reflect the real loss of the entertainment industry?

Although what I'm going to say is going to be mainly based on peer observation, I think it's worth noting. For this comment, I'll focus on music. I know people who place a higher value on property rights and insists on buying their music in cd form or from iTunes. These people actually DO view internet piracy as stealing and frown upon it. But I shall be honest and point out that these people also have more leisure money to purchase what they want.

On the other hand, I have also met people who are taking advantage of the internet to discover and "own" music that they would otherwise not buy if piracy options were not available. These are people who may or may not have had the leisure money, but nevertheless would never have spent money to "own" the music if piracy was not an option in the first place.

Then there are those who have no financial obstacles at all but argue that it is foolish to spend money when there obviously are ways to get the music freely. I think this group can be divided into those who would buy music if there was no piracy option and those who would not have spent money in the first place.

I really wonder if ideas like the Copyright Alert System would really boost the earnings of the entertainment industry (which is their true objective after all) or whether in the end these systems end up throttling the internet and the principles, such as free speech, that we think the internet should stand for.

--[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 11:55, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

****

After reading the article ''A Perspective On The Complexities Of Copyright And Creativity From A Victim Of Infringement'', one important idea surrounding this topic became clear: we acknowledge copyright infringement when it directly affects us. Many ignore online copyright, because it is often embedded in the actions that people take when using the Internet. In other words, some may be committing illegal acts without realizing it, while others do so purposely. Whether unintentional or intentional, one must contemplate both sides of the copyright law debate: protecting the creator or restricting one’s freedom of speech.

I think one comment in Erin McKeown’s blog captures the essence of the other articles: ''“I'd also like us all to acknowledge that the current copyright system, the unmovable boulder in the stream, rather than protecting rights holders and acting as a deterrent to infringement, is in its very complications a shelter for those who use others' material without permission and an obstacle to those who would like to legally use or remix content.”'' Due to the complexity, loopholes, and associated legal processes surrounding copyright infringement, many can often remain unprotected. Some agree and others do not…what do you think?

SOPA’s enactment seems to make this environment even more convoluted. It gives tools to the U.S. Attorney General to combat “foreign infringing sites,” but sites with...''“a domain name registered outside the U.S. seems to count as ‘foreign,’ even if it’s run by an American company and hosted on U.S. soil. Id., at § 101(5)-101(8)”'' (Zittrain et al., A Close Look at SOPA, 2011). This policy not only places a lot of companies in the line of fire, but it also puts an enormous amount of responsibility in the hands of corporate Executives. ''“The overwhelming controversy regarding SOPA’s public remedies regards the provision allowing a court to order a service provider–essentially an unwitting middleman–to take all 'technically feasible and reasonable measures' to block an infringing site”'' (Zittrain et al., A Close Look at SOPA, 2011).

The gray area of accountability that we read about a few weeks ago, in relation to the Anti-Muslim Youtube video, emerges again when analyzing online copyright laws. Who is ultimately held responsible? Why should Internet-related companies decide between freedom of speech and/or copyright infringement (vs. the government)? If the private sector is expected to assume new roles and responsibilities, how can companies truly play this role, in terms of time, resources, and judgment calls? ''“The burden of reviewing user-submitted content – every blog post, every video, every image – would be impossible for a company to manage, and companies would have likely stuck with the Web 1.0 model of publishing edited, vetted content instead of moving to a Web 2.0 model where users create the content”'' (Zuckerman and Ito, MIT Media Lab Opposes SOPA, 2012).

As a final thought, I’d like to second the statement above, by Asellas. I agree that the balance between copyright and free speech is an interesting controversy. I also agree with your final statement, illustrating the true definition of copyright protection, i.e., copyright defends original expression that merits protection under the U.S. legal system. The complexity and associated controversies surrounding “original expression” are ubiquitous—there are many “shapes and sizes” of original expression, which in many ways, makes this current debate so challenging to decipher. I look forward to hearing your thoughts! [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 13:24, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

****

Super Bust and The In Rem Forfeiture paper presented further disturbing evidence of the disconnect between how the internet operates and how it is governed. It seems to me that the judges may not have understood that the domain names were property with potential income streams attached, and that the crimes they were accused of were commercial and non-urgent. I'd like to think that because the alternative seems so much more disturbing. Possibly again I am being naive. I have seen those forums, though not the chat rooms, and I agree, that if you are looking for a quick way to stream or download free movies, books, music and TV shows, you'll find plenty there to help you. I was interested to learn that these discussions were protected by the First Amendment, I think I'd just assumed that there were too many of them to shut down. I am, however, coming around to believe that something effective should be done about the piracy of these works. We have, over the last ten years or so, seen a tremendous transfer of value from the movie studios and music publishers to those willing to download illegally. It seems to me it is time to capture that value and account for it. I think, if I thought about it at all, I justified arguing against devoting law-enforcement to controlling piracy to the assumption that these companies were shifting revenue outside the U.S. to avoid taxes. I think I found it distasteful that they would then turnaround and insist that we, the public, help them capture lost income. (I certainly am not willing to pay the taxes to support jail time for those downloading content illegally.) I understand that many people who download without purchasing would not purchase, as many who stream without paying would also not purchase. I do believe though, that they would do something else, and I'm wondering if we are capturing that aspect accurately. I'm also wondering if somehow, we were able to capture that value, it might pay for some or all of the needed up-grade to our internet infrastructure. [[User:Raven|Raven]] 15:29, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

****

With regards to the DMCA and, more specifically, the DMCA "safe harbor" provisions, it seems to me that anything that facilitates the access to or general interaction with the Internet (such as ISPs or search engines) should not be held responsible for specific content. However, services such as web hosting and individual websites that allow public posting should be held responsible for the information that they are actively providing the public since they are the one and only means by which that information can be accessed.

After hearing the Slung-lo song, I have to admit that while it's not my typical genre of music, the tune is catchy and to my untrained and unprofessional ear there is no doubt whatsoever that the song was copied. However the article seemed to focus too much on the emotions of the legal battle and less on the legal technicalities and nuances, which would have been much more interesting.

Finally, one comment with regards to the so-called seizure of domain names. In the instance referenced by the Super Bust posting, as best as I can tell, the government only succeeded in forcing the registry redirect nameserver requests and did not succeed in blocking all traffic to those sites. In practical terms, if someone wanted to access these websites, all they would presumably have to do is enter the IP address into their web browser and they would still have full access.

[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 17:26, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

***

The advent of the six-strikes rule speaks of the integrated and basically unambiguous power of Empire to replicate and self-instantiate over the voiceless objections of the Multitude. In these spaces, I have previously discussed critiques of the ontology of intellectual property. In particular, I have sought to cast doubt on the doctrine that the Internet promotes or even allows a harmonious equilibrium of online behaviors in which the distribution of power is subject to communitary consensus. In no sense should these attacks be construed as hostile to the project of copyright enforcement as such. Although prephilosophical fallacies involving the "natural rights" of "creators" mislead us with mellifluous rhetoric, the reality of bourgeois governance remains, as always, rooted in the persistence of the state. It is the height of unintentional self-destruction for the disorganized proletariat to imagine that it can continue its expropriative rampage against the culture industry, for the endless and inward-curling systems of Empire still function unambivalently in the service of the elite. Whether or not this is to be "desired" is essentially irrelevant, as the "problem," so modeled, is insoluble. It is unrealistic to imagine a more indulgent regime with regard to copyright infringement; internal tensions between the cultural, governmental, and telecommunicative modules of the Empire have granted 5- count em, 5- opportunities for unaccountable criminality to the Multitude. To imagine the possibility of another world is impractical and self-delusive.
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 17:30, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

***

This section of Editing Copyright Part 2, is about Enforcement and Balances, and it spoke a lot about plagiarism and identity froad. Hereis why.
Who cares? Not Wittgenstein!
Now what? PDF's are more secure than webpages.
What's next? A system of infalalibility because internet communication is not the next thing enymore. So basically What's next is not a sitcom.
Is this really worth mentioning? No.
What is this author's opinion? Get a life!
To conclude, merely the act of enforcement is not something Balances pertain to because Enforcement is a power of the Judiciary only at a policing level; whereas, Balances are required by the Court, good to be in the House and Senate, and are a sign of a good Democratic President. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 17:41, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

***

Main Page

2013-03-06T20:13:28Z

Johnathan Merkwan: /* Internet and Society: Technologies and Politics of Control */

= Internet and Society: Technologies and Politics of Control=
'''LSTU E–120 - Harvard Extension School - Spring 2013 - Tuesdays 5:30-7:30 pm EST'''

'''[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/contact Berkman Center for Internet and Society] - 23 Everett Street - Conference room, 2nd floor'''

It is hard to overstate the role the internet plays in our lives. The net has developed not only as the greatest means of producing and sharing information that the world has ever known, but also as a fundamental tool in global political, social, and economic processes. The Net has been heralded by many as nothing less than a means of fundamentally transforming our world into one that is more just, more democratic, and more affluent, while redrawing the boundaries of political and economic power. But the Net is no longer a frontier, and the early days of the internet exceptionalism have given way to increased regulatory responses. Just as the internet allowed users to discover new and interesting ways to transform lives, those who seek to control the levers of power around the Internet have discovered means of controlling its content and dissemination, through technological, monetary, normative, and legal means…(4 credits) '''[[course overview|continued...]]'''

=='''Syllabus at a glance'''==
{| style="background-color:#CCCCCC;"

|-
| Jan 29
| [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction]]
|-
| Feb 5
| [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet]]
|-
| Feb 12
| [[A Series of Tubes: Infrastructure, Broadband, and Baseline Content Control]]
| ''(Assignment 1 due)''
|-
| Feb 19
| [[Whose Values? International Issues with Internet Regulation]]
|-
| Feb 26
| [[Regulating Speech Online]]
| ''(Assignment 2 due)''
|-
| Mar 5
| [[Copyright Part 1: Guiding Principles and Online Application]]
|-
| Mar 12
| [[Copyright Part 2: Enforcement and Balances]]
|-
| Mar 19
| ''No class - Spring Break''
|-
| Mar 26
| [[Collective Action, Politics, and Protests]]
| ''(Assignment 3 due)''
|-
| Apr 2
| [[Peer Production: Development from the Edges and from the Crowd]]
|-
| Apr 9
| [[Hacking, Hackers, and Hacktivism]]
|-
| Apr 16
| [[Informing the Public in the Internet Age]]
|-
| Apr 23
| [[Privacy]]
| ''(Assignment 4 due)''
|-
| Apr 30
| [[The Profitability of the Internet]]
|-
| May 7
|''No class - final project preparation''
| ''(Optional [[Assignments#Extra_Credit|Extra Credit]] due)''
|
|-
| May 14
|Final class - wrap up and student presentations
|''([[Final Project]] due)''
|
|}

{|border="1" cellpadding="5"
|-valign="top"
|
'''Course Information:'''
* [[Class Participation]]
* [[Grading]]
* [[Statement on Plagiarism]]
|
'''Assignments & Projects:'''
* [[Assignments]]
* [[Assigned Readings|Complete List of Assigned Readings]]
* [[Final Project]]

|
'''Resources:'''
* [[Recorded class videos]]
* [[Powerpoint Slides from Class]]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page How to edit a wiki]
* [http://www.extension.harvard.edu/resources/writing.jsp Extension School Writing Center]
|
'''External:'''
* [[Upcoming Events]]
|
'''People:'''
* [[Staff Contact Info]]
* [[List of User Profiles]]
|-
|}

=='''Participating During Class (Tuesdays 5:30-7:30 pm EST)'''==

You can participate during class either by attending in person or through Adobe Connect:

* The class will be held in the conference room at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society, 23 Everett St., Second Floor, Cambridge, MA 02138 ([http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/contact directions])

* You can use Adobe Connect to participate during class time. '''Visit [http://continuinged.adobeconnect.com/lstu_e120 our Adobe Connect site] and log in as guest.'''

: We will be experimenting with remote audiovisual presentation through the Adobe Connect platform. We recommend that, if you would like to speak during class, you use a combination headphone/microphone to participate. Alternatively, you may use headphones along with your computer's built-in mic. As a last resort, you can use your computer's built-in mic without headphones, but please be aware that this may cause audio issues for both you and the class as a whole.

: ''Note: When you log in to Adobe Connect, you will log in as a guest. Please use your full name or a pseudonym that will allow us to identify who you are so we can give you credit for your class participation. If you use a pseudonym, let one of the TAs know who you are so we can be sure to give you credit.''

: If you have any trouble running Adobe Connect, please go to the [https://continuinged.adobeconnect.com/common/help/en/support/meeting_test.htm support page on Adobe Connect's site] or click on the "Help" button in the upper right corner of the Connect window.

=='''Participating Asynchronously'''==
* The recorded videotapes of the class produced by Harvard Extension School are available [http://cm.dce.harvard.edu/2013/02/23879/dceweb-videopage.shtml here]. Videos are typically available 1-2 days after class.

=='''Contact Information'''==
* All questions, comments, etc. should be sent to: [mailto:is2013@cyber.law.harvard.edu is2013@cyber.law.harvard.edu]
** There are no set office hours; feel free to send an email, and the TAs will respond to it as soon as they can.
* If you need to contact an instructor or TA individually, please use their personal contact info located on the [[Staff Contact Info]] page.

Paradigms for Studying the Internet

2013-03-06T19:11:48Z

Johnathan Merkwan: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 5'''

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. The second hour of the class will focus on the [[Final Project|final project]] for the class, where we will discuss the research prompt, talk about some successful projects from prior years, and plot out the deadlines for the rest of the semester.

[https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/IS2013_Class_2_Slides.pdf '''Download slides from this week's class.''']

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==

* [https://www.socialtext.net/codev2/what_things_regulate Lawrence Lessig, ''Code 2.0'' (Chapter 7 - focus on "A Dot's Life")]

* [http://arstechnica.com/features/2008/06/book-review-2008-06-2-admin/ Nate Anderson, Book Review: Jonathan Zittrain's "The Future of the Internet And How to Stop It" (from ''Ars Technica'')]

* [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ Jonathan Zittrain, ''The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It'', (Chapters 1 and 4 only)]

* [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks_Chapter_11.pdf Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks (pp. 379-396 only; stop at "The Physical Layer")]

* [http://www.danah.org/papers/2011/WhiteFlight.pdf danah boyd, White Flight in Networked Publics? How Race and Class Shaped American Teen Engagement with MySpace and Facebook] (read 1-11, skim 12-18, read 19-end)

== Optional Readings ==

* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/digitaldemocracy/internetarchitecture.html Ethan Zuckerman & Andrew McLaughlin, Introduction to Internet Architecture and Institutions]

* [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=310020 Orin Kerr, The Problem of Perspective in Internet Law (Focus on sections I and II)]

</onlyinclude>
== Assignment 1 ==

Assignment 1 is due before next week's class (February 12th). Details of the assignment will be discussed in today's class; see [[Assignment 1 Details and Reporting|this page]] for further information. You can submit the assignment [[Assignment 1 Submissions|here]].

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==
For those of you with a stomach for south park, here is funny episode about when kyle accepts an iTunes agreement without first reading it...
http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s15e01-humancentipad
[[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 19:03, 5 February 2013 (EST)

== Class Discussion ==
<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">'''Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:Asellars|Asellars]] 15:29, 21 January 2013 (EST)'''</div>

Prepared by TAG

The readings made the argument that the internet has come full circle. Initially the technology industry was controlled by a select few such as IBM, then Microsoft, prior to the opening of the innovative frontier that emerged to a collective chaos, which theories in common allowed for. In recent years the political interest to regulate and control this platform of expression, is causing a paradigm shift back to an interest to have a select few, control the majority of the flow. This way it makes it easier to control and regulate.

The effectiveness and ability to build off of existing technology is paramount in the universal ability to advance it. This done by being able to leverage existing technology, mastering it, improving it, building on it, and sharing this with others. This would allow for the Allowance Theory to exist because opportunities would be afforded to the population instead of limiting. The ability to adapt is critical to succeed in this 21st century technological space. The large corporations are not as nimble or able to adapt as the smaller organizations which can be effective with speed. With innovation and the ability to adapt, these organizations can free themselves in a way by always evolving faster than regulations can counter respond with regulations. Innovations such as the Facebook revolution empowers the individual to have the freedom to participate, which has correlated to an acceptance of sharing information. This continued sharing of information will allow for the consistant long term evolution of technology. The key is it can never rest, can never stay stagnant, because the political and social ramifications will be drastic, when the freedom is restricted by those who have power politically or socially. [[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 10:54, 31 January 2013 (EST)

**********

The very wording of this section was a paradigm. The most interesting article was that of the interview about conflicts in the computer and internet community. The other articles required for class helped seed that information into more prosperity. With voice recognition, the interpretation of citation, and the understanding that there is more to a word that its intendor: the processor. What order deserved my attention as a document can be printed, scanned, faxed, printed then faxed et cetera. Johnathan Merkwan[[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 13:57, 6 February 2013 (EST)

**********

I found Lessig's piece quite interesting regarding regulatory constraints and the role that norms play in achieving regulation. Specifically, I found that his point stating that sometimes norms preclude technological changes and vice versa. Currently, the music industry is failing at copyright regulation as torrents and peer to peer networks share various media types over the web. I believe that as there is greater institutionalization from companies like Amazon, Apple (iTunes), and other online media outlets, the wide low cost provision of easily accessible media will cause a shift in norms leading to decreased illegal media downloads. Zittrain makes some very thought provoking points regarding "generativity". Calling for less constraining base models and frameworks for innovation, Zittrain discusses the idea of linking online identities to those in reality as a way to enforce copyright law. However, I don't think that users are ready for those ramifications. Take for example the immediate outrage and institution of legislation against employers and universities requesting Facebook passwords. While I personally don't agree with such requests either, it is clear that people are not ready to embrace that next shift even though it may lead to greater capabilities of the internet. Cybersecurity will be extremely contentious in the coming years as the internet and supporting frameworks continue to evolve, encompassing the capacity for innovation. The cloud is one centralized platform housing all sensitive information of its users which presents a great danger because the generativity of the web means that nothing is safe forever. Just look at Julian Assange and WikiLeaks; in a way Assange was acting as the protector of liberty in creating a forum for information. As the internet evolves, market concerns will increasingly become the driving factor of institutional innovation. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 18:07, 4 February 2013 (EST)

**
:I disagree that increased institutionalization online by companies like itunes and Amazon could shift norms towards discouraging illegal downloads. First, I doubt prices can go any lower than they are at now ($1.99 for popular songs; 99c and rarely 65c for less popular or older songs) for both the distributor (iTunes, Amazon, etc), the music companies, and the artists to make money. Second, being able to freely download makes economical sense for the downloaders - that's why they're doing so in the first place. As long as there are ways to freely download, there will be people who will do so.

:That's not to say I support shutting down p2p technology and torrent sites - I seriously think they have played a big role in the spread of knowledge for people who otherwise would not have access. As mentioned/suggested briefly in class, the solution may lie in changing thinking and economic model of the entertainment industry.

--[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 09:06, 11 February 2013 (EST)

*******

Two separate but related thoughts.

1.) danah boyd’s article got me thinking about the differences in architecture between MySpace and Facebook and the relationship between that architecture and Zittrain’s concept of generativity. On MySpace, teens could “pimp out” their profiles with glitter and vibrant colors. In contrast, according to one user boyd interviewed, “Facebook was nice because it stymied such annoyances, limiting individuality.” Indeed, on Facebook, users could change their status updates and add photos to their profile, but the basic layout remained consistent from one user to the next. On Facebook, people can't change the template or design or their profile.

Facebook is a less generative platform than MySpace – at least in the cultural sense. Facebook’s architecture closes down “the capacity to produce unanticipated change through unfiltered contributions,” while MySpace encouraged a wide range of customization and personal expression. However, because MySpace was more generative, again in the cultural sense, people could be much more derogatory in their profiles. Race and class became far more apparent. As a result, the site earned a negative stigma and eventually drove “white flight.”

The story boyd tells indicates that, like the Internet, once a social platform is lenient enough, or generative enough, to enable all sorts of freedom of expression, some people will use it for inappropriate, destabilizing, and unanticipated uses. One could argue the same recurring pattern that unfolds with generative systems occurred with social networks. From a wide range of amateur contributions (MySpace) to lockdown and centralized control over personalization (Facebook). For many people, Facebook felt safer and had better privacy controls, but at what cost? Do we lose anything in terms of our ability to express ourselves and our identity? On Facebook, our personal data is codified into bits of data that can be easily packaged for advertisers. The TV Shows, the movies we like – that’s all just data points. On MySpace on the other hand, you could express yourself with unique flare and style. Not so easily package-able. Perhaps closer to the function of “fashion” in the real world.

