Technologies and Politics of Control - User contributions [en]

Main Page

2014-05-05T20:36:17Z

Ryan: /* Office Hours */

= Internet and Society: Technologies and Politics of Control=
'''LSTU E–120 - Harvard Extension School - Spring 2014 - Tuesdays 5:30-7:30 pm EST'''

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

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

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

|-
| Jan 28
| [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction]]
|-
| Feb 4
| [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet]]
|-
| Feb 11
| [[A Series of Tubes: Infrastructure, Broadband, and Baseline Content Control]]
| ''(Assignment 1 due)''
|-
| Feb 18
| [[Regulating Speech Online]]
|-
| Feb 25
| [[Copyright Part 1: Guiding Principles and Online Application]]
| ''(Assignment 2 due)''
|-
| Mar 4
| [[Copyright Part 2: Enforcement and Balances]]
|-
| Mar 11
| [[Collective Action, Politics, and Protests]]
|-
| Mar 18
| ''No class - Spring Break''
|-
| Mar 25
| [[Peer Production: Development from the Edges and from the Crowd]]
|-
| Apr 1
| [[Privacy Part 1: Corporate Data Gathering]]
| ''(Assignment 3 due)''
|-
| Apr 8
| [[Privacy Part 2: Government Surveillance]]
|-
| Apr 15
| [[Informing the Public in the Internet Age]]
|-
| Apr 22
| [[Hacking, Hackers, and Hacktivism]]
| ''(Assignment 4 due)''
|-
| Apr 29
| [[The Internet as a Tool of Education]]
|-
| May 6
|''No class - final project preparation''
| ''(Optional [[Assignments#Extra_Credit|Extra Credit]] due)''
|
|-
| May 13
|Final class - wrap up and student presentations
|''([[Final Project]] due)''
|
|}

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

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

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

You can participate during class either by attending in person or through [https://continuinged.adobeconnect.com/lstu_120/ Adobe Connect]:

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

* You can use Adobe Connect to participate during class time from a remote location. Further information about that will be on this page as the class approaches.

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

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

='''Participating Asynchronously'''=
* The recorded videotapes of the class produced by Harvard Extension School will be made available [http://cm.dce.harvard.edu/2014/02/23879/publicationListing.shtml here].

* ''Please note that if you are participating asynchronously we expect you to place comments in the "class discussion" section of that class day's page before 4pm ET on that day of class.'' Further information can be found on [[Class Participation|our class participation policy page.]]

='''Contact Information'''=
* All questions, comments, etc. should be sent to: is2014 [at] cyber [dot] law [dot] harvard [dot] edu.
:* For the majority of the year there are no set office hours; feel free to send an email, and the TAs will respond to it as soon as they can.
* If you need to contact an instructor or TA individually, please use their personal contact info located on the [[Staff Contact Info]] page.

='''Office Hours'''=
Andy, Ryan, and David will be holding a final round of office hours on May 6th during the usual class hour in the Berkman Conference Room. You can sign up below - just make sure you sign up with whoever has been grading your papers.

Please indicate if you are going to be in the room or Skyping in. If you are going to use Skype, please email us your username to is2014 [at] cyber [dot] law [dot] haravard [dot] edu. Please also email us there if you would like to meet but are unable to meet at any of these times.

'''Andy'''
* ''5:00 - Joe Example (In the room)''
* ''5:15 - Jane Example (Skype)''
* 5:30 emmanuelsurillo (Skype)
* 5:45
* 6:00
* 6:15
* 6:30 Erin S-L (I will try to show up earlier if work permits + spots still available by EOD Tues)
* 6:45
* 7:00
* 7:15

----

'''Ryan'''

''Tuesday''
* 5:00
* 5:15
* 5:30
* 5:45

''Wednesday''
* 10:00
* 10:15
* 10:30
* 10:45

----

'''David'''
* 5:30
* 5:45
* 6:00
* 6:15
* 6:30
* 6:45
* 7:00
* 7:15

The Internet as a Tool of Education

2014-05-01T16:40:17Z

Ryan: /* Links */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 29'''

You are enrolled in (and hopefully not yet tired of!) a class with students across the country and around the globe, where, through a mix of in-person and online learning, we have been able to explore considerable territory around the Internet and how it is controlled. We have availed ourselves of many of the benefits of the web in doing so: all of our class reading has been publicly-accessible web sites, we use Internet applications like Adobe Connect and the HES platform to deliver content and solicit responses, and the syllabus itself is built on open-source coding designed for collaborative engagement.

But we are still in a fairly traditional model of pedagogy - though one that I hope has been effective this semester. As we wind down our studies, consider for a moment the ways in which this technology can be used for far more radical forms of education, and who stands to benefit from such tools.

Joining us will be [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jreich Justin Reich], Berkman Fellow and the Richard L. Menschel HarvardX Research Fellow, and [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/aenriquez Ana Enriquez], Berkman Fellow and Head Teaching Fellow of CopyrightX.

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==

; Modern distance education

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_open_online_course Wikipedia, Massive Open Online Course (MOOC)]

* [http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/edtechresearcher/2013/05/is_a_mooc_a_textbook_or_a_course.html Justin Reich, Is a MOOC a Textbook or a Course?]

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

; What is new and what is not?

* [http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mediaberkman/2012/03/01/rb-192-wikis-teaching-and-the-digital-divide/ Radio Berkman, Wikis, Teaching, and the Digital Divide] (audio, about 18 mins., listen to all)

; Concerns, doubts, and issues

* [http://chronicle.com/article/The-Document-Open-Letter-From/138937/ Open letter to Michael Sandel from the San Jose State University Department of Philosophy]

* [http://harry-lewis.blogspot.com/2013/05/moocs-and-moods.html Harry Lewis, MOOCs and MOODs]

; Case Studies - HarvardX and CopyrightX

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/IP/CopyrightX_Assessment.pdf William Fisher, CopyrightX]

* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2381263&download=yes Andrew Dean Ho, HarvardX and MITx: The First Year of Open Online Courses]

== Optional Readings ==

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

Professor Fisher: http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/10270/Fisher

The CopyrightX website: http://copyx.org/

List of Satellites: https://blogs.law.harvard.edu/copyrightx/satellites/

The CopyrightX YouTube videos in the Berkman YouTube feed: https://www.youtube.com/user/BerkmanCenter/videos

You can see the question tool here: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/list.php

Terry Fisher will be the director of the Berkman Center through end of June. Then Zittrain takes over: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/node/9116

Forthcoming book from Berkman Faculty Associate Judith Donath: http://www.amazon.com/The-Social-Machine-Designs-Living/dp/0262027011/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1398808182&sr=8-1&keywords=judith+donath

Justin Reich's website: http://www.edtechresearcher.com

edX: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EdX

Harvard Classics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Classics

The "Munchers" games from Justin's (and my) childhood: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munchers

Moocthulhu: http://moocthulhu.com/

The reference to Cthulhu: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cthulhu

Connectivism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connectivism

Stephen Downes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Downes

The MacGuffin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin

Story about someone who made a computer that can defeat machine essay graders by generating nonsense A-grade essays: http://www.vox.com/2014/4/29/5664310/machine-generated-nonsense-might-score-better-than-you-on-the-gmat

DS106: http://ds106.us/

Thorndike: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Thorndike

Dewey: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dewey

Esquires top 15 mustaches in history: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/mens-fashion/best-mustache-1113

Walter Lippman: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Lippmann (from role of citizens in journalism debates with Dewey)

Papert: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Papert

Logo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logo_%28programming_language%29

Official Logo site: http://www.microworlds.com

Rainbow Loom videos: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rainbow+loom

16 million views: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RI7AkI5dJzo

Khan Academy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khan_academy

Paul Tough - How Children Succeed: http://www.amazon.com/How-Children-Succeed-Curiosity-Character/dp/0544104404

Cass Sunstein - Nudge - http://www.amazon.com/Nudge-Improving-Decisions-Health-Happiness/dp/014311526X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1398812324&sr=8-1&keywords=nudge

Knolwedge Map: http://www.khanacademy.org/exercisedashboard

Disruptive Innovation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_innovation

Quick name check to "The Pit" in Harvard Square: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Square#Other_features

Justin's essay about Morozov and lure of technological sublime: http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/edtechresearcher/2014/01/the_lure_of_the_technological_sublime_morosov_and_the_makers.html

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

----

It caught my attention when Justin Reich in the Radio Berkman podcast points out how technology adoption in schools, particularly wiki use, needs to be paired with a human development strategy (which is usually more often found in schools with higher socioeconomic status). I believe that with human development, the right path can be taken in making sure that technology covers an existing need in a better way than a traditional teaching method would; rather than adopting a new technology that covers non existing need and is therefore unsuccessful. I think this ties with Justin’s observation that technology should be in the service of learning.
[[User:Luciagamboaso|Luciagamboaso]] 11:12, 26 April 2014 (EDT)

----

Is MOOC a Textbook - really got my attention and more importantly, I guess, my imagination - wow to think that someday classrooms could be obsolete is truly fascinating to say the least - But what really got me thinkig is that a bunch of teachers say about 10-20 could come together and basically start thier own online university in just a matter of weeks or months, and get accrediation online accrediation in a few years - and basically work from home perpetually - Or selling their courses to different universities across the globe - Why not, labs and the such could be duplicated - mail order chemistry and biology kits would be all the rage - and you end up creating a new e-commerce. Or not.
[[User:Dancoron|Dancoron]] 13:14, 29 April 2014 (EDT)

----

In related news, a very interesting read... [http://complex.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/04/22/it_s_not_beijing_s_hackers_you_should_be_worried_about_it_s_moscow_s The Complex: It’s Not Beijing’s Hackers You Should Be Worried About, It’s Moscow’s]

"The Russian forces in Ukraine have integrated cyber operations and conventional military tactics in seamless fashion, current and former U.S. officials and experts say." ... "It was textbook operation that combined centuries old combat tactics with cyber-age assaults." ... "U.S. intelligence agencies were largely caught off guard by the Russian invasion. The occupying forces limited their use of radios and cell phones and went mostly undetected by the United States' surveillance networks, current and former officials said, an indication of the Russians' technological savvy." ... "The Russian success is especially stinging for the U.S. because these types of blended attacks -- cyber strikes launched alongside military operations -- are what U.S. military and intelligence officials have for years said will be the hallmarks of America's future way of fighting a war." --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 14:09, 23 April 2014 (EDT)

----

Has anyone seen this: [http://time.com/74703/net-neutrality-fcc-rules-plan-angers-advocates/]? It's really thought provoking. On one hand, I see that there is a pertinent argument in that Internet startups might be likely to fail due to not being able to afford to pay the advertising premiums that larger, more established companies can pay, but on the other hand, hasn't this been done already, to some extent? It seems that most internet users utilize search engines such as Google, Yahoo, Bing, etc. to find information, and all of these have advertisers whose sites are pushed to the top of the search results. Add to that the fact that results are almost always displayed based on what sites are visited most, meaning that the largest companies who can afford to either pay to advertise on the site or via other media are already going to be exponentially more likely to garner further clicks, as they will appear before a smaller Internet start up, for instance. It certainly appears that net neutrality is already a mere theory rather than an actual practice. [[User:Castille|Castille]] 18:45, 24 April 2014 (EDT)

----

Listening to the Radio Berkman piece about wikis, teaching, and the digital divide leaves me with some questions about the emphasis on collaboration. While collaboration is an invaluable social skill that should, in a general sense, be fostered in students, it seems that this obscures the fact that many students are not at their best when forced into a collaborative activity. I don't mean to suggest that teachers shouldn't make sure that their students have the ability to collaborate with others, but that still seems distinct from how some students really learn the information/skills at hand. For some, the learning process is less successful/efficient when it's collaborative, and I think there's a trend right now to celebrate collaboration in a way that erases the needs of these other students. This seems to be a particular trend in the tech industries... it makes me think of the increasingly popular open office plans that are supposed to make collaboration easier in the workplace. This mood and the excitement about this way of operating/conducting business reminds me of some of the sort of whimsical, utopian ideas people first had about the Internet. [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 23:12, 25 April 2014 (EDT)

----

Obviously, as a student enrolled at HES, I think online learning is a wonderful advancement and will change the face of education. Online learning will not only allow individuals more equal access to higher education, but could alleviate the problems that have been incurred by Public universities, like overcrowding and under funding. With this being said, it is likely that online learning will expand to grade school (especially since high schools all over the country have already started online programs), which presents a bevy of potential problems. Technology is a wonderful thing, and same with online education, however there is no substitute for the social and emotional learning one gets from peer-to-peer interaction, especially during one's formative years.
[[User:Castille|Castille]] 16:44, 27 April 2014 (EDT)

----

I greatly enjoyed the Gomes article about the impact of online education on quality & level of education, prestige and market value of online education platforms. I agree with Castille that there is no substitute for peer-to-peer interaction and the active & passive learning that are offered by the classroom experience. I also valued Gomes's illustration of the current market for online education and possible advancements and pitfalls that the online model offers. Friends who have received online degrees at both the undergraduate and graduate level experience both direct and more subtle discrimination in the current employment environment, and for me the true value of a degree of course lies in return on investment- there is learning for learning's sake, but far more crucial in today's for-profit educational model is the assurance of upward income mobility and increased marketability that comes with a degree. Like several authors this week, I too anticipate a shift in attitude towards online education and hope that online degrees come to hold the same cachet as typical college and university degrees. [[User:akk22|akk22]] 12:08, 29 April 2014 (EDT)

----

The advances in technology obviously have a great effect in providing greater access to education, especially to people in economically disadvantaged and under developed areas. However, as education and technology improves, I think we will see a shift in how the two interact. There are so many tools that allow for a more catered and individualized approach to education. I think technology will allow for students to pursue different interests and not be constricted to the limited subjects taught at high schools and grade schools.
Technology I think will eventually allow us to expand the spectrum of what is taught, shifting from the one-size fits all approach and allowing students to develop other interests. With that said, the importance of social connectivity at schools is important and should never be ruled out. However, greater integration of technology to the school system will fill a gap that at times educators are not able to.
[[User:Lpereira|Lpereira]] 19:39, 27 April 2014 (EDT)

----

The economics behind MOOCs encourage universities to push the movement forward, and I think forcing traditional education workflow in these systems will not maximize the full potential of MOOCs. As previously stated, people learn the best through different mechanisms (collaborative groups or single handedly or a mix of both). I think MOOCs have the potential to be flexible in adjusting not only to a student's interest but also learning style. Personally, I think the biggest barrier of MOOCs is encouraging students to attend and stick to the course schedule. If the dropout rate is high, is that the fault of the MOOC program or the undisciplined student? Hopefully a variety of startups and universities will approach the question of optimizing online education to generate intelligent, efficient thinkers. ([[User:Margorm|Margorm]] 17:37, 28 April 2014 (EDT))

:I had some similar thoughts about the difficulty of getting students to stay involved with MOOCs. I can imagine that it's much more difficult to stay involved if you're not equipped with some study skills. Technological literacy is obviously required, but I would be curious to know how skills like time management, organization, and various other study skills effect how likely it is a student will stick with the course. I'm sure interest in and purpose of the course are major factors, but knowing how you best succeed as a student must be important too. I wonder if any online courses have some information or suggestions about this? Most of the skills I imagine I would apply here are things I learned in a traditional classroom as a kid-- keeping lists, tracking assignments, etc. [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 09:30, 29 April 2014 (EDT)

----
Here's my sampling (and analysis) of the comments made by some of the critics of MOOCs: a) inexperienced founders lacking domain expertise; b) venture capital “bubble”; c) dismissive based on current problems / i.e., no expectation for continuous innovation; d) social arguments about some people being left behind; e) the old guard defending aspects of their product which are in fact not valued quite as much by potential customers as they think it should be; f) failure of the old guard to acknowledge large markets they are currently underserving; g) protective of tradition.

It's interesting how many of the criticisms of MOOCs parallel various critiques of various applications of the Internet before growth and innovation transformed whole industries: examples include games, ecommerce, online encyclopedias, social networking, etc. Online education will be no different.

Another observation: people just hate the idea that their favorite university / alma mater might be sharing some of its pedagogy with the hoi poloi. There's a large contingent of Harvardians and Ivy Leaguers who absolutely detest the idea of the Extension School. It wouldn't be a surprise that some would also detest MOOCs, due to the feeling that it makes their education feel less elite (or the similar perception that students in extension programs are free riders on the university's reputation).
[[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 13:26, 29 April 2014 (EDT)

----

As often happens with new technology, MOOCs seem to be blamed for all the problems facing the higher educational system today, when they may in fact be its only hope. The proposition that MOOCs are responsible for reduction of the philosophy department's faculty is preposterous. Will it replace them? Possibly. Would they the faculty get reduced if MOOCs did not exist? Most probably. Many universities already have many professors who read the texbook and the slides and add little value to their courses. Should we start blaming textbooks too? Maybe propose that courses should be improvised, use no external content whatsoever, to maximize the ROI on the professors' salary? No. The solution is to work with the faculty to use external content, whether textbooks, MOOCs or any other, in the correct way that benefits the students and allows them to remain useful and irreplaceable. --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 13:45, 29 April 2014 (EDT)

----

While first approaches to open unlimited participation courses had little success due to reasons; lack of commitment, cheating, no tuition, and no way to monitor who would take tests all played a role. The idea of MOOCs resurfaced in the 2000’s. Several major universities took steps in the development of MOOCs and by the year 2013 there was a hype or “peak” of educational centers rushing to join or set up there own version MOOC. While there were different ways to setup a MOOC, there seems to be two most common ways: "cMOOC" and "xMOOC" were coined by Stephen Downes. Harvard joined with MIT to create edX from late 2012 to the middle of 2013 and, “the first 17 HarvardX and MITx courses launched on the edX platform”. Some of the programs received criticism like Michael Sandel’s JusticeX; the Philosophy Department from San Jose State University sent an open letter first comparing JusticeX to a course then to a textbook. While MOOCs have made much more progress in recent years, completion rates still are in need of improvement before they can be used regularly as credited courses. [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:51, 29 April 2014 (EDT)

----

I think the key's to online learning systems are; 1. people fear what they do not understand, and 2. in the readings we heard the statistics of; most educators take the online platform and teach what they know instead of rethinking the technology and how to newly apply the teaching to it. and 3. Is that there are so many people that are still not adept to the internet, or that can afford high speed internet regularly in order to complete full online degree's. I believe that with a full college degree online platform, they will have to partner with the cable companies in order to proivide the entire service and not leave the connectivity a la carte.

[[User:TriciaBy|TriciaBy]] 17:14, 29 April 2014 (EDT)

The Internet as a Tool of Education

2014-05-01T15:09:14Z

Ryan: /* Links */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 29'''

You are enrolled in (and hopefully not yet tired of!) a class with students across the country and around the globe, where, through a mix of in-person and online learning, we have been able to explore considerable territory around the Internet and how it is controlled. We have availed ourselves of many of the benefits of the web in doing so: all of our class reading has been publicly-accessible web sites, we use Internet applications like Adobe Connect and the HES platform to deliver content and solicit responses, and the syllabus itself is built on open-source coding designed for collaborative engagement.

But we are still in a fairly traditional model of pedagogy - though one that I hope has been effective this semester. As we wind down our studies, consider for a moment the ways in which this technology can be used for far more radical forms of education, and who stands to benefit from such tools.

Joining us will be [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jreich Justin Reich], Berkman Fellow and the Richard L. Menschel HarvardX Research Fellow, and [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/aenriquez Ana Enriquez], Berkman Fellow and Head Teaching Fellow of CopyrightX.

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==

; Modern distance education

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_open_online_course Wikipedia, Massive Open Online Course (MOOC)]

* [http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/edtechresearcher/2013/05/is_a_mooc_a_textbook_or_a_course.html Justin Reich, Is a MOOC a Textbook or a Course?]

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

; What is new and what is not?

* [http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mediaberkman/2012/03/01/rb-192-wikis-teaching-and-the-digital-divide/ Radio Berkman, Wikis, Teaching, and the Digital Divide] (audio, about 18 mins., listen to all)

; Concerns, doubts, and issues

* [http://chronicle.com/article/The-Document-Open-Letter-From/138937/ Open letter to Michael Sandel from the San Jose State University Department of Philosophy]

* [http://harry-lewis.blogspot.com/2013/05/moocs-and-moods.html Harry Lewis, MOOCs and MOODs]

; Case Studies - HarvardX and CopyrightX

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/IP/CopyrightX_Assessment.pdf William Fisher, CopyrightX]

* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2381263&download=yes Andrew Dean Ho, HarvardX and MITx: The First Year of Open Online Courses]

== Optional Readings ==

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

Professor Fisher: http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/10270/Fisher

The CopyrightX website: http://copyx.org/

List of Satellites: https://blogs.law.harvard.edu/copyrightx/satellites/

The CopyrightX YouTube videos in the Berkman YouTube feed: https://www.youtube.com/user/BerkmanCenter/videos

You can see the question tool here: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/list.php

Terry Fisher will be the director of the Berkman Center through end of June. Then Zittrain takes over: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/node/9116

Forthcoming book from Berkman Faculty Associate Judith Donath: http://www.amazon.com/The-Social-Machine-Designs-Living/dp/0262027011/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1398808182&sr=8-1&keywords=judith+donath

Justin Reich's website: http://www.edtechresearcher.com

edX: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EdX

Harvard Classics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Classics

The "Munchers" games from Justin's (and my) childhood: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munchers

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

----

It caught my attention when Justin Reich in the Radio Berkman podcast points out how technology adoption in schools, particularly wiki use, needs to be paired with a human development strategy (which is usually more often found in schools with higher socioeconomic status). I believe that with human development, the right path can be taken in making sure that technology covers an existing need in a better way than a traditional teaching method would; rather than adopting a new technology that covers non existing need and is therefore unsuccessful. I think this ties with Justin’s observation that technology should be in the service of learning.
[[User:Luciagamboaso|Luciagamboaso]] 11:12, 26 April 2014 (EDT)

----

Is MOOC a Textbook - really got my attention and more importantly, I guess, my imagination - wow to think that someday classrooms could be obsolete is truly fascinating to say the least - But what really got me thinkig is that a bunch of teachers say about 10-20 could come together and basically start thier own online university in just a matter of weeks or months, and get accrediation online accrediation in a few years - and basically work from home perpetually - Or selling their courses to different universities across the globe - Why not, labs and the such could be duplicated - mail order chemistry and biology kits would be all the rage - and you end up creating a new e-commerce. Or not.
[[User:Dancoron|Dancoron]] 13:14, 29 April 2014 (EDT)

----

In related news, a very interesting read... [http://complex.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/04/22/it_s_not_beijing_s_hackers_you_should_be_worried_about_it_s_moscow_s The Complex: It’s Not Beijing’s Hackers You Should Be Worried About, It’s Moscow’s]

"The Russian forces in Ukraine have integrated cyber operations and conventional military tactics in seamless fashion, current and former U.S. officials and experts say." ... "It was textbook operation that combined centuries old combat tactics with cyber-age assaults." ... "U.S. intelligence agencies were largely caught off guard by the Russian invasion. The occupying forces limited their use of radios and cell phones and went mostly undetected by the United States' surveillance networks, current and former officials said, an indication of the Russians' technological savvy." ... "The Russian success is especially stinging for the U.S. because these types of blended attacks -- cyber strikes launched alongside military operations -- are what U.S. military and intelligence officials have for years said will be the hallmarks of America's future way of fighting a war." --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 14:09, 23 April 2014 (EDT)

----

Has anyone seen this: [http://time.com/74703/net-neutrality-fcc-rules-plan-angers-advocates/]? It's really thought provoking. On one hand, I see that there is a pertinent argument in that Internet startups might be likely to fail due to not being able to afford to pay the advertising premiums that larger, more established companies can pay, but on the other hand, hasn't this been done already, to some extent? It seems that most internet users utilize search engines such as Google, Yahoo, Bing, etc. to find information, and all of these have advertisers whose sites are pushed to the top of the search results. Add to that the fact that results are almost always displayed based on what sites are visited most, meaning that the largest companies who can afford to either pay to advertise on the site or via other media are already going to be exponentially more likely to garner further clicks, as they will appear before a smaller Internet start up, for instance. It certainly appears that net neutrality is already a mere theory rather than an actual practice. [[User:Castille|Castille]] 18:45, 24 April 2014 (EDT)

----

Listening to the Radio Berkman piece about wikis, teaching, and the digital divide leaves me with some questions about the emphasis on collaboration. While collaboration is an invaluable social skill that should, in a general sense, be fostered in students, it seems that this obscures the fact that many students are not at their best when forced into a collaborative activity. I don't mean to suggest that teachers shouldn't make sure that their students have the ability to collaborate with others, but that still seems distinct from how some students really learn the information/skills at hand. For some, the learning process is less successful/efficient when it's collaborative, and I think there's a trend right now to celebrate collaboration in a way that erases the needs of these other students. This seems to be a particular trend in the tech industries... it makes me think of the increasingly popular open office plans that are supposed to make collaboration easier in the workplace. This mood and the excitement about this way of operating/conducting business reminds me of some of the sort of whimsical, utopian ideas people first had about the Internet. [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 23:12, 25 April 2014 (EDT)

----

Obviously, as a student enrolled at HES, I think online learning is a wonderful advancement and will change the face of education. Online learning will not only allow individuals more equal access to higher education, but could alleviate the problems that have been incurred by Public universities, like overcrowding and under funding. With this being said, it is likely that online learning will expand to grade school (especially since high schools all over the country have already started online programs), which presents a bevy of potential problems. Technology is a wonderful thing, and same with online education, however there is no substitute for the social and emotional learning one gets from peer-to-peer interaction, especially during one's formative years.
[[User:Castille|Castille]] 16:44, 27 April 2014 (EDT)

----

I greatly enjoyed the Gomes article about the impact of online education on quality & level of education, prestige and market value of online education platforms. I agree with Castille that there is no substitute for peer-to-peer interaction and the active & passive learning that are offered by the classroom experience. I also valued Gomes's illustration of the current market for online education and possible advancements and pitfalls that the online model offers. Friends who have received online degrees at both the undergraduate and graduate level experience both direct and more subtle discrimination in the current employment environment, and for me the true value of a degree of course lies in return on investment- there is learning for learning's sake, but far more crucial in today's for-profit educational model is the assurance of upward income mobility and increased marketability that comes with a degree. Like several authors this week, I too anticipate a shift in attitude towards online education and hope that online degrees come to hold the same cachet as typical college and university degrees. [[User:akk22|akk22]] 12:08, 29 April 2014 (EDT)

----

The advances in technology obviously have a great effect in providing greater access to education, especially to people in economically disadvantaged and under developed areas. However, as education and technology improves, I think we will see a shift in how the two interact. There are so many tools that allow for a more catered and individualized approach to education. I think technology will allow for students to pursue different interests and not be constricted to the limited subjects taught at high schools and grade schools.
Technology I think will eventually allow us to expand the spectrum of what is taught, shifting from the one-size fits all approach and allowing students to develop other interests. With that said, the importance of social connectivity at schools is important and should never be ruled out. However, greater integration of technology to the school system will fill a gap that at times educators are not able to.
[[User:Lpereira|Lpereira]] 19:39, 27 April 2014 (EDT)

----

The economics behind MOOCs encourage universities to push the movement forward, and I think forcing traditional education workflow in these systems will not maximize the full potential of MOOCs. As previously stated, people learn the best through different mechanisms (collaborative groups or single handedly or a mix of both). I think MOOCs have the potential to be flexible in adjusting not only to a student's interest but also learning style. Personally, I think the biggest barrier of MOOCs is encouraging students to attend and stick to the course schedule. If the dropout rate is high, is that the fault of the MOOC program or the undisciplined student? Hopefully a variety of startups and universities will approach the question of optimizing online education to generate intelligent, efficient thinkers. ([[User:Margorm|Margorm]] 17:37, 28 April 2014 (EDT))

:I had some similar thoughts about the difficulty of getting students to stay involved with MOOCs. I can imagine that it's much more difficult to stay involved if you're not equipped with some study skills. Technological literacy is obviously required, but I would be curious to know how skills like time management, organization, and various other study skills effect how likely it is a student will stick with the course. I'm sure interest in and purpose of the course are major factors, but knowing how you best succeed as a student must be important too. I wonder if any online courses have some information or suggestions about this? Most of the skills I imagine I would apply here are things I learned in a traditional classroom as a kid-- keeping lists, tracking assignments, etc. [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 09:30, 29 April 2014 (EDT)

----
Here's my sampling (and analysis) of the comments made by some of the critics of MOOCs: a) inexperienced founders lacking domain expertise; b) venture capital “bubble”; c) dismissive based on current problems / i.e., no expectation for continuous innovation; d) social arguments about some people being left behind; e) the old guard defending aspects of their product which are in fact not valued quite as much by potential customers as they think it should be; f) failure of the old guard to acknowledge large markets they are currently underserving; g) protective of tradition.

It's interesting how many of the criticisms of MOOCs parallel various critiques of various applications of the Internet before growth and innovation transformed whole industries: examples include games, ecommerce, online encyclopedias, social networking, etc. Online education will be no different.

Another observation: people just hate the idea that their favorite university / alma mater might be sharing some of its pedagogy with the hoi poloi. There's a large contingent of Harvardians and Ivy Leaguers who absolutely detest the idea of the Extension School. It wouldn't be a surprise that some would also detest MOOCs, due to the feeling that it makes their education feel less elite (or the similar perception that students in extension programs are free riders on the university's reputation).
[[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 13:26, 29 April 2014 (EDT)

----

As often happens with new technology, MOOCs seem to be blamed for all the problems facing the higher educational system today, when they may in fact be its only hope. The proposition that MOOCs are responsible for reduction of the philosophy department's faculty is preposterous. Will it replace them? Possibly. Would they the faculty get reduced if MOOCs did not exist? Most probably. Many universities already have many professors who read the texbook and the slides and add little value to their courses. Should we start blaming textbooks too? Maybe propose that courses should be improvised, use no external content whatsoever, to maximize the ROI on the professors' salary? No. The solution is to work with the faculty to use external content, whether textbooks, MOOCs or any other, in the correct way that benefits the students and allows them to remain useful and irreplaceable. --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 13:45, 29 April 2014 (EDT)

----

While first approaches to open unlimited participation courses had little success due to reasons; lack of commitment, cheating, no tuition, and no way to monitor who would take tests all played a role. The idea of MOOCs resurfaced in the 2000’s. Several major universities took steps in the development of MOOCs and by the year 2013 there was a hype or “peak” of educational centers rushing to join or set up there own version MOOC. While there were different ways to setup a MOOC, there seems to be two most common ways: "cMOOC" and "xMOOC" were coined by Stephen Downes. Harvard joined with MIT to create edX from late 2012 to the middle of 2013 and, “the first 17 HarvardX and MITx courses launched on the edX platform”. Some of the programs received criticism like Michael Sandel’s JusticeX; the Philosophy Department from San Jose State University sent an open letter first comparing JusticeX to a course then to a textbook. While MOOCs have made much more progress in recent years, completion rates still are in need of improvement before they can be used regularly as credited courses. [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:51, 29 April 2014 (EDT)

----

I think the key's to online learning systems are; 1. people fear what they do not understand, and 2. in the readings we heard the statistics of; most educators take the online platform and teach what they know instead of rethinking the technology and how to newly apply the teaching to it. and 3. Is that there are so many people that are still not adept to the internet, or that can afford high speed internet regularly in order to complete full online degree's. I believe that with a full college degree online platform, they will have to partner with the cable companies in order to proivide the entire service and not leave the connectivity a la carte.

[[User:TriciaBy|TriciaBy]] 17:14, 29 April 2014 (EDT)

The Internet as a Tool of Education

2014-05-01T15:08:55Z

Ryan: /* Links */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 29'''

You are enrolled in (and hopefully not yet tired of!) a class with students across the country and around the globe, where, through a mix of in-person and online learning, we have been able to explore considerable territory around the Internet and how it is controlled. We have availed ourselves of many of the benefits of the web in doing so: all of our class reading has been publicly-accessible web sites, we use Internet applications like Adobe Connect and the HES platform to deliver content and solicit responses, and the syllabus itself is built on open-source coding designed for collaborative engagement.

But we are still in a fairly traditional model of pedagogy - though one that I hope has been effective this semester. As we wind down our studies, consider for a moment the ways in which this technology can be used for far more radical forms of education, and who stands to benefit from such tools.

Joining us will be [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jreich Justin Reich], Berkman Fellow and the Richard L. Menschel HarvardX Research Fellow, and [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/aenriquez Ana Enriquez], Berkman Fellow and Head Teaching Fellow of CopyrightX.

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==

; Modern distance education

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_open_online_course Wikipedia, Massive Open Online Course (MOOC)]

* [http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/edtechresearcher/2013/05/is_a_mooc_a_textbook_or_a_course.html Justin Reich, Is a MOOC a Textbook or a Course?]

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

; What is new and what is not?

* [http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mediaberkman/2012/03/01/rb-192-wikis-teaching-and-the-digital-divide/ Radio Berkman, Wikis, Teaching, and the Digital Divide] (audio, about 18 mins., listen to all)

; Concerns, doubts, and issues

* [http://chronicle.com/article/The-Document-Open-Letter-From/138937/ Open letter to Michael Sandel from the San Jose State University Department of Philosophy]

* [http://harry-lewis.blogspot.com/2013/05/moocs-and-moods.html Harry Lewis, MOOCs and MOODs]

; Case Studies - HarvardX and CopyrightX

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/IP/CopyrightX_Assessment.pdf William Fisher, CopyrightX]

* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2381263&download=yes Andrew Dean Ho, HarvardX and MITx: The First Year of Open Online Courses]

== Optional Readings ==

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==
Professor Fisher: http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/10270/Fisher

The CopyrightX website: http://copyx.org/

List of Satellites: https://blogs.law.harvard.edu/copyrightx/satellites/

The CopyrightX YouTube videos in the Berkman YouTube feed: https://www.youtube.com/user/BerkmanCenter/videos

You can see the question tool here: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/list.php

Terry Fisher will be the director of the Berkman Center through end of June. Then Zittrain takes over: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/node/9116

Forthcoming book from Berkman Faculty Associate Judith Donath: http://www.amazon.com/The-Social-Machine-Designs-Living/dp/0262027011/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1398808182&sr=8-1&keywords=judith+donath

Justin Reich's website: http://www.edtechresearcher.com

edX: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EdX

Harvard Classics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Classics

The "Munchers" games from Justin's (and my) childhood: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munchers

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

----

It caught my attention when Justin Reich in the Radio Berkman podcast points out how technology adoption in schools, particularly wiki use, needs to be paired with a human development strategy (which is usually more often found in schools with higher socioeconomic status). I believe that with human development, the right path can be taken in making sure that technology covers an existing need in a better way than a traditional teaching method would; rather than adopting a new technology that covers non existing need and is therefore unsuccessful. I think this ties with Justin’s observation that technology should be in the service of learning.
[[User:Luciagamboaso|Luciagamboaso]] 11:12, 26 April 2014 (EDT)

----

Is MOOC a Textbook - really got my attention and more importantly, I guess, my imagination - wow to think that someday classrooms could be obsolete is truly fascinating to say the least - But what really got me thinkig is that a bunch of teachers say about 10-20 could come together and basically start thier own online university in just a matter of weeks or months, and get accrediation online accrediation in a few years - and basically work from home perpetually - Or selling their courses to different universities across the globe - Why not, labs and the such could be duplicated - mail order chemistry and biology kits would be all the rage - and you end up creating a new e-commerce. Or not.
[[User:Dancoron|Dancoron]] 13:14, 29 April 2014 (EDT)

----

In related news, a very interesting read... [http://complex.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/04/22/it_s_not_beijing_s_hackers_you_should_be_worried_about_it_s_moscow_s The Complex: It’s Not Beijing’s Hackers You Should Be Worried About, It’s Moscow’s]

"The Russian forces in Ukraine have integrated cyber operations and conventional military tactics in seamless fashion, current and former U.S. officials and experts say." ... "It was textbook operation that combined centuries old combat tactics with cyber-age assaults." ... "U.S. intelligence agencies were largely caught off guard by the Russian invasion. The occupying forces limited their use of radios and cell phones and went mostly undetected by the United States' surveillance networks, current and former officials said, an indication of the Russians' technological savvy." ... "The Russian success is especially stinging for the U.S. because these types of blended attacks -- cyber strikes launched alongside military operations -- are what U.S. military and intelligence officials have for years said will be the hallmarks of America's future way of fighting a war." --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 14:09, 23 April 2014 (EDT)

----

Has anyone seen this: [http://time.com/74703/net-neutrality-fcc-rules-plan-angers-advocates/]? It's really thought provoking. On one hand, I see that there is a pertinent argument in that Internet startups might be likely to fail due to not being able to afford to pay the advertising premiums that larger, more established companies can pay, but on the other hand, hasn't this been done already, to some extent? It seems that most internet users utilize search engines such as Google, Yahoo, Bing, etc. to find information, and all of these have advertisers whose sites are pushed to the top of the search results. Add to that the fact that results are almost always displayed based on what sites are visited most, meaning that the largest companies who can afford to either pay to advertise on the site or via other media are already going to be exponentially more likely to garner further clicks, as they will appear before a smaller Internet start up, for instance. It certainly appears that net neutrality is already a mere theory rather than an actual practice. [[User:Castille|Castille]] 18:45, 24 April 2014 (EDT)

----

Listening to the Radio Berkman piece about wikis, teaching, and the digital divide leaves me with some questions about the emphasis on collaboration. While collaboration is an invaluable social skill that should, in a general sense, be fostered in students, it seems that this obscures the fact that many students are not at their best when forced into a collaborative activity. I don't mean to suggest that teachers shouldn't make sure that their students have the ability to collaborate with others, but that still seems distinct from how some students really learn the information/skills at hand. For some, the learning process is less successful/efficient when it's collaborative, and I think there's a trend right now to celebrate collaboration in a way that erases the needs of these other students. This seems to be a particular trend in the tech industries... it makes me think of the increasingly popular open office plans that are supposed to make collaboration easier in the workplace. This mood and the excitement about this way of operating/conducting business reminds me of some of the sort of whimsical, utopian ideas people first had about the Internet. [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 23:12, 25 April 2014 (EDT)

----

Obviously, as a student enrolled at HES, I think online learning is a wonderful advancement and will change the face of education. Online learning will not only allow individuals more equal access to higher education, but could alleviate the problems that have been incurred by Public universities, like overcrowding and under funding. With this being said, it is likely that online learning will expand to grade school (especially since high schools all over the country have already started online programs), which presents a bevy of potential problems. Technology is a wonderful thing, and same with online education, however there is no substitute for the social and emotional learning one gets from peer-to-peer interaction, especially during one's formative years.
[[User:Castille|Castille]] 16:44, 27 April 2014 (EDT)

----

I greatly enjoyed the Gomes article about the impact of online education on quality & level of education, prestige and market value of online education platforms. I agree with Castille that there is no substitute for peer-to-peer interaction and the active & passive learning that are offered by the classroom experience. I also valued Gomes's illustration of the current market for online education and possible advancements and pitfalls that the online model offers. Friends who have received online degrees at both the undergraduate and graduate level experience both direct and more subtle discrimination in the current employment environment, and for me the true value of a degree of course lies in return on investment- there is learning for learning's sake, but far more crucial in today's for-profit educational model is the assurance of upward income mobility and increased marketability that comes with a degree. Like several authors this week, I too anticipate a shift in attitude towards online education and hope that online degrees come to hold the same cachet as typical college and university degrees. [[User:akk22|akk22]] 12:08, 29 April 2014 (EDT)

----

The advances in technology obviously have a great effect in providing greater access to education, especially to people in economically disadvantaged and under developed areas. However, as education and technology improves, I think we will see a shift in how the two interact. There are so many tools that allow for a more catered and individualized approach to education. I think technology will allow for students to pursue different interests and not be constricted to the limited subjects taught at high schools and grade schools.
Technology I think will eventually allow us to expand the spectrum of what is taught, shifting from the one-size fits all approach and allowing students to develop other interests. With that said, the importance of social connectivity at schools is important and should never be ruled out. However, greater integration of technology to the school system will fill a gap that at times educators are not able to.
[[User:Lpereira|Lpereira]] 19:39, 27 April 2014 (EDT)

----

The economics behind MOOCs encourage universities to push the movement forward, and I think forcing traditional education workflow in these systems will not maximize the full potential of MOOCs. As previously stated, people learn the best through different mechanisms (collaborative groups or single handedly or a mix of both). I think MOOCs have the potential to be flexible in adjusting not only to a student's interest but also learning style. Personally, I think the biggest barrier of MOOCs is encouraging students to attend and stick to the course schedule. If the dropout rate is high, is that the fault of the MOOC program or the undisciplined student? Hopefully a variety of startups and universities will approach the question of optimizing online education to generate intelligent, efficient thinkers. ([[User:Margorm|Margorm]] 17:37, 28 April 2014 (EDT))

:I had some similar thoughts about the difficulty of getting students to stay involved with MOOCs. I can imagine that it's much more difficult to stay involved if you're not equipped with some study skills. Technological literacy is obviously required, but I would be curious to know how skills like time management, organization, and various other study skills effect how likely it is a student will stick with the course. I'm sure interest in and purpose of the course are major factors, but knowing how you best succeed as a student must be important too. I wonder if any online courses have some information or suggestions about this? Most of the skills I imagine I would apply here are things I learned in a traditional classroom as a kid-- keeping lists, tracking assignments, etc. [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 09:30, 29 April 2014 (EDT)

----
Here's my sampling (and analysis) of the comments made by some of the critics of MOOCs: a) inexperienced founders lacking domain expertise; b) venture capital “bubble”; c) dismissive based on current problems / i.e., no expectation for continuous innovation; d) social arguments about some people being left behind; e) the old guard defending aspects of their product which are in fact not valued quite as much by potential customers as they think it should be; f) failure of the old guard to acknowledge large markets they are currently underserving; g) protective of tradition.

It's interesting how many of the criticisms of MOOCs parallel various critiques of various applications of the Internet before growth and innovation transformed whole industries: examples include games, ecommerce, online encyclopedias, social networking, etc. Online education will be no different.

Another observation: people just hate the idea that their favorite university / alma mater might be sharing some of its pedagogy with the hoi poloi. There's a large contingent of Harvardians and Ivy Leaguers who absolutely detest the idea of the Extension School. It wouldn't be a surprise that some would also detest MOOCs, due to the feeling that it makes their education feel less elite (or the similar perception that students in extension programs are free riders on the university's reputation).
[[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 13:26, 29 April 2014 (EDT)

----

As often happens with new technology, MOOCs seem to be blamed for all the problems facing the higher educational system today, when they may in fact be its only hope. The proposition that MOOCs are responsible for reduction of the philosophy department's faculty is preposterous. Will it replace them? Possibly. Would they the faculty get reduced if MOOCs did not exist? Most probably. Many universities already have many professors who read the texbook and the slides and add little value to their courses. Should we start blaming textbooks too? Maybe propose that courses should be improvised, use no external content whatsoever, to maximize the ROI on the professors' salary? No. The solution is to work with the faculty to use external content, whether textbooks, MOOCs or any other, in the correct way that benefits the students and allows them to remain useful and irreplaceable. --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 13:45, 29 April 2014 (EDT)

----

While first approaches to open unlimited participation courses had little success due to reasons; lack of commitment, cheating, no tuition, and no way to monitor who would take tests all played a role. The idea of MOOCs resurfaced in the 2000’s. Several major universities took steps in the development of MOOCs and by the year 2013 there was a hype or “peak” of educational centers rushing to join or set up there own version MOOC. While there were different ways to setup a MOOC, there seems to be two most common ways: "cMOOC" and "xMOOC" were coined by Stephen Downes. Harvard joined with MIT to create edX from late 2012 to the middle of 2013 and, “the first 17 HarvardX and MITx courses launched on the edX platform”. Some of the programs received criticism like Michael Sandel’s JusticeX; the Philosophy Department from San Jose State University sent an open letter first comparing JusticeX to a course then to a textbook. While MOOCs have made much more progress in recent years, completion rates still are in need of improvement before they can be used regularly as credited courses. [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:51, 29 April 2014 (EDT)

----

I think the key's to online learning systems are; 1. people fear what they do not understand, and 2. in the readings we heard the statistics of; most educators take the online platform and teach what they know instead of rethinking the technology and how to newly apply the teaching to it. and 3. Is that there are so many people that are still not adept to the internet, or that can afford high speed internet regularly in order to complete full online degree's. I believe that with a full college degree online platform, they will have to partner with the cable companies in order to proivide the entire service and not leave the connectivity a la carte.

