Technologies of Politics and Control - User contributions [en]

Final Projects

2011-05-11T01:51:47Z

Saambat: /* Submissions */

Internet and Democracy

2011-04-19T23:11:00Z

Saambat: /* Links */

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
<br clear="right" />
</div>
'''April 19'''

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

[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/InternetSocietyApril19.pdf Slides: Internet and Democracy]

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/14/world/middleeast/14egypt-tunisia-protests.html?_r=2&hp A Tunisian-Egyptian Link That Shook Arab History]

* [http://ejournalism.co.uk/?p=739 Clay Shirky on social media in the Middle East and North Africa]

* [http://nms.sagepub.com/content/12/8/1225.full.pdf Etling, Kelly, Faris and Palfrey, Mapping the Arabic Blogosphere: Politics, Culture and Dissent]
**Problems with the Etling, Kelly, Faris and Palfrey PDF? If you're off campus and presented with a website saying you need to sign up to access this article . . . you do not. Sign into Harvard's VPN solution and you'll then have access or access it while on the Harvard network (on campus). Or ask nicely and I'm sure it can be emailed to you. :-) --[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 01:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
** Updated link to the Etling, et al. piece: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Mapping_the_Arabic_Blogosphere_0.pdf Mapping the Arabic Blogosphere]

== Additional Resources ==

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

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2010/Public_Discourse_Russian_Blogosphere Etling, Alexanyan, Kelly, Faris, Palfrey, and Gasser, Public Discourse in the Russian Blogosphere: Mapping RuNet Politics and Mobilization]

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

* [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]

</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==

I'm inclined to be skeptical of the idea that the internet and social media are making interpersonal connections "shallower", whether we are talking about "Facebook friends" or social and political activism. Setting aside the question of whether online relationships count as "real" relationships (that is, are qualitatively inferior to real-life relationships), in order for this theory to be correct, online relationships would have to be replacing real-life relationships. While I don't have any hard data to back this up, I simply don't see this happening in most cases. The imagined concept is one of young people avoiding traditional social contact in favor of hours spent online. However, I would postulate that the people most inclined to shut themselves off from the "real world" in favor of computers are the same people who would have shut themselves off in favor of books or various solo hobbies in previous decades. Under this model, the quantity and quality of social interaction for persons thus inclined is ''increasing'', rather than decreasing. What we are talking about is both an increase in reach and a lowering of thresholds. For the average user, social media, first and foremost, provides a vehicle for interaction with people they ''already know'' in real life (friends from school, family, etc... so your kid spending time on the computer rather than playing with friends outside is likely to be interacting with those same friends electronically) and then adds to this a new layer of online friendships and acquaintances which arise as social media provides previously unavailable opportunities to build relationships over distance. (There is, as well, traffic between these two layers, as real-life friends separated by distance use social media to keep in touch, and friends - and potential romantic partners - met online arrange to meet in person). Similarly, when it comes to activism, the increasing availability of "intermediate" levels of support (such as donation or petition signing – hardly new developments) is not likely, to my mind, to decrease the number of active real-world advocates. Verily, the opposite: those inclined to get off the couch and "make a difference" are still likely (or even more likely) to do so, only now with the support of countless others who would not have been reached by the activist's message otherwise.
[[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 00:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's worth raising the point that there have been a lot of serious questions raised as to the accuracy of the NYTimes piece read in class this week; for example, Global Voices shows Egyptian Twitterers mocking the idea that they needed Western help (http://globalvoicesonline.org/2011/04/15/egypt-gene-sharp-taught-us-how-to-revolt/). I think that, ultimately, this controversy is more important than the content of the article itself, in that it illustrates how social media can be vital to media accuracy--you have numerous direct accounts from known activists contradicting the commentary in the NYTimes, while the NYTimes meanwhile often has difficulty getting good sources in the Arab world because of its somewhat negative reputation (two words: Thomas Friedman). Another issue in the piece is the emphasis on a very tiny collaborative movement aided by the US, while numerous genuine, grassroots movements exist and have been ignored by media (case in point: The Arab Bloggers workshops and Arab Techies group).

In terms of the broader picture, one aspect of all of this that has been desperately overlooked is the use and importance of backchannels like private groups, IRC, and email. While social media is certainly important, the organizing that happens in private online spaces (as well as via SMS) is undoubtedly even more vital. [[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 20:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Another argument in favor of the role social media is playing in providing accurate information for journalists about things that are happening elsewhere: if you have Twitter, check out the work that @andycarvin has beeen doing. He's NPR's senior product manager for online communities, and has been connecting with people on the ground in countries like Egypt and Libya for a while, using them and their networks to verify or challenge information that the mainstream media has been getting. It's been neat stuff. [[User:Mcforelle|Mcforelle]] 01:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the lack of accuracy in the NY Times article, I don't think the internet is necessarily the mean of online hate speech and irrational behavior. Many of the least developed and heavily indebted poor countries are grossly corrupt, which lack adequate financial means or political and economic conditions to cultivate human rights. In addition, poor countries are also notoriously more vulnerable to economic volatility, conflict and humanitarian crisis; good governance matters to development and how citizens behave online.[[User:Alexsolomon|Alexsolomon]]

I find Mr. Shirky's interview to be especially important today. He highlights the use of social media, SMS, mobile email, and internet-based freedom of speech (i.e. blogs) to organize people in the absence of other more traditional, government controlled, methods (i.e. print media). I believe it is obvious that the governments are aware of the people's ability to organize over this uncontrolled medium which is why many governments are trying to stop further penetration of technologies such as email encryption and blogging/tweeting (e.g. India, Saudi Arabia, China). If they can control, stop, or accurately monitor these communication mediums they can further disrupt grassroots uprisings. [[User:Rakundig|Rakundig]] 19:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The fundamental notion of democracy is the active participation of the governed in the government, either directly or through representatives. This week’s readings take aim at an outer fringe of that notion: the active participation of the governed in the overthrow of government. There can be no doubt that the Internet provides the world’s best electronic soapbox. It is a better mouthpiece, a better broadcast medium, a better tool. Etling et al. wisely note that “[t]he Internet lays a good foundation for a battle of ideas, but does not necessarily favor a winner” while Shirky states more bluntly that the Internet is “a better way to take down autocracies but not a better way to replace them.” We can marvel at the effectiveness of social media in toppling the Egyptian government, but it could not have happened without a military that was sympathetic to the public. Libya and Iran demonstrate the counterpoint.
While the Internet has shown great promise facilitating political freedom, I fear those days are numbered. Last week’s readings exposed the blatant large scale surveillance which the Internet also facilitates. The video from the cell phone uploaded to youtube probably contains the serial number of the phone traceable to the owner via his GPS coordinates. This is not just a problem with the Internet – it is prevalent in all technology. You can no longer print an “anonymous” political flyer when it contains the serial number of the color printer that rendered it. Technology is a powerful tool that can do wonderful and terrible things. It needs thoughtful regulation.
[[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 21:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The simple quote by Wael Ghonim really brings home the message of how government should be looked at. “This is your country; a government official is your employee who gets his salary from your tax money, and you have your rights.” The simple message was able to be communicated through Technology and Social Media. Both have naturally played a crucial role in the changes occurring in the Arab world. Discussing technology, Clay Shirkey states “The technology is that big of difference if it is a big difference.” He goes on to explain that the newness of the technology creates a unique opportunity for impact, as users are unsure how to react to it. Unfortunately, this same technology can also be used against the protestors (as was used by Iran to track down protestors). Given that this is happening in some Arab countries, is there a reason why this has not created a lot of traction in countries like Syria? Is it because this same technology is being used against the protestors? [[User:Earboleda|Earboleda]] 21:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

== Links ==
[http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/04/12/state-of-texas-leaks-data-on-3-5-million-people/ State of Texas exposes data of 3.5 million people] I mentioned this story in the chat room during last class, seemed to be a good point considered the private vs state accumulation of personal info discussion that we were having. It's a quick read, and it'll make you squirm. [[User:Mcforelle|Mcforelle]] 18:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to Fareed Zakaria's 1997 "The Rise of Illiberal Democracy" essay, referenced in the Faris/Etling article, which contrasts "Democracy" with "Constitiutional Liberalism".
http://www.fringer.org/wp-content/writings/fareed.pdf
[[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 23:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

If we're looking to Tunisia and Egypt, I really think we ought to be looking at Tunisian and Egyptian sources, particularly in light of the fact that we're reading what is largely considered an inaccurate portrayal by the NYTimes. Here are two great pieces from an Egyptian blogger (they're not necessarily representative, but they're the best English sources I've found so far): http://www.hanimorsi.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/02/22/from-clicktivism-to-activism/; http://www.hanimorsi.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/02/17/the-virtualization-of-dissent-social-media-as-a-catalyst-for-social-change-part-two/. I also think that these two 2008 pieces from Egyptian journalist Hossam El-Hamalawy are vital reading, incredibly prescient: http://www.arabawy.org/2008/05/08/the-revolution-will-be-flickrized/; http://www.arabawy.org/2008/02/26/a-call-to-blogo-arms/. [[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 20:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

My Assignment 4 paper was loosely based on this. I wonder people see the far reaching grasp of the Internet. Social media keeps growing and affecting our lives. With such devices as Facebook and Wikileaks, it wont be long before the masses control the countrys' direction. Joshua Surillo

This article too: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/02/egypt-revolution-mubarak-wall-of-fear [[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 20:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting Question: [http://www.govtech.com/e-government/Government-Twitter-Tsar.html Do Government Agencies Need a Twitter Tsar?] --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 15:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a great little video that considers some of the negative impact that the internet can have on democracy. [http://wimp.com/internetinhibit/ RSAnimate: Does the Internet actually inhibit, not encourage democracy?] [[User:Saambat|Saambat]] 23:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Internet Infrastructure and Regulation

2011-04-19T22:52:55Z

Saambat: /* Class Discussion */

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
<br clear="right" />
</div>
'''March 29'''

In this class, we will cover the politics, policy, economics and technology of deploying broadband infrastructure. We will look at the year-old US National Broadband Plan and the Berkman Center review of international experiences in broadband policy. Additionally, we will look at the substance and politics of the net neutrality debate.

