Technologies of Politics and Control - User contributions [en]

Final Projects

2013-05-14T16:39:46Z

Raven:

{{AssignmentCal}}

<big><big>'''The course evaluation is now live. [http://www.extension.harvard.edu/course-evaluations Log in] to complete the evaluation.'''</big></big>

[http://www.example.com link title]== Instructions ==

''Please name your file "wikiusername_Final," 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_Final.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:
*Title:
*Link:

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

Submissions ==

*Name: Becca Luberoff
*Title: Creating and Maintaining a Safe and Supportive Environment in Online Mental Health Communities: A Comparative Study of the National Alliance on Mental Illness and HealthyPlace.com
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:BeccaLuberoff_Final.docx
--[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 01:34, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

*Pseudonym: interestingcomments (Student ID#10789842)

*Title:Does The SEC Need To Control & Censor The Message Board Community?
A comparative observational study of two publically traded company message board communities

*Link:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Interesting_comments_5.10.13TAG_LSTU_Assignment_.docx
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 17:02, 10 May 2013 (EDT)

****
*Pseudonym: Raven
*Title: A Conversation That Can Change the World
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Raven_Final_Paper.docx
[[User:Raven|Raven]] 12:39, 14 May 2013 (EDT)
****

*Name or Pseudonym: sridder
*Title: Social Disorganization Theory Proves that Social Commerce Reduces Internet Fraud
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Sridder_Final.docx
[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 13:25, 12 May 2013 (EDT)

Pseudonym: DearAlice

Title: One Company, Different Social Media Platforms, Different Conversations

Link:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/2013-05-12_DearAlice_Assignment_Final.docx

--[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 20:55, 12 May 2013 (EDT)

*Name: Rich
*Title: Is Wikipedia an Open Collaborative Effort or a Despotic Hierarchy
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Internet_Control_Final_Project_May_12_2013-Modified.docx
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 14:16, 13 May 2013 (EDT)

*Name: Milena Grado
*Title: How Does "Reclame Aqui" Avoid Bias?
*Link:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Finalproject_milenagrado.doc
[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 18:14, 13 May 2013 (EDT)
***
*****
*Name or Pseudonym: MichaeleKeane
*Title:A Single Site Case Study of the Effect of Censorship on a Web Community
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment_5_Final_ver9_keane.docx
*[[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 22:08, 13 May 2013 (EDT)
*****
*Name or Pseudonym: AaronEttl
*Title: The Successful Balance Achieved By Kickstarter
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:AaronEttl_Final.docx
[[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 08:59, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

****
*Name or Pseudonym: Joshywonder
*Title: Lawbuzz: The Effects of a SLAPP Law Suit on Anonymous Forum Participation
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Joshywonder_Final_Project.docx [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 11:37, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

*****
*Name or Pseudonym: DanielReissHarris
*Title: Piracy; the Source, the Cost and the Solution
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/DanielReissHarris_Final.docx
*[[User:DanielReissHarris|DanielReissHarris]] 11:47, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

Extra Credit Submissions

2013-05-13T18:51:07Z

Raven: /* Submissions */

<big><big>'''The course evaluation is now live. [http://www.extension.harvard.edu/course-evaluations Log in] to complete the evaluation.'''</big></big>

{{AssignmentCal}}

'''This assignment is due on May 7.''' Students who submit extra credit projects will receive a one-point increase in their final project grade. If you are presenting in class on the 14th, but do not have material to upload, please indicate so on the section below.

If you do plan on uploading a file, ''please name your file "wikiusername_extracredit," 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 PowerPoint document your file should be named "jdoe_extracredit.ppt."

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==

I plan to submit a PowerPoint on the challenges of exploring the complex architectural structure of the Wiki model that my exhaustive research demonstrated was anything but the published self-descriptive of open, uncensored forum with "no practical limits" /"forget all the rules" or that it always presents a "neutral point of view." one its is guiding principals.
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 09:05, 9 May 2013 (EDT)

I would like to participate in the extra credit assignment by sending along a link to an iMovie that will go through "the right to be forgotten" in a narrative format.
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 12:31, 7 March 2013 (EST)Caroline

****

*Zak Paster_extracredit - Link to extra credit assignment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ks5e5KPsWxk&feature=youtube_gdata
*The presentation is on autopilot - I would like to have it presented during the final class on May 14th.
*This slide show provides an overview of two fast-growing online giving communities - Crowdrise.com Razoo.com - and cross-compares two of Lessig's Internet forces: ''norms and architecture.''
*[[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 23:00, 6 May 2013 (EDT)

****
An overview of my findings in Powerpoint.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Raven_Extra_Credit.pptx
[[User:Raven|Raven]] 21:26, 7 May 2013 (EDT)

An updated version of this presentation:
cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Raven_Extra_Credit_Final.pptx [[User:Raven|Raven]] 14:51, 13 May 2013 (EDT)
****

Rich Cacioppo-Link to extra credit assignment: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Inteernet_Class_Extra_Credit_PowerPoint_May_102013_Final_Version.pptx
*This is a powerpoint presentation that I would like to present during the final class
*My presentation is about who really controls wikipedia
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 16:15, 10 May 2013 (EDT)

*interestingcomments_extracredit (Student ID 10789842)- Link to extra credit assignment: https://vimeo.com/65635250
*I would like to have it presented during the final class on May 14th.
*This video lecture gives an overview of my research on the topic: Does The SEC Need To Control & Censor The Message Board Community? A comparative observational study of two publicly traded company message board communities.
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 07:42, 7 May 2013 (EDT)

*****
I can't upload my little movie because it is in 7zp or mp4 format and the website won't accept it. I've emailed it to the class email address. Could you please confirm that you have it and were able to play it? I can send it again if you need me to. Sorry for the inconvenience. Thanks. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 13:33, 7 May 2013 (EDT)

*****
I would like to present my research paper to the class, through the medium of a website. I will read excerpts of my paper, and the website will feature these excerpts as well as annotations of them, in a fashion similar to Rap Genius.
[[User:Jax|Jax]] 17:49, 7 May 2013 (EDT)

****
A data visualization on Powerpoint:

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:CyberRalph_extracredit.pptx

*I would like to have it presented during the final class on May 14th. Thank you.