[[User:TriciaBy|TriciaBy]] 17:14, 29 April 2014 (EDT)

Hacking, Hackers, and Hacktivism

2014-04-23T14:21:32Z

Ryan: /* Links */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 22'''

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

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==

; Defining hackers, hacking, and hacktivism

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

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

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

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

; Law and law enforcement

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

* [http://www.cjr.org/cloud_control/scripps_hackers.php Sarah Laskow, Reporting, Or Illegal Hacking]

; Case studies

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

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Chanology Wikipedia, Project Chanology]

* [http://www.dmlp.org/blog/2013/impact-aarons-law-aaron-swartzs-case Andy Sellars, The Impact of "Aaron's Law" on Aaron Swartz's Case]

* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/04/appeals-court-reverses-hackertroll-weev-conviction-and-sentence/ David Kravets, Appeals Court Reverses Hacker/Troll "Weev" Conviction and Sentence]

* [http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/2013/1113/Hacking-tool-threatens-Healthcare.gov-site Jeff Ward-Bailey, Hacking Tool Threatens Healthcare.gov Site]

== Optional Readings ==

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

* [http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v107/n2/795/LR107n2Matwyshyn.pdf Andrea Matwyshyn, Hacking Speech: Informational Speech and the First Amendment]

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

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

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

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==
CAPTCHAs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAPTCHA

Boston Globe paywall: http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/242132/boston-globe-drops-paywall-adds-meter-instead/

Examples of Robots.txt: http://www.robotstxt.org/orig.html

Adblock Plus: https://adblockplus.org/

Heartbleed: http://heartbleed.com

More on heartbleed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartbleed

XKCD explainer of heartbleed: http://xkcd.com/1354/

OpenSSL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenSSL

Bruce on Heartbleed: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/04/heartbleed.html

How Netflix Reverse Engineered Hollywood: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/01/how-netflix-reverse-engineered-hollywood/282679/

Zombie network: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie_(computer_science)

LOIC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Orbit_Ion_Cannon

Molly's Book: http://www.amazon.com/The-Coming-Swarm-Hacktivism-Disobedience/dp/1623564565

Evgeny Morozov defending DDOS as civil disobedience: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2010/12/in_defense_of_ddos.html

Troll Face: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/trollface-coolface-problem

CALEA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act

CFAA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act

Text of CFAA: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030

Teen hacks into worcester airport: http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9803/18/juvenile.hacker/

Article discussing War Games impact on CFAA: http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/students/groups/is/files/2012/02/Kapitanyan.FE_.Final_.Weber_.pdf

Weev, whose conviction was just tossed out: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/04/appeals-court-reverses-hackertroll-weev-conviction-and-sentence/

ICCID: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICCID#ICCID

Heartbleed test: https://filippo.io/Heartbleed/

Google bug bounties: http://www.google.com/about/appsecurity/reward-program/

$115k for an apple bug: http://www.forbes.com/sites/firewall/2010/03/25/the-bounty-for-an-apple-bug-115000/

Fire Sale Hacker message on Live Free or Die Hard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyGhT3YTP7A

Story about the mom who created fake myspace profile: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1089908/Mother-faces-jail-300-000-fine-setting-fake-MySpace-profile-bully-girl-later-killed-herself.html

US federal sentencing guidelines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Federal_Sentencing_Guidelines

MBTA vs Anderson: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Bay_Transportation_Authority_v._Anderson

Aaron Swartz: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz

MAC address: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAC_address

Secret Service's National Computer Forensics Institute: https://www.ncfi.usss.gov/ncfi/

Felon Voting: http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000286

RECAP the law: https://www.recapthelaw.org

== Class Discussion ==
<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">'''Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:Andy|Andy]] 10:28, 17 December 2013 (EST)</div>

:In July 2012, someone successfully hacked my iphone and installed spy software on it. Any and all movements on my iPhone were being stored/tracked unbeknownst to me, including app activity (Chase Bank, emails, etc) for one month. I found out about it when I had taken my iPhone in a shop to get checked out - the screen would glitch at times and would randomly lose about 1% per minute. (I learned this was when my GPS data was being tracked up to minute). Among other things, the next step was to file a police report of this incident for my personal safety, as I’ll never be certain which data of mine was compromised. At the time I went to local police, either they didn’t care enough or they just didn’t have proper protocol to handle it.
:I understand this is a miniscule crime, in comparison to the huge cyber-crimes in the class readings. However, it lead me to research how equipped local police are for such smaller incidences. The result: They're not. (yet). I’m certain similar, smaller crimes will only increase over time and will be dealt with by the local police. While crime is increasingly moving online, state and local police are having a hard time keeping up. If the case is significant enough, the police have to hire specialized cyber-security companies to conduct digital investigations. The techniques the police will need to be equipped with are going to have to be more “IT specialist” and less “Law and Order” over the next few years. It seems hackers will be one step ahead, at a local level, until the police shift their skill set to more IT training. [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 02:41, 21 April 2014 (EDT)

:: I'm very glad you mentioned this because I completely agree. On a smaller level such as the local police, I agree that they do not have the resources or the structure in place yet to deal with hacking of cell phones and breaches of personal information. While large national crimes are handled properly, there should also be an active protocol for situations such as this, which happen very often. The lack of a targeted action by law enforcement against these small time criminals facilitate identity theft and unless there is a strong development in the law enforcement IT department, chances are these crimes will only increase with time. [[User:Lpereira|Lpereira]] 09:16, 22 April 2014 (EDT)

::: Several readings this week caused me to think about the perceived value, real and potential, of personal data. Targeted hacking of trade secrets, governments, publications like the New York Times and other large-scale operations are rooted in fairly straightforward incentives. So too are hacktivists and hackers that are "doing it for the lulz"- outcomes that are for more about provoking a response or creating change. Targeted hacks of individuals for personal data not only are much more difficult to prevent, identify and pursue on the part of law enforcement- they also happen on a scale that is not seen to have a significant enough impact economically, societally or organizationally to receive the attention truly deserved. Given the frequency of such instances, and the yearly increase in information and services processed solely online, the public service and private sector incentive to have structures in place to respond to such attacks surely must reach a tipping point soon? [[User:akk22|akk22]] 14:26, 22 April 2014 (EDT)-----
Cyber warfare will take on a greater importance in conventional warfare and Government hackers will be crucial to this. It only makes sense as weapons, communications and systems become more sophisticated. Hackers may be used to break into countries systems to steal data and cause widespread disruption or break into the phones of country leaders and their key staff. This is evidenced in the Ukraine crisis by relentless hacking attacks on Russian websites by Ukraninan hackers and visa-versa. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-05/russia-ukraine-standoff-going-online-as-hackers-attack.html [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 01:06, 22 April 2014 (EDT)

----
Andy, thanks for your article on the Aaron Schwartz prosecution. As you put it, "CFAA is shockingly broad when it is laid out" -- but that's not the only issue with it. It's just another case of private industry co-opting the criminal justice system to enforce things that ought to be largely handled by the civil system (which strikes me as lousy public policy). As you noted in your quote from the CFAA itself, "access in violation of an agreement or contractual obligation, such as an acceptable use policy or terms of service agreement..." In other words, the CFAA makes it a crime to violate the AUP or TOS with your ISP. Outside of copyrights and information technology stuff, how common is it for the US government to get involved in criminalizing the violations of contracts between private parties?
[[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 09:46, 22 April 2014 (EDT)

----

In the article "Hacking tool threatens Healthcare.gov site" a DDoS is the least of warranted concerns. A DoS attack is grave in nature and is rather simple to perform. Many attempts have been made to develop systems that could either launch a DoS attack or be immune to one, but to assume that the nefarious minds out there in the arena aren’t constantly working on new and novel methods to exploit systems is naïve and foolish. The rash and explosion of virus and malware activity in the recent decades testifies to the fact that there is no dearth of people working to venture into, exploit and topple your systems. The use of pre configured or automated tools that are easy to operate in order to pursue their disruptive activities against systems in a network are identifiable. . DoS attacks are nothing but an onslaught or assault against your system that will affect in that system not being able to accomplish its intended job. The direction of the argument within the article fails to look at the programming and structure of the website itself that may allow for significant data leakage. [[User:VACYBER|VACYBER]] 13:05, 22 April 2014 (EDT)

----

I have to say this is one of the topics I was most looking forward to this semester, particularly with the growing number of hacktivist groups and hackers. I was quite intrigued by the recent events around the Heartbleed bug, which they are calling one of the greatest security threats in the online era (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartbleed). As I have noticed in many of your posts already, I believe the growing consensus is that hacking is here to stay and will likely become more predominate in our national security moving forward. As more and more functions of our society move online (think traffic grids, manufacturing processes, defense systems), the urgency to protect against hacking threats grows each year.

What will then intrigue me to hear is what is being done to slow down hackers, particularly those who may pose a greater security risk than say, taking over a facebook page. I believe part of the issue is that the NSA needs to be able to attract and retain elite computer hackers who can help in this regard, yet have been unable to do so. The best computer minds would rather take a payday from Google than work for the government at a more modest wage.

Can't wait to hear this lecture and see what there is to be said about slowing hackers in the future.

[[User:Drogowski|Drogowski]] 13:13, 22 April 2014 (EDT)

----

Grrr... The site logged me out while I wrote my last message and then proceeded to delete it :(

Any ways, I think this weeks' readings raise a lot of questions about the "morality" of internet behavior and online hacktivism. Interestingly, there seems to be an influx of individuals who wouldn't necessarily be apt to breaking and entering in the physical world, but who are doing just that via their computers. I wonder in these cases whether it is the ease, the relative security, or that it feels less invasive/illegal that draws people to hacking rather than more physically invasive means.

It also seems that there is a great degree of ambiguity to the laws which govern how one is expected to comport themselves online. This is made especially clear in Sarah Laskow's article, in which she points out that "The CFAA isn’t a law that journalists are taught to look out for." This presents us with a scary reality, that individuals like you and I, as well as professionals such as reporters, might be subject to laws which we might not realize exist or understand and could easily be breaking, just by doing what we think is simple research. While I understand the necessity of regulation, it can also be a catch-22.

[[User:Castille|Castille]] 15:14, 22 April 2014 (EDT)

----

As it is clear from readings and Aaron's case, the security of information is the crucial question of nowadays. Data contained in computer, data contained in mobile phone is so essential and important that they ruin lifes once they are disclosed. When it comes to criminalization of hackerisim or non-authorized access or "with exceeding authorizatiob" is a right direction from point of security. But, still I think that this is more technological issue rather than legislative. Aysel Ibayeva ([[User:Aysel|Aysel]] 15:21, 22 April 2014 (EDT))

----

First of all, I'm surprised that the Intelligence squared debate wasn't in the required readings, as I found to be the most interesting "reading" this week.

On a different note, Phreaks, Hackers, and Trolls got me thinking about how the line between the hacker community and the general public is getting more and more blurred... I would argue that many of the actors on the internet who would have clearly been assigned to the hacker community just 10 years ago, such as trolls, producers of internet memes, etc., are now no longer clearly a part of that community which created them. At the same time, the lines between these individual actors is becoming more pronounced. I was fairly active in the hacker community in the 2000s, and most people in the community would be at once geeks, trolls, security experts, meme designers and political activists, all bound by similar values. Today, it feels as if this community is almost gone, divided instead into those who use internet for the lolz alone, those who merged with the general internet public, and those who are becoming almost too serious about the agenda and activities. If there is something that remains close in the general feeling, its the Open Source community, but it too is very different from what it was. --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 15:39, 22 April 2014 (EDT)

----

Gabriella Coleman’s account clearly shows the relationship status between phone phreaks, hackers, and trolls. Starting with the discovery of the 2600 hertz tone that could “stop the phone”, phreaking developed a huge following with printed magazines, newspapers, and even a magazine named after the 2600 hertz tone itself. The growth of technology caused the Internet and computers to became more available along with new ways to tinker with it. Due to pop culture growth with movies such as War Games, the challenges imposed by code hacking became the new pastime. Trolls, having similarities with hackers (and possibly even being hackers) are different in their lust for the “lulz”. They specialize in audacious, shocking, and flagrant humor. Occasionally, the worst cases acquire a “disease” called CTS where the trolling becomes such a habit that they no longer restrict it to strangers but look for “lulz” by victimizing their own friends and family.

DDoS attacks are an effective tool that are tricky to guard against. In simple terms, because of the users ability to rapidly intensify the attack by aggregating more users to assist with the attack, the assault becomes overwhelming.

Operation Payback was a series of DDoS attacks by the group “Anonymous”. They were champions of peer-to-peer sites. Attacking music sites, copyright advocates, governments, law firms, censorship sites, and basically any group that held views against free circulation of data on the Internet, Anonymous received lots of criticism and even some DDoS attacks to their own site. Even Pirate Party UK and United States Pirate Party spoke out against their actions calling for a more democratic “legal” way to handle their problems. Even though the affected sites were down for a little while, there was not enough significant damage to the attacked parties to produce permanent damage. The down time can best be compared to people boycotting an unpopular store.

The Computer Fraud And Abuse Act seems to be very vague, especially in the way it was applied in the Scripps “Hackers” and Andrew "weev" cases. It is implied that normal regular Internet surfing could have the potential to land someone in jail. [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:41, 22 April 2014 (EDT)

----

I was recently watching a car review show on YouTube and found out that nowadays hackers are so sophisticated that they can even break into one's vehicle. Generally speaking, I do not think that hackers do recognize codes as governing forces of the internet as they can manipulate a lot of them as they wish. More e-commerce sites and even some social networking platforms are increasingly doing their best in order to fight with these groups as a way of controlling their audiences.
([[User:cheikhmbacke|cheikhmbacke]] 15:42, 22 April 2014 (EDT))

------

Privacy Part 1: Corporate Data Gathering

2014-04-17T02:29:59Z

Ryan: /* Links */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 1'''

A persistent fear throughout all of the Internet’s operation is the Internet’s treatment of a person’s own privacy. We have a hard time defining the term, much less determining what role it should play in deciding the whos, whats, and hows of Internet governance. Nevertheless, the Internet’s present evolution indicates that unless we spend time contemplating the reinforcing privacy online, our interests may fall to the interests of profitability, online behavior regulation, and cybersecurity.

Over the next two weeks we'll look at privacy, beginning with general concepts of privacy, how data is measured and gathered on the web, and some specific legal responses to privacy concerns. Next week we'll build on these concepts with an eye toward government surveillance and law enforcement.

Our own [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/dobrien David O'Brien] will be leading the class discussion this week.

== Assignments ==

'''''The deadline for [[Assignments#Assignment_3:_Project_Outline|Assignment 3]] moved from March 25th to today, April 1st.''''' Please [[Assignment_3_Submissions|upload your assignment]] prior to class today.

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==

; Conceptualizing privacy

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

; Privacy and data

* [http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/magazine/16-07/pb_theory Chris Anderson, The End of Theory] (Wired appears to be having some troubles with their links this week, so if that doesn't work, try this [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ZTLbNugcikUJ:www.wired.com/science/discoveries/magazine/16-07/pb_theory+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us cached version].)

* [http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139104/kenneth-neil-cukier-and-viktor-mayer-schoenberger/the-rise-of-big-data Viktor Mayer-Shoenberger, The Rise of Big Data]

* [http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2007/12/securitymatters_1213 Bruce Schneier, Why Anonymous Data Sometimes Isn't] (see the note above about Wired - try this [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:XkYbG5I9RtkJ:www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2007/12/securitymatters_1213+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us cached version] if the link above doesn't work).

* Play around with some of the websites by [http://latanyasweeney.org/ Latanya Sweeney]

:* [http://thedatamap.org/ The Data Map]

:* [http://aboutmyride.org/more.html About My Ride]

:* [http://aboutmyinfo.org/ About My Info]

; Corporate data practices

* [http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2012/12/07/how-dataium-watches-you/ Jeremy Singer-Vine, How Dataium Watches You]

* [http://www.interactually.com/linkedin-creepiest-social-network/ David Veldt, LinkedIn: The Creepiest Social Network]

* [http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323777204578189391813881534 Jennifer Valentino-Devires, Jeremy Singer-Vine, Ashkan Soltani, Websites Vary Prices, Deals Based on Users' Information] (if this appears behind a paywal, [http://blogs.wsj.com/wtk/ play around with the WSJ's interactive graphics])

== Optional Readings ==

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

* [http://www.bitsbook.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/chapter2.pdf Hal Abelson, Ken Ledeen, and Harry Lewis, ''Blown to Bits'' (Chapter 2)] (pages 36-42)

* [https://www.socialtext.net/codev2/privacy Lawrence Lessig, ''Code 2.0'' (Chapter 7)] (focus on "Privacy in Public: Data")

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

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_laws_of_the_United_States Wikipedia, Privacy Laws of the United States]

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

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

* [https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/05/the_eyes_and_ea.html Bruce Schneier, Surveillance and the Internet of Things]

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

Robert Post: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Post_%28law_professor%29

Alan Westin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Westin

Solove's Nothing to Hide: http://www.amazon.com/Nothing-Hide-Tradeoff-between-Security/dp/0300172338/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1396388362&sr=8-3&keywords=nothing+to+hide

The Third Amendment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Fourth Amendment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Only Third Amendmnet case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey

Samuel Warren: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_D._Warren

Louis Brandeis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Brandeis

Right to Privacy Article: http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/privacy/Privacy_brand_warr2.html

Olmstead v. United States: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olmstead_v._United_States

article about FBI wiretapping of MLK jr: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/07/the-fbi-and-martin-luther-king/302537/

NGram Viewer: https://books.google.com/ngrams

William Prosser: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Prosser

Griswold: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._connecticut

Roe v. Wade: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._wade

Whalen v. Roe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whalen_v._Roe

Katz v United States: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States

US v Miller: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

Arthur Miller's the Assualt on Privacy, from 1971: http://www.amazon.com/The-Assault-Privacy-Arthur-Miller/dp/0451612841

More on FERPA in this report by Berkman's Cyberlaw Clinic: https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2013/privacy_and_childrens_data

The OECD guidelines: http://www.oecd.org/internet/ieconomy/oecdguidelinesontheprotectionofprivacyandtransborderflowsofpersonaldata.htm

Robert Bork: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork

ECPA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Communications_Privacy_Act

XKCD Comic: https://xkcd.com/1269/

commercial internet traffic wasnt legal until the 90s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet#Opening_the_network_to_commerce

HTTP cookie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_cookie

flash cookies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_shared_object

old browser simulator: http://www.dejavu.org/emulator.htm

A bit ont he history of the term "cloud": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing#Origin_of_the_term

Microsoft was caught reading hotmail e-mails of people they thought were stealing: http://www.informationweek.com/software/productivity-collaboration-apps/microsoft-clarifies-email-snooping-policy/d/d-id/1141596

dropbox searches your data for copyrighted content: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/03/dropbox-clarifies-its-policy-on-reviewing-shared-files-for-dmca-issues/

David's paper on Cloud Computing with our Executive Director, Urs Gasser: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2410270

Paopticlick: https://panopticlick.eff.org

Web beacon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_bug

Deep packet inspection: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspection

FTC Section 5: http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Section_5_of_the_FTC_Act

ToS Help: http://tosdr.org

Latanya Sweeney was named FTC technologist in residence just a few months ago: http://www.iq.harvard.edu/news/latanya-sweeney-appointed-ftc

Ashkan Soltani has been helping break snowden stories for the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-surveillance-program-reaches-into-the-past-to-retrieve-replay-phone-calls/2014/03/18/226d2646-ade9-11e3-a49e-76adc9210f19_story.html

Try Lightbeam if you want to see who is tracking you: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/lightbeam/

If you want some more (denser) reading about a harvard project that looks at privacy issues and reidentification, there's some interesting stuff here: http://privacytools.seas.harvard.edu

== Class Discussion ==
<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:Andy|Andy]] 15:12, 7 November 2013 (EST)</div>

Chris Anderson’s article brings up how technology enables research to move away from samples and sample sizes can now equal entire populations (n=all). However, I believe context still and must always matter. Yes we can “view the data mathematically first and establish a context it for later”, but I believe that to avoid data from dehumanizing phenomena and to more specifically to avoid privacy breaches it is best to never lose sight of the context.

[[User:Luciagamboaso|Luciagamboaso]] 16:36, 1 April 2014 (EDT)

----

This week's readings on privacy have been really thought provoking. Whether we have a 'right' to internet privacy is a tough subject to ponder, as we have no obligation to use the internet, thus making our use subject to a company's terms, yet there are also a number of other factors to consider. Some of the biggest concerns are that the "data collection" isn't merely studied but disseminated, and also that that collection doesn't end at internet usage. It infiltrates every aspect of our lives, with surveillance footage being taken unbeknownst to those being viewed. I'm not sure if it was in this class or in another discussion, but supposedly we're not far away from a kind of optical monitoring whereby stores can track what a shopper looks at most intently to cater advertising to them specifically. Where does this invasion of privacy end?

Adding to the links above, I found this article linked in one of the above articles. It's very informative and interesting.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE3DD1F3FF93AA3575BC0A9609C8B63

Sidebar- loved the article by Veldt on LinkedIn... I, too, have always wondered HOW they can suggest people who I know in real life but with whom I haven't had any connection with via social networks or even e-mail.

[[User:Castille|Castille]] 16:33, 29 March 2014 (EDT)

:Great questions on privacy, Castille, just to piggy-back on what you've brought up….
:Data gathering will become more intrusive, especially as we advance technologically. This will impede on personal privacy to a point where it becomes a major issue. For example, Google glasses will open many avenues for companies to gather personal data.
:But where do ethics come in?
:Companies don't have moral ethics if it means they can convert personal data into potential profits. It may already be too late to legislate laws and then how do we enforce them? Its actually quite alarming how much personal information is available digitally and more to come as new devices (such as wearables) make it easier for companies (and other individuals) to exploit. [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 02:09, 31 March 2014 (EDT)

:I agree, Castille, that thinking about online privacy is complicated by the fact that users agree to certain terms of use and are not truly compelled to use the Internet, though it is undoubtedly next to impossible for some of us to avoid. I think that in spite of this (in spite of the fact that we automatically check the box agreeing to these terms of use), people will always feel that they have the right to privacy at least in the sense of having the right to be left alone. The mentality may be that if I'm not doing something wrong, if my behavior doesn't effect other people, then I shouldn't be bothered, shouldn't be observed without very explicit consent, and shouldn't have to feel like I'm being watched. [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 23:11, 31 March 2014 (EDT)

----
The data we can gather through automation is undoubtedly incredible. The weakness with big data lies in the quality - relying too much on the results spit out from the tools could lead to numerous mistakes. That’s when human intellect comes into play; real-time observation and analysis will be critical for spotting errors.
Human ingenuity is the source of progress. Any company can better leverage the data available to them and generate a competitive advantage, as long as they’re equipped with inquisitive minds and critical thinkers who can best apply the data presented. [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 02:01, 31 March 2014 (EDT)

----
I too enjoyed the article by Veldt on LinkedIn. I am an active LinkedIn user but like Castille have been troubled by the connection- generating ability of a site that I have not linked to other social networks or connected to my email. LinkedIn use has led many friends and colleagues of mine to tangible professional benefits and opportunities- headhunters and recruiters rely increasingly on the LinkedIn pool for scouting talent. In the contexts of other readings this week, and the question of whether it is truly possible to "opt-out"- LinkedIn is one platform that I feel is worth the privacy trade-off. Indeed, as a recent college graduate, in the early stages of my career, I often find myself faced with the unsettling truth that limiting my internet presence and enhancing security features on social media platforms with an aim to preserve my privacy is actually detrimental to my professional, educational and personal goals. In the name of upward mobility and maximizing exposure to opportunities, we choose not too think to hard about just how LinkedIn knows "People You May Know." Indeed, as highlighted in an NYT article late last year [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/technology/personaltech/the-path-to-happy-employment-contact-by-contact-on-linkedin.html?_r=0], opting not to include a photo, complete a full profile and maximize the public reach of your profile in many ways defeats the purpose of being on LinkedIn in the first place. --[[User:Akk22|Akk22]] 10:25, 1 April 2014 (EDT)

::I guess that's the main question we're faced with at the moment-- what's ''worth'' the privacy trade-off. I suppose as we move into the future, we'll be given less and less choice in that matter, though. As things like Google Glass's NameTag app become widely used, which will allow people to identify strangers in real life by syncing to social media, we may completely lose our privacy.

[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/6/google-glass-app-will-scan-and-identify-strangers-/]
[[User:Castille|Castille]] 12:55, 5 April 2014 (EDT)

----
Not related to this week's lecture, but for those interested, a major revamp is in the works for copyright law in the UK, including the addition of a US-like fair use clause - [http://www.ipo.gov.uk/response-2011-copyright-final.pdf Modernising Copyright: A modern, robust and flexible framework] --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 17:43, 31 March 2014 (EDT)

-----
I ran across an article shared through Reddit this week and I think it relates somewhat to the topic this week. It describes how Dropbox is able to know when copyrighted content is being shared, without infringing on a person's privacy. It is able to do this by "file hashing against a blacklist." It's an interesting read, especially for someone like me who isn't too familiar with computer technicalities. You can find the article here: http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/30/how-dropbox-knows-when-youre-sharing-copyrighted-stuff-without-actually-looking-at-your-stuff/

[[User:Lpereira|Lpereira]] 19:58, 31 March 2014 (EDT)

:I also saw a write up about this on Slate. What's interesting to me is this snippet: "It's almost impossible to find a service that stores your data but doesn't have a way to look at it with either human eyes or algorithms." People have concerns about actual employees at Dropbox looking at their stuff, but even the idea of algorithms "looking" can be unsettling. I wonder how much of this has to do with being uncomfortable with the idea that someone out there is rifling through your files and how much has to do with concern about computer programs, algorithms, etc. being presented as an impersonal solution to privacy problems. But even if there's not a ''who'' looking at your stuff, there's still a ''what,'' and the principle doesn't seem too different if you think of it abstractly. [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 07:43, 1 April 2014 (EDT)
-----
I can't say I was surprised by anything in Schneier piece ("Why 'Anonymous' Data Sometimes Isn't") about how easy it is to take "anonymous" information and attach it to a specific individual. The ease with which I can find someone online (on Twitter, Facebook, or other social media) with just two or three pieces of identifying information-- name, college he/she graduated from, workplace, username, etc.-- long ago left me assuming that anyone could do the same. When you factor in huge amounts of data and more sophisticated techniques to leverage that data, I wouldn't imagine anything would remain hidden. A few seemingly trivial bits of information can certainly add up very quickly.
[[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 23:01, 31 March 2014 (EDT)
----
I really enjoyed the chapter from Daniel Solove's book in which he tries to develop a new understanding of privacy. One of the bits that resonated the most with me is where he writes "Instead of attempting to locate the common denominator of these activities [that are disrupted by violations of privacy], we should conceptualize privacy by focusing on the specific types of disruption." It's interesting to approach privacy based on the problems violations cause rather than the type of information or behavior associated with those violations. So, it's not about whether or not giving out my phone number violates my privacy but whether that generates an innocuous or malicious outcome. I think this dovetails nicely with the idea (from the article about variable online pricing, I think) that there's not one answer to the privacy problem because there isn't one reason it's happening. Conceptualizing privacy in such a way that it can apply to all situations and problems could easily abstract it to a point that the theories are vague to a point of meaninglessness. [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 23:17, 31 March 2014 (EDT)

----
I really love the article "LINKEDIN: THE CREEPIEST SOCIAL NETWORK" that's written by David Veldt.
I always wonder how social networks like facebook or linkedin know that I in fact know that person. And the advertisements that are on the right side of the facebook page are things that I am interested in. It is interesting how Linkedin is trying not to disclose to the users that they are tracking our search histories and might even our emails. Frankly speaking, I am not surprised that Facebook, Linkedin or even Google are tracking our personal information, as this is how their business work. Data gathering is a very important part for them to make money.

----

Is anything done or seen today on the Internet really private? With the introduction of “N=ALL” data and the “datafication” of various parts of life, information previously never even thought of being capable of quantification is now not only being able to be studied but also put into good use. The usefulness and practicality of Big Data is beyond what people can even imagine, from translating languages, fire prevention, to new ways of security, and even making it easier to rent a bicycle. Quantifying or the "datafication" of information can transform the way we operate as a society. Big Data can be described in terms of Petabytes. Then you have the different ways that Big data is collected; logging information such as mouse clicks (as Dataium does), analyzing census data, or CSS history sniffing are all methods of collection. Then you have companies like LinkedIn, Staples, and Amazon who provide different services or prices by utilizing peoples various “browsing history, geolocation" and other personal information.

While big data is extremely useful, one for the biggest downsides is the almost complete lost of privacy when searching on the web. But how does one define privacy? Its’ strewed across vague lines as when one uploads all their personal information, pictures, videos and what they are thinking are on Facebook, Twitter, and Google’s servers for them to survey and classify. [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 14:52, 1 April 2014 (EDT)
----

Bruce Schneier has another great piece that may be of interest: The Public-Private Surveillance Partnership.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-07-31/the-public-private-surveillance-partnership
I'm always amazed at the level of detail you can gather about an individual from freely given information in exchange for grocery or gas discounts. The reality of today certainly seems to demonstrate that we value our privacy and data much less than we claim. [[User:VACYBER|VACYBER]] 14:59, 1 April 2014 (EDT)

:Bruce has a number of great articles and books in the space – and he's our guest lecturer next week! So be sure to think of some good questions to ask him about his research. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 16:03, 1 April 2014 (EDT)

-----

I believe that Internet privacy will continue to be a great topic of discussion for years to come. I had the chance to learn about big data and cyber security companies such as Fireeye and what they do from a control and commercial perspectives. Personally, I think that there is much interest in profitability as there is in control. Both governments and corporations want some sort of control in their populations' and users' information respectively.

[[User:cheikh|cheikhmbacke]] 15:59, 1 April 2014 (EDT)

----

On a related note, am I the only one who approaches online privacy from the standpoint "anything I post online, I assume is public"? Most people find it crazy that I don't sit and change privacy settings for every single item I publish online, yet I find this the absolute best method as 1. I save time and stress by not having to think about privacy settings 2. I can't make a mistake by mislabeling something 3. If some site is hacked or Facebook developers make everything public through some bug there's no risk of anything confidential leaking out 4. It makes me think about every action I make, so that I have an explanation to stand by anything I do. If I don't want someone to see something I did, and I can't argument my choice, do I really want to do it in the first place? and 5. As I assume everyone, of course including the government and related parties, have access to everything I publish, I simply won't publish something I wouldn't want them to see... as they say, a secret is no longer a secret once it is uttered.--[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 16:14, 1 April 2014 (EDT)

----

This week's readings on privacy tied well into my research for our final project. I am studying Ripoffreport.com.com (ROP), and the organization makes a rather large statement in concerns to privacy on their respective site-you don’t have any on the Internet.

Invasion of privacy often conflicts with our thoughts on the First Amendment. Understanding the differences can be tricky.
--[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 16:51, 1 April 2014 (EDT)
----

Privacy Part 2: Government Surveillance

2014-04-17T02:08:14Z

Ryan: /* Links */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 8'''

Last week we looked at big-picture concepts of privacy and how the Internet and Internet companies reflect these issues. This week we dive into the specific question of surveillance by governments: how the Internet allows governments to observe their (and other governments') citizens, and what that does to us and the Internet as a system.

Joining us for this week are Berkman fellow and online security expert [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/bschneier Bruce Schneier] and Berkman Clinical Instructional Fellow [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/cwalsh Kit Walsh].

There is a [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/events/2014/04/unownedinternet related event] at Harvard Law School earlier on this class day that may be of interest to students (RSVP required).

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==

; Government vs. Corporate Surveillance

* [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/11/04/yes-there-actually-is-a-huge-difference-between-government-and-corporate-surveillance/ Brian Fung, Yes, There Is Actually a Huge Difference Between Government and Corporate Surveillance]

* [https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/10/the_trajectorie.html Bruce Schneier, The Trajectories of Government and Corporate Surveillance]

* [http://towcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Letter-Effect-of-mass-surveillance-on-journalism.pdf Emily Bell et al., Comment to Review Group on Intelligence and Communication Technologies Regarding the Effects of Mass Surveillance on the Practice of Journalism] (pages 9-12 ("Mass surveillance raises issues beyond individual surveillance," "Secret and confusing law," and "Chilling Effects") only)

; Case Study - the NSA Scandal and Surveillance Policy

* [http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/nov/01/snowden-nsa-files-surveillance-revelations-decoded#section/1 The Guardian, NSA Surveillance Revelations Decoded] (peruse)

* [https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/timeline Electronic Frontier Foundation, Timeline of NSA Domestic Spying] (peruse)

* [http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115002/invasive-nsa-will-protect-us-cyber-attacks Jack Goldsmith, We Need an Invasive NSA]

* [http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/01/edward_snowden_doesn_t_deserve_clemency_the_nsa_leaker_hasn_t_proved_he.single.html Fred Kaplan, Why Snowden Won't (and Shouldn't) Get Clemency]

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0d_QDgl3gI Bruce Schneier, The Battle for Power on the Internet] (approx. 12:30, watch all)

; Surveillance and U.S. law

* [http://www.dmlp.org/blog/2013/nsas-spying-powers-reading-statute Kit Walsh, The NSA's Spying Powers: Reading the Statute]

* [http://justsecurity.org/2013/10/23/laura-donohues-comprehensive-case-bulk-metadata-collection/ Steve Vladeck, Laura Donohue's Comprehensive Case Against Bulk Metadata Collection]

:* If you're interested, the Donohue article can be found [http://justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Just-Security-Donohue-PDF.pdf here].

== Optional Readings ==

* The Jennifer Granick / Orin Kerr debates on metadata and the Fourth Amendment

:* [http://justsecurity.org/2013/09/23/metadata-fourth-amendment/ Granick's opening]
:* [http://justsecurity.org/2013/09/23/debate-metadata-fourth-amendment-reply-jennifer-granick/ Kerr's response]
:* [http://justsecurity.org/2013/09/27/metadata-4a-round2-jg/ Granick's reply]
:* [http://justsecurity.org/2013/09/27/debate-round-2-metadata-fourth-amendment-response/ Kerr's sur-reply]

* [https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/09/the_limitations.html Bruce Schneier, The Limitations of Intelligence]

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

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

Bruce's bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Schneier

Bruce "facts": http://www.schneierfacts.com

Bruce's blog: https://www.schneier.com

Google SSL program: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/search-more-securely-with-encrypted.html

Metcalf's law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalf%27s_law

Secret room at Folsom Street San Francisco Internet interchange facility: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

Bruce's NSA has betrayed the Internet blog: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/05/government-betrayed-internet-nsa-spying

Guardian article about xkeyscore: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data

Quantum and Foxacid: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/10/how_the_nsa_att.html

NSA's Turbulence program: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbulence_(NSA)

Some of NSA/CIA's efforts to get into computers of people they can't hack remotely: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/07/16/the_cias_new_black_bag_is_digital_nsa_cooperation

The Korematsu decision in which the Supreme Court defended the internment of the Japanese: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States

22 people killed by cows in the US every year: http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/stories/11-animals-more-likely-to-kill-you-than-sharks

OTI report about effectiveness of surveillance: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-13/nsa-data-has-no-discernible-impact-on-terrorism-report.html

LOVEINT scandal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOVEINT

Recent Stanford study about deanonymizing metadata: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/03/volunteers-in-metadata-study-called-gun-stores-strip-clubs-and-more/

Why Isn't Fourth Amendment Classified?: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/03/why-isnt-the-fourth-amendment-classified-as-top-secret/284439/

Google altering an election: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/could-google-tilt-a-close-election/2013/03/29/c8d7f4e6-9587-11e2-b6f0-a5150a247b6a_story.html

4th Amendment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Katz case established the third party doctrine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-Party_Doctrine

Smith v Maryland: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland

Mass Bar Opinion About Lawyers Using E-mails: http://www.massbar.org/publications/ethics-opinions/2000-2009/2000/opinion-no-00-1

EFF on the Wiretap Act: https://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Privacy:_Wiretap_Act

Wiretap act: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2511

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree

Access to stored communications (e.g., email): http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2701

Some people have argued against the exclusionary rule because it prevents a court from using evidence http://www.streetlaw.org/en/Page/346/Friend_or_Foe_Debating_the_Exclusionary_Rule_Part_II

Compulsory access to stored records: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2703

Warshak case says you need a warrant to get an e-mail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Warshak

The Church Committee: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee

FISA: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-36

The FISC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FISC

FOIA applies to governments -- you can't FOIA for private data: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_(United_States)

PATRIOT act: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act

Section 215: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1861

An article about Executive Order 12333 that NSA claims gives them broad authority: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/11/21/209167/most-of-nsas-data-collection-authorized.html

FISA Amendments Act of 2008: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act_of_1978_Amendments_Act_of_2008

Section 702: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1881a

USA Freedom Act: http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/3361

Surveillance State Repeal Act: http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/2818

== Class Discussion ==
<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:Andy|Andy]] 15:12, 7 November 2013 (EST)</div>

----

Maybe I'm missing something, but what, exactly, has the government been doing with the information they have gotten through the NSA? It doesn't seem like they've been using it to incriminate individual citizens or even monitor them too extensively-- otherwise, wouldn't they have been able to track down would-be criminals prior to them committing crimes, a la Minority Report? They also don't seem to be monitoring it for the purpose of censorship, as is the case in China and Russia or the HUAC. And how are they even conducting their "research"? Do individuals actually go through all of that information, or is it a case whereby a machine compiles data and directs NSA employees' attentions only to cases where there are a multitude of 'questionable' searches/calls/etc.? As far as foreign policy is concerned, the act of spying on other governments has been practiced since the beginning of history. Does the advent of technology change what is acceptable in regards to spying, or only make it more accessible? With nuclear war so very possible in our times, it seems like some sort of action must be taken to monitor the intentions of other countries and their relations with the US and alliances with other countries, since transparency seems to be an impossible ideal for all countries.
[[User:Castille|Castille]] 15:52, 5 April 2014 (EDT)

:* The problem is that we don't know what they do with the information because that is secret, and is also used for secret trials in secret courts. The problem is that even if the use of the information is benevolent and well-intentioned, it is worrisome because we're creating the technological foundation for totalitarianism. Now, I don't actually think we're extremely close to creating a totalitarian state but it doesn't mean that it isn't worrisome or that in the wrong political environment we might eventually get there. [[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 08:25, 8 April 2014 (EDT)
::* Ah, gotcha! No wonder I felt like I was missing something-- we all are! I didn't realize that they're actually hiding what they're doing with the information. Do you know what theory for how they are using the data is most likely?
[[User:Castille|Castille]] 12:19, 8 April 2014 (EDT)

----

The Guardian article- informative content, but I want to comment on its amazing user interface. This is where the web should be heading. In the same way that HTML provides markup to words and sentences, the interactive features of this article help to mark up the thoughts & ideas presented in the article. Very nicely done. [[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 22:55, 6 April 2014 (EDT)
:*I couldn't agree more. The interface was AMAZING! Don't think I've ever seen an article like that before.
[[User:Castille|Castille]] 12:19, 8 April 2014 (EDT)

----

I am very interested to see what new data mining policies are made or both the government and corporations. Despite the reveal that we lack privacy (collection of lots of personal data from each sector), it would be nice if we had the right to know which data and on what terms data is collected on us. Agreed these are probably in the majority of privacy agreements I don't read. Trying harder to be transparent and clear with these privacy regulations would help society to at least be not as shocked by large government leaks.
([[User:Margorm|Margorm]] 17:58, 7 April 2014 (EDT))

----

The Brian Fung article makes a fine point about the higher "cost" of switching from the United States to a different country, due to the government's monopoly on a range of services. However, this strikes me as a weak way to compare corporate data mining to government intrusion. In my opinion, the purpose of having a Constitution containing guaranteed rights is so that these costs need not be considered or incurred in the first place. If the US government needs to collect private information about its citizens, then it needs to be done within the restrictions of the Fourth Amendment. If exceptions need to be made it needs to be done with the public's knowledge and consent. [[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 08:35, 8 April 2014 (EDT)

I too came away from the Brian Fung article feeling dissatisfied with the comparison of government and corporate intrusion-- especially in light of this week's readings that make it abundantly clear to me that we are not able to "quit" or opt-out of either corporate data mining or government surveillance. I lived overseas in Asia and Europe with my last job and certainly didn't "quit" the United States, in fact I anticipated a greater impact on my "hard-to-measure modicum of privacy"- both tangible and intangible. As Fung suggests, most expats or Americans on short-term contracts overseas whom I knew and worked with openly acknowledged the higher level of scrutiny anticipated regarding correspondence, finances, and eve relationships once overseas- especially for those who intended to return to working life in the US after a time. Interestingly, the majority of these individuals were often more comfortable with- and even welcomed- decreased privacy given the positive correlation in their minds with increased security for their work and families while overseas. I will be interested to see whether cases related to data privacy and online surveillance engage the fourth amendment in the coming years- and especially whether the legal landscape at the highest levels is equipped to respond to such a quickly-evolving corporate and government culture of surveillance. [[User:akk22|akk22]] 10:39, 8 April 2014 (EDT)
----

Regarding the 'huge difference between government and corporate surveillance.' | There's so much to talk about on this topic, so I'll keep it short by playing a bit of devil's advocate. Is there truly that much of a significant difference between the two surveillance types? Both are working towards the same goal: the protection and accumulation of dollars. In the corporate sense, surveillance allows for the ability to make more dollars. With government surveillance, it allows for the preservation of the capitalist system — to maintain the corporate ecosystem. (Hence the argument that corporations still have a stronghold on our online privacy, regardless of who is responsible for the act of surveillance.) [[User:Twood|Twood]] 09:31, 8 April 2014 (EDT)

:*It seems unfair to me to suggest that government surveillance is solely to preserve the corporate ecosystem-- surely, issues of national security extend to individuals as well as corporations. I think that government surveillance is much more geared towards protection of the individual than corporate surveillance, which is completely for the purpose of accumulating capital. [[User:Castille|Castille]] 12:19, 8 April 2014 (EDT)

----

Given the choice between Government or Corporations in regards to abuse of data - I’d like to trust the government more, as long as we reach a point where they’re transparent to citizens on how it’s being used and to what extent.
Corporations will use the data to increase profit, which therefore means mapping out and predicting the spending habits of consumers in order to target them. I hope it’s not wishful thinking to believe our data would be more secure within Government Data centers. Data security at corporations will vary considerably and that means personal data is more exposed to hacking, theft and misuse by unscrupulous individuals or corporations. [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 23:39, 8 April 2014 (EDT)

----

Playing Devils Advocate as well, I'm less concerned with government collection of data traffic. The massive collections that exist and increase exponentially on a daily basis are still subject to human interaction. Hiring of skilled staff with Hadoop, Hive, Pig, HBase, R, etc., are still subject to the human element. Threats are real within national security and threats are many. One might argue that we cannot handle sifting the data for agreed upon missions. I'm certainly not worried about my conversation requesting the more mundane issues of life. I am worried however, about the collection, packaging, selling and reselling of corporate collected data. The data crosses so many entities that control is truly impossible. There is a reason the Romans would hide items under a Rose bush - Messengers can always be intercepted.[[User:VACYBER|VACYBER]] 13:59, 8 April 2014 (EDT)

----
The Battle for Power on the Internet was a great talk and made some great points. I like his idea of the quick versus the strong, saying that the marginalized was quick to use the Internet to organize but although the institutions were slower, they use power more effectively. I’m looking forward to talking more about this in class.
[[User:Lpereira|Lpereira]] 14:06, 8 April 2014 (EDT)
-----
After reading all materials it seems that it is impossible to be secured from survellience in the "century of technologies". From one hand, the government survelliance aims to protect us from terrorizm and other hazards. From another hand, it restricts the people's right on freedom of speech. But, nowadays I didn't see that just ordinary citizen was killed because of the content of his message. Let's assume that the content of email is accessed by government, but it doesn't become public. But, the situation is different when it comes to active person, whose speechs/e-mail could rise threats to government. If the threat already exist, this person would be under survellience even in times BC and now, in time of technologies. So, the internet doesn't play a great role here. Still, there are some tools which could somehow prevent the cyber attacks: for example strong code combination. If the code is secure, then it will be diffucult for the computer to break your code. Aysel Ibayeva ([[User:Aysel|Aysel]] 14:37, 8 April 2014 (EDT))

----
I thought this might be useful as well: "Big data is here to stay, as it should be. But let’s be realistic: It’s an important resource for anyone analyzing data, not a silver bullet." http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/07/opinion/eight-no-nine-problems-with-big-data.html?src=me&module=Ribbon&version=context&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Most%20Emailed&pgtype=article [[User:VACYBER|VACYBER]] 14:53, 8 April 2014 (EDT)

----

Whether consciously or uncosciously, Bruce Schneier in The Battle for Power on the Internet voice not only the obvious warning as to the ever increasing powers corporations and governments are gaining, but also the reason we this should not stop us from exploring new technologies may and probably will magnify that power even further in the decades to come. Yes, the magnification effect does, in the long run, give superior powers to larger actors, but as Schneier described so well, small, nimble, distributed actors tend to be at least a few years, if not decades ahead of the curve, which makes sure that as any good uses arise from new technology as the detrimental effects that follow. Privacy, liberty, and similar values are of great importances, but that should not be a reason to protest new developments such as Google Glass, cloud computing or bioengineering. The technologies we now all use daily certainly gave corporations and the government better access to our data, but they have also undoubtedly improved our lives. There is no reason to believe that things should be any different with most of the technologies that are on the horizon, that many are so concerned about. --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 14:56, 8 April 2014 (EDT)
----

Surveillance is almost impossible to avoid in this age. Technology ranging from something as powerful as a Google search to simple phones, there is no avoiding be tracked, traced and watched. Governments have always been known to survey on one or two individuasl but now the NSA has a “domestic spying program” that collects millions of emails and contact information from Internet service providers. While major news reporting agencies like The New York Times have reported against corporate and government surveillance, the attacks that “The Times “ suffered by what the FBI called “hallmarks of hacking by the Chinese military” seem to justify an invasive NSA for the protection of US citizens.

