{{AssignmentCal}}

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

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

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

==Submissions==

Name:Just Johnny 
Project Title: The Social Network 
Final Project Extra Credit [http://www..com] 
[[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 1 May 2012 (EDT)

Name:Stefan C. 
Project Title: Interview with StockTwits Executive Editor Philip Pearlman on Social Media and Finance 
Podcast on Sound Cloud [http://soundcloud.com/stocktwits/stefan-cheplick-and-philip] 
[[User:Scheplick|Scheplick]] 1 May 2012 (EDT)

Name:Blake Geno 
Project Title: Employer use of Facebook: Legitimate Behavior or an Unacceptable Invasion? 
I would like to present this in class, as a brief discussion with accompanying illustrations on power point. 
[[User:BlakeGeno|BlakeGeno]] 23:39, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

Name:Fabian Celis 
Project Title: The Open University Online Community 
Link to the Podcast: [http://archive.org/details/TheOpenUniversityOnlineCommunity] 
[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 22:34, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

Name: Sab 
Project Title: Free Online High-Quality Education: The Next Revolution on Internet? The Blue Ocean Strategy 
Link to the screencast: [http://www.screenr.com/7EC8] 
--[[User:Sab|Sab]] 18:44, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

Name: Samantha Zakuto 
Project Title: A Turkish Teacher's Perspective to School Administrators Limiting Facebook Usage 
Link to YouTube Video: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cfjKSdV8hE&feature=youtu.be] 
--[[User:Szakuto|Szakuto]] 14:39, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

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

Name: Julia Brav 
I would like to present my paper on May 8. I'll be discussing my paper by using visual examples of situations on AskMetaFilter. [[User:Jlynnping|Jlynnping]] 10:22, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

Name: Nicholas Thibodeau 
Project Title: Your Membership is:(ANONYMOUS)How Anonymous' Organization Enables Its Philosophy 
Link to YouTube Video: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Oyb-9fKNAg] 
[[User:Nthib|Nthib]] 04:29, 2 May 2012 (EDT)

Name:You Hwa Hsiao 
Project Title: Why do we need to say no to ACTA? 
Link to YouTube Video: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qu8P4JFrc_I&feature=youtu.be] 
--[[User:YHHsiao|YHHsiao]] 05:58, 3 May 2012 (EDT)

Internet and Democracy: The Sequel

2012-04-29T03:38:58Z

Just Johnny: /* Class Discussion */

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

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

[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/IS2012-04-10.pdf Slides (PDF)]

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==

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

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

== Additional Resources ==

</onlyinclude>
== Class Discussion ==
April 10: Internet and Democracy: The Sequel

The DMCA does seem like a great way for websites to remain in business, while also allowing for a reasonable amount of growth to sustain in the information technology universe. For example, many websites would not even grow to the scale in which they now exist without some kind of protection to continue to operate. If YouTube was being sued left and right before it ever became popular, then the site would have been shut down and the world would never have been able to have witnessed … YouTube. In this regard the DMCA is great. However, it is not perfect from protecting websites from legal action. It is more like a handshake, or a general rule that can be bent. Nevertheless, at least it is something. Looking at it from another aspect, it is quite easy to abuse the DMCA. For example, anyone who wishes to report some kind of copyright infringement may do so very easily, causing many problems. Look at https://www.eff.org/takedowns. So, there is massive potential for abuse, or things like blackmail/extortion to occur. Many of these DMCA conditions are quite uncertain. The knowledge aspect is stipulation, as is willful blindness. Leaving users to control their own material is one way to protect the website – however, and then there is the storage aspect. Even if users have control of their own material, because the content is being stored on the website could be arguable for a lawsuit. So, there really doesn’t seem to be any real way to protect a website from being sued. If anything, the DMCA does allow for some leeway in overseeing operation. This allows websites to function without being taken down in a crude way. [[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 17:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

What is interesting is not so much the difference between democratic and non democratic treatment of the information coming from Internet but the way democratic countries tries to deal with democratic values and non democratic thought coming from Internet. The difference between France and US is interesting regarding the Yahoo case about nazi websites. I have always though that to preserve democratie and republic, non democratic ou republicann ideas should be forbiden. Exactly like in non democratic countries where ideas that defend democatry are forbidden. Internet does not changer this order.