[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/InternetSocietyMarch29.pdf Slides: Internet Infrastructure and Regulation]

<onlyinclude>
==Readings==

* Executive Summary of the National Broadband Plan [http://www.broadband.gov/plan/executive-summary/]

* National Broadband Plan Commission Meeting: National Purposes Update, February 18th 2010 [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296353A1.pdf ]

* Next Generation Connectivity: A review of broadband Internet transitions and policy from around the world, Berkman Center [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Berkman_Center_Broadband_Final_Report-C1_15Feb2010.pdf ]

* Net Neutrality 101 [http://www.savetheinternet.com/frequently-asked-questions?gclid=CKbclcK65KcCFULf4AodaxmJCg]

* More Confusion about Internet Freedom [http://techliberation.com/2011/03/01/more-confusion-about-internet-freedom/]

* Hands Off the Internet [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlhSbJYxOnc]

== Optional Readings==

* [http://www.fcc.gov The Federal Communications Commission]
* [http://www.broadband.gov National Broadband Plan]
* [http://www.openinternet.gov OpenInternet.gov]
* [http://www.ietf.org The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)]
* [http://www.icann.org The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers]
* [http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.txt The Telecommunications Act of 1996]
* [http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=auctions_home FCC - Wireless Spectrum Auctions]
* [http://www.isp-planet.com/cplanet/tech/2004/prime_letter_040301_powell.html Powell's Four Freedoms]
</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==
A number of things came to mind during the readings. The one that I'd like to discuss here is what the economic impact on startup and small businesses and the potential negative effects pipeline tiering might have on the US economy. Pipeline tiering could and most likely would have a negative effect on the US economy if small and startup businesses seek creating revenue in other countries due to class A and class B access by US ISP's. This said, it could mean many companies opting not to setup shop in the US. This in turn means less innovation within our own borders. In the end the ISP's lose out on a source of revenue and the US loses it's position as world class innovator.

Further, if another country dictates that all content is free to anyone, how can it be enforced if our own ISP's charge a tier pricing to access such sites, data and content? It would also be a requirement for protection of such sources to be made law or included in the requirement to pay for access. But how do you collect against a foreign country where the services are housed? Are this ISP's really thinking this through? Are they prepared to lose a large amount of business to foreign providers? To the majority of us we would not notice if we are going to say the UK for content.

If Sealand were still in existence would it help protect against the possibility of tiered charges?
--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 20:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

After reading all this week's assignment readings, I started to dig websites to see what is going on in my country, which is South Korea, regarding the "Net Neutrality" issue. It was quite a surprise to find out that Korea, nominated as one of the leading Internet police states in the world, is, in fact, suggesting a rather positive vision in this aspect. ([http://www.koreainformationsociety.com/2010/09/net-neutrality-view-from-korea.html]) Nonetheless, the Internet service of Korea led by three major mobile companies can be in any point thrown into a net neutrality controversy - especially since these corporates are pushing forward to new business frontiers of bigger profits. --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 21:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thought this was relative and very interesting:
Article referring to common carriage; http://www.economist.com/node/16106593 -- [[User:Alex|Alex]]

----

A follow-up to our discussion on limits to free speech and indirect political pressure on third-party private intermediaries. In this case, four senators are "requesting" Google, Apple, and RIM (maker of Blackberry) to remove apps from their device app stores that identify police DUI checkpoints. This article is the more passionate and argues for the freedom-of-speech angle: [http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/Senators-Pressure-Mobile-App-Stores-to-Kill-Politically-Incorrect-Apps-337124/ Senators Pressure Mobile App Stores to Kill Politically Incorrect Apps.] While this one is more neutral: [http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20110323/tc_pcworld/groupsdefenddrunkdrivingcheckpointsoftware Groups Defend Drunk-driving Checkpoint Software.] But it certainly looks like we'll see more and more instances of individuals in congress finding favorite online bogeymen to show how patriotic/principled/family-valued/tough-on-crime/fill-in-the-blank they can be! [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

*[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/User:Smithbc Smithbc] thanks for pointing out this topic. There’s a couple of interesting discussion topics here. One is, if the purpose of drunken driving checkpoints is to get drunk drivers off the road, why would you combat a technology that would allow a potential offender to see active checkpoints before leaving the bar and maybe think twice, get a cab or stay home? It’s like people being pulled over for flashing their lights at oncoming traffic to let others know about a speed trap or ticketing for speed trap scanners in cars. If the purpose is to get people to slow down, don’t all of these accomplish the goals as much as the presence of enforcement? Of course for this logic to be valid one must assume that the goal is keeping drunk drivers off the road and slowing people down as opposed to arrest quotas and the revenue associated with fines.

-- Putting the soapbox aside, a more focused question about the above related to the topics of class is: is it an effective policy tool to attack one set of social problems by diminishing the fundamental rights insured by the First Amendment or aren’t there many other innovative and direct ways? How about directing enforcement or remediation at the offenders instead of stripping the rest of society of basic rights in an attempt to control the actions of a few? It’s seems arcane. It’s akin to thinking you can cure someone who is anemic by using the ancient medical technique of bloodletting. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 14:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Classmates: Is it just me or are the subjects we are studying in this class some of the most real world relevant in any class you’ve taken? Every week it seems like the syllabus tracks the headlines. We studied Wikileaks while in the real world events directly related to the topic unfolded. We studied collaborative technologies and the power of the individual to influence the world through digital technologies while dramatic examples of technology propelling individuals as catalysts for social change and crowd sourced political revolutions continue to unfold across large regions of the globe.

This week we are studying the Internet Infrastructure and Regulation and the National Broadband Plan and in the news important implications of this topic shout out to us.

The reason I say these things is that I below are a couple of specific examples that I would like your thoughts on. May I have your opinion on the following?

Last class we talked about Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 commonly known as the ([http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000230----000-.html Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act]). One of the primary goals of the 1996 Telecom act was advertised as creating an environment within which competition would flourish.

Flourish it did, for a relatively short period of time, but in the long run, not so much. This week’s business news started with one of the few remaining independent major wireless carriers in the US agreeing to merger terms with a massive firm that is itself the contemporary result of a string of industry consolidations that have take place in the intervening years since the passage of the Telecom Act of 1996 (see: [http://wwww.networkworld.com/news/2011/032111-att-tmobile-duopoly.html Will AT&T's T-Mobile buy lead to a duopoly?])

In this week’s class we will be studying [http://www.broadband.gov/ National Broadband Plan] and again recent headlines including, [http://www.govtech.com/public-safety/FCC-Endorses-4G-Wireless-Standard-022411.html “FCC endorsed long term evolution (LTE) as the required standard for any government”] are about highly relevant topics. One of the goals of the National Broadband Plan is to, “ensure public safety” through addressing the, “lack a nationwide public safety mobile broadband communications network.”

One of the ways the National Broadband Plan proposed to address the lack of a nationwide public safety mobile broadband network was a proposal to auction off a block of spectrum known as the “D Block.” The D Block is a segment of the 700 MHz band that was proposed to be sold to a private entity that would use part of it for commercial purposes and as part of the purchase agreement, the organization would make available and manage part of the spectrum block in support of public safety communications. It’s a very complicated issue, but the bottom line was that the numbers didn’t work out and no private company stepped up to bid enough to cover the auction reserve (see [http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/09/fcc-considering-new-d-block-auction-plan.ars FCC considering new D Block auction]).

This all brings me to a couple of questions I hope we can discuss. Both the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and National Broadband Plan are OMNIBUS initiatives by government to address social challenges. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_spending_bill Omnibus] is a term that originated (in terms of its use by US government) in the 1970’s for the purpose of handling the national budget when large numbers of funding items would be consolidated into a single piece of legislation. (This is yet again another topic related to recent headlines see [http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/12/Omnibus-Spending-Bill-Busts-the-Budget-to-Pay-for-Pork Omnibus Spending Bill Busts the Budget to Pay for Pork ...])

My first question begins with, “is the omnibus approach a valid way to address challenges?” Can government effectively tackle challenging issues with all encompassing approaches such as omnibus intiatives and legislation? Isn't it more effective to solve complex problems by chunking them up in more manageable pieces?

Other questions we might discuss tie last week’s readings to this week’s topics. In [https://www.socialtext.net/codev2/free_speech chapter 12 subsection] ''The Regulators of Speech: Distribution'', Professor Lessig talks about the idea of how the, “deeply held assumption at the core of our jurisprudence governing broadcasting technologies: Only a fixed amount of ‘spectrum’ is available for broadcasting,” and that the way to manage it is to, “allocate slices of it to users,” is a misconception routed in the decades ago understanding of the technology. Today’s technologies are vastly different and no longer constrain the use of broadcast spectrum in the same ways, yet governance mentality seems stuck in the 1920’s.

What are your thoughts about this idea that even in forward thinking initiatives including the National Broadband Plan policy making seeks to be progressive, yet often is trapped by historical context?
Thank you. I look forward to your thoughtful comments. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 14:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

During this week's reading I came across two interesting articles in support of the AT&T/T-Mobile merger as an exemplary initiation of the National Broadband Plan in action with full blanket coverage across the country, and the economical and technological potential of wireless advancements as the way of the future for broadband. [http://techliberation.com/2011/03/21/some-random-thoughts-on-att-t-mobile-merger/ Some Random Thoughts on AT&T/T-Mobile Merger] and [http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-20045239-94.html AT&T and T-Mobile--Listen Before You Judge] [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 23:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

====Thoughts on Net Neutrality and Open Access====
This week’s readings on the Omnibus Broadband Initiative, net neutrality and Internet freedom are pure advocacy papers. (Only the Berkman Center study of next generation connectivity conveyed a sense of impartiality.) Each presents big business or big government as the enemy of the people’s Internet. Each is correct to a degree, but neither paints a fair and complete picture. Theirer warns of inefficient bureaucracy should the government get involved, yet it was a government project from DARPA that created the Internet. The populist sounding organizations “SaveTheInternet.com” and “HandsOff.org” alternately blame the greedy motives of big businesses like AT&T and Google without discussing the natural competition between content providers and common carriers. The simple fact of the Internet is that traffic management has existed long before the Internet did – and it has been an integral part of the Internet for most of its life. The electric company and the telephone company each have business and residential service tiers. These public utilities are regulated by government to insure and even subsidize a minimum level of residential service. Business customers pay more for higher service levels.
This public utility model can serve the Internet as well. Just as the phone company cannot restrict who you can call (although you may have to pay more for long distance), no Internet service provider should block a particular site’s traffic (although there can be different data plans for capacity and speed). Many of us perform our own traffic shaping using “Quality of Service” settings (QoS) to grant higher priority “fast lane” access to voice-over-IP (Skype) while relegating email to the slow lane (big deal). In fact, we welcome the intervention of our ISP for filtering all that spam! I think the Berkman Center paper gets the concept right by emphasizing “open access” policy – i.e., that every business or other entity has the ability to connect to the infrastructure – but not mandating any policy beyond it. Promote innovation by allowing tiered service levels with an opportunity to profit from risk, while still guaranteeing basic access to all as a public good in the spirit of the First Amendment. [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 02:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice thoughts Chris...I share your opinion as regard your last two sentences...To be honest, I did not know how far net neutrality issue is. Till now I though that it is more problem of future than issue of current days. I was wrong...Information about the blocking skype by T-Mobile in Germany in 2009 made me sure in how important the topic is. ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality#Law_in_Germany T-Mobile blocking Skype in Germany])

== Links from Class ==
[http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202486102650&Manhattan_Federal_Judge_Kimba_Wood_Calls_Record_Companies_Request_for__Trillion_in_Damages_Absurd_in_Lime_Wire_Copyright_Case Fed Judge Kimba Wood Calls Record Companies' Request for Trillions in Damages Absurd in LimeWire Copyright Case] The most interesting part of the article is not the outrageousness of the record companies' claims, but the way the judge reached her decision. She stated that legislature could not have foreseen the way the internet would interact with copyright law, and thus you can't use legislative history. Reasonableness, instead, was the issue to rule on.