[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 23:03, 7 May 2013 (EDT)
****

This is a Powerpoint I plan to present on my project about MOOCS.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Susan_Goldstein_Project_Presentation.pptx
[[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 02:04, 8 May 2013 (EDT)

Extra Credit Submissions

2013-05-08T01:27:58Z

Raven: /* Submissions */

<big><big>'''The course evaluation is now live. [http://www.extension.harvard.edu/course-evaluations Log in] to complete the evaluation.'''</big></big>

{{AssignmentCal}}

'''This assignment is due on May 7.''' Students who submit extra credit projects will receive a one-point increase in their final project grade. If you are presenting in class on the 14th, but do not have material to upload, please indicate so on the section below.

If you do plan on uploading a file, ''please name your file "wikiusername_extracredit," 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 PowerPoint document your file should be named "jdoe_extracredit.ppt."

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==

I would like to participate in the extra credit assignment by sending along a link to an iMovie that will go through "the right to be forgotten" in a narrative format.
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 12:31, 7 March 2013 (EST)Caroline

****

*Zak Paster_extracredit - Link to extra credit assignment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ks5e5KPsWxk&feature=youtube_gdata
*The presentation is on autopilot - I would like to have it presented during the final class on May 14th.
*This slide show provides an overview of two fast-growing online giving communities - Crowdrise.com Razoo.com - and cross-compares two of Lessig's Internet forces: ''norms and architecture.''
*[[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 23:00, 6 May 2013 (EDT)

****
An overview of my findings in Powerpoint.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Raven_Extra_Credit.pptx
[[User:Raven|Raven]] 21:26, 7 May 2013 (EDT)
****

*interestingcomments_extracredit (Student ID 10789842)- Link to extra credit assignment: https://vimeo.com/65635250
*I would like to have it presented during the final class on May 14th.
*This video lecture gives an overview of my research on the topic: Does The SEC Need To Control & Censor The Message Board Community? A comparative observational study of two publicly traded company message board communities.
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 07:42, 7 May 2013 (EDT)

*****
I can't upload my little movie because it is in 7zp or mp4 format and the website won't accept it. I've emailed it to the class email address. Could you please confirm that you have it and were able to play it? I can send it again if you need me to. Sorry for the inconvenience. Thanks. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 13:33, 7 May 2013 (EDT)

*****
I would like to present my research paper to the class, through the medium of a website. I will read excerpts of my paper, and the website will feature these excerpts as well as annotations of them, in a fashion similar to Rap Genius.
[[User:Jax|Jax]] 17:49, 7 May 2013 (EDT)

Extra Credit Submissions

2013-05-08T01:26:48Z

Raven: /* Submissions */

Privacy

2013-05-05T21:47:18Z

Raven: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 23'''

A persistent fear throughout all of the Internet’s operation is the Internet’s treatment of a person’s own privacy. We have a hard enough time defining the term, much less determining what role it should play in deciding the whos, whats, and hows of Internet governance. Nevertheless, the Internet’s present evolution indicates that unless we spend time contemplating the reinforcing privacy online it way succumb to the interests of profitability, online behavior regulation, cybersecurity, and law enforcement. Today’s class will set a framework for classifying privacy issues and explore how these issues play out in online spaces.

Speaking in class this week will be several members of Berkman's [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/research/youthandmedia Youth and Media Project], as well as our own TA [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/dobrien David O'Brien].

== Assignments ==

We have a granted a ''one week extension'' to the rough draft in light of last week's events. Please have those [[Assignment_4_Submissions|uploaded]] before class on April 30th.

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==

* [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1127888 Daniel Solove, ''Understanding Privacy'' (Chapter 1)]

* [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/20 Jonathan Zittrain, ''The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It'' (Chapter 9)]

* [http://www.bitsbook.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/chapter2.pdf Hal Abelson, Ken Ledeen, and Harry Lewis, ''Blown to Bits'' (Chapter 2)] (focus on pages 36-42: “Why We Lost Our Privacy, Or Gave it All Away”)

* [http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2011/11/01/parents-survey-coppa.html danah boyd, Why Parents Help Children Violate Facebook’s 13+ Rule]

* [https://www.socialtext.net/codev2/privacy Lawrence Lessig, ''Code 2.0'' (Chapter 7)] (read “Solutions” through “Rules to Enable Choice About Privacy”)

* [http://iheid.revues.org/321 Johannes Köppel, The International Dimension of the SWIFT Affair]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://www.access-controlled.net/wp-content/PDFs/chapter-3.pdf Hal Roberts and John Palfrey, The EU Data Retention Directive in an Era of Internet Surveillance]

* [http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-295.html Solveig Singleton, Privacy as Censorship]

* [http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/dsolove/Future-of-Reputation/text/futureofreputation-ch7.pdf Dan Solove, ''The Future of Reputation'' (Chapter 7)]

* [http://paranoia.dubfire.net/2009/12/8-million-reasons-for-real-surveillance.html Chris Soghoian, 8 Million Reasons for Real Surveillance Oversight]