--[[User:Sab|Sab]] 20:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

@Sab: Interesting that you mention the differences between democratic and non-democratic nations, as you put it. Mind you, democracy is a fleeting concept. Even in so called democratic nations, the use of the internet is being regulated in ways that could be construed as borderline non-democratic ideology. Regulations, as we see in the Evolving Landscape of Internet Control[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2011/Evolving_Landscape_Internet_Control] are shifting in ways that are separating traditional democratic values with near totalitarian substitution. For example, this notion of “local” and the enforcement and surveillance of the local is a challenging concept. Still, it comes down to the fact that you want me to pay you for what? Sure, civil unrest must be prevented in order to maintain the democratic process. However, many corporations are pushing to change social norms and laws. Unblemished and happy people should not be ignored, or automatically thrown under the bus on the journey of continual progress amid the information superhighway. [[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 05:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

@AlexLE: You know, it never seems to amaze me how ignorant people can be of other cultures. There is a lot going on out there in the world. What becomes difficult about globalization is agreeing on and then enforcing a one world government. Should the FBI be able to take down any .com domain? While the United States does have a lot of influence and control over the Internet, there is a bit of a power struggle going on between other countries and regions. Russia, China, and Europe, for example. China's circumvention tools are particular to the government and laws in China. Although, I do not think many American's would be in agreement with China enforcing a take down of, say, Facebook from within the United States. But, that is exactly what the FBI is doing with websites that are based out of the country using .com domains. Take, for instance, http://www.bodog.com which is a Canadian poker website. See: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6348/196/. The FBI took down bodog.com – so, the company was forced to move to a .ca domain. So, perhaps this trend will continue as websites are forced to become more local to their region. That way local governments can enforce laws as applicable to that particular website and domain. Then all we've got to really worry about is corruption of governments. [[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 14:33, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

In the reading The Evolving Landscape of Internet Control I agree with AlexLE that the numbers are astonishing. Besides the statistics that AlexLE already mentioned, I found it very interesting the case that China’s most effective form of Internet control has been not only shutting out foreign sites but mainly within China. The three reasons exposed there (aggressive blockage, high quality of Chinese websites and linguistic reasons, and pride and desire to use local products) make sense to me, and I really like the comparison between China and Russia about their ASNs and IP addresses, because it shows the level of control that each country has. Although compared to Russia it seems that China has a vast major control over the Internet, Russia has other types of exerting control, including the offline one, which is the particular Russia’s type of control.

I also felt dismayed with the more or less conclusion that the Governments are winning the battle in exerting control over the usage of the Internet. Nonetheless, I like the recommendations that the Berkman Center’s offers to promote open Internet and freedom of speech. I think one of these recommendations mirrors the success of the Kony2012 campaign, because when it says “focus on circumvention tools for activists” it means to me that if we want to win the battle we need to seek hubs, like in the Kony2012 campaign.[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 20:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

@Fabiancelisj: It is quite understandable that China is accustomed to Chinese websites. There is the obvious reason of a language barrier for one thing. Although, personally I prefer Facebook over Chinese websites. To each their own, though. I do think that engaging China in free-trade with the rest of the world is one way in which China can begin to be more free and open. So it is a slow and eventual process. And it a good thing. So long as the lines of communication remain open, then social norms may be able to be shifted. And this is all part of the evolving cultural landscape of the Internet. As far as I know there is a way for Chinese to use Facebook, and other American websites. So, hopefully as more people use them then these societies can be opened up in productive ways that perhaps repressive governments could not. [[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 21:00, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

It is interesting this week to learn about the different technologies and measures the government takes to control the internet and the circumvention tools people take to by-pass filtering and blockage. Internet control is manageable in certain countries such as China and Russia due to the effectiveness of DDoS attacks and personal attacks that leave people fear retribution for speaking up against the government, and due to the challenges of circumvention tools, such as lack of access and language barrier.
I also find it interesting that Facebook’s approach to online policing is through user reporting of spam and blocking. I agree that it is difficult to bring Facebook’s content elsewhere since it is so comprehensive and generative, because its platform contains sharing images and videos, groups, and social-networking. In a way, it is a combination of Flikr, YouTube, and Twitter, which I personally so addictive.[[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 18:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