So it’s a trade-off. Facebook doesn’t allow you to alter the layout of the site but you get the comfort of not seeing some unsightly profile and feeling uncomfortable. So I’m curious – generative systems might make artistic and personal expression easier, but too much generativity can, well, freak people out. Take Second Life. Once a blossoming virtual world where you could build or create anything, it soon gained the reputation of being a pornographic hub, and users fled. Now it’s all but shut down.

2.) The iPhone is a complicated generative platform. According to Zittrain, the iPhone is technically less generative than the Apple II. That may be true. But is it culturally more generative? That is, anyone can use an iPhone to take a picture or tweet a news story or do any number of unanticipated things. If the iPhone was more technically generative, and apps were unfiltered by Apple, security might be compromised or it might become riddled with inappropriate content. People carry their life on their phones – it is a very intimate, personal device – worthy of intense security. So I wonder if the iPhone needs to be sterile in order for people to feel comfortable using it so freely and allow them to focus on cultural participation and cultural innovation. There is a fascinating relationship between people’s ability to alter technical specifications and people’s ability to alter the cultural landscape. I’m just not sure what that connection is yet.

[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 21:13, 4 February 2013 (EST)

*****

The diverse frameworks presented in the readings this week shed light on technological: networks, constraints, and structural considerations. In the article ''What Things to Regulate'', the architecture examples illustrate metaphorical associations that I had not yet considered. Many of us view architecture from a tangible perspective, directly correlated to concrete structures, such as houses, buildings, and landscapes. Understanding systems architecture in laymen terms, however, has always been challenging (for me) due to the complexity related to networking, routing, and stakeholder hand-offs. Although I have worked with many IT Architects on unique consulting projects over the past few years, I have never truly understood the notion behind systems design.

One of the key take-aways from the examples set forth in this article is the following: design alterations transform behaviors…whether significant or not. In other words, even if a given process inevitably stays the same, design modifications impact perceptions, which ultimately shift reactions. Parking airplanes at gates farther away from the baggage claim area—causing passengers to walk more—creates less stress when waiting for luggage (even if the rate at which luggage arrives stays the same); putting a mirror in front of an elevator reduces complaints about the elevator’s speed (even when the speed stays the same); adding a basic ramp in front of a building provides access for everyone (even if all other structural aspects remain identical). Each of these illustrations is metaphorically correlated to the Internet and systems architecture. Laws/Policies change regulations; regulations can impact architectural designs across numerous frontiers in cyber space; and design modifications can substantially influence people’s behaviors.

The second insight that I would like to address in this week’s discussion is directly correlated to the MySpace-Facebook article, specifically focusing on the suburban illustration. “Governmental agencies reduced investments in urban communities, depopulation lowered property values and shrunk the tax bases, and unemployment rose as jobs moved to the suburbs….Just as those who moved to the suburbs looked down upon those who remained in the cities, so too did Facebook users demean those on Myspace” (pgs. 31 and 34, respectively). The analogies in this article are mind opening. One may think that cyber space unites people of all backgrounds, because boarders and boundaries are less clear (at times). However, the notion behind segregation in the cyber world is an interesting one to consider…it mirrors the real world in diverse ways. What other online examples mirror the real world? Where do virtual games fit (such as Second Life) when considering new realities? Do most social network users escape realty through the use of online communication or do social networks bring individuals closer together? What do others in class think about the metaphors presented in this article, specifically regarding segregation in cyber space? [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 05:16, 5 February 2013 (EST)

*****

Thanks for posing that question Zak. I found the MySpace-Facebook article to be fascinating and it had me thinking about my own social networks I've created. My Facebook network is made up primarily of people that I know or have known in real life. So that network does tend to mirror my physical life which probably is a bit segregated. However, I think, and hope, that my network I've created on Twitter is a bit more diverse as I follow all sorts of people on that site- people I know but mostly people I've never met. I use Twitter for news, to keep up on my profession, comedy, and lots of local food/beer spots. So the people I follow really vary there much more so than in Facebook. I know that Facebook and Twitter are very different platforms but I would be curious to see if you were to look at who people follow on Twitter vs who they are friends with on Facebook if it would show a more diverse view for either. Because I now tend to get a great deal of my news from Twitter, I'm constantly trying to expand that universe so that I don't just get one or two viewpoints and am not living in a bubble. But that's a conscious effort and I would wonder what would happen if I didn't do that as much.

The other online world that this article had me thinking about a lot is online dating. Social in a much different world but I often think about all the data that is collected by these sites as people share a lot (full disclosure: so do I!). I would be curious if there was a similar segregation that happened at all on these sites like OkCupid, Match, eHarmony, etc in addition to the sites that actually do cater to a single race, religion, occupation, etc. I would guess that online dating networks mirror reality very much so. [[User:Nfonsh|Nfonsh]] 12:37, 5 February 2013 (EST)

*****
I enjoyed reading about social network articles and how these networks influence individuals in life. The concept of openness, alone, Facebook as an example brings ample views and ideas how people share their lives throughout the simple “public” concept as Internet. Social media is continually evolving and keeping individuals up to date well informed on that social media could offer thru secure and controlled experience. The main question arises is where the Internet is going and where it has been throughout the lenses of technological evolution and innovative experiments. Social networks continue to surround each of us, and continue to navigate the regulatory enterprise and practices around the world. Due to issues that Internet is altering the complex amounts of information, the social networks still come in a long perspective of academia and popular culture arenas. Is it still considers a “real world”? In my view that it’s the main criticism of social network via Internet. Is there a control and secure openness thru social media (Facebook, twitter)? How people interpret the information? I this there are ample questions that still retain the privacy control throughout the demographics of social media.
[[User:User777|user777]] 13:08, 5 February 2013 (EST)

I am interested in how we have standardized our thoughts that "real" life and "social media life" are separate and unequal. I bring up again the video from last week again as John Perry Barlow spoke of the independence of speech on the Internet as if it were mankind's great utopia.... not fettered by laws but free and ubiquitous. FaceBook, My Space, Twitter, et al are brands built by business owners and, as with most brands, have a developed marketing strategy to overlay a "vogue" cache that makes one want to buy into that culture. What is different from walking down the street with a Nike "just do It" t-shirt on and having strangers overlay their own impressions of that brand to posting sayings, articles debates, conversations etc within social media and once again having, let's say for the most part, strangers overlay their own impressions of those thoughts? If they are your "real" friends on Facebook they read your views and posts through the filter of their knowledge of your personality... Same as the Nike t-shirt.
In the article White Flight, the comment that My Space was "ghetto" became an echo chamber.
It was "better" to have FaceBook.... so I feel this speaks to the argument made by Lessig in 'A Dot's Life".... "We can call each constraint a “regulator,” and we can think of each as a distinct modality of regulation. Each modality has a complex nature, and the interaction among these four is also hard to describe." All the rules of a "regulator" apply when looking at social media sites.
So again I wonder ~ how did one become real and one become not? In the way we leave lasting digital footprints every time we log onto sites, isn't that even more "real" than footprints washed away from a beach where we physically walked? Is it possible that the day we look at the some of the parts as our "whole" life, we will have stronger "real" life?[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 16:43, 5 February 2013 (EST)

*****
“Man is tormented by no greater anxiety than to find someone quickly to whom he can hand over that great gift of freedom with which the ill-fated creature is born.”
― Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov

"While I am fully supportive of the need to combat intellectual piracy, specifically dealing with foreign rogue digital theft sites, legislation must not impede freedom of expression on the internet and online innovation. We must work to find an approach that protects content and the freedom of distribution and technology that is smart and targeted without stifling the innovators and entrepreneurs that make San Francisco and the Bay Area so vibrant."
Nancy Peolosi February 2012 Letter to constituents regarding SOPA

“No one who uses the Internet on a regular basis needs reminding about the perils of spam, phishing, data breaches, hackers, viruses, spyware, and denial of service attacks that make up part of the modern Internet traffic. Almost all such problems can be chalked up to generative systems; closed systems, like the Xbox 360, TiVo, and the PS3, may have their own issues but don't regularly experience the same problems.
It's no wonder that, in the face of such threats, many users would prefer something simpler and locked-down in exchange for security. But it's not just end users who run into problems with generative devices and networks; governments and content owners would both prefer devices and networks that could be monitored and controlled at least a little more tightly. Attempts to alter the fundamental PC architecture in such a way that it is "trusted" (by content owners and third-parties, at least) have met stiff resistance on the part of buyers, who now instinctively view to computers as fully generative devices that should remain under their personal control.”
Nate Anderson, Book Review: Jonathan Zittrain's "The Future of the Internet And How to Stop It" (from Ars Technica)

I would argue that even before we decide on a structure to view the internet and digital technologies through, we need a clear understanding of how we, human beings, interact with our environments.
Here, in the United States, we seem perfectly happy to give away freedoms guaranteed by our constitution in the name of safety. And Dostoevsky’s quote demonstrates we are not alone in that.
We can look at legal frameworks, or technological frameworks, but ultimately we are human beings, and though the internet may be the most amazing tool we have yet to develop, I would assert we do not have a particularly good track record when it comes to preserving our freedoms, or valuing our public goods.[[User:Raven|Raven]] 17:17, 5 February 2013 (EST)

******

This is a tangent related to the tangent made in class on the readability of Terms of Services. I'm one of those who usually doesn't read Terms of Services, especially those not having to do with the bank. But the discussion raised my curiosity, so when I was considering setting up a tumblr account so I can participate with my friends, I stopped to read tumblr's Terms of Service, which is located here: http://www.tumblr.com/policy/en/terms_of_service

Perhaps I'm lucky since tumblr does not fit into the examples made in class. Tumblr's Terms of Service is very readable and accessible, and Tumblr actually states that they deliberately made it so. If the legal text itself is still a bit too lofty, especially for younger visitors, then Tumblr's summaries after each section will do the job as well.

Some parts are even humorous. Take for example the annotations for the section on Eligibilty: "You have to be at least 13 years old to use Tumblr. We're serious: it's a hard rule, based on U.S. federal and state legislation, even if you're 12.9 years old. If you're younger than 13, don't use Tumblr. Ask your parents for an Xbox or try books."

--[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 03:37, 11 February 2013 (EST)

Danah Boyd’s article was really disappointing because he could have truly made it interesting and signficiant. Not being a fan of either My Space or Facebook, at least until recently for the latter as I feel it is a good medium to communicate with "Friends" in remote and/or far away places. The article contained several foundation facts and helped me understand some of the differences, but not much more and continued to make the point over and over again with case studies that demonstrated the same points over and over again.

I feel Mr. (Ms?) Boyd should have added a lot more foundational information and perhaps not only argued the differences between the two social networks, but give his/her opinion and facts why.

******
This is in response to [[Muromi's]] comments on the Tumblr [https://www.tumblr.com/login] Terms of Service [http://www.tumblr.com/policy/en/terms_of_service], but I promise to bring it back to our readings. I've been a long-term fan of Tumblr, and I can say that the Tumblr TOS is a reflection of the Tumblr experience. The contributors tend to be serious: CJ Chivers of the New York Times[http://cjchivers.com/]; Anthony De Rosa of Reuters [http://soupsoup.tumblr.com/]; informative: America's Test Kitchen [http://americastestkitchen.tumblr.com/]; but also playful: Sesame Street[http://sesamestreet.tumblr.com]. PR and Marketing, though in evidence, are done with an effort to integrate into the user community: The Economist[http://theeconomist.tumblr.com/]; LLBean [http://llbeanpr.tumblr.com/]; The Atlantic[http://theatlantic.tumblr.com/]; The New Yorker[http://newyorker.tumblr.com/].

Other contributors who show up on one's dashboard, and with whom one can interact directly by reblogging (a way of responding, but also of reposting) can start to feel like friends in a distinctly different way then the term ''friend'' is used by Facebook. There is, of course, a running joke among long-time users that 40% of one's followers are high school students from Japan, and occasionally a spam problem pops up. But generally the experience is one of openness, friendliness and creativity. The TOS is just one aspect of this, but it demonstrates how some thoughtfulness on the part of founders can go a long way to contributing to a positive user experience.

To bring this back on topic, unlike the Facebook, MySpace dichotomy posed by Danah Boyd, Tumblr truly can belong to anyone[http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/01/30/30-must-see-tumblr-blogs/slide/all/][https://www.tumblr.com/]. One does not need friends already on the site to begin participating, one just follows people one is interested in following. Despite my earlier comment about high school students in Japan, if someone reblogs someone and responds thoughtfully to a post, the response usually is an inclusion into the conversation and a follow.

Truly no one knows your age, race and class if you choose not to provide that information. One can participate wholly with links to photographs and music - and many do[http://fredwilson.vc/].Finally, unlike the faux creativity touted by MySpace and its fans, Tumblr users are the real deal, people of all ages who post original writing, drawing, photography and music for the world rather than limiting themselves to changing the template upon which their user page is viewed (although this too is possible on Tumblr[http://www.tumblr.com/themes/]).

Lawrence Lessig's Tumblr is here: http://lessig.tumblr.com/

[[User:Raven|Raven]] 12:31, 11 February 2013 (EST)

Assignment 2 Submissions

2013-03-06T00:02:39Z

Johnathan Merkwan: /* Comments */

{{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 name your file "wikiusername_Assignment2," where "wikiusername" is replaced with your username, to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment or causing errors in the Wiki by including forbidden characters.'' So if your username is "jdoe" and your file is a Word document your file should be named "jdoe_Assignment2.doc."

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

In the [[#Submissions|submissions]] section below please post the following information:

*Name or pseudonym:
*Prospectus title:
*Link to prospectus: (add your link here)

===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 5 so you have time to incorporate them, if applicable, into your project outline. '''Please remember to sign your comments 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.''' If we don't know who you are we can't give you credit for finishing this assignment!

*Name or pseudonym: interestingcomments
*Prospectus title: “Does US Trade Treaties Advance Internet Freedom in South America.”
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:LSTUAssignment2.docx
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 18:47, 24 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Interstingcomments: I am curious if you would be able to observe blogs or online community discussions on this topic from the respective countries of study. The local citizen perspective might offer additional insight. --[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 13:54, 28 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Interestingcomments: You might be able to find some communities talking about this subject on globalvoicesonline.org. I think it can be a good idea to compare communities from each country to find out if they have the same opinion. [[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 16:00, 28 February 2013 (EST)

Laurence Girard: This is an interesting question and I think you could start by researching specific laws that would be relevant to your question. You might also research how US internet law affects Internet freedom in South America since this is probably connected.

******

*Pseudonym: "Asmith"
*Prospectus title: “Diaspora* A Social Network for the People by the People”
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Asmith_Assignment2.doc
[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 00:10, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi ASmith. i think that your work it´s a perfect oportunity in order to expose a new theory, or an alternative of the concept of Intellectual Property in the network. because if the community make their own rules, maybe, can construct new limits, exceptions etc, in this area. Natalia ´´´´
*
:Asmith: Sounds like a perfect community to observe for this project. I would be interested to see if the diaspora community comes up with a governance model that mirrors other social networking models or if they come up with a truly unique model of their own. --[[User: Alice|Dear Alice]] 13:58, 1 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Asmith – Your proposal is clear and the questions you've set forth are important. In reference to your final paragraph, it may also be interesting to evaluate pros and cons surrounding centralized content control versus the lack thereof. For example, from one perspective, a collaborative online community is important because everyone is considered equal (there is a flat/circular management structure). From another perspective, however, when a primary leader (site administrative team) who controls online content is absent, decision-making processes change, i.e., when controversies or disputes arise, who addresses them? Comparing Diaspora with other collaborative communities, such as Wikipedia, is an interesting approach to analyze the pros and cons of online community management. As a conclusion, based on your findings, you may be able to set forth some important content management recommendations that highlight best practices for the Diaspora user-base. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:44, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Hello Asmith: This is a very interesting topic, I am intrigued to see what model you use to best compare the benefits and the limitations of introducing this new type of platform.[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 06:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*
ASmith:

It will be interesting to note if there are any major points of contention that arise with regards to where the community wants to take Diaspora which causes a significant number of its members to break off and take a separate version in a different direction. I'm not sure if the way its copyrighted will allow this but they could always start from scratch. Linux, for example, allows for the source code to be modified and distributed for commercial or non-commercial purposes by anyone and this aspect of it has resulted in several very powerful flavors emerging (Red Hat, Ubuntu, Debian, SUSE, CentOS, etc...)

I think it will also be interesting to compare the values of the community as it exists today compared to the values to the community as it grows and changes. For example, I'd guess that the community that is taking interest in Diaspora today is largely between the ages of approximately mid teens and late 20's/early 30's. I'd also venture a guess that they are fairly tech saavy. If the community continues to grow and appeal to the general population and in three to five years from now enjoys more mainstream popularity, it's probably safe to say that different decisions about what direction to take the project will emerge.

In any case, this is a great topic choice. I'm sure it will be interesting to observe and write about.

ASmith: Really intriguing topic. I have mixed feelings about the ability of a dispersed community to handle social data better than a hierarchical corporation, or to gain traction in the market, but it'll be fascinating to see what they do, and how they do it. - Rob McLain

[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 08:32, 5 March 2013 (EST)

ASmith: Very interesting topic with a clear, well-developed question. I'm sure you'll develop this more down the road, but it does seem like you'll probably be gathering very large amounts of data through the various community hubs you've identified. How will you focus your observations? Will you "observe" the community for a specific period of time or take more of a long-range perspective, considering how the community's come thus far in this stage of its development? All in all, though, really looking forward to seeing what comes out of this project! [[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 17:01, 5 March 2013 (EST)

ASmith: I like your topic very much. You have focused well and are looking at specific aspects for the marketing effort and the effects it has. I would be cautious about inserting yourself too much into the conversations as that may slant the results. I think social media is one of the more interesting ways that companies are now communicating... and to what end does the voice of the many change how the company leans into its go forward strategy.
As a Starbucks girl I'll be looking forward to your outcomes! : )

Laurence Girard: It will certainly be an interesting project because you will get to see how a new social network grows. It will be interesting to see if people treat this social network similar to Facebook or act entirely differently!

******

*Pseudonym: Rich Cacioppo
*Prospectus title: "The Limits of Fee Speech In Light of Cultural Senility and Pragmatism"
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Internet_Control_proposal_February_24_2013.pdf
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 00:45, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Rich: Of the three case studies that you're considering, the FreeSpeechDebate at the University of Oxford seems to be the most appropriate because it specifically addresses the thrust of your research. Examining judicial opinions weighing all arguments and The Open Net Initiative at the Berkman Center both seem to be too ambitious in scope.[[User:JW|JW]] 20:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:HI RICH: Is an interesting topic, i think that you can make an introduction, about what is the meaning of "free speech", because, at the end, this is a relative concept, that depends, precisely, of the cultural context. Natalia. ''''

Hello Rich: I think as Natalia suggested defining your definition of free speech is critical to gain a greater understanding of the argument you will make within the parameters of the paper. Within different cultures this can be defined in many different ways and once you establish this it will be an easier journey to state and prove your case.[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 06:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*
Rich - I agree that this is a fascinating topic but feel that using so many other people as a lens in which to interpret, you will be limited by the page restriction, and also may run the risk of summarizing other works and not actually coming up with something novel that is uniquely your view and opinion. Otherwise, I think it would be interesting and can't wait to read! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 12:33, 5 March 2013 (EST)

Laurence Girard: I think that it would be particularly interesting to think about specific instances on the Internet where free speech should not be allowed. There are very few cases in which free speech is not allowed so I urge you to think about this for your project.