* [http://arxiv.org/pdf/cs/0610105v2.pdf Arvind Narayanan and Vitaly Shmatikov, Robust De-anonymization of Large Datasets (How to Break Anonymity of the Netflix Prize Dataset) (''Arxiv'')]

* [https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/business/media/26privacy.html?_r=0 Noam Cohen, It’s Tracking Your Every Move and You May Not Even Know It (''New York Times'')]

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==
===Links from Adobe Connect Session===
The Warren/Brandeis article on Privacy: http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/privacy/Privacy_brand_warr2.html

An 1890s Kodak: http://www.kodaksefke.nl/4-folding-kodak.html

Congress recently passed a revision to the Video Privacy Protection Act: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57563408-93/obama-signs-netflix-backed-amendment-to-video-privacy-law/

Text of the amendment to the Video Privacy Protection Act: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr6671/text

Big Data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Data

California OPPA: http://oag.ca.gov/privacy/COPPA

Article on Apple keeping Siri data for 2 years: http://blogs.computerworld.com/privacy/22084/apple-siri-spies-you-secretly-keeps-data-years-itbwcw

The cloud service that Amazon runs is called Amazon Web Services: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Web_Services

The exponential growth of computing was mentioned in Zittrain's reading as well and is shorthanded to "Moore's law" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law

Metcalfe's law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe's_law

The verizon data breach report: http://www.verizonenterprise.com/DBIR/2013/

Sony had a terrible breach in 2011: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/26/us-sony-stoldendata-idUSTRE73P6WB20110426

Symantec/Ponemon Report on Breaches: http://www.symantec.com/about/news/release/article.jsp?prid=20120320_02

Fraley v Facebook: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraley_v._Facebook,_Inc.

PCI data security standards: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_Card_Industry_Data_Security_Standard

Chronology of Data Breaches: http://www.privacyrights.org/data-breach

Mass. regulations on handling of data: http://www.mass.gov/ocabr/docs/idtheft/201cmr1700reg.pdf

Heartland cases are still kicking around: http://threatpost.com/heartland-data-breach-suit-back-dead-021313/

Stored Communications Act: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stored_Communications_Act

Facebook Privacy Policy: https://www.facebook.com/#!/about/privacy/

FERPA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Educational_Rights_and_Privacy_Act

Google Buzz: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Buzz

EEOC sample settlement including language about no admission of wrongdoing: http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/adr/fsms-settlement.cfm

Sandra Cortesi: https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/scortesi

Youth and Media: http://youthandmedia.org/

Born Digital book: http://www.borndigitalbook.com/

Berkman Executive Director Urs Gasser: https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/ugasser

Former Berkman ED John Palfrey https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jpalfrey

Some of their YaM's research with Pew is available here: https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2013/teens_and_technology

Pew's Teens and Internet study: http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Teens-and-Tech.aspx

YaM video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye3vZJmdqpM

Some of YaM's publications are here: http://youthandmedia.org/publications/papers/

YaM literature review on bullying in collaboration with the Born This Way Foundation: http://youthandmedia.org/projects/born-this-way-foundation-partnership/report-bullying-in-a-networked-era/

== 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>

Daniel Solove concisely and accurately summarized the areas of consensus with regards to the definition of privacy when he stated that it encompasses, "(among other things) freedom of thought, control over one’s body, solitude in one’s home, control over personal information, freedom from surveillance, protection of one’s reputation, and protection from searches and interrogations." He also went on to point out that, “Privacy is a value so complex, so entangled in competing and contradictory dimensions, so engorged with various and distinct meanings, that I sometimes despair whether it can be usefully addressed at all.” These two statements probably best summarize where current thought on privacy is at this moment in world history. He goes on to emphasize how important privacy is, "Thus privacy is a fundamental right, essential for freedom, democracy, psychological well-being, individuality, and creativity. It is proclaimed inviolable but decried as detrimental, antisocial, and even pathological."

I see less problems with the actual definition of the core values which comprise privacy and more issues with drawing the borders of where privacy begins and ends. It can (more or less) be defined as the individual having his or her behavior, personal information and life protected from disclosure to anyone whom they wish to not share such information. One solution is to go back to the old paradigm of the good of the individual vs. the good of the collective. With this mindset, I believe there would be a constant shift towards the eroding away at individual privacy for the benefit of society, either real or perceived. Therefore, one must seek a minimal set of privacy rights which can either never be infringed upon, or can only be infringed upon after some sort of mechanism for "due process" has been put in place and followed and properly justified.

There are some who are criticizing police for their recent cordoning off and going house-to-house and searching for one of the suspects of the Boston Marathon bombings in Watertown Massachusetts. There are also those who believe, that while so many cameras in the city of Boston gave law enforcement an advantage in identifying the bombers, the sheer quantity of cameras allows the government too much power. I thought the crowd sourcing effort that the government used (posting pictures of who they strongly believed were involved in the bombing and then allowing the public to voluntarily come forward was an interesting and perhaps good example of a balance between privacy and security that can be struck in the future. With the popularity of social media such as Facebook and Twitter, such efforts have the potential to be very effective, although surely not without critics. Technology certainly makes the issue of privacy much more complicated. Data gathering via the internet, data mining tools and technologies, surveillance drones and public cameras all add further complications to the issue. [[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 20:22, 21 April 2013 (EDT)

****

In my wiki post two weeks ago, on April 9th, I addressed issues surrounding online privacy. I noted that everything we do today is online, and as a result, we may all be hacked at some point in time. The assigned chapter this week by Abelson et al., ''Why We Lost Our Privacy, Or Gave It Away'', further supports my claim with additional examples and relevant quotes.