@Qdang: What is really interesting about Facebook, and other American websites is that they are part of a cultural language. They are, in a sense, born to be free and wild. They resonate as part of this cultural landscape. So, the problem that many of these repressive governments have with them is that they are communicating this language. Which, in turn affects culture directly. So there is no doubt that repressive governments would want to stop users from gaining access to these websites from within these countries. Social norms, in particular, are already beginning to shift in many regions as a result of social media. However, as with laws, this is an organic process. [[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 21:07, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

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

@Emanuele: As is clearly stated in the Viacom v. YouTube article:

''In the adolescence of the Internet, we are seeing complex business models that may combine Grokster-like purpose with other, ostensibly benign functionalities. Services seeking to capitalize on the draw of infringing goods may exhibit superficial respect for copyright concerns—by implementing a takedown program, for instance—yet rest secure in the knowledge that their users will continue to supply the content on which they depend in limitless quantities.
… ''Courts must resist the invitation to oversimplify reality by arbitrarily dividing the Internet world into “true pirates” and everyone else. Not every pirate is holed up in a garage, has a name ending in “-ster” or spells “wares” with a “z.” Some dress in expensive clothing and have MBAs. Courts need to sort through the facts without prejudging them, and beware pirates in disguise.
''''

So, I think that anonymity is somewhat possible on the Internet – even though IP addresses may be traceable, whoever is logging on can not always be verified. However, when it comes to the content itself, there is always an option for discussion. [[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 21:16, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

I found an interesting article on the ONI Blog titled "Iran Plans to Implement 'Clean Internet' by August 2012." That article summarizes, essentially, how the Ministry of Information and Communications Technology in Iran plans to soon "install an Intranet that will block Gmail, Facebook, and many other websites in attempts to create a 'clean Internet'." Some have named this an "electronic curtain." In lieu of the aforementioned popular western Internet tools, the government will instead replace them with Iran Mail and Iran Search Engine. I just found it fascinating that such a large scale crackdown on western internet tools would be carried out and implemented so quickly. It appears as if they are targeting a 5 month timeframe for completion. [[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 10:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

@Cfleming27: This is no ordinary argument. We're talking a b o u t a c o m m u n I c a t I o n b r e a k d o w n ... I wouldn't pull your leg. [[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 21:27, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

The readings raise frightful questions about internet censorship that almost certainly will never be resolved if we expect corporations to “regulate” themselves and establish a code of ethics as Ziittrain and Palfrey explore. The whole core belief of the free market is that all corporations enjoy benefits and focus solely on profits, meaning that profits generated through ethical sacrifices will be a leading problem unless, as was suggested, the United Nations becomes involved or countries conform.

From the ONI website, the Iranian censorship campaign is quite disturbing. Yet many countries of the world have strong business ties with this regime and therefore outside pressures to encourage free speech are essentially a moot point.

The Arizona law mentioned on the ONI website is particularly troubling because of its ambiguous language. The controversial heart of the bill reads as follows (http://articles.cnn.com/2012-04-04/tech/tech_web_internet-trolls-arizona-law_1_bill-internet-trolls-hateful-comments?_s=PM:TECH):

"It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use any electronic or digital device and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person. It is also unlawful to otherwise disturb by repeated anonymous electronic or digital communications the peace, quiet or right of privacy of any person at the place where the communications were received."

While threats and intimidation may fall into the category of bullying, such broad language raises concerns on how law enforcement can, in fact, outwardly censor the internet at their own discretion. I don’t think you have to be a civil libertarian to find the ambiguity of this bill to be troubling.--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 16:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

@Jimmyh: You know, I respect freedom of expression. Zittrain really nails this aspect of corporate responsibility, as this is becoming more of a central component with respect to the Internet. Of course, when it comes to the Internet, we are beginning to see that corporations – and not really governments – are controlling consumers in a much broader and farther reaching scope than before. So it is corporations that can transmit messages to consumers, by way of the media as well as through other means, sidestepping governments, to intimidate or control citizens to adhere to a social order. So ethics plays a very large component in this, because the combination of a multitude of messages could constitute a violation of the law, as outlined in the quote above. For example: “It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use any electronic or digital device and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person.” Now, if I am bombarded by a company through television, Internet adverts, email, phone calls, radio, and so on and so forth to do something, it could be grounds for harassment and damage claims. [[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 23:16, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

