Technologies of Politics and Control - User contributions [en]

Internet and Democracy

2010-04-22T19:43:08Z

Rchopra: /* Class Discussion */

Tonight's class will take place again on [http://piratepad.net/internet-and-democracy this etherpad].

Despite rapid growth and extended efforts on the part of international organizations, development agencies, and private investors to reach a broader audience, the vast majority of the world does not have effective Internet access. Alternatively, mobile telephones continue to proliferate, and already boast twice the users. Have we made any progress, is the future mobile, and what has come of the World Summit on the Information Society?

== Readings ==

'''The Internet and Government At Odds'''
* Bruce Etling and John Kelly, Mapping Iran's Online Public, available [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2008/Mapping_Irans_Online_Public here].

'''The Internet and Civic Crisis'''
* Josh Goldstein and Juliana Rotich, Digitally Networked Technology in Kenya's 2007-2008 Post-Election Crisis, available [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2008/Digitally_Networked_Technology_Kenyas_Post-Election_Crisis here].

== Additional Resources ==
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2009/Mapping_the_Arabic_Blogosphere Etling, Kelly, Faris, Palfrey Mapping the Arabic Blogosphere]
* [http://fletcher.tufts.edu/forum/archives/pdfs/32-2pdfs/Faris-Etling_32-2.pdf Faris, Etling, Madison and the Smart Mob: The Promise and Limitations of the Internet for Democracy]
* [http://www.ushahidi.com/ Ushahidi]
* [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2670820702819322251&q=development+TED Rosling on Development]

* [http://www.benetech.org/human_rights/martus.shtml Martus]
* [http://infodev.org/ Infodev]
* [http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm Statistics]
* [http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/statistics/ict/index.html ITU stats]
* [http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/index.asp ITU-D]
* [http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/publications/wtdr_06/index.html ITU's expensive publication]
* [http://www.globalvoicesonline.org Global Voices]
* [http://www.bridges.org/Real_Access Bridges.org's Real Access / Real Impact criteria for ICT access]
---

== Additional Resources From Class/Discussion ==

[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/20/world/asia/20indonet.html?hpw NYT story about new media in Indonesia]

----

== Class Discussion ==
I thought the article on the many-to-many communication in Kenya was very interesting. While I think that it speaks to some important shifts in avenues of control, I don't know that I agree with the author's general conclusion that the shift to many-to-many is a positive thing in periods of humanitarian crisis. While moderate voices were able to counteract violent ones in this particular circumstance, I feel that in a future similar situation, the lessons learned from this conflict would better prepare the more violent elements to get their own message out. I could see something as simple as the uploading of bogus data into the mashups, or more complex moves such as hacking the more popular forums. In effect, there may be something of a digital arms race rather than a solution. I think this is one of those conversations without a definitive conclusion, but I would be interested in others thoughts. - Mgladney

----
[http://www.collateralmurder.com/]
--[[User:Rchopra|Rchopra]] 19:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

== Today's Links ==

[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h4784ih.txt.pdf| House Bill to establish the Internet Freedom Foundation]

-[[User:Hnhagni|Hnhagni]] 22:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Regulating Speech Online

2010-03-10T00:16:48Z

Rchopra: /* Links from Class */

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

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

== Readings ==

* [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/technology/companies/25google.html?ref=weekinreview Larger Threat is Seen in Google Case NYT]

* [http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2009/02/11/Two-Lawyers-Fight-Cyber-Bullying/index.html David Margolick, "Slimed Online," Portfolio.com, February 11, 2009, read all]

* [http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2007-11-08-AmendedComplaint.pdf Doe v. paulitwalnuts, et al., 3-07-CV-0909 CFD (D.Conn.), Complaint, filed 6/11/07, skim pp. 1-16 Warning: explicit and disturbing language]

* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/a-friendly-exchange-about-the-future-of-online-liability.ars John Palfrey and Adam Thierer, "Dialogue: The Future of Online Obscenity and Social Networks," Ars Technica, March 5, 2009, read all]

== Additional Resources ==

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union Wikipedia on Reno v. ACLU].
* [http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/07D0346P.pdf ACLU v. Gonzales], 478 F.Supp2d 775 (E.D.Pa. 2007), read pp. 1-7, 61-74, 82-83; skim pp. 74-81.
* [http://www.socialtext.net/codev2/index.cgi?free_speech Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0, Chapter 12: Free Speech]
* [http://w2.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-defamation.php EFF Bloggers' FAQ: Online Defamation Law]

==Class Discussions ==
Comments on class readings by D. Jodoin:

Out of respect and deference to the victims we have read about this week, I will avoid using anyone's names. I can't help but think that due to the fact we are an internet published wiki that we are complicit - even if only to a minor extent - regardless of our intentions and motives. Jean Jacques Rousseau once wrote "Fame is but the breath of people, and that often unwholesome."

I state this because there are two questions I am forced to ponder due to this week's readings. By discussing events like this - in this forum - are we increasing the public awareness of the atrocities that occur as a result of the internet in hopes that we can work toward a positive change? Or are we inadvertently playing into the hands of the anonymous "trolls" and their desire to wreak havoc on the lives of others purely for their own amusement; contributing to their desire to see their hateful words spread in the public forum?

