<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Batjarks</id>
	<title>Technologies and Politics of Control - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Batjarks"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/Special:Contributions/Batjarks"/>
	<updated>2026-08-09T15:37:22Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.43.6</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Final_Projects&amp;diff=4359</id>
		<title>Final Projects</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Final_Projects&amp;diff=4359"/>
		<updated>2015-05-12T01:30:42Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Batjarks: /* Submissions */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{AssignmentCal}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Instructions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Please name your file &amp;quot;wikiusername_Final,&amp;quot; where &amp;quot;wikiusername&amp;quot; is replaced with your username, to avoid overwriting someone else&#039;s assignment or causing errors in the Wiki by including forbidden characters.&#039;&#039; So if your username is &amp;quot;jdoe&amp;quot; and your file is a Word document your file should be named &amp;quot;jdoe_Final.doc.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Upload your file here: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/Special:Upload Upload file]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Once you&#039;ve uploaded your file, please link to it following the format below:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Name or Pseudonym:&lt;br /&gt;
*Title:&lt;br /&gt;
*Link:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Also, the course evaluation is now live. [http://www.extension.harvard.edu/course-evaluations Log in to the HES website] to complete the evaluation.&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Submissions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Erika L Rich&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Title: Reputation Management and Ethical Considerations for Members of the Warrior Forum Message Board&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link: [[File:LSTU_E120_Erika_Rich_FINAL_PAPER.docx]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:ErikaLRich|ErikaLRich]] ([[User talk:ErikaLRich|talk]]) 21:51, 10 May 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Name:  Emily MacIntyre (EmiMac)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Title: Final Project: Analyzing the Regulatory Constraints and Chilling Effects of YouTube’s Content ID Sweep through a Representative Survey of the Nintendo Let’s Play Community &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Emily_MacIntyre_Final_Project.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 09:52, 11 May 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Name: MattK&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Title: Does the Hammer Ring True?: Assessing John Scalzi&#039;s Mallet of Loving Correction&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:MattK_Assignment5.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:MattK|MattK]] ([[User talk:MattK|talk]]) 18:43, 11 May 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Batjarks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Title: Mobile Alliance for Maternal Action&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:BrookeTjarksFINAL.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 21:30, 11 May 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Batjarks</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=File:BrookeTjarksFINAL.docx&amp;diff=4358</id>
		<title>File:BrookeTjarksFINAL.docx</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=File:BrookeTjarksFINAL.docx&amp;diff=4358"/>
		<updated>2015-05-12T01:27:25Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Batjarks: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Batjarks</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=File:MAMA.pptx&amp;diff=4347</id>
		<title>File:MAMA.pptx</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=File:MAMA.pptx&amp;diff=4347"/>
		<updated>2015-05-08T22:35:13Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Batjarks: Batjarks uploaded a new version of &amp;amp;quot;File:MAMA.pptx&amp;amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Extra Credit Powerpoint: Mobile Alliance for Maternal Action (May 5th 430pm)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Batjarks</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=File:MAMA.pptx&amp;diff=4346</id>
		<title>File:MAMA.pptx</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=File:MAMA.pptx&amp;diff=4346"/>
		<updated>2015-05-08T22:00:53Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Batjarks: Batjarks uploaded a new version of &amp;amp;quot;File:MAMA.pptx&amp;amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Extra Credit Powerpoint: Mobile Alliance for Maternal Action (May 5th 430pm)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Batjarks</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Extra_Credit_Submissions&amp;diff=4341</id>
		<title>Extra Credit Submissions</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Extra_Credit_Submissions&amp;diff=4341"/>
		<updated>2015-05-05T20:28:06Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Batjarks: /* Submissions */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{AssignmentCal}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;This assignment is due on May 5th.&#039;&#039;&#039;  Students who submit extra credit projects will receive a one-point increase in their final project grade. If you are presenting in class on the 13th, but do not have material to upload, please indicate so on the section below.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If you do plan on uploading a file, &#039;&#039;please name your file &amp;quot;wikiusername_extracredit,&amp;quot; where &amp;quot;wikiusername&amp;quot; is replaced with your username, to avoid overwriting someone else&#039;s assignment or causing errors in the Wiki by including forbidden characters.&#039;&#039; So if your username is &amp;quot;jdoe&amp;quot; and your file is a PowerPoint document your file should be named &amp;quot;jdoe_extracredit.ppt.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to your extra credit below (either by [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/Special:Upload uploading it to the wiki] or by linking to an external site) or indicate that you&#039;d like to present your final paper.  Please provide a short description of your project/the presentation you plan to give.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Submissions==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: JosefinS&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Description: My presentation will explain what my project was about and what I found in my studies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Assignment:	http://prezi.com/kdxxnoxomc2t/?utm_campaign=share&amp;amp;utm_medium=copy&amp;amp;rc=ex0share&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 09:05, 3 May 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: ChanelRion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Description: We the Judges: Sitejabber and Communities of User-Generated Reviews.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Type of Submission: In class presentation on the 13th. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Description: This presentation will be an overview of findings from my final project. This project surveys Sitejabber.com and explores by what mechanisms and architectures actors in the user-generated business-review community (like Yelp and Sitejabber) operate to determine the trustworthiness of unverifiable information/statements about businesses both on the ground and online. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 18:19, 3 May 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Mhoching&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Type of Presentation: May 13, 2015 in class presentation &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Description: My final project investigated social movements online with a focus on a particular hashtag on Twitter. The in class presentation will utilize a Twitter account to show findings of the final project while communicated in a powerpoint format.  The presentation will be of an account formed on Twitter to deliver the findings, surveys, and progression of the project while simultaneously showing how the Twitter platform operates. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to assignment: https://twitter.com/LSTU15_mhoching&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 01:59, 5 May 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Name: HRomero and Chelly.Byrne&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Description:  This is a PowerPoint presentation of our paper, Privacy in Online Forum AfterSilence.org.  It is best viewed as SlideShow (from beginning) with speakers on - and it will run through automatically.   Good luck everyone!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Assignment:  http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Privacy_in_Online_Forum_AfterSilence_-_FINAL.pptx#file&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 11:27, 5 May 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Gia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Description: This is a quick summary (PPTX) of the self regulation and internal control methods employed by 419Eater.com community.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Assignment:  http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Gia_extracredit.pptx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
______&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Rhurls&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Description: My project was on the success of the Barstoolsports.com&#039;s comment section regulation as seen through the lens of Lessig and his four forces. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link: http://prezi.com/lefdbchubj2e/?utm_campaign=share&amp;amp;utm_medium=copy&amp;amp;rc=ex0share&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 12:40, 5 May 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
____&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Batjarks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Description: Powerpoint and oral presentation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:MAMA.pptx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 16:28, 5 May 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Batjarks</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=File:MAMA.pptx&amp;diff=4340</id>
		<title>File:MAMA.pptx</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=File:MAMA.pptx&amp;diff=4340"/>
		<updated>2015-05-05T20:26:49Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Batjarks: Extra Credit Powerpoint: Mobile Alliance for Maternal Action (May 5th 430pm)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Extra Credit Powerpoint: Mobile Alliance for Maternal Action (May 5th 430pm)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Batjarks</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Main_Page&amp;diff=4339</id>
		<title>Main Page</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Main_Page&amp;diff=4339"/>
		<updated>2015-05-05T19:57:57Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Batjarks: /* Office Hours */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;= Internet and Society: Technologies and Politics of Control=&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;LSTU E–120 - Harvard Extension School - Spring 2015 - Tuesdays 5:30-7:30 pm EST&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/contact Berkman Center for Internet and Society] - 23 Everett Street - Conference room, 2nd floor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[https://continuinged.adobeconnect.com/_a931819597/lstu_e120_spring2015/ &#039;&#039;&#039;Adobe Connect session&#039;&#039;&#039;]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 control of the Net and its users also has a more subtle side: regulation of citizens online through powerful mechanisms of surveillance. &#039;&#039;&#039;[[course overview|continued...]]&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=&#039;&#039;&#039;Syllabus at a glance&#039;&#039;&#039;=&lt;br /&gt;
{| style=&amp;quot;background-color:#CCCCCC;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Jan 27&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Feb 3&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Feb 10&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Privacy Part 1: Corporate Data Gathering and Intrusions by the Public]]&lt;br /&gt;
| &#039;&#039;(Assignment 1 due)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Feb 17&lt;br /&gt;
| [[A Series of Tubes: The Internet&#039;s Backbone and Network Neutrality]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Feb 24&lt;br /&gt;
|  [[Privacy Part 2: The Right to Be Forgotten]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Mar 3&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Privacy Part 3: Government Surveillance]]&lt;br /&gt;
| &#039;&#039;(Assignment 2 due)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Mar 10&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Speech, Day 1: Free Expression, Information, and Unwanted Speech]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Mar 17&lt;br /&gt;
| &#039;&#039;No class - Spring Break&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Mar 24&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Speech, Day 2: Collective Action, Hacktivism, and Social Movements]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Mar 31&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Cybersecurity and Computer Crimes]]&lt;br /&gt;
| &#039;&#039;(Assignment 3 due)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Apr 7 &lt;br /&gt;
| [[Copyright, Day 1: Guiding Principles and the Special Case of Anti-Circumvention]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Apr 14&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Internet Governance and Governments]] &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Apr 21&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Peer Production]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Apr 28&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Copyright, Day 2: Copyright Enforcement and Applications to New Technology]] &lt;br /&gt;
| &#039;&#039;(Assignment 4 due)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| May 5&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;No class - final project preparation&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| &#039;&#039;(Optional [[Assignments#Extra_Credit|Extra Credit]] due)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| May 12 &lt;br /&gt;
|Final class - wrap up and student presentations&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;([[Final Project]] due)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|border=&amp;quot;1&amp;quot; cellpadding=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|-valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Course Information:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Class Participation]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Grading]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Statement on Plagiarism]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Assignments &amp;amp; Projects:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Assignments]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Assigned Readings|Complete List of Assigned Readings]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Final Project]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Resources:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Recorded class videos]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Powerpoint Slides from Class]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page How to edit a wiki]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.extension.harvard.edu/resources/writing.jsp Extension School Writing Center]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;External:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Upcoming Events]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;People:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Staff Contact Info]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[List of User Profiles]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=&#039;&#039;&#039;Participating In Class (Tuesdays 5:30-7:30 pm ET)&#039;&#039;&#039;=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As noted in the section on [[Grading|class grades]], 30% of your final grade will be based on class participation. We expect all students to make a substantive contribution to the class every week. There are three ways you can do this:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# You can participate during class in the classroom. The class will be held in the conference room at the Berkman Center for Internet &amp;amp; Society, 23 Everett St., Second Floor, Cambridge, MA 02138 ([http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/contact directions])&lt;br /&gt;
# You can participate during class though our online portal on [https://continuinged.adobeconnect.com/_a931819597/lstu_e120_spring2015/ &#039;&#039;&#039;Adobe Connect&#039;&#039;&#039;]. That is available [https://continuinged.adobeconnect.com/_a931819597/lstu_e120_spring2015/ here]. Join as a Guest using your class wiki username so we know how to identify you.&lt;br /&gt;
## 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&#039;s built-in mic.  As a last resort, you can use your computer&#039;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.&lt;br /&gt;
## If you have any trouble running Adobe Connect, please go to the [https://helpx.adobe.com/adobe-connect/connect-support.html support page on Adobe Connect&#039;s site] or click on the &amp;quot;Help&amp;quot; button in the upper right corner of the Connect window.&lt;br /&gt;
# You can also participate asynchronously with the class by making a substantive contribution in the &amp;quot;Class Discussion&amp;quot; section of the class day&#039;s wiki page &#039;&#039;before 4pm ET&#039;&#039; on the day of class. The comment doesn&#039;t have to be long, but should relate to the day&#039;s reading.&lt;br /&gt;
## The recorded videotapes of the class produced by Harvard Extension School will be made available [http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k108832&amp;amp;pageid=icb.page715558 here].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further information on this can be found on the [[Class Participation]] page. Please note the special class participation requirement related to Assignment 2.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=&#039;&#039;&#039;Contact Information&#039;&#039;&#039;=&lt;br /&gt;
* All questions, comments, etc. should be sent to: lstue120 [at] cyber [dot] law [dot] harvard [dot] edu.&lt;br /&gt;
:* 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.&lt;br /&gt;
* If you need to contact an instructor or TA individually, please use their personal contact info located on the [[Staff Contact Info]] page.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=&#039;&#039;&#039;Office Hours&#039;&#039;&#039;=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If you need to set up a time to talk, you should always feel free to email us at lstue120 [at] cyber [dot] law [dot] harvard [dot] edu. In addition, all three will be holding open office hours later on May 5th for students who would like to discuss this further. Please sign up at least 12 hours in advance of meeting if possible, and indicate either here or in an email whether you plan to meet in person, on the phone, or via Skype. If you plan to use Skype, please email us your username so we know where to find you.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Andy&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5:00 - Chanel Rion (in person)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5:15 -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5:30&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5:45&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6:00 - Kelly Wilson (in person)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6:15&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6:30&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6:45&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
7:00 - Brooke Tjarks (in person) - oopsie daisies ... also can meet earlier instead if you like&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
7:15&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;David&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5:30&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5:45&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6:00&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6:15&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6:30&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6:45&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
7:00&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
7:15&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Ryan&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5:30 - Alexander Horn (In Person)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5:45 - Meagan HoChing (In Person) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6:00&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6:15&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6:30&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6:45&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
7:00&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
7:15&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Batjarks</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Main_Page&amp;diff=4338</id>
		<title>Main Page</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Main_Page&amp;diff=4338"/>
		<updated>2015-05-05T19:55:55Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Batjarks: /* Office Hours */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;= Internet and Society: Technologies and Politics of Control=&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;LSTU E–120 - Harvard Extension School - Spring 2015 - Tuesdays 5:30-7:30 pm EST&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/contact Berkman Center for Internet and Society] - 23 Everett Street - Conference room, 2nd floor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[https://continuinged.adobeconnect.com/_a931819597/lstu_e120_spring2015/ &#039;&#039;&#039;Adobe Connect session&#039;&#039;&#039;]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 control of the Net and its users also has a more subtle side: regulation of citizens online through powerful mechanisms of surveillance. &#039;&#039;&#039;[[course overview|continued...]]&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=&#039;&#039;&#039;Syllabus at a glance&#039;&#039;&#039;=&lt;br /&gt;
{| style=&amp;quot;background-color:#CCCCCC;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Jan 27&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Feb 3&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Feb 10&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Privacy Part 1: Corporate Data Gathering and Intrusions by the Public]]&lt;br /&gt;
| &#039;&#039;(Assignment 1 due)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Feb 17&lt;br /&gt;
| [[A Series of Tubes: The Internet&#039;s Backbone and Network Neutrality]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Feb 24&lt;br /&gt;
|  [[Privacy Part 2: The Right to Be Forgotten]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Mar 3&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Privacy Part 3: Government Surveillance]]&lt;br /&gt;
| &#039;&#039;(Assignment 2 due)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Mar 10&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Speech, Day 1: Free Expression, Information, and Unwanted Speech]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Mar 17&lt;br /&gt;
| &#039;&#039;No class - Spring Break&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Mar 24&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Speech, Day 2: Collective Action, Hacktivism, and Social Movements]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Mar 31&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Cybersecurity and Computer Crimes]]&lt;br /&gt;
| &#039;&#039;(Assignment 3 due)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Apr 7 &lt;br /&gt;
| [[Copyright, Day 1: Guiding Principles and the Special Case of Anti-Circumvention]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Apr 14&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Internet Governance and Governments]] &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Apr 21&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Peer Production]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Apr 28&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Copyright, Day 2: Copyright Enforcement and Applications to New Technology]] &lt;br /&gt;
| &#039;&#039;(Assignment 4 due)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| May 5&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;No class - final project preparation&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| &#039;&#039;(Optional [[Assignments#Extra_Credit|Extra Credit]] due)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| May 12 &lt;br /&gt;
|Final class - wrap up and student presentations&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;([[Final Project]] due)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|border=&amp;quot;1&amp;quot; cellpadding=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|-valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Course Information:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Class Participation]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Grading]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Statement on Plagiarism]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Assignments &amp;amp; Projects:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Assignments]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Assigned Readings|Complete List of Assigned Readings]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Final Project]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Resources:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Recorded class videos]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Powerpoint Slides from Class]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page How to edit a wiki]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.extension.harvard.edu/resources/writing.jsp Extension School Writing Center]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;External:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Upcoming Events]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;People:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Staff Contact Info]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[List of User Profiles]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=&#039;&#039;&#039;Participating In Class (Tuesdays 5:30-7:30 pm ET)&#039;&#039;&#039;=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As noted in the section on [[Grading|class grades]], 30% of your final grade will be based on class participation. We expect all students to make a substantive contribution to the class every week. There are three ways you can do this:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# You can participate during class in the classroom. The class will be held in the conference room at the Berkman Center for Internet &amp;amp; Society, 23 Everett St., Second Floor, Cambridge, MA 02138 ([http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/contact directions])&lt;br /&gt;
# You can participate during class though our online portal on [https://continuinged.adobeconnect.com/_a931819597/lstu_e120_spring2015/ &#039;&#039;&#039;Adobe Connect&#039;&#039;&#039;]. That is available [https://continuinged.adobeconnect.com/_a931819597/lstu_e120_spring2015/ here]. Join as a Guest using your class wiki username so we know how to identify you.&lt;br /&gt;
## 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&#039;s built-in mic.  As a last resort, you can use your computer&#039;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.&lt;br /&gt;
## If you have any trouble running Adobe Connect, please go to the [https://helpx.adobe.com/adobe-connect/connect-support.html support page on Adobe Connect&#039;s site] or click on the &amp;quot;Help&amp;quot; button in the upper right corner of the Connect window.&lt;br /&gt;
# You can also participate asynchronously with the class by making a substantive contribution in the &amp;quot;Class Discussion&amp;quot; section of the class day&#039;s wiki page &#039;&#039;before 4pm ET&#039;&#039; on the day of class. The comment doesn&#039;t have to be long, but should relate to the day&#039;s reading.&lt;br /&gt;
## The recorded videotapes of the class produced by Harvard Extension School will be made available [http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k108832&amp;amp;pageid=icb.page715558 here].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further information on this can be found on the [[Class Participation]] page. Please note the special class participation requirement related to Assignment 2.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=&#039;&#039;&#039;Contact Information&#039;&#039;&#039;=&lt;br /&gt;
* All questions, comments, etc. should be sent to: lstue120 [at] cyber [dot] law [dot] harvard [dot] edu.&lt;br /&gt;
:* 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.&lt;br /&gt;
* If you need to contact an instructor or TA individually, please use their personal contact info located on the [[Staff Contact Info]] page.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=&#039;&#039;&#039;Office Hours&#039;&#039;&#039;=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If you need to set up a time to talk, you should always feel free to email us at lstue120 [at] cyber [dot] law [dot] harvard [dot] edu. In addition, all three will be holding open office hours later on May 5th for students who would like to discuss this further. Please sign up at least 12 hours in advance of meeting if possible, and indicate either here or in an email whether you plan to meet in person, on the phone, or via Skype. If you plan to use Skype, please email us your username so we know where to find you.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Andy&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5:00 - Chanel Rion (in person)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5:15 -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5:30&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5:45&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6:00 - Kelly Wilson (in person)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6:15&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6:30&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6:45&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
7:00 - Brooke Tjarks (in person) - oopsie daisies&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
7:15&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;David&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5:30&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5:45&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6:00&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6:15&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6:30&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6:45&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
7:00&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
7:15&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Ryan&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5:30 - Alexander Horn (In Person)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5:45 - Meagan HoChing (In Person) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6:00&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6:15&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6:30&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6:45&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
7:00&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
7:15&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Batjarks</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Assignment_4_Submissions&amp;diff=4309</id>
		<title>Assignment 4 Submissions</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Assignment_4_Submissions&amp;diff=4309"/>
		<updated>2015-04-30T03:15:15Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Batjarks: /* Submissions */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{AssignmentCal}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;This assignment is due before class on April 28th.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (assignments submitted 4 days late or later will have a maximum grade of 1 point). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Please name your file &amp;quot;wikiusername_Assignment4,&amp;quot; where &amp;quot;wikiusername&amp;quot; is replaced with your username, to avoid overwriting someone else&#039;s assignment or causing errors in the Wiki by including forbidden characters.&#039;&#039; So if your username is &amp;quot;jdoe&amp;quot; and your file is a Word document your file should be named &amp;quot;jdoe_Assignment4.doc.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Upload your rough draft here: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/Special:Upload Upload file]&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;If you&#039;d like peer feedback on an updated version of your rough draft, you can submit it here: [[Assignment 4 Peer Review]]&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please make sure the name of your file includes your name or pseudonym (example: Name_Assignment4.doc) to avoid overwriting someone else&#039;s assignment. Please follow the format below:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Name or pseudonym: &lt;br /&gt;
*Project title: &lt;br /&gt;
*Link to rough draft: (add your link here)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Submissions==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Name:&#039;&#039;&#039; Erika L Rich&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Title:&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;quot;Reputation Management and Ethical Considerations for Members of the Warrior Forum Message Board&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Link:&#039;&#039;&#039; [[Media:LSTU_E120_Erika_Rich_Assignment_4.docx]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:ErikaLRich|ErikaLRich]] ([[User talk:ErikaLRich|talk]]) 12:08, 28 April 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Name:&#039;&#039;&#039; MattK&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Title:&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;quot;Does the Hammer Ring True? Assessing John Scalzi&#039;s Mallet of Loving Correction.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Link:&#039;&#039;&#039; http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:MattK_Assignment4.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:MattK|MattK]] ([[User talk:MattK|talk]]) 20:31, 20 April 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Name:&#039;&#039;&#039; Emily MacIntyre (EmiMac)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Title:&#039;&#039;&#039; Assignment 4: Draft- Analyzing the Regulatory Constraints and Chilling Effects of YouTube’s Content ID Sweep through a Representative Survey of the Nintendo Let’s Play Community &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Link:&#039;&#039;&#039; http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Emily_MacIntyre_Assignment_4.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 15:19, 21 April 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Name:&#039;&#039;&#039; HRomero and ChellyByrne&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Title:&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;quot;Balancing Privacy for Victims of Sexual Crimes With Opportunity for Support in Online Forum AfterSilence.org&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Link:&#039;&#039;&#039; http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:HRomero_ChellyByrne_Assignment4.pdf &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 14:31, 22 April 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Name&#039;&#039;&#039;: JosefinS&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Project title&#039;&#039;&#039;: A case study on the children&#039;s website Kidzworld and how they deal with threats against being a safe environment for children.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Link&#039;&#039;&#039;: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment_4.pdf_Klar.pdf &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 08:45, 26 April 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Name&#039;&#039;&#039;: Samaei1&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Project title&#039;&#039;&#039;: Influence of Reddit on Kickstarter Campaigns&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Link&#039;&#039;&#039;: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:InternetSocietyFinalDraft.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Samaei1|Samaei1]] ([[User talk:Samaei1|talk]]) 13:20, 28 April 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Name&#039;&#039;&#039;: Beccalew&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Project title&#039;&#039;&#039;: /r/TwoXChromosomes: The challenges of maintaining a female-centric space on Reddit&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Link&#039;&#039;&#039;: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Beccalew_Assignment4.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 14:40, 28 April 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Name:&#039;&#039;&#039; Mishal R. Kennedy, Gia, Natasha Jalbut&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Title:&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;quot;Scam Baiting Within the 419Eater Community: The Challenge of Policing Information Quality &amp;amp; Preventing Abuse.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Link:&#039;&#039;&#039; http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Assignment_4_%28Internet_Society_-_Technologies_and_Politics_of_Control%29.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:MishalRKennedy|MishalRKennedy]] ([[User talk:MishalRKennedy|talk]]) 4:25, 28 April 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Name&#039;&#039;&#039;: Ryan Hurley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Project title&#039;&#039;&#039;: BarstoolSports.com’s Civil War: An Evaluation of the “Success” of the Comment Section regulations&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Link&#039;&#039;&#039;: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Barstool_Politics_of_Control_Draft.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 16:48, 28 April 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Name:&#039;&#039;&#039; Richard Markow&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Title:&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;quot;Comparing and contrasting the ways in which the NYTimes.com, Huffington Post, and FoxNews.com govern their online communities and use technology, rules and the market to deal with unwanted behaviors and help to facilitate social norms that will promote lively debate.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Link:&#039;&#039;&#039; http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment_4_Draft_of_Final_Project.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 16:42, 28 April 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Name:&#039;&#039;&#039; Kelly Wilson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Title:&#039;&#039;&#039; “Rebels Without A Pause: How Buycott Empowers Political Consumption While Staying Above the Political Fray”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Link:&#039;&#039;&#039; http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Kelly.WilsonAssignment4.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Kelly.wilson|Kelly.wilson]] ([[User talk:Kelly.wilson|talk]]) 17:03, 28 April 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Name:&#039;&#039;&#039; Eric Kwong&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Title:&#039;&#039;&#039; “Reddit’s Constant Conflict between Freedom of Speech and their Censorship of Hate Speech and Personal Attacks in it’s Conspiracy Sub-category&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Link:&#039;&#039;&#039; http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Caelum_Assignment4.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 17:29, 28 April 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Name&#039;&#039;&#039;: AlexanderH&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Title:&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;quot;How Do You Regulate User Content?: Instagram and the 4th Trimester Bodies Project&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Link:&#039;&#039;&#039; http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:AlexanderH_-_Assignment_4.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:AlexanderH|AlexanderH]] ([[User talk:AlexanderH|talk]]) 20:23, 28 April 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Name&#039;&#039;&#039;: mhoching/Meagan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Title:&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;quot;Slacktivism in Review: The case of #Ferguson and Twitter&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Link:&#039;&#039;&#039; http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Mhoching_Assignment4.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 11:22, 29 April 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Name&#039;&#039;&#039;: batjarks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Title:&#039;&#039;&#039; MAMA - privacy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Link:&#039;&#039;&#039; http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:BrookeTjarksAssignmentFour.docx&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]])&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Batjarks</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=File:BrookeTjarksAssignmentFour.docx&amp;diff=4308</id>
		<title>File:BrookeTjarksAssignmentFour.docx</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=File:BrookeTjarksAssignmentFour.docx&amp;diff=4308"/>
		<updated>2015-04-30T03:13:46Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Batjarks: WORKING DRAFT&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;WORKING DRAFT&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Batjarks</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Copyright,_Day_2:_Copyright_Enforcement_and_Applications_to_New_Technology&amp;diff=4301</id>
		<title>Copyright, Day 2: Copyright Enforcement and Applications to New Technology</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Copyright,_Day_2:_Copyright_Enforcement_and_Applications_to_New_Technology&amp;diff=4301"/>
		<updated>2015-04-28T21:19:52Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Batjarks: /* Class Discussion */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{ClassCalendar}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;April 28&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To end the substance of the class, we return to a topic we studied a few weeks ago and look to how various efforts have attempted to control the Web in light of the issue. Digital technologies spawned the proliferation of media and music sharing, which has led to a number of controversial legal and technological strategies for control and copyright enforcement. “Controversial” may be putting it lightly; the ongoing fight between copyright owners and Internet evangelists is one of the most popularly debated fights surrounding Internet control. This class focuses on how copyright is enforced online, with particular emphasis on the &amp;quot;notice-and-takedown&amp;quot; provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which allow Internet service providers to limit their liability for the copyright infringements of their users if the ISPs expeditiously remove material in response to complaints from copyright owners. The class will also look at a few other famous attempts to design within and around copyright’s regime, both with legislation and with new technologies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Assignment 4 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Assignments#Assignment_4:_Rough_Draft|Assignment 4]] is due before class today. You can submit your assignment [[Assignment_4_Submissions|here]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;onlyinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Readings/Watchings ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
; The DMCA Notice-And-Takedown Process&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Digital Media Law Project, [http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/copyright-claims-based-user-content Claims Based on User Content] and [http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/protecting-yourself-against-copyright-claims-based-user-content Protecting Yourself Against Copyright Claims Based on User Content]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://www.eff.org/takedowns Electronic Frontier Foundation, Takedown Hall of Shame] (peruse)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Chilling Effects, [https://www.chillingeffects.org/pages/about About].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://paidcontent.org/2013/02/24/how-google-did-the-right-thing-with-the-nascar-crash-video-and-why-it-matters/ Matthew Ingram, Paid Content, How Google did the right thing with the NASCAR crash video, and why it matters]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
; Case Studies&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://futureoftheinternet.org/reading-sopa Jonathan Zittrain, Kendra Albert, and Alicia Solow-Niederman, A Close Look at SOPA]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2012/01/15/mit-media-lab-opposes-sopa-pipa/ Ethan Zuckerman and Joi Ito, MIT Media Lab Opposes SOPA, PIPA]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/node/98767 Radio Berkman #216: The Internet – A Yearbook] (5:58-15:13 only)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/21/walter-scott-video-footage-pr-firm-copyright Jon Swaine, Walter Scott: PR firm demands $10,000 from media outlets using shooting video]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
; The big picture&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-traffic-drops-in-america-grows-in-europe-131111/ Ernesto Van Der Sar, BitTorrent Traffic Drops in America, Grows in Europe]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120405/11221818390/perspective-complexities-copyright-creativity-victim-infringement.shtml Erin McKeown, A Perspective On the Complexities of Copyright and Creativity from a Victim of Infringement]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Optional Readings ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
; Case Study - ISP &amp;quot;Six Strikes&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.onthemedia.org/2013/feb/01/copyright-alert-system-and-six-strikes/ Brooke Gladstone, Interview with Jill Lesser of Center for Copyright Information (&#039;&#039;On The Media&#039;&#039;)]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2013/02/25/the-6-likely-impact-of-six-strikes/ Jonathan Bailey, Plagiarism Today, The 6 Likely Impact of Six Strikes]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
; Case Study - Operation In Our Sites&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1835604 Andy Sellars, Seized Sites: The In Rem Forfeiture of Copyright-Infringing Domain Names]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2011/02/02/super-bust-due-process-and-domain-name-seizure.html Wendy Seltzer, Super Bust: Due Process and Domain Name Seizure]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/onlyinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Videos Watched in Class ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Links ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Class Discussion ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div style=&amp;quot;background-color:#CCCCCC;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;~~~~&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;) 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)&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As said in the introduction of this week’s wiki page is ”the ongoing fight between copyright owners and Internet evangelists is one of the most popularly debated fights surrounding Internet control.”. What the literature show us, is that it is very tricky to find a solution and an ending to the fight. One reason is that there are different interests and players when it comes to this issue. There is always going to be groups that aren´t happy with the legislation. Another reason is that it simply is hard to create effective laws (especially since the Internet is a global phenomena), which you can see several examples of in the literature.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The blackout in 2012, that was a protest and a way of forming an opinion against SOPA among especially American citizens, is fascinating. It is a way of using Internet for activism. But it isn´t really created from a grass root level (which is what I usually think about when I hear the word ’activism’), but from Internet giants like Twitter and Wikipedia. It raises the question ”who has power in today’s society?” I would say that the people behind the largest Internet websites are in a very powerful position. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 16:58, 26 April 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was interesting reading about the DMCA – or, as Matthew Ingram writes in Gigaom, how the DMCA “fosters bad behavior” – because I had rarely thought about the prominent role of the hosting platform in copyright takedowns before.  The article about NASCAR, as well as the Takedown Hall of Shame, showed how problematic the system is when sites like YouTube immediately bow to commercial powers making takedown requests.  I thought Ingram’s description was very compelling when he wrote that the NASCAR incident was “another case of a commercial entity taking advantage of copyright law to smother free speech.”  (On a related note, I was very sad to discover that Prince, one of my favorite artists, was awarded the Raspberry Beret Lifetime Aggrievement Award for “extraordinary abuses of the takedown process in the name of silencing speech.”)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, as much as the readings enlightened me about the role of the hosting platform, and the way copyright laws often smother the free speech of those using them, I also found myself wondering what it felt like to be on the other side, that is, to have your work be copied unfairly.  After all, these laws were put into place for a reason, even if they have serious flaws, and as much as I care about free speech, I also care about fair compensation for artists.  This is why Erin McKeown’s article was my favorite reading for the week.  I love that she talks with sincere emotion and compassion about these issues – she cares about compensation of her own work, but she also has empathy for those that seemingly copies it.  I love that she speaks about her ensuing advocacy as wanting to talk about scale, as well as “relationships and power structures.”  She shows that there are valid points on both sides and that while there will always be issues on both sides, an open dialogue could help diffuse a lot of otherwise contentious copyright issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 08:19, 27 April 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The copyright infringement and DMCA article is of particular interest to me.  In the fitness community there are always conversations about rightful uses of images.  I have an associate is a photographer that contracted the one use of an image for a magazine. As what has happened with many other photographers, this image is now being used on the person’s website and used for promotional materials. Looking into the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, what is interesting is that person or website in question must not “... have no actual or effective knowledge that the material in question is infringing.”  I researched quite a few large company websites and actually read through their terms and conditions to find their copyright policies. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this day and age of selfies, many people take photos and post them online without thinking about their use. I know of one athlete who has had three Facebook profiles created in her image and many of her photos posted on highly suggestive website. Although her images were not sexually suggestive, them being placed on said websites has created havoc on her professional career as she finishes her PhD. Involuntary posting of pictures has the person’s name with it. If your name is Jennifer, it is not as much as a problem as someone with the name Chipo. I wondered how this act would apply to someone’s images being used on a controversial website against their wishes and I came across this great article on how Reddit approaches similar copyright material: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/09/08/how-copyright-became-the-best-defense-against-revenge-porn/. If there is question over copyright and since there is not a direct method to litigate this issue, it easy to see how Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act would protect the ‘free speech’ of the users of the internet community; additionally, images can be copied and reproduced. DMCA’s last point about embedded videos clearly demonstrates how this can be a difficult for victims as sites can potentially continue without recourse. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 14:08, 28 April 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
---------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After today’s class reading I can only say that no matter  how  deep you  go  in copyright online subject,  there are always going to be so many  unexplored  aspects left! I had not heard about the Walter Scott shooting video and  after  reading the  article, I realized  that an ordinary, everyday situation of making a video with a cell phone, could grow into a real copyright legal case. However I think the popularity of the case in question  is  coming  not from the  complexity of the IP legal issue but  from the shocking content of the video.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although the legal aspects of the copyright  online are an important economical issue, the regulations put in place in order to solve the problems (regulations like SOPA) give the impression they  use the copyright just as an “excuse” and try to regulate “something  more”.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The NASCAR video case was  really  interesting  because it could be regarded as  a good  example how a copyright case  should be examined from all perspectives and measures  should be  taken  regarding the concrete  situation without prejudices. It should  not  be taken for granted  that  the copyright owners  are  always the “good guys”.&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding the  Bit torrent  websites , I  know  some  of them  are  applying the  “safe –harbor” provisions, stipulated  in the DMCA  by applying &amp;quot;notice-and-takedown&amp;quot; procedures. They remove  content once they are  signalized  by  the copyright owner but not otherwise. Beyond their business model  is  the idea that  big  Hollywood companies  would  not  spend time  and  efforts  chasing  torrent websites all over the net. Claiming they  do  not  know that  User123 is not the  copyright owner of the “Star Wars”, for  example they  would remove the movie from the  torrent website if  they are duly notified. I consider this is  too obvious violation but on the other  hand there is no exception in the  DMCA saying the “safe-harbor” provisions  can not  apply  to torrent websites. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The courts have, in the past, been fairly reluctant about taking sides about defining a “journalist” or what constitutes a “news outlet”—there have been instances where a journalist has been defined strictly as an individual who is paid by a news outlet for a significant portion of their yearly income; but then, the problem arises with the existence of fairly reliable or credible and totally freelance news writers who do not qualify as “journalists” under the salary definition attempts to operate under the protective laws that are granted to these more traditional journalists – granted, fair use is not exclusive to journalists, if it were a journalist who recorded the Nascar crash, Nascar would not have dared to take the video down (at least we should hope). &lt;br /&gt;
Google’s refusal to do so was a sound one, and hopefully,  the types of corporate control mentality as expressed in the Nascar “owns everything produced by the ticket holder to its events” is a mentality that will get a future track record of uselessness. In this day and age, we are indeed all witnesses – and sometimes journalists. It is the content and not the source that matters and I was glad to read learn about Google’s actions on the matter. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for controlling what publicity it has online, the best option for Nascar is not to “own everything ticket holders produce” but to either accept that everyone, at a moment’s notice can become the holder of fair use content, OR Nascar will have to just have all event goers hand over their digital and recording devices at the door. An unpopular track, surely and one they won’t be strange enough to take. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 14:55, 28 April 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
---- &lt;br /&gt;
Re: Fair use in Inbedded video. I think the measure of whether or not a cell phone video is fair use is if it was intended for commercial use or not. It&#039;s that simple. The video of Walter Scott was taken spontaneously without any profit motive, any one can prove that in court. The same with the NASCAR video, or for that matter the recent video of Freddy Gray in Baltimore. No one goes out with a cell phone in hand to document horrific events to document and sell to news outlets. Only news professionals do and they have a profit or news reporting motive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The case of the man who took the Walter Scott murder looks crass and opportunistic to try to get any money out of this unfortunate situation, specially the lawyers and the P.R firm they hired. They&#039;re not gonna get a dime from those videos and stills. Also, there comes a point when a video or a still photo become public domain. Once an image that resonates or illustrates a problem perfectly goes viral on the internet, no one can stop its replication or dissemination. What is the definition of public domain? Does it apply to viral videos, whether they are of kittens or gun violence? [[User:Hromero|Hromero]] ([[User talk:Hromero|talk]]) 15:42, 28 April 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really like what Electronic Frontier Foundation is doing. As we had read in previous articles, the big corps and powerful figures know that they would win in copyright lawsuits simply because they have deep pockets and the time to keep going at it. EFF clearly shows us that it is possible to defend the little guy against the bigger corporations with the lawyers and the financial power to back up those bullets. With the enforcement of copyright laws in the digital world (Ref 3), it also makes it consist of huge gray areas that are left for exploitation. EFF does it’s job to maintain individuals’ liberties. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
	As stated in eff.org (Ref 4), it tells us of what it views of today’s issues. They are, as I personally also believe, is that the manipulation of copyright laws by big corps and take “away from the right to think and speak freely”. This becomes a huge infringement, not upon copyright and intellectual property, but the fundamental Constitutional right of Freedom of Speech. Where do we draw the line? It is hard to have an equilibrium when only one side has an army. EFF balances this equation to allow the laws on copyright to be closer to equilibrium. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
	I have therefore picked one example. I looked at Former Navy Chaplain and Colorado Assembly candidate Gordon Klingenschmitt’s attempt to shut down a YouTube account. (Ref 2) They knew the rules of Youtube, that if there were 3 takedown notices, then YouTube would shut down that channel. It was strategic, and it undermines Freedom of Speech. Equilibrium was only reached when EFF had assisted the case with a threat to take Klingenschmitt to court. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
	Despite all the classes and lectures, I still feel that there will be a constant struggle between Freedom of Speech, and the censorship of the internet, and the way big corporations would exploit intellectual property laws to their advantage. This still takes time, but I surely hope we get to some sort of maturity in law making on copyright and Freedom of Speech issues in the digital world. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
References:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ref 1 - https://www.eff.org/about&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ref 2 - https://www.eff.org/takedowns/attempt-silence-political-speech-right-wing-watch&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ref 3 - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ref 4 - https://www.eff.org/about/history&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 15:43, 28 April 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
---- &lt;br /&gt;
Re: Fair use in Inbedded video. I think the measure of whether or not a cell phone video is fair use is if it was intended for commercial use or not. It&#039;s that simple. The video of Walter Scott was taken spontaneously without any profit motive, any one can prove that in court. The same with the NASCAR video, or for that matter the recent video of Freddy Gray in Baltimore. No one goes out with a cell phone in hand to document horrific events to document and sell to news outlets. Only news professionals do and they have a profit or news reporting motive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The case of the man who took the Walter Scott murder looks crass and opportunistic to try to get any money out of this unfortunate situation, specially the lawyers and the P.R firm they hired. They&#039;re not gonna get a dime from those videos and stills. Also, there comes a point when a video or a still photo become public domain. Once an image that resonates or illustrates a problem perfectly goes viral on the internet, no one can stop its replication or dissemination. What is the definition of public domain? Does it apply to viral videos, whether they are of kittens or gun violence? Hromero (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2015 (EDT) [[User:Hromero|Hromero]] ([[User talk:Hromero|talk]]) 15:46, 28 April 2015 (EDT) &lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Google Nascar article shared a phenomena that we have already explored in which eyewitness photos of an incident may go viral but they still do not infringe on copyrights, even of major news networks which hold the sole right to film that event.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is further explained in our reading about Walter Scott shooting video (Which I had never seen – oh my dear). According to the Copyright Act of 1976, “fair use” of copyrighted material includes “criticism, comment, and new reporting.” These videos cannot be protected by copyright because they still are, and will be for years to come, relevant to criticism, comment, and news reporting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though I am personally uncomfortable with the fact that it is not a violation of my privacy to film people on the street, I understand now how important it is to protect the right to film and distribute what happens in public. It must be a difficult right to protect, as well, given the rapidly evolving technologies (means of capturing and methods for sharing). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Baltimore riots are going on very close to my home in Maryland. Last night Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake made a statement explaining that initially the police force was made aware of plans for violent riots and their locations by monitoring social media. She also explained that the random eyewitness images that were collected and streaming would be used in assistant for the capturing and punishment of those involved with violent demonstrations and other crimes this week. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reading for today’s class also mentions an eyewitness video of Freddie Gray as part of formal investigation. Boston recently saw viral videos and images assist in the conviction of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev for the bombing. While all of these situations mentioned are very controversial, is our right as citizens of the United States to see these videos, so that we can see for ourselves if justice is being done. We are very lucky to have this right, and should work to protect it, as other countries regulate and censor this sort of information from the public. The worst example that comes to mind is China&#039;s censorship of Tiananmen Square protest that occurred in 1989. Hundreds of protestors were murdered by China&#039;s government in the streets on this day, and the Chinese public still does not have accurate information about events that occurred. Non peaceful rioting did occur but its impossible now to know if justice was served or not. The fact that we have the right to share what the police are doing right now in Baltimore through viral videos and images, means that they will be held responsible for inappropriate actions, as will any violent &amp;quot;thugs&amp;quot; tearing up the city.&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 17:12, 28 April 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Batjarks</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Copyright,_Day_2:_Copyright_Enforcement_and_Applications_to_New_Technology&amp;diff=4300</id>
		<title>Copyright, Day 2: Copyright Enforcement and Applications to New Technology</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Copyright,_Day_2:_Copyright_Enforcement_and_Applications_to_New_Technology&amp;diff=4300"/>
		<updated>2015-04-28T21:12:22Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Batjarks: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{ClassCalendar}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;April 28&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To end the substance of the class, we return to a topic we studied a few weeks ago and look to how various efforts have attempted to control the Web in light of the issue. Digital technologies spawned the proliferation of media and music sharing, which has led to a number of controversial legal and technological strategies for control and copyright enforcement. “Controversial” may be putting it lightly; the ongoing fight between copyright owners and Internet evangelists is one of the most popularly debated fights surrounding Internet control. This class focuses on how copyright is enforced online, with particular emphasis on the &amp;quot;notice-and-takedown&amp;quot; provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which allow Internet service providers to limit their liability for the copyright infringements of their users if the ISPs expeditiously remove material in response to complaints from copyright owners. The class will also look at a few other famous attempts to design within and around copyright’s regime, both with legislation and with new technologies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Assignment 4 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Assignments#Assignment_4:_Rough_Draft|Assignment 4]] is due before class today. You can submit your assignment [[Assignment_4_Submissions|here]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;onlyinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Readings/Watchings ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
; The DMCA Notice-And-Takedown Process&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Digital Media Law Project, [http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/copyright-claims-based-user-content Claims Based on User Content] and [http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/protecting-yourself-against-copyright-claims-based-user-content Protecting Yourself Against Copyright Claims Based on User Content]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://www.eff.org/takedowns Electronic Frontier Foundation, Takedown Hall of Shame] (peruse)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Chilling Effects, [https://www.chillingeffects.org/pages/about About].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://paidcontent.org/2013/02/24/how-google-did-the-right-thing-with-the-nascar-crash-video-and-why-it-matters/ Matthew Ingram, Paid Content, How Google did the right thing with the NASCAR crash video, and why it matters]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
; Case Studies&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://futureoftheinternet.org/reading-sopa Jonathan Zittrain, Kendra Albert, and Alicia Solow-Niederman, A Close Look at SOPA]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2012/01/15/mit-media-lab-opposes-sopa-pipa/ Ethan Zuckerman and Joi Ito, MIT Media Lab Opposes SOPA, PIPA]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/node/98767 Radio Berkman #216: The Internet – A Yearbook] (5:58-15:13 only)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/21/walter-scott-video-footage-pr-firm-copyright Jon Swaine, Walter Scott: PR firm demands $10,000 from media outlets using shooting video]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
; The big picture&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-traffic-drops-in-america-grows-in-europe-131111/ Ernesto Van Der Sar, BitTorrent Traffic Drops in America, Grows in Europe]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120405/11221818390/perspective-complexities-copyright-creativity-victim-infringement.shtml Erin McKeown, A Perspective On the Complexities of Copyright and Creativity from a Victim of Infringement]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Optional Readings ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
; Case Study - ISP &amp;quot;Six Strikes&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.onthemedia.org/2013/feb/01/copyright-alert-system-and-six-strikes/ Brooke Gladstone, Interview with Jill Lesser of Center for Copyright Information (&#039;&#039;On The Media&#039;&#039;)]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2013/02/25/the-6-likely-impact-of-six-strikes/ Jonathan Bailey, Plagiarism Today, The 6 Likely Impact of Six Strikes]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
; Case Study - Operation In Our Sites&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1835604 Andy Sellars, Seized Sites: The In Rem Forfeiture of Copyright-Infringing Domain Names]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2011/02/02/super-bust-due-process-and-domain-name-seizure.html Wendy Seltzer, Super Bust: Due Process and Domain Name Seizure]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/onlyinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Videos Watched in Class ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Links ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Class Discussion ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div style=&amp;quot;background-color:#CCCCCC;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;~~~~&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;) 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)&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As said in the introduction of this week’s wiki page is ”the ongoing fight between copyright owners and Internet evangelists is one of the most popularly debated fights surrounding Internet control.”. What the literature show us, is that it is very tricky to find a solution and an ending to the fight. One reason is that there are different interests and players when it comes to this issue. There is always going to be groups that aren´t happy with the legislation. Another reason is that it simply is hard to create effective laws (especially since the Internet is a global phenomena), which you can see several examples of in the literature.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The blackout in 2012, that was a protest and a way of forming an opinion against SOPA among especially American citizens, is fascinating. It is a way of using Internet for activism. But it isn´t really created from a grass root level (which is what I usually think about when I hear the word ’activism’), but from Internet giants like Twitter and Wikipedia. It raises the question ”who has power in today’s society?” I would say that the people behind the largest Internet websites are in a very powerful position. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 16:58, 26 April 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was interesting reading about the DMCA – or, as Matthew Ingram writes in Gigaom, how the DMCA “fosters bad behavior” – because I had rarely thought about the prominent role of the hosting platform in copyright takedowns before.  The article about NASCAR, as well as the Takedown Hall of Shame, showed how problematic the system is when sites like YouTube immediately bow to commercial powers making takedown requests.  I thought Ingram’s description was very compelling when he wrote that the NASCAR incident was “another case of a commercial entity taking advantage of copyright law to smother free speech.”  (On a related note, I was very sad to discover that Prince, one of my favorite artists, was awarded the Raspberry Beret Lifetime Aggrievement Award for “extraordinary abuses of the takedown process in the name of silencing speech.”)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, as much as the readings enlightened me about the role of the hosting platform, and the way copyright laws often smother the free speech of those using them, I also found myself wondering what it felt like to be on the other side, that is, to have your work be copied unfairly.  After all, these laws were put into place for a reason, even if they have serious flaws, and as much as I care about free speech, I also care about fair compensation for artists.  This is why Erin McKeown’s article was my favorite reading for the week.  I love that she talks with sincere emotion and compassion about these issues – she cares about compensation of her own work, but she also has empathy for those that seemingly copies it.  I love that she speaks about her ensuing advocacy as wanting to talk about scale, as well as “relationships and power structures.”  She shows that there are valid points on both sides and that while there will always be issues on both sides, an open dialogue could help diffuse a lot of otherwise contentious copyright issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 08:19, 27 April 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The copyright infringement and DMCA article is of particular interest to me.  In the fitness community there are always conversations about rightful uses of images.  I have an associate is a photographer that contracted the one use of an image for a magazine. As what has happened with many other photographers, this image is now being used on the person’s website and used for promotional materials. Looking into the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, what is interesting is that person or website in question must not “... have no actual or effective knowledge that the material in question is infringing.”  I researched quite a few large company websites and actually read through their terms and conditions to find their copyright policies. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this day and age of selfies, many people take photos and post them online without thinking about their use. I know of one athlete who has had three Facebook profiles created in her image and many of her photos posted on highly suggestive website. Although her images were not sexually suggestive, them being placed on said websites has created havoc on her professional career as she finishes her PhD. Involuntary posting of pictures has the person’s name with it. If your name is Jennifer, it is not as much as a problem as someone with the name Chipo. I wondered how this act would apply to someone’s images being used on a controversial website against their wishes and I came across this great article on how Reddit approaches similar copyright material: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/09/08/how-copyright-became-the-best-defense-against-revenge-porn/. If there is question over copyright and since there is not a direct method to litigate this issue, it easy to see how Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act would protect the ‘free speech’ of the users of the internet community; additionally, images can be copied and reproduced. DMCA’s last point about embedded videos clearly demonstrates how this can be a difficult for victims as sites can potentially continue without recourse. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 14:08, 28 April 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
---------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After today’s class reading I can only say that no matter  how  deep you  go  in copyright online subject,  there are always going to be so many  unexplored  aspects left! I had not heard about the Walter Scott shooting video and  after  reading the  article, I realized  that an ordinary, everyday situation of making a video with a cell phone, could grow into a real copyright legal case. However I think the popularity of the case in question  is  coming  not from the  complexity of the IP legal issue but  from the shocking content of the video.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although the legal aspects of the copyright  online are an important economical issue, the regulations put in place in order to solve the problems (regulations like SOPA) give the impression they  use the copyright just as an “excuse” and try to regulate “something  more”.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The NASCAR video case was  really  interesting  because it could be regarded as  a good  example how a copyright case  should be examined from all perspectives and measures  should be  taken  regarding the concrete  situation without prejudices. It should  not  be taken for granted  that  the copyright owners  are  always the “good guys”.&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding the  Bit torrent  websites , I  know  some  of them  are  applying the  “safe –harbor” provisions, stipulated  in the DMCA  by applying &amp;quot;notice-and-takedown&amp;quot; procedures. They remove  content once they are  signalized  by  the copyright owner but not otherwise. Beyond their business model  is  the idea that  big  Hollywood companies  would  not  spend time  and  efforts  chasing  torrent websites all over the net. Claiming they  do  not  know that  User123 is not the  copyright owner of the “Star Wars”, for  example they  would remove the movie from the  torrent website if  they are duly notified. I consider this is  too obvious violation but on the other  hand there is no exception in the  DMCA saying the “safe-harbor” provisions  can not  apply  to torrent websites. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The courts have, in the past, been fairly reluctant about taking sides about defining a “journalist” or what constitutes a “news outlet”—there have been instances where a journalist has been defined strictly as an individual who is paid by a news outlet for a significant portion of their yearly income; but then, the problem arises with the existence of fairly reliable or credible and totally freelance news writers who do not qualify as “journalists” under the salary definition attempts to operate under the protective laws that are granted to these more traditional journalists – granted, fair use is not exclusive to journalists, if it were a journalist who recorded the Nascar crash, Nascar would not have dared to take the video down (at least we should hope). &lt;br /&gt;
Google’s refusal to do so was a sound one, and hopefully,  the types of corporate control mentality as expressed in the Nascar “owns everything produced by the ticket holder to its events” is a mentality that will get a future track record of uselessness. In this day and age, we are indeed all witnesses – and sometimes journalists. It is the content and not the source that matters and I was glad to read learn about Google’s actions on the matter. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for controlling what publicity it has online, the best option for Nascar is not to “own everything ticket holders produce” but to either accept that everyone, at a moment’s notice can become the holder of fair use content, OR Nascar will have to just have all event goers hand over their digital and recording devices at the door. An unpopular track, surely and one they won’t be strange enough to take. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 14:55, 28 April 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
---- &lt;br /&gt;
Re: Fair use in Inbedded video. I think the measure of whether or not a cell phone video is fair use is if it was intended for commercial use or not. It&#039;s that simple. The video of Walter Scott was taken spontaneously without any profit motive, any one can prove that in court. The same with the NASCAR video, or for that matter the recent video of Freddy Gray in Baltimore. No one goes out with a cell phone in hand to document horrific events to document and sell to news outlets. Only news professionals do and they have a profit or news reporting motive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The case of the man who took the Walter Scott murder looks crass and opportunistic to try to get any money out of this unfortunate situation, specially the lawyers and the P.R firm they hired. They&#039;re not gonna get a dime from those videos and stills. Also, there comes a point when a video or a still photo become public domain. Once an image that resonates or illustrates a problem perfectly goes viral on the internet, no one can stop its replication or dissemination. What is the definition of public domain? Does it apply to viral videos, whether they are of kittens or gun violence? [[User:Hromero|Hromero]] ([[User talk:Hromero|talk]]) 15:42, 28 April 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really like what Electronic Frontier Foundation is doing. As we had read in previous articles, the big corps and powerful figures know that they would win in copyright lawsuits simply because they have deep pockets and the time to keep going at it. EFF clearly shows us that it is possible to defend the little guy against the bigger corporations with the lawyers and the financial power to back up those bullets. With the enforcement of copyright laws in the digital world (Ref 3), it also makes it consist of huge gray areas that are left for exploitation. EFF does it’s job to maintain individuals’ liberties. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
	As stated in eff.org (Ref 4), it tells us of what it views of today’s issues. They are, as I personally also believe, is that the manipulation of copyright laws by big corps and take “away from the right to think and speak freely”. This becomes a huge infringement, not upon copyright and intellectual property, but the fundamental Constitutional right of Freedom of Speech. Where do we draw the line? It is hard to have an equilibrium when only one side has an army. EFF balances this equation to allow the laws on copyright to be closer to equilibrium. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
	I have therefore picked one example. I looked at Former Navy Chaplain and Colorado Assembly candidate Gordon Klingenschmitt’s attempt to shut down a YouTube account. (Ref 2) They knew the rules of Youtube, that if there were 3 takedown notices, then YouTube would shut down that channel. It was strategic, and it undermines Freedom of Speech. Equilibrium was only reached when EFF had assisted the case with a threat to take Klingenschmitt to court. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
	Despite all the classes and lectures, I still feel that there will be a constant struggle between Freedom of Speech, and the censorship of the internet, and the way big corporations would exploit intellectual property laws to their advantage. This still takes time, but I surely hope we get to some sort of maturity in law making on copyright and Freedom of Speech issues in the digital world. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
References:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ref 1 - https://www.eff.org/about&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ref 2 - https://www.eff.org/takedowns/attempt-silence-political-speech-right-wing-watch&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ref 3 - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ref 4 - https://www.eff.org/about/history&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 15:43, 28 April 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
---- &lt;br /&gt;
Re: Fair use in Inbedded video. I think the measure of whether or not a cell phone video is fair use is if it was intended for commercial use or not. It&#039;s that simple. The video of Walter Scott was taken spontaneously without any profit motive, any one can prove that in court. The same with the NASCAR video, or for that matter the recent video of Freddy Gray in Baltimore. No one goes out with a cell phone in hand to document horrific events to document and sell to news outlets. Only news professionals do and they have a profit or news reporting motive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The case of the man who took the Walter Scott murder looks crass and opportunistic to try to get any money out of this unfortunate situation, specially the lawyers and the P.R firm they hired. They&#039;re not gonna get a dime from those videos and stills. Also, there comes a point when a video or a still photo become public domain. Once an image that resonates or illustrates a problem perfectly goes viral on the internet, no one can stop its replication or dissemination. What is the definition of public domain? Does it apply to viral videos, whether they are of kittens or gun violence? Hromero (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2015 (EDT) [[User:Hromero|Hromero]] ([[User talk:Hromero|talk]]) 15:46, 28 April 2015 (EDT) &lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Google Nascar article shared a phenomena that we have already explored in which eyewitness photos of an incident may go viral but they still do not infringe on copyrights, even of major news networks which hold the sole right to film that event.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is further explained in our reading about Walter Scott shooting video (Which I had never seen – oh my dear). According to the Copyright Act of 1976, “fair use” of copyrighted material includes “criticism, comment, and new reporting.” These videos cannot be protected by copyright because they still are, and will be for years to come, relevant to criticism, comment, and news reporting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though I am personally uncomfortable with the fact that it is not a violation of my privacy to film people on the street, I understand now how important it is to protect the right to film and distribute what happens in public. It must be a difficult right to protect, as well, given the rapidly evolving technologies (means of capturing and methods for sharing). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Baltimore riots are going on very close to my home in Maryland. Last night Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake made a statement explaining that initially the police force was made aware of plans for violent riots and their locations by monitoring social media. She also explained that the random eyewitness images that were collected and streaming would be used in assistant for the capturing and punishment of those involved with violent demonstrations and other crimes this week. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The readings for today’s class also mentions an eyewitness video of Freddie Gray as part of formal investigation. Boston recently saw viral videos and images assist in the conviction of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev for the bombing. While all of these situations mentioned are very controversial, is our right as citizens of the United States to see these videos, so that we can see for ourselves if justice is being done. We are very lucky to have this right, and should work to protect it, as other countries censor or control this sort of information from the public and therefore repress them from knowing the truth about events.&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 17:12, 28 April 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Batjarks</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Copyright,_Day_2:_Copyright_Enforcement_and_Applications_to_New_Technology&amp;diff=4299</id>
		<title>Copyright, Day 2: Copyright Enforcement and Applications to New Technology</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Copyright,_Day_2:_Copyright_Enforcement_and_Applications_to_New_Technology&amp;diff=4299"/>
		<updated>2015-04-28T21:12:04Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Batjarks: /* Class Discussion */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{ClassCalendar}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;April 28&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To end the substance of the class, we return to a topic we studied a few weeks ago and look to how various efforts have attempted to control the Web in light of the issue. Digital technologies spawned the proliferation of media and music sharing, which has led to a number of controversial legal and technological strategies for control and copyright enforcement. “Controversial” may be putting it lightly; the ongoing fight between copyright owners and Internet evangelists is one of the most popularly debated fights surrounding Internet control. This class focuses on how copyright is enforced online, with particular emphasis on the &amp;quot;notice-and-takedown&amp;quot; provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which allow Internet service providers to limit their liability for the copyright infringements of their users if the ISPs expeditiously remove material in response to complaints from copyright owners. The class will also look at a few other famous attempts to design within and around copyright’s regime, both with legislation and with new technologies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Assignment 4 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Assignments#Assignment_4:_Rough_Draft|Assignment 4]] is due before class today. You can submit your assignment [[Assignment_4_Submissions|here]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;onlyinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Readings/Watchings ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
; The DMCA Notice-And-Takedown Process&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Digital Media Law Project, [http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/copyright-claims-based-user-content Claims Based on User Content] and [http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/protecting-yourself-against-copyright-claims-based-user-content Protecting Yourself Against Copyright Claims Based on User Content]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://www.eff.org/takedowns Electronic Frontier Foundation, Takedown Hall of Shame] (peruse)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Chilling Effects, [https://www.chillingeffects.org/pages/about About].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://paidcontent.org/2013/02/24/how-google-did-the-right-thing-with-the-nascar-crash-video-and-why-it-matters/ Matthew Ingram, Paid Content, How Google did the right thing with the NASCAR crash video, and why it matters]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
; Case Studies&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://futureoftheinternet.org/reading-sopa Jonathan Zittrain, Kendra Albert, and Alicia Solow-Niederman, A Close Look at SOPA]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2012/01/15/mit-media-lab-opposes-sopa-pipa/ Ethan Zuckerman and Joi Ito, MIT Media Lab Opposes SOPA, PIPA]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/node/98767 Radio Berkman #216: The Internet – A Yearbook] (5:58-15:13 only)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/21/walter-scott-video-footage-pr-firm-copyright Jon Swaine, Walter Scott: PR firm demands $10,000 from media outlets using shooting video]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
; The big picture&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-traffic-drops-in-america-grows-in-europe-131111/ Ernesto Van Der Sar, BitTorrent Traffic Drops in America, Grows in Europe]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120405/11221818390/perspective-complexities-copyright-creativity-victim-infringement.shtml Erin McKeown, A Perspective On the Complexities of Copyright and Creativity from a Victim of Infringement]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Optional Readings ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
; Case Study - ISP &amp;quot;Six Strikes&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.onthemedia.org/2013/feb/01/copyright-alert-system-and-six-strikes/ Brooke Gladstone, Interview with Jill Lesser of Center for Copyright Information (&#039;&#039;On The Media&#039;&#039;)]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2013/02/25/the-6-likely-impact-of-six-strikes/ Jonathan Bailey, Plagiarism Today, The 6 Likely Impact of Six Strikes]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
; Case Study - Operation In Our Sites&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1835604 Andy Sellars, Seized Sites: The In Rem Forfeiture of Copyright-Infringing Domain Names]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2011/02/02/super-bust-due-process-and-domain-name-seizure.html Wendy Seltzer, Super Bust: Due Process and Domain Name Seizure]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/onlyinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Videos Watched in Class ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Links ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Class Discussion ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div style=&amp;quot;background-color:#CCCCCC;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;~~~~&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;) 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)&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As said in the introduction of this week’s wiki page is ”the ongoing fight between copyright owners and Internet evangelists is one of the most popularly debated fights surrounding Internet control.”. What the literature show us, is that it is very tricky to find a solution and an ending to the fight. One reason is that there are different interests and players when it comes to this issue. There is always going to be groups that aren´t happy with the legislation. Another reason is that it simply is hard to create effective laws (especially since the Internet is a global phenomena), which you can see several examples of in the literature.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The blackout in 2012, that was a protest and a way of forming an opinion against SOPA among especially American citizens, is fascinating. It is a way of using Internet for activism. But it isn´t really created from a grass root level (which is what I usually think about when I hear the word ’activism’), but from Internet giants like Twitter and Wikipedia. It raises the question ”who has power in today’s society?” I would say that the people behind the largest Internet websites are in a very powerful position. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 16:58, 26 April 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was interesting reading about the DMCA – or, as Matthew Ingram writes in Gigaom, how the DMCA “fosters bad behavior” – because I had rarely thought about the prominent role of the hosting platform in copyright takedowns before.  The article about NASCAR, as well as the Takedown Hall of Shame, showed how problematic the system is when sites like YouTube immediately bow to commercial powers making takedown requests.  I thought Ingram’s description was very compelling when he wrote that the NASCAR incident was “another case of a commercial entity taking advantage of copyright law to smother free speech.”  (On a related note, I was very sad to discover that Prince, one of my favorite artists, was awarded the Raspberry Beret Lifetime Aggrievement Award for “extraordinary abuses of the takedown process in the name of silencing speech.”)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, as much as the readings enlightened me about the role of the hosting platform, and the way copyright laws often smother the free speech of those using them, I also found myself wondering what it felt like to be on the other side, that is, to have your work be copied unfairly.  After all, these laws were put into place for a reason, even if they have serious flaws, and as much as I care about free speech, I also care about fair compensation for artists.  This is why Erin McKeown’s article was my favorite reading for the week.  I love that she talks with sincere emotion and compassion about these issues – she cares about compensation of her own work, but she also has empathy for those that seemingly copies it.  I love that she speaks about her ensuing advocacy as wanting to talk about scale, as well as “relationships and power structures.”  She shows that there are valid points on both sides and that while there will always be issues on both sides, an open dialogue could help diffuse a lot of otherwise contentious copyright issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 08:19, 27 April 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The copyright infringement and DMCA article is of particular interest to me.  In the fitness community there are always conversations about rightful uses of images.  I have an associate is a photographer that contracted the one use of an image for a magazine. As what has happened with many other photographers, this image is now being used on the person’s website and used for promotional materials. Looking into the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, what is interesting is that person or website in question must not “... have no actual or effective knowledge that the material in question is infringing.”  I researched quite a few large company websites and actually read through their terms and conditions to find their copyright policies. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this day and age of selfies, many people take photos and post them online without thinking about their use. I know of one athlete who has had three Facebook profiles created in her image and many of her photos posted on highly suggestive website. Although her images were not sexually suggestive, them being placed on said websites has created havoc on her professional career as she finishes her PhD. Involuntary posting of pictures has the person’s name with it. If your name is Jennifer, it is not as much as a problem as someone with the name Chipo. I wondered how this act would apply to someone’s images being used on a controversial website against their wishes and I came across this great article on how Reddit approaches similar copyright material: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/09/08/how-copyright-became-the-best-defense-against-revenge-porn/. If there is question over copyright and since there is not a direct method to litigate this issue, it easy to see how Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act would protect the ‘free speech’ of the users of the internet community; additionally, images can be copied and reproduced. DMCA’s last point about embedded videos clearly demonstrates how this can be a difficult for victims as sites can potentially continue without recourse. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 14:08, 28 April 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
---------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After today’s class reading I can only say that no matter  how  deep you  go  in copyright online subject,  there are always going to be so many  unexplored  aspects left! I had not heard about the Walter Scott shooting video and  after  reading the  article, I realized  that an ordinary, everyday situation of making a video with a cell phone, could grow into a real copyright legal case. However I think the popularity of the case in question  is  coming  not from the  complexity of the IP legal issue but  from the shocking content of the video.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although the legal aspects of the copyright  online are an important economical issue, the regulations put in place in order to solve the problems (regulations like SOPA) give the impression they  use the copyright just as an “excuse” and try to regulate “something  more”.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The NASCAR video case was  really  interesting  because it could be regarded as  a good  example how a copyright case  should be examined from all perspectives and measures  should be  taken  regarding the concrete  situation without prejudices. It should  not  be taken for granted  that  the copyright owners  are  always the “good guys”.&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding the  Bit torrent  websites , I  know  some  of them  are  applying the  “safe –harbor” provisions, stipulated  in the DMCA  by applying &amp;quot;notice-and-takedown&amp;quot; procedures. They remove  content once they are  signalized  by  the copyright owner but not otherwise. Beyond their business model  is  the idea that  big  Hollywood companies  would  not  spend time  and  efforts  chasing  torrent websites all over the net. Claiming they  do  not  know that  User123 is not the  copyright owner of the “Star Wars”, for  example they  would remove the movie from the  torrent website if  they are duly notified. I consider this is  too obvious violation but on the other  hand there is no exception in the  DMCA saying the “safe-harbor” provisions  can not  apply  to torrent websites. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The courts have, in the past, been fairly reluctant about taking sides about defining a “journalist” or what constitutes a “news outlet”—there have been instances where a journalist has been defined strictly as an individual who is paid by a news outlet for a significant portion of their yearly income; but then, the problem arises with the existence of fairly reliable or credible and totally freelance news writers who do not qualify as “journalists” under the salary definition attempts to operate under the protective laws that are granted to these more traditional journalists – granted, fair use is not exclusive to journalists, if it were a journalist who recorded the Nascar crash, Nascar would not have dared to take the video down (at least we should hope). &lt;br /&gt;
Google’s refusal to do so was a sound one, and hopefully,  the types of corporate control mentality as expressed in the Nascar “owns everything produced by the ticket holder to its events” is a mentality that will get a future track record of uselessness. In this day and age, we are indeed all witnesses – and sometimes journalists. It is the content and not the source that matters and I was glad to read learn about Google’s actions on the matter. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for controlling what publicity it has online, the best option for Nascar is not to “own everything ticket holders produce” but to either accept that everyone, at a moment’s notice can become the holder of fair use content, OR Nascar will have to just have all event goers hand over their digital and recording devices at the door. An unpopular track, surely and one they won’t be strange enough to take. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 14:55, 28 April 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
---- &lt;br /&gt;