Edward Snowden released ground-shaking evidence about government surveillance. While some people claim that he released more information then he should have, others claimed that he did a great service to his country and even called on the president to grant him “some form of clemency”. While for some it may be difficult to justify his decision, his actions sparked a new way of thinking over government surveillance and how the NSA will proceed in future programs. [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:52, 8 April 2014 (EDT)

------

Personally, I am not sure if it is just me or there may be others, but I do not think that government surveillance is a bad thing altogether. Having said that, I am also a firm believer in transparency in governments' handling of data. For instance, in the internet telephony world, also known as VoIP, some third world country governments (e.g. Senegal) use internet surveillance to track and catch the fraudsters. In many West African countries, governments make it clear to their citizens that they will be spying on anyone (in order to intimidate those who would attempt to divert their international incoming calls by the use of "Sim Boxes" and other devices). Although this is not necessarily targeted to everyday citizens, their "surveillance" help them save millions of dollars annually. Therefore, I believe that as long as government internet surveillance is practiced for the good cause in a transparent manner, it could be a good thing for the society.

[[User:cheikhmbacke|cheikmbacke]] 14:59, 8 April 2014 (EDT)

Informing the Public in the Internet Age

2014-04-17T01:54:29Z

Ryan: /* Links */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 15'''

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 ==

; The whos and wheres of modern journalism

* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Overview_MR.pdf Persephone Miel and Rob Faris, News and Information as Digital Media Come of Age] (read executive summary)

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Typologies_MR.pdf Persephone Miel and Rob Faris, A Typology of Media Organizations] (skim)

* [http://transition.fcc.gov/osp/inc-report/INoC-Executive_Summary.pdf Federal Communications Commission, Information Needs of Communities] (read executive summary, skim overview)

* [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks_Chapter_7.pdf Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks (Chapter 7)] (read from 225 ("Our second story focuses…") to 241 (end before "On Power Law Distributions, Network Topology, and Being Heard"); read from 261-66 ("Who Will Play the Watchdog Function?"))

; Threats and issues

* [http://www.journalism.org/2014/03/26/state-of-the-news-media-2014-overview/ Amy Mitchell, The State of News Media 2014]

* [http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/493/picture-show?act=0#play This American Life, Picture Show] (audio, from 0:00 to 5:09)

* [http://law.wlu.edu/deptimages/Law%20Review/68-2Jones.pdf RonNell Anderson Jones, Litigation, Legislation, and Democracy in a Post-Newspaper America] (Section I only)

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3TRKPSmoZk Brendan Nyhan, Biases Abound] (about 15 mins., watch all)

* [http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112554 Yochai Benkler, The Dangerous Logic of the Bradley Manning Case]

* [http://archive.pressthink.org/2009/01/12/atomization.html Jay Rosen, Audience Atomization Overcome: Why the Internet Weakens the Authority of the Press]

; New technologies and models

* [http://globe.mediameter.org/ Catherine D'Ignazio, Ali Hashmi, and Ethan Zuckerman, Mapping the (Boston) Globe] (play with the website)

* [http://banyanproject.com/index.php?title=Main_Page Banyan Project, Introduction and Overview]

* [http://thephoenix.com/boston/news/111660-muckrock-city/ Chris Faraone, MuckRock City (''Boston Phoenix'')]

* [http://www.niemanlab.org/2012/05/from-cold-calls-to-community-building-propublica-tries-to-make-crowdsourcing-more-meaningful/ Adrienne LaFrance, From Cold Calls to Community Building, ProPublica Tries to Make Crowdsourcing More Meaningful (''Nieman Journalism Lab'')]

== Optional Readings ==

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXZAIrDI66E&playnext=1&list=PL1E8598023D37F7AC&feature=results_video Jonathan Zittrain, 2009 Richard S. Salant Lecture on Freedom of the Press] (the lecture starts at 19:45)

* [http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/syria_not_orphan_boy_pic.php?page=1 Sara Morrison, The Photo That Cried Wolf]

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

Cracked article http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-to-spot-b.s.-political-story-in-under-10-seconds/

== Class Discussion ==
<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:Andy|Andy]] 15:12, 7 November 2013 (EST)</div>

----

The physical newspaper has been long from my doorstep for quite some time now, as I suspect this is the same for many others as well. According to the article 'Federal Communications Commission, Information Needs of Communities" 13,400 job losses in newspaper newsrooms across the country seems pretty substantial – So, what are we heading towards, the end of type written print physical and virtual as w know it? Or are we becoming willing participants to those who have smartphones and the like regarding instant video information?? I mean we are a video induced entranced society and there seems no way from turning back – so our news someday will only be what we see without any captions at all just the video feed – Yes, I am sounding a little over dramatic, but it seems that is the likely outcome we are heading for… Imagine getting news like the newspapers of old, but with no video feeds, just a picture or two and then a nice written scholarly column – that is unbiased… Hold on I think I’ll just take the video bites and form my own opinion – The fact that newspapers used to be objective and not necessarily so politically driven as they are today (websites included here), really depicts the state of information that we are in now, for better or worse.
[[User:Dancoron|Dancoron]] 14:02, 15 April 2014 (EDT)

----

I believe that underlying the effects of modern media and why the Internet weakens press and publishers is the digital divide. The digital divide magnifies disparities within countries and between them having an important effect on the distribution and consumption of quality news. New media may have lowered the barriers to entry for information channels but has raised barriers to entry for the digitally underserved or digital illiterate public news consumers. I believe this is a main concern that should not be underestimated when analyzing the media transformations in the Internet Age.
[[User:Luciagamboaso|Luciagamboaso]] 12:26, 15 April 2014 (EDT)

----

I just came across this video about a different kind of censorship that is happening on Facebook:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ZqXlHl65g#t=392]
It's really interesting to consider that censorship is not only happening as a result of laws or terms of use, but now as a way of "forcing" people/companies to pay. [[User:Castille|Castille]] 13:12, 9 April 2014 (EDT)

----

I'm very thankful for the readings on the implications of the new media revolution on the Fourth Amendment as it's an issue I've never thought about before. Indeed, if the laws are not appropriately updated, these changes could have a massive impact on the freedom of journalism. I wonder whether one way to work around the issue would be to form some form of unions that would encompass many individual amateur reporters, providing them with legal protection, but without limiting the freedoms of the individual participants.--[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 13:14, 13 April 2014 (EDT)

----

The Information Age and proliferation of media outlets seem to present a double-edged sword situation: while it's wonderful that we have access to a plethora of "news" from around the world and about whatever subjects in which we have a particular interest, there is also very little transparency in terms of the filters through which reporters and stations may be processing and delivering stories. By this I mean that there is no regulation to disclose what the stance of the company or organization might have, and how that stance might color the stories, which are generally presented as factual-- and indeed they may be-- but are oftentimes only offering one of many perspectives on an issue. Of course, maybe the solution is not to bind this freedom of speech with rules but instead to expect viewers to be intelligent enough to carry out their own research if they are so inclined. While this is a valid argument, is it "fair" to expect viewers to have to become reporters themselves? And what about the fact that the "truth" of a situation is virtually impossible to establish in many cases? Ultimately, all of the information available (or not available) is likely to leave the public either misinformed, blissfully ignorant of other points of view, or confused instead of truly informed.
[[User:Castille|Castille]] 17:27, 13 April 2014 (EDT)

: There is a constant sense of urgency and ‘pride in the newsroom’ to be the first to unveil critical information in a developing story. I worked at ABC News in 2011 and everyone there could tell you who broke what information first against their competitors - CNN, NBC, etc, on almost any story they’ve worked on. While I don’t think this industry-race is any different before the internet age, I do think the pressure and urgency has upped the stakes. Now that a pool of captured-this-on-my-iPhone citizen journalists have entered the pool along with individual bloggers - it’s as if staying on top or getting critical information first has been causing numerous reporting blunders and mistakes from the big media companies that would have happened less frequently years ago. Almost every big name media company has learned a lesson the hard way about fact-checking in recent years. Accuracy will outweigh the race to finish in first place; but that is easier said than done within the industry [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 23:05, 14 April 2014 (EDT)

----

I think Brendan Nyhan's talk about biases lends some weight to the idea that new decentralized and less professional media outlets can be problematic. While I'm not as concerned as some people might be about a de-professionalization of media outlets (I'm sure there are many capable reporters, writers, editors, etc. than just those employed at major newspapers and other media outlets), I can understand why writers, editors, etc. in the media can benefit from a level of standard training. Learning best practices in order to avoid some of the issues Nyhan raises regarding readers' biases seems really important! Nyhan says that the technology we have at our disposal makes it easy to buttress our own views and ignore the ones we don't agree with (much like Sunstein's fears about the polarization of the blogosphere), so it's important that journalists don't encourage this behavior and type of thinking by the way they structure headlines and articles. [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 22:38, 13 April 2014 (EDT)

----

Jay Rosen's piece "Audience Atomization Overcome" balances some of the arguments made about problems with the changes occurring in traditional media outlets. It serves as a good reminder that, while newspapers and other traditional news media can do a great public service by holding the government and other large institutions accountable to the public, they also (intentionally or not) set the agenda at the inevitable cost of certain issues. He aptly points out that much as journalists like to think they can engage in their work without being political, the very act of choosing to write or not write about a topic is a political statement, or at the very least implies that the topic is worthy of public discourse. [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 22:54, 13 April 2014 (EDT)

----

This is a little off topic, but for anyone who was particularly interested in the article on MuckRock and its FOIA requests, you should check out the work that Ryan Shapiro (a PhD candidate at MIT) is doing.[http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/11/foia-ryan-shapiro-fbi-files-lawsuit] (Full disclosure- Ryan is a friend!) [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 23:08, 13 April 2014 (EDT)

----

Litigation, Legislation, and Democracy in a Post-Newspaper America; News and information as digital media come of age as well as other articles asert that that the small communities will may play crucial role and will may substitute the media in future, in other words the newspapers will die. But, I am pretty sure that media will survive, but will tranform into "digital" one, which means that in coming future there will be no paper formated media. TV, radio, official websites will play the same role as they do nowadays. The main power of official media is their professionalism, liability and accoutanability. On the contrary, the role of professional media will tremendously increase when there will be a lot of non-official, non-relaible sources of information. Media will accompany the goverment and legislation as they do now and play its "whatch dog" functions. I could bring the following example: one can know the legislation very well, even better than many lawyers...but, when it comes to court process, they will ask for assistance of lawyer (because he/she is a professional, not the amateur). The same scenario with media..One can read a lot of non-reliable news, but if there is a need for proof, they will go the official website of the professional media. Besides, media is always responsible for the published content, but "media typed communities" cannot held laible for anything, which will undermine their role in the social life of society. Aysel Ibayeva ([[User:Aysel|Aysel]] 11:36, 15 April 2014 (EDT))

----

I can't help but wonder what percentage of web-native media entities are functioning as news aggregation websites rather than representing under-reported items. There are surely gaps in the traditional media, especially on the local level; however many of the sites function as repeaters of a particular political or ideological viewpoint. Eye traffic appears so much easier to attract with the current model that we are neglecting a true opportunity. [[User:VACYBER|VACYBER]] 15:11, 15 April 2014 (EDT)

:I am so glad you asked that! I just published a report that looks at the 500 matters that my online journalism referral clinic here at Berkman has helped where, among other things, we looked at this exact question. Turns out the overwhelming majority of the people we helped were original content creators, despite our intake criteria not limiting our work to creators vs. aggregation clients. I'll talk more about it in class today, but you can see the report [http://www.dmlp.org/omln500/ here]. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 15:17, 15 April 2014 (EDT)

----

Playing with 'Mapping the Globe' was pretty fascinating. The extent to which editors and writers control our knowledge of the news (and framing our conversations) really can be worrisome, depending on the source. This topic is very close to home for me, as a web writer. There's always a small inherent bias in journalism, no matter how hard you attempt to be objective — in a sense, merely the act of choosing to cover one story over another is employing some sort of bias. [[User:Twood|Twood]] 15:26, 15 April 2014 (EDT)

----

I believe that it is fair to say that the internet has contributed tremendously to the democratization of news and media as a whole. Citizen journalism is now a global trend thanks to the evolution of social media. For instance, in the US, there seems to be a general consensus to encourage citizen reporting even by the prominent news outlets (e.g. CNN and its iReport platform). I do not think that it is a bad thing at all. On the contrary, I believe that it is the beginning of a fundamental restructuring of the way media and news are produced and consumed. Albeit its slightly chaotic nature sometimes, the fact that ordinary citizens have such platforms to objectively voice out their concerns, views, and opinions on different issues is good for democracy. It could also lead to a better informed people in the long run. [[User:cheikhmbacke|cheikhmbacke]] 15:53, 15 April 2014 (EDT)

----
One of the critiques from the reading, specifically the statement by Eli Noam, “Money will end up dominating anyway”, might usually be right, but the case of multi billion-dollar company Diebold and their “Election Systems” is an example of how nontraditional media can accomplish things traditional media cannot. They showed themselves able to perform under legal pressure, and even though Wired magazine did not post the exposing emails, the students kept circulating them and kept them widely available to the public the whole time.
The news industry is not what it has been in the past; affected by the digital age, it has taken on a new face of non-professional digital media. While newspapers and other traditional news outlets experienced hard losses, cut thousands of employees, and shut down whole departments, philanthropic efforts donate millions of dollars to small digital news stations like New York Public Radio. It seems the current trends in media evolution will lead to a more involved, better informed public with many new and quicker ways for news to travel.
Mapping the Globe is very interesting! Usually a site focuses on tracking events in public life, but this website monitors the footprints of the Boston Globe and all the different types of stories they share with their readers. [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:55, 15 April 2014 (EDT)

----

Main Page

2014-04-17T01:51:00Z

Ryan: /* Office Hours */

= Internet and Society: Technologies and Politics of Control=
'''LSTU E–120 - Harvard Extension School - Spring 2014 - Tuesdays 5:30-7:30 pm EST'''

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

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

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

|-
| Jan 28
| [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction]]
|-
| Feb 4
| [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet]]
|-
| Feb 11
| [[A Series of Tubes: Infrastructure, Broadband, and Baseline Content Control]]
| ''(Assignment 1 due)''
|-
| Feb 18
| [[Regulating Speech Online]]
|-
| Feb 25
| [[Copyright Part 1: Guiding Principles and Online Application]]
| ''(Assignment 2 due)''
|-
| Mar 4
| [[Copyright Part 2: Enforcement and Balances]]
|-
| Mar 11
| [[Collective Action, Politics, and Protests]]
|-
| Mar 18
| ''No class - Spring Break''
|-
| Mar 25
| [[Peer Production: Development from the Edges and from the Crowd]]
|-
| Apr 1
| [[Privacy Part 1: Corporate Data Gathering]]
| ''(Assignment 3 due)''
|-
| Apr 8
| [[Privacy Part 2: Government Surveillance]]
|-
| Apr 15
| [[Informing the Public in the Internet Age]]
|-
| Apr 22
| [[Hacking, Hackers, and Hacktivism]]
| ''(Assignment 4 due)''
|-
| Apr 29
| [[The Internet as a Tool of Education]]
|-
| May 6
|''No class - final project preparation''
| ''(Optional [[Assignments#Extra_Credit|Extra Credit]] due)''
|
|-
| May 13
|Final class - wrap up and student presentations
|''([[Final Project]] due)''
|
|}

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

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

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

You can participate during class either by attending in person or through [https://continuinged.adobeconnect.com/lstu_120/ Adobe Connect]:

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

* You can use Adobe Connect to participate during class time from a remote location. Further information about that will be on this page as the class approaches.

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

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

='''Participating Asynchronously'''=
* The recorded videotapes of the class produced by Harvard Extension School will be made available [http://cm.dce.harvard.edu/2014/02/23879/publicationListing.shtml here].

* ''Please note that if you are participating asynchronously we expect you to place comments in the "class discussion" section of that class day's page before 4pm ET on that day of class.'' Further information can be found on [[Class Participation|our class participation policy page.]]

='''Contact Information'''=
* All questions, comments, etc. should be sent to: is2014 [at] cyber [dot] law [dot] harvard [dot] edu.
** There are no set office hours; feel free to send an email, and the TAs will respond to it as soon as they can.
* If you need to contact an instructor or TA individually, please use their personal contact info located on the [[Staff Contact Info]] page.

='''Office Hours'''=
Andy, Ryan, and David will be holding office hours over the weeks of April 7 and 14 to meet with students one-on-one (either in person or via Skype) and discuss their final projects. To sign up, fill in your name next to one of the time slots below (try to do this at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting). If you would like to chat but none of these times work, please email us at is2014 at cyber dot law dot harvard dot edu to pick a time to chat. (All times are in EDT.)

'''David'''

''Tuesday, April 15''
* 2:30pm - 2:45pm * booked
* 2:50pm - 3:05pm [please email David]
* 3:10pm - 3:25pm [please email David]
* 3:30pm - 3:45pm Melissa Luke (In-person)
* 3:50pm - 4:05pm Mike Johnson (In-Person)
* 4:10pm - 4:25pm Anne Kauth

Copyright Part 1: Guiding Principles and Online Application

2014-02-28T21:07:06Z

Ryan: /* Links */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 25'''

The Internet has enabled individuals to become involved in the production of media and to distribute their contributions widely at a very low cost. The former bastion of the entertainment industry is opening up to what many are calling a democratization of culture. The copyright doctrine of fair use seemingly bolsters the right to recut, reframe, and recycle previous works, but the protection fair use gives to those re-purposing copyrighted material is notoriously uncertain.

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

<onlyinclude>

== Assignments ==

The first half of assignment 2 (posting your prospectus) is due ''before class'' today. Information on the assignment can be found [[Assignments#Assignment_2:_Prospectus|here]]. Please note that we have updated the [[Final_Project#Frequently_Asked_Questions|final project page's FAQ section]] based on some student questions that have come to us over the past week.

== Readings/Watchings ==

; The mechanics of copyright law

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

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

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

; Digital applications and new challenges

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

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

; Copyright solutions

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

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

* [http://www.uspto.gov/news/publications/copyrightgreenpaper.pdf U.S. Department of Commerce: Internet Policy Task Force, Copyright Policy, Creativity, and Innovation in the Digital Economy] (Executive summary only)

* [http://www.copyright.gov/docs/next_great_copyright_act.pdf Maria Pallante, The Next Great Copyright Act] (skim Section II (323-339) only)

:* Maria Pallante is the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_of_Copyrights Register of Copyrights] for the United States.

== Recommended Readings ==

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HQVBmKsVhI Lewis Hyde, Common As Air: Revolution, Art, and Ownership] (video, watch from 2:12 to 24:37)

* [http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jdlitman/papers/read.htm Jessica Litman, The Exclusive Right to Read] (introduction and Sections I and II only)

* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/10/dodgy-digits-behind-the-war-on-piracy/ Julian Sanchez, Ars Technica, 750,000 Lost Jobs? The Dodgy Digits Behind the War on Piracy]

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

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==
Ecclesiastical courts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiastical_court

Stationers Company: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worshipful_Company_of_Stationers_and_Newspaper_Makers

1662 press act: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_1662

Statute of Anne: http://www.case.edu/affil/sce/authorship/statueofanne.pdf

Harvard on President Dunster: http://www.harvard.edu/history/presidents/dunster

Text of US Constitution: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-1992/pdf/GPO-CONAN-1992-7.pdf

Useful article doctrine: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl103.html

LPs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LP_record

Gramophone Records: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramophone_record

Lawsuits about sampling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_issues_surrounding_music_sampling

Girl Talk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girl_Talk_(musician)

eldred v ashcroft: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldred_v._Ashcroft

Joseph Story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Story

Campbell v Acuff-Rose: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music,_Inc.

Legality of Dumb Starbucks: http://www.businessinsider.com/is-dumb-starbucks-legal-2014-2

UMG vs MP3.com: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMG_v._MP3.com

== Class Discussion ==

{|class="wikitable" border=3 style="margin: auto; background-color:#FFFFCC;"
|align="center"|<big>'''REMINDER'''</big>
|-
|style="background-color:#FFFFFF;"|Your comments must be submitted '''before 4:00PM ET''' on the Tuesday we hold class in order to count for participation credit. Please see the [[Class Participation|participation policy]] for more information.
|}
<br/>
<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:Andy|Andy]] 15:12, 7 November 2013 (EST)</div>

----
--[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 16:05, 25 February 2014 (EST)
This weeks readings reminded me of a very large error I made 15 years ago. Our firm wrote and published one of the first online instructional books covering how to buy and sell equities online. One of my clients asked if he could take a few of the publications back to China with him, to include video tapes of our partners buying and selling equities live on the internet.

All the material was converted into Mandarin within months. We lost everything and literally had no idea how to fix the problem.
----

This is related to an earlier class, but a great article on Wikipedia's bots has just been published on The Verge... [http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/18/5412636/this-machine-kills-trolls-how-wikipedia-robots-snuff-out-vandalism This machine kills trolls: How Wikipedia’s robots and cyborgs snuff out vandalism] --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 17:53, 19 February 2014 (EST)

:What an interesting article! It seems rather shocking to me that users would protest the implementation of bots to patrol vandalism on Wikipedia. One comment cited in the article is that "Editing bots are wrong for Wikipedia, and if they allow it they are letting go of their vision of community participation in favor of the visions (or delusions) of grand technological solutions". This seems like an argument made on principle rather than for practicality's sake. Surely we benefit from these anti-vandalism bots, as Wikipedia would be worthless if people were allowed to make whatever edits they pleased, due to the proliferation of internet trolls. [[User:Castille|Castille]] 16:01, 24 February 2014 (EST)

----

Regarding Copyright laws, it seems that there are many ambiguities and potential loopholes inherent in the system. How is it acceptable for musicians to freely perform "covers" of popular songs-- oftentimes to the extent that their entire act is merely covers, such as at weddings, corporate events, restaurants, etc.-- yet plays cannot be performed live without the consent of the author/copyright holder? It is not altogether uncommon in these situations for an artist to be paid to perform someone else's work, for the purpose of entertainment. What is the difference, then, between these situations? Based on Grimmelmann's article "Why Johnny can't stream", it appears that there are is an endless string of individuals and companies finding new ways to circumvent the laws, so that new laws must be implemented. Where does this stop? Is this due to rebellion against unfair copyright restrictions, companies merely trying to exploit artists and capitalize on their work, or individuals trying to be greedy or subversive?

By the way, has anyone heard about Aereo's progress, and/or where it currently stands in the legal system? I looked it up online and it seems to be taking on members who want to pre-register for the service, though the article was written in August of 2012, so you would think it would be out by now.
[[User:Castille|Castille]] 13:08, 23 February 2014 (EST)

: I was also curious about where the Aereo case(s) were currently... and happened upon this update published last week (also in arstechnica) "Aereo loses copyright fight, gets banned in 6 states" http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/aereo-loses-copyright-fight-to-tv-networks-in-utah/ and as Comcast/NBC "cuts a deal with Netflix"...as well as potentially merging with Time-Warner, just how "lovely" is that? http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2014/02/24/does-netflixcomcast-deal-remove-obstacle-to-twc-merger/ [[User:Psl|Psl]] 11:35, 24 February 2014 (EST)

:Great comments! As to "covers" of popular songs, those are not usually free uses, but instead uses that are licensed in ways that most of us don't normally see. As to covers of live music, those are usually handled by blanket licenses from performance rights organizations (ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC) through either the venue or the artist. For recorded covers, there is actually a statutory license in the law which allows the covering band to do this without permission, provided they pay a particular fee per copy sold. (These days most of that is administered through a corporation called the Harry Fox Agency.) And as for Aereo, [http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/american-broadcasting-companies-inc-v-aereo-inc/ the Supreme Court has agreed to hear] the appeal from the Second Circuit's case (one of many, as Psl points out), which will in all likelihood set the standard for Aereo's legality nationwide. So we will see! [[User:Andy|Andy]] 16:48, 24 February 2014 (EST)

:: But certainly there are artists who are not paying royalties or any sort of licensing fee when they cover a song. Perhaps this is simply because there likely isn't anyone present who will verify that the artist has secured permission? For example, the copyright for "Happy Birthday to You" is owned by Warner/Chappell and therefore, a fee must be paid for any public performance of the song. Nevertheless, it is performed in public daily. How is that navigated by the law? Was Marilyn Monroe technically breaking the law when she sang it in public to JFK?[[User:Castille|Castille]] 23:05, 26 February 2014 (EST)

----

COPYRIGHT OF TEXTBOOKS

Based on the readings, how is it possible for new math textbooks for elementary and high school to claim copyrights when the content has not changed for decades? Perhaps examples and illustrations and format of presentation used across different textbooks may differ, but the content and concepts taught are essentially the same.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 18:19, 24 February 2014 (EST)

:This question drives right to the heart of what is protected vs. unprotected under copyright. We're going to tackle that in some depth tonight. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 12:31, 25 February 2014 (EST)

----
NPOV AND COPYRIGHT IN WIKIPEDIA

Because of NPOV, all content in Wikipedia need to be copied....and referenced. If one copies everything or extensively from a single source, would it still be legal? And if one copies from many sources, it is called a work of research? [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 19:51, 24 February 2014 (EST)

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 19:51, 24 February 2014 (EST)

:While the question of "is that research" is a complicated one, the particular copyright licenses offered over Wikipedia content are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights here]. It's a bit complicated and depends on the particular media in question, but most adhere to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License Creative Commons CC-BY-SA] license for content, which allows use with attribution back to Wikipedia, provided what you use it for is also licensed under this same open term. We'll talk more about this tonight. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 12:31, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:I almost forgot what i wanted to say about Creative Commons. As online content developer, sometimes we do indeed want certain content to be copied freely for marketing purposes or we felt it should be offered free to certain people, but people dare not distribute such content for us because of copyright infringement. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 13:02, 25 February 2014 (EST)

----
The article, There is no Magic Bullet, was an interesting read. He talks about the idea of combatting piracy as often being boiled down to: “make piracy harder, make legal options easier" which is problematic. The availability of technology is making piracy a lot easier these days. While, legal options are usually a long and expensive option in most cases. This leaves us at a problem. The emergence of easy and paid websites, like amazon and netflix, worked as a legal alternative instead of piracy but it has not been successful in a world-wide scale so far. I think as long as there is a easy, free alternative, it will often be the first choice for most people, even it is illegal. It doesn't always have to be bad, especially as it relates to creative content like music. Free sharing is often a great opportunity for growth and marketing.
I'm interested to see how copyright laws and creative content will develop with the advancement of the internet. I wonder if making piracy harder is a viable option at this point without infringing on personal content.

[[User:Lpereira|Lpereira]] 20:56, 24 February 2014 (EST)

:It's a great question, and one that we're still trying to explore and understand. The anecdotal evidence we have suggests that countries that offer legal alternatives to piracy have experienced a drop in BitTorrent traffic since those have been made available, but it's near impossible to draw further conclusions off of that single point of data. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 12:31, 25 February 2014 (EST)

-----
Reading the Grimmelmann "Why Johnny Can't Stream" article I'm reminded of how the music industry fought so hard against services like Napster, while simultaneously it was the emergence of technology like iTunes--and the consequent unbundling of music tracks from albums--that spelled the end of their industry as they knew it. Similarly, "broadcast" and the gatekeeper model of media distribution is at an end. While the broadcasters fight services like Aero, the whole idea of DVR (whether in your living room, or in the cloud) is not going to be relevnt in the future: services like Netflix's original content (e.g., House of Cards) and HBO Go, where content will be made available by the content owner itself, disintermediating the cable networks, will be the norm. In this environment, we won't need a DVR and cable companies won't be relevant. It seems to me that part of the strategy with services like Netflix original content or HBO Go is twofold: to eliminate their dependence on distribution networks, while also rendering DVRs (and their consequent copyright issues) obsolete. After all, I'd be buying my content by-the-drink from the creator rather than from a distribution network where I have a legitimate reason to copy it and watch at different types or with commercials removed.

[[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 20:58, 24 February 2014 (EST)
----
A separate question: why did the framers consider copyrights/patents important enough to mention in the Constitution? Why not just leave it to Congress to worry about as part of regulating interstate commerce? As Lessig noted in his video, intellectual property law was a very minor concern for anyone prior to the 20th century. The Internet Policy Task Force doc claims that "the Framers intended copyright itself to be the engine of free expression” but that's stated as an assertion (quoting the Supreme Court) without any explanation. I'm interested in understanding the historical context and what the framers were concerned about. Thoughts?

[[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 21:00, 24 February 2014 (EST)

:We'll be talking about that in class today, but the Lewis Hyde lecture in the recommended reading (and his book, ''Common As Air'' tackle that at considerable length). [[User:Andy|Andy]] 12:31, 25 February 2014 (EST)

----

WHY COPYRIGHT ISN'T AN ISSUE FOR ONLINE LEARNING:

Simply replicating textbooks into digital format for online accessibility is not good enough for online learning.
Otherwise, all students should be getting A's for math and science just from reading textbooks. When my staff develops online resources for math, a lot of attention goes into how to engage the student online through interactivity, choreography, and animation. We also bear in mind how these resources might be used in the classroom. We incorporate multiple modalities of teaching, learning and self-assessments. And the skills required for creating an online learning resource are very different from just producing a textbook. We need the teacher or content expert to be able to think like a script-writer, a movie producer, a choreographer, a programmer and an animator, all rolled into one.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 02:44, 25 February 2014 (EST)

----

PLAGIARISM AND ONLINE APPLICATION OF COPYRIGHT

It is very common to see several websites replicating the same information word-for-word. This makes internet searches very inefficient and frustrates internet users trying to do research on the web. Search robots should be used to warn website owners to remove such content.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 11:38, 25 February 2014 (EST)

----

HOW ONE COUNTRY CIRCUMVENTS THE COPYRIGHT PROBLEM IN DISTRIBUTION OF KNOWLEDGE TO THE POOR

The copyright protects the earnings of the author and publisher and ensures that each copy of the book contributes a return to their investment. But the poor has no money. How can a country distribute knowledge to the poor? The Indian Ministry of Education seems to have authored their own content and made these academic content available online for free.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 11:57, 25 February 2014 (EST)

----

Smartphones have also helped citizens in being able to access the internet without a broadband home internet connection. Estimates claim that 56% of Americans now have smartphones and this has helped to significantly bridge the gap domestically.

http://techland.time.com/2013/08/26/for-some-without-home-broadband-smartphones-bridge-the-gap/

It appears that part of my last posting was cut off, but I am glad to see the Ichua brought up the issue of distribution of knowledge to the poor. It is honorable that the Indian Ministry of Education has taken steps to make this knowledge available online for free; yet, the impoverished may still be unable to access the internet in general. The "digital divide" has caused many third world nations without access to internet to fall further behind in global standing both academically and economically. Furthermore, within the United States, less fortunate communities with little access to internet are falling behind and some have argued this has contributed to educational dilemmas as resources on the internet are inaccessible to them as opposed to traditional textbook instruction. On the other hand, the internet has worked wonders in affording students like us to be enrolled in a course and dialogue with each other from across the nation (and world). Philanthropists, humanitarians, and good Samaritans alike have taken matters into their own hands to bridge the gap. The power of the internet has transformed social work as evidenced by the 2013 CNN Person of the Year, Estella Pyfrom, in her creation of a "Brilliant Bus" computer lab (on wheels) to tutor and service low-income communities:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cnn.heroes/2013.heroes/estella.pyfrom.html

--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 10:20, 26 February 2014 (EST)

--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 13:25, 25 February 2014 (EST)

----

CUSTOMIZABLE ROYALTY FREE SOUNDRACKS

This is a cool software which I started to use a decade ago: http://www.smartsound.com
You can specify the duration of the desired type of music and it will auto-generate the royalty-free soundtrack.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 12:22, 25 February 2014 (EST)

----

NEW SOFTWARE WHICH ENHANCES CREATIVITY AND REDUCES INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT

New versions of software such as PhotoShop, Maya, and CrazyTalk, are now more powerful, user friendly and cost much less than a decade ago which enables the user to quickly create high quality original images, textures, scenes, and animations. This gives artists more incentives to exercise their own creativity and avoid copying from other sources.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 12:44, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:Everyday millions of videos are uploaded to the servers of YouTube and responsible for assessing whether or not they are in accordance with the rules of copyright is the ContentID. The tool was created by Google to analyze the productions in search of pieces of audiovisual works protected by copyright. The record labels and movie studios send copies of their original works and the system compares numerous excerpts with what is being shared on the network to find illegal copies on site. When the system finds a similarity between the video posted by a user with videos available in a database registered in the ContentID , the rights holders are notified and must decide what will be done. Some options are: block the video, leave it mute or unavailable; monetize by displaying ads and inserting the video link to the original owner of the content , or even track it views with the statistics being computed only on who Analytics own the copyright on the work. http://www.youtube.com/my_videos_copyright gisellebatista

::Great point, Giselle! We're going to talk about the "private ordering" around copyright (and the issues that come up there) with Adam Holland from Chilling Effects next week. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 14:53, 25 February 2014 (EST)

----

Outside of doubling down on the penalties for copyright infringement, we seem to gather very little cooperation for addressing the challenges of digital copyright. Any solution proposed with direct enforcement appears to cut corners with due process. Let's have the ISP's monitor and throttle back activity. However, ISPs lack the skill set and capability to interpret copyright law and adjudicate penalties. Increased inspection and examination of content brings about a level of surveillance that most users are uncomfortable with in their digital travels.
[[User:VACYBER|VACYBER]] 13:12, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:Some of these hard questions between enforcement and other values will be tackled next week when we discuss the DMCA, SOPA, Six Strikes, and some of the other enforcement ideas floated over the past decade or so. As I've said a few times in this class so far, there are no easy answers here, but I hope we can explore the values at stake. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 13:59, 25 February 2014 (EST)

----

Copyright infringement in many countries is still not resolved. As a result of infringement the music, films, videos, books and other information can be freely downloaded by users without the appropriate permission of copyright owners. A lot of people event don't know the difference between legal and illegal dissemination of information. This situation also impacts government (for example, tax issues) From my point of view, the reason is that the current legislation in many coutnrties is not enough for internet as it doesn't incorporate the characteristics of Internet. The new methods of protection of copyright should be established with close cooperation of internet providers (for example, blocking th user from access to certain website for several days in cases of infringement of copyrights or financial means as penalties). Aysel Ibayeva ([[User:Aysel|Aysel]] 14:57, 25 February 2014 (EST))

----

It seems as though copyright as a whole is (and must) follow down the same path as online streaming did -- adapt or being adapted by the circumstances. Free online streaming is now legitimatized by the Crackles, etc. of the world. The industry adapted. Of course, that industry issue was based in copyright issues. But it now looks like other forms of copyright issues may have to follow down the same road. I'm thinking in particular of indie artist sampling and uploading material illegally (the control of this was main focus of my prospectus.) [[User:Twood|Twood]] 15:14, 25 February 2014 (EST)

----

First of all, I would say the article written by James Grimmelmann has opened my eyesight.
Copyright is a really interesting topic that I would love to look into, especially the copyright on derivative work, in the other words, re-creation. In Hong Kong, the Government has been trying to ban derivative work by enacting a law to restrict people from re-creating.
[[User:Jolietheone|Jolietheone]] 15:18, 25 February 2014 (EST)

----
Copyright based laws seemed be to pretty much straight forward until the Internet came along. Actions of recording and copying in cases such as Sony’s debated whether it was legal to record with a VCR and view it later, a process known as "time-shifting". This was protected under a provision of 17 U.S. Code § 107 fair use. But a major problem came with Internet piracy, cited in Terry Harts article, There is No Magic Bullet. He has a simple solution: “make piracy harder, make legal options easier”, but it is not so easy to put into practice. It is an impossible task to scourer the billions upon billions of transactions happening online everyday. It seems that copyright laws have became bogged down by too many technical work-arounds that should be illegal but are technically not. These "protections" ultimately just make the law way more confusing. A large problem is because the laws are not national, Aereo is not legal in New Jersey, but what happens if someone hacks Aereos account from a remote site? Can Aereos still be sued for copyright violation? [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:21, 25 February 2014 (EST)

-------

From a global perspective, I think that copyright infringement is a bigger problem in developing countries than here in the US. Take, for instance, a country such as Senegal where there are artists, authors, and content creators of kinds. The problem of copyright infringement had become such a serious issue for musicians that they are now turning to the internet (most specifically Google's YouTube) for help. What an irony, right?! The internet used to be and still is the place where a lot of copyright infringements happen due to its hard nature to regulate. However, in countries such as Senegal where musicians are finding it harder and harder to rightfully monetize their work, their "Ministry of Culture," whose head was also a musician, is now encouraging artist to partner with Google in order to distribute and monetize their entire albums on YouTube. As Andy has already mentioned and explained YouTube's copyright tool called "ContentID," more and more artists in West African countries where the YouTube partner program has launched are now relying on "ContentID" and uploading their entire works on YouTube. Therefore I believe that, generally speaking, internet companies and organizations such as Google, Facebook, Wikipedia, and others should continue to help build tools that will fight this phenomenon. It will benefit internet users worldwide as well as their respective companies.
[[User:cheikhmbacke|cheikhmbacke]] 15:48, 25 February 2014 (EST)

----

I've been truly impressed by Lawrence Lessig's presentation and couldn't stop watching till the end. He rose some very important questions, in a very pertinent way, and it is by far the best presentation I've seen so far on why copyright has to be rethought from the ground up, but not abolished. I think the point that we can't kill the technology, only criminalize it, is especially important for everyone to finally realize. --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 15:52, 25 February 2014 (EST)

----

It is timely that this week’s class on copyright just so happens to coincide with the Harvard Library’s “Fair Use Week” celebration activities. As you will have noticed by this week’s reading, it is because of the Fair Use provisions and the First Sale Doctrine, that libraries have been permitted to serve their core mission in our society. And while recent court cases have come down favorably on the side libraries (Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, HathiTrust vs. The Authors Guild and (to some extent) the Georgia State E-Reserves Copyright case), threats to these freedoms we enjoy in simply sharing information are not going away anytime soon. Licenses are become more complex in our agreements with electronic vendors, and what we “presume” may be covered by fair-use and the first-sale doctrine can be quickly wiped out by a license agreement with a content provider… Who, in many cases, possesses the sole exclusive access to the content we need to provide to our research community. How did the content provider gain sole access to all the research that was produced by authors? Some of you may have noticed a little phrase in the section on “Who Can Claim Copyright”… it said “Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright”. Journal publishers frequently “corner” the author (my choice of words) into signing over “copyright-transfer-agreement”, which (frequently) transfers the full bundle of copyright that the author(s) obtained at the point of “fixed work”, and give the full bundle of copyright exclusively to the publisher.

Anyway – Celebrate Fair Use Week… more info here, with a familiar name on Friday’s panel. http://library.harvard.edu/02242014-1000/its-fair-use-week

[[User:Psl|Psl]] 15:56, 25 February 2014 (EST)

Regulating Speech Online

2014-02-19T20:56:15Z

Ryan: /* Links from Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 18'''

The Internet has the potential to revolutionize public discourse. Instead of large media companies and corporate advertisers controlling the channels of speech, anyone with an Internet connection can, in the words of the Supreme Court, “become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox.” (Reno v. ACLU). Internet speakers can reach vast audiences of readers, viewers, researchers, and buyers that stretch across real space borders, or they can concentrate on niche audiences that share a common interest or geographical location. What's more, speech on the Internet has truly become a conversation, with different voices and viewpoints mingling together to create a single "work."

With this great potential, however, comes new questions. What happens when anyone can publish to a global audience with virtually no oversight? How can a society balance the rights of speakers with the interests in safeguarding minors from offensive content? When different countries take different approaches on speech, whose values should take precedence? When a user of a website says something defamatory, when should we punish the user and when should we punish the website?

In this class, we will look at how law and social norms are struggling to adapt to this new electronic terrain.

Joining us this week will be [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jhermes Jeff Hermes], Director of the [http://www.dmlp.org/ Digital Media Law Project].

== Assignments ==

The first half of assignment 2 (posting your prospectus) is due before class ''next week (Feb. 25th)''. Information on the assignment can be found [[Assignments#Assignment_2:_Prospectus|here]].

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==

; Private and public control of speech online

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfS_2oXVch0 Berkman Center, How Internet Censorship Works] (about 7 mins., watch all)

* [http://access.opennet.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/accesscontrolled-chapter-5.pdf Ethan Zuckerman, Intermediary Censorship (from ''Access Controlled'')]

* [http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113045/free-speech-internet-silicon-valley-making-rules Jeffrey Rosen, The Delete Squad (New Republic)]

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

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

; Speech laws and liabilities in the United States

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

* [https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/cda-ag-letter.pdf Letter to Members of Congress from 49 state and territorial Attorneys General]

; Cross-border concerns

* [http://freespeechdebate.com/en/media/susan-benesch-on-dangerous-speech-2/ Susan Benesch, Dangerous Speech] (audio interview, about 9 mins., listen to all)

* [http://techpresident.com/news/wegov/24189/twitter-hands-over-data-unbonjuif-authors-french-authorities Jessica McKenzie, Obeying French Courts, Twitter Hands Over Identities of Users Who Employed Anti-Semitic Hashtag (TechPresident)]

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

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1625820 David Ardia, Free Speech Savior or Shield for Scoundrels: An Empirical Study of Intermediary Immunity Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act] (Read all of Section I, Parts C&D of Section II, and Conclusion)

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

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

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

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

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

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

</onlyinclude>
==Links from Class Discussion==

Jeff Hermes' bio: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jhermes

"Incorporation" of the First Amendment against the states: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

Jacobellis v. Ohio ("I know it when I see it"): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobellis_v._Ohio

Miller v. California (True obscenity standard): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California

Hustler v. Falwell: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell

Analysis of Federal Restricted Buildings Act: http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/restricted.asp

NYT v. Sullivan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gertz_v._Robert_Welch,_Inc.

US v. Alvarez: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Alvarez

Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics: http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

Recent Microsoft issues with search censorship: http://www.herdict.org/blog/2014/02/13/bing-needs-to-explain-its-search-algorithms/

Duties of Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Justice_of_the_United_States#Duties

Litigation involving Wikimedia Foundation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litigation_involving_the_Wikimedia_Foundation

John Seigenthaler Wikipedia Biography Controversy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Seigenthaler_biography_incident

Background on the Innocence of Muslims video: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_of_muslims

Example of effect of YouTube videos on banks: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/09/us_banks_ddos_blamed_on_iran

CDA Section 230: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act

Reno v. ACLU: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union

David Ardia did a pretty thorough review of where we are with CDA 230, about 10-15 years later: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1625820

Facebook's content review guidelines: http://gawker.com/5885714/inside-facebooks-outsourced-anti+porn-and-gore-brigade-where-camel-toes-are-more-offensive-than-crushed-heads

Facebook terms of service: https://www.facebook.com/terms.php

Twitter ToS: https://twitter.com/tos

State Attorneys General Letter: https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/cda-ag-letter.pdf

==Class Discussion==

{|class="wikitable" border=3 style="margin: auto; background-color:#FFFFCC;"
|align="center"|<big>'''REMINDER'''</big>
|-
|style="background-color:#FFFFFF;"|Your comments must be submitted '''before 4:00PM ET''' on the Tuesday we hold class in order to count for participation credit. Please see the [[Class Participation|participation policy]] for more information.
|}
<br/>
<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:Andy|Andy]] 15:12, 7 November 2013 (EST)</div>

----

"The spread of information networks (the internet) is forming a new nervous system for our planet" - Hilary Clinton.