Fascinating stuff in all of the articles and blog site. Very interesting how China uses 4 chokepoints to filter 240m IP addresses versus Russia's use of 19 for 30 million. Makes sense to see the more authoritarian country the less that seems to be required. In Russia which is seen as democratic there appears to be more effort required to censor/filter the public (youth groups, hacking). Regarding workaround tools, I would simply be afraid to even USE one in a country like China out of fear of being detected and violating law. With Iran looking to completely cut itself from the world come August, will be interesting to see what the reaction is from the public.
Regarding companies doing international business, I see the other half of the coin (even though disturbing). I can understand how a company like Google censors information for the people of China because it's services are just an extension of offline information that was regulated in the same way. The troublesome part is handing over data which leads to arrests and other "human rights violations" as we Americans see it (per the article). I think there needs to be responsibility by the party using the service and knowing when trying to circumvent the service or use it for locally known laws that there can be some persecution. Ethics go both ways when following the law. I'd like to know how countries like Egypt/Syria/Iran compare to China in terms of authoritarianism/"human rights" violations against it's people. Looking forward to discussion and any input on this board. [[User:Brendanlong|Brendanlong]] 18:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

@Brendanlong: I really think it comes down to pull. Many of these countries, such as Egypt/Syria/Iran simply do not have the resources to compete with superpowers such as the United States, or emerging superpowers such as China, or Russia. So, essentially, I think what it comes down to is whether or not these nations have the pull to compete. What I think is interesting is how take downs are really going to work as laws adapt across the globe. There is a lot of tug and pull from China, or Russia, for example. So even if we have people in Egypt using Twitter, we are still going to have to deal with the authorities clamping down on people for posting a Tweet. [[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 23:26, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

Great readings this week especially the latest with the Viacom/YT ruling. Thought this was pretty relevant for this week's discussion. Also received a petition notice about it in my inbox: [[http://truthfrequencynews.com/mpaa-chairman-chris-dodd-wants-to-resurrect-sopa-confirms-secret-negotiations/ Dodd Wants To Resurrect SOPA]][[User:JennLopez|JennLopez]] 22:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

@JennLopez: Interesting article. I think that governments and corporations ideally try to cooperate. Although, I still am not sure whether or not petitions actually make a difference – or, if they are like voting? Anyways, always good to keep people engaged in the idea of the process – like starting a piggy bank for kids. [[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 23:31, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

Until this week's readings, I didn't realize how much the "playing field" had changed in the area of online censorship and circumvention. When I visited China for a month in late 2010, I primarily stayed in Yunnan province (generally in the NW). One of the hostels I stayed at was run by a westerner who "tunneled" in super fast internet from Hong Kong (that's what he told us, anyways). I could easily and quickly access various social media sites and the web content appeared unfiltered. Most other internet connections I used while in China were SO slow, I guess because of all the filtering/censoring. Typically, I couldn't access Facebook or Blogger unless I used one of these "tunneled" connections, although I could use the Facebook app on my iPhone! While in Cairo a couple weeks prior to the protests in Tahrir square, I had no trouble accessing Blogger or Facebook. This has probably changed in light of Arab Spring, though. I imagine that a comparison of authoritarian countries would produce varied differences in cyber control, presumably having to do with how some of these countries' cyber censorship fluctuates depending on events at home. I'm sure China will implement even more austere measures this fall in anticipation of protests during the CCP's once in a decade regime change.