Re: Fair use in Inbedded video. I think the measure of whether or not a cell phone video is fair use is if it was intended for commercial use or not. It&#039;s that simple. The video of Walter Scott was taken spontaneously without any profit motive, any one can prove that in court. The same with the NASCAR video, or for that matter the recent video of Freddy Gray in Baltimore. No one goes out with a cell phone in hand to document horrific events to document and sell to news outlets. Only news professionals do and they have a profit or news reporting motive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The case of the man who took the Walter Scott murder looks crass and opportunistic to try to get any money out of this unfortunate situation, specially the lawyers and the P.R firm they hired. They&#039;re not gonna get a dime from those videos and stills. Also, there comes a point when a video or a still photo become public domain. Once an image that resonates or illustrates a problem perfectly goes viral on the internet, no one can stop its replication or dissemination. What is the definition of public domain? Does it apply to viral videos, whether they are of kittens or gun violence? [[User:Hromero|Hromero]] ([[User talk:Hromero|talk]]) 15:42, 28 April 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really like what Electronic Frontier Foundation is doing. As we had read in previous articles, the big corps and powerful figures know that they would win in copyright lawsuits simply because they have deep pockets and the time to keep going at it. EFF clearly shows us that it is possible to defend the little guy against the bigger corporations with the lawyers and the financial power to back up those bullets. With the enforcement of copyright laws in the digital world (Ref 3), it also makes it consist of huge gray areas that are left for exploitation. EFF does it’s job to maintain individuals’ liberties. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
	As stated in eff.org (Ref 4), it tells us of what it views of today’s issues. They are, as I personally also believe, is that the manipulation of copyright laws by big corps and take “away from the right to think and speak freely”. This becomes a huge infringement, not upon copyright and intellectual property, but the fundamental Constitutional right of Freedom of Speech. Where do we draw the line? It is hard to have an equilibrium when only one side has an army. EFF balances this equation to allow the laws on copyright to be closer to equilibrium. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
	I have therefore picked one example. I looked at Former Navy Chaplain and Colorado Assembly candidate Gordon Klingenschmitt’s attempt to shut down a YouTube account. (Ref 2) They knew the rules of Youtube, that if there were 3 takedown notices, then YouTube would shut down that channel. It was strategic, and it undermines Freedom of Speech. Equilibrium was only reached when EFF had assisted the case with a threat to take Klingenschmitt to court. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
	Despite all the classes and lectures, I still feel that there will be a constant struggle between Freedom of Speech, and the censorship of the internet, and the way big corporations would exploit intellectual property laws to their advantage. This still takes time, but I surely hope we get to some sort of maturity in law making on copyright and Freedom of Speech issues in the digital world. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
References:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ref 1 - https://www.eff.org/about&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ref 2 - https://www.eff.org/takedowns/attempt-silence-political-speech-right-wing-watch&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ref 3 - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ref 4 - https://www.eff.org/about/history&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 15:43, 28 April 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
---- &lt;br /&gt;
Re: Fair use in Inbedded video. I think the measure of whether or not a cell phone video is fair use is if it was intended for commercial use or not. It&#039;s that simple. The video of Walter Scott was taken spontaneously without any profit motive, any one can prove that in court. The same with the NASCAR video, or for that matter the recent video of Freddy Gray in Baltimore. No one goes out with a cell phone in hand to document horrific events to document and sell to news outlets. Only news professionals do and they have a profit or news reporting motive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The case of the man who took the Walter Scott murder looks crass and opportunistic to try to get any money out of this unfortunate situation, specially the lawyers and the P.R firm they hired. They&#039;re not gonna get a dime from those videos and stills. Also, there comes a point when a video or a still photo become public domain. Once an image that resonates or illustrates a problem perfectly goes viral on the internet, no one can stop its replication or dissemination. What is the definition of public domain? Does it apply to viral videos, whether they are of kittens or gun violence? Hromero (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2015 (EDT) [[User:Hromero|Hromero]] ([[User talk:Hromero|talk]]) 15:46, 28 April 2015 (EDT) &lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Google Nascar article shared a phenomena that we have already explored in which eyewitness photos of an incident may go viral but they still do not infringe on copyrights, even of major news networks which hold the sole right to film that event.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is further explained in our reading about Walter Scott shooting video (Which I had never seen – oh my dear). According to the Copyright Act of 1976, “fair use” of copyrighted material includes “criticism, comment, and new reporting.” These videos cannot be protected by copyright because they still are, and will be for years to come, relevant to criticism, comment, and news reporting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though I am personally uncomfortable with the fact that it is not a violation of my privacy to film people on the street, I understand now how important it is to protect the right to film and distribute what happens in public. It must be a difficult right to protect, as well, given the rapidly evolving technologies (means of capturing and methods for sharing). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Baltimore riots are going on very close to my home in Maryland. Last night Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake made a statement explaining that initially the police force was made aware of plans for violent riots and their locations by monitoring social media. She also explained that the random eyewitness images that were collected and streaming would be used in assistant for the capturing and punishment of those involved with violent demonstrations and other crimes this week. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The readings for today’s class also mentions an eyewitness video of Freddie Gray as part of formal investigation. Boston recently saw viral videos and images assist in the conviction of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev for the bombing. While all of these situations mentioned are very controversial, is our right as citizens of the United States to see these videos, so that we can see for ourselves if justice is being done. We are very lucky to have this right, and should work to protect it, as other countries censor or control this sort of information from the public and therefore repress them from knowing the truth about events.&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 17:12, 28 April 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
____&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Batjarks</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Peer_Production&amp;diff=4247</id>
		<title>Peer Production</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Peer_Production&amp;diff=4247"/>
		<updated>2015-04-21T18:18:50Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Batjarks: /* Class Discussion */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{ClassCalendar}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;April 21&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although the point may seem obvious now, one of the Internet’s most powerful attributes is how it can facilitate the social production of information or computing. From the earliest experiments with dividing memory-intensive tasks amongst different computers, to modern efforts to crowdsource solutions to challenging or urgent problems, peer production is a major benefit from our networked world. And it raises some interesting questions of both Internet control and production theory: How much hierarchy and control is needed to produce? How good is the material that peer production creates? Are there types of things that should not be produced by the crowd? What are the risks to producers and society inherent to peer production?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Joining us this week is Berkman Fellow [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/sklein SJ Klein].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;onlyinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Assignments ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Assignments#Assignment_4:_Rough_Draft|Assignment 4]] is now due on April 28th, but they will be accepted if turned in today. You can submit your assignment [[Assignment_4_Submissions|here]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Readings ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
; Development from the edges&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/democ1.htm Eric Von Hippel, &#039;&#039;Democratizing Innovation&#039;&#039;] (Chapter 1, focus on pages 1-3 and 13-15, skim rest)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
; Development as a crowd&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/events/luncheon/2013/12/hergueux Jerome Hergeaux, Cooperation in a Peer Production Economy: Experimental Evidence from Wikipedia] (video, watch from beginning to 47:50)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://video.mit.edu/watch/news-information-and-the-wealth-of-networks-9187/ Yochai Benkler, News, Information and the Wealth of Networks] (video, watch from 8:32 to 26:07)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:* if you’re not familiar, you may want to spend a little time looking at Wikipedia’s entry on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seti@home Seti@home].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://web.media.mit.edu/~cebrian/p78-tang.pdf John Tang et al, Reflecting on the DARPA Red Balloon Challenge (&#039;&#039;Communications of the ACM&#039;&#039;)]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
; Crowd intelligence&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.randomhouse.com/features/wisdomofcrowds/excerpt.html James Surowiecki, &#039;&#039;The Wisdom of Crowds&#039;&#039;] (read excerpt)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2006/11/30/cass-sunsteins-infotopia/ Ethan Zuckerman, Review of Cass Sunstein’s “Infotopia”]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Optional Readings ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/10/can-the-internet-bring-the-beginning-of-the-end-of-selfishness/246552/ Can the Internet Bring the Beginning of the End of Selfishness?]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia Wikipedia, Reliability of Wikipedia]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uJWwLVkKTU Jonathan Zittrain, Minds for Sale] (video, watch all)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://rcmap.hatnote.com/#en Hatnote, Real Time Wikipedia Changes Map]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://time.com/3040483/congress-wikipedia/ Congress Gets Banned From Editing Wikipedia]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/onlyinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Videos Watched in Class ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Links ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Class Discussion ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div style=&amp;quot;background-color:#CCCCCC;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;~~~~&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;) 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)&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I usually prefer to attend class via the live streaming session because our conversations are brilliant and I learn a lot more, and can contribute much better in that interactive situation. The class has been brilliant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;That said, I&#039;ve just had a work emergency come up which means I may not make the live portion.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I wanted to post a memory about SETI@Home... I remember joining in 1999 and had the app running on my computer, 24/7, for YEARS! I always thought it was the coolest collaborative effort utilizing desktops across the globe. I didn&#039;t care whether it found anything or not, I was always mesmerized by the data scrolling across the screen. Yes, it didn&#039;t take much to bedazzle me back then... :)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I started traveling more, and switched from a desktop to a laptop somewhere around 2002-2003 and that ended my SETI installation. I never got around to installing it again.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Speaking about innovation and technology, I think one of the biggest things to have hit the globe is 3D printing. While still a bit expensive, it still allows people to get into markets and innovate products and inventions almost immediately upon perception rather than struggling with finding someone to build their prototype, let alone finance it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Eric Von Hippel wrote about an example of how users want to modify their own products, which was spot on. I remember watching an episode of Shark Tank where an inventor had built an electrical connector and had even used 3D modeling to produce a prototype if I recall correctly. I thought that was just about the coolest thing ever. How far technology has come that anyone, anywhere, can create products and services from nothing but their imagination and problem solving.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another inventor created an auxilary handle for a snow shovel, again, using 3D technology to prototype it. This one I have a link for: http://blog.nextfab.com/join-the-shovelution-from-a-rapid-prototype-to-shark&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We have to love the era we are in right now.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:ErikaLRich|ErikaLRich]] ([[User talk:ErikaLRich|talk]]) 12:20, 21 April 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hey all, I&#039;m screening the NYT at work this week and came across two articles that I thought would be relevant to share here: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fighting homelessness with smartphones (a case for why technology has become a basic need):&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/15/upshot/fighting-homelessness-one-smartphone-at-a-time.html?abt=0002&amp;amp;abg=1&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Europe formally challenges Google&#039;s dominance in web searches:&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/16/business/international/european-union-google-antitrust-case.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Enjoy!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Kelly.wilson|Kelly.wilson]] ([[User talk:Kelly.wilson|talk]])&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-----------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Thumbs up for Zittrain Video&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I usually post quite late, just before class, in case I think of something profound. Today I am posting early, firstly because experience has taught me profundity is unlikely in the hours remaining, and secondly to leave enough time that you might follow my thumbs-up for the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uJWwLVkKTU/ Jonathan Zittrain Minds for Sale Video] in the Optional Readings section of today’s assignment page. It is a little over 90 minutes, but I wish it were longer. It illuminates many of the questions I wrote in the margins of my notes on the other readings.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was particularly interested in the discussion about the unusual world we are creating for ourselves as we begin to employ diverse human resources to perform tiny increments of work in return for pennies, points in a game, or nothing at all. Zittrain touches on the many imaginative ways that peer production, including the gamification of peer production, is employed.  He asks whether our children will spend their leisure time making a few more dollars on their phones, rather than being a part of real/live activities. It is a fascinating discussion, very well presented.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I highly recommend venturing into this optional reading activity even if you don’t usually go there. If this subject area is at all interesting to you, Zittrain’s video is worthwhile.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 20:14, 20 April 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In honor of peer production I would like to mention that I was inspired by Gary Brown’s post.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gary, thank you so much for highlighting the “Minds for Sale” video. I agree that it does fill in the blanks and weave together themes from other reading. Zittrain offers a variety of examples of peer production in which communities work together under limited policies and control to benefit the public good. One of my favorite examples was the X Prize. I read about the X Prize in an advanced economics course at Pepperdine while working towards my MBA. Just like in Hergeaux’s Wikipedia experiment, or “Public Goods Game” individuals participating in the X Prize may forego their own financial gains in the event that their social image may be boosted. We can see also, just like in Creative Commons, individuals participating in the X Prize give up “right, title, and interest” to their work. Yet the potential benefit to both an individual company in charge of that specific X Prize, and public at large, can be monumental. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 14:18, 21 April 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While reading Eric Von Hippel’s Democratizing Innovation, particularly the passage about windsurfing, I was reminded of the first in-depth article I read about Twitter.  I started my own account in January of 2009, but I rarely used it until that summer when I read an in-depth article about it in Time magazine.  The article described how Twitter users – not the software team – developed the concept of the hashtag, as well as trending topics.  Since that time, these innovations have more or less come to define Twitter as we know it.  I specifically remember a quote likening Twitter’s use innovation to a group of people buying a toaster and transforming it into a microwave.  This article was directly responsible for my increased usage of Twitter.  At a time when Facebook was making sweeping changes to its platform, often to the dismay of its users, the idea of Twitter’s user-based innovation felt refreshing, democratic, and empowering.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I was feeling is similar to what Yochai Benkler described about Wikipedia: that it has given us &amp;quot;a way of looking at the world around us and seeing the possibility of effective human cooperation, on really complex, large projects, without relying on either market or government processes” (of course, Twitter itself relies on the market, but its users do not necessarily).  I was also struck by James Surowiecki’s arguments for the wisdom of crowds.  I often fall into a trap of thinking that large groups succumb to the lowest common denominator or develop a mob mentality.  However, the way Twitter users make use of hashtags should constantly be reminding me of the opposite.  Consistently over the past several years, users have redefined media narratives that have traditionally excluded certain voices.  For example, the #yesallwomen and #blacklivesmatter hashtags have given voices to women and African Americans and have launched conversations around gender and race in society in productive ways.  It seems like I constantly hear about how the Internet makes us secluded, narcissistic, and vapid, so it was encouraging to read about the ways large numbers of users contribute to the public good through peer production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 12:05, 21 April 2015 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Batjarks</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Internet_Governance_and_Governments&amp;diff=4201</id>
		<title>Internet Governance and Governments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Internet_Governance_and_Governments&amp;diff=4201"/>
		<updated>2015-04-14T16:59:02Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Batjarks: /* Class Discussion */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{ClassCalendar}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;April 14&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today we revisit a topic that began in the first class day and has run throughout: who should control the Internet, and how. Three different powers have come to fill that role at the largest levels: governments, corporations, and multistakeholder organizations. Each will invariably have some role to play in how the Internet is run at various levels, but what is the right balance of power? What calibration of powers is most beneficial to the general public? Is one type of power more dangerous than another? Are there examples we can draw from other areas of complex governance to help us develop a plan for governance of the Internet? And what would be the harm if there were no controlling parties at all?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Leading the conversation today will be our own [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/rbudish Ryan Budish].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;onlyinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Readings ==&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2549270 The Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance in &#039;Multistakeholder as Governance Groups: Observations from Case Studies&#039; ] (case study on p. 214-237)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Multistakeholder_Meeting_on_the_Future_of_Internet_Governance NETmundial, Wikipedia]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.apnic.net/community/iana-transition/IANA-Factsheet.pdf Explained: The IANA Transition]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.internetgovernance.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/ICANNreformglobalizingIANAfinal.pdf Milton Mueller and Brenden Kuerbis, Roadmap for globalizing IANA: Four principles and a proposal for reform]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyfpPJo2gnA Jonathan Zittrain and L. Gordon Crovitz Debate the Future of Internet Governance]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Optional Readings ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf NETmundial Output Document and Principles]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/onlyinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Videos Watched in Class ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Links ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Class Discussion ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div style=&amp;quot;background-color:#CCCCCC;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;~~~~&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;) 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)&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hey class, I just read this op-ed by David Brooks on his stance on cop-cams. Though he&#039;s ultimately for cop cams he makes an eloquent case for privacy and the harms that could come from arming police with cameras. I thought it was a nice compliment to our own discussions around online privacy. Take a look --&amp;gt; http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/opinion/david-brooks-the-lost-language-of-privacy.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Kelly.wilson|Kelly.wilson]] ([[User talk:Kelly.wilson|talk]]) 09:49, 14 April 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-------------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conversation about who controls the Internet - mainly governments or corporations - in the United States is extremely challenging in its own right, but when the discussion extends globally, we have a real mess on our hands. Different countries have such a vast range of the concept of censorship, and therefor both policy and legislation differ dramatically on the global scale. The various mentions of China versus California state law in the Zittrain and Crovitz debate caught my attention because of my own experience with the country and the state of California. I first studied China during economics and business courses in my undergrad while living in California. At the time I became a huge proponent of privatization and of course corporate control (better, faster, cheaper! competition!). I decided to go to China when I graduated expecting to hate it after studying it, but I really enjoyed myself. Despite the phenomenal government, economic, and humanitarian issues in China… the country was in a much better position that I expected. And having since visited, I have made friends with a few girls who grew up in China. Despite the very obvious censorship that we are aware of and I saw myself - from television to newspapers to Internet - the people I met have a surprisingly accurate view of their government and the world. The Internet and digital communication are the main sources of up to date and uncolored information in countries whose government policies favor censorship. One of the points that really resonated with me in this video we watched was that American values are being spread through the Internet to countries that do not have them. The fact that ICANN can have a global reach and still follow California state law supports that. Now that ICANN has moved into international control, the debate against this organization pushing US imperialism will subside. I believe that we are moving in the right direction, with walls of censorship being taken down even in Russia, Iran, and India, specifically on the Internet. Ultimately, however, the two main problems going forward as I see them are that ICANN platforms presented by individual countries (outside of the United States) will reflect their government policy, which does not always reflect the best interest of their people and that whatever agreements are made within ICANN (such as Internet Bill of Rights) will be difficult to enforce, especially in sophisticated and wealthy authoritarian governments.&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 12:57, 14 April 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
------------&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Batjarks</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Internet_Governance_and_Governments&amp;diff=4200</id>
		<title>Internet Governance and Governments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Internet_Governance_and_Governments&amp;diff=4200"/>
		<updated>2015-04-14T16:58:13Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Batjarks: /* Class Discussion */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{ClassCalendar}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;April 14&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today we revisit a topic that began in the first class day and has run throughout: who should control the Internet, and how. Three different powers have come to fill that role at the largest levels: governments, corporations, and multistakeholder organizations. Each will invariably have some role to play in how the Internet is run at various levels, but what is the right balance of power? What calibration of powers is most beneficial to the general public? Is one type of power more dangerous than another? Are there examples we can draw from other areas of complex governance to help us develop a plan for governance of the Internet? And what would be the harm if there were no controlling parties at all?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Leading the conversation today will be our own [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/rbudish Ryan Budish].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;onlyinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Readings ==&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2549270 The Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance in &#039;Multistakeholder as Governance Groups: Observations from Case Studies&#039; ] (case study on p. 214-237)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Multistakeholder_Meeting_on_the_Future_of_Internet_Governance NETmundial, Wikipedia]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.apnic.net/community/iana-transition/IANA-Factsheet.pdf Explained: The IANA Transition]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.internetgovernance.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/ICANNreformglobalizingIANAfinal.pdf Milton Mueller and Brenden Kuerbis, Roadmap for globalizing IANA: Four principles and a proposal for reform]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyfpPJo2gnA Jonathan Zittrain and L. Gordon Crovitz Debate the Future of Internet Governance]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Optional Readings ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf NETmundial Output Document and Principles]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/onlyinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Videos Watched in Class ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Links ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Class Discussion ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div style=&amp;quot;background-color:#CCCCCC;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;~~~~&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;) 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)&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hey class, I just read this op-ed by David Brooks on his stance on cop-cams. Though he&#039;s ultimately for cop cams he makes an eloquent case for privacy and the harms that could come from arming police with cameras. I thought it was a nice compliment to our own discussions around online privacy. Take a look --&amp;gt; http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/opinion/david-brooks-the-lost-language-of-privacy.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Kelly.wilson|Kelly.wilson]] ([[User talk:Kelly.wilson|talk]]) 09:49, 14 April 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-------------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conversation about who controls the Internet - mainly governments or corporations - in the United States is extremely challenging in its own right, but when the discussion extends globally, we have a real mess on our hands. Different countries have such a vast range of the concept of censorship, and therefor both policy and legislation differ dramatically on the global scale. The various mentions of China versus California State Law in the Zittrain and Crovitz debate caught my attention because of my own experience with the country and the state of California. I first studied China during economics and business courses in my undergrad while living in California. At the time I became a huge proponent of privatization and of course corporate control (better, faster, cheaper! competition!). I decided to go to China when I graduated expecting to hate it after studying it, but I really enjoyed myself. Despite the phenomenal government, economic, and humanitarian issues in China… the country was in a much better position that I expected. And having since visited, I have made friends with a few girls who grew up in China. Despite the very obvious censorship that we are aware of and I saw myself - from television to newspapers to Internet - the people I met have a surprisingly accurate view of their government and the world. The Internet and digital communication are the main sources of up to date and uncolored information in countries whose government policies favor censorship. One of the points that really resonated with me in this video we watched was that American values are being spread through the Internet to countries that do not have them. The fact that ICANN can have a global reach and still follow California state law supports that. Now that ICANN has moved into international control, the debate against this organization pushing US imperialism will subside. I believe that we are moving in the right direction, with walls of censorship being taken down even in Russia, Iran, and India, specifically on the Internet. Ultimately, however, the two main problems going forward as I see them are that ICANN platforms presented by individual countries (outside of the United States) will reflect their government policy, which does not always reflect the best interest of their people and that whatever agreements are made within ICANN (such as Internet Bill of Rights) will be difficult to enforce, especially in sophisticated and wealthy authoritarian governments.&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 12:57, 14 April 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
------------&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Batjarks</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Internet_Governance_and_Governments&amp;diff=4199</id>
		<title>Internet Governance and Governments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Internet_Governance_and_Governments&amp;diff=4199"/>
		<updated>2015-04-14T16:57:02Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Batjarks: /* Class Discussion */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{ClassCalendar}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;April 14&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today we revisit a topic that began in the first class day and has run throughout: who should control the Internet, and how. Three different powers have come to fill that role at the largest levels: governments, corporations, and multistakeholder organizations. Each will invariably have some role to play in how the Internet is run at various levels, but what is the right balance of power? What calibration of powers is most beneficial to the general public? Is one type of power more dangerous than another? Are there examples we can draw from other areas of complex governance to help us develop a plan for governance of the Internet? And what would be the harm if there were no controlling parties at all?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Leading the conversation today will be our own [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/rbudish Ryan Budish].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;onlyinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Readings ==&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2549270 The Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance in &#039;Multistakeholder as Governance Groups: Observations from Case Studies&#039; ] (case study on p. 214-237)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Multistakeholder_Meeting_on_the_Future_of_Internet_Governance NETmundial, Wikipedia]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.apnic.net/community/iana-transition/IANA-Factsheet.pdf Explained: The IANA Transition]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.internetgovernance.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/ICANNreformglobalizingIANAfinal.pdf Milton Mueller and Brenden Kuerbis, Roadmap for globalizing IANA: Four principles and a proposal for reform]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyfpPJo2gnA Jonathan Zittrain and L. Gordon Crovitz Debate the Future of Internet Governance]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Optional Readings ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf NETmundial Output Document and Principles]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/onlyinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Videos Watched in Class ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Links ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Class Discussion ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div style=&amp;quot;background-color:#CCCCCC;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;~~~~&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;) 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)&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hey class, I just read this op-ed by David Brooks on his stance on cop-cams. Though he&#039;s ultimately for cop cams he makes an eloquent case for privacy and the harms that could come from arming police with cameras. I thought it was a nice compliment to our own discussions around online privacy. Take a look --&amp;gt; http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/opinion/david-brooks-the-lost-language-of-privacy.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Kelly.wilson|Kelly.wilson]] ([[User talk:Kelly.wilson|talk]]) 09:49, 14 April 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-------------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conversation about who controls the Internet - mainly governments or corporations - in the United States is extremely challenging in its own right, but when the discussion extends globally, we have a real mess on our hands. Different countries have such a vast range of the concept of censorship, and therefor both policy and legislation differ dramatically on the global scale. The various mentions of China versus California State Law in the Zittrain and Crovitz debate caught my attention because of my own experience with the country and the state of California. I first studied China during economics and business courses in my undergrad while living in California. At the time I became a huge proponent of privatization and of course corporate control (better, faster, cheaper! competition!). I decided to go to China when I graduated expecting to hate it after studying it, but I really enjoyed myself. Despite the phenomenal government, economic, and humanitarian issues in China… the country was in a much better position that I expected. And having since visited, I have made friends with a few girls who grew up in China. Despite the very obvious censorship that we are aware of and I saw myself - from television to newspapers to Internet, the people I met have a surprisingly accurate view of their government and the world. The Internet and digital communication are the main sources of up to date and uncolored information in countries whose government policies favor censorship. One of the points that really resonated with me in this video we watched was that American values are being spread through the Internet to countries that do not have them. The fact that ICANN can have a global reach and still follow California state law supports that. Now that ICANN has moved into international control, the debate against this organization pushing US imperialism will subside. I believe that we are moving in the right direction, with walls of censorship being taken down even in Russia, Iran, and India, specifically on the Internet. Ultimately, however, the two main problems going forward as I see them are that ICANN platforms presented by individual countries (outside of the United States) will reflect their government policy, which does not always reflect the best interest of their people and that whatever agreements are made within ICANN (such as Internet Bill of Rights) will be difficult to enforce, especially in sophisticated and wealthy authoritarian governments.&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 12:57, 14 April 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
------------&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Batjarks</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Internet_Governance_and_Governments&amp;diff=4198</id>
		<title>Internet Governance and Governments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Internet_Governance_and_Governments&amp;diff=4198"/>
		<updated>2015-04-14T16:55:47Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Batjarks: /* Class Discussion */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{ClassCalendar}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;April 14&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today we revisit a topic that began in the first class day and has run throughout: who should control the Internet, and how. Three different powers have come to fill that role at the largest levels: governments, corporations, and multistakeholder organizations. Each will invariably have some role to play in how the Internet is run at various levels, but what is the right balance of power? What calibration of powers is most beneficial to the general public? Is one type of power more dangerous than another? Are there examples we can draw from other areas of complex governance to help us develop a plan for governance of the Internet? And what would be the harm if there were no controlling parties at all?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Leading the conversation today will be our own [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/rbudish Ryan Budish].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;onlyinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Readings ==&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2549270 The Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance in &#039;Multistakeholder as Governance Groups: Observations from Case Studies&#039; ] (case study on p. 214-237)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Multistakeholder_Meeting_on_the_Future_of_Internet_Governance NETmundial, Wikipedia]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.apnic.net/community/iana-transition/IANA-Factsheet.pdf Explained: The IANA Transition]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.internetgovernance.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/ICANNreformglobalizingIANAfinal.pdf Milton Mueller and Brenden Kuerbis, Roadmap for globalizing IANA: Four principles and a proposal for reform]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyfpPJo2gnA Jonathan Zittrain and L. Gordon Crovitz Debate the Future of Internet Governance]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Optional Readings ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf NETmundial Output Document and Principles]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/onlyinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Videos Watched in Class ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Links ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Class Discussion ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div style=&amp;quot;background-color:#CCCCCC;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;~~~~&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;) 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)&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hey class, I just read this op-ed by David Brooks on his stance on cop-cams. Though he&#039;s ultimately for cop cams he makes an eloquent case for privacy and the harms that could come from arming police with cameras. I thought it was a nice compliment to our own discussions around online privacy. Take a look --&amp;gt; http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/opinion/david-brooks-the-lost-language-of-privacy.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Kelly.wilson|Kelly.wilson]] ([[User talk:Kelly.wilson|talk]]) 09:49, 14 April 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-------------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conversation about who controls the Internet - mainly governments or corporations - in the United States is extremely challenging in its own right, but when the discussion extends globally, we have a real mess on our hands. Different countries have such a vast range of the concept of censorship, and therefor legislation differs dramatically on the global scale. The various mentions of China versus California State Law in the Zittrain and Crovitz debate caught my attention because of my own experience with the country and the state of California. I first studied China during economics and business courses in my undergrad while living in California. At the time I became a huge proponent of privatization and of course corporate control (better, faster, cheaper! competition!). I decided to go to China when I graduated expecting to hate it after studying it, but I really enjoyed myself. Despite the phenomenal government, economic, and humanitarian issues in China… the country was in a much better position that I expected. And having since visited, I have made friends with a few girls who grew up in China. Despite the very obvious censorship that we are aware of and I saw myself - from television to newspapers to Internet, the people I met have a surprisingly accurate view of their government and the world. The Internet and digital communication are the main sources of up to date and uncolored information in countries whose government policies favor censorship. One of the points that really resonated with me in this video we watched was that American values are being spread through the Internet to countries that do not have them. The fact that ICANN can have a global reach and still follow California state law supports that. Now that ICANN has moved into international control, the debate against this organization pushing US imperialism will subside. I believe that we are moving in the right direction, with walls of censorship being taken down even in Russia, Iran, and India, specifically on the Internet. Ultimately, however, the two main problems going forward as I see them are that ICANN platforms presented by individual countries (outside of the United States) will reflect their government policy, which does not always reflect the best interest of their people and that whatever agreements are made within ICANN (such as Internet Bill of Rights) will be difficult to enforce, especially in sophisticated and wealthy authoritarian governments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
12:55, 14 April 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
------------&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Batjarks</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Assignment_3_Submissions&amp;diff=4155</id>
		<title>Assignment 3 Submissions</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Assignment_3_Submissions&amp;diff=4155"/>
		<updated>2015-03-31T20:24:43Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Batjarks: /* Submissions */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{AssignmentCal}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This assignment is due on March 31st.  Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (assignments submitted 4 days late or later will have a maximum grade of 1 point). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Please name your file &amp;quot;wikiusername_Assignment3,&amp;quot; where &amp;quot;wikiusername&amp;quot; is replaced with your username, to avoid overwriting someone else&#039;s assignment or causing errors in the Wiki by including forbidden characters.&#039;&#039; So if your username is &amp;quot;jdoe&amp;quot; and your file is a Word document your file should be named &amp;quot;jdoe_Assignment3.doc.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Upload your file here: [[Special:Upload|Upload file]]&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Once you&#039;ve uploaded your file, please link to it following the format below:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Name or pseudonym:&lt;br /&gt;
*Description:&lt;br /&gt;
*Link to your outline: (the file you uploaded)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [[Special:ImageList|list of uploaded files]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Submission Instructions==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You can use the same bullet format if you wish:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Name or pseudonym: &lt;br /&gt;
*Description: &lt;br /&gt;
*Link to your outline: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;~~~~&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;) to the end of your contribution.  This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Submissions==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;User:&#039;&#039;&#039; Abby McHugh (Amchugh)&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Title:&#039;&#039;&#039;Thinspiration and the Regulation of Unhealthy Online Weight Loss Content&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Link:&#039;&#039;&#039; http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Amchugh_Assignment3.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;User:&#039;&#039;&#039; Erika L. Rich&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Title:&#039;&#039;&#039; Reputation Management and Ethical Considerations for Members of the Warrior Forum Message Board &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Link:&#039;&#039;&#039; http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:LSTU_E120_Erika_Rich_Assignment_3.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;User:&#039;&#039;&#039; Ryan Hurley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Title:&#039;&#039;&#039; BarstoolSports.com’s Civil War: An Evaluation of the “Success” of the Comment Section regulations&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Link&#039;&#039;&#039;http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment_3_Barstoolsports.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;User:&#039;&#039;&#039; Chanel Rion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Title:&#039;&#039;&#039; We the Judges: Sitejabber -- Navigating Challenges of User-Generated Review Sites &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Link:&#039;&#039;&#039; http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment3_Project_Outline.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;User:&#039;&#039;&#039; MattK&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Title:&#039;&#039;&#039; Does the Hammer Ring True? Assessing the Effectiveness of John Scalzi&#039;s Mallet of Loving Correction&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Link:&#039;&#039;&#039; http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:MattK_Assignment3.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:MattK|MattK]] ([[User talk:MattK|talk]]) 21:52, 30 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Name:&#039;&#039;&#039; Emily MacIntyre&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Title:&#039;&#039;&#039; Analyzing the Legal Challenges and Chilling Effects of the Nintendo Creator Program through a Representative Survey of Let’s Play Videos and Vlogs&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Link:&#039;&#039;&#039; http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Emily_MacIntyre_Assignment_3.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 22:56, 30 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;User:&#039;&#039;&#039; JosefinS&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Title:&#039;&#039;&#039; A case study on the children&#039;s website Kidzworld and how they deal with threats against being a safe environment for children. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Link:&#039;&#039;&#039; http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:JosefinS_Assignment3.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 07:18, 31 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Name or pseudonym&#039;&#039;&#039;: Group: Ginka Todorova, Mishal Kennedy and Natasha Jalbut&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039;: PROJECT OUTLINE &amp;quot;The impact of the 419Eater.com community on the fight against scam baiting&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Link to your outline:&#039;&#039;&#039; (the file you uploaded) http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Natasha_Mishal_Gia_Assignment3.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;User Group:&#039;&#039;&#039; Chelly.Byrne and HRomero&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Title:&#039;&#039;&#039; Balancing Privacy for Victims of Sexual Crimes With Opportunity for Support in Online Forum AfterSilence.org&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Link:&#039;&#039;&#039; http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:HRomero_ChellyByrne_Assignment3.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 09:43, 31 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;User:&#039;&#039;&#039; Becca Lewis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Title:&#039;&#039;&#039; /r/TwoXChromosomes: Promoting Feminism on Reddit While Upholding the Values of Privacy and Free Speech&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Link:&#039;&#039;&#039; http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Beccalew_Assignment3.docx&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;User:&#039;&#039;&#039; Alex Samaei&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Title:&#039;&#039;&#039; The Cyber Curtain Between Creators and Backers On Kickstarter&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Link:&#039;&#039;&#039;  http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:InternetFinalOutline.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;User:&#039;&#039;&#039; Gary Brown&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Title:&#039;&#039;&#039; Crowdsourcing Geospatial Data for Search and Rescue, Disasters, Emergency Operations, and Social Objectives: Tomnod.com&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &#039;&#039;&#039;Link:&#039;&#039;&#039; http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Gary_Brown_Assignment3.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----------&lt;br /&gt;
Caroline B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:The_Study_of_Privacy,_Accuracy_%26_Order_on_InsideNova_Website_and_Moving_%E2%80%98Little_Sites%E2%80%99_Up.docx &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Study of Privacy, Accuracy &amp;amp; Order on InsideNova Website and Moving ‘Little Sites’ Up&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Cbore001|Cbore001]] ([[User talk:Cbore001|talk]]) 14:47, 31 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
--------------------------------------------------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mhoching&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#itooamHarvard: A Case Study of Social Activism through Media Photos &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Mhoching_Assignment3.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 15:40, 31 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
User: batjarks&lt;br /&gt;
Title: Mobile Alliance for Maternal Action: privacy in the context of mobile technology and an internationally accessible reproductive health forum&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:BatjarksAssignment3REAL.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 16:24, 31 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Batjarks</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=File:BatjarksAssignment3REAL.pdf&amp;diff=4154</id>
		<title>File:BatjarksAssignment3REAL.pdf</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=File:BatjarksAssignment3REAL.pdf&amp;diff=4154"/>
		<updated>2015-03-31T20:23:50Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Batjarks: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Batjarks</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=File:BatjarksAssignment3.pdf&amp;diff=4153</id>
		<title>File:BatjarksAssignment3.pdf</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=File:BatjarksAssignment3.pdf&amp;diff=4153"/>
		<updated>2015-03-31T20:22:25Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Batjarks: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Batjarks</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Cybersecurity_and_Computer_Crimes&amp;diff=4142</id>
		<title>Cybersecurity and Computer Crimes</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Cybersecurity_and_Computer_Crimes&amp;diff=4142"/>
		<updated>2015-03-31T19:31:46Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Batjarks: /* Class Discussion */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{ClassCalendar}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;March 31&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Last week we looked at hacking as a form of social protest. This week, we take a closer look at the more sinister side of hacking, and the various responses to it. Hacking at its heart involves modifying or intruding upon another’s system. But not all intrusion is socially harmful, and writing laws against hacking have a troubling (and at times, tragic) history of being misused. How big a threat is hacking, really? How should systems respond to hacking? What, if anything, should be the role of government? In what ways can we govern those who don’t consider code to be a governing influence?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Assignment 3 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Assignments#Assignment_3:_Project_Outline|Assignment 3]] is due &#039;&#039;before class&#039;&#039; today. [[Assignment_3_Submissions|You can upload that here.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;onlyinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Readings ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
; Cybersecurity&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://krebsonsecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/HackedPC2012.png Brian Krebs, &amp;quot;The Scrap Value of a Hacked PC (infographic),&amp;quot; Oct 2012]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2015/01/13/the-big-data-breaches-of-2014/ Bill Hardekopf, &amp;quot;The Big Data Breaches of 2014, Forbes, January 13, 2015]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/26/us-sony-stoldendata-idUSTRE73P6WB20110426 Liana Baker and Jim Finkle, &amp;quot;Sony Playstation suffers massive data breach,&amp;quot; Reuters, April 26, 2011]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/12/hackers-promise-christmas-present-sony-pictures-wont-like/ Sean Gallagher, &amp;quot;Hackers Promise &#039;Christmas Present&#039; Sony Pictures Won&#039;t Like,&amp;quot; Ars Technica, December 15, 2015] (for more on this, see [http://www.engadget.com/2014/12/10/sony-pictures-hack-the-whole-story/ here] and [https://www.riskbasedsecurity.com/2014/12/a-breakdown-and-analysis-of-the-december-2014-sony-hack/ here])&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/12/us-government-fingers-north-korea-as-the-sony-hackers/ Peter Bright, &amp;quot;US Government Fingers North Korea as the Sony Hackers,&amp;quot; Ars Technica, December 17 2014]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
; Computer Crimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.cjr.org/cloud_control/scripps_hackers.php Sarah Laskow, Reporting, Or Illegal Hacking]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
; Case studies&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Payback Wikipedia, Operation Payback]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Chanology Wikipedia, Project Chanology]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.dmlp.org/blog/2013/impact-aarons-law-aaron-swartzs-case Andy Sellars, The Impact of &amp;quot;Aaron&#039;s Law&amp;quot; on Aaron Swartz&#039;s Case]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/04/appeals-court-reverses-hackertroll-weev-conviction-and-sentence/ David Kravets, Appeals Court Reverses Hacker/Troll &amp;quot;Weev&amp;quot; Conviction and Sentence]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/2013/1113/Hacking-tool-threatens-Healthcare.gov-site Jeff Ward-Bailey, Hacking Tool Threatens Healthcare.gov Site]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Optional Readings ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/576-the-cyber-war-threat-has-been-grossly-exaggerated Intelligence Squared Debate: &amp;quot;The Cyberwar Threat Has Been Grossly Exaggerated&amp;quot;] (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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v107/n2/795/LR107n2Matwyshyn.pdf Andrea Matwyshyn, Hacking Speech: Informational Speech and the First Amendment]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [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 (&#039;&#039;New York Times&#039;&#039;)]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-parties-use-influence-to-halt-operation-payback-101120/ TorrentFreak, Pirate Parties Use Influence to Halt Anonymous’ Operation Payback]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/interactive/events/2012/10/soghoian Christopher Soghoian, The Growing Trade in Software Security Exploits]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/onlyinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Videos Watched in Class ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Links ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Class Discussion ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div style=&amp;quot;background-color:#CCCCCC;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;~~~~&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;) 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)&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Operation Payback seems to be one of the more non-sensical, and perhaps simply juvenile examples listed in these hacks (hopefully I&#039;m not hacked for this-- hello out there Anonymous!).  The violation of free speech that occurs as a result of these cyberattacks seems to be in direct opposition to the message of open internet platforms.  When sites are pulled down (even if temporarily) free speech suffers as do those who may depend on the contents of the site. For example, if a constituent was looking to contact Senator Lieberman who was attacked, a shut down of his site could block this.  Furthermore, while I understand the qualms that Anonymous has with copyrights, I don&#039;t know how a musician could produce new music without any sort of revenue from sales.  This also causes a threat to free speech.  Gene Simmons has never made more sense than on this issue.  ([[User:Amchugh|Amchugh]] ([[User talk:Amchugh|talk]]) 15:02, 31 March 2015 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are several types of hacking, including for example reputation hijacking, hacking account or financial credentials and bot activity. This is something that affects private citizens as well as large companies and governments. In the article ”Sony Playstation suffers massive data breach”, that deals with a hacker attack against Sony in 2011, Braker and Finkle write ”In the rush to get out innovative new products, security can sometimes take a back seat.”. The interesting question here is if it will continue the same way, or if consumers will put more pressure on companies to care about security. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The article ”Hackers promise ”Christmas present” Sony Pictures won´t like” deals with other hacker attacks on Sony and the quote ”The sooner SPE accept our demands, the better, of course…The farther time goes by, the worse state SPE will be put into and we will have Sony go bankrupt in the end.” shows what power the hackers can have in the computer based society of today. Hacking can be used to blackmail people, companies and governments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Operation payback was a group of attacks on opponents of Internet privacy by the decentralized community ”Anonymous”. It all begun with the crisis on Wikileaks, when they were under pressure after publishing secret US. diplomatic cables. Anonymous was on the side of Wikileaks and there it begun. What made me really angry was when I read that Anonymous threatened to disrupt British government websites because the group opposed the possible act of handing over Julian Assange (who is often called the founder of Wikileaks) to Sweden. This is upsetting in at least three ways. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, it would have been an act that would´ve denied the British citizens information that they by law have the right to access.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Secondly, it is to indirect aggravate a lawsuit since the reason for why the Swedish court system wanted Assange to be extradited was that there had been a subpoena about rape directed towards Assange. To make it difficult for the court system to plead someone guilty or not guilty is a very serious thing to do.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thirdly, it is illegal and there are other ways of changing laws and systems. The laws are made by the government and the government is chosen by the citizens. To believe that you are above the laws is also to believe that you are above other citizens. Laws are there for a reason and if you don´t like it, you can either vote differently or try to change the opinion in ways that don´t hurt others.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anonymous acted this way because they believe that information should be free and open for everyone to see. It is therefore very weird and contradictory that they protest through doing exactly what they are protesting against, i.e. limiting and blocking information. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a conclusion to my thoughts, I want to say that I believe that Internet terror is the future military threat against most countries. It might be on the Internet that our future wars will be held. Consequently, we can´t dismiss crimes on the Internet as ”something that is just on the Internet and not in the real world”, but instead look at the Internet as a natural part of our society. &lt;br /&gt;
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 07:51, 25 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first thing that comes to mind about cyber security and computer crimes are the financial errors in stock markets. As a stock trader, I get rather fearful when potential security issues happen. I’m not sure if they count as security issues, or… issues with their algorithms or partially hacking. Those would result in crashes. The second thing that comes to mind are those “reputation hijacking” (ref 1) on social networks. A family member of mine had this happened to her. She was using the application Line, and somehow pressed a bad link which asked for her logins. That wasn’t a smart move, but for a novice internet user, they would likely follow those instructions assuming it is legitimate. The end result was a long process of letting her friends know it was a hack, and to secure potential credit card information, etc. Therefore I really liked reference 1 which shows all the potential hacks others could do to a PC. I would suspect I had personally experienced a few of them. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reference 2, 3, and 4 becomes very exciting to see the power of hackers obtaining information of normal citizens. Are we really safe by providing our information to corporations online? 77 million user accounts hacked, that is quite something. Not only is privacy an issue here, it also questions if authorities have what it takes to prevent these issues from happening. Sony not announcing it till Tuesday was, in my opinion, also a breach of it’s customers’ trust. It does raise a fair point of how the hackers will use the information that was illegally obtained. Will there be an outlet for the hackers to use it? Are these hacks individual, or are they political? It appears that hackers are yielding too much power. I still hold by my beliefs that “winners” take all. The winners get everything. Once a hacker cracks a code; that’s it, they can decrypt everything and obtain everything. Of course, as the US claims, it was hackers from Korea, most likely due to the release of The Interview. Personally I think it isn’t as bad as Team America that was released 10 years ago. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I mentioned for last weeks readings, Anonymous has a lot of power. Not exactly sure if it is a good thing or a bad thing. But we should also consider if what they’re doing is just or not. Is it just to give “justice” to the ones they think deem it? Are they above the law? I’m not sure. As Operation Payback and Project Chanology has showed us. Were they really being just for doing what they did? Were they off base? I think the founder of Scientology website does have a point…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heldal-Lund commented, &amp;quot;People should be able to have easy access to both sides and make up their own opinions. Freedom of speech means we need to allow all to speak - including those we strongly disagree with. I am of the opinion that the Church of Scientology is a criminal organisation and a cult which is designed by its delusional founder to abuse people. I am still committed to fight for their right to speak their opinion.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So it is therefore unconstitutional for what Anonymous did. This also led me to think about Edward Snowden. Was he really doing good for society, or was he doing it for fame, and his own ideals of justice? What constitutes as constitutional? This argument was shared by the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office too, as they had said the below after Operation Payback.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“The United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office said that when its site was attacked, those responsible were depriving its citizens of access to information they have a democratic right to access. Other critics claimed the attacks restricted Gene Simmons&#039; right to free speech.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anonymous is not pro-democracy. They want to dictate what is right or wrong in their own hands. If they did things that reflected what people really believed in, then I believe they have done things “just”-ly. But to deprive people of their basic right to speech and beliefs; I’m not so sure. Was it a troll taken too far? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There have been increasing amounts of threats that we face, such as “Destroy Obama Care”. Also forbes gives a whole list of the top 20 data breaches. They are increasing in numbers, and it seems like corporations don’t know what to do. Just as technology has enhanced their reach, they would also be required to invest in technological defense against these potential hackers. It also feels that law really lags behind technology a lot. Technology advances so quickly that law requires time to pass. The amendments to the CFAA, which occurred many times. I believe there needs to be a better way to enforce new laws at the same pace as technological advancement, otherwise law would always be a step behind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
References:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://krebsonsecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/HackedPC2012.png&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/26/us-sony-stoldendata-idUSTRE73P6WB20110426&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/12/hackers-promise-christmas-present-sony-pictures-wont-like/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/12/us-government-fingers-north-korea-as-the-sony-hackers/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Chanology&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Payback&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2013/1113/Hacking-tool-threatens-Healthcare.gov-site&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2015/01/13/the-big-data-breaches-of-2014/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/docs/ccmanual.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 17:32, 28 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;A New Species of Crime – A New Species of Enforcement?&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
The 1986 Congress’ well meaning but clumsy efforts to address the world of computer crimes with the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)—and its eight subsequent amendments in a span of 10 years  (pg 2. http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/docs/ccmanual.pdf) is a dismal picture of what happens when Ignorance marries Power. Or perhaps it was simply inevitable that the speed of Internet technology and hacking techniques would outdash the pace of the lugubrious State – a race that does not look too bright for lawmakers going through the usual snail’s pace of lawmaking. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Laskow’s article about the Scripps reporters prosecuted for hacking crimes because they engaged in industry practice to download publicly available information serves a chilling anecdote for the innumerable “crimes” committed everyday by the Internet-accessing world. Once again, in this course, we encounter a crisis of definition; this one is perhaps, the most sinister crisis in terms of criminal prosecution (compared to debates about the definitions of civic engagement or privacy, and their entailing prosecutions, for instance). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The speed by which hackers are able to change their tactics, work around legal frameworks of the CFAA, or simply develop more invisible but potent means of stealing identities, systems, and intellectual property, in a federal system attempting to accommodate 50 individual state laws – or even worse, international hackers operating on a system of web that ignores geographic and political boundaries poses direly complex legal problems. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As somewhat of a self-described Libertarian, I am dismayed to feel that there might have to be a specialized and internationally centralized court, and body of governance – one that can move faster than the legislative movements of nations to address these highly technical and ever changing crimes. The most effective and true hackers are invisible through technical prowess, while the most innocent of them such as the Scripps reporters, are the blatant criminals under laws like CFAA. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The illegal hacking issue is an ever-complicated result of a global problem that is outrunning its bumbling, localized resolutions. There are no single answers to the problem, and I am but a layman before the world of hacking issues and virtual crimes, but it seems that the starting point to resolving this disastrous diaspora is to conglomerate the governing and enforcement bodies into a more centralized system, a more synchronized strategy of attack. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Universal criminals who know no boundaries are destined to win when we are so bound to our disparate governing territories.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The moderate libertarian in me is protesting at my own words. But such is the result of my lay-thoughts after this week’s readings…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chanel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 22:18, 30 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems like we hear about big data breaches all the time these days, but it was still startling to read Bill Hardekopf’s compiled list of “The Big Data Breaches of 2014” in Forbes.  Seeing several instances combined was a bit of a wake up call (especially since I wasn’t even aware of many of these), and it prompted several questions for me.  For example, are data breaches a new fact of life and an inevitability of using credit cards and putting our information online?  Should we be focusing on beefing up security in order to minimize the likelihood of breaches like this, or should we focus on taking swift action once a breach inevitably occurs?  Are there any patterns we can find in the victims of the hacks (the companies, not the credit card users), or in the hacking approaches themselves?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading about the various Sony hacks in Ars Technica also made me think about the wide range of motives that might be at work from the hacker’s perspective, and the various degrees of damage different acts of hacking can lead to.  The Sony hacks from this year are a perfect example: presumably they were meant as an act of political intimidation, in order to scare Sony into shelving “The Interview” before its release, but the hacked data held a range of implications the hackers might not have anticipated.  For example, racist emails between producer Scott Rudin and Sony executive Amy Pascal became a huge embarrassment for Sony and led to discussions about race in Hollywood.  Similarly, breached data showing how much each actor made for the movie “American Hustle” showed that there is still a problematic gender pay gap in Hollywood as well, and led to discussions of income inequality between the sexes.  It was interesting and strange to me that an act meant to bully a studio into self-inflicted censorship ended up spurring productive conversations about race and gender.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was similarly interesting to see the fallout and reactions following the release of several private celebrity photos, showing them naked.  The breach was an undisputed criminal act, and furthermore it was a gendered act of bullying and power dynamics, but it also led to widespread conversations that were not in the public light before (for example, questioning the previous shaming of the celebrities for having naked photos on their phones).   Overall, it is helpful to examine cybersecurity and computer crimes right after our session about “Hacktivism,” because clearly sometimes (for example, with Anonymous), online crimes are used as a form of Hacktivism, but in many cases, online crime can have unintended consequences with bizarre and fascinating effects. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 06:58, 31 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
This topic definitely has made a recent impact on me and some fellow colleagues. Just recently, I received the following email from Anthem:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
     &#039;&#039;“To Members:&lt;br /&gt;
            &lt;br /&gt;
     On January 29, 2015, Anthem, Inc. (Anthem) discovered that cyber attackers executed a sophisticated attack to gain unauthorized access to Anthem&#039;s IT system and obtained   &lt;br /&gt;
     personal information relating to consumers who were or are currently covered by Anthem or other independent Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans that work with Anthem. Anthem &lt;br /&gt;
     believes that this suspicious activity may have occurred over the course of several weeks beginning in early December, 2014... &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
     &#039;&#039;&#039;Information Accessed&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
     The information accessed may have included names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, health care ID numbers, home addresses, email addresses, employment information, &lt;br /&gt;
     including income data. We have no reason to believe credit card or banking information was compromised, nor is there evidence at this time that medical information such as &lt;br /&gt;
     claims, test results, or diagnostic codes, was targeted or obtained.”&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is safe to assume the hackers were not highly interested in our medical history; but rather our identifiable information. While I have added additional safeguards including credit monitoring, a former colleague was not as fortunate. With great misfortune, she discovered the hackers used her identification information to file her taxes. Here is an article about the Anthem breach and tax returns:http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/02/06/turbotax-stops-processing-state-tax-returns-fraud-reports/dvPJbZC9G4tpzJx9ORsZcJ/story.html &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sophistication and frequency of current data breaches, shows why a proactive response would be beneficial as compared to a reactive response. O’Farrell (2014) reported, “ The FBI admitted that the malware used in the attack on Sony was so sophisticated, it would have blown past 90% of security defenses. Which means all kinds of businesses must be worried about this new battle front where not only is their intellectual property the target of attacks, but highly sensitive and potentially embarrassing secrets and internal communications could be exposed to the world.” &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is obvious that hackers do not discriminate what websites they choose to target, which call to question how many breaches have truly occurred and are not reported. Here is a link to an awesome interactive graphic on breaches over 30,000 records: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/worlds-biggest-data-breaches-hacks/ &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover, I question the probability of a cyber attack that will delete information or render a system completely inoperable. While CodeSpaces was clearly a case of substandard security (http://www.networkcomputing.com/cloud-infrastructure/code-spaces-a-lesson-in-cloud-backup/a/d-id/1279116), the increase sophistication of hacking leaves the question, what are large corporations doing proactively to ensure our data is being kept safe. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reference:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
O&#039;Farrell, N. (2014) Why The Sony Hack Could Be A Game Changer For Us All. Huffington Post. Retrieved from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/creditsesamecom/why-the-sony-hack-could-be-a-game-changer_b_6335082.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 15:13, 31 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
I really appreciate that the readings today highlighted the danger of the broad and vague nature of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. “The Impact of ‘Aaron’s Law’ on Aaron Swartz Case” enlightened me about the challenges facing CFAA’s Obtaining Information Through Unauthorized Access to a Protected Computer section. Clearly, the law is so broad that it can be applied inappropriately and disproportionally as this reading states. Aaron Swartz’s case was only one example that we looked at this week. The articles “Reporting, or illegal hacking” and “Appeals court reverses hacker/troll ‘weev’ conviction and sentence” raise the same issue. Though of course the main issue in the latter of these two articles was venue in persecuting Internet crime, the CFAA issue cannot be ignored. I agree with Andy’s statement that the way the law exists today: “a persecutor can frame many benign activities online as a felony” and also that the proper role of a persecutor is to “be reactive to the will of Congress and not stretch laws as… a way of sending of message.” I could relate personally to the CFAA issue because I was once accused of overstepping authorization and illegally hacking a work computer. The fact that I was formally accused of computer crime by a prestigious Los Angeles law firm is a laughable joke for anybody who knows anything about my computer abilities !!! It was a compliment, really, for the people I worked with to think me capable of such a feat. I was threatened criminal persecution for this “hacking” when really, just as the examples we read today, I accessed documents that were readily available without any expertise or authorization needed. The files I accessed were downloaded and saved in the “Download” folder on the MAC desktop that I shared with coworkers nearly everyday, without any sort of password requirement. I had not attempted to spread the “sensitive” material that I had accessed on the computer in any way. I simply told my boss and another person who had limited access to the same computer that I had found the documents. (People in entertainment can be high strung). Of course, in my case, no criminal charges were pursued because it really was a laughable claim, but it definitely is unpleasant to get a threatening phone call and email from a strange lawyer. It is unacceptable that companies or individuals that fail to put up proper protection – such as TerraCom and AT&amp;amp;T - can tarnish the reputations of individuals like Wolf and Aurnheimer due to the fact that a very important law has weak syntax. Of course, I do not know all the facts of either case, but it is very clear to me that the CFAA is too often used inappropriately. We need a reform that protects against hacking, but with more clarity so as not to bloat our judiciary system. We can start with revisions of the terms “without authorization” and “exceeding authorized access.”&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 15:23, 31 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Batjarks</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Cybersecurity_and_Computer_Crimes&amp;diff=4141</id>
		<title>Cybersecurity and Computer Crimes</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Cybersecurity_and_Computer_Crimes&amp;diff=4141"/>
		<updated>2015-03-31T19:29:06Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Batjarks: /* Class Discussion */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{ClassCalendar}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;March 31&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Last week we looked at hacking as a form of social protest. This week, we take a closer look at the more sinister side of hacking, and the various responses to it. Hacking at its heart involves modifying or intruding upon another’s system. But not all intrusion is socially harmful, and writing laws against hacking have a troubling (and at times, tragic) history of being misused. How big a threat is hacking, really? How should systems respond to hacking? What, if anything, should be the role of government? In what ways can we govern those who don’t consider code to be a governing influence?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Assignment 3 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Assignments#Assignment_3:_Project_Outline|Assignment 3]] is due &#039;&#039;before class&#039;&#039; today. [[Assignment_3_Submissions|You can upload that here.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;onlyinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Readings ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
; Cybersecurity&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://krebsonsecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/HackedPC2012.png Brian Krebs, &amp;quot;The Scrap Value of a Hacked PC (infographic),&amp;quot; Oct 2012]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2015/01/13/the-big-data-breaches-of-2014/ Bill Hardekopf, &amp;quot;The Big Data Breaches of 2014, Forbes, January 13, 2015]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/26/us-sony-stoldendata-idUSTRE73P6WB20110426 Liana Baker and Jim Finkle, &amp;quot;Sony Playstation suffers massive data breach,&amp;quot; Reuters, April 26, 2011]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/12/hackers-promise-christmas-present-sony-pictures-wont-like/ Sean Gallagher, &amp;quot;Hackers Promise &#039;Christmas Present&#039; Sony Pictures Won&#039;t Like,&amp;quot; Ars Technica, December 15, 2015] (for more on this, see [http://www.engadget.com/2014/12/10/sony-pictures-hack-the-whole-story/ here] and [https://www.riskbasedsecurity.com/2014/12/a-breakdown-and-analysis-of-the-december-2014-sony-hack/ here])&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/12/us-government-fingers-north-korea-as-the-sony-hackers/ Peter Bright, &amp;quot;US Government Fingers North Korea as the Sony Hackers,&amp;quot; Ars Technica, December 17 2014]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
; Computer Crimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.cjr.org/cloud_control/scripps_hackers.php Sarah Laskow, Reporting, Or Illegal Hacking]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
; Case studies&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Payback Wikipedia, Operation Payback]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Chanology Wikipedia, Project Chanology]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.dmlp.org/blog/2013/impact-aarons-law-aaron-swartzs-case Andy Sellars, The Impact of &amp;quot;Aaron&#039;s Law&amp;quot; on Aaron Swartz&#039;s Case]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/04/appeals-court-reverses-hackertroll-weev-conviction-and-sentence/ David Kravets, Appeals Court Reverses Hacker/Troll &amp;quot;Weev&amp;quot; Conviction and Sentence]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/2013/1113/Hacking-tool-threatens-Healthcare.gov-site Jeff Ward-Bailey, Hacking Tool Threatens Healthcare.gov Site]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Optional Readings ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/576-the-cyber-war-threat-has-been-grossly-exaggerated Intelligence Squared Debate: &amp;quot;The Cyberwar Threat Has Been Grossly Exaggerated&amp;quot;] (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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v107/n2/795/LR107n2Matwyshyn.pdf Andrea Matwyshyn, Hacking Speech: Informational Speech and the First Amendment]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [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 (&#039;&#039;New York Times&#039;&#039;)]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-parties-use-influence-to-halt-operation-payback-101120/ TorrentFreak, Pirate Parties Use Influence to Halt Anonymous’ Operation Payback]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/interactive/events/2012/10/soghoian Christopher Soghoian, The Growing Trade in Software Security Exploits]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/onlyinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Videos Watched in Class ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Links ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Class Discussion ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div style=&amp;quot;background-color:#CCCCCC;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;~~~~&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;) 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)&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Operation Payback seems to be one of the more non-sensical, and perhaps simply juvenile examples listed in these hacks (hopefully I&#039;m not hacked for this-- hello out there Anonymous!).  The violation of free speech that occurs as a result of these cyberattacks seems to be in direct opposition to the message of open internet platforms.  When sites are pulled down (even if temporarily) free speech suffers as do those who may depend on the contents of the site. For example, if a constituent was looking to contact Senator Lieberman who was attacked, a shut down of his site could block this.  Furthermore, while I understand the qualms that Anonymous has with copyrights, I don&#039;t know how a musician could produce new music without any sort of revenue from sales.  This also causes a threat to free speech.  Gene Simmons has never made more sense than on this issue.  ([[User:Amchugh|Amchugh]] ([[User talk:Amchugh|talk]]) 15:02, 31 March 2015 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are several types of hacking, including for example reputation hijacking, hacking account or financial credentials and bot activity. This is something that affects private citizens as well as large companies and governments. In the article ”Sony Playstation suffers massive data breach”, that deals with a hacker attack against Sony in 2011, Braker and Finkle write ”In the rush to get out innovative new products, security can sometimes take a back seat.”. The interesting question here is if it will continue the same way, or if consumers will put more pressure on companies to care about security. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The article ”Hackers promise ”Christmas present” Sony Pictures won´t like” deals with other hacker attacks on Sony and the quote ”The sooner SPE accept our demands, the better, of course…The farther time goes by, the worse state SPE will be put into and we will have Sony go bankrupt in the end.” shows what power the hackers can have in the computer based society of today. Hacking can be used to blackmail people, companies and governments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Operation payback was a group of attacks on opponents of Internet privacy by the decentralized community ”Anonymous”. It all begun with the crisis on Wikileaks, when they were under pressure after publishing secret US. diplomatic cables. Anonymous was on the side of Wikileaks and there it begun. What made me really angry was when I read that Anonymous threatened to disrupt British government websites because the group opposed the possible act of handing over Julian Assange (who is often called the founder of Wikileaks) to Sweden. This is upsetting in at least three ways. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, it would have been an act that would´ve denied the British citizens information that they by law have the right to access.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Secondly, it is to indirect aggravate a lawsuit since the reason for why the Swedish court system wanted Assange to be extradited was that there had been a subpoena about rape directed towards Assange. To make it difficult for the court system to plead someone guilty or not guilty is a very serious thing to do.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thirdly, it is illegal and there are other ways of changing laws and systems. The laws are made by the government and the government is chosen by the citizens. To believe that you are above the laws is also to believe that you are above other citizens. Laws are there for a reason and if you don´t like it, you can either vote differently or try to change the opinion in ways that don´t hurt others.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anonymous acted this way because they believe that information should be free and open for everyone to see. It is therefore very weird and contradictory that they protest through doing exactly what they are protesting against, i.e. limiting and blocking information. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a conclusion to my thoughts, I want to say that I believe that Internet terror is the future military threat against most countries. It might be on the Internet that our future wars will be held. Consequently, we can´t dismiss crimes on the Internet as ”something that is just on the Internet and not in the real world”, but instead look at the Internet as a natural part of our society. &lt;br /&gt;
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 07:51, 25 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first thing that comes to mind about cyber security and computer crimes are the financial errors in stock markets. As a stock trader, I get rather fearful when potential security issues happen. I’m not sure if they count as security issues, or… issues with their algorithms or partially hacking. Those would result in crashes. The second thing that comes to mind are those “reputation hijacking” (ref 1) on social networks. A family member of mine had this happened to her. She was using the application Line, and somehow pressed a bad link which asked for her logins. That wasn’t a smart move, but for a novice internet user, they would likely follow those instructions assuming it is legitimate. The end result was a long process of letting her friends know it was a hack, and to secure potential credit card information, etc. Therefore I really liked reference 1 which shows all the potential hacks others could do to a PC. I would suspect I had personally experienced a few of them. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reference 2, 3, and 4 becomes very exciting to see the power of hackers obtaining information of normal citizens. Are we really safe by providing our information to corporations online? 77 million user accounts hacked, that is quite something. Not only is privacy an issue here, it also questions if authorities have what it takes to prevent these issues from happening. Sony not announcing it till Tuesday was, in my opinion, also a breach of it’s customers’ trust. It does raise a fair point of how the hackers will use the information that was illegally obtained. Will there be an outlet for the hackers to use it? Are these hacks individual, or are they political? It appears that hackers are yielding too much power. I still hold by my beliefs that “winners” take all. The winners get everything. Once a hacker cracks a code; that’s it, they can decrypt everything and obtain everything. Of course, as the US claims, it was hackers from Korea, most likely due to the release of The Interview. Personally I think it isn’t as bad as Team America that was released 10 years ago. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I mentioned for last weeks readings, Anonymous has a lot of power. Not exactly sure if it is a good thing or a bad thing. But we should also consider if what they’re doing is just or not. Is it just to give “justice” to the ones they think deem it? Are they above the law? I’m not sure. As Operation Payback and Project Chanology has showed us. Were they really being just for doing what they did? Were they off base? I think the founder of Scientology website does have a point…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heldal-Lund commented, &amp;quot;People should be able to have easy access to both sides and make up their own opinions. Freedom of speech means we need to allow all to speak - including those we strongly disagree with. I am of the opinion that the Church of Scientology is a criminal organisation and a cult which is designed by its delusional founder to abuse people. I am still committed to fight for their right to speak their opinion.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So it is therefore unconstitutional for what Anonymous did. This also led me to think about Edward Snowden. Was he really doing good for society, or was he doing it for fame, and his own ideals of justice? What constitutes as constitutional? This argument was shared by the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office too, as they had said the below after Operation Payback.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“The United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office said that when its site was attacked, those responsible were depriving its citizens of access to information they have a democratic right to access. Other critics claimed the attacks restricted Gene Simmons&#039; right to free speech.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anonymous is not pro-democracy. They want to dictate what is right or wrong in their own hands. If they did things that reflected what people really believed in, then I believe they have done things “just”-ly. But to deprive people of their basic right to speech and beliefs; I’m not so sure. Was it a troll taken too far? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There have been increasing amounts of threats that we face, such as “Destroy Obama Care”. Also forbes gives a whole list of the top 20 data breaches. They are increasing in numbers, and it seems like corporations don’t know what to do. Just as technology has enhanced their reach, they would also be required to invest in technological defense against these potential hackers. It also feels that law really lags behind technology a lot. Technology advances so quickly that law requires time to pass. The amendments to the CFAA, which occurred many times. I believe there needs to be a better way to enforce new laws at the same pace as technological advancement, otherwise law would always be a step behind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
References:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://krebsonsecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/HackedPC2012.png&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/26/us-sony-stoldendata-idUSTRE73P6WB20110426&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/12/hackers-promise-christmas-present-sony-pictures-wont-like/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/12/us-government-fingers-north-korea-as-the-sony-hackers/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Chanology&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Payback&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2013/1113/Hacking-tool-threatens-Healthcare.gov-site&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2015/01/13/the-big-data-breaches-of-2014/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/docs/ccmanual.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 17:32, 28 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;A New Species of Crime – A New Species of Enforcement?&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
The 1986 Congress’ well meaning but clumsy efforts to address the world of computer crimes with the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)—and its eight subsequent amendments in a span of 10 years  (pg 2. http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/docs/ccmanual.pdf) is a dismal picture of what happens when Ignorance marries Power. Or perhaps it was simply inevitable that the speed of Internet technology and hacking techniques would outdash the pace of the lugubrious State – a race that does not look too bright for lawmakers going through the usual snail’s pace of lawmaking. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Laskow’s article about the Scripps reporters prosecuted for hacking crimes because they engaged in industry practice to download publicly available information serves a chilling anecdote for the innumerable “crimes” committed everyday by the Internet-accessing world. Once again, in this course, we encounter a crisis of definition; this one is perhaps, the most sinister crisis in terms of criminal prosecution (compared to debates about the definitions of civic engagement or privacy, and their entailing prosecutions, for instance). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The speed by which hackers are able to change their tactics, work around legal frameworks of the CFAA, or simply develop more invisible but potent means of stealing identities, systems, and intellectual property, in a federal system attempting to accommodate 50 individual state laws – or even worse, international hackers operating on a system of web that ignores geographic and political boundaries poses direly complex legal problems. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As somewhat of a self-described Libertarian, I am dismayed to feel that there might have to be a specialized and internationally centralized court, and body of governance – one that can move faster than the legislative movements of nations to address these highly technical and ever changing crimes. The most effective and true hackers are invisible through technical prowess, while the most innocent of them such as the Scripps reporters, are the blatant criminals under laws like CFAA. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The illegal hacking issue is an ever-complicated result of a global problem that is outrunning its bumbling, localized resolutions. There are no single answers to the problem, and I am but a layman before the world of hacking issues and virtual crimes, but it seems that the starting point to resolving this disastrous diaspora is to conglomerate the governing and enforcement bodies into a more centralized system, a more synchronized strategy of attack. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Universal criminals who know no boundaries are destined to win when we are so bound to our disparate governing territories.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The moderate libertarian in me is protesting at my own words. But such is the result of my lay-thoughts after this week’s readings…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chanel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 22:18, 30 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems like we hear about big data breaches all the time these days, but it was still startling to read Bill Hardekopf’s compiled list of “The Big Data Breaches of 2014” in Forbes.  Seeing several instances combined was a bit of a wake up call (especially since I wasn’t even aware of many of these), and it prompted several questions for me.  For example, are data breaches a new fact of life and an inevitability of using credit cards and putting our information online?  Should we be focusing on beefing up security in order to minimize the likelihood of breaches like this, or should we focus on taking swift action once a breach inevitably occurs?  Are there any patterns we can find in the victims of the hacks (the companies, not the credit card users), or in the hacking approaches themselves?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading about the various Sony hacks in Ars Technica also made me think about the wide range of motives that might be at work from the hacker’s perspective, and the various degrees of damage different acts of hacking can lead to.  The Sony hacks from this year are a perfect example: presumably they were meant as an act of political intimidation, in order to scare Sony into shelving “The Interview” before its release, but the hacked data held a range of implications the hackers might not have anticipated.  For example, racist emails between producer Scott Rudin and Sony executive Amy Pascal became a huge embarrassment for Sony and led to discussions about race in Hollywood.  Similarly, breached data showing how much each actor made for the movie “American Hustle” showed that there is still a problematic gender pay gap in Hollywood as well, and led to discussions of income inequality between the sexes.  It was interesting and strange to me that an act meant to bully a studio into self-inflicted censorship ended up spurring productive conversations about race and gender.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was similarly interesting to see the fallout and reactions following the release of several private celebrity photos, showing them naked.  The breach was an undisputed criminal act, and furthermore it was a gendered act of bullying and power dynamics, but it also led to widespread conversations that were not in the public light before (for example, questioning the previous shaming of the celebrities for having naked photos on their phones).   Overall, it is helpful to examine cybersecurity and computer crimes right after our session about “Hacktivism,” because clearly sometimes (for example, with Anonymous), online crimes are used as a form of Hacktivism, but in many cases, online crime can have unintended consequences with bizarre and fascinating effects. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 06:58, 31 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