Wall Street Journal Op Ed by Yochai Benkler [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21Benkler.html Ending the Internet’s Trench Warfare] March 20, 2010
"The Federal Communications Commission’s National Broadband Plan, announced last week, is aimed at providing nearly universal, affordable broadband service by 2020. And while it takes many admirable steps — including very important efforts toward opening space in the broadcast spectrum — it does not address the source of the access problem: without a major policy shift to increase competition, broadband service in the United States will continue to lag far behind the rest of the developed world." --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 23:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

New America Foundation link concerning differing broadband service and pricing in the US vs that in Japan:
http://newamerica.net/publications/policy/u_s_vs_japan_residential_internet_service_provision_pricing
The brief posted is from 2009 and contains a generous quantity of data which should serve to give you a clear idea of the difference in service availability between the US and a country which is considered to be half a generation ahead of the international standard.[[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 00:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

[http://www.govtech.com/newsletters/question-of-the-day-for-033111.html In a thread on Reddit.com yesterday, members of Google's Chrome development team shared how fast their office's Internet connection is. Can you guess the number?]

NPR brings us news from the House. The Rebublican majority voted to repeal rules that protect net neutrality. I doubt with will fly in the Senate like the article says.
Article: [http://www.npr.org/2011/04/08/135247658/house-votes-to-repeal-internet-access-rules House Votes To Repeal Internet Access Rules] [[User:Saambat|Saambat]] 22:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Internet Infrastructure and Regulation

2011-04-19T22:50:44Z

Saambat: /* Class Discussion */

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
<br clear="right" />
</div>
'''March 29'''

In this class, we will cover the politics, policy, economics and technology of deploying broadband infrastructure. We will look at the year-old US National Broadband Plan and the Berkman Center review of international experiences in broadband policy. Additionally, we will look at the substance and politics of the net neutrality debate.

[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/InternetSocietyMarch29.pdf Slides: Internet Infrastructure and Regulation]

<onlyinclude>
==Readings==

* Executive Summary of the National Broadband Plan [http://www.broadband.gov/plan/executive-summary/]

* National Broadband Plan Commission Meeting: National Purposes Update, February 18th 2010 [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296353A1.pdf ]

* Next Generation Connectivity: A review of broadband Internet transitions and policy from around the world, Berkman Center [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Berkman_Center_Broadband_Final_Report-C1_15Feb2010.pdf ]

* Net Neutrality 101 [http://www.savetheinternet.com/frequently-asked-questions?gclid=CKbclcK65KcCFULf4AodaxmJCg]

* More Confusion about Internet Freedom [http://techliberation.com/2011/03/01/more-confusion-about-internet-freedom/]

* Hands Off the Internet [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlhSbJYxOnc]

== Optional Readings==

* [http://www.fcc.gov The Federal Communications Commission]
* [http://www.broadband.gov National Broadband Plan]
* [http://www.openinternet.gov OpenInternet.gov]
* [http://www.ietf.org The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)]
* [http://www.icann.org The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers]
* [http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.txt The Telecommunications Act of 1996]
* [http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=auctions_home FCC - Wireless Spectrum Auctions]
* [http://www.isp-planet.com/cplanet/tech/2004/prime_letter_040301_powell.html Powell's Four Freedoms]
</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==
A number of things came to mind during the readings. The one that I'd like to discuss here is what the economic impact on startup and small businesses and the potential negative effects pipeline tiering might have on the US economy. Pipeline tiering could and most likely would have a negative effect on the US economy if small and startup businesses seek creating revenue in other countries due to class A and class B access by US ISP's. This said, it could mean many companies opting not to setup shop in the US. This in turn means less innovation within our own borders. In the end the ISP's lose out on a source of revenue and the US loses it's position as world class innovator.

Further, if another country dictates that all content is free to anyone, how can it be enforced if our own ISP's charge a tier pricing to access such sites, data and content? It would also be a requirement for protection of such sources to be made law or included in the requirement to pay for access. But how do you collect against a foreign country where the services are housed? Are this ISP's really thinking this through? Are they prepared to lose a large amount of business to foreign providers? To the majority of us we would not notice if we are going to say the UK for content.

If Sealand were still in existence would it help protect against the possibility of tiered charges?
--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 20:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

After reading all this week's assignment readings, I started to dig websites to see what is going on in my country, which is South Korea, regarding the "Net Neutrality" issue. It was quite a surprise to find out that Korea, nominated as one of the leading Internet police states in the world, is, in fact, suggesting a rather positive vision in this aspect. ([http://www.koreainformationsociety.com/2010/09/net-neutrality-view-from-korea.html]) Nonetheless, the Internet service of Korea led by three major mobile companies can be in any point thrown into a net neutrality controversy - especially since these corporates are pushing forward to new business frontiers of bigger profits. --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 21:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thought this was relative and very interesting:
Article referring to common carriage; http://www.economist.com/node/16106593 -- [[User:Alex|Alex]]

----

A follow-up to our discussion on limits to free speech and indirect political pressure on third-party private intermediaries. In this case, four senators are "requesting" Google, Apple, and RIM (maker of Blackberry) to remove apps from their device app stores that identify police DUI checkpoints. This article is the more passionate and argues for the freedom-of-speech angle: [http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/Senators-Pressure-Mobile-App-Stores-to-Kill-Politically-Incorrect-Apps-337124/ Senators Pressure Mobile App Stores to Kill Politically Incorrect Apps.] While this one is more neutral: [http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20110323/tc_pcworld/groupsdefenddrunkdrivingcheckpointsoftware Groups Defend Drunk-driving Checkpoint Software.] But it certainly looks like we'll see more and more instances of individuals in congress finding favorite online bogeymen to show how patriotic/principled/family-valued/tough-on-crime/fill-in-the-blank they can be! [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

*[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/User:Smithbc Smithbc] thanks for pointing out this topic. There’s a couple of interesting discussion topics here. One is, if the purpose of drunken driving checkpoints is to get drunk drivers off the road, why would you combat a technology that would allow a potential offender to see active checkpoints before leaving the bar and maybe think twice, get a cab or stay home? It’s like people being pulled over for flashing their lights at oncoming traffic to let others know about a speed trap or ticketing for speed trap scanners in cars. If the purpose is to get people to slow down, don’t all of these accomplish the goals as much as the presence of enforcement? Of course for this logic to be valid one must assume that the goal is keeping drunk drivers off the road and slowing people down as opposed to arrest quotas and the revenue associated with fines.

-- Putting the soapbox aside, a more focused question about the above related to the topics of class is: is it an effective policy tool to attack one set of social problems by diminishing the fundamental rights insured by the First Amendment or aren’t there many other innovative and direct ways? How about directing enforcement or remediation at the offenders instead of stripping the rest of society of basic rights in an attempt to control the actions of a few? It’s seems arcane. It’s akin to thinking you can cure someone who is anemic by using the ancient medical technique of bloodletting. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 14:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Classmates: Is it just me or are the subjects we are studying in this class some of the most real world relevant in any class you’ve taken? Every week it seems like the syllabus tracks the headlines. We studied Wikileaks while in the real world events directly related to the topic unfolded. We studied collaborative technologies and the power of the individual to influence the world through digital technologies while dramatic examples of technology propelling individuals as catalysts for social change and crowd sourced political revolutions continue to unfold across large regions of the globe.

This week we are studying the Internet Infrastructure and Regulation and the National Broadband Plan and in the news important implications of this topic shout out to us.

The reason I say these things is that I below are a couple of specific examples that I would like your thoughts on. May I have your opinion on the following?

Last class we talked about Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 commonly known as the ([http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000230----000-.html Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act]). One of the primary goals of the 1996 Telecom act was advertised as creating an environment within which competition would flourish.

Flourish it did, for a relatively short period of time, but in the long run, not so much. This week’s business news started with one of the few remaining independent major wireless carriers in the US agreeing to merger terms with a massive firm that is itself the contemporary result of a string of industry consolidations that have take place in the intervening years since the passage of the Telecom Act of 1996 (see: [http://wwww.networkworld.com/news/2011/032111-att-tmobile-duopoly.html Will AT&T's T-Mobile buy lead to a duopoly?])

In this week’s class we will be studying [http://www.broadband.gov/ National Broadband Plan] and again recent headlines including, [http://www.govtech.com/public-safety/FCC-Endorses-4G-Wireless-Standard-022411.html “FCC endorsed long term evolution (LTE) as the required standard for any government”] are about highly relevant topics. One of the goals of the National Broadband Plan is to, “ensure public safety” through addressing the, “lack a nationwide public safety mobile broadband communications network.”

One of the ways the National Broadband Plan proposed to address the lack of a nationwide public safety mobile broadband network was a proposal to auction off a block of spectrum known as the “D Block.” The D Block is a segment of the 700 MHz band that was proposed to be sold to a private entity that would use part of it for commercial purposes and as part of the purchase agreement, the organization would make available and manage part of the spectrum block in support of public safety communications. It’s a very complicated issue, but the bottom line was that the numbers didn’t work out and no private company stepped up to bid enough to cover the auction reserve (see [http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/09/fcc-considering-new-d-block-auction-plan.ars FCC considering new D Block auction]).