******

*Pseudonym: AaronEttl
*Prospectus Title: "The Market's Impact on Operational Policies"
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:AaronEttl_Assignment2.docx
[[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 13:11, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Aaron,<br />
:I think focusing on the consequence these search engines have on the users, rather than the websites in the search results, is unique and will be really fascinating to look at. Although you did narrow down the specific community you would look at -- the SEO community -- I think you will need to narrow it down further, perhaps to a specific website or set of websites serving a larger online community.<br />
:One thing you didn't mention in your prospectus was how you would go about researching the SEO community. I think finding a specific community would be beneficial here as well -- it would give you a better idea as to what specific research methods you could employ. Once you have a more specific community I think everything else will fall into place.<br />
:[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 17:51, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Aaron: I think you pose many questions in your prospectus that would each individually be enough for a ten page paper. To narrow your feild of research i think it might be interesting to observe and stdy what goes into a successful kickstarter fund and derive from that observation conclusions about what the operations guide of kickstarter influences the kinds of funs that do well. "For Kickstarter, how does the level of regulation affect the integrity of those projects and is there any bias in the type of projects seen? " I think if you flip this around and look at the question from the bottom-up rather than the top-down you may have a more successful research question. All my best. [[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 04:36, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*
Aaron - I think you picked two great companies to look at because they are both inherently relevant and interesting! Only thing that you may want to consider is that it could be difficult to compare / contrast with page constraint in a meaningful way because they are not only both very different sites (fundraising site that is selling future products) and ad-hoc social video network, but also have very different policies (kickstarter being heavily marketed, including placement of projects and inclusion of certain projects in email updates, while letting others have to market for themselves - and my understanding of Chat Roulette is that it isn't moderated at all - but i haven't used). You may be more successful in comparing similar sites with different policies or different sites with similar policies... that way you can isolate a variable and attribute changes to it. With multiple floating variables, it will be tough to do in 10-12 minutes. Otherwise sounds fascinating and I can't wait to read! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 12:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)

Laurence Girard: This will be an interesting project and I am eager to see your results because I have used both of these websites in the past. It would also be interesting to see how these websites handle under the age of 18 using their websites. This is something I urge you to think about for chat roulette. Is there really a way for someone to verify that a user is 18? People can just lie clearly and say they are 18 even if they are not 18.

******

*'''Pseudonym''': Hgaylor <br />
*'''Prospectus''':“Access for Open and Secure Communication” <br />
:An In-depth analysis of government’s role in the Global Collaborative Data Network. <br />
*'''Link to Prospectus''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/? title=File:Hunter_Gaylor_Prospectus(_Internet_Society).docx&oldid=9645
*
:Hunter: I like the idea of investigating the government’s role in controlling access. However, I found the explanation of your research paper’s quarry regarding the investigation of the ability to shut the system down in states of emergencies a bit confusing. All in all, I look forward to seeing how you develop your prospectus even further. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:21, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hunter, your idea is magnificent. I enjoy your paradox. The thing I notice best about your proposal is that you are using your own ideas, when you could always plagiarize unintentionally. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:27, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Hunter,
:The idea of "digging" in to find out the real and factual government approach on this matter is great. I think you have alot of great material to work with and you are moving in the right direction. I would just advise you to order your ideas in a clearer way so that your reader doesn't get lost. Great idea! [[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:29, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Hunter, i think that this theme is a little too wide, so, in order to be more specific, you can take one of the liberties than can be affect by governments control, and analyze that. Natalia. ´´´´

Hello Hunter: The broad scope of you paper may make it difficult to cover all the avenues in 8-10 pages. I think you should consider making this a thesis topic. There is a lot of areas and directions you can really go which would make it very thorough. It sounds very interesting and I am looking forward to seeing your paper progress. Good Luck.[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 06:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)

Laurence Girard: I think that it would be particularly interesting for you to not just focus on the US, but to compare and contrast other countries such as Egypt and China for this project. What do yo uthink?

******

*Pseudonym: Dear Alice
*Prospectus Title: "One Company, Multiple Social Media Platforms, Numerous Conversations"
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Internet_Assignment_Two_Prospectus.docx
--[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 17:50, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Alice: I like the commercial aspect of your project. You don't mention this in your prospectus, so I'm wondering how is Starbucks driving traffic to the internal site? How are they driving it to their Facebook page? Are there rewards for the consumer if they post on either one? Do the rewards differ? How? Is there a dedicated group or person watching traffic on the internal page? What about the Facebook page? If yes, are they the same group? Will you be able to say something about the resources Starbucks allocates and if/how that has an impact on the response on either? Will you be monitoring for deleted posts? Finally, you aren't including Twitter in your project. Is there a reason?[[User:Raven|Raven]] 17:48, 1 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Alice: I think this is a great starting point for a research paper, and I love the idea of looking at Starbucks, since it is such a huge corporation. However, I think your hypotheses are too easily proved. I think you could go much further with your topic if you think about questions after answering your initial questions...for instance, say posts/comments are regulated differently. Some questions to consider could be, shy would Starbucks spend more/less time managing comments on one site than another? Is there a pattern to how Starbucks regulates comments/posts on their different social media websites? What are the consequences of managing comments differently between websites? Does the user body have anything to do with how Starbucks regulates comments?…etc.<br />
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 18:36, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Alice: Like @Raven, I love the commercial aspect of the paper! and Also, agree with Becca in that the Hypothesis would be too evident. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that the idea page gets more response then facebook, without doing any research. If it turns out that our assumption is wrong, then you definitely have something! Maybe you could look at the threshold of types of comments that elicit response or get removed. Or potentially find another company that has idea and facebook and see how the level of moderation or responsiveness differs. Overall, I think it's a great idea! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 13:03, 5 March 2013 (EST)

:@Phildade + @ Becca, wouldn't the cost/benefit be interesting? Although the website might get more responses in the aggregate, adding the costs of managing and maintaining that portion of the Starbucks website might make the Facebook response (assuming it is smaller, but still robust) much more attractive? Possibly that information wouldn't be worth as much to Starbucks, a company with a large marketing budget, but it might be interesting to a much smaller company, especially one with high visibility but no actual revenue stream, or a revenue stream that doesn't allow for a large marketing budget and a team to monitor a website? And wouldn't Facebook find this info important?
[[User:Raven|Raven]] 13:13, 5 March 2013 (EST)

:Alice: It seems a given that Starbucks would police its own social media site more vigorously than it would a Facebook page. Will you investigate the Starbuck's terms of service for the site, maybe in comparison to Facebook's terms of service? Are Starbucks terms more restrictive? Rob McLain

Alice: I like your topic very much. You have focused well and are looking at specific aspects for the marketing effort and the effects it has. I would be cautious about inserting yourself too much into the conversations as that may slant the results. I think social media is one of the more interesting ways that companies are now communicating... and to what end does the voice of the many change how the company leans into its go forward strategy.
As a Starbucks girl I'll be looking forward to your outcomes! : )
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 17:22, 5 March 2013 (EST) Caroline

Laurence Girard: Good choice! One question I have is why you choose to only focus on Starbucks? Why not focus on multiple companies and compare the policies that multiple companies have regarding your chosen topic?

******

*Michael Keane
*"A Single Site Case Study of the Effect of Censorship on a Web Community" <br />
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:MichaelKeane_assignment2_prospectus.docx
[[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 18:20, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Keane, interesting assignment. I think it would be easier if you define the kind of content control you want to study by looking at how it is implemented (by law, for example) instead of looking at the purpose that explains it’s put into effect. I think it might be hard to find out certainly what intention does the subject has to exercise some kind of control, but you could for sure see how these controls are being implemented. --[[User:Maria|Maria]] 10:45, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Michael,
:I believe that your idea for this assignment fulfills the essence of it. I think you should define for this prospectus what type of content control you will focus your analysis on. You might also include what reactions the members have to the various forms of censorship.[[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:34, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:You’ve chosen a very interesting topic that most of us have probably considered at some point. It’s often difficult to know where to draw the line when making policy decisions of this sort – to create a system that handles edge cases judiciously – and some people clearly aren’t even trying to create a fair system. I wonder what you can generalize from a case study like this. In short, how much variance do you think there is in the forms that censorship takes in web communities? It seems that there are powerful conventions and practical limitations with regards to how content control is done, such that many of the same features keep reappearing again and again.

:At the end of your final paragraph, you say that removing entire discussions is a highly effective approach to content control. Would you mind elaborating on this? What standard of effectiveness are you using? Is something that merely keeps the community silent effective, or something that keeps it happy? What makes banning members sometimes less effective in comparison?
:[[User:Julian|Julian]] 19:39, 4 March 2013 (EST)

Laurence Girard: This is a good topic and I think you should talk about what rights users should have in terms of free speech and administrators (sometimes unjustfully) banning people from a community. Should site owners have total control or should their be limits on what administrators can do because of freedom of speech?

******

*Name or pseudonym: Natalia
*Prospectus title: “INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, RIGHTS TO INFORMATION AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH ON INTERNET: CONFLICTING RIGHTS?”
*Link to prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Natalia_Assignment2.docx

*
:Daniel Cameron Morris comments: Natalia, Your topic is very interesting, like mine (please comment!) quite broad and could as a suggestion focus completely on one case study that you think most illustrates and answers your hypothesis. I saw that you gave three, just curious as to is there one that is the overarching example for national and internatinal jurisprudence, or does this fall more into the realm of international governing bodies... or decided by national standards? Ultimately are you asking, is freedom of speech or protection of ideas more important on the internet? I like how you tie in that curbing freedom of expression starts to curb human rights, but that some regulation is necessary in civilization. A suggestion is to offer a framework that can be used interactively, involving a way for future bodies looking at legislation on intellectual property and freedom of speech and benchmarks for them to judge whether a law or regulation is infringes on human rights, or is necessary for to preserve civilization. [[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 20:33, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Kaley Sweeney comments: Hi Natalia, I agree with Daniel that your paper can use more focus. The topic of intellectual property is exceptionally broad and can encompass an enormous number of cases, law, international interpretation, etc. It might be helpful to narrow down on one or two case studies that particularly peak your interest that you feel make a major statement for the future of IP and confirm your hypotheses. Perhaps you can also focus on one of your three questions, as there are many discussion points buried within each, within the context of one particular country. Intellectual property is interesting to explore, particularly as the changing nature of social sharing is entirely shifting the concept. If you can hone in on one refined idea, I think you can find yourself developing some fascinating ideas and predictions.
:Kaley Sweeney 20:41, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Michael Keane comments: This is certainly an interesting topic and you definitely have plenty to work with. I see the others mentioned that you might need more focus but I assume you've already intended to do once your project unfolds and begins to take shape. I too have a broad topic (censorship) but I am limiting its use to one particular website. Good luck with your work and I would be interested in reading the final paper.[[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 11:58, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*

:Aly Barbour comments: I'm afraid I must ring in with the crowd on this. I'm very curious as to how you will decide to go about observing this question in terms of a specific community. What can be learned about intellectual property rights and infromation from observing a group which disseminates information? One example, and i wish it were still active, is Oink a music sharing community geared towards spreading rare and hard to find eps. With such a sight it'd be interesting to view how the owners of the material, small bands, microlabels handle the spread of information. In the music scene the rapid ability to share music illegally has meant that a lot of bands get heard by a magnitude larger an audience. Or perhaps observing a site where people share photos and see what lengths people go to in order to maintain their ownership over an image ( watermarks etc.. who owns memes, do the owners of angry cat own the rights to the angry cat meme?) etc etc. can't wait to see what you do! All my best. [[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 14:56, 5 March 2013 (EST)

Laurence Girard: I suggest that you check out the digital mellenium copyright act and also check out companies like Associated Content (now Yahoo voices!) and Demand Media Studios for this assignment! -Laurence Girard....also think about bloggers who may copy other people's material!
******

*Rebekahjudson
*Title: "'Weird Twitter': Critique from Within?"
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Judsonprospectus.rtf
[[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 21:09, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Rebekahjudson: Fascinating, I had not heard of this. Do users of Weird Twitter self-identify using that label? How do participants signal they are contributing to Weird Twitter rather than just making a joke or nonsensical post on Twitter? To the untrained eye, it doesn't seem like there's much community going on here - but maybe that's the point. I very curious to know how, without a centralized "Weird Twitter" aggregate or some other means to look for Weird Twitter posts (save the map you mentioned), a community of "Weird Twitters" can exist and interact with one another. Look forward to hearing more about this. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 15:52, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Rabekah- Your proposal sounds like an interesting subject. Is this group something that you have taken part in, or is your statement “Critique from Within” to be interpreted that Weird Twitter is critiquing Twitter or the Twitter community from within? It looks like you have a good outline and a method that will lead you to interesting material. I am wondering how this relates to censorship or control. Does the tweeting of Weird Twitter have any sort of influence on the broader Twitter community? Do members of a group in Twitter influence one another in a way that has some sort of an influence on the group as a whole?[[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 20:07, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Rebekah, this is an interesting online community - one I hadn't previously been familiar with, but fascinating to learn about. My main thought while reading this is the longevity of this community. Google Analytics has shown the search rate for "Weird Twitter" drop dramatically in the past month. I wonder if the loose group of individuals may be fluid in their terminology, and therefore be a bit difficult to track down. On that note, well done selecting several twitter users from the start to monitor. I imagine if they are consistent in their "Weird Twitter" tweets, you will also find yourself becoming familiar with the online community that extends beyond these users. My second thought would be the impact this community - fluid as it may be - has on the wider twitter community. If they are not operating under a single hashtag, how do new users find them? How do they distinguish themselves?
:Kaley Sweeney 20:41, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Rebekah, I love this topic! I've been a fan of horse_ebooks and Riff Raff, but was unaware of any umbrella term under which they belonged.
:Though both personalities tweet in this poetical anarchist fashion, disregarding traditional language conventions, I would never associate them together because of their vastly motivations. Riff Raff wants fame and fortune. Horse_ebooks wants to be invisible. However, according to the Chicago Reader's Weird Twitter map, Riff Raff and Horse_ebooks hold similarly prominent positons in spite of their real life differences. The concept of "Weird Twitter" is completely reader-defined, and I think requires exploration of the population who appreciates these aliases and associates them with one another, perhaps in contrast to Weird Twitter author's real motivations. One last thing is to explore is how Twitter's architecture (i.e. the 150 character confines) have altered how we think to use language and enable/prevent "weird Twitter." Here are some relevant articles about Horse_ebooks and Riff Raff: http://gawker.com/5887697/ http://gawker.com/5912835/riff-raffs-got-a-record-deal-making-sense-of-the-most-viral-human-being-in-music
:[[User:Jax|Jax]] 21:07, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
I love the idea of how you are analyzing a community that is critiquing a larger popular community. I wonder if it is worthwhile to look into the culture: similarities and differences between the two and analyze it from there (major themes etc). It may be tricky to code themes because of time frames, or timing, so be careful! Also, be sure to include why core members are core members, and why they are the ones you are watching out for. I would also be careful in defining what are considered norms on Twitter and Weird Twitter.
[[User:APhan|APhan]] 17:28, 5 March 2013 (EST)

Laurence Girard: Good topic and one thing I would suggest is that you compare this structure to the structure of a typical forum with threads and categories etc. Are there any similarities that you might be able to map in a neat diagram?

******

*Name or pseudonym: Joshywonder
*Prospectus title: Lawbuzz_Prospectus
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Lawbuzz_Prospectus_-_Joshywonder.Feb25.13.docx
*
:Joshywonder: It might be difficult to study the now archived site as many of the posts/pages are not good links. In your research question you proposed to measure the anonymous users' "reactions when this privacy was stripped away" - will this be entirely interpreted/extrapolated from posts made on the site? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 15:57, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Joshywonder: I think you have a fabulous idea and have sources that have interested you on this topic. I wonder if you are interested in discussing the difference between Canadian English versus either the United States English or "Official English" as it may be. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:13, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Joshywonder: This is a very interesting case that you site. Was there a public response to this incident? Did the individual who brought the suit suffer in reputation either from the content of the site or from the attention given to the lawsuit? Is the site something that you personally took part in? Do you think that anonymous posters or posters using pseudonyms make a valuable contribution to discussion in public internet forums? It looks like you have developed your method and you have plenty of interesting information to choose from. I think that an important factor in your write-up will be to narrow your presentation to the details you think will best inform your audience of the issues at stake and best illuminate the specific case as a study subject. [[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 20:38, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
Joshywonder: I am very fascinated with your topic, but am curious about the idea of whether or not it is important the users are all from Canada and if the anonymous users are from there? I also wonder, if this may be of importance to your project: If the power of the courts and laws are aligned with what is happening online? What I mean is, what legal tests are there used to determine what is deemed private and so forth, and if they are aligned with peoples online experiences?
[[User:APhan|APhan]] 17:28, 5 March 2013 (EST)

Laurence Girard: I think that the main thing you are going to want to consider here is defamation of character vs. freedom of speech. Shouldn't people be allowed to say what they want about other people the same way we are allowed to say what we want about politicians as long as it is true to some extent??

******

*Matthew D. Haney
*"Online Review Platform Yelp – filtering for hire?"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Matthew_D_Haney_-_Assignment_2_Prospectus%2C_02262013.docx
*
:Matthew: You and RobMcLain have proposed the same research questions about Yelp. Maybe you can collaborate?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:04, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Matthew, your writing is very scientific; and I applaud you for this. The reader can be left skeptical and that is a matter of definition. Keep up the good work. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:27, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Matthew: Wonderful topic, I think you’ll have a lot of fun with this research topic. Although you have wonderful sources, I was wondering to know how you will gather the data, and do you think that Yelp will be able to provide you with clarification of removed posts? Censorship plays an important role within this topic; will you use any interesting cases to defend your paper? [[User:User777|user777]] 18:38, 4 March 2013 (EST)

:Matthew: Working together sounds like a great idea. Shoot me an email and let's talk about it - mclain@fas dot harvard dot edu

Laurence Girard: Interesting...you might investigate whether this would fall under the realm of false advertising.

******

*Milenagrado
*"Duolingo and Copyright Issues"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment2milenagrado.doc
[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 21:34, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Milena: I think the idea of contacting the users through Twitter, Facebook, and Duolingo’s blog is a good resource to provide some context as to the structure of the site. I also feel that it would be helpful if you could find out how the policies have changed in the past as a result of previous laws. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:36, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Milena, what an interesting topic. Duolingo reminds me of a wikipedia of sorts in the ways it relates to copyrighted information. As crowdsourced information has grown in the past few years, I imagine you may also find similar information on how copyright is addressed in recent case studies. Another question to ask would be how users can ensure the translation is accurate? If you delve into the terms & conditions, you may also wish to see how Duolingo holds users accountable and verify the information is indeed an accurate representation of the initial intent. There are many concepts to delve into here, but I think you have done a very nice job of boiling it down to the main concerns the site may encounter moving forward.Kaley Sweeney 20:41, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Milena Grado, I found your paper proposal quite interesting. I haven’t heard about Duolingo, however I have few questions: What about the translation [if] being out of context? What about sentence structure? Culture/ How precise is the translation? If so, what kind of copy rights will this serve gather, in order to protect the translation services? I noted that you will be gathering information through “Twitter, Facebook and Duolingo's blog- very interesting! Do you have specific way of analyzing this data? Use/volume based? Good luck with the paper, I think it’s quite an interesting topic to write a paper on.
:[[User:User777|user777]] 17:42, 4 March 2013 (EST)

:Milena: How will you choose which users to contact? How will you ensure it's a representative sample? The danger in this approach is that your conclusions about the site may be skewed by your user sample. Otherwise, though, your project incorporates some great questions. Rob McLain

******

* Pseudonym: Tessa May
* Prospectus title: Moderation or Censorship in LinkedIn Groups?
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Tessa_May_Assignment_2.pdf
[[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 02:52, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Tessa - this looks well-thought out and do-able within the parameters of the class. Reading through your prospectus, the following questions occurred to me: Do the deleted users have something in common? Are the moderators of the groups you are observing similar in some way? (For example, do they have manager or above in their title?)Is there a higher authority or forum for protesting deletions? And finally, in a professional forum such as LinkedIn, how would you distinguish keeping the conversation professional or productive or on-topic vs. censorship?[[User:Raven|Raven]] 12:03, 27 February 2013 (EST)

:''Reposted following deletion/edit conflict'' [[User:Raven|Raven]] 13:31, 27 February 2013 (EST)

:Tessa,<br/>
:This looks really, really fascinating! I'm curious - are you considering comparing multiple groups in differing categories? I ask because it may be interesting to see if two groups in similar categories have similar patterns in deleting posts. <br />
:Another thing that came to mind: it may be interesting to look at the profiles of the group members to see if there is any pattern between those whose posts are deleted, those who tend to align with group moderators, etc….since LinkedIn profiles generally provide members' current, and often prior, employment and education, you may be able to identify a pattern based on members' socioeconomic status.<br />
:[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 18:15, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Tessa,
:This looks very interesting and you seem to have your ideas extremely clear. I love the idea of having a survey sent to group owners at the end of your investigation period. I would also suggest, if I may, to contact Linkedin directly and see if they have a comment in regard. [[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:22, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Tessa: I think you’ve picked out a great topic for your research paper. I am an active user of Linkedin, and participate in quite a few groups, and you are correct, that posts are being deleted without notice, which sometimes makes it hard to fallow the group/topic itself. I see that you have a perfect strategy for your paper, which I think will definitely help you generate a great paper. How many groups will you audit? How often will you review a group? Good luck on your paper, and I look forward to read your final work (if class permits).
:[[User:User777|user777]] 18:21, 4 March 2013 (EST)

*
:Daniel Cameron Morris comments: Tessa, exploring the idea of censorship on LinkedIn groups sounds good. My suggestion is perhaps attempting to see why some might censor or remove content, for example, if the poster is attempting to get them to go to another group on the same topic. Perhaps content subtractions occur when the owner(s) of the group want simply to exert more control over the group as opposed to encouraging as many comments as possible. Other times, comments might be deleted due to not fitting into the general standards of professionalism that is expected on LinkedIn. Mabye you can come up with your own categories for deleted comments to expand on this, and determine if the deletions are leaning more toward censorship or content control. [[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 19:52, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Greetings Daniel: Moderation or Censorship in Linkden Groups really caught my, in regards to the fact that this is a very provocative title. In your prospectus it is interesting to note how you plan on gathering data with regards to specific groups within the site. Being that LinkedIn has captured the social media market for the professional, how will you be able to identify would would need to be cencsorn in a group that is by membership only? Secondly I am very much looking forward to see how Moderation is pulled in to groups. I like the idea of individuals within groups being limited in comments and mailing so that a, "only bully" in a specific network will not hog all of the conversation and in turn add to a more healthy convention of conversation- Hunter [[User:HunterGaylor|HunterGaylor]] 15:57, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
Tessa May:

I suspect LinkedIn will be a good platform from which to derive your observations as it is obviously intended to be for professional/career/business purposes and therefore just about everyone with an account will ultimately be driven by the motivation to enhance their career goals. While I haven't observed too much conflict on LinkedIn (as opposed to say, Facebook, for example where disagreements can be sharp and common) I suppose egos can quickly flare up and agendas can easily clash as individuals attempt to push their company, career and professional point of view on to others.