This topic definitely has made a recent impact on me and some fellow colleagues. Just recently, I received the following email from Anthem:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
     &#039;&#039;“To Members:&lt;br /&gt;
            &lt;br /&gt;
     On January 29, 2015, Anthem, Inc. (Anthem) discovered that cyber attackers executed a sophisticated attack to gain unauthorized access to Anthem&#039;s IT system and obtained   &lt;br /&gt;
     personal information relating to consumers who were or are currently covered by Anthem or other independent Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans that work with Anthem. Anthem &lt;br /&gt;
     believes that this suspicious activity may have occurred over the course of several weeks beginning in early December, 2014... &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
     &#039;&#039;&#039;Information Accessed&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
     The information accessed may have included names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, health care ID numbers, home addresses, email addresses, employment information, &lt;br /&gt;
     including income data. We have no reason to believe credit card or banking information was compromised, nor is there evidence at this time that medical information such as &lt;br /&gt;
     claims, test results, or diagnostic codes, was targeted or obtained.”&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is safe to assume the hackers were not highly interested in our medical history; but rather our identifiable information. While I have added additional safeguards including credit monitoring, a former colleague was not as fortunate. With great misfortune, she discovered the hackers used her identification information to file her taxes. Here is an article about the Anthem breach and tax returns:http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/02/06/turbotax-stops-processing-state-tax-returns-fraud-reports/dvPJbZC9G4tpzJx9ORsZcJ/story.html &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sophistication and frequency of current data breaches, shows why a proactive response would be beneficial as compared to a reactive response. O’Farrell (2014) reported, “ The FBI admitted that the malware used in the attack on Sony was so sophisticated, it would have blown past 90% of security defenses. Which means all kinds of businesses must be worried about this new battle front where not only is their intellectual property the target of attacks, but highly sensitive and potentially embarrassing secrets and internal communications could be exposed to the world.” &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is obvious that hackers do not discriminate what websites they choose to target, which call to question how many breaches have truly occurred and are not reported. Here is a link to an awesome interactive graphic on breaches over 30,000 records: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/worlds-biggest-data-breaches-hacks/ &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover, I question the probability of a cyber attack that will delete information or render a system completely inoperable. While CodeSpaces was clearly a case of substandard security (http://www.networkcomputing.com/cloud-infrastructure/code-spaces-a-lesson-in-cloud-backup/a/d-id/1279116), the increase sophistication of hacking leaves the question, what are large corporations doing proactively to ensure our data is being kept safe. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reference:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
O&#039;Farrell, N. (2014) Why The Sony Hack Could Be A Game Changer For Us All. Huffington Post. Retrieved from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/creditsesamecom/why-the-sony-hack-could-be-a-game-changer_b_6335082.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 15:13, 31 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
I really appreciate that the readings today highlighted the danger of the broad and vague nature of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. “The Impact of ‘Aaron’s Law’ on Aaron Swartz Case” enlightened me about the challenges facing CFAA’s Obtaining Information Through Unauthorized Access to a Protected Computer section. Clearly, the law is so broad that it can be applied inappropriately and disproportionally as this reading states. Aaron Swartz’s case was only one example that we looked at this week. The articles “Reporting, or illegal hacking” and “Appeals court reverses hacker/troll ‘weev’ conviction and sentence” raise the same issue. Though of course the main issue in the latter of these two articles was venue in persecuting Internet crime, the CFAA issue cannot be ignored. I agree with Andy’s statement that the way the law exists today: “a persecutor can frame many benign activities online as a felony” and also that the proper role of a persecutor is to “be reactive to the will of Congress and not stretch laws as… a way of sending of message.” I could relate personally to the CFAA issue because I was once accused of overstepping authorization and illegally hacking a work computer. The fact that I was formally accused of computer crime by a prestigious Los Angeles law firm is a laughable joke for anybody who knows anything about my computer abilities !!! It was a compliment, really, for the people I worked with to think me capable of such a feat. I was threatened criminal persecution for this “hacking” when really, just as the examples we read today, I accessed documents that were readily available without any expertise or authorization needed. The files I accessed were downloaded and saved in the “Download” folder on the MAC desktop that I shared with coworkers nearly everyday, without any sort of password requirement. I had not attempted to spread the “sensitive” material that I had accessed on the computer in any way. I simply told my boss and another person who had limited access to the same computer that I had found the documents. (People in entertainment can be high strung). Of course, in my case, no criminal charges were pursued because it really was a laughable claim, but it definitely is unpleasant to get a threatening phone call and email from a strange lawyer. Its unacceptable that companies or individuals that fail to put up proper protection – such as TerraCom and AT&amp;amp;T - can tarnish the reputations of individuals like Wolf and Aurnheimer due to the fact that a very important law has weak syntax. Of course, I do not know all the facts of either case, but it is very clear to me that the CFAA is too often used inappropriately. We need a reform that protects against hacking, but with more clarity so as not to bloat our judiciary system. We can start with revisions of the terms “without authorization” and “exceeding authorized access.”&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 15:23, 31 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Batjarks</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Cybersecurity_and_Computer_Crimes&amp;diff=4140</id>
		<title>Cybersecurity and Computer Crimes</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Cybersecurity_and_Computer_Crimes&amp;diff=4140"/>
		<updated>2015-03-31T19:28:16Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Batjarks: /* Class Discussion */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{ClassCalendar}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;March 31&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Last week we looked at hacking as a form of social protest. This week, we take a closer look at the more sinister side of hacking, and the various responses to it. Hacking at its heart involves modifying or intruding upon another’s system. But not all intrusion is socially harmful, and writing laws against hacking have a troubling (and at times, tragic) history of being misused. How big a threat is hacking, really? How should systems respond to hacking? What, if anything, should be the role of government? In what ways can we govern those who don’t consider code to be a governing influence?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Assignment 3 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Assignments#Assignment_3:_Project_Outline|Assignment 3]] is due &#039;&#039;before class&#039;&#039; today. [[Assignment_3_Submissions|You can upload that here.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;onlyinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Readings ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
; Cybersecurity&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://krebsonsecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/HackedPC2012.png Brian Krebs, &amp;quot;The Scrap Value of a Hacked PC (infographic),&amp;quot; Oct 2012]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2015/01/13/the-big-data-breaches-of-2014/ Bill Hardekopf, &amp;quot;The Big Data Breaches of 2014, Forbes, January 13, 2015]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/26/us-sony-stoldendata-idUSTRE73P6WB20110426 Liana Baker and Jim Finkle, &amp;quot;Sony Playstation suffers massive data breach,&amp;quot; Reuters, April 26, 2011]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/12/hackers-promise-christmas-present-sony-pictures-wont-like/ Sean Gallagher, &amp;quot;Hackers Promise &#039;Christmas Present&#039; Sony Pictures Won&#039;t Like,&amp;quot; Ars Technica, December 15, 2015] (for more on this, see [http://www.engadget.com/2014/12/10/sony-pictures-hack-the-whole-story/ here] and [https://www.riskbasedsecurity.com/2014/12/a-breakdown-and-analysis-of-the-december-2014-sony-hack/ here])&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/12/us-government-fingers-north-korea-as-the-sony-hackers/ Peter Bright, &amp;quot;US Government Fingers North Korea as the Sony Hackers,&amp;quot; Ars Technica, December 17 2014]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
; Computer Crimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.cjr.org/cloud_control/scripps_hackers.php Sarah Laskow, Reporting, Or Illegal Hacking]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
; Case studies&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Payback Wikipedia, Operation Payback]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Chanology Wikipedia, Project Chanology]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.dmlp.org/blog/2013/impact-aarons-law-aaron-swartzs-case Andy Sellars, The Impact of &amp;quot;Aaron&#039;s Law&amp;quot; on Aaron Swartz&#039;s Case]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/04/appeals-court-reverses-hackertroll-weev-conviction-and-sentence/ David Kravets, Appeals Court Reverses Hacker/Troll &amp;quot;Weev&amp;quot; Conviction and Sentence]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/2013/1113/Hacking-tool-threatens-Healthcare.gov-site Jeff Ward-Bailey, Hacking Tool Threatens Healthcare.gov Site]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Optional Readings ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/576-the-cyber-war-threat-has-been-grossly-exaggerated Intelligence Squared Debate: &amp;quot;The Cyberwar Threat Has Been Grossly Exaggerated&amp;quot;] (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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v107/n2/795/LR107n2Matwyshyn.pdf Andrea Matwyshyn, Hacking Speech: Informational Speech and the First Amendment]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [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 (&#039;&#039;New York Times&#039;&#039;)]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-parties-use-influence-to-halt-operation-payback-101120/ TorrentFreak, Pirate Parties Use Influence to Halt Anonymous’ Operation Payback]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/interactive/events/2012/10/soghoian Christopher Soghoian, The Growing Trade in Software Security Exploits]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/onlyinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Videos Watched in Class ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Links ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Class Discussion ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div style=&amp;quot;background-color:#CCCCCC;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;~~~~&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;) 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)&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Operation Payback seems to be one of the more non-sensical, and perhaps simply juvenile examples listed in these hacks (hopefully I&#039;m not hacked for this-- hello out there Anonymous!).  The violation of free speech that occurs as a result of these cyberattacks seems to be in direct opposition to the message of open internet platforms.  When sites are pulled down (even if temporarily) free speech suffers as do those who may depend on the contents of the site. For example, if a constituent was looking to contact Senator Lieberman who was attacked, a shut down of his site could block this.  Furthermore, while I understand the qualms that Anonymous has with copyrights, I don&#039;t know how a musician could produce new music without any sort of revenue from sales.  This also causes a threat to free speech.  Gene Simmons has never made more sense than on this issue.  ([[User:Amchugh|Amchugh]] ([[User talk:Amchugh|talk]]) 15:02, 31 March 2015 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are several types of hacking, including for example reputation hijacking, hacking account or financial credentials and bot activity. This is something that affects private citizens as well as large companies and governments. In the article ”Sony Playstation suffers massive data breach”, that deals with a hacker attack against Sony in 2011, Braker and Finkle write ”In the rush to get out innovative new products, security can sometimes take a back seat.”. The interesting question here is if it will continue the same way, or if consumers will put more pressure on companies to care about security. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The article ”Hackers promise ”Christmas present” Sony Pictures won´t like” deals with other hacker attacks on Sony and the quote ”The sooner SPE accept our demands, the better, of course…The farther time goes by, the worse state SPE will be put into and we will have Sony go bankrupt in the end.” shows what power the hackers can have in the computer based society of today. Hacking can be used to blackmail people, companies and governments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Operation payback was a group of attacks on opponents of Internet privacy by the decentralized community ”Anonymous”. It all begun with the crisis on Wikileaks, when they were under pressure after publishing secret US. diplomatic cables. Anonymous was on the side of Wikileaks and there it begun. What made me really angry was when I read that Anonymous threatened to disrupt British government websites because the group opposed the possible act of handing over Julian Assange (who is often called the founder of Wikileaks) to Sweden. This is upsetting in at least three ways. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, it would have been an act that would´ve denied the British citizens information that they by law have the right to access.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Secondly, it is to indirect aggravate a lawsuit since the reason for why the Swedish court system wanted Assange to be extradited was that there had been a subpoena about rape directed towards Assange. To make it difficult for the court system to plead someone guilty or not guilty is a very serious thing to do.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thirdly, it is illegal and there are other ways of changing laws and systems. The laws are made by the government and the government is chosen by the citizens. To believe that you are above the laws is also to believe that you are above other citizens. Laws are there for a reason and if you don´t like it, you can either vote differently or try to change the opinion in ways that don´t hurt others.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anonymous acted this way because they believe that information should be free and open for everyone to see. It is therefore very weird and contradictory that they protest through doing exactly what they are protesting against, i.e. limiting and blocking information. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a conclusion to my thoughts, I want to say that I believe that Internet terror is the future military threat against most countries. It might be on the Internet that our future wars will be held. Consequently, we can´t dismiss crimes on the Internet as ”something that is just on the Internet and not in the real world”, but instead look at the Internet as a natural part of our society. &lt;br /&gt;
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 07:51, 25 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first thing that comes to mind about cyber security and computer crimes are the financial errors in stock markets. As a stock trader, I get rather fearful when potential security issues happen. I’m not sure if they count as security issues, or… issues with their algorithms or partially hacking. Those would result in crashes. The second thing that comes to mind are those “reputation hijacking” (ref 1) on social networks. A family member of mine had this happened to her. She was using the application Line, and somehow pressed a bad link which asked for her logins. That wasn’t a smart move, but for a novice internet user, they would likely follow those instructions assuming it is legitimate. The end result was a long process of letting her friends know it was a hack, and to secure potential credit card information, etc. Therefore I really liked reference 1 which shows all the potential hacks others could do to a PC. I would suspect I had personally experienced a few of them. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reference 2, 3, and 4 becomes very exciting to see the power of hackers obtaining information of normal citizens. Are we really safe by providing our information to corporations online? 77 million user accounts hacked, that is quite something. Not only is privacy an issue here, it also questions if authorities have what it takes to prevent these issues from happening. Sony not announcing it till Tuesday was, in my opinion, also a breach of it’s customers’ trust. It does raise a fair point of how the hackers will use the information that was illegally obtained. Will there be an outlet for the hackers to use it? Are these hacks individual, or are they political? It appears that hackers are yielding too much power. I still hold by my beliefs that “winners” take all. The winners get everything. Once a hacker cracks a code; that’s it, they can decrypt everything and obtain everything. Of course, as the US claims, it was hackers from Korea, most likely due to the release of The Interview. Personally I think it isn’t as bad as Team America that was released 10 years ago. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I mentioned for last weeks readings, Anonymous has a lot of power. Not exactly sure if it is a good thing or a bad thing. But we should also consider if what they’re doing is just or not. Is it just to give “justice” to the ones they think deem it? Are they above the law? I’m not sure. As Operation Payback and Project Chanology has showed us. Were they really being just for doing what they did? Were they off base? I think the founder of Scientology website does have a point…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heldal-Lund commented, &amp;quot;People should be able to have easy access to both sides and make up their own opinions. Freedom of speech means we need to allow all to speak - including those we strongly disagree with. I am of the opinion that the Church of Scientology is a criminal organisation and a cult which is designed by its delusional founder to abuse people. I am still committed to fight for their right to speak their opinion.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So it is therefore unconstitutional for what Anonymous did. This also led me to think about Edward Snowden. Was he really doing good for society, or was he doing it for fame, and his own ideals of justice? What constitutes as constitutional? This argument was shared by the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office too, as they had said the below after Operation Payback.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“The United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office said that when its site was attacked, those responsible were depriving its citizens of access to information they have a democratic right to access. Other critics claimed the attacks restricted Gene Simmons&#039; right to free speech.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anonymous is not pro-democracy. They want to dictate what is right or wrong in their own hands. If they did things that reflected what people really believed in, then I believe they have done things “just”-ly. But to deprive people of their basic right to speech and beliefs; I’m not so sure. Was it a troll taken too far? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There have been increasing amounts of threats that we face, such as “Destroy Obama Care”. Also forbes gives a whole list of the top 20 data breaches. They are increasing in numbers, and it seems like corporations don’t know what to do. Just as technology has enhanced their reach, they would also be required to invest in technological defense against these potential hackers. It also feels that law really lags behind technology a lot. Technology advances so quickly that law requires time to pass. The amendments to the CFAA, which occurred many times. I believe there needs to be a better way to enforce new laws at the same pace as technological advancement, otherwise law would always be a step behind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
References:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://krebsonsecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/HackedPC2012.png&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/26/us-sony-stoldendata-idUSTRE73P6WB20110426&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/12/hackers-promise-christmas-present-sony-pictures-wont-like/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/12/us-government-fingers-north-korea-as-the-sony-hackers/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Chanology&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Payback&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2013/1113/Hacking-tool-threatens-Healthcare.gov-site&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2015/01/13/the-big-data-breaches-of-2014/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/docs/ccmanual.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 17:32, 28 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;A New Species of Crime – A New Species of Enforcement?&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
The 1986 Congress’ well meaning but clumsy efforts to address the world of computer crimes with the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)—and its eight subsequent amendments in a span of 10 years  (pg 2. http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/docs/ccmanual.pdf) is a dismal picture of what happens when Ignorance marries Power. Or perhaps it was simply inevitable that the speed of Internet technology and hacking techniques would outdash the pace of the lugubrious State – a race that does not look too bright for lawmakers going through the usual snail’s pace of lawmaking. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Laskow’s article about the Scripps reporters prosecuted for hacking crimes because they engaged in industry practice to download publicly available information serves a chilling anecdote for the innumerable “crimes” committed everyday by the Internet-accessing world. Once again, in this course, we encounter a crisis of definition; this one is perhaps, the most sinister crisis in terms of criminal prosecution (compared to debates about the definitions of civic engagement or privacy, and their entailing prosecutions, for instance). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The speed by which hackers are able to change their tactics, work around legal frameworks of the CFAA, or simply develop more invisible but potent means of stealing identities, systems, and intellectual property, in a federal system attempting to accommodate 50 individual state laws – or even worse, international hackers operating on a system of web that ignores geographic and political boundaries poses direly complex legal problems. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As somewhat of a self-described Libertarian, I am dismayed to feel that there might have to be a specialized and internationally centralized court, and body of governance – one that can move faster than the legislative movements of nations to address these highly technical and ever changing crimes. The most effective and true hackers are invisible through technical prowess, while the most innocent of them such as the Scripps reporters, are the blatant criminals under laws like CFAA. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The illegal hacking issue is an ever-complicated result of a global problem that is outrunning its bumbling, localized resolutions. There are no single answers to the problem, and I am but a layman before the world of hacking issues and virtual crimes, but it seems that the starting point to resolving this disastrous diaspora is to conglomerate the governing and enforcement bodies into a more centralized system, a more synchronized strategy of attack. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Universal criminals who know no boundaries are destined to win when we are so bound to our disparate governing territories.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The moderate libertarian in me is protesting at my own words. But such is the result of my lay-thoughts after this week’s readings…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chanel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 22:18, 30 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems like we hear about big data breaches all the time these days, but it was still startling to read Bill Hardekopf’s compiled list of “The Big Data Breaches of 2014” in Forbes.  Seeing several instances combined was a bit of a wake up call (especially since I wasn’t even aware of many of these), and it prompted several questions for me.  For example, are data breaches a new fact of life and an inevitability of using credit cards and putting our information online?  Should we be focusing on beefing up security in order to minimize the likelihood of breaches like this, or should we focus on taking swift action once a breach inevitably occurs?  Are there any patterns we can find in the victims of the hacks (the companies, not the credit card users), or in the hacking approaches themselves?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading about the various Sony hacks in Ars Technica also made me think about the wide range of motives that might be at work from the hacker’s perspective, and the various degrees of damage different acts of hacking can lead to.  The Sony hacks from this year are a perfect example: presumably they were meant as an act of political intimidation, in order to scare Sony into shelving “The Interview” before its release, but the hacked data held a range of implications the hackers might not have anticipated.  For example, racist emails between producer Scott Rudin and Sony executive Amy Pascal became a huge embarrassment for Sony and led to discussions about race in Hollywood.  Similarly, breached data showing how much each actor made for the movie “American Hustle” showed that there is still a problematic gender pay gap in Hollywood as well, and led to discussions of income inequality between the sexes.  It was interesting and strange to me that an act meant to bully a studio into self-inflicted censorship ended up spurring productive conversations about race and gender.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was similarly interesting to see the fallout and reactions following the release of several private celebrity photos, showing them naked.  The breach was an undisputed criminal act, and furthermore it was a gendered act of bullying and power dynamics, but it also led to widespread conversations that were not in the public light before (for example, questioning the previous shaming of the celebrities for having naked photos on their phones).   Overall, it is helpful to examine cybersecurity and computer crimes right after our session about “Hacktivism,” because clearly sometimes (for example, with Anonymous), online crimes are used as a form of Hacktivism, but in many cases, online crime can have unintended consequences with bizarre and fascinating effects. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 06:58, 31 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
This topic definitely has made a recent impact on me and some fellow colleagues. Just recently, I received the following email from Anthem:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
     &#039;&#039;“To Members:&lt;br /&gt;
            &lt;br /&gt;
     On January 29, 2015, Anthem, Inc. (Anthem) discovered that cyber attackers executed a sophisticated attack to gain unauthorized access to Anthem&#039;s IT system and obtained   &lt;br /&gt;
     personal information relating to consumers who were or are currently covered by Anthem or other independent Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans that work with Anthem. Anthem &lt;br /&gt;
     believes that this suspicious activity may have occurred over the course of several weeks beginning in early December, 2014... &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
     &#039;&#039;&#039;Information Accessed&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
     The information accessed may have included names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, health care ID numbers, home addresses, email addresses, employment information, &lt;br /&gt;
     including income data. We have no reason to believe credit card or banking information was compromised, nor is there evidence at this time that medical information such as &lt;br /&gt;
     claims, test results, or diagnostic codes, was targeted or obtained.”&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is safe to assume the hackers were not highly interested in our medical history; but rather our identifiable information. While I have added additional safeguards including credit monitoring, a former colleague was not as fortunate. With great misfortune, she discovered the hackers used her identification information to file her taxes. Here is an article about the Anthem breach and tax returns:http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/02/06/turbotax-stops-processing-state-tax-returns-fraud-reports/dvPJbZC9G4tpzJx9ORsZcJ/story.html &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sophistication and frequency of current data breaches, shows why a proactive response would be beneficial as compared to a reactive response. O’Farrell (2014) reported, “ The FBI admitted that the malware used in the attack on Sony was so sophisticated, it would have blown past 90% of security defenses. Which means all kinds of businesses must be worried about this new battle front where not only is their intellectual property the target of attacks, but highly sensitive and potentially embarrassing secrets and internal communications could be exposed to the world.” &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is obvious that hackers do not discriminate what websites they choose to target, which call to question how many breaches have truly occurred and are not reported. Here is a link to an awesome interactive graphic on breaches over 30,000 records: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/worlds-biggest-data-breaches-hacks/ &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover, I question the probability of a cyber attack that will delete information or render a system completely inoperable. While CodeSpaces was clearly a case of substandard security (http://www.networkcomputing.com/cloud-infrastructure/code-spaces-a-lesson-in-cloud-backup/a/d-id/1279116), the increase sophistication of hacking leaves the question, what are large corporations doing proactively to ensure our data is being kept safe. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reference:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
O&#039;Farrell, N. (2014) Why The Sony Hack Could Be A Game Changer For Us All. Huffington Post. Retrieved from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/creditsesamecom/why-the-sony-hack-could-be-a-game-changer_b_6335082.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 15:13, 31 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
I really appreciate that the readings today highlighted the danger of the broad and vague nature of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. “The Impact of ‘Aaron’s Law’ on Aaron Swartz Case” enlightened me about the challenges facing CFAA’s Obtaining Information Through Unauthorized Access to a Protected Computer section. Clearly, the law is so broad that can be applied inappropriately and disproportionally as this reading states. Aaron Swartz’s case was only one example that we looked at this week. The articles “Reporting, or illegal hacking” and “Appeals court reverses hacker/troll ‘weev’ conviction and sentence” raise the same issue. Though of course the main issue in the latter of these two articles was venue in persecuting Internet crime, the CFAA issue cannot be ignored. I agree with Andy’s statement that the way the law exists today: “a persecutor can frame many benign activities online as a felony” and also that the proper role of a persecutor is to “be reactive to the will of Congress and not stretch laws as… a way of sending of message.” I could relate personally to the CFAA issue because I was once accused of overstepping authorization and illegally hacking a work computer. The fact that I was formally accused of computer crime by a prestigious Los Angeles law firm is a laughable joke for anybody who knows anything about my computer abilities !!! It was a compliment, really, for the people I worked with to think me capable of such a feat. I was threatened criminal persecution for this “hacking” when really, just as the examples we read today, I accessed documents that were readily available without any expertise or authorization needed. The files I accessed were downloaded and saved in the “Download” folder on the MAC desktop that I shared with coworkers nearly everyday, without any sort of password requirement. I had not attempted to spread the “sensitive” material that I had accessed on the computer in any way. I simply told my boss and another person who had limited access to the same computer that I had found the documents. (People in entertainment can be high strung). Of course, in my case, no criminal charges were pursued because it really was a laughable claim, but it definitely is unpleasant to get a threatening phone call and email from a strange lawyer. Its unacceptable that companies or individuals that fail to put up proper protection – such as TerraCom and AT&amp;amp;T - can tarnish the reputations of individuals like Wolf and Aurnheimer due to the fact that a very important law has weak syntax. Of course, I do not know all the facts of either case, but it is very clear to me that the CFAA is too often used inappropriately. We need a reform that protects against hacking, but with more clarity so as not to bloat our judiciary system. We can start with revisions of the terms “without authorization” and “exceeding authorized access.”&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 15:23, 31 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Batjarks</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Cybersecurity_and_Computer_Crimes&amp;diff=4139</id>
		<title>Cybersecurity and Computer Crimes</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Cybersecurity_and_Computer_Crimes&amp;diff=4139"/>
		<updated>2015-03-31T19:27:12Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Batjarks: /* Class Discussion */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{ClassCalendar}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;March 31&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Last week we looked at hacking as a form of social protest. This week, we take a closer look at the more sinister side of hacking, and the various responses to it. Hacking at its heart involves modifying or intruding upon another’s system. But not all intrusion is socially harmful, and writing laws against hacking have a troubling (and at times, tragic) history of being misused. How big a threat is hacking, really? How should systems respond to hacking? What, if anything, should be the role of government? In what ways can we govern those who don’t consider code to be a governing influence?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Assignment 3 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Assignments#Assignment_3:_Project_Outline|Assignment 3]] is due &#039;&#039;before class&#039;&#039; today. [[Assignment_3_Submissions|You can upload that here.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;onlyinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Readings ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
; Cybersecurity&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://krebsonsecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/HackedPC2012.png Brian Krebs, &amp;quot;The Scrap Value of a Hacked PC (infographic),&amp;quot; Oct 2012]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2015/01/13/the-big-data-breaches-of-2014/ Bill Hardekopf, &amp;quot;The Big Data Breaches of 2014, Forbes, January 13, 2015]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/26/us-sony-stoldendata-idUSTRE73P6WB20110426 Liana Baker and Jim Finkle, &amp;quot;Sony Playstation suffers massive data breach,&amp;quot; Reuters, April 26, 2011]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/12/hackers-promise-christmas-present-sony-pictures-wont-like/ Sean Gallagher, &amp;quot;Hackers Promise &#039;Christmas Present&#039; Sony Pictures Won&#039;t Like,&amp;quot; Ars Technica, December 15, 2015] (for more on this, see [http://www.engadget.com/2014/12/10/sony-pictures-hack-the-whole-story/ here] and [https://www.riskbasedsecurity.com/2014/12/a-breakdown-and-analysis-of-the-december-2014-sony-hack/ here])&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/12/us-government-fingers-north-korea-as-the-sony-hackers/ Peter Bright, &amp;quot;US Government Fingers North Korea as the Sony Hackers,&amp;quot; Ars Technica, December 17 2014]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
; Computer Crimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.cjr.org/cloud_control/scripps_hackers.php Sarah Laskow, Reporting, Or Illegal Hacking]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
; Case studies&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Payback Wikipedia, Operation Payback]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Chanology Wikipedia, Project Chanology]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.dmlp.org/blog/2013/impact-aarons-law-aaron-swartzs-case Andy Sellars, The Impact of &amp;quot;Aaron&#039;s Law&amp;quot; on Aaron Swartz&#039;s Case]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/04/appeals-court-reverses-hackertroll-weev-conviction-and-sentence/ David Kravets, Appeals Court Reverses Hacker/Troll &amp;quot;Weev&amp;quot; Conviction and Sentence]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/2013/1113/Hacking-tool-threatens-Healthcare.gov-site Jeff Ward-Bailey, Hacking Tool Threatens Healthcare.gov Site]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Optional Readings ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/576-the-cyber-war-threat-has-been-grossly-exaggerated Intelligence Squared Debate: &amp;quot;The Cyberwar Threat Has Been Grossly Exaggerated&amp;quot;] (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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v107/n2/795/LR107n2Matwyshyn.pdf Andrea Matwyshyn, Hacking Speech: Informational Speech and the First Amendment]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [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 (&#039;&#039;New York Times&#039;&#039;)]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-parties-use-influence-to-halt-operation-payback-101120/ TorrentFreak, Pirate Parties Use Influence to Halt Anonymous’ Operation Payback]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/interactive/events/2012/10/soghoian Christopher Soghoian, The Growing Trade in Software Security Exploits]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/onlyinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Videos Watched in Class ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Links ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Class Discussion ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div style=&amp;quot;background-color:#CCCCCC;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;~~~~&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;) 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)&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Operation Payback seems to be one of the more non-sensical, and perhaps simply juvenile examples listed in these hacks (hopefully I&#039;m not hacked for this-- hello out there Anonymous!).  The violation of free speech that occurs as a result of these cyberattacks seems to be in direct opposition to the message of open internet platforms.  When sites are pulled down (even if temporarily) free speech suffers as do those who may depend on the contents of the site. For example, if a constituent was looking to contact Senator Lieberman who was attacked, a shut down of his site could block this.  Furthermore, while I understand the qualms that Anonymous has with copyrights, I don&#039;t know how a musician could produce new music without any sort of revenue from sales.  This also causes a threat to free speech.  Gene Simmons has never made more sense than on this issue.  ([[User:Amchugh|Amchugh]] ([[User talk:Amchugh|talk]]) 15:02, 31 March 2015 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are several types of hacking, including for example reputation hijacking, hacking account or financial credentials and bot activity. This is something that affects private citizens as well as large companies and governments. In the article ”Sony Playstation suffers massive data breach”, that deals with a hacker attack against Sony in 2011, Braker and Finkle write ”In the rush to get out innovative new products, security can sometimes take a back seat.”. The interesting question here is if it will continue the same way, or if consumers will put more pressure on companies to care about security. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The article ”Hackers promise ”Christmas present” Sony Pictures won´t like” deals with other hacker attacks on Sony and the quote ”The sooner SPE accept our demands, the better, of course…The farther time goes by, the worse state SPE will be put into and we will have Sony go bankrupt in the end.” shows what power the hackers can have in the computer based society of today. Hacking can be used to blackmail people, companies and governments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Operation payback was a group of attacks on opponents of Internet privacy by the decentralized community ”Anonymous”. It all begun with the crisis on Wikileaks, when they were under pressure after publishing secret US. diplomatic cables. Anonymous was on the side of Wikileaks and there it begun. What made me really angry was when I read that Anonymous threatened to disrupt British government websites because the group opposed the possible act of handing over Julian Assange (who is often called the founder of Wikileaks) to Sweden. This is upsetting in at least three ways. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, it would have been an act that would´ve denied the British citizens information that they by law have the right to access.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Secondly, it is to indirect aggravate a lawsuit since the reason for why the Swedish court system wanted Assange to be extradited was that there had been a subpoena about rape directed towards Assange. To make it difficult for the court system to plead someone guilty or not guilty is a very serious thing to do.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thirdly, it is illegal and there are other ways of changing laws and systems. The laws are made by the government and the government is chosen by the citizens. To believe that you are above the laws is also to believe that you are above other citizens. Laws are there for a reason and if you don´t like it, you can either vote differently or try to change the opinion in ways that don´t hurt others.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anonymous acted this way because they believe that information should be free and open for everyone to see. It is therefore very weird and contradictory that they protest through doing exactly what they are protesting against, i.e. limiting and blocking information. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a conclusion to my thoughts, I want to say that I believe that Internet terror is the future military threat against most countries. It might be on the Internet that our future wars will be held. Consequently, we can´t dismiss crimes on the Internet as ”something that is just on the Internet and not in the real world”, but instead look at the Internet as a natural part of our society. &lt;br /&gt;
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 07:51, 25 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first thing that comes to mind about cyber security and computer crimes are the financial errors in stock markets. As a stock trader, I get rather fearful when potential security issues happen. I’m not sure if they count as security issues, or… issues with their algorithms or partially hacking. Those would result in crashes. The second thing that comes to mind are those “reputation hijacking” (ref 1) on social networks. A family member of mine had this happened to her. She was using the application Line, and somehow pressed a bad link which asked for her logins. That wasn’t a smart move, but for a novice internet user, they would likely follow those instructions assuming it is legitimate. The end result was a long process of letting her friends know it was a hack, and to secure potential credit card information, etc. Therefore I really liked reference 1 which shows all the potential hacks others could do to a PC. I would suspect I had personally experienced a few of them. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reference 2, 3, and 4 becomes very exciting to see the power of hackers obtaining information of normal citizens. Are we really safe by providing our information to corporations online? 77 million user accounts hacked, that is quite something. Not only is privacy an issue here, it also questions if authorities have what it takes to prevent these issues from happening. Sony not announcing it till Tuesday was, in my opinion, also a breach of it’s customers’ trust. It does raise a fair point of how the hackers will use the information that was illegally obtained. Will there be an outlet for the hackers to use it? Are these hacks individual, or are they political? It appears that hackers are yielding too much power. I still hold by my beliefs that “winners” take all. The winners get everything. Once a hacker cracks a code; that’s it, they can decrypt everything and obtain everything. Of course, as the US claims, it was hackers from Korea, most likely due to the release of The Interview. Personally I think it isn’t as bad as Team America that was released 10 years ago. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I mentioned for last weeks readings, Anonymous has a lot of power. Not exactly sure if it is a good thing or a bad thing. But we should also consider if what they’re doing is just or not. Is it just to give “justice” to the ones they think deem it? Are they above the law? I’m not sure. As Operation Payback and Project Chanology has showed us. Were they really being just for doing what they did? Were they off base? I think the founder of Scientology website does have a point…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heldal-Lund commented, &amp;quot;People should be able to have easy access to both sides and make up their own opinions. Freedom of speech means we need to allow all to speak - including those we strongly disagree with. I am of the opinion that the Church of Scientology is a criminal organisation and a cult which is designed by its delusional founder to abuse people. I am still committed to fight for their right to speak their opinion.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So it is therefore unconstitutional for what Anonymous did. This also led me to think about Edward Snowden. Was he really doing good for society, or was he doing it for fame, and his own ideals of justice? What constitutes as constitutional? This argument was shared by the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office too, as they had said the below after Operation Payback.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“The United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office said that when its site was attacked, those responsible were depriving its citizens of access to information they have a democratic right to access. Other critics claimed the attacks restricted Gene Simmons&#039; right to free speech.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anonymous is not pro-democracy. They want to dictate what is right or wrong in their own hands. If they did things that reflected what people really believed in, then I believe they have done things “just”-ly. But to deprive people of their basic right to speech and beliefs; I’m not so sure. Was it a troll taken too far? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There have been increasing amounts of threats that we face, such as “Destroy Obama Care”. Also forbes gives a whole list of the top 20 data breaches. They are increasing in numbers, and it seems like corporations don’t know what to do. Just as technology has enhanced their reach, they would also be required to invest in technological defense against these potential hackers. It also feels that law really lags behind technology a lot. Technology advances so quickly that law requires time to pass. The amendments to the CFAA, which occurred many times. I believe there needs to be a better way to enforce new laws at the same pace as technological advancement, otherwise law would always be a step behind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
References:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://krebsonsecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/HackedPC2012.png&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/26/us-sony-stoldendata-idUSTRE73P6WB20110426&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/12/hackers-promise-christmas-present-sony-pictures-wont-like/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/12/us-government-fingers-north-korea-as-the-sony-hackers/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Chanology&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Payback&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2013/1113/Hacking-tool-threatens-Healthcare.gov-site&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2015/01/13/the-big-data-breaches-of-2014/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/docs/ccmanual.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 17:32, 28 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;A New Species of Crime – A New Species of Enforcement?&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
The 1986 Congress’ well meaning but clumsy efforts to address the world of computer crimes with the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)—and its eight subsequent amendments in a span of 10 years  (pg 2. http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/docs/ccmanual.pdf) is a dismal picture of what happens when Ignorance marries Power. Or perhaps it was simply inevitable that the speed of Internet technology and hacking techniques would outdash the pace of the lugubrious State – a race that does not look too bright for lawmakers going through the usual snail’s pace of lawmaking. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Laskow’s article about the Scripps reporters prosecuted for hacking crimes because they engaged in industry practice to download publicly available information serves a chilling anecdote for the innumerable “crimes” committed everyday by the Internet-accessing world. Once again, in this course, we encounter a crisis of definition; this one is perhaps, the most sinister crisis in terms of criminal prosecution (compared to debates about the definitions of civic engagement or privacy, and their entailing prosecutions, for instance). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The speed by which hackers are able to change their tactics, work around legal frameworks of the CFAA, or simply develop more invisible but potent means of stealing identities, systems, and intellectual property, in a federal system attempting to accommodate 50 individual state laws – or even worse, international hackers operating on a system of web that ignores geographic and political boundaries poses direly complex legal problems. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As somewhat of a self-described Libertarian, I am dismayed to feel that there might have to be a specialized and internationally centralized court, and body of governance – one that can move faster than the legislative movements of nations to address these highly technical and ever changing crimes. The most effective and true hackers are invisible through technical prowess, while the most innocent of them such as the Scripps reporters, are the blatant criminals under laws like CFAA. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The illegal hacking issue is an ever-complicated result of a global problem that is outrunning its bumbling, localized resolutions. There are no single answers to the problem, and I am but a layman before the world of hacking issues and virtual crimes, but it seems that the starting point to resolving this disastrous diaspora is to conglomerate the governing and enforcement bodies into a more centralized system, a more synchronized strategy of attack. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Universal criminals who know no boundaries are destined to win when we are so bound to our disparate governing territories.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The moderate libertarian in me is protesting at my own words. But such is the result of my lay-thoughts after this week’s readings…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chanel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 22:18, 30 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems like we hear about big data breaches all the time these days, but it was still startling to read Bill Hardekopf’s compiled list of “The Big Data Breaches of 2014” in Forbes.  Seeing several instances combined was a bit of a wake up call (especially since I wasn’t even aware of many of these), and it prompted several questions for me.  For example, are data breaches a new fact of life and an inevitability of using credit cards and putting our information online?  Should we be focusing on beefing up security in order to minimize the likelihood of breaches like this, or should we focus on taking swift action once a breach inevitably occurs?  Are there any patterns we can find in the victims of the hacks (the companies, not the credit card users), or in the hacking approaches themselves?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading about the various Sony hacks in Ars Technica also made me think about the wide range of motives that might be at work from the hacker’s perspective, and the various degrees of damage different acts of hacking can lead to.  The Sony hacks from this year are a perfect example: presumably they were meant as an act of political intimidation, in order to scare Sony into shelving “The Interview” before its release, but the hacked data held a range of implications the hackers might not have anticipated.  For example, racist emails between producer Scott Rudin and Sony executive Amy Pascal became a huge embarrassment for Sony and led to discussions about race in Hollywood.  Similarly, breached data showing how much each actor made for the movie “American Hustle” showed that there is still a problematic gender pay gap in Hollywood as well, and led to discussions of income inequality between the sexes.  It was interesting and strange to me that an act meant to bully a studio into self-inflicted censorship ended up spurring productive conversations about race and gender.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was similarly interesting to see the fallout and reactions following the release of several private celebrity photos, showing them naked.  The breach was an undisputed criminal act, and furthermore it was a gendered act of bullying and power dynamics, but it also led to widespread conversations that were not in the public light before (for example, questioning the previous shaming of the celebrities for having naked photos on their phones).   Overall, it is helpful to examine cybersecurity and computer crimes right after our session about “Hacktivism,” because clearly sometimes (for example, with Anonymous), online crimes are used as a form of Hacktivism, but in many cases, online crime can have unintended consequences with bizarre and fascinating effects. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 06:58, 31 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
This topic definitely has made a recent impact on me and some fellow colleagues. Just recently, I received the following email from Anthem:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
     &#039;&#039;“To Members:&lt;br /&gt;
            &lt;br /&gt;
     On January 29, 2015, Anthem, Inc. (Anthem) discovered that cyber attackers executed a sophisticated attack to gain unauthorized access to Anthem&#039;s IT system and obtained   &lt;br /&gt;
     personal information relating to consumers who were or are currently covered by Anthem or other independent Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans that work with Anthem. Anthem &lt;br /&gt;
     believes that this suspicious activity may have occurred over the course of several weeks beginning in early December, 2014... &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
     &#039;&#039;&#039;Information Accessed&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
     The information accessed may have included names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, health care ID numbers, home addresses, email addresses, employment information, &lt;br /&gt;
     including income data. We have no reason to believe credit card or banking information was compromised, nor is there evidence at this time that medical information such as &lt;br /&gt;
     claims, test results, or diagnostic codes, was targeted or obtained.”&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is safe to assume the hackers were not highly interested in our medical history; but rather our identifiable information. While I have added additional safeguards including credit monitoring, a former colleague was not as fortunate. With great misfortune, she discovered the hackers used her identification information to file her taxes. Here is an article about the Anthem breach and tax returns:http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/02/06/turbotax-stops-processing-state-tax-returns-fraud-reports/dvPJbZC9G4tpzJx9ORsZcJ/story.html &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sophistication and frequency of current data breaches, shows why a proactive response would be beneficial as compared to a reactive response. O’Farrell (2014) reported, “ The FBI admitted that the malware used in the attack on Sony was so sophisticated, it would have blown past 90% of security defenses. Which means all kinds of businesses must be worried about this new battle front where not only is their intellectual property the target of attacks, but highly sensitive and potentially embarrassing secrets and internal communications could be exposed to the world.” &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is obvious that hackers do not discriminate what websites they choose to target, which call to question how many breaches have truly occurred and are not reported. Here is a link to an awesome interactive graphic on breaches over 30,000 records: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/worlds-biggest-data-breaches-hacks/ &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover, I question the probability of a cyber attack that will delete information or render a system completely inoperable. While CodeSpaces was clearly a case of substandard security (http://www.networkcomputing.com/cloud-infrastructure/code-spaces-a-lesson-in-cloud-backup/a/d-id/1279116), the increase sophistication of hacking leaves the question, what are large corporations doing proactively to ensure our data is being kept safe. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reference:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
O&#039;Farrell, N. (2014) Why The Sony Hack Could Be A Game Changer For Us All. Huffington Post. Retrieved from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/creditsesamecom/why-the-sony-hack-could-be-a-game-changer_b_6335082.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 15:13, 31 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
I really appreciate that the readings today highlighted the danger of the broad and vague nature of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. “The Impact of ‘Aaron’s Law’ on Aaron Swartz Case” enlightened me about the challenges facing CFAA’s Obtaining Information Through Unauthorized Access to a Protected Computer section. Clearly, the law is so broad that can be applied inappropriately and disproportionally as this reading states. Aaron Swartz’s case was only one example that we looked at this week. The articles “Reporting, or illegal hacking” and “Appeals court reverses hacker/troll ‘weev’ conviction and sentence” raise the same issue. Though of course the main issue in the latter of these two articles was venue in persecuting Internet crime, the CFAA issue cannot be ignored. I agree with Andy’s statement that the way the law exists today: “a persecutor can frame many benign activities online as a felony” and also that the proper role of a persecutor is to “be reactive to the will of Congress and not stretch laws as… a way of sending of message.” I could relate personally to the CFAA issue because I was once accused of overstepping authorization and illegally hacking a work computer. The fact that I was formally accused of computer crime by a prestigious Los Angeles law firm is a laughable joke for anybody who knows anything about my computer abilities !!! It was a compliment, really, for the people I worked with to think me capable of such a feat. I was threatened criminal persecution for this “hacking” when really, just as the examples we read today, I accessed documents that were readily available without any expertise or authorization needed. The files I accessed were downloaded and saved in the “Download” folder on the MAC desktop that I shared with coworkers nearly everyday, without any sort of password requirement. I had not attempted to spread the “sensitive” material that I had accessed on the computer in any way. I simply told my boss and another person who had limited access to the same computer that I had found the documents. (People in entertainment can be high strung). Of course, in my case, no criminal charges were pursued because it really was a laughable claim, but it definitely is unpleasant to get a threatening phone call and email from a strange lawyer. Its unacceptable that companies or individuals that fail to put up proper protection – such as TerraCom and AT&amp;amp;T - can tarnish the reputations of individuals like Wolf and Aurnheimer due to the fact that a very important law has weak syntax. Of course, I do not know all the facts of either case, but it is very clear to me that the CFAA is too often used inappropriately. We need a reform that protects against hacking, but with more clarity so as not to bloat our judiciary system. We can start with revisions of the terms “without authorization” and “exceeding authorized access”.&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 15:23, 31 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Batjarks</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Cybersecurity_and_Computer_Crimes&amp;diff=4138</id>
		<title>Cybersecurity and Computer Crimes</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Cybersecurity_and_Computer_Crimes&amp;diff=4138"/>
		<updated>2015-03-31T19:26:16Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Batjarks: /* Class Discussion */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{ClassCalendar}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;March 31&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Last week we looked at hacking as a form of social protest. This week, we take a closer look at the more sinister side of hacking, and the various responses to it. Hacking at its heart involves modifying or intruding upon another’s system. But not all intrusion is socially harmful, and writing laws against hacking have a troubling (and at times, tragic) history of being misused. How big a threat is hacking, really? How should systems respond to hacking? What, if anything, should be the role of government? In what ways can we govern those who don’t consider code to be a governing influence?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Assignment 3 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Assignments#Assignment_3:_Project_Outline|Assignment 3]] is due &#039;&#039;before class&#039;&#039; today. [[Assignment_3_Submissions|You can upload that here.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;onlyinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Readings ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
; Cybersecurity&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://krebsonsecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/HackedPC2012.png Brian Krebs, &amp;quot;The Scrap Value of a Hacked PC (infographic),&amp;quot; Oct 2012]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2015/01/13/the-big-data-breaches-of-2014/ Bill Hardekopf, &amp;quot;The Big Data Breaches of 2014, Forbes, January 13, 2015]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/26/us-sony-stoldendata-idUSTRE73P6WB20110426 Liana Baker and Jim Finkle, &amp;quot;Sony Playstation suffers massive data breach,&amp;quot; Reuters, April 26, 2011]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/12/hackers-promise-christmas-present-sony-pictures-wont-like/ Sean Gallagher, &amp;quot;Hackers Promise &#039;Christmas Present&#039; Sony Pictures Won&#039;t Like,&amp;quot; Ars Technica, December 15, 2015] (for more on this, see [http://www.engadget.com/2014/12/10/sony-pictures-hack-the-whole-story/ here] and [https://www.riskbasedsecurity.com/2014/12/a-breakdown-and-analysis-of-the-december-2014-sony-hack/ here])&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/12/us-government-fingers-north-korea-as-the-sony-hackers/ Peter Bright, &amp;quot;US Government Fingers North Korea as the Sony Hackers,&amp;quot; Ars Technica, December 17 2014]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
; Computer Crimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.cjr.org/cloud_control/scripps_hackers.php Sarah Laskow, Reporting, Or Illegal Hacking]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
; Case studies&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Payback Wikipedia, Operation Payback]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Chanology Wikipedia, Project Chanology]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.dmlp.org/blog/2013/impact-aarons-law-aaron-swartzs-case Andy Sellars, The Impact of &amp;quot;Aaron&#039;s Law&amp;quot; on Aaron Swartz&#039;s Case]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/04/appeals-court-reverses-hackertroll-weev-conviction-and-sentence/ David Kravets, Appeals Court Reverses Hacker/Troll &amp;quot;Weev&amp;quot; Conviction and Sentence]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/2013/1113/Hacking-tool-threatens-Healthcare.gov-site Jeff Ward-Bailey, Hacking Tool Threatens Healthcare.gov Site]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Optional Readings ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/576-the-cyber-war-threat-has-been-grossly-exaggerated Intelligence Squared Debate: &amp;quot;The Cyberwar Threat Has Been Grossly Exaggerated&amp;quot;] (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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v107/n2/795/LR107n2Matwyshyn.pdf Andrea Matwyshyn, Hacking Speech: Informational Speech and the First Amendment]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [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 (&#039;&#039;New York Times&#039;&#039;)]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-parties-use-influence-to-halt-operation-payback-101120/ TorrentFreak, Pirate Parties Use Influence to Halt Anonymous’ Operation Payback]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/interactive/events/2012/10/soghoian Christopher Soghoian, The Growing Trade in Software Security Exploits]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/onlyinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Videos Watched in Class ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Links ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Class Discussion ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div style=&amp;quot;background-color:#CCCCCC;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;~~~~&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;) 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)&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Operation Payback seems to be one of the more non-sensical, and perhaps simply juvenile examples listed in these hacks (hopefully I&#039;m not hacked for this-- hello out there Anonymous!).  The violation of free speech that occurs as a result of these cyberattacks seems to be in direct opposition to the message of open internet platforms.  When sites are pulled down (even if temporarily) free speech suffers as do those who may depend on the contents of the site. For example, if a constituent was looking to contact Senator Lieberman who was attacked, a shut down of his site could block this.  Furthermore, while I understand the qualms that Anonymous has with copyrights, I don&#039;t know how a musician could produce new music without any sort of revenue from sales.  This also causes a threat to free speech.  Gene Simmons has never made more sense than on this issue.  ([[User:Amchugh|Amchugh]] ([[User talk:Amchugh|talk]]) 15:02, 31 March 2015 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are several types of hacking, including for example reputation hijacking, hacking account or financial credentials and bot activity. This is something that affects private citizens as well as large companies and governments. In the article ”Sony Playstation suffers massive data breach”, that deals with a hacker attack against Sony in 2011, Braker and Finkle write ”In the rush to get out innovative new products, security can sometimes take a back seat.”. The interesting question here is if it will continue the same way, or if consumers will put more pressure on companies to care about security. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The article ”Hackers promise ”Christmas present” Sony Pictures won´t like” deals with other hacker attacks on Sony and the quote ”The sooner SPE accept our demands, the better, of course…The farther time goes by, the worse state SPE will be put into and we will have Sony go bankrupt in the end.” shows what power the hackers can have in the computer based society of today. Hacking can be used to blackmail people, companies and governments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Operation payback was a group of attacks on opponents of Internet privacy by the decentralized community ”Anonymous”. It all begun with the crisis on Wikileaks, when they were under pressure after publishing secret US. diplomatic cables. Anonymous was on the side of Wikileaks and there it begun. What made me really angry was when I read that Anonymous threatened to disrupt British government websites because the group opposed the possible act of handing over Julian Assange (who is often called the founder of Wikileaks) to Sweden. This is upsetting in at least three ways. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, it would have been an act that would´ve denied the British citizens information that they by law have the right to access.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Secondly, it is to indirect aggravate a lawsuit since the reason for why the Swedish court system wanted Assange to be extradited was that there had been a subpoena about rape directed towards Assange. To make it difficult for the court system to plead someone guilty or not guilty is a very serious thing to do.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thirdly, it is illegal and there are other ways of changing laws and systems. The laws are made by the government and the government is chosen by the citizens. To believe that you are above the laws is also to believe that you are above other citizens. Laws are there for a reason and if you don´t like it, you can either vote differently or try to change the opinion in ways that don´t hurt others.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anonymous acted this way because they believe that information should be free and open for everyone to see. It is therefore very weird and contradictory that they protest through doing exactly what they are protesting against, i.e. limiting and blocking information. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a conclusion to my thoughts, I want to say that I believe that Internet terror is the future military threat against most countries. It might be on the Internet that our future wars will be held. Consequently, we can´t dismiss crimes on the Internet as ”something that is just on the Internet and not in the real world”, but instead look at the Internet as a natural part of our society. &lt;br /&gt;
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 07:51, 25 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first thing that comes to mind about cyber security and computer crimes are the financial errors in stock markets. As a stock trader, I get rather fearful when potential security issues happen. I’m not sure if they count as security issues, or… issues with their algorithms or partially hacking. Those would result in crashes. The second thing that comes to mind are those “reputation hijacking” (ref 1) on social networks. A family member of mine had this happened to her. She was using the application Line, and somehow pressed a bad link which asked for her logins. That wasn’t a smart move, but for a novice internet user, they would likely follow those instructions assuming it is legitimate. The end result was a long process of letting her friends know it was a hack, and to secure potential credit card information, etc. Therefore I really liked reference 1 which shows all the potential hacks others could do to a PC. I would suspect I had personally experienced a few of them. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reference 2, 3, and 4 becomes very exciting to see the power of hackers obtaining information of normal citizens. Are we really safe by providing our information to corporations online? 77 million user accounts hacked, that is quite something. Not only is privacy an issue here, it also questions if authorities have what it takes to prevent these issues from happening. Sony not announcing it till Tuesday was, in my opinion, also a breach of it’s customers’ trust. It does raise a fair point of how the hackers will use the information that was illegally obtained. Will there be an outlet for the hackers to use it? Are these hacks individual, or are they political? It appears that hackers are yielding too much power. I still hold by my beliefs that “winners” take all. The winners get everything. Once a hacker cracks a code; that’s it, they can decrypt everything and obtain everything. Of course, as the US claims, it was hackers from Korea, most likely due to the release of The Interview. Personally I think it isn’t as bad as Team America that was released 10 years ago. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I mentioned for last weeks readings, Anonymous has a lot of power. Not exactly sure if it is a good thing or a bad thing. But we should also consider if what they’re doing is just or not. Is it just to give “justice” to the ones they think deem it? Are they above the law? I’m not sure. As Operation Payback and Project Chanology has showed us. Were they really being just for doing what they did? Were they off base? I think the founder of Scientology website does have a point…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heldal-Lund commented, &amp;quot;People should be able to have easy access to both sides and make up their own opinions. Freedom of speech means we need to allow all to speak - including those we strongly disagree with. I am of the opinion that the Church of Scientology is a criminal organisation and a cult which is designed by its delusional founder to abuse people. I am still committed to fight for their right to speak their opinion.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So it is therefore unconstitutional for what Anonymous did. This also led me to think about Edward Snowden. Was he really doing good for society, or was he doing it for fame, and his own ideals of justice? What constitutes as constitutional? This argument was shared by the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office too, as they had said the below after Operation Payback.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“The United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office said that when its site was attacked, those responsible were depriving its citizens of access to information they have a democratic right to access. Other critics claimed the attacks restricted Gene Simmons&#039; right to free speech.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anonymous is not pro-democracy. They want to dictate what is right or wrong in their own hands. If they did things that reflected what people really believed in, then I believe they have done things “just”-ly. But to deprive people of their basic right to speech and beliefs; I’m not so sure. Was it a troll taken too far? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There have been increasing amounts of threats that we face, such as “Destroy Obama Care”. Also forbes gives a whole list of the top 20 data breaches. They are increasing in numbers, and it seems like corporations don’t know what to do. Just as technology has enhanced their reach, they would also be required to invest in technological defense against these potential hackers. It also feels that law really lags behind technology a lot. Technology advances so quickly that law requires time to pass. The amendments to the CFAA, which occurred many times. I believe there needs to be a better way to enforce new laws at the same pace as technological advancement, otherwise law would always be a step behind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
References:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://krebsonsecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/HackedPC2012.png&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/26/us-sony-stoldendata-idUSTRE73P6WB20110426&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/12/hackers-promise-christmas-present-sony-pictures-wont-like/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/12/us-government-fingers-north-korea-as-the-sony-hackers/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Chanology&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Payback&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2013/1113/Hacking-tool-threatens-Healthcare.gov-site&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2015/01/13/the-big-data-breaches-of-2014/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/docs/ccmanual.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 17:32, 28 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;A New Species of Crime – A New Species of Enforcement?&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
The 1986 Congress’ well meaning but clumsy efforts to address the world of computer crimes with the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)—and its eight subsequent amendments in a span of 10 years  (pg 2. http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/docs/ccmanual.pdf) is a dismal picture of what happens when Ignorance marries Power. Or perhaps it was simply inevitable that the speed of Internet technology and hacking techniques would outdash the pace of the lugubrious State – a race that does not look too bright for lawmakers going through the usual snail’s pace of lawmaking. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Laskow’s article about the Scripps reporters prosecuted for hacking crimes because they engaged in industry practice to download publicly available information serves a chilling anecdote for the innumerable “crimes” committed everyday by the Internet-accessing world. Once again, in this course, we encounter a crisis of definition; this one is perhaps, the most sinister crisis in terms of criminal prosecution (compared to debates about the definitions of civic engagement or privacy, and their entailing prosecutions, for instance). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The speed by which hackers are able to change their tactics, work around legal frameworks of the CFAA, or simply develop more invisible but potent means of stealing identities, systems, and intellectual property, in a federal system attempting to accommodate 50 individual state laws – or even worse, international hackers operating on a system of web that ignores geographic and political boundaries poses direly complex legal problems. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As somewhat of a self-described Libertarian, I am dismayed to feel that there might have to be a specialized and internationally centralized court, and body of governance – one that can move faster than the legislative movements of nations to address these highly technical and ever changing crimes. The most effective and true hackers are invisible through technical prowess, while the most innocent of them such as the Scripps reporters, are the blatant criminals under laws like CFAA. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The illegal hacking issue is an ever-complicated result of a global problem that is outrunning its bumbling, localized resolutions. There are no single answers to the problem, and I am but a layman before the world of hacking issues and virtual crimes, but it seems that the starting point to resolving this disastrous diaspora is to conglomerate the governing and enforcement bodies into a more centralized system, a more synchronized strategy of attack. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Universal criminals who know no boundaries are destined to win when we are so bound to our disparate governing territories.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The moderate libertarian in me is protesting at my own words. But such is the result of my lay-thoughts after this week’s readings…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chanel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 22:18, 30 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems like we hear about big data breaches all the time these days, but it was still startling to read Bill Hardekopf’s compiled list of “The Big Data Breaches of 2014” in Forbes.  Seeing several instances combined was a bit of a wake up call (especially since I wasn’t even aware of many of these), and it prompted several questions for me.  For example, are data breaches a new fact of life and an inevitability of using credit cards and putting our information online?  Should we be focusing on beefing up security in order to minimize the likelihood of breaches like this, or should we focus on taking swift action once a breach inevitably occurs?  Are there any patterns we can find in the victims of the hacks (the companies, not the credit card users), or in the hacking approaches themselves?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading about the various Sony hacks in Ars Technica also made me think about the wide range of motives that might be at work from the hacker’s perspective, and the various degrees of damage different acts of hacking can lead to.  The Sony hacks from this year are a perfect example: presumably they were meant as an act of political intimidation, in order to scare Sony into shelving “The Interview” before its release, but the hacked data held a range of implications the hackers might not have anticipated.  For example, racist emails between producer Scott Rudin and Sony executive Amy Pascal became a huge embarrassment for Sony and led to discussions about race in Hollywood.  Similarly, breached data showing how much each actor made for the movie “American Hustle” showed that there is still a problematic gender pay gap in Hollywood as well, and led to discussions of income inequality between the sexes.  It was interesting and strange to me that an act meant to bully a studio into self-inflicted censorship ended up spurring productive conversations about race and gender.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was similarly interesting to see the fallout and reactions following the release of several private celebrity photos, showing them naked.  The breach was an undisputed criminal act, and furthermore it was a gendered act of bullying and power dynamics, but it also led to widespread conversations that were not in the public light before (for example, questioning the previous shaming of the celebrities for having naked photos on their phones).   Overall, it is helpful to examine cybersecurity and computer crimes right after our session about “Hacktivism,” because clearly sometimes (for example, with Anonymous), online crimes are used as a form of Hacktivism, but in many cases, online crime can have unintended consequences with bizarre and fascinating effects. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 06:58, 31 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
This topic definitely has made a recent impact on me and some fellow colleagues. Just recently, I received the following email from Anthem:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
     &#039;&#039;“To Members:&lt;br /&gt;
            &lt;br /&gt;
     On January 29, 2015, Anthem, Inc. (Anthem) discovered that cyber attackers executed a sophisticated attack to gain unauthorized access to Anthem&#039;s IT system and obtained   &lt;br /&gt;
     personal information relating to consumers who were or are currently covered by Anthem or other independent Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans that work with Anthem. Anthem &lt;br /&gt;
     believes that this suspicious activity may have occurred over the course of several weeks beginning in early December, 2014... &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
     &#039;&#039;&#039;Information Accessed&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
     The information accessed may have included names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, health care ID numbers, home addresses, email addresses, employment information, &lt;br /&gt;
     including income data. We have no reason to believe credit card or banking information was compromised, nor is there evidence at this time that medical information such as &lt;br /&gt;
     claims, test results, or diagnostic codes, was targeted or obtained.”&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is safe to assume the hackers were not highly interested in our medical history; but rather our identifiable information. While I have added additional safeguards including credit monitoring, a former colleague was not as fortunate. With great misfortune, she discovered the hackers used her identification information to file her taxes. Here is an article about the Anthem breach and tax returns:http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/02/06/turbotax-stops-processing-state-tax-returns-fraud-reports/dvPJbZC9G4tpzJx9ORsZcJ/story.html &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sophistication and frequency of current data breaches, shows why a proactive response would be beneficial as compared to a reactive response. O’Farrell (2014) reported, “ The FBI admitted that the malware used in the attack on Sony was so sophisticated, it would have blown past 90% of security defenses. Which means all kinds of businesses must be worried about this new battle front where not only is their intellectual property the target of attacks, but highly sensitive and potentially embarrassing secrets and internal communications could be exposed to the world.” &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is obvious that hackers do not discriminate what websites they choose to target, which call to question how many breaches have truly occurred and are not reported. Here is a link to an awesome interactive graphic on breaches over 30,000 records: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/worlds-biggest-data-breaches-hacks/ &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover, I question the probability of a cyber attack that will delete information or render a system completely inoperable. While CodeSpaces was clearly a case of substandard security (http://www.networkcomputing.com/cloud-infrastructure/code-spaces-a-lesson-in-cloud-backup/a/d-id/1279116), the increase sophistication of hacking leaves the question, what are large corporations doing proactively to ensure our data is being kept safe. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reference:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
O&#039;Farrell, N. (2014) Why The Sony Hack Could Be A Game Changer For Us All. Huffington Post. Retrieved from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/creditsesamecom/why-the-sony-hack-could-be-a-game-changer_b_6335082.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 15:13, 31 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
I really appreciate that the readings today highlighted the danger of the broad and vague nature of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. “The Impact of ‘Aaron’s Law’ on Aaron Swartz Case” enlightened me about the challenges facing CFAA’s Obtaining Information Through Unauthorized Access to a Protected Computer section. Clearly, the law is so broad that can be applied inappropriately and disproportionally as this reading states. Aaron Swartz’s case was only one example that we looked at this week. The articles “Reporting, or illegal hacking” and “Appeals court reverses hacker/troll ‘weev’ conviction and sentence” raise the same issue. Though of course the main issue in the latter of these two articles was venue in persecuting Internet crime, the CFAA issue cannot be ignored. I agree with Andy’s statement that the way the law exists today: “a persecutor can frame many benign activities online as a felony” and also that the proper role of a persecutor is to “be reactive to the will of Congress and not stretch laws as… a way of sending of message.” I could relate personally to the CFAA issue because I was once accused of overstepping authorization and illegally hacking a work computer. The fact that I was formally accused of computer crime by a prestigious Los Angeles law firm is a laughable joke for anybody who knows anything about my computer abilities !!! It was a compliment, really, for the people I worked with to think me capable of such a feat. I was threatened criminal persecution for this “hacking” when really, just as the examples we read today, I accessed documents that were readily available without any expertise or authorization needed. The files I accessed were downloaded and saved in the “Download” folder on the MAC desktop that I shared with coworkers nearly everyday, without any sort of password requirement. I had not attempted to spread the “sensitive” material that I had accessed on the computer in any way. I simply told my boss and another person who had limited access to the same computer that I had found the documents. (People in entertainment can be high strung). Of course, in my case, no criminal charges were pursued because it really was a laughable claim, but it definitely is unpleasant to get a threatening phone call and email from a strange lawyer. Its unacceptable that companies or individuals that fail to put up proper protection – such as TerraCom and AT&amp;amp;T - can tarnish the reputations of individuals like Wolf and Aurnheimer because of a very important law has weak syntax. Of course, I do not know all the facts of either case, but it is very clear to me that the CFAA is too often used inappropriately. We need a reform that protects against hacking, but with more clarity so as not to bloat our judiciary system. We can start with revisions of the terms “without authorization” and “exceeding authorized access”.&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 15:23, 31 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Batjarks</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Cybersecurity_and_Computer_Crimes&amp;diff=4137</id>
		<title>Cybersecurity and Computer Crimes</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Cybersecurity_and_Computer_Crimes&amp;diff=4137"/>
		<updated>2015-03-31T19:23:50Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Batjarks: /* Class Discussion */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{ClassCalendar}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;March 31&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Last week we looked at hacking as a form of social protest. This week, we take a closer look at the more sinister side of hacking, and the various responses to it. Hacking at its heart involves modifying or intruding upon another’s system. But not all intrusion is socially harmful, and writing laws against hacking have a troubling (and at times, tragic) history of being misused. How big a threat is hacking, really? How should systems respond to hacking? What, if anything, should be the role of government? In what ways can we govern those who don’t consider code to be a governing influence?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Assignment 3 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Assignments#Assignment_3:_Project_Outline|Assignment 3]] is due &#039;&#039;before class&#039;&#039; today. [[Assignment_3_Submissions|You can upload that here.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;onlyinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Readings ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
; Cybersecurity&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://krebsonsecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/HackedPC2012.png Brian Krebs, &amp;quot;The Scrap Value of a Hacked PC (infographic),&amp;quot; Oct 2012]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2015/01/13/the-big-data-breaches-of-2014/ Bill Hardekopf, &amp;quot;The Big Data Breaches of 2014, Forbes, January 13, 2015]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/26/us-sony-stoldendata-idUSTRE73P6WB20110426 Liana Baker and Jim Finkle, &amp;quot;Sony Playstation suffers massive data breach,&amp;quot; Reuters, April 26, 2011]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/12/hackers-promise-christmas-present-sony-pictures-wont-like/ Sean Gallagher, &amp;quot;Hackers Promise &#039;Christmas Present&#039; Sony Pictures Won&#039;t Like,&amp;quot; Ars Technica, December 15, 2015] (for more on this, see [http://www.engadget.com/2014/12/10/sony-pictures-hack-the-whole-story/ here] and [https://www.riskbasedsecurity.com/2014/12/a-breakdown-and-analysis-of-the-december-2014-sony-hack/ here])&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/12/us-government-fingers-north-korea-as-the-sony-hackers/ Peter Bright, &amp;quot;US Government Fingers North Korea as the Sony Hackers,&amp;quot; Ars Technica, December 17 2014]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
; Computer Crimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.cjr.org/cloud_control/scripps_hackers.php Sarah Laskow, Reporting, Or Illegal Hacking]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
; Case studies&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Payback Wikipedia, Operation Payback]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Chanology Wikipedia, Project Chanology]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.dmlp.org/blog/2013/impact-aarons-law-aaron-swartzs-case Andy Sellars, The Impact of &amp;quot;Aaron&#039;s Law&amp;quot; on Aaron Swartz&#039;s Case]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/04/appeals-court-reverses-hackertroll-weev-conviction-and-sentence/ David Kravets, Appeals Court Reverses Hacker/Troll &amp;quot;Weev&amp;quot; Conviction and Sentence]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/2013/1113/Hacking-tool-threatens-Healthcare.gov-site Jeff Ward-Bailey, Hacking Tool Threatens Healthcare.gov Site]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Optional Readings ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/576-the-cyber-war-threat-has-been-grossly-exaggerated Intelligence Squared Debate: &amp;quot;The Cyberwar Threat Has Been Grossly Exaggerated&amp;quot;] (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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v107/n2/795/LR107n2Matwyshyn.pdf Andrea Matwyshyn, Hacking Speech: Informational Speech and the First Amendment]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [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 (&#039;&#039;New York Times&#039;&#039;)]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-parties-use-influence-to-halt-operation-payback-101120/ TorrentFreak, Pirate Parties Use Influence to Halt Anonymous’ Operation Payback]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/interactive/events/2012/10/soghoian Christopher Soghoian, The Growing Trade in Software Security Exploits]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/onlyinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Videos Watched in Class ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Links ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Class Discussion ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div style=&amp;quot;background-color:#CCCCCC;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;~~~~&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;) 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)&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Operation Payback seems to be one of the more non-sensical, and perhaps simply juvenile examples listed in these hacks (hopefully I&#039;m not hacked for this-- hello out there Anonymous!).  The violation of free speech that occurs as a result of these cyberattacks seems to be in direct opposition to the message of open internet platforms.  When sites are pulled down (even if temporarily) free speech suffers as do those who may depend on the contents of the site. For example, if a constituent was looking to contact Senator Lieberman who was attacked, a shut down of his site could block this.  Furthermore, while I understand the qualms that Anonymous has with copyrights, I don&#039;t know how a musician could produce new music without any sort of revenue from sales.  This also causes a threat to free speech.  Gene Simmons has never made more sense than on this issue.  ([[User:Amchugh|Amchugh]] ([[User talk:Amchugh|talk]]) 15:02, 31 March 2015 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are several types of hacking, including for example reputation hijacking, hacking account or financial credentials and bot activity. This is something that affects private citizens as well as large companies and governments. In the article ”Sony Playstation suffers massive data breach”, that deals with a hacker attack against Sony in 2011, Braker and Finkle write ”In the rush to get out innovative new products, security can sometimes take a back seat.”. The interesting question here is if it will continue the same way, or if consumers will put more pressure on companies to care about security. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The article ”Hackers promise ”Christmas present” Sony Pictures won´t like” deals with other hacker attacks on Sony and the quote ”The sooner SPE accept our demands, the better, of course…The farther time goes by, the worse state SPE will be put into and we will have Sony go bankrupt in the end.” shows what power the hackers can have in the computer based society of today. Hacking can be used to blackmail people, companies and governments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Operation payback was a group of attacks on opponents of Internet privacy by the decentralized community ”Anonymous”. It all begun with the crisis on Wikileaks, when they were under pressure after publishing secret US. diplomatic cables. Anonymous was on the side of Wikileaks and there it begun. What made me really angry was when I read that Anonymous threatened to disrupt British government websites because the group opposed the possible act of handing over Julian Assange (who is often called the founder of Wikileaks) to Sweden. This is upsetting in at least three ways. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, it would have been an act that would´ve denied the British citizens information that they by law have the right to access.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Secondly, it is to indirect aggravate a lawsuit since the reason for why the Swedish court system wanted Assange to be extradited was that there had been a subpoena about rape directed towards Assange. To make it difficult for the court system to plead someone guilty or not guilty is a very serious thing to do.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thirdly, it is illegal and there are other ways of changing laws and systems. The laws are made by the government and the government is chosen by the citizens. To believe that you are above the laws is also to believe that you are above other citizens. Laws are there for a reason and if you don´t like it, you can either vote differently or try to change the opinion in ways that don´t hurt others.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anonymous acted this way because they believe that information should be free and open for everyone to see. It is therefore very weird and contradictory that they protest through doing exactly what they are protesting against, i.e. limiting and blocking information. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a conclusion to my thoughts, I want to say that I believe that Internet terror is the future military threat against most countries. It might be on the Internet that our future wars will be held. Consequently, we can´t dismiss crimes on the Internet as ”something that is just on the Internet and not in the real world”, but instead look at the Internet as a natural part of our society. &lt;br /&gt;