This all brings me to a couple of questions I hope we can discuss. Both the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and National Broadband Plan are OMNIBUS initiatives by government to address social challenges. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_spending_bill Omnibus] is a term that originated (in terms of its use by US government) in the 1970’s for the purpose of handling the national budget when large numbers of funding items would be consolidated into a single piece of legislation. (This is yet again another topic related to recent headlines see [http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/12/Omnibus-Spending-Bill-Busts-the-Budget-to-Pay-for-Pork Omnibus Spending Bill Busts the Budget to Pay for Pork ...])

My first question begins with, “is the omnibus approach a valid way to address challenges?” Can government effectively tackle challenging issues with all encompassing approaches such as omnibus intiatives and legislation? Isn't it more effective to solve complex problems by chunking them up in more manageable pieces?

Other questions we might discuss tie last week’s readings to this week’s topics. In [https://www.socialtext.net/codev2/free_speech chapter 12 subsection] ''The Regulators of Speech: Distribution'', Professor Lessig talks about the idea of how the, “deeply held assumption at the core of our jurisprudence governing broadcasting technologies: Only a fixed amount of ‘spectrum’ is available for broadcasting,” and that the way to manage it is to, “allocate slices of it to users,” is a misconception routed in the decades ago understanding of the technology. Today’s technologies are vastly different and no longer constrain the use of broadcast spectrum in the same ways, yet governance mentality seems stuck in the 1920’s.

What are your thoughts about this idea that even in forward thinking initiatives including the National Broadband Plan policy making seeks to be progressive, yet often is trapped by historical context?
Thank you. I look forward to your thoughtful comments. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 14:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

During this week's reading I came across two interesting articles in support of the AT&T/T-Mobile merger as an exemplary initiation of the National Broadband Plan in action with full blanket coverage across the country, and the economical and technological potential of wireless advancements as the way of the future for broadband. [http://techliberation.com/2011/03/21/some-random-thoughts-on-att-t-mobile-merger/ Some Random Thoughts on AT&T/T-Mobile Merger] and [http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-20045239-94.html AT&T and T-Mobile--Listen Before You Judge] [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 23:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

====Thoughts on Net Neutrality and Open Access====
This week’s readings on the Omnibus Broadband Initiative, net neutrality and Internet freedom are pure advocacy papers. (Only the Berkman Center study of next generation connectivity conveyed a sense of impartiality.) Each presents big business or big government as the enemy of the people’s Internet. Each is correct to a degree, but neither paints a fair and complete picture. Theirer warns of inefficient bureaucracy should the government get involved, yet it was a government project from DARPA that created the Internet. The populist sounding organizations “SaveTheInternet.com” and “HandsOff.org” alternately blame the greedy motives of big businesses like AT&T and Google without discussing the natural competition between content providers and common carriers. The simple fact of the Internet is that traffic management has existed long before the Internet did – and it has been an integral part of the Internet for most of its life. The electric company and the telephone company each have business and residential service tiers. These public utilities are regulated by government to insure and even subsidize a minimum level of residential service. Business customers pay more for higher service levels.
This public utility model can serve the Internet as well. Just as the phone company cannot restrict who you can call (although you may have to pay more for long distance), no Internet service provider should block a particular site’s traffic (although there can be different data plans for capacity and speed). Many of us perform our own traffic shaping using “Quality of Service” settings (QoS) to grant higher priority “fast lane” access to voice-over-IP (Skype) while relegating email to the slow lane (big deal). In fact, we welcome the intervention of our ISP for filtering all that spam! I think the Berkman Center paper gets the concept right by emphasizing “open access” policy – i.e., that every business or other entity has the ability to connect to the infrastructure – but not mandating any policy beyond it. Promote innovation by allowing tiered service levels with an opportunity to profit from risk, while still guaranteeing basic access to all as a public good in the spirit of the First Amendment. [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 02:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice thoughts Chris...I share your opinion as regard your last two sentences...To be honest, I did not know how far net neutrality issue is. Till now I though that it is more problem of future than issue of current days. I was wrong...Information about the blocking skype by T-Mobile in Germany in 2009 made me sure in how important the topic is. ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality#Law_in_Germany T-Mobile blocking Skype in Germany])

NPR brings us news from the House. The Rebublican majority voted to repeal rules that protect net neutrality. I doubt with will fly in the Senate like the article says.
Article: [http://www.npr.org/2011/04/08/135247658/house-votes-to-repeal-internet-access-rules House Votes To Repeal Internet Access Rules] [[User:Saambat|Saambat]] 22:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

== Links from Class ==
[http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202486102650&Manhattan_Federal_Judge_Kimba_Wood_Calls_Record_Companies_Request_for__Trillion_in_Damages_Absurd_in_Lime_Wire_Copyright_Case Fed Judge Kimba Wood Calls Record Companies' Request for Trillions in Damages Absurd in LimeWire Copyright Case] The most interesting part of the article is not the outrageousness of the record companies' claims, but the way the judge reached her decision. She stated that legislature could not have foreseen the way the internet would interact with copyright law, and thus you can't use legislative history. Reasonableness, instead, was the issue to rule on.

Wall Street Journal Op Ed by Yochai Benkler [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21Benkler.html Ending the Internet’s Trench Warfare] March 20, 2010
"The Federal Communications Commission’s National Broadband Plan, announced last week, is aimed at providing nearly universal, affordable broadband service by 2020. And while it takes many admirable steps — including very important efforts toward opening space in the broadcast spectrum — it does not address the source of the access problem: without a major policy shift to increase competition, broadband service in the United States will continue to lag far behind the rest of the developed world." --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 23:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

New America Foundation link concerning differing broadband service and pricing in the US vs that in Japan:
http://newamerica.net/publications/policy/u_s_vs_japan_residential_internet_service_provision_pricing
The brief posted is from 2009 and contains a generous quantity of data which should serve to give you a clear idea of the difference in service availability between the US and a country which is considered to be half a generation ahead of the international standard.[[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 00:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

[http://www.govtech.com/newsletters/question-of-the-day-for-033111.html In a thread on Reddit.com yesterday, members of Google's Chrome development team shared how fast their office's Internet connection is. Can you guess the number?]

Assignment 4 Submissions

2011-04-14T21:12:15Z

Saambat: /* Submissions */

Assignment 3 Submissions

2011-03-23T02:28:33Z

Saambat: /* Submissions */

New and Old Media, Participation, and Information

2011-03-03T19:42:52Z

Saambat: /* Links from Class */

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
<br clear="right" />
</div>
'''March 1'''

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?

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

== Optional Readings ==

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

== Class Discussion ==

Hey all, I hope we don't mind but I re-organized the comments from this week's class so there was a clear distinction between "Discussion" and "Links." I think having two specific areas each for us to discuss and to share is important; that way we don't get distracted by links in the middle of a point someone is making, and the links themselves don't get buried under conversations. I hope you guys agree! [[User:mcforelle|mcforelle]] 17:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a few comments in response to the material covered in the last slides. It is no doubt that with changes in the function of the media, the society eventually will become reorganized as well. By increasing the amount of information sources, the flow of information through the internet will redistribute our society into variety of constituent groups. Each group will have its own gravitational force that will maintain loyalty of its members. Now, there are two major types of gravities that attract people: one, which involves no money, that is, members are acting based on the ideological cause only; second, in which money-making is the primary objective of the members. There could be a third type, in which members are attracted by both a moderate amount of money and by the good old cause. These segments of the society, may be not all, are going to correlate with each other to the certain degree while maintaining a relationship with the dominating in the nation ideology or perhaps policy such as Federal Law. Hence, the society will thereby become more integrated horizontally rather than vertically. The hierarchic structures will no longer have that monopolistic power as they do have it today. The society will be re-engineered and the shock will certainly take place as Klien describes in the book "The Shock Doctrine". There are certainly will be turbulences during the emergence of groups influenced by the different types of institutional ecology as Benkler asserts in his book "The Wealth of Networks". Thus, the utility of the larger group producing the news will suffer due to the process of disintegration, whereas the social benefit of the group receiving the news will rise due to variety of available sources. These are some anticipations that we can make now and prepare to adjust ourselves accordingly. I should have said all this in class, but I do not think that the institutional ecology would allow me. --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 02:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The Death and Life of Great American Newspapers article made me ever more thankful for my International Herald Tribune (the international edition of the New York Times). Top reporting, top writing but at a top price (3 euros – approximately $4.00 cover price), it has become a luxury product targeted to a specific and affluent international readership. I was horrified when it started including advertisements on the front page, and worse, on the once sacred editorial page - then I understood why: survival.[[User:Mary Van Gils|Mary Van Gils]] 19:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Since we are going to talk about the old and new media, I thought that we should have an idea about the sequence of events that have much contributed to the technological development of the internet. By knowing the rate of improvement in hardware and infrastructure, we can hopefully realize an impact the internet has made on the legacy media and what role did the government play in the downfall of the American journalism. Internet Timeline: http://www.zakon.org/robert/internet/timeline/ --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 18:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I can readily sympathize with this week’s selected authors. It is unquestionable that the state of journalism is declining, and it was declining long before the Internet was to available to blame. I had been involved in local politics from the mid 1980’s until a few years ago. At the start there were always 3 or 4 reporters attending the Selectmen’s and Finance board meetings, and 1 or 2 at every other board or commission meeting. By the time I “retired” from politics only one local paper remained. The sole reporter couldn’t (and still can’t) attend the meetings so he would call the local officials to ask what transpired, then write the report based on what he was told without any further fact checking. Often the newspaper reports are wildly inaccurate.
While the newspaper was the government watchdog of the past, today it is usually the lone gadfly who attends all the meetings, asks the tough questions, and does whatever he can to make his voice heard. The Internet is his most powerful amplifier. [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 00:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact that journalism was already declining long before the widespread of the Internet was novel to me. I assumed that emergence of citizen-led media is taking significant roles of reporting and distributing information away from the conventional media. Was it a lame excuse of the existing journal entities to explain their reduced power which is caused by factors other than the bloggers? --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 09:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It is interesting that a proposed solution to the decline of American journalism, is to look at government subsidies. Would the fact that journalists are subsidized by the government in some fashion, make it a target for political and other influences? What would stop Congress or the President from cutting off subsidies, or having undue influence on an investigation by a reporter for an article they did not like? The reality is that the world is changing rapidly, and that includes the way we consume information. Social media is what helped fuel revolutions across Tunisia, and the Arab world. This was done by empowering the people with information; not through state subsidized news outlets... [[User:Earboleda|Earboleda]] 17:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

One of the frustrating elements of the discussion of the decline of journalism is that which focuses on global coverage; I am unconvinced that rhetoric regarding pre-Internet global coverage is anything more than nostalgia. Even the major bureaux often lacked (and still lack) the local knowledge required to cover a locale accurately. In that sense, I think it's important to note how social media, citizen journalism, hyperlocal journalism, and other forces have improved upon global coverage of news.