I noticed that you are using the deletion of a post as the metric for censorship. You may also want to consider a slightly less rigid although probably no less effective metric for censorship - bullying and pig-piling. I've noticed, based on my personal use of social networks, that there is a tendency for a community to post overly large quantities of aggressive and oppositional rhetoric in response to something they disagree with, even if similar (and seemingly redundant in message) responses have already been posted. In other words, there is more than one way to censor and you may want to consider people applying the herd mentality to discussions when adding little to no additional minimal value as another form of censorship to your list of observable behavior. Granted it may be difficult to define and therefore measure this behavior, but it may prove valuable just the same.
[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 09:09, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Alicia Phan | APhan
*"Assignment#2 - Law As Culture; Facebook & Privacy Rights"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/AliciaPhan_Assignment2.docx
[[User:APhan|APhan]] 08:24, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Alicia: If you feel that it's relevant to your paper, I would be interested in reading your analysis of the pending class action [http://www.fraleyfacebooksettlement.com Fraley v. Facebook].[[User:JW|JW]] 22:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Alicia: While I agree with this statement, I think it needs to be substantiated: "More than ever people are learning about our laws through the mass media, and believing in the media’s representation of the legal realm". I think your methodology is a little too vague as I'm unclear on precisely what parts of Facebook you will be observing: globally public comments? Posts made by businesses? Comments made by others on subscribed updates? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:01, 2 March 2013 (EST)

*
:Daniel Cameron Morris User Comments: Alicia, Your examination of privacy rights on social networking sites such as Facebook is fascinating. I would ask, 'Are our intellectual property rights waived automatically when we use a limited privacy social network site?' The topic seems really hot right now, and going into the various privacy settings on Facebook and arguments pro and con in light of legal decisions in the United States and other nations, even international bodies, will be enlightening to fellow Facebook fans. A suggestion could be analysis of each privacy setting, with pro and con arguments for personal privacy being intellectual property that must be waived to share with others. Pretty sure that is what already happens, but really without the examination my comments are just speculation. I await your comments on my proposal as well. Thanks!
:[[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 22:07, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Alicia: Your focus on the interpretivity of law, rather than its logical or declarative features, would be well-served by an analysis of how culturally-generated ideas about justice and how communities should be organized can develop into effective regimes of social order on social networks like Facebook.
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 16:42, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Assignment 2 _USER777 .
*Facebook-Marketing-Power of "Like"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:USER777_Assignment_2.docx
[[User:User777|user777]] 11:35, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:User777: I am left wondering precisely what the research questions are and/or the methodology you will use to prove your hypotheses. Something like "I will also look at the “display ad” effectiveness that drives a significant demand for both online and in-store purchases" is a massive research project in and of itself and would realistically require access to private information controlled by businesses. [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:06, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Hi User777: This is a very big topic, and I'm wondering if you are still in the formative portion of your project. Facebook has gotten a lot of attention on how and what shows up in the newsfeed and how this has an effect on the number and quality of likes, especially for advertisers. Have you considered narrowing your topic to the question of whether or not Facebook's policies are aligned with their advertisers? In the past few days, quite a number of articles have shown up questioning whether increased participation on the newsfeed is increasing advertisers' costs. What types of posts are most likely to show up in a newsfeed? What percentage of an advertiser or a users' friends get to see posts? Other than purchasing advertising, what things can advertisers or users do to increase this percentage? These questions might help to focus your thinking. I'm looking forward to your results.[[User:Raven|Raven]] 11:47, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*
This is a very interesting topic. I am left wondering though, what you deem to be major brands that you should look into and how they "market" their products so that people "like" it. How does the idea of social media connect to users liking the product? Is it just the fact that social media networking is powerful and constitutes a lot of people following brands online and liking stuff? What about other types of "likes"....like when people "like" pictures, quotes etc...is that a type of marketing strategy as well? What methodology will you go about to link that a lot of "likes" is a marketing strategy - what I mean is that, the more likes = the more successful a product is? How might you determine that? I am interested to see the end result of your project!
[[User:APhan|APhan]] 17:28, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Muromi
*Prospectus Title: Maintaining Stability in China's Cyberspace
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Muromi_assignment_2.pdf
--[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 12:02, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Muromi: Instead of using Lessig's four factors, I thihttp://www.charitywatch.org/nk it would be interesting to use Zittrain's generativity lens to examine how China manages to innovate in spite of all the existing controls. I'd be curious to find out in what respects China's cyberspace is (or could) be unlimited.[[User:JW|JW]] 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Muromi, I think that is an extremely interesting final project, and I am looking forward to reading it once you are done. A few years ago I was a visiting professor of law at the Southwest University of Political Science and Law in Chongqing, and I ran smack into the firewall many times. I think facebook was still allowed at that time, but many of the other sites weren't, so I had to use programs like anonymouse.org to get around the firewall. I also used QQ with my Chinese girlfriend and she was always scared that our conversations were being monitored for content. The only critique I have is that you may be studying too many different aspects of the firewall. You only have 10 pages to write, you might consider focusing on a few specific aspects of the firewall and the reasons they are in place. i.e. Google is currently banned in China, but is that because the government doesn't like what Google turns up or because they want to protect the competitive advantage of Baidu? etc.. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:49, 3 March 2013 (EST)

******

* Zak Paster
* Online Giving: A New Fundraising Era
* http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Zak_Paster_Assignment_2_Online_Fundraising_Communities_2-26-13.docx
* [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 12:49, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Zak Paster: How will you estimate "effective fundraising" for Research Question A? Question C seems large enough to be the entire project as "conduct external research about online giving and associated industry trends" is a large undertaking. [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:54, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Zak Your NGO sounds great. Good luck with it. My question, which I don't know if you'll be able to tackle in this project relates to control. How much tension is there between having an outside entity give you a "pre-formed" website, social media strategy, etc. that may be quite good, and the fund-raising organization's ability to create their own content. Also, just as you want to be sure that the fundraising websites ensure funds go to the advertised cause, donors want to know how their money is being spent. Can organizations have links to places like charitywatch.org or charitynavigator.org?
:[[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 09:12, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Zak: Great Topic. The notion that online fundraising has been getting in recent months is overwhelming. The effective fundraising idea comes with the clear revelation that the internet is very powerful tool. With tools like Kick starter, and rocket hub are able to cast a wider net that will allow more individuals to participate in supporting a cause. However, with regards to control one must ask themselves with a wider net and more individuals having the ability to contribute, how will one be able to control how that money is being accounted for and that it is coming from individuals that are proper for that organization. This is a new eara of Fundraising, both in the public and private sector. On must not loose focus on how effective is new era will be providing an easier access to funds. I am very much looking forward to your final project. Best of Luck and great Topic choice! I am very encouraged that someone is shedding light on potential positive effect this can have for the NGO world. Hunter [[User:HunterGaylor|HunterGaylor]] 16:06, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
Zak:

You have a strong, well thought-out structure to your research. I don't know if it will help, but the US government hosts the Combined Federal Campaign (http://www.opm.gov/combined-federal-campaign/) which tracks and publishes the efficiency of the charities it sponsors. Another suggestion: You may want to consider looking at http://www.kickstarter.com/ as another possible target of evaluation. Among many other things, they helped launch Diaspora, a social networking alternative to Facebook and MySpace, which is still going strong.

[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 10:26, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Zak:
Your approach to the analysis of online fundraising seems rigorous and likely to yield actionable, material knowledge of the distinctions between online platforms for fundraising. It will be important to ensure that analysis of each platform is done in context, to assess the generative potential of each platform in those situations to which it's best suited.
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 16:51, 5 March 2013 (EST) 16:49, 5 March 2013 (EST)
******

*RobMcLain
*Under the Watchful Eye: Community, Connivery, and Censorship on Yelp
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/RobMcLain_Assignment2.docx
*
:RobMcLain: You and Matthew D. Haney have proposed the same research questions about Yelp. Maybe you can collaborate?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:04, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:RobMcLain: It would appear we indeed have nearly identical projects - let's team up :) [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:50, 2 March 2013 (EST)

:Matt: Absolutely! Let's get in touch - mclain@fas dot harvard dot edu

RobMcLain: Fantastic topic. I've personally experienced some of yelp's connivery. When I was running a popular downtown restaurant in Texas we held the top Yelp ranking until we decided not to pay for advertising on Yelp. After that decision our 5-star ratings began to disappear into thin air. I am curious how you plan to track and observe so many actions on such a large site where moderation isn't necessarily noted. I'd be very interested to see how you narrow your research. All my best. [[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 03:58, 5 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Rob, I think this is a great topic! I've watched a comment of mine disappear off a restaurant site -- it's interesting to have the tie in to the advertising and of course the benefit for the particular venue in keeping their "star" rating. It's a big challenge to dive into Yelp but it will be amazing for you to find links to different ways these sites may scheme to have a contrived presence to the public. Are you planning on comparisons to Open Table or Around Me? Yelp is probably big enough to tackle as is, but you may open up some really great discussions for all the others as well. Amazing project!
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 17:27, 5 March 2013 (EST) Caroline

******

*Caroline
*The Right to be Forgotten
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Righttobeforgotten.doc
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 13:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Caroline: You may want to discuss the statue of repose and the statute of limitations in your paper, if you feel that these statutes are relevant.[[User:JW|JW]] 23:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Caroline: Fascinating issue, but you may need to pick a community to observe in order to test the framework. I'm thinking of an app like SnapChat, for example. SnapChat lets users send photos and videos to one another and then deletes that content after a certain time limit. Here, the ability to be forgotten is built into the technology of the platform. How does the community use SnapChat? Is it for "sexting" as many people fear, or are there other practices involved? This might help you explore the role of architecture in the right to be forgotten, not just law. What if Facebook and Google gave you the option to publish something temporarily? [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 15:30, 27 February 2013 (EST)

*Caroline: I love your ideas but you have so many i don't know where your focus is. I think your primary topic, "research how this regulation [ the right to forget] and potential similar regulations in North America would impact the Internet. " will be difficult to approach as that's all theoretical. What would be something you could actively observe? Perhaps looking at a community and following the recency of topics posted? Cheers. [[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 04:46, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*

The right to be forgotten is a very interesting start to your project. What I propose is that you look into a focus or community or example of what you may mean by that. For example, you can look into teachers who were fired from posting up comments on their students on Facebook. It is important to narrow your scope, whether it be a certain case or a law you found that prohibits or encourages this new phenomenon of "not" forgetting. Also, you can look into how the privacy rights on the community you are studying changed to either perpetuate this or help falter it.
[[User:APhan|APhan]] 17:28, 5 March 2013 (EST)

Thanks guys!!! I greatly appreciate the comments/feedback and look forward to more as I narrow the scope and flesh out the paper! [[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 18:05, 5 March 2013 (EST) Caroline
******

*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Prospectus;_Johnathan_Merkwan.docx is my Prospectus; please read and enjoy. I look forward to constructive comments. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 13:46, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Jonathan: Unfortunately your file is no longer on the server - I also tried searching for it on the "uploaded files" page but to no avail [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:10, 2 March 2013 (EST)

:Johnathan Merkwan: Johnathan, it seems like you have a lot of ideas and are attempting to address several broad areas, including international, sociological, and architectural perspectives through field world. Reading this prospectus, I was confused at a few points, such as "According to each face as an old friend, I have been studying the relativity of facial recognition.. " This sounds interesting, but I'm not entirely certain what it means. Does this mean you are comparing the new friends you are adding to the old friends you deleted? You say, "Now Facebook has deemed my friendships “real,”" but do not specify how Facebook has promoted this realness. I think something valuable in your prospectus so far is your investigation of "the spellcheck, autocorrect, and various prompted questions Facebook has alerted me to, and in doing so shall see how each action makes a difference, contextually." I think you should continue with this line of questioning, investing how facebook's suggestions influence our behavior on the site. Here is a tool to analyze your personal facebook behavior: http://www.wolframalpha.com/facebook/ and another useful facebook statistic link http://blog.hubspot.com/blog/tabid/6307/bid/6128/The-Ultimate-List-100-Facebook-Statistics-Infographics.aspx .
:[[User:Jax|Jax]] 20:38, 4 March 2013 (EST)

::Thank you, Jax, for your comment. I will try to elucidate some of these issues that are inherent in my document. I admit it may be difficult for people to accurately spell my name. That addressed, how about a brief understanding of my perspective. With the War on Terror as it were, why is it necessary to altercate between various nations of power the mere definition of a word? Susan Goldstein, or Einstein, are not tangentially related; wherefore, the understanding of this situation is supposed to be confusing. I do dearly appreciate your response, yet it was and is not directed at me; much less johnathan Merkwan, or alan Ginsberg. If this has made things worse, I can only say things in person, not via computer. Thus, your links are a fabulous addition to my ideas, as intentionally, crude and misleading as they might be... (I call this, "intrigue". So, as this idea develops, I will keep you updated with pop culture as I see it, in the light of the Lacanian disposition this proposal defined cohesively, yet, clearly has accepted your suggestions sic collaboration.[[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 22:24, 4 March 2013 (EST)

::: I am very confused! Did I edit the wrong prospectus? [[User:Jax|Jax]] 10:22, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Name or pseudonym: Free speech,
*Prospectus title: “The study of Internet control on online travel community.”
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Free_speech_-_Assignment_2.docx
([[User:Free speech|Free speech]] 14:13, 26 February 2013 (EST))
*
:Free_speech: It is a very interesting point of view. It is important to see how people can face constraints all over the Internet.[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 17:00, 28 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi, this could be an interesting topic. I assume you have some connection to the forum beforehand, because it seems like somewhat of a random choice of community. I like how you will analyze both site specific rules of participation and countrywide laws that are applicable. As a Canadian, if I were to join the forum and participate I would be bound by the laws of Canada and the rules of forum. In contrast, and American would be bound by the laws of the US and forum as well. So perhaps the site acheives greater uniformity in participation through their own regulations than the laws of the countries. :[[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:59, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Free Speech: I'm looking at your prospectus, and the target community. You say 'the community operating in the business of discount travels'. I'm wondering if you have considered focusing on the consumer or the provider or the columnist/blogger portion of this community. I ask because I'm guessing the constraints: legal; market; and norm would probably be different, and the site owners could (although from a quick search, I can't see that they do) also use the site architecture to limit how each of these three groups participate on the site. There is, of course, a fourth group to consider, advertisers (a subset of providers, I'm assuming), and how the advertisers' perspective might limit what the site owners are willing to allow on the site. Finally, do the authors of the featured blogs comment in the forums? Are their comments given special weight? Do travel services providers show up in the forums in their professional capacity? Do they do so in an informational or customer service role? Great topic. I'm looking forward to your results. [[User:Raven|Raven]] 11:34, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*
Questions that comes up when reading your proposal is: how might you connect all of these questions together and how do things like the market link to regulation on the website? How might this internet control you perceive me relevant to general travel websites and what is significant in your study? What I mean by that is...what about control on the website? Why does it matter?
Other than that, interesting topic and I look forward to seeing the final product of your project! Flyertalk seems like a very fascinating community. [[User:APhan|APhan]] 17:42, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Phillip Dade
*The DPLA, is it Additive? Subtractive? Redundant? (DPLA = Digital Public Library of America)
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:DADE_-_2nd_Assignment_-_DPLA.doc
[[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 15:01, 26 February 2013 (EST)

:Phil: I wonder how you will [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Final_Project#Research_questions "avoid direct engagement with members of the community"] when you've stated that you will interact with and interview DPLA players and opponents. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, such as the teaching staff approving your methodology?[[User:JW|JW]] 23:20, 26 February 2013 (EST)
::* @JW - that is a good question, my thought is that I will be interviewing people who are "Pro DPLA" or "Against DPLA" so there is not much I could do to "influence their behavior to inherently change what I am trying to observe." - but I have not discussed with teaching staff, so I could be a little off. [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 23:17, 1 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hey Phillip, I am very excited to see the direction that you take regarding the DLPA, specifically in regards to the potential subtractiveness of the organization. It is always interesting
to see the how the members of the community will add to the over all effectiveness of engagement with regards to organization. Because DLPA is stated that, “The hope is that broad access to scientific results will encourage faster progress on research and will let anyone apply the knowledge for technological advances. The ability to shed light on the effectiveness will be exciting to see. "-HunterGaylor" [[User:HunterGaylor|HunterGaylor]] 15:50, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:I thought the title was a bit odd. Since so few people are familiar with the DPLA, wouldn’t it be better to give more context? “Additive” and “subtractive” can be a little confusing when one doesn’t know what the noun means, since those words are used regularly in very different ways. I would suggest something along the lines of “Evaluating the Effectiveness of the DPLA.”

:The argument about it contributing to social stratification was quite familiar for me; it seems to be used against many new technologies and developments.