I am also alarmed at how willingly (according to the OpenNet article) companies like Google and Skype give information to repressive authorities. I wonder what could be done about this. It's a very complicated situation and I don't know enough about it to make a legitimate judgment. [[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 19:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

@Aberg: Interesting point about the tunneling. I'm sure there's a way for freedom to ring, even in China. So it's good to know that users have that option. I'm sure much of the media is streamlined everywhere else in China, though. So it is a very complicated situation when companies such as Google are providing information to repressive governments. And somewhat dangerous. [[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 23:36, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

@Aberg I was also in China not long ago and noticed the difference in Internet speed and what sites you were able to access depending on what location you were logging in from. After the readings for this week I will be more aware of what information I access or post during international travel. --[[User:Hds5|Hds5]] 21:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

In response to Corporate Ethic on a Filtered Internet, I feel that this whole subject raises even deeper questions, which are only mirrored in the internet conflict. Some nation states are more peaceful than others. Some are more aggressive. Some feel they should intervene in other nations’ affairs. Some feel they shouldn’t. Governments don’t seem to always be looking out for the best interests of their people, but rather just seek to keep a certain group of people in power. Some corporations are coming to hold more real power and influence than traditional nation states and their governments. Through it all, many people are still oppressed, abused, neglected, or manipulated. What we see in a struggle for internet control reflects these broader struggles. Can overarching laws in the true interests of human beings, in general, be constructed and enforced? What international bodies, if any, could be appropriate to outline such laws and enforce them? It would seem we need more internationally agreed upon codes of conduct, in general, but it seems beyond human grasp. If there were an overarching international organism to regulate things like internet, might we just be making a new “Frankenstein” with yet more power, potentially useful for the wrong purposes? These are farther reaching questions, but ones that I see coming up, as we proceed down this road of internet ethics.[[User:Mike|Mike]] 05:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

@Mike: Yes, it's true. Everybody wants to rule the world. [[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 23:38, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

== Links ==

2012-04-28T03:56:22Z

Just Johnny: /* Class Discussion */

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

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

<onlyinclude>

==Readings==

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

== Additional Resources==

</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==
April 24: The Wikileaks Case

Invariably when we speak about the Internet and we speak about globalization then we should also speak about freedom of the press – and, in this instance WikiLeaks.

So, how should we view WikiLeaks? Is it a benefit, or a detriment to democratic societies around the globe?

When I think about the world we live in today, everything started from an idea. The United States, for example, started from an idea. That idea grew into what we now see as modern day America.

So, can WikiLeaks change the world? Perhaps it can. Everything has to start from an idea.

Yet, it is globalization already in motion.

So, there are many things that we have covered in this course that apply towards WikiLeaks. Freedom of the press is one of them. Although, WikiLeaks has certainly raised the bar for whistler blower organizations beyond anything before or since it was introduced.

While WikiLeaks may be rather harsh in revealing data about the wild west, readers should also keep in mind the notion of freedom of the press. With this we should mention that the press has a responsibility of keeping governments in line. Part of this is helping to make governments to become more accountable as well as open in free societies. It is kind of an archaic concept to consider the thought that anything would have to be made private or confidential in a governmental organization. Otherwise, what are they doing that they must hide?

We must also include the notion of globalization in recent world history. While corporations are becoming more powerful, they are increasingly sidestepping governments in this move towards a more global marketplace.

One of the arguments is that the U.S. data is private and confidential. Whereas, an argument would state that governments not only need to be more transparent but that they should also be more accountable. So, WikiLeaks is a step forward in terms of worldwide progress.

Is WikiLeaks anti-American, or will it take down the United States? Probably not. Nor do I think it is meant to, more so than to add to the general climate of globalization already in progress.

If people were telepathic, then they would not need the press. However, empathy for one another is something which allows people to feel more connected.

So, it should also be noted that whistle blower organizations are there as an important part of any democratic society to keep governments in check.

Although they do need better protection.

So, there is this question of government trustworthiness. We see an almost too obvious framing of Julian Assange. I will not delve into the complexity of misinformation surrounding WikiLeaks. However, the magic of this technique is that it works 100% of the time, every time. Call it operation “you might as well face it you're addicted to love.” So, does this make us trust government less or more?

What is perhaps interesting of all is that right after WikiLeaks released the data, the end of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars followed within months.

[[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 17:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I have enjoyed reading this case. I did not know about the all thing,letters,etc. It is interesting to queston abouut which model is the best perfect free information or controlled or totally kept secret. For Assange, the only limit seems to be the life of people involved. However, the question further : in what are they involved. Is the cause fair? And then comes a moral judgement, non objective and maybe dangerous.