In class we have learned - through the progression of a series of study topics - that the internet provides a platform where people can create sites for an intended purpose. Yet often we find that users of those sites enjoy them for reasons the creators may not have envisioned. Sometimes users find new and better purposes for a site, other times the result is less desirable - the platforms being used to engage in socially unacceptable publication of content to unacceptable exhibitions of behavior to sometimes outright illegal acts. One could argue that this has always been the case in any forum. However, we have also seen how viral the internet can be in its ability to bring to national and sometimes international attention those topics, people, and events that once would have been left to obscurity.

Do we take lessons from Apple and Microsoft in their pulling the porn apps and filtering of certain lewd search terms respectively? Should we support their actions to serve as good citizens in their attempt to provide a product that they feel is in keeping with the social norms of the people they look to service? Or should we protect intermediaries like Google, who seems content in serving up whatever content they have access to index?

The public has a right to protect themselves from being exposed to inappropriate content. We also have the right to protect ourselves from public slander and libel. When you walk into a store and examine the magazine rack, you will quickly notice that magazines with adult content are wrapped with obscured plastic and kept on shelves with high wooden slats such that the content is not available to those who choose not to purchase it. What is wrong with that? Where is my plastic wrapper hiding the offensive material that exists on the net?

And as intermediaries of content on the internet - from which they piggy back their revenue generating advertisements - shouldn't they also have responsibility in the content they serve to the public? Shouldn't the intermediaries be just as responsible for the content they serve to the public as those that created it?

--[[User:Lunatixcoder|Lunatixcoder]] 13:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The example you cited of Apple pulling their apps with adult content is a tricky area and highlights the eroding division between the Internet and phones. I was personally happy that Apple decided to pull those apps. However, I can't really figure out to defend my support for the move. Perhaps because I considered my phone as distinct from the Internet, I did not want obscene content diffusing into the App Store. But smart phones are essentially computers now, so it is hard to justify regulating their content differently than the Internet. I am inclined to think that phones are much more public since users carry them around all the time. If someone wants to look at obscene content, traditionally he would be confined to the privacy of his home, but now with smart phones he could be browsing this content while sitting next to me on the train or in a coffee shop. Even this distinction is weak, because people use computers in public as well. I am curious how others might argue for or against Apple's move. ([[User:Kaurigem|Kaurigem]] 02:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC))

Comments by Paul Amante - I see both sides

This week's readings were very interesting. The issues Google is having in Italy go back to some of the arguments made during our discussion related to Google in China. I argued that China, a sovereign nation, had the right to pass laws and take actions they felt were in the best interest of their country. Even if those actions are distasteful to us. Italy has that same right. It is interesting to see both countries want to limit, to different degrees and for different purposes, information available on the Internet. The US, on the other hand, explicitly insulates Internet service providers from liability for content they make available.

One of the readings used an analogy that I found interesting. It likened Google to delivering offensive content to a mail man delivering an offensive letter. You can't hold the mailman accountable. The difference here is, Google has the ability to see what the letter states and has the opportunity to decide whether or not to deliver it. Not only do they deliver it, they make it available worldwide. The mail man does not have that ability.

In the United States, filtering content goes against our very fiber. Our free and open society and freedom of speech are a corner stone of our national personality. Although I believe Google should exercise good judgment, the truth of the matter is that the law protects them from liability and until the law is changed, we must hope Google uses good judgment in the US. In other countries, where free speech is not an absolute right, Google must obey laws in those countries or stop doing business in them.

Hi Paul! I wanted to point out something regarding the argument that you cannot hold the mail man responsible for the content they deliver. In fact there are specific regulations that prevent the use of the mail in openly transmitting pornographic material. There are actually many other regulations regarding the proper use of the mail service. The postal service takes this obligation very seriously and has an entire department established that does nothing but investigate potential abuses of the regulations. [https://postalinspectors.uspis.gov/ USPS Inspection Service Website] Just take a look at the investigations link and you can see all the things they as intermediaries will go after you for. --[[User:Lunatixcoder|Lunatixcoder]] 20:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Nick Siemaska - Regulating Speech Online

In democracies across the world, freedom of speech has proved to be an incredible right that has maintained societal stablity, innovation, and equality. This right, however, has been and continues to be a hotly debated issue with respects to its regultaion. In the United States, for example, there are many laws the prohibit speech if it is defamatory in nature. Regulatory laws like these protect the safety and integrity of individuals that would otherwise be harmed by libel or slander. But laws like these are continuously contested on whether they infringe on freedom of speech or don't go far enough to protect individuals from false, defamatory speech.

The internet is a new frontier testing these boundaries. The article in which Google executives were convicted in an Italian court for breaking Italian privacy laws seems to be less about individual rights and responsibilities, and more about those rights with regards to corporations. Do corporations have the responsibility to protect the rights of people that have access to their service? or do corporations have a right to maintain their ethical responsibilities to their business? I think the issue with Google and Italy's privacy laws forces us to ask who is responsible?