''"Technology creates opportunities and risks, and people, as individuals and as societies, decide how to live in the changed landscape of new possibilities [i.e., new technology]....We give away information about ourselves—voluntarily leave visible footprints of our daily lives—because we judge, perhaps without thinking about it very much, that the benefits outweigh the costs."''

These two statements are equally relevant for this week’s discussion. A) Technology does indeed create opportunities and risks, and we as the users primarily see things from an opportunistic perspective—quite often, we don’t contemplate the risks. B) Based on our optimism and trust in the technological advancements that surround us, we give our personal information away continuously. Why? Because the benefits outweigh the costs: we need to pay our bills online, manage our finances online, purchase products online, sign-up for services online, and the list goes on. In some circumstances—when one is hacked, for example—the costs trump the benefits; yet, we remain optimistic overall, not because we necessarily want to, but because we need to.

Privacy today impacts all walks of life. RFID technologies, credit cards, supermarket loyalty programs, and beyond, capture personal data for countless reasons. As the consumers, we not only let this happen, but we don’t have a choice, unless we choose to live in a remote reality. Abelson et al. further states that, ''"we give up data about ourselves because we don’t have the time, patience, or single-mindedness about privacy that would be required to live our daily lives in another way."'' Privacy norms will inevitably continue to evolve in-line with technological advancements, and we as the ultimate users must therefore adapt accordingly.

The final quote worth highlighting comes from Zittrain’s article: ''"It is no wonder that people have come to distrust computer-based record-keeping operations. Even in non-governmental settings, an individual’s control over the personal information that he gives to an organization, or that an organization obtains about him, is lessening as the relationship between the giver and receiver of personal data grows more attenuated, impersonal, and diffused....Often [an individual] may not see [a record about him/her], much less contest its accuracy, control its dissemination, or challenge its use by others"'' (Report from the Blue-Ribbon Panel to the U.S. Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare on computers and privacy).

I like this quote because it foreshadows today’s reality, from 40 years ago. Will this same reality be consistent 40 years from now? Will privacy take on new meanings as hacking becomes more prevalent? Will new industries emerge to protect online communications? How will we, as users, continue to adapt to ensure our own privacy across diverse online frontiers?

I look forward to hearing your insights! [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 09:48, 23 April 2013 (EDT)

***
I enjoyed our readings for today’s class in regards to the Internet privacy. With information systems, in my view privacy deals with the collection of misuse of data and information within the cyber arena. More and more information of users is being collected, stored, used, and shared among ample organizations. Who owns this information and knowledge? And what is the limit of the privacy? In my view, privacy is a status wherein an individual can work on his/her information in seclusion, resulting in a selective revelation of one's identity, which can mean anonymity in case a person wants to remain unidentified. Privacy can also be related to the security aspect of an individual or information. While using the Internet, it mainly comprises the use of social networking sites, email facilities and the browse of various other websites. Internet privacy comes on the scene when it comes to website users giving out their personal details on the Internet. For certain websites, which facilitate online shopping, the users are made to input their credit card numbers, the privacy security is limited as the card numbers are being stolen and/or forwarded to the 3rd parties. In case of emailing sites, there are issues about whether third parties should be allowed to store or read emails without informed consent. Whether or not, the third parties should be permitted to track user’s information, which is viewed as another major privacy concern. The other important Internet privacy issue in my view is whether the sites that gather personally identifiable information from the users should store or share it. [[User:User777|user777]] 12:09, 23 April 2013 (EDT)
***

Reflecting upon this week's readings, the discussion on privacy seems so much bigger than a question of laws and regulations. It fully encompasses the ethics and morals of individuals and of their cultures. The current privacy situation forces a person to constantly be ready to defend their reputation. It seems to hold human behavior to a higher standard, which might not be bad. Privacy while participating in online activity seems more like part of "playing the game", however when it comes to secret surveillance or someone else taking photographic images or videos of me and disseminating those images without my consent is another story. It is like living in a glass house or a fish bowl. We've all had bad days and made mistakes, but we do not desire for those to be captured and forever worn like a scarlet letter. This is of particular concern to me, as children are growing and hopefully learning from their mistakes, not permanently labeled for them. Zittrain's chapter brought many additional thoughts to mind such as his example about "good" customers and "bad" customers in a home improvement store. This type of behavior on the part of businesses could perpetuate economic discrimination.

Striking a balance between government control and individual/ non-state actor control is important. Technological advancements often come laden with unintended consequences but that is part of innovation and progress. As the debate and discussion continue, acceptable solutions will emerge.
Question: Does COPPA or another law cover anything about photos or videos being taken of minor children (clothed, not pornographic) and disseminated online without parental consent?
--[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 12:20, 23 April 2013 (EDT)
****
I'm very interested in two points Dear Alice makes above, the first, that the question of privacy seems much bigger than a question of laws and regulations. I'd just expand this to say that perhaps much or all of what we've discussed this semester depends so much on what view we take of what government is for, how big it should be, and (something we haven't really discussed) how this enforcement will occur and who will pay for it.

The other point Dear Alice makes that I find compelling is that we all have said and done things, which, upon reflection, we'd prefer we hadn't. None of us would like to wear a list of these things on a sign around our neck, nor have them attached to our name when someone looks up our resume, or listing on a social network. Much has been made of the privilege the rich and politically connected have, just in their ability to keep their behavior behind closed doors. Now that these areas of privacy are becoming fewer and fewer, will this further equalize society or further expand the privileges of those that can afford to socialize and work in areas that remain free from cameras or other public oversight?

Finally, we've been using the words discipline and punish in our discussions, at times, perhaps loosely, when what our intentions are perhaps to prevent or discourage behavior, or even encourage alternate behaviors. I wonder if we've spent enough time thinking about whether discipline and punishment actually deter the behaviors many of us have been discussing. Or if we've thought through the implications of a society so quick to jump to discipline and punishment, when prevention and discouragement might be more desirable.