The other question is: Is the disclosure very interesting for most of the human being on earth? Does that really matter?

--[[User:Sab|Sab]] 15:38, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

@Sab: I would have to say that Mr. Assange is a rather perfect candidate to be a front man for WikiLeaks. He has everything one would need for the aesthetic. He is the front man for a reason. Just as Mark Zuckerberg is the front man for Facebook. I do not think it would work with anyone of another temperament. The very success of the project depends largely on the face of the project. So, Assange fits the part. Aside from this, the personal letters are a nice touch which adds to the dimension of the character that is Julian Assange. He is very much on par with a presidential candidate in a United States election. Or, a Knight at a round table maintaining composure amidst a crowd of hecklers. [[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 23:18, 27 April 2012 (EDT)

Fascinating reading, really looking forward to our discussion in class. Also great to see a step-by-step description of the chain of events that took place and tying in Anonymous' efforts of pro-wikileaks internet activism especially in the case of Aaron Barr/HB Gary Federal. Brutal! On a side note, noticed Anonymous publicly posting a decompiled research copy of the Stuxnet virus was discussed. I'm sure many of you might have already seen/heard of the following story on 60 Minutes however, thought it was quite intriguing and will post here for you all to review [[http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7400904n&tag=mncol;lst;10 Stuxnet: Computer Worm Opens New Era of Warfare]][[User:JennLopez|JennLopez]] 12:19, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

@JennLopez: The interesting thing about Anonymous is that it is just that. Whereas, WikiLeaks has a face and a name that can be attacked. Very brave of Mr. Assange. Although, as I stated earlier I am not going to get into decompiling the mass of disinformation that surrounds WikiLeaks. Needless to say, it is brutal – whatever is going on behind the scenes. Again, we are seeing the convergence of on-line and off-line worlds. [[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 23:28, 27 April 2012 (EDT)

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

@ Emanuele: I really think the interesting question about protection of information – especially when concerning governments – is whether or not this is absolutely necessary. As WikiLeaks has demonstrated, there are easier ways towards peacemaking. I think we need to step back and really take a look at the impact and scope of what WikiLeaks has accomplished. [[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 23:28, 27 April 2012 (EDT)

@JennLopez I completely agree, I thought the organization and explanation of the Wikileaks case was great. I particularly enjoyed the letters between Julian Assange and the Department of State. @Emanuele I also agree that the section about the Arab countries was interesting- to think that Assange in some way helped start the Arab Spring is incredible. Looking forward listening to the class discussion as well.--[[User:Szakuto|Szakuto]] 12:39, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

The Wikileaks case poses the interesting question of reporting versus national security, a question that I doubt would have been nearly as incendiary prior to 9/11. While reporters of the past have committed themselves to providing the public with all information they learn of (and therefore it is no mystery that Assange likens himself as a reporter), the turbulent nature of foreign policy (particularly in the Middle East) does raise ethical questions on what content should be published, and whether the consequences of publishing such information will lead to innocents or government officials being harmed. What was particularly problematic is that there was anecdotal evidence that Assange had originally decided on publishing the Manning files without redactions, and that his co-workers had to convince him otherwise. For a single man to have that much power to affect the lives of many agents in the field is disconcerting.

Furthermore, the “insurance file” that Assange had, and which he would publish if he was the subject of an investigation, added a new wrinkle to the concept of reporters relying on the dissemination of information rather than using information as legal protection that could jeopardize national security.

In terms of moral responsibility and security implications, Wikileaks reminds me of the photos that were taken a couple years ago of American soldiers photographing the body parts of dead Afghan soldiers. Given the hostile reaction to the Koran book-burning scandal, the news outlet who released these pictures almost certainly would have expected that additional American soldiers would be killed from outrage and reprisal and that those soldiers may otherwise have been spared had those photos not been released. These ethical problems are why wikileaks and Assange continue to be controversial.--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 12:44, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