The Nation piece touches on this, certainly, but I don't think it digs deep enough into the issues surrounding international correspondents and fixers. [[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 18:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

== Links from Class ==

Slides for class: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:IS2011-3.1.11-New_and_Old_Media.pdf http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:IS2011-3.1.11-New_and_Old_Media.pdf]

* Reposting this because, after reading all the material for this week, I'm realizing that it's outrageously relevant. Watch it!:
** [http://web.mit.edu/comm-forum/forums/online_news.html#abstract ONLINE NEWS: Public Sphere or Echo Chamber?] - ~~[[User:mcforelle|mcforelle]] 17:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

There is an interesting case on appeal in the Belgian courts regarding Yahoo’s aggregate news service that could have further European implications. A Belgian court ruled in 2007 that Google News’ publishing links breached Belgian copyright laws.
See http://www.bloomberg.com/news - search Google Belgium 2011-02-24 “Google Belgian Copyright Case Could Set Europe Policy”

In the United States the way one of the founding fathers envisioned free speech was that “the people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.”'

While the premise of this argument exists in America today, I am unconvinced in the current culture that the majority of citizen “journalism” promotes and/or moves facts forward to actually enhance the greater good in many cases. We continue to see this during times of difficulty where inaccurate and misleading information is relayed through one source or another. I think the larger argument that needs to be made is that the separation between opinion and fact is almost virtually extinct in the media today. In the age of the five-second headline of hyperbole the “quick hit” is king over the investigated fact.

There are only a few large corporations that own the media outlets and they have control over the way news is relayed. These organizations often relay “news” into the public forum through the prism of political bias and financial expediency.
http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main

On September 22 2009, Clay Shirky spoke at the Shorenstein Center on accountability journalism. Shirky noted "we are headed into a long trough of decline in accountability journalism because the old models are breaking faster than the new models will be put in their place." He goes on to note that decisions about what news is being desired, “is now being made more by the consumer of the news than by the producer of the news.” In an effort to keep up with that constant appetite, media organizations have become sloppy in their reporting.
1. James Madison, House of Representatives, June 8 1789
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnW2Lv8aFGs
[[User:Camcloughlin|Camcloughlin]] 21:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

How a Kansas City blogger made himself the go-to destination for KC info, both for citizens and local journalists. Where does he fit in the blogger vs. journalist debate?
[http://www.pitch.com/2011-03-03/news/tonys-kansas-city/ Welcome to Tony's Kansas City]
[[User:Mcforelle|Mcforelle]] 17:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This 'pitch' article is pretty interesting. It seems like he operates as a KC pundit: "The Botello of TKC hated Kansas City, for one. He referred to it as "cowtown" and trashed its every institution, from the Chiefs to the art scene to the restaurants. Men were "douchebags," women "skanks" and "tramps."" I don't know if I would call him a journalist in the traditional "being objective" sense especially after reading some of his articles (although some of his articles seem to be very objective), but I would definitely consider his work to be valuable. His spin can easily be dissected and the facts can be reevaluated. [[User:Saambat|Saambat]] 19:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Assignment 2 Submissions

2011-03-03T18:42:11Z

Saambat: /* Submissions */

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; padding: 5px; text-align: left;">
<big>'''Assignments'''</big>

'''[[Assignment 1 Details and Reporting]]''' | [[Assignment 1 Submissions|Submissions]]<br />
''Due February 8''

'''[[Assignments#Assignment_2:_Prospectus| Assignment 2]]''' | [[Assignment 2 Submissions|Submissions]]<br />
''Due February 22''

'''[[Assignments#Assignment_3:_Project_Outline| Assignment 3]]''' | [[Assignment 3 Submissions|Submissions]]<br />
''Due March 22''

'''[[Assignment 4 Details and Links]]''' | [[Assignment 4 Submissions|Submissions]]<br />
''Due April 12''

'''[[Final Project]]''' | [[Final Projects|Submissions]]<br />
''Due May 10''

</div>
This assignment is due on February 22. Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (assignments submitted 4 days late or later will have a maximum grade of 1 point).

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

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

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

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

===Submissions===
*Name: Gagan Panjhazari --[[User:Gpanjhazari|Gpanjhazari]] 07:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus Title: The Role of Censorship Of the Internet in the Egypt and Libya
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/GaganPanjhazari-Assignment2.txt
*Comment: You might want to check the article I posted on the Feb 22 assignment page that appeared in the New York Times. Might be helpful on your first topic. <<[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 00:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)>>
*Comment: Gagan, I find both of your topic choices interesting. I think the second one, regarding the ability to hold website creators responsible for their content, especially when said content could be considered treasonous, would be the best topic of the two. It is such an important question, the answer to the question will frame our national security for the future. With either topic, I look forward to reading your findings. [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 01:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

*Name: Saam Batmanghelidj --[[User:Saambat|Saambat]] 10:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus Title: The Effect of Synthetic World Communities on Real World Societies, Economies, and Copyright law
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Batmanghelidj_Final_Project_Prospectus.doc

*Name: Kimberly Nevas --[[User:KimberlyNevas|KimberlyNevas]] 02:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus Title: Can the U.S. Prosecute Julian Assange?
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Nevas_Kimberly_LSTU_E-120_Assignment_2.pdf
*Comment: It might also be interesting to see if any other sites purporting to disclose sensitive information whether government or corporate have become more aggressive considering all the confusion about what to do with Julian Assange. Does his legal situation make these sites feel more confident regarding avoiding prosecution? <<[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 00:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)>>
*Comment: Your statement, "In this respect, Assange cannot be considered any more liable than the New York Times." is a bold one, which some might strongly disagree with, given Assange's postings and his refusal to censor, along with his use or threatened use of yet unreleased information as leverage to keep himself free. I look foward to reading your arguments regarding Assange, freedom of speech and the case law which supports your position. [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 01:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

*Name: Jamil Buie
*Prospectus Title: Profiteering via "Public Privacy" The use/misuse of your data
*Link to prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:JBProject_Prospectus.pdf

*Name: Uduak Patricia Okon
*Prospectus Title: Web Pages/Blog Sites: Rights and Limitations-How free are you?
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Uduak_Patricia_Okon_Assign_2.pdf
Comment
Hi Uduak,

Your prospectus is very interesting. I look forward to seeing how your project comes together. But I have some comments that I would like to share, I hope my feedback is helpful.

Re:
- In general, people are entitled to share facts if they don’t breach confidentiality or depict a real situation. This would depend on how citizen bloggers support their argument about their political commentary, whether it’s positive or negative. You need to remember that politicians are public figures, so the first amendment applies differently to them. Therefore the confidential circumstances that apply to the general population do not apply to politicians since they are not entitled to the same level of privacy. And citizen bloggers don’t have to adhere to the same circumstances as journalists to the best of my knowledge (I major in journalism and work in media in NYC) (i.e. it’s considered unethical for journalists to be bias if they’re not commentary writers. Also most journalists are not allowed to put political figure signs on their lawn, bumper sticker on their car, etc they need to push their feelings aside to accurately report the truth). I think the bigger issue is whether or not non-citizen bloggers can face defamatory lawsuits if there is proof they intentionally acted with malice? Or will future non-citizens bloggers have to abide by the same guidelines as employed journalists in the blogosphere working for CNN?
- Corporate law is an entirely different world. Because many corporations lie to promote their brand among many other issues on the internet, which is unethical to their consumers.
- I don’t think you should look into news websites like CNN, NY Times, etc because those are explicitly run by paid journalists (whom must adhere to strict guidelines about what they report) and comments are very restricted so the same type of freedom doesn’t apply to citizen journalists because official journalists also have code of ethics and have much more at stake.
- It's important to note that some citizen bloggers sell advertising on their blogs which might impede with how they portray a public figure on the net because they're getting paid. Formally employed journalists can't bias their stories based on relationships with advertisers because the editorial and advertising departments are seperate at news organizations.
- You, first need to narrow your focus because there is a huge difference between local mayors and congressional candidates, and citizen and non-citizen bloggers. (i.e. I think it would be interesting if you looked at how political figures use blogging as a form of position taking in Congress and compare cases of democratic and republican candidates on an issue like healthcare reform, education, etc. And the implications blogging has on Senators or Representatives relationships with their constituents).

*Name: Yaerin Kim [[User:Quill80|Quill80]] 02:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus Title: OpenCourseWare(OCW) and its Impact: Case Study of MIT’s OCW
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment2_Kim.doc

*Name: William Bauser -- [[User:Wnb|Wnb]] 23:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus Title: Modern Web Design and Civic Engagement: Access to Information and Community Development
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Wnb_assignment2.pdf
*Comment: This is an interesting topic -- you have a lot of avenues to explore! Among the sites you list, some are clearly partisan while others seem more altruistic. I would be interested to learn the contrast of methods used by each type. For example, what are the membership requirements? Does the site encourage a particular philosophy? Does a certain amount of selective cocooning take place? On the other side, how can an Internet based civic community be both neutral and vital? If it is only fact based then it won't be interesting. How does is promote community discussions without advocating a position? I'm sure you'll have to narrow the focus of your chosen topic and I thought this might be an interesting distinction you could use. [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 01:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

*Name: Brian Smith [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 23:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus Title: Location-Based Services: Implications and Awareness of Effects on Consumer Privacy
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Brian_Smith_-_Assignment_2.pdf

Greetings Brian! I found your research idea very creative and the methodology you are planning to utilize seems realistically achievable, although some instruments used by government and private marketing agencies are very difficult to trace and require special software and equipment. I have a topic idea that may coincide with a notion of privacy you are investigating, so I may cite your work in my project. What I found to be inconsistent is that your methods seem to be distant on the instrumental level from your hypothetical statements, that is, it is undetermined how your method will help to prove or reject either of your hypotheses. In fact, even doctorate dissertations attempting to either reject or accept only one hypothesis. It is in quantitative sciences we test several hypothesis in order to corroborate the validity of the expression or formula, etc., but not in the research as far as academic papers suggest. In terms of your definition of location, it is unclear whether your are talking about the IP address based location or mobile device based location, if it is about mobile device only (most hosts like schools and bosses may hunt for both mobile and the laptop IP to trace their employee or a student) then you need to state so in your research and in the proposal as well. I know one thing for sure that with arrival of the wireless technology it became much more harder for Federal agents to trace hackers: it is technologically more convenient to retain privacy through the public wireless router. I think you will benefit from setting up a singular and more definite hypothetic statement that will encapsulate the entire topic. In addition, you would make the research more productive and to the point if you will add the limitations to your research so that your process will have its bottom line. Check out this research, it could be helpful or at least you can retrieve some more sources from in-context citations: http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~adillon/Journals/Expertise-JASIS.htm Good Luck! --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 20:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