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 07:51, 25 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first thing that comes to mind about cyber security and computer crimes are the financial errors in stock markets. As a stock trader, I get rather fearful when potential security issues happen. I’m not sure if they count as security issues, or… issues with their algorithms or partially hacking. Those would result in crashes. The second thing that comes to mind are those “reputation hijacking” (ref 1) on social networks. A family member of mine had this happened to her. She was using the application Line, and somehow pressed a bad link which asked for her logins. That wasn’t a smart move, but for a novice internet user, they would likely follow those instructions assuming it is legitimate. The end result was a long process of letting her friends know it was a hack, and to secure potential credit card information, etc. Therefore I really liked reference 1 which shows all the potential hacks others could do to a PC. I would suspect I had personally experienced a few of them. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reference 2, 3, and 4 becomes very exciting to see the power of hackers obtaining information of normal citizens. Are we really safe by providing our information to corporations online? 77 million user accounts hacked, that is quite something. Not only is privacy an issue here, it also questions if authorities have what it takes to prevent these issues from happening. Sony not announcing it till Tuesday was, in my opinion, also a breach of it’s customers’ trust. It does raise a fair point of how the hackers will use the information that was illegally obtained. Will there be an outlet for the hackers to use it? Are these hacks individual, or are they political? It appears that hackers are yielding too much power. I still hold by my beliefs that “winners” take all. The winners get everything. Once a hacker cracks a code; that’s it, they can decrypt everything and obtain everything. Of course, as the US claims, it was hackers from Korea, most likely due to the release of The Interview. Personally I think it isn’t as bad as Team America that was released 10 years ago. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I mentioned for last weeks readings, Anonymous has a lot of power. Not exactly sure if it is a good thing or a bad thing. But we should also consider if what they’re doing is just or not. Is it just to give “justice” to the ones they think deem it? Are they above the law? I’m not sure. As Operation Payback and Project Chanology has showed us. Were they really being just for doing what they did? Were they off base? I think the founder of Scientology website does have a point…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heldal-Lund commented, &amp;quot;People should be able to have easy access to both sides and make up their own opinions. Freedom of speech means we need to allow all to speak - including those we strongly disagree with. I am of the opinion that the Church of Scientology is a criminal organisation and a cult which is designed by its delusional founder to abuse people. I am still committed to fight for their right to speak their opinion.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So it is therefore unconstitutional for what Anonymous did. This also led me to think about Edward Snowden. Was he really doing good for society, or was he doing it for fame, and his own ideals of justice? What constitutes as constitutional? This argument was shared by the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office too, as they had said the below after Operation Payback.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“The United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office said that when its site was attacked, those responsible were depriving its citizens of access to information they have a democratic right to access. Other critics claimed the attacks restricted Gene Simmons&#039; right to free speech.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anonymous is not pro-democracy. They want to dictate what is right or wrong in their own hands. If they did things that reflected what people really believed in, then I believe they have done things “just”-ly. But to deprive people of their basic right to speech and beliefs; I’m not so sure. Was it a troll taken too far? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There have been increasing amounts of threats that we face, such as “Destroy Obama Care”. Also forbes gives a whole list of the top 20 data breaches. They are increasing in numbers, and it seems like corporations don’t know what to do. Just as technology has enhanced their reach, they would also be required to invest in technological defense against these potential hackers. It also feels that law really lags behind technology a lot. Technology advances so quickly that law requires time to pass. The amendments to the CFAA, which occurred many times. I believe there needs to be a better way to enforce new laws at the same pace as technological advancement, otherwise law would always be a step behind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
References:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://krebsonsecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/HackedPC2012.png&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/26/us-sony-stoldendata-idUSTRE73P6WB20110426&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/12/hackers-promise-christmas-present-sony-pictures-wont-like/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/12/us-government-fingers-north-korea-as-the-sony-hackers/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Chanology&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Payback&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2013/1113/Hacking-tool-threatens-Healthcare.gov-site&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2015/01/13/the-big-data-breaches-of-2014/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/docs/ccmanual.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 17:32, 28 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;A New Species of Crime – A New Species of Enforcement?&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
The 1986 Congress’ well meaning but clumsy efforts to address the world of computer crimes with the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)—and its eight subsequent amendments in a span of 10 years  (pg 2. http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/docs/ccmanual.pdf) is a dismal picture of what happens when Ignorance marries Power. Or perhaps it was simply inevitable that the speed of Internet technology and hacking techniques would outdash the pace of the lugubrious State – a race that does not look too bright for lawmakers going through the usual snail’s pace of lawmaking. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Laskow’s article about the Scripps reporters prosecuted for hacking crimes because they engaged in industry practice to download publicly available information serves a chilling anecdote for the innumerable “crimes” committed everyday by the Internet-accessing world. Once again, in this course, we encounter a crisis of definition; this one is perhaps, the most sinister crisis in terms of criminal prosecution (compared to debates about the definitions of civic engagement or privacy, and their entailing prosecutions, for instance). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The speed by which hackers are able to change their tactics, work around legal frameworks of the CFAA, or simply develop more invisible but potent means of stealing identities, systems, and intellectual property, in a federal system attempting to accommodate 50 individual state laws – or even worse, international hackers operating on a system of web that ignores geographic and political boundaries poses direly complex legal problems. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As somewhat of a self-described Libertarian, I am dismayed to feel that there might have to be a specialized and internationally centralized court, and body of governance – one that can move faster than the legislative movements of nations to address these highly technical and ever changing crimes. The most effective and true hackers are invisible through technical prowess, while the most innocent of them such as the Scripps reporters, are the blatant criminals under laws like CFAA. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The illegal hacking issue is an ever-complicated result of a global problem that is outrunning its bumbling, localized resolutions. There are no single answers to the problem, and I am but a layman before the world of hacking issues and virtual crimes, but it seems that the starting point to resolving this disastrous diaspora is to conglomerate the governing and enforcement bodies into a more centralized system, a more synchronized strategy of attack. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Universal criminals who know no boundaries are destined to win when we are so bound to our disparate governing territories.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The moderate libertarian in me is protesting at my own words. But such is the result of my lay-thoughts after this week’s readings…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chanel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 22:18, 30 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems like we hear about big data breaches all the time these days, but it was still startling to read Bill Hardekopf’s compiled list of “The Big Data Breaches of 2014” in Forbes.  Seeing several instances combined was a bit of a wake up call (especially since I wasn’t even aware of many of these), and it prompted several questions for me.  For example, are data breaches a new fact of life and an inevitability of using credit cards and putting our information online?  Should we be focusing on beefing up security in order to minimize the likelihood of breaches like this, or should we focus on taking swift action once a breach inevitably occurs?  Are there any patterns we can find in the victims of the hacks (the companies, not the credit card users), or in the hacking approaches themselves?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading about the various Sony hacks in Ars Technica also made me think about the wide range of motives that might be at work from the hacker’s perspective, and the various degrees of damage different acts of hacking can lead to.  The Sony hacks from this year are a perfect example: presumably they were meant as an act of political intimidation, in order to scare Sony into shelving “The Interview” before its release, but the hacked data held a range of implications the hackers might not have anticipated.  For example, racist emails between producer Scott Rudin and Sony executive Amy Pascal became a huge embarrassment for Sony and led to discussions about race in Hollywood.  Similarly, breached data showing how much each actor made for the movie “American Hustle” showed that there is still a problematic gender pay gap in Hollywood as well, and led to discussions of income inequality between the sexes.  It was interesting and strange to me that an act meant to bully a studio into self-inflicted censorship ended up spurring productive conversations about race and gender.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was similarly interesting to see the fallout and reactions following the release of several private celebrity photos, showing them naked.  The breach was an undisputed criminal act, and furthermore it was a gendered act of bullying and power dynamics, but it also led to widespread conversations that were not in the public light before (for example, questioning the previous shaming of the celebrities for having naked photos on their phones).   Overall, it is helpful to examine cybersecurity and computer crimes right after our session about “Hacktivism,” because clearly sometimes (for example, with Anonymous), online crimes are used as a form of Hacktivism, but in many cases, online crime can have unintended consequences with bizarre and fascinating effects. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 06:58, 31 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
This topic definitely has made a recent impact on me and some fellow colleagues. Just recently, I received the following email from Anthem:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
     &#039;&#039;“To Members:&lt;br /&gt;
            &lt;br /&gt;
     On January 29, 2015, Anthem, Inc. (Anthem) discovered that cyber attackers executed a sophisticated attack to gain unauthorized access to Anthem&#039;s IT system and obtained   &lt;br /&gt;
     personal information relating to consumers who were or are currently covered by Anthem or other independent Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans that work with Anthem. Anthem &lt;br /&gt;
     believes that this suspicious activity may have occurred over the course of several weeks beginning in early December, 2014... &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
     &#039;&#039;&#039;Information Accessed&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
     The information accessed may have included names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, health care ID numbers, home addresses, email addresses, employment information, &lt;br /&gt;
     including income data. We have no reason to believe credit card or banking information was compromised, nor is there evidence at this time that medical information such as &lt;br /&gt;
     claims, test results, or diagnostic codes, was targeted or obtained.”&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is safe to assume the hackers were not highly interested in our medical history; but rather our identifiable information. While I have added additional safeguards including credit monitoring, a former colleague was not as fortunate. With great misfortune, she discovered the hackers used her identification information to file her taxes. Here is an article about the Anthem breach and tax returns:http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/02/06/turbotax-stops-processing-state-tax-returns-fraud-reports/dvPJbZC9G4tpzJx9ORsZcJ/story.html &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sophistication and frequency of current data breaches, shows why a proactive response would be beneficial as compared to a reactive response. O’Farrell (2014) reported, “ The FBI admitted that the malware used in the attack on Sony was so sophisticated, it would have blown past 90% of security defenses. Which means all kinds of businesses must be worried about this new battle front where not only is their intellectual property the target of attacks, but highly sensitive and potentially embarrassing secrets and internal communications could be exposed to the world.” &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is obvious that hackers do not discriminate what websites they choose to target, which call to question how many breaches have truly occurred and are not reported. Here is a link to an awesome interactive graphic on breaches over 30,000 records: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/worlds-biggest-data-breaches-hacks/ &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover, I question the probability of a cyber attack that will delete information or render a system completely inoperable. While CodeSpaces was clearly a case of substandard security (http://www.networkcomputing.com/cloud-infrastructure/code-spaces-a-lesson-in-cloud-backup/a/d-id/1279116), the increase sophistication of hacking leaves the question, what are large corporations doing proactively to ensure our data is being kept safe. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reference:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
O&#039;Farrell, N. (2014) Why The Sony Hack Could Be A Game Changer For Us All. Huffington Post. Retrieved from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/creditsesamecom/why-the-sony-hack-could-be-a-game-changer_b_6335082.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 15:13, 31 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
I really appreciate that the readings today highlighted the danger of the broad and vague nature of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. “The Impact of ‘Aaron’s Law’ on Aaron Swartz Case” enlightened me about the challenges facing CFAA’s Obtaining Information Through Unauthorized Access to a Protected Computer section. Clearly, the law is so broad that can be applied inappropriately and disproportionally as this reading states. Aaron Swartz’s case was only one example that we looked at this week. The articles “Reporting, or illegal hacking” and “Appeals court reverses hacker/troll ‘weev’ conviction and sentence” raise the same issue. Though of course the main issue in the latter of these two articles was venue in persecuting Internet crime, the CFAA issue cannot be ignored. I agree with Andy’s statement that the way the law exists today: “a persecutor can frame many benign activities online as a felony” and also that the proper role of a persecutor is to “be reactive to the will of Congress and not stretch laws as… a way of sending of message.” I could relate personally to the CFAA issue because I was once accused of overstepping authorization and illegally hacking a work computer. The fact that I was formally accused of computer crime by a prestigious Los Angeles law firm is a laughable joke for anybody who knows anything about my computer abilities !!! It was a compliment, really, for the people I worked with to think me capable of such a feat. I was threatened criminal persecution for this “hacking” when really, just as the examples we read today, I accessed documents that were readily available without any expertise or authorization needed. The files I accessed were downloaded and saved in the “Download” folder on the MAC desktop that I shared with coworkers nearly everyday, without any sort of password requirement. (People in entertainment can be high strung). I had not attempted to spread the “sensitive” material that I had accessed on the computer in any way. I simply told my boss and another person who had limited access to the same computer that I had found the documents. Of course, in my case, no criminal charges were pursued because it really was a laughable claim, but it definitely is unpleasant to get a threatening phone call and email from a strange lawyer. Its unacceptable that companies or individuals that fail to put up proper protection – such as TerraCom and AT&amp;amp;T - can tarnish the reputations of individuals like Wolf and Aurnheimer because of a very important law has weak syntax. Of course, I do not know all the facts of either case, but it is very clear to me that the CFAA is too often used inappropriately. We need a reform that protects against hacking, but with more clarity so as not to bloat our judiciary system. We can start with revisions of the terms “without authorization” and “exceeding authorized access”.&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 15:23, 31 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Batjarks</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Cybersecurity_and_Computer_Crimes&amp;diff=4136</id>
		<title>Cybersecurity and Computer Crimes</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Cybersecurity_and_Computer_Crimes&amp;diff=4136"/>
		<updated>2015-03-31T19:23:15Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Batjarks: /* Class Discussion */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{ClassCalendar}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;March 31&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Last week we looked at hacking as a form of social protest. This week, we take a closer look at the more sinister side of hacking, and the various responses to it. Hacking at its heart involves modifying or intruding upon another’s system. But not all intrusion is socially harmful, and writing laws against hacking have a troubling (and at times, tragic) history of being misused. How big a threat is hacking, really? How should systems respond to hacking? What, if anything, should be the role of government? In what ways can we govern those who don’t consider code to be a governing influence?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Assignment 3 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Assignments#Assignment_3:_Project_Outline|Assignment 3]] is due &#039;&#039;before class&#039;&#039; today. [[Assignment_3_Submissions|You can upload that here.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;onlyinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Readings ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
; Cybersecurity&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://krebsonsecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/HackedPC2012.png Brian Krebs, &amp;quot;The Scrap Value of a Hacked PC (infographic),&amp;quot; Oct 2012]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2015/01/13/the-big-data-breaches-of-2014/ Bill Hardekopf, &amp;quot;The Big Data Breaches of 2014, Forbes, January 13, 2015]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/26/us-sony-stoldendata-idUSTRE73P6WB20110426 Liana Baker and Jim Finkle, &amp;quot;Sony Playstation suffers massive data breach,&amp;quot; Reuters, April 26, 2011]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/12/hackers-promise-christmas-present-sony-pictures-wont-like/ Sean Gallagher, &amp;quot;Hackers Promise &#039;Christmas Present&#039; Sony Pictures Won&#039;t Like,&amp;quot; Ars Technica, December 15, 2015] (for more on this, see [http://www.engadget.com/2014/12/10/sony-pictures-hack-the-whole-story/ here] and [https://www.riskbasedsecurity.com/2014/12/a-breakdown-and-analysis-of-the-december-2014-sony-hack/ here])&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/12/us-government-fingers-north-korea-as-the-sony-hackers/ Peter Bright, &amp;quot;US Government Fingers North Korea as the Sony Hackers,&amp;quot; Ars Technica, December 17 2014]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
; Computer Crimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.cjr.org/cloud_control/scripps_hackers.php Sarah Laskow, Reporting, Or Illegal Hacking]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
; Case studies&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Payback Wikipedia, Operation Payback]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Chanology Wikipedia, Project Chanology]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.dmlp.org/blog/2013/impact-aarons-law-aaron-swartzs-case Andy Sellars, The Impact of &amp;quot;Aaron&#039;s Law&amp;quot; on Aaron Swartz&#039;s Case]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/04/appeals-court-reverses-hackertroll-weev-conviction-and-sentence/ David Kravets, Appeals Court Reverses Hacker/Troll &amp;quot;Weev&amp;quot; Conviction and Sentence]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/2013/1113/Hacking-tool-threatens-Healthcare.gov-site Jeff Ward-Bailey, Hacking Tool Threatens Healthcare.gov Site]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Optional Readings ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/576-the-cyber-war-threat-has-been-grossly-exaggerated Intelligence Squared Debate: &amp;quot;The Cyberwar Threat Has Been Grossly Exaggerated&amp;quot;] (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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v107/n2/795/LR107n2Matwyshyn.pdf Andrea Matwyshyn, Hacking Speech: Informational Speech and the First Amendment]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [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 (&#039;&#039;New York Times&#039;&#039;)]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-parties-use-influence-to-halt-operation-payback-101120/ TorrentFreak, Pirate Parties Use Influence to Halt Anonymous’ Operation Payback]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/interactive/events/2012/10/soghoian Christopher Soghoian, The Growing Trade in Software Security Exploits]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/onlyinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Videos Watched in Class ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Links ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Class Discussion ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div style=&amp;quot;background-color:#CCCCCC;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;~~~~&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;) 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)&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Operation Payback seems to be one of the more non-sensical, and perhaps simply juvenile examples listed in these hacks (hopefully I&#039;m not hacked for this-- hello out there Anonymous!).  The violation of free speech that occurs as a result of these cyberattacks seems to be in direct opposition to the message of open internet platforms.  When sites are pulled down (even if temporarily) free speech suffers as do those who may depend on the contents of the site. For example, if a constituent was looking to contact Senator Lieberman who was attacked, a shut down of his site could block this.  Furthermore, while I understand the qualms that Anonymous has with copyrights, I don&#039;t know how a musician could produce new music without any sort of revenue from sales.  This also causes a threat to free speech.  Gene Simmons has never made more sense than on this issue.  ([[User:Amchugh|Amchugh]] ([[User talk:Amchugh|talk]]) 15:02, 31 March 2015 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are several types of hacking, including for example reputation hijacking, hacking account or financial credentials and bot activity. This is something that affects private citizens as well as large companies and governments. In the article ”Sony Playstation suffers massive data breach”, that deals with a hacker attack against Sony in 2011, Braker and Finkle write ”In the rush to get out innovative new products, security can sometimes take a back seat.”. The interesting question here is if it will continue the same way, or if consumers will put more pressure on companies to care about security. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The article ”Hackers promise ”Christmas present” Sony Pictures won´t like” deals with other hacker attacks on Sony and the quote ”The sooner SPE accept our demands, the better, of course…The farther time goes by, the worse state SPE will be put into and we will have Sony go bankrupt in the end.” shows what power the hackers can have in the computer based society of today. Hacking can be used to blackmail people, companies and governments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Operation payback was a group of attacks on opponents of Internet privacy by the decentralized community ”Anonymous”. It all begun with the crisis on Wikileaks, when they were under pressure after publishing secret US. diplomatic cables. Anonymous was on the side of Wikileaks and there it begun. What made me really angry was when I read that Anonymous threatened to disrupt British government websites because the group opposed the possible act of handing over Julian Assange (who is often called the founder of Wikileaks) to Sweden. This is upsetting in at least three ways. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, it would have been an act that would´ve denied the British citizens information that they by law have the right to access.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Secondly, it is to indirect aggravate a lawsuit since the reason for why the Swedish court system wanted Assange to be extradited was that there had been a subpoena about rape directed towards Assange. To make it difficult for the court system to plead someone guilty or not guilty is a very serious thing to do.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thirdly, it is illegal and there are other ways of changing laws and systems. The laws are made by the government and the government is chosen by the citizens. To believe that you are above the laws is also to believe that you are above other citizens. Laws are there for a reason and if you don´t like it, you can either vote differently or try to change the opinion in ways that don´t hurt others.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anonymous acted this way because they believe that information should be free and open for everyone to see. It is therefore very weird and contradictory that they protest through doing exactly what they are protesting against, i.e. limiting and blocking information. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a conclusion to my thoughts, I want to say that I believe that Internet terror is the future military threat against most countries. It might be on the Internet that our future wars will be held. Consequently, we can´t dismiss crimes on the Internet as ”something that is just on the Internet and not in the real world”, but instead look at the Internet as a natural part of our society. &lt;br /&gt;
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 07:51, 25 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first thing that comes to mind about cyber security and computer crimes are the financial errors in stock markets. As a stock trader, I get rather fearful when potential security issues happen. I’m not sure if they count as security issues, or… issues with their algorithms or partially hacking. Those would result in crashes. The second thing that comes to mind are those “reputation hijacking” (ref 1) on social networks. A family member of mine had this happened to her. She was using the application Line, and somehow pressed a bad link which asked for her logins. That wasn’t a smart move, but for a novice internet user, they would likely follow those instructions assuming it is legitimate. The end result was a long process of letting her friends know it was a hack, and to secure potential credit card information, etc. Therefore I really liked reference 1 which shows all the potential hacks others could do to a PC. I would suspect I had personally experienced a few of them. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reference 2, 3, and 4 becomes very exciting to see the power of hackers obtaining information of normal citizens. Are we really safe by providing our information to corporations online? 77 million user accounts hacked, that is quite something. Not only is privacy an issue here, it also questions if authorities have what it takes to prevent these issues from happening. Sony not announcing it till Tuesday was, in my opinion, also a breach of it’s customers’ trust. It does raise a fair point of how the hackers will use the information that was illegally obtained. Will there be an outlet for the hackers to use it? Are these hacks individual, or are they political? It appears that hackers are yielding too much power. I still hold by my beliefs that “winners” take all. The winners get everything. Once a hacker cracks a code; that’s it, they can decrypt everything and obtain everything. Of course, as the US claims, it was hackers from Korea, most likely due to the release of The Interview. Personally I think it isn’t as bad as Team America that was released 10 years ago. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I mentioned for last weeks readings, Anonymous has a lot of power. Not exactly sure if it is a good thing or a bad thing. But we should also consider if what they’re doing is just or not. Is it just to give “justice” to the ones they think deem it? Are they above the law? I’m not sure. As Operation Payback and Project Chanology has showed us. Were they really being just for doing what they did? Were they off base? I think the founder of Scientology website does have a point…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heldal-Lund commented, &amp;quot;People should be able to have easy access to both sides and make up their own opinions. Freedom of speech means we need to allow all to speak - including those we strongly disagree with. I am of the opinion that the Church of Scientology is a criminal organisation and a cult which is designed by its delusional founder to abuse people. I am still committed to fight for their right to speak their opinion.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So it is therefore unconstitutional for what Anonymous did. This also led me to think about Edward Snowden. Was he really doing good for society, or was he doing it for fame, and his own ideals of justice? What constitutes as constitutional? This argument was shared by the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office too, as they had said the below after Operation Payback.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“The United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office said that when its site was attacked, those responsible were depriving its citizens of access to information they have a democratic right to access. Other critics claimed the attacks restricted Gene Simmons&#039; right to free speech.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anonymous is not pro-democracy. They want to dictate what is right or wrong in their own hands. If they did things that reflected what people really believed in, then I believe they have done things “just”-ly. But to deprive people of their basic right to speech and beliefs; I’m not so sure. Was it a troll taken too far? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There have been increasing amounts of threats that we face, such as “Destroy Obama Care”. Also forbes gives a whole list of the top 20 data breaches. They are increasing in numbers, and it seems like corporations don’t know what to do. Just as technology has enhanced their reach, they would also be required to invest in technological defense against these potential hackers. It also feels that law really lags behind technology a lot. Technology advances so quickly that law requires time to pass. The amendments to the CFAA, which occurred many times. I believe there needs to be a better way to enforce new laws at the same pace as technological advancement, otherwise law would always be a step behind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
References:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://krebsonsecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/HackedPC2012.png&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/26/us-sony-stoldendata-idUSTRE73P6WB20110426&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/12/hackers-promise-christmas-present-sony-pictures-wont-like/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/12/us-government-fingers-north-korea-as-the-sony-hackers/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Chanology&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Payback&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2013/1113/Hacking-tool-threatens-Healthcare.gov-site&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2015/01/13/the-big-data-breaches-of-2014/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/docs/ccmanual.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 17:32, 28 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;A New Species of Crime – A New Species of Enforcement?&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
The 1986 Congress’ well meaning but clumsy efforts to address the world of computer crimes with the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)—and its eight subsequent amendments in a span of 10 years  (pg 2. http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/docs/ccmanual.pdf) is a dismal picture of what happens when Ignorance marries Power. Or perhaps it was simply inevitable that the speed of Internet technology and hacking techniques would outdash the pace of the lugubrious State – a race that does not look too bright for lawmakers going through the usual snail’s pace of lawmaking. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Laskow’s article about the Scripps reporters prosecuted for hacking crimes because they engaged in industry practice to download publicly available information serves a chilling anecdote for the innumerable “crimes” committed everyday by the Internet-accessing world. Once again, in this course, we encounter a crisis of definition; this one is perhaps, the most sinister crisis in terms of criminal prosecution (compared to debates about the definitions of civic engagement or privacy, and their entailing prosecutions, for instance). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The speed by which hackers are able to change their tactics, work around legal frameworks of the CFAA, or simply develop more invisible but potent means of stealing identities, systems, and intellectual property, in a federal system attempting to accommodate 50 individual state laws – or even worse, international hackers operating on a system of web that ignores geographic and political boundaries poses direly complex legal problems. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As somewhat of a self-described Libertarian, I am dismayed to feel that there might have to be a specialized and internationally centralized court, and body of governance – one that can move faster than the legislative movements of nations to address these highly technical and ever changing crimes. The most effective and true hackers are invisible through technical prowess, while the most innocent of them such as the Scripps reporters, are the blatant criminals under laws like CFAA. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The illegal hacking issue is an ever-complicated result of a global problem that is outrunning its bumbling, localized resolutions. There are no single answers to the problem, and I am but a layman before the world of hacking issues and virtual crimes, but it seems that the starting point to resolving this disastrous diaspora is to conglomerate the governing and enforcement bodies into a more centralized system, a more synchronized strategy of attack. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Universal criminals who know no boundaries are destined to win when we are so bound to our disparate governing territories.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The moderate libertarian in me is protesting at my own words. But such is the result of my lay-thoughts after this week’s readings…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chanel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 22:18, 30 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems like we hear about big data breaches all the time these days, but it was still startling to read Bill Hardekopf’s compiled list of “The Big Data Breaches of 2014” in Forbes.  Seeing several instances combined was a bit of a wake up call (especially since I wasn’t even aware of many of these), and it prompted several questions for me.  For example, are data breaches a new fact of life and an inevitability of using credit cards and putting our information online?  Should we be focusing on beefing up security in order to minimize the likelihood of breaches like this, or should we focus on taking swift action once a breach inevitably occurs?  Are there any patterns we can find in the victims of the hacks (the companies, not the credit card users), or in the hacking approaches themselves?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading about the various Sony hacks in Ars Technica also made me think about the wide range of motives that might be at work from the hacker’s perspective, and the various degrees of damage different acts of hacking can lead to.  The Sony hacks from this year are a perfect example: presumably they were meant as an act of political intimidation, in order to scare Sony into shelving “The Interview” before its release, but the hacked data held a range of implications the hackers might not have anticipated.  For example, racist emails between producer Scott Rudin and Sony executive Amy Pascal became a huge embarrassment for Sony and led to discussions about race in Hollywood.  Similarly, breached data showing how much each actor made for the movie “American Hustle” showed that there is still a problematic gender pay gap in Hollywood as well, and led to discussions of income inequality between the sexes.  It was interesting and strange to me that an act meant to bully a studio into self-inflicted censorship ended up spurring productive conversations about race and gender.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was similarly interesting to see the fallout and reactions following the release of several private celebrity photos, showing them naked.  The breach was an undisputed criminal act, and furthermore it was a gendered act of bullying and power dynamics, but it also led to widespread conversations that were not in the public light before (for example, questioning the previous shaming of the celebrities for having naked photos on their phones).   Overall, it is helpful to examine cybersecurity and computer crimes right after our session about “Hacktivism,” because clearly sometimes (for example, with Anonymous), online crimes are used as a form of Hacktivism, but in many cases, online crime can have unintended consequences with bizarre and fascinating effects. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 06:58, 31 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
This topic definitely has made a recent impact on me and some fellow colleagues. Just recently, I received the following email from Anthem:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
     &#039;&#039;“To Members:&lt;br /&gt;
            &lt;br /&gt;
     On January 29, 2015, Anthem, Inc. (Anthem) discovered that cyber attackers executed a sophisticated attack to gain unauthorized access to Anthem&#039;s IT system and obtained   &lt;br /&gt;
     personal information relating to consumers who were or are currently covered by Anthem or other independent Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans that work with Anthem. Anthem &lt;br /&gt;
     believes that this suspicious activity may have occurred over the course of several weeks beginning in early December, 2014... &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
     &#039;&#039;&#039;Information Accessed&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
     The information accessed may have included names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, health care ID numbers, home addresses, email addresses, employment information, &lt;br /&gt;
     including income data. We have no reason to believe credit card or banking information was compromised, nor is there evidence at this time that medical information such as &lt;br /&gt;
     claims, test results, or diagnostic codes, was targeted or obtained.”&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is safe to assume the hackers were not highly interested in our medical history; but rather our identifiable information. While I have added additional safeguards including credit monitoring, a former colleague was not as fortunate. With great misfortune, she discovered the hackers used her identification information to file her taxes. Here is an article about the Anthem breach and tax returns:http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/02/06/turbotax-stops-processing-state-tax-returns-fraud-reports/dvPJbZC9G4tpzJx9ORsZcJ/story.html &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sophistication and frequency of current data breaches, shows why a proactive response would be beneficial as compared to a reactive response. O’Farrell (2014) reported, “ The FBI admitted that the malware used in the attack on Sony was so sophisticated, it would have blown past 90% of security defenses. Which means all kinds of businesses must be worried about this new battle front where not only is their intellectual property the target of attacks, but highly sensitive and potentially embarrassing secrets and internal communications could be exposed to the world.” &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is obvious that hackers do not discriminate what websites they choose to target, which call to question how many breaches have truly occurred and are not reported. Here is a link to an awesome interactive graphic on breaches over 30,000 records: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/worlds-biggest-data-breaches-hacks/ &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover, I question the probability of a cyber attack that will delete information or render a system completely inoperable. While CodeSpaces was clearly a case of substandard security (http://www.networkcomputing.com/cloud-infrastructure/code-spaces-a-lesson-in-cloud-backup/a/d-id/1279116), the increase sophistication of hacking leaves the question, what are large corporations doing proactively to ensure our data is being kept safe. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reference:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
O&#039;Farrell, N. (2014) Why The Sony Hack Could Be A Game Changer For Us All. Huffington Post. Retrieved from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/creditsesamecom/why-the-sony-hack-could-be-a-game-changer_b_6335082.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 15:13, 31 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
I really appreciate that the readings today highlighted the danger of the broad and vague nature of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. “The Impact of ‘Aaron’s Law’ on Aaron Swartz Case” enlightened me about the challenges facing CFAA’s Obtaining Information Through Unauthorized Access to a Protected Computer section. Clearly, the law is so broad that can be applied inappropriately and disproportionally as this reading states. Aaron Swartz’s case was only one example that we looked at this week. The articles “Reporting, or illegal hacking” and “Appeals court reverses hacker/troll ‘weev’ conviction and sentence” raise the same issue. Though of course the main issue in the latter of these two articles was venue in persecuting Internet crime, the CFAA issue cannot be ignored. I agree with Andy’s statement that the way the law exists today: “a persecutor can frame many benign activities online as a felony” and also that the proper role of a persecutor is to “be reactive to the will of Congress and not stretch laws as… a way of sending of message.” I could relate personally to the CFAA issue because I was once accused of overstepping authorization and illegally hacking a work computer. The fact that I was formally accused of computer crime by a prestigious Los Angeles law firm is a laughable joke for anybody who knows anything about my computer abilities !!! It was a compliment, really, for the people I worked with to think me capable of such a feat. I was threatened criminal persecution for this “hacking” when really, just as the examples we read today, I accessed documents that were readily available without any expertise or authorization needed. The files I accessed were downloaded and saved in the “Download” folder on the MAC desktop that I shared with coworkers nearly everyday, without any sort of password requirement. (People in entertainment can be high strung). I had not attempted to spread the “sensitive” material that I had accessed on the computer in any way. I simply told my boss and another person who had limited access to the same computer that I had found the documents. Of course, in my case, no criminal charges were pursued because it really was a laughable claim, but it definitely is unpleasant to get a threatening phone call and email from a strange lawyer. Its unacceptable that companies or individuals that fail to put up proper protection – such as TerraCom and AT&amp;amp;T - can tarnish the reputations of individuals like Wolf and Aurnheimer because of a very important law has weak syntax. Of course, I do not know all the facts of either case, but it is very clear to me that the CFAA is too often used inappropriately. We need a reform that protects against hacking, but with more clarity so as not to bloat our judiciary system. We can start with revisions of the terms “without authorization” and “exceeding authorized access”.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Batjarks</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Speech,_Day_2:_Collective_Action,_Hacktivism,_and_Social_Movements&amp;diff=4081</id>
		<title>Speech, Day 2: Collective Action, Hacktivism, and Social Movements</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Speech,_Day_2:_Collective_Action,_Hacktivism,_and_Social_Movements&amp;diff=4081"/>
		<updated>2015-03-24T20:00:19Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Batjarks: /* Class Discussion */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{ClassCalendar}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;March 24&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just before the break we started exploring speech online. Today, we look at what happens when speech is aggregated into social movements. When does this work? When does it fail? Who gets included and who are we leaving behind? Does the Internet serve as a better facilitator to protests in some areas versus others? We’ll also look at a particular new form of online protest –&lt;br /&gt;
hacktivism – and the special considerations that come into play when people engage in protest through altering or disabling websites. Along the way we&#039;ll grapple with limitations of online protest activity, the criticisms weighed against online protest behavior, and some of the ethical questions that come up when different organizations fight for attention to their specific causes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Joining us this week will be [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/dothman Dalia Othman], a Berkman fellow and expert on civic engagement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;onlyinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Readings/Watchings ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
; Framing&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://web.mit.edu/comm-forum/forums/civic_media.html MIT Communications Forum, What is Civic Media?] (skim)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://ethanzuckerman.com/papers/newmedianewcivicsprepress.pdf Ethan Zuckerman, New Media, New Civics?] (read &amp;quot;The Thick and the Thin of Participatory Civics&amp;quot;, skim rest)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4609956/SAIS%20online%20organizing%20paper%20final.pdf?sequence=1 Bruce Etling et al., Political Change in the Digital Age: The Fragility and Promise of Online Organizing] (read introduction, &amp;quot;Digital Technologies, Information and Political Transitions,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Online Organizing and Contentious Politics,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;The Uncertain Future of Digital Organizing&amp;quot;)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
; Defining hackers, hacking, and hacktivism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tB4onhtAmQ Gabriella Coleman, Anonymous from lulz to activists] (from 0:00 to 54:26)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
; Case Studies&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2295953 Yochai Benkler et al., Social Mobilization and the Networked Public Sphere: Mapping the SOPA/PIPA Debate] (pg. 4-10 only)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/2015_02_10_Score_Another_One_for_the_Internet_0.pdf Rob Faris et al., Score Another One for the Open Internet? The Role of the Networked Public Sphere in the U.S. Net Neutrality Debate] (read intro and conclusion, skim rest)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Mapping_the_Arabic_Blogosphere_0.pdf Bruce Etling et al., Mapping the Arabic Blogosphere: Politics, Culture, and Dissent] (read Key Findings and Introduction, skim rest)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://civicmediaproject.org/works/civic-media-project/index Eric Gordon and Paul Mihailidis, Civic Media Project] (peruse)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Optional Readings ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgh2dFngFsg Aaron Swartz, How We Stopped SOPA]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.utsc.utoronto.ca/~farrell/blogpaperfinal.pdf Daniel Drezner and Henry Farrel, The Power and Politics of Blogs] (read introduction, &amp;quot;The networked structure of the blogosphere;&amp;quot; skim &amp;quot;How skewedness affects politics;&amp;quot; read &amp;quot;The constraints on blog influence&amp;quot; and conclusion)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://civic.mit.edu/blog/erhardt/molly-sauter-and-the-coming-swarm-a-fireside-chat Erhardt Graeff, Molly Sauter and the Coming Swarm: A Fireside Chat]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://soundcloud.com/bwalker/doing-it-for-the-lulz Benjamen Walker, Doing it for the LULZ (from &#039;&#039;Too Much Information&#039;&#039;)] (11:00 to 22:45 only, language at times is NSFW. &#039;&#039;Too Much Information&#039;&#039; drifts between fiction and non-fiction, but this excerpt is non-fiction.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://civic.mit.edu/blog/erhardt/mapping-the-trayvon-martin-media-controversy Erhardt Graeff, Mapping the Trayvon Martin Media Controversy]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www2.scedu.unibo.it/roversi/SocioNet/AdamicGlanceBlogWWW.pdf Lada Adamic and Natalie Glance, The Political Blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. Election: Divided They Blog] (read introduction, analysis, and conclusion – i.e., pages 1-3 and 8-15)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://journalistsresource.org/studies/international/global-tech/social-media-protest-egypt-tahrir-square Alex Remington, Social Media and Participation in Political Protest: Observations from Tahrir Square]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://technosociology.org/?p=904 Zeynep Tufekci, #Kony2012, Understanding Networked Symbolic Action &amp;amp; Why Slacktivism is Conceptually Misleading]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://blog.socialflow.com/post/7120244932/data-viz-kony2012-see-how-invisible-networks-helped-a-campaign-capture-the-worlds-attention Gilad Lotan, KONY2012: See How Invisible Networks Helped a Campaign Capture the World’s Attention]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2010/Tale_Two_Blogospheres_Discursive_Practices_Left_Right Yochai Benkler and Aaron Shaw, A Tale of Two Blogospheres: Discursive Practices on the Left and Right]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks_Chapter_7.pdf Yochai Benker, &#039;&#039;The Wealth of Networks&#039;&#039;] (Chapter 7 - &amp;quot;The Emergence of a Networked Public Sphere&amp;quot;)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2012/04/20/the-tweetbomb-and-the-ethics-of-attention/ Ethan Zuckerman, The Tweetbomb and the Ethics of Attention]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/onlyinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Videos Watched in Class ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Links ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Class Discussion ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div style=&amp;quot;background-color:#CCCCCC;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;~~~~&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;) to the end of your contribution.  This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:51, 11 February 2014 (EST)&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hope everyone had a great break! This is not class related specifically - I just wanted to pop in and post about Facebook&#039;s new changes in service regarding the banning of certain content. I can certainly see where some people&#039;s freedom of expression would be insulted. &amp;quot;How dare they censor me!&amp;quot; are the cries being heard.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That said, Facebook is a private enterprise (as in not a government agency paid for by tax dollars) and can therefore do whatever they please. You don&#039;t like it? Go use Twitter. Go make your own forum, go do your own blog, pound sand, you certainly are not required to use Facebook.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What do you all think?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Soundbites from the NYTimes Article:&lt;br /&gt;
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/16/facebook-explains-what-it-bans-and-why/?_r=0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Facebook Clarifies Rules on What It Bans and Why&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On Monday, the company clarified its community standards to give its users more guidance about what types of posts are not allowed on the service.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“We’re trying to strike the balance based on the way our community works,” Monika Bickert, Facebook’s head of global policy management, said in an interview. “The landscape is complicated.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Terrorist organizations like the Islamic State have long been banned from the service. But supporting or praising groups involved in “violent, criminal or hateful behavior” is also banned, the updated rules say.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Threatening people with physical or financial harm, or bullying them by posting items intended to degrade or shame them, is also prohibited. So is anything that encourages suicide or eating disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“It’s tempting to think of free expression and having a voice as black and white — either you have it or you don’t,” Mr. Zuckerberg said. “But giving people a voice, like most things in our society, is something that we must make incremental progress towards.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;And another writeup:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
http://pontiactribune.com/new-facebook-rules-sharing-this-article-might-get-you-banned/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just to add my viewpoint, this was my response to a friend that posted the above Pontiac Tribune link on Facebook. I may of course only be in the minority.:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&amp;lt;i&amp;gt;I was reading this, and as someone who does not usually post anything controversial unless it&#039;s about which hard wood is better for making a portable bar, I thought this was interesting enough to take a devil&#039;s advocate stand on. Facebook is not a government agency. It&#039;s a private enterprise (I don&#039;t mean private company in relation to I know it&#039;s &#039;publicly traded&#039;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore what they allow and don&#039;t allow is completely and utterly their choice. We don&#039;t have to use Facebook. We can go create our own blogs, our own sites, post our own content on a forum that we own and control, without risk of being &amp;quot;banned&amp;quot;. Now depending on what you are posting, you may or may not run afoul of the government, but that&#039;s between you and the government, and maybe the terms and conditions of wherever you are hosting said content.... but overall, I don&#039;t see this as a &amp;quot;freedom of speech&amp;quot; argument.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This quote from the article is rather disingenuous. &amp;quot;Facebook has decided to become the world’s censor. This may end up being the final nail in the coffin of a social media outlet that has seen users flee from other idiotic policies.&amp;quot; (I doubt it by the way - the nail analogy)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Facebook is only becoming the thought police FOR THEMSELVES. If they don&#039;t want certain content on THEIR servers, being fed to the masses that are THEIR users, then that is THEIR prerogative, not ours.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Will people abandon Facebook because their feelings are hurt that they can&#039;t share that rape video? Or that gang beating? Or that gorgeous naked man with the sculpted 6-pack? Or whatever else pissed FB off? Of course. So be it. Get out of the sandbox and go build your own.&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:ErikaLRich|ErikaLRich]] ([[User talk:ErikaLRich|talk]]) 14:28, 22 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Erika (and everyone else)!&lt;br /&gt;
Interesting what you wrote. I liked the quote from Mr. Zuckerberg; “It’s tempting to think of free expression and having a voice as black and white — either you have it or you don’t...”, because that is something I believe often is forgotten in the debate about free speech. In my opinion is protecting the freedom of expression not the same as letting everyone say exactly what they want. Because that can limit the freedom of others. Here are some examples of why freedom of expression is not black and white: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. If someone threatens you, you might not have the courage to express yourself, and your freedom is therefore limited. (In some cases can threats even effect all aspects of your life.)&lt;br /&gt;
2. If you get triggered through pro-eating disorder material (like you talked about Erika), you will also be silenced since someone who is suffering from an eating disorder have a hard time focusing on anything else than food and weight (and therefore probably won´t be very active in debates). Consequently is such material limiting the expression of others.&lt;br /&gt;
3. If you bully someone online (or offline), you mentally break down the other person. That can result in lower self esteem of the bullied and he or she might no longer have the courage to speak up and express him/herself. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is hard to know what should be censored and what should´t. But it is important to reflect upon the fact that freedom never is black or white, and that liberalism isn´t a synonym to letting everyone do exactly what they want. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 07:46, 23 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This week&#039;s readings were wonderful and engaging but internet activism and online social movements cannot always be categorized in the same way as traditional activism.  I feel that there is a heavy emphasis placed on an assumed laziness (perhaps the wrong phrasing) on the part of the blogger, online organizer, what have you.  Yes, traditional organizing like real life marches or on the ground activism translates to a certain kind of activism and can lead to social and political change that cannot be achieved if the efforts remain online, as articles like Ethan Zuckerman’s, “New Media, New Civics?” point out.  But we cannot define online activism in the same framework we use in examining our traditional notions of activism.  The Internet, this still relatively young space, doesn&#039;t yet have as much of a &amp;quot;status quo&amp;quot; of sorts - - meaning, space can be taken up by more people than before (granted, exceptions for places that don&#039;t easy access to the internet or their internet is censored and/or blocked).  In this way, saturating this new media with a marginalized viewpoint, perhaps from members of of traditionally marginalized groups is a strong political act within itself.  Making it so that new media is not the same as what you would get by turning on the regular news, this is an action itself. For example, I found the &amp;quot;Mapping the Arabic Blogosphere&amp;quot; article pointed to the phenomenon.  In looking at the different descriptions of peoples&#039; blogs one can see a range of traditional ones to a growing degree of ones discussing HIV/AIDS, women&#039;s issues, etc. &lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Amchugh|Amchugh]] ([[User talk:Amchugh|talk]]) 15:49, 24 March 2015 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved watching Gabriella Coleman’s speech on Anonymous this week, particularly because I’ve been fascinated by – and conflicted in my opinions about – the group over the course of the past few years.   I first read about them in detail in 2012, following their focus on a rape case in Missouri.  The case had been all but dismissed by the courts and the media, until Anonymous seized on an exposé that had been published in the Kansas City Star.  In this case, I was immediately favorable to how they handled the situation; it truly seemed like they were bringing justice to a case that otherwise would have been brutally unjust.  But I also felt complications around the power of “online vigilantism,” since if a powerful group like Anonymous could focus its energies in a direction I agreed with, it could just as easily use its powers towards an end I (or others) felt was wrong.  For example, the group drew controversy when it released incorrect information about the supposed police officer that had shot Michael Brown in Ferguson.  It’s also potentially just as problematic to see what Anonymous chooses not to highlight, including this follow-up to the rape case in Missouri, when earlier this year, the victim attempted suicide again, and her mother wondered where the online group’s support had gone (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2014/01/07/daisy-coleman-alleged-rape-victim-attempts-suicide-again/).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another thing I have had difficulty grappling with is how the group balances its “lulz” mentality with more serious political activism.  It was very interesting to hear Gabriella Coleman address this tension and show how it is clearly a big source of confusion even within the group itself.  But it was equally helpful to hear her assessment that the humor and irreverence are political statements in and of themselves.  I particularly liked her comparison of Anonymous to other groups in the past, such as the Cynics and the Dadaists.  I had not thought about the fact that confusion and humor can be powerful cultural forces of protest and activism, and I had never thought of the “lulz” as an essential part of the group’s activism until she drew those comparisons.  The humorous elements of the group also seem to help it gain legitimacy and respect among certain communities that might not afford such privilege to other activist groups.  It reminds me of Ethan Zuckerman’s “cute cat theory of digital activism,” because of the idea that sometimes political activism needs to be masked in other forms of content in order to gain traction online.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 09:02, 23 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi everyone!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This week´s reading was very interesting since it was about something you hear about almost every day. The Internet can be used in many ways, and social movements on the Internet don´t always look the same. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Drezner and Farrel write that ”the typical blog is written by a teenage girl”. However, all blogs in table 3 - Blogs read by the media and Table 4 - Blogs read by elite media (they show influential blogs/bloggers) are as far as I can see, written by men. This is very interesting since it means that even though the typical blogger is a teenage girl (or at least was when this was written in 2004), the most influential bloggers are male. I also thought about gender when I read Etling´s text about the Arabic Blogosphere, when he wrote that ”Arabic bloggers are prominently young and male”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I also found interesting was that it often is critical that traditional media pick up and write about what the blogs have posted if the big audience should pay notice to it. Traditional media has in that way power that sometimes is difficult for new media to claim. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Zuckerman wrote about ”the thick and the thin of participatory civics”. He meant that ”thick” participation is when you have to use your head while ”thin” participation is when you need your feet, or when you don´t have to think and use your brain. He mentioned that thin participation often is negatively called slacktivism and that a lot of people blame those activists to be lazy and not doing ”real activism”. Zuckerman wanted to challenge that view and problematize the issue in new ways. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thin participatory civics is often connected to new and social media. However, I would say that traditional media sometimes take advantage of this type of activism as well. One example is the annual radio/TV program Serious request from the Netherlands that has been broadcasted every December since 2004. The project has now been spread to several countries, but in most cases under another name. The purpose of the project is to involve as many persons as possible in collecting money to a different cause each year. Money has been raised for victims of land mines, for clean drinking water, HIV/AIDS, for victims of sexual violence, etc. (Wikipedia, 2015). The following paragraph explains the project:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;During the Dutch 3FM Serious Request three popular radio DJs are locked up for six days in a small temporary radio studio (the &amp;quot;Glass House&amp;quot;), placed in a main square in a different city each year. Living on a juice-only fast, the DJs make an interactive, themed broadcast around the clock, while regular programming on the station is suspended. Instead 3FM and its website are completely dedicated to the event, which is also transmitted as a continuous audio and video live-stream. Additionally there is television coverage, integration with social media, and a dedicated mobile app.&amp;quot; (Wikipedia, 2015)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Some of the things the project include:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-Radio/TV profiles that lead the show.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-Auctions on the internet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-Telephone calls to raise money.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-Projects that anyone can start to raise money.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-Sharing for example TV clips on social media to raise people´s awareness. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-Listening to the radio/watching TV (without listeners, there wouldn´t be a show.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As you can see, there are many ways (both ”thin” and ”thick”) in which people can participate and organize themselves. I think that it shows how both the ”thick” and ”thin” can be crucial and good. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia, 2015. Retrieved 3/23/2015 from &#039;&#039;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serious_Request&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 11:52, 23 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Great points, everyone! Another fun piece of reading that was just posted related to tomorrow&#039;s discussion is [http://civicmediaproject.org/works/civic-media-project/binders-full-of-election-memes-participatory-culture-invades-the-2012-us-election Binders Full of Election Memes] by fellow Berkman Fellow Erhardt Graeff. [[User:Andy|Andy]] ([[User talk:Andy|talk]]) 14:45, 23 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the internet is a great device for a civic debate, protest or manifestation of society, however there may be some dangers that these groups of activists can face such as being labeled, hacked, or portrait in different way than what they really are, so I think that the balance that one must strive to reach is the idea of non violence over the platform of the internet, and the education and security that can ensure safety, of everyone in every way.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If some news are exposed can create a great impact on people, however it will take sometimes for people to be able to understand the way how information on the internet functions for the ones that posted and find it, this is we should strive to a greater level of awareness to only enjoy the benefits of the internet in social movements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edwin Duque (15:54, 23 March 2015 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hello All!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I hope everyone had a fun and restful spring break. Even though I spent the week in Florida, thanks to my iPhone I was able to get through this week’s readings. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While all of the readings on collective action, hacktivism, and social movements were extremely thought-provoking, I was especially intrigued by Ethan Zuckerman’s, “New Media, New Civics?” article about online activism because, even though I am a huge fan of Malcolm Gladwell’s work, I totally agree with Zuckerman’s opposing stance on the value of participatory civics in the digital public sphere as an agent for change. &lt;br /&gt;
   &lt;br /&gt;
In his article, Zuckerman applies a very useful matrix to case studies of digital activism which denotes how varying degrees of thin and thick engagement can collectively impact change of both norms and codes, as he eloquently points out, “if enough of us raise our voices loud enough, we may persuade our mobile phone company or our nation to change its path” (14). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know from personal experience that organizations such as Change.org not only collectively involve a large enough population of thin engagement participants to enact normative and instrumental change but they have also become an avenue of inspiration for others to participate in subsequent thick forms of engagement to solve additional problems and recruit even more participants. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to their “About” page Change.org currently has more than 85 million users in 196 countries. That is certainly a significant number of voices actively contributing to a wide array of social movements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 00:28, 24 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Beth Noveck&#039;s take on civic engagement was particularly controversial to me; at once I agree with her view that community engagements don&#039;t &amp;quot;scale&amp;quot; -- this idea brings to mind the example of the stereotype cookie-bake ladies who, getting together, stand on the proverbial corner of the road, put up a bake sale, and send all $124 of the proceeds to the Pentagon to help out with the war. They go to sleep thinking they have come together and done a great thing. When in the bigger picture, it is not society they have helped but their own consciences. Noveck&#039;s point about civic scaleability is pertinent everywhere we watch community efforts like this come to fruition only to cause the smallest of imperceptible ripples across the water. I would add that in addition to this problem of non-effectively translatable community engagement to politics, the discussion about words to action also suffers from information-flooding and information-dilution. This problem aside, the part where Noveck&#039;s stance is problematic is that community engagement does not necessarily translate into action. This stance overly discounts the power of norms as understood from Lessig&#039;s Code point of view. While this may be the case short term, Zuckerman is a treasure trove of examples to counter this argument -- especially from the Middle East and Islamic states -- where community engagement translates into fundamental shifts in norms. And norms are, in the end, the most powerful political actors in a democracy -- even in non-democracies. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Berkman report about trends in Arabic civic engagement, it was noted that most of these online activities seem to have the most &amp;quot;impact&amp;quot; in semi-repressive governments; doing less well in the least repressive governments and in the most repressive governments. One reason for this could be back to the problem of information dilution and over access in affluent communities. With societies in the least repressive governments, there is an overflow of news, of interests, of general online activity that have little to do with discussions about community. Rather, out of contentedness are born the classic children Complacency and Inaction. Digital media merely increases the speed of confusion and dilution. So the considerations of a society&#039;s comfort, it&#039;s information dilution levels, and its general government regulation are considerations that have come to the table about civic involvement and digital media in a way that is at once encouraging and discouraging. Encouraging when we read about Zuckerman&#039;s highlighting of the Pakistani community of women embroiderers who have been empowered to change societal norms via social media, and discouraging when we think about the majority of a comfortable society&#039;s use of its digital tools to do less than community-beneficial things. Great readings this week. Looking forward to piecing them together through lecture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chanel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 00:45, 24 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hello everyone after the spring break!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Staring a Collective Action, Hacktivism or a Social Movement, they all are provoked by certain political or social events, by something done or something not being done by the government. From today’s reading it seams that in most of the cases the trigger has always something to do with the government not doing the right thing or not doing anything at all, Aaron Swartz telling  us  how  KOIKA , later on SOPA was  stopped, the Arab Spring, the hactivism organized by the Anonymous, the common element is that in all these cases single, otherwise ordinary individuals, combine forces in order to oppose the government united by a common goal.  During the history people has done this using different means , more or less violent, but civil protests are not new phenomenon. What is  new is the means we use nowadays. Internet is a very powerful tool. After today’s reading (and listening), I  would  conclude it’s power is based on three main pillars – Accessibility, Speed and Anonymity. Internet is an open tribune for everyone, everyone can make its opinion public and can easily find supporters by sharing it through the social communities.  The second thing is the speed, the number of the supporters can reach thousands for just few days, as Aaron Swartz said it happened  with the anti- SOPA campaign.  Last but not least is the anonymity Internet is offering. An Internet user can initiate a group, community or be counted  as a supporter of such one and still stay anonymous. A lot of people who would not dear to stand behind a cause and defend it on live, are gladly supporting the same cause online. This is bringing the question, how real all online movements and initiatives are? In some cases it turns out to be as real as it could be. When we take examples like the Arab Spring where the people transmitted the movement from Internet to the streets  and keep on defending the idea. The most recent example I found is in Istanbul, last week where more than 100,000 people turned the funeral of  Berkin Elvan into a mass demonstration for civil rights. As Zeynep Tufecki Is commenting on the event  “No formal organization made the call” she says,  it all has started in Twitter and later on turned out that Berkin&#039;s face had become a “symbol of civic resistance shared on social media from Facebook to Instagram”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand there are cases when people are sharing a politically orientated  image macro memes (Erhardt Graeff’s analysis on the election memes) but we could hardly conclude all of them are truly engaged with the cause. Most of them are just finding  the memes  amusing and funny . We could judge by the number of people sharing and liking the memes for certain tendencies in the society  but  it would not be right to assume all those people would defend the idea or cause behind the funny memes on the street. The research showing that actually most of the tweets regarding the Arab Spring were coming from Arabs in US and Europe  is another prove  that the  conclusions based on the “online support” should be carefully examined and could  be  deceiving in some cases. I think Bruce Etling, Robert Faris and John Palfrey made a  very  good point on this, categorizing the social online activities  into Mobs, Movements and CSOs. In the same spirit is the “Thick and Thin of Participatory Civics”  theory of , Ethan Zuckerman who clearly explains that  there is a big difference between the  “lazy”, thin participation with by clicking the mouse and the thick one, where some dedication is needed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
I really liked the speech of  Aaron Swartz and  felt  very sorry for his tragic end  of his personal story but  back to the subject , I was mostly impressed by the number of online petitions he had organized. What I am curious  about is to know  a little  bit more about the legal value of  such a petition. I  think  that some  issues  like the act of signing an online petition are not very clear to me. Should  each of the signatures use an e-signature in order his vote  to be recognized as a valid one. I think this would be impossible for realization but otherwise how the authenticity of such a petition could  be assured so it could have a legal value?    ([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
---- &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Shouting from a soap box or singing in the shower?]] This line stuck in my head as i read Yockhai Benkler et al. This is a question often ask amongst activist and friends in regards to political blogs. When you blog, do you speak to three thousand people or only three? Very difficult to know. This is why i&#039;ve developed a few techniques to not waste time blogging. A quick short paragraph is usually best, no need for an entire manifesto because, again, you may be communicating with only three people. When it comes to countering hate speech, I only respond to those that cross the line into racism and violent threats, often referencing the audience and the possibility that someone in law enforcement might be reading the blog. Finally when it comes to arguing opposing points of view I try to respond to those who write full sentences and try to make an argument.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From Anonymus to LULZ by Gabriella Coleman was a very interesting presentation. There is a big difference between blogging and actual face to face, hand shaking community organizing work. Furthermore, one doesn&#039;t work without the other. The occupy movement used both tactics to some extent, but in my opinion, got caught up in the anonymous philosophy and wasted a tremendous opportunity to really organize and have an impact. Sadly their obsession with no leadership and their endlessly mind numbing deliberation sessions won over reason, instinct and action. I still give the young kids Kudos for revolting and shaking up the tree. I&#039;ll admit, I used the occupy movement to further my own agenda and the movement happily obliged, and it was a net positive for the communty organization i worked with, but in terms of real impact on public opinion and legislation, I would say it&#039;s minimum. Mainly because their actions became more and more lame over time, and never even came close to anything &#039;audacious&#039; or daring as Anonymous&#039; could come up with. [[User:Hromero10|Hromero10]] ([[User talk:Hromero10|talk]]) 13:25, 24 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Hacktivism and civic media]]. Wanted to add another post in response to some comments. The problem of scaling up is very real in activist blogs. this type of thin involvement is what you get from on line petitions and so forth, and in order to have real impact it must be coupled with community organizing. meaning actual people, who get together, meet face to face, organize actions and actually show up at city hall or the state house and make their case to law makers. If people are not willing to do this it is difficult for online activism to scale up beyond a group of like minded individuals or to have any meaningful impact on their goals.[[User:Hromero10|Hromero10]] ([[User talk:Hromero10|talk]]) 13:44, 24 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This week’s topic, by far, is my favorite topic we have covered in class! I thoroughly enjoyed all of this week’s readings and was pleasantly surprised by what I learned. Before this week I considered myself proficient in the knowledge of online social movements, because I have been heavily involved with a lot of campus and student groups who participate heavily within avenues of civic engagement written about. Boy, was I wrong!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The piece that most interested me was Erhardt Graeff’s “Binders Full of Election Memes”. Admittedly, I think this spoke to me because I was guilty of “trolling” the Internet around election time. Although I may have been trolling, I am proud to say I refrained from malicious acts described by Gabriella Coleman. The type of trolling I participated in was far from anything Anonymous has committed, yet I still had a hand in retweeting or reblogging the occasional funny meme about a presidential candidate – because “I did it all for the lulz”. Naturally, because I believe I am a political animal, I would follow debates on the news between presidential candidates and then would return to social media outlets to see what would resonate with Twitter followers, Tumblr feeds, or even my own Facebook group of friends. What amazed me was Graeff’s ability to describe and articulate what I would find on my social groups. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meme sharing indicates there is something worth paying attention to in that moment. Maybe it is just funny. Maybe it is a little too true, which underlies the humor and implores us to pass it on. A lot of memes act as shibboleths—they indicate that you are part of the in-crowd, you get the joke, you were there when it happened. This is the power of the meme speech act. It quickly creates a networked public from its in-group. That feeling of inclusion can inspire further and future discourse.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Graeff alluded to, the memes that I would post or repost, would initiate a conversation with a) people who watched political debates b) people who shared similar political views. It created this “in crowd” of people, which only perpetuated people to read or participate in politics to ensure they could get these jokes. I know there was a point in the running where Romney had made the famous “47 percent” comment for which I had not yet accessed.  Sure enough, all my social media was blowing up with 47% hashtags, memes, and funny gifs. Not being able to understand what the trends were about, I was motivated to seek out legitimate news sources to read what had happened. The comment by Romney, exacerbated by online groups and memes, undoubtedly tainted the candidate’s image and I’m not sure he has been able to recover from this perspective. This small example shows the strength of social movements online is powerful, and has yet to know no boundaries. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think in situations such as a presidential campaign, which promotes the freedoms of democracy, it is ideal to have as many citizens participate in the matters. In this aspect, social movements have done a wonderful job of providing information to as many people as possible. Before, matters of political platforms were somewhat reserved for the elite and privileged. Recent developments have made information more accessible and relevant. Secondly, social movements can positively reinforce the desire to be involved, even if it’s out of social pressure to be part of the “in crowd”. My wanting to be involved with the latest 47% topic drove me to seek out information and stay more current with politics and national news. In this respect, social movements can promote participation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But, I believe that politics nowadays have moved away from what originally was concentrated on the validity of the content being discussed, to highlighting who flubbed or what mistake can be made in to memes. This, I believe, is one of the negative perspectives for which social movements fail online.  The focus of participation can be shifted to aspects that may be funny, but take away from the real issues at hand.  Henry Jenkin’s “civic media” suggests that social media and television are not solitary actions, which I agree with, but at what degree does participation look like? Does change come about when things are being retweeted or reblogged, but not translating into action. Graeff’s describes some of these concerns as:  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although this corroborates the value of connective action and the argument that election memes represent legitimate political speech acts, it also calls into question the quality of personalized expression and grassroots mobilization involved. But “authentic” and even cynical political participation through memes can coexist with their adoption and exploitation by professional political organizations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When speech becomes aggregated into social movements, the results are simply unfathomable. As past events have shown, massive movements (i.e. #blacklivematter, #occupy) or social injustice campaigns (i.e. Aziz Ansari’s #rupertsfault campaign against Rupert Murdoch) have happened due to the ability to assemble on online forums. I think the reason I am so attracted to this topic is because the environment of social movements have endless possibilities and unlimited abilities to include more, and more participants. &lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 15:11, 24 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Why Accountability Matters&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Beth Novek asks, “what does civic, rather than deliberative, media look like?” She answers, “Ultimately it means recasting our conceptualization of the First Amendment to be not simply about talking about talk but also talking about action.” We do need to talk about action, but that is not enough. We need to talk about responsibility and accountability in taking action.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Action is an abstract word that evokes a virtually infinite number of manifestations, weak, strong, legal, illegal, disobedient, constructive, and destructive.  Action, particularly concerted action, without the constraint of accountability is a very dangerous movement. I am not limiting my discussion to physical action, as in moving online bullying to physical bullying. Digital action in our digitally dependent and digitally empowered world holds many risks. We will never agree on regulating action based on our opinions of whether a particular action is positive or negative. There are those that would contend that the actions of the 9/11 terrorists had positive effects. What we can do is take the steps to help ensure that actors are accountable for the actions. This would seem a basic tenant of a civil society, digital or physical. &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Certainly, accountability inhibits in varying degrees the actions that a community or individual might be willing to take, as exemplified in the reactions by the government to the demonstrations against Mubarek in Egypt. There demonstrators were identified and arrested based on their Facebook identities. The videos of the release of the demonstrators were employed by the government as propaganda that it still had power over such demonstrations.  But the story does not need to end there, and we may also consider the reactions of the online world to those videos and to the actions of the government in making the arrests.  Here, everyone, demonstrator and government alike, is accountable. It is when action is taken anonymously, when actors are not accountable for their actions, that we are most at risk of abuses of power. Anonymity would appear to offer far more risks of abuse than sanctity for concerted action. As Etling observes, “anonymity diminishes the effectiveness of the very factors that facilitate effective social and political organizing…: leadership and displays of unity and commitment. It is therefore not surprising that there are no examples of influential political movements comprised of anonymous participants…. digital technologies can be used just as easily by those with nefarious intentions as those acting in the public interest.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 15:57, 24 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Welcome back from break everyone!&lt;br /&gt;
Three topics struck me as fascinating and relevant this week: social movements gaining support through social media, symbolic versus institutional power, and the role of narratives in the acceptance and change of social norms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the common themes that struck me as I read our literature this week (especially the article by Tufecki) is that of a call for a social movement that breaks us out of an existence dictated by mass media. More specifically, I am fascinated that individuals used social media to communicate their messages and eventually gain support for social movements. In the Coleman video, we saw signs of this in the “Anonymous movement” in which people publicly attacked or poked fun of public individuals or symbols that preserve our somewhat “mundane” existence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also really enjoyed the discussion of symbolic power versus institutional power. Again, in the Coleman video, the anonymous movement fought for human rights, for example, and eventually was able to positively change social norms, solely with symbolic power. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A perfect recent example that brings these two themes together, along with Tufecki’s third theme of narratives as a driving force for social norms and social change, is the recent public outcry surrounding the Ferguson shooting. Though racism clearly existed in area for some time, a “hands up don’t shoot” narrative was falsely constructed and then spread throughout mass media, and repeated by individuals and organizations with institutional power. It has been discovered that this was a fabricated narrative. Ferguson was a huge topic on social media, and unfortunately countless individuals were misinformed as they banned together for change. It is unfortunate that institutional powers are not always required to apologize for spreading misinformation to the masses, especially because the narratives they spread are given such weight due to their formal power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 16:00, 24 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Batjarks</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Assignment_2_Submissions&amp;diff=3975</id>
		<title>Assignment 2 Submissions</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Assignment_2_Submissions&amp;diff=3975"/>
		<updated>2015-03-09T23:19:16Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Batjarks: /* Comments */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{AssignmentCal}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Submission Instructions===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Please note that we have updated the [[Final_Project#Frequently_Asked_Questions|final project page&#039;s FAQ section]] based on some student questions that have come to us over the past week.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This assignment is due on March 3rd.  Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (assignments submitted 4 days late or later will have a maximum grade of 1 point).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please name your file &amp;quot;wikiusername_Assignment2,&amp;quot; where &amp;quot;wikiusername&amp;quot; is replaced with your username, to avoid overwriting someone else&#039;s assignment or causing errors in the Wiki by including forbidden characters.&#039;&#039; So if your username is &amp;quot;jdoe&amp;quot; and your file is a Word document your file should be named &amp;quot;jdoe_Assignment2.doc.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Upload your rough draft here: [[Special:Upload|Upload file]]. If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [[Special:ImageList|list of uploaded files]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the submissions section below please post the following information:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Name or pseudonym: &lt;br /&gt;
*Prospectus title: &lt;br /&gt;
*Link to prospectus: (add your link here)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Comments==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Everyone will receive an additional participation grade for this assignment. You should read through everyone&#039;s proposals after they are uploaded and add constructive comments below the proposal on which you&#039;re commenting. Comments should be submitted by March 10th so you have time to incorporate them, if applicable, into your project outline. &#039;&#039;&#039;Please remember to sign your comments by adding four tildes (&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;~~~~&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;) to the end of your contribution.  This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post.&#039;&#039;&#039; If we don&#039;t know who you are we can&#039;t give you credit for finishing this assignment!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ryan Hurley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Facebook &amp;amp; Big Data vs. Your Privacy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Prospectus_FB_and_privacy_Assignment_2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 16:06, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Ryan,&lt;br /&gt;
Great topic choice. Without fail, every single time I have a class on Big Data I obsessively delete aspects of my online presence, cut up frequent customer member cards, and google myself. It’s a hilarious cycle. I am so excited to read your paper and I appreciate the range of content you have considered for the paper, as well as the range of your references. I have an online text for another IT class that has a chapter devoted to FaceBook and their privacy issues. Please, email me and I can send it to you. Also, make sure to keep in mind that FaceBook’s relationships with advertisers and users are changing constantly. A three year old article might give you more context for your research, but very likely reports on policies that are out of date.&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 18:38, 9 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Olivia Brinich&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intentions and Outcomes of Youtube’s Copyright and Coding Regulations&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Oliviabrinich_prospectus03.03.15.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Oliviabrinich|Oliviabrinich]] ([[User talk:Oliviabrinich|talk]]) 15:51, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Comments on Olivia&#039;s Prospectus:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Olivia, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let me start by saying I think that Youtube is a great source for your project.  I’m not saying that just because I am doing my paper on Youtube.  I find the creative ways that people are using it fascinating.  Much more so than some of the other platforms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If I may summarize, you plan to discuss how legal pressures forced Youtube to introduce technologies that changed the user experiences, like Copyright ID.  You also mentioned some other (possibly voluntary) technologies that are part of the user experience with the intent to discuss how they impact users.  I think they are good ideas and good concepts to write about.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As you rightly point the Youtube community is one of the largest communities on the Internet.  I wonder if it might not be taking on too much to try to examine Youtube as a whole.  I would suggest selecting a small group that is susceptible to the effects of the technologies you are reviewing.  Describe who the group is and how certain characteristics of their make-up or user experience make them particularly sensitive to the technologies you will focus on.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example I will be focusing on hobbyist inventors.  Guys that spend their weekends in the garage putting “junk” together and posting videos about their “inventions” on Youtube.  Their content is all original so they are not impacted by Copyright ID.  There is very little thumbs up/down.  They are a much more “expressive” crowd as the comments indicate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’m not trying to discourage you.  I think if you pick the right group and tell us why you picked them, it can very interesting.  I hope that is helpful.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 19:47, 4 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•  Erika L Rich&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•  Title: Reputation Management and Ethical Considerations for Members of the Internet Marketing Super Friends (IMSF) Facebook Group&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•  Link: [[File:LSTU_E120_Erika_Rich_Assignment_2.docx]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:ErikaLRich|ErikaLRich]] ([[User talk:ErikaLRich|talk]]) 15:22, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Hey Erika,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It&#039;s great that you chose to focus on on specific Facebook group for your topic. I am still a bit confused about the purpose of the group and the demographics of its members. Who are the members? What do they gain from membership? How many members are active participants that make substansive contributions versus inactive members? Once your audience understands more about the group itself, they will relate to this example and be more invested in your topic. Another suggestion I have is to focus on the effects of the moderators on the content of the group (instead of cyber security for example). You mention culture differences coming in to play and affecting content. Can you explain that further?&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 18:53, 9 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•	Emily MacIntyre (EmiMac)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•	Prospectus title:  A Case Study on the Unintended Legal Consequences and Chilling Effects of YouTube’s Content ID Sweep on its Video Game Commentator Community&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•	Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Emily_MacIntyre_Assignment_2.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 09:41, 2 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Emily, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Great job on your prospectus! It is very well organized, and your citations sources are well researched. I found your research really enticing because I had never heard of this sweep, and I consider myself an avid youtube visitor. I think you are on to a great research project. Although the topic is remarkably fascinating, I wonder if investigating and juxtaposing the different types of monitoring will be too large or too abstract for the limit of the project. I also read up on the PewDiePie character cited, and I think it is really fascinating to see that he has 35 mil subscribers, yet chose to turn off his commenting feature because of how volatile he claimed the space was becoming. His specific youtube channel then does not have a community to investigate. But it would be interesting to examine someone or a specific youtube channel that has a similar following as the case study to better help zone in on collecting and investigating data. Thank you for this topic, I am currently reading more about the youtube actions in 2008 and 2013 because I had little to no prior knowledge of both events. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good luck on your project!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 00:09, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
RE: Mhoching,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thank you for your comment. I very much like your prospectus topic as well as you can see from my comments below. With regards to my final project, I thought I should reiterate and clarify that my community is the YouTube contributors that concentrate on making Let’s Plays and video game reviews. While it is helpful to find a video with an active comment section, where other users further explain how the ID sweep influences their output choices,  in the case of PewDiePie, his decision to turn off his comment section does in part illustrate how YouTube has rapidly evolved. Since Google began catering to commercial enterprises over the original volunteer contributors, some of the volunteer contributors have become increasingly more frustrated and they exhibit their frustration in a variety of ways.      &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks Again,&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Emily&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 09:37, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
•	MattK&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•	Home of the Mallet of Loving Correction: John Scalzi&#039;s Blog, &amp;quot;Whatever&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•	http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:MattK_Assignment2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:MattK|MattK]] ([[User talk:MattK|talk]]) 22:01, 2 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Matt,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am particularly interested in your topic because I believe it is a very small example of what the internet could become or arguably is becoming in regards to free speech. I am very intrigued by the notion of &amp;quot;knowledge is power&amp;quot;. What I mean relative to your project is that I believe that those who can control what &amp;quot;knowledge&amp;quot; people receive therefore posses great power. In your case, Scalzi&#039;s blog is equipped with a comment section where total control is given to Scalzi on what to allow others to see. By censoring whatever Scalzi sees as &amp;quot;offensive&amp;quot; he is limiting a voice, whether good or bad, and therefore limiting knowledge. I would argue that there&#039;s no question that the term knowledge here is used very loosely and there are obvious comments on these sorts of forums which provide no overall good at all, but more importantly the question I think of is how dangerous it would be for one person to posses this sort of &amp;quot;editorial power&amp;quot; to simply delete anything they see unfit. What would happen if other sites also used this sort of policy where whatever is subjectively deemed unworthy of being a comment was deleted? Are there infact other online sites and forums that take this approach? What implications does this approach have for the audience of the site? Does it discourage participation as a sort of chilling effect? It is a scary world to imagine where one party possess the power of what information to provide and what to censor. In this specific case what if the comments are simply against Scalzi and are a disagreement with what he writes? What is to stop him from simply deleting something. I&#039;m curious to know what sort of checks and balances or accountability Scarzi&#039;s editorial powers has. I think your subject bears the question of where to draw the line between free speech and productive censorship, an enormously tricky and potentially dangerous distinction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These are just a few thoughts I had, in any case best of luck it&#039;s a great topic. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks,&lt;br /&gt;