:Good luck with your project. It sounds quite interesting. I think it’s a good idea to implement it as a video, in terms of accessibility. [[User:Julian|Julian]] 19:39, 4 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Name: Susan Goldstein
*Prospectus title: “What is the Definition of “Open” in a Massively Open Online Course (MOOC)?”
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Susan_Goldstein_Assignment2.docx
[[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 15:44, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Susan: I'm curious why you chose those three particular courses to observe. Would it be possible to observe the same (or very similar) course(s) across two to three platforms? (e.g., edX, Coursera, and Udacity)[[User:JW|JW]] 22:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)
::JW: I edited out why I chose these courses from the prospectus to get it down to 397 words :) I wanted to stick with Coursera and edX because they are the most well known and I'm particularly interested in Harvard's (edX) participation. My decision was more practical than scientific. I chose courses that were beginning at the end of Feb to mid-March in subjects I thought I'd understand enough to be able to follow conversations about the course. I like your idea of studying similar courses across the different platforms, but am limited by our time frame for this assignment.
*
:Susan: I have never heard of a MOOC. I wondered if an "expert" or credentialed person in the field of study would be allowed to register for the class. If so, how would they be treated? --[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 14:42, 1 March 2013 (EST)
::Dear Alice: Anyone can register for a MOOC. An expert in the field of study could register, but would only do so if they wanted to see how someone else was teaching the subject or if they wanted to learn about an aspect of the subject they wanted to learn more about. Since a MOOC is not the same as taking a course for credit to meet the academic requirements of a school, an expert couldn't "cheat" by taking a MOOC to get an easy A. One of the reasons people enroll in MOOCS is to prepare themselves to take a course for credit.
Susan [[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 20:27, 2 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Kaley Sweeney
*Internet in North Korea: The Changing Scene of Totalitarian Control Under Kim Jung-Un
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/KaleySweeney_Prospectus.docx
Kaley Sweeney 15:47, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Kaley: The part of your prospectus that most caught my attention is the very end: "the changes that are beginning to unfold with the rise in mobile internet access in the country." I would read a 10-page paper entirely focusing on mobile Internet access in North Korea![[User:JW|JW]] 21:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Kaley: I like your topic because it sheds light on democratic freedoms. Will the expansion of Internet usage in North Korea bring new forms of democracy to a select group of citizens? Will outside influences, that emerge via the Internet, begin to alter government relations? At the end of your prospectus, you mention that you...''”wish to examine the forces that have perpetuated the insulation of the country from the technological revolution and the changes that are beginning to unfold with the rise in mobile internet access in the country.”'' To narrow your focus, you may want to consider highlighting a few primary forces, i.e., norms, market, etc., with descriptions surrounding each force. To answer the latter part (changes that are beginning to unfold in North Korea), what types of changes are you referring to? Do you plan to analyze technological changes, societal changes, or both? To this end, defining a few categories may bring additional structure/clarity to your analysis. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:37, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
: Hi Kaley, you have a very interesting topic here. But for such a topic, are there enough data and info that's accessible? Because Kim JungUn's policy shifts are so recent, it might be too soon and more difficult to observe and analyze any social and cultural changes within North Korea as a result of mobile internet access. Are there any websites and/or organizations that track internet usage in North Korea? Their reports may be helpful resources. --[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 10:16, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Raven
*Prospectus Title: Creating Valuable Content: Commenters and Your Commenting Community
*Link to Prospectust: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=File:Raven_Assignment_2_Due_February_26_2013.docx&oldid=9718
[[User:Raven|Raven]] 15:59, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Raven: Cool topic. When you talk about the "quality of comments" it will be important to address the question, "according to whom?" Is it according to the managers of the site, the community of the site, or to society at large? You might also explore how comments are moderated. It seems like the NY Times screens submissions from commenters whereas The Economist and Boing Boing are more lenient. Is that true? It looks like you can flag or report inappropriate comments on Economist and Boing Boing - does user-generated moderation have an effect on the quality of the comments? I'm also interested to know whether you get higher quality comments with pseudonyms (people are perhaps more willing to be open and express one's view anonymously) or with real names (people are perhaps more willing to be articulate and tolerant). How much identity should be revealed to facilitate the most productive comments? Lastly, with regard to "comment quality categories," here are some other categories you might consider in addition to the ones you mention: Openness (willingness to share private information), Conversation potential (the extent there is discussion among commenters), Healthy debate (whether opposing viewpoints are respected), Spam ( whether comments are just a plug for blog or site), Barrier to entry to comment (easy to do or hard?), and flexibility of comment system (ability to see recommended comments or unfiltered). You may want to narrow these down for the scope of the paper but just something to think about. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 14:47, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Raven, It will be interesting to see which site (anonymous vs. registered users) create more tolls, flame wars, and other aspects to the online world that does not seem to exist in the offline space. The reverse is to see if the sites that require registration will create more fruitful conversations or of they’re equal in quality/quantity to the ones that allow anonymous commenters. [[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 16:00, 4 March 2013 (EST)

*
: Hi Raven, interesting topic you have there! I agree with Asmith that it's important that you define "quality of comments." Relatedly, I think you should consider the demographics that frequent The NYTimes, The Economist, and Boing Boing - the type of demographics will affect the type of comments as well. Also to consider is that both The New York Times and The Economist require digital subscription after a limited number of free articles, so that again too may affect what kind of people are reading those two. --[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 09:47, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*saridder: Steve Ridder

*The Digital Marketplace

*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Steve_Ridder_Assignment_2.docx

[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 16:18, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Saridder: Your proposal made me think of another topic I was considering for this project. This may be a bit of a tangent from what you're looking to do, but when you talk about the shift towards a knowledge economy, peer production, and the future of work, I immediately thought about Yammer, often called "Facebook for companies." Yammer is a social network for employees at a company to use. Last year it got bought by Microsoft for $1+ billion. Users can only connect with other Yammer users at that company. But they can post status updates, photos, documents and it has pretty much all the same features as Facebook. Yammer is touted as a way to "flatten hierarchy" and empower employees by giving everyone a voice. It provides a collaboration tool for people from all over the world. But I wonder, how does this affect the balance of power in companies? Yes, users can sign up for the service for free without their company's permission. But the company can also pay for a premium Yammer account, which gives them greater control over their Yammer community. What elements of control are at work here (i.e. does the architecture of the site encourage some acceptable work practices, but not others) ? How much control do administrators of a Yammer network have over the contents of the network? Does this shift the balance of power in the workplace because employees can interact in a peer network, rather than through a top down hierarchy? Just an idea as you narrow down your topic. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 13:01, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Saridder – First, I have to say that I think you are very ambitious! You have a lot going into your prospectus. I think 8-10 pages will only allow you to skim the surface of this broad subject area. I suggest that you select one of these companies or forums and use it as a model to explore your question. I would also suggest narrowing your question to one main question with a couple of sub-questions. This part of the exercise is often the hardest part, but it will allow you to dig a little deeper into one most interesting topic. I am looking forward to reading your perspective in this emerging subject. [[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 21:11, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Michael Keane comments: Well this is certainly an interesting topic, but you definitely have your work cut out for you. I'm not sure how one goes about prognosticating the future. I assume you are going to use recent history and developments to help you extrapolate information, but that can be a tough thing to do. I hope we are able to read each others final work as it will be interesting to see what patters you expect to develop.
[[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 11:47, 5 March 2013 (EST)
******

*María Paz Jurado
*Internet regulation in Argentina, the case of Taringa!
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/MariaPazJurado-Assignment2.pdf
--[[User:Maria|Maria]] 16:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:María: I suggest focusing your analysis on only one part of Taringa: posts, communities, music, or games. Also, it might be interesting to compare and contrast that part of Taringa to another country's equivalent, e.g. Reddit, Craigslist, [http://store.steampowered.com/about/ Steam], etc.[[User:JW|JW]] 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Maria: I agree with JW that trying to follow Taringa! Musica and Taringa! Juegos in addition to the main site would be too large a scope for such a small study. [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:48, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Maria: I think using the four “areas to analyze the Internet” (market, architecture, norms, and laws) is an excellent idea and provides structure to your final paper. To make your focus more narrow, you may want to select an example under each domain, supported by an explanation. When analyzing Taringa!’s architecture, you could highlight a few pros and cons surrounding user interactions; when examining the norms within each community, you could outline examples and draw comparisons; when analyzing the market, you could primarily focus on the exchange of music, with specific examples. Overall, I think your explanation is clear and the approach you've outlined will allow you to collect useful data to answer your primary questions.[[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 17:13, 2 March 2013 (EST)

******

*John Floyd
*Emergent Institutions: Technical Innovation in the Absence of Governance
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Floydprospectus.txt
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 16:53, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:John - You haven't clearly outlined your process or your specific questions, or what specific tools you'll use to come to your conclusions. That said, the overall topic is a fascinating one. To help you narrow your focus, here are some questions: What access do I have? What overall question most appeals to me? How can I relate it to the course goals? How can I answer that question given the access I have? What is it I am hoping to conclude? Does this conclusion relate directly to the course goals? What evidence will support or disprove this conclusion? How can I gather it efficiently? Will this be sufficient to meet the terms of the final assignment? Can I do this in the time provided? Am I willing to do this?
Good luck. I look forward to your final result. [[User:Raven|Raven]] 16:46, 28 February 2013 (EST)
*

:Hi John, it will be interesting to see if the behaviors found in these online communities will differ from the politics, alliances, and cabals of the real world. I'm most interested to see if the internet is a better coordination and orchestration mechanism for organizing, and can people online respond quicker, more effectively, and efficiently than offline groups to adapt to the changing political landscapes this game provides. [[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 15:59, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi John,
Great choice of subject, i find it fascinating how these communities of random people from around the globe come together and work together to a certain goal as a community. [[User:DanielReissHarris|DanielReissHarris]] 17:27, 4 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Pseudonym: CyberRalph
*Prospectus: Anonymous and Their Aggressiveness in the Twittersphere
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Martins_Assignment2.docx
[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 16:55, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Ralph, I think that sounds like an interesting project. I know it may be difficult, but I'd also be interested in discovering how those ananymous twitter accounts interact with real life. Are multpiple people using the same account? Are those people actually the ones doing any hacking? Almost certainly those accounts would be monitored by the authorities if they were claiming responsibility and the users identities would be discoverable.[[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi CyberRalph: This is an interesting topic. As I read your prospectus, the notion of responsibility and liability came to mind. If this group advertises cyber-attacks, can they inevitably be held accountable? For example, could law enforcement officials follow the leads to IP addresses, and ultimately discover the group(s) behind such attacks? It may be interesting to compare the concepts of online crime with other forms of illicit activities (is online crime more isolated and easier to commit without paying the consequences?). As an intro or conclusion, you may also want to consider highlighting current trends with cyber-attacks and security measures that governments/large companies take. Furthermore, to strengthen your analysis, it would be interesting if you state your personal hypothesis upfront, followed by your question surrounding motivation for these types of attacks. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:34, 3 March 2013 (EST)

CyberRalph: Definitely an interesting and timely topic, but I wonder if Twitter is really the best forum for gleaning insight into the ''motivation'' of Anonymous members. After all, on Twitter, you're essentially getting the PR, the end result. For a previous project, I actually spent some time hanging out in Anonymous IRC chat rooms and found that the conversations there offered a lot more insight into the diversity of perspectives within the group and might give you a lot more material to work from. Of course, you'd have to be careful with your methodologies and think about the ethical issues involved, but these are still public forums. At the very least, you could check out other areas online that might allow you to grasp more of the conversation going on, especially when we're talking about such a heterogeneous group. Good luck! [[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 16:47, 5 March 2013 (EST)
******

*Name or pseudonym: Julian
*Prospectus title: We the People: On the Effectiveness of Public Outreach
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Julian_Assignment2.txt
[[User:Julian|Julian]] 17:10, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Julian:You've presented some intriguing research questions. In part, it sounds like you plan to measure effectiveness numerically. If so, I look forward to the statistical analyses in your paper, possibly accompanied by figures/graphs/charts/etc.[[User:JW|JW]] 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Julian, I find tools to promote public engagement very interesting and useful, great topic to investigate about. It might be useful for you to see also moveon.org and signon.org, the latter is actually a website to create petitions and promote them through online communities. It might be interesting to compare how both government and NGOs use different approaches to deal with the same kind of issues. --[[User:Maria|Maria]] 11:08, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Julian, I think this is a great topic. It was interesting to watch the federal government grapple with the issues of the 'X" number of signatures and what was going to fly to see a formal response. If you are able to track a couple of specific issues that are current and newsworthy (guns etc) you may see an ebb and flow of signatures based on the public interest that is hyped by media (both social and corporate)
It may be of interest to take two sides of the same coin to measure the results -- in the gun example you can't get much more polar than that as a debate and how the website will play a role in topics such as that would be a great paper.
Good Luck!
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 17:15, 5 March 2013 (EST) Caroline
******
*Aly Barbour
*Prospectus: The prevalence and moderation of the ‘Pro-Ana’ movement
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Abarbour_prospectus.docx
[[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 17:17, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Aly Barbour: In order to narrow your field research, it will be interesting if you focus on one or two specific communities. It will be better wether they have an intense activity.
*
:Hi Aly, it was shocking to read about these communities, very interesting subject to investigate. I think it’s a good idea to focus in comparing activities in pro anorexia communities and recovery support groups in reddit.com, leaving aside the other platforms to narrow your scope. I think you should also define what will you observe from these communities in order to reach a conclusion for your investigation: do you want to know how control is being implemented? Or maybe focus in one particular constraint and see how it plays a role in regulating the community?--[[User:Maria|Maria]] 11:40, 3 March 2013 (EST)

: Hi Aly, this is a very interesting topic! I was not aware of the Pro-Ana movement at all - When I saw the title I thought Ana was a person. Because of country laws and the way companies like Facebook have been clamping down on these communities, will you be able to directly observe any specific communities? Are they operating overtly? I browse Lookbook.nu now and then and once came upon the criticism that only super skinnies gather there (if you google it, there are communities against Lookbook because of this). Perhaps this might be helpful. --[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 09:30, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Pseudonym: JW

*Prospectus title: Reddit's Dox Paradox: Proper or Not?

*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:JW_Assignment2.txt
[[User:JW|JW]] 17:36, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:JW: One of the most interesting constrains here relates to social norms - doxxing is used as a way to regulate and control speech. If you post truly terrible things, the article on the Violentacrez seems to suggest, you ought to be outed to the public. On the one hand, this policy may reduce offensive material - people may be scared to post things like child pornography for fear of being publicly shamed. But "justifiable doxxing" also leads to a kind of vigilantism which has all kinds of moral implications. Who decides who deserves to be outed? It would be interesting to observe doxxing behavior on Preddit and Reddit to see if there is any recognition of where moral boundaries are drawn, if any. Is there any discussion of when doxxing is justifiable (i.e. journalism) and when it is not (i.e. trolling) ? Reddit's stance was clearly: doxxing is bad, period. But do community members feel differently? [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 12:30, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:I think that’s an interesting topic, which surprisingly we haven’t covered much in class yet. It raises many interesting questions. In what ways, and how does the legal system protect anonymity? And are those protections by design, or unintentional as Section 230 was by operating separately from the rest of the legislation with which it was supposed to be packaged? Should those laws be there, or were they mistakes? Often, normative questions reduce to tradeoffs. In this case, it’s the classic tradeoff between privacy and incentivizing socially advantageous behavior.

:Also, have you decided which of Lessig’s four constraints you’ll be using? Are you sure you’ll only be using one? It seems that there are critical points to be made from more angles, and could probably be done without extending scope to beyond what is manageable with the time and length constraints. [[User:Julian|Julian]] 19:39, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
This is very interesting of a topic. I hope you consider talking a bit about privacy rights incorporating it into whether or not doxxing is considered proper. Also, it may be of interest to your topic to discuss why certain members are targeted and what are the commonalities in the ones targeted. I look forward to the final product of your project!
[[User:APhan|APhan]] 17:42, 5 March 2013 (EST)

Interesting topic! I am not sure why you chose Reddit in particular for doxxing - could you elaborate?
******

*Pseudonym: Jax, formerly known as Jaclyn Horowitz
*Prospectus Title: Ignorance and the Colonization of Rap Genius
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Jax_Assignment2.docx
[[User:Jax|Jax]] 17:57, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Jax: This is an interesting topic and one that will allow you to make many connections between the artists and those who critique the artists. You mention that you’re...''“interested in examining the characteristics of popular contributions and contributors in relation to broader reader and contributor demographics, exploring whether objectivity can emerge in this venue.”'' What preliminary hypotheses do you have? Does this website cater to the Ivy League crowd or does it attract rap enthusiasts from all walks of life? Examining demographics and objectivity is a valid approach, but stating your hypotheses upfront may provide an interesting twist. Do you think people are generally objective or subjective, and what demographics do you think most reviewers represent? If you follow this method, the data you collect will either confirm or negate your upfront interpretations. All in all, this is a very current topic and I look forward to learning about your findings. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 17:21, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Jax: Of all the topics posted I'm more drawn towards yours. I read a very interesting article ( though my google-fu currently fails me) underlining the similarities between opera and rap. One of the ways mentioned was that in order to appreciate either one must know the history of the genre in order to draw meaning from the references. I worry however that when you start to reach outside the community (rappers opinions on the site, social critiques) your analysis from observing the community from within will become watered down and lost among a much broader subject.[[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 15:11, 5 March 2013 (EST)

Jax: I'm so interested in this topic and I think you articulated it very well! My one suggestion would be to make sure that you very carefully define the abstract standards against which you're judging the site--namely "objectivity." After all, what does "objectivity" mean in this context? Is it objectivity on the part of the site's administrators to curate the lyrics in such a way that don't cater to any particular readership? And is that even in line with the object of the site itself, given its stated aims? I.e. are you developing a critique of the site's premise, or searching for any disconnects between the premise and the administrators' behavior? Overall, I think that your question about the "distribution of power" throughout the site might be a more useful frame, one that gets at essentially the same issues without getting bogged down in abstract semantics that could prove distracting from your essential question. Looking forward to reading more! [[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 16:40, 5 March 2013 (EST)

Jax: It will be interesting to see how the profiteering attitude of Rap Genius' operators interacts with the essentially commercial and dramatized character of rap lyrics. The direct involvement of high capital (AH) speaks to the emptiness of Rap Genius' engagement with its subject, as the company's mission drives it away from an authentic phenomenology of urban poverty. Whether Rap Genius as a developing community can successfully interrogate the role that violence, debauchery and lawlessness play in the aesthetic power of rap music remains to be seen, but the sort of superficial glamorization that Rap Genius seems designed to promote will be a useless tool for its exegetical task.
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 17:10, 5 March 2013 (EST)

Laurence Girard: Interesting project! I think one thing that you will want to focus on is observing who uses the website. The website was founded by Ivy league graduates, but will it be used by individuals of a similar level of education? If not, who will moderate the comments or will the comments be moderated at all?

******

*'''Becca Luberoff'''<br />
*'''Prospectus title:''' Issues of Privacy and Security in Online Mental Health Communities <br />
*'''Link to Prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:BeccaLuberoff_Assignment2.docx <br />
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 19:41, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Becca: I've noticed that Google caches content from purportedly private forums. If content from your three closed communities is publicly searchable, how does that affect privacy issues?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:42, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Becca: I followed the link to the "Living with Bipolar Disorder" category on bphope.com and it appeared that the most recent post was 3 months ago with many being from years ago. Will not being able to observe activity (particularly censoring) in real-time have an impact on the research? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:42, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Becca, Interesting topic and it will be interesting to see how the online components and ‘permanent record’ of comments (architecture) might prohibit and skew the conversation vs. offline, real-world conversations. Will questions asked be inhibited by the semi-public aspect of online forums, preventing people from receiving better care than the privacy the offline world affords? Or will the open aspect of the community allow the best comments to bubble up and be connected to experts who would otherwise not have seen the question if it was asked in the offline world.
:[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 15:59, 4 March 2013 (EST)

:Becca, nice work! This is a really important topic, and I like the focus you have in terms comparing three different sites around one issue, bipolar disorder. You may want to evaluate the "explicitness and freedom" around specific criteria. If posts contain unique identifying information such as location of medical care or personal qualities (birthdates, current location, physical features) , if posters are frequent posters, if posters refer directly to one another by (user)name are just a few factors that may indicate how intimate, free, and explicit the forums are. Though I have never been on any of these message boards, I could imagine that market forces may influence the community's behavior as well. For instance, are there advertisements on the site? Spam? Doctor's opinions? Donation links? Another perspective to consider, though this could probably be another paper in and of itself, is how does the specific disorder affect the user's online experience and how well does the site cater to these differences? I know you will probably not get to explore this, but just something that I was considering while reading your prospectus. Thanks for this project, and I look forward to reading your work! [[User:Jax|Jax]] 10:22, 5 March 2013 (EST)

Laurence Girard: Hi! It would be interesting to see if there are any website out there in which healthcare professionals moderate the comments or if the websites you have chosen are simply more similar to Yahoo Answers! I know for a fact that there are some websites in which doctors answer questions such as health tap and it would be interesting for you to include some websites that include health professionals in your analysis.
******

*Pseudonym: baughller
*Prospectus title: Ethical Implications of Personalized Search
*Link to Prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment_2_-_Prospectus.docx
*
:I really like the comparison you drew between online libraries and physical libraries such as the library of congress. I think this can serve as a good comparison point for most of your research and provide valuable information. The idea of DuckDuckGo and being given similar information could be a big theme/discourse for your project as well. :[[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:39, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Baughller: This is an interesting topic. Given your research focus area, it may be interesting to forecast the future in relation to identity-type searches (from your perspective). For example, if search results continue to show information based on people’s background / historical searches, what will the long-term outcomes be? Is this a positive search trend or a negative trend, and why? I think it may also be interesting to look at this scenario from a marketing viewpoint. Today, advertisements frequently appear as we surf the web, based on our preferences; this wasn't the case years ago. To that end, how is this new trend changing certain products and/or services? Are some industries profiting more than others, or can all types of marketing reap the benefits? Overall, your topic is very relevant in the current Internet environment, and this search-reality may only be in its infancy. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 17:27, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:@Baughller : I agree with @Zak in that the topic is fascinating! I never gave it much thought but it totally makes sense! I have always been on the side of personalization when it comes to ad's, as I would prefer they be relevant to me in the event that I have to view them at all. The personalization of search results and comparison to library of congress is great and a topic I think worth exploring. Only feedback I would give is that I think you need a stronger, more solidly stated research question and hypothesis, but as I said, the area of research is awesome so I'm sear whatever slice of it you choose to explore will follow suit! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 13:12, 5 March 2013 (EST)

Laurrence Girard: I think the fundamental question that you need to deal with is whether or not this feature helps people find more relevant information or infringes on their privacy!