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccGzOJHE1rw

For governments to react expeditiously to help individuals or communities in distress, there must be freedom of speech online.
But for this to be effective, the process need to be organized and formalized. Individuals need to ensure they are not sending noises and gibberish but useful information so that either the government or other able individuals, NGO's, or even private corporations can come to the rescue.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 06:57, 12 February 2014 (EST)

----

I have to say, I found "The Delete Squad" article by Jeffrey Rosen to be extremely interesting. While I find hate speech despicable, I agree with the conclusion at which "The Deciders" arrived, to intervene only in rare cases in which resulting violence appeared imminent. In this age of prolific internet bullying, I can see how many people (particularly parents) might be inclined to argue that regulations must be implemented, but to me the solution seems to lie more so in the individual's own usage of the internet. By this I mean to say that a person should be responsible for restricting his or her (or his or her child's) internet usage so that he or she is not actively involved in sites which might be problematic. [[User:Castille|Castille]] 02:26, 15 February 2014 (EST)

:Rosen's article sheds a lot of light on what has become very important content control force in digitally-mediated discussions. For me, the most interesting and troubling aspect of this is the time they take to decide these things. Rosen claims the content review groups at Facebook have on average 20 seconds to evaluate a claim before acting upon it. It is nearly impossible to internalize in such a short period of time the complicated elements Susan Benesch flags to separate the dangerous from the tasteless but far less dangerous - the context, the speaker, the audience, etc. How can they be expected to do in 20 seconds what scholars and courts spend years (and many trees of paper) contemplating in other contexts? (Oh, and to your next post - book recommendations are always welcome!) [[User:Andy|Andy]] 21:40, 17 February 2014 (EST)

----

This might be a little off-topic, so I apologize in advance if it's "inappropriate", but I was wondering if anyone has read ''The Circle'' by Dave Eggers? These readings-- and my exchange with Ichua on last week's discussion board-- have really made me consider the thoughts posed in that book. Basically, the book is about a company (a la Facebook) which seeks to "complete the circle" of internet usage and identity. It functions as a sort of government in and of itself, as well as a full-fledged community/world. Everything is consolidated on their system, so that people have basically no anonymity online as we do now; the internet is no longer removed from reality, but is instead a virtual reality in the most literal sense. All of their information is stored within the system, including their medical records, family history, purchase history, job details and tasks, and essentially all communication is conducted through the site. There is also a security camera system which is set up and controlled by the users, but has become so prolific that essentially every area of the globe is under surveillance. While the situation posed in the novel is drastic and even scary, there are a lot of positives to certain aspects. I think the biggest concern is not necessarily the loss of privacy, but the question of who controls (or should control) such a system. Certainly controls should exist, but surely corporations should not have that much power or intimate knowledge and it seems that even a government would not suffice for such a job. Should there be another authority? If so, what sort of entity would be qualified to do such a job? I'd love to hear other peoples' perspectives, whether you've read it or not.[[User:Castille|Castille]] 12:55, 17 February 2014 (EST)

----

*'''NOTE 1''' While reading this week's articles, I took a break from homework to scroll down my Facebook newsfeed. I came across a post by a friend in Quebec, about a website that satirizes Snapchat. When I clicked the link, it gave me an error message. I messaged my friend, she was able to open the link with no problem from Quebec. From the comments on her post, it seems as though the only questionable content were some dirty pictures on the site, but nothing I understand to be limited in the USA. That was a bit weird/scary...
*'''NOTE 2''' Now that I am done reading this week's articles, I am more nervous to post my honest response to some of the articles than I used to be!
*'''QUESTION''' Does anyone know the Wiki Markdown version of <code>target="_blank"</code>? I'd be happy to add the markup to the class readings if anyone knows what the code is (I've tried Googling it... no luck...)
[[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 15:27, 17 February 2014 (EST)

: It is generally considered bad practice in web development to use target="_blank" outside of very specific, exceptional cases. The reason is simple: If the link has no target attribute, the behaviour is defined by user's settings and by user's action as they can either click the link or right click and open in another tab/window/etc., some browsers offering other options such us click&drag, middle click, etc. If the link has a target="_blank" attribute, on the other hand, the user is forced to open the link in a separate tab/window - his actions are thus limited by the developer, for no good reason (even if the developer might think he has a good reason, it usually isn't). --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 17:39, 17 February 2014 (EST)

::Thank you for the note Seifip!!! Makes sense, maybe i can play around with Chrome settings & see if I can set it so outside links always open in new tab... Not that I'm too lazy to press the cmd/ctrl key for each link... (well I guess a bit) but my keyboards are all in different languages which confuses the crap out of my typing muscle memory, so I love it when browsers already know which links I want in a new tab (:

::: [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/linkclump/lfpjkncokllnfokkgpkobnkbkmelfefj?hl=en Linkclump] extension is your friend :) --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 07:58, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

As I was considering the intersections of this week’s readings, several articles reminded me of a case that occurred back in 2000, although not within the realm of the Internet or something like the Flickr or Picasa most of us are very familiar with today, the parallels and concerns will seem obvious.

When we think about the amount of daily photographic content that now goes up on Facebook, Flickr, Picasa, etc. and consider the roles of these “Deciders” (as defined in one of the reading), the case as it occurred for an Oberlin, Ohio family back in 2000, seems like it could play out over and over again if individual states received the powers of prosecution to the extent that the State Attorneys General are requesting in their letter to congress on July 23, 2013.

Some may remember the case I’m referring to, in an overly distilled summary, it involved an amateur photographer who was chronicling her daughter’s life in still photography. Some photographs included her (then 8yr old) daughter bathing. When the photos were developed by the local film-processing lab, a clerk reported this to the police as an incident of “child pornography”. The local police agreed, and the mother was arrested and the case garnered national attention at the time with the ACLU coming to the defense of the mother.
http://www.oberlin.edu/alummag/oamcurrent/oam_spring_00/atissue.html
[Later the subject of an entire book looking more closely at the issues]
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/art/questions-of-photographic-propriety-in-framing-innocence/

The letter by the 49 Attorneys General certainly strikes at a horror that anyone with a human heart will become equally enraged towards - the tragedy of child abuse, sex trafficking, and exploitation. While it seems odd that the word “The State” is omitted from the current language of the CDA, I wonder if by including “The State” in CDA language, we will end up introduce a sliding scale of laws that become defined by “the standards of any small community” enforcing crimes that THEY define a “Obscenity” and/or “child pornography”.

What is viewed as unprotected speech and deemed as “obscenity” (or “child pornography”) in Lorain County Ohio, may not result in the same definition in (say) San Francisco. With the addition of “The State” in the CDA, could the State of Ohio prosecute a photographer in San Francisco for posting an “obscene” picture to a Flickr account which is accessible to users in Ohio? If the definition of “obscenity” is based on the Miller’s test (below), then What are the “community standards” that define obscenity in a case where one state wishes to prosecute someone in another “community”??

The Miller test for obscenity includes the following criteria

(1) whether ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would find that the work, ‘taken as a whole,’ appeals to ‘prurient interest’

(2) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and

(3) whether the work, ‘taken as a whole,’ lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

[[User:Psl|Psl]] 17:47, 17 February 2014 (EST)

:Thanks for contributing! Just to clarify, the constitutional definition of actionable obscenity under ''Miller'' has the geographic element to it, which tailors the more general [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-71 criminal statute], but in the realm of child pornography neither the [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252 criminal statute] nor the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._Ferber First Amendment doctrine] base liability on community standards. So while obscenity can very state to state, child pornography does not. (And both are illegal at the federal level.) [[User:Andy|Andy]] 18:47, 17 February 2014 (EST)

----

I have a greater appreciation for the issues involved in online free speech after this week's article. I somewhat disagree with Zuckerman's conclusion that private limitations to speech in private spaces is "Dangerous for a public society," in that I believe that private companies need to be able to define what is or isn't acceptable communication within their own environments--we're guests in these areas, and it's up to companies owning the spaces to decide what sort of environment their guests are going to experience. On the other hand, I don't think it can be the government that defines what's acceptable--it needs to be up to the individual owners of these spaces. I'm concerned about any encroachment on an individual or private enterprise's ability to decide what rules are appropriate for itself. While I find the content of, say, a site like Stormfront (a white separatist website) to be totally repugnant, I would defend their right to publish what they do--if anything, it simply exposes their nonsense to public scrutiny and criticism.

I am sympathetic to Benesch's thinking about "dangerous speech," and in particular it does make sense that the context (speaker, political environment, proximity to sensitive events, lack of competition/criticism) can make hate speech turn into something more insidious. Nevertheless, I'm unable to think of a good solution that doesn't actually make things worse. She claims to defend freedom of expression yet is able to make a distinction between expression and freedom of the press (dissemination). I find myself unable to disentangle the two. When one considers the international aspects, and the potential for international lawsuits (such as the French cases we've discussed) it seems like it would be unusually hard to apply her test to speech and protect the right of companies in places such as the United States to publish things that someone might claim to be "dangerous" elsewhere. For example, would the Chinese government find it to be "dangerous" if the customers of Twitter posted content about how there should be an end to single-party rule? Where do we draw the line? It's clear that not only are there the interests of certain governments at stake (and their authoritarian approaches to speech) but also the simple fact that some countries (such as the Rwanda example) may not have the institutions or cultural heritage to handle US-style free speech; yet it is it fair to force US companies to account for all of these cross-border and cross-cultural differences?

[[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 20:08, 17 February 2014 (EST)

----

I also found myself somewhat sympathetic to Bensech's concern about dangerous speech. However, it is unfair and implausible to make US companies responsible for such cross-border/cultural differences. It is bad for business and generally not a policy I would deem logical. The way I see it, should a company be held liable for slander that someone says while in their establishment or be punished for someone who spray paints a hate message on the company's door? Although businesses can take precautions to try to prevent such occurrences, to do so over the internet is a much more painstaking task. Furthermore, I think the bounds of what constitutes "hate speech" is being stretched to some degree. Constitutionally and as many Supreme court cases have favored, freedom of speech is protected so long as it does not "incite violent action". For example, to instruct people to harm someone of a certain race would be considered unlawful. In my mind, that is where the line must be drawn.

Though, as others have mentioned, internet bullying is becoming more widespread and has resulted in teen suicides and possibly contributed to the uptick in school shootings as some have theorized. Still, to what degree should we be prosecuting internet hacklers for this behavior? As Professor mentioned in class, once an incident occurs Congress tends to look for an immediate remedy via legislation when it may not necessarily be the answer. Of course I find it horrible and morally repugnant that someone would bully an innocent person online but does this mean that every bit of our speech should now be scrutinized and if we, for example, call someone fat online we should be given a misdemeanor? If our society deems legal recourse for online bullying, it will become quite convoluted in staking out the levels and appropriate punishments for each offense. Should a few "bad apples" online ruin or impede the benefits of free internet speech for the masses of good people in society who thrive off of our shared knowledge? Should McDonald's cheeseburgers be illegal to protect those who struggle from obesity? No matter how you frame it, more restrictions will eventually equate to more inhibition for companies and citizens alike. Such inhibition, I argue, thwarts a society's economic and intellectual growth.

--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 10:34, 18 February 2014 (EST)

:I'm really glad you brought up the issue of bullying! This is an area where the Berkman Center's Youth and Media Lab have been doing [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2012/kbw_bulling_in_a_networked_era some great research] around framing, understanding, and assessing efficacy of solutions to bullying. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:15, 18 February 2014 (EST)

:I agree with your points, AmyAnn, about the difficulty of dealing with bullying and regulating harassment online without stifling speech. The reading I've done on this issue, which has been more about harassment of women and not children, highlights the need for enforcement of what laws we do have. It's not that we need more laws, it's that we need the existing ones to be understood in the context of the Internet and to be enforced by the authorities. Amanda Hess wrote a really wonderful piece about her experience with this that I think I mentioned during one of the first weeks of class, which is long but well worth the read. [http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/women-arent-welcome-internet-72170/#.Us2TKsXlSF4.twitter] Lindy West wrote a follow up for Jezebel [http://jezebel.com/we-must-not-shut-up-about-how-women-are-treated-on-the-1496622407], which gives a quick overview and her own commentary. [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 12:43, 18 February 2014 (EST)

Thank you for sharing these sources! It is refreshing to see how more people are getting involved in spreading the message about cyber-bullying and I believe communication and public awareness initiatives are crucial in combating these issues, particularly in targeting the most vulnerable and dominant population on the web (the youth). The modern parent has more to consider in raising children with regular access to the cyber world both from the perspective of the victim and in preventative measures. A recent pew survey noted that 90% of teens had witnessed cyber-bullying yet did nothing about it. Imagine how many lives would be saved if everyone took a stand against cyber-bullying. Then again, I suppose the children did not know what to do or who to report their observations to; one might think to inform the student's parents but perhaps the teen did not know the parents? What action could this 90% of teens have taken? Call the police and on what grounds? At first blush, 90% of teens not reporting bullying seems like an awful statistic, but when considering the lack of direction or guidance in knowing (as a society) how to deal with these matters legally, it all trickles down and muddles the situation to the point where a concerned citizen may not be able to effectively help his fellow cyber-victim. In any event, without communication, these teens may not even recognize cyber-bullying to begin with and may become "desensitized" to a point where it may not even cross their mind. Communication is critical for our community to even be aware of what goes on in cyberspace, but as Jkelly mentions, all of the communication and education still cannot trump the lack of enforcement or clear legal path on dealing with these issues.

Has anyone seen the documentary "Submit"? It was created by parents of internet-bullying victims and the production discusses just how dangerous the bully's "arsenal" online has become when considering how one can, at worst case scenario, completely destroy someone's social standing, career, and identity. The "arsenal" they say is dangerous because it is both "vast" and "at a distant" offering a bully the prime environment in which to operate.

Here is the link for the documentary for those interested:
http://www.submitthedocumentary.com/

--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 14:08, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

While I find Susan Benesch's pursuit of a more nuanced definition of free speech quite commendable, I find that her definition of dangerous speech is prone to subjective assessment and can lead to excessive censorship. Some of the factors, such as the charisma of the speaker, are difficult to assess and are shared between speakers for bad and good causes. Other factors, such as historical context, are equally less than ideal as history is not a constant, a fact, but rather something defined by the state and current generation based on its limited knowledge of the past and current view of the events. The way we see and interpret history changes virtually every decade, and it would be nice if the view of what constitutes dangerous speech was not tied to such an uncertain factor. --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 08:11, 18 February 2014 (EST)

:Great points, [[User:Seifip|Seifip]], and I suspect Susan would agree with you that there is still a gap between what factors should and shouldn't matter, and how that translates to policies, procedures, and rules for monitoring against dangerous speech. The tie between the substantive and procedural issues around freedom of expression is a fascinating place to explore at some depth. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:15, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

I found the reading this week really interesting as I am from the country that pioneered Internet censorship, China. To be exact, I am from Hong Kong, one of the Special Administrative Regions of China. For those who are not familiar with the history of Hong Kong, it used to be a colony of Britain and China resumed sovereignty in 1997. Hong Kong is under the principle of “One County, Two Systems”, which means that it has a different political, legal and economical system from China and will be maintained that way for at least 50 years.

Facebook, Twitter, New York Times have been on the blocked websites list in China because they are “politically sensitive”. Instead, they created their own social networking tools, Weibo. There are a couple different Weibo that launched by different companies, but all of them are in cooperation of the Internet Censorship in the People’s Republic of China.

WeChat,a popular messaging app for smart phone which is similar to WhatsApp, Line, Facebook Messenger etc, is also under censorship. Messages that contain some keywords will be filtered and blocked. Users who send those messages will receive a message saying” The message you sent contains restricted works. Please try again”.

In September last year, The Chinese Government finally allows a small selection of people to access those banned websites including Facebook and Twitter. However, the small selection of people means people that live in that specific 17 square mile area of Shanghai. Many say this is a great start of the revolution, but I am not as optimistic as the rest. I do acknowledge the changes that have been made in years, however, I believe this incident is only a one-time exception that the government made.

[[User:Jolietheone|Jolietheone]] 03:13, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

WHY WE CANNOT TRUST EVERYTHING ON THE SOCIAL MEDIA: OF FREE SPEECH AND LIES

http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/pm-lee-untruths-spread-through-social-media-hard-correctE

But rather than other people or web robots doing the filtering, we should be teaching our young people how to filter good and reliable information from bad ones, especially on social media.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 11:53, 18 February 2014 (EST)

Ichua - I could not agree more! It is hard enough for educated adults to filter through the propaganda spewed on the web; I can only imagine how a child would struggle with this. Even the most reputable websites have had instances where misinformation or biased information has been reported. Educating our youth on cyber material will make or break our country (and world's) future both within the cyber world and the real world.

--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 08:33, 19 February 2014 (EST)

----

Following up on Andy and Castille's comments regarding content review and concern over the speed of content removal, I found Rachel Whetstone's entry about Google's policy regarding free expression and regulating speech particularly interesting. Whetstone emphasizes the importance of community, and the relative speed and accuracy of hate speech/ inappropriate content regulation by the millions of google users who self-police their given online communities. She acknowledges the potentially problematic dynamic of subjective judgment of what is deemed inappropriate, but I strongly agree that the majority of users- especially those who actively and regularly engage in any number of online communities- will agree about what is acceptable and what is offensive. Castille brought up concerns over cyber bullying and parental supervision/ intervention-- I would hope that the majority of parents would have similar responses to what is deemed unacceptable content when they encounter it. Though the ability to consider, deliberate and process each case of potential content regulation or removal is indeed limited when the average content review period on platforms such as Facebook is 20 seconds (referenced by Andy), I still would trust the ability of a community of regularly engaged and informed reviewers to regulate appropriate content.
[[User:akk22|akk22]] 11:50, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

NEW IDEA - ONLINE SOFTWARE FOR BUILDING THE COUNTRY FROM COLLABORATIVE FREE SPEECH

I am thinking of Soft Systems approaches used in operations research such as the use of "cognitive maps" described by Colin Eden (UK). If there is an issue of national interest, we could have every interested person contribute to an interactive online cognitive map which has a "revert-to-earlier-version" function like in Wikipedia. That way whoever contributes would have a sense of ownership of the map. Positive or negative influence of one factor on another can be indicated by "+" and "-" signs and strength of relationship can be shown with line thickness of the arrows. The contributor's name and his reasons or evidence for the added link could be displayed by clicking on the connecting arrow. Well, this idea is not really new as Colin Eden had developed a software for this called COPE...but this will need to be enhanced with the additional features suggested.....Also, if one contributor says "A ---->+ B" and another disagrees, the map could be modified with a second link from A to B as "A ---->+ C ----> -B", while still retaining the original link. Most probably a detailed read of the description of the first link would lead one to suggest "A ----> -D ----> +B" as a replacement for the original link. Thus, the map will give us a "richer" picture of the elements affecting a particular issue as new links are added.

See: "Using Cognitive Mapping for Strategic Options Development". ( in 'Rational Analysis for a Problematic World', Jonathan Rosenhead (ed.)). Wiley 1989.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 12:15, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

In related news... [http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/winter-olympics/26223586 Team GB want social media protection] --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 12:16, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

In reviewing the readings for this week, and digging deeper into the subject area; I walked away with a true appreciation of a topic that I believed was easily defineable. Perhaps this is indicative of the escalated polarization of issues and beliefs that we are currently experiencing. Bensech's concern about dangerous speech made an argument that I welcomed to entertain. After more thought, I began to question the notion of censorship and the ultimate guideline for who decides what is acceptable. I am uncomfortable with any corporation placing limitations on private speech. I am more comfortable with the cultural norms of the local community self-regulating. Realizing this may not be perfect, to err on the side of the collective conscious seems a much better path to civility.[[User:VACYBER|VACYBER]] 13:33, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

Observing the behavior of current providers and government leaders positions about the content of information, I see that there are not, and probably never will be, absolutely effective legal or technological mechanisms to control content on the Internet. If the issue were simple , all undesirable socially behaviors that occur in network - the dissemination of child pornography , intellectual property infringement , manifestations of racial hatred, and many others - would be ceased a long time ago.
I agree that technological control mechanisms achieved by providers, for example, the one which can do a simply edit an information available on web site in order to remove or correct any references that cause damage; may also erase the contents of a given page or even remove files from the server that you use to store your information . Being a common and effective means of control, once the content provider is one who exercises direct control over the information or files available on the respective web site or server and may take steps to remove or block access to infringing material . Therefore , it is up to the judge to determine the adoption of reasonable technical mechanisms together with all other support measures that may be useful to obtain specific performance or equivalent practical result .
The implementation of drastic measures to control content on the Internet should be reserved for extreme cases, when this obvious public interest provided that the weighted potential damage caused to third parties, should not be adopted in other cases , especially when dealing with individual interest except in very exceptional situations, which represent rare exceptions .
The difficulties inherent in the protection of rights within the Internet can cause some perplexity . However , it is a reminder : the network is a reflection of society and , as such , imperfect and subject to injustice . If until today was not possible tutelary with absolute perfection all rights provided in a legal system, we would be innocent to expect different results us internet related conflicts .
The documentary about Mark Zuckerberg describes about the challenges faced by faced by Facebook regarding the control of content. http://youtu.be/5WiDIhIkPoM [[User:Gisellebatista|Gisellebatista]]

----

Professor Sellars,
I feel that your "Structural Weaknesses" piece adequately addressed many key issues surrounding internet censorship of speech, especially the fact that extensive private regulation already happens among several different parties. I also especially liked your astute observation that the tragic Benghazi situation was far more nuanced than simply one person posting a video to YouTube; there were many pre-existing societal issues at play. I do have a one question about the piece, though: When writing about how the White House requested that YouTube remove the video, you opine that the White House did so "very inappropriately." Are you saying that the manner in which the White House made the request was inappropriate, or was it inappropriate for the White House to make such a request at all? I'm genuinely curious to know what you think, seeing as how this request seems to involve the "bully pulpit" aspect of the President's executive branch, which in this case uses speech in order to regulate speech. [[User:Vance.puchalski|Vance.puchalski]] 15:19, 18 February 2014 (EST)

:Thanks for reading, Vance! My view on this fluctuate a bit, but I tend to be very concerned with government engaging in censorship through "soft power" means like this - asking YouTube to rethink a decision, cutting off payment providers, etc. - when they lack the constitutional authority to punish or enjoin it directly. I would be less concerned if they simply exercised their speech to say they disagree with the video, and maybe even YouTube's decision to keep it up. But to exercise pressure on a domestic intermediary crosses a line for me. For more on this, check out Jack Balkin's writing on [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2377526 "old school" vs. "new school" speech regulation.] [[User:Andy|Andy]] 16:35, 18 February 2014 (EST)

: Vance, I had wanted to ask the same question! And I like Dr. Seller's respond. But in Singapore, any negative implication about the government cannot be tolerated. Politicians in the past who speak negatively and aggressively about the government and questioning the integrity of the government, particularly of the Prime Minister or Deputy Prime Minister without clear evidence, were usually put in jail or made bankrupt as in the case of J.B. Jeyaratnam. That is why Singaporeans prefer to express their views anonymously and in the social media, but even then it could be a dangerous thing to do as it may affect their career, their family, their life. The majority would prefer to remain quiet or share their opinions only amongst very close friends and relatives. I used to have lots of respect for LKY but his treatment of JB Jeyaratnam seemed overly harsh and unnecessry, though this pales in comparison with wicked governments/leaders who execute their oppositions. Yet I wonder if the opposition could have been more tactful in their approach. In some countries it may seem an acceptable way to attempt to remove a leader by smearing his character. In another, the leader expects to be treated like a god and feels threatened when his character and integrity is called into question. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 20:15, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

Re: Internet censorship, first video: I was particularly surprised that Google provides (or provided) near realtime indicators of takedown notices and censorship, country to country. It would be interesting to look into potential backlash to this, on a country-by-country basis, on the corporate or governmental level. (Though, perhaps Google has grown so large that it has cultivated a bit of immunity?) That being said, later in the video it did mention that corporations (theoretically even Google) are on “their turf” and have no choice but to comply.

A theme that keeps coming up in these readings, and in class, is that our perception of our freedoms on internet seem to be skewed. It’s almost inherent in our dealings with the net. Why do we, generally speaking, have this idealized view? An example could be user-created content — websites, commenting, user-focused platforms, etc. etc. In general, user driven content… the fact that anyone can theoretically add to the web space, with relatively low visibility. This could be leaving us with this idea that the web is truly open. The wide availability of pornography actually comes to mind as a decent example… In that, if this real-world, regulated material is so widely available online, then the net must be a “free” space.

Re: Dangerous speech vs. hate speech: While watching this video it occurred to me — when she was speaking about not needing to limit the hate speech itself — that the internet provides people with such wide access to information across the globe, so that this hate speech could be accessible in a volatile area, thus making it also dangerous speech. She didn’t mention that fact, but perhaps I missed it in another reading…. It strikes me that it would be hard to define this based on territory and context, given widespread access to the web. [[User:Twood|Twood]] 15:25, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

I have to mention that the most interesting reading material was "Delete Squads". I am sharing the views of Deciders on ground that

----

Free speech and the Internet have been intermingled in speech from the very beginnings of online interaction. But as the Internet has developed , so have people’s opinions about what rules and regulations apply from the “real world”.

Major corporations policies and outlooks (like Techs from silicon valley) on free speech have shaped how people post and express themselves over the web.
But major issues have arisen from foreign countries differing like France demanding Twitter to hand over the identities of users who promoted hate speech. Even Google censors of a video, even though it is only in a few particular countries, caused much concern or like when Google image search for Tiananmen Square shows starkly different results from a search in the US or a search from China.
China, Russia and other totalitarian countries have differing ways to effectively filter free speech on the Internet. These range in form but generally are DDoS attacks, hacking, intrusion filtering by key words, or flooding blogs with pro-government agenda even shutting down their internet for a time.
What is the best way to keep speech on the Internet censorship free? There are many answers. One is way is circumventing tools, many have been developed but they have proved of little use in the over all struggle.
It seems the best way is to have the giants of the Internet have a greater role in participation paving the way for generations to come.

The discussion between John Palfrey and Adam Thierer about 47 U.S.C. Section 230 addresses some of the most contentious aspects of law in such a clear concise way. Should online carriers be liable for content posted on their websites or web browsers? Each provides compelling reasons for their view. Adam Thierer argues in favor of keeping Section 230 intact showing how crucial it has been to the development of the Internet. Although John Palfrey agrees, his view is to make stricter demands on ISPs and “interactive computer service providers”. Through out their discourse they touch upon tough issues like negligence claims, increased government involvement, litigation, and child obscenity laws. [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:57, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

Per Zuckerman's article, it is my conviction that "Internet Censorship" in many countries sometimes reflect the level of such countries' tolerance for "Freedom speech." The article gave the examples of China, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, and Zimbabwe, just to mention but a few. These countries' censorship of certain websites, blogs, "sensitive keywords," or the sharing of specific information are motivated by various reasons. However, the restrictions to their state-sponsored ISPs have also forced web hosting services such as BlueHost as well as American internet giants such as LinkedIn, Google, Microsoft, and others to comply with the governments of those countries in order to do business there.

Personally, as much as I agree with Zuckerman's analysis on certain governments' censorship of the internet in relation to freedom of speech, I also believe that the financial motivation is equally important to some of them. For instance, I recently traveled to the UAE and Kuwait for business. One of the most noticeable internet censorship that struck me the most was how both countries blocked messaging applications such as Skype and Viber. I noticed that one cannot download those apps while in those two countries. It's either that you download Skype and Viber from the U.S., before you leave, or you will not be able to do so once there. Is this censorship to restrict "freedom of speech" or to protect their local telecommunications companies?
[[User:cheikhmbacke|cheikhmbacke]] 15:55, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

I have to mention that the most interesting reading material was "Delete Squads". I am sharing the views of Deciders on ground that the internet is the independent space of sharing thoughts, information, data and etc. which is the legal base of freedom of speech. But, if we imagine for a moment, that our future will be considerably affected by Internet, so we should be more careful. After reading all relevant materials, I came to the following conclusion on this topic:
- The Internet must totally be the independent space and everyone will be able to exercise his freedom of speech without any restrictions other than those set by legislation.
- The posted content which breaks the requirement of legislation should be withdrawn/deleted immediately by the website after they become aware of this fact. Otherwise, the role of legislation may be undermined.
- If the posted content breaks the legislation of certain country, the access of this particular country must be restricted to this content upon relevant request.
- The user who had posted the content which is incompliance with legislation, must be held liable. The websites and such companies as Google, Twitter and Facebook etc. can held liable only in cases if they knew about this violance, but failed to take appropriate measures (for example, other users informed the website about breach,
but the website didn't delete it). So, in this case the websites cannot be held liable for any breach of legislation by users, if they prove that they didn't know this fact. Otherwise, the websites will be "gatekeepers" of content in the future in order to avoid liability.

Consequently, I think that there should be compromise between freedom of speech and restrictions on it which are set by legislation. ([[User:Aysel|Aysel]] 15:56, 18 February 2014 (EST)) Aysel Ibayeva

-----

Herdict is a very useful tool, not only for filtering and censorship but in general when troubleshooting the reason a site and/or one of it's URL's isn't available. I was wondering why I hadn't heard of this tool or something similar before. Kudos to Jonathan Zittrain! I was also surprised to find out that the U.S. ranked third on the list of censorship by country, since we are a relatively free and democratic nation.[[User:404consultant|404consultant]] 16:26, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

I see the decision of an online service provider to take down content as a cost-benefit one. If a request to remove material could potentially represent legal action with potentially large monetary losses then the OSP incentive is to remove material with little hesitation. On the other hand, there might be situations were free speech is awarded by users and thus represent a benefit for the OSP. Either way OSP’s are in an extremely tight situation with tradeoffs having important implications in terms of free speech.

[[User:Luciagamboaso|Luciagamboaso]] 15:56, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

Zuckerman’s article brings interesting light to censorship in regards to freedom of speech and who’s value should take precedence.
As discussed in the article, Bluehost’s CEO, Matt Heaton was quick to back the companies financial well-being by adding an entirely new section (13) to an already executed contract and cease service of Burrell’s sites to "comply" with the U.S. Treasury.

Heaton’s decision was most likely based from a financial perspective, and was unwilling to take a chance due to the slight profit margins of hosting. So, to safeguard profits, the company added section 13 to a pre-existing contract. In this case, Bluehost value took precedence (Not the U.S. Treasury or the sites Burrell happened to be hosting through Bluehost).

Question: Does Burrell have the ability to pursue legal action against Bluehost for adding a clause to her contract after the original agreement was executed?

--[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 14:39, 18 February 2014 (EST)

Freedom of speech should be preserved online. However, I do agree that hate speech especially one that poses an immediate threat to someone’s safety should be interfered. Reporting of such occasions and policing should be in place to protect people’s safety, however, the problem is who can be trusted with such an enormous task. Government might not be appropriate because it may easily lead too much politically-influenced filtering. It’s an interesting topic and hopefully we can find a way to affectively share ideas but also staying within some sort of safety boundary.
[[User:Lpereira|Lpereira]] 15:34, 18 February 2014 (EST)
----

Regulating Speech Online

2014-02-19T20:55:36Z

Ryan: /* Links from Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 18'''

The Internet has the potential to revolutionize public discourse. Instead of large media companies and corporate advertisers controlling the channels of speech, anyone with an Internet connection can, in the words of the Supreme Court, “become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox.” (Reno v. ACLU). Internet speakers can reach vast audiences of readers, viewers, researchers, and buyers that stretch across real space borders, or they can concentrate on niche audiences that share a common interest or geographical location. What's more, speech on the Internet has truly become a conversation, with different voices and viewpoints mingling together to create a single "work."

With this great potential, however, comes new questions. What happens when anyone can publish to a global audience with virtually no oversight? How can a society balance the rights of speakers with the interests in safeguarding minors from offensive content? When different countries take different approaches on speech, whose values should take precedence? When a user of a website says something defamatory, when should we punish the user and when should we punish the website?

In this class, we will look at how law and social norms are struggling to adapt to this new electronic terrain.

Joining us this week will be [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jhermes Jeff Hermes], Director of the [http://www.dmlp.org/ Digital Media Law Project].

== Assignments ==

The first half of assignment 2 (posting your prospectus) is due before class ''next week (Feb. 25th)''. Information on the assignment can be found [[Assignments#Assignment_2:_Prospectus|here]].

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==

; Private and public control of speech online

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfS_2oXVch0 Berkman Center, How Internet Censorship Works] (about 7 mins., watch all)

* [http://access.opennet.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/accesscontrolled-chapter-5.pdf Ethan Zuckerman, Intermediary Censorship (from ''Access Controlled'')]

* [http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113045/free-speech-internet-silicon-valley-making-rules Jeffrey Rosen, The Delete Squad (New Republic)]

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

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

; Speech laws and liabilities in the United States

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

* [https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/cda-ag-letter.pdf Letter to Members of Congress from 49 state and territorial Attorneys General]

; Cross-border concerns

* [http://freespeechdebate.com/en/media/susan-benesch-on-dangerous-speech-2/ Susan Benesch, Dangerous Speech] (audio interview, about 9 mins., listen to all)

* [http://techpresident.com/news/wegov/24189/twitter-hands-over-data-unbonjuif-authors-french-authorities Jessica McKenzie, Obeying French Courts, Twitter Hands Over Identities of Users Who Employed Anti-Semitic Hashtag (TechPresident)]

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

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1625820 David Ardia, Free Speech Savior or Shield for Scoundrels: An Empirical Study of Intermediary Immunity Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act] (Read all of Section I, Parts C&D of Section II, and Conclusion)

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

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

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

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

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

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

</onlyinclude>
==Links from Class Discussion==

Jeff Hermes' bio: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jhermes

"Incorporation" of the First Amendment against the states: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

Jacobellis v. Ohio ("I know it when I see it"): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobellis_v._Ohio

Miller v. California (True obscenity standard): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California

Hustler v. Falwell: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell

Analysis of Federal Restricted Buildings Act: http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/restricted.asp

NYT v. Sullivan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gertz_v._Robert_Welch,_Inc.

US v. Alvarez: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Alvarez

Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics: http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

Recent Microsoft issues with search censorship: http://www.herdict.org/blog/2014/02/13/bing-needs-to-explain-its-search-algorithms/

Duties of Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Justice_of_the_United_States#Duties

Litigation involving Wikimedia Foundation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litigation_involving_the_Wikimedia_Foundation

John Seigenthaler Wikipedia Biography Controversy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Seigenthaler_biography_incident

Background on the Innocence of Muslims video: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_of_muslims

Example of effect of YouTube videos on banks: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/09/us_banks_ddos_blamed_on_iran

CDA Section 230: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act

Reno v. ACLU: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union

David Ardia did a pretty thorough review of where we are with CDA 230, about 10-15 years later: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1625820

The file Jeff's mentioning is embedded here: http://gawker.com/5885714/inside-facebooks-outsourced-anti+porn-and-gore-brigade-where-camel-toes-are-more-offensive-than-crushed-heads

Facebook terms of service: https://www.facebook.com/terms.php

Twitter ToS: https://twitter.com/tos

State Attorneys General Letter: https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/cda-ag-letter.pdf

==Class Discussion==

{|class="wikitable" border=3 style="margin: auto; background-color:#FFFFCC;"
|align="center"|<big>'''REMINDER'''</big>
|-
|style="background-color:#FFFFFF;"|Your comments must be submitted '''before 4:00PM ET''' on the Tuesday we hold class in order to count for participation credit. Please see the [[Class Participation|participation policy]] for more information.
|}
<br/>
<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:Andy|Andy]] 15:12, 7 November 2013 (EST)</div>

----

"The spread of information networks (the internet) is forming a new nervous system for our planet" - Hilary Clinton.

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccGzOJHE1rw

For governments to react expeditiously to help individuals or communities in distress, there must be freedom of speech online.
But for this to be effective, the process need to be organized and formalized. Individuals need to ensure they are not sending noises and gibberish but useful information so that either the government or other able individuals, NGO's, or even private corporations can come to the rescue.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 06:57, 12 February 2014 (EST)

----

I have to say, I found "The Delete Squad" article by Jeffrey Rosen to be extremely interesting. While I find hate speech despicable, I agree with the conclusion at which "The Deciders" arrived, to intervene only in rare cases in which resulting violence appeared imminent. In this age of prolific internet bullying, I can see how many people (particularly parents) might be inclined to argue that regulations must be implemented, but to me the solution seems to lie more so in the individual's own usage of the internet. By this I mean to say that a person should be responsible for restricting his or her (or his or her child's) internet usage so that he or she is not actively involved in sites which might be problematic. [[User:Castille|Castille]] 02:26, 15 February 2014 (EST)

:Rosen's article sheds a lot of light on what has become very important content control force in digitally-mediated discussions. For me, the most interesting and troubling aspect of this is the time they take to decide these things. Rosen claims the content review groups at Facebook have on average 20 seconds to evaluate a claim before acting upon it. It is nearly impossible to internalize in such a short period of time the complicated elements Susan Benesch flags to separate the dangerous from the tasteless but far less dangerous - the context, the speaker, the audience, etc. How can they be expected to do in 20 seconds what scholars and courts spend years (and many trees of paper) contemplating in other contexts? (Oh, and to your next post - book recommendations are always welcome!) [[User:Andy|Andy]] 21:40, 17 February 2014 (EST)

----

This might be a little off-topic, so I apologize in advance if it's "inappropriate", but I was wondering if anyone has read ''The Circle'' by Dave Eggers? These readings-- and my exchange with Ichua on last week's discussion board-- have really made me consider the thoughts posed in that book. Basically, the book is about a company (a la Facebook) which seeks to "complete the circle" of internet usage and identity. It functions as a sort of government in and of itself, as well as a full-fledged community/world. Everything is consolidated on their system, so that people have basically no anonymity online as we do now; the internet is no longer removed from reality, but is instead a virtual reality in the most literal sense. All of their information is stored within the system, including their medical records, family history, purchase history, job details and tasks, and essentially all communication is conducted through the site. There is also a security camera system which is set up and controlled by the users, but has become so prolific that essentially every area of the globe is under surveillance. While the situation posed in the novel is drastic and even scary, there are a lot of positives to certain aspects. I think the biggest concern is not necessarily the loss of privacy, but the question of who controls (or should control) such a system. Certainly controls should exist, but surely corporations should not have that much power or intimate knowledge and it seems that even a government would not suffice for such a job. Should there be another authority? If so, what sort of entity would be qualified to do such a job? I'd love to hear other peoples' perspectives, whether you've read it or not.[[User:Castille|Castille]] 12:55, 17 February 2014 (EST)

----

*'''NOTE 1''' While reading this week's articles, I took a break from homework to scroll down my Facebook newsfeed. I came across a post by a friend in Quebec, about a website that satirizes Snapchat. When I clicked the link, it gave me an error message. I messaged my friend, she was able to open the link with no problem from Quebec. From the comments on her post, it seems as though the only questionable content were some dirty pictures on the site, but nothing I understand to be limited in the USA. That was a bit weird/scary...
*'''NOTE 2''' Now that I am done reading this week's articles, I am more nervous to post my honest response to some of the articles than I used to be!
*'''QUESTION''' Does anyone know the Wiki Markdown version of <code>target="_blank"</code>? I'd be happy to add the markup to the class readings if anyone knows what the code is (I've tried Googling it... no luck...)
[[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 15:27, 17 February 2014 (EST)

: It is generally considered bad practice in web development to use target="_blank" outside of very specific, exceptional cases. The reason is simple: If the link has no target attribute, the behaviour is defined by user's settings and by user's action as they can either click the link or right click and open in another tab/window/etc., some browsers offering other options such us click&drag, middle click, etc. If the link has a target="_blank" attribute, on the other hand, the user is forced to open the link in a separate tab/window - his actions are thus limited by the developer, for no good reason (even if the developer might think he has a good reason, it usually isn't). --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 17:39, 17 February 2014 (EST)

::Thank you for the note Seifip!!! Makes sense, maybe i can play around with Chrome settings & see if I can set it so outside links always open in new tab... Not that I'm too lazy to press the cmd/ctrl key for each link... (well I guess a bit) but my keyboards are all in different languages which confuses the crap out of my typing muscle memory, so I love it when browsers already know which links I want in a new tab (:

::: [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/linkclump/lfpjkncokllnfokkgpkobnkbkmelfefj?hl=en Linkclump] extension is your friend :) --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 07:58, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

As I was considering the intersections of this week’s readings, several articles reminded me of a case that occurred back in 2000, although not within the realm of the Internet or something like the Flickr or Picasa most of us are very familiar with today, the parallels and concerns will seem obvious.

When we think about the amount of daily photographic content that now goes up on Facebook, Flickr, Picasa, etc. and consider the roles of these “Deciders” (as defined in one of the reading), the case as it occurred for an Oberlin, Ohio family back in 2000, seems like it could play out over and over again if individual states received the powers of prosecution to the extent that the State Attorneys General are requesting in their letter to congress on July 23, 2013.

Some may remember the case I’m referring to, in an overly distilled summary, it involved an amateur photographer who was chronicling her daughter’s life in still photography. Some photographs included her (then 8yr old) daughter bathing. When the photos were developed by the local film-processing lab, a clerk reported this to the police as an incident of “child pornography”. The local police agreed, and the mother was arrested and the case garnered national attention at the time with the ACLU coming to the defense of the mother.
http://www.oberlin.edu/alummag/oamcurrent/oam_spring_00/atissue.html
[Later the subject of an entire book looking more closely at the issues]
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/art/questions-of-photographic-propriety-in-framing-innocence/

The letter by the 49 Attorneys General certainly strikes at a horror that anyone with a human heart will become equally enraged towards - the tragedy of child abuse, sex trafficking, and exploitation. While it seems odd that the word “The State” is omitted from the current language of the CDA, I wonder if by including “The State” in CDA language, we will end up introduce a sliding scale of laws that become defined by “the standards of any small community” enforcing crimes that THEY define a “Obscenity” and/or “child pornography”.

What is viewed as unprotected speech and deemed as “obscenity” (or “child pornography”) in Lorain County Ohio, may not result in the same definition in (say) San Francisco. With the addition of “The State” in the CDA, could the State of Ohio prosecute a photographer in San Francisco for posting an “obscene” picture to a Flickr account which is accessible to users in Ohio? If the definition of “obscenity” is based on the Miller’s test (below), then What are the “community standards” that define obscenity in a case where one state wishes to prosecute someone in another “community”??

The Miller test for obscenity includes the following criteria

(1) whether ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would find that the work, ‘taken as a whole,’ appeals to ‘prurient interest’

(2) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and

(3) whether the work, ‘taken as a whole,’ lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

[[User:Psl|Psl]] 17:47, 17 February 2014 (EST)

:Thanks for contributing! Just to clarify, the constitutional definition of actionable obscenity under ''Miller'' has the geographic element to it, which tailors the more general [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-71 criminal statute], but in the realm of child pornography neither the [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252 criminal statute] nor the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._Ferber First Amendment doctrine] base liability on community standards. So while obscenity can very state to state, child pornography does not. (And both are illegal at the federal level.) [[User:Andy|Andy]] 18:47, 17 February 2014 (EST)

----

I have a greater appreciation for the issues involved in online free speech after this week's article. I somewhat disagree with Zuckerman's conclusion that private limitations to speech in private spaces is "Dangerous for a public society," in that I believe that private companies need to be able to define what is or isn't acceptable communication within their own environments--we're guests in these areas, and it's up to companies owning the spaces to decide what sort of environment their guests are going to experience. On the other hand, I don't think it can be the government that defines what's acceptable--it needs to be up to the individual owners of these spaces. I'm concerned about any encroachment on an individual or private enterprise's ability to decide what rules are appropriate for itself. While I find the content of, say, a site like Stormfront (a white separatist website) to be totally repugnant, I would defend their right to publish what they do--if anything, it simply exposes their nonsense to public scrutiny and criticism.

I am sympathetic to Benesch's thinking about "dangerous speech," and in particular it does make sense that the context (speaker, political environment, proximity to sensitive events, lack of competition/criticism) can make hate speech turn into something more insidious. Nevertheless, I'm unable to think of a good solution that doesn't actually make things worse. She claims to defend freedom of expression yet is able to make a distinction between expression and freedom of the press (dissemination). I find myself unable to disentangle the two. When one considers the international aspects, and the potential for international lawsuits (such as the French cases we've discussed) it seems like it would be unusually hard to apply her test to speech and protect the right of companies in places such as the United States to publish things that someone might claim to be "dangerous" elsewhere. For example, would the Chinese government find it to be "dangerous" if the customers of Twitter posted content about how there should be an end to single-party rule? Where do we draw the line? It's clear that not only are there the interests of certain governments at stake (and their authoritarian approaches to speech) but also the simple fact that some countries (such as the Rwanda example) may not have the institutions or cultural heritage to handle US-style free speech; yet it is it fair to force US companies to account for all of these cross-border and cross-cultural differences?

[[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 20:08, 17 February 2014 (EST)

----

I also found myself somewhat sympathetic to Bensech's concern about dangerous speech. However, it is unfair and implausible to make US companies responsible for such cross-border/cultural differences. It is bad for business and generally not a policy I would deem logical. The way I see it, should a company be held liable for slander that someone says while in their establishment or be punished for someone who spray paints a hate message on the company's door? Although businesses can take precautions to try to prevent such occurrences, to do so over the internet is a much more painstaking task. Furthermore, I think the bounds of what constitutes "hate speech" is being stretched to some degree. Constitutionally and as many Supreme court cases have favored, freedom of speech is protected so long as it does not "incite violent action". For example, to instruct people to harm someone of a certain race would be considered unlawful. In my mind, that is where the line must be drawn.