*Name: Yu Ri Jeong --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 22:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus Title: How manifestations of collective intelligence vary in different cultures and societies: Study on Naver Knowledge iN of South Korea in comparison with Wikipedia.
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Yu_Ri_Jeong_Internet_and_Society_Assignment_2_Prospectus.doc

*Name: La Keisha Landrum [[User:llandrum|llandrum]] 21:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus Title: Building a Sustainable News Org
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:LNLAssignment2.doc

*Name: Jillian York[[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 21:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus Title: Understanding "Lesbanon": Lebanon's Online Lesbian Community
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Understanding_Lesbanon.doc
Comment: Hey Jillian, I think this is such a great paper topic. I love how secretive communities can still operate out in the public through using the internet. The value of anonymity in this case seems like it must be very high, especially if there are governmental pressures keeping women from coming out. I had no idea that "Lesbanon" existed but it really does make perfect sense. Maybe if there are other communites out there like this, you could make a broader statement on the nature of coming out on the internet despite oppressive governments and societal norms. Otherwise, I think your question is quite reigned in and manageable in scope. I look forward to reading this paper when you're finished. [[User:Saambat|Saambat]] 18:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

*Name: Caroline McLoughlin[[User:Camcloughlin|Camcloughlin]] 21:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus title: Privacy and Society
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Assignment-2.pdf
*Comments: Caroline, I, too, was interested in writing a paper more inclined to policy arguments and Rebekah counseled me against it. I got the impression we are supposed to be more observant of communities and how they interact and work. If this is true, you might lean your paper more towards observing whether privacy policies are adequately disclosed on sites in the US and how they are different on Canadian sites. Is this difference due to the contrasting privacy legal frameworks in the two countries? Do participants react differently?This might also help narrow your topic which seems like alot of material to cover. All this being said, I find your topic very interesting and think it might be great to present it in something like a PowerPoint format. Would be the great beginnings of a law review article if you are a lawyer.[[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 21:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)]]

*Name:Anthony Crowe [[User:Acrowe|Acrowe]]
*Prospectus title: Tagging and Metadata on the Internet and in New Media
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Crowe_LSTUE120_2.doc

*Name: Vladimir Kruglyak --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 21:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus title: A Transparency of the U.S. Government in the Socio-Cyber Environment
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus.doc

Vladimir, thank you for your resources. I have been reading your prospectus and found your approach as interesting as ambitious. To investigate wether the U.S. Government maintains Constitutional transparency and accountability for the tax money expenditures using e-government resources, that is a very well focused research and I can tell you are passionate about the topic, which makes the reading even more interesting. However, when you talk about conspiracy relating it with the internet resources, I have to disagree. I think power and conspiracy are long-time friends, governments have faced every kind of suspicions since they exist, but the importance of digital resources when it comes to spreading these suspicions cannot be denied, and that is why I think your research will face very interesting issues to deal with, as investigating the origin of "conspiracies" from a social point of view. Do you think the Internet is a cause or a consequence? I think about WikiLeaks, for example. The Internet had nothing to do with the origin of the cables, but made them become a "popular" topic, blurring the "secret" component of International Politics. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? We are talking about serious crimes becoming nearly gossip (we could talk further about a Spanish journalist murdered in Iraq and how Spanish and American Governments made a deal to make it look like an accident: that's on WikiLeaks). But now it looks like nothing happened. Amazon was selling the cables for Kindle, Julian Assange is to be extradited to Sweden in a week and I highly doubt any of the "accused" by, or thanks to, WikiLeaks, is to face trial. When you say that I am adressing a brave category of people ready to risk their lives for the "right cause", that is exactly the interesting thing about this. Why would someone get into trouble for nothing? However, it calls my attention that you take for granted that their cause is the right one. I see in your statement that you look pretty convinced about conspiracies when it comes to very sensitive and historic topics. You assume the defense of one group, don't you doubt that the cause may not always be the right one? I find your statement so determined that it becomes intriguing to me (it is really hard to me to be sure about something), I will be following your work with interest to get a better understanding of your point of view. In the meantime, I hope to receive more suggestions or resources you may find interesting to check out about this topic. Lorena Abuín. --[[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 21:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I see a potential flaw in your methodology, and find it potentially invasive of a web surfer's privacy. Collecting data by sniffing packets is rather dubious for your uses and can be construed as an abuse of networking tools. Trying to parse the IP addresses into geographical locations through a Whois database may be difficult to and inaccurate if users are using proxy based anonymizers such as Tor or i2p. It is for this reason, among others, that many people chose to use anonymizers when they surf. [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 04:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

*Name:Corey MacDonald [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 20:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus title: Fringe Forums for the Under-represented
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus_Assignment_2_MacDonald.doc

*Name: Richard (Rick) Kundiger --[[User:Rakundig|Rakundig]] 19:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus title: The Role of Bittorrent in the Internet Society
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Kundiger_Assignment_2_Research_Prospectus.pdf
*Comment: This is a great example of "code is law." You have a very powerful tool (the bittorrent protocol) which can be used for both good an illicit purposes. Your investigation of the different interests for and against its deployment should provide an excellent case study. Does a company or government have more of a right than an individual to control the protocols in use? Are those opposed to the protocol trying to protect the greater good of the Internet or their own financial interests? [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 01:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

*Name: Mary Van Gils
*Prospectus title: Yelp Case Study - Freedom of Expression
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus_-_Yelp_Study_Case.doc
*Comment: Wanted to make you aware as you investigate the external restriciton on freedom of expression regarding the Yelp site that there are also types of businesses which are regulated by state law as to how they may respond to reviews/complaints on sites like Yelp. If you look at my prospectus, you will note insurance companies are one of those types of businesses.[[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 15:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)]]

*Name: Susan Jennings [[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 15:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)]]
*Prospectus title: Annuity Companies' Social Media Communities
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Annuity_Companies%27_Social_Media_Communities.doc

*Name: Alan Davies-Gavin & Alex Solomon
*Prospectus title: Architecture of Sites eHarmony and Match.com: contributions of membership data and effects on security and privacy.
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Assignment2ProjectProspectus.pdf

Alan and Alex, I think your topic is fascinating and I wanted to chip in my 2 cents which might help your research. Considering the different natures of sites that ultimately sell the same product, I would consider looking at how the two compete in response to one another. By this I mean, is Match doing something that eHarmony isn, and therefore, is eHarmony a bit jealous and trying to get into their market? I know that eHarmony lauched their more casual spinoff "Jazzed.com" which is meant to steal people away from Match. Is Jazzed a suggestion that privacy isn't all that important to frustrated singles? I think that there are also rather large differences in target audience between the two competitors, with eHarmony focusing on a bit older, more conservative crowd while Match goes for the "single and ready to mingle."Also, perhaps look at each companies approach to user profile creation over time, have they changed at all and in what ways? This looks like it'll be an exciting project, I'm looking forward to what you find! ([[User:Lewtak|Lewtak]] 21:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC))

*Name: Kristina Meshkova
*Prospectus title: A music sharing site - Grooveshark, Soundcloud, MySpace.
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignement_2_%28Kristina_Meshkova%29.pdf
*Comment: Hey Kristina, I think we have some similar ambitions in regards to our final project. Let's chat tonight if you have any interest in potentially working together [[User:Alex|Alex]] Bryan 14:31, 1 March 2011.

*Name:Vladimir Trojak--[[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 20:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus title: Are different language groups consistent in what topics are permitted and what is removed?
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_2.pdf
*Comments: Hello Vladimir, Your proposal is intriguing and I am looking forward to see how it evolves. I did have a question about why do you think that all the Wikipedia policies should be the same in all the language communities? Thanks. --[[User:SCL|SCL]] 03:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. I hope it will turn in the way I expect:)I believe that in general they shoudl be the same, such as 'neutral point of view', 'verifiability'. Although there may be differences in other policies because of different laws, such as topics you can speak about. You have any suggestions?Thanks.[[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 18:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

*Name: Faye Ryding [[User:FMRR|FMRR]] 23:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus title: Trolls and vandals on Epinions.com
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Faye_Ryding_Assignment_2.doc

*Name: [[User:Alex|Alex]] Bryan 16:59, 21 February 2011
*Prospectus title: Groooveshark music application
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus.pdf
*Comments:

*Name: Robert Cunningham
*Prospectus title: The Archive Team
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Proposed_Paper_TopicCunningham.pdf

*Name: [[Joshuasurillo]]
*Prospectus title: The effect of government transparency websites- Wikileaks
*Link to prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Harvard_assignment_2.doc
*Comment: Joshua, I am very much looking forward to your final product. Your position (or what I am assuming your postion to be) comes across very loud and clear in your prospectus. I wonder if you will reach an opinion as to where to draw the line on "free speech," or if no line should be drawn? My reading of your position if you were to define it today is that free speech must be protected at all costs and no limits are appropriate, at least that is the feeling I am left with from your prospectus. If wikileaks posted the location or identity of our undercover operatives in Iraq or elsewhere, would you support that? If not, what else would you feel would be "going to far?" I look forward to reading more from you. [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 01:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

*Name: Susan Lemont
*Prospectus title: Why do people cultivate large online networks?
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Lemont_Prospectus.doc

*Name: Chris Sura [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 03:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus title: The Java Community Process: How Does It Really Work?
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Chris_Sura_Assignment_2.pdf

* Name: Ed Arboleda [[User:Earboleda|Earboleda]] 04:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: Are there collective benefits for copyright owners, copyright infringers, and the general community; if copyright infringement is not enforced under specific circumstances on social media sites?
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Ed_Arboleda_Prospectus.pdf

* Name: Elisha Surillo
* Prospectus title: The Tea Party and Internet Freedom
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_2.doc

* Name: Brandon A. Ceranowicz - [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 08:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: A Comparative Study of Open Source Licenses
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:LSTU_E-120_Assignment_2_-_Prospectus_BAC.doc

* Name: Lorena Abuín
* Prospectus title: Contribution to prosecuted online activities (Anonymous, BitTorrent, WikiLeaks)
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_2_-_Lorena_Abu%C3%ADn.pdf