******

*Laurence Girard

*Laurence Girard Prospectus

*Question: What effect does reading online health information have on the health of our society?

Many people search for online health information on a daily basis, but most of this information is not reviewed by physicians. As a result, many people self-diagnose and as a result this can result in very dangerous health outcomes. I am interested in studying websites such as WebMD and seeing what type of impact this has on people’s health.

I am particularly interested in seeing how online health content relates to online health products. For example, perhaps someone reads an article on WebMD about how Vitamin D affects their health and then as a result they buy it on Amazon.com. What types of supplements are people buying and what affect is this having on their health?I am also interested in websites such as Teladoc.com where users can consult with physicians. In other words, I am interested in studying how people access health information, products, and consultations online. I have read one statistic that says 80% of people in our country search for online health information. For this reason, I think this will be a particularly interesting project to complete and is relevant to the healthcare debate in our country. We need to focus more on prevention and less on treatment and the Internet can certainly be one modality for doing this. I am interested to hear about what my fellow classmates have to say about my chosen assignment.
*
:Laurence: This sounds like a very interesting topic, but would be a huge project to undertake. Can you find one community where people are talking about health issues? I imagine every major disease or condition has some kind of community such as the American Cancer Societies’ Online Communities and Support [[http://www.cancer.org/treatment/supportprogramsservices/onlinecommunities/index]] and choose one or two subgroups to study. Then I think you would be able to look at issues similar to those that Becca will be looking at for her project about Issues of Privacy in Online Mental Health Communities. [[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 14:48, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Laurence – Your subject is interesting. Is there a data source containing the information that you are interested in? How would it be known if someone looked up a disease on WebMD, then went to Amazon and purchased a supplement that might be suggested for treating it? Google or other companies that send out tacking cookies might collected this type of information. Access to this data is an important factor for your study. Also, does your subject relate to control or censorship? If the data cannot be collected easily, the subject might need to be narrowed or focused on an area where you can collect data. [[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 21:32, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Michael Keane comments: Wow, this seems very ambitious. I wouldn't even know how to go about collecting the kinds of data that would be necessary to complete such a project. Do you have a plan for where or how you can obtain this kind of information in order to analyze it? I recently took a visualization class where students had to write code in python that would go out and collect and scrub data of one's choosing from the internet. Are you planning on utilizing some strategy such as that? Good luck with your assignment. [[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 11:56, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*
This seems very big of a topic. I would try to narrow it down to only one of the sites and something particular on the website. It might be even more important to narrow down your question to what type of health information and how you are attaining your information (Just by the users of the websites?) and whether or not the users or the websites would necessarily be representative of everyone reading health information...Goodluck with your project! I look forward to the final product! [[User:APhan|APhan]] 17:42, 5 March 2013 (EST)

Copyright Part 1: Guiding Principles and Online Application

2013-03-05T23:54:02Z

Johnathan Merkwan: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''March 5'''

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.

Over the next two classes, this course will take up the some of the issues related to copyright protection and enforcement online. Today’s class will focus on the legal regime of copyright: what it protects, what it doesn’t protect, and how the doctrine has transformed in light of digital reproduction and distribution.

'''[https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:2013-03-05-Copyright1.pdf Download slides for this week's class.]'''

<onlyinclude>

== Assignments ==

The second half of assignment 2 (commenting on prospectuses) is due ''before class'' today. Information on the assignment can be found [[Assignments#Assignment_2:_Prospectus|here]].

== Readings/Watchings ==

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause Wikipedia, Copyright Clause]

* [http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 1: Copyright Basics] (read only Who Can Claim Copyright?, What Works Are Protected?, What is Not Protected by Copyright?, How to Secure a Copyright, and How Long Copyright Protection Endures)

* [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 17 U.S.C. § 107 - Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use]

* [http://blip.tv/lessig/it-is-about-time-getting-our-values-around-copyright-2847688 Lawrence Lessig, It is About Time: Getting Our Values around Copyright] (watch first 6 minutes)

* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/why-johnny-cant-stream-how-video-copyright-went-insane/ James Grimmelmann, Why Johnny Can’t Stream: How Video Copyright Went Insane]

* [http://www.copyhype.com/2012/08/there-is-no-magic-bullet/ Terry Hart, There is No Magic Bullet]

* [http://www.bloomsburyacademic.com/view/Remix_9781849662505/chapter-ba-9781849662505-chapter-0001.xml Lawrence Lessig, ''Remix: Making Art and Culture Thrive in the Hybrid Economy''] (Introduction only)

* Creative Commons, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DKm96Ftfko A Shared Culture] (video, watch all) and [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Spectrumofrights_Comic1 Spectrum of Rights]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jdlitman/papers/read.htm Jessica Litman, The Exclusive Right to Read] (introduction and Sections I and II only)
* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/10/dodgy-digits-behind-the-war-on-piracy/ Julian Sanchez, Ars Technica, 750,000 Lost Jobs? The Dodgy Digits Behind the War on Piracy]

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==
The gloss we're doing in class on the duration of copyright terms is a bit simplified. For a more detailed chart discussing copyright duration, check out the chart developed by [http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm Cornell's Copyright Information Center].

== Class Discussion ==
<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">'''Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:Asellars|Asellars]] 15:29, 21 January 2013 (EST)'''</div>

I was somewhat surprised by the tone of Julian Sanchez', Ars Technica, 750,000 Lost Jobs? The Dodgy Digits Behind the War on Piracy. It reads as if it were written by some type of torrent-freak railing against legitimate business, and is about as informative. While his fundamental point that it is hard to quantify the harm copyright piracy does in terms of economic loss and jobs lost is reasonable, he does nothing to argue against the undeniable fact that the United States (and Canada) do lose jobs and money due to the piracy. Sanchez' point "When someone torrents a $12 album that they would have otherwise purchased, the record industry loses $12, to be sure. But that doesn't mean that $12 has magically vanished from the economy. On the contrary: someone has gotten the value of the album and still has $12 to spend somewhere else" is just flat out wrong. It may be valid when an American steals from an American, or a Canadian steals from a Canadian, but it does not apply when a Canadian steals from an American, or more problematically, when China and the rest of the world steal from America. The US trade deficit with China is enormous. This is due in quite a significant part to the fact that we import and pay for enormous amounts of manufactured goods from China, while China imports, but does not pay for enormous amounts of IP from the US and Canada (think fake Apple phones, hacked MS office, every single hollywood movie and song, serious technical data and research). While Sanchez might not want to pay $100 for MS Word or $20 for a movie, he should think twice before accepting the argument that the 6.1 billion people in the rest of the world do not have to pay the US for IP. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 10:18, 3 March 2013 (EST)

:Thanks for the very thoughtful comment, Josh. I'm not sure if Sanchez meant to take on the second question as to how much damage is caused to the American economy by piracy. As to the "$12" discussion you mentioned, I agree that Sanchez is being a bit too fast and loose here, but I think what he is driving at is more macroscopic: that the presence of downloading for consumption of works doesn't have a substantial impact on the discretionary spending budgeted by citizens in America – the same amount of money is being spent, it is just being reallocated. I have no idea if that is true or not, but I do know that studies that have looked at the microeconomic dimension of that – that is, whether each download should be valued as a lost sale – have suggested largely that it does not. Felix Oberholzer-Gee and Koleman Strumpf have the [http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~mshum/ec106/strumpf.pdf most famous examination on point] (and their study has [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1014399 its critics]), but other studies done by [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/21/business/yourmoney/21view.html?_r=4& Wharton] and others have reinforced the general point. My point in including in today's reading was not to suggest that the RIAA is wrong and that Sanchez is right; it is rather to highlight the fact that we are trying to legislate in an area that is famous for a lot of hyperbolic talk and little empirical analysis. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 12:16, 5 March 2013 (EST)

:Andy - That's useful background. I do believe Joshywonder's point is an important one. Having lived in a country (briefly) in which powerful anti-U.S. forces are a component of the government, and frequently finding U.S. movies on the street with sophisticated packaging materials for @$1, it was hard not to come to the conclusion that a little bit of economic warfare was occurring. People used their (hard to get) European student and travel visas for copious copying of US programming and would distribute these free among friends (think in terms of hours or days of constant downloading and in terms of multiple seasons of multiple TV shows), and you could understand why they were willing to do this because US programming was expensive to get and came from outside this country, and also because US movies and TV shows purchased legally were insanely expensive. Most of us living there on US salaries and with housing and food subsidies were living quite well, but when I went to legally purchase a movie as a gift, I was astonished at the cost (close to $30 US dollars).
[[User:Raven|Raven]] 14:14, 5 March 2013 (EST)

::And of course, you don't even have to go to overseas to see US movies on the street for $1. [http://piracy.americanassembly.org/the-report/ The Social Science Research Council] did a deep dig into it in 2011 and found that the rampant piracy in many countries is attributable to a few different factors, but principally what you flagged: a lack of antipiracy education and the overwhelmingly high cost of local legal alternatives. I would also be remiss not to mention that America's longstanding legacy in the international community was as pirates ourselves – we were very, very slow to recognize international copyright standards (over 100 years late in joining the Berne Convention), and used [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_clause all sorts of legal tricks] to inject foreign works into the public domain here. As small anecdotal example, Charles Dickens [http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/dickens/pva/pva75.html very famously railed] against the lack of copyright protection of his works in the United States. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 14:50, 5 March 2013 (EST)

***

The Ars Technica article was very intriguing and made me think of the landscape of Internet access with the high fixed costs of transitioning to a fiber optic network. I’m sure that laying cables, etc. was extremely costly (which we have reviewed in previous lectures). However it opened the doors to much greater advancements in technology. I believe that if subsidies were somehow provided to entice companies to build fiber optic networks then the internet may experience a harkening much to the likes of cable television. And with greater technological advancement will surely come greater legal points of contention. I wonder if the legal battle for transmitting copyrighted information will become more heated as technology continues to progress. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 11:51, 3 March 2013 (EST)

***

Grimmelman’s article on the madness of the Cablevision case really encapsulated the crux of the copyright debate for me. Grimmelman concludes: “Instead of asking which back-end technologies are legal, it might make more sense to ask what it is legal for users to do with computers on the front end.” An astute point that should be obvious (and I personally loved Grimmelman’s irreverent tone to reinforce this). The protection of copyright is a dense, complicated problem in the digital era, but to make progress, we have to be able to agree on some sensible underlying assumptions. Namely, that “copying” and “performing” is different in the digital world than in the analog world. Consequently 1.) we can't directly apply old copyright regulations to new ones and 2.) we ought to apply copyright regulations as they relate to users’ uses rather than some obscure behind the scenes minutiae.

Reading Grimmelman’s article, I was blown away by the technical intricacies of de-duplicaton, public performance, and what constitutes as a “copy.” Absent from the discussion surrounding Cablevision were issues of user practices, fair use, and rethinking the nature of a digital copy. As Lawrence Lessig points out, the technology with which we access our culture today has changed – copying is ubiquitous in our creative “remix” culture. And so while I think few people fall into the extremes of “abolish copyright altogether” or “preserve everything bout old copyright” it’s important to recognize, as Lessig says of Aaron Swartz’s work, when to recognize “dumb copyright.” I think by focusing too heavily on analog metaphors and technical loop-holes, we do little to combat dumb copyright.

Film major side note, here are some brilliant video essays on the subject:

Everything is a Remix: http://www.everythingisaremix.info/watch-the-series/
A Fair(y) Use Tale: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4FNDo

[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 22:18, 3 March 2013 (EST)

***

The prosecution of You Tube videos when a "performance" is uploaded of a toddler dancing to a pop music hit seems to me to be self-defeating and more in the sphere of 20th century thinking, such as when the music industry flailed about trying to stop digital downloads of their music. Times change, and the intellectual property laws that were lobbied for at one time and passed must be re-thought in the digital age. Needless to say, other countries around the world mercilessly copy and sell material such as DVD's of movies and music. This is nothing new, and it has not stopped. Clothing is copied in the same manner. Prosecuting citizens of your own country for enthusiatically promoting a brand for free on You Tube or anywhere else on social media or in person at a non-profit exhibition, or even for profit in a cover performance is to me the worse excess of over regulation. Performers can make money off of live performance instead of through digital sales. A copy of clothing is not the real thing, and those who can afford the real thing would never wear a copy, such as a Rolex on the corner. The customer base is grown through copies, not diminished. The global economy solves that problem. When corporations and laws focus on free trade in the global market and seek their profit points from live performance and pushing related items such as digital memberships for exclusive content, and interaction with the performers and creators of the art, intellectual property law will no longer be grasping at straws attempting to regulate across national lines into another country and have when that fails, go after their own fan base! Profit centers change, and in the digital age regulation and control have a place, but are not a replacement for the free market and competition that is able to flourish on world stage.

[[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 13:15, 5 March 2013 (EST)

Wikipedia's and the U.S. Copyright Office's explanation of copyright made the law seem straightforward and easy to understand. But once the readings and video started tackling the copyright issues in the internet realm, everything became rather confusing. This is partly my fault for not knowing a lot about copyright law, but from what I've read, it seems like the courts (and legislatures?) are also still trying to figure how the copyright system should work in cyberspace.

Is the problem because we're trying to apply a system of laws that was originally developed to regulate mostly ideas fixated on tangible objects (books, cds, records) on a virtual platform? The debate about what kind of "copies" are legal (see e.g. the Ars Technica reading on Video Copyright) result in strange rules/law, as Grimmelmann summarizes: "A million viewers and a million copies—OK. A million viewers but only one copy—not OK."

If the copyright law is interpreted broadly, I think a lot of normal online activity infringes the law. And yet it's so easy to click to a page, save a chunk of text, movie, and/or image one likes, then share it somewhere else, making more and more copies. Are these activities infringing copyright law? It's not fair use, it's more like sharing. In the physical world, I would share a book I like by actually lending it to a friend and not photocopying it because of the hassle; but when applied online, the matter is as simple as a right click of a file, then "copy" then "paste." And the paste can result in tons of copies without much effort.

Perhaps a new system should be created for the internet, instead of just applying the old principles of copyright. Creative Commons is a step in that direction, but the issues dealing with traditional intellectual property (such as music and books published by by brick-and-mortar businesses) going online still aren't solved.

I think Lawrence Lessig made an important point reminding his audience that the purpose of copyright law isn't supposed to make money for the rights holder, although that's a nice reward, and there are business models built around that (e.g. the music and movie industry). Rather, the purpose of copyright is to provide the incentives to create an environment that fosters creativity and discussion. Any thinking on how copyright should apply to the internet should keep these goals in mind.

--[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 06:27, 5 March 2013 (EST)

***

I found the video Creative Commons very inspiring. This video really harnessed my view on the globalization of technology. The view that sharing content can advance education, technology, medicine, just to name a few areas is not new. While most countries and companies hold their intellectual property close to their chest and will fight tooth and nail to take anyone down who infringes on it, we should evolve as a culture to allow for a shared space. This shared space could provide the insight to allow for advancement rather than stagnation. One little binary code, or biological sequence can inspire another individual to change the world. [[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 06:35, 5 March 2013 (EST)

***

The readings this week are well balanced: past, present, and future. The overview about Limitations on Exclusive Rights (17 USC § 107) and Exclusive Rights in Copyrighted Works (17 USC § 106) sets the stage for copyright regulations, dating back to the U.S. Constitution. The examples in the other articles draw attention to present-day legal debates, such as Internet streaming (i.e., the son of cable). And, the Creative Commons (CC) video/article, is a segue to the future of copyright regulation and knowledge transfer. From my perspective, the future outlook is an interesting scenario to consider.

During the first month of this course, we've learned that the boundaries surrounding online regulation and sovereignty are complex. Online copyright follows suite. Literary, musical, dramatic arts, choreographic works, and motion pictures, among the other forms of communication (outlined in 17 USC § 106) are continuously shared, yet who becomes the ultimate online police? Much like freedom of speech, it seems almost impossible to define the boundaries of copyright infringement in cyberspace. When intellectual capital (IC) is shared without approval, where is the line drawn? From the standpoint of last week’s “third-party provider articles,” the stakeholder web appears even more convoluted. IC passes from hand to hand, server to server, website to website. Who assumes accountability?

CC is interesting because it opens the door for knowledge sharing, and anyone can participate. It promotes “creativity, collaboration, and access.” I personally like the mission stated in the video: ''CC moves away from content control and thinks in terms of communications, bringing communities together through open-ended collaboration.'' This concept is in-line with the “online freedom of speech argument,” promoting creativity as a means to become more united. Creating and sharing within an online global community generates different outcomes versus building legal walls (i.e., copyright restrictions).

What do others think about the CC-form of communication and expression? Can this collaborative concept dominate the web, or will restrictions trump open-ended communication? Are there parallel online communities that mirror the Creative Commons’ concept? [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:22, 5 March 2013 (EST)

***
I really enjoyed reading material for today’s lecture, however the main question arises as to why can’t we apply the laws of intellectual property in a simple and coherent manner? In my view, the law of copyright seems to be falling apart, while restricting the information that can change the world and [could] alter the research and development of new and improved results of diverse frameworks. What about community? How can we share intellectual information if it’s so drastically protected? The article of Grimmelmann portrays an interesting view of copyright of video industry, which has its own architecture of copyright law (fees for Netflix and hulu as an example), however, how about those individuals/countries that cannot afford the copyright [fees] conditions? While watching the video about Creative Commons on A Shared Culture, I was definitely inspired about the comments that were made, which I completely agree with. I believe that laws do get in the way; furthermore, a shared community must exist (and it does at some extend) in order for diverse societies to be able to adapt by the laws, which must portray a source of freedom within creative and intellectual spectrums.
[[User:User777|user777]] 11:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)
***

Wikipedia gave a brief and general description of the Copyright clause of the US Constitution, the history and origin of the copyright language and its effects. I've come to expect a bit more out of the Wikipedia community and was a bit surprised that there wasn't more content on it, especially considering the controversial nature of copyright laws.

The first six minutes of the Lessig speech and his first point - the elephant in the room - seemed to me to neglect the idea that while the Internet is a place where massive amount of information is available virtually, the same information is still available through more traditional means and in physical form. This point is important because much of the world has access to traditional (i.e. pre-online) access to information and do not need to violate copyright law in order to access it. The counterpoint to my point would obviously be that much of the world does not have access to traditional forms of information and the Internet is their best and only means to obtain such information. However, I think it remains important to point out that convenience should not be a justification, in and of itself, to tear down copyright laws.

Finally, I struggle to understand the perspective those who are hostile towards the very existence of any copyright law. Copyright law protects the motivation and incentive for profit-seeking institutions to create and help advance the world by offering more choices, whether the purposes of their products or services are educational, entertainment, scientific or other purposes. It is true that those with altruistic motivations (i.e. those who create for the purposes of the proverbial "greater good" of society or the world) can and have made major contributions, but to ignore the value in protecting intellectual property of profit-seekers and those who want to protect what they create for any other purposes, will remove the incentive for a massive portion of the creative world to continue to produce.