@Jimmyh: You know I can't help but go back to my first post about the importance of protection for whistle-blowers. Assange is quite literally putting his neck out on the line for other people, and is taking the heat for it. Whereas, many bloggers and reporters do not even think of taking half that risk. Now you have to ask yourself: What is a free and democratic society when the media is afraid to report on something? It is no longer a democracy. When corporations and government control the media, as well as everything that is put on it, then we are taking a step backwards in terms of progress. So, I see WikiLeaks as an enforcer of responsibility just as any other media should be. However, WikiLeaks is a real wake up call to other media institutions. No doubt we are beginning to see progress sweep across these developing regions that otherwise conventional means would not ever consider as possible until something like this came into play. So it is quite controversial. Is this the operation of simply a few people? We may probably never know. However, we do see the real world implications. [[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 23:40, 27 April 2012 (EDT)

What a great summary of the Wikileaks events, really interesting. Assange's devotion to his own personal power/personality definitely made the supposedly altruistic nature of his releases a lot more suspect and worrisome. Reading through these events again I was reminded how impressed I was with the NYTimes, the Guardian, and the other major papers in how they handled this. They really seem to have done the best they could at thinking through an extremely difficult situation and attempting to both honor their responsibilities as journalists and maintain a sense of responsibility for the results of their actions. This is definitely something we lose when the anonymous internet becomes the method of disseminating controversial information or news; no specially trained journalists are thinking through the implications of releasing each part of a story. That lack of filter can have serious consequences. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 13:05, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

@AlexLE: This certainly is an interesting recounting of the events that led up to the WikiLeaks incident. Interesting how the New York Times and the Guardian come into play – almost as WikiLeaks dangling that the truth is superior to either British imperialism or Western capitalism. Also, interesting how you note about the anonymity of the Internet and the repercussions it is beginning to demonstrate. I think that this is interesting because this not only just applies to citizens, but to government as well. If governments are expecting us to open up and just give every piece of information about ourselves and our lives, then the government also has to follow this idea. As is clearly stated in the reading: “Step by gradual step, the diplomatic cables have slipped from secrecy into the public sphere. Every
attempt to control or redact them, regardless whether by the US government, WikiLeaks, corporations,
or the mainstream media, ultimately failed.
” So, once the information is out there, it is out there. Now I don't believe that this should apply to everything. Corporations should shred digital/information on a regular rolling schedule in accordance with laws. However, in this instance, we see what is happening with this awakening of the convergence of power play and the public. It is very much the ruler on the high horse being thrown off of it by the people. In a sense, it is democratic in idea. [[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 23:56, 27 April 2012 (EDT)

Interesting study on the Wikileaks events. I wonder what Assange's intent truly was with the letter to the State Department? Would he really remove per their request? Was it maneuvering for the U.S. to mistakenly give up the rest of the information. I'm guessing Saudi intentions to bomb Iran put people in harm's way on a more national scale --- more than just individual people. [[User:Brendanlong|Brendanlong]] 13:33, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

It just amazes me how vulnerable and insecure data can be, as evidenced by Anonymous’s hacking and humiliation of HBGary Federal and Aaron Barr. The incident also proved to be embarrassing to the US government as well, as it was clearly ill-equipped to stop WikiLeaks, hacktivists, and jounals from publicizing sensitive data. Is this the way it must be to have open information and transparent government? @ Emanuele I also find it interesting that WikiLeaks allowed for revolutions to occur in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya. [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 14:01, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

Great article summarizing the WikiLeaks timeline of events. As someone with a Top Secret clearance I found the information on Manning’s background really disturbing. The military has an obligation to monitor those with access to classified material. The reading also magnified the discontent between an editor-in-chief for a newspaper vs. online journalism in regards to releasing sensitive information that could potentially cause harm to individuals. Do online journalists have less of an obligation to protect sources? Looking forward to our discussion in class tonight.
I also saw this article on CNN: Manning switches lawyers http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/24/justice/manning-military-hearing/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 --[[User:Hds5|Hds5]] 14:04, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

@Qdang I agree, data is extremely vulnerable. The Government has to take into account retaliation from hackers when trying to impose rules and regulations.--[[User:Hds5|Hds5]] 14:34, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

Great "step-by-step" breakdown of events. I found the part on the use of ECPA important, and wonder if the law will be changed. The power struggles surrounding Assange, as well as his personality in general, helped to cast doubt on his intentions (as @AlexLE mentioned).