In the case of the personal defamation against two Yale law students, internet users worldwide are acutely aware of this sensitive and personal issue. Any individual can ask themselves what they would want if they were confronted with a similar issue as the Yale students. Wouldn't you, the individual, want some sort course of action to take information down about yourself that could be harmful to your future success, especially if that information was untrue? If we, the people, were granted this opportunity, could it have an overbearing effect on companies that were supplying this information with the potential glut of frivolous complaints?

--[[User:Nsiemaska|Nsiemaska]] 22:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

--Comment by Erin Golden - Link of interest (blog post by Eugene Volokh on Yale suit and resulting discussion): http://volokh.com/posts/1181709221.shtml
--[[User:Erin Golden|Erin Golden]] 22:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

'''Video Introduction by Rohit Chopra''':
It is my attempt to introduce the class using a video mail. Please click on the link to view [http://www.tokbox.com/vm/apzp1d1o15tx]. Let me know if anyone has any problems. I hope you enjoy it. Thanks.

== Links from Class ==
"Website owners should take careful note, if a website “materially contributes” to the allegedly illegal content, as opposed to providing “neutral” tools for communicating information, it may forfeit its immunity under Section 230. Applying this test, the court found that a housing website was not immune from claims under the federal Fair Housing Act and similar state laws that prohibit discriminatory housing practices." [http://www.dwt.com/LearningCenter/Advisories?find=21902] --[[User:Rchopra|Rchopra]] 00:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Regulating Speech Online

2010-03-08T15:07:58Z

Rchopra: /* Class Discussions */

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

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

== Readings ==

* [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/technology/companies/25google.html?ref=weekinreview Larger Threat is Seen in Google Case NYT]

* [http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2009/02/11/Two-Lawyers-Fight-Cyber-Bullying/index.html David Margolick, "Slimed Online," Portfolio.com, February 11, 2009, read all]

* [http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2007-11-08-AmendedComplaint.pdf Doe v. paulitwalnuts, et al., 3-07-CV-0909 CFD (D.Conn.), Complaint, filed 6/11/07, skim pp. 1-16 Warning: explicit and disturbing language]

* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/a-friendly-exchange-about-the-future-of-online-liability.ars John Palfrey and Adam Thierer, "Dialogue: The Future of Online Obscenity and Social Networks," Ars Technica, March 5, 2009, read all]

== Additional Resources ==

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union Wikipedia on Reno v. ACLU].
* [http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/07D0346P.pdf ACLU v. Gonzales], 478 F.Supp2d 775 (E.D.Pa. 2007), read pp. 1-7, 61-74, 82-83; skim pp. 74-81.
* [http://www.socialtext.net/codev2/index.cgi?free_speech Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0, Chapter 12: Free Speech]
* [http://w2.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-defamation.php EFF Bloggers' FAQ: Online Defamation Law]

==Class Discussions ==
Comments on class readings by D. Jodoin:

Out of respect and deference to the victims we have read about this week, I will avoid using anyone's names. I can't help but think that due to the fact we are an internet published wiki that we are complicit - even if only to a minor extent - regardless of our intentions and motives. Jean Jacques Rousseau once wrote "Fame is but the breath of people, and that often unwholesome."

I state this because there are two questions I am forced to ponder due to this week's readings. By discussing events like this - in this forum - are we increasing the public awareness of the atrocities that occur as a result of the internet in hopes that we can work toward a positive change? Or are we inadvertently playing into the hands of the anonymous "trolls" and their desire to wreak havoc on the lives of others purely for their own amusement; contributing to their desire to see their hateful words spread in the public forum?

In class we have learned - through the progression of a series of study topics - that the internet provides a platform where people can create sites for an intended purpose. Yet often we find that users of those sites enjoy them for reasons the creators may not have envisioned. Sometimes users find new and better purposes for a site, other times the result is less desirable - the platforms being used to engage in socially unacceptable publication of content to unacceptable exhibitions of behavior to sometimes outright illegal acts. One could argue that this has always been the case in any forum. However, we have also seen how viral the internet can be in its ability to bring to national and sometimes international attention those topics, people, and events that once would have been left to obscurity.

Do we take lessons from Apple and Microsoft in their pulling the porn apps and filtering of certain lewd search terms respectively? Should we support their actions to serve as good citizens in their attempt to provide a product that they feel is in keeping with the social norms of the people they look to service? Or should we protect intermediaries like Google, who seems content in serving up whatever content they have access to index?

The public has a right to protect themselves from being exposed to inappropriate content. We also have the right to protect ourselves from public slander and libel. When you walk into a store and examine the magazine rack, you will quickly notice that magazines with adult content are wrapped with obscured plastic and kept on shelves with high wooden slats such that the content is not available to those who choose not to purchase it. What is wrong with that? Where is my plastic wrapper hiding the offensive material that exists on the net?

And as intermediaries of content on the internet - from which they piggy back their revenue generating advertisements - shouldn't they also have responsibility in the content they serve to the public? Shouldn't the intermediaries be just as responsible for the content they serve to the public as those that created it?