As a footnote to this discussion, there is a Wall Street Journal article which discusses an attempt to count the number of federal criminal laws, and an article on the Library of Congress's website that discusses the WSJ article and expands upon it. blogs.loc.gov/law/2013/03/frequent-reference-question-how-many-federal-laws-are-there/
online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304319804576389601079728920.html

I've pasted the second to last paragraph from the Library of Congress website article here:

"In an example of a failed attempt to tally up the number of laws on a specific subject area, in 1982 the Justice Department tried to determine the total number of criminal laws. In a project that lasted two years, the Department compiled a list of approximately 3,000 criminal offenses. This effort, headed by Ronald Gainer, a Justice Department official, is considered the most exhaustive attempt to count the number of federal criminal laws. In a Wall Street Journal article about this project, “this effort came as part of a long and ultimately failed campaign to persuade Congress to revise the criminal code, which by the 1980s was scattered among 50 titles and 23,000 pages of federal law.” Or as Mr. Gainer characterized this fruitless project: “[y]ou will have died and [been] resurrected three times,” and still not have an answer to this question."

Here is the final paragraph of the WSJ article:

"There is no one in the United States over the age of 18 who cannot be indicted for some federal crime," said John Baker, a retired Louisiana State University law professor who has also tried counting the number of new federal crimes created in recent years. "That is not an exaggeration."

And here is James Madison, from The Federalist Papers, The Senate (#62):

"It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?"

[[User:Raven|Raven]] 16:16, 23 April 2013 (EDT)

Are all telephone calls recorded and accessible to the US government?
A former FBI counterterrorism agent claims on CNN that this is the case
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/04/telephone-calls-recorded-fbi-boston
May 4th, 2013
[[User:Raven|Raven]] 17:47, 5 May 2013 (EDT)
****

Privacy is a difficult topic to get legal and moral arms around. Reading the different perspectives for this week, it becomes clear that there aren't any real clear guidelines on how to approach this difficult topic. Protected by a constitutionality? Yes... enforced thoroughly? No.

I pulled up to my drive through bank machine yesterday. The three cameras there recorded my licence plate, a wide angle of my car and my face (finally noticed the small camera next to the key pad.) Was all that really necessary for me to pull 100 dollars? With the readings in mind, I started reviewing how many times I am photographed and cataloged in some obscure (to me) database. Yesterday alone was over 50 (that I know of) and I do not frequent high profile areas. I have no secret clearance or celebrity profile that could possible make these numbers justified yet in a normal course of events during my day I was like an animal that had been tagged with an ear chip for migration observation.

In the Jonathan Zittrain piece, I found the following excerpt to incapsulate the true issues of today. ...."Nowadays an individual must increasingly give information about himself to large and relatively faceless institutions, for handling and use by strangers—unknown, unseen and, all too frequently..." How do we as a society protect against that information being used in a way that we would never think of?.

Another example....here is an article on how software analyzing all the CCTV cameras will be able to alert authorities to behaviour ...
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2013/04/18/httpblogs-scientificamerican-comobservationswp-adminpost-new-phppost_typepost/?WT_mc_id=SA_CAT_TECH_20130423
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 15:43, 23 April 2013 (EDT)Caroline

***
Instead of commenting on a specific article today, I thought I would give a big old mea culpa. I am probably the raison d'etre that people should take more care of their privacy settings on facebook. In addition to being a personal injury lawyer, I also run a quite a few insurance defence files that run the gamut from wrongful death to BS whiplash type claims. A MAJOR aspect of a successful defence among most young lawyers in this field of work is to do a full work-up of the plaintiff's lawsuit on the internet. This includes searching, facebook, myspace, twitter, linkedin, and general google searches etc. People think that just because they have their facebook set to private people like me will not be able to access their records. Unfortunately they are quite wrong. Many people have their settings set to share with others in the Network or their friends and open their profile that way. Alternatively, the vast majority of people list their friends for everyone to see. While I won't actually become their false friends to search their profile, if the case is serious enough, I will find meticulously search through their family members profiles (listed in their friends list) and collect all sorts of photos and comments that the plaintiff doesn't think I can get. Alternatively, if I can't get any serious information that way I will bring a motion to the court forcing them to disclose all portions of their facebook photos except their private messages. This motion will almost certainly succeed in Ontario.
The moral of the story is that what you post on facebook and online is not private if someone is determined enough to get it. Many plaintiffs have lost tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands because they had a false sense of security in their online privacy. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 17:06, 23 April 2013 (EDT)

Assignment 4 Submissions

2013-04-30T19:56:15Z

Raven: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

'''The deadline for this assignment has been extended to April 30th before class.''' 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_Assignment4," 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_Assignment4.doc."

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

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

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

*Name or pseudonym:
*Project title:
*Link to rough draft: (add your link here)

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 or pseudonym:Raven
*Project title: If Your Website is Full of Assholes, It's Your Fault
*Link to rough draft: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Raven_Assignment_4.docx
[[User:Raven|Raven]] 15:55, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

*Name or pseudonym: sridder
*Project title: Does Social Commerce Reduce Internet Commerce Fraud?
*Link to rough draft: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Steve_Ridder_Assignment_4.docx

[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 20:25, 21 April 2013 (EDT)

Pseudonym: Dear Alice
Project title: One Company, Different Social Media Platforms, Different Conversations
Link to Draft: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/DearAlice_Assignment4.docx
--[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 17:08, 23 April 2013 (EDT)