Ryan Hurley&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 18:55, 8 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
---- &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edwin Duque (Edwinduque)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title:The copyright, privacy and organization challenges that online communities such as Facebook and The Jury Deliberation in the cyber space are faced with &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Edwinduque_Assignment_2.doc&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Edwinduque|Edwinduque]] ([[User talk:Edwinduque|talk]]) 22:10, 2 March 2015 (EST))&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Edwin, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I  like the way you structured your idea. I  think that the copyright issue is  very  interesting and it  is  worthed  spending  some more  time on it.  Exploring the nature of  a Facebook post – whether  it  could  be  consider  as an “idea”, in the Copyright Act specifically states that In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, regardless of the form in which it is described. Or  it  could  be  considered  as  an “original works of authorship” fixed by the author in a tangible way, in which case it would be covered by copyrights. The issue of re-posting someone else’s post with commercial purposes  could  be interesting to mention as well. It is just  an idea,  but saying some words about  the  case  with the  famous Facebook post “In response to the new Facebook guidelines…. “ might  be  interesting too. I think  that  you  could  also easily  link your work to the “right to  be  forgotten” issues   we  discussed  in  class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here  are  some links  you  might  find  useful. Good  luck!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.nyccounsel.com/business-blogs-websites/who-owns-photos-and-videos-posted-on-facebook-or-twitter/&lt;br /&gt;
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-social-networking/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
-------&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Michelle Byrne (Chelly.Byrne)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus title: Balancing privacy for victims of sexual crimes with &lt;br /&gt;
opportunity for support in online forum  AfterSilence.org&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:ChellyByrne_Assignment2.pdf &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 07:54, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Michelle,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You have chosen a terrifically nuanced community. Indeed, the word “balance” and the question of HOW such a community can possibly approach this word is bound to yield more data and conclusions than the page ljmits of our final project – which is only testimony to the strength of your community research choice. I believe yours is the most psychologically-based prospectus that I have read thus far. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By “psychologically-based,” I mean that I sense that you will be making some conclusions about the specialized mindsets and individuals who are drawn to this community; a community that paradoxically, and in waves, seem to wish for both anonymity and at the same time, a very specific and difficult kind of attention. Anonymous attention.  A community that has created a safe haven and yet, has some very troubling cracks, as you point out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Questions:&lt;br /&gt;
Are these cracks mostly user generated? As in, the example you found of the poster who revealed configurable data revealing her identity. If they are mostly user-generated, how prevalent of an instance is this? Of the active users who reveal private information, what instances are accidental or ignorant (as in, thinking they’ll be anonymous by revealing age, town, etc) as opposed to intentional?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is there some kind of warning or clause in the user agreement that attempts to address this issue of accidentally revealing private information or even purposefully revealing it?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the user agreement and the rules and guidelines for AfterSilence.org do address this issue and users still post personal information, what are the pros and cons of simply warning users about the risks and then letting users do as they please vs. taking pro-active measures?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If there were pro-active measures for a site host like this to take, what would they be? Message board community reminders? Moderators who redact info? Self-regulation and regulation amongst members? What does regulation in this kind of community actually look like and is it sustainable in its current form?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many more questions and considerations to make. Good topic choice, succinctly proposed. I wish you all the best in this project and I look forward to reading the final project.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best, &lt;br /&gt;
Chanel Rion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 11:31, 9 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Chanel Rion (ChanelRion)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;We the Judges: &amp;quot;Sitejabber&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;Yelp&amp;quot;, and Communities of User-Generated Business Reviews.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment2_Prospectus_Rion.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 11:21, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Chanel,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The subject of customer generated reviews is certainly huge on the internet.   It is beneficial for consumers to get an opinion of a product or restaurant from other people over just what the advertising says.  But as you point out, there is a lot of opportunity for libel or slander – especially people just having an ax to grind.   It would be interesting to see how Yelp or Sitejabber are being responsible and making an effort to regulate content and protect places being reviewed from harassing content.  I like how your approach includes researching any legal cases brought against them; it would be interesting to see if any of them prevail.   Also, how do they actually calculate the ratings?  Is it an average of overall ratings?   Or could bad reviews be hidden away if there become lots of positive reviews?  Are businesses sandbagging to increase their ratings?  &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Overall, this is a great community to look into and I wish you success!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Michelle aka (Chelly)&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 15:43, 7 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
RE: Michelle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Michelle,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thank you for your comments and feedback. I too, am especially interested in the legal angles to this community and I am glad to know I&#039;m not the only one. I will certainly be watching and reviewing and seeking the answers to these questions and also to your specific concerns. All intensely pertinent to how businesses and communities are going to manage tensions with each other -- tensions that have always been here, but are now revolutionized in simply the sheer and complete access that the Internet provides to all of us.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Looking forward to starting this seek and find. Thank you for highlighting questions and focuses, they should prove helpful for such a broad category. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chanel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 16:49, 8 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Becca Lewis (beccalew)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: &#039;&#039;&#039;/r/TwoXChromosomes and /r/feminism: The challenges of promoting feminism on Reddit while upholding the values of privacy and free speech&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Final_Project_Prospectus_Becca_Lewis.docx &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 13:15, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Becca!&lt;br /&gt;
I absolutely love the theme of your project, it is an exceptional live issue since feminism has been discussed much more this past year than it has been for many years. Therefore, it´s really important to examine the forums in which people have the opportunity to discuss the subject. Great!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found it cool that you are thinking about recording a podcast for the project. If you do so, you might consider including an interview with someone active in the specific forums, a professor in gender studies or perhaps two people with different views on the issue?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a question about the subreddits you talked about though. You wrote about a ”safe space” for women. Are those subreddits only for women or are they open for anyone who want to discuss feminism and gender roles? If it is a women-only forum, you might also discuss the consequences on that. If not, maybe that has consequences as well. Maybe you should discuss self censorship in the feminism subreddits as well (which is very interesting since Reddit-as you said-values free speech above almost all else)?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good luck!&lt;br /&gt;
/Josefin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 10:39, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Gary Brown (Gary Brown)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: The Effects of Site Controls on Community Objectives: communityfunded.com&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Gary_Brown_Assignment2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 13:18, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Comments on Gary&#039;s Prospectus:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gary,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Great topic!  I hope to be going out to for crowdfunding by the end of the May.  So I will follow your Wiki with interest.  (In your proposal you link to crowdfunded.  I think you meant community funded. You may want to look at that.) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You mentioned the stated purpose of Communityfunded.  But you did not mention their reason for existing.  In other words, what started crowdfunding and why would individuals seek funds for their projects from the public and not other traditional sources.  Why are people like me willing to go online (to communityfunded) to ask for money, as opposed to going to another site or pitching a Venture Capitalist or a bank?  Why would people fund a project on line versus invest in the stock market or Bank CDs?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the answer to those questions goes to the heart of crowdfunding.  It also is germane to the “troublesome obstacles” you refer to in your prospectus. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When you mention failed projects, I would suggest that not all failures are the same.  I might be willing to invest money in a project I consider socially redeeming even if I thought it had very little chance of success.  Where as, if I were investing in some Harvard wiz-kids that profess to have the next Facebook, I might have very different feelings if they went belly up.  So you may want to include categories of projects, or claims/expectations in your discussions.  As well as any risk factor ratings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You also mentioned building and keeping trust of supporters.  One of the areas that interests me is the ways that Fundraisers generate funding support.  Do they rely solely on the site?  In other words, is there a pool of would be investors just waiting for the right idea to come around so they can invest.  Or is a fundraiser expected to go outside the community and raise interest and drive that interest back to the site?  How does that impact the “trust” factor?  If I am a one-time fundraiser does it matter all that much what people think about me after I’ve got my money?  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You discuss how you will break down funded projects, etc.  Is there a way to figure out what various fundraiser did to get funded?  Marketing may prove to be more of a factor than the project or its worthiness.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It would certainly be worthwhile to compare and contrast crowdfunding before and after changes in regs that made it easier for the public to invest.  And how post reg trends may lead to new regs/controls.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I look forward to reading your paper.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 20:45, 4 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Meagan HoChing (mhoching) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Title: Online Gaming Harassment: All fun and games? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Mhoching_Assignment2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 13:50, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Meagan,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every aspect of your prospectus is incredibly interesting to me. I am especially intrigued by how well you have matched up the readings to your topic. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After I read your section on Norms I thought about how you point out that “the gaming system is very competitive” and it made me wonder, if Valve placed more restrictions to prevent bullying could it potentially take some of the pleasure of competition out of the mix.  If so, then would some users leave the game because they like the hostile environment, which may be why they chose to play in it in the first place.  Keeping this line of thought in mind, perhaps you could find another similar community that has more strict modes of control in place to observe the differences between them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your prospectus and I look forward to seeing your finished product.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best,&lt;br /&gt;
Emily&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 09:25, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Meagan!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What an interesting and relevant subject! &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that it was a very good idea of you to use the Dot Model with the components ”Market”, ”Architecture”, ”Norms” and ”Law”, it makes everything much more clear. I agree with Emily that it would be a good idea to compare DOTA 2 with another game, preferably from another website than STEAM and with another system of regulation. I would find it really interesting to see the result of a such a study and if norms, the language, the members of the site, etc. differ between the two games. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I´m looking forward to see the result! Good luck!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
/Josefin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 10:16, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Meagan!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this is a very fascinating topic and one I too almost pursued. I am a bit of a gamer myself and although I don&#039;t play DOTA, I do regularly play many different sports games which I have found to have similar issues of harassment and &amp;quot;bullying&amp;quot;. I hadn&#039;t heard of the STEAM website you&#039;re focusing on until I read your assignment, but for anyone who has read really a comment section/forum anywhere, one second you&#039;re talking about a video game, the next you have gone down a path of hate and overall disgust of anyone different minded not to mention if it is a competitive game which stirrs up some hostile emotions toward an adversary. I find this particularly interesting when it comes to video games because many people who don&#039;t play video games believe that &amp;quot;it&#039;s just a game&amp;quot; but on the contrary for many gamers, one can find their self emotionally invested into a game you are taking part in. You feel this overwhelming sense of dedication to it and attachment to what happens in it where you can essentially lose yourself in the game. It is because of this hardwired competitive and primitive feeling and this element of motivation that I believe is so deeply rooted in many gamers that it would be near impossible to ever completely outlaw the harassment or trash talk because it will never stop. However perhaps there is some sort of way to outlaw the harassment that crosses a line by creating real consequence while still allowing some competitive jabbing but that I will be curious to see from your project. I will be also curious to hear what your research finds about the website in particular, I would venture to guess that it is probably similar for communities like the PSN and xboxlive. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I might suggest on top of all this to take a look at games which do not have a competitive nature with other users. This may be difficult to find but I&#039;d be curious to see whether it is harassment you find on forums with these sort of games or rather a cooperative dialogue intended to help one another. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good Luck!&lt;br /&gt;
- Ryan Hurley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 16:26, 8 March 2015 (EDT)  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Caroline B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Title: The Study of Privacy, Accuracy &amp;amp; Order on InsideNova Website and Moving ‘Little Sites’ Up&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:1_Caroline_B.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Cbore001|Cbore001]] ([[User talk:Cbore001|talk]]) 14:45, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Caroline,&lt;br /&gt;
Something to for your paper is the current statistics on accessing news in the United States (online newspaper versus hard copy newspaper for example), and the devices used to access online news (iphone, android, ipad, laptop, desktop computer, etc). IBISWorld and Mintel might offer up to date statistics on news distribution/access. Google analytics offers insight on specific website views. Perhaps take a look at what the demographics of the visitors of this site are and try to find out why this site attracts these viewers. Comparing this site to other more popular news sites (like CNN as you mentioned) is a great idea. Currently, I think your proposal covers too wide a range of topics, so maybe consider focusing on just a few that you mentioned. (For example maybe narrow it to the three subjects max: privacy, journalists’ / contributors’ / editors’ / monitors’ control of content, the ethical policy of the site). If privacy is a big concern to you, I think you could focus your entire paper around it. &lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 19:19, 9 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Jan.Yburan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus title: Reddit.com/r/IAmA its Controls on Privacy and Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Jan.Yburan.Assignment2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Jan,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is a really interesting community to build your case study around. Prior to today I have only been on the site a few times to look at subreddits that relate to topics that I am interested in, and since I am not a member I have not considered how the site protects the user’s privacy. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today I decided to look at the IAmA subreddit to get a better handle of the scope of your project. Consequently, I came across and interesting and fairly benign thread started by an employee of a movie theater and it brought to mind, how does the site handle issues of privacy, libel or defamation against a company or a consumer when an employee engages in what appears at first glance as an anonymous tell all blog that highlights how he/she has witnessed vulgar and perhaps even criminal activity. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Considering your topic and direction you want to take, I think you might want to blend together aspects of the readings from our classes on privacy with the readings for next week’s class on free expression, information, and unwanted speech.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am looking forward to seeing your completed final project. I am sure it will be very informative.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Emily&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
P.S. (Here is the link to the AMA I referenced: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2xz6nb/iama_movie_theater_employee_and_ive_seen_the/)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 13:04, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Eric Yuk Lun Kwong (Caelum)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus title: The vulnerable voting structure of Digg.com and the gradual&lt;br /&gt;
collapse of its popularity and voting legitimacy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Caelum_Assignment2.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 15:11, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Eric,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Excellent topic. One that possesses, at once, broad-scale relevance and unusual particularities. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Exploring the reasons for Digg’s failure as a site and as a community, I’m drawn to the question regarding the members themselves. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It would be interesting to compare, if applicable, the kinds of users who are drawn to a voting-type participatory community vs. a community that actually interacts via content and contributions. If clear distinctions can be made here, to then find examples of successful communities that are voter-based and to pinpoint key policies or elements that differentiate sustainable models of voter-based communities compared to content-based contribution communities. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Perhaps it is fundamentally an issue of investment; when users and the outside world view a product as having or requiring minimal investment (as in, saying, or rather, clicking “yes” or “no” to something – voting to “dig” or “bury” a story). Are voting based sites destined to suffer from questions of legitimacy by virtue of being online and being so subjective? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That you will be making parallels to Wikipedia’s platform seems to be a good approach here. Wisely done. Thank you also, for your commentaries – I appreciate the thoroughness in which you approach these topics. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best of luck!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chanel Rion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 11:57, 9 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Alex Samaei (Samaei1)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus title: The Framework of Projects and Backers on Kickstarter&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Samaei1_Assignment2.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Samaei1|Samaei1]] ([[User talk:Samaei1|talk]]) 15:37, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Alex! &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&#039;m so happy you picked this website because I&#039;ve donated to various projects on this website, but never took into account the structure of the website and complications due to misappropriating of funding. I find it hard to try to quantify what is appropriate to fundraise, because the topic is subjective. Of course I don&#039;t think it would be appropriate to fundraise to support hate speech (if that&#039;s what someone is fundraising for), yet I don&#039;t find it appropriate to fundraise for movies about starving children, when that money can go to feeding starving children. I hope I&#039;m communicating the subjectiveness of trying to find what would be considered appropriate to raise money for and how it varies from person to person. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But speaking in regards to the Lessig&#039;s Dot Model I think the website can be broken down into different sections to address some of the issues you raise. For example, how does the structure of kickstarter promote accountability on the artist/person asking for money? On the donation page for example, a vast amount of information about the artist is available, as well as avenues in which you can contact the fundraiser. So if kickstarter has provided this as a requirement for people to submit or provide when asking to be funded, is it then up to the donor to hold that person accountable? I have the tools on that page to ask the fundraiser for that specific information and continue to follow up on that information. I think once you start looking at specific/deliberate aspects of kickstarter, it will start to inform or control behavior. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I hope this helps! Look forward to reading the final project; happy researching and writing!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 00:35, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Alex,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’m interested that you have chosen a community that, you imply, is being targeted not for its failures, but for its successes. A wildfire that is often so much more visible on the Internet than in any other form in history. Speed, access, and instant publicity -- make &amp;quot;success&amp;quot; in society ever more visible, open to targeting, and prone to hijacking. Indeed. It is a great topic for research in this course in particular.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One aspect that could be revelatory is to seek out the kinds of legal cases that have been brought against kickstarter and what litigation the site has to deal with and what kinds of litigation that users potentially enter into. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There’s also a question about user legitimacy. How easy is it for some startup organization to simply use this community and its platform as an elaborate marketing plan? Can a company, for instance, viel itself to be a small time kickstarter that can feed itself funding and manufacture the appearance of democratic success? It would be especially useful to identify who the moderators are and to what extent they exercise control or regulation if any. Does Kickstarter have even the skeleton of some kind of verification system or is the verification over the legitimacy of a proposal entirely user generated? Is this sustainable or are there signs of trouble ahead? What would be a disastrous scenario for this community? To these questions, I think that many clues may be found in the litigation and whatever bad publicity the community has had encounter. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Great topic, culturally relevant community. Thank you for the topic and best of luck for the final.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chanel Rion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 12:31, 9 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Gia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus title: Chivalry online&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Gia_Assignment2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 15:46, 3 March 2015 (EST))&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Gia,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This topic is definitely flushing out the seedier side of the internet!  I have never heard of this site 419eater, but we all know the dangers of scammers and how they use the internet.   How do they find their victims?   Some scams are so realistic as to mention names of loved ones in danger and demand money be expedited.  The scam baiters you’re talking about here must be trolling similar sites and circles to identify culprits they need want to go after.  But in doing so, are they just as much at fault as the original scammers?   Is there any regulation of the members? I can definitely see an ethical dilemma, as you point out, of some possibly unscrupulous members.  And your question of whether they have extended their existence outside the online world is a very interesting consideration.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You a have a lot of good sources listed regarding scams (white collar crime and Ponzi schemes too!).   Good luck, this is an intriguing subject!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Michelle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 15:57, 7 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Re: Michelle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks for the comments, Michelle. I definitely intend to explore the  subject from both sides, because there could be really two, maybe even more , points of  view. Regarding the legal regulation, there is a lot  to be said – interned jurisdiction. The self-regulation of the web community  which is  evolving with the  time is  also a nice starting  point. &lt;br /&gt;
Thank again for the ideas and good luck  to  you  too with  your  work!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Mishal R. Kennedy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus title: Enforcing Guidelines Without Harming User Contributions&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Mishal_R._Kennedy_Assignment2.rtf&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Mishal R. Kennedy|Mishal R. Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Mishal R. Kennedy|talk]]) 15:51, 3 March 2015 (EST))&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Hi  Mishal,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The  subject you have  chosen  is very interesting and gives great opportunities  for  discussions and analyses. I would   directly  make  a reference  to  the  Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0, which we discussed during “Paradigms for Studying the Internet’ class.  You could explore the methods  used by the moderators and administrators as a way  of  self regulation of  the  community. The  question  you asked  whether  these  methods  are  causing  more  bad  than  good, is right  to the point. &lt;br /&gt;
I would  suggest you explain in more details the  different  methods  of control used  my the moderators  and perhaps compare them with the ones used by other communities. You could also take a  look  if  it is explicitly listed in the Terms  of  Use   of the  website  in which case what measure is taken? Is there a higher authority than the moderator to  whom  a sanctioned  user  could  complain? Could  such  a  decision  “be appealed” or  it  is  final and definitive? Is there at all a hierarchy in the administration of the website?&lt;br /&gt;
Here  are  some  sources  which  might  help. Good  luck!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
https://www.academia.edu/3079184/COAT_Collaborative_Outgoing_Anti-Spam_Technique&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.yildiz.edu.tr/~aktas/courses/CE-0114890/g8-p3.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~kksivara/sfwr4c03/projects/4c03projects/CGLucas-Project.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM11/paper/viewFile/2780/3296&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Richard Markow&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus title: The YouTube video-sharing platform &amp;amp; The Community of Alternative Heating Systems and Appliance Inventors&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Rich_Markow_Assignment_2_Prospectus.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 16:03, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name AlexanderH&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: Managing the Petitions of Change.org: B Corps, Social Enterprise and Transparency&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:AlexanderH_Assignment_2_Prospectus.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:AlexanderH|AlexanderH]] ([[User talk:AlexanderH|talk]]) 16:10, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Meredith Blake&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title:Identifying Avenues of Recourse for Businesses on Yelp &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Meredith_Blake._Assignment_2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Meredithmblake|Meredith]] ([[User talk:Meredithmblake|talk]]) 16:13, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
Hello Meredith!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this is a great topic and you have a very interesting approach.  I haven’t really looked into Yelp and the lawsuit angle, but they certainly have a lot of influence on the internet.   Out of curiosity, I just Googled about 10 different restaurants in this area and the results had the Yelp review either as the second or third site listed!   So potential customers are seeing the Yelp rating almost before the actual websites in a couple of cases!   There is little recourse for them, and as you show by the Sia example, a disgruntled customer can reach out and cause a flood of terrible reviews, from people who weren’t even customers!   Caelum makes a good point in the summary at the bottom that reviews are either one end of the spectrum or the other… disgruntled customers wanting to air their displeasure or someone extremely happy who wants to rave about it.&lt;br /&gt;
   &lt;br /&gt;
It is good to take a targeted approach to such a large community, and looking into the recourse that businesses may have as well as existing lawsuits sounds like a good approach.  If a suit is successful, what are the actual outcomes?   Does Yelp take down reviews or adjust the ratings?   I think people who expound on sites that give a platform are really missing the spirit of free speech.   I don’t think your approach is that unpopular, not that free speech needs to be regulated, but that there should be some modicum of self-restraint and freedom to say anything is not absolutely protected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good luck on this, you’ve got some really good ideas!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Michelle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 16:14, 7 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Wesley Verge&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title : Scrolling into Darkness -- An investigation into the regulatory forces at work in Youtube&#039;s comment section&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Wesley_Verge_Prospectus.txt&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 [[User:WesleyVerge|WesleyVerge]] ([[User talk:WesleyVerge|talk]]) 16:19, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Wesley!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am very intrigued by the &amp;quot;solutions&amp;quot; there are to change the culture of the comment sections. It is really an intriguing phenomenon that one could be watching a video about puppies and suddenly 4 comments down glance over an argument that Obama was sent by satan himself to destroy the world. I&#039;ve always been curious as to how this has not been regulated more strictly. I think you raise great points why and the concerns Google is faced with. If I were doing this project I might also attempt to compare this to other sites as well that must face similar challenges. For example you suggest in your assignment that youtube channels direct traffic to sites like Reddit, but is that really an escape for the channel as this implies? Can these &amp;quot;trolls&amp;quot; not go over to reddit to promote their hate just as easily, or do they have different solutions in play that regulate these sorts of issues better? As far as I know both are anonymous to an extent so with this anonymity many of these trolls have &amp;quot;keyboard muscles&amp;quot; as I like to call them. I can understand twitter because many times it is much more personal but even there people can create fake accounts and troll all the same, just see Jimmy Kimmels skit on celebrity reading mean tweets. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really like your focus on famous YouTubers I just think it may also be beneficial and worth mentioning how other sites with the same prevalent issue have tried to combat trolling. Also from a legal side, are all of these comments protected by the law and free speech? Perhaps because of the enormity of all the comments and comment sections, it is simply impossible to regulate what is said in every section from a legal perspective. Food for thought, but in any case great project idea.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best of luck,&lt;br /&gt;
Ryan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 16:56, 8 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: Knocking the Wind out of Whistleblowers: The US&#039; response to the growing threat from WikiLeaks &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Kelly.WilsonAssignment_2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Kelly.wilson|Kelly.wilson]] ([[User talk:Kelly.wilson|talk]]) 16:38, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Kelly,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interesting topic.  There are a couple of perspectives you may want to consider about when defining what you mean by Whistleblower and the response in each situation.  1) Exposing illegal acts.  2) Exposing immoral acts.  3) Exposing Acts designed to embarrassed your political opponents or as retribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Should they all be treated the same and afforded equal protection?  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good luck!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 00:10, 9 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Tasha&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: Exploring the Complexity of Rapidly Evolving Information in a Bodybuilding Forum and the Challenges of Quality Assurance&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Tasha_Assignment_2_Prospectus.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tasha[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 17:12, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--------&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Tasha,  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I  like a lot  your  choice  of  community  . It  is  unusual and  at  the  same  time  you  could  find  a lot  of  things  to explore-both  from  legal  and ethical stand  point. &lt;br /&gt;
I would  say  that your  questions and  reflections are  on the right track. I think  that one of the issues  you  could explore is  the fact that  they  are  often used  as  a platform  for  unlicensed  sell of  drugs. If  you choose  to go  for this, you should have  to take  a  good  look  on the definitions  in order  to  differ  “Drugs”  for  “Nutrition Supplements” because  this is  the  tricky  moment. How the  website  is  protecting  itself  from  such  kind  of  activity (by  its  Terms  of  use  or  in other  ways) , might  be interesting  as well.&lt;br /&gt;
Above you could find two links that might be of some use. Good  luck!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first is little bit old but interesting:&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t000525b.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://health.wusf.usf.edu/post/unlicensed-pharmacies-selling-compounded-drugs-online&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
__________&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Josefin Sasse&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: A case study on the children&#039;s website Kidzworld and how they deal with threats against being a safe environment for children.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:JosefinSasse.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 17:26, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Josefin!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find your topic utterly intriguing. I had no idea such a website existed and it&#039;s been quite fascinating just poking around the website a little bit. I think it is a very valid point to raise about &amp;quot;who monitors Kidzworld&amp;quot;, because there doesn&#039;t seem to be much of a screening process to ensure the user that is signing up for an account is in fact between the ages of 9-17. Also, I see you have cited the Pew Research Center study from the readings, which is a great resource for dissecting the demographics and statistics of harassment, but the study was done on &amp;quot;young adults&amp;quot; ranging from 18-29, and &amp;quot;young women&amp;quot; between the ages of 18-24 years old. Which I hope illuminates, rather than complicates, the issue of doing research on a demographic ranging from 9-17, but more so how do you set up  a website that serves a population that would need adult consent to participate in almost everything they do. Along with privacy issues, I think the question of who is responsible for what and for whom is a great aspect you have raised in your paper! I would love to stay in touch and see the developments of your paper if that would be okay. I think this is the perfect website to investigate for this project.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 00:10, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Josefin,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think you picked a great online community to explore for your final project, not only because it is a social space for a specific group, but also because there seems to be some fairly strict regulations in place to maintain a safe environment for kids. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It might be interesting if you could find some weakness in its structure. For example can kids go into private chats or are all the chats and comment sections being screened. If they are being screened, is it by a computer generated logarithm or real people? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another question that you could delve into is, how do the site’s administrators know the users are minors.  Do they require parents’ permission? If so how do they prove it is actually a real parent?  &lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
I hope these suggestions are helpful. I am looking forward to seeing your finished project. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best,&lt;br /&gt;
Emily&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 00:13, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name:   Brooke Tjarks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus:   Art. Business. Fans. (...) How this collaborative space shapes mass visual media production and worldwide distribution&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link:   http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Prospectus.Brooke.Tjarks.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Abby McHugh&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: From #Thinspiration to “Low Carb Friends”: The Regulation of Online Weight Loss Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Amchugh_Assignment2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Abby!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Okay, so I really wich I had chosen this issue. It is great that you did!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To facilitate the work, I would recommend that you are more specific in which websites you are going to explore since there is so much #thinspo content out there. But Twitter, Tumbler, Pinterest, and Instagram are great platforms to explore, together with blogs like you said. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Other things you might want to discuss are:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What makes the most harm: #thinspo/pro-ana blogs and posts or limitations on freedom of speech by regulating such content? (On my part, I am determined in my opinion that #thinspo is devastating and that regulation in this case is a good thing.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Who is active in this community?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Could pro-ana be illegitimate harassment? Compare it the possibility of a pro-cancer or a pro-aids community (deadly diseases just like anorexia).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What effects could/does the sometimes lack of regulation have on the community online and offline?&lt;br /&gt;
Good luck! You´ve chosen a very interesting subject!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
/Josefin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 11:08, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abby,&lt;br /&gt;
I am so impressed and dare I say jealous that you picked such an important subject for your paper. Here are a few things that come to mind as I read your plan. I hope at least one of them is helpful.&lt;br /&gt;
-	I LOVE that you have already started a list of references. My critique for your references is to add more scholarly sources to substantiate your conclusions. For example, perhaps a database like “Mintel” or “IBISWorld” will have metrics regarding weight loss CONSUMER trends globally or in the United States. From another angle, you could find articles in scholarly psychology journals or *gasp* BOOKS in the library of a graduate psychology program. I am a student at Pepperdine, too, and I love their graduate psychology library and their electronic databases. If you want me to request anything and have it sent to you, do not hesitate to ask.  And from yet another angle, perhaps we could find legal cases that relate to your topic, as well. I would be more than happy to work with you to find more sources because I just love your topic so much. &lt;br /&gt;
-	Carbohydrates are critical for healthy brain function. Perhaps that is important in your paper, as well? Elephant in the room?&lt;br /&gt;
-	If you decide to mention similar trends or implications of the “thinspo” trend, maybe consider body building inspiration on social media and blogs and why it is both equally obsessive but healthier.&lt;br /&gt;
-	Another thing that concerns me about your topic is privacy. Not just the privacy of those with eating disorders, but all individuals participating in the online weight loss chatter. And also, the trend to take pictures of one’s body and put those photographs online. What are the implications of this?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 18:26, 9 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note: If I’m a little direct in the comments, I really mean the best. Hope it doesn’t offend anyone. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ryan Hurley: I think professor said stay away from these huge websites. Perhaps you could discuss with the professors if Facebook is the right website to focus on? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Olivia Brinich: I think you’re asking a lot of questions to be answered here.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“How does it Pind and protect information, how do copyrighters choose to deal with the individual cases of copyright infringement, and what happens when a clip is wrongfully targeted for copyright violation, i.e., the adverse unintended consequences of Content ID?”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Perhaps you should just focus on one main thesis and explore on that. For example, focusing on how copyrighters deal with copyright infringement, and how that eventually influenced youtube to introduce copyright ID system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One last issue is whether youtube is too big of a website to focus on. Perhaps you could narrow it down to say, copyright issues for music on youtube. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Erika L. Rich: I think it’s a very broad term to discuss the ethical considerations. Perhaps if you narrowed it down to 1 or 2 main issues you find extremely compelling about the website and community? Or maybe I have simply mistaken your train of thought. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Emily MacIntyre: I like how you had such conviction to talk about youtube that despite its size, its still worth researching about. I think you could also talk a little bit about how these game commentators earn their living by commenting on games. PewDiePie is estimated to earn millions every year. It could show a greater perspective on things if we could see their earnings as well. South Park actually has a very funny episode about commentators commenting on commentators commenting on games on youtube. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matt K: Do you think that changing the title to reflect your research would make it easier for the reader? (Just a thought) I think its interesting how you mentioned “democratic instrument”, bringing politics into the way his blog is ran. According to the quote you took, Scalzi has indeed used some controls over potential commentators. Furthermore, you should consider that if it’s a blog about all sorts of things, with John’s comments on it, he should also be open to listen to commentators reply to this, especially if its about sensitive topics. If he’s going to filter away those he “considers” as offensive, then perhaps he shouldn’t comment on other things either. (unless the comment really does not have a valid point and is not related to the topic) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edwin Duque: Good to see you in this class too. I think you should just focus on one website. I’d do JuryX instead of Facebook as professor said big websites aren’t good. Also, you’d need a stronger thesis to connect what the real question is. Is it about allowing free sharing? Or is it about limiting what gets shared? I’m a little confused with your thesis. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chelly Byrne: I think you have a strong thesis here. The contradictions between sharing information on the internet, and the fear of being exposed would be very interesting. I think you can even go into the subscription process. I assume the website allows anyone to join. This means that even predators could read up on what victims write. Unfortunately, they probably get quite the entertainment from reading it, or pretending to ask “leading” questions. As you said, just a tiny bit of excessive information leaked out could result in a victim being violated again. I guess you could talk about that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chanel Rion: Since you’re talking about Yelp and reviews, I’d like to share what I learned from another class. Most of these reviews are at the ends of the spectrum. Unless someone is a regular of Yelp and does a review for every restaurant, the rest of them would be people who had great experiences or really bad experiences. They won’t be bothered to write a review about a mediocre or average restaurant. It’s not worth their time. You could also mention that. Also, do you think there are fake reviews too? I’d go for siteJabbar. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Becca Lewis: Firstly its interesting how you’re talking about Reddit because I’m talking about Digg. I think new beliefs takes time to be adapted by the masses. Feminism isn’t very old, and its on going. I think it takes time for people to adapt to it, so for the short term I won’t be surprised if the discussion board sees a lot of anti-feminism people. But also do bare in mind that these are “beliefs”, just like “liberalism” (which is quite similar to feminism, fighting for individual rights, etc). Not everyone believes in these values, so some disagreements should be expected. I guess an interesting way could be to examine if people become more offensive when they are shown as anonymous. My thoughts are that it is. You could look at reddit discussions compared with the core values of Wikipedia, and why it worked for Wikipedia, but a little hard for Reddit. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gary Brown: Are there any data on the selection process, or ventures that were rejected? It’s hard to associate it with discrimination if there is no evidence. Since you can’t prove or disprove this, it means “site controls” cannot be determined. Therefore you need to make a new thesis that really reflects the paper. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meagan Moana HoChing: DOTA is a fun game. My initial response is that with huge amounts of ego on the line, that’s how bullying start. Haha. From what I read and know, it is the architecture that is dominantly the issue. This structure allows the audience to exploit it. I think you could also investigate is how is “harassment” identified as? Calling someone a “loser”? Do note that a lot of cyber bullying are to kids that people know in real life. So can we causally say trash talking is the same as harassing? When NBA players trash talk one another, I don’t think they considered it as harassing. So I guess this definition needs to be very clear.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Caroline B: Perhaps you could mention NPOV as one of their values they used in order to keep readers like yourself going to the website. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jan Yburan: Second Reddit I saw today. Haha. I think you need to be weary of the upvote system. More popular and famous people would get a self –fulfilling upvote treatment, where as more niche people or radical ones would get less. This way of identifying success might be a little questionable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alex Samaei: I’d be more interested in how kickstarter protects pledgers from potential false projects. This seems like a very good question for privacy and control. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gia: &lt;br /&gt;
“New scambaiters can request to be assigned a &amp;quot;mentor&amp;quot; to assist them in learning how to bait.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this is really cool. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“. In the past, scammers were tricked into sending money themselves, which was later given to charity.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That’s crazy. Not sure who the scammer is now. I’d spend more time discussing the aspect about scammers being scammed by scambaiters, and the moral and ethical implications of it. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mishal R. Kennedy: I think you have a legit question there. Looking at whether deleting an old post or controlling spambots to be more important. You could also consider that perhaps it was the ease of registration that led to the spambots. Deleting the old posts doesn’t actually go to the root of the problem. I guess you could also talk more about the ease of registration. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Markow: I think you should just talk about 1 or 2 points out of the 5. Don’t think you have enough space to write that much. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alexander H: Do you think you could also go into the ease of account creation? To attain legitimacy, the website would need real personal data to determine that the petition is signed by a real person. If so the privacy concerns would be the biggest. A deeper look at the terms and agreement is a must. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meredith Blake: That’s an interesting take on Yelp. I do believe that the reviews are either from the ones who enjoyed the restaurant the most, or the ones that hated it. The ones in the middle won’t be bothered to write a review. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wesley Verge: Personally I think it is an inevitable part of anonymity and high view count. There’s bound to be a few trolls, but that too is what makes youtube entertaining. I think youtube just needs to make a better flagging system. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kelly Wilson: You could talk about how the internet might influence more people to be whistleblowers, or even anonymous whistleblowers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tasha: I think to begin with you need to bare in mind that a lot of fitness people already know the difference between science and bro-science. I further believe that bodybuilding.com would just allow people to say whatever they want knowing full well it is just a forum. As long as they don’t endorse it, they shouldn’t be liable. But as such, you should also talk about the privacy of fitness people on the website. A lot of them post photos up too, and their diet and schedules.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Josefin S: Nice logo. I don’t really like the age range for kidzworld.com. It doesn’t make sense for 9 year olds to interact with 17 year olds. Furthermore, I wouldn’t want my 9 year old kid to socialize with 17 year old kids and being taught 17 year old stuff. So my biggest concern, as you also mentioned, is how do they keep content separate between different ages to prevent the younger kids to learn the wrong stuff? Or do they not do this at all?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Brooke Ashley Tjarks: Yes, I’d agree with you that IMDB is a good balance between the other two websites. I think by becoming a member, the legitimacy of the votes would become higher. There’s bound to be some sort of influence between people regardless of the platform, so I think IMDB is an interesting one to investigate further.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
- Brooke Tjarks here responding to Caelum -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thank you so much for the feedback. I am defintely going with IMBD. Another interesting aspect of the platform is the accuracy of content that the website tries to uphold and the methods that they use to ensure this. For example, users with profiles who edit pages must sign legal documents online (such as NDA&#039;s) before editing. The more I thought it over the more I realized how different each of the sites I considered truly are, but IMDB has the most to offer for this assignment. Thank you again for your support.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 17:53, 9 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Amchugh: I think you could go into internet being free also has its consequences. Since the internet could edit and post something online in a matter of seconds, it becomes very vulnerable for unintended things to hit the net. The filtering has to either occurred before the posting, or after it has been up. When it’s up already, it’s hard to say whether the rest of them would oblige, or would they prefer to continue the troll game. You could talk about the reasons for why Twitter would take it down (assuming that it does not violate Twitter’s policies). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note: Good luck everyone!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 13:43, 6 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Caelum, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks for your comments. There are a  lot of interesting  issues, both legal and ethical  and  the  subject is controversial  for  sure. Good  luck with your project as well!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Batjarks</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Assignment_2_Submissions&amp;diff=3974</id>
		<title>Assignment 2 Submissions</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Assignment_2_Submissions&amp;diff=3974"/>
		<updated>2015-03-09T22:53:04Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Batjarks: /* Comments */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{AssignmentCal}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Submission Instructions===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Please note that we have updated the [[Final_Project#Frequently_Asked_Questions|final project page&#039;s FAQ section]] based on some student questions that have come to us over the past week.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This assignment is due on March 3rd.  Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (assignments submitted 4 days late or later will have a maximum grade of 1 point).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please name your file &amp;quot;wikiusername_Assignment2,&amp;quot; where &amp;quot;wikiusername&amp;quot; is replaced with your username, to avoid overwriting someone else&#039;s assignment or causing errors in the Wiki by including forbidden characters.&#039;&#039; So if your username is &amp;quot;jdoe&amp;quot; and your file is a Word document your file should be named &amp;quot;jdoe_Assignment2.doc.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Upload your rough draft here: [[Special:Upload|Upload file]]. If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [[Special:ImageList|list of uploaded files]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the submissions section below please post the following information:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Name or pseudonym: &lt;br /&gt;
*Prospectus title: &lt;br /&gt;
*Link to prospectus: (add your link here)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Comments==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Everyone will receive an additional participation grade for this assignment. You should read through everyone&#039;s proposals after they are uploaded and add constructive comments below the proposal on which you&#039;re commenting. Comments should be submitted by March 10th so you have time to incorporate them, if applicable, into your project outline. &#039;&#039;&#039;Please remember to sign your comments by adding four tildes (&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;~~~~&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;) to the end of your contribution.  This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post.&#039;&#039;&#039; If we don&#039;t know who you are we can&#039;t give you credit for finishing this assignment!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ryan Hurley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Facebook &amp;amp; Big Data vs. Your Privacy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Prospectus_FB_and_privacy_Assignment_2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 16:06, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Ryan,&lt;br /&gt;
Great topic choice. Without fail, every single time I have a class on Big Data I obsessively delete aspects of my online presence, cut up frequent customer member cards, and google myself. It’s a hilarious cycle. I am so excited to read your paper and I appreciate the range of content you have considered for the paper, as well as the range of your references. I have an online text for another IT class that has a chapter devoted to FaceBook and their privacy issues. Please, email me and I can send it to you. Also, make sure to keep in mind that FaceBook’s relationships with advertisers and users are changing constantly. A three year old article might give you more context for your research, but very likely reports on policies that are out of date.&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 18:38, 9 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Olivia Brinich&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intentions and Outcomes of Youtube’s Copyright and Coding Regulations&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Oliviabrinich_prospectus03.03.15.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Oliviabrinich|Oliviabrinich]] ([[User talk:Oliviabrinich|talk]]) 15:51, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Comments on Olivia&#039;s Prospectus:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Olivia, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let me start by saying I think that Youtube is a great source for your project.  I’m not saying that just because I am doing my paper on Youtube.  I find the creative ways that people are using it fascinating.  Much more so than some of the other platforms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If I may summarize, you plan to discuss how legal pressures forced Youtube to introduce technologies that changed the user experiences, like Copyright ID.  You also mentioned some other (possibly voluntary) technologies that are part of the user experience with the intent to discuss how they impact users.  I think they are good ideas and good concepts to write about.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As you rightly point the Youtube community is one of the largest communities on the Internet.  I wonder if it might not be taking on too much to try to examine Youtube as a whole.  I would suggest selecting a small group that is susceptible to the effects of the technologies you are reviewing.  Describe who the group is and how certain characteristics of their make-up or user experience make them particularly sensitive to the technologies you will focus on.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example I will be focusing on hobbyist inventors.  Guys that spend their weekends in the garage putting “junk” together and posting videos about their “inventions” on Youtube.  Their content is all original so they are not impacted by Copyright ID.  There is very little thumbs up/down.  They are a much more “expressive” crowd as the comments indicate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’m not trying to discourage you.  I think if you pick the right group and tell us why you picked them, it can very interesting.  I hope that is helpful.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 19:47, 4 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•  Erika L Rich&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•  Title: Reputation Management and Ethical Considerations for Members of the Internet Marketing Super Friends (IMSF) Facebook Group&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•  Link: [[File:LSTU_E120_Erika_Rich_Assignment_2.docx]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:ErikaLRich|ErikaLRich]] ([[User talk:ErikaLRich|talk]]) 15:22, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Hey Erika,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It&#039;s great that you chose to focus on on specific Facebook group for your topic. I am still a bit confused about the purpose of the group and the demographics of its members. Who are the members? What do they gain from membership? How many members are active participants that make substansive contributions versus inactive members? Once your audience understands more about the group itself, they will relate to this example and be more invested in your topic. Another suggestion I have is to focus on the effects of the moderators on the content of the group (instead of cyber security for example). You mention culture differences coming in to play and affecting content. Can you explain that further?&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 18:53, 9 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•	Emily MacIntyre (EmiMac)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•	Prospectus title:  A Case Study on the Unintended Legal Consequences and Chilling Effects of YouTube’s Content ID Sweep on its Video Game Commentator Community&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•	Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Emily_MacIntyre_Assignment_2.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 09:41, 2 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Emily, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Great job on your prospectus! It is very well organized, and your citations sources are well researched. I found your research really enticing because I had never heard of this sweep, and I consider myself an avid youtube visitor. I think you are on to a great research project. Although the topic is remarkably fascinating, I wonder if investigating and juxtaposing the different types of monitoring will be too large or too abstract for the limit of the project. I also read up on the PewDiePie character cited, and I think it is really fascinating to see that he has 35 mil subscribers, yet chose to turn off his commenting feature because of how volatile he claimed the space was becoming. His specific youtube channel then does not have a community to investigate. But it would be interesting to examine someone or a specific youtube channel that has a similar following as the case study to better help zone in on collecting and investigating data. Thank you for this topic, I am currently reading more about the youtube actions in 2008 and 2013 because I had little to no prior knowledge of both events. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good luck on your project!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 00:09, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
RE: Mhoching,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thank you for your comment. I very much like your prospectus topic as well as you can see from my comments below. With regards to my final project, I thought I should reiterate and clarify that my community is the YouTube contributors that concentrate on making Let’s Plays and video game reviews. While it is helpful to find a video with an active comment section, where other users further explain how the ID sweep influences their output choices,  in the case of PewDiePie, his decision to turn off his comment section does in part illustrate how YouTube has rapidly evolved. Since Google began catering to commercial enterprises over the original volunteer contributors, some of the volunteer contributors have become increasingly more frustrated and they exhibit their frustration in a variety of ways.      &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks Again,&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Emily&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 09:37, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
•	MattK&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•	Home of the Mallet of Loving Correction: John Scalzi&#039;s Blog, &amp;quot;Whatever&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•	http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:MattK_Assignment2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:MattK|MattK]] ([[User talk:MattK|talk]]) 22:01, 2 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Matt,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am particularly interested in your topic because I believe it is a very small example of what the internet could become or arguably is becoming in regards to free speech. I am very intrigued by the notion of &amp;quot;knowledge is power&amp;quot;. What I mean relative to your project is that I believe that those who can control what &amp;quot;knowledge&amp;quot; people receive therefore posses great power. In your case, Scalzi&#039;s blog is equipped with a comment section where total control is given to Scalzi on what to allow others to see. By censoring whatever Scalzi sees as &amp;quot;offensive&amp;quot; he is limiting a voice, whether good or bad, and therefore limiting knowledge. I would argue that there&#039;s no question that the term knowledge here is used very loosely and there are obvious comments on these sorts of forums which provide no overall good at all, but more importantly the question I think of is how dangerous it would be for one person to posses this sort of &amp;quot;editorial power&amp;quot; to simply delete anything they see unfit. What would happen if other sites also used this sort of policy where whatever is subjectively deemed unworthy of being a comment was deleted? Are there infact other online sites and forums that take this approach? What implications does this approach have for the audience of the site? Does it discourage participation as a sort of chilling effect? It is a scary world to imagine where one party possess the power of what information to provide and what to censor. In this specific case what if the comments are simply against Scalzi and are a disagreement with what he writes? What is to stop him from simply deleting something. I&#039;m curious to know what sort of checks and balances or accountability Scarzi&#039;s editorial powers has. I think your subject bears the question of where to draw the line between free speech and productive censorship, an enormously tricky and potentially dangerous distinction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These are just a few thoughts I had, in any case best of luck it&#039;s a great topic. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks,&lt;br /&gt;
Ryan Hurley&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 18:55, 8 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
---- &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edwin Duque (Edwinduque)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title:The copyright, privacy and organization challenges that online communities such as Facebook and The Jury Deliberation in the cyber space are faced with &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Edwinduque_Assignment_2.doc&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Edwinduque|Edwinduque]] ([[User talk:Edwinduque|talk]]) 22:10, 2 March 2015 (EST))&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Edwin, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I  like the way you structured your idea. I  think that the copyright issue is  very  interesting and it  is  worthed  spending  some more  time on it.  Exploring the nature of  a Facebook post – whether  it  could  be  consider  as an “idea”, in the Copyright Act specifically states that In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, regardless of the form in which it is described. Or  it  could  be  considered  as  an “original works of authorship” fixed by the author in a tangible way, in which case it would be covered by copyrights. The issue of re-posting someone else’s post with commercial purposes  could  be interesting to mention as well. It is just  an idea,  but saying some words about  the  case  with the  famous Facebook post “In response to the new Facebook guidelines…. “ might  be  interesting too. I think  that  you  could  also easily  link your work to the “right to  be  forgotten” issues   we  discussed  in  class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here  are  some links  you  might  find  useful. Good  luck!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.nyccounsel.com/business-blogs-websites/who-owns-photos-and-videos-posted-on-facebook-or-twitter/&lt;br /&gt;
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-social-networking/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
-------&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Michelle Byrne (Chelly.Byrne)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus title: Balancing privacy for victims of sexual crimes with &lt;br /&gt;
opportunity for support in online forum  AfterSilence.org&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:ChellyByrne_Assignment2.pdf &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 07:54, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Michelle,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You have chosen a terrifically nuanced community. Indeed, the word “balance” and the question of HOW such a community can possibly approach this word is bound to yield more data and conclusions than the page ljmits of our final project – which is only testimony to the strength of your community research choice. I believe yours is the most psychologically-based prospectus that I have read thus far. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By “psychologically-based,” I mean that I sense that you will be making some conclusions about the specialized mindsets and individuals who are drawn to this community; a community that paradoxically, and in waves, seem to wish for both anonymity and at the same time, a very specific and difficult kind of attention. Anonymous attention.  A community that has created a safe haven and yet, has some very troubling cracks, as you point out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Questions:&lt;br /&gt;
Are these cracks mostly user generated? As in, the example you found of the poster who revealed configurable data revealing her identity. If they are mostly user-generated, how prevalent of an instance is this? Of the active users who reveal private information, what instances are accidental or ignorant (as in, thinking they’ll be anonymous by revealing age, town, etc) as opposed to intentional?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is there some kind of warning or clause in the user agreement that attempts to address this issue of accidentally revealing private information or even purposefully revealing it?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the user agreement and the rules and guidelines for AfterSilence.org do address this issue and users still post personal information, what are the pros and cons of simply warning users about the risks and then letting users do as they please vs. taking pro-active measures?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If there were pro-active measures for a site host like this to take, what would they be? Message board community reminders? Moderators who redact info? Self-regulation and regulation amongst members? What does regulation in this kind of community actually look like and is it sustainable in its current form?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many more questions and considerations to make. Good topic choice, succinctly proposed. I wish you all the best in this project and I look forward to reading the final project.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best, &lt;br /&gt;
Chanel Rion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 11:31, 9 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Chanel Rion (ChanelRion)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;We the Judges: &amp;quot;Sitejabber&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;Yelp&amp;quot;, and Communities of User-Generated Business Reviews.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment2_Prospectus_Rion.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 11:21, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Chanel,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The subject of customer generated reviews is certainly huge on the internet.   It is beneficial for consumers to get an opinion of a product or restaurant from other people over just what the advertising says.  But as you point out, there is a lot of opportunity for libel or slander – especially people just having an ax to grind.   It would be interesting to see how Yelp or Sitejabber are being responsible and making an effort to regulate content and protect places being reviewed from harassing content.  I like how your approach includes researching any legal cases brought against them; it would be interesting to see if any of them prevail.   Also, how do they actually calculate the ratings?  Is it an average of overall ratings?   Or could bad reviews be hidden away if there become lots of positive reviews?  Are businesses sandbagging to increase their ratings?  &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Overall, this is a great community to look into and I wish you success!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Michelle aka (Chelly)&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 15:43, 7 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
RE: Michelle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Michelle,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thank you for your comments and feedback. I too, am especially interested in the legal angles to this community and I am glad to know I&#039;m not the only one. I will certainly be watching and reviewing and seeking the answers to these questions and also to your specific concerns. All intensely pertinent to how businesses and communities are going to manage tensions with each other -- tensions that have always been here, but are now revolutionized in simply the sheer and complete access that the Internet provides to all of us.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Looking forward to starting this seek and find. Thank you for highlighting questions and focuses, they should prove helpful for such a broad category. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chanel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 16:49, 8 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Becca Lewis (beccalew)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: &#039;&#039;&#039;/r/TwoXChromosomes and /r/feminism: The challenges of promoting feminism on Reddit while upholding the values of privacy and free speech&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Final_Project_Prospectus_Becca_Lewis.docx &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 13:15, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Becca!&lt;br /&gt;
I absolutely love the theme of your project, it is an exceptional live issue since feminism has been discussed much more this past year than it has been for many years. Therefore, it´s really important to examine the forums in which people have the opportunity to discuss the subject. Great!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found it cool that you are thinking about recording a podcast for the project. If you do so, you might consider including an interview with someone active in the specific forums, a professor in gender studies or perhaps two people with different views on the issue?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a question about the subreddits you talked about though. You wrote about a ”safe space” for women. Are those subreddits only for women or are they open for anyone who want to discuss feminism and gender roles? If it is a women-only forum, you might also discuss the consequences on that. If not, maybe that has consequences as well. Maybe you should discuss self censorship in the feminism subreddits as well (which is very interesting since Reddit-as you said-values free speech above almost all else)?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good luck!&lt;br /&gt;
/Josefin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 10:39, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Gary Brown (Gary Brown)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: The Effects of Site Controls on Community Objectives: communityfunded.com&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Gary_Brown_Assignment2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 13:18, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Comments on Gary&#039;s Prospectus:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gary,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Great topic!  I hope to be going out to for crowdfunding by the end of the May.  So I will follow your Wiki with interest.  (In your proposal you link to crowdfunded.  I think you meant community funded. You may want to look at that.) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You mentioned the stated purpose of Communityfunded.  But you did not mention their reason for existing.  In other words, what started crowdfunding and why would individuals seek funds for their projects from the public and not other traditional sources.  Why are people like me willing to go online (to communityfunded) to ask for money, as opposed to going to another site or pitching a Venture Capitalist or a bank?  Why would people fund a project on line versus invest in the stock market or Bank CDs?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the answer to those questions goes to the heart of crowdfunding.  It also is germane to the “troublesome obstacles” you refer to in your prospectus. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When you mention failed projects, I would suggest that not all failures are the same.  I might be willing to invest money in a project I consider socially redeeming even if I thought it had very little chance of success.  Where as, if I were investing in some Harvard wiz-kids that profess to have the next Facebook, I might have very different feelings if they went belly up.  So you may want to include categories of projects, or claims/expectations in your discussions.  As well as any risk factor ratings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You also mentioned building and keeping trust of supporters.  One of the areas that interests me is the ways that Fundraisers generate funding support.  Do they rely solely on the site?  In other words, is there a pool of would be investors just waiting for the right idea to come around so they can invest.  Or is a fundraiser expected to go outside the community and raise interest and drive that interest back to the site?  How does that impact the “trust” factor?  If I am a one-time fundraiser does it matter all that much what people think about me after I’ve got my money?  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You discuss how you will break down funded projects, etc.  Is there a way to figure out what various fundraiser did to get funded?  Marketing may prove to be more of a factor than the project or its worthiness.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It would certainly be worthwhile to compare and contrast crowdfunding before and after changes in regs that made it easier for the public to invest.  And how post reg trends may lead to new regs/controls.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I look forward to reading your paper.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 20:45, 4 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Meagan HoChing (mhoching) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Title: Online Gaming Harassment: All fun and games? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Mhoching_Assignment2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 13:50, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Meagan,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every aspect of your prospectus is incredibly interesting to me. I am especially intrigued by how well you have matched up the readings to your topic. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After I read your section on Norms I thought about how you point out that “the gaming system is very competitive” and it made me wonder, if Valve placed more restrictions to prevent bullying could it potentially take some of the pleasure of competition out of the mix.  If so, then would some users leave the game because they like the hostile environment, which may be why they chose to play in it in the first place.  Keeping this line of thought in mind, perhaps you could find another similar community that has more strict modes of control in place to observe the differences between them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your prospectus and I look forward to seeing your finished product.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best,&lt;br /&gt;
Emily&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 09:25, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Meagan!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What an interesting and relevant subject! &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that it was a very good idea of you to use the Dot Model with the components ”Market”, ”Architecture”, ”Norms” and ”Law”, it makes everything much more clear. I agree with Emily that it would be a good idea to compare DOTA 2 with another game, preferably from another website than STEAM and with another system of regulation. I would find it really interesting to see the result of a such a study and if norms, the language, the members of the site, etc. differ between the two games. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I´m looking forward to see the result! Good luck!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
/Josefin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 10:16, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Meagan!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this is a very fascinating topic and one I too almost pursued. I am a bit of a gamer myself and although I don&#039;t play DOTA, I do regularly play many different sports games which I have found to have similar issues of harassment and &amp;quot;bullying&amp;quot;. I hadn&#039;t heard of the STEAM website you&#039;re focusing on until I read your assignment, but for anyone who has read really a comment section/forum anywhere, one second you&#039;re talking about a video game, the next you have gone down a path of hate and overall disgust of anyone different minded not to mention if it is a competitive game which stirrs up some hostile emotions toward an adversary. I find this particularly interesting when it comes to video games because many people who don&#039;t play video games believe that &amp;quot;it&#039;s just a game&amp;quot; but on the contrary for many gamers, one can find their self emotionally invested into a game you are taking part in. You feel this overwhelming sense of dedication to it and attachment to what happens in it where you can essentially lose yourself in the game. It is because of this hardwired competitive and primitive feeling and this element of motivation that I believe is so deeply rooted in many gamers that it would be near impossible to ever completely outlaw the harassment or trash talk because it will never stop. However perhaps there is some sort of way to outlaw the harassment that crosses a line by creating real consequence while still allowing some competitive jabbing but that I will be curious to see from your project. I will be also curious to hear what your research finds about the website in particular, I would venture to guess that it is probably similar for communities like the PSN and xboxlive. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I might suggest on top of all this to take a look at games which do not have a competitive nature with other users. This may be difficult to find but I&#039;d be curious to see whether it is harassment you find on forums with these sort of games or rather a cooperative dialogue intended to help one another. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good Luck!&lt;br /&gt;
- Ryan Hurley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 16:26, 8 March 2015 (EDT)  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Caroline B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Title: The Study of Privacy, Accuracy &amp;amp; Order on InsideNova Website and Moving ‘Little Sites’ Up&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:1_Caroline_B.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Cbore001|Cbore001]] ([[User talk:Cbore001|talk]]) 14:45, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Jan.Yburan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus title: Reddit.com/r/IAmA its Controls on Privacy and Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Jan.Yburan.Assignment2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Jan,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is a really interesting community to build your case study around. Prior to today I have only been on the site a few times to look at subreddits that relate to topics that I am interested in, and since I am not a member I have not considered how the site protects the user’s privacy. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today I decided to look at the IAmA subreddit to get a better handle of the scope of your project. Consequently, I came across and interesting and fairly benign thread started by an employee of a movie theater and it brought to mind, how does the site handle issues of privacy, libel or defamation against a company or a consumer when an employee engages in what appears at first glance as an anonymous tell all blog that highlights how he/she has witnessed vulgar and perhaps even criminal activity. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Considering your topic and direction you want to take, I think you might want to blend together aspects of the readings from our classes on privacy with the readings for next week’s class on free expression, information, and unwanted speech.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am looking forward to seeing your completed final project. I am sure it will be very informative.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Emily&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
P.S. (Here is the link to the AMA I referenced: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2xz6nb/iama_movie_theater_employee_and_ive_seen_the/)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 13:04, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Eric Yuk Lun Kwong (Caelum)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus title: The vulnerable voting structure of Digg.com and the gradual&lt;br /&gt;
collapse of its popularity and voting legitimacy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Caelum_Assignment2.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 15:11, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Eric,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Excellent topic. One that possesses, at once, broad-scale relevance and unusual particularities. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Exploring the reasons for Digg’s failure as a site and as a community, I’m drawn to the question regarding the members themselves. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It would be interesting to compare, if applicable, the kinds of users who are drawn to a voting-type participatory community vs. a community that actually interacts via content and contributions. If clear distinctions can be made here, to then find examples of successful communities that are voter-based and to pinpoint key policies or elements that differentiate sustainable models of voter-based communities compared to content-based contribution communities. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Perhaps it is fundamentally an issue of investment; when users and the outside world view a product as having or requiring minimal investment (as in, saying, or rather, clicking “yes” or “no” to something – voting to “dig” or “bury” a story). Are voting based sites destined to suffer from questions of legitimacy by virtue of being online and being so subjective? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That you will be making parallels to Wikipedia’s platform seems to be a good approach here. Wisely done. Thank you also, for your commentaries – I appreciate the thoroughness in which you approach these topics. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best of luck!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chanel Rion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 11:57, 9 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Alex Samaei (Samaei1)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus title: The Framework of Projects and Backers on Kickstarter&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Samaei1_Assignment2.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Samaei1|Samaei1]] ([[User talk:Samaei1|talk]]) 15:37, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Alex! &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&#039;m so happy you picked this website because I&#039;ve donated to various projects on this website, but never took into account the structure of the website and complications due to misappropriating of funding. I find it hard to try to quantify what is appropriate to fundraise, because the topic is subjective. Of course I don&#039;t think it would be appropriate to fundraise to support hate speech (if that&#039;s what someone is fundraising for), yet I don&#039;t find it appropriate to fundraise for movies about starving children, when that money can go to feeding starving children. I hope I&#039;m communicating the subjectiveness of trying to find what would be considered appropriate to raise money for and how it varies from person to person. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But speaking in regards to the Lessig&#039;s Dot Model I think the website can be broken down into different sections to address some of the issues you raise. For example, how does the structure of kickstarter promote accountability on the artist/person asking for money? On the donation page for example, a vast amount of information about the artist is available, as well as avenues in which you can contact the fundraiser. So if kickstarter has provided this as a requirement for people to submit or provide when asking to be funded, is it then up to the donor to hold that person accountable? I have the tools on that page to ask the fundraiser for that specific information and continue to follow up on that information. I think once you start looking at specific/deliberate aspects of kickstarter, it will start to inform or control behavior. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I hope this helps! Look forward to reading the final project; happy researching and writing!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 00:35, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Alex,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’m interested that you have chosen a community that, you imply, is being targeted not for its failures, but for its successes. A wildfire that is often so much more visible on the Internet than in any other form in history. Speed, access, and instant publicity -- make &amp;quot;success&amp;quot; in society ever more visible, open to targeting, and prone to hijacking. Indeed. It is a great topic for research in this course in particular.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One aspect that could be revelatory is to seek out the kinds of legal cases that have been brought against kickstarter and what litigation the site has to deal with and what kinds of litigation that users potentially enter into. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There’s also a question about user legitimacy. How easy is it for some startup organization to simply use this community and its platform as an elaborate marketing plan? Can a company, for instance, viel itself to be a small time kickstarter that can feed itself funding and manufacture the appearance of democratic success? It would be especially useful to identify who the moderators are and to what extent they exercise control or regulation if any. Does Kickstarter have even the skeleton of some kind of verification system or is the verification over the legitimacy of a proposal entirely user generated? Is this sustainable or are there signs of trouble ahead? What would be a disastrous scenario for this community? To these questions, I think that many clues may be found in the litigation and whatever bad publicity the community has had encounter. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Great topic, culturally relevant community. Thank you for the topic and best of luck for the final.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chanel Rion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 12:31, 9 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Gia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus title: Chivalry online&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Gia_Assignment2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 15:46, 3 March 2015 (EST))&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Gia,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This topic is definitely flushing out the seedier side of the internet!  I have never heard of this site 419eater, but we all know the dangers of scammers and how they use the internet.   How do they find their victims?   Some scams are so realistic as to mention names of loved ones in danger and demand money be expedited.  The scam baiters you’re talking about here must be trolling similar sites and circles to identify culprits they need want to go after.  But in doing so, are they just as much at fault as the original scammers?   Is there any regulation of the members? I can definitely see an ethical dilemma, as you point out, of some possibly unscrupulous members.  And your question of whether they have extended their existence outside the online world is a very interesting consideration.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You a have a lot of good sources listed regarding scams (white collar crime and Ponzi schemes too!).   Good luck, this is an intriguing subject!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Michelle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 15:57, 7 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Re: Michelle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks for the comments, Michelle. I definitely intend to explore the  subject from both sides, because there could be really two, maybe even more , points of  view. Regarding the legal regulation, there is a lot  to be said – interned jurisdiction. The self-regulation of the web community  which is  evolving with the  time is  also a nice starting  point. &lt;br /&gt;
Thank again for the ideas and good luck  to  you  too with  your  work!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Mishal R. Kennedy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus title: Enforcing Guidelines Without Harming User Contributions&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Mishal_R._Kennedy_Assignment2.rtf&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Mishal R. Kennedy|Mishal R. Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Mishal R. Kennedy|talk]]) 15:51, 3 March 2015 (EST))&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Hi  Mishal,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The  subject you have  chosen  is very interesting and gives great opportunities  for  discussions and analyses. I would   directly  make  a reference  to  the  Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0, which we discussed during “Paradigms for Studying the Internet’ class.  You could explore the methods  used by the moderators and administrators as a way  of  self regulation of  the  community. The  question  you asked  whether  these  methods  are  causing  more  bad  than  good, is right  to the point. &lt;br /&gt;
I would  suggest you explain in more details the  different  methods  of control used  my the moderators  and perhaps compare them with the ones used by other communities. You could also take a  look  if  it is explicitly listed in the Terms  of  Use   of the  website  in which case what measure is taken? Is there a higher authority than the moderator to  whom  a sanctioned  user  could  complain? Could  such  a  decision  “be appealed” or  it  is  final and definitive? Is there at all a hierarchy in the administration of the website?&lt;br /&gt;
Here  are  some  sources  which  might  help. Good  luck!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
https://www.academia.edu/3079184/COAT_Collaborative_Outgoing_Anti-Spam_Technique&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.yildiz.edu.tr/~aktas/courses/CE-0114890/g8-p3.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~kksivara/sfwr4c03/projects/4c03projects/CGLucas-Project.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM11/paper/viewFile/2780/3296&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Richard Markow&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus title: The YouTube video-sharing platform &amp;amp; The Community of Alternative Heating Systems and Appliance Inventors&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Rich_Markow_Assignment_2_Prospectus.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 16:03, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name AlexanderH&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: Managing the Petitions of Change.org: B Corps, Social Enterprise and Transparency&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:AlexanderH_Assignment_2_Prospectus.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:AlexanderH|AlexanderH]] ([[User talk:AlexanderH|talk]]) 16:10, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Meredith Blake&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title:Identifying Avenues of Recourse for Businesses on Yelp &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Meredith_Blake._Assignment_2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Meredithmblake|Meredith]] ([[User talk:Meredithmblake|talk]]) 16:13, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
Hello Meredith!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this is a great topic and you have a very interesting approach.  I haven’t really looked into Yelp and the lawsuit angle, but they certainly have a lot of influence on the internet.   Out of curiosity, I just Googled about 10 different restaurants in this area and the results had the Yelp review either as the second or third site listed!   So potential customers are seeing the Yelp rating almost before the actual websites in a couple of cases!   There is little recourse for them, and as you show by the Sia example, a disgruntled customer can reach out and cause a flood of terrible reviews, from people who weren’t even customers!   Caelum makes a good point in the summary at the bottom that reviews are either one end of the spectrum or the other… disgruntled customers wanting to air their displeasure or someone extremely happy who wants to rave about it.&lt;br /&gt;
   &lt;br /&gt;