--[[User:Lunatixcoder|Lunatixcoder]] 13:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The example you cited of Apple pulling their apps with adult content is a tricky area and highlights the eroding division between the Internet and phones. I was personally happy that Apple decided to pull those apps. However, I can't really figure out to defend my support for the move. Perhaps because I considered my phone as distinct from the Internet, I did not want obscene content diffusing into the App Store. But smart phones are essentially computers now, so it is hard to justify regulating their content differently than the Internet. I am inclined to think that phones are much more public since users carry them around all the time. If someone wants to look at obscene content, traditionally he would be confined to the privacy of his home, but now with smart phones he could be browsing this content while sitting next to me on the train or in a coffee shop. Even this distinction is weak, because people use computers in public as well. I am curious how others might argue for or against Apple's move. ([[User:Kaurigem|Kaurigem]] 02:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC))

Comments by Paul Amante - I see both sides

This week's readings were very interesting. The issues Google is having in Italy go back to some of the arguments made during our discussion related to Google in China. I argued that China, a sovereign nation, had the right to pass laws and take actions they felt were in the best interest of their country. Even if those actions are distasteful to us. Italy has that same right. It is interesting to see both countries want to limit, to different degrees and for different purposes, information available on the Internet. The US, on the other hand, explicitly insulates Internet service providers from liability for content they make available.

One of the readings used an analogy that I found interesting. It likened Google to delivering offensive content to a mail man delivering an offensive letter. You can't hold the mailman accountable. The difference here is, Google has the ability to see what the letter states and has the opportunity to decide whether or not to deliver it. Not only do they deliver it, they make it available worldwide. The mail man does not have that ability.

In the United States, filtering content goes against our very fiber. Our free and open society and freedom of speech are a corner stone of our national personality. Although I believe Google should exercise good judgment, the truth of the matter is that the law protects them from liability and until the law is changed, we must hope Google uses good judgment in the US. In other countries, where free speech is not an absolute right, Google must obey laws in those countries or stop doing business in them.

Hi Paul! I wanted to point out something regarding the argument that you cannot hold the mail man responsible for the content they deliver. In fact there are specific regulations that prevent the use of the mail in openly transmitting pornographic material. There are actually many other regulations regarding the proper use of the mail service. The postal service takes this obligation very seriously and has an entire department established that does nothing but investigate potential abuses of the regulations. [https://postalinspectors.uspis.gov/ USPS Inspection Service Website] Just take a look at the investigations link and you can see all the things they as intermediaries will go after you for. --[[User:Lunatixcoder|Lunatixcoder]] 20:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

'''Video Introduction by Rohit Chopra''':
It is my attempt to introduce the class using a video mail. Please click on the link to view [http://www.tokbox.com/vm/apzp1d1o15tx]. Let me know if anyone has any problems. I hope you enjoy it. Thanks.

== Links from Class ==

Regulating Speech Online

2010-03-08T01:20:45Z

Rchopra: /* Class Discussions */

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

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

== Readings ==

* [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/technology/companies/25google.html?ref=weekinreview Larger Threat is Seen in Google Case NYT]

* [http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2009/02/11/Two-Lawyers-Fight-Cyber-Bullying/index.html David Margolick, "Slimed Online," Portfolio.com, February 11, 2009, read all]

* [http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2007-11-08-AmendedComplaint.pdf Doe v. paulitwalnuts, et al., 3-07-CV-0909 CFD (D.Conn.), Complaint, filed 6/11/07, skim pp. 1-16 Warning: explicit and disturbing language]

* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/a-friendly-exchange-about-the-future-of-online-liability.ars John Palfrey and Adam Thierer, "Dialogue: The Future of Online Obscenity and Social Networks," Ars Technica, March 5, 2009, read all]

== Additional Resources ==

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union Wikipedia on Reno v. ACLU].
* [http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/07D0346P.pdf ACLU v. Gonzales], 478 F.Supp2d 775 (E.D.Pa. 2007), read pp. 1-7, 61-74, 82-83; skim pp. 74-81.
* [http://www.socialtext.net/codev2/index.cgi?free_speech Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0, Chapter 12: Free Speech]
* [http://w2.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-defamation.php EFF Bloggers' FAQ: Online Defamation Law]

==Class Discussions ==
Comments on class readings by D. Jodoin:

Out of respect and deference to the victims we have read about this week, I will avoid using anyone's names. I can't help but think that due to the fact we are an internet published wiki that we are complicit - even if only to a minor extent - regardless of our intentions and motives. Jean Jacques Rousseau once wrote "Fame is but the breath of people, and that often unwholesome."

I state this because there are two questions I am forced to ponder due to this week's readings. By discussing events like this - in this forum - are we increasing the public awareness of the atrocities that occur as a result of the internet in hopes that we can work toward a positive change? Or are we inadvertently playing into the hands of the anonymous "trolls" and their desire to wreak havoc on the lives of others purely for their own amusement; contributing to their desire to see their hateful words spread in the public forum?