*Name or pseudonym: Zak Paster
*Project title: Online Giving: A New Fundraising Era
*Link to rough draft: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Zak_Paster_Assignment_4_-_Final_Project_Draft_Online_Giving-A_New_Fundraising_Era_4-25-13.pdf
[[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 22:41, 24 April 2013 (EDT)

****
*Name: Milena Grado
*Project title: How Does Reclame Aqui Avoid Bias?
*Link to rough draft: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment4milenagrado.doc
[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 17:28, 26 April 2013 (EDT)
****
*Name or pseudonym: CyberRalph
*Project title: Anonymous and Their Use of Twitter to Leverage Lessig's Regulators as a Means for Attacking CISPA
*Link to rough draft: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Martins_Assignment4.docx
[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 16:46, 28 April 2013 (EDT)
****

*Name or pseudonym: joshywonder
*Project title: Lawbuzz.ca - Anonymous Forum Participation
*Link to rough draft: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Joshywonder_Assignment_4.docx
[[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 12:05, 29 April 2013 (EDT)

*Name or pseudonym: interesting comments
*Project title:Does The SEC Need To Control & Censor The Message Board Community? A comparative observational study of two publically traded company message board communities
*Link to rough draft: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Z_TAG_LSTU_Assignment_4_(1)_.docx
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 18:45, 29 April 2013 (EDT)

{{AssignmentInfo|Asmith|A Few Bad Apples: Grappling with Troublesome Users on Diaspora|File:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Asmith_Assignment4.pdf}}

****
* Name or pseudonym:Michael Keane
* Project title:A Single Site Case Study of the Effect of Censorship on a Web Community
* Link to rough draft: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment_4_Draft_ver5_keane.docx
*[[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 12:03, 30 April 2013 (EDT)
****

Name or pseudonym: AaronEttl
Project title: The Successful Balance Achieved By Kickstarter
Link to rough draft: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:AaronEttl_Assignment4.docx [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:56, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

****
*Name or pseudonym: Maria
*Project title: Internet regulation in Argentina, the case of Taringa!
*Link to rough draft: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Jurado_Assignment4-1.pdf --[[User:Maria|Maria]] 15:28, 30 April 2013 (EDT)
****

Assignment 4 Submissions

2013-04-30T19:55:10Z

Raven: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

'''The deadline for this assignment has been extended to April 30th before class.''' 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_Assignment4," 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_Assignment4.doc."

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

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

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

*Name or pseudonym:
*Project title:
*Link to rough draft: (add your link here)

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 or pseudonym:Raven
*Project title: If Your Website is Full of Assholes, It's Your Own Fault
*Link to rough draft: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Raven_Assignment_4.docx
[[User:Raven|Raven]] 15:55, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

*Name or pseudonym: sridder
*Project title: Does Social Commerce Reduce Internet Commerce Fraud?
*Link to rough draft: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Steve_Ridder_Assignment_4.docx

[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 20:25, 21 April 2013 (EDT)

Pseudonym: Dear Alice
Project title: One Company, Different Social Media Platforms, Different Conversations
Link to Draft: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/DearAlice_Assignment4.docx
--[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 17:08, 23 April 2013 (EDT)

*Name or pseudonym: Zak Paster
*Project title: Online Giving: A New Fundraising Era
*Link to rough draft: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Zak_Paster_Assignment_4_-_Final_Project_Draft_Online_Giving-A_New_Fundraising_Era_4-25-13.pdf
[[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 22:41, 24 April 2013 (EDT)

****
*Name: Milena Grado
*Project title: How Does Reclame Aqui Avoid Bias?
*Link to rough draft: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment4milenagrado.doc
[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 17:28, 26 April 2013 (EDT)
****
*Name or pseudonym: CyberRalph
*Project title: Anonymous and Their Use of Twitter to Leverage Lessig's Regulators as a Means for Attacking CISPA
*Link to rough draft: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Martins_Assignment4.docx
[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 16:46, 28 April 2013 (EDT)
****

*Name or pseudonym: joshywonder
*Project title: Lawbuzz.ca - Anonymous Forum Participation
*Link to rough draft: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Joshywonder_Assignment_4.docx
[[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 12:05, 29 April 2013 (EDT)

*Name or pseudonym: interesting comments
*Project title:Does The SEC Need To Control & Censor The Message Board Community? A comparative observational study of two publically traded company message board communities
*Link to rough draft: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Z_TAG_LSTU_Assignment_4_(1)_.docx
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 18:45, 29 April 2013 (EDT)

{{AssignmentInfo|Asmith|A Few Bad Apples: Grappling with Troublesome Users on Diaspora|File:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Asmith_Assignment4.pdf}}

****
* Name or pseudonym:Michael Keane
* Project title:A Single Site Case Study of the Effect of Censorship on a Web Community
* Link to rough draft: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment_4_Draft_ver5_keane.docx
*[[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 12:03, 30 April 2013 (EDT)
****

Name or pseudonym: AaronEttl
Project title: The Successful Balance Achieved By Kickstarter
Link to rough draft: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:AaronEttl_Assignment4.docx [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:56, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

****
*Name or pseudonym: Maria
*Project title: Internet regulation in Argentina, the case of Taringa!
*Link to rough draft: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Jurado_Assignment4-1.pdf --[[User:Maria|Maria]] 15:28, 30 April 2013 (EDT)
****

The Profitability of the Internet

2013-04-30T15:12:29Z

Raven: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 30'''

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

== Assignments ==

[[Assignments#Assignment_4:_Rough_Draft|Assignment #4]] is due before class today. You can upload the assignment [[Assignment_4_Submissions|here]].