It is good to take a targeted approach to such a large community, and looking into the recourse that businesses may have as well as existing lawsuits sounds like a good approach.  If a suit is successful, what are the actual outcomes?   Does Yelp take down reviews or adjust the ratings?   I think people who expound on sites that give a platform are really missing the spirit of free speech.   I don’t think your approach is that unpopular, not that free speech needs to be regulated, but that there should be some modicum of self-restraint and freedom to say anything is not absolutely protected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good luck on this, you’ve got some really good ideas!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Michelle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 16:14, 7 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Wesley Verge&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title : Scrolling into Darkness -- An investigation into the regulatory forces at work in Youtube&#039;s comment section&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Wesley_Verge_Prospectus.txt&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 [[User:WesleyVerge|WesleyVerge]] ([[User talk:WesleyVerge|talk]]) 16:19, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Wesley!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am very intrigued by the &amp;quot;solutions&amp;quot; there are to change the culture of the comment sections. It is really an intriguing phenomenon that one could be watching a video about puppies and suddenly 4 comments down glance over an argument that Obama was sent by satan himself to destroy the world. I&#039;ve always been curious as to how this has not been regulated more strictly. I think you raise great points why and the concerns Google is faced with. If I were doing this project I might also attempt to compare this to other sites as well that must face similar challenges. For example you suggest in your assignment that youtube channels direct traffic to sites like Reddit, but is that really an escape for the channel as this implies? Can these &amp;quot;trolls&amp;quot; not go over to reddit to promote their hate just as easily, or do they have different solutions in play that regulate these sorts of issues better? As far as I know both are anonymous to an extent so with this anonymity many of these trolls have &amp;quot;keyboard muscles&amp;quot; as I like to call them. I can understand twitter because many times it is much more personal but even there people can create fake accounts and troll all the same, just see Jimmy Kimmels skit on celebrity reading mean tweets. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really like your focus on famous YouTubers I just think it may also be beneficial and worth mentioning how other sites with the same prevalent issue have tried to combat trolling. Also from a legal side, are all of these comments protected by the law and free speech? Perhaps because of the enormity of all the comments and comment sections, it is simply impossible to regulate what is said in every section from a legal perspective. Food for thought, but in any case great project idea.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best of luck,&lt;br /&gt;
Ryan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 16:56, 8 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: Knocking the Wind out of Whistleblowers: The US&#039; response to the growing threat from WikiLeaks &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Kelly.WilsonAssignment_2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Kelly.wilson|Kelly.wilson]] ([[User talk:Kelly.wilson|talk]]) 16:38, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Kelly,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interesting topic.  There are a couple of perspectives you may want to consider about when defining what you mean by Whistleblower and the response in each situation.  1) Exposing illegal acts.  2) Exposing immoral acts.  3) Exposing Acts designed to embarrassed your political opponents or as retribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Should they all be treated the same and afforded equal protection?  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good luck!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 00:10, 9 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Tasha&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: Exploring the Complexity of Rapidly Evolving Information in a Bodybuilding Forum and the Challenges of Quality Assurance&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Tasha_Assignment_2_Prospectus.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tasha[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 17:12, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--------&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Tasha,  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I  like a lot  your  choice  of  community  . It  is  unusual and  at  the  same  time  you  could  find  a lot  of  things  to explore-both  from  legal  and ethical stand  point. &lt;br /&gt;
I would  say  that your  questions and  reflections are  on the right track. I think  that one of the issues  you  could explore is  the fact that  they  are  often used  as  a platform  for  unlicensed  sell of  drugs. If  you choose  to go  for this, you should have  to take  a  good  look  on the definitions  in order  to  differ  “Drugs”  for  “Nutrition Supplements” because  this is  the  tricky  moment. How the  website  is  protecting  itself  from  such  kind  of  activity (by  its  Terms  of  use  or  in other  ways) , might  be interesting  as well.&lt;br /&gt;
Above you could find two links that might be of some use. Good  luck!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first is little bit old but interesting:&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t000525b.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://health.wusf.usf.edu/post/unlicensed-pharmacies-selling-compounded-drugs-online&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
__________&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Josefin Sasse&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: A case study on the children&#039;s website Kidzworld and how they deal with threats against being a safe environment for children.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:JosefinSasse.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 17:26, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Josefin!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find your topic utterly intriguing. I had no idea such a website existed and it&#039;s been quite fascinating just poking around the website a little bit. I think it is a very valid point to raise about &amp;quot;who monitors Kidzworld&amp;quot;, because there doesn&#039;t seem to be much of a screening process to ensure the user that is signing up for an account is in fact between the ages of 9-17. Also, I see you have cited the Pew Research Center study from the readings, which is a great resource for dissecting the demographics and statistics of harassment, but the study was done on &amp;quot;young adults&amp;quot; ranging from 18-29, and &amp;quot;young women&amp;quot; between the ages of 18-24 years old. Which I hope illuminates, rather than complicates, the issue of doing research on a demographic ranging from 9-17, but more so how do you set up  a website that serves a population that would need adult consent to participate in almost everything they do. Along with privacy issues, I think the question of who is responsible for what and for whom is a great aspect you have raised in your paper! I would love to stay in touch and see the developments of your paper if that would be okay. I think this is the perfect website to investigate for this project.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 00:10, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Josefin,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think you picked a great online community to explore for your final project, not only because it is a social space for a specific group, but also because there seems to be some fairly strict regulations in place to maintain a safe environment for kids. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It might be interesting if you could find some weakness in its structure. For example can kids go into private chats or are all the chats and comment sections being screened. If they are being screened, is it by a computer generated logarithm or real people? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another question that you could delve into is, how do the site’s administrators know the users are minors.  Do they require parents’ permission? If so how do they prove it is actually a real parent?  &lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
I hope these suggestions are helpful. I am looking forward to seeing your finished project. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best,&lt;br /&gt;
Emily&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 00:13, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name:   Brooke Tjarks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus:   Art. Business. Fans. (...) How this collaborative space shapes mass visual media production and worldwide distribution&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link:   http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Prospectus.Brooke.Tjarks.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Abby McHugh&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: From #Thinspiration to “Low Carb Friends”: The Regulation of Online Weight Loss Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Amchugh_Assignment2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Abby!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Okay, so I really wich I had chosen this issue. It is great that you did!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To facilitate the work, I would recommend that you are more specific in which websites you are going to explore since there is so much #thinspo content out there. But Twitter, Tumbler, Pinterest, and Instagram are great platforms to explore, together with blogs like you said. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Other things you might want to discuss are:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What makes the most harm: #thinspo/pro-ana blogs and posts or limitations on freedom of speech by regulating such content? (On my part, I am determined in my opinion that #thinspo is devastating and that regulation in this case is a good thing.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Who is active in this community?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Could pro-ana be illegitimate harassment? Compare it the possibility of a pro-cancer or a pro-aids community (deadly diseases just like anorexia).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What effects could/does the sometimes lack of regulation have on the community online and offline?&lt;br /&gt;
Good luck! You´ve chosen a very interesting subject!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
/Josefin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 11:08, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abby,&lt;br /&gt;
I am so impressed and dare I say jealous that you picked such an important subject for your paper. Here are a few things that come to mind as I read your plan. I hope at least one of them is helpful.&lt;br /&gt;
-	I LOVE that you have already started a list of references. My critique for your references is to add more scholarly sources to substantiate your conclusions. For example, perhaps a database like “Mintel” or “IBISWorld” will have metrics regarding weight loss CONSUMER trends globally or in the United States. From another angle, you could find articles in scholarly psychology journals or *gasp* BOOKS in the library of a graduate psychology program. I am a student at Pepperdine, too, and I love their graduate psychology library and their electronic databases. If you want me to request anything and have it sent to you, do not hesitate to ask.  And from yet another angle, perhaps we could find legal cases that relate to your topic, as well. I would be more than happy to work with you to find more sources because I just love your topic so much. &lt;br /&gt;
-	Carbohydrates are critical for healthy brain function. Perhaps that is important in your paper, as well? Elephant in the room?&lt;br /&gt;
-	If you decide to mention similar trends or implications of the “thinspo” trend, maybe consider body building inspiration on social media and blogs and why it is both equally obsessive but healthier.&lt;br /&gt;
-	Another thing that concerns me about your topic is privacy. Not just the privacy of those with eating disorders, but all individuals participating in the online weight loss chatter. And also, the trend to take pictures of one’s body and put those photographs online. What are the implications of this?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 18:26, 9 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note: If I’m a little direct in the comments, I really mean the best. Hope it doesn’t offend anyone. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ryan Hurley: I think professor said stay away from these huge websites. Perhaps you could discuss with the professors if Facebook is the right website to focus on? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Olivia Brinich: I think you’re asking a lot of questions to be answered here.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“How does it Pind and protect information, how do copyrighters choose to deal with the individual cases of copyright infringement, and what happens when a clip is wrongfully targeted for copyright violation, i.e., the adverse unintended consequences of Content ID?”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Perhaps you should just focus on one main thesis and explore on that. For example, focusing on how copyrighters deal with copyright infringement, and how that eventually influenced youtube to introduce copyright ID system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One last issue is whether youtube is too big of a website to focus on. Perhaps you could narrow it down to say, copyright issues for music on youtube. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Erika L. Rich: I think it’s a very broad term to discuss the ethical considerations. Perhaps if you narrowed it down to 1 or 2 main issues you find extremely compelling about the website and community? Or maybe I have simply mistaken your train of thought. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Emily MacIntyre: I like how you had such conviction to talk about youtube that despite its size, its still worth researching about. I think you could also talk a little bit about how these game commentators earn their living by commenting on games. PewDiePie is estimated to earn millions every year. It could show a greater perspective on things if we could see their earnings as well. South Park actually has a very funny episode about commentators commenting on commentators commenting on games on youtube. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matt K: Do you think that changing the title to reflect your research would make it easier for the reader? (Just a thought) I think its interesting how you mentioned “democratic instrument”, bringing politics into the way his blog is ran. According to the quote you took, Scalzi has indeed used some controls over potential commentators. Furthermore, you should consider that if it’s a blog about all sorts of things, with John’s comments on it, he should also be open to listen to commentators reply to this, especially if its about sensitive topics. If he’s going to filter away those he “considers” as offensive, then perhaps he shouldn’t comment on other things either. (unless the comment really does not have a valid point and is not related to the topic) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edwin Duque: Good to see you in this class too. I think you should just focus on one website. I’d do JuryX instead of Facebook as professor said big websites aren’t good. Also, you’d need a stronger thesis to connect what the real question is. Is it about allowing free sharing? Or is it about limiting what gets shared? I’m a little confused with your thesis. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chelly Byrne: I think you have a strong thesis here. The contradictions between sharing information on the internet, and the fear of being exposed would be very interesting. I think you can even go into the subscription process. I assume the website allows anyone to join. This means that even predators could read up on what victims write. Unfortunately, they probably get quite the entertainment from reading it, or pretending to ask “leading” questions. As you said, just a tiny bit of excessive information leaked out could result in a victim being violated again. I guess you could talk about that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chanel Rion: Since you’re talking about Yelp and reviews, I’d like to share what I learned from another class. Most of these reviews are at the ends of the spectrum. Unless someone is a regular of Yelp and does a review for every restaurant, the rest of them would be people who had great experiences or really bad experiences. They won’t be bothered to write a review about a mediocre or average restaurant. It’s not worth their time. You could also mention that. Also, do you think there are fake reviews too? I’d go for siteJabbar. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Becca Lewis: Firstly its interesting how you’re talking about Reddit because I’m talking about Digg. I think new beliefs takes time to be adapted by the masses. Feminism isn’t very old, and its on going. I think it takes time for people to adapt to it, so for the short term I won’t be surprised if the discussion board sees a lot of anti-feminism people. But also do bare in mind that these are “beliefs”, just like “liberalism” (which is quite similar to feminism, fighting for individual rights, etc). Not everyone believes in these values, so some disagreements should be expected. I guess an interesting way could be to examine if people become more offensive when they are shown as anonymous. My thoughts are that it is. You could look at reddit discussions compared with the core values of Wikipedia, and why it worked for Wikipedia, but a little hard for Reddit. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gary Brown: Are there any data on the selection process, or ventures that were rejected? It’s hard to associate it with discrimination if there is no evidence. Since you can’t prove or disprove this, it means “site controls” cannot be determined. Therefore you need to make a new thesis that really reflects the paper. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meagan Moana HoChing: DOTA is a fun game. My initial response is that with huge amounts of ego on the line, that’s how bullying start. Haha. From what I read and know, it is the architecture that is dominantly the issue. This structure allows the audience to exploit it. I think you could also investigate is how is “harassment” identified as? Calling someone a “loser”? Do note that a lot of cyber bullying are to kids that people know in real life. So can we causally say trash talking is the same as harassing? When NBA players trash talk one another, I don’t think they considered it as harassing. So I guess this definition needs to be very clear.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Caroline B: Perhaps you could mention NPOV as one of their values they used in order to keep readers like yourself going to the website. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jan Yburan: Second Reddit I saw today. Haha. I think you need to be weary of the upvote system. More popular and famous people would get a self –fulfilling upvote treatment, where as more niche people or radical ones would get less. This way of identifying success might be a little questionable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alex Samaei: I’d be more interested in how kickstarter protects pledgers from potential false projects. This seems like a very good question for privacy and control. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gia: &lt;br /&gt;
“New scambaiters can request to be assigned a &amp;quot;mentor&amp;quot; to assist them in learning how to bait.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this is really cool. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“. In the past, scammers were tricked into sending money themselves, which was later given to charity.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That’s crazy. Not sure who the scammer is now. I’d spend more time discussing the aspect about scammers being scammed by scambaiters, and the moral and ethical implications of it. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mishal R. Kennedy: I think you have a legit question there. Looking at whether deleting an old post or controlling spambots to be more important. You could also consider that perhaps it was the ease of registration that led to the spambots. Deleting the old posts doesn’t actually go to the root of the problem. I guess you could also talk more about the ease of registration. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Markow: I think you should just talk about 1 or 2 points out of the 5. Don’t think you have enough space to write that much. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alexander H: Do you think you could also go into the ease of account creation? To attain legitimacy, the website would need real personal data to determine that the petition is signed by a real person. If so the privacy concerns would be the biggest. A deeper look at the terms and agreement is a must. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meredith Blake: That’s an interesting take on Yelp. I do believe that the reviews are either from the ones who enjoyed the restaurant the most, or the ones that hated it. The ones in the middle won’t be bothered to write a review. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wesley Verge: Personally I think it is an inevitable part of anonymity and high view count. There’s bound to be a few trolls, but that too is what makes youtube entertaining. I think youtube just needs to make a better flagging system. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kelly Wilson: You could talk about how the internet might influence more people to be whistleblowers, or even anonymous whistleblowers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tasha: I think to begin with you need to bare in mind that a lot of fitness people already know the difference between science and bro-science. I further believe that bodybuilding.com would just allow people to say whatever they want knowing full well it is just a forum. As long as they don’t endorse it, they shouldn’t be liable. But as such, you should also talk about the privacy of fitness people on the website. A lot of them post photos up too, and their diet and schedules.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Josefin S: Nice logo. I don’t really like the age range for kidzworld.com. It doesn’t make sense for 9 year olds to interact with 17 year olds. Furthermore, I wouldn’t want my 9 year old kid to socialize with 17 year old kids and being taught 17 year old stuff. So my biggest concern, as you also mentioned, is how do they keep content separate between different ages to prevent the younger kids to learn the wrong stuff? Or do they not do this at all?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Brooke Ashley Tjarks: Yes, I’d agree with you that IMDB is a good balance between the other two websites. I think by becoming a member, the legitimacy of the votes would become higher. There’s bound to be some sort of influence between people regardless of the platform, so I think IMDB is an interesting one to investigate further.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
- Brooke Tjarks here responding to Caelum -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thank you so much for the feedback. I am defintely going with IMBD. Another interesting aspect of the platform is the accuracy of content that the website tries to uphold and the methods that they use to ensure this. For example, users with profiles who edit pages must sign legal documents online (such as NDA&#039;s) before editing. The more I thought it over the more I realized how different each of the sites I considered truly are, but IMDB has the most to offer for this assignment. Thank you again for your support.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 17:53, 9 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Amchugh: I think you could go into internet being free also has its consequences. Since the internet could edit and post something online in a matter of seconds, it becomes very vulnerable for unintended things to hit the net. The filtering has to either occurred before the posting, or after it has been up. When it’s up already, it’s hard to say whether the rest of them would oblige, or would they prefer to continue the troll game. You could talk about the reasons for why Twitter would take it down (assuming that it does not violate Twitter’s policies). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note: Good luck everyone!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 13:43, 6 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Caelum, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks for your comments. There are a  lot of interesting  issues, both legal and ethical  and  the  subject is controversial  for  sure. Good  luck with your project as well!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Batjarks</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Assignment_2_Submissions&amp;diff=3973</id>
		<title>Assignment 2 Submissions</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Assignment_2_Submissions&amp;diff=3973"/>
		<updated>2015-03-09T22:38:50Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Batjarks: /* Comments */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{AssignmentCal}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Submission Instructions===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Please note that we have updated the [[Final_Project#Frequently_Asked_Questions|final project page&#039;s FAQ section]] based on some student questions that have come to us over the past week.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This assignment is due on March 3rd.  Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (assignments submitted 4 days late or later will have a maximum grade of 1 point).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please name your file &amp;quot;wikiusername_Assignment2,&amp;quot; where &amp;quot;wikiusername&amp;quot; is replaced with your username, to avoid overwriting someone else&#039;s assignment or causing errors in the Wiki by including forbidden characters.&#039;&#039; So if your username is &amp;quot;jdoe&amp;quot; and your file is a Word document your file should be named &amp;quot;jdoe_Assignment2.doc.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Upload your rough draft here: [[Special:Upload|Upload file]]. If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [[Special:ImageList|list of uploaded files]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the submissions section below please post the following information:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Name or pseudonym: &lt;br /&gt;
*Prospectus title: &lt;br /&gt;
*Link to prospectus: (add your link here)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Comments==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Everyone will receive an additional participation grade for this assignment. You should read through everyone&#039;s proposals after they are uploaded and add constructive comments below the proposal on which you&#039;re commenting. Comments should be submitted by March 10th so you have time to incorporate them, if applicable, into your project outline. &#039;&#039;&#039;Please remember to sign your comments by adding four tildes (&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;~~~~&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;) to the end of your contribution.  This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post.&#039;&#039;&#039; If we don&#039;t know who you are we can&#039;t give you credit for finishing this assignment!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ryan Hurley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Facebook &amp;amp; Big Data vs. Your Privacy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Prospectus_FB_and_privacy_Assignment_2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 16:06, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Ryan,&lt;br /&gt;
Great topic choice. Without fail, every single time I have a class on Big Data I obsessively delete aspects of my online presence, cut up frequent customer member cards, and google myself. It’s a hilarious cycle. I am so excited to read your paper and I appreciate the range of content you have considered for the paper, as well as the range of your references. I have an online text for another IT class that has a chapter devoted to FaceBook and their privacy issues. Please, email me and I can send it to you. Also, make sure to keep in mind that FaceBook’s relationships with advertisers and users are changing constantly. A three year old article might give you more context for your research, but very likely reports on policies that are out of date.&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 18:38, 9 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Olivia Brinich&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intentions and Outcomes of Youtube’s Copyright and Coding Regulations&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Oliviabrinich_prospectus03.03.15.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Oliviabrinich|Oliviabrinich]] ([[User talk:Oliviabrinich|talk]]) 15:51, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Comments on Olivia&#039;s Prospectus:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Olivia, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let me start by saying I think that Youtube is a great source for your project.  I’m not saying that just because I am doing my paper on Youtube.  I find the creative ways that people are using it fascinating.  Much more so than some of the other platforms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If I may summarize, you plan to discuss how legal pressures forced Youtube to introduce technologies that changed the user experiences, like Copyright ID.  You also mentioned some other (possibly voluntary) technologies that are part of the user experience with the intent to discuss how they impact users.  I think they are good ideas and good concepts to write about.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As you rightly point the Youtube community is one of the largest communities on the Internet.  I wonder if it might not be taking on too much to try to examine Youtube as a whole.  I would suggest selecting a small group that is susceptible to the effects of the technologies you are reviewing.  Describe who the group is and how certain characteristics of their make-up or user experience make them particularly sensitive to the technologies you will focus on.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example I will be focusing on hobbyist inventors.  Guys that spend their weekends in the garage putting “junk” together and posting videos about their “inventions” on Youtube.  Their content is all original so they are not impacted by Copyright ID.  There is very little thumbs up/down.  They are a much more “expressive” crowd as the comments indicate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’m not trying to discourage you.  I think if you pick the right group and tell us why you picked them, it can very interesting.  I hope that is helpful.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 19:47, 4 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•  Erika L Rich&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•  Title: Reputation Management and Ethical Considerations for Members of the Internet Marketing Super Friends (IMSF) Facebook Group&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•  Link: [[File:LSTU_E120_Erika_Rich_Assignment_2.docx]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:ErikaLRich|ErikaLRich]] ([[User talk:ErikaLRich|talk]]) 15:22, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•	Emily MacIntyre (EmiMac)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•	Prospectus title:  A Case Study on the Unintended Legal Consequences and Chilling Effects of YouTube’s Content ID Sweep on its Video Game Commentator Community&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•	Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Emily_MacIntyre_Assignment_2.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 09:41, 2 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Emily, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Great job on your prospectus! It is very well organized, and your citations sources are well researched. I found your research really enticing because I had never heard of this sweep, and I consider myself an avid youtube visitor. I think you are on to a great research project. Although the topic is remarkably fascinating, I wonder if investigating and juxtaposing the different types of monitoring will be too large or too abstract for the limit of the project. I also read up on the PewDiePie character cited, and I think it is really fascinating to see that he has 35 mil subscribers, yet chose to turn off his commenting feature because of how volatile he claimed the space was becoming. His specific youtube channel then does not have a community to investigate. But it would be interesting to examine someone or a specific youtube channel that has a similar following as the case study to better help zone in on collecting and investigating data. Thank you for this topic, I am currently reading more about the youtube actions in 2008 and 2013 because I had little to no prior knowledge of both events. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good luck on your project!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 00:09, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
RE: Mhoching,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thank you for your comment. I very much like your prospectus topic as well as you can see from my comments below. With regards to my final project, I thought I should reiterate and clarify that my community is the YouTube contributors that concentrate on making Let’s Plays and video game reviews. While it is helpful to find a video with an active comment section, where other users further explain how the ID sweep influences their output choices,  in the case of PewDiePie, his decision to turn off his comment section does in part illustrate how YouTube has rapidly evolved. Since Google began catering to commercial enterprises over the original volunteer contributors, some of the volunteer contributors have become increasingly more frustrated and they exhibit their frustration in a variety of ways.      &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks Again,&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Emily&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 09:37, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
•	MattK&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•	Home of the Mallet of Loving Correction: John Scalzi&#039;s Blog, &amp;quot;Whatever&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•	http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:MattK_Assignment2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:MattK|MattK]] ([[User talk:MattK|talk]]) 22:01, 2 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Matt,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am particularly interested in your topic because I believe it is a very small example of what the internet could become or arguably is becoming in regards to free speech. I am very intrigued by the notion of &amp;quot;knowledge is power&amp;quot;. What I mean relative to your project is that I believe that those who can control what &amp;quot;knowledge&amp;quot; people receive therefore posses great power. In your case, Scalzi&#039;s blog is equipped with a comment section where total control is given to Scalzi on what to allow others to see. By censoring whatever Scalzi sees as &amp;quot;offensive&amp;quot; he is limiting a voice, whether good or bad, and therefore limiting knowledge. I would argue that there&#039;s no question that the term knowledge here is used very loosely and there are obvious comments on these sorts of forums which provide no overall good at all, but more importantly the question I think of is how dangerous it would be for one person to posses this sort of &amp;quot;editorial power&amp;quot; to simply delete anything they see unfit. What would happen if other sites also used this sort of policy where whatever is subjectively deemed unworthy of being a comment was deleted? Are there infact other online sites and forums that take this approach? What implications does this approach have for the audience of the site? Does it discourage participation as a sort of chilling effect? It is a scary world to imagine where one party possess the power of what information to provide and what to censor. In this specific case what if the comments are simply against Scalzi and are a disagreement with what he writes? What is to stop him from simply deleting something. I&#039;m curious to know what sort of checks and balances or accountability Scarzi&#039;s editorial powers has. I think your subject bears the question of where to draw the line between free speech and productive censorship, an enormously tricky and potentially dangerous distinction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These are just a few thoughts I had, in any case best of luck it&#039;s a great topic. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks,&lt;br /&gt;
Ryan Hurley&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 18:55, 8 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
---- &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edwin Duque (Edwinduque)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title:The copyright, privacy and organization challenges that online communities such as Facebook and The Jury Deliberation in the cyber space are faced with &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Edwinduque_Assignment_2.doc&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Edwinduque|Edwinduque]] ([[User talk:Edwinduque|talk]]) 22:10, 2 March 2015 (EST))&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Edwin, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I  like the way you structured your idea. I  think that the copyright issue is  very  interesting and it  is  worthed  spending  some more  time on it.  Exploring the nature of  a Facebook post – whether  it  could  be  consider  as an “idea”, in the Copyright Act specifically states that In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, regardless of the form in which it is described. Or  it  could  be  considered  as  an “original works of authorship” fixed by the author in a tangible way, in which case it would be covered by copyrights. The issue of re-posting someone else’s post with commercial purposes  could  be interesting to mention as well. It is just  an idea,  but saying some words about  the  case  with the  famous Facebook post “In response to the new Facebook guidelines…. “ might  be  interesting too. I think  that  you  could  also easily  link your work to the “right to  be  forgotten” issues   we  discussed  in  class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here  are  some links  you  might  find  useful. Good  luck!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.nyccounsel.com/business-blogs-websites/who-owns-photos-and-videos-posted-on-facebook-or-twitter/&lt;br /&gt;
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-social-networking/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
-------&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Michelle Byrne (Chelly.Byrne)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus title: Balancing privacy for victims of sexual crimes with &lt;br /&gt;
opportunity for support in online forum  AfterSilence.org&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:ChellyByrne_Assignment2.pdf &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 07:54, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Michelle,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You have chosen a terrifically nuanced community. Indeed, the word “balance” and the question of HOW such a community can possibly approach this word is bound to yield more data and conclusions than the page ljmits of our final project – which is only testimony to the strength of your community research choice. I believe yours is the most psychologically-based prospectus that I have read thus far. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By “psychologically-based,” I mean that I sense that you will be making some conclusions about the specialized mindsets and individuals who are drawn to this community; a community that paradoxically, and in waves, seem to wish for both anonymity and at the same time, a very specific and difficult kind of attention. Anonymous attention.  A community that has created a safe haven and yet, has some very troubling cracks, as you point out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Questions:&lt;br /&gt;
Are these cracks mostly user generated? As in, the example you found of the poster who revealed configurable data revealing her identity. If they are mostly user-generated, how prevalent of an instance is this? Of the active users who reveal private information, what instances are accidental or ignorant (as in, thinking they’ll be anonymous by revealing age, town, etc) as opposed to intentional?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is there some kind of warning or clause in the user agreement that attempts to address this issue of accidentally revealing private information or even purposefully revealing it?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the user agreement and the rules and guidelines for AfterSilence.org do address this issue and users still post personal information, what are the pros and cons of simply warning users about the risks and then letting users do as they please vs. taking pro-active measures?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If there were pro-active measures for a site host like this to take, what would they be? Message board community reminders? Moderators who redact info? Self-regulation and regulation amongst members? What does regulation in this kind of community actually look like and is it sustainable in its current form?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many more questions and considerations to make. Good topic choice, succinctly proposed. I wish you all the best in this project and I look forward to reading the final project.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best, &lt;br /&gt;
Chanel Rion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 11:31, 9 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Chanel Rion (ChanelRion)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;We the Judges: &amp;quot;Sitejabber&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;Yelp&amp;quot;, and Communities of User-Generated Business Reviews.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment2_Prospectus_Rion.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 11:21, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Chanel,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The subject of customer generated reviews is certainly huge on the internet.   It is beneficial for consumers to get an opinion of a product or restaurant from other people over just what the advertising says.  But as you point out, there is a lot of opportunity for libel or slander – especially people just having an ax to grind.   It would be interesting to see how Yelp or Sitejabber are being responsible and making an effort to regulate content and protect places being reviewed from harassing content.  I like how your approach includes researching any legal cases brought against them; it would be interesting to see if any of them prevail.   Also, how do they actually calculate the ratings?  Is it an average of overall ratings?   Or could bad reviews be hidden away if there become lots of positive reviews?  Are businesses sandbagging to increase their ratings?  &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Overall, this is a great community to look into and I wish you success!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Michelle aka (Chelly)&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 15:43, 7 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
RE: Michelle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Michelle,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thank you for your comments and feedback. I too, am especially interested in the legal angles to this community and I am glad to know I&#039;m not the only one. I will certainly be watching and reviewing and seeking the answers to these questions and also to your specific concerns. All intensely pertinent to how businesses and communities are going to manage tensions with each other -- tensions that have always been here, but are now revolutionized in simply the sheer and complete access that the Internet provides to all of us.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Looking forward to starting this seek and find. Thank you for highlighting questions and focuses, they should prove helpful for such a broad category. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chanel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 16:49, 8 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Becca Lewis (beccalew)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: &#039;&#039;&#039;/r/TwoXChromosomes and /r/feminism: The challenges of promoting feminism on Reddit while upholding the values of privacy and free speech&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Final_Project_Prospectus_Becca_Lewis.docx &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 13:15, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Becca!&lt;br /&gt;
I absolutely love the theme of your project, it is an exceptional live issue since feminism has been discussed much more this past year than it has been for many years. Therefore, it´s really important to examine the forums in which people have the opportunity to discuss the subject. Great!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found it cool that you are thinking about recording a podcast for the project. If you do so, you might consider including an interview with someone active in the specific forums, a professor in gender studies or perhaps two people with different views on the issue?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a question about the subreddits you talked about though. You wrote about a ”safe space” for women. Are those subreddits only for women or are they open for anyone who want to discuss feminism and gender roles? If it is a women-only forum, you might also discuss the consequences on that. If not, maybe that has consequences as well. Maybe you should discuss self censorship in the feminism subreddits as well (which is very interesting since Reddit-as you said-values free speech above almost all else)?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good luck!&lt;br /&gt;
/Josefin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 10:39, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Gary Brown (Gary Brown)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: The Effects of Site Controls on Community Objectives: communityfunded.com&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Gary_Brown_Assignment2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 13:18, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Comments on Gary&#039;s Prospectus:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gary,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Great topic!  I hope to be going out to for crowdfunding by the end of the May.  So I will follow your Wiki with interest.  (In your proposal you link to crowdfunded.  I think you meant community funded. You may want to look at that.) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You mentioned the stated purpose of Communityfunded.  But you did not mention their reason for existing.  In other words, what started crowdfunding and why would individuals seek funds for their projects from the public and not other traditional sources.  Why are people like me willing to go online (to communityfunded) to ask for money, as opposed to going to another site or pitching a Venture Capitalist or a bank?  Why would people fund a project on line versus invest in the stock market or Bank CDs?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the answer to those questions goes to the heart of crowdfunding.  It also is germane to the “troublesome obstacles” you refer to in your prospectus. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When you mention failed projects, I would suggest that not all failures are the same.  I might be willing to invest money in a project I consider socially redeeming even if I thought it had very little chance of success.  Where as, if I were investing in some Harvard wiz-kids that profess to have the next Facebook, I might have very different feelings if they went belly up.  So you may want to include categories of projects, or claims/expectations in your discussions.  As well as any risk factor ratings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You also mentioned building and keeping trust of supporters.  One of the areas that interests me is the ways that Fundraisers generate funding support.  Do they rely solely on the site?  In other words, is there a pool of would be investors just waiting for the right idea to come around so they can invest.  Or is a fundraiser expected to go outside the community and raise interest and drive that interest back to the site?  How does that impact the “trust” factor?  If I am a one-time fundraiser does it matter all that much what people think about me after I’ve got my money?  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You discuss how you will break down funded projects, etc.  Is there a way to figure out what various fundraiser did to get funded?  Marketing may prove to be more of a factor than the project or its worthiness.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It would certainly be worthwhile to compare and contrast crowdfunding before and after changes in regs that made it easier for the public to invest.  And how post reg trends may lead to new regs/controls.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I look forward to reading your paper.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 20:45, 4 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Meagan HoChing (mhoching) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Title: Online Gaming Harassment: All fun and games? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Mhoching_Assignment2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 13:50, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Meagan,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every aspect of your prospectus is incredibly interesting to me. I am especially intrigued by how well you have matched up the readings to your topic. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After I read your section on Norms I thought about how you point out that “the gaming system is very competitive” and it made me wonder, if Valve placed more restrictions to prevent bullying could it potentially take some of the pleasure of competition out of the mix.  If so, then would some users leave the game because they like the hostile environment, which may be why they chose to play in it in the first place.  Keeping this line of thought in mind, perhaps you could find another similar community that has more strict modes of control in place to observe the differences between them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your prospectus and I look forward to seeing your finished product.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best,&lt;br /&gt;
Emily&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 09:25, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Meagan!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What an interesting and relevant subject! &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that it was a very good idea of you to use the Dot Model with the components ”Market”, ”Architecture”, ”Norms” and ”Law”, it makes everything much more clear. I agree with Emily that it would be a good idea to compare DOTA 2 with another game, preferably from another website than STEAM and with another system of regulation. I would find it really interesting to see the result of a such a study and if norms, the language, the members of the site, etc. differ between the two games. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I´m looking forward to see the result! Good luck!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
/Josefin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 10:16, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Meagan!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this is a very fascinating topic and one I too almost pursued. I am a bit of a gamer myself and although I don&#039;t play DOTA, I do regularly play many different sports games which I have found to have similar issues of harassment and &amp;quot;bullying&amp;quot;. I hadn&#039;t heard of the STEAM website you&#039;re focusing on until I read your assignment, but for anyone who has read really a comment section/forum anywhere, one second you&#039;re talking about a video game, the next you have gone down a path of hate and overall disgust of anyone different minded not to mention if it is a competitive game which stirrs up some hostile emotions toward an adversary. I find this particularly interesting when it comes to video games because many people who don&#039;t play video games believe that &amp;quot;it&#039;s just a game&amp;quot; but on the contrary for many gamers, one can find their self emotionally invested into a game you are taking part in. You feel this overwhelming sense of dedication to it and attachment to what happens in it where you can essentially lose yourself in the game. It is because of this hardwired competitive and primitive feeling and this element of motivation that I believe is so deeply rooted in many gamers that it would be near impossible to ever completely outlaw the harassment or trash talk because it will never stop. However perhaps there is some sort of way to outlaw the harassment that crosses a line by creating real consequence while still allowing some competitive jabbing but that I will be curious to see from your project. I will be also curious to hear what your research finds about the website in particular, I would venture to guess that it is probably similar for communities like the PSN and xboxlive. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I might suggest on top of all this to take a look at games which do not have a competitive nature with other users. This may be difficult to find but I&#039;d be curious to see whether it is harassment you find on forums with these sort of games or rather a cooperative dialogue intended to help one another. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good Luck!&lt;br /&gt;
- Ryan Hurley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 16:26, 8 March 2015 (EDT)  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Caroline B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Title: The Study of Privacy, Accuracy &amp;amp; Order on InsideNova Website and Moving ‘Little Sites’ Up&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:1_Caroline_B.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Cbore001|Cbore001]] ([[User talk:Cbore001|talk]]) 14:45, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Jan.Yburan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus title: Reddit.com/r/IAmA its Controls on Privacy and Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Jan.Yburan.Assignment2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Jan,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is a really interesting community to build your case study around. Prior to today I have only been on the site a few times to look at subreddits that relate to topics that I am interested in, and since I am not a member I have not considered how the site protects the user’s privacy. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today I decided to look at the IAmA subreddit to get a better handle of the scope of your project. Consequently, I came across and interesting and fairly benign thread started by an employee of a movie theater and it brought to mind, how does the site handle issues of privacy, libel or defamation against a company or a consumer when an employee engages in what appears at first glance as an anonymous tell all blog that highlights how he/she has witnessed vulgar and perhaps even criminal activity. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Considering your topic and direction you want to take, I think you might want to blend together aspects of the readings from our classes on privacy with the readings for next week’s class on free expression, information, and unwanted speech.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am looking forward to seeing your completed final project. I am sure it will be very informative.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Emily&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
P.S. (Here is the link to the AMA I referenced: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2xz6nb/iama_movie_theater_employee_and_ive_seen_the/)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 13:04, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Eric Yuk Lun Kwong (Caelum)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus title: The vulnerable voting structure of Digg.com and the gradual&lt;br /&gt;
collapse of its popularity and voting legitimacy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Caelum_Assignment2.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 15:11, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Eric,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Excellent topic. One that possesses, at once, broad-scale relevance and unusual particularities. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Exploring the reasons for Digg’s failure as a site and as a community, I’m drawn to the question regarding the members themselves. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It would be interesting to compare, if applicable, the kinds of users who are drawn to a voting-type participatory community vs. a community that actually interacts via content and contributions. If clear distinctions can be made here, to then find examples of successful communities that are voter-based and to pinpoint key policies or elements that differentiate sustainable models of voter-based communities compared to content-based contribution communities. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Perhaps it is fundamentally an issue of investment; when users and the outside world view a product as having or requiring minimal investment (as in, saying, or rather, clicking “yes” or “no” to something – voting to “dig” or “bury” a story). Are voting based sites destined to suffer from questions of legitimacy by virtue of being online and being so subjective? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That you will be making parallels to Wikipedia’s platform seems to be a good approach here. Wisely done. Thank you also, for your commentaries – I appreciate the thoroughness in which you approach these topics. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best of luck!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chanel Rion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 11:57, 9 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Alex Samaei (Samaei1)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus title: The Framework of Projects and Backers on Kickstarter&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Samaei1_Assignment2.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Samaei1|Samaei1]] ([[User talk:Samaei1|talk]]) 15:37, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Alex! &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&#039;m so happy you picked this website because I&#039;ve donated to various projects on this website, but never took into account the structure of the website and complications due to misappropriating of funding. I find it hard to try to quantify what is appropriate to fundraise, because the topic is subjective. Of course I don&#039;t think it would be appropriate to fundraise to support hate speech (if that&#039;s what someone is fundraising for), yet I don&#039;t find it appropriate to fundraise for movies about starving children, when that money can go to feeding starving children. I hope I&#039;m communicating the subjectiveness of trying to find what would be considered appropriate to raise money for and how it varies from person to person. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But speaking in regards to the Lessig&#039;s Dot Model I think the website can be broken down into different sections to address some of the issues you raise. For example, how does the structure of kickstarter promote accountability on the artist/person asking for money? On the donation page for example, a vast amount of information about the artist is available, as well as avenues in which you can contact the fundraiser. So if kickstarter has provided this as a requirement for people to submit or provide when asking to be funded, is it then up to the donor to hold that person accountable? I have the tools on that page to ask the fundraiser for that specific information and continue to follow up on that information. I think once you start looking at specific/deliberate aspects of kickstarter, it will start to inform or control behavior. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I hope this helps! Look forward to reading the final project; happy researching and writing!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 00:35, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Alex,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’m interested that you have chosen a community that, you imply, is being targeted not for its failures, but for its successes. A wildfire that is often so much more visible on the Internet than in any other form in history. Speed, access, and instant publicity -- make &amp;quot;success&amp;quot; in society ever more visible, open to targeting, and prone to hijacking. Indeed. It is a great topic for research in this course in particular.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One aspect that could be revelatory is to seek out the kinds of legal cases that have been brought against kickstarter and what litigation the site has to deal with and what kinds of litigation that users potentially enter into. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There’s also a question about user legitimacy. How easy is it for some startup organization to simply use this community and its platform as an elaborate marketing plan? Can a company, for instance, viel itself to be a small time kickstarter that can feed itself funding and manufacture the appearance of democratic success? It would be especially useful to identify who the moderators are and to what extent they exercise control or regulation if any. Does Kickstarter have even the skeleton of some kind of verification system or is the verification over the legitimacy of a proposal entirely user generated? Is this sustainable or are there signs of trouble ahead? What would be a disastrous scenario for this community? To these questions, I think that many clues may be found in the litigation and whatever bad publicity the community has had encounter. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Great topic, culturally relevant community. Thank you for the topic and best of luck for the final.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chanel Rion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 12:31, 9 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Gia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus title: Chivalry online&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Gia_Assignment2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 15:46, 3 March 2015 (EST))&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Gia,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This topic is definitely flushing out the seedier side of the internet!  I have never heard of this site 419eater, but we all know the dangers of scammers and how they use the internet.   How do they find their victims?   Some scams are so realistic as to mention names of loved ones in danger and demand money be expedited.  The scam baiters you’re talking about here must be trolling similar sites and circles to identify culprits they need want to go after.  But in doing so, are they just as much at fault as the original scammers?   Is there any regulation of the members? I can definitely see an ethical dilemma, as you point out, of some possibly unscrupulous members.  And your question of whether they have extended their existence outside the online world is a very interesting consideration.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You a have a lot of good sources listed regarding scams (white collar crime and Ponzi schemes too!).   Good luck, this is an intriguing subject!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Michelle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 15:57, 7 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Re: Michelle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks for the comments, Michelle. I definitely intend to explore the  subject from both sides, because there could be really two, maybe even more , points of  view. Regarding the legal regulation, there is a lot  to be said – interned jurisdiction. The self-regulation of the web community  which is  evolving with the  time is  also a nice starting  point. &lt;br /&gt;
Thank again for the ideas and good luck  to  you  too with  your  work!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Mishal R. Kennedy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus title: Enforcing Guidelines Without Harming User Contributions&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Mishal_R._Kennedy_Assignment2.rtf&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Mishal R. Kennedy|Mishal R. Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Mishal R. Kennedy|talk]]) 15:51, 3 March 2015 (EST))&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Hi  Mishal,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The  subject you have  chosen  is very interesting and gives great opportunities  for  discussions and analyses. I would   directly  make  a reference  to  the  Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0, which we discussed during “Paradigms for Studying the Internet’ class.  You could explore the methods  used by the moderators and administrators as a way  of  self regulation of  the  community. The  question  you asked  whether  these  methods  are  causing  more  bad  than  good, is right  to the point. &lt;br /&gt;
I would  suggest you explain in more details the  different  methods  of control used  my the moderators  and perhaps compare them with the ones used by other communities. You could also take a  look  if  it is explicitly listed in the Terms  of  Use   of the  website  in which case what measure is taken? Is there a higher authority than the moderator to  whom  a sanctioned  user  could  complain? Could  such  a  decision  “be appealed” or  it  is  final and definitive? Is there at all a hierarchy in the administration of the website?&lt;br /&gt;
Here  are  some  sources  which  might  help. Good  luck!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
https://www.academia.edu/3079184/COAT_Collaborative_Outgoing_Anti-Spam_Technique&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.yildiz.edu.tr/~aktas/courses/CE-0114890/g8-p3.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~kksivara/sfwr4c03/projects/4c03projects/CGLucas-Project.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM11/paper/viewFile/2780/3296&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Richard Markow&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus title: The YouTube video-sharing platform &amp;amp; The Community of Alternative Heating Systems and Appliance Inventors&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Rich_Markow_Assignment_2_Prospectus.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 16:03, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name AlexanderH&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: Managing the Petitions of Change.org: B Corps, Social Enterprise and Transparency&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:AlexanderH_Assignment_2_Prospectus.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:AlexanderH|AlexanderH]] ([[User talk:AlexanderH|talk]]) 16:10, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Meredith Blake&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title:Identifying Avenues of Recourse for Businesses on Yelp &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Meredith_Blake._Assignment_2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Meredithmblake|Meredith]] ([[User talk:Meredithmblake|talk]]) 16:13, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
Hello Meredith!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this is a great topic and you have a very interesting approach.  I haven’t really looked into Yelp and the lawsuit angle, but they certainly have a lot of influence on the internet.   Out of curiosity, I just Googled about 10 different restaurants in this area and the results had the Yelp review either as the second or third site listed!   So potential customers are seeing the Yelp rating almost before the actual websites in a couple of cases!   There is little recourse for them, and as you show by the Sia example, a disgruntled customer can reach out and cause a flood of terrible reviews, from people who weren’t even customers!   Caelum makes a good point in the summary at the bottom that reviews are either one end of the spectrum or the other… disgruntled customers wanting to air their displeasure or someone extremely happy who wants to rave about it.&lt;br /&gt;
   &lt;br /&gt;
It is good to take a targeted approach to such a large community, and looking into the recourse that businesses may have as well as existing lawsuits sounds like a good approach.  If a suit is successful, what are the actual outcomes?   Does Yelp take down reviews or adjust the ratings?   I think people who expound on sites that give a platform are really missing the spirit of free speech.   I don’t think your approach is that unpopular, not that free speech needs to be regulated, but that there should be some modicum of self-restraint and freedom to say anything is not absolutely protected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good luck on this, you’ve got some really good ideas!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Michelle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 16:14, 7 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Wesley Verge&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title : Scrolling into Darkness -- An investigation into the regulatory forces at work in Youtube&#039;s comment section&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Wesley_Verge_Prospectus.txt&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 [[User:WesleyVerge|WesleyVerge]] ([[User talk:WesleyVerge|talk]]) 16:19, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Wesley!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am very intrigued by the &amp;quot;solutions&amp;quot; there are to change the culture of the comment sections. It is really an intriguing phenomenon that one could be watching a video about puppies and suddenly 4 comments down glance over an argument that Obama was sent by satan himself to destroy the world. I&#039;ve always been curious as to how this has not been regulated more strictly. I think you raise great points why and the concerns Google is faced with. If I were doing this project I might also attempt to compare this to other sites as well that must face similar challenges. For example you suggest in your assignment that youtube channels direct traffic to sites like Reddit, but is that really an escape for the channel as this implies? Can these &amp;quot;trolls&amp;quot; not go over to reddit to promote their hate just as easily, or do they have different solutions in play that regulate these sorts of issues better? As far as I know both are anonymous to an extent so with this anonymity many of these trolls have &amp;quot;keyboard muscles&amp;quot; as I like to call them. I can understand twitter because many times it is much more personal but even there people can create fake accounts and troll all the same, just see Jimmy Kimmels skit on celebrity reading mean tweets. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really like your focus on famous YouTubers I just think it may also be beneficial and worth mentioning how other sites with the same prevalent issue have tried to combat trolling. Also from a legal side, are all of these comments protected by the law and free speech? Perhaps because of the enormity of all the comments and comment sections, it is simply impossible to regulate what is said in every section from a legal perspective. Food for thought, but in any case great project idea.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best of luck,&lt;br /&gt;
Ryan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 16:56, 8 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: Knocking the Wind out of Whistleblowers: The US&#039; response to the growing threat from WikiLeaks &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Kelly.WilsonAssignment_2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Kelly.wilson|Kelly.wilson]] ([[User talk:Kelly.wilson|talk]]) 16:38, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Kelly,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interesting topic.  There are a couple of perspectives you may want to consider about when defining what you mean by Whistleblower and the response in each situation.  1) Exposing illegal acts.  2) Exposing immoral acts.  3) Exposing Acts designed to embarrassed your political opponents or as retribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Should they all be treated the same and afforded equal protection?  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good luck!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 00:10, 9 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Tasha&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: Exploring the Complexity of Rapidly Evolving Information in a Bodybuilding Forum and the Challenges of Quality Assurance&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Tasha_Assignment_2_Prospectus.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tasha[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 17:12, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--------&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Tasha,  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I  like a lot  your  choice  of  community  . It  is  unusual and  at  the  same  time  you  could  find  a lot  of  things  to explore-both  from  legal  and ethical stand  point. &lt;br /&gt;
I would  say  that your  questions and  reflections are  on the right track. I think  that one of the issues  you  could explore is  the fact that  they  are  often used  as  a platform  for  unlicensed  sell of  drugs. If  you choose  to go  for this, you should have  to take  a  good  look  on the definitions  in order  to  differ  “Drugs”  for  “Nutrition Supplements” because  this is  the  tricky  moment. How the  website  is  protecting  itself  from  such  kind  of  activity (by  its  Terms  of  use  or  in other  ways) , might  be interesting  as well.&lt;br /&gt;
Above you could find two links that might be of some use. Good  luck!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first is little bit old but interesting:&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t000525b.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://health.wusf.usf.edu/post/unlicensed-pharmacies-selling-compounded-drugs-online&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
__________&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Josefin Sasse&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: A case study on the children&#039;s website Kidzworld and how they deal with threats against being a safe environment for children.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:JosefinSasse.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 17:26, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Josefin!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find your topic utterly intriguing. I had no idea such a website existed and it&#039;s been quite fascinating just poking around the website a little bit. I think it is a very valid point to raise about &amp;quot;who monitors Kidzworld&amp;quot;, because there doesn&#039;t seem to be much of a screening process to ensure the user that is signing up for an account is in fact between the ages of 9-17. Also, I see you have cited the Pew Research Center study from the readings, which is a great resource for dissecting the demographics and statistics of harassment, but the study was done on &amp;quot;young adults&amp;quot; ranging from 18-29, and &amp;quot;young women&amp;quot; between the ages of 18-24 years old. Which I hope illuminates, rather than complicates, the issue of doing research on a demographic ranging from 9-17, but more so how do you set up  a website that serves a population that would need adult consent to participate in almost everything they do. Along with privacy issues, I think the question of who is responsible for what and for whom is a great aspect you have raised in your paper! I would love to stay in touch and see the developments of your paper if that would be okay. I think this is the perfect website to investigate for this project.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 00:10, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Josefin,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think you picked a great online community to explore for your final project, not only because it is a social space for a specific group, but also because there seems to be some fairly strict regulations in place to maintain a safe environment for kids. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It might be interesting if you could find some weakness in its structure. For example can kids go into private chats or are all the chats and comment sections being screened. If they are being screened, is it by a computer generated logarithm or real people? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another question that you could delve into is, how do the site’s administrators know the users are minors.  Do they require parents’ permission? If so how do they prove it is actually a real parent?  &lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
I hope these suggestions are helpful. I am looking forward to seeing your finished project. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best,&lt;br /&gt;
Emily&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 00:13, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name:   Brooke Tjarks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus:   Art. Business. Fans. (...) How this collaborative space shapes mass visual media production and worldwide distribution&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link:   http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Prospectus.Brooke.Tjarks.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Abby McHugh&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: From #Thinspiration to “Low Carb Friends”: The Regulation of Online Weight Loss Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Amchugh_Assignment2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Abby!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Okay, so I really wich I had chosen this issue. It is great that you did!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To facilitate the work, I would recommend that you are more specific in which websites you are going to explore since there is so much #thinspo content out there. But Twitter, Tumbler, Pinterest, and Instagram are great platforms to explore, together with blogs like you said. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Other things you might want to discuss are:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What makes the most harm: #thinspo/pro-ana blogs and posts or limitations on freedom of speech by regulating such content? (On my part, I am determined in my opinion that #thinspo is devastating and that regulation in this case is a good thing.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Who is active in this community?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Could pro-ana be illegitimate harassment? Compare it the possibility of a pro-cancer or a pro-aids community (deadly diseases just like anorexia).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What effects could/does the sometimes lack of regulation have on the community online and offline?&lt;br /&gt;
Good luck! You´ve chosen a very interesting subject!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
/Josefin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 11:08, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abby,&lt;br /&gt;
I am so impressed and dare I say jealous that you picked such an important subject for your paper. Here are a few things that come to mind as I read your plan. I hope at least one of them is helpful.&lt;br /&gt;
-	I LOVE that you have already started a list of references. My critique for your references is to add more scholarly sources to substantiate your conclusions. For example, perhaps a database like “Mintel” or “IBISWorld” will have metrics regarding weight loss CONSUMER trends globally or in the United States. From another angle, you could find articles in scholarly psychology journals or *gasp* BOOKS in the library of a graduate psychology program. I am a student at Pepperdine, too, and I love their graduate psychology library and their electronic databases. If you want me to request anything and have it sent to you, do not hesitate to ask.  And from yet another angle, perhaps we could find legal cases that relate to your topic, as well. I would be more than happy to work with you to find more sources because I just love your topic so much. &lt;br /&gt;
-	Carbohydrates are critical for healthy brain function. Perhaps that is important in your paper, as well? Elephant in the room?&lt;br /&gt;
-	If you decide to mention similar trends or implications of the “thinspo” trend, maybe consider body building inspiration on social media and blogs and why it is both equally obsessive but healthier.&lt;br /&gt;
-	Another thing that concerns me about your topic is privacy. Not just the privacy of those with eating disorders, but all individuals participating in the online weight loss chatter. And also, the trend to take pictures of one’s body and put those photographs online. What are the implications of this?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 18:26, 9 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note: If I’m a little direct in the comments, I really mean the best. Hope it doesn’t offend anyone. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ryan Hurley: I think professor said stay away from these huge websites. Perhaps you could discuss with the professors if Facebook is the right website to focus on? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Olivia Brinich: I think you’re asking a lot of questions to be answered here.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“How does it Pind and protect information, how do copyrighters choose to deal with the individual cases of copyright infringement, and what happens when a clip is wrongfully targeted for copyright violation, i.e., the adverse unintended consequences of Content ID?”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Perhaps you should just focus on one main thesis and explore on that. For example, focusing on how copyrighters deal with copyright infringement, and how that eventually influenced youtube to introduce copyright ID system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One last issue is whether youtube is too big of a website to focus on. Perhaps you could narrow it down to say, copyright issues for music on youtube. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Erika L. Rich: I think it’s a very broad term to discuss the ethical considerations. Perhaps if you narrowed it down to 1 or 2 main issues you find extremely compelling about the website and community? Or maybe I have simply mistaken your train of thought. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Emily MacIntyre: I like how you had such conviction to talk about youtube that despite its size, its still worth researching about. I think you could also talk a little bit about how these game commentators earn their living by commenting on games. PewDiePie is estimated to earn millions every year. It could show a greater perspective on things if we could see their earnings as well. South Park actually has a very funny episode about commentators commenting on commentators commenting on games on youtube. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matt K: Do you think that changing the title to reflect your research would make it easier for the reader? (Just a thought) I think its interesting how you mentioned “democratic instrument”, bringing politics into the way his blog is ran. According to the quote you took, Scalzi has indeed used some controls over potential commentators. Furthermore, you should consider that if it’s a blog about all sorts of things, with John’s comments on it, he should also be open to listen to commentators reply to this, especially if its about sensitive topics. If he’s going to filter away those he “considers” as offensive, then perhaps he shouldn’t comment on other things either. (unless the comment really does not have a valid point and is not related to the topic) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edwin Duque: Good to see you in this class too. I think you should just focus on one website. I’d do JuryX instead of Facebook as professor said big websites aren’t good. Also, you’d need a stronger thesis to connect what the real question is. Is it about allowing free sharing? Or is it about limiting what gets shared? I’m a little confused with your thesis. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chelly Byrne: I think you have a strong thesis here. The contradictions between sharing information on the internet, and the fear of being exposed would be very interesting. I think you can even go into the subscription process. I assume the website allows anyone to join. This means that even predators could read up on what victims write. Unfortunately, they probably get quite the entertainment from reading it, or pretending to ask “leading” questions. As you said, just a tiny bit of excessive information leaked out could result in a victim being violated again. I guess you could talk about that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chanel Rion: Since you’re talking about Yelp and reviews, I’d like to share what I learned from another class. Most of these reviews are at the ends of the spectrum. Unless someone is a regular of Yelp and does a review for every restaurant, the rest of them would be people who had great experiences or really bad experiences. They won’t be bothered to write a review about a mediocre or average restaurant. It’s not worth their time. You could also mention that. Also, do you think there are fake reviews too? I’d go for siteJabbar. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Becca Lewis: Firstly its interesting how you’re talking about Reddit because I’m talking about Digg. I think new beliefs takes time to be adapted by the masses. Feminism isn’t very old, and its on going. I think it takes time for people to adapt to it, so for the short term I won’t be surprised if the discussion board sees a lot of anti-feminism people. But also do bare in mind that these are “beliefs”, just like “liberalism” (which is quite similar to feminism, fighting for individual rights, etc). Not everyone believes in these values, so some disagreements should be expected. I guess an interesting way could be to examine if people become more offensive when they are shown as anonymous. My thoughts are that it is. You could look at reddit discussions compared with the core values of Wikipedia, and why it worked for Wikipedia, but a little hard for Reddit. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gary Brown: Are there any data on the selection process, or ventures that were rejected? It’s hard to associate it with discrimination if there is no evidence. Since you can’t prove or disprove this, it means “site controls” cannot be determined. Therefore you need to make a new thesis that really reflects the paper. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meagan Moana HoChing: DOTA is a fun game. My initial response is that with huge amounts of ego on the line, that’s how bullying start. Haha. From what I read and know, it is the architecture that is dominantly the issue. This structure allows the audience to exploit it. I think you could also investigate is how is “harassment” identified as? Calling someone a “loser”? Do note that a lot of cyber bullying are to kids that people know in real life. So can we causally say trash talking is the same as harassing? When NBA players trash talk one another, I don’t think they considered it as harassing. So I guess this definition needs to be very clear.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Caroline B: Perhaps you could mention NPOV as one of their values they used in order to keep readers like yourself going to the website. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jan Yburan: Second Reddit I saw today. Haha. I think you need to be weary of the upvote system. More popular and famous people would get a self –fulfilling upvote treatment, where as more niche people or radical ones would get less. This way of identifying success might be a little questionable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alex Samaei: I’d be more interested in how kickstarter protects pledgers from potential false projects. This seems like a very good question for privacy and control. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gia: &lt;br /&gt;
“New scambaiters can request to be assigned a &amp;quot;mentor&amp;quot; to assist them in learning how to bait.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this is really cool. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“. In the past, scammers were tricked into sending money themselves, which was later given to charity.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That’s crazy. Not sure who the scammer is now. I’d spend more time discussing the aspect about scammers being scammed by scambaiters, and the moral and ethical implications of it. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mishal R. Kennedy: I think you have a legit question there. Looking at whether deleting an old post or controlling spambots to be more important. You could also consider that perhaps it was the ease of registration that led to the spambots. Deleting the old posts doesn’t actually go to the root of the problem. I guess you could also talk more about the ease of registration. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Markow: I think you should just talk about 1 or 2 points out of the 5. Don’t think you have enough space to write that much. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alexander H: Do you think you could also go into the ease of account creation? To attain legitimacy, the website would need real personal data to determine that the petition is signed by a real person. If so the privacy concerns would be the biggest. A deeper look at the terms and agreement is a must. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meredith Blake: That’s an interesting take on Yelp. I do believe that the reviews are either from the ones who enjoyed the restaurant the most, or the ones that hated it. The ones in the middle won’t be bothered to write a review. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wesley Verge: Personally I think it is an inevitable part of anonymity and high view count. There’s bound to be a few trolls, but that too is what makes youtube entertaining. I think youtube just needs to make a better flagging system. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kelly Wilson: You could talk about how the internet might influence more people to be whistleblowers, or even anonymous whistleblowers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tasha: I think to begin with you need to bare in mind that a lot of fitness people already know the difference between science and bro-science. I further believe that bodybuilding.com would just allow people to say whatever they want knowing full well it is just a forum. As long as they don’t endorse it, they shouldn’t be liable. But as such, you should also talk about the privacy of fitness people on the website. A lot of them post photos up too, and their diet and schedules.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Josefin S: Nice logo. I don’t really like the age range for kidzworld.com. It doesn’t make sense for 9 year olds to interact with 17 year olds. Furthermore, I wouldn’t want my 9 year old kid to socialize with 17 year old kids and being taught 17 year old stuff. So my biggest concern, as you also mentioned, is how do they keep content separate between different ages to prevent the younger kids to learn the wrong stuff? Or do they not do this at all?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Brooke Ashley Tjarks: Yes, I’d agree with you that IMDB is a good balance between the other two websites. I think by becoming a member, the legitimacy of the votes would become higher. There’s bound to be some sort of influence between people regardless of the platform, so I think IMDB is an interesting one to investigate further.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
- Brooke Tjarks here responding to Caelum -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thank you so much for the feedback. I am defintely going with IMBD. Another interesting aspect of the platform is the accuracy of content that the website tries to uphold and the methods that they use to ensure this. For example, users with profiles who edit pages must sign legal documents online (such as NDA&#039;s) before editing. The more I thought it over the more I realized how different each of the sites I considered truly are, but IMDB has the most to offer for this assignment. Thank you again for your support.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 17:53, 9 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Amchugh: I think you could go into internet being free also has its consequences. Since the internet could edit and post something online in a matter of seconds, it becomes very vulnerable for unintended things to hit the net. The filtering has to either occurred before the posting, or after it has been up. When it’s up already, it’s hard to say whether the rest of them would oblige, or would they prefer to continue the troll game. You could talk about the reasons for why Twitter would take it down (assuming that it does not violate Twitter’s policies). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note: Good luck everyone!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 13:43, 6 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Caelum, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks for your comments. There are a  lot of interesting  issues, both legal and ethical  and  the  subject is controversial  for  sure. Good  luck with your project as well!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Batjarks</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Assignment_2_Submissions&amp;diff=3972</id>
		<title>Assignment 2 Submissions</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Assignment_2_Submissions&amp;diff=3972"/>
		<updated>2015-03-09T22:26:51Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Batjarks: /* Comments */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{AssignmentCal}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Submission Instructions===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Please note that we have updated the [[Final_Project#Frequently_Asked_Questions|final project page&#039;s FAQ section]] based on some student questions that have come to us over the past week.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This assignment is due on March 3rd.  Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (assignments submitted 4 days late or later will have a maximum grade of 1 point).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please name your file &amp;quot;wikiusername_Assignment2,&amp;quot; where &amp;quot;wikiusername&amp;quot; is replaced with your username, to avoid overwriting someone else&#039;s assignment or causing errors in the Wiki by including forbidden characters.&#039;&#039; So if your username is &amp;quot;jdoe&amp;quot; and your file is a Word document your file should be named &amp;quot;jdoe_Assignment2.doc.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Upload your rough draft here: [[Special:Upload|Upload file]]. If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [[Special:ImageList|list of uploaded files]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the submissions section below please post the following information:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Name or pseudonym: &lt;br /&gt;
*Prospectus title: &lt;br /&gt;
*Link to prospectus: (add your link here)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Comments==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Everyone will receive an additional participation grade for this assignment. You should read through everyone&#039;s proposals after they are uploaded and add constructive comments below the proposal on which you&#039;re commenting. Comments should be submitted by March 10th so you have time to incorporate them, if applicable, into your project outline. &#039;&#039;&#039;Please remember to sign your comments by adding four tildes (&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;~~~~&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;) to the end of your contribution.  This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post.&#039;&#039;&#039; If we don&#039;t know who you are we can&#039;t give you credit for finishing this assignment!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ryan Hurley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Facebook &amp;amp; Big Data vs. Your Privacy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Prospectus_FB_and_privacy_Assignment_2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 16:06, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Olivia Brinich&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intentions and Outcomes of Youtube’s Copyright and Coding Regulations&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Oliviabrinich_prospectus03.03.15.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Oliviabrinich|Oliviabrinich]] ([[User talk:Oliviabrinich|talk]]) 15:51, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Comments on Olivia&#039;s Prospectus:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Olivia, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let me start by saying I think that Youtube is a great source for your project.  I’m not saying that just because I am doing my paper on Youtube.  I find the creative ways that people are using it fascinating.  Much more so than some of the other platforms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If I may summarize, you plan to discuss how legal pressures forced Youtube to introduce technologies that changed the user experiences, like Copyright ID.  You also mentioned some other (possibly voluntary) technologies that are part of the user experience with the intent to discuss how they impact users.  I think they are good ideas and good concepts to write about.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As you rightly point the Youtube community is one of the largest communities on the Internet.  I wonder if it might not be taking on too much to try to examine Youtube as a whole.  I would suggest selecting a small group that is susceptible to the effects of the technologies you are reviewing.  Describe who the group is and how certain characteristics of their make-up or user experience make them particularly sensitive to the technologies you will focus on.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example I will be focusing on hobbyist inventors.  Guys that spend their weekends in the garage putting “junk” together and posting videos about their “inventions” on Youtube.  Their content is all original so they are not impacted by Copyright ID.  There is very little thumbs up/down.  They are a much more “expressive” crowd as the comments indicate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’m not trying to discourage you.  I think if you pick the right group and tell us why you picked them, it can very interesting.  I hope that is helpful.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 19:47, 4 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•  Erika L Rich&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•  Title: Reputation Management and Ethical Considerations for Members of the Internet Marketing Super Friends (IMSF) Facebook Group&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•  Link: [[File:LSTU_E120_Erika_Rich_Assignment_2.docx]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:ErikaLRich|ErikaLRich]] ([[User talk:ErikaLRich|talk]]) 15:22, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•	Emily MacIntyre (EmiMac)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•	Prospectus title:  A Case Study on the Unintended Legal Consequences and Chilling Effects of YouTube’s Content ID Sweep on its Video Game Commentator Community&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•	Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Emily_MacIntyre_Assignment_2.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 09:41, 2 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Emily, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Great job on your prospectus! It is very well organized, and your citations sources are well researched. I found your research really enticing because I had never heard of this sweep, and I consider myself an avid youtube visitor. I think you are on to a great research project. Although the topic is remarkably fascinating, I wonder if investigating and juxtaposing the different types of monitoring will be too large or too abstract for the limit of the project. I also read up on the PewDiePie character cited, and I think it is really fascinating to see that he has 35 mil subscribers, yet chose to turn off his commenting feature because of how volatile he claimed the space was becoming. His specific youtube channel then does not have a community to investigate. But it would be interesting to examine someone or a specific youtube channel that has a similar following as the case study to better help zone in on collecting and investigating data. Thank you for this topic, I am currently reading more about the youtube actions in 2008 and 2013 because I had little to no prior knowledge of both events. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good luck on your project!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 00:09, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
RE: Mhoching,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thank you for your comment. I very much like your prospectus topic as well as you can see from my comments below. With regards to my final project, I thought I should reiterate and clarify that my community is the YouTube contributors that concentrate on making Let’s Plays and video game reviews. While it is helpful to find a video with an active comment section, where other users further explain how the ID sweep influences their output choices,  in the case of PewDiePie, his decision to turn off his comment section does in part illustrate how YouTube has rapidly evolved. Since Google began catering to commercial enterprises over the original volunteer contributors, some of the volunteer contributors have become increasingly more frustrated and they exhibit their frustration in a variety of ways.      &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks Again,&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Emily&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 09:37, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
•	MattK&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•	Home of the Mallet of Loving Correction: John Scalzi&#039;s Blog, &amp;quot;Whatever&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•	http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:MattK_Assignment2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:MattK|MattK]] ([[User talk:MattK|talk]]) 22:01, 2 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Matt,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am particularly interested in your topic because I believe it is a very small example of what the internet could become or arguably is becoming in regards to free speech. I am very intrigued by the notion of &amp;quot;knowledge is power&amp;quot;. What I mean relative to your project is that I believe that those who can control what &amp;quot;knowledge&amp;quot; people receive therefore posses great power. In your case, Scalzi&#039;s blog is equipped with a comment section where total control is given to Scalzi on what to allow others to see. By censoring whatever Scalzi sees as &amp;quot;offensive&amp;quot; he is limiting a voice, whether good or bad, and therefore limiting knowledge. I would argue that there&#039;s no question that the term knowledge here is used very loosely and there are obvious comments on these sorts of forums which provide no overall good at all, but more importantly the question I think of is how dangerous it would be for one person to posses this sort of &amp;quot;editorial power&amp;quot; to simply delete anything they see unfit. What would happen if other sites also used this sort of policy where whatever is subjectively deemed unworthy of being a comment was deleted? Are there infact other online sites and forums that take this approach? What implications does this approach have for the audience of the site? Does it discourage participation as a sort of chilling effect? It is a scary world to imagine where one party possess the power of what information to provide and what to censor. In this specific case what if the comments are simply against Scalzi and are a disagreement with what he writes? What is to stop him from simply deleting something. I&#039;m curious to know what sort of checks and balances or accountability Scarzi&#039;s editorial powers has. I think your subject bears the question of where to draw the line between free speech and productive censorship, an enormously tricky and potentially dangerous distinction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These are just a few thoughts I had, in any case best of luck it&#039;s a great topic. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks,&lt;br /&gt;