[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 11:54, 5 March 2013 (EST)

:Thanks, Ralph. If you're still hungry for more reading about the Copyright Clause and its history, I would strongly recommend Dotan Oliar's [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ip/oliar_ipclause.pdf The Origins and Meanings of the Intellectual Property Clause]. His is probably the leader in the space about what was going on in the Framers' minds when the clause was drafted. And I wouldn't presume to speak for Lessig, but he has been rather insistent throughout all of his scholarship that he is not a copyright abolitionist. The question for him (and for me, and for many, many legal scholars out there) is not the whether, but the how – what is the appropriate calibration of rights and limitations that would afford authors sufficient (and appropriate) compensation for their works, while also allowing the general public sufficient freedom to expand and build upon existing works in order to further our scientific and artistic progress.[[User:Asellars|asellars]] 13:56, 5 March 2013 (EST)

****

This week at the computer was pure ecstasy. I love the articles that we read for class and the informative nature of this material. The copyright problem as exasperated with the current issues is probably the most interesting thing ever. So, when I went to that site called Creative Commons, I felt like the world was lifted off by back. I sat in front of my computer and was elated. Then, I realized that the articles listed there were open copyright copyrights and basically send up the idea that the whole situation there is just about as fabulous as a Project Runway show where intelligent designers get their ideas stolen by people with more intellectual capital. So regardless as this is, the differing platforms and the differing modes of media interpretation, show how people online can steal eachother's ideas, even if not the spellcheck. So this weeks readings left me in a tizzy about lecture today and I know that regardless of this exoneration of say, multiple cycles of cyclical group therapy, aka communism, that the internet is certainly a place I will continue to play on for years to come. Thank you for you time. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 12:49, 5 March 2013 (EST)

****

I thought this was a good basic overview of copyright law and the Creative Commons license. However I would have liked a bit more background (thanks for providing the link) on current copyright law, and a bit more critique on the Creative Commons licenses. I found a Wikipedia page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons, on the Creative Commons license that contained some links to critical voices. I also found a paper that went a bit into who is using the licenses and how they are using them herehttp://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/script-ed/vol4-1/coates.asp. The author of the article, Jessica Coates, was the Project Manager at the Creative Commons Clinic at Queensland University of Technology at the time the paper was written. The Creative Commons website contains a list of articles here:http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Scholarship_and_critique_regarding_Creative_Commons

According to the Creative Commons website, this is the current breakdown of usage, charts are available on the site. See the site for how the data was gathered and the caveats on usage) http://wiki.creativecommons.org/License_statistics
"These charts show a breakdown of the types of licenses deployed and the properties of deployed licenses, based on Yahoo! queries as of 2006-06-13. (As above the Google API is now superior for an aggregate count, but Yahoo link: searches are superior for measuring the relative deployment of specific licenses and thus specific license types.)"

by: 96.6%

nc: 67.5%

nd: 24.3%

sa: 45.4%

Finally, knowing little more about current copyright law and use then can be found in this class and in the media, one of the critiques mentioned in the Wikipedia article on the Creative Commons had me wanting to know more:

"Péter Benjamin Tóth asserts that Creative Commons' objectives are already well served by the current copyright system, and that Creative Commons' "some rights reserved" slogan, as opposed to the "all rights reserved" principle, creates a false dichotomy. "Copyright provides a list of exclusive rights to the rightholder, from which he decides which ones he wishes to 'sell' or grant and which to retain. The 'some rights reserved' concept is therefore not an alternative to, but rather the very nature of classical copyright." The link for this quote is here:^ Tóth, Péter Benjamin (2009). Creative Humbug. Indicare Project http://www.indicare.org/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=118

I suppose the response to this argument is that one would have to track the creator down and request permission for use, whereas the Creative Commons license allows this info to be embedded by machine language and carried across the web with the material, but without digging into the articles on the Creative Commons website and elsewhere on the web, I really don't know enough (and obviously, I'd like to) to have an opinion on whether or not the Creative Commons licenses are truly a solution to the problem to which tonight's readings point.

[[User:Raven|Raven]] 13:03, 5 March 2013 (EST)

:Thanks for sharing that, Raven. We will (time permitting) be digging into the limitations of the Creative Commons solutions tonight, but I do appreciate you flagging them here as well. More criticism can be found [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_commons#Criticism here]. I'd note that much of the modern criticism around Creative Commons (especially as version 4.0 of the licenses is soon to be deployed) is not based on the premise, but on the execution – wondering whether and to what extent the licenses may develop inconsistencies or may be incompatible with other open source licenses (such as the GNU FSF or MIT licenses). My response to Tóth would begin with what you flagged already – that it would be impossible to actually track down each specific user to secure the rights to do many things online. Tóth is correct that the rights granted under copyright (for the most part) are optionally enforceable, but there's a big difference in execution between deciding whether to exercise that option in the moment and communicating to the world that you can use this affirmatively. As to whether it "erodes" copyright, another popular criticism, perhaps most famously brought by ASCAP, I personally don't find much credence in it. Creative Commons very much depends on copyright in order to work, as enforcement for violation of a CC term (e.g., using CC-BY-NC works for commercial purposes, or CC-BY works without attribution) would be an action for copyright infringement. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Katzer only major US case addressing open licenses] used this to find liability for violation of the GNU GPL. And by empowering authors to decide for themselves work-by-work the fundamental choice remains with the party who – as Tóth said – is empowered always under copyright law to make the choice. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 13:47, 5 March 2013 (EST)

*****

As a nonphysical and interactive medium, the internet alters concepts of ownership, reproduction, and exchange. On the internet, people can can claim others' media and ideas much more subtly than in the physical world. Technologies that aggregate massive amounts of content, such as Google and Wikipedia, strip owners of control over their work . As Lessig argues, the internet has changed the way we interact with out culture, and thus, necessitated revision of how culture creators establish ownership. While less prohibitive licenses such as the Creative Commons have developed, these new terms of ownership do not mitigate the disconnect between content creators and online users/viewers. Not just copyright law must change, but also internet users' awareness of copyright law in of online work they hope to use. On the creators end, while uploading content, they should be able to designate copyright preferences. At the user endpoints, perhaps web browsers could have a feature that allows users to view the specified copyright of web content elements, similar to the web inspector tool. If there were more apparent ways for users and creators to interact with copyright, I wonder whether this would constrain accessibility to and sharing of information. [[User:Jax|Jax]] 13:17, 5 March 2013 (EST)

*****

Lessig's article is an illustration of the aggressive silliness of intellectual property laws in the age of arbitrary replication. The conference by the state of monopolies on the creations of its citizens imputes a kind of religious reverence for intellectual labor as such that is totally unwarranted, particularly in view of the particular technical characteristics of the Internet. UMG is no more responsible for the existence of its artists' works than was James Joyce for the authorship of Ulysses; as cultural products, both represent the final outputs of endlessly old systems of replication, deletion, and signification between people and institutions. The notion that "creators" are imbued with particular rights and prerogatives on account of their proximity and behavioral involvement in cultural inventions promotes a peculiar brand of neurologically illiterate creationism.
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 17:25, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*****

Lessig's article very much reminded me of a peice written by Adam Ludwin, venture capitalist focused on early stage finacing. The article is entiled The Age of the Meme (http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/12/09/the-age-of-the-meme/ ) In it he writes "We are an always-on culture now. Social networks have reached critical mass. Inexpensive tools for creating and remixing content have been widely adopted. Our collective consciousness has come online. The intelligence in the system is now coming from below, not above. The sage on the stage is no more. And our collective mind is pumping out memes that are shaping every conceivable domain" We're creating culture from the bottom up not the top-down. The hive mind cycles through and collects inofrmation and spits out new beats of culture faster than any design firm or ad agency ever could These peices which " go viral;" have a histroy un to their own. Cultural relevence for fleeting and passing moments. Who do these artifacts eally belong to? Is an image when captured by the hive mind still the property of its owner? How about a piece of music sampled in a youtube clip? Do the owners of Grumpy Cat own the image of grumpy cat? At what point does surrendering something to the internet mean giving it up as celebrities give up some of their writes as private individuals when entering the spotlight? The internet after all is a giant copying machine. Lessig talks about unintended casualties. I hope our freedom to create, rehash, redesign, copy paste, delete, morph, mash isn't one of them. [[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 16:42, 5 March 2013 (EST)
****

Here is pic of the monkey that hi-jacked the camera!
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FahGRKZ6vL4/T51NeFxZPII/AAAAAAAATXk/quOXJ0_NtEQ/s1600/pic.jpg

[[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 18:36, 5 March 2013 (EST)
****

Copyright Part 1: Guiding Principles and Online Application

2013-03-05T17:49:50Z

Johnathan Merkwan: /* Class Discussion */

Assignment 2 Submissions

2013-03-05T03:24:13Z

Johnathan Merkwan: /* Comments */

Assignment 2 Submissions

2013-03-04T00:27:35Z

Johnathan Merkwan: /* Comments */

Assignment 2 Submissions

2013-03-04T00:13:30Z

Johnathan Merkwan: /* Comments */

Assignment 2 Submissions

2013-02-26T18:46:41Z

Johnathan Merkwan: /* Comments */

Regulating Speech Online

2013-02-26T17:51:26Z

Johnathan Merkwan: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 26'''

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, in the words of the Supreme Court, “become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox.” (Reno v. ACLU). 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, 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 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.

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==

* [http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/defamation Citizen Media Law Project Legal Guide: Defamation]

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act Wikipedia, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act]

* [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] (Read all of Section I, Parts C&D of Section II, and Conclusion)

* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/a-friendly-exchange-about-the-future-of-online-liability.ars John Palfrey & Adam Thierer, "Dialogue: The Future of Online Obscenity and Social Networks" (Ars Technica)]

* '''Case Study: The SPEECH Act'''

:* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_Evil#Libel_controversy Wikipedia, ''Funding Evil''] (focus on the “Libel Controversy” section)

:* [http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr2765/text 111th U.S. Congress, H.R. 2765, “Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act” (“SPEECH Act”)]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1557224836887427725&q=reno+v+aclu&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22 ''Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union'', 521 U.S. 844 (1997)]

</onlyinclude>

==Class Discussion==

TAG: Student ID#10789842

The discussion on Why, How, and Who was insightful. It made me to examine deeper into the concept of online behavioral intent on both a micro and macro level. This specific space (Online) when examined, allows you to weigh both sides of the coin. In one argument censorship or content, which controls this behavior shapes our participation in the internet. On the other side of the coin freedom of speech. Politically more and more countries have taken the position to restrict and control the internet through designed "Nation Boundaries" as mentioned in class.

In the readings concerning the laws of defamation and the restriction of content on the internet, it appears to be flawed. Depending on your country of jurisdiction the interpretation of the laws of defamation or control are interpreted differently. In a global information world which we are all a part of, restrictions are becoming tighter and tighter. An example is France restricted Yahoo to having Nazi memorabilia online. Another way to review this precedent set by the French government, is what if a corporation made tremendous acquisitions? If fundamental islamic fanatic group was to acquire Google, Bing, or both, it could become a paradigm shift in controlling the internet from an acquisition stand point. The article "Funding Evil" extends this point by exam terrorist groups that may try to use these resources to distribute their messages of hate.

The readings and the discussion in the class this week was very interesting and I appreciate it.

Have a nice week. [[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 17:06, 22 February 2013 (EST)

*****

This week there were fabulous document that discussed internet security. Programs such as our adobe can at times be considered to indexed. Here the issue is whether hyperbole or preposition is defined or at least contextualized. Bearing with the notion that "more is better" I shall continue typing: Here the reader shall notice that a program as it may be quoted is merely a type of application that is for sanitary use. Therefore, the internet decidedly is not the same as a program and the program is not necessarily reliant on the internet per se. In conclusion to this stream of logic the type of compartmentalized information is not the actual understanding that something can be a mobile storehouse of information without affirmative action. Since computers are only affirmative in their position there leaves the possibil;ity for autocorrecting such documents and this very notion is the idea here of internet security. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 12:51, 26 February 2013 (EST)

*****

Reading the Wikipedia article on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act prompted me to think about cyber-security and where liability should fall if private information was hacked and released and later deemed as defamatory. Earlier in the course I posted a Gizmodo article on Apple’s iMessage server being hacked and I am beginning to wonder if, as online hubs of information grow to become more institutional, individuals who are targets of cyber attacks will start blaming the companies that have their private information stored on their servers. I foresee that as the internet and cloud take on greater roles in the institutionalization of business and everyday life, that issues like these will start arising. As to the Ars Technica interview, I think that scaling back protection for service providers in order to protect children presents a weak claim. I think doing so would severely alter the costs of operating a site like Myspace or Facebook. Also, it is my personal belief that a parent should be responsible for teaching their children how to correctly use the web and exercise safe practices online. I feel that extending liability and limiting free speech poses a great danger at a minor benefit of altering section 230 for a very specific purpose. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 15:37, 23 February 2013 (EST)

*****

I was very interested to read about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. I very much support the idea that the internet service provider should not be held liable for individual's misuse of their publishing service, where the company itself does not exersize creative control over the content (i.e. deleting a post is not a basis for liability). Although I am not an expert, this regime would seem to be different from Canada where we have witnessed very prominent internet communities being brought to their knees by posts made by one or two offenders. My proposed research article, on lawbuzz.ca, will be very much concerned with ideas contained in the s. 230 of the CDA and I looking forward to comparing your legal regime with Canada's.
[[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 21:35, 25 February 2013 (EST)

*****

In was quite an interesting read about Section 230 for this class, however in my view, suing diverse websites for such defamatory content is virtually impossible. Since the information is distributed, diverse websites seem to be immune from liability and responsibility to screen or remove the offending content. Who is responsible then? While a clear understanding of Section 230 is present, its critics are more valuable and portray a completely new approach when dealing with Internet content facilitators. In my view, interpretation of Section 230, can grant an immense immunity to companies or website that provide service or content (inappropriate) to realm the defamation factor altogether. What about speech? In my view, defamation is not only the single area of law, but it could be found as a refuge under Section 230 immunity. A section 230 has been interpreted so broadly in my view, that it has protected diverse types of speech, which was intended to prevent from precise inappropriate behavior. [[User:User777|user777]] 11:12, 26 February 2013 (EST)

**

The readings on Section 230 reminded me of Zittrain's argument that it was not inevitable that the internet world would turn out the way it is today. I think Section 230 and the way the courts have broadly interpreted it to protect internet service providers and social website companies has been, and still is, key to the success of the internet and maintaining that spirit of freedom the internet is known for. I agree with AaronEttl that Section 230's protections shouldn't be narrowed, especially if the reason is to increase online safety for young users. In addition to traditional education ("don't talk to strangers" adjusted and applied online), there are also plenty of parental filtering tools that can be used by individuals themselves. ISPs and websites that are not content publishers should not be held responsible for the actions of internet users, although they certainly can act according to their own company policies, which in turn would be determined by the company's principles, values, and target audience/market. It is not the shopping mall owner's fault if a person walks in and suddenly strips naked or does something worse. --[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 11:43, 26 February 2013 (EST)

*****

I concur with Joshywonder’s statement above: ''I support the idea that the Internet service provider should not be held liable for individual's misuse of their publishing service.'' However, in some circumstances, I think the Internet provider should play a mitigation role. While reading about defamation this week, online bullying emerged in my mind. Social networking has changed the landscape with bullying, especially for children and adolescents. Mass media presents a series of legal issues, as outlined on the Citizen Media Law site, but defamation via media has always been present. Online confrontation among elementary and high school students highlights a distinct reality. An adult may take action if one’s name is tarnished, but youth will rarely take bullying to the legal arena. That said, it would be interesting to read more case studies surrounding the actions service providers have taken, when youth defamation scenarios have surfaced. In our readings this week, the examples were excellent, but I’d also be interested in learning about specific cases against Facebook, or Twitter, or Orkut. Furthermore, it would be interesting to investigate reactions from other countries. For example, do other governments/courts of law acknowledge online youth bullying, and if so, is action taken? Or, is online bullying more prevalent in the U.S. due to cultural/environmental factors?

It has become apparent in the first month of this course that online “freedom of speech” is a complex topic. I very much enjoyed the discussion between John Palfrey and Adam Thierer, because both arguments shed light on valid points. Thierer: ''“What I worry about, is that a new liability standard might not leave sufficient room for flexibility or experimentation. If Congress altered Section 230 (or the courts tipped the balance) such that negligence claims could be brought too easily, I think that could have a chilling effect on a great deal of legitimate online speech, especially for many smaller social networking sites and up-and-coming operators.”'' This argument is in-line with our readings from two weeks ago: More Confusion about Internet “Freedom.” Suppressing freedom of speech can, in some circumstances, cause more damage than good. If inhibited, our founding principles may not be upheld; but at the same time, there is an enormous unknown gray area between right and wrong communication practices.

Palfrey’s response in reference to this statement is also worth noting: ''“My proposal would be to leave the question of negligence on the part of service providers….[W]e need a range of community-based solutions that put parents, teachers, coaches, mentors, kids themselves, law enforcement, social workers, technologists and online service providers to work.”'' In other words, the battle to uphold decency cannot be done alone. Society at-large must step up to the plate as online communication evolves. It begins with new policies and trickles-down through law enforcement officials, community leaders, and parents, ultimately impacting the instigators. Although ''“no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider,”'' as outlined in the Wikipedia post (Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act), we all play a role to protect the vulnerable. Many youth who are bullied have no options available, no protection, and no escape. Given recent tragedies surrounding youth defamation, from my perspective, extreme circumstances should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis and pursued as appropriate. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 12:05, 26 February 2013 (EST)

Whose Values

2013-02-19T14:12:15Z

Johnathan Merkwan: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 19'''

The Internet is often thought of as one place, as in Barlow’s framing of “our world” in the [http://ww2.cs.mu.oz.au/~zs/decl.html Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace]. But we have already seen that this framing does not play out quite so cleanly. And nor should it, necessarily, because the Internet’s global clientele represent a wide mix of values, both in abstract principles and practical solutions for when those principles collide. This class looks at that issue through the lens of a few specific examples, and starts us toward a larger question: Can we fit all of our different values onto the same Internet?

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==

* [http://www.economist.com/node/16941635 The Economist, The Future of the Internet: A Virtual Counter-Revolution]

* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Evolving_Landscape_of_Internet_Control_3.pdf Hal Roberts et al., The Evolving Landscape of Internet Control]

* Biz Stone and Alex Macgillivary, [http://blog.twitter.com/2011/01/tweets-must-flow.html The Tweets Must Flow] and [http://blog.twitter.com/2012/01/tweets-still-must-flow.html The Tweets Still Must Flow]

* [http://googleblog.blogspot.co.uk/2007/11/free-expression-and-controversial.html Rachel Whetstone, Free Expression and Controversial Content on the Web]

* [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71625.html Eliza Krigman, Next Battle over Net Ramps Up Worldwide (Politico)]

* '''Case Study: The Innocence of Muslims'''

:* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Innocence_of_Muslims Wikipedia, ''The Innocence of Muslims'']

:* [http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/14/opinion/york-libya-youtube/index.html Jillian York, Should Google Censor an Anti-Islam Video?]

:* [http://www.herdict.org/blog/2012/10/15/little-i-internet-what-we-learn-from-the-innocence-of-muslims-video/ Ryan Budish, Little “i” Internet: The “Innocence of Muslims” Video’s Impact on Free Speech]

:* [http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2012/structural-weakness-internet-speech Andy Sellars, The Structural Weakness of Internet Speech]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/09/adapting-us-policy-in-a-changing-international-system/245307/ Anne-Marie Slaughter, Adapting U.S. Policy in a Changing International System]

* [http://access.opennet.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/accessdenied-chapter-5.pdf Jonathan Zittrain and John Palfrey, Reluctant Gatekeepers: Corporate Ethics on a Filtered Internet (from ''Access Denied'')]

* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/01/explainer-how-can-the-us-seize-a-hong-kong-site-like-megaupload/ Nate Anderson, Explainer: How Can the US Seize a “Hong Kong site” like Megaupload?]

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== Class Discussion ==
<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">'''Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:Asellars|Asellars]] 15:29, 21 January 2013 (EST)'''</div>

I found Andy Sellars, 'The Structural Weakness of Internet Speech', article to contain an interesting analysis on the role that the US legal regime governing free speech should play in censorship of the internet. While I agreed with a number of his concerns, I disagree with his proposition that it is 'very' hard to change the constitutional law in the US governing free speech (in particular hate speech). While he, and many other Americans, take the position that the US constitution protects hate speech and that it would be 'very, very hard' to change the law, I do not agree with this. I concede that the wording of the first amendment would appear to place strict limits on the governments interference with speech in general, however, this has not stopped the government from restricting numerous forms of speech such as commercial expression, libel, pornography, child pornography, fraud, intellectual property theft, national security, and incitement to violence. If SCOTUS was inclined to change the laws on hate speech they would be able to do so without resort to formal constitutional amendment.

I also appreciate his point that we now have behemoth corporations making the decisions about whether to censor a citizens opinions. Youtube can remove videos at will and Google can rank pages it disagrees with down into the netherworlds of irrelevance on its search results. Google has done this in the past, leaving up derogatory pages about Rick Santorum, while downgraded pages it disagrees with for whatever reason. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 15:40, 12 February 2013 (EST)
**

:Thanks for the comment, Josh. (And yes, Andy Sellars from here is me, just as the article by Ryan Budish is the same Ryan.) I would argue that it is still difficult to change the US Constitution, even if we have majority support for a particular position (e.g. hate speech, where I think there is a growing consensus though certainly not unanimous support). Amending the constitution requires both massive turnout and very-high-percentage (66-75%) support. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution this article] for more. Where the Supreme Court has allowed exceptions has been places where the First Amendment has always been considered to be inapplicable - obscenity, defamation, "fighting words," and a few other places - and these are clearly defined with specific definitions that have evolved form the doctrine. In the words of the [http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-769.ZO.html Supreme Court], "[o]ur Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it," and doesn't add categories to the list as a general rule. While they could change their mind, they have entrenched in this position for all of their history, and would face all sorts of collateral challenges should they start to arbitrarily decide what is an is not constitutional.