I noticed that there is a lot of crossover between our topics. We are both addressing hacker communities, but from differing angles. I have acquired quite a bit of information about Anonymous and have listed the resources on my tentative reference page located just below here. Feel free to look and use anything from that list that may help you in your project. Also, the Anonymous page found in Wikipedia is quite good in understanding what the Anonymous phenomenon is. They are free agents often acting independently of each other and unaffiliated with one another under the umbrella name Anonymous. In other words, Anonymous is a concept more than an identifiable specific group. I also noticed you have listed pastebin as a resource. It is my suggestion to be careful with that, and try to find where that document was published. It could simply be the rantings of teenager enamored with the publicity of their antics and activity. The questionable authenticity of that write pad entry to me is found in the signature at the bottom. It should read: We are Anonymous/We are legion/We do not forgive/We do not forget/Expect us-always. Lastly, keep in mind that not all Anonymous hacktivity is criminal, that is just the part that gets sensationalized. There are many other cyber-activism efforts that take place under the name of Anonymous that are not criminal. Good luck, and I look forward to watching your project develope! -----=:) [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 23:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC) for the #datalove

I found that some of your research objectives coincide with mine. I can assure you that people do use what is called "hacktivism" to oppose the lies and conspiracies of the U.S. Government. If you take a http://www.nogw.com/ alone you would be surprised how some of the secret documents happen to be available on line. For instance, the loan by the Wall Street Banks to finance Adolf Hitler's Army is not a secret nowadays because of the "hacktivism", although the fact and the document has been kept in secret from the Government of Soviet Union for decades. The role of the Jews in the mass murder of millions is proven with facts on the Holocaust denial web sites. I guess the major drive that motivates people to use their skill in the "wrong way" is to oppose the lie that is bigger in size and thus controls the legacy tools such as Media and Congress. Even children in New York City know that the twin towers were demolished by the "uniformed criminals" employed as the federal agents. Check out the list of literature on my prospectus and http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=46 is just one out of dozens web sites. The U.S Government had no reason to deploy troops anywhere at the cost of the taxpayers' dollars. Do you think other citizens do not realize this? They do, but they join others in this giant lie and say that it is a war on terror, and they say this at Law Schools, through the public media, and post it online. These people are indifferent and coward because they lie to themselves and the so called prosecuted activities is the only way to reveal the truth. In your research you are therefore addressing a brave category of people who are ready to risk their lives for the simple yet amazingly right cause - to reveal the corrupted syndicate of greedy liars who oppresses people with their tyrannic power and ability to prosecute. If you are not afraid to cooperate on this project in front of the university staff, then take a look at my proposal and let me know what do you think. I may give you a couple of additional sources and suggestions, but if you do not want to be involved in this type of a project, I will totally understand. Best! --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 10:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hai. Thanks for your response. I just thought that I would add that it is very important make the distinction between hackers and crackers. Unfortunately the media has not made this distinction clear and has tainted the meaning of the term hacker. In a nutshell, hackers create things and crackers break things. Most hackers look down upon crackers and dismiss them as technological bugs. Most hackers I know are not pleased with the criminal antics done in the name of Anonymous. It is true that collaborative write pads are in common use because of the ease to collaborate live together at once. Pastebin happens to not be one used for documents all that much though. It is mainly used to send larger pieces of text into chat protocols such as IRC without flooding the channel. Write pads such as typewith.me and piratepad.net are more common to use for group documents since the url is not made public and searchable, and is kept private among the group working on it. Also, an interesting comment about hacktivism made to me by a French hacker with whom I am in contact with simply and broadly described hacktivism as using technology to impact society. I think we must be careful, myself included, when we talk about cracker v. hackers. A classic document among hackers written and maintained by Eric Raymond, "[http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html How to Become a Hacker]" describes the difference quite well. [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 03:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

* Name: Margaret Tolerton [[User: deinous|deinous]]
* Prospectus title: Hackers, hacking groups, and Hacktivism: Anonymous v. Telecomix as a case study
* Link to prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Anonymous_v_Telecomix_with_References.doc

Margaret, thanks a lot for your offering. I could really use some inside information about this topic. About your suggestion, I chose pastebin as a reference looking for a way to begin my research. You are right when you say that accuracy is not guaranteed when it comes to this source, but my main objective is to test the general perception of internet community about "hacktivism", I want to read about it in forums, press articles comments... See what normal people think about this. Of course, not every "hacktivist" action is a ciber-crime, but I am particularly interested in motivations that lead people to engage in certain projects that could be prosecuted depending on the country, as uploading copyrighted contents. I am sure we could find a lot of profit-driven actions, but I want to get deeper in personal motivations, since there are many so-called "cyber-crimes" that have nothing to do with obtaining a profit, at least a tangible one. When reading your prospectus, I came up with something very interesting: "Happy to help others who are not as advanced?". I think solidarity plays a huge role of hacktivism communities, empowered by the feeling of being passionate about some topic. I guess the desire to share sprouts from passion, but I think that the need of feeling part of a community is also very important, especially when it comes to very well defined criminals such as sex offenders and very sensitive content uploaders, communities widely persecuted but, however, still huge. While my prospectus adopts a more anthropological point of view, I see yours as an inside work with very valuable information about hacktivism running. I look forward to see how your research evolves and to learn more about these communities from a privileged point of view. Please don't hesitate to make any suggestion you may consider, I am sure it will be very helpful for my research. Lorena Abuín. --[[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 21:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

LOL, I don't know how privileged my point of view is. I am more or less just another nerd with a computer on Friday and Saturday nights. In recent weeks I have come to feel as though the people of Telecomix have accepted me as one of their own though, as I have done a little public relations, fact checking, and some translations. Telecomix is very open about their work, and does not engage in illegal actions. Being mostly European, they lobby against, or for, various cyber laws to their respective Parliaments. What I meant though by my comment "happy too help others who are not as advanced" is that it is common for someone to ask a question of a technological nature and usually others jump in and help to solve the problem. For example, my switch over to Linux, I have been having quite a time configuring a few of my drivers, and getting used to working from a command line with unix syntax, and several people who know how to fix the problems will jump in and start coaching with many lulz along the way.[[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 03:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Greetings Margaret! I am delighted and in part surprised to see a topic of this type. By type I mean it is heavily technological mission to retrieve a piece of real information from the community of real hackers. Not all software engineers employed by the government are able to intervene communication among the community of real hackers. You may however, catch a few portals where "I can do this, I can do that" type of conversations take place, but whether they really have done something interesting and indeed reveal their ideology is a big speculation. For this course, I believe, you need to change your frequency, sort of speak, and listen not for the hacking communities themselves, but for the actions they have already done. Actions speak lauder than words, as you may know. You you need to listen to the anti-thesis, that is, the counter part of the hacking group. In this country, among various subsequent agencies that keep control of all networks, the NSA sources will probably be the most beneficial to you, although I am not 100 percent sure about this. It is difficult to find something that is available to the public. Recall the scandal with pornographic downloads by the employees of the Trade Commission; this is just one out of million examples of the internet traffic control by the Feds. It is therefore the Feds who are on the opposite side of the argument with the hackers. By considering both ideology of the hackers and a counter-premise by the Feds you will have a full and comprehensive picture for your project. In short, I am proposing to search not only within the hackers community, which may only seem as community of hackers and give you a bogus information, but also find reports, chronicles, and cases exposed by the Feds. It may ultimately appear that it is the Feds who are vandals and trolls and who violate privacy and steal the tax money of the citizens. At least this is what my prospectus's sources can prove, but take a look at National Security Agency [http://www.nsa.gov/] web site. In the meantime, I will keep checking on your project and will try to give you more clues because your topic coincides with mine in many regards. --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 06:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and comments. I will certainly take them into consideration. However, I feel that my views toward hacking are much broader than the criminality of a few, and that there should be more emphasis in part on the difference between hacking and cracking. I am one that still holds the traditional meaning of a hacker as one that is adept with the computer and often generates new creative uses for what is in front of them. As a result I am watching my topic shift a bit and focusing perhaps more on the difficulty that researchers have with the DMCA preventing them from publishing in full their findings, and the law of fair use. Over this past year we have watched the jailbreaking of an iPhone of iPad for the use of external software not approved by Apple go from being an illegal act to being justified as fair use. Although it will nullify any warranty of your gadget. Currently we are watching this same debate occur over the jailbreaking of the Sony PS3 to run Linux and homebrewed games. I am one that supports the fair use argument in that if you are clever enough to make your gadgetry do fun and interesting things beyond the uses that they are intended, then you should be able to do it--especially if you have no intention on using pirated software or make profit of any sort from it. As for an original angle, I am still waffling a bit, and welcome any further comments.====:)[[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 17:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

* Name: Guy Clinch --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 13:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: An Examination of Internet and Society Coursework through the Metaphor of web.alive
* Link to prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Internet_and_Society_Assingment_2%28gclinch%29.pdf

* Name: Syed Yasir Shirazi [User: syedshirazi]
* Prospectus title: Online Group Buying - Newly Emerging Business Model or Fad?
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Syed_Yasir_Shirazi-Assignment_2.pdf

* Name: Jessica Sanfilippo - [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 16:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: Transparency and Participation in Crowd Funding
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:JSanfilippo_Assignment_2.doc

Hi Jessica,I think crowd funding is a fascinating topic, and there seem to be various types of crowd funding as you point out. Micro Loans and sites such as Kiva.com are also wonderful examples of crowd funding. I am probably over reaching, but I noticed that Syed Yasir A. Shirazi has a prospectus on Group Buying, and wonder if the two can be connected somehow? What if materials needed for a funded project on kickstarter.com for instance, could be purchased through groupon.com or a similar site? Regardless, I am looking forward to your findings around Crowd Funding (especially in the creative space).