Though, as others have mentioned, internet bullying is becoming more widespread and has resulted in teen suicides and possibly contributed to the uptick in school shootings as some have theorized. Still, to what degree should we be prosecuting internet hacklers for this behavior? As Professor mentioned in class, once an incident occurs Congress tends to look for an immediate remedy via legislation when it may not necessarily be the answer. Of course I find it horrible and morally repugnant that someone would bully an innocent person online but does this mean that every bit of our speech should now be scrutinized and if we, for example, call someone fat online we should be given a misdemeanor? If our society deems legal recourse for online bullying, it will become quite convoluted in staking out the levels and appropriate punishments for each offense. Should a few "bad apples" online ruin or impede the benefits of free internet speech for the masses of good people in society who thrive off of our shared knowledge? Should McDonald's cheeseburgers be illegal to protect those who struggle from obesity? No matter how you frame it, more restrictions will eventually equate to more inhibition for companies and citizens alike. Such inhibition, I argue, thwarts a society's economic and intellectual growth.

--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 10:34, 18 February 2014 (EST)

:I'm really glad you brought up the issue of bullying! This is an area where the Berkman Center's Youth and Media Lab have been doing [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2012/kbw_bulling_in_a_networked_era some great research] around framing, understanding, and assessing efficacy of solutions to bullying. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:15, 18 February 2014 (EST)

:I agree with your points, AmyAnn, about the difficulty of dealing with bullying and regulating harassment online without stifling speech. The reading I've done on this issue, which has been more about harassment of women and not children, highlights the need for enforcement of what laws we do have. It's not that we need more laws, it's that we need the existing ones to be understood in the context of the Internet and to be enforced by the authorities. Amanda Hess wrote a really wonderful piece about her experience with this that I think I mentioned during one of the first weeks of class, which is long but well worth the read. [http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/women-arent-welcome-internet-72170/#.Us2TKsXlSF4.twitter] Lindy West wrote a follow up for Jezebel [http://jezebel.com/we-must-not-shut-up-about-how-women-are-treated-on-the-1496622407], which gives a quick overview and her own commentary. [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 12:43, 18 February 2014 (EST)

Thank you for sharing these sources! It is refreshing to see how more people are getting involved in spreading the message about cyber-bullying and I believe communication and public awareness initiatives are crucial in combating these issues, particularly in targeting the most vulnerable and dominant population on the web (the youth). The modern parent has more to consider in raising children with regular access to the cyber world both from the perspective of the victim and in preventative measures. A recent pew survey noted that 90% of teens had witnessed cyber-bullying yet did nothing about it. Imagine how many lives would be saved if everyone took a stand against cyber-bullying. Then again, I suppose the children did not know what to do or who to report their observations to; one might think to inform the student's parents but perhaps the teen did not know the parents? What action could this 90% of teens have taken? Call the police and on what grounds? At first blush, 90% of teens not reporting bullying seems like an awful statistic, but when considering the lack of direction or guidance in knowing (as a society) how to deal with these matters legally, it all trickles down and muddles the situation to the point where a concerned citizen may not be able to effectively help his fellow cyber-victim. In any event, without communication, these teens may not even recognize cyber-bullying to begin with and may become "desensitized" to a point where it may not even cross their mind. Communication is critical for our community to even be aware of what goes on in cyberspace, but as Jkelly mentions, all of the communication and education still cannot trump the lack of enforcement or clear legal path on dealing with these issues.

Has anyone seen the documentary "Submit"? It was created by parents of internet-bullying victims and the production discusses just how dangerous the bully's "arsenal" online has become when considering how one can, at worst case scenario, completely destroy someone's social standing, career, and identity. The "arsenal" they say is dangerous because it is both "vast" and "at a distant" offering a bully the prime environment in which to operate.

Here is the link for the documentary for those interested:
http://www.submitthedocumentary.com/

--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 14:08, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

While I find Susan Benesch's pursuit of a more nuanced definition of free speech quite commendable, I find that her definition of dangerous speech is prone to subjective assessment and can lead to excessive censorship. Some of the factors, such as the charisma of the speaker, are difficult to assess and are shared between speakers for bad and good causes. Other factors, such as historical context, are equally less than ideal as history is not a constant, a fact, but rather something defined by the state and current generation based on its limited knowledge of the past and current view of the events. The way we see and interpret history changes virtually every decade, and it would be nice if the view of what constitutes dangerous speech was not tied to such an uncertain factor. --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 08:11, 18 February 2014 (EST)

:Great points, [[User:Seifip|Seifip]], and I suspect Susan would agree with you that there is still a gap between what factors should and shouldn't matter, and how that translates to policies, procedures, and rules for monitoring against dangerous speech. The tie between the substantive and procedural issues around freedom of expression is a fascinating place to explore at some depth. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:15, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

I found the reading this week really interesting as I am from the country that pioneered Internet censorship, China. To be exact, I am from Hong Kong, one of the Special Administrative Regions of China. For those who are not familiar with the history of Hong Kong, it used to be a colony of Britain and China resumed sovereignty in 1997. Hong Kong is under the principle of “One County, Two Systems”, which means that it has a different political, legal and economical system from China and will be maintained that way for at least 50 years.

Facebook, Twitter, New York Times have been on the blocked websites list in China because they are “politically sensitive”. Instead, they created their own social networking tools, Weibo. There are a couple different Weibo that launched by different companies, but all of them are in cooperation of the Internet Censorship in the People’s Republic of China.

WeChat,a popular messaging app for smart phone which is similar to WhatsApp, Line, Facebook Messenger etc, is also under censorship. Messages that contain some keywords will be filtered and blocked. Users who send those messages will receive a message saying” The message you sent contains restricted works. Please try again”.

In September last year, The Chinese Government finally allows a small selection of people to access those banned websites including Facebook and Twitter. However, the small selection of people means people that live in that specific 17 square mile area of Shanghai. Many say this is a great start of the revolution, but I am not as optimistic as the rest. I do acknowledge the changes that have been made in years, however, I believe this incident is only a one-time exception that the government made.

[[User:Jolietheone|Jolietheone]] 03:13, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

WHY WE CANNOT TRUST EVERYTHING ON THE SOCIAL MEDIA: OF FREE SPEECH AND LIES

http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/pm-lee-untruths-spread-through-social-media-hard-correctE

But rather than other people or web robots doing the filtering, we should be teaching our young people how to filter good and reliable information from bad ones, especially on social media.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 11:53, 18 February 2014 (EST)

Ichua - I could not agree more! It is hard enough for educated adults to filter through the propaganda spewed on the web; I can only imagine how a child would struggle with this. Even the most reputable websites have had instances where misinformation or biased information has been reported. Educating our youth on cyber material will make or break our country (and world's) future both within the cyber world and the real world.

--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 08:33, 19 February 2014 (EST)

----

Following up on Andy and Castille's comments regarding content review and concern over the speed of content removal, I found Rachel Whetstone's entry about Google's policy regarding free expression and regulating speech particularly interesting. Whetstone emphasizes the importance of community, and the relative speed and accuracy of hate speech/ inappropriate content regulation by the millions of google users who self-police their given online communities. She acknowledges the potentially problematic dynamic of subjective judgment of what is deemed inappropriate, but I strongly agree that the majority of users- especially those who actively and regularly engage in any number of online communities- will agree about what is acceptable and what is offensive. Castille brought up concerns over cyber bullying and parental supervision/ intervention-- I would hope that the majority of parents would have similar responses to what is deemed unacceptable content when they encounter it. Though the ability to consider, deliberate and process each case of potential content regulation or removal is indeed limited when the average content review period on platforms such as Facebook is 20 seconds (referenced by Andy), I still would trust the ability of a community of regularly engaged and informed reviewers to regulate appropriate content.
[[User:akk22|akk22]] 11:50, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

NEW IDEA - ONLINE SOFTWARE FOR BUILDING THE COUNTRY FROM COLLABORATIVE FREE SPEECH

I am thinking of Soft Systems approaches used in operations research such as the use of "cognitive maps" described by Colin Eden (UK). If there is an issue of national interest, we could have every interested person contribute to an interactive online cognitive map which has a "revert-to-earlier-version" function like in Wikipedia. That way whoever contributes would have a sense of ownership of the map. Positive or negative influence of one factor on another can be indicated by "+" and "-" signs and strength of relationship can be shown with line thickness of the arrows. The contributor's name and his reasons or evidence for the added link could be displayed by clicking on the connecting arrow. Well, this idea is not really new as Colin Eden had developed a software for this called COPE...but this will need to be enhanced with the additional features suggested.....Also, if one contributor says "A ---->+ B" and another disagrees, the map could be modified with a second link from A to B as "A ---->+ C ----> -B", while still retaining the original link. Most probably a detailed read of the description of the first link would lead one to suggest "A ----> -D ----> +B" as a replacement for the original link. Thus, the map will give us a "richer" picture of the elements affecting a particular issue as new links are added.

See: "Using Cognitive Mapping for Strategic Options Development". ( in 'Rational Analysis for a Problematic World', Jonathan Rosenhead (ed.)). Wiley 1989.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 12:15, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

In related news... [http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/winter-olympics/26223586 Team GB want social media protection] --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 12:16, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

In reviewing the readings for this week, and digging deeper into the subject area; I walked away with a true appreciation of a topic that I believed was easily defineable. Perhaps this is indicative of the escalated polarization of issues and beliefs that we are currently experiencing. Bensech's concern about dangerous speech made an argument that I welcomed to entertain. After more thought, I began to question the notion of censorship and the ultimate guideline for who decides what is acceptable. I am uncomfortable with any corporation placing limitations on private speech. I am more comfortable with the cultural norms of the local community self-regulating. Realizing this may not be perfect, to err on the side of the collective conscious seems a much better path to civility.[[User:VACYBER|VACYBER]] 13:33, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

Observing the behavior of current providers and government leaders positions about the content of information, I see that there are not, and probably never will be, absolutely effective legal or technological mechanisms to control content on the Internet. If the issue were simple , all undesirable socially behaviors that occur in network - the dissemination of child pornography , intellectual property infringement , manifestations of racial hatred, and many others - would be ceased a long time ago.
I agree that technological control mechanisms achieved by providers, for example, the one which can do a simply edit an information available on web site in order to remove or correct any references that cause damage; may also erase the contents of a given page or even remove files from the server that you use to store your information . Being a common and effective means of control, once the content provider is one who exercises direct control over the information or files available on the respective web site or server and may take steps to remove or block access to infringing material . Therefore , it is up to the judge to determine the adoption of reasonable technical mechanisms together with all other support measures that may be useful to obtain specific performance or equivalent practical result .
The implementation of drastic measures to control content on the Internet should be reserved for extreme cases, when this obvious public interest provided that the weighted potential damage caused to third parties, should not be adopted in other cases , especially when dealing with individual interest except in very exceptional situations, which represent rare exceptions .
The difficulties inherent in the protection of rights within the Internet can cause some perplexity . However , it is a reminder : the network is a reflection of society and , as such , imperfect and subject to injustice . If until today was not possible tutelary with absolute perfection all rights provided in a legal system, we would be innocent to expect different results us internet related conflicts .
The documentary about Mark Zuckerberg describes about the challenges faced by faced by Facebook regarding the control of content. http://youtu.be/5WiDIhIkPoM [[User:Gisellebatista|Gisellebatista]]

----

Professor Sellars,
I feel that your "Structural Weaknesses" piece adequately addressed many key issues surrounding internet censorship of speech, especially the fact that extensive private regulation already happens among several different parties. I also especially liked your astute observation that the tragic Benghazi situation was far more nuanced than simply one person posting a video to YouTube; there were many pre-existing societal issues at play. I do have a one question about the piece, though: When writing about how the White House requested that YouTube remove the video, you opine that the White House did so "very inappropriately." Are you saying that the manner in which the White House made the request was inappropriate, or was it inappropriate for the White House to make such a request at all? I'm genuinely curious to know what you think, seeing as how this request seems to involve the "bully pulpit" aspect of the President's executive branch, which in this case uses speech in order to regulate speech. [[User:Vance.puchalski|Vance.puchalski]] 15:19, 18 February 2014 (EST)

:Thanks for reading, Vance! My view on this fluctuate a bit, but I tend to be very concerned with government engaging in censorship through "soft power" means like this - asking YouTube to rethink a decision, cutting off payment providers, etc. - when they lack the constitutional authority to punish or enjoin it directly. I would be less concerned if they simply exercised their speech to say they disagree with the video, and maybe even YouTube's decision to keep it up. But to exercise pressure on a domestic intermediary crosses a line for me. For more on this, check out Jack Balkin's writing on [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2377526 "old school" vs. "new school" speech regulation.] [[User:Andy|Andy]] 16:35, 18 February 2014 (EST)

: Vance, I had wanted to ask the same question! And I like Dr. Seller's respond. But in Singapore, any negative implication about the government cannot be tolerated. Politicians in the past who speak negatively and aggressively about the government and questioning the integrity of the government, particularly of the Prime Minister or Deputy Prime Minister without clear evidence, were usually put in jail or made bankrupt as in the case of J.B. Jeyaratnam. That is why Singaporeans prefer to express their views anonymously and in the social media, but even then it could be a dangerous thing to do as it may affect their career, their family, their life. The majority would prefer to remain quiet or share their opinions only amongst very close friends and relatives. I used to have lots of respect for LKY but his treatment of JB Jeyaratnam seemed overly harsh and unnecessry, though this pales in comparison with wicked governments/leaders who execute their oppositions. Yet I wonder if the opposition could have been more tactful in their approach. In some countries it may seem an acceptable way to attempt to remove a leader by smearing his character. In another, the leader expects to be treated like a god and feels threatened when his character and integrity is called into question. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 20:15, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

Re: Internet censorship, first video: I was particularly surprised that Google provides (or provided) near realtime indicators of takedown notices and censorship, country to country. It would be interesting to look into potential backlash to this, on a country-by-country basis, on the corporate or governmental level. (Though, perhaps Google has grown so large that it has cultivated a bit of immunity?) That being said, later in the video it did mention that corporations (theoretically even Google) are on “their turf” and have no choice but to comply.

A theme that keeps coming up in these readings, and in class, is that our perception of our freedoms on internet seem to be skewed. It’s almost inherent in our dealings with the net. Why do we, generally speaking, have this idealized view? An example could be user-created content — websites, commenting, user-focused platforms, etc. etc. In general, user driven content… the fact that anyone can theoretically add to the web space, with relatively low visibility. This could be leaving us with this idea that the web is truly open. The wide availability of pornography actually comes to mind as a decent example… In that, if this real-world, regulated material is so widely available online, then the net must be a “free” space.

Re: Dangerous speech vs. hate speech: While watching this video it occurred to me — when she was speaking about not needing to limit the hate speech itself — that the internet provides people with such wide access to information across the globe, so that this hate speech could be accessible in a volatile area, thus making it also dangerous speech. She didn’t mention that fact, but perhaps I missed it in another reading…. It strikes me that it would be hard to define this based on territory and context, given widespread access to the web. [[User:Twood|Twood]] 15:25, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

I have to mention that the most interesting reading material was "Delete Squads". I am sharing the views of Deciders on ground that

----

Free speech and the Internet have been intermingled in speech from the very beginnings of online interaction. But as the Internet has developed , so have people’s opinions about what rules and regulations apply from the “real world”.

Major corporations policies and outlooks (like Techs from silicon valley) on free speech have shaped how people post and express themselves over the web.
But major issues have arisen from foreign countries differing like France demanding Twitter to hand over the identities of users who promoted hate speech. Even Google censors of a video, even though it is only in a few particular countries, caused much concern or like when Google image search for Tiananmen Square shows starkly different results from a search in the US or a search from China.
China, Russia and other totalitarian countries have differing ways to effectively filter free speech on the Internet. These range in form but generally are DDoS attacks, hacking, intrusion filtering by key words, or flooding blogs with pro-government agenda even shutting down their internet for a time.
What is the best way to keep speech on the Internet censorship free? There are many answers. One is way is circumventing tools, many have been developed but they have proved of little use in the over all struggle.
It seems the best way is to have the giants of the Internet have a greater role in participation paving the way for generations to come.

The discussion between John Palfrey and Adam Thierer about 47 U.S.C. Section 230 addresses some of the most contentious aspects of law in such a clear concise way. Should online carriers be liable for content posted on their websites or web browsers? Each provides compelling reasons for their view. Adam Thierer argues in favor of keeping Section 230 intact showing how crucial it has been to the development of the Internet. Although John Palfrey agrees, his view is to make stricter demands on ISPs and “interactive computer service providers”. Through out their discourse they touch upon tough issues like negligence claims, increased government involvement, litigation, and child obscenity laws. [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:57, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

Per Zuckerman's article, it is my conviction that "Internet Censorship" in many countries sometimes reflect the level of such countries' tolerance for "Freedom speech." The article gave the examples of China, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, and Zimbabwe, just to mention but a few. These countries' censorship of certain websites, blogs, "sensitive keywords," or the sharing of specific information are motivated by various reasons. However, the restrictions to their state-sponsored ISPs have also forced web hosting services such as BlueHost as well as American internet giants such as LinkedIn, Google, Microsoft, and others to comply with the governments of those countries in order to do business there.

Personally, as much as I agree with Zuckerman's analysis on certain governments' censorship of the internet in relation to freedom of speech, I also believe that the financial motivation is equally important to some of them. For instance, I recently traveled to the UAE and Kuwait for business. One of the most noticeable internet censorship that struck me the most was how both countries blocked messaging applications such as Skype and Viber. I noticed that one cannot download those apps while in those two countries. It's either that you download Skype and Viber from the U.S., before you leave, or you will not be able to do so once there. Is this censorship to restrict "freedom of speech" or to protect their local telecommunications companies?
[[User:cheikhmbacke|cheikhmbacke]] 15:55, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

I have to mention that the most interesting reading material was "Delete Squads". I am sharing the views of Deciders on ground that the internet is the independent space of sharing thoughts, information, data and etc. which is the legal base of freedom of speech. But, if we imagine for a moment, that our future will be considerably affected by Internet, so we should be more careful. After reading all relevant materials, I came to the following conclusion on this topic:
- The Internet must totally be the independent space and everyone will be able to exercise his freedom of speech without any restrictions other than those set by legislation.
- The posted content which breaks the requirement of legislation should be withdrawn/deleted immediately by the website after they become aware of this fact. Otherwise, the role of legislation may be undermined.
- If the posted content breaks the legislation of certain country, the access of this particular country must be restricted to this content upon relevant request.
- The user who had posted the content which is incompliance with legislation, must be held liable. The websites and such companies as Google, Twitter and Facebook etc. can held liable only in cases if they knew about this violance, but failed to take appropriate measures (for example, other users informed the website about breach,
but the website didn't delete it). So, in this case the websites cannot be held liable for any breach of legislation by users, if they prove that they didn't know this fact. Otherwise, the websites will be "gatekeepers" of content in the future in order to avoid liability.

Consequently, I think that there should be compromise between freedom of speech and restrictions on it which are set by legislation. ([[User:Aysel|Aysel]] 15:56, 18 February 2014 (EST)) Aysel Ibayeva

-----

Herdict is a very useful tool, not only for filtering and censorship but in general when troubleshooting the reason a site and/or one of it's URL's isn't available. I was wondering why I hadn't heard of this tool or something similar before. Kudos to Jonathan Zittrain! I was also surprised to find out that the U.S. ranked third on the list of censorship by country, since we are a relatively free and democratic nation.[[User:404consultant|404consultant]] 16:26, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

I see the decision of an online service provider to take down content as a cost-benefit one. If a request to remove material could potentially represent legal action with potentially large monetary losses then the OSP incentive is to remove material with little hesitation. On the other hand, there might be situations were free speech is awarded by users and thus represent a benefit for the OSP. Either way OSP’s are in an extremely tight situation with tradeoffs having important implications in terms of free speech.

[[User:Luciagamboaso|Luciagamboaso]] 15:56, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

Zuckerman’s article brings interesting light to censorship in regards to freedom of speech and who’s value should take precedence.
As discussed in the article, Bluehost’s CEO, Matt Heaton was quick to back the companies financial well-being by adding an entirely new section (13) to an already executed contract and cease service of Burrell’s sites to "comply" with the U.S. Treasury.

Heaton’s decision was most likely based from a financial perspective, and was unwilling to take a chance due to the slight profit margins of hosting. So, to safeguard profits, the company added section 13 to a pre-existing contract. In this case, Bluehost value took precedence (Not the U.S. Treasury or the sites Burrell happened to be hosting through Bluehost).

Question: Does Burrell have the ability to pursue legal action against Bluehost for adding a clause to her contract after the original agreement was executed?

--[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 14:39, 18 February 2014 (EST)

Freedom of speech should be preserved online. However, I do agree that hate speech especially one that poses an immediate threat to someone’s safety should be interfered. Reporting of such occasions and policing should be in place to protect people’s safety, however, the problem is who can be trusted with such an enormous task. Government might not be appropriate because it may easily lead too much politically-influenced filtering. It’s an interesting topic and hopefully we can find a way to affectively share ideas but also staying within some sort of safety boundary.
[[User:Lpereira|Lpereira]] 15:34, 18 February 2014 (EST)
----

Regulating Speech Online

2014-02-19T20:40:58Z

Ryan:

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 18'''

The Internet has the potential to revolutionize public discourse. Instead of large media companies and corporate advertisers controlling the channels of speech, anyone with an Internet connection can, in the words of the Supreme Court, “become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox.” (Reno v. ACLU). Internet speakers can reach vast audiences of readers, viewers, researchers, and buyers that stretch across real space borders, or they can concentrate on niche audiences that share a common interest or geographical location. What's more, speech on the Internet has truly become a conversation, with different voices and viewpoints mingling together to create a single "work."

With this great potential, however, comes new questions. What happens when anyone can publish to a global audience with virtually no oversight? How can a society balance the rights of speakers with the interests in safeguarding minors from offensive content? When different countries take different approaches on speech, whose values should take precedence? When a user of a website says something defamatory, when should we punish the user and when should we punish the website?

In this class, we will look at how law and social norms are struggling to adapt to this new electronic terrain.

Joining us this week will be [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jhermes Jeff Hermes], Director of the [http://www.dmlp.org/ Digital Media Law Project].

== Assignments ==

The first half of assignment 2 (posting your prospectus) is due before class ''next week (Feb. 25th)''. Information on the assignment can be found [[Assignments#Assignment_2:_Prospectus|here]].

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==

; Private and public control of speech online

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfS_2oXVch0 Berkman Center, How Internet Censorship Works] (about 7 mins., watch all)

* [http://access.opennet.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/accesscontrolled-chapter-5.pdf Ethan Zuckerman, Intermediary Censorship (from ''Access Controlled'')]

* [http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113045/free-speech-internet-silicon-valley-making-rules Jeffrey Rosen, The Delete Squad (New Republic)]

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

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

; Speech laws and liabilities in the United States

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

* [https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/cda-ag-letter.pdf Letter to Members of Congress from 49 state and territorial Attorneys General]

; Cross-border concerns

* [http://freespeechdebate.com/en/media/susan-benesch-on-dangerous-speech-2/ Susan Benesch, Dangerous Speech] (audio interview, about 9 mins., listen to all)

* [http://techpresident.com/news/wegov/24189/twitter-hands-over-data-unbonjuif-authors-french-authorities Jessica McKenzie, Obeying French Courts, Twitter Hands Over Identities of Users Who Employed Anti-Semitic Hashtag (TechPresident)]

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

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1625820 David Ardia, Free Speech Savior or Shield for Scoundrels: An Empirical Study of Intermediary Immunity Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act] (Read all of Section I, Parts C&D of Section II, and Conclusion)

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

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

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

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

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

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

</onlyinclude>
==Links from Class Discussion==

==Class Discussion==

{|class="wikitable" border=3 style="margin: auto; background-color:#FFFFCC;"
|align="center"|<big>'''REMINDER'''</big>
|-
|style="background-color:#FFFFFF;"|Your comments must be submitted '''before 4:00PM ET''' on the Tuesday we hold class in order to count for participation credit. Please see the [[Class Participation|participation policy]] for more information.
|}
<br/>
<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:Andy|Andy]] 15:12, 7 November 2013 (EST)</div>

----

"The spread of information networks (the internet) is forming a new nervous system for our planet" - Hilary Clinton.

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccGzOJHE1rw

For governments to react expeditiously to help individuals or communities in distress, there must be freedom of speech online.
But for this to be effective, the process need to be organized and formalized. Individuals need to ensure they are not sending noises and gibberish but useful information so that either the government or other able individuals, NGO's, or even private corporations can come to the rescue.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 06:57, 12 February 2014 (EST)

----

I have to say, I found "The Delete Squad" article by Jeffrey Rosen to be extremely interesting. While I find hate speech despicable, I agree with the conclusion at which "The Deciders" arrived, to intervene only in rare cases in which resulting violence appeared imminent. In this age of prolific internet bullying, I can see how many people (particularly parents) might be inclined to argue that regulations must be implemented, but to me the solution seems to lie more so in the individual's own usage of the internet. By this I mean to say that a person should be responsible for restricting his or her (or his or her child's) internet usage so that he or she is not actively involved in sites which might be problematic. [[User:Castille|Castille]] 02:26, 15 February 2014 (EST)

:Rosen's article sheds a lot of light on what has become very important content control force in digitally-mediated discussions. For me, the most interesting and troubling aspect of this is the time they take to decide these things. Rosen claims the content review groups at Facebook have on average 20 seconds to evaluate a claim before acting upon it. It is nearly impossible to internalize in such a short period of time the complicated elements Susan Benesch flags to separate the dangerous from the tasteless but far less dangerous - the context, the speaker, the audience, etc. How can they be expected to do in 20 seconds what scholars and courts spend years (and many trees of paper) contemplating in other contexts? (Oh, and to your next post - book recommendations are always welcome!) [[User:Andy|Andy]] 21:40, 17 February 2014 (EST)

----

This might be a little off-topic, so I apologize in advance if it's "inappropriate", but I was wondering if anyone has read ''The Circle'' by Dave Eggers? These readings-- and my exchange with Ichua on last week's discussion board-- have really made me consider the thoughts posed in that book. Basically, the book is about a company (a la Facebook) which seeks to "complete the circle" of internet usage and identity. It functions as a sort of government in and of itself, as well as a full-fledged community/world. Everything is consolidated on their system, so that people have basically no anonymity online as we do now; the internet is no longer removed from reality, but is instead a virtual reality in the most literal sense. All of their information is stored within the system, including their medical records, family history, purchase history, job details and tasks, and essentially all communication is conducted through the site. There is also a security camera system which is set up and controlled by the users, but has become so prolific that essentially every area of the globe is under surveillance. While the situation posed in the novel is drastic and even scary, there are a lot of positives to certain aspects. I think the biggest concern is not necessarily the loss of privacy, but the question of who controls (or should control) such a system. Certainly controls should exist, but surely corporations should not have that much power or intimate knowledge and it seems that even a government would not suffice for such a job. Should there be another authority? If so, what sort of entity would be qualified to do such a job? I'd love to hear other peoples' perspectives, whether you've read it or not.[[User:Castille|Castille]] 12:55, 17 February 2014 (EST)

----

*'''NOTE 1''' While reading this week's articles, I took a break from homework to scroll down my Facebook newsfeed. I came across a post by a friend in Quebec, about a website that satirizes Snapchat. When I clicked the link, it gave me an error message. I messaged my friend, she was able to open the link with no problem from Quebec. From the comments on her post, it seems as though the only questionable content were some dirty pictures on the site, but nothing I understand to be limited in the USA. That was a bit weird/scary...
*'''NOTE 2''' Now that I am done reading this week's articles, I am more nervous to post my honest response to some of the articles than I used to be!
*'''QUESTION''' Does anyone know the Wiki Markdown version of <code>target="_blank"</code>? I'd be happy to add the markup to the class readings if anyone knows what the code is (I've tried Googling it... no luck...)
[[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 15:27, 17 February 2014 (EST)

: It is generally considered bad practice in web development to use target="_blank" outside of very specific, exceptional cases. The reason is simple: If the link has no target attribute, the behaviour is defined by user's settings and by user's action as they can either click the link or right click and open in another tab/window/etc., some browsers offering other options such us click&drag, middle click, etc. If the link has a target="_blank" attribute, on the other hand, the user is forced to open the link in a separate tab/window - his actions are thus limited by the developer, for no good reason (even if the developer might think he has a good reason, it usually isn't). --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 17:39, 17 February 2014 (EST)

::Thank you for the note Seifip!!! Makes sense, maybe i can play around with Chrome settings & see if I can set it so outside links always open in new tab... Not that I'm too lazy to press the cmd/ctrl key for each link... (well I guess a bit) but my keyboards are all in different languages which confuses the crap out of my typing muscle memory, so I love it when browsers already know which links I want in a new tab (:

::: [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/linkclump/lfpjkncokllnfokkgpkobnkbkmelfefj?hl=en Linkclump] extension is your friend :) --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 07:58, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

As I was considering the intersections of this week’s readings, several articles reminded me of a case that occurred back in 2000, although not within the realm of the Internet or something like the Flickr or Picasa most of us are very familiar with today, the parallels and concerns will seem obvious.

When we think about the amount of daily photographic content that now goes up on Facebook, Flickr, Picasa, etc. and consider the roles of these “Deciders” (as defined in one of the reading), the case as it occurred for an Oberlin, Ohio family back in 2000, seems like it could play out over and over again if individual states received the powers of prosecution to the extent that the State Attorneys General are requesting in their letter to congress on July 23, 2013.

Some may remember the case I’m referring to, in an overly distilled summary, it involved an amateur photographer who was chronicling her daughter’s life in still photography. Some photographs included her (then 8yr old) daughter bathing. When the photos were developed by the local film-processing lab, a clerk reported this to the police as an incident of “child pornography”. The local police agreed, and the mother was arrested and the case garnered national attention at the time with the ACLU coming to the defense of the mother.
http://www.oberlin.edu/alummag/oamcurrent/oam_spring_00/atissue.html
[Later the subject of an entire book looking more closely at the issues]
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/art/questions-of-photographic-propriety-in-framing-innocence/

The letter by the 49 Attorneys General certainly strikes at a horror that anyone with a human heart will become equally enraged towards - the tragedy of child abuse, sex trafficking, and exploitation. While it seems odd that the word “The State” is omitted from the current language of the CDA, I wonder if by including “The State” in CDA language, we will end up introduce a sliding scale of laws that become defined by “the standards of any small community” enforcing crimes that THEY define a “Obscenity” and/or “child pornography”.

What is viewed as unprotected speech and deemed as “obscenity” (or “child pornography”) in Lorain County Ohio, may not result in the same definition in (say) San Francisco. With the addition of “The State” in the CDA, could the State of Ohio prosecute a photographer in San Francisco for posting an “obscene” picture to a Flickr account which is accessible to users in Ohio? If the definition of “obscenity” is based on the Miller’s test (below), then What are the “community standards” that define obscenity in a case where one state wishes to prosecute someone in another “community”??

The Miller test for obscenity includes the following criteria

(1) whether ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would find that the work, ‘taken as a whole,’ appeals to ‘prurient interest’

(2) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and

(3) whether the work, ‘taken as a whole,’ lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

[[User:Psl|Psl]] 17:47, 17 February 2014 (EST)

:Thanks for contributing! Just to clarify, the constitutional definition of actionable obscenity under ''Miller'' has the geographic element to it, which tailors the more general [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-71 criminal statute], but in the realm of child pornography neither the [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252 criminal statute] nor the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._Ferber First Amendment doctrine] base liability on community standards. So while obscenity can very state to state, child pornography does not. (And both are illegal at the federal level.) [[User:Andy|Andy]] 18:47, 17 February 2014 (EST)

----

I have a greater appreciation for the issues involved in online free speech after this week's article. I somewhat disagree with Zuckerman's conclusion that private limitations to speech in private spaces is "Dangerous for a public society," in that I believe that private companies need to be able to define what is or isn't acceptable communication within their own environments--we're guests in these areas, and it's up to companies owning the spaces to decide what sort of environment their guests are going to experience. On the other hand, I don't think it can be the government that defines what's acceptable--it needs to be up to the individual owners of these spaces. I'm concerned about any encroachment on an individual or private enterprise's ability to decide what rules are appropriate for itself. While I find the content of, say, a site like Stormfront (a white separatist website) to be totally repugnant, I would defend their right to publish what they do--if anything, it simply exposes their nonsense to public scrutiny and criticism.

I am sympathetic to Benesch's thinking about "dangerous speech," and in particular it does make sense that the context (speaker, political environment, proximity to sensitive events, lack of competition/criticism) can make hate speech turn into something more insidious. Nevertheless, I'm unable to think of a good solution that doesn't actually make things worse. She claims to defend freedom of expression yet is able to make a distinction between expression and freedom of the press (dissemination). I find myself unable to disentangle the two. When one considers the international aspects, and the potential for international lawsuits (such as the French cases we've discussed) it seems like it would be unusually hard to apply her test to speech and protect the right of companies in places such as the United States to publish things that someone might claim to be "dangerous" elsewhere. For example, would the Chinese government find it to be "dangerous" if the customers of Twitter posted content about how there should be an end to single-party rule? Where do we draw the line? It's clear that not only are there the interests of certain governments at stake (and their authoritarian approaches to speech) but also the simple fact that some countries (such as the Rwanda example) may not have the institutions or cultural heritage to handle US-style free speech; yet it is it fair to force US companies to account for all of these cross-border and cross-cultural differences?

[[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 20:08, 17 February 2014 (EST)

----

I also found myself somewhat sympathetic to Bensech's concern about dangerous speech. However, it is unfair and implausible to make US companies responsible for such cross-border/cultural differences. It is bad for business and generally not a policy I would deem logical. The way I see it, should a company be held liable for slander that someone says while in their establishment or be punished for someone who spray paints a hate message on the company's door? Although businesses can take precautions to try to prevent such occurrences, to do so over the internet is a much more painstaking task. Furthermore, I think the bounds of what constitutes "hate speech" is being stretched to some degree. Constitutionally and as many Supreme court cases have favored, freedom of speech is protected so long as it does not "incite violent action". For example, to instruct people to harm someone of a certain race would be considered unlawful. In my mind, that is where the line must be drawn.

Though, as others have mentioned, internet bullying is becoming more widespread and has resulted in teen suicides and possibly contributed to the uptick in school shootings as some have theorized. Still, to what degree should we be prosecuting internet hacklers for this behavior? As Professor mentioned in class, once an incident occurs Congress tends to look for an immediate remedy via legislation when it may not necessarily be the answer. Of course I find it horrible and morally repugnant that someone would bully an innocent person online but does this mean that every bit of our speech should now be scrutinized and if we, for example, call someone fat online we should be given a misdemeanor? If our society deems legal recourse for online bullying, it will become quite convoluted in staking out the levels and appropriate punishments for each offense. Should a few "bad apples" online ruin or impede the benefits of free internet speech for the masses of good people in society who thrive off of our shared knowledge? Should McDonald's cheeseburgers be illegal to protect those who struggle from obesity? No matter how you frame it, more restrictions will eventually equate to more inhibition for companies and citizens alike. Such inhibition, I argue, thwarts a society's economic and intellectual growth.

--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 10:34, 18 February 2014 (EST)

:I'm really glad you brought up the issue of bullying! This is an area where the Berkman Center's Youth and Media Lab have been doing [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2012/kbw_bulling_in_a_networked_era some great research] around framing, understanding, and assessing efficacy of solutions to bullying. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:15, 18 February 2014 (EST)

:I agree with your points, AmyAnn, about the difficulty of dealing with bullying and regulating harassment online without stifling speech. The reading I've done on this issue, which has been more about harassment of women and not children, highlights the need for enforcement of what laws we do have. It's not that we need more laws, it's that we need the existing ones to be understood in the context of the Internet and to be enforced by the authorities. Amanda Hess wrote a really wonderful piece about her experience with this that I think I mentioned during one of the first weeks of class, which is long but well worth the read. [http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/women-arent-welcome-internet-72170/#.Us2TKsXlSF4.twitter] Lindy West wrote a follow up for Jezebel [http://jezebel.com/we-must-not-shut-up-about-how-women-are-treated-on-the-1496622407], which gives a quick overview and her own commentary. [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 12:43, 18 February 2014 (EST)

Thank you for sharing these sources! It is refreshing to see how more people are getting involved in spreading the message about cyber-bullying and I believe communication and public awareness initiatives are crucial in combating these issues, particularly in targeting the most vulnerable and dominant population on the web (the youth). The modern parent has more to consider in raising children with regular access to the cyber world both from the perspective of the victim and in preventative measures. A recent pew survey noted that 90% of teens had witnessed cyber-bullying yet did nothing about it. Imagine how many lives would be saved if everyone took a stand against cyber-bullying. Then again, I suppose the children did not know what to do or who to report their observations to; one might think to inform the student's parents but perhaps the teen did not know the parents? What action could this 90% of teens have taken? Call the police and on what grounds? At first blush, 90% of teens not reporting bullying seems like an awful statistic, but when considering the lack of direction or guidance in knowing (as a society) how to deal with these matters legally, it all trickles down and muddles the situation to the point where a concerned citizen may not be able to effectively help his fellow cyber-victim. In any event, without communication, these teens may not even recognize cyber-bullying to begin with and may become "desensitized" to a point where it may not even cross their mind. Communication is critical for our community to even be aware of what goes on in cyberspace, but as Jkelly mentions, all of the communication and education still cannot trump the lack of enforcement or clear legal path on dealing with these issues.

Has anyone seen the documentary "Submit"? It was created by parents of internet-bullying victims and the production discusses just how dangerous the bully's "arsenal" online has become when considering how one can, at worst case scenario, completely destroy someone's social standing, career, and identity. The "arsenal" they say is dangerous because it is both "vast" and "at a distant" offering a bully the prime environment in which to operate.

Here is the link for the documentary for those interested:
http://www.submitthedocumentary.com/

--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 14:08, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

While I find Susan Benesch's pursuit of a more nuanced definition of free speech quite commendable, I find that her definition of dangerous speech is prone to subjective assessment and can lead to excessive censorship. Some of the factors, such as the charisma of the speaker, are difficult to assess and are shared between speakers for bad and good causes. Other factors, such as historical context, are equally less than ideal as history is not a constant, a fact, but rather something defined by the state and current generation based on its limited knowledge of the past and current view of the events. The way we see and interpret history changes virtually every decade, and it would be nice if the view of what constitutes dangerous speech was not tied to such an uncertain factor. --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 08:11, 18 February 2014 (EST)

:Great points, [[User:Seifip|Seifip]], and I suspect Susan would agree with you that there is still a gap between what factors should and shouldn't matter, and how that translates to policies, procedures, and rules for monitoring against dangerous speech. The tie between the substantive and procedural issues around freedom of expression is a fascinating place to explore at some depth. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:15, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

I found the reading this week really interesting as I am from the country that pioneered Internet censorship, China. To be exact, I am from Hong Kong, one of the Special Administrative Regions of China. For those who are not familiar with the history of Hong Kong, it used to be a colony of Britain and China resumed sovereignty in 1997. Hong Kong is under the principle of “One County, Two Systems”, which means that it has a different political, legal and economical system from China and will be maintained that way for at least 50 years.

Facebook, Twitter, New York Times have been on the blocked websites list in China because they are “politically sensitive”. Instead, they created their own social networking tools, Weibo. There are a couple different Weibo that launched by different companies, but all of them are in cooperation of the Internet Censorship in the People’s Republic of China.

WeChat,a popular messaging app for smart phone which is similar to WhatsApp, Line, Facebook Messenger etc, is also under censorship. Messages that contain some keywords will be filtered and blocked. Users who send those messages will receive a message saying” The message you sent contains restricted works. Please try again”.

In September last year, The Chinese Government finally allows a small selection of people to access those banned websites including Facebook and Twitter. However, the small selection of people means people that live in that specific 17 square mile area of Shanghai. Many say this is a great start of the revolution, but I am not as optimistic as the rest. I do acknowledge the changes that have been made in years, however, I believe this incident is only a one-time exception that the government made.

[[User:Jolietheone|Jolietheone]] 03:13, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

WHY WE CANNOT TRUST EVERYTHING ON THE SOCIAL MEDIA: OF FREE SPEECH AND LIES

http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/pm-lee-untruths-spread-through-social-media-hard-correctE

But rather than other people or web robots doing the filtering, we should be teaching our young people how to filter good and reliable information from bad ones, especially on social media.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 11:53, 18 February 2014 (EST)

Ichua - I could not agree more! It is hard enough for educated adults to filter through the propaganda spewed on the web; I can only imagine how a child would struggle with this. Even the most reputable websites have had instances where misinformation or biased information has been reported. Educating our youth on cyber material will make or break our country (and world's) future both within the cyber world and the real world.

--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 08:33, 19 February 2014 (EST)

----

Following up on Andy and Castille's comments regarding content review and concern over the speed of content removal, I found Rachel Whetstone's entry about Google's policy regarding free expression and regulating speech particularly interesting. Whetstone emphasizes the importance of community, and the relative speed and accuracy of hate speech/ inappropriate content regulation by the millions of google users who self-police their given online communities. She acknowledges the potentially problematic dynamic of subjective judgment of what is deemed inappropriate, but I strongly agree that the majority of users- especially those who actively and regularly engage in any number of online communities- will agree about what is acceptable and what is offensive. Castille brought up concerns over cyber bullying and parental supervision/ intervention-- I would hope that the majority of parents would have similar responses to what is deemed unacceptable content when they encounter it. Though the ability to consider, deliberate and process each case of potential content regulation or removal is indeed limited when the average content review period on platforms such as Facebook is 20 seconds (referenced by Andy), I still would trust the ability of a community of regularly engaged and informed reviewers to regulate appropriate content.
[[User:akk22|akk22]] 11:50, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

NEW IDEA - ONLINE SOFTWARE FOR BUILDING THE COUNTRY FROM COLLABORATIVE FREE SPEECH

I am thinking of Soft Systems approaches used in operations research such as the use of "cognitive maps" described by Colin Eden (UK). If there is an issue of national interest, we could have every interested person contribute to an interactive online cognitive map which has a "revert-to-earlier-version" function like in Wikipedia. That way whoever contributes would have a sense of ownership of the map. Positive or negative influence of one factor on another can be indicated by "+" and "-" signs and strength of relationship can be shown with line thickness of the arrows. The contributor's name and his reasons or evidence for the added link could be displayed by clicking on the connecting arrow. Well, this idea is not really new as Colin Eden had developed a software for this called COPE...but this will need to be enhanced with the additional features suggested.....Also, if one contributor says "A ---->+ B" and another disagrees, the map could be modified with a second link from A to B as "A ---->+ C ----> -B", while still retaining the original link. Most probably a detailed read of the description of the first link would lead one to suggest "A ----> -D ----> +B" as a replacement for the original link. Thus, the map will give us a "richer" picture of the elements affecting a particular issue as new links are added.