:I am also not sure that we have seen a proven example where Google had down-ranked a page to serve its own interest, but that's beside the point of my article. My concern is that they could, and there's not much we could do about it. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 18:34, 12 February 2013 (EST)

****

Student Initials: TAG
Student ID# 10789842

Mr. Robert Faris guest lecture was very interesting and inspired me to examine the intended democratic forum of the Internet. As mobility and being connected to the Internet becomes more affordable, accessible digital participation and digital representation has come to the forefront of the global debate. The article in The Economist the article on the future of the Internet, they reference Mr. Barlow when stating the declaration, “You have no sovereignty where we gather.”
This topic should be viewed as a sub area of what freedoms the United States was built on. Challenging or infringing upon these freedoms should and never should be acceptable within the US. In a different view I do not feel that we (The United States) should impose other countries to allow the same freedoms to their citizens when using the Internet. It is not our job to be the freedom of Internet police around the world. The article “The Tweets Must Flow” challenges my view that states the

Mr. Ferris gave a detailed explanation of the evolution of the communication industry and the effects of regulations and monopolies have had on the industry, which was quite comprehensive and I enjoyed it thoroughly. In the article “The Evolving Landscape of Internet Control” it was clear that other countries who establish restrictive parameters for their citizens to access the internet spend more time on ethnocentric innovation, instead of blocking the outside sites. I find this remarkable, that they believe more in their own citizens to produce a better product that they do not spend a proportionate amount of time in blocking the external access sites. [[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 09:15, 14 February 2013 (EST)

****

I thought this weeks twitter postings on the new filter by country feature added to the original belief on non filtering was very interesting. While the posting made it clear that this feature, if employed, would be merely reactive, I am still unconvinced as to whether or not it serves to protect freedom of speech or is leading more to a geographically dominated net space. While it is one step above globally censoring content, I still don't believe that it aims to bolster true net neutrality. But when dealing with global internet usage and consumption, I guess this reactive filtering option would be the lesser of two evils. I thought the Google blog posting did a good job on expounding upon the issue of regional filtering vs. free expression. It seems to be an extremely non divisive issue and one that is ever-changing. I guess in a globalized world, it's impossible to satisfy every critic and country. While currently regional law seems to have the biggest impact on the institutionalization of a globalized internet, I wonder if one day the net legislation will override regional considerations on freedom of expression in places like China. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:46, 17 February 2013 (EST)

****

The short, low budget video that became associated with the September 11, 2012 demonstrations at the American Embassy in Cairo is a case in point. York, Budish and Sellers all make valid points on this subject. I have to wonder, though, does the censorship that was exercised by blocking the video from being accessed in particular countries actually hinder those countries from having the free flow of conversation that might change the need to have the video blocked in the first place? I have read that the video initially depicts the mistreatment of Copts (a historic Orthodox Christian group) in Egypt. This is a valid conversation to have. Copts are a dwindling population in Egypt, not because they are converting to other religions, but because they are leaving Egypt seeking to live in countries where they will receive equal treatment in practice and under the law. Unfortunately, the video apparently goes on to depict the Egyptian majority religion in a demeaning light. That distraction, and the focus on it, has led to the censorship. Unfortunately, this also means that the more important theme of the video has been lost to the controversy. Egyptian society does need to have the conversation about religion as a basis for biased treatment. Some are having the conversation, but not all Egyptians are ready for that conversation. So here is something to consider: As Egyptians reach out to the world through the Internet, they know that they will encounter issues that do not align with their culture and values. As Westerners learn that world cultures need not westernize to get along in the world, Egyptians have opportunity to see that not all in the world will Islamize either. Additionally, because the West allows freedom for individuals to express themselves does not mean that the individual doing the expressing speaks on our behalf. [[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 00:46, 19 February 2013 (EST)

******

The articles for this week's lecture were phenomenal and categorical, but, were mostly politically charged versions of the "same information". Some things I have realized are that for instance the content of the Rowe vs. Wade argumentation, when typed as a citation or otherwise, is used by a lot of people as an immediate panacea to afford dissident contractualism. Regardless of the policy discussed within these articles this class is to discuss power and the integration of the internet into a system that is more than mere speculation. this quasi-pragmatic approach must be considered insane because the method used, here, is merely the economical perspective which for me bears little creedance. That typed, I continue: Is the regeneration of information bad? Now I will answer that question. No, and yes. Firstly, the internet certainly allows people to ascend to higher levels of Kantian reasoning regardless of the words written in a journal or in a blog or in a form of electronic communication. This data is then cited and reworked until it becomes common knowledge and then is the option for the individual to better understand the content from a more socialized perspective. An example here is that the dissemination of knowledge is good yet the method used is not always the target of concern. For all of those who deem the aspects of religion as something other than a latin language transcription, the articles this week proved that spin is not just a publication or a ping pong technique. Here game theory can be applied but not to Capital. Therefore, events such as internet rerouting, contract security, and the better integration of citations implicitly within work becomes essential. So regardless of nuomenon or phenomenon there really is an arbiter in between and that consolidated entity is the IP address, with all due respects to this course. To analyze, the recitation of information is always plagiarism except in the individual interested in experimenting with a progressive knack for Hegel and that is far from elucidated contextually, as I have learned. Further, the Pragmatic approach falters here because the institutor is consciously pragmatic (which yields another demention). In conclusion, this weeks articles were outdated and not relevant at all to current politics except for the knowledge that reading an article once does not mean that the article's meaning will not change as per the viewing after the transcriber has essentially made the knowledge structured as is Vygotzky's theory of Social Constructionism. Finally, where one deems dimention from these articles is "greek to me". [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 09:12, 19 February 2013 (EST)

A Series of Tubes: Infrastructure, Broadband, and Baseline Content Control

2013-02-12T16:30:41Z

Johnathan Merkwan: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 12'''

The late Senator Ted Stevens famously said in a 2006 committee meeting that the “Internet is not something that you just dump something on; it’s not a big truck. It’s a series of tubes.” While he was ridiculed widely at the time, Senator Stevens’s remarks actually reveal an interesting hortatory description of what the Internet should be (though given the rest of his comments, apparently not one that he intended). What Stevens’s metaphor suggests is that the physical conduits of the Internet should act like nothing more than non-judgmental conduits of the rest of the world’s traffic. We will see this week, however, that this is not a true reflection of how the tubes work, and we have strong debates as to what the government's role should be in ensuring that large enough "tubes" reach all those who would like to be online. The big questions for this week: What are the “tubes” of the Internet? Should the tubes have a role in controlling the throughput content? What is the role of government when it comes to developing and regulating our Internet-tubes?

Our guest speaker this week will be [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/rfaris Rob Faris], the Research Director of the Berkman Center, who has been heavily involved in broadband infrastructure policy and research.

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==

* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Berkman_Center_Broadband_Final_Report-C1_15Feb2010.pdf Yochai Benkler, Next Generation Connectivity] (executive summary and introduction)

* [http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/10/bandwidth-race-plan/ Susan Crawford, Wired, We Can’t All Be Google’s Kansas: A Plan for Winning the Bandwidth Race (Wired)]

* [http://techliberation.com/2011/03/01/more-confusion-about-internet-freedom/ Adam Thierer, More Confusion about Internet “Freedom” (Tech Liberation)]

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality Wikipedia, Net Neutrality]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://gizmodo.com/5912383/how-to-destroy-the-internet Sam Biddle, How to Destroy the Internet (Gizmodo)]

* Dawn Nunziato, ''Virtual Freedom'' (Chs. 1 & 7) (''pending'')

* [https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/taking-stevens-seriously/ Ed Felten, Taking Ted Stevens Seriously]

</onlyinclude>

== Assignment 1 ==

[[Assignment 1 Details and Reporting|Assignment 1]] is due ''before class'' today (i.e., February 12th before 5:30pm ET). You can submit the assignment [[Assignment 1 Submissions|here]].

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== Class Discussion ==
<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">'''Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:Asellars|Asellars]] 15:29, 21 January 2013 (EST)'''</div>
Weekly Response by TAG

Benkler discussed in his paper, the Next Generation Connectivity, was intriguing to me. To examine how the United States is lagging in the transition from broadband to the next generation technology. He stated, "High capacity networks are seen as strategic infrastructure, intended to contribute to high sustainable economic growth and to the core aspects of human development." I am in agreement with this view. By limiting access by weaker technology it will hurt economic growth and future development of countries.

Competition is paramount in the advancement of technology and the industry as a whole. The open access policies allow for a competitive market to allow for innovation to take hold. The way to maximize access is to allow for a wireless/nomadic platform, which will reach all the corners of the world. Countries which have invested in these areas have seen better results. The lack of competition is what has been a material flaw in the United States armor, causing them to drop back in the pack. These lack of freedoms and choices is what Adam Theirer was speaking about in his article. With new players like Google entering into the equation, it will only be a matter of time before access and affordability will be attainable by all. [[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 06:19, 6 February 2013 (EST)

*****

Thierer’s naive opposition to the “centralized planning” of Internet policy explicitly surrenders responsibility for the governance of computer networks to the callous ambivalence of the marketplace. The power to restructure and redesign human relations that entities like Google and Facebook so epitomize inheres the danger of an Internet operated on behalf of the profiteers. To the extent that corporate superpowers attain the ability to “oversee” or “govern” the substantive communities of the Internet in the manner that powerful states have come to exert power over physical territories, the revolutionary potentialities of the Internet will be lost to engineers working on behalf of shareholders. This prospect is perhaps more dangerous than the threat of explicit state control of the Internet.

[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 20:27, 8 February 2013 (EST)

******

Net neutrality is a concept that gets confusing pretty fast, so I attempted to summarize background on the issue in less than 500 words. While I originally wrote the following for this week's class, I also posted it on a friend's blog about current issues. Anyway here is the piece:

Net Neutrality (NN) is the idea that all information that flows across the Internet – all content, platforms, data, applications, etc – should be treated equally. In the U.S., Internet Service Providers (ISPs) like Comcast and Time Warner only charge you for the speed of data transfer at a monthly rate. They do not themselves charge you for accessing certain types of content over other types of content, which IS what they do for cable television. Proponents for NN want to keep the Internet an open and free communication tool rather than a controlled, walled garden like cable. There are primarily two kinds of debates going on here: 1.) whether NN should be preserved as the core architecture of the Internet and 2.) whether and how NN should be regulated by the government.

Let’s first consider what neutrality means as it relates to a network's design. As Tim Wu points out, the electric grid is an example of a neutral network because people are free to use it as they please. The electric grid does not give special treatment to certain appliances over others – you can plug in your toaster just as easily as your AC. Similarly, the Internet was conceived as a neutral network. Its pioneers envisioned a democratized “network of networks,” one that could not be “owned” by a corporation or government and as a result fostered enormous innovation and economic growth.

Without NN, proponents fear ISPs would become too powerful a centralized force and gain an unfair business advantage. Specifically, ISPs could block sites they deem to violate copyright law, favor traffic to their owned and operated sites, slow down traffic to competitive threats, or adopt “fast lanes” for customers willing to pay more. To take one recent example, Comcast was accused of stifling traffic to Netflix in order to nudge users towards Comcast-owned Xfinity for video streaming.

Opponents to NN claim that offering different “Internet subscriptions” for different kinds of content actually gives consumers more choice. If someone just wants email and google search, they could pick the appropriate plan. And also gain better quality of service for what they want to do. Furthermore, there are indeed some types of information, such as spam, malware, and illegal content, that is presumably worth filtering. Yet proponents of NN worry that drawing lines between “good” and “bad” could encroach freedom of speech, since such categories can be subjectively interpreted on the Internet.

Even if people agree that the Internet should be a neutral network, there is a whole other debate of how to enforce this. Net neutrality laws first attracted attention in the early 2000s and have gone back and forth towards both sides. In the most recent regulations of 2010, the FCC Open Internet Order aimed to prevent ISPs from blocking or discriminating against rival websites. The rules did little to appease either side, however. NN advocates believed telecom companies could still charge some services more for supporting data-heavy content while NN opponents believed that the decisions about the Internet in general should be left up to the free market entirely. To this day, the debate rages on.

[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 21:56, 10 February 2013 (EST)

******

Online freedom of speech should not differ from other forms of speech. In the article ''More Confusion about Internet “Freedom,”'' an interesting quote merits attention: “America’s Founding Fathers intended the First Amendment to serve as a shield from government encroachment on our liberties, not as a sword for government to wield to reshape markets and speech according to the whims of five unelected bureaucrats at the FCC” (Thierer, 2011). Controversy surrounding Internet communication is ubiquitous and questions vis-à-vis control are complex. Online liberty is analogous to our daily lives; all individuals have the right to use the Internet in unique ways, contributing, responding, and shaping the infinite white spaces that exist. In our day-to-day lives (in the U.S.), we have similar freedoms to continuously pursue new opportunities. Our Constitution represents the framework that grants us these liberties, and those who assume power, whether elected or not, must continuously draw upon our founding ideologies. Online versus offline activities should not differ.

Concepts from this article are closely related to the ''Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace'', which states the following: “You have no sovereignty where we gather....We have no elected government, nor are we likely to have one....I declare the global social space we are building to be naturally independent of the tyrannies you seek to impose on us, etc., etc.” Although the boundaries of Internet regulatory control appear gray, one would think that nation states have the ultimate say (even if this may not be the case). How does the notion of control change when new elected officials assume power, or when countries lose democratic freedoms? Will cyber boundaries shift over time, as new generations emerge and we, as a global society, become more technologically advanced?

Another theme worth highlighting in this post, based on the readings this week, is the relationship between governments and corporations. In the U.S., special interest groups play an enormous role in elections, endorsing candidates and financing campaigns. Most Members of Congress are career-minded individuals, seeking to remain in office. If telecommunications giants support politicians, politicians must help telecommunications companies maintain revenues, correct? I have never researched lobbying activities within this industry, but after reading ''We Can’t All Be Google’s Kansas'', telecommunications lobbying immediately came to mind. In New Zealand, for example, government subsidies reduced barriers to entry and lowered overall costs, which is an interesting strategy that made an enormous market impact for diverse stakeholders (both on the buyer and seller ends). In the US, however, the telecommunications landscape is most likely very different, and the FCC plays an enormous regulatory role. Will this change over time, as new high-speed generations emerge? If so, will the FCC assume more control or will markets become more liberalized? What role will election financing play as telecommunications expand? In the current U.S. telecommunications environment, how are distinct market monopolies and/or oligopolies determined for companies such as Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T? I have always been curious about the demographic/regional segmentation processes that these corporate giants have control over, affecting Internet speed, pricing, and associated services. Those who live in New York City have different telecommunications options than those who live in Lincoln, Nebraska…how, when, and where are these decisions made?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts! [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 06:29, 12 February 2013 (EST)
***********

This position of the understanding that telecommunications is to be cited according to social opinion is not necessarily the abdication of misunderstanding that a term can be something other than mere electrons and protons and neutrons or even just thought. The novice reader could assume that this form of telecommunication is merely jest is a person who can understand personification.

That addressed, the following is a useful rendition of the idology that although a school such as Harvard prides itself on the idea that people are meant to be earning degrees or not earning degrees is the misunderstandint that mere spelling issues make a person an idiot.

That addressed, now the application of suggesting Wikipedia is not a amateur area to be sonsidered the best of education like a piece of historical evidence concludes that these particles have mass and that the understanding is nothing there more interesting that the unknown representation of an alleged run on sentence, hyphen excluded.

More work needs to be addressed concerning this fascist ideal of "equality" just because the minority in control think cosmetics are the real problem with society, like making a wiki page "pretty". [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 11:30, 12 February 2013 (EST)

Paradigms for Studying the Internet

2013-02-04T18:57:38Z

Johnathan Merkwan: /* Class Discussion */

Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction

2013-01-28T20:48:07Z

Johnathan Merkwan: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}
'''January 29'''

The Internet at its core is simply an expression of a technological protocol that allows for a particular way of sharing information. But from its humble beginnings the Internet has always felt like more than this. 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. So is this platform about fundamental social, political and economic change, or about access to solipsistic blogging, 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/Watchings ==

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2QdEj8UjBc Ethan Zuckerman, History of the Internet] (approx. 6 minutes, watch all)

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whmMNRHktX8 Jonathan Zittrain, How the Internet Works] (approx. 4 mins., watch all)

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

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

* [http://www.webuse.org/pdf/Hargittai-DigitalDivideWhatToDo2007.pdf Eszter Hargittai, The Digital Divide and What to Do About It (New Economy Handbook)] (focus on Sections I-III)

:* Hargittai’s data is from 2003. For more recent data, see [http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Digital-differences/Overview/Digital-differences.aspx Pew Internet & American Life Project, Digital Differences 2012] (read intro, skim the sections).

* [http://www.ted.com/talks/rebecca_mackinnon_let_s_take_back_the_internet.html Rebecca MacKinnon, Let’s Take Back the Internet! (TED.com)] (approx. 15 mins., watch all)

== Optional Readings ==

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

* [http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2009/03/the_third_wave.htm Eric Goldman, The Third Wave of Internet Exceptionalism]

* [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1752415 Tim Wu, Is Internet Exceptionalism Dead?]

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Class Discussion ==

<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">Welcome to Internet and Society: Technologies and Politics of Control! This is the section of the page where you should add your comments to complete "assignment zero." Once you have registered an account, just click the "[edit]" button at the upper right hand corner of this section to add text! [[User:Jeff Hermes|Jeff Hermes]] 10:00, 28 January 2013 (EST)

'''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:Asellars|Asellars]] 15:29, 21 January 2013 (EST)</div>

******

1. There has been several significant economic changes associated with internet and digital technologies which has created both new opportunities and new challenges.

Change: Access to information has impacted the way news is distributed, causing the world investment markets to move faster and become more volatile off of news.

New Opportunity: A greater understanding of how the internet works with distribution can allow for algorithms to be developed through digital technologies to counter act the news as its distributed.

New Challenge: With greater technology being created at the speed of light, it has become difficult to study trends for the investment markets, which are in some respects locked into a web based portal that can control the fate of public companies, instead of fundamentals.

2. There has been several significant political changes associated with internet and digital technologies which has created both new opportunities and new challenges.

Change: Access to information online about freedoms in the democracies around the world

New Opportunity: In the Middle East this was a major contributing factor in the Arab Spring, to bring and implement change.

New Challenge: With this new access to freedoms, the challenge of countries restricting information or access is now more than ever present. As in the article about Yahoo, France was able to restrict information making the access less free for the citizens in that country, compared to other parts of the world.

3. There has been several significant social changes associated with internet and digital technologies which has created both new opportunities and new challenges.

Change: Access to social media sites has fundamentally changed the way people interact with each other

New Opportunity: By establishing specific structures in place, access to a significant amount more potential people to do business with is available using these social media sites.

New Challenge: With greater access to more people, the amount of noise is constant. So standing out with your message is critical to stand out amongst the crowd.

4. There has been several significant cultural changes associated with internet and digital technologies which has created both new opportunities and new challenges.

Change: Access to education online or education in general for both genders

New Opportunity: More people are educated now than any part of the history of the world. In recent years with the Millenium Development Goals an emphasis of educating our youth and specifically woman as a priority has taken some real strives forward.

New Challenge: With this material change in focussing in educating women, groups like the Taliban has fired back with scare tactics to keep them out of schools. [[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 13:21, 28 January 2013 (EST)

******

One of the greatest economic changes to occur will be the ratification of the JOBS Act (Jumpstart Our Business Startups) which will allow private companies to solicit unaccredited investors to participate in their startups. Opportunities will be created for entrepreneurs and investors, but the innovation will also account for great investor losses due to the erosion of necessary barriers to fundraising. Additionally, it will create opportunities for fraud.

Another huge change brought about is the access to online education and training. At a time when unemployment is high, online education and training allows for additional specialization and creates opportunities for a large group of people who don't have the flexibility of schedule for traditional learning. A challenge is that quality has not kept up with the technology, so you are seeing a proliferation of sub-par learning experiences offering students degrees that leave them in massive amounts of debt, but don't necessarily make them more attractive of a candidate when it comes time to find a job. [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 15:21, 28 January 2013 (EST)

******

This whole section of Introduction I found very compelling. The language of the assignment was at first a bit unusual but now I am getting used to such communication. To duscuss the problems I have noticed with the internet, most noteably the discussion about Chinese, I found very compelling. Being different languages cave different means of speech production, the understanding that internet lauguage, like a fax machine, is actually the English I learned made me flip![[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 15:48, 28 January 2013 (EST)

******