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble Wikipedia, Dot-com bubble]

* [http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html Chris Anderson, The Long Tail (''Wired'')]

* [http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2006/07/the_wrong_tale_.html Guy Kawasaki, The Wrong Tail: A Checklist for Long Tail Implementations]

* [http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/01/better_than_fre.php Kevin Kelly, Better than Free]

* [http://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/books/DI/Chapter8.pdf Eric Von Hippel, ''Democratizing Innovation'' (Chapter 8)]

* [http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2012/120730infamous Digital Music News, The Most Infamous Music Infographic, Updated for 2012]

* [http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/11/mf_bitcoin/ Benjamin Wallace, The Rise and Fall of Bitcoin (''Wired'')]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://www.technologyreview.com/news/506376/ivy-league-20-or-just-another-petscom/ Lee Gomes, Ivy League 2.0 or Just Another Pets.com? (''MIT Technology Review'')]

* [http://money.futureofmusic.org/ The Future of Music Coalition, Artist Revenue Streams] (peruse)

</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>

While the phrase "irrational exuberance" was mentioned in the readings, I'm surprised more was not made of it. In the 1990s there was most certainly a rush to jump on any investments that involved a company that had a .com extension to it's name with little or no scrutiny of the books or fundamental numbers of that company. While the bubble was partially based on sound fundamental judgment - the advent of the web browser and the world wide web in 1994 which made the Internet accessible for so many more non-technical people around the world and this created a much bigger market for e-commerce. However, the cart was put a bit before the horse and a lot of the growth associated with the explosion of Internet access was over exaggerated and not based on sound fundamentals.

The Long Tail article brought up an even bigger point than it intended. It pointed out how the Internet offers certain opportunities to exploit niche markets in the entertainment industry, but this goes beyond the entertainment industry to all aspects of the economy and even extends outside of commerce.

As far as Bitcoin is concerned, as someone who works in the information security field, I am immediately and significantly skeptical about the protections any digital currencies provide against fraud, especially with regard to duplication. I would absolutely echo some of the concerns relayed in the article - about the security of sharing the Bitcoin architecture with any number of unknown entities (individuals or groups) and relying on them for the integrity of the network as a whole. Although, I will admit that some of the issues discussed in the article - such as not accidentally deleting your Bitcoin wallet - can be prevented via basic data backup technologies and procedures and utilizing a minimal amount of common sense. I think it still has potential and whether Bitcoin is the currency of the future or not, there will be a legitimate virtual currency that catches fire and crosses international boundaries at some point.

[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 11:10, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

As a risk-averse individual, my emotional reaction to the wikipedia article on the dot-com bubble was, "You irresponsible idiots! Weren't any of you thinking rationally?" However, I understand the fervor of the time. I felt more favorably about the dot-com bubble once the article posited at its end that "Nothing important has ever been built without irrational exuberance" and that the speculative mania of the dot-com bubble allowed the infrastructure we have today. Besides the bankruptcy of companies and a glutted job market for computer programmers, I wonder what lasting negative effects from the dot-com bubble we are still experiencing now.

Prompted by CyberRalph's comment, I tried to think of other niche markets for/in the long tail and thought of online fashion rental services that advertise themselves as Netflix for designer dresses, designer handbags, jewelry, plus-size clothing, etc. Can fashion exist in or take advantage of the long tail? Using the checklist for long tail implementations, I think not, yet online fashion rental services continue to proliferate, seemingly launching every quarter.

"Better than Free" crystallized for me why I'm still willing to pay for entertainment. The article also helped me contextualize the abundance of advertising via social media: "In short, the money in this networked economy does not follow the path of the copies. Rather it follows the path of attention, and attention has its own circuits."

My primary take-away from von Hippel's chapter is that we need to create policy that allows users to create and become involved with manufacturing because current policy is not as conducive to innovation as the original policymakers intended.

My quick thoughts on Bitcoin are that (1) it sounds like a libertarian dream, (2) I consider it a fascinating social experiment, and (3) it seems too unregulated to be a viable long-term currency.

[[User:JW|JW]] 23:47, 29 April 2013 (EDT)
****
One of the strangest experiences is reading someone else's take on a time one has lived through. Participating in this course has made it clear to me how quickly the past can get distorted in the present's need for a coherent narrative. And brilliant that the final word (as of this reading) on the dot.com bubble belongs to Fred Wilson.

I worked with one of the founders of one of the bigger names mentioned in the article before he founded that company. And went on to work at an investment bank where my role on an unrelated project had me reading the drafts of the funding documents and analyst reports.

I also worked at a dot.com from late 1999 to the summer of 2000. Flying back and forth between New York and LA (once there and back in the same day), meeting with potential investors, negotiating with possible CEO candidates (senior execs from the big three media companies, partners in consulting firms), phone numbers of partners of big NY law firms on my cell phone, but also dealing with the debt. The bills that weren't going to be paid to creditors who were willing, at least at the beginning, to provide services on the ridiculous valuations not even promised by us, but by the media. Angel investors who were the sons and daughters of some big names in the investment world....And how quickly it stopped once the money ran out. But what we were selling - the ideas - are actually being implemented right now. Wild to see what we dreamed about and pitched finally happening, and how ordinary it all seems now and how offbeat, unusual, hard to get people to get their minds around it was back then.

Kozmo.com isn't even mentioned in the Wikipedia article, but it was one of the great things about living through the late 90s in NYC. You logged in, ordered a movie, maybe a pint of Ben and Jerry's and within the hour it was delivered to your door. You dropped the video off with your doorman or en route to work, logged back in, and rented the next night's video. Compared to the fees Blockbuster charged for even a day late video return, Kozmo was insanely cheap and convenient. Eventually they would deliver anything to your door - video players, tv sets.... They weren't covering their costs, everyone knew it, but it was amazing while it lasted.