In class we have learned - through the progression of a series of study topics - that the internet provides a platform where people can create sites for an intended purpose. Yet often we find that users of those sites enjoy them for reasons the creators may not have envisioned. Sometimes users find new and better purposes for a site, other times the result is less desirable - the platforms being used to engage in socially unacceptable publication of content to unacceptable exhibitions of behavior to sometimes outright illegal acts. One could argue that this has always been the case in any forum. However, we have also seen how viral the internet can be in its ability to bring to national and sometimes international attention those topics, people, and events that once would have been left to obscurity.

Do we take lessons from Apple and Microsoft in their pulling the porn apps and filtering of certain lewd search terms respectively? Should we support their actions to serve as good citizens in their attempt to provide a product that they feel is in keeping with the social norms of the people they look to service? Or should we protect intermediaries like Google, who seems content in serving up whatever content they have access to index?

The public has a right to protect themselves from being exposed to inappropriate content. We also have the right to protect ourselves from public slander and libel. When you walk into a store and examine the magazine rack, you will quickly notice that magazines with adult content are wrapped with obscured plastic and kept on shelves with high wooden slats such that the content is not available to those who choose not to purchase it. What is wrong with that? Where is my plastic wrapper hiding the offensive material that exists on the net?

And as intermediaries of content on the internet - from which they piggy back their revenue generating advertisements - shouldn't they also have responsibility in the content they serve to the public? Shouldn't the intermediaries be just as responsible for the content they serve to the public as those that created it?

--[[User:Lunatixcoder|Lunatixcoder]] 13:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The example you cited of Apple pulling their apps with adult content is a tricky area and highlights the eroding division between the Internet and phones. I was personally happy that Apple decided to pull those apps. However, I can't really figure out to defend my support for the move. Perhaps because I considered my phone as distinct from the Internet, I did not want obscene content diffusing into the App Store. But smart phones are essentially computers now, so it is hard to justify regulating their content differently than the Internet. I am inclined to think that phones are much more public since users carry them around all the time. If someone wants to look at obscene content, traditionally he would be confined to the privacy of his home, but now with smart phones he could be browsing this content while sitting next to me on the train or in a coffee shop. Even this distinction is weak, because people use computers in public as well. I am curious how others might argue for or against Apple's move. ([[User:Kaurigem|Kaurigem]] 02:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC))

Comments by Paul Amante - I see both sides

This week's readings were very interesting. The issues Google is having in Italy go back to some of the arguments made during our discussion related to Google in China. I argued that China, a sovereign nation, had the right to pass laws and take actions they felt were in the best interest of their country. Even if those actions are distasteful to us. Italy has that same right. It is interesting to see both countries want to limit, to different degrees and for different purposes, information available on the Internet. The US, on the other hand, explicitly insulates Internet service providers from liability for content they make available.

One of the readings used an analogy that I found interesting. It likened Google to delivering offensive content to a mail man delivering an offensive letter. You can't hold the mailman accountable. The difference here is, Google has the ability to see what the letter states and has the opportunity to decide whether or not to deliver it. Not only do they deliver it, they make it available worldwide. The mail man does not have that ability.

In the United States, filtering content goes against our very fiber. Our free and open society and freedom of speech are a corner stone of our national personality. Although I believe Google should exercise good judgment, the truth of the matter is that the law protects them from liability and until the law is changed, we must hope Google uses good judgment in the US. In other countries, where free speech is not an absolute right, Google must obey laws in those countries or stop doing business in them.

Hi Paul! I wanted to point out something regarding the argument that you cannot hold the mail man responsible for the content they deliver. In fact there are specific regulations that prevent the use of the mail in openly transmitting pornographic material. There are actually many other regulations regarding the proper use of the mail service. The postal service takes this obligation very seriously and has an entire department established that does nothing but investigate potential abuses of the regulations. [https://postalinspectors.uspis.gov/ USPS Inspection Service Website] Just take a look at the investigations link and you can see all the things they as intermediaries will go after you for. --[[User:Lunatixcoder|Lunatixcoder]] 20:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

'''Video Introduction by Rohit Chopra''':
It is my attempt to introduce the class using a video mail. Please click on the link to view [http://www.tokbox.com/vm/apzp1d1o15tx]. Let me know if anyone have any problems. I hope you enjoy it. Thanks.

== Links from Class ==

New and Old Media, Participation, and Information

2010-03-02T23:42:37Z

Rchopra: /* Additional Resources */

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

ASSIGNMENT: Please read the executive summary of the Media Re:public Overview and one additional Media Re:public paper, and the executive summary, conclusions and recommendations of the Knight report. Use those as a jumping off point to explore either of those sets of resources in greater depth. You should delve more deeply into at least a few of the major challenges and possible solutions related to business models, the participation gap, and the changing media ecosystem (which are all broad topics, and can be considered from many perspectives).