@Hds5 -- I think that online journalists don't necessarily hold themselves to the same "rules" as print journalists. Perhaps it's something to do with legal ambiguity of the web. [[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 16:02, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

Very interesting case study. It is great to have the players, timeline and full summary of events in one place to truly see the imapact of this event. Of greatest interest to me (like Qdang mentioned above) is the fact that WikiLeaks appears to have helped set the stage for revolutions to occur in northern Africa and the Middle East. I look forward to the discussion. [[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 14:45, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

Great article and great summary of events as they occurred. While I was aware of many things that occurred that time, I wasn't aware of few aspects on Wiki until now. Also, I am surprised how easy Top Secret information like that can be leaked and hacked into, which raises questions of how secure data like that is. I was also surprised that that out of all these websites including government ones, Amazon was the only one that could not be hacked. This also raises questions why US government websites can be so easily hacked when compared to Amazon. Shouldn't it be the other way round? While the material did spread, I think US government did a decent job at suppressing that information from going all out. The article also showed great difference between paper journalism and internet journalism. Given that many Wikileaks employees didn't like Assange's stand of releasing such information, it seems that Assange was doing everything possible to get as much media attention as possible even if it meant his own downfall. Great article, and looking forward to class discussions.
[[User:Erzhik|Erzhik]] 15:23, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

Besides the very good explanation of the facts in a brief and concise way in this article, what I most like from the Wikileaks case is that it covers many topics we have been discussing in class. We saw the importance of redacting online when we addressed regulation speech online. I agree when the article explains that The New York Times and The Guardian newspapers blamed Wikileaks for releasing the cables without revising how they should be written, putting at risk several people, including the US forces. This was the reason Jester did hacktivism for good, in order to support the privacy of the people. Also we can see how important normativity is on the Internet, and in this case we see another example of these regulations: the ECPA Subpoenas the government has used to access the accounts of important implicated persons in the Wikileaks problem. Finally, we covered collective decision and democracy in past classes, and what more impressed me from the case was that the Tunisia protests began due to some of the Wikileaks’ cables about the Tunisian government. Therefore, as it is stated in the article, part of the Arab Spring was triggered by the information spread through the cables of Wikileaks. Unbelievable! Looking forward to discussing this case[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 15:58, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

I'm really looking forward to discussing the issues raised by the readings this week, particularly the different strategies for attacking online foes. I'd also love to hear more about how these tactics are used by other governments (e.g. Russia) to respond to hackers/journalists who publish critical opinions and private documents. [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 17:27, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

The case brings up some deeper and broader questions, I feel, yet nothing we don’t know. Real life has no 100% “saints” most of the time, most situations are not all black and white, but rather several shades of gray, and we can please some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but we cannot please all of the people all of the time. A government is supposed to protect people, but then comes the question, which people? Whose interests are being protected? Who is actually behind the government? News agencies are run and own by human people and economic interests, and some of these care more about ideals and humanity than others. Some care, as long as it doesn’t cost them anything. Well intentioned crusaders also have to watch out for pride and ambition, and some succumb to those faults. The truth can and does set us free, yet some things spoken to the wrong people at the wrong time can bring hurtful results to innocent people, so much discretion and objective responsibility must be applied. All sides claim to be trying to use those attributes, of course. Maybe the best we can hope for, when dealing with humanity, is a balance of power, a check and balance system, which doesn’t always get everything right, but helps to keep things in general from going too wrong. Too much control can easily be misused, and no control invites misuse of freedom. Even though Wiki-links seems to have helped to bring about a change, for example, in Egypt, some feel that the outcome has simply been to exchange an old evil for a new one. I include myself in the “sinning-saint” category, meaning that sometimes even when I’m well intentioned, I don’t end up performing the right thing, like most of us, I suppose. It seems humans and human organizations need some external help and auditing when it comes to moral guidelines and freedoms, some sort of absolute “Golden rule for dummies” which is easy enough to follow and persuasive enough to help at least most of us to want to follow it.[[User:Mike|Mike]] 21:08, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

== Links ==