The point being that it is true that some very rich people lost a lot of money with Kozmo.com and other dot.com companies, but they also taught people what is possible, and allowed people to see how little they were settling for and how much they could have, if these companies could get off the ground. To ask what people were thinking as someone did above, they were thinking "Wow. This is cool. I hope they figure out a way to make it profitable without it costing me personally too much, because this is so much better than it was before. And oh by the way, I think this idea is valuable and worthwhile and I believe if I invest some money with you, I might see a higher return than if I left it in the bank or gave it to somebody else". Also, they were thinking "Can I have a job? because my industry is dying and this one looks like it might have some life in it."

I was wondering if we were going to get to Bitcoin in this class. The recent Cyprus debacle put Bitcoin front and center, and whether it survives, or another currency similar to it appears, how it is regulated, who will accept it and under what terms, the exchange rate questions, how to mine it, how to store it, the money laundering question, all of this is an entire class on it's own. However, with so much having been written on the topic so recently, I wonder why we were assigned something from last fall?
Looking forward to tonight's class.[[User:Raven|Raven]] 09:35, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

****

Focusing on the market and Internet profitability unites many of the separate topics we’ve covered this semester. Today, everything is a dot-com business, and as a result: privacy has continuously been questioned; copyright has constantly been battled across diverse frontiers; freedom of speech has taken on new meanings; and peer production has brought unknown products to the forefront. To a certain extent, it's challenging to remember what shopping was like before the dot-com bubble. As I read the Wikipedia article I couldn't help but think about the longevity this definition; it seems much more distant than a decade ago. ''"[The dot-com bubble] period was marked by the founding (and, in many cases, spectacular failure) of a group of new Internet-based companies commonly referred to as dot-coms"'' (Wikipedia dot-com definition). The growth of online business has come a long way in the past 15 years, turning into the norm. What will our Internet shopping experiences look like decades from now?

The final quote in the Long Tail article encapsulates two important points that I’d like to address: ''"[R]ecommendations are a remarkably efficient form of marketing...the cultural benefit of all of this [online sharing and recommendations] is much more diversity, reversing the blanding effects of a century of distribution scarcity and ending the tyranny of the hit"'' (Anderson, 2004). First, consumers are the best marketers, because similar to peer production, comments are unfiltered. Word of mouth has taken on new meanings with online shopping—most websites now has a "comments section" and consumers share thoughts with no reservation, whether positive or negative. Our shopping decision criteria have thus changed; our purchasing actions have shifted; and our communication practices have helped sell more products (or the contrary in some scenarios). The new buy-sell model represents countless degrees of separation—when we select a product online, we can view similar recommendations with no end in sight. Does this mean it's easier to sell exclusive products today than in the past, or visa-versa?

Second, we are no longer forced to buy what is on the shelves. Before the Internet, we lived in a finite shopping world limited to geography, but today we can purchase almost anything that comes to mind, in a quick streamlined manner....It is ''fast fulfillment and an infinite selection'' (as mentioned in The Wrong Tail article). To that end, the target market has transformed from the 80/20 rule to the 99% rule (another interesting point reflected). ''"What's really amazing about the Long Tail is the sheer size of it. Combine enough non hits on the Long Tail and you've got a market bigger than the hits. The average Barnes & Noble carries 130,000 titles; yet more than half of Amazon's book sales come from outside its top 130,000 titles. The average Blockbuster carries fewer than 3,000 DVDs; yet a fifth of Netflix rentals are outside its top 3,000 titles....there are niches by the thousands, genre within genre within genre"'' (Anderson, 2004).

Online competition can be viewed from two distinct perspectives: 1) products that were previously unable to sell due to less publicity can now become profitable (e.g., unknown books or movies). 2) Products that previously generated high margins must now be sold differently (e.g., music selections, as elaborated in the The Most Infamous Music article). It is an ever-evolving cycle, and as we continue to assess the online market (as providers and consumers), the market will continue to transform around us.

In closing, by taking this class virtually afar from Cambridge, it has been a pleasure sharing my thoughts on this wiki site for the past few months and reading everyone’s weekly insights. This course has shed light on valuable analytical tools to examine past and future Internet trends, not only surrounding profitability avenues, but also in relation to societal forces that continuously shape our relationships in cyber space. I look forward to evaluating the Politics of Internet Control, from a unique perspective, for many years to come! [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 10:09, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

****

These were great articles this week - the Bitcoin article was great background for what is going on in the industry now. It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out and shows itself in the next year or so.

My main interest this week was something that I have experienced myself and certainly have been a willing participant by voting with my wallet.... Ah Amazon - how I do enjoy those recommendations based on my prior buying history. Smart and savvy but when you think of the database of information it is a bit scary. Someone wanting to profile my life would certainly wonder why I would have such a love of law and technology books yet pepper my purchase history with everything to do with French Vogue....not a standard cluster group by most, but certainly something that makes Amazon try harder to loop me in with shoe purchases on the splash page. : ) I understand this type of marketing, I work with it to advantage one of my clients and I get the philosophy of making a "connection" with someone to make them feel understood .... while of course gently parting them from their hard earned dollars. I come down on the side of advancement but I do often wonder how business intelligence is disseminated through the servers around the globe - I am a very small cog in the group - but it is interesting how quickly the retailers of products have found a way to suck me in to their lair. [[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 10:16, 30 April 2013 (EDT) Caroline

The Profitability of the Internet

2013-04-30T13:39:03Z

Raven: /* Class Discussion */

2013-03-12T19:29:38Z

Raven: /* 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)

****

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)

****

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)

Raven: /* 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, 4 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 service 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/]).[[User:Raven|Raven]] 12:31, 11 February 2013 (EST)