Ryan Hurley&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 18:55, 8 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
---- &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edwin Duque (Edwinduque)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title:The copyright, privacy and organization challenges that online communities such as Facebook and The Jury Deliberation in the cyber space are faced with &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Edwinduque_Assignment_2.doc&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Edwinduque|Edwinduque]] ([[User talk:Edwinduque|talk]]) 22:10, 2 March 2015 (EST))&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Edwin, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I  like the way you structured your idea. I  think that the copyright issue is  very  interesting and it  is  worthed  spending  some more  time on it.  Exploring the nature of  a Facebook post – whether  it  could  be  consider  as an “idea”, in the Copyright Act specifically states that In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, regardless of the form in which it is described. Or  it  could  be  considered  as  an “original works of authorship” fixed by the author in a tangible way, in which case it would be covered by copyrights. The issue of re-posting someone else’s post with commercial purposes  could  be interesting to mention as well. It is just  an idea,  but saying some words about  the  case  with the  famous Facebook post “In response to the new Facebook guidelines…. “ might  be  interesting too. I think  that  you  could  also easily  link your work to the “right to  be  forgotten” issues   we  discussed  in  class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here  are  some links  you  might  find  useful. Good  luck!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.nyccounsel.com/business-blogs-websites/who-owns-photos-and-videos-posted-on-facebook-or-twitter/&lt;br /&gt;
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-social-networking/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
-------&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Michelle Byrne (Chelly.Byrne)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus title: Balancing privacy for victims of sexual crimes with &lt;br /&gt;
opportunity for support in online forum  AfterSilence.org&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:ChellyByrne_Assignment2.pdf &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 07:54, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Michelle,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You have chosen a terrifically nuanced community. Indeed, the word “balance” and the question of HOW such a community can possibly approach this word is bound to yield more data and conclusions than the page ljmits of our final project – which is only testimony to the strength of your community research choice. I believe yours is the most psychologically-based prospectus that I have read thus far. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By “psychologically-based,” I mean that I sense that you will be making some conclusions about the specialized mindsets and individuals who are drawn to this community; a community that paradoxically, and in waves, seem to wish for both anonymity and at the same time, a very specific and difficult kind of attention. Anonymous attention.  A community that has created a safe haven and yet, has some very troubling cracks, as you point out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Questions:&lt;br /&gt;
Are these cracks mostly user generated? As in, the example you found of the poster who revealed configurable data revealing her identity. If they are mostly user-generated, how prevalent of an instance is this? Of the active users who reveal private information, what instances are accidental or ignorant (as in, thinking they’ll be anonymous by revealing age, town, etc) as opposed to intentional?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is there some kind of warning or clause in the user agreement that attempts to address this issue of accidentally revealing private information or even purposefully revealing it?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the user agreement and the rules and guidelines for AfterSilence.org do address this issue and users still post personal information, what are the pros and cons of simply warning users about the risks and then letting users do as they please vs. taking pro-active measures?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If there were pro-active measures for a site host like this to take, what would they be? Message board community reminders? Moderators who redact info? Self-regulation and regulation amongst members? What does regulation in this kind of community actually look like and is it sustainable in its current form?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many more questions and considerations to make. Good topic choice, succinctly proposed. I wish you all the best in this project and I look forward to reading the final project.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best, &lt;br /&gt;
Chanel Rion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 11:31, 9 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Chanel Rion (ChanelRion)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;We the Judges: &amp;quot;Sitejabber&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;Yelp&amp;quot;, and Communities of User-Generated Business Reviews.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment2_Prospectus_Rion.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 11:21, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Chanel,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The subject of customer generated reviews is certainly huge on the internet.   It is beneficial for consumers to get an opinion of a product or restaurant from other people over just what the advertising says.  But as you point out, there is a lot of opportunity for libel or slander – especially people just having an ax to grind.   It would be interesting to see how Yelp or Sitejabber are being responsible and making an effort to regulate content and protect places being reviewed from harassing content.  I like how your approach includes researching any legal cases brought against them; it would be interesting to see if any of them prevail.   Also, how do they actually calculate the ratings?  Is it an average of overall ratings?   Or could bad reviews be hidden away if there become lots of positive reviews?  Are businesses sandbagging to increase their ratings?  &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Overall, this is a great community to look into and I wish you success!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Michelle aka (Chelly)&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 15:43, 7 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
RE: Michelle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Michelle,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thank you for your comments and feedback. I too, am especially interested in the legal angles to this community and I am glad to know I&#039;m not the only one. I will certainly be watching and reviewing and seeking the answers to these questions and also to your specific concerns. All intensely pertinent to how businesses and communities are going to manage tensions with each other -- tensions that have always been here, but are now revolutionized in simply the sheer and complete access that the Internet provides to all of us.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Looking forward to starting this seek and find. Thank you for highlighting questions and focuses, they should prove helpful for such a broad category. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chanel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 16:49, 8 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Becca Lewis (beccalew)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: &#039;&#039;&#039;/r/TwoXChromosomes and /r/feminism: The challenges of promoting feminism on Reddit while upholding the values of privacy and free speech&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Final_Project_Prospectus_Becca_Lewis.docx &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 13:15, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Becca!&lt;br /&gt;
I absolutely love the theme of your project, it is an exceptional live issue since feminism has been discussed much more this past year than it has been for many years. Therefore, it´s really important to examine the forums in which people have the opportunity to discuss the subject. Great!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found it cool that you are thinking about recording a podcast for the project. If you do so, you might consider including an interview with someone active in the specific forums, a professor in gender studies or perhaps two people with different views on the issue?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a question about the subreddits you talked about though. You wrote about a ”safe space” for women. Are those subreddits only for women or are they open for anyone who want to discuss feminism and gender roles? If it is a women-only forum, you might also discuss the consequences on that. If not, maybe that has consequences as well. Maybe you should discuss self censorship in the feminism subreddits as well (which is very interesting since Reddit-as you said-values free speech above almost all else)?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good luck!&lt;br /&gt;
/Josefin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 10:39, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Gary Brown (Gary Brown)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: The Effects of Site Controls on Community Objectives: communityfunded.com&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Gary_Brown_Assignment2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 13:18, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Comments on Gary&#039;s Prospectus:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gary,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Great topic!  I hope to be going out to for crowdfunding by the end of the May.  So I will follow your Wiki with interest.  (In your proposal you link to crowdfunded.  I think you meant community funded. You may want to look at that.) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You mentioned the stated purpose of Communityfunded.  But you did not mention their reason for existing.  In other words, what started crowdfunding and why would individuals seek funds for their projects from the public and not other traditional sources.  Why are people like me willing to go online (to communityfunded) to ask for money, as opposed to going to another site or pitching a Venture Capitalist or a bank?  Why would people fund a project on line versus invest in the stock market or Bank CDs?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the answer to those questions goes to the heart of crowdfunding.  It also is germane to the “troublesome obstacles” you refer to in your prospectus. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When you mention failed projects, I would suggest that not all failures are the same.  I might be willing to invest money in a project I consider socially redeeming even if I thought it had very little chance of success.  Where as, if I were investing in some Harvard wiz-kids that profess to have the next Facebook, I might have very different feelings if they went belly up.  So you may want to include categories of projects, or claims/expectations in your discussions.  As well as any risk factor ratings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You also mentioned building and keeping trust of supporters.  One of the areas that interests me is the ways that Fundraisers generate funding support.  Do they rely solely on the site?  In other words, is there a pool of would be investors just waiting for the right idea to come around so they can invest.  Or is a fundraiser expected to go outside the community and raise interest and drive that interest back to the site?  How does that impact the “trust” factor?  If I am a one-time fundraiser does it matter all that much what people think about me after I’ve got my money?  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You discuss how you will break down funded projects, etc.  Is there a way to figure out what various fundraiser did to get funded?  Marketing may prove to be more of a factor than the project or its worthiness.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It would certainly be worthwhile to compare and contrast crowdfunding before and after changes in regs that made it easier for the public to invest.  And how post reg trends may lead to new regs/controls.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I look forward to reading your paper.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 20:45, 4 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Meagan HoChing (mhoching) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Title: Online Gaming Harassment: All fun and games? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Mhoching_Assignment2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 13:50, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Meagan,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every aspect of your prospectus is incredibly interesting to me. I am especially intrigued by how well you have matched up the readings to your topic. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After I read your section on Norms I thought about how you point out that “the gaming system is very competitive” and it made me wonder, if Valve placed more restrictions to prevent bullying could it potentially take some of the pleasure of competition out of the mix.  If so, then would some users leave the game because they like the hostile environment, which may be why they chose to play in it in the first place.  Keeping this line of thought in mind, perhaps you could find another similar community that has more strict modes of control in place to observe the differences between them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your prospectus and I look forward to seeing your finished product.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best,&lt;br /&gt;
Emily&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 09:25, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Meagan!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What an interesting and relevant subject! &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that it was a very good idea of you to use the Dot Model with the components ”Market”, ”Architecture”, ”Norms” and ”Law”, it makes everything much more clear. I agree with Emily that it would be a good idea to compare DOTA 2 with another game, preferably from another website than STEAM and with another system of regulation. I would find it really interesting to see the result of a such a study and if norms, the language, the members of the site, etc. differ between the two games. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I´m looking forward to see the result! Good luck!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
/Josefin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 10:16, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Meagan!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this is a very fascinating topic and one I too almost pursued. I am a bit of a gamer myself and although I don&#039;t play DOTA, I do regularly play many different sports games which I have found to have similar issues of harassment and &amp;quot;bullying&amp;quot;. I hadn&#039;t heard of the STEAM website you&#039;re focusing on until I read your assignment, but for anyone who has read really a comment section/forum anywhere, one second you&#039;re talking about a video game, the next you have gone down a path of hate and overall disgust of anyone different minded not to mention if it is a competitive game which stirrs up some hostile emotions toward an adversary. I find this particularly interesting when it comes to video games because many people who don&#039;t play video games believe that &amp;quot;it&#039;s just a game&amp;quot; but on the contrary for many gamers, one can find their self emotionally invested into a game you are taking part in. You feel this overwhelming sense of dedication to it and attachment to what happens in it where you can essentially lose yourself in the game. It is because of this hardwired competitive and primitive feeling and this element of motivation that I believe is so deeply rooted in many gamers that it would be near impossible to ever completely outlaw the harassment or trash talk because it will never stop. However perhaps there is some sort of way to outlaw the harassment that crosses a line by creating real consequence while still allowing some competitive jabbing but that I will be curious to see from your project. I will be also curious to hear what your research finds about the website in particular, I would venture to guess that it is probably similar for communities like the PSN and xboxlive. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I might suggest on top of all this to take a look at games which do not have a competitive nature with other users. This may be difficult to find but I&#039;d be curious to see whether it is harassment you find on forums with these sort of games or rather a cooperative dialogue intended to help one another. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good Luck!&lt;br /&gt;
- Ryan Hurley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 16:26, 8 March 2015 (EDT)  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Caroline B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Title: The Study of Privacy, Accuracy &amp;amp; Order on InsideNova Website and Moving ‘Little Sites’ Up&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:1_Caroline_B.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Cbore001|Cbore001]] ([[User talk:Cbore001|talk]]) 14:45, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Jan.Yburan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus title: Reddit.com/r/IAmA its Controls on Privacy and Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Jan.Yburan.Assignment2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Jan,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is a really interesting community to build your case study around. Prior to today I have only been on the site a few times to look at subreddits that relate to topics that I am interested in, and since I am not a member I have not considered how the site protects the user’s privacy. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today I decided to look at the IAmA subreddit to get a better handle of the scope of your project. Consequently, I came across and interesting and fairly benign thread started by an employee of a movie theater and it brought to mind, how does the site handle issues of privacy, libel or defamation against a company or a consumer when an employee engages in what appears at first glance as an anonymous tell all blog that highlights how he/she has witnessed vulgar and perhaps even criminal activity. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Considering your topic and direction you want to take, I think you might want to blend together aspects of the readings from our classes on privacy with the readings for next week’s class on free expression, information, and unwanted speech.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am looking forward to seeing your completed final project. I am sure it will be very informative.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Emily&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
P.S. (Here is the link to the AMA I referenced: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2xz6nb/iama_movie_theater_employee_and_ive_seen_the/)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 13:04, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Eric Yuk Lun Kwong (Caelum)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus title: The vulnerable voting structure of Digg.com and the gradual&lt;br /&gt;
collapse of its popularity and voting legitimacy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Caelum_Assignment2.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 15:11, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Eric,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Excellent topic. One that possesses, at once, broad-scale relevance and unusual particularities. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Exploring the reasons for Digg’s failure as a site and as a community, I’m drawn to the question regarding the members themselves. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It would be interesting to compare, if applicable, the kinds of users who are drawn to a voting-type participatory community vs. a community that actually interacts via content and contributions. If clear distinctions can be made here, to then find examples of successful communities that are voter-based and to pinpoint key policies or elements that differentiate sustainable models of voter-based communities compared to content-based contribution communities. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Perhaps it is fundamentally an issue of investment; when users and the outside world view a product as having or requiring minimal investment (as in, saying, or rather, clicking “yes” or “no” to something – voting to “dig” or “bury” a story). Are voting based sites destined to suffer from questions of legitimacy by virtue of being online and being so subjective? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That you will be making parallels to Wikipedia’s platform seems to be a good approach here. Wisely done. Thank you also, for your commentaries – I appreciate the thoroughness in which you approach these topics. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best of luck!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chanel Rion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 11:57, 9 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Alex Samaei (Samaei1)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus title: The Framework of Projects and Backers on Kickstarter&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Samaei1_Assignment2.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Samaei1|Samaei1]] ([[User talk:Samaei1|talk]]) 15:37, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Alex! &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&#039;m so happy you picked this website because I&#039;ve donated to various projects on this website, but never took into account the structure of the website and complications due to misappropriating of funding. I find it hard to try to quantify what is appropriate to fundraise, because the topic is subjective. Of course I don&#039;t think it would be appropriate to fundraise to support hate speech (if that&#039;s what someone is fundraising for), yet I don&#039;t find it appropriate to fundraise for movies about starving children, when that money can go to feeding starving children. I hope I&#039;m communicating the subjectiveness of trying to find what would be considered appropriate to raise money for and how it varies from person to person. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But speaking in regards to the Lessig&#039;s Dot Model I think the website can be broken down into different sections to address some of the issues you raise. For example, how does the structure of kickstarter promote accountability on the artist/person asking for money? On the donation page for example, a vast amount of information about the artist is available, as well as avenues in which you can contact the fundraiser. So if kickstarter has provided this as a requirement for people to submit or provide when asking to be funded, is it then up to the donor to hold that person accountable? I have the tools on that page to ask the fundraiser for that specific information and continue to follow up on that information. I think once you start looking at specific/deliberate aspects of kickstarter, it will start to inform or control behavior. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I hope this helps! Look forward to reading the final project; happy researching and writing!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 00:35, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Alex,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’m interested that you have chosen a community that, you imply, is being targeted not for its failures, but for its successes. A wildfire that is often so much more visible on the Internet than in any other form in history. Speed, access, and instant publicity -- make &amp;quot;success&amp;quot; in society ever more visible, open to targeting, and prone to hijacking. Indeed. It is a great topic for research in this course in particular.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One aspect that could be revelatory is to seek out the kinds of legal cases that have been brought against kickstarter and what litigation the site has to deal with and what kinds of litigation that users potentially enter into. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There’s also a question about user legitimacy. How easy is it for some startup organization to simply use this community and its platform as an elaborate marketing plan? Can a company, for instance, viel itself to be a small time kickstarter that can feed itself funding and manufacture the appearance of democratic success? It would be especially useful to identify who the moderators are and to what extent they exercise control or regulation if any. Does Kickstarter have even the skeleton of some kind of verification system or is the verification over the legitimacy of a proposal entirely user generated? Is this sustainable or are there signs of trouble ahead? What would be a disastrous scenario for this community? To these questions, I think that many clues may be found in the litigation and whatever bad publicity the community has had encounter. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Great topic, culturally relevant community. Thank you for the topic and best of luck for the final.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chanel Rion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 12:31, 9 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Gia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus title: Chivalry online&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Gia_Assignment2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 15:46, 3 March 2015 (EST))&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Gia,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This topic is definitely flushing out the seedier side of the internet!  I have never heard of this site 419eater, but we all know the dangers of scammers and how they use the internet.   How do they find their victims?   Some scams are so realistic as to mention names of loved ones in danger and demand money be expedited.  The scam baiters you’re talking about here must be trolling similar sites and circles to identify culprits they need want to go after.  But in doing so, are they just as much at fault as the original scammers?   Is there any regulation of the members? I can definitely see an ethical dilemma, as you point out, of some possibly unscrupulous members.  And your question of whether they have extended their existence outside the online world is a very interesting consideration.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You a have a lot of good sources listed regarding scams (white collar crime and Ponzi schemes too!).   Good luck, this is an intriguing subject!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Michelle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 15:57, 7 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Re: Michelle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks for the comments, Michelle. I definitely intend to explore the  subject from both sides, because there could be really two, maybe even more , points of  view. Regarding the legal regulation, there is a lot  to be said – interned jurisdiction. The self-regulation of the web community  which is  evolving with the  time is  also a nice starting  point. &lt;br /&gt;
Thank again for the ideas and good luck  to  you  too with  your  work!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Mishal R. Kennedy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus title: Enforcing Guidelines Without Harming User Contributions&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Mishal_R._Kennedy_Assignment2.rtf&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Mishal R. Kennedy|Mishal R. Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Mishal R. Kennedy|talk]]) 15:51, 3 March 2015 (EST))&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Hi  Mishal,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The  subject you have  chosen  is very interesting and gives great opportunities  for  discussions and analyses. I would   directly  make  a reference  to  the  Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0, which we discussed during “Paradigms for Studying the Internet’ class.  You could explore the methods  used by the moderators and administrators as a way  of  self regulation of  the  community. The  question  you asked  whether  these  methods  are  causing  more  bad  than  good, is right  to the point. &lt;br /&gt;
I would  suggest you explain in more details the  different  methods  of control used  my the moderators  and perhaps compare them with the ones used by other communities. You could also take a  look  if  it is explicitly listed in the Terms  of  Use   of the  website  in which case what measure is taken? Is there a higher authority than the moderator to  whom  a sanctioned  user  could  complain? Could  such  a  decision  “be appealed” or  it  is  final and definitive? Is there at all a hierarchy in the administration of the website?&lt;br /&gt;
Here  are  some  sources  which  might  help. Good  luck!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
https://www.academia.edu/3079184/COAT_Collaborative_Outgoing_Anti-Spam_Technique&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.yildiz.edu.tr/~aktas/courses/CE-0114890/g8-p3.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~kksivara/sfwr4c03/projects/4c03projects/CGLucas-Project.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM11/paper/viewFile/2780/3296&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Richard Markow&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus title: The YouTube video-sharing platform &amp;amp; The Community of Alternative Heating Systems and Appliance Inventors&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Rich_Markow_Assignment_2_Prospectus.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 16:03, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name AlexanderH&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: Managing the Petitions of Change.org: B Corps, Social Enterprise and Transparency&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:AlexanderH_Assignment_2_Prospectus.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:AlexanderH|AlexanderH]] ([[User talk:AlexanderH|talk]]) 16:10, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Meredith Blake&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title:Identifying Avenues of Recourse for Businesses on Yelp &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Meredith_Blake._Assignment_2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Meredithmblake|Meredith]] ([[User talk:Meredithmblake|talk]]) 16:13, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
Hello Meredith!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this is a great topic and you have a very interesting approach.  I haven’t really looked into Yelp and the lawsuit angle, but they certainly have a lot of influence on the internet.   Out of curiosity, I just Googled about 10 different restaurants in this area and the results had the Yelp review either as the second or third site listed!   So potential customers are seeing the Yelp rating almost before the actual websites in a couple of cases!   There is little recourse for them, and as you show by the Sia example, a disgruntled customer can reach out and cause a flood of terrible reviews, from people who weren’t even customers!   Caelum makes a good point in the summary at the bottom that reviews are either one end of the spectrum or the other… disgruntled customers wanting to air their displeasure or someone extremely happy who wants to rave about it.&lt;br /&gt;
   &lt;br /&gt;
It is good to take a targeted approach to such a large community, and looking into the recourse that businesses may have as well as existing lawsuits sounds like a good approach.  If a suit is successful, what are the actual outcomes?   Does Yelp take down reviews or adjust the ratings?   I think people who expound on sites that give a platform are really missing the spirit of free speech.   I don’t think your approach is that unpopular, not that free speech needs to be regulated, but that there should be some modicum of self-restraint and freedom to say anything is not absolutely protected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good luck on this, you’ve got some really good ideas!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Michelle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 16:14, 7 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Wesley Verge&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title : Scrolling into Darkness -- An investigation into the regulatory forces at work in Youtube&#039;s comment section&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Wesley_Verge_Prospectus.txt&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 [[User:WesleyVerge|WesleyVerge]] ([[User talk:WesleyVerge|talk]]) 16:19, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Wesley!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am very intrigued by the &amp;quot;solutions&amp;quot; there are to change the culture of the comment sections. It is really an intriguing phenomenon that one could be watching a video about puppies and suddenly 4 comments down glance over an argument that Obama was sent by satan himself to destroy the world. I&#039;ve always been curious as to how this has not been regulated more strictly. I think you raise great points why and the concerns Google is faced with. If I were doing this project I might also attempt to compare this to other sites as well that must face similar challenges. For example you suggest in your assignment that youtube channels direct traffic to sites like Reddit, but is that really an escape for the channel as this implies? Can these &amp;quot;trolls&amp;quot; not go over to reddit to promote their hate just as easily, or do they have different solutions in play that regulate these sorts of issues better? As far as I know both are anonymous to an extent so with this anonymity many of these trolls have &amp;quot;keyboard muscles&amp;quot; as I like to call them. I can understand twitter because many times it is much more personal but even there people can create fake accounts and troll all the same, just see Jimmy Kimmels skit on celebrity reading mean tweets. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really like your focus on famous YouTubers I just think it may also be beneficial and worth mentioning how other sites with the same prevalent issue have tried to combat trolling. Also from a legal side, are all of these comments protected by the law and free speech? Perhaps because of the enormity of all the comments and comment sections, it is simply impossible to regulate what is said in every section from a legal perspective. Food for thought, but in any case great project idea.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best of luck,&lt;br /&gt;
Ryan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 16:56, 8 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: Knocking the Wind out of Whistleblowers: The US&#039; response to the growing threat from WikiLeaks &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Kelly.WilsonAssignment_2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Kelly.wilson|Kelly.wilson]] ([[User talk:Kelly.wilson|talk]]) 16:38, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Kelly,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interesting topic.  There are a couple of perspectives you may want to consider about when defining what you mean by Whistleblower and the response in each situation.  1) Exposing illegal acts.  2) Exposing immoral acts.  3) Exposing Acts designed to embarrassed your political opponents or as retribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Should they all be treated the same and afforded equal protection?  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good luck!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 00:10, 9 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Tasha&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: Exploring the Complexity of Rapidly Evolving Information in a Bodybuilding Forum and the Challenges of Quality Assurance&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Tasha_Assignment_2_Prospectus.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tasha[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 17:12, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--------&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Tasha,  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I  like a lot  your  choice  of  community  . It  is  unusual and  at  the  same  time  you  could  find  a lot  of  things  to explore-both  from  legal  and ethical stand  point. &lt;br /&gt;
I would  say  that your  questions and  reflections are  on the right track. I think  that one of the issues  you  could explore is  the fact that  they  are  often used  as  a platform  for  unlicensed  sell of  drugs. If  you choose  to go  for this, you should have  to take  a  good  look  on the definitions  in order  to  differ  “Drugs”  for  “Nutrition Supplements” because  this is  the  tricky  moment. How the  website  is  protecting  itself  from  such  kind  of  activity (by  its  Terms  of  use  or  in other  ways) , might  be interesting  as well.&lt;br /&gt;
Above you could find two links that might be of some use. Good  luck!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first is little bit old but interesting:&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t000525b.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://health.wusf.usf.edu/post/unlicensed-pharmacies-selling-compounded-drugs-online&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
__________&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Josefin Sasse&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: A case study on the children&#039;s website Kidzworld and how they deal with threats against being a safe environment for children.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:JosefinSasse.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 17:26, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Josefin!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find your topic utterly intriguing. I had no idea such a website existed and it&#039;s been quite fascinating just poking around the website a little bit. I think it is a very valid point to raise about &amp;quot;who monitors Kidzworld&amp;quot;, because there doesn&#039;t seem to be much of a screening process to ensure the user that is signing up for an account is in fact between the ages of 9-17. Also, I see you have cited the Pew Research Center study from the readings, which is a great resource for dissecting the demographics and statistics of harassment, but the study was done on &amp;quot;young adults&amp;quot; ranging from 18-29, and &amp;quot;young women&amp;quot; between the ages of 18-24 years old. Which I hope illuminates, rather than complicates, the issue of doing research on a demographic ranging from 9-17, but more so how do you set up  a website that serves a population that would need adult consent to participate in almost everything they do. Along with privacy issues, I think the question of who is responsible for what and for whom is a great aspect you have raised in your paper! I would love to stay in touch and see the developments of your paper if that would be okay. I think this is the perfect website to investigate for this project.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 00:10, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Josefin,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think you picked a great online community to explore for your final project, not only because it is a social space for a specific group, but also because there seems to be some fairly strict regulations in place to maintain a safe environment for kids. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It might be interesting if you could find some weakness in its structure. For example can kids go into private chats or are all the chats and comment sections being screened. If they are being screened, is it by a computer generated logarithm or real people? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another question that you could delve into is, how do the site’s administrators know the users are minors.  Do they require parents’ permission? If so how do they prove it is actually a real parent?  &lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
I hope these suggestions are helpful. I am looking forward to seeing your finished project. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best,&lt;br /&gt;
Emily&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 00:13, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name:   Brooke Tjarks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus:   Art. Business. Fans. (...) How this collaborative space shapes mass visual media production and worldwide distribution&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link:   http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Prospectus.Brooke.Tjarks.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Abby McHugh&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: From #Thinspiration to “Low Carb Friends”: The Regulation of Online Weight Loss Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Amchugh_Assignment2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Abby!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Okay, so I really wich I had chosen this issue. It is great that you did!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To facilitate the work, I would recommend that you are more specific in which websites you are going to explore since there is so much #thinspo content out there. But Twitter, Tumbler, Pinterest, and Instagram are great platforms to explore, together with blogs like you said. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Other things you might want to discuss are:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What makes the most harm: #thinspo/pro-ana blogs and posts or limitations on freedom of speech by regulating such content? (On my part, I am determined in my opinion that #thinspo is devastating and that regulation in this case is a good thing.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Who is active in this community?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Could pro-ana be illegitimate harassment? Compare it the possibility of a pro-cancer or a pro-aids community (deadly diseases just like anorexia).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What effects could/does the sometimes lack of regulation have on the community online and offline?&lt;br /&gt;
Good luck! You´ve chosen a very interesting subject!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
/Josefin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 11:08, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abby,&lt;br /&gt;
I am so impressed and dare I say jealous that you picked such an important subject for your paper. Here are a few things that come to mind as I read your plan. I hope at least one of them is helpful.&lt;br /&gt;
-	I LOVE that you have already started a list of references. My critique for your references is to add more scholarly sources to substantiate your conclusions. For example, perhaps a database like “Mintel” or “IBISWorld” will have metrics regarding weight loss CONSUMER trends globally or in the United States. From another angle, you could find articles in scholarly psychology journals or *gasp* BOOKS in the library of a graduate psychology program. I am a student at Pepperdine, too, and I love their graduate psychology library and their electronic databases. If you want me to request anything and have it sent to you, do not hesitate to ask.  And from yet another angle, perhaps we could find legal cases that relate to your topic, as well. I would be more than happy to work with you to find more sources because I just love your topic so much. &lt;br /&gt;
-	Carbohydrates are critical for healthy brain function. Perhaps that is important in your paper, as well? Elephant in the room?&lt;br /&gt;
-	If you decide to mention similar trends or implications of the “thinspo” trend, maybe consider body building inspiration on social media and blogs and why it is both equally obsessive but healthier.&lt;br /&gt;
-	Another thing that concerns me about your topic is privacy. Not just the privacy of those with eating disorders, but all individuals participating in the online weight loss chatter. And also, the trend to take pictures of one’s body and put those photographs online. What are the implications of this?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 18:26, 9 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note: If I’m a little direct in the comments, I really mean the best. Hope it doesn’t offend anyone. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ryan Hurley: I think professor said stay away from these huge websites. Perhaps you could discuss with the professors if Facebook is the right website to focus on? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Olivia Brinich: I think you’re asking a lot of questions to be answered here.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“How does it Pind and protect information, how do copyrighters choose to deal with the individual cases of copyright infringement, and what happens when a clip is wrongfully targeted for copyright violation, i.e., the adverse unintended consequences of Content ID?”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Perhaps you should just focus on one main thesis and explore on that. For example, focusing on how copyrighters deal with copyright infringement, and how that eventually influenced youtube to introduce copyright ID system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One last issue is whether youtube is too big of a website to focus on. Perhaps you could narrow it down to say, copyright issues for music on youtube. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Erika L. Rich: I think it’s a very broad term to discuss the ethical considerations. Perhaps if you narrowed it down to 1 or 2 main issues you find extremely compelling about the website and community? Or maybe I have simply mistaken your train of thought. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Emily MacIntyre: I like how you had such conviction to talk about youtube that despite its size, its still worth researching about. I think you could also talk a little bit about how these game commentators earn their living by commenting on games. PewDiePie is estimated to earn millions every year. It could show a greater perspective on things if we could see their earnings as well. South Park actually has a very funny episode about commentators commenting on commentators commenting on games on youtube. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matt K: Do you think that changing the title to reflect your research would make it easier for the reader? (Just a thought) I think its interesting how you mentioned “democratic instrument”, bringing politics into the way his blog is ran. According to the quote you took, Scalzi has indeed used some controls over potential commentators. Furthermore, you should consider that if it’s a blog about all sorts of things, with John’s comments on it, he should also be open to listen to commentators reply to this, especially if its about sensitive topics. If he’s going to filter away those he “considers” as offensive, then perhaps he shouldn’t comment on other things either. (unless the comment really does not have a valid point and is not related to the topic) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edwin Duque: Good to see you in this class too. I think you should just focus on one website. I’d do JuryX instead of Facebook as professor said big websites aren’t good. Also, you’d need a stronger thesis to connect what the real question is. Is it about allowing free sharing? Or is it about limiting what gets shared? I’m a little confused with your thesis. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chelly Byrne: I think you have a strong thesis here. The contradictions between sharing information on the internet, and the fear of being exposed would be very interesting. I think you can even go into the subscription process. I assume the website allows anyone to join. This means that even predators could read up on what victims write. Unfortunately, they probably get quite the entertainment from reading it, or pretending to ask “leading” questions. As you said, just a tiny bit of excessive information leaked out could result in a victim being violated again. I guess you could talk about that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chanel Rion: Since you’re talking about Yelp and reviews, I’d like to share what I learned from another class. Most of these reviews are at the ends of the spectrum. Unless someone is a regular of Yelp and does a review for every restaurant, the rest of them would be people who had great experiences or really bad experiences. They won’t be bothered to write a review about a mediocre or average restaurant. It’s not worth their time. You could also mention that. Also, do you think there are fake reviews too? I’d go for siteJabbar. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Becca Lewis: Firstly its interesting how you’re talking about Reddit because I’m talking about Digg. I think new beliefs takes time to be adapted by the masses. Feminism isn’t very old, and its on going. I think it takes time for people to adapt to it, so for the short term I won’t be surprised if the discussion board sees a lot of anti-feminism people. But also do bare in mind that these are “beliefs”, just like “liberalism” (which is quite similar to feminism, fighting for individual rights, etc). Not everyone believes in these values, so some disagreements should be expected. I guess an interesting way could be to examine if people become more offensive when they are shown as anonymous. My thoughts are that it is. You could look at reddit discussions compared with the core values of Wikipedia, and why it worked for Wikipedia, but a little hard for Reddit. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gary Brown: Are there any data on the selection process, or ventures that were rejected? It’s hard to associate it with discrimination if there is no evidence. Since you can’t prove or disprove this, it means “site controls” cannot be determined. Therefore you need to make a new thesis that really reflects the paper. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meagan Moana HoChing: DOTA is a fun game. My initial response is that with huge amounts of ego on the line, that’s how bullying start. Haha. From what I read and know, it is the architecture that is dominantly the issue. This structure allows the audience to exploit it. I think you could also investigate is how is “harassment” identified as? Calling someone a “loser”? Do note that a lot of cyber bullying are to kids that people know in real life. So can we causally say trash talking is the same as harassing? When NBA players trash talk one another, I don’t think they considered it as harassing. So I guess this definition needs to be very clear.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Caroline B: Perhaps you could mention NPOV as one of their values they used in order to keep readers like yourself going to the website. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jan Yburan: Second Reddit I saw today. Haha. I think you need to be weary of the upvote system. More popular and famous people would get a self –fulfilling upvote treatment, where as more niche people or radical ones would get less. This way of identifying success might be a little questionable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alex Samaei: I’d be more interested in how kickstarter protects pledgers from potential false projects. This seems like a very good question for privacy and control. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gia: &lt;br /&gt;
“New scambaiters can request to be assigned a &amp;quot;mentor&amp;quot; to assist them in learning how to bait.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this is really cool. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“. In the past, scammers were tricked into sending money themselves, which was later given to charity.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That’s crazy. Not sure who the scammer is now. I’d spend more time discussing the aspect about scammers being scammed by scambaiters, and the moral and ethical implications of it. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mishal R. Kennedy: I think you have a legit question there. Looking at whether deleting an old post or controlling spambots to be more important. You could also consider that perhaps it was the ease of registration that led to the spambots. Deleting the old posts doesn’t actually go to the root of the problem. I guess you could also talk more about the ease of registration. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Markow: I think you should just talk about 1 or 2 points out of the 5. Don’t think you have enough space to write that much. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alexander H: Do you think you could also go into the ease of account creation? To attain legitimacy, the website would need real personal data to determine that the petition is signed by a real person. If so the privacy concerns would be the biggest. A deeper look at the terms and agreement is a must. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meredith Blake: That’s an interesting take on Yelp. I do believe that the reviews are either from the ones who enjoyed the restaurant the most, or the ones that hated it. The ones in the middle won’t be bothered to write a review. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wesley Verge: Personally I think it is an inevitable part of anonymity and high view count. There’s bound to be a few trolls, but that too is what makes youtube entertaining. I think youtube just needs to make a better flagging system. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kelly Wilson: You could talk about how the internet might influence more people to be whistleblowers, or even anonymous whistleblowers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tasha: I think to begin with you need to bare in mind that a lot of fitness people already know the difference between science and bro-science. I further believe that bodybuilding.com would just allow people to say whatever they want knowing full well it is just a forum. As long as they don’t endorse it, they shouldn’t be liable. But as such, you should also talk about the privacy of fitness people on the website. A lot of them post photos up too, and their diet and schedules.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Josefin S: Nice logo. I don’t really like the age range for kidzworld.com. It doesn’t make sense for 9 year olds to interact with 17 year olds. Furthermore, I wouldn’t want my 9 year old kid to socialize with 17 year old kids and being taught 17 year old stuff. So my biggest concern, as you also mentioned, is how do they keep content separate between different ages to prevent the younger kids to learn the wrong stuff? Or do they not do this at all?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Brooke Ashley Tjarks: Yes, I’d agree with you that IMDB is a good balance between the other two websites. I think by becoming a member, the legitimacy of the votes would become higher. There’s bound to be some sort of influence between people regardless of the platform, so I think IMDB is an interesting one to investigate further.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
- Brooke Tjarks here responding to Caelum -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thank you so much for the feedback. I am defintely going with IMBD. Another interesting aspect of the platform is the accuracy of content that the website tries to uphold and the methods that they use to ensure this. For example, users with profiles who edit pages must sign legal documents online (such as NDA&#039;s) before editing. The more I thought it over the more I realized how different each of the sites I considered truly are, but IMDB has the most to offer for this assignment. Thank you again for your support.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 17:53, 9 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Amchugh: I think you could go into internet being free also has its consequences. Since the internet could edit and post something online in a matter of seconds, it becomes very vulnerable for unintended things to hit the net. The filtering has to either occurred before the posting, or after it has been up. When it’s up already, it’s hard to say whether the rest of them would oblige, or would they prefer to continue the troll game. You could talk about the reasons for why Twitter would take it down (assuming that it does not violate Twitter’s policies). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note: Good luck everyone!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 13:43, 6 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Caelum, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks for your comments. There are a  lot of interesting  issues, both legal and ethical  and  the  subject is controversial  for  sure. Good  luck with your project as well!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Batjarks</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Assignment_2_Submissions&amp;diff=3971</id>
		<title>Assignment 2 Submissions</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Assignment_2_Submissions&amp;diff=3971"/>
		<updated>2015-03-09T21:55:36Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Batjarks: /* Comments */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{AssignmentCal}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Submission Instructions===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Please note that we have updated the [[Final_Project#Frequently_Asked_Questions|final project page&#039;s FAQ section]] based on some student questions that have come to us over the past week.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This assignment is due on March 3rd.  Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (assignments submitted 4 days late or later will have a maximum grade of 1 point).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please name your file &amp;quot;wikiusername_Assignment2,&amp;quot; where &amp;quot;wikiusername&amp;quot; is replaced with your username, to avoid overwriting someone else&#039;s assignment or causing errors in the Wiki by including forbidden characters.&#039;&#039; So if your username is &amp;quot;jdoe&amp;quot; and your file is a Word document your file should be named &amp;quot;jdoe_Assignment2.doc.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Upload your rough draft here: [[Special:Upload|Upload file]]. If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [[Special:ImageList|list of uploaded files]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the submissions section below please post the following information:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Name or pseudonym: &lt;br /&gt;
*Prospectus title: &lt;br /&gt;
*Link to prospectus: (add your link here)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Comments==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Everyone will receive an additional participation grade for this assignment. You should read through everyone&#039;s proposals after they are uploaded and add constructive comments below the proposal on which you&#039;re commenting. Comments should be submitted by March 10th so you have time to incorporate them, if applicable, into your project outline. &#039;&#039;&#039;Please remember to sign your comments by adding four tildes (&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;~~~~&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;) to the end of your contribution.  This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post.&#039;&#039;&#039; If we don&#039;t know who you are we can&#039;t give you credit for finishing this assignment!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ryan Hurley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Facebook &amp;amp; Big Data vs. Your Privacy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Prospectus_FB_and_privacy_Assignment_2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 16:06, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Olivia Brinich&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intentions and Outcomes of Youtube’s Copyright and Coding Regulations&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Oliviabrinich_prospectus03.03.15.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Oliviabrinich|Oliviabrinich]] ([[User talk:Oliviabrinich|talk]]) 15:51, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Comments on Olivia&#039;s Prospectus:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Olivia, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let me start by saying I think that Youtube is a great source for your project.  I’m not saying that just because I am doing my paper on Youtube.  I find the creative ways that people are using it fascinating.  Much more so than some of the other platforms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If I may summarize, you plan to discuss how legal pressures forced Youtube to introduce technologies that changed the user experiences, like Copyright ID.  You also mentioned some other (possibly voluntary) technologies that are part of the user experience with the intent to discuss how they impact users.  I think they are good ideas and good concepts to write about.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As you rightly point the Youtube community is one of the largest communities on the Internet.  I wonder if it might not be taking on too much to try to examine Youtube as a whole.  I would suggest selecting a small group that is susceptible to the effects of the technologies you are reviewing.  Describe who the group is and how certain characteristics of their make-up or user experience make them particularly sensitive to the technologies you will focus on.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example I will be focusing on hobbyist inventors.  Guys that spend their weekends in the garage putting “junk” together and posting videos about their “inventions” on Youtube.  Their content is all original so they are not impacted by Copyright ID.  There is very little thumbs up/down.  They are a much more “expressive” crowd as the comments indicate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’m not trying to discourage you.  I think if you pick the right group and tell us why you picked them, it can very interesting.  I hope that is helpful.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 19:47, 4 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•  Erika L Rich&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•  Title: Reputation Management and Ethical Considerations for Members of the Internet Marketing Super Friends (IMSF) Facebook Group&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•  Link: [[File:LSTU_E120_Erika_Rich_Assignment_2.docx]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:ErikaLRich|ErikaLRich]] ([[User talk:ErikaLRich|talk]]) 15:22, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•	Emily MacIntyre (EmiMac)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•	Prospectus title:  A Case Study on the Unintended Legal Consequences and Chilling Effects of YouTube’s Content ID Sweep on its Video Game Commentator Community&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•	Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Emily_MacIntyre_Assignment_2.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 09:41, 2 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Emily, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Great job on your prospectus! It is very well organized, and your citations sources are well researched. I found your research really enticing because I had never heard of this sweep, and I consider myself an avid youtube visitor. I think you are on to a great research project. Although the topic is remarkably fascinating, I wonder if investigating and juxtaposing the different types of monitoring will be too large or too abstract for the limit of the project. I also read up on the PewDiePie character cited, and I think it is really fascinating to see that he has 35 mil subscribers, yet chose to turn off his commenting feature because of how volatile he claimed the space was becoming. His specific youtube channel then does not have a community to investigate. But it would be interesting to examine someone or a specific youtube channel that has a similar following as the case study to better help zone in on collecting and investigating data. Thank you for this topic, I am currently reading more about the youtube actions in 2008 and 2013 because I had little to no prior knowledge of both events. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good luck on your project!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 00:09, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
RE: Mhoching,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thank you for your comment. I very much like your prospectus topic as well as you can see from my comments below. With regards to my final project, I thought I should reiterate and clarify that my community is the YouTube contributors that concentrate on making Let’s Plays and video game reviews. While it is helpful to find a video with an active comment section, where other users further explain how the ID sweep influences their output choices,  in the case of PewDiePie, his decision to turn off his comment section does in part illustrate how YouTube has rapidly evolved. Since Google began catering to commercial enterprises over the original volunteer contributors, some of the volunteer contributors have become increasingly more frustrated and they exhibit their frustration in a variety of ways.      &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks Again,&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Emily&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 09:37, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
•	MattK&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•	Home of the Mallet of Loving Correction: John Scalzi&#039;s Blog, &amp;quot;Whatever&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•	http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:MattK_Assignment2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:MattK|MattK]] ([[User talk:MattK|talk]]) 22:01, 2 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Matt,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am particularly interested in your topic because I believe it is a very small example of what the internet could become or arguably is becoming in regards to free speech. I am very intrigued by the notion of &amp;quot;knowledge is power&amp;quot;. What I mean relative to your project is that I believe that those who can control what &amp;quot;knowledge&amp;quot; people receive therefore posses great power. In your case, Scalzi&#039;s blog is equipped with a comment section where total control is given to Scalzi on what to allow others to see. By censoring whatever Scalzi sees as &amp;quot;offensive&amp;quot; he is limiting a voice, whether good or bad, and therefore limiting knowledge. I would argue that there&#039;s no question that the term knowledge here is used very loosely and there are obvious comments on these sorts of forums which provide no overall good at all, but more importantly the question I think of is how dangerous it would be for one person to posses this sort of &amp;quot;editorial power&amp;quot; to simply delete anything they see unfit. What would happen if other sites also used this sort of policy where whatever is subjectively deemed unworthy of being a comment was deleted? Are there infact other online sites and forums that take this approach? What implications does this approach have for the audience of the site? Does it discourage participation as a sort of chilling effect? It is a scary world to imagine where one party possess the power of what information to provide and what to censor. In this specific case what if the comments are simply against Scalzi and are a disagreement with what he writes? What is to stop him from simply deleting something. I&#039;m curious to know what sort of checks and balances or accountability Scarzi&#039;s editorial powers has. I think your subject bears the question of where to draw the line between free speech and productive censorship, an enormously tricky and potentially dangerous distinction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These are just a few thoughts I had, in any case best of luck it&#039;s a great topic. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks,&lt;br /&gt;
Ryan Hurley&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 18:55, 8 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
---- &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edwin Duque (Edwinduque)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title:The copyright, privacy and organization challenges that online communities such as Facebook and The Jury Deliberation in the cyber space are faced with &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Edwinduque_Assignment_2.doc&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Edwinduque|Edwinduque]] ([[User talk:Edwinduque|talk]]) 22:10, 2 March 2015 (EST))&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Edwin, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I  like the way you structured your idea. I  think that the copyright issue is  very  interesting and it  is  worthed  spending  some more  time on it.  Exploring the nature of  a Facebook post – whether  it  could  be  consider  as an “idea”, in the Copyright Act specifically states that In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, regardless of the form in which it is described. Or  it  could  be  considered  as  an “original works of authorship” fixed by the author in a tangible way, in which case it would be covered by copyrights. The issue of re-posting someone else’s post with commercial purposes  could  be interesting to mention as well. It is just  an idea,  but saying some words about  the  case  with the  famous Facebook post “In response to the new Facebook guidelines…. “ might  be  interesting too. I think  that  you  could  also easily  link your work to the “right to  be  forgotten” issues   we  discussed  in  class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here  are  some links  you  might  find  useful. Good  luck!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.nyccounsel.com/business-blogs-websites/who-owns-photos-and-videos-posted-on-facebook-or-twitter/&lt;br /&gt;
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-social-networking/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
-------&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Michelle Byrne (Chelly.Byrne)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus title: Balancing privacy for victims of sexual crimes with &lt;br /&gt;
opportunity for support in online forum  AfterSilence.org&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:ChellyByrne_Assignment2.pdf &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 07:54, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Michelle,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You have chosen a terrifically nuanced community. Indeed, the word “balance” and the question of HOW such a community can possibly approach this word is bound to yield more data and conclusions than the page ljmits of our final project – which is only testimony to the strength of your community research choice. I believe yours is the most psychologically-based prospectus that I have read thus far. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By “psychologically-based,” I mean that I sense that you will be making some conclusions about the specialized mindsets and individuals who are drawn to this community; a community that paradoxically, and in waves, seem to wish for both anonymity and at the same time, a very specific and difficult kind of attention. Anonymous attention.  A community that has created a safe haven and yet, has some very troubling cracks, as you point out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Questions:&lt;br /&gt;
Are these cracks mostly user generated? As in, the example you found of the poster who revealed configurable data revealing her identity. If they are mostly user-generated, how prevalent of an instance is this? Of the active users who reveal private information, what instances are accidental or ignorant (as in, thinking they’ll be anonymous by revealing age, town, etc) as opposed to intentional?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is there some kind of warning or clause in the user agreement that attempts to address this issue of accidentally revealing private information or even purposefully revealing it?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the user agreement and the rules and guidelines for AfterSilence.org do address this issue and users still post personal information, what are the pros and cons of simply warning users about the risks and then letting users do as they please vs. taking pro-active measures?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If there were pro-active measures for a site host like this to take, what would they be? Message board community reminders? Moderators who redact info? Self-regulation and regulation amongst members? What does regulation in this kind of community actually look like and is it sustainable in its current form?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many more questions and considerations to make. Good topic choice, succinctly proposed. I wish you all the best in this project and I look forward to reading the final project.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best, &lt;br /&gt;
Chanel Rion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 11:31, 9 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Chanel Rion (ChanelRion)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;We the Judges: &amp;quot;Sitejabber&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;Yelp&amp;quot;, and Communities of User-Generated Business Reviews.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment2_Prospectus_Rion.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 11:21, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Chanel,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The subject of customer generated reviews is certainly huge on the internet.   It is beneficial for consumers to get an opinion of a product or restaurant from other people over just what the advertising says.  But as you point out, there is a lot of opportunity for libel or slander – especially people just having an ax to grind.   It would be interesting to see how Yelp or Sitejabber are being responsible and making an effort to regulate content and protect places being reviewed from harassing content.  I like how your approach includes researching any legal cases brought against them; it would be interesting to see if any of them prevail.   Also, how do they actually calculate the ratings?  Is it an average of overall ratings?   Or could bad reviews be hidden away if there become lots of positive reviews?  Are businesses sandbagging to increase their ratings?  &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Overall, this is a great community to look into and I wish you success!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Michelle aka (Chelly)&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 15:43, 7 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
RE: Michelle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Michelle,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thank you for your comments and feedback. I too, am especially interested in the legal angles to this community and I am glad to know I&#039;m not the only one. I will certainly be watching and reviewing and seeking the answers to these questions and also to your specific concerns. All intensely pertinent to how businesses and communities are going to manage tensions with each other -- tensions that have always been here, but are now revolutionized in simply the sheer and complete access that the Internet provides to all of us.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Looking forward to starting this seek and find. Thank you for highlighting questions and focuses, they should prove helpful for such a broad category. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chanel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 16:49, 8 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Becca Lewis (beccalew)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: &#039;&#039;&#039;/r/TwoXChromosomes and /r/feminism: The challenges of promoting feminism on Reddit while upholding the values of privacy and free speech&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Final_Project_Prospectus_Becca_Lewis.docx &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 13:15, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Becca!&lt;br /&gt;
I absolutely love the theme of your project, it is an exceptional live issue since feminism has been discussed much more this past year than it has been for many years. Therefore, it´s really important to examine the forums in which people have the opportunity to discuss the subject. Great!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found it cool that you are thinking about recording a podcast for the project. If you do so, you might consider including an interview with someone active in the specific forums, a professor in gender studies or perhaps two people with different views on the issue?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a question about the subreddits you talked about though. You wrote about a ”safe space” for women. Are those subreddits only for women or are they open for anyone who want to discuss feminism and gender roles? If it is a women-only forum, you might also discuss the consequences on that. If not, maybe that has consequences as well. Maybe you should discuss self censorship in the feminism subreddits as well (which is very interesting since Reddit-as you said-values free speech above almost all else)?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good luck!&lt;br /&gt;
/Josefin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 10:39, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Gary Brown (Gary Brown)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: The Effects of Site Controls on Community Objectives: communityfunded.com&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Gary_Brown_Assignment2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 13:18, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Comments on Gary&#039;s Prospectus:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gary,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Great topic!  I hope to be going out to for crowdfunding by the end of the May.  So I will follow your Wiki with interest.  (In your proposal you link to crowdfunded.  I think you meant community funded. You may want to look at that.) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You mentioned the stated purpose of Communityfunded.  But you did not mention their reason for existing.  In other words, what started crowdfunding and why would individuals seek funds for their projects from the public and not other traditional sources.  Why are people like me willing to go online (to communityfunded) to ask for money, as opposed to going to another site or pitching a Venture Capitalist or a bank?  Why would people fund a project on line versus invest in the stock market or Bank CDs?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the answer to those questions goes to the heart of crowdfunding.  It also is germane to the “troublesome obstacles” you refer to in your prospectus. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When you mention failed projects, I would suggest that not all failures are the same.  I might be willing to invest money in a project I consider socially redeeming even if I thought it had very little chance of success.  Where as, if I were investing in some Harvard wiz-kids that profess to have the next Facebook, I might have very different feelings if they went belly up.  So you may want to include categories of projects, or claims/expectations in your discussions.  As well as any risk factor ratings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You also mentioned building and keeping trust of supporters.  One of the areas that interests me is the ways that Fundraisers generate funding support.  Do they rely solely on the site?  In other words, is there a pool of would be investors just waiting for the right idea to come around so they can invest.  Or is a fundraiser expected to go outside the community and raise interest and drive that interest back to the site?  How does that impact the “trust” factor?  If I am a one-time fundraiser does it matter all that much what people think about me after I’ve got my money?  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You discuss how you will break down funded projects, etc.  Is there a way to figure out what various fundraiser did to get funded?  Marketing may prove to be more of a factor than the project or its worthiness.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It would certainly be worthwhile to compare and contrast crowdfunding before and after changes in regs that made it easier for the public to invest.  And how post reg trends may lead to new regs/controls.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I look forward to reading your paper.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 20:45, 4 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Meagan HoChing (mhoching) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Title: Online Gaming Harassment: All fun and games? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Mhoching_Assignment2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 13:50, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Meagan,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every aspect of your prospectus is incredibly interesting to me. I am especially intrigued by how well you have matched up the readings to your topic. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After I read your section on Norms I thought about how you point out that “the gaming system is very competitive” and it made me wonder, if Valve placed more restrictions to prevent bullying could it potentially take some of the pleasure of competition out of the mix.  If so, then would some users leave the game because they like the hostile environment, which may be why they chose to play in it in the first place.  Keeping this line of thought in mind, perhaps you could find another similar community that has more strict modes of control in place to observe the differences between them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your prospectus and I look forward to seeing your finished product.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best,&lt;br /&gt;
Emily&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 09:25, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Meagan!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What an interesting and relevant subject! &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that it was a very good idea of you to use the Dot Model with the components ”Market”, ”Architecture”, ”Norms” and ”Law”, it makes everything much more clear. I agree with Emily that it would be a good idea to compare DOTA 2 with another game, preferably from another website than STEAM and with another system of regulation. I would find it really interesting to see the result of a such a study and if norms, the language, the members of the site, etc. differ between the two games. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I´m looking forward to see the result! Good luck!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
/Josefin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 10:16, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Meagan!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this is a very fascinating topic and one I too almost pursued. I am a bit of a gamer myself and although I don&#039;t play DOTA, I do regularly play many different sports games which I have found to have similar issues of harassment and &amp;quot;bullying&amp;quot;. I hadn&#039;t heard of the STEAM website you&#039;re focusing on until I read your assignment, but for anyone who has read really a comment section/forum anywhere, one second you&#039;re talking about a video game, the next you have gone down a path of hate and overall disgust of anyone different minded not to mention if it is a competitive game which stirrs up some hostile emotions toward an adversary. I find this particularly interesting when it comes to video games because many people who don&#039;t play video games believe that &amp;quot;it&#039;s just a game&amp;quot; but on the contrary for many gamers, one can find their self emotionally invested into a game you are taking part in. You feel this overwhelming sense of dedication to it and attachment to what happens in it where you can essentially lose yourself in the game. It is because of this hardwired competitive and primitive feeling and this element of motivation that I believe is so deeply rooted in many gamers that it would be near impossible to ever completely outlaw the harassment or trash talk because it will never stop. However perhaps there is some sort of way to outlaw the harassment that crosses a line by creating real consequence while still allowing some competitive jabbing but that I will be curious to see from your project. I will be also curious to hear what your research finds about the website in particular, I would venture to guess that it is probably similar for communities like the PSN and xboxlive. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I might suggest on top of all this to take a look at games which do not have a competitive nature with other users. This may be difficult to find but I&#039;d be curious to see whether it is harassment you find on forums with these sort of games or rather a cooperative dialogue intended to help one another. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good Luck!&lt;br /&gt;
- Ryan Hurley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 16:26, 8 March 2015 (EDT)  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Caroline B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Title: The Study of Privacy, Accuracy &amp;amp; Order on InsideNova Website and Moving ‘Little Sites’ Up&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:1_Caroline_B.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Cbore001|Cbore001]] ([[User talk:Cbore001|talk]]) 14:45, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Jan.Yburan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus title: Reddit.com/r/IAmA its Controls on Privacy and Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Jan.Yburan.Assignment2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Jan,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is a really interesting community to build your case study around. Prior to today I have only been on the site a few times to look at subreddits that relate to topics that I am interested in, and since I am not a member I have not considered how the site protects the user’s privacy. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today I decided to look at the IAmA subreddit to get a better handle of the scope of your project. Consequently, I came across and interesting and fairly benign thread started by an employee of a movie theater and it brought to mind, how does the site handle issues of privacy, libel or defamation against a company or a consumer when an employee engages in what appears at first glance as an anonymous tell all blog that highlights how he/she has witnessed vulgar and perhaps even criminal activity. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Considering your topic and direction you want to take, I think you might want to blend together aspects of the readings from our classes on privacy with the readings for next week’s class on free expression, information, and unwanted speech.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am looking forward to seeing your completed final project. I am sure it will be very informative.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Emily&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
P.S. (Here is the link to the AMA I referenced: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2xz6nb/iama_movie_theater_employee_and_ive_seen_the/)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 13:04, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Eric Yuk Lun Kwong (Caelum)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus title: The vulnerable voting structure of Digg.com and the gradual&lt;br /&gt;
collapse of its popularity and voting legitimacy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Caelum_Assignment2.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 15:11, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Eric,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Excellent topic. One that possesses, at once, broad-scale relevance and unusual particularities. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Exploring the reasons for Digg’s failure as a site and as a community, I’m drawn to the question regarding the members themselves. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It would be interesting to compare, if applicable, the kinds of users who are drawn to a voting-type participatory community vs. a community that actually interacts via content and contributions. If clear distinctions can be made here, to then find examples of successful communities that are voter-based and to pinpoint key policies or elements that differentiate sustainable models of voter-based communities compared to content-based contribution communities. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Perhaps it is fundamentally an issue of investment; when users and the outside world view a product as having or requiring minimal investment (as in, saying, or rather, clicking “yes” or “no” to something – voting to “dig” or “bury” a story). Are voting based sites destined to suffer from questions of legitimacy by virtue of being online and being so subjective? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That you will be making parallels to Wikipedia’s platform seems to be a good approach here. Wisely done. Thank you also, for your commentaries – I appreciate the thoroughness in which you approach these topics. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best of luck!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chanel Rion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 11:57, 9 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Alex Samaei (Samaei1)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus title: The Framework of Projects and Backers on Kickstarter&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Samaei1_Assignment2.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Samaei1|Samaei1]] ([[User talk:Samaei1|talk]]) 15:37, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Alex! &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&#039;m so happy you picked this website because I&#039;ve donated to various projects on this website, but never took into account the structure of the website and complications due to misappropriating of funding. I find it hard to try to quantify what is appropriate to fundraise, because the topic is subjective. Of course I don&#039;t think it would be appropriate to fundraise to support hate speech (if that&#039;s what someone is fundraising for), yet I don&#039;t find it appropriate to fundraise for movies about starving children, when that money can go to feeding starving children. I hope I&#039;m communicating the subjectiveness of trying to find what would be considered appropriate to raise money for and how it varies from person to person. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But speaking in regards to the Lessig&#039;s Dot Model I think the website can be broken down into different sections to address some of the issues you raise. For example, how does the structure of kickstarter promote accountability on the artist/person asking for money? On the donation page for example, a vast amount of information about the artist is available, as well as avenues in which you can contact the fundraiser. So if kickstarter has provided this as a requirement for people to submit or provide when asking to be funded, is it then up to the donor to hold that person accountable? I have the tools on that page to ask the fundraiser for that specific information and continue to follow up on that information. I think once you start looking at specific/deliberate aspects of kickstarter, it will start to inform or control behavior. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I hope this helps! Look forward to reading the final project; happy researching and writing!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 00:35, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Alex,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’m interested that you have chosen a community that, you imply, is being targeted not for its failures, but for its successes. A wildfire that is often so much more visible on the Internet than in any other form in history. Speed, access, and instant publicity -- make &amp;quot;success&amp;quot; in society ever more visible, open to targeting, and prone to hijacking. Indeed. It is a great topic for research in this course in particular.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One aspect that could be revelatory is to seek out the kinds of legal cases that have been brought against kickstarter and what litigation the site has to deal with and what kinds of litigation that users potentially enter into. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There’s also a question about user legitimacy. How easy is it for some startup organization to simply use this community and its platform as an elaborate marketing plan? Can a company, for instance, viel itself to be a small time kickstarter that can feed itself funding and manufacture the appearance of democratic success? It would be especially useful to identify who the moderators are and to what extent they exercise control or regulation if any. Does Kickstarter have even the skeleton of some kind of verification system or is the verification over the legitimacy of a proposal entirely user generated? Is this sustainable or are there signs of trouble ahead? What would be a disastrous scenario for this community? To these questions, I think that many clues may be found in the litigation and whatever bad publicity the community has had encounter. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Great topic, culturally relevant community. Thank you for the topic and best of luck for the final.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chanel Rion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 12:31, 9 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Gia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus title: Chivalry online&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Gia_Assignment2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 15:46, 3 March 2015 (EST))&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Gia,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This topic is definitely flushing out the seedier side of the internet!  I have never heard of this site 419eater, but we all know the dangers of scammers and how they use the internet.   How do they find their victims?   Some scams are so realistic as to mention names of loved ones in danger and demand money be expedited.  The scam baiters you’re talking about here must be trolling similar sites and circles to identify culprits they need want to go after.  But in doing so, are they just as much at fault as the original scammers?   Is there any regulation of the members? I can definitely see an ethical dilemma, as you point out, of some possibly unscrupulous members.  And your question of whether they have extended their existence outside the online world is a very interesting consideration.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You a have a lot of good sources listed regarding scams (white collar crime and Ponzi schemes too!).   Good luck, this is an intriguing subject!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Michelle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 15:57, 7 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Re: Michelle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks for the comments, Michelle. I definitely intend to explore the  subject from both sides, because there could be really two, maybe even more , points of  view. Regarding the legal regulation, there is a lot  to be said – interned jurisdiction. The self-regulation of the web community  which is  evolving with the  time is  also a nice starting  point. &lt;br /&gt;
Thank again for the ideas and good luck  to  you  too with  your  work!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Mishal R. Kennedy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus title: Enforcing Guidelines Without Harming User Contributions&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Mishal_R._Kennedy_Assignment2.rtf&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Mishal R. Kennedy|Mishal R. Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Mishal R. Kennedy|talk]]) 15:51, 3 March 2015 (EST))&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Hi  Mishal,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The  subject you have  chosen  is very interesting and gives great opportunities  for  discussions and analyses. I would   directly  make  a reference  to  the  Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0, which we discussed during “Paradigms for Studying the Internet’ class.  You could explore the methods  used by the moderators and administrators as a way  of  self regulation of  the  community. The  question  you asked  whether  these  methods  are  causing  more  bad  than  good, is right  to the point. &lt;br /&gt;
I would  suggest you explain in more details the  different  methods  of control used  my the moderators  and perhaps compare them with the ones used by other communities. You could also take a  look  if  it is explicitly listed in the Terms  of  Use   of the  website  in which case what measure is taken? Is there a higher authority than the moderator to  whom  a sanctioned  user  could  complain? Could  such  a  decision  “be appealed” or  it  is  final and definitive? Is there at all a hierarchy in the administration of the website?&lt;br /&gt;
Here  are  some  sources  which  might  help. Good  luck!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
https://www.academia.edu/3079184/COAT_Collaborative_Outgoing_Anti-Spam_Technique&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.yildiz.edu.tr/~aktas/courses/CE-0114890/g8-p3.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~kksivara/sfwr4c03/projects/4c03projects/CGLucas-Project.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM11/paper/viewFile/2780/3296&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Richard Markow&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus title: The YouTube video-sharing platform &amp;amp; The Community of Alternative Heating Systems and Appliance Inventors&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Rich_Markow_Assignment_2_Prospectus.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 16:03, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name AlexanderH&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: Managing the Petitions of Change.org: B Corps, Social Enterprise and Transparency&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:AlexanderH_Assignment_2_Prospectus.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:AlexanderH|AlexanderH]] ([[User talk:AlexanderH|talk]]) 16:10, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Meredith Blake&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title:Identifying Avenues of Recourse for Businesses on Yelp &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Meredith_Blake._Assignment_2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Meredithmblake|Meredith]] ([[User talk:Meredithmblake|talk]]) 16:13, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
Hello Meredith!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this is a great topic and you have a very interesting approach.  I haven’t really looked into Yelp and the lawsuit angle, but they certainly have a lot of influence on the internet.   Out of curiosity, I just Googled about 10 different restaurants in this area and the results had the Yelp review either as the second or third site listed!   So potential customers are seeing the Yelp rating almost before the actual websites in a couple of cases!   There is little recourse for them, and as you show by the Sia example, a disgruntled customer can reach out and cause a flood of terrible reviews, from people who weren’t even customers!   Caelum makes a good point in the summary at the bottom that reviews are either one end of the spectrum or the other… disgruntled customers wanting to air their displeasure or someone extremely happy who wants to rave about it.&lt;br /&gt;
   &lt;br /&gt;
It is good to take a targeted approach to such a large community, and looking into the recourse that businesses may have as well as existing lawsuits sounds like a good approach.  If a suit is successful, what are the actual outcomes?   Does Yelp take down reviews or adjust the ratings?   I think people who expound on sites that give a platform are really missing the spirit of free speech.   I don’t think your approach is that unpopular, not that free speech needs to be regulated, but that there should be some modicum of self-restraint and freedom to say anything is not absolutely protected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good luck on this, you’ve got some really good ideas!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Michelle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 16:14, 7 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Wesley Verge&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title : Scrolling into Darkness -- An investigation into the regulatory forces at work in Youtube&#039;s comment section&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Wesley_Verge_Prospectus.txt&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 [[User:WesleyVerge|WesleyVerge]] ([[User talk:WesleyVerge|talk]]) 16:19, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Wesley!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am very intrigued by the &amp;quot;solutions&amp;quot; there are to change the culture of the comment sections. It is really an intriguing phenomenon that one could be watching a video about puppies and suddenly 4 comments down glance over an argument that Obama was sent by satan himself to destroy the world. I&#039;ve always been curious as to how this has not been regulated more strictly. I think you raise great points why and the concerns Google is faced with. If I were doing this project I might also attempt to compare this to other sites as well that must face similar challenges. For example you suggest in your assignment that youtube channels direct traffic to sites like Reddit, but is that really an escape for the channel as this implies? Can these &amp;quot;trolls&amp;quot; not go over to reddit to promote their hate just as easily, or do they have different solutions in play that regulate these sorts of issues better? As far as I know both are anonymous to an extent so with this anonymity many of these trolls have &amp;quot;keyboard muscles&amp;quot; as I like to call them. I can understand twitter because many times it is much more personal but even there people can create fake accounts and troll all the same, just see Jimmy Kimmels skit on celebrity reading mean tweets. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really like your focus on famous YouTubers I just think it may also be beneficial and worth mentioning how other sites with the same prevalent issue have tried to combat trolling. Also from a legal side, are all of these comments protected by the law and free speech? Perhaps because of the enormity of all the comments and comment sections, it is simply impossible to regulate what is said in every section from a legal perspective. Food for thought, but in any case great project idea.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best of luck,&lt;br /&gt;