*Name: Adriana Faria Torii [drifaria] and Anna Christiana Marinho C. Machado [([[User:Anna|Anna]] 17:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC))]
*Prospectus title: Analysis of E-Government Practices in Brazil
*Link to prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Faria_Marinho_Prospectus.pdf

* Name: Laura Connell [[User:Ltconnell|Ltconnell]] 18:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: Does providing a legal alternative act as a deterrent to internet piracy?
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Laura_Connell_Assignment_2_Prospectus.pdf

Laura, here is a link to a recent study that you may find of use:
[http://documents.envisional.com/docs/Envisional-Internet_Usage-Jan2011.pdf Envisional - Technical report: An Estimate of Infringing Use of the Internet]

Hope you find this helpful --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 03:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

*Name: Alokika Singh [[User:Singh singh|Singh singh]] 19:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[[User:Singhsingh]]
*Prospectus title: Online Political Activism in India
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_II_22_feb..pdf

Hi Alokika: I think your topic is very interesting. You can also draw a comparative line between roles of leading social/political leaders in India versus the role of ordinary internet users when it comes to acting as the leading force behind online social/political debate in India? A lot of times, it has been seen that individuals who don’t follow any hierarchy kick-off such bold campaigns. (Take the example of what happened in Egypt over the last six months. The online movement was sparked by ordinary folks and not any leading social or political figure).
I am curious to know whether the online ‘Pink Chaddi’ campaign was initiated by general users or spearheaded by a leading social organization in India. I suspect the former. So it will be interesting to see how the online debate has evolved in India.
Looking forward to reading your final analysis.~~[[User:syedshirazi|syedshirazi]] 20:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

* Name: Don Hussey [[User:Donaldphussey|Donaldphussey]] 19:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: Online Crowd-Sourcing of Starbucks Product Development
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:LSTU_E-120_--Hussey_-_Asmt2.doc
* Comments:

Don, this is a really ambitious project. I think it's a great idea for you to use your professional position to get your foot in the door with some of the people at Starbucks; I hope it works! My only concern with this project is that you are only focusing on the corporate side of this venture. Is there any way you can include information from participants or contributors to this site? Is there any way on this site that users can interact with each other, or is it a one-way interaction between contributors and Starbucks? ~~[[User:mcforelle|mcforelle]] 18:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

* Name: Tym Lewtak [[User:lewtak|lewtak]] 21:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: User Generated Sites: Defining Superusers and Their Monetization
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Assignment_2.pdf

Tymoteusz, I find you topic very interesting.

I am wondering as a product of your research if you will study the proportion of individuals who are super users compared to commercial organizations using these tools. That is, in respect to commercial organizations using the various tools, how important is the individual? Over time, is the place of the individual becoming more or less important? I would suspect that part of this equation depends upon the rate at which people are able to monetize their involvement as much as how commercial organizations are co-opting the modalities. Is there a constant influx of new blood or will the ability of individuals to monetize their involvement decrease over time?

It may be fascinating to see is this is an indication of a generative system over the long run or something that may peak and decline. Good luck! --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 03:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Gclinch, Thanks for all of your input! I initially didn't think to so much as include corporations, but taking a second glance at the subject you're right. I would be foolish to not look at motivations for companies and individuals alike to join sites as super-users. If I can find historical data on users from these sites, I'd like to especially take a look at whether it was individuals who joined first and became super-users, or if corporations jumped onto the "ball game" with individuals following. I suspect the latter isn't true, but I will try to distinguish between companies that joined these sites early on versus already popular companies that grew their earlier existent popularity. ([[User:Lewtak|Lewtak]] 21:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC))

* Name: Denise Reed--[[User:Dreed07|-dreed07]] 21:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: A comparative study of user behavior on Chinese social networking sites with that of United States social networkers
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/REED_LSTU_E120_Assignment_2.doc

* Name: Michelle Forelle [[User:mcforelle|mcforelle]] 21:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: Online Video-Making Groups: Community, Copyright, Collaboration and Commercialism
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment2_Vimeo.pdf

*Name: Myra Garza [[User:Myra|Myra]]
*Prospectus title: Preparing and Accommodating Millenials in the Workforce: Use of Social Media in Two Career Coaching Businesses
*Link to prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Garza.M.Prospectus.doc
* Comments:

Myra, this is a really interesting topic! I feel like this is exactly as narrow a case study as the professors were asking for. I'm jealous that you were able to identify such an relevant topic, lol! I look forward especially to reading the background research for this paper, as it is my understanding that minority youth are disproportionally represented on sites like Twitter; I'm eager to find out whether that rumor is true, and if so, what it means for the way these youth interact with and influence the hiring process. I'm also interested in hearing how these companies help steer the social use of the social media into the practical, career-building use. I'm curious to see if you find that the conclusions you are specific to urban youth or whether such tactics in career counseling are also applicable to suburban and rural kids too. Great prospectus, I really look forward to reading your paper! [[User:mcforelle|mcforelle]] 18:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I, too, think this is going to be a very interesting paper. There is such a need in the corporate community for young people who can help older executives use social media both within the organization for employees and outside the organization for the public and consumers. I would be interested in what the career objectives are for the clients of these two organizations. Are they interested in using their social media skills as part of their job requirements or are they looking for careers in various non-related fields? <<[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 01:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)>>

Great topic, as I am sure many of us see on a daily basis the generational differences at work, and the need to involve and "catch" the millenial generation. I wonder if the two organizations will provide you with data on their success, and outreach numbers in the community? I look forward to seeing how this plays out. [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 01:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

*Name: Jose Uscanga
*Prospectus Title: Cummunity reporting or social activism? The New Age of media reporting in Mexico.
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Jose_Uscanga_Assignment_-2.doc

Jose, you have identified a truly compelling topic.

When you ask, “Is free press necessary for democracy?” many of us would say, obviously yes. Reading your prospectus though makes me wonder, “what do we mean today by a free press.” Does phenomenon such as Mexican citizens taking, “on the civic responsibility of alerting other citizens by providing detailed and unfiltered information,” redefine what we mean when we use the term press? I’ll be looking forward to reading your conclusions.

I’d also be interested to learn if you think there is something unique about Mexican culture that compels people to get involved. It seems to me that these citizen journalists are taking huge risks. Even less than the professional journalists, there would seem to be no safety net. After all isn’t it easy for the drug cartels to find out who is issuing the alerts. Is it a demographic trend, is it youth driven or does it span the population? Is it something unique about the way Mexican people relate to one another that makes people get involved? Thanks for taking on such an interesting and challenging topic. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 02:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Assignment 2 Submissions

2011-02-23T03:59:02Z

Saambat: /* Submissions */

Assignment 2 Submissions

2011-02-23T03:56:11Z

Saambat: /* Submissions */

Assignment 2 Submissions

2011-02-23T03:55:59Z

Saambat: /* Submissions */

Assignment 1 Submissions

2011-02-10T21:48:29Z

Saambat: /* Submissions */

User:Saambat

2011-01-27T20:35:27Z

Saambat: New page: Saam Batmanghelidj from right around the bend in good ole' Somerville, MA.

Saam Batmanghelidj from right around the bend in good ole' Somerville, MA.

List of User Profiles

2011-01-27T20:33:44Z

Saambat: /* N-S */

This is a list of user profiles on this wiki. Until a consensus on policy is come to, this listing will be voluntary.

This page differs from the [[Special:ListUsers|User List]] page in that this page contains only active profiles of individuals who wish to contribute to this wiki. Please add yourself by clicking on the appropriate edit button next to the letter range that corresponds to your user name.

==Users==

===A-G===
=====adavies01=======
I'm Alan Davies-Gavin. I'm an ALB candidate in computer science. I've worked in the IT field for a number of years and am now returning to finish my BA. I'm originally from NH, and have lived on the west coast and Europe. I'm actually used to reading blogs for information, I'm not actually a blogger (subject to change). I do have a lot to say on the subject matter that we'll be covering and I'm also looking forward to discussions.

=====alexleavitt=====
I am a research assistant at Microsoft Research, as well as a researcher for the Comparative Media Studies department at MIT, Microsoft Entertainment & Devices, and the Web Ecology Project. I graduated Boston University in 2009, and I am currently applying to graduate school.

=====Alexsolomon=====
I'm an ALB degree candidate at Harvard Extension School (Concentration: Humanities, Field of study: Journalism, Citation: Business/Marketing). I'm originally from Toronto, Canada. But I currently work as a public relations (PR) coordinator at an elite PR firm in Manhattan and I live in Manhattan too. I'm also an avid fashion blogger, and Twitter and Facebook user.

=====BrandonAndrzej=====
A former ex-patriot English teacher, I have returned to the US with the intention of perusing a degree in international law. I have a deep and abiding love for history and a strong interest in things geo-political.

=====Dardia=====
I am a fellow at the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ Berkman Center for Internet & Society] and the director of the [http://dmlp.org/ Digital Media Law Project]. In a past life I was assistant counsel at The Washington Post and before that was an associate at Williams & Connolly in Washington, DC, where I handled a range of intellectual property and media litigation.

=====donaldphussey=====
I am an ALB student in Social Sciences with a focus in Government. By day, I am an SVP for Global Internet Strategy for a big bank. I live in New York and am attending online.

=====Earboleda=====
I work for a large financial institution in the Northeast, and will be attending class on-site and online.

=====Gclinch=====
My name is Guy Clinch. I create communications technology solutions solving problems for organizations across the globe. I specialize in helping government agencies use communications solutions to serve the requirements of their citizens. Should you be interested: [http://www.avaya.com/blogs/archives/author/authord18df/ My blog], [http://www.linkedin.com/in/guywclinch my professional profile] Looking forward to sharing a dynamic and engaging semester!

===H-M===
=====Jastify=====
My name is Sergey, I am a recent graduate from Moscow State University. Here to get some perspective on the subject which interests me quit a lot.

====Jedmonds====
My name is Jennifer Edmonds. I am a Legislative Analyst with the State of California. This is my first semester at the Harvard Extension, and although I would love to attend class in person, because of my locale, I am forced to participate asynchronously. I'm looking forward to achieving a better understanding of the government's current role in technology and the issues that will influence its future involvement.

===N-S===

=====RebekahHeacock=====
I'm a project coordinator at the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ Berkman Center for Internet & Society] and the co-director of the [http://transparency.globalvoicesonline.org/ Technology for Transparency Network]. I recently graduated from the Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs, where I studied the relationship between communications technologies and development.

=====RobertCu=====
I'm a card carrying member of the eff and the fsf and one of the inaugural viewers of zdtv. I went to the same prep school as the founder of wired magazine and personally lobbied she get a well deserved alumni award. I've attended many different colleges everywhere from st. johns college the great books school in Annapolis where I had a dsl line installed to my dorm room giving me more bandwidth then the rest of campus combined, to where I am now, the Harvard extension school where I am a alb degree candidate. Even though I'm conversant in python, html, c++, and ti-basic I'm a humanities concentrator. My favorite authors are Borges, O'brien, Doctorow(cory not e.l), Aristotle, and Lessig.

=====Saambat=====
Currently, I work at the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory at MIT managing annotations for computational linguistics research. I'm here at the Extension School to finish up my BLA, and this is my last semester. Of course, the internet is a large part of my life, much like many others, and I seek to better understand the beast and how it is controlled.

===T-Z===