See: "Using Cognitive Mapping for Strategic Options Development". ( in 'Rational Analysis for a Problematic World', Jonathan Rosenhead (ed.)). Wiley 1989.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 12:15, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

In related news... [http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/winter-olympics/26223586 Team GB want social media protection] --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 12:16, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

In reviewing the readings for this week, and digging deeper into the subject area; I walked away with a true appreciation of a topic that I believed was easily defineable. Perhaps this is indicative of the escalated polarization of issues and beliefs that we are currently experiencing. Bensech's concern about dangerous speech made an argument that I welcomed to entertain. After more thought, I began to question the notion of censorship and the ultimate guideline for who decides what is acceptable. I am uncomfortable with any corporation placing limitations on private speech. I am more comfortable with the cultural norms of the local community self-regulating. Realizing this may not be perfect, to err on the side of the collective conscious seems a much better path to civility.[[User:VACYBER|VACYBER]] 13:33, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

Observing the behavior of current providers and government leaders positions about the content of information, I see that there are not, and probably never will be, absolutely effective legal or technological mechanisms to control content on the Internet. If the issue were simple , all undesirable socially behaviors that occur in network - the dissemination of child pornography , intellectual property infringement , manifestations of racial hatred, and many others - would be ceased a long time ago.
I agree that technological control mechanisms achieved by providers, for example, the one which can do a simply edit an information available on web site in order to remove or correct any references that cause damage; may also erase the contents of a given page or even remove files from the server that you use to store your information . Being a common and effective means of control, once the content provider is one who exercises direct control over the information or files available on the respective web site or server and may take steps to remove or block access to infringing material . Therefore , it is up to the judge to determine the adoption of reasonable technical mechanisms together with all other support measures that may be useful to obtain specific performance or equivalent practical result .
The implementation of drastic measures to control content on the Internet should be reserved for extreme cases, when this obvious public interest provided that the weighted potential damage caused to third parties, should not be adopted in other cases , especially when dealing with individual interest except in very exceptional situations, which represent rare exceptions .
The difficulties inherent in the protection of rights within the Internet can cause some perplexity . However , it is a reminder : the network is a reflection of society and , as such , imperfect and subject to injustice . If until today was not possible tutelary with absolute perfection all rights provided in a legal system, we would be innocent to expect different results us internet related conflicts .
The documentary about Mark Zuckerberg describes about the challenges faced by faced by Facebook regarding the control of content. http://youtu.be/5WiDIhIkPoM [[User:Gisellebatista|Gisellebatista]]

----

Professor Sellars,
I feel that your "Structural Weaknesses" piece adequately addressed many key issues surrounding internet censorship of speech, especially the fact that extensive private regulation already happens among several different parties. I also especially liked your astute observation that the tragic Benghazi situation was far more nuanced than simply one person posting a video to YouTube; there were many pre-existing societal issues at play. I do have a one question about the piece, though: When writing about how the White House requested that YouTube remove the video, you opine that the White House did so "very inappropriately." Are you saying that the manner in which the White House made the request was inappropriate, or was it inappropriate for the White House to make such a request at all? I'm genuinely curious to know what you think, seeing as how this request seems to involve the "bully pulpit" aspect of the President's executive branch, which in this case uses speech in order to regulate speech. [[User:Vance.puchalski|Vance.puchalski]] 15:19, 18 February 2014 (EST)

:Thanks for reading, Vance! My view on this fluctuate a bit, but I tend to be very concerned with government engaging in censorship through "soft power" means like this - asking YouTube to rethink a decision, cutting off payment providers, etc. - when they lack the constitutional authority to punish or enjoin it directly. I would be less concerned if they simply exercised their speech to say they disagree with the video, and maybe even YouTube's decision to keep it up. But to exercise pressure on a domestic intermediary crosses a line for me. For more on this, check out Jack Balkin's writing on [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2377526 "old school" vs. "new school" speech regulation.] [[User:Andy|Andy]] 16:35, 18 February 2014 (EST)

: Vance, I had wanted to ask the same question! And I like Dr. Seller's respond. But in Singapore, any negative implication about the government cannot be tolerated. Politicians in the past who speak negatively and aggressively about the government and questioning the integrity of the government, particularly of the Prime Minister or Deputy Prime Minister without clear evidence, were usually put in jail or made bankrupt as in the case of J.B. Jeyaratnam. That is why Singaporeans prefer to express their views anonymously and in the social media, but even then it could be a dangerous thing to do as it may affect their career, their family, their life. The majority would prefer to remain quiet or share their opinions only amongst very close friends and relatives. I used to have lots of respect for LKY but his treatment of JB Jeyaratnam seemed overly harsh and unnecessry, though this pales in comparison with wicked governments/leaders who execute their oppositions. Yet I wonder if the opposition could have been more tactful in their approach. In some countries it may seem an acceptable way to attempt to remove a leader by smearing his character. In another, the leader expects to be treated like a god and feels threatened when his character and integrity is called into question. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 20:15, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

Re: Internet censorship, first video: I was particularly surprised that Google provides (or provided) near realtime indicators of takedown notices and censorship, country to country. It would be interesting to look into potential backlash to this, on a country-by-country basis, on the corporate or governmental level. (Though, perhaps Google has grown so large that it has cultivated a bit of immunity?) That being said, later in the video it did mention that corporations (theoretically even Google) are on “their turf” and have no choice but to comply.

A theme that keeps coming up in these readings, and in class, is that our perception of our freedoms on internet seem to be skewed. It’s almost inherent in our dealings with the net. Why do we, generally speaking, have this idealized view? An example could be user-created content — websites, commenting, user-focused platforms, etc. etc. In general, user driven content… the fact that anyone can theoretically add to the web space, with relatively low visibility. This could be leaving us with this idea that the web is truly open. The wide availability of pornography actually comes to mind as a decent example… In that, if this real-world, regulated material is so widely available online, then the net must be a “free” space.

Re: Dangerous speech vs. hate speech: While watching this video it occurred to me — when she was speaking about not needing to limit the hate speech itself — that the internet provides people with such wide access to information across the globe, so that this hate speech could be accessible in a volatile area, thus making it also dangerous speech. She didn’t mention that fact, but perhaps I missed it in another reading…. It strikes me that it would be hard to define this based on territory and context, given widespread access to the web. [[User:Twood|Twood]] 15:25, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

I have to mention that the most interesting reading material was "Delete Squads". I am sharing the views of Deciders on ground that

----

Free speech and the Internet have been intermingled in speech from the very beginnings of online interaction. But as the Internet has developed , so have people’s opinions about what rules and regulations apply from the “real world”.

Major corporations policies and outlooks (like Techs from silicon valley) on free speech have shaped how people post and express themselves over the web.
But major issues have arisen from foreign countries differing like France demanding Twitter to hand over the identities of users who promoted hate speech. Even Google censors of a video, even though it is only in a few particular countries, caused much concern or like when Google image search for Tiananmen Square shows starkly different results from a search in the US or a search from China.
China, Russia and other totalitarian countries have differing ways to effectively filter free speech on the Internet. These range in form but generally are DDoS attacks, hacking, intrusion filtering by key words, or flooding blogs with pro-government agenda even shutting down their internet for a time.
What is the best way to keep speech on the Internet censorship free? There are many answers. One is way is circumventing tools, many have been developed but they have proved of little use in the over all struggle.
It seems the best way is to have the giants of the Internet have a greater role in participation paving the way for generations to come.

The discussion between John Palfrey and Adam Thierer about 47 U.S.C. Section 230 addresses some of the most contentious aspects of law in such a clear concise way. Should online carriers be liable for content posted on their websites or web browsers? Each provides compelling reasons for their view. Adam Thierer argues in favor of keeping Section 230 intact showing how crucial it has been to the development of the Internet. Although John Palfrey agrees, his view is to make stricter demands on ISPs and “interactive computer service providers”. Through out their discourse they touch upon tough issues like negligence claims, increased government involvement, litigation, and child obscenity laws. [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:57, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

Per Zuckerman's article, it is my conviction that "Internet Censorship" in many countries sometimes reflect the level of such countries' tolerance for "Freedom speech." The article gave the examples of China, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, and Zimbabwe, just to mention but a few. These countries' censorship of certain websites, blogs, "sensitive keywords," or the sharing of specific information are motivated by various reasons. However, the restrictions to their state-sponsored ISPs have also forced web hosting services such as BlueHost as well as American internet giants such as LinkedIn, Google, Microsoft, and others to comply with the governments of those countries in order to do business there.

Personally, as much as I agree with Zuckerman's analysis on certain governments' censorship of the internet in relation to freedom of speech, I also believe that the financial motivation is equally important to some of them. For instance, I recently traveled to the UAE and Kuwait for business. One of the most noticeable internet censorship that struck me the most was how both countries blocked messaging applications such as Skype and Viber. I noticed that one cannot download those apps while in those two countries. It's either that you download Skype and Viber from the U.S., before you leave, or you will not be able to do so once there. Is this censorship to restrict "freedom of speech" or to protect their local telecommunications companies?
[[User:cheikhmbacke|cheikhmbacke]] 15:55, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

I have to mention that the most interesting reading material was "Delete Squads". I am sharing the views of Deciders on ground that the internet is the independent space of sharing thoughts, information, data and etc. which is the legal base of freedom of speech. But, if we imagine for a moment, that our future will be considerably affected by Internet, so we should be more careful. After reading all relevant materials, I came to the following conclusion on this topic:
- The Internet must totally be the independent space and everyone will be able to exercise his freedom of speech without any restrictions other than those set by legislation.
- The posted content which breaks the requirement of legislation should be withdrawn/deleted immediately by the website after they become aware of this fact. Otherwise, the role of legislation may be undermined.
- If the posted content breaks the legislation of certain country, the access of this particular country must be restricted to this content upon relevant request.
- The user who had posted the content which is incompliance with legislation, must be held liable. The websites and such companies as Google, Twitter and Facebook etc. can held liable only in cases if they knew about this violance, but failed to take appropriate measures (for example, other users informed the website about breach,
but the website didn't delete it). So, in this case the websites cannot be held liable for any breach of legislation by users, if they prove that they didn't know this fact. Otherwise, the websites will be "gatekeepers" of content in the future in order to avoid liability.

Consequently, I think that there should be compromise between freedom of speech and restrictions on it which are set by legislation. ([[User:Aysel|Aysel]] 15:56, 18 February 2014 (EST)) Aysel Ibayeva

-----

Herdict is a very useful tool, not only for filtering and censorship but in general when troubleshooting the reason a site and/or one of it's URL's isn't available. I was wondering why I hadn't heard of this tool or something similar before. Kudos to Jonathan Zittrain! I was also surprised to find out that the U.S. ranked third on the list of censorship by country, since we are a relatively free and democratic nation.[[User:404consultant|404consultant]] 16:26, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

I see the decision of an online service provider to take down content as a cost-benefit one. If a request to remove material could potentially represent legal action with potentially large monetary losses then the OSP incentive is to remove material with little hesitation. On the other hand, there might be situations were free speech is awarded by users and thus represent a benefit for the OSP. Either way OSP’s are in an extremely tight situation with tradeoffs having important implications in terms of free speech.

[[User:Luciagamboaso|Luciagamboaso]] 15:56, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

Zuckerman’s article brings interesting light to censorship in regards to freedom of speech and who’s value should take precedence.
As discussed in the article, Bluehost’s CEO, Matt Heaton was quick to back the companies financial well-being by adding an entirely new section (13) to an already executed contract and cease service of Burrell’s sites to "comply" with the U.S. Treasury.

Heaton’s decision was most likely based from a financial perspective, and was unwilling to take a chance due to the slight profit margins of hosting. So, to safeguard profits, the company added section 13 to a pre-existing contract. In this case, Bluehost value took precedence (Not the U.S. Treasury or the sites Burrell happened to be hosting through Bluehost).

Question: Does Burrell have the ability to pursue legal action against Bluehost for adding a clause to her contract after the original agreement was executed?

--[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 14:39, 18 February 2014 (EST)

Freedom of speech should be preserved online. However, I do agree that hate speech especially one that poses an immediate threat to someone’s safety should be interfered. Reporting of such occasions and policing should be in place to protect people’s safety, however, the problem is who can be trusted with such an enormous task. Government might not be appropriate because it may easily lead too much politically-influenced filtering. It’s an interesting topic and hopefully we can find a way to affectively share ideas but also staying within some sort of safety boundary.
[[User:Lpereira|Lpereira]] 15:34, 18 February 2014 (EST)
----

Regulating Speech Online

2014-02-19T20:40:12Z

Ryan:

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 18'''

The Internet has the potential to revolutionize public discourse. Instead of large media companies and corporate advertisers controlling the channels of speech, anyone with an Internet connection can, in the words of the Supreme Court, “become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox.” (Reno v. ACLU). Internet speakers can reach vast audiences of readers, viewers, researchers, and buyers that stretch across real space borders, or they can concentrate on niche audiences that share a common interest or geographical location. What's more, speech on the Internet has truly become a conversation, with different voices and viewpoints mingling together to create a single "work."

With this great potential, however, comes new questions. What happens when anyone can publish to a global audience with virtually no oversight? How can a society balance the rights of speakers with the interests in safeguarding minors from offensive content? When different countries take different approaches on speech, whose values should take precedence? When a user of a website says something defamatory, when should we punish the user and when should we punish the website?

In this class, we will look at how law and social norms are struggling to adapt to this new electronic terrain.

Joining us this week will be [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jhermes Jeff Hermes], Director of the [http://www.dmlp.org/ Digital Media Law Project].

== Assignments ==

The first half of assignment 2 (posting your prospectus) is due before class ''next week (Feb. 25th)''. Information on the assignment can be found [[Assignments#Assignment_2:_Prospectus|here]].

== Readings ==
<onlyinclude>
; Private and public control of speech online

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfS_2oXVch0 Berkman Center, How Internet Censorship Works] (about 7 mins., watch all)

* [http://access.opennet.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/accesscontrolled-chapter-5.pdf Ethan Zuckerman, Intermediary Censorship (from ''Access Controlled'')]

* [http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113045/free-speech-internet-silicon-valley-making-rules Jeffrey Rosen, The Delete Squad (New Republic)]

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

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

; Speech laws and liabilities in the United States

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

* [https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/cda-ag-letter.pdf Letter to Members of Congress from 49 state and territorial Attorneys General]

; Cross-border concerns

* [http://freespeechdebate.com/en/media/susan-benesch-on-dangerous-speech-2/ Susan Benesch, Dangerous Speech] (audio interview, about 9 mins., listen to all)

* [http://techpresident.com/news/wegov/24189/twitter-hands-over-data-unbonjuif-authors-french-authorities Jessica McKenzie, Obeying French Courts, Twitter Hands Over Identities of Users Who Employed Anti-Semitic Hashtag (TechPresident)]

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

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1625820 David Ardia, Free Speech Savior or Shield for Scoundrels: An Empirical Study of Intermediary Immunity Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act] (Read all of Section I, Parts C&D of Section II, and Conclusion)

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

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

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

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

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

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

</onlyinclude>
==Links from Class Discussion==

==Class Discussion==

{|class="wikitable" border=3 style="margin: auto; background-color:#FFFFCC;"
|align="center"|<big>'''REMINDER'''</big>
|-
|style="background-color:#FFFFFF;"|Your comments must be submitted '''before 4:00PM ET''' on the Tuesday we hold class in order to count for participation credit. Please see the [[Class Participation|participation policy]] for more information.
|}
<br/>
<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:Andy|Andy]] 15:12, 7 November 2013 (EST)</div>

----

"The spread of information networks (the internet) is forming a new nervous system for our planet" - Hilary Clinton.

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccGzOJHE1rw

For governments to react expeditiously to help individuals or communities in distress, there must be freedom of speech online.
But for this to be effective, the process need to be organized and formalized. Individuals need to ensure they are not sending noises and gibberish but useful information so that either the government or other able individuals, NGO's, or even private corporations can come to the rescue.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 06:57, 12 February 2014 (EST)

----

I have to say, I found "The Delete Squad" article by Jeffrey Rosen to be extremely interesting. While I find hate speech despicable, I agree with the conclusion at which "The Deciders" arrived, to intervene only in rare cases in which resulting violence appeared imminent. In this age of prolific internet bullying, I can see how many people (particularly parents) might be inclined to argue that regulations must be implemented, but to me the solution seems to lie more so in the individual's own usage of the internet. By this I mean to say that a person should be responsible for restricting his or her (or his or her child's) internet usage so that he or she is not actively involved in sites which might be problematic. [[User:Castille|Castille]] 02:26, 15 February 2014 (EST)

:Rosen's article sheds a lot of light on what has become very important content control force in digitally-mediated discussions. For me, the most interesting and troubling aspect of this is the time they take to decide these things. Rosen claims the content review groups at Facebook have on average 20 seconds to evaluate a claim before acting upon it. It is nearly impossible to internalize in such a short period of time the complicated elements Susan Benesch flags to separate the dangerous from the tasteless but far less dangerous - the context, the speaker, the audience, etc. How can they be expected to do in 20 seconds what scholars and courts spend years (and many trees of paper) contemplating in other contexts? (Oh, and to your next post - book recommendations are always welcome!) [[User:Andy|Andy]] 21:40, 17 February 2014 (EST)

----

This might be a little off-topic, so I apologize in advance if it's "inappropriate", but I was wondering if anyone has read ''The Circle'' by Dave Eggers? These readings-- and my exchange with Ichua on last week's discussion board-- have really made me consider the thoughts posed in that book. Basically, the book is about a company (a la Facebook) which seeks to "complete the circle" of internet usage and identity. It functions as a sort of government in and of itself, as well as a full-fledged community/world. Everything is consolidated on their system, so that people have basically no anonymity online as we do now; the internet is no longer removed from reality, but is instead a virtual reality in the most literal sense. All of their information is stored within the system, including their medical records, family history, purchase history, job details and tasks, and essentially all communication is conducted through the site. There is also a security camera system which is set up and controlled by the users, but has become so prolific that essentially every area of the globe is under surveillance. While the situation posed in the novel is drastic and even scary, there are a lot of positives to certain aspects. I think the biggest concern is not necessarily the loss of privacy, but the question of who controls (or should control) such a system. Certainly controls should exist, but surely corporations should not have that much power or intimate knowledge and it seems that even a government would not suffice for such a job. Should there be another authority? If so, what sort of entity would be qualified to do such a job? I'd love to hear other peoples' perspectives, whether you've read it or not.[[User:Castille|Castille]] 12:55, 17 February 2014 (EST)

----

*'''NOTE 1''' While reading this week's articles, I took a break from homework to scroll down my Facebook newsfeed. I came across a post by a friend in Quebec, about a website that satirizes Snapchat. When I clicked the link, it gave me an error message. I messaged my friend, she was able to open the link with no problem from Quebec. From the comments on her post, it seems as though the only questionable content were some dirty pictures on the site, but nothing I understand to be limited in the USA. That was a bit weird/scary...
*'''NOTE 2''' Now that I am done reading this week's articles, I am more nervous to post my honest response to some of the articles than I used to be!
*'''QUESTION''' Does anyone know the Wiki Markdown version of <code>target="_blank"</code>? I'd be happy to add the markup to the class readings if anyone knows what the code is (I've tried Googling it... no luck...)
[[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 15:27, 17 February 2014 (EST)

: It is generally considered bad practice in web development to use target="_blank" outside of very specific, exceptional cases. The reason is simple: If the link has no target attribute, the behaviour is defined by user's settings and by user's action as they can either click the link or right click and open in another tab/window/etc., some browsers offering other options such us click&drag, middle click, etc. If the link has a target="_blank" attribute, on the other hand, the user is forced to open the link in a separate tab/window - his actions are thus limited by the developer, for no good reason (even if the developer might think he has a good reason, it usually isn't). --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 17:39, 17 February 2014 (EST)

::Thank you for the note Seifip!!! Makes sense, maybe i can play around with Chrome settings & see if I can set it so outside links always open in new tab... Not that I'm too lazy to press the cmd/ctrl key for each link... (well I guess a bit) but my keyboards are all in different languages which confuses the crap out of my typing muscle memory, so I love it when browsers already know which links I want in a new tab (:

::: [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/linkclump/lfpjkncokllnfokkgpkobnkbkmelfefj?hl=en Linkclump] extension is your friend :) --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 07:58, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

As I was considering the intersections of this week’s readings, several articles reminded me of a case that occurred back in 2000, although not within the realm of the Internet or something like the Flickr or Picasa most of us are very familiar with today, the parallels and concerns will seem obvious.

When we think about the amount of daily photographic content that now goes up on Facebook, Flickr, Picasa, etc. and consider the roles of these “Deciders” (as defined in one of the reading), the case as it occurred for an Oberlin, Ohio family back in 2000, seems like it could play out over and over again if individual states received the powers of prosecution to the extent that the State Attorneys General are requesting in their letter to congress on July 23, 2013.

Some may remember the case I’m referring to, in an overly distilled summary, it involved an amateur photographer who was chronicling her daughter’s life in still photography. Some photographs included her (then 8yr old) daughter bathing. When the photos were developed by the local film-processing lab, a clerk reported this to the police as an incident of “child pornography”. The local police agreed, and the mother was arrested and the case garnered national attention at the time with the ACLU coming to the defense of the mother.
http://www.oberlin.edu/alummag/oamcurrent/oam_spring_00/atissue.html
[Later the subject of an entire book looking more closely at the issues]
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/art/questions-of-photographic-propriety-in-framing-innocence/

The letter by the 49 Attorneys General certainly strikes at a horror that anyone with a human heart will become equally enraged towards - the tragedy of child abuse, sex trafficking, and exploitation. While it seems odd that the word “The State” is omitted from the current language of the CDA, I wonder if by including “The State” in CDA language, we will end up introduce a sliding scale of laws that become defined by “the standards of any small community” enforcing crimes that THEY define a “Obscenity” and/or “child pornography”.

What is viewed as unprotected speech and deemed as “obscenity” (or “child pornography”) in Lorain County Ohio, may not result in the same definition in (say) San Francisco. With the addition of “The State” in the CDA, could the State of Ohio prosecute a photographer in San Francisco for posting an “obscene” picture to a Flickr account which is accessible to users in Ohio? If the definition of “obscenity” is based on the Miller’s test (below), then What are the “community standards” that define obscenity in a case where one state wishes to prosecute someone in another “community”??

The Miller test for obscenity includes the following criteria

(1) whether ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would find that the work, ‘taken as a whole,’ appeals to ‘prurient interest’

(2) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and

(3) whether the work, ‘taken as a whole,’ lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

[[User:Psl|Psl]] 17:47, 17 February 2014 (EST)

:Thanks for contributing! Just to clarify, the constitutional definition of actionable obscenity under ''Miller'' has the geographic element to it, which tailors the more general [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-71 criminal statute], but in the realm of child pornography neither the [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252 criminal statute] nor the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._Ferber First Amendment doctrine] base liability on community standards. So while obscenity can very state to state, child pornography does not. (And both are illegal at the federal level.) [[User:Andy|Andy]] 18:47, 17 February 2014 (EST)

----

I have a greater appreciation for the issues involved in online free speech after this week's article. I somewhat disagree with Zuckerman's conclusion that private limitations to speech in private spaces is "Dangerous for a public society," in that I believe that private companies need to be able to define what is or isn't acceptable communication within their own environments--we're guests in these areas, and it's up to companies owning the spaces to decide what sort of environment their guests are going to experience. On the other hand, I don't think it can be the government that defines what's acceptable--it needs to be up to the individual owners of these spaces. I'm concerned about any encroachment on an individual or private enterprise's ability to decide what rules are appropriate for itself. While I find the content of, say, a site like Stormfront (a white separatist website) to be totally repugnant, I would defend their right to publish what they do--if anything, it simply exposes their nonsense to public scrutiny and criticism.

I am sympathetic to Benesch's thinking about "dangerous speech," and in particular it does make sense that the context (speaker, political environment, proximity to sensitive events, lack of competition/criticism) can make hate speech turn into something more insidious. Nevertheless, I'm unable to think of a good solution that doesn't actually make things worse. She claims to defend freedom of expression yet is able to make a distinction between expression and freedom of the press (dissemination). I find myself unable to disentangle the two. When one considers the international aspects, and the potential for international lawsuits (such as the French cases we've discussed) it seems like it would be unusually hard to apply her test to speech and protect the right of companies in places such as the United States to publish things that someone might claim to be "dangerous" elsewhere. For example, would the Chinese government find it to be "dangerous" if the customers of Twitter posted content about how there should be an end to single-party rule? Where do we draw the line? It's clear that not only are there the interests of certain governments at stake (and their authoritarian approaches to speech) but also the simple fact that some countries (such as the Rwanda example) may not have the institutions or cultural heritage to handle US-style free speech; yet it is it fair to force US companies to account for all of these cross-border and cross-cultural differences?

[[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 20:08, 17 February 2014 (EST)

----

I also found myself somewhat sympathetic to Bensech's concern about dangerous speech. However, it is unfair and implausible to make US companies responsible for such cross-border/cultural differences. It is bad for business and generally not a policy I would deem logical. The way I see it, should a company be held liable for slander that someone says while in their establishment or be punished for someone who spray paints a hate message on the company's door? Although businesses can take precautions to try to prevent such occurrences, to do so over the internet is a much more painstaking task. Furthermore, I think the bounds of what constitutes "hate speech" is being stretched to some degree. Constitutionally and as many Supreme court cases have favored, freedom of speech is protected so long as it does not "incite violent action". For example, to instruct people to harm someone of a certain race would be considered unlawful. In my mind, that is where the line must be drawn.

Though, as others have mentioned, internet bullying is becoming more widespread and has resulted in teen suicides and possibly contributed to the uptick in school shootings as some have theorized. Still, to what degree should we be prosecuting internet hacklers for this behavior? As Professor mentioned in class, once an incident occurs Congress tends to look for an immediate remedy via legislation when it may not necessarily be the answer. Of course I find it horrible and morally repugnant that someone would bully an innocent person online but does this mean that every bit of our speech should now be scrutinized and if we, for example, call someone fat online we should be given a misdemeanor? If our society deems legal recourse for online bullying, it will become quite convoluted in staking out the levels and appropriate punishments for each offense. Should a few "bad apples" online ruin or impede the benefits of free internet speech for the masses of good people in society who thrive off of our shared knowledge? Should McDonald's cheeseburgers be illegal to protect those who struggle from obesity? No matter how you frame it, more restrictions will eventually equate to more inhibition for companies and citizens alike. Such inhibition, I argue, thwarts a society's economic and intellectual growth.

--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 10:34, 18 February 2014 (EST)

:I'm really glad you brought up the issue of bullying! This is an area where the Berkman Center's Youth and Media Lab have been doing [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2012/kbw_bulling_in_a_networked_era some great research] around framing, understanding, and assessing efficacy of solutions to bullying. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:15, 18 February 2014 (EST)

:I agree with your points, AmyAnn, about the difficulty of dealing with bullying and regulating harassment online without stifling speech. The reading I've done on this issue, which has been more about harassment of women and not children, highlights the need for enforcement of what laws we do have. It's not that we need more laws, it's that we need the existing ones to be understood in the context of the Internet and to be enforced by the authorities. Amanda Hess wrote a really wonderful piece about her experience with this that I think I mentioned during one of the first weeks of class, which is long but well worth the read. [http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/women-arent-welcome-internet-72170/#.Us2TKsXlSF4.twitter] Lindy West wrote a follow up for Jezebel [http://jezebel.com/we-must-not-shut-up-about-how-women-are-treated-on-the-1496622407], which gives a quick overview and her own commentary. [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 12:43, 18 February 2014 (EST)

Thank you for sharing these sources! It is refreshing to see how more people are getting involved in spreading the message about cyber-bullying and I believe communication and public awareness initiatives are crucial in combating these issues, particularly in targeting the most vulnerable and dominant population on the web (the youth). The modern parent has more to consider in raising children with regular access to the cyber world both from the perspective of the victim and in preventative measures. A recent pew survey noted that 90% of teens had witnessed cyber-bullying yet did nothing about it. Imagine how many lives would be saved if everyone took a stand against cyber-bullying. Then again, I suppose the children did not know what to do or who to report their observations to; one might think to inform the student's parents but perhaps the teen did not know the parents? What action could this 90% of teens have taken? Call the police and on what grounds? At first blush, 90% of teens not reporting bullying seems like an awful statistic, but when considering the lack of direction or guidance in knowing (as a society) how to deal with these matters legally, it all trickles down and muddles the situation to the point where a concerned citizen may not be able to effectively help his fellow cyber-victim. In any event, without communication, these teens may not even recognize cyber-bullying to begin with and may become "desensitized" to a point where it may not even cross their mind. Communication is critical for our community to even be aware of what goes on in cyberspace, but as Jkelly mentions, all of the communication and education still cannot trump the lack of enforcement or clear legal path on dealing with these issues.

Has anyone seen the documentary "Submit"? It was created by parents of internet-bullying victims and the production discusses just how dangerous the bully's "arsenal" online has become when considering how one can, at worst case scenario, completely destroy someone's social standing, career, and identity. The "arsenal" they say is dangerous because it is both "vast" and "at a distant" offering a bully the prime environment in which to operate.

Here is the link for the documentary for those interested:
http://www.submitthedocumentary.com/

--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 14:08, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

While I find Susan Benesch's pursuit of a more nuanced definition of free speech quite commendable, I find that her definition of dangerous speech is prone to subjective assessment and can lead to excessive censorship. Some of the factors, such as the charisma of the speaker, are difficult to assess and are shared between speakers for bad and good causes. Other factors, such as historical context, are equally less than ideal as history is not a constant, a fact, but rather something defined by the state and current generation based on its limited knowledge of the past and current view of the events. The way we see and interpret history changes virtually every decade, and it would be nice if the view of what constitutes dangerous speech was not tied to such an uncertain factor. --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 08:11, 18 February 2014 (EST)

:Great points, [[User:Seifip|Seifip]], and I suspect Susan would agree with you that there is still a gap between what factors should and shouldn't matter, and how that translates to policies, procedures, and rules for monitoring against dangerous speech. The tie between the substantive and procedural issues around freedom of expression is a fascinating place to explore at some depth. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:15, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

I found the reading this week really interesting as I am from the country that pioneered Internet censorship, China. To be exact, I am from Hong Kong, one of the Special Administrative Regions of China. For those who are not familiar with the history of Hong Kong, it used to be a colony of Britain and China resumed sovereignty in 1997. Hong Kong is under the principle of “One County, Two Systems”, which means that it has a different political, legal and economical system from China and will be maintained that way for at least 50 years.

Facebook, Twitter, New York Times have been on the blocked websites list in China because they are “politically sensitive”. Instead, they created their own social networking tools, Weibo. There are a couple different Weibo that launched by different companies, but all of them are in cooperation of the Internet Censorship in the People’s Republic of China.

WeChat,a popular messaging app for smart phone which is similar to WhatsApp, Line, Facebook Messenger etc, is also under censorship. Messages that contain some keywords will be filtered and blocked. Users who send those messages will receive a message saying” The message you sent contains restricted works. Please try again”.

In September last year, The Chinese Government finally allows a small selection of people to access those banned websites including Facebook and Twitter. However, the small selection of people means people that live in that specific 17 square mile area of Shanghai. Many say this is a great start of the revolution, but I am not as optimistic as the rest. I do acknowledge the changes that have been made in years, however, I believe this incident is only a one-time exception that the government made.

[[User:Jolietheone|Jolietheone]] 03:13, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

WHY WE CANNOT TRUST EVERYTHING ON THE SOCIAL MEDIA: OF FREE SPEECH AND LIES

http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/pm-lee-untruths-spread-through-social-media-hard-correctE

But rather than other people or web robots doing the filtering, we should be teaching our young people how to filter good and reliable information from bad ones, especially on social media.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 11:53, 18 February 2014 (EST)

Ichua - I could not agree more! It is hard enough for educated adults to filter through the propaganda spewed on the web; I can only imagine how a child would struggle with this. Even the most reputable websites have had instances where misinformation or biased information has been reported. Educating our youth on cyber material will make or break our country (and world's) future both within the cyber world and the real world.

--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 08:33, 19 February 2014 (EST)

----

Following up on Andy and Castille's comments regarding content review and concern over the speed of content removal, I found Rachel Whetstone's entry about Google's policy regarding free expression and regulating speech particularly interesting. Whetstone emphasizes the importance of community, and the relative speed and accuracy of hate speech/ inappropriate content regulation by the millions of google users who self-police their given online communities. She acknowledges the potentially problematic dynamic of subjective judgment of what is deemed inappropriate, but I strongly agree that the majority of users- especially those who actively and regularly engage in any number of online communities- will agree about what is acceptable and what is offensive. Castille brought up concerns over cyber bullying and parental supervision/ intervention-- I would hope that the majority of parents would have similar responses to what is deemed unacceptable content when they encounter it. Though the ability to consider, deliberate and process each case of potential content regulation or removal is indeed limited when the average content review period on platforms such as Facebook is 20 seconds (referenced by Andy), I still would trust the ability of a community of regularly engaged and informed reviewers to regulate appropriate content.
[[User:akk22|akk22]] 11:50, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

NEW IDEA - ONLINE SOFTWARE FOR BUILDING THE COUNTRY FROM COLLABORATIVE FREE SPEECH

I am thinking of Soft Systems approaches used in operations research such as the use of "cognitive maps" described by Colin Eden (UK). If there is an issue of national interest, we could have every interested person contribute to an interactive online cognitive map which has a "revert-to-earlier-version" function like in Wikipedia. That way whoever contributes would have a sense of ownership of the map. Positive or negative influence of one factor on another can be indicated by "+" and "-" signs and strength of relationship can be shown with line thickness of the arrows. The contributor's name and his reasons or evidence for the added link could be displayed by clicking on the connecting arrow. Well, this idea is not really new as Colin Eden had developed a software for this called COPE...but this will need to be enhanced with the additional features suggested.....Also, if one contributor says "A ---->+ B" and another disagrees, the map could be modified with a second link from A to B as "A ---->+ C ----> -B", while still retaining the original link. Most probably a detailed read of the description of the first link would lead one to suggest "A ----> -D ----> +B" as a replacement for the original link. Thus, the map will give us a "richer" picture of the elements affecting a particular issue as new links are added.

See: "Using Cognitive Mapping for Strategic Options Development". ( in 'Rational Analysis for a Problematic World', Jonathan Rosenhead (ed.)). Wiley 1989.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 12:15, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

In related news... [http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/winter-olympics/26223586 Team GB want social media protection] --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 12:16, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

In reviewing the readings for this week, and digging deeper into the subject area; I walked away with a true appreciation of a topic that I believed was easily defineable. Perhaps this is indicative of the escalated polarization of issues and beliefs that we are currently experiencing. Bensech's concern about dangerous speech made an argument that I welcomed to entertain. After more thought, I began to question the notion of censorship and the ultimate guideline for who decides what is acceptable. I am uncomfortable with any corporation placing limitations on private speech. I am more comfortable with the cultural norms of the local community self-regulating. Realizing this may not be perfect, to err on the side of the collective conscious seems a much better path to civility.[[User:VACYBER|VACYBER]] 13:33, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

Observing the behavior of current providers and government leaders positions about the content of information, I see that there are not, and probably never will be, absolutely effective legal or technological mechanisms to control content on the Internet. If the issue were simple , all undesirable socially behaviors that occur in network - the dissemination of child pornography , intellectual property infringement , manifestations of racial hatred, and many others - would be ceased a long time ago.
I agree that technological control mechanisms achieved by providers, for example, the one which can do a simply edit an information available on web site in order to remove or correct any references that cause damage; may also erase the contents of a given page or even remove files from the server that you use to store your information . Being a common and effective means of control, once the content provider is one who exercises direct control over the information or files available on the respective web site or server and may take steps to remove or block access to infringing material . Therefore , it is up to the judge to determine the adoption of reasonable technical mechanisms together with all other support measures that may be useful to obtain specific performance or equivalent practical result .
The implementation of drastic measures to control content on the Internet should be reserved for extreme cases, when this obvious public interest provided that the weighted potential damage caused to third parties, should not be adopted in other cases , especially when dealing with individual interest except in very exceptional situations, which represent rare exceptions .
The difficulties inherent in the protection of rights within the Internet can cause some perplexity . However , it is a reminder : the network is a reflection of society and , as such , imperfect and subject to injustice . If until today was not possible tutelary with absolute perfection all rights provided in a legal system, we would be innocent to expect different results us internet related conflicts .
The documentary about Mark Zuckerberg describes about the challenges faced by faced by Facebook regarding the control of content. http://youtu.be/5WiDIhIkPoM [[User:Gisellebatista|Gisellebatista]]

----

Professor Sellars,
I feel that your "Structural Weaknesses" piece adequately addressed many key issues surrounding internet censorship of speech, especially the fact that extensive private regulation already happens among several different parties. I also especially liked your astute observation that the tragic Benghazi situation was far more nuanced than simply one person posting a video to YouTube; there were many pre-existing societal issues at play. I do have a one question about the piece, though: When writing about how the White House requested that YouTube remove the video, you opine that the White House did so "very inappropriately." Are you saying that the manner in which the White House made the request was inappropriate, or was it inappropriate for the White House to make such a request at all? I'm genuinely curious to know what you think, seeing as how this request seems to involve the "bully pulpit" aspect of the President's executive branch, which in this case uses speech in order to regulate speech. [[User:Vance.puchalski|Vance.puchalski]] 15:19, 18 February 2014 (EST)

:Thanks for reading, Vance! My view on this fluctuate a bit, but I tend to be very concerned with government engaging in censorship through "soft power" means like this - asking YouTube to rethink a decision, cutting off payment providers, etc. - when they lack the constitutional authority to punish or enjoin it directly. I would be less concerned if they simply exercised their speech to say they disagree with the video, and maybe even YouTube's decision to keep it up. But to exercise pressure on a domestic intermediary crosses a line for me. For more on this, check out Jack Balkin's writing on [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2377526 "old school" vs. "new school" speech regulation.] [[User:Andy|Andy]] 16:35, 18 February 2014 (EST)

: Vance, I had wanted to ask the same question! And I like Dr. Seller's respond. But in Singapore, any negative implication about the government cannot be tolerated. Politicians in the past who speak negatively and aggressively about the government and questioning the integrity of the government, particularly of the Prime Minister or Deputy Prime Minister without clear evidence, were usually put in jail or made bankrupt as in the case of J.B. Jeyaratnam. That is why Singaporeans prefer to express their views anonymously and in the social media, but even then it could be a dangerous thing to do as it may affect their career, their family, their life. The majority would prefer to remain quiet or share their opinions only amongst very close friends and relatives. I used to have lots of respect for LKY but his treatment of JB Jeyaratnam seemed overly harsh and unnecessry, though this pales in comparison with wicked governments/leaders who execute their oppositions. Yet I wonder if the opposition could have been more tactful in their approach. In some countries it may seem an acceptable way to attempt to remove a leader by smearing his character. In another, the leader expects to be treated like a god and feels threatened when his character and integrity is called into question. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 20:15, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

Re: Internet censorship, first video: I was particularly surprised that Google provides (or provided) near realtime indicators of takedown notices and censorship, country to country. It would be interesting to look into potential backlash to this, on a country-by-country basis, on the corporate or governmental level. (Though, perhaps Google has grown so large that it has cultivated a bit of immunity?) That being said, later in the video it did mention that corporations (theoretically even Google) are on “their turf” and have no choice but to comply.

A theme that keeps coming up in these readings, and in class, is that our perception of our freedoms on internet seem to be skewed. It’s almost inherent in our dealings with the net. Why do we, generally speaking, have this idealized view? An example could be user-created content — websites, commenting, user-focused platforms, etc. etc. In general, user driven content… the fact that anyone can theoretically add to the web space, with relatively low visibility. This could be leaving us with this idea that the web is truly open. The wide availability of pornography actually comes to mind as a decent example… In that, if this real-world, regulated material is so widely available online, then the net must be a “free” space.

Re: Dangerous speech vs. hate speech: While watching this video it occurred to me — when she was speaking about not needing to limit the hate speech itself — that the internet provides people with such wide access to information across the globe, so that this hate speech could be accessible in a volatile area, thus making it also dangerous speech. She didn’t mention that fact, but perhaps I missed it in another reading…. It strikes me that it would be hard to define this based on territory and context, given widespread access to the web. [[User:Twood|Twood]] 15:25, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

I have to mention that the most interesting reading material was "Delete Squads". I am sharing the views of Deciders on ground that

----

Free speech and the Internet have been intermingled in speech from the very beginnings of online interaction. But as the Internet has developed , so have people’s opinions about what rules and regulations apply from the “real world”.

Major corporations policies and outlooks (like Techs from silicon valley) on free speech have shaped how people post and express themselves over the web.
But major issues have arisen from foreign countries differing like France demanding Twitter to hand over the identities of users who promoted hate speech. Even Google censors of a video, even though it is only in a few particular countries, caused much concern or like when Google image search for Tiananmen Square shows starkly different results from a search in the US or a search from China.
China, Russia and other totalitarian countries have differing ways to effectively filter free speech on the Internet. These range in form but generally are DDoS attacks, hacking, intrusion filtering by key words, or flooding blogs with pro-government agenda even shutting down their internet for a time.
What is the best way to keep speech on the Internet censorship free? There are many answers. One is way is circumventing tools, many have been developed but they have proved of little use in the over all struggle.
It seems the best way is to have the giants of the Internet have a greater role in participation paving the way for generations to come.

The discussion between John Palfrey and Adam Thierer about 47 U.S.C. Section 230 addresses some of the most contentious aspects of law in such a clear concise way. Should online carriers be liable for content posted on their websites or web browsers? Each provides compelling reasons for their view. Adam Thierer argues in favor of keeping Section 230 intact showing how crucial it has been to the development of the Internet. Although John Palfrey agrees, his view is to make stricter demands on ISPs and “interactive computer service providers”. Through out their discourse they touch upon tough issues like negligence claims, increased government involvement, litigation, and child obscenity laws. [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:57, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

Per Zuckerman's article, it is my conviction that "Internet Censorship" in many countries sometimes reflect the level of such countries' tolerance for "Freedom speech." The article gave the examples of China, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, and Zimbabwe, just to mention but a few. These countries' censorship of certain websites, blogs, "sensitive keywords," or the sharing of specific information are motivated by various reasons. However, the restrictions to their state-sponsored ISPs have also forced web hosting services such as BlueHost as well as American internet giants such as LinkedIn, Google, Microsoft, and others to comply with the governments of those countries in order to do business there.

Personally, as much as I agree with Zuckerman's analysis on certain governments' censorship of the internet in relation to freedom of speech, I also believe that the financial motivation is equally important to some of them. For instance, I recently traveled to the UAE and Kuwait for business. One of the most noticeable internet censorship that struck me the most was how both countries blocked messaging applications such as Skype and Viber. I noticed that one cannot download those apps while in those two countries. It's either that you download Skype and Viber from the U.S., before you leave, or you will not be able to do so once there. Is this censorship to restrict "freedom of speech" or to protect their local telecommunications companies?
[[User:cheikhmbacke|cheikhmbacke]] 15:55, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

I have to mention that the most interesting reading material was "Delete Squads". I am sharing the views of Deciders on ground that the internet is the independent space of sharing thoughts, information, data and etc. which is the legal base of freedom of speech. But, if we imagine for a moment, that our future will be considerably affected by Internet, so we should be more careful. After reading all relevant materials, I came to the following conclusion on this topic:
- The Internet must totally be the independent space and everyone will be able to exercise his freedom of speech without any restrictions other than those set by legislation.
- The posted content which breaks the requirement of legislation should be withdrawn/deleted immediately by the website after they become aware of this fact. Otherwise, the role of legislation may be undermined.
- If the posted content breaks the legislation of certain country, the access of this particular country must be restricted to this content upon relevant request.
- The user who had posted the content which is incompliance with legislation, must be held liable. The websites and such companies as Google, Twitter and Facebook etc. can held liable only in cases if they knew about this violance, but failed to take appropriate measures (for example, other users informed the website about breach,
but the website didn't delete it). So, in this case the websites cannot be held liable for any breach of legislation by users, if they prove that they didn't know this fact. Otherwise, the websites will be "gatekeepers" of content in the future in order to avoid liability.

Consequently, I think that there should be compromise between freedom of speech and restrictions on it which are set by legislation. ([[User:Aysel|Aysel]] 15:56, 18 February 2014 (EST)) Aysel Ibayeva

-----

Herdict is a very useful tool, not only for filtering and censorship but in general when troubleshooting the reason a site and/or one of it's URL's isn't available. I was wondering why I hadn't heard of this tool or something similar before. Kudos to Jonathan Zittrain! I was also surprised to find out that the U.S. ranked third on the list of censorship by country, since we are a relatively free and democratic nation.[[User:404consultant|404consultant]] 16:26, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

I see the decision of an online service provider to take down content as a cost-benefit one. If a request to remove material could potentially represent legal action with potentially large monetary losses then the OSP incentive is to remove material with little hesitation. On the other hand, there might be situations were free speech is awarded by users and thus represent a benefit for the OSP. Either way OSP’s are in an extremely tight situation with tradeoffs having important implications in terms of free speech.

[[User:Luciagamboaso|Luciagamboaso]] 15:56, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

Zuckerman’s article brings interesting light to censorship in regards to freedom of speech and who’s value should take precedence.
As discussed in the article, Bluehost’s CEO, Matt Heaton was quick to back the companies financial well-being by adding an entirely new section (13) to an already executed contract and cease service of Burrell’s sites to "comply" with the U.S. Treasury.

Heaton’s decision was most likely based from a financial perspective, and was unwilling to take a chance due to the slight profit margins of hosting. So, to safeguard profits, the company added section 13 to a pre-existing contract. In this case, Bluehost value took precedence (Not the U.S. Treasury or the sites Burrell happened to be hosting through Bluehost).

Question: Does Burrell have the ability to pursue legal action against Bluehost for adding a clause to her contract after the original agreement was executed?

--[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 14:39, 18 February 2014 (EST)

Freedom of speech should be preserved online. However, I do agree that hate speech especially one that poses an immediate threat to someone’s safety should be interfered. Reporting of such occasions and policing should be in place to protect people’s safety, however, the problem is who can be trusted with such an enormous task. Government might not be appropriate because it may easily lead too much politically-influenced filtering. It’s an interesting topic and hopefully we can find a way to affectively share ideas but also staying within some sort of safety boundary.
[[User:Lpereira|Lpereira]] 15:34, 18 February 2014 (EST)
----

Paradigms for Studying the Internet

2014-02-05T18:24:11Z

Ryan: /* Links */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 4'''

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

This class will explore different frameworks for studying the web, which will structure both the discussion and topic matter covered in the course, as well as the methodology that you should apply to your assignments. The second hour of the class will focus on applying these concepts to Wikipedia, and teeing up the [[Final Project|final project]] for the class, where we will discuss the research prompt, talk about some successful projects from prior years, and plot out the deadlines for the rest of the semester.