==Readings==
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Overview_MR.pdf Media Re:public Overview] - Read at least the executive summary
* [https://secure.nmmstream.net/anon.newmediamill/aspen/kcfinalenglishbookweb.pdf Knight Commission Report on Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy] - Read at least the executive summary, recommendations and conclusions
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/pubrelease/mediarepublic/downloads.html Media Re:Public website]
* [http://report.knightcomm.org/communal-and-personal-needs-intersect Knight Commission report website]

== Additional Resources==

* [http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mediaberkman/2006/11/14/jay-rosen-on-open-source-journalism-2/ Jay Rosen, Open Source Journalism (video)]
* [http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/wemedia/book/index.csp We The Media, Dan Gillmor] (the [http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/wemedia/book/ch00.pdf Introduction] is a good start, so to speak)
* [http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2005/01/21/berk_essy.html Jay Rosen, Bloggers vs. Journalists Is Over]
* [http://www.buzzmachine.com/ Jeff Jarvis]
* [http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_how_cellphones_twitter_facebook_can_make_history.html Shirky on Social Media]
* [http://www.penenberg.com/ Pennenberg on electronic media and citizen journalism]
* [http://publishingperspectives.com/ Publishing issues discussed by many]
* Sourcewatch [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch]
--[[User:Rchopra|Rchopra]] 23:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

== Class Discussion ==

To read about "Disruptive Innovation", check out one of the best explanations (not in the video, but on the page) about it: http://www.claytonchristensen.com/disruptive_innovation.html

Comments on reading by D. Jodoin:

I have to say that this week has been some interesting reading. However, many of the conclusions and recommendations are built on a foundation of sand. In the Media RE: Public "Overview 2008" paper, the telling component for me was the statement made that...

"Rather than seeking to recreate some mythical point in the
past at which news media functioned perfectly, we instead
aim to identify areas where core journalism functions in a
democracy are at stake and where there is potential for the
networked digital media environment to offer something richer
and more representative than anything previously available."

This statement - eloquently stated and true to its very essence - buries the fundamental value of what New Media truly represents in shaping our democracy; imperfect views of imperfect humans interacting in a social contract where the voices of the many outweigh the voices of the few. Winston Churchill once said, "History is written by the victors ... There are a terrible lot of lies going about the world, and the worst of it is that half of them are true.” Is this the "mythical point in the past" where news media functioned in perfection as the quote above states? In our readings for this week there were significant comments made regarding how equal access to the internet combined with educating the masses on how to understand and use it would create an environment where there would be no second class citizens in a new democracy. In reading that, I felt that it smacked of the sophic voice of Plato - describing a Utopian society where every voice is heard with equal weight. The internet - and new media - is not a classless society, it is not meant to be perfect; the ideas being shared enforced to some theoretical mandate of high quality and rigorous standards. The ideas expressed by the individual should be as reflective of their individual values as possible with it's influence on others being dependent on the strength through presence or weakness through absence of supporting voices by the audience at large.

I also had a thought in regards to solving the issue of accessibility. We sometimes think that proliferation of technology is restricted by the economic costs of building out that infrastructure. Yet many nontraditional means of doing so exist that the private sector is already looking at - providing the FCC and our government clear the path to allow it to occur. I will try to explain with a real example.

First watch this video of Walmart's time series of store locations... [http://projects.flowingdata.com/walmart/ Watching the Growth of Walmart Across America]

Interesting isn't it... However, you may ask... so what? What does this have to do with the internet and build-out of infrastructure?

Read this next...

http://www.androidguys.com/2010/01/12/rumor-sprint-working-with-walmart-on-wimax-build-out/

Interesting isn't it? Perhaps with some government support and funding, a joint collaboration between the FCC, Sprint/Nextel and Walmart, three very diverse groups could easily solve the issue of accessibility by the masses. Sprint with the technology of WiMAX, the FCC with the keys to the spectrum, and Walmart with the existing proliferation and ability to sell cheaply to the masses. Non-traditional partnerships are the key to our future.

--[[User:Lunatixcoder|Lunatixcoder]] 13:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to respond to the following excerpt of the above comment:

Winston Churchill once said, "History is written by the victors ... There are a terrible lot of lies going about the world, and the worst of it is that half of them are true.” Is this the "mythical point in the past" where news media functioned in perfection as the quote above states?

I don't think the authors were suggesting that there was a point in the past where the news media functioned in perfection. The description of this point as "mythical" indicates that this idea is, in fact, a myth.

Furthermore, I think that the authors' quote you cited does not bury "the fundamental value of what New Media truly represents". The idea that new media may include more voices than previously is clearly evidenced when they write, "there is potential for the networked digital media environment to offer something richer and '''more representative''' than anything previously available." [emphasis added]

([[User:Kaurigem|Kaurigem]] 14:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC))

Wow! Hey... Thanks for the response... I think its great you responded! To clarify - as my words may have confused the point I was attempting to make - My reference to the "mythical point in the past" was to emphasize that indeed it WAS mythical and that as always has been the case, news media has always been tainted and biased. But it is those biases that sit at their core values. Its the difference between the term News and Journalism as defined in the use of terms section of the Media RE: Public Overview.