'''[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2014/File:Paradigms_for_Studying_the_Internet.pdf Download slides from this week's class]'''

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==

; Mechanisms of control

* [https://www.socialtext.net/codev2/what_things_regulate Lawrence Lessig, ''Code 2.0,'' Chapter 7] (read intro, "A Dot's Life," and "On Governments and Ways to Regulate")

* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2353457 Rob Faris and Rebekah Heacock, Measuring Internet Activity: a (Selective) Review of Methods and Metrics] (read 1-3 and 9-22)

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

; The effects of control

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

* [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ Jonathan Zittrain, The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It] (Chapter 1, "The Battle of the Boxes," and Chapter 4, "The Generative Pattern," only)

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

== Optional Readings ==

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbYQ0AVVBGU Jeffrey Lin, Play Nice: the Science and Behavior of Online Games] (Focus on 0:00-27:17. It's a long video, but an interesting exploration of how one company uses game design to regulate griefing and other online bad behavior. Some of the discussed language is NSFW.)

* [http://www.niemanlab.org/2011/10/the-contribution-conundrum-why-did-wikipedia-succeed-while-other-encyclopedias-failed/ Megan Garber, The contribution conundrum: Why did Wikipedia succeed while other encyclopedias failed?, Nieman Journalism Lab]

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

</onlyinclude>

== Assignment 1 ==

Assignment 1 is due before next week's class (February 11th). Details of the assignment will be discussed in today's class; see [[Assignment 1 Details and Reporting|this page]] for further information. You can submit the assignment [[Assignment 1 Submissions|here]].

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==
Herdict http://www.herdict.org

Info on DMCA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act

Chilling Effects: http://www.chillingeffects.org

Chilling Effects background info on DMCA and copyright law: http://www.chillingeffects.org/copyright/

IRB is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_review_board

Google flu trends: http://www.google.org/flutrends/us/#US

Facebook as disease? http://io9.com/researchers-predict-facebook-will-die-out-like-a-disea-1506843703

Facebook's to the Princeton article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/10594490/Facebook-parodies-Princetons-bubonic-plague-study.html

Berkman's privacy tools project: http://privacytools.seas.harvard.edu/

Facebook get out the vote effort: http://www.technologyreview.com/news/506496/how-facebooks-plans-could-affect-the-election/

"Walled Garden": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_platform

Amazon Kindle 1984 story: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html

reddit: http://www.reddit.com

Today I Learned (TIL) subreddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/

Tor: https://www.torproject.org

A wikipedia article explaining the rules for translating english articles into other languages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Translate_us

Wikimedia Foundation: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home

== Class Discussion ==

<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">'''Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:49, 8 November 2013 (EST)</div>

----

Therefore, to maintain order, ensure efficient government, and improve social justice, kings, presidents, and prime ministers must be the chief architect of their country's internet code. They must be multi-skilled or have the support of a talented and scholarly team.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 13:39, 31 January 2014 (EST)

----

It seems lots more fun to watch than just read: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7UlYTFKFqY

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 03:30, 2 February 2014 (EST)

:Zittrain's talks are always a lot of fun! But we chose the two chapters in order to focus on a few of the specific things we'd like to dive into for this class. His book talk is much more general. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 08:46, 2 February 2014 (EST)

----

The Zittrain chapters give a good overview of how the Internet had been developed up to circa 2008, but there have been some significant changes--and possible reversals of the "generative" model since that time. The increasing role of SaaS platforms, centralized APIs, and operating platforms with a much more pervasive level of control relative to older operating systems (e.g., IOS, Android, and social networking platforms like the Facebook developer platform) have reintroduced an aspect of large, single-point-of-failure, commercially controlled systems. Whereas Cluetrain envisioned a future of "small pieces loosely joined," the Internet of today might be better described as "lots of small pieces largely dependent on a few large, commercially-controlled pieces." These few large pieces raise concerns in terms of limiting the potential for innovation, negotiation with gatekeepers (which, as rightly discussed in the Zittrain chapters, was one of the things that killed innovation on earlier mobile platforms) and the shifting of business opportunities across the market from creators to platform owners. Will there be another wave of generative platforms that will wear down the the current trend to centralization, and if not, how can we best ensure continuous innovation on the Internet?
[[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 20:27, 3 February 2014 (EST)

:At an [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/events/2014/02/defending_an_unowned_internet event last night] Prof. Zittrain mentioned another possible enclosure movement for generativity I hadn't thought of before: many web services are finding themselves at the receiving end of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDoS#Distributed_attack DDoS Attacks] for one reason or another. As a result, services are moving from their own servers capable of withstanding such attacks - primarily [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Web_Services Amazon Web Services], but there are a few others as well. If all of the Internet moves to just one of three or four web servers, that gives those servers tremendous power to cut off something they may not like. That's a form of "contingent generativity" that could cut off a lot of the social good that both Zittrain and Benkler flag in their articles. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 09:28, 4 February 2014 (EST)

----

Coming off of last week's reading (specifically John Perry Barlow's "A Declaration of Independence of the Internet"), I found danah boyd's essay "White Flight in Networked Publics?" particularly interesting. Even before reading boyd's piece, Barlow's "Declaration" seems hilariously naive in 2014, though I can certainly appreciate the utopian vision it's based on. The idea that the world that we exist in (the physical reality described by Orin Kerr) won't intrude on the virtual world of the Internet seems impossible. (Did they really not believe that the best AND worst parts of us would be present?) The role of the Internet in our everyday social lives has, of course, increased exponentially since 1996, so it only makes sense that who we are and how we behave in the physical world will translate to equivalent behavior on the Internet. The ways in which behavior on the Internet effects people in the physical reality of their lives (particularly when it comes to harassment, threatening behavior, etc.) lends a great sense of urgency to figuring out how we should think about the Internet and the law.
[[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 23:18, 3 February 2014 (EST)

:Both boyd and Hargittai use a lot of pre-Internet scholarship in their writings for this course - a nice reminder that new technology does not necessarily mean new approaches to scholarship. But as Benkler notes, it is not that we are simply repeating the 20th century with shinier objects. There is something different about the way that information travels today that changes the ecology of information and cultural production. We can either adopt that change or legislate/architect it away. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 10:36, 4 February 2014 (EST)

----

I agree with Ichu's remarks about the need to somehow maintain order and to do so utilizing a talented and scholarly task force. My question would then be how this team would be selected/elected? Another potential issue would be how to ensure justice in a system where internet code is controlled by one's government or sole government official/king/president? In our reading by Orin Kerr, he highlights how these conflicting external and internal perspectives on the internet add fuel to the problem of internet law. The internet has two personalities in its vast internal cyberspace and also in acting as a physical network; striking a balance between the two and incorporating both identities into a legal system continues to evade and frustrate authorities.

In response to Megan Garber's reading on Wikipedia, I find that Wikipedia often does not get the credit or praise it deserves. Admittedly, no online community-built encyclopedia can be fool-proof, but the reason why Wikipedia has prevailed is its relative reliability. I have used the site extensively and it has provided me with a quick summary of events on a particular debate or issue. Garber's reasons for Wikipedia's success are logical in that familiarity is the cornerstone for many website's success rates. The ease of navigating the site and the non-committal method of editing or adding to the work encourages more users to contribute. I would also argue that, beyond the cultural/socio-economic/racial influences that cause users to migrate from site to site (such as from myspace to facebook), the constantly changing platform of facebook has led many to stray from the site. This is difficult to prove, of course, but when I had a Facebook account I recall many complaints from my peers about all of the changes that kept happening occurring on the site. It seemed that every week we had to ajust to a new feature or re-learn how to navigate. Accordingly with Garber's theory, the "familiarity" factor was diminishing for users and people tend to resist change especially on a site that they have grown accustomed to.

--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 04:08, 4 February 2014 (EST)

----

I was also interested in Megan Garber's point that the authorless structure of Wikipedia lowers the pressure of contributing. It certainly makes sense to me (and, I'm sure, to anyone who has read the comment section of any news article or blog post ever written...) that anonymity can encourage participation. When there's lower pressure to perform and you aren't faced with high stakes when you get involved, it's easier to bring yourself to contribute. This seems to tie in to Zittrain's point about the success of Wikipedia: it developed somewhat un-self-consciously and organically, rather than as a top-down "knowledge project" initiated by large universities. Oversight of the development of new technologies would presumably put a damper on this type of growth at any and all levels. I think this is nicely addressed by Zittrain's point that we're not looking at choosing between technology and non-technology, but a hierarchy and polyarchy.

[[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 12:48, 4 February 2014 (EST)

----

Lawrence Lessig’s article focuses on liberty in Cyberspace and how various modes of regulation effect that liberty. He focuses on four different ways that the web can be regulated,1)the Law, 2)social norms, 3) the market, and 4)architecture. Lessing tries to get us to think differently, more critically, about different mechanisms that can lead to restriction of freedom on the Web.

For instance, with the architecture of the Web, Lessing asserts that the written code of programs inherently can either provide more freedom, or restrict freedom, and access.
And when it comes to the law, Lessing points out that “The efficient answer may well be unjust.” He gives an example of the law requiring life sentences for stealing car radios.

We all would probably agree that that is overboard and excessive. And, with that absurdity planted in our minds, Lessing then shows how a coder could easily put a restriction in the radios code that would make stealing the radio less desirable for thieves. Which would in turn make it unnecessary for such a draconian law of life sentences for car radio thieves.
This example makes me think about Aaron Swartz, a friend of Lessigs, whom took his own life in 2013. Aaron was prodigy kid who helped create RSS feed, and Reddit at a young age. He later became what you might call an internet activist, and made enemies in the federal government for some hacking activities. He was eventually charged with multiple felonies by the Federal government for hacking MIT’s JSTOR server.
Lessing talks about how law and code can either liberate or restrict the Internet.
I believe Swartz’s case shows how the MIT/JSTOR rules of access, restricted information on the Web, and how federal laws were excessive and restricted innovation and liberty for Web users. And lastly, Swartz’s case shows how one coder tried to use hacktivism, to liberate information on the web.[[User:Mikewitwicki|Mikewitwicki]] 12:58, 4 February 2014 (EST)

----

I found the essay I found danah boyd's essay "White Flight in Networked Publics?" both interesting and reflective of what I have witnessed. In particular, I thought the comment that “Subculturally identified teens appeared more frequently draw to MySapce while more mainstream teens tended towards Facebook,” was especially true. We may pride ourselves on a strong sense of individualism, but remnants of the herd mentality are always present. MySpace simply offers a way to share interests that are different and more “specialized” than Facebook. I could not help but wonder if the trend is continuing with an exodus from Facebook. From a personal observation, I’ve noticed that usage among many 16-22 year olds on Facebook is dropping. The pages may still be up with random notices but the real communication and new communities are being centered on Twitter. I’m not sure if this is a spike, a trend or a progression to escape a Mainstream Facebook with parental oversight. What may be of more concern is that Twitter allows the segregation of subcultures and races more easily than previous options. [[User:VACYBER|VACYBER]] 14:09, 4 February 2014 (EST)

----

I have been following the most recent work of Lawrence Lessig for about a year, so it’s exciting to read “Code 2.0” and make connections between that and his work on copyright law, amateur creativity, Creative Commons, etc.
By providing some background on the US government’s inclination towards “indirect” regulation, Lessig paints a frightening picture of the extent to which the state can control entities for its own benefit. The case of New York v. US focuses on the question of indirection and the states, which disallows the federal government from co-opting the states for its own ends. In effect, this case establishes that the government must take responsibility for its actions and remain transparent in its interactions with the states. My question is, however, why isn’t there such precedent for indirection and the American people?
Rust v. Sullivan is a prime example of the government’s indirect regulation of its citizens. By ordering doctors, who work in government-funded clinics, to discourage the use of abortion as a family planning method, the Reagan administration furthered its aim to reduce the incidence of abortion. The lack of transparency of the government, in using doctors to discourage their patients from obtaining abortions, is most disturbing. A patient has no way to discern the state’s motives, which masquerade behind the advice of a medical professional.
A somewhat similar issue occurred (and continues to occur) in the deeding of land prior to 1948. Such deeds prevented the property covered by that deed from being sold to people of a particular race. While this law is no more, its remnants are still very much alive in the US today. As Lessig explained, communities remained segregated by “a thousand tiny inconveniences of architecture and zoning… highways without easy crossings were placed between communities… railroad tracks were used to divide.” Despite the fact that integration is made difficult by these subtle methods of control, the most troubling part of this it is so very challenging to see the link between the regulation and its consequence. The government’s lack of transparency, while being a rather genius way to accomplish their own goals, is what is so threatening to our liberty. Lessig ends by suggesting that cyberspace is a new terrain in which the government can wield power inconspicuously and endanger our freedom.

[[User:Lrsanchez|Lrsanchez]] 14:50, 4 February 2014 (EST)

----

IMPROVING SOCIAL JUSTICE AND ACCELERATING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Traditionally, colleges and universities limit the number of students admitted into their institutions primarily due to resource constraints. But with the internet, everyone can have access to higher education, regardless of their prior academic failures.

And higher education can even be made almost free! This brings liberty and freedom to the weak and poor. Economic progress can be accelerated. Is this possible? Is this desirable?

WHY THE GOVERNMENT MUST OWN THE COUNTRY'S INTERNET BACKBONE

In the Philippines, the internet backbone is mainly owned and operated by profit-oriented private corporations. Hence, the poor has no access to the internet. With over 40% of the population, or 40 million Filipinos in poverty, and internet infrastructure in most schools are grossly inadequate or absent, only the government can remedy the situation by owning a substantial part of the country's internet backbone. Profit opportunities can still exist for corporations if there are two separate internet backbone: one solely for government administration and education, and the other for private entertainment and commerce.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 15:32, 4 February 2014 (EST)

----

Wikipedia is offered in other languages, which is a feature offered almost from inception. How does wikipedia get around the challenge when (i.e.) an English and a German wikipedia page on the same subject feature different citations, or when one page has more depth than the other? This would make a great deal of knowledge inaccessible to people who don't speak the language. Does monolingualism emerge as a barrier for Wikipedia?

[[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 15:43, 4 February 2014 (EST)

----

I could not agree more with Ichua. Your point of colleges and universities being somewhat limited due to resource constraints makes me think of tech and educational revolutionaries such as Salman Khan and his YouTube channel. Although his efforts are not mainstream yet, it is a good example of how the internet could bring about freedom, social justice, economic improvement, and access to higher education to the weak and poor. The same goes with "edX" and other disruptive technologies that could very well contribute to knowledge economies now and in the future.

[[User:cheikhmbacke|cheikhmbacke]] 15:42, 4 February 2014 (EST)

----

An introduction into a "Dots" life brings scrutiny on the constructs of regulation through the market, architecture, law and social norms. As we engage in our conversations dealing with cyberspace, it will be interesting to see which one of the four areas outlined will prove to be the most critical-or will they all hold equal weight in the outcome of how we grow as a society online?

[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 15:51, 4 February 2014 (EST)

----

The multifaceted and ambiguous nature of the Internet along with its sheer size has presented a challenge for analysts, researchers, and governments alike to collect, study, organize, present and control data in a useful way. As Benkler, Zittrain, and Palfrey show you must understand how the infrastructure works, which they categorized into 3 main levels, otherwise it would not be possible to access what they need to monitor and regulate their own sphere of Internet.

As Jonathan Zittrain expounds upon “the generative pattern” we see that even though having a sterile system like the iPhone or an enclosed “garden” like AOL has is benefits including in the security realm, not allowing an open platform stifles peoples creativity. Indeed Wikipedia would not work if generativity was not allowed.

Even in the world of the Internet racism and ethnical divides took part in shaping how society socializes online. Students’ opinions of different socializing networks were full of stereotypical references insinuating that just as in the classroom,
subcultures have existed and do exist today correlating how people relate to one another over the Internet.

[[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:59, 4 February 2014 (EST)

----

I greatly appreciated Lawrence Lessig's invocation of John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" in "What Things Regulate" because Mill's treatise on libertarian ideals speak to controversies over internet regulation, especially the concerns over free speech that we discussed last week and will undoubtedly continue discuss over the course of the semester. I believe that Mill's "harm principle," as illustrated in "On Liberty" speaks directly to these issues of censorship. I'm not a philosophy major, but as I interpret Mill's writing, individuals should only be limited in their expression if such expression poses direct harm to individuals. (This concept was hilariously depicted in an episode of "The Simpsons" entitled "Lisa on Ice.") According to Mill, I should be allowed to swing my fists up until the point that they make physical contact with your face.

Of course, the internet does not allow for physical contact, but Mill explicates that certain expressions do not require contact to cause harm. He gives the example of protestors who oppose price increases for corn; to castigate the corn dealer in print would not constitute harm, but to picket at his doorstep would. I believe that free speech on the internet is important, but undoubtedly, acts such as cyber bullying do seem to cause harm based on the groundwork that Mill provided [[User:Vance.puchalski|Vance.puchalski]] 16:01, 4 February 2014 (EST)
----

Conceptually the internet and the regulatory framework that Lawrence Lessig presents must be viewed from an international context. What is normative behavior in one country is not in another and can feed the digital inequality/divide further. What is architecturally most beneficial does not always treat all economies the same. Same is true for laws and market analysis - the internet as an international dialog. This international lense must be used to reconcile these 'regulatory' concepts. The political debate between nations on acceptable behavior in physical space is certainly real in this space as well - what constitutes causing harm to a nation's infrastructure if that infrastructure and data exists largely in a cloud in another nation? [[User:Rstempfley|rgs]] 16:50, 4 February 2014 (EST)

------

Based on some of the points made here and in the readings, I have to admit that I think reform of all copyright is a necessity if the internet is ever going to have a chance to truly be free. I hope that the internet is eventually operated like the fashion industry. No copyright for the designs, only company brands can control whats inside their own brand. Everything else is free to all so it never inhibits the innovation. So many types of business would benefit from this structure including Music, Film, and even Video Games. I feel that some sort of UN agreement for the care of the main servers etc.. to keep the internet going and maintained should be the responsibility of all countries who participate in it. Without the freedoms that the internet used to allow, already becoming suffocating, it has and will continue to stifle it's very being like all other creative entities.[[User:TriciaBy|TriciaBy]] 17:25, 4 February 2014 (EST)

Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction

2014-01-29T15:16:28Z

Ryan: /* Links */

{{ClassCalendar}}
'''January 28'''

The Internet at its core is simply an expression of a technological protocol that allows for a particular way of sharing information. But its role has never been this understated. The Net has great potential for “good” (e.g. innovation, economic growth, education, and access to information), and likewise is a great platform for the bawdy, tawdry and illegal. So is this platform about fundamental social, political and economic change, or about access to solipsistic blogging, pornography, cheap pharmaceuticals, free music, and poker at home? This question leads us to a host of interesting issues that weave their way through the course related to openness, access, regulatory control, free speech, anonymity, intellectual property rights, democracy, transparency, norms and values, economic and cultural change, and cyber-terrorism, as well as scamsters and thieves.

'''[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2014/File:IS2014_Class_1.pdf Download slides from this week's class.]'''

'''There is a small assignment to do before class. See [[#Preparation (Assignment "Zero")|Assignment Zero]] below.

== Preparation (Assignment "Zero") ==

* Reflect on what you believe are the most significant social, cultural, political or economic changes associated with the spread of digital technologies. In a few sentences, please offer 2-3 examples in the [[#Class Discussion|Class Discussion]] section below and be prepared to discuss them during class.

<onlyinclude>

== Readings/Watchings ==

'''What is the Internet?'''

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2QdEj8UjBc Ethan Zuckerman, History of the Internet] (approx. 7 mins., watch all)

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

'''How does the Internet change governance?'''

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

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

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

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

'''Who governs the Internet?'''

* [http://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/assets/governance-2500x1664-13jan14-en.png ICANN, Who Runs the Internet?] (infographic)

* [http://ubiquity.acm.org/article.cfm?id=1071915 Alex Simonelis, A Concise Guide to the Major Internet Bodies] (skim, but focus on ICANN, IETF, IANA, and W3C)

'''Who is the Internet? Who is it not? What can we do about it?'''

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

:* Hargittai’s data is from 2003. For more recent data, see [http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2013/PIP_Offline%20adults_092513_PDF.pdf Pew Internet & American Life Project, Who's Not Online and Why] (read the summary, skim the sections).

* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNHkG7w2IA8 Ethan Zuckerman, Why Our Webs Are Rarely Worldwide, And What We Can Do About It] (approx. 14 mins., watch all)

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/2013/12/04/video-who-controls-the-internet/ Ellery Biddle, Who Controls the Internet? (''Global Voices'')] (video in Spanish with English subtitles, 10 mins., watch all)

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

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

* [http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2012/12/05/good-and-bad-reasons-to-be-worried-about-wcit/ Ethan Zuckerman, Good and Bad Reasons to be Worried About WCIT]

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links From Adobe Connect Session ==

Some more info on traceroute: http://www.exit109.com/~jeremy/news/providers/traceroute.html

Tim Wu on Colbert: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/432449/january-23-2014/end-of-net-neutrality---tim-wu

Sealand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand

An example of surreptitiously activating webcams: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/12/18/research-shows-how-macbook-webcams-can-spy-on-their-users-without-warning/

SOPA/PIPA Background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act

Chatham House Rules: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House_Rule

== Class Discussion ==

<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">Welcome to Internet and Society: Technologies and Politics of Control! This is the section of the page where you should add your comments to complete "assignment zero." Once you have registered an account, just click the "[edit]" button at the upper right hand corner of this section to add text! '''Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:Andy|Andy]] 15:12, 7 November 2013 (EST)</div>

----

The most significant changes associated with the spread of digital technologies would be the speed of information exchange and increased opportunity for information sharing.

With the help of social networking websites, it takes only one click to inform your friends and family about the birthday party that will be held next week in downtown, and you will be able to do a head count by looking at how many people click the “Going” button. It saves time and effort to exchange information nowadays. Although this attributed to the fact that people have been less careful when sharing information, we could not deny that digital technologies has contributed a lot in a positive way such as improving efficiency.

Another good example of showing how rapid the information sharing process could be via digital technologies is Edward Snowden. He would like to warn the public “as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them” by releasing classified material to The Guardian. It only took a day for the news to travel around the world.
[[User:Jolietheone|Jolietheone]] 16:41, 28 January 2014 (EST)

----

The spread of digital technology and the influence of the Internet have changed our society immeasurably. I am particularly interested in exploring the social, cultural, and political influence of digital technology on our society and in developing countries. From this perspective, one of the most significant moments of change on the Internet was the Arab Spring of 2010. As a grassroots movement facilitated by Twitter, this was a defining moment in demonstrating the power of online communities. The Arab Spring proved that individuals were able to cultivate communities online and more importantly, were able to organize themselves within the community to become a force of change. The democratization of information, ability to communicate, and the freedom to communicate gave the promise of justice for the voiceless and oppressed. Today, citizen advocacy has brought once quieted issues to the mainstream, like the NSA leaks, the 2012 Delhi gang rape, or the Boston Marathon Bombing.

However, the Internet and digital technology has influenced many other areas besides society and government. A critical step in progress for modern technology is the mapping of the human genome. The ability to store and access this information has ushered in unprecedented changes in medical fields. Furthermore, the Internet has increased access to medical tools like WebMD or the development of medical mobile applications, which will be an important development as technology becomes more globalized.
[[User:Julie|Julie]] 16:14, 28 January 2014 (EST)

----

Access and participation afforded by the spread of digital technologies have had a significant impact socially, culturally, politically, and economically. Socially, access to networking platforms, social media, internet calling services and instant messaging have changed the quantity of individual connections- and quality of relationships- regardless of location throughout the world. Culturally, stratification of identity or orientation has shifted significantly; the emphasis on national, religious, ethnic, and other cultural differences has been diluted by the rise of interconnectivity, access to information and the ability to participate across cultures. Politically and economically, the impact is largely similar- access to non-traditional and real-time news sources fostered by the spread of digital technology empowers the consumer as well as the constituent. The ability to inform oneself and advocate for individual and collective interests has changed the landscape of economic and political participation; unfortunately this has been coupled with increased concerns about rights to information disseminated on the internet and the protection of privacy at the individual and organizational level. [[User:Akk22|Akk22]] 11:04, 28 January 2014 (EST)

----

The explosion of digital technology has dramatically impacted society in all facets of life. It has evolved us as a species and will continue to change the way in which we interact with each other, the way we think, and eventually the human body itself will gradually transform. In terms of inventions, the birth of the internet has far surpassed any other invention known to mankind with respect to the magnitude of change occurring within the relatively short lifespan of its existence. As a child, I recall when robots were once considered something so distant in the future, but now we have a form of a robot with the internet. It contains more "knowledge" and holds more information than any human being.

Digital technology has altered society in several ways that I have observed and experienced:

Socially & Culturally - Digital technology has changed the way humans make plans and interact with one another. It appears that encounters and relationships have somehow become more casual and less personal via the advancement and widespread use of social media. Formalities and formal interactions are becoming less common. A simple text message now is the norm for setting up a date with a potential mate rather than a phone call or knocking on the lady's door to ask her parents' permission for a proper date.

Along these lines, for better or worse, it appears that even the cultural style of dress for those in the younger generations has evolved into a more casual trend. People are generally more accepting with an "anything goes" type of attitude. The iconic CEO Facebook creator, Mark Zuckerburg, is often seen wearing his T-Shirt even when meeting with other high profile CEOs and officials.

The so-called "dot-com" generation has also been known to feel the need for "instant gratification" and appear to have less patience than the elder members of society. This makes sense given digital technology's ease of immediate information sharing and overall access to information at the click of a button. Only a few years ago it seemed normal if someone did not respond within a day or two. Now if someone does not answer after one or two days, 911 is serious consideration.

General reliability between friends is also another changing element of human interaction because with the click of a button someone can cancel plans or easily evade previously planned obligations. A few decades ago, if I told someone we were to meet at the train station, I had better show up because I had no way of letting my comrade know I could not make it. It used to be considered nearly impossible to ask someone to "hang out" on the same day because planning with such short notice was simply not possible. With cell phones and text messaging, "meeting up" is now the norm and planning events out is becoming less common (or so has been true in my experience).

Governance & Governing: As Jack Goldsmith and Timothy Wu illustrate in their example about Yahoo in "Digital Borders", the internet has and I believe will continue to erode the general power of government. The internet has no borders and trying to determine the convoluted doctrine of privacy is a grapple for any expert to endure. The internet also enhances the power of the individual (for better or worse) as it affords all members of the world with a platform for anyone to view. With an unlimited audience propaganda becomes all the more powerful and any thought can be expressed and followed by the masses. Culturally, this can also enhance narcissism to the extent that one's own thoughts, photos, and individual power/image can be continually broadcasted for the world to see.

The internet has obviously changed the way laws are enforced and the modus operandi in which criminals operate. While the internet has arguably made it easier for law enforcement to catch certain types of criminals, other types of threats (namely, cyber crime) are more difficult and sometimes nearly impossible to detect.

Economy: While the internet has worked wonders for many economic gains such as providing general efficiency; the downside is the threat that if the internet crashes or otherwise becomes inoperable, business suddenly takes a back seat and can become totally paralyzed acting as a prime target for adversaries (as the recent Target credit card hacking events have shown). In other words, the benefits of efficiency are only truly beneficial to the extent that internet platforms are operating smoothly. The overdependence on the internet is perhaps the most frightening thing our society faces. I will never forget the first time I was at a store and the "servers" were down at the checkout counter. After two hours of shopping and loads of groceries, I was turned away even after offering cash! The computer system required all transactions to be logged. The damage to the economy if this were to happen on a grand scale would be damming.

The internet has actually changed the very definition of success and perception of success in my opinion. In one minute, you can become rich off the internet. One youtube video posted can start Justin Bieber's Hollywood career; the advent of a social media website can make someone one of the richest in the world. Striking it rich has become much easier for some who thrive off the popularity contest the internet provides. How this has impacted the traditional view of the American dream remains to be seen.

[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 20:48, 27 January 2014 (EST)

----

The spread of digital technologies has sparked an ubiquitous world. Communication is instantaneous, global, and self-published. As a result, the public has chosen which social and political interactions to reject and trust, causing a potentially biased perception of their contemporary world. The irony of this bias is that the ability to access information from a variety of sources is unprecedented; sorting through the inundation of un- and published materials - fact or opinion - becomes a challenge for even the most educated. For the youth, privacy becomes re-defined as being alone physically, yet open to sharing the most insignificant or significant details of their lives digitally (how will these tendencies shape the future?). The combinational effects of these changes establish a gateway for future technologies to be adapted (or rejected) by the public; however, improving awareness and education of the general public is of utmost importance in order for society to fully embrace the power and impact of these future tools.

[[User:Margorm|Margorm]] 20:48, 27 January 2014 (EST)

----

“Change” holds neither a positive, nor negative connotation, so I will provide an example of each:

The negative: The ubiquity of camera-equipped, internet-connected smartphones allows millions of Americans to digitally upload and share photographs with ease. Sometimes, though, these photos are compromising and end up in the hands of nefarious purveyors of “revenge porn.” The proliferation of revenge porn can and does compromise the privacy (and oftentimes safety) of private citizens who become unwitting victims of sexual harassment. And in most cases, law enforcement is unable to prosecute offenders. Many U.S. states punish “cyberstalking,” but only as a misdemeanor, which means that law enforcement cannot obtain warrants that are necessary to collect evidence needed to prosecute. Recourse in civil court proves equally futile due in large part to antiquated copyright law. I believe that revenge porn serves as an example of the social and political problems that can arise when technology moves faster than the law.

The positive: Digital technology continues to reinvent the culture of higher learning. For instance, I am currently participating in this discussion, and will attend this Cambridge-based class remotely, from my home in Manhattan, NYC. Moreover, MOOCs offered by EdX and similar providers allow interested parties to engage in courses out of genuine interest.

[[User:Vance.puchalski|Vance.puchalski]] 00:33, 27 January 2014 (EST)

----

significant social, cultural, political or economic changes associated with the spread of digital technologies:

1) culturally and politically, spin control held by governments and regional authorities ( religious, corporate, ethnic ) loses traction in the minds of individual internet users; digital tech results in a macro shift of the rhetoric of belief from formerly established originators of spin to the web itself as provider of deconstructed information that individuals more typically use to form their own beliefs and to question the validity of formerly established paradigms.

2)economically, web commerce fast outdates the economics of traditional physically-based logistics. Serious privacy issues among users of new technologies stand as barriers to user confidence, even as new tech info systems tend to present prospective users with no viable lesser-cost alternatives.

[[User:Mbouscaren|Mbouscaren]] 14:55, 25 January 2014 (EST)

----

1. The ability to communicate instantly has changed social interactions and relationships on a personal level (i.e. the instant feedback available on social media and communication via email, text, etc.) and in wider communities (i.e. forums, comments on news articles and blogs, etc.). The access to and engagement with new communication technologies can be empowering for those who may have otherwise felt voiceless, while a sense of anonymity can lead to harassment with minimal consequences.

2. Fast and easy access to information that allows individuals to educate themselves (though that has to be balanced against the challenges of finding reliable sources) and have more control as consumers (compare products, read reviews, etc.).

[[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 16:25, 26 January 2014 (EST)

----

*'''Significant social change -''' People with traits of autism, Asperger's, ADD, dyslexia, social anxiety are becoming over-represented among successful CEOs and entrepreneurs, relative to the population at large. The current economy has been rewarding companies run by people who have mental characteristics adapted to software programming, engineering, and creativity (for example) much more than in the past.

*'''Economic change -''' ''(To be honest, both of my answers could fit into social, political and economic...)'' Markets are shifting from broadcast, one-size fits all models of communication towards narrowcast, peer-to-peer conversations. On the Internet, consumer-driven input, quality products/content and sometimes even user-generated content are valued more highly than tightly-controlled corporate 'spin'. Of course this may change substantially with the fall of net neutrality.

[[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 20:15, 26 January 2014 (EST)

----

Significant social change: The way in which news spreads has changed drastically with the advent of the internet. Social networking sites, such as Facebook and particularly Twitter, have become news outlets that have, in some cases, proved to be quicker at providing up-to-the-minute current event info than traditional news providers.

Cultural/legal change: The spread of digital technologies has impacted the music industry and amateur artists in a profound way. A great example is the issue of mash-ups, the cutting and pasting of previously-recorded songs to make a brand new tune. Mash-ups have proven to be an outlet for amateur creativity, as the average person can take different songs (often times of different genres and beats) off the internet and make something entirely new. That amateur can then share her music with others. The music industry is not a fan of mash-ups, claiming that the infringe upon copy-right law. Current copy-right laws in the US are far behind the internet and do not provide guidelines on how to maintain a balance between what mash-up artists consider their 1st Amendment rights and what the music industry consider copy-right infringement.( There's a lot more I could say about this, as I wrote a paper on it, but in the interest of keeping it short, I'll end here.)

[[User:Lrsanchez|Lrsanchez]] 10:25, 27 January 2014 (EST)

----

Technology and the internet have changed the face of communication in all of its various subjects-- political, social, cultural, etc.-- which is to say that it has mostly replaced actual faces and voices with a computer screen. This is not to say that there aren't benefits, as there certainly are a plethora of benefits, ranging from the accessibility of information and quick dissemination of news. With a mere device, one is capable of staying connected to their family, friends, and the community at large no matter where they travel. Like never before, people are being brought together from drastically different backgrounds and geographical locations. We are being exposed to stories about the cultural traditions of the smallest microcosms and have access to nearly every facet of companies, governments, et cetera. While there is certainly power in this digital age of communication, as demonstrated clearly in the political realm with the recent revolution in Egypt, the internet and technology have paradoxically separated us from one another. There is less and less human-to-human contact, with people preferring to sit at home behind their computer or telephone screens instead of discussing events in person. Individuals may now be able to see everything with Google Maps, for instance, but is this a satisfactory substitute for actually experiencing these places and incidents with every sense? And aside from sensory deprivation, we are creating an emotional barrier which spans the gamut from creating social awkwardness in person to allowing thoughtless online bullying to run rampant. However, even with plenty of negatives, can we condemn the very same internet and technologies which have advanced medicine and businesses the world over? The world economy has benefitted greatly, with global commerce being as easy as clicking a button or filling out a billing form. Individuals anywhere can start a business with minimal effort and are able to participate in global trade. As with most good things, there are certainly positives and negatives that go along with the internet and technological advances.
[[User:Castille|Castille]] 12:46, 27 January 2014 (EST)

----

Digital technology helps us to automate repetitive, time-consuming, and error-prone tasks, enabling humans to spend more time doing what only humans can do: generate ideas. To use a timely example, TurboTax.com analyzes data and runs calculations for a consumer, saving them time and money by avoiding interaction with an accountant. However, sometimes replacing humans with a machine does not work so well. I personally dislike the self-checkout machines at CVS. They are too loud, and somehow always make some sort of mistake, requiring an attendant to come over and punch in a code, wasting time and failing to fulfill their basic function.

Although digital technology makes our lives easier in countless ways, many of which I might not even appreciate or understand, I think the ease and gratification of digital technologies can take a toll when humans become alienated from basic life tasks that might have their benefits. As "Castille" mentions - the constant use of and reliance on GoogleMaps might prevent people from actually gaining a sense of their environment and making observations that could help them memorize directions or landmarks, and allow them to be more self-reliant. Although digital technology allows developers, artists, educators, etc. to be really creative and productive, it also allows a lot of people to get away with being complacent.

[[User:Sballister|Sballister]] 18:20, 27 January 2014 (EST)

EDIT: I don't mean to say that TurboTax and self-checkout are examples of great social change, but they are signs of greater change like automation which will in turn affect standards for human interaction, self-reliance, etc. [[User:Sballister|Sballister]] 07:29, 28 January 2014 (EST)

----

There are several important factors to consider with the rise and spread of digital technologies. From a human interactive tactile context the PC has to be the front runner that covers many sociological concerns that I consider important.

Prior to the smart phone, the personal computer (PC) has to be (and still is) one of the most important aspects of all digital technologies to be thrust upon mankind, because of the potential power it endows upon its owner, knowingly or unknowingly; as it allows one to cross state lines, oceans and continents in mere seconds without much effort by its user. This, coupled with the widespread use of the internet provides an important context to the discussion from a sociological framework. To have so much computing power at ones finger tips, yet it is often relegated by its user to social networking, video games and entertainment, that human contact is subconsciously negated by the user. Having to get out of the house is becoming more of a chore due to what can be done online. Hiking out in the woods for field trips or class projects is becoming more and more a novelty for students and teachers alike. We can't wait to get laptops in the hands of students in third world countries, for what, so that they too can watch life on a screen, rather then be poor and kick a soccer ball around a field somewhere.

At the end of the day, from both a global and sociological standpoint, the widespread use of digital technologies has just as many concerns as it does rewards.[[User:Dancoron|Dancoron]] 23:08, 27 January 2014 (EST)

----

1. The launch of Sputnik changed many things — scientific, technological, military, and political — and the cold war of course spurred the beginnings of the internet in its earliest forms amongst the military, scientists, and researchers who used ARPAnet to transfer information, which fed American interest in the sciences and provided a foundation for the very digital technologies that now aid in the spread of our current digital technologies.

2. This leads into a second point, which is that intensified globalization of cultural elements — arguably beginning with WWII and intensifying in the '90s — promoted commercialization of the internet in the early '90s and put digital technology propagation into fast-forward. Suddenly we are able to access information on the other end of the world, rapidly, from the comfort of our own homes, and this allowed for ideas and digital technologies to spread over (again) the very digital technologies that made them possible. [[User:Twood|Twood]] 11:23, 28 January 2014 (EST)

----

Free speech ideals are one of the political, social/cultural, and even economic challenges of the spread of digital technologies. Some people want to be able to say or produce whatever they want on the World Wide Web. And some people think like the author of "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace", that the internet community can police themselves. But how would the internet prevent child pornography, or financial fraud from occurring without the help of government agencies? These are real questions that are worth debate. No one has all the answers yet.

Socially and culturally the challenges presented by the spread of digital technologies, revolves around how we use these technologies to communicate. We are still deciding what is acceptable, and what is not acceptable, socially and culturally. This social/cultural debate about the Internet is often about privacy-how much are we willing to share online. Each person is different and each culture/country feels different about how much should be revealed or restricted online. This leads us to economic results related to the spread of internet technologies.

One of the reasons that privacy is a concern with digital tech, is that companies want Internet user information. They want to know where you live, where you work, what are your favorite TV shows, and your food preferences, so that they can better sell to you. Economics also plays a role in how you will receive your Internet content/speed. Verizon and the FCC were recently in federal court arguing about whether Verizon could add additional charges to content providers, i.e. in theory, Verizon could charge these providers to reach their customers.

Politically, we have seen that digital technologies can be used to spy on citizens, and they also can be used by whistleblowers to shed light on secret activities by governments, as in the Edward Snowden incident.[[User:Mikewitwicki|Mikewitwicki]] 13:04, 28 January 2014 (EST)

----

(Apologies in advance for the length)
Seems there is quite often a direct and indirect "significant change" that can be associated with each of these areas and advances in digital technologies.

The evolution of popular social networks such as Facebook or match.com are prime examples of where the technology has prompted significant change in our social behaviors. These and similar services have shifted the dynamic in our relationships with others. The ability to discover, connect and continually communicate with "friends” without geographical limitations, and without significant costs, has allowed communities, groups and couples to form tightly knit units. This has lead to countless new marriages, allowed us an ability to sustain long-distance relationships via Skype and FaceTime technologies. Such relationships were economically and technically impossible during the days of the Bell Telephone monopoly, which seem not too long ago. Yet, plenty of indirect "significant changes" related to this same area are also becoming more frequent... As a quick example, plenty of divorces have been linked to the "discovery" of online affairs, and the same social technologies have been exploited by predatory sex offenders who can easily pose as a "friend" on Facebook to unsuspecting children.

Politically, the expansion of the digital technologies has certainly allowed for many to enter into politics and effect public policy. A standard strategy now, but web-savvy politicians have been able to exploit the new technologies as a means of reaching their followers for not only "connecting" with potential constituents, but also it has allowed those who may never have considered running for public office, a means of "discovering" their political base, building support and financial contributions through the internet to drive their campaign. Not only for "career politicians", but also for the grassroots network that can help bolster a campaign for political outsiders the likes of Jessie "the Body" Ventura, and help launch a foray into politics. Conversely, political careers have certainly been destroyed by improprieties that the advances in digital technologies have made all too quick & easy. Best exemplified recently by a US Congressman (who needs no introduction) uploading certain digital photographs to an online "friend"...which indirectly has ramifications for his entire political party's platform which cannot afford to lose that 1 seat in the House of Representatives.

Culturally - the spread of digital technologies have allowed us to collaborate and learn from communities around the world as never before... The instantaneous ability to share news, images, sound and video has brought us a greater understanding into the lives and conditions of many different cultures around the world. We learn how they must thrive, struggle and persevere within unfamiliar regions worldwide. The world's news can become as "local" as the reports we hear everyday on our city's local TV news station. The consumer need only choose from where they wish to receive a daily RSS feed, or return daily to a "Bookmark" linking to their country's leading news service. Indirectly, this same ability to glance into another culture via online technologies can trigger an all-too-limited view of what a particular culture's values may or may not be. The predominant exposure of anti-American videos and rhetoric promoting atrocities against westerners by radical Islamic militant groups using the internet to build and recruit an international army of terrorists, has certainly skewed the non-Islamic world's understanding of the culture of Islam and the very large majority of Muslims around the world who are as peaceful, humane, and caring as we all strive to be.

Economically, the significant changes that have been prompted by advances in digital technologies are numerous. The entire economic model in many industries has needed to adapt to the new opportunities that digital technologies allowed (and expected) or risk their corporation’s demise. Photography, Music and Publishing have all seen major shifts in their production, marketing, distribution and sales models. Amazon was an early player in adapting to the new online economy, and many brick-and-mortar shops fell victim to the competition. In the publishing world, and ever more frequently within the music world, we are now leasing our content at the same (and sometimes much larger) costs than what consumers formerly paid to physically own the content. In addition to the content itself, providers are also able to charge for delivery mechanisms (propriety interfaces to interact with the content) or require “subscriber fees” to access cloud storage of your personal collection of digital assets (Music, e-books, library archiving projects, etc) How we read, listen, and enjoy the many arts are all indirectly changed because of the advances in digital technology and our reliance on the internet combined with smart devices to deliver content to us. [[User:Psl|Psl]] 13:17, 28 January 2014 (EST)

----

The recent technological advances, and the development of the internet in particular, have brought about many changes to every part of our lives as individuals, as well as to the functioning of the society as a whole.

One of the most far-reaching effects of the development of the internet is the ease of mobilizing thousands and millions of people behind shared goals, for good, or for bad. From a satellite launch crowdfunded on Kickstarter, through the decline of “pink slime” following a change.org petition, to oppressing governments using online media to remain in power, the last few years in particular have hinted at the things to come. Indeed, what we're starting to see is that contrary to predictions of centuries past, the future of computing is turning out to center not on improved artificial intelligence through ever increasing computational power, but on real people empowered by technology.

A concept seemingly opposite to the idea of crowdsourcing is decentralization, another keyword for this decade. Governments across the world are beginning to wrap their heads around the internet and are becoming increasingly good at policing it. Internet giants such as Google and Facebook are also constantly tightening their grip on the large sections of the internet within their reach and control. The recent developments in federated social networks, decentralized authentication methods and currencies, and independent mesh networking however suggest that internet might in fact grow more uncontrollable than ever in the years to come.
[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 13:51, 28 January 2014 (EST)

:Thanks for the comments, and for the formatting update as well! If people would like to treat each of these as the start of a thread and reply feel free to do so - just insert a colon before your reply. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 13:57, 28 January 2014 (EST)

----

Digital techniologies have created the promise of instant access to answers and information. They have removed the middle men and connected information producers and consumers, for example, with the advent of digital publishing authors, musicians, etc have more access to their readers and as such produce content with seemingly more artistic control. This in turn may have created microcosms of demand and increased the polarization of the conversation and reduced our experience with consensus building and effective dialog.

Additionally, the advent of digital technologies has increased the transparency of individuals and governments as they engage and as such has both benefited and hampered the international political dialog. Individual actions and the actions of individuals within governments and institutions are open for scrutiny often by entities who are not familiar with the context. [[User:Rstempfley|Rstempfley]] 15:00, 28 January 2014 (EST)

----

The birth of digital technology changed the landscape of how equities, futures, options, and currencies are traded globally. From an economic perspective, exchanges worldwide were once left with limited ways to conduct transactions, to include the telephone (the ones hanging on a wall attached by an annoying cord) and face-to face communication, primarily through large financial institutions and advisors.

Technology has allowed the general public, who are now users of large public exchanges such as the NYSE, Nikkei, & NASDAQ ,open availability to markets that were once only offered to the elite and wealthy. Political constructs changed, as the general public were allowed into a market place that was once driven strictly by large financial institutions. Market entry for the general consumer changed the social environment of the stock market, and a more level playing field developed through the adoption of online brokerage firms such as AB Watley, E-Trade, and Ameritrade. Trading securities across not only state lines, but also entire countries, provided unlimited opportunity for those who wanted the option to trade securities without the use of a personal stockbroker. This type of transaction was unheard of in the early 90’s-today purchasing ones own stock online without the advise of a broker is the norm.--[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 15:19, 28 January 2014 (EST)

----

The digital universe has revolutionized access to information. Today, anyone can find anything by simply asking their phone! This overabundance of information is connected to a number of global issues including terror, freedom, energy and political polarization. Anyone can look up how to make a bomb online, but does that make it ok for the federal government to spy on all of us? These new technologies have increased our consumption of energy, yet we are inching toward renewable energy slower than the polar caps are melting. And to cap it all off, political parties now have access to so much information that there is data to support any claim, increasing the frequency of gridlock. [[User:Art.Mescon|Art.Mescon]] 15:32, 28 January 2014 (EST)

----

Culturally: Digital technologies have given us instantaneous access to current events around the world. They have also given us an incredibly cheap way to communicate with anyone, anywhere, at any time. Initially, these technologies resulted in a sort of digital melting pot of beliefs, ideas, and knowledge. As we have matured as Internet users, and grown more proficient in harnessing this newfound ability, these technologies have begun to birth such innovations as Crowd Sourcing – changing the way we fund everything from aid relief to feature films.

Politically: We are only just beginning to see what is possible, politically, as a result of the digital landscape. By 2011, the increased adoption of smartphone technology, intersected with the rise of social media, helped launch a political protest in Tahrir Square that resulted in the resignation of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak – proving that this development in communication has far reaching implications for Democracy around the globe.

Economically: Despite many governments insistence to the contrary, via tariffs, trade is freer than ever. This is especially so on the consumer goods level, filling our grocers with foreign fruits and vegetables, and retail stores with products manufactured anywhere. The individual consumer, if so inclined, may hunt down the rarest of items on the other side of the world, and in days have them delivered to their doorsteps.

[[User:MikeJohnson|MikeJohnson]] 15:35, 28 January 2014 (EST)

----

EXAMPLE 1: ONLINE MATH LEARNING IN SINGAPORE

Background: I founded ACE-Learning Systems Pte Ltd in Jan 2001 to develop an
online math program for secondary schools. Obtained $60,000 funding from the
Infocomm Development Authority and started with 6 pilot schools from the
Ministry of Education. Now, we are the largest online math vendor in Singapore
with almost all secondary schools using the program.

Social: In the past, student success depended primarily on family's economic
background. Parents found it necessary to engage private tutors to ensure
their children get high grades to enable them to progress to better schools
from primary school through university. Students from poor families tend to be
left behind. Now, with online learning, access to quality education is now a
level playing field.

Economic: Very poor students under government subsidy schemes are given free
access to the program, free computer, and free internet access. Revenues from
the school subscription contracts enable the company to further develop and
improve the learning resources to its current state-of-the-art.

Technological: Problems in traditional chalkboard teaching: (1) Students
cannot remember what was taught in class (2) Pace of the classroom instruction
was too fast (3) Unable to multitask in copying chalkboard information and
trying to listen to the teacher at the same time (4) Poor visibility of
writing/drawing on the chalkboard depending on sitting location of the student
(5) Teacher erases chalkboard information before students could finish
copying. (6) Questions from students may require erased chalkboard data and
teacher has to rewrite/redraw the information. The introduction of the use of
Powerpoint amplify the problem, especially in cases where teachers refuse to
distribute their Powerpoint slides to the class. The scantily written notes
and lack of audio with Powerpoint sometimes make learning difficult. With
online learning, all these problems are resolved. Furthermore, teachers now
have effective interactive teaching resources which were impossible and
inoperable with chalkboard or Powerpoint instruction. These can also solicit
co-operative class participation. Students can now learn more effectively and
at an accelerated pace. Students can also view the online videos as many times
as they need at their own convenience at home or on mobile iOS or Android
devices.

Political: Grades for homework or quizzes no longer need to be "cast in
stone". Teachers can now encourage their students to re-do their homework
assignments or quizzes with new questions generated by the online system to
improve their performance with immediate feedback thus giving them the
opportunity to improve their grades. With the online multi-criteria performance monitoring tools, teachers can now quickly track their students' progress. Now, they can better manage their time and help the
weaker students. Teachers are now better empowered in their role as teachers
and facilitators of learning.

EXAMPLE 2: PROPOSAL FOR BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, PHILIPPINES
.....will be continued in my next email, in case I run out of time.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 15:38, 28 January 2014 (EST)

----

The Internet has changed the way people interact socially and has impacted the economic realm in a tremendous way.

Before major technological developments, for one to interact with someone personally they would have to physically have access to that individual. But with the modern innovations of email, video chat, and social sites like Facebook and Twitter, one can access a whole world that was previously unknown to them.

Internet has changed the way in which commerce works; economically speaking industries are not the same. If someone wished to buy or sell commodities they would need to travel to a store, but with internet an individual from New York can make a purchase from a store in China and then sell that same item to someone in California and never even touch the product. The world has been drawn together since the advent of the Internet, and because of the changes society has benefited as a whole. It’s a powerful tool that all should learn about!

[[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:52, 28 January 2014 (EST)

----

The internet and digital technology has changed the way we live. The power to have access to the collective information of the world cannot be understated. A person can take out there phone and "google" the answer to any question that pops up. Books and libraries are now all in one location online. The internet is a massive, evolving resource that everyone has access to.

The internet has changed the way people interact socially. Social media has created ways for people to broadcast their lives online. People upload events and pictures from their lives instantly, updating friends and family as things happen. There is the question too whether our digital lives online distract us or remove us from our relationships in the real world.

The internet and digital technology has permeated every aspect of our lives. It is impossible to walk down the street and not see someone engrossed in their phone. Companies all over the world rely on the internet to do business. The world is more connected than ever, and the internet's impact is reshaping the world very quickly.

[[User:Patcorrigan|Patcorrigan]]

----

Geolocation: It is now possible to locate nearly anyone anywhere, including 6'4" bogeyman.

Manipulation of Media: Photoshop your face into a self-portrait of/by Vincent van Gogh. Conduct an interview and edit the outcome to suit your favor. Watch protests, view "Tank Man" from Tiananmen Square, and watch his real-life counterparts in near real-time be shot in the streets of Egypt by Egyptian soldiers and tanks, brought to you in part by the U.S. Government.

Navigation: Deciphering actionable intellignece v. information glut will be the only way to "break on through" to the otherside of the revolution. Alas, it is not being televised.[[User:A. Tom Anteus|A. Tom Anteus]] 16:26, 28 January 2014 (EST) --[[User:A. Tom Anteus|A. Tom Anteus]] 16:26, 28 January 2014 (EST)[[User:A. Tom Anteus|A. Tom Anteus]] 16:37, 28 January 2014 (EST)

----

Internet and digital technology has changed every aspect of our life. I can provide the following examples:
1.Socially. Internet brought a lot of information into people's life and made people more conscious about surrounding world. Whatever you wish in terms of information (of course generally speaking) can be found immediately via the internet. Education sphere has also benefited from the internet opportunities, for example these courses are possible because of Internet. Even online music courses are offered to those who wishes to play musical instrument or just learn to sing.
2. Government. Internet maybe will turn into one of the major tool of governance. A lot of electronic state structures such as e-notary, e-state Registry exist in many countries. Internet provides the opportunity to for using e-singature which means that even official documents will be signed electronically.
3. Economy. Internet has changed economy dramatically. Practically everyone can establish its own minor e-enterprise by offering goods, services and etc.
4. Legal environment. Internet created absolutely new type of social relations which require the scrutinized legal approach which will lead to establishment of new branhces of law..maybe Internet Code in future [[User:Aysel|Aysel]] 16:42, 28 January 2014 (EST)

----

My three examples of significant change are 1. Economically and Socially; Music and the way it is shared, valued by consumers and created by artists has been forever changed worldwide. 2. Cultural change has created a large divide between generations that understand and "live within" technology and the older generations who do not understand it or have not made it a daily part of their lives. The lack of understanding and communication, or effective communication between these generations is startling. 3. From a political perspective; the current challenge that politicians have with elections to reach the generation gaps is why (I believe) that the costs of campaigning has gone up so dramatically. There is no longer a universal way to reach your target demographic. Texting services, versus radio, versus TV commercials versus print ads or online ads with or without social media is a boggling world to create effective ad campaigns. By: TriciaBy

----

It’s overstated that digital technologies have helped us become more connected. The ability to Skype my sister while she is in traveling in Kenya, or take this Cambridge based course while living in Sydney, Australia is a wonderful result of the internet. This ‘digital cosmopolitanism’ is making us more virtually connected, but can potentially move us farther away from globalization at the same time. These technological developments haven't increased the volume if international migration.
An example of this is how Australian companies will virtually outsource jobs to skilled workers in India, while reaping the cost-efficient benefits of paying them Indian wages, which are significantly lower. (Similar outsourcing practices of the United States). Australia has since increased the difficulty for these skilled Indian workers to live here. In other words, we want your in-demand skills, virtually, but make it harder for you to get a visa and come here, which would mean paying Australian wages. Jobs are mobile but people are not. This shows us that the same technologies that make us more connected and seemingly more globalized, have the practicing power to move us further away from it.

A second significant social change associated with the spread of digital technologies is how online introductions have become one of the most common way to meet a partner. However, technologies that can foster relationships will also play a role in what ends them. Social media evidence has dominated the divorce courtroom, where about three out of four cases now contain it. Text messages have become the “Digital lipstick on the collar,” as Tiger Woods and Anthony Weiner have demonstrated to us all.

By: Marissa Barkey
[[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 00:42, 29 January 2014 (EST) [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 08:51, 29 January 2014 (EST)

----

Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction

2014-01-28T22:22:28Z

Ryan: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}
'''January 28'''

The Internet at its core is simply an expression of a technological protocol that allows for a particular way of sharing information. But its role has never been this understated. The Net has great potential for “good” (e.g. innovation, economic growth, education, and access to information), and likewise is a great platform for the bawdy, tawdry and illegal. So is this platform about fundamental social, political and economic change, or about access to solipsistic blogging, pornography, cheap pharmaceuticals, free music, and poker at home? This question leads us to a host of interesting issues that weave their way through the course related to openness, access, regulatory control, free speech, anonymity, intellectual property rights, democracy, transparency, norms and values, economic and cultural change, and cyber-terrorism, as well as scamsters and thieves.

'''[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2014/File:IS2014_Class_1.pdf Download slides from this week's class.]'''

'''There is a small assignment to do before class. See [[#Preparation (Assignment "Zero")|Assignment Zero]] below.

== Preparation (Assignment "Zero") ==

* Reflect on what you believe are the most significant social, cultural, political or economic changes associated with the spread of digital technologies. In a few sentences, please offer 2-3 examples in the [[#Class Discussion|Class Discussion]] section below and be prepared to discuss them during class.

<onlyinclude>

== Readings/Watchings ==

'''What is the Internet?'''

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2QdEj8UjBc Ethan Zuckerman, History of the Internet] (approx. 7 mins., watch all)

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

'''How does the Internet change governance?'''

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

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

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

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

'''Who governs the Internet?'''

* [http://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/assets/governance-2500x1664-13jan14-en.png ICANN, Who Runs the Internet?] (infographic)

* [http://ubiquity.acm.org/article.cfm?id=1071915 Alex Simonelis, A Concise Guide to the Major Internet Bodies] (skim, but focus on ICANN, IETF, IANA, and W3C)

'''Who is the Internet? Who is it not? What can we do about it?'''

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

:* Hargittai’s data is from 2003. For more recent data, see [http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2013/PIP_Offline%20adults_092513_PDF.pdf Pew Internet & American Life Project, Who's Not Online and Why] (read the summary, skim the sections).

* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNHkG7w2IA8 Ethan Zuckerman, Why Our Webs Are Rarely Worldwide, And What We Can Do About It] (approx. 14 mins., watch all)

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/2013/12/04/video-who-controls-the-internet/ Ellery Biddle, Who Controls the Internet? (''Global Voices'')] (video in Spanish with English subtitles, 10 mins., watch all)

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

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

* [http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2012/12/05/good-and-bad-reasons-to-be-worried-about-wcit/ Ethan Zuckerman, Good and Bad Reasons to be Worried About WCIT]

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Class Discussion ==

<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">Welcome to Internet and Society: Technologies and Politics of Control! This is the section of the page where you should add your comments to complete "assignment zero." Once you have registered an account, just click the "[edit]" button at the upper right hand corner of this section to add text! '''Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:Andy|Andy]] 15:12, 7 November 2013 (EST)</div>

----

The most significant changes associated with the spread of digital technologies would be the speed of information exchange and increased opportunity for information sharing.

With the help of social networking websites, it takes only one click to inform your friends and family about the birthday party that will be held next week in downtown, and you will be able to do a head count by looking at how many people click the “Going” button. It saves time and effort to exchange information nowadays. Although this attributed to the fact that people have been less careful when sharing information, we could not deny that digital technologies has contributed a lot in a positive way such as improving efficiency.

Another good example of showing how rapid the information sharing process could be via digital technologies is Edward Snowden. He would like to warn the public “as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them” by releasing classified material to The Guardian. It only took a day for the news to travel around the world.
[[User:Jolietheone|Jolietheone]] 16:41, 28 January 2014 (EST)
----

The spread of digital technology and the influence of the Internet have changed our society immeasurably. I am particularly interested in exploring the social, cultural, and political influence of digital technology on our society and in developing countries. From this perspective, one of the most significant moments of change on the Internet was the Arab Spring of 2010. As a grassroots movement facilitated by Twitter, this was a defining moment in demonstrating the power of online communities. The Arab Spring proved that individuals were able to cultivate communities online and more importantly, were able to organize themselves within the community to become a force of change. The democratization of information, ability to communicate, and the freedom to communicate gave the promise of justice for the voiceless and oppressed. Today, citizen advocacy has brought once quieted issues to the mainstream, like the NSA leaks, the 2012 Delhi gang rape, or the Boston Marathon Bombing.

However, the Internet and digital technology has influenced many other areas besides society and government. A critical step in progress for modern technology is the mapping of the human genome. The ability to store and access this information has ushered in unprecedented changes in medical fields. Furthermore, the Internet has increased access to medical tools like WebMD or the development of medical mobile applications, which will be an important development as technology becomes more globalized.
[[User:Julie|Julie]] 16:14, 28 January 2014 (EST)

----

Access and participation afforded by the spread of digital technologies have had a significant impact socially, culturally, politically, and economically. Socially, access to networking platforms, social media, internet calling services and instant messaging have changed the quantity of individual connections- and quality of relationships- regardless of location throughout the world. Culturally, stratification of identity or orientation has shifted significantly; the emphasis on national, religious, ethnic, and other cultural differences has been diluted by the rise of interconnectivity, access to information and the ability to participate across cultures. Politically and economically, the impact is largely similar- access to non-traditional and real-time news sources fostered by the spread of digital technology empowers the consumer as well as the constituent. The ability to inform oneself and advocate for individual and collective interests has changed the landscape of economic and political participation; unfortunately this has been coupled with increased concerns about rights to information disseminated on the internet and the protection of privacy at the individual and organizational level. [[User:Akk22|Akk22]] 11:04, 28 January 2014 (EST)

----

The explosion of digital technology has dramatically impacted society in all facets of life. It has evolved us as a species and will continue to change the way in which we interact with each other, the way we think, and eventually the human body itself will gradually transform. In terms of inventions, the birth of the internet has far surpassed any other invention known to mankind with respect to the magnitude of change occurring within the relatively short lifespan of its existence. As a child, I recall when robots were once considered something so distant in the future, but now we have a form of a robot with the internet. It contains more "knowledge" and holds more information than any human being.

Digital technology has altered society in several ways that I have observed and experienced:

Socially & Culturally - Digital technology has changed the way humans make plans and interact with one another. It appears that encounters and relationships have somehow become more casual and less personal via the advancement and widespread use of social media. Formalities and formal interactions are becoming less common. A simple text message now is the norm for setting up a date with a potential mate rather than a phone call or knocking on the lady's door to ask her parents' permission for a proper date.

Along these lines, for better or worse, it appears that even the cultural style of dress for those in the younger generations has evolved into a more casual trend. People are generally more accepting with an "anything goes" type of attitude. The iconic CEO Facebook creator, Mark Zuckerburg, is often seen wearing his T-Shirt even when meeting with other high profile CEOs and officials.

The so-called "dot-com" generation has also been known to feel the need for "instant gratification" and appear to have less patience than the elder members of society. This makes sense given digital technology's ease of immediate information sharing and overall access to information at the click of a button. Only a few years ago it seemed normal if someone did not respond within a day or two. Now if someone does not answer after one or two days, 911 is serious consideration.

General reliability between friends is also another changing element of human interaction because with the click of a button someone can cancel plans or easily evade previously planned obligations. A few decades ago, if I told someone we were to meet at the train station, I had better show up because I had no way of letting my comrade know I could not make it. It used to be considered nearly impossible to ask someone to "hang out" on the same day because planning with such short notice was simply not possible. With cell phones and text messaging, "meeting up" is now the norm and planning events out is becoming less common (or so has been true in my experience).

Governance & Governing: As Jack Goldsmith and Timothy Wu illustrate in their example about Yahoo in "Digital Borders", the internet has and I believe will continue to erode the general power of government. The internet has no borders and trying to determine the convoluted doctrine of privacy is a grapple for any expert to endure. The internet also enhances the power of the individual (for better or worse) as it affords all members of the world with a platform for anyone to view. With an unlimited audience propaganda becomes all the more powerful and any thought can be expressed and followed by the masses. Culturally, this can also enhance narcissism to the extent that one's own thoughts, photos, and individual power/image can be continually broadcasted for the world to see.

The internet has obviously changed the way laws are enforced and the modus operandi in which criminals operate. While the internet has arguably made it easier for law enforcement to catch certain types of criminals, other types of threats (namely, cyber crime) are more difficult and sometimes nearly impossible to detect.

Economy: While the internet has worked wonders for many economic gains such as providing general efficiency; the downside is the threat that if the internet crashes or otherwise becomes inoperable, business suddenly takes a back seat and can become totally paralyzed acting as a prime target for adversaries (as the recent Target credit card hacking events have shown). In other words, the benefits of efficiency are only truly beneficial to the extent that internet platforms are operating smoothly. The overdependence on the internet is perhaps the most frightening thing our society faces. I will never forget the first time I was at a store and the "servers" were down at the checkout counter. After two hours of shopping and loads of groceries, I was turned away even after offering cash! The computer system required all transactions to be logged. The damage to the economy if this were to happen on a grand scale would be damming.

The internet has actually changed the very definition of success and perception of success in my opinion. In one minute, you can become rich off the internet. One youtube video posted can start Justin Bieber's Hollywood career; the advent of a social media website can make someone one of the richest in the world. Striking it rich has become much easier for some who thrive off the popularity contest the internet provides. How this has impacted the traditional view of the American dream remains to be seen.

[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 20:48, 27 January 2014 (EST)

----

The spread of digital technologies has sparked an ubiquitous world. Communication is instantaneous, global, and self-published. As a result, the public has chosen which social and political interactions to reject and trust, causing a potentially biased perception of their contemporary world. The irony of this bias is that the ability to access information from a variety of sources is unprecedented; sorting through the inundation of un- and published materials - fact or opinion - becomes a challenge for even the most educated. For the youth, privacy becomes re-defined as being alone physically, yet open to sharing the most insignificant or significant details of their lives digitally (how will these tendencies shape the future?). The combinational effects of these changes establish a gateway for future technologies to be adapted (or rejected) by the public; however, improving awareness and education of the general public is of utmost importance in order for society to fully embrace the power and impact of these future tools.

[[User:Margorm|Margorm]] 20:48, 27 January 2014 (EST)

----

“Change” holds neither a positive, nor negative connotation, so I will provide an example of each:

The negative: The ubiquity of camera-equipped, internet-connected smartphones allows millions of Americans to digitally upload and share photographs with ease. Sometimes, though, these photos are compromising and end up in the hands of nefarious purveyors of “revenge porn.” The proliferation of revenge porn can and does compromise the privacy (and oftentimes safety) of private citizens who become unwitting victims of sexual harassment. And in most cases, law enforcement is unable to prosecute offenders. Many U.S. states punish “cyberstalking,” but only as a misdemeanor, which means that law enforcement cannot obtain warrants that are necessary to collect evidence needed to prosecute. Recourse in civil court proves equally futile due in large part to antiquated copyright law. I believe that revenge porn serves as an example of the social and political problems that can arise when technology moves faster than the law.

The positive: Digital technology continues to reinvent the culture of higher learning. For instance, I am currently participating in this discussion, and will attend this Cambridge-based class remotely, from my home in Manhattan, NYC. Moreover, MOOCs offered by EdX and similar providers allow interested parties to engage in courses out of genuine interest.

[[User:Vance.puchalski|Vance.puchalski]] 00:33, 27 January 2014 (EST)

----

significant social, cultural, political or economic changes associated with the spread of digital technologies:

1) culturally and politically, spin control held by governments and regional authorities ( religious, corporate, ethnic ) loses traction in the minds of individual internet users; digital tech results in a macro shift of the rhetoric of belief from formerly established originators of spin to the web itself as provider of deconstructed information that individuals more typically use to form their own beliefs and to question the validity of formerly established paradigms.

2)economically, web commerce fast outdates the economics of traditional physically-based logistics. Serious privacy issues among users of new technologies stand as barriers to user confidence, even as new tech info systems tend to present prospective users with no viable lesser-cost alternatives.

[[User:Mbouscaren|Mbouscaren]] 14:55, 25 January 2014 (EST)

----

1. The ability to communicate instantly has changed social interactions and relationships on a personal level (i.e. the instant feedback available on social media and communication via email, text, etc.) and in wider communities (i.e. forums, comments on news articles and blogs, etc.). The access to and engagement with new communication technologies can be empowering for those who may have otherwise felt voiceless, while a sense of anonymity can lead to harassment with minimal consequences.

2. Fast and easy access to information that allows individuals to educate themselves (though that has to be balanced against the challenges of finding reliable sources) and have more control as consumers (compare products, read reviews, etc.).

[[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 16:25, 26 January 2014 (EST)

----

*'''Significant social change -''' People with traits of autism, Asperger's, ADD, dyslexia, social anxiety are becoming over-represented among successful CEOs and entrepreneurs, relative to the population at large. The current economy has been rewarding companies run by people who have mental characteristics adapted to software programming, engineering, and creativity (for example) much more than in the past.

*'''Economic change -''' ''(To be honest, both of my answers could fit into social, political and economic...)'' Markets are shifting from broadcast, one-size fits all models of communication towards narrowcast, peer-to-peer conversations. On the Internet, consumer-driven input, quality products/content and sometimes even user-generated content are valued more highly than tightly-controlled corporate 'spin'. Of course this may change substantially with the fall of net neutrality.

[[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 20:15, 26 January 2014 (EST)

----

Significant social change: The way in which news spreads has changed drastically with the advent of the internet. Social networking sites, such as Facebook and particularly Twitter, have become news outlets that have, in some cases, proved to be quicker at providing up-to-the-minute current event info than traditional news providers.

Cultural/legal change: The spread of digital technologies has impacted the music industry and amateur artists in a profound way. A great example is the issue of mash-ups, the cutting and pasting of previously-recorded songs to make a brand new tune. Mash-ups have proven to be an outlet for amateur creativity, as the average person can take different songs (often times of different genres and beats) off the internet and make something entirely new. That amateur can then share her music with others. The music industry is not a fan of mash-ups, claiming that the infringe upon copy-right law. Current copy-right laws in the US are far behind the internet and do not provide guidelines on how to maintain a balance between what mash-up artists consider their 1st Amendment rights and what the music industry consider copy-right infringement.( There's a lot more I could say about this, as I wrote a paper on it, but in the interest of keeping it short, I'll end here.)

[[User:Lrsanchez|Lrsanchez]] 10:25, 27 January 2014 (EST)

----

Technology and the internet have changed the face of communication in all of its various subjects-- political, social, cultural, etc.-- which is to say that it has mostly replaced actual faces and voices with a computer screen. This is not to say that there aren't benefits, as there certainly are a plethora of benefits, ranging from the accessibility of information and quick dissemination of news. With a mere device, one is capable of staying connected to their family, friends, and the community at large no matter where they travel. Like never before, people are being brought together from drastically different backgrounds and geographical locations. We are being exposed to stories about the cultural traditions of the smallest microcosms and have access to nearly every facet of companies, governments, et cetera. While there is certainly power in this digital age of communication, as demonstrated clearly in the political realm with the recent revolution in Egypt, the internet and technology have paradoxically separated us from one another. There is less and less human-to-human contact, with people preferring to sit at home behind their computer or telephone screens instead of discussing events in person. Individuals may now be able to see everything with Google Maps, for instance, but is this a satisfactory substitute for actually experiencing these places and incidents with every sense? And aside from sensory deprivation, we are creating an emotional barrier which spans the gamut from creating social awkwardness in person to allowing thoughtless online bullying to run rampant. However, even with plenty of negatives, can we condemn the very same internet and technologies which have advanced medicine and businesses the world over? The world economy has benefitted greatly, with global commerce being as easy as clicking a button or filling out a billing form. Individuals anywhere can start a business with minimal effort and are able to participate in global trade. As with most good things, there are certainly positives and negatives that go along with the internet and technological advances.
[[User:Castille|Castille]] 12:46, 27 January 2014 (EST)

----

Digital technology helps us to automate repetitive, time-consuming, and error-prone tasks, enabling humans to spend more time doing what only humans can do: generate ideas. To use a timely example, TurboTax.com analyzes data and runs calculations for a consumer, saving them time and money by avoiding interaction with an accountant. However, sometimes replacing humans with a machine does not work so well. I personally dislike the self-checkout machines at CVS. They are too loud, and somehow always make some sort of mistake, requiring an attendant to come over and punch in a code, wasting time and failing to fulfill their basic function.

Although digital technology makes our lives easier in countless ways, many of which I might not even appreciate or understand, I think the ease and gratification of digital technologies can take a toll when humans become alienated from basic life tasks that might have their benefits. As "Castille" mentions - the constant use of and reliance on GoogleMaps might prevent people from actually gaining a sense of their environment and making observations that could help them memorize directions or landmarks, and allow them to be more self-reliant. Although digital technology allows developers, artists, educators, etc. to be really creative and productive, it also allows a lot of people to get away with being complacent.

[[User:Sballister|Sballister]] 18:20, 27 January 2014 (EST)

EDIT: I don't mean to say that TurboTax and self-checkout are examples of great social change, but they are signs of greater change like automation which will in turn affect standards for human interaction, self-reliance, etc. [[User:Sballister|Sballister]] 07:29, 28 January 2014 (EST)

----

There are several important factors to consider with the rise and spread of digital technologies. From a human interactive tactile context the PC has to be the front runner that covers many sociological concerns that I consider important.

Prior to the smart phone, the personal computer (PC) has to be (and still is) one of the most important aspects of all digital technologies to be thrust upon mankind, because of the potential power it endows upon its owner, knowingly or unknowingly; as it allows one to cross state lines, oceans and continents in mere seconds without much effort by its user. This, coupled with the widespread use of the internet provides an important context to the discussion from a sociological framework. To have so much computing power at ones finger tips, yet it is often relegated by its user to social networking, video games and entertainment, that human contact is subconsciously negated by the user. Having to get out of the house is becoming more of a chore due to what can be done online. Hiking out in the woods for field trips or class projects is becoming more and more a novelty for students and teachers alike. We can't wait to get laptops in the hands of students in third world countries, for what, so that they too can watch life on a screen, rather then be poor and kick a soccer ball around a field somewhere.

At the end of the day, from both a global and sociological standpoint, the widespread use of digital technologies has just as many concerns as it does rewards.[[User:Dancoron|Dancoron]] 23:08, 27 January 2014 (EST)

----

1. The launch of Sputnik changed many things — scientific, technological, military, and political — and the cold war of course spurred the beginnings of the internet in its earliest forms amongst the military, scientists, and researchers who used ARPAnet to transfer information, which fed American interest in the sciences and provided a foundation for the very digital technologies that now aid in the spread of our current digital technologies.

2. This leads into a second point, which is that intensified globalization of cultural elements — arguably beginning with WWII and intensifying in the '90s — promoted commercialization of the internet in the early '90s and put digital technology propagation into fast-forward. Suddenly we are able to access information on the other end of the world, rapidly, from the comfort of our own homes, and this allowed for ideas and digital technologies to spread over (again) the very digital technologies that made them possible. [[User:Twood|Twood]] 11:23, 28 January 2014 (EST)

----

Free speech ideals are one of the political, social/cultural, and even economic challenges of the spread of digital technologies. Some people want to be able to say or produce whatever they want on the World Wide Web. And some people think like the author of "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace", that the internet community can police themselves. But how would the internet prevent child pornography, or financial fraud from occurring without the help of government agencies? These are real questions that are worth debate. No one has all the answers yet.

Socially and culturally the challenges presented by the spread of digital technologies, revolves around how we use these technologies to communicate. We are still deciding what is acceptable, and what is not acceptable, socially and culturally. This social/cultural debate about the Internet is often about privacy-how much are we willing to share online. Each person is different and each culture/country feels different about how much should be revealed or restricted online. This leads us to economic results related to the spread of internet technologies.

One of the reasons that privacy is a concern with digital tech, is that companies want Internet user information. They want to know where you live, where you work, what are your favorite TV shows, and your food preferences, so that they can better sell to you. Economics also plays a role in how you will receive your Internet content/speed. Verizon and the FCC were recently in federal court arguing about whether Verizon could add additional charges to content providers, i.e. in theory, Verizon could charge these providers to reach their customers.

Politically, we have seen that digital technologies can be used to spy on citizens, and they also can be used by whistleblowers to shed light on secret activities by governments, as in the Edward Snowden incident.[[User:Mikewitwicki|Mikewitwicki]] 13:04, 28 January 2014 (EST)

----

(Apologies in advance for the length)
Seems there is quite often a direct and indirect "significant change" that can be associated with each of these areas and advances in digital technologies.

The evolution of popular social networks such as Facebook or match.com are prime examples of where the technology has prompted significant change in our social behaviors. These and similar services have shifted the dynamic in our relationships with others. The ability to discover, connect and continually communicate with "friends” without geographical limitations, and without significant costs, has allowed communities, groups and couples to form tightly knit units. This has lead to countless new marriages, allowed us an ability to sustain long-distance relationships via Skype and FaceTime technologies. Such relationships were economically and technically impossible during the days of the Bell Telephone monopoly, which seem not too long ago. Yet, plenty of indirect "significant changes" related to this same area are also becoming more frequent... As a quick example, plenty of divorces have been linked to the "discovery" of online affairs, and the same social technologies have been exploited by predatory sex offenders who can easily pose as a "friend" on Facebook to unsuspecting children.

Politically, the expansion of the digital technologies has certainly allowed for many to enter into politics and effect public policy. A standard strategy now, but web-savvy politicians have been able to exploit the new technologies as a means of reaching their followers for not only "connecting" with potential constituents, but also it has allowed those who may never have considered running for public office, a means of "discovering" their political base, building support and financial contributions through the internet to drive their campaign. Not only for "career politicians", but also for the grassroots network that can help bolster a campaign for political outsiders the likes of Jessie "the Body" Ventura, and help launch a foray into politics. Conversely, political careers have certainly been destroyed by improprieties that the advances in digital technologies have made all too quick & easy. Best exemplified recently by a US Congressman (who needs no introduction) uploading certain digital photographs to an online "friend"...which indirectly has ramifications for his entire political party's platform which cannot afford to lose that 1 seat in the House of Representatives.

Culturally - the spread of digital technologies have allowed us to collaborate and learn from communities around the world as never before... The instantaneous ability to share news, images, sound and video has brought us a greater understanding into the lives and conditions of many different cultures around the world. We learn how they must thrive, struggle and persevere within unfamiliar regions worldwide. The world's news can become as "local" as the reports we hear everyday on our city's local TV news station. The consumer need only choose from where they wish to receive a daily RSS feed, or return daily to a "Bookmark" linking to their country's leading news service. Indirectly, this same ability to glance into another culture via online technologies can trigger an all-too-limited view of what a particular culture's values may or may not be. The predominant exposure of anti-American videos and rhetoric promoting atrocities against westerners by radical Islamic militant groups using the internet to build and recruit an international army of terrorists, has certainly skewed the non-Islamic world's understanding of the culture of Islam and the very large majority of Muslims around the world who are as peaceful, humane, and caring as we all strive to be.

Economically, the significant changes that have been prompted by advances in digital technologies are numerous. The entire economic model in many industries has needed to adapt to the new opportunities that digital technologies allowed (and expected) or risk their corporation’s demise. Photography, Music and Publishing have all seen major shifts in their production, marketing, distribution and sales models. Amazon was an early player in adapting to the new online economy, and many brick-and-mortar shops fell victim to the competition. In the publishing world, and ever more frequently within the music world, we are now leasing our content at the same (and sometimes much larger) costs than what consumers formerly paid to physically own the content. In addition to the content itself, providers are also able to charge for delivery mechanisms (propriety interfaces to interact with the content) or require “subscriber fees” to access cloud storage of your personal collection of digital assets (Music, e-books, library archiving projects, etc) How we read, listen, and enjoy the many arts are all indirectly changed because of the advances in digital technology and our reliance on the internet combined with smart devices to deliver content to us. [[User:Psl|Psl]] 13:17, 28 January 2014 (EST)

----

The recent technological advances, and the development of the internet in particular, have brought about many changes to every part of our lives as individuals, as well as to the functioning of the society as a whole.

One of the most far-reaching effects of the development of the internet is the ease of mobilizing thousands and millions of people behind shared goals, for good, or for bad. From a satellite launch crowdfunded on Kickstarter, through the decline of “pink slime” following a change.org petition, to oppressing governments using online media to remain in power, the last few years in particular have hinted at the things to come. Indeed, what we're starting to see is that contrary to predictions of centuries past, the future of computing is turning out to center not on improved artificial intelligence through ever increasing computational power, but on real people empowered by technology.

A concept seemingly opposite to the idea of crowdsourcing is decentralization, another keyword for this decade. Governments across the world are beginning to wrap their heads around the internet and are becoming increasingly good at policing it. Internet giants such as Google and Facebook are also constantly tightening their grip on the large sections of the internet within their reach and control. The recent developments in federated social networks, decentralized authentication methods and currencies, and independent mesh networking however suggest that internet might in fact grow more uncontrollable than ever in the years to come.
[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 13:51, 28 January 2014 (EST)

:Thanks for the comments, and for the formatting update as well! If people would like to treat each of these as the start of a thread and reply feel free to do so - just insert a colon before your reply. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 13:57, 28 January 2014 (EST)

----

Digital techniologies have created the promise of instant access to answers and information. They have removed the middle men and connected information producers and consumers, for example, with the advent of digital publishing authors, musicians, etc have more access to their readers and as such produce content with seemingly more artistic control. This in turn may have created microcosms of demand and increased the polarization of the conversation and reduced our experience with consensus building and effective dialog.

Additionally, the advent of digital technologies has increased the transparency of individuals and governments as they engage and as such has both benefited and hampered the international political dialog. Individual actions and the actions of individuals within governments and institutions are open for scrutiny often by entities who are not familiar with the context. [[User:Rstempfley|Rstempfley]] 15:00, 28 January 2014 (EST)

----

The birth of digital technology changed the landscape of how equities, futures, options, and currencies are traded globally. From an economic perspective, exchanges worldwide were once left with limited ways to conduct transactions, to include the telephone (the ones hanging on a wall attached by an annoying cord) and face-to face communication, primarily through large financial institutions and advisors.

Technology has allowed the general public, who are now users of large public exchanges such as the NYSE, Nikkei, & NASDAQ ,open availability to markets that were once only offered to the elite and wealthy. Political constructs changed, as the general public were allowed into a market place that was once driven strictly by large financial institutions. Market entry for the general consumer changed the social environment of the stock market, and a more level playing field developed through the adoption of online brokerage firms such as AB Watley, E-Trade, and Ameritrade. Trading securities across not only state lines, but also entire countries, provided unlimited opportunity for those who wanted the option to trade securities without the use of a personal stockbroker. This type of transaction was unheard of in the early 90’s-today purchasing ones own stock online without the advise of a broker is the norm.--[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 15:19, 28 January 2014 (EST)

----

The digital universe has revolutionized access to information. Today, anyone can find anything by simply asking their phone! This overabundance of information is connected to a number of global issues including terror, freedom, energy and political polarization. Anyone can look up how to make a bomb online, but does that make it ok for the federal government to spy on all of us? These new technologies have increased our consumption of energy, yet we are inching toward renewable energy slower than the polar caps are melting. And to cap it all off, political parties now have access to so much information that there is data to support any claim, increasing the frequency of gridlock. [[User:Art.Mescon|Art.Mescon]] 15:32, 28 January 2014 (EST)

----

Culturally: Digital technologies have given us instantaneous access to current events around the world. They have also given us an incredibly cheap way to communicate with anyone, anywhere, at any time. Initially, these technologies resulted in a sort of digital melting pot of beliefs, ideas, and knowledge. As we have matured as Internet users, and grown more proficient in harnessing this newfound ability, these technologies have begun to birth such innovations as Crowd Sourcing – changing the way we fund everything from aid relief to feature films.

Politically: We are only just beginning to see what is possible, politically, as a result of the digital landscape. By 2011, the increased adoption of smartphone technology, intersected with the rise of social media, helped launch a political protest in Tahrir Square that resulted in the resignation of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak – proving that this development in communication has far reaching implications for Democracy around the globe.

Economically: Despite many governments insistence to the contrary, via tariffs, trade is freer than ever. This is especially so on the consumer goods level, filling our grocers with foreign fruits and vegetables, and retail stores with products manufactured anywhere. The individual consumer, if so inclined, may hunt down the rarest of items on the other side of the world, and in days have them delivered to their doorsteps.

[[User:MikeJohnson|MikeJohnson]] 15:35, 28 January 2014 (EST)

----

EXAMPLE 1: ONLINE MATH LEARNING IN SINGAPORE

Background: I founded ACE-Learning Systems Pte Ltd in Jan 2001 to develop an
online math program for secondary schools. Obtained $60,000 funding from the
Infocomm Development Authority and started with 6 pilot schools from the
Ministry of Education. Now, we are the largest online math vendor in Singapore
with almost all secondary schools using the program.

Social: In the past, student success depended primarily on family's economic
background. Parents found it necessary to engage private tutors to ensure
their children get high grades to enable them to progress to better schools
from primary school through university. Students from poor families tend to be
left behind. Now, with online learning, access to quality education is now a
level playing field.

Economic: Very poor students under government subsidy schemes are given free
access to the program, free computer, and free internet access. Revenues from
the school subscription contracts enable the company to further develop and
improve the learning resources to its current state-of-the-art.

Technological: Problems in traditional chalkboard teaching: (1) Students
cannot remember what was taught in class (2) Pace of the classroom instruction
was too fast (3) Unable to multitask in copying chalkboard information and
trying to listen to the teacher at the same time (4) Poor visibility of
writing/drawing on the chalkboard depending on sitting location of the student
(5) Teacher erases chalkboard information before students could finish
copying. (6) Questions from students may require erased chalkboard data and
teacher has to rewrite/redraw the information. The introduction of the use of
Powerpoint amplify the problem, especially in cases where teachers refuse to
distribute their Powerpoint slides to the class. The scantily written notes
and lack of audio with Powerpoint sometimes make learning difficult. With
online learning, all these problems are resolved. Furthermore, teachers now
have effective interactive teaching resources which were impossible and
inoperable with chalkboard or Powerpoint instruction. These can also solicit
co-operative class participation. Students can now learn more effectively and
at an accelerated pace. Students can also view the online videos as many times
as they need at their own convenience at home or on mobile iOS or Android
devices.

Political: Grades for homework or quizzes no longer need to be "cast in
stone". Teachers can now encourage their students to re-do their homework
assignments or quizzes with new questions generated by the online system to
improve their performance with immediate feedback thus giving them the
opportunity to improve their grades. With the online multi-criteria performance monitoring tools, teachers can now quickly track their students' progress. Now, they can better manage their time and help the
weaker students. Teachers are now better empowered in their role as teachers
and facilitators of learning.

EXAMPLE 2: PROPOSAL FOR BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, PHILIPPINES
.....will be continued in my next email, in case I run out of time.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 15:38, 28 January 2014 (EST)

----
The Internet has changed the way people interact socially and has impacted the economic realm in a tremendous way.

Before major technological developments, for one to interact with someone personally they would have to physically have access to that individual. But with the modern innovations of email, video chat, and social sites like Facebook and Twitter, one can access a whole world that was previously unknown to them.

Internet has changed the way in which commerce works; economically speaking industries are not the same. If someone wished to buy or sell commodities they would need to travel to a store, but with internet an individual from New York can make a purchase from a store in China and then sell that same item to someone in California and never even touch the product. The world has been drawn together since the advent of the Internet, and because of the changes society has benefited as a whole. It’s a powerful tool that all should learn about!

[[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:52, 28 January 2014 (EST)

----

The internet and digital technology has changed the way we live. The power to have access to the collective information of the world cannot be understated. A person can take out there phone and "google" the answer to any question that pops up. Books and libraries are now all in one location online. The internet is a massive, evolving resource that everyone has access to.

The internet has changed the way people interact socially. Social media has created ways for people to broadcast their lives online. People upload events and pictures from their lives instantly, updating friends and family as things happen. There is the question too whether our digital lives online distract us or remove us from our relationships in the real world.

The internet and digital technology has permeated every aspect of our lives. It is impossible to walk down the street and not see someone engrossed in their phone. Companies all over the world rely on the internet to do business. The world is more connected than ever, and the internet's impact is reshaping the world very quickly.

[[User:Patcorrigan|Patcorrigan]]

----

Geolocation: It is now possible to locate nearly anyone anywhere, including 6'4" bogeyman.

Manipulation of Media: Photoshop your face into a self-portrait of/by Vincent van Gogh. Conduct an interview and edit the outcome to suit your favor. Watch protests, view "Tank Man" from Tiananmen Square, and watch his real-life counterparts in near real-time be shot in the streets of Egypt by Egyptian soldiers and tanks, brought to you in part by the U.S. Government.

Navigation: Deciphering actionable intellignece v. information glut will be the only way to "break on through" to the otherside of the revolution. Alas, it is not being televised.[[User:A. Tom Anteus|A. Tom Anteus]] 16:26, 28 January 2014 (EST) --[[User:A. Tom Anteus|A. Tom Anteus]] 16:26, 28 January 2014 (EST)[[User:A. Tom Anteus|A. Tom Anteus]] 16:37, 28 January 2014 (EST)

----

Internet and digital technology has changed every aspect of our life. I can provide the following examples:
1.Socially. Internet brought a lot of information into people's life and made people more conscious about surrounding world. Whatever you wish in terms of information (of course generally speaking) can be found immediately via the internet. Education sphere has also benefited from the internet opportunities, for example these courses are possible because of Internet. Even online music courses are offered to those who wishes to play musical instrument or just learn to sing.
2. Government. Internet maybe will turn into one of the major tool of governance. A lot of electronic state structures such as e-notary, e-state Registry exist in many countries. Internet provides the opportunity to for using e-singature which means that even official documents will be signed electronically.
3. Economy. Internet has changed economy dramatically. Practically everyone can establish its own minor e-enterprise by offering goods, services and etc.
4. Legal environment. Internet created absolutely new type of social relations which require the scrutinized legal approach which will lead to establishment of new branhces of law..maybe Internet Code in future [[User:Aysel|Aysel]] 16:42, 28 January 2014 (EST)

----

My three examples of significant change are 1. Economically and Socially; Music and the way it is shared, valued by consumers and created by artists has been forever changed worldwide. 2. Cultural change has created a large divide between generations that understand and "live within" technology and the older generations who do not understand it or have not made it a daily part of their lives. The lack of understanding and communication, or effective communication between these generations is startling. 3. From a political perspective; the current challenge that politicians have with elections to reach the generation gaps is why (I believe) that the costs of campaigning has gone up so dramatically. There is no longer a universal way to reach your target demographic. Texting services, versus radio, versus TV commercials versus print ads or online ads with or without social media is a boggling world to create effective ad campaigns. By: TriciaBy

User:Ryan

2014-01-28T15:18:57Z

Ryan: Created page with "Ryan is a TA for IS2014. You can read his full bio [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/rbudish here]."

Ryan is a TA for IS2014. You can read his full bio [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/rbudish here].

Staff Contact Info

2014-01-28T15:11:53Z

Ryan:

== Instructor ==

Andy Sellars:
asellars [at] cyber [dot] law [dot] harvard [dot] edu

==TAs==

Ryan Budish:
rbudish [at] cyber [dot] law [dot] harvard [dot] edu

David O'Brien:
dobrien [at] cyber [dot] law [dot] harvard [dot] edu

==Berkman==
617-495-7547

==Course Administrivia==
[http://www.extension.harvard.edu/courses/internet-society-technologies-politics-control Extension School listing of LSTU E-120]