In response to your second comment, I would stand on the position that more does not automatically translate into better or richer in a causal relationship. Giving everyone a forum to speak is admirable and should be the goal. But it doesn't become a better medium unless the end results are synthesized into some societal aggregation. Massive individuality is not what forms a community. Also to point out one more thing on this is that my second point was to emphasize that a classless society on the internet is not a society at all and does not add value unless it somehow translates into the formation of those groups and communities... i.e. the coffee house we spoke about in class and as such class formation is inevitable in that respect.

--[[User:Lunatixcoder|Lunatixcoder]] 15:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

All of the recommendations, objectives, and strategies, outlined and detailed in the Media Re:Public Overview and the Knight Commission report are viewed through the lens of a free and open society. Democracy is a given. Control over ‘who says what’ is not an issue. What appears to be at issue, is how are we going to "maximize the availability of relevant and credible information", give “people the tools, skills and understanding to use information effectively" and promote public engagement.

From the Knight Commission Web site [http://www.knightcomm.org]: there appears to be one organization that is proactively addressing the ‘how can we get something done' question. "The Federal Communications Commission has launched an examination into the Future of Media and Information Needs of Communities in a Digital Age. In its announcement, the FCC cited the report of the Knight Commission on the Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy, which has been influential in helping to structure the FCC’s inquiry."

Is the government actually trying to be part of the solution, and not controlling and obstructive?
----[[User:Charlesscott|Charlesscott]] 20:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Government control is always the question, but by addressing it from a legal point of view it will be restrictive. Freedom of speach advocates will always find issues with the limitations any law imposes. The government might be onto something, not just with the FCC citation, but also with the qualification on who can be an accredited journalist. The organizing bloggers into a quasi union [http://www.mediabloggers.org/] will include more questions then just journalism.

The internet however can be used for not just the uncontrolled dissemination of news but for the quality control of it as well: see http://factcheck.org/. The relentless flood of information needs to be somewhat narrowed down for us to be able to consume it in the first place. Efforts are required from both sides, from the publisher that it is credible and from the reader/consumer that they can continue to rely on the publication for accurate information.

[[User:Gkorodi|Gkorodi]] 22:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

== Links from Class ==
[[User:Amarquis|Amarquis]] 16:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC) I found this an interesting meta editorial on the topic of New and Old Media, Participation, and Information. In this case it's how media obsession with new technology alone is making customers more powerful. [http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/28/cherchez-la-fame "NSFW: Cherchez la fame – or why the media’s obsession with Twitter campaigns will make customer service smell French"]. As the title indicates, it has a touch of salty language so it may be [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_safe_for_work NSFW] -- Not Safe For Work.

Peer Production and Collaboration

2010-03-01T20:02:06Z

Rchopra: /* Other links */

The free software movement is one example of a trend towards distributed volunteer networks of individuals collaborating on collective projects that were formerly the domain of the for-profit private sector. In this session, we explore how far such peer production can go in redefining the economic and social structures of modern society.

* Yochai Benkler, [http://mitworld.mit.edu/play/394/ News, Information and the Wealth of Networks] (watch from 8:32 to 26:07)
* Zittrain, [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/13 Chapter 4: The Generative Pattern]

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

For more discussion on the class, please go to:

[[Peer Production]]

==Links from Class==

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p5d4e5e-7o Digital Chicken video]

[https://blogs.secondlife.com/community/features/blog/2010/01/19/2009-end-of-year-second-life-economy-wrap-up-including-q4-economy-in-detail Second life economy update]

==Other links==

[http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_romer.html Paul Romer TED talk]

Guillermo: [http://knowledge.emory.edu/article.cfm?articleid=853 Article on innovation as the key to economic growth]

The Best Way to Hire and Manage Online Talent [http://www.elance.com/]
Product design and manufacturing [http://www.ponoko.com/]

--[[User:Rchopra|Rchopra]] 19:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

== Class Discussion ==

Frameworks For Studying The Web

2010-03-01T19:57:34Z

Rchopra: /* Links */

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

This class will propose and develop one framework for the web, which will structure both the discussion and topic matter covered in the course, as well as the methodology that you should apply to your assignments.

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

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

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

== Optional Readings ==

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

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

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Class Discussion ==
Although Wikipedia offers knowledge on extensive topics, holding the better model, is there not a huge concern that there is no longer postings of validated facts versus mere opinion?

== Links ==

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

some fred turner resources: [http://blip.tv/file/125930 video presentation], [http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mediaberkman/2006/12/01/from-counterculture-to-cyberculture-the-rise-of-digital-utopianism/ audio presentation], and [http://www.stanford.edu/group/fredturner/cgi-bin/drupal/ homepage]

[http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Welcome_to_Citizendium Citizendium]

select wikipedia dust-ups: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_biography_controversy Seigenthaler controversy] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essjay_controversy Essjay controversy]

Jason Scott on [http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/808 The Great Failure of Wikipedia]

BBC Virtual Revolution [http://www.bbc.co.uk/virtualrevolution/index.shtml]
--[[User:Rchopra|Rchopra]] 19:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
----

Peer Production and Collaboration

2010-03-01T19:57:05Z

Rchopra: /* Other links */

The free software movement is one example of a trend towards distributed volunteer networks of individuals collaborating on collective projects that were formerly the domain of the for-profit private sector. In this session, we explore how far such peer production can go in redefining the economic and social structures of modern society.

* Yochai Benkler, [http://mitworld.mit.edu/play/394/ News, Information and the Wealth of Networks] (watch from 8:32 to 26:07)
* Zittrain, [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/13 Chapter 4: The Generative Pattern]

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

For more discussion on the class, please go to:

[[Peer Production]]

==Links from Class==

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p5d4e5e-7o Digital Chicken video]

[https://blogs.secondlife.com/community/features/blog/2010/01/19/2009-end-of-year-second-life-economy-wrap-up-including-q4-economy-in-detail Second life economy update]

==Other links==

[http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_romer.html Paul Romer TED talk]

Guillermo: [http://knowledge.emory.edu/article.cfm?articleid=853 Article on innovation as the key to economic growth]

The Best Way to Hire and Manage Online Talent [http://www.elance.com/]

--[[User:Rchopra|Rchopra]] 19:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

== Class Discussion ==

Frameworks For Studying The Web

2010-03-01T19:52:47Z

Rchopra: /* Links */

New Economic Models

2010-03-01T19:37:29Z

Rchopra: /* Additional Resources */

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.

==Readings==

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

== Additional Resources==
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Tail "Wikipedia Long Tail"]
* Free by Chris Anderson[http://www.audible.com/adbl/site/products/ProductDetail.jsp?BV_SessionID=@@@@1479264462.1267472099@@@@&BV_EngineID=ccchadejkgkfhmfcefecekjdffidfgo.0&productID=BK_AVEN_000001]
--[[User:Rchopra|Rchopra]] 19:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

== Class Discussion ==

== Links from Class ==

Assignment 2 Submissions

2010-02-22T19:26:46Z

Rchopra: Added Prospectus Title.

Indira Lindsay Roberts Prospectus Title: "eBay.com: International Internet Shopping Wars"

Paul Amante Prospectus Title: "eBay.com: A Self Policing Community and Conflict Resolution"

Liz Davis Prospectus Title: "Examining Classroom 2.0: an Online Social Network for Educators"

Rohit Chopra|Prospectus Title|Social Hospital: The Possibility of Expanding Live Web-Based Video Streaming into Hosptial Setting.

Assignment 1 Submissions

2010-02-08T15:38:26Z

Rchopra: Assignment 1 (Internal file upload)

-------------------------------------------------------------

* Name: David Jodoin
My Wikipedia work was focused on contribution to the wiki page on VoIP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_over_Internet_Protocol. I selected this wiki as I have done a significant amount of work related to next generation voice networks and have designed and developed solutions in this industry. My edits were primarily NPOV edits to the Fax handling section of the wiki and the discussion of T.38 faxing over UDP vs. IP vs. analog. I selected this section as I found the section needed citations for some of the statements made by prior authors. I specifically added a couple of references and re-edited some of the language to be less opinionated and more factual from an objective point of view.

Specifically I found some of the language to be somewhat whimsical as the author attempted to act as an authority on the topic, yet I found some of the statements made were either anecdotal in nature and not backed by any rigorous research. In addition, statements were made which belied the authors biases toward the topic and sounded immature; making me wonder how old the person was who wrote it.

I experimented with my entries to see if something comes up on my watch-list for this topic by in some cases deleting entire sentences of prior writers statements in favor of my own. I also used an online shopping mart as one reference to see if the reference itself would be disallowed due to it being commercial in nature. I am anxious to see the result of these two edits. Of course when providing citations in other areas that needed it, I relied on actual RFCs or academic based definitions for factual representation.

The neutral point of view (NPOV) stance within Wikipedia is a critical component of creating trusted information. There will always be opinions that will be expressed or reflected by various authors, however, with peer review combined with NPOV the information that at first may seem opinionated can indeed be of value in helping guide the NPOV results of follow on editors. Without the threat of having your submission removed due to non NPOV content, I would think Wikipedia would revert into an endless see of contradictions, rants and rave with authors in chaotic conflict never progressing toward a useful result.

For instance, I could easily state that T.38 faxing is by no means a true replacement for traditional fax over copper lines, and my opinion is universally shared by those who use it or implement it. However, in doing so, I am not exposing the underlying problem in that T.38 faxing is a means to accommodate legacy fax machines using a transmission standard that is long out of date. In fact I could go on to say that an entirely new era of technology needs to be developed that answers the call to solve the same problem that faxing does, but in a different way. But due to the enormous amounts of these machines which exist in the marketplace, that is an evolutionary transformation that will only be slowed by our continued attempts of keeping a dying technology alive. If we continue to support faxing in general, we might as well revive the 8track tape or the laser disc.

I wonder what kind of discussions would ensue if I posted that on the wiki. Maybe I will if I don't get comments on what edits I did post.

--[[User:Lunatixcoder|Lunatixcoder]] 15:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

------------------------------------------------------------

'''Mike Barker:''' [[Mike's Response To Assignment 1]].

-------------------------------------------------------------

'''Rohit Chopra''' | Assignment 1
[[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Wiki_ass1_final_RC.pdf]]