Ryan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 16:56, 8 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: Knocking the Wind out of Whistleblowers: The US&#039; response to the growing threat from WikiLeaks &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Kelly.WilsonAssignment_2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Kelly.wilson|Kelly.wilson]] ([[User talk:Kelly.wilson|talk]]) 16:38, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Kelly,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interesting topic.  There are a couple of perspectives you may want to consider about when defining what you mean by Whistleblower and the response in each situation.  1) Exposing illegal acts.  2) Exposing immoral acts.  3) Exposing Acts designed to embarrassed your political opponents or as retribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Should they all be treated the same and afforded equal protection?  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good luck!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 00:10, 9 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Tasha&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: Exploring the Complexity of Rapidly Evolving Information in a Bodybuilding Forum and the Challenges of Quality Assurance&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Tasha_Assignment_2_Prospectus.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tasha[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 17:12, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--------&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Tasha,  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I  like a lot  your  choice  of  community  . It  is  unusual and  at  the  same  time  you  could  find  a lot  of  things  to explore-both  from  legal  and ethical stand  point. &lt;br /&gt;
I would  say  that your  questions and  reflections are  on the right track. I think  that one of the issues  you  could explore is  the fact that  they  are  often used  as  a platform  for  unlicensed  sell of  drugs. If  you choose  to go  for this, you should have  to take  a  good  look  on the definitions  in order  to  differ  “Drugs”  for  “Nutrition Supplements” because  this is  the  tricky  moment. How the  website  is  protecting  itself  from  such  kind  of  activity (by  its  Terms  of  use  or  in other  ways) , might  be interesting  as well.&lt;br /&gt;
Above you could find two links that might be of some use. Good  luck!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first is little bit old but interesting:&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t000525b.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://health.wusf.usf.edu/post/unlicensed-pharmacies-selling-compounded-drugs-online&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
__________&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Josefin Sasse&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: A case study on the children&#039;s website Kidzworld and how they deal with threats against being a safe environment for children.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:JosefinSasse.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 17:26, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Josefin!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find your topic utterly intriguing. I had no idea such a website existed and it&#039;s been quite fascinating just poking around the website a little bit. I think it is a very valid point to raise about &amp;quot;who monitors Kidzworld&amp;quot;, because there doesn&#039;t seem to be much of a screening process to ensure the user that is signing up for an account is in fact between the ages of 9-17. Also, I see you have cited the Pew Research Center study from the readings, which is a great resource for dissecting the demographics and statistics of harassment, but the study was done on &amp;quot;young adults&amp;quot; ranging from 18-29, and &amp;quot;young women&amp;quot; between the ages of 18-24 years old. Which I hope illuminates, rather than complicates, the issue of doing research on a demographic ranging from 9-17, but more so how do you set up  a website that serves a population that would need adult consent to participate in almost everything they do. Along with privacy issues, I think the question of who is responsible for what and for whom is a great aspect you have raised in your paper! I would love to stay in touch and see the developments of your paper if that would be okay. I think this is the perfect website to investigate for this project.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 00:10, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Josefin,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think you picked a great online community to explore for your final project, not only because it is a social space for a specific group, but also because there seems to be some fairly strict regulations in place to maintain a safe environment for kids. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It might be interesting if you could find some weakness in its structure. For example can kids go into private chats or are all the chats and comment sections being screened. If they are being screened, is it by a computer generated logarithm or real people? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another question that you could delve into is, how do the site’s administrators know the users are minors.  Do they require parents’ permission? If so how do they prove it is actually a real parent?  &lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
I hope these suggestions are helpful. I am looking forward to seeing your finished project. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best,&lt;br /&gt;
Emily&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 00:13, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name:   Brooke Tjarks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus:   Art. Business. Fans. (...) How this collaborative space shapes mass visual media production and worldwide distribution&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link:   http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Prospectus.Brooke.Tjarks.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Abby McHugh&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: From #Thinspiration to “Low Carb Friends”: The Regulation of Online Weight Loss Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Amchugh_Assignment2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Abby!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Okay, so I really wich I had chosen this issue. It is great that you did!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To facilitate the work, I would recommend that you are more specific in which websites you are going to explore since there is so much #thinspo content out there. But Twitter, Tumbler, Pinterest, and Instagram are great platforms to explore, together with blogs like you said. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Other things you might want to discuss are:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What makes the most harm: #thinspo/pro-ana blogs and posts or limitations on freedom of speech by regulating such content? (On my part, I am determined in my opinion that #thinspo is devastating and that regulation in this case is a good thing.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Who is active in this community?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Could pro-ana be illegitimate harassment? Compare it the possibility of a pro-cancer or a pro-aids community (deadly diseases just like anorexia).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What effects could/does the sometimes lack of regulation have on the community online and offline?&lt;br /&gt;
Good luck! You´ve chosen a very interesting subject!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
/Josefin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 11:08, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note: If I’m a little direct in the comments, I really mean the best. Hope it doesn’t offend anyone. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ryan Hurley: I think professor said stay away from these huge websites. Perhaps you could discuss with the professors if Facebook is the right website to focus on? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Olivia Brinich: I think you’re asking a lot of questions to be answered here.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“How does it Pind and protect information, how do copyrighters choose to deal with the individual cases of copyright infringement, and what happens when a clip is wrongfully targeted for copyright violation, i.e., the adverse unintended consequences of Content ID?”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Perhaps you should just focus on one main thesis and explore on that. For example, focusing on how copyrighters deal with copyright infringement, and how that eventually influenced youtube to introduce copyright ID system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One last issue is whether youtube is too big of a website to focus on. Perhaps you could narrow it down to say, copyright issues for music on youtube. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Erika L. Rich: I think it’s a very broad term to discuss the ethical considerations. Perhaps if you narrowed it down to 1 or 2 main issues you find extremely compelling about the website and community? Or maybe I have simply mistaken your train of thought. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Emily MacIntyre: I like how you had such conviction to talk about youtube that despite its size, its still worth researching about. I think you could also talk a little bit about how these game commentators earn their living by commenting on games. PewDiePie is estimated to earn millions every year. It could show a greater perspective on things if we could see their earnings as well. South Park actually has a very funny episode about commentators commenting on commentators commenting on games on youtube. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matt K: Do you think that changing the title to reflect your research would make it easier for the reader? (Just a thought) I think its interesting how you mentioned “democratic instrument”, bringing politics into the way his blog is ran. According to the quote you took, Scalzi has indeed used some controls over potential commentators. Furthermore, you should consider that if it’s a blog about all sorts of things, with John’s comments on it, he should also be open to listen to commentators reply to this, especially if its about sensitive topics. If he’s going to filter away those he “considers” as offensive, then perhaps he shouldn’t comment on other things either. (unless the comment really does not have a valid point and is not related to the topic) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edwin Duque: Good to see you in this class too. I think you should just focus on one website. I’d do JuryX instead of Facebook as professor said big websites aren’t good. Also, you’d need a stronger thesis to connect what the real question is. Is it about allowing free sharing? Or is it about limiting what gets shared? I’m a little confused with your thesis. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chelly Byrne: I think you have a strong thesis here. The contradictions between sharing information on the internet, and the fear of being exposed would be very interesting. I think you can even go into the subscription process. I assume the website allows anyone to join. This means that even predators could read up on what victims write. Unfortunately, they probably get quite the entertainment from reading it, or pretending to ask “leading” questions. As you said, just a tiny bit of excessive information leaked out could result in a victim being violated again. I guess you could talk about that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chanel Rion: Since you’re talking about Yelp and reviews, I’d like to share what I learned from another class. Most of these reviews are at the ends of the spectrum. Unless someone is a regular of Yelp and does a review for every restaurant, the rest of them would be people who had great experiences or really bad experiences. They won’t be bothered to write a review about a mediocre or average restaurant. It’s not worth their time. You could also mention that. Also, do you think there are fake reviews too? I’d go for siteJabbar. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Becca Lewis: Firstly its interesting how you’re talking about Reddit because I’m talking about Digg. I think new beliefs takes time to be adapted by the masses. Feminism isn’t very old, and its on going. I think it takes time for people to adapt to it, so for the short term I won’t be surprised if the discussion board sees a lot of anti-feminism people. But also do bare in mind that these are “beliefs”, just like “liberalism” (which is quite similar to feminism, fighting for individual rights, etc). Not everyone believes in these values, so some disagreements should be expected. I guess an interesting way could be to examine if people become more offensive when they are shown as anonymous. My thoughts are that it is. You could look at reddit discussions compared with the core values of Wikipedia, and why it worked for Wikipedia, but a little hard for Reddit. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gary Brown: Are there any data on the selection process, or ventures that were rejected? It’s hard to associate it with discrimination if there is no evidence. Since you can’t prove or disprove this, it means “site controls” cannot be determined. Therefore you need to make a new thesis that really reflects the paper. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meagan Moana HoChing: DOTA is a fun game. My initial response is that with huge amounts of ego on the line, that’s how bullying start. Haha. From what I read and know, it is the architecture that is dominantly the issue. This structure allows the audience to exploit it. I think you could also investigate is how is “harassment” identified as? Calling someone a “loser”? Do note that a lot of cyber bullying are to kids that people know in real life. So can we causally say trash talking is the same as harassing? When NBA players trash talk one another, I don’t think they considered it as harassing. So I guess this definition needs to be very clear.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Caroline B: Perhaps you could mention NPOV as one of their values they used in order to keep readers like yourself going to the website. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jan Yburan: Second Reddit I saw today. Haha. I think you need to be weary of the upvote system. More popular and famous people would get a self –fulfilling upvote treatment, where as more niche people or radical ones would get less. This way of identifying success might be a little questionable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alex Samaei: I’d be more interested in how kickstarter protects pledgers from potential false projects. This seems like a very good question for privacy and control. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gia: &lt;br /&gt;
“New scambaiters can request to be assigned a &amp;quot;mentor&amp;quot; to assist them in learning how to bait.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this is really cool. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“. In the past, scammers were tricked into sending money themselves, which was later given to charity.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That’s crazy. Not sure who the scammer is now. I’d spend more time discussing the aspect about scammers being scammed by scambaiters, and the moral and ethical implications of it. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mishal R. Kennedy: I think you have a legit question there. Looking at whether deleting an old post or controlling spambots to be more important. You could also consider that perhaps it was the ease of registration that led to the spambots. Deleting the old posts doesn’t actually go to the root of the problem. I guess you could also talk more about the ease of registration. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Markow: I think you should just talk about 1 or 2 points out of the 5. Don’t think you have enough space to write that much. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alexander H: Do you think you could also go into the ease of account creation? To attain legitimacy, the website would need real personal data to determine that the petition is signed by a real person. If so the privacy concerns would be the biggest. A deeper look at the terms and agreement is a must. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meredith Blake: That’s an interesting take on Yelp. I do believe that the reviews are either from the ones who enjoyed the restaurant the most, or the ones that hated it. The ones in the middle won’t be bothered to write a review. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wesley Verge: Personally I think it is an inevitable part of anonymity and high view count. There’s bound to be a few trolls, but that too is what makes youtube entertaining. I think youtube just needs to make a better flagging system. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kelly Wilson: You could talk about how the internet might influence more people to be whistleblowers, or even anonymous whistleblowers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tasha: I think to begin with you need to bare in mind that a lot of fitness people already know the difference between science and bro-science. I further believe that bodybuilding.com would just allow people to say whatever they want knowing full well it is just a forum. As long as they don’t endorse it, they shouldn’t be liable. But as such, you should also talk about the privacy of fitness people on the website. A lot of them post photos up too, and their diet and schedules.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Josefin S: Nice logo. I don’t really like the age range for kidzworld.com. It doesn’t make sense for 9 year olds to interact with 17 year olds. Furthermore, I wouldn’t want my 9 year old kid to socialize with 17 year old kids and being taught 17 year old stuff. So my biggest concern, as you also mentioned, is how do they keep content separate between different ages to prevent the younger kids to learn the wrong stuff? Or do they not do this at all?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Brooke Ashley Tjarks: Yes, I’d agree with you that IMDB is a good balance between the other two websites. I think by becoming a member, the legitimacy of the votes would become higher. There’s bound to be some sort of influence between people regardless of the platform, so I think IMDB is an interesting one to investigate further.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
- Brooke Tjarks here responding to Caelum -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thank you so much for the feedback. I am defintely going with IMBD. Another interesting aspect of the platform is the accuracy of content that the website tries to uphold and the methods that they use to ensure this. For example, users with profiles who edit pages must sign legal documents online (such as NDA&#039;s) before editing. The more I thought it over the more I realized how different each of the sites I considered truly are, but IMDB has the most to offer for this assignment. Thank you again for your support.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 17:53, 9 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Amchugh: I think you could go into internet being free also has its consequences. Since the internet could edit and post something online in a matter of seconds, it becomes very vulnerable for unintended things to hit the net. The filtering has to either occurred before the posting, or after it has been up. When it’s up already, it’s hard to say whether the rest of them would oblige, or would they prefer to continue the troll game. You could talk about the reasons for why Twitter would take it down (assuming that it does not violate Twitter’s policies). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note: Good luck everyone!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 13:43, 6 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Caelum, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks for your comments. There are a  lot of interesting  issues, both legal and ethical  and  the  subject is controversial  for  sure. Good  luck with your project as well!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Batjarks</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Assignment_2_Submissions&amp;diff=3970</id>
		<title>Assignment 2 Submissions</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Assignment_2_Submissions&amp;diff=3970"/>
		<updated>2015-03-09T21:53:19Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Batjarks: /* Comments */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{AssignmentCal}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Submission Instructions===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Please note that we have updated the [[Final_Project#Frequently_Asked_Questions|final project page&#039;s FAQ section]] based on some student questions that have come to us over the past week.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This assignment is due on March 3rd.  Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (assignments submitted 4 days late or later will have a maximum grade of 1 point).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please name your file &amp;quot;wikiusername_Assignment2,&amp;quot; where &amp;quot;wikiusername&amp;quot; is replaced with your username, to avoid overwriting someone else&#039;s assignment or causing errors in the Wiki by including forbidden characters.&#039;&#039; So if your username is &amp;quot;jdoe&amp;quot; and your file is a Word document your file should be named &amp;quot;jdoe_Assignment2.doc.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Upload your rough draft here: [[Special:Upload|Upload file]]. If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [[Special:ImageList|list of uploaded files]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the submissions section below please post the following information:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Name or pseudonym: &lt;br /&gt;
*Prospectus title: &lt;br /&gt;
*Link to prospectus: (add your link here)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Comments==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Everyone will receive an additional participation grade for this assignment. You should read through everyone&#039;s proposals after they are uploaded and add constructive comments below the proposal on which you&#039;re commenting. Comments should be submitted by March 10th so you have time to incorporate them, if applicable, into your project outline. &#039;&#039;&#039;Please remember to sign your comments by adding four tildes (&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;~~~~&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;) to the end of your contribution.  This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post.&#039;&#039;&#039; If we don&#039;t know who you are we can&#039;t give you credit for finishing this assignment!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ryan Hurley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Facebook &amp;amp; Big Data vs. Your Privacy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Prospectus_FB_and_privacy_Assignment_2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 16:06, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Olivia Brinich&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intentions and Outcomes of Youtube’s Copyright and Coding Regulations&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Oliviabrinich_prospectus03.03.15.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Oliviabrinich|Oliviabrinich]] ([[User talk:Oliviabrinich|talk]]) 15:51, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Comments on Olivia&#039;s Prospectus:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Olivia, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let me start by saying I think that Youtube is a great source for your project.  I’m not saying that just because I am doing my paper on Youtube.  I find the creative ways that people are using it fascinating.  Much more so than some of the other platforms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If I may summarize, you plan to discuss how legal pressures forced Youtube to introduce technologies that changed the user experiences, like Copyright ID.  You also mentioned some other (possibly voluntary) technologies that are part of the user experience with the intent to discuss how they impact users.  I think they are good ideas and good concepts to write about.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As you rightly point the Youtube community is one of the largest communities on the Internet.  I wonder if it might not be taking on too much to try to examine Youtube as a whole.  I would suggest selecting a small group that is susceptible to the effects of the technologies you are reviewing.  Describe who the group is and how certain characteristics of their make-up or user experience make them particularly sensitive to the technologies you will focus on.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example I will be focusing on hobbyist inventors.  Guys that spend their weekends in the garage putting “junk” together and posting videos about their “inventions” on Youtube.  Their content is all original so they are not impacted by Copyright ID.  There is very little thumbs up/down.  They are a much more “expressive” crowd as the comments indicate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’m not trying to discourage you.  I think if you pick the right group and tell us why you picked them, it can very interesting.  I hope that is helpful.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 19:47, 4 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•  Erika L Rich&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•  Title: Reputation Management and Ethical Considerations for Members of the Internet Marketing Super Friends (IMSF) Facebook Group&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•  Link: [[File:LSTU_E120_Erika_Rich_Assignment_2.docx]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:ErikaLRich|ErikaLRich]] ([[User talk:ErikaLRich|talk]]) 15:22, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•	Emily MacIntyre (EmiMac)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•	Prospectus title:  A Case Study on the Unintended Legal Consequences and Chilling Effects of YouTube’s Content ID Sweep on its Video Game Commentator Community&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•	Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Emily_MacIntyre_Assignment_2.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 09:41, 2 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Emily, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Great job on your prospectus! It is very well organized, and your citations sources are well researched. I found your research really enticing because I had never heard of this sweep, and I consider myself an avid youtube visitor. I think you are on to a great research project. Although the topic is remarkably fascinating, I wonder if investigating and juxtaposing the different types of monitoring will be too large or too abstract for the limit of the project. I also read up on the PewDiePie character cited, and I think it is really fascinating to see that he has 35 mil subscribers, yet chose to turn off his commenting feature because of how volatile he claimed the space was becoming. His specific youtube channel then does not have a community to investigate. But it would be interesting to examine someone or a specific youtube channel that has a similar following as the case study to better help zone in on collecting and investigating data. Thank you for this topic, I am currently reading more about the youtube actions in 2008 and 2013 because I had little to no prior knowledge of both events. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good luck on your project!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 00:09, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
RE: Mhoching,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thank you for your comment. I very much like your prospectus topic as well as you can see from my comments below. With regards to my final project, I thought I should reiterate and clarify that my community is the YouTube contributors that concentrate on making Let’s Plays and video game reviews. While it is helpful to find a video with an active comment section, where other users further explain how the ID sweep influences their output choices,  in the case of PewDiePie, his decision to turn off his comment section does in part illustrate how YouTube has rapidly evolved. Since Google began catering to commercial enterprises over the original volunteer contributors, some of the volunteer contributors have become increasingly more frustrated and they exhibit their frustration in a variety of ways.      &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks Again,&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Emily&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 09:37, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
•	MattK&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•	Home of the Mallet of Loving Correction: John Scalzi&#039;s Blog, &amp;quot;Whatever&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•	http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:MattK_Assignment2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:MattK|MattK]] ([[User talk:MattK|talk]]) 22:01, 2 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Matt,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am particularly interested in your topic because I believe it is a very small example of what the internet could become or arguably is becoming in regards to free speech. I am very intrigued by the notion of &amp;quot;knowledge is power&amp;quot;. What I mean relative to your project is that I believe that those who can control what &amp;quot;knowledge&amp;quot; people receive therefore posses great power. In your case, Scalzi&#039;s blog is equipped with a comment section where total control is given to Scalzi on what to allow others to see. By censoring whatever Scalzi sees as &amp;quot;offensive&amp;quot; he is limiting a voice, whether good or bad, and therefore limiting knowledge. I would argue that there&#039;s no question that the term knowledge here is used very loosely and there are obvious comments on these sorts of forums which provide no overall good at all, but more importantly the question I think of is how dangerous it would be for one person to posses this sort of &amp;quot;editorial power&amp;quot; to simply delete anything they see unfit. What would happen if other sites also used this sort of policy where whatever is subjectively deemed unworthy of being a comment was deleted? Are there infact other online sites and forums that take this approach? What implications does this approach have for the audience of the site? Does it discourage participation as a sort of chilling effect? It is a scary world to imagine where one party possess the power of what information to provide and what to censor. In this specific case what if the comments are simply against Scalzi and are a disagreement with what he writes? What is to stop him from simply deleting something. I&#039;m curious to know what sort of checks and balances or accountability Scarzi&#039;s editorial powers has. I think your subject bears the question of where to draw the line between free speech and productive censorship, an enormously tricky and potentially dangerous distinction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These are just a few thoughts I had, in any case best of luck it&#039;s a great topic. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks,&lt;br /&gt;
Ryan Hurley&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 18:55, 8 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
---- &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edwin Duque (Edwinduque)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title:The copyright, privacy and organization challenges that online communities such as Facebook and The Jury Deliberation in the cyber space are faced with &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Edwinduque_Assignment_2.doc&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Edwinduque|Edwinduque]] ([[User talk:Edwinduque|talk]]) 22:10, 2 March 2015 (EST))&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Edwin, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I  like the way you structured your idea. I  think that the copyright issue is  very  interesting and it  is  worthed  spending  some more  time on it.  Exploring the nature of  a Facebook post – whether  it  could  be  consider  as an “idea”, in the Copyright Act specifically states that In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, regardless of the form in which it is described. Or  it  could  be  considered  as  an “original works of authorship” fixed by the author in a tangible way, in which case it would be covered by copyrights. The issue of re-posting someone else’s post with commercial purposes  could  be interesting to mention as well. It is just  an idea,  but saying some words about  the  case  with the  famous Facebook post “In response to the new Facebook guidelines…. “ might  be  interesting too. I think  that  you  could  also easily  link your work to the “right to  be  forgotten” issues   we  discussed  in  class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here  are  some links  you  might  find  useful. Good  luck!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.nyccounsel.com/business-blogs-websites/who-owns-photos-and-videos-posted-on-facebook-or-twitter/&lt;br /&gt;
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-social-networking/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
-------&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Michelle Byrne (Chelly.Byrne)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus title: Balancing privacy for victims of sexual crimes with &lt;br /&gt;
opportunity for support in online forum  AfterSilence.org&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:ChellyByrne_Assignment2.pdf &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 07:54, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Michelle,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You have chosen a terrifically nuanced community. Indeed, the word “balance” and the question of HOW such a community can possibly approach this word is bound to yield more data and conclusions than the page ljmits of our final project – which is only testimony to the strength of your community research choice. I believe yours is the most psychologically-based prospectus that I have read thus far. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By “psychologically-based,” I mean that I sense that you will be making some conclusions about the specialized mindsets and individuals who are drawn to this community; a community that paradoxically, and in waves, seem to wish for both anonymity and at the same time, a very specific and difficult kind of attention. Anonymous attention.  A community that has created a safe haven and yet, has some very troubling cracks, as you point out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Questions:&lt;br /&gt;
Are these cracks mostly user generated? As in, the example you found of the poster who revealed configurable data revealing her identity. If they are mostly user-generated, how prevalent of an instance is this? Of the active users who reveal private information, what instances are accidental or ignorant (as in, thinking they’ll be anonymous by revealing age, town, etc) as opposed to intentional?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is there some kind of warning or clause in the user agreement that attempts to address this issue of accidentally revealing private information or even purposefully revealing it?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the user agreement and the rules and guidelines for AfterSilence.org do address this issue and users still post personal information, what are the pros and cons of simply warning users about the risks and then letting users do as they please vs. taking pro-active measures?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If there were pro-active measures for a site host like this to take, what would they be? Message board community reminders? Moderators who redact info? Self-regulation and regulation amongst members? What does regulation in this kind of community actually look like and is it sustainable in its current form?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many more questions and considerations to make. Good topic choice, succinctly proposed. I wish you all the best in this project and I look forward to reading the final project.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best, &lt;br /&gt;
Chanel Rion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 11:31, 9 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Chanel Rion (ChanelRion)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;We the Judges: &amp;quot;Sitejabber&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;Yelp&amp;quot;, and Communities of User-Generated Business Reviews.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment2_Prospectus_Rion.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 11:21, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Chanel,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The subject of customer generated reviews is certainly huge on the internet.   It is beneficial for consumers to get an opinion of a product or restaurant from other people over just what the advertising says.  But as you point out, there is a lot of opportunity for libel or slander – especially people just having an ax to grind.   It would be interesting to see how Yelp or Sitejabber are being responsible and making an effort to regulate content and protect places being reviewed from harassing content.  I like how your approach includes researching any legal cases brought against them; it would be interesting to see if any of them prevail.   Also, how do they actually calculate the ratings?  Is it an average of overall ratings?   Or could bad reviews be hidden away if there become lots of positive reviews?  Are businesses sandbagging to increase their ratings?  &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Overall, this is a great community to look into and I wish you success!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Michelle aka (Chelly)&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 15:43, 7 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
RE: Michelle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Michelle,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thank you for your comments and feedback. I too, am especially interested in the legal angles to this community and I am glad to know I&#039;m not the only one. I will certainly be watching and reviewing and seeking the answers to these questions and also to your specific concerns. All intensely pertinent to how businesses and communities are going to manage tensions with each other -- tensions that have always been here, but are now revolutionized in simply the sheer and complete access that the Internet provides to all of us.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Looking forward to starting this seek and find. Thank you for highlighting questions and focuses, they should prove helpful for such a broad category. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chanel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 16:49, 8 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Becca Lewis (beccalew)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: &#039;&#039;&#039;/r/TwoXChromosomes and /r/feminism: The challenges of promoting feminism on Reddit while upholding the values of privacy and free speech&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Final_Project_Prospectus_Becca_Lewis.docx &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 13:15, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Becca!&lt;br /&gt;
I absolutely love the theme of your project, it is an exceptional live issue since feminism has been discussed much more this past year than it has been for many years. Therefore, it´s really important to examine the forums in which people have the opportunity to discuss the subject. Great!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found it cool that you are thinking about recording a podcast for the project. If you do so, you might consider including an interview with someone active in the specific forums, a professor in gender studies or perhaps two people with different views on the issue?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a question about the subreddits you talked about though. You wrote about a ”safe space” for women. Are those subreddits only for women or are they open for anyone who want to discuss feminism and gender roles? If it is a women-only forum, you might also discuss the consequences on that. If not, maybe that has consequences as well. Maybe you should discuss self censorship in the feminism subreddits as well (which is very interesting since Reddit-as you said-values free speech above almost all else)?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good luck!&lt;br /&gt;
/Josefin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 10:39, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Gary Brown (Gary Brown)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: The Effects of Site Controls on Community Objectives: communityfunded.com&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Gary_Brown_Assignment2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 13:18, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Comments on Gary&#039;s Prospectus:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gary,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Great topic!  I hope to be going out to for crowdfunding by the end of the May.  So I will follow your Wiki with interest.  (In your proposal you link to crowdfunded.  I think you meant community funded. You may want to look at that.) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You mentioned the stated purpose of Communityfunded.  But you did not mention their reason for existing.  In other words, what started crowdfunding and why would individuals seek funds for their projects from the public and not other traditional sources.  Why are people like me willing to go online (to communityfunded) to ask for money, as opposed to going to another site or pitching a Venture Capitalist or a bank?  Why would people fund a project on line versus invest in the stock market or Bank CDs?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the answer to those questions goes to the heart of crowdfunding.  It also is germane to the “troublesome obstacles” you refer to in your prospectus. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When you mention failed projects, I would suggest that not all failures are the same.  I might be willing to invest money in a project I consider socially redeeming even if I thought it had very little chance of success.  Where as, if I were investing in some Harvard wiz-kids that profess to have the next Facebook, I might have very different feelings if they went belly up.  So you may want to include categories of projects, or claims/expectations in your discussions.  As well as any risk factor ratings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You also mentioned building and keeping trust of supporters.  One of the areas that interests me is the ways that Fundraisers generate funding support.  Do they rely solely on the site?  In other words, is there a pool of would be investors just waiting for the right idea to come around so they can invest.  Or is a fundraiser expected to go outside the community and raise interest and drive that interest back to the site?  How does that impact the “trust” factor?  If I am a one-time fundraiser does it matter all that much what people think about me after I’ve got my money?  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You discuss how you will break down funded projects, etc.  Is there a way to figure out what various fundraiser did to get funded?  Marketing may prove to be more of a factor than the project or its worthiness.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It would certainly be worthwhile to compare and contrast crowdfunding before and after changes in regs that made it easier for the public to invest.  And how post reg trends may lead to new regs/controls.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I look forward to reading your paper.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 20:45, 4 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Meagan HoChing (mhoching) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Title: Online Gaming Harassment: All fun and games? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Mhoching_Assignment2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 13:50, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Meagan,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every aspect of your prospectus is incredibly interesting to me. I am especially intrigued by how well you have matched up the readings to your topic. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After I read your section on Norms I thought about how you point out that “the gaming system is very competitive” and it made me wonder, if Valve placed more restrictions to prevent bullying could it potentially take some of the pleasure of competition out of the mix.  If so, then would some users leave the game because they like the hostile environment, which may be why they chose to play in it in the first place.  Keeping this line of thought in mind, perhaps you could find another similar community that has more strict modes of control in place to observe the differences between them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your prospectus and I look forward to seeing your finished product.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best,&lt;br /&gt;
Emily&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 09:25, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Meagan!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What an interesting and relevant subject! &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that it was a very good idea of you to use the Dot Model with the components ”Market”, ”Architecture”, ”Norms” and ”Law”, it makes everything much more clear. I agree with Emily that it would be a good idea to compare DOTA 2 with another game, preferably from another website than STEAM and with another system of regulation. I would find it really interesting to see the result of a such a study and if norms, the language, the members of the site, etc. differ between the two games. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I´m looking forward to see the result! Good luck!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
/Josefin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 10:16, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Meagan!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this is a very fascinating topic and one I too almost pursued. I am a bit of a gamer myself and although I don&#039;t play DOTA, I do regularly play many different sports games which I have found to have similar issues of harassment and &amp;quot;bullying&amp;quot;. I hadn&#039;t heard of the STEAM website you&#039;re focusing on until I read your assignment, but for anyone who has read really a comment section/forum anywhere, one second you&#039;re talking about a video game, the next you have gone down a path of hate and overall disgust of anyone different minded not to mention if it is a competitive game which stirrs up some hostile emotions toward an adversary. I find this particularly interesting when it comes to video games because many people who don&#039;t play video games believe that &amp;quot;it&#039;s just a game&amp;quot; but on the contrary for many gamers, one can find their self emotionally invested into a game you are taking part in. You feel this overwhelming sense of dedication to it and attachment to what happens in it where you can essentially lose yourself in the game. It is because of this hardwired competitive and primitive feeling and this element of motivation that I believe is so deeply rooted in many gamers that it would be near impossible to ever completely outlaw the harassment or trash talk because it will never stop. However perhaps there is some sort of way to outlaw the harassment that crosses a line by creating real consequence while still allowing some competitive jabbing but that I will be curious to see from your project. I will be also curious to hear what your research finds about the website in particular, I would venture to guess that it is probably similar for communities like the PSN and xboxlive. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I might suggest on top of all this to take a look at games which do not have a competitive nature with other users. This may be difficult to find but I&#039;d be curious to see whether it is harassment you find on forums with these sort of games or rather a cooperative dialogue intended to help one another. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good Luck!&lt;br /&gt;
- Ryan Hurley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 16:26, 8 March 2015 (EDT)  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Caroline B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Title: The Study of Privacy, Accuracy &amp;amp; Order on InsideNova Website and Moving ‘Little Sites’ Up&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:1_Caroline_B.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Cbore001|Cbore001]] ([[User talk:Cbore001|talk]]) 14:45, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Jan.Yburan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus title: Reddit.com/r/IAmA its Controls on Privacy and Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Jan.Yburan.Assignment2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Jan,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is a really interesting community to build your case study around. Prior to today I have only been on the site a few times to look at subreddits that relate to topics that I am interested in, and since I am not a member I have not considered how the site protects the user’s privacy. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today I decided to look at the IAmA subreddit to get a better handle of the scope of your project. Consequently, I came across and interesting and fairly benign thread started by an employee of a movie theater and it brought to mind, how does the site handle issues of privacy, libel or defamation against a company or a consumer when an employee engages in what appears at first glance as an anonymous tell all blog that highlights how he/she has witnessed vulgar and perhaps even criminal activity. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Considering your topic and direction you want to take, I think you might want to blend together aspects of the readings from our classes on privacy with the readings for next week’s class on free expression, information, and unwanted speech.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am looking forward to seeing your completed final project. I am sure it will be very informative.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Emily&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
P.S. (Here is the link to the AMA I referenced: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2xz6nb/iama_movie_theater_employee_and_ive_seen_the/)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 13:04, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Eric Yuk Lun Kwong (Caelum)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus title: The vulnerable voting structure of Digg.com and the gradual&lt;br /&gt;
collapse of its popularity and voting legitimacy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Caelum_Assignment2.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 15:11, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Eric,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Excellent topic. One that possesses, at once, broad-scale relevance and unusual particularities. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Exploring the reasons for Digg’s failure as a site and as a community, I’m drawn to the question regarding the members themselves. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It would be interesting to compare, if applicable, the kinds of users who are drawn to a voting-type participatory community vs. a community that actually interacts via content and contributions. If clear distinctions can be made here, to then find examples of successful communities that are voter-based and to pinpoint key policies or elements that differentiate sustainable models of voter-based communities compared to content-based contribution communities. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Perhaps it is fundamentally an issue of investment; when users and the outside world view a product as having or requiring minimal investment (as in, saying, or rather, clicking “yes” or “no” to something – voting to “dig” or “bury” a story). Are voting based sites destined to suffer from questions of legitimacy by virtue of being online and being so subjective? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That you will be making parallels to Wikipedia’s platform seems to be a good approach here. Wisely done. Thank you also, for your commentaries – I appreciate the thoroughness in which you approach these topics. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best of luck!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chanel Rion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 11:57, 9 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Alex Samaei (Samaei1)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus title: The Framework of Projects and Backers on Kickstarter&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Samaei1_Assignment2.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Samaei1|Samaei1]] ([[User talk:Samaei1|talk]]) 15:37, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Alex! &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&#039;m so happy you picked this website because I&#039;ve donated to various projects on this website, but never took into account the structure of the website and complications due to misappropriating of funding. I find it hard to try to quantify what is appropriate to fundraise, because the topic is subjective. Of course I don&#039;t think it would be appropriate to fundraise to support hate speech (if that&#039;s what someone is fundraising for), yet I don&#039;t find it appropriate to fundraise for movies about starving children, when that money can go to feeding starving children. I hope I&#039;m communicating the subjectiveness of trying to find what would be considered appropriate to raise money for and how it varies from person to person. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But speaking in regards to the Lessig&#039;s Dot Model I think the website can be broken down into different sections to address some of the issues you raise. For example, how does the structure of kickstarter promote accountability on the artist/person asking for money? On the donation page for example, a vast amount of information about the artist is available, as well as avenues in which you can contact the fundraiser. So if kickstarter has provided this as a requirement for people to submit or provide when asking to be funded, is it then up to the donor to hold that person accountable? I have the tools on that page to ask the fundraiser for that specific information and continue to follow up on that information. I think once you start looking at specific/deliberate aspects of kickstarter, it will start to inform or control behavior. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I hope this helps! Look forward to reading the final project; happy researching and writing!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 00:35, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Alex,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’m interested that you have chosen a community that, you imply, is being targeted not for its failures, but for its successes. A wildfire that is often so much more visible on the Internet than in any other form in history. Speed, access, and instant publicity -- make &amp;quot;success&amp;quot; in society ever more visible, open to targeting, and prone to hijacking. Indeed. It is a great topic for research in this course in particular.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One aspect that could be revelatory is to seek out the kinds of legal cases that have been brought against kickstarter and what litigation the site has to deal with and what kinds of litigation that users potentially enter into. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There’s also a question about user legitimacy. How easy is it for some startup organization to simply use this community and its platform as an elaborate marketing plan? Can a company, for instance, viel itself to be a small time kickstarter that can feed itself funding and manufacture the appearance of democratic success? It would be especially useful to identify who the moderators are and to what extent they exercise control or regulation if any. Does Kickstarter have even the skeleton of some kind of verification system or is the verification over the legitimacy of a proposal entirely user generated? Is this sustainable or are there signs of trouble ahead? What would be a disastrous scenario for this community? To these questions, I think that many clues may be found in the litigation and whatever bad publicity the community has had encounter. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Great topic, culturally relevant community. Thank you for the topic and best of luck for the final.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chanel Rion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 12:31, 9 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Gia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus title: Chivalry online&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Gia_Assignment2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 15:46, 3 March 2015 (EST))&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Gia,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This topic is definitely flushing out the seedier side of the internet!  I have never heard of this site 419eater, but we all know the dangers of scammers and how they use the internet.   How do they find their victims?   Some scams are so realistic as to mention names of loved ones in danger and demand money be expedited.  The scam baiters you’re talking about here must be trolling similar sites and circles to identify culprits they need want to go after.  But in doing so, are they just as much at fault as the original scammers?   Is there any regulation of the members? I can definitely see an ethical dilemma, as you point out, of some possibly unscrupulous members.  And your question of whether they have extended their existence outside the online world is a very interesting consideration.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You a have a lot of good sources listed regarding scams (white collar crime and Ponzi schemes too!).   Good luck, this is an intriguing subject!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Michelle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 15:57, 7 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Re: Michelle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks for the comments, Michelle. I definitely intend to explore the  subject from both sides, because there could be really two, maybe even more , points of  view. Regarding the legal regulation, there is a lot  to be said – interned jurisdiction. The self-regulation of the web community  which is  evolving with the  time is  also a nice starting  point. &lt;br /&gt;
Thank again for the ideas and good luck  to  you  too with  your  work!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Mishal R. Kennedy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus title: Enforcing Guidelines Without Harming User Contributions&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Mishal_R._Kennedy_Assignment2.rtf&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Mishal R. Kennedy|Mishal R. Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Mishal R. Kennedy|talk]]) 15:51, 3 March 2015 (EST))&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Hi  Mishal,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The  subject you have  chosen  is very interesting and gives great opportunities  for  discussions and analyses. I would   directly  make  a reference  to  the  Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0, which we discussed during “Paradigms for Studying the Internet’ class.  You could explore the methods  used by the moderators and administrators as a way  of  self regulation of  the  community. The  question  you asked  whether  these  methods  are  causing  more  bad  than  good, is right  to the point. &lt;br /&gt;
I would  suggest you explain in more details the  different  methods  of control used  my the moderators  and perhaps compare them with the ones used by other communities. You could also take a  look  if  it is explicitly listed in the Terms  of  Use   of the  website  in which case what measure is taken? Is there a higher authority than the moderator to  whom  a sanctioned  user  could  complain? Could  such  a  decision  “be appealed” or  it  is  final and definitive? Is there at all a hierarchy in the administration of the website?&lt;br /&gt;
Here  are  some  sources  which  might  help. Good  luck!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
https://www.academia.edu/3079184/COAT_Collaborative_Outgoing_Anti-Spam_Technique&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.yildiz.edu.tr/~aktas/courses/CE-0114890/g8-p3.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~kksivara/sfwr4c03/projects/4c03projects/CGLucas-Project.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM11/paper/viewFile/2780/3296&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Richard Markow&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus title: The YouTube video-sharing platform &amp;amp; The Community of Alternative Heating Systems and Appliance Inventors&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Rich_Markow_Assignment_2_Prospectus.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 16:03, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name AlexanderH&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: Managing the Petitions of Change.org: B Corps, Social Enterprise and Transparency&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:AlexanderH_Assignment_2_Prospectus.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:AlexanderH|AlexanderH]] ([[User talk:AlexanderH|talk]]) 16:10, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Meredith Blake&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title:Identifying Avenues of Recourse for Businesses on Yelp &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Meredith_Blake._Assignment_2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Meredithmblake|Meredith]] ([[User talk:Meredithmblake|talk]]) 16:13, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
Hello Meredith!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this is a great topic and you have a very interesting approach.  I haven’t really looked into Yelp and the lawsuit angle, but they certainly have a lot of influence on the internet.   Out of curiosity, I just Googled about 10 different restaurants in this area and the results had the Yelp review either as the second or third site listed!   So potential customers are seeing the Yelp rating almost before the actual websites in a couple of cases!   There is little recourse for them, and as you show by the Sia example, a disgruntled customer can reach out and cause a flood of terrible reviews, from people who weren’t even customers!   Caelum makes a good point in the summary at the bottom that reviews are either one end of the spectrum or the other… disgruntled customers wanting to air their displeasure or someone extremely happy who wants to rave about it.&lt;br /&gt;
   &lt;br /&gt;
It is good to take a targeted approach to such a large community, and looking into the recourse that businesses may have as well as existing lawsuits sounds like a good approach.  If a suit is successful, what are the actual outcomes?   Does Yelp take down reviews or adjust the ratings?   I think people who expound on sites that give a platform are really missing the spirit of free speech.   I don’t think your approach is that unpopular, not that free speech needs to be regulated, but that there should be some modicum of self-restraint and freedom to say anything is not absolutely protected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good luck on this, you’ve got some really good ideas!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Michelle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 16:14, 7 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Wesley Verge&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title : Scrolling into Darkness -- An investigation into the regulatory forces at work in Youtube&#039;s comment section&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Wesley_Verge_Prospectus.txt&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 [[User:WesleyVerge|WesleyVerge]] ([[User talk:WesleyVerge|talk]]) 16:19, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Wesley!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am very intrigued by the &amp;quot;solutions&amp;quot; there are to change the culture of the comment sections. It is really an intriguing phenomenon that one could be watching a video about puppies and suddenly 4 comments down glance over an argument that Obama was sent by satan himself to destroy the world. I&#039;ve always been curious as to how this has not been regulated more strictly. I think you raise great points why and the concerns Google is faced with. If I were doing this project I might also attempt to compare this to other sites as well that must face similar challenges. For example you suggest in your assignment that youtube channels direct traffic to sites like Reddit, but is that really an escape for the channel as this implies? Can these &amp;quot;trolls&amp;quot; not go over to reddit to promote their hate just as easily, or do they have different solutions in play that regulate these sorts of issues better? As far as I know both are anonymous to an extent so with this anonymity many of these trolls have &amp;quot;keyboard muscles&amp;quot; as I like to call them. I can understand twitter because many times it is much more personal but even there people can create fake accounts and troll all the same, just see Jimmy Kimmels skit on celebrity reading mean tweets. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really like your focus on famous YouTubers I just think it may also be beneficial and worth mentioning how other sites with the same prevalent issue have tried to combat trolling. Also from a legal side, are all of these comments protected by the law and free speech? Perhaps because of the enormity of all the comments and comment sections, it is simply impossible to regulate what is said in every section from a legal perspective. Food for thought, but in any case great project idea.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best of luck,&lt;br /&gt;
Ryan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 16:56, 8 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: Knocking the Wind out of Whistleblowers: The US&#039; response to the growing threat from WikiLeaks &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Kelly.WilsonAssignment_2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Kelly.wilson|Kelly.wilson]] ([[User talk:Kelly.wilson|talk]]) 16:38, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Kelly,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interesting topic.  There are a couple of perspectives you may want to consider about when defining what you mean by Whistleblower and the response in each situation.  1) Exposing illegal acts.  2) Exposing immoral acts.  3) Exposing Acts designed to embarrassed your political opponents or as retribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Should they all be treated the same and afforded equal protection?  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good luck!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 00:10, 9 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Tasha&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: Exploring the Complexity of Rapidly Evolving Information in a Bodybuilding Forum and the Challenges of Quality Assurance&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Tasha_Assignment_2_Prospectus.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tasha[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 17:12, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--------&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Tasha,  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I  like a lot  your  choice  of  community  . It  is  unusual and  at  the  same  time  you  could  find  a lot  of  things  to explore-both  from  legal  and ethical stand  point. &lt;br /&gt;
I would  say  that your  questions and  reflections are  on the right track. I think  that one of the issues  you  could explore is  the fact that  they  are  often used  as  a platform  for  unlicensed  sell of  drugs. If  you choose  to go  for this, you should have  to take  a  good  look  on the definitions  in order  to  differ  “Drugs”  for  “Nutrition Supplements” because  this is  the  tricky  moment. How the  website  is  protecting  itself  from  such  kind  of  activity (by  its  Terms  of  use  or  in other  ways) , might  be interesting  as well.&lt;br /&gt;
Above you could find two links that might be of some use. Good  luck!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first is little bit old but interesting:&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t000525b.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://health.wusf.usf.edu/post/unlicensed-pharmacies-selling-compounded-drugs-online&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
__________&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Josefin Sasse&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: A case study on the children&#039;s website Kidzworld and how they deal with threats against being a safe environment for children.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:JosefinSasse.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 17:26, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Josefin!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find your topic utterly intriguing. I had no idea such a website existed and it&#039;s been quite fascinating just poking around the website a little bit. I think it is a very valid point to raise about &amp;quot;who monitors Kidzworld&amp;quot;, because there doesn&#039;t seem to be much of a screening process to ensure the user that is signing up for an account is in fact between the ages of 9-17. Also, I see you have cited the Pew Research Center study from the readings, which is a great resource for dissecting the demographics and statistics of harassment, but the study was done on &amp;quot;young adults&amp;quot; ranging from 18-29, and &amp;quot;young women&amp;quot; between the ages of 18-24 years old. Which I hope illuminates, rather than complicates, the issue of doing research on a demographic ranging from 9-17, but more so how do you set up  a website that serves a population that would need adult consent to participate in almost everything they do. Along with privacy issues, I think the question of who is responsible for what and for whom is a great aspect you have raised in your paper! I would love to stay in touch and see the developments of your paper if that would be okay. I think this is the perfect website to investigate for this project.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 00:10, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Josefin,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think you picked a great online community to explore for your final project, not only because it is a social space for a specific group, but also because there seems to be some fairly strict regulations in place to maintain a safe environment for kids. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It might be interesting if you could find some weakness in its structure. For example can kids go into private chats or are all the chats and comment sections being screened. If they are being screened, is it by a computer generated logarithm or real people? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another question that you could delve into is, how do the site’s administrators know the users are minors.  Do they require parents’ permission? If so how do they prove it is actually a real parent?  &lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
I hope these suggestions are helpful. I am looking forward to seeing your finished project. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best,&lt;br /&gt;
Emily&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 00:13, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name:   Brooke Tjarks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus:   Art. Business. Fans. (...) How this collaborative space shapes mass visual media production and worldwide distribution&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link:   http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Prospectus.Brooke.Tjarks.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Abby McHugh&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: From #Thinspiration to “Low Carb Friends”: The Regulation of Online Weight Loss Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Amchugh_Assignment2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Abby!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Okay, so I really wich I had chosen this issue. It is great that you did!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To facilitate the work, I would recommend that you are more specific in which websites you are going to explore since there is so much #thinspo content out there. But Twitter, Tumbler, Pinterest, and Instagram are great platforms to explore, together with blogs like you said. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Other things you might want to discuss are:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What makes the most harm: #thinspo/pro-ana blogs and posts or limitations on freedom of speech by regulating such content? (On my part, I am determined in my opinion that #thinspo is devastating and that regulation in this case is a good thing.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Who is active in this community?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Could pro-ana be illegitimate harassment? Compare it the possibility of a pro-cancer or a pro-aids community (deadly diseases just like anorexia).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What effects could/does the sometimes lack of regulation have on the community online and offline?&lt;br /&gt;
Good luck! You´ve chosen a very interesting subject!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
/Josefin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 11:08, 5 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note: If I’m a little direct in the comments, I really mean the best. Hope it doesn’t offend anyone. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ryan Hurley: I think professor said stay away from these huge websites. Perhaps you could discuss with the professors if Facebook is the right website to focus on? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Olivia Brinich: I think you’re asking a lot of questions to be answered here.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“How does it Pind and protect information, how do copyrighters choose to deal with the individual cases of copyright infringement, and what happens when a clip is wrongfully targeted for copyright violation, i.e., the adverse unintended consequences of Content ID?”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Perhaps you should just focus on one main thesis and explore on that. For example, focusing on how copyrighters deal with copyright infringement, and how that eventually influenced youtube to introduce copyright ID system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One last issue is whether youtube is too big of a website to focus on. Perhaps you could narrow it down to say, copyright issues for music on youtube. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Erika L. Rich: I think it’s a very broad term to discuss the ethical considerations. Perhaps if you narrowed it down to 1 or 2 main issues you find extremely compelling about the website and community? Or maybe I have simply mistaken your train of thought. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Emily MacIntyre: I like how you had such conviction to talk about youtube that despite its size, its still worth researching about. I think you could also talk a little bit about how these game commentators earn their living by commenting on games. PewDiePie is estimated to earn millions every year. It could show a greater perspective on things if we could see their earnings as well. South Park actually has a very funny episode about commentators commenting on commentators commenting on games on youtube. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matt K: Do you think that changing the title to reflect your research would make it easier for the reader? (Just a thought) I think its interesting how you mentioned “democratic instrument”, bringing politics into the way his blog is ran. According to the quote you took, Scalzi has indeed used some controls over potential commentators. Furthermore, you should consider that if it’s a blog about all sorts of things, with John’s comments on it, he should also be open to listen to commentators reply to this, especially if its about sensitive topics. If he’s going to filter away those he “considers” as offensive, then perhaps he shouldn’t comment on other things either. (unless the comment really does not have a valid point and is not related to the topic) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edwin Duque: Good to see you in this class too. I think you should just focus on one website. I’d do JuryX instead of Facebook as professor said big websites aren’t good. Also, you’d need a stronger thesis to connect what the real question is. Is it about allowing free sharing? Or is it about limiting what gets shared? I’m a little confused with your thesis. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chelly Byrne: I think you have a strong thesis here. The contradictions between sharing information on the internet, and the fear of being exposed would be very interesting. I think you can even go into the subscription process. I assume the website allows anyone to join. This means that even predators could read up on what victims write. Unfortunately, they probably get quite the entertainment from reading it, or pretending to ask “leading” questions. As you said, just a tiny bit of excessive information leaked out could result in a victim being violated again. I guess you could talk about that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chanel Rion: Since you’re talking about Yelp and reviews, I’d like to share what I learned from another class. Most of these reviews are at the ends of the spectrum. Unless someone is a regular of Yelp and does a review for every restaurant, the rest of them would be people who had great experiences or really bad experiences. They won’t be bothered to write a review about a mediocre or average restaurant. It’s not worth their time. You could also mention that. Also, do you think there are fake reviews too? I’d go for siteJabbar. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Becca Lewis: Firstly its interesting how you’re talking about Reddit because I’m talking about Digg. I think new beliefs takes time to be adapted by the masses. Feminism isn’t very old, and its on going. I think it takes time for people to adapt to it, so for the short term I won’t be surprised if the discussion board sees a lot of anti-feminism people. But also do bare in mind that these are “beliefs”, just like “liberalism” (which is quite similar to feminism, fighting for individual rights, etc). Not everyone believes in these values, so some disagreements should be expected. I guess an interesting way could be to examine if people become more offensive when they are shown as anonymous. My thoughts are that it is. You could look at reddit discussions compared with the core values of Wikipedia, and why it worked for Wikipedia, but a little hard for Reddit. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gary Brown: Are there any data on the selection process, or ventures that were rejected? It’s hard to associate it with discrimination if there is no evidence. Since you can’t prove or disprove this, it means “site controls” cannot be determined. Therefore you need to make a new thesis that really reflects the paper. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meagan Moana HoChing: DOTA is a fun game. My initial response is that with huge amounts of ego on the line, that’s how bullying start. Haha. From what I read and know, it is the architecture that is dominantly the issue. This structure allows the audience to exploit it. I think you could also investigate is how is “harassment” identified as? Calling someone a “loser”? Do note that a lot of cyber bullying are to kids that people know in real life. So can we causally say trash talking is the same as harassing? When NBA players trash talk one another, I don’t think they considered it as harassing. So I guess this definition needs to be very clear.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Caroline B: Perhaps you could mention NPOV as one of their values they used in order to keep readers like yourself going to the website. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jan Yburan: Second Reddit I saw today. Haha. I think you need to be weary of the upvote system. More popular and famous people would get a self –fulfilling upvote treatment, where as more niche people or radical ones would get less. This way of identifying success might be a little questionable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alex Samaei: I’d be more interested in how kickstarter protects pledgers from potential false projects. This seems like a very good question for privacy and control. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gia: &lt;br /&gt;
“New scambaiters can request to be assigned a &amp;quot;mentor&amp;quot; to assist them in learning how to bait.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this is really cool. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“. In the past, scammers were tricked into sending money themselves, which was later given to charity.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That’s crazy. Not sure who the scammer is now. I’d spend more time discussing the aspect about scammers being scammed by scambaiters, and the moral and ethical implications of it. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mishal R. Kennedy: I think you have a legit question there. Looking at whether deleting an old post or controlling spambots to be more important. You could also consider that perhaps it was the ease of registration that led to the spambots. Deleting the old posts doesn’t actually go to the root of the problem. I guess you could also talk more about the ease of registration. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Markow: I think you should just talk about 1 or 2 points out of the 5. Don’t think you have enough space to write that much. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alexander H: Do you think you could also go into the ease of account creation? To attain legitimacy, the website would need real personal data to determine that the petition is signed by a real person. If so the privacy concerns would be the biggest. A deeper look at the terms and agreement is a must. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meredith Blake: That’s an interesting take on Yelp. I do believe that the reviews are either from the ones who enjoyed the restaurant the most, or the ones that hated it. The ones in the middle won’t be bothered to write a review. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wesley Verge: Personally I think it is an inevitable part of anonymity and high view count. There’s bound to be a few trolls, but that too is what makes youtube entertaining. I think youtube just needs to make a better flagging system. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kelly Wilson: You could talk about how the internet might influence more people to be whistleblowers, or even anonymous whistleblowers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tasha: I think to begin with you need to bare in mind that a lot of fitness people already know the difference between science and bro-science. I further believe that bodybuilding.com would just allow people to say whatever they want knowing full well it is just a forum. As long as they don’t endorse it, they shouldn’t be liable. But as such, you should also talk about the privacy of fitness people on the website. A lot of them post photos up too, and their diet and schedules.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Josefin S: Nice logo. I don’t really like the age range for kidzworld.com. It doesn’t make sense for 9 year olds to interact with 17 year olds. Furthermore, I wouldn’t want my 9 year old kid to socialize with 17 year old kids and being taught 17 year old stuff. So my biggest concern, as you also mentioned, is how do they keep content separate between different ages to prevent the younger kids to learn the wrong stuff? Or do they not do this at all?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Brooke Ashley Tjarks: Yes, I’d agree with you that IMDB is a good balance between the other two websites. I think by becoming a member, the legitimacy of the votes would become higher. There’s bound to be some sort of influence between people regardless of the platform, so I think IMDB is an interesting one to investigate further.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 17:53, 9 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
- Brooke Tjarks here responding to Caelum -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thank you so much for the feedback. I am defintely going with IMBD. Another interesting aspect of the platform is the accuracy of content that the website tries to uphold and the methods that they use to ensure this. For example, users with profiles who edit pages must sign legal documents online (such as NDA&#039;s) before editing. The more I thought it over the more I realized how different each of the sites I considered truly are, but IMDB has the most to offer for this assignment. Thank you again for your support.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 17:53, 9 March 2015 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
Amchugh: I think you could go into internet being free also has its consequences. Since the internet could edit and post something online in a matter of seconds, it becomes very vulnerable for unintended things to hit the net. The filtering has to either occurred before the posting, or after it has been up. When it’s up already, it’s hard to say whether the rest of them would oblige, or would they prefer to continue the troll game. You could talk about the reasons for why Twitter would take it down (assuming that it does not violate Twitter’s policies). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note: Good luck everyone!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 13:43, 6 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Caelum, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks for your comments. There are a  lot of interesting  issues, both legal and ethical  and  the  subject is controversial  for  sure. Good  luck with your project as well!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Batjarks</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Assignment_2_Submissions&amp;diff=3919</id>
		<title>Assignment 2 Submissions</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Assignment_2_Submissions&amp;diff=3919"/>
		<updated>2015-03-03T22:31:43Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Batjarks: /* Comments */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{AssignmentCal}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Submission Instructions===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Please note that we have updated the [[Final_Project#Frequently_Asked_Questions|final project page&#039;s FAQ section]] based on some student questions that have come to us over the past week.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This assignment is due on March 3rd.  Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (assignments submitted 4 days late or later will have a maximum grade of 1 point).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please name your file &amp;quot;wikiusername_Assignment2,&amp;quot; where &amp;quot;wikiusername&amp;quot; is replaced with your username, to avoid overwriting someone else&#039;s assignment or causing errors in the Wiki by including forbidden characters.&#039;&#039; So if your username is &amp;quot;jdoe&amp;quot; and your file is a Word document your file should be named &amp;quot;jdoe_Assignment2.doc.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Upload your rough draft here: [[Special:Upload|Upload file]]. If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [[Special:ImageList|list of uploaded files]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the submissions section below please post the following information:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Name or pseudonym: &lt;br /&gt;
*Prospectus title: &lt;br /&gt;
*Link to prospectus: (add your link here)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Comments==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Everyone will receive an additional participation grade for this assignment. You should read through everyone&#039;s proposals after they are uploaded and add constructive comments below the proposal on which you&#039;re commenting. Comments should be submitted by March 10th so you have time to incorporate them, if applicable, into your project outline. &#039;&#039;&#039;Please remember to sign your comments by adding four tildes (&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;~~~~&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;) to the end of your contribution.  This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post.&#039;&#039;&#039; If we don&#039;t know who you are we can&#039;t give you credit for finishing this assignment!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ryan Hurley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Facebook &amp;amp; Big Data vs. Your Privacy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Prospectus_FB_and_privacy_Assignment_2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 16:06, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Olivia Brinich&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intentions and Outcomes of Youtube’s Copyright and Coding Regulations&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Oliviabrinich_prospectus03.03.15.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Oliviabrinich|Oliviabrinich]] ([[User talk:Oliviabrinich|talk]]) 15:51, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•  Erika L Rich&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•  Title: Reputation Management and Ethical Considerations for Members of the Internet Marketing Super Friends (IMSF) Facebook Group&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•  Link: [[File:LSTU_E120_Erika_Rich_Assignment_2.docx]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:ErikaLRich|ErikaLRich]] ([[User talk:ErikaLRich|talk]]) 15:22, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•	Emily MacIntyre (EmiMac)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•	Prospectus title:  A Case Study on the Unintended Legal Consequences and Chilling Effects of YouTube’s Content ID Sweep on its Video Game Commentator Community&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•	Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Emily_MacIntyre_Assignment_2.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 09:41, 2 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
•	MattK&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•	Home of the Mallet of Loving Correction: John Scalzi&#039;s Blog, &amp;quot;Whatever&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•	http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:MattK_Assignment2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:MattK|MattK]] ([[User talk:MattK|talk]]) 22:01, 2 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edwin Duque (Edwinduque)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title:The copyright, privacy and organization challenges that online communities such as Facebook and The Jury Deliberation in the cyber space are faced with &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Edwinduque_Assignment_2.doc&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Edwinduque|Edwinduque]] ([[User talk:Edwinduque|talk]]) 22:10, 2 March 2015 (EST))&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Michelle Byrne (Chelly.Byrne)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus title: Balancing privacy for victims of sexual crimes with &lt;br /&gt;
opportunity for support in online forum  AfterSilence.org&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:ChellyByrne_Assignment2.pdf &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 07:54, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Chanel Rion (ChanelRion)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;We the Judges: &amp;quot;Sitejabber&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;Yelp&amp;quot;, and Communities of User-Generated Business Reviews.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment2_Prospectus_Rion.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 11:21, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Becca Lewis (beccalew)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: &#039;&#039;&#039;/r/TwoXChromosomes and /r/feminism: The challenges of promoting feminism on Reddit while upholding the values of privacy and free speech&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Final_Project_Prospectus_Becca_Lewis.docx &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 13:15, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Gary Brown (Gary Brown)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: The Effects of Site Controls on Community Objectives: communityfunded.com&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Gary_Brown_Assignment2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 13:18, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Meagan HoChing (mhoching) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Title: Online Gaming Harassment: All fun and games? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Mhoching_Assignment2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 13:50, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Caroline B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Title: The Study of Privacy, Accuracy &amp;amp; Order on InsideNova Website and Moving ‘Little Sites’ Up&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:1_Caroline_B.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Cbore001|Cbore001]] ([[User talk:Cbore001|talk]]) 14:45, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Jan.Yburan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus title: Reddit.com/r/IAmA its Controls on Privacy and Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Jan.Yburan.Assignment2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Eric Yuk Lun Kwong (Caelum)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus title: The vulnerable voting structure of Digg.com and the gradual&lt;br /&gt;
collapse of its popularity and voting legitimacy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Caelum_Assignment2.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 15:11, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Alex Samaei (Samaei1)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus title: The Framework of Projects and Backers on Kickstarter&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Samaei1_Assignment2.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Samaei1|Samaei1]] ([[User talk:Samaei1|talk]]) 15:37, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Gia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus title: Chivalry online&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Gia_Assignment2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 15:46, 3 March 2015 (EST))&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Mishal R. Kennedy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus title: Enforcing Guidelines Without Harming User Contributions&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Mishal_R._Kennedy_Assignment2.rtf&lt;br /&gt;
([[User:Mishal R. Kennedy|Mishal R. Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Mishal R. Kennedy|talk]]) 15:51, 3 March 2015 (EST))&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Richard Markow&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus title: The YouTube video-sharing platform &amp;amp; The Community of Alternative Heating Systems and Appliance Inventors&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Rich_Markow_Assignment_2_Prospectus.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 16:03, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name AlexanderH&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: Managing the Petitions of Change.org: B Corps, Social Enterprise and Transparency&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:AlexanderH_Assignment_2_Prospectus.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:AlexanderH|AlexanderH]] ([[User talk:AlexanderH|talk]]) 16:10, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Meredith Blake&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title:Identifying Avenues of Recourse for Businesses on Yelp &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Meredith_Blake._Assignment_2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Meredithmblake|Meredith]] ([[User talk:Meredithmblake|talk]]) 16:13, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Wesley Verge&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title : Scrolling into Darkness -- An investigation into the regulatory forces at work in Youtube&#039;s comment section&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Wesley_Verge_Prospectus.txt&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 [[User:WesleyVerge|WesleyVerge]] ([[User talk:WesleyVerge|talk]]) 16:19, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Kelly Wilson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: Knocking the Wind out of Whistleblowers: The US&#039; response to the growing threat from WikiLeaks &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Kelly.WilsonAssignment_2.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Kelly.wilson|Kelly.wilson]] ([[User talk:Kelly.wilson|talk]]) 16:38, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--------&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Tasha&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: Exploring the Complexity of Rapidly Evolving Information in a Bodybuilding Forum and the Challenges of Quality Assurance&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Tasha_Assignment_2_Prospectus.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tasha[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 17:12, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name: Josefin Sasse&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus Title: A case study on the children&#039;s website Kidzworld and how they deal with threats against being a safe environment for children.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:JosefinSasse.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 17:26, 3 March 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Name:   Brooke Tjarks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospectus:   Art. Business. Fans. (...) How this collaborative space shapes mass visual media production and worldwide distribution&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Link:   http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Prospectus.Brooke.Tjarks.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--------&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Batjarks</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=File:Prospectus.Brooke.Tjarks.pdf&amp;diff=3918</id>
		<title>File:Prospectus.Brooke.Tjarks.pdf</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=File:Prospectus.Brooke.Tjarks.pdf&amp;diff=3918"/>
		<updated>2015-03-03T22:29:36Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Batjarks: Help ! I can&amp;#039;t decide which to pick :)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Help ! I can&#039;t decide which to pick :)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Batjarks</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Assignment_1_Submissions&amp;diff=3658</id>
		<title>Assignment 1 Submissions</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Assignment_1_Submissions&amp;diff=3658"/>
		<updated>2015-02-11T04:58:52Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Batjarks: /* Submissions */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{AssignmentCal}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Submission Instructions=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;This section of the website is crawled by search engines. If you do not want your name to appear in a search connected with your writing, use your class wiki username as a pseudonym.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Please make sure the name of your file includes your name or pseudonym (example: Name_Assignment1.doc) to avoid overwriting someone else&#039;s assignment.&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (final deadline: Tuesday, February 10, 5:30pm ET).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Upload your file here: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/Special:Upload Upload file]. After you upload your file, please post a link to it in the &amp;quot;Submissions&amp;quot; section below in the following format:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Your Name or Chosen Pseudonym:&lt;br /&gt;
* Link to rule: (URL of the Wikipedia editing policy you chose)&lt;br /&gt;
* Link to article: (URL of the Wikipedia article you edited)&lt;br /&gt;
* Link to report: (URL of the file you uploaded)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Need help editing?  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page Check out this guide]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Submissions=&lt;br /&gt;
Please post your link to your report below:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Olivia Brinich&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_(dance)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Oliviabrinich_Assignment1.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rida Qazi &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lahore&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Rida_Qazi_Assignment_1.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Andrew C. (Andrew Costanzo)&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Wiki pseudonym:  Chase120&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rule:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Article:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_troop_surge_of_2007&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Report:  http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Chase120_Assingment_1.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
---------------------------------------------------------&lt;br /&gt;
Beccalew (Becca Lewis)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimson_Hexagon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Becca_Lewis_Assignment_1.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
---------------------------------------------------------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rhurls (Ryan H.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Article:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_law#Academic_Aspects_of_Sports_Law&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment_1_internet_law.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
---------------------------------------------------------&lt;br /&gt;
ErikaLRich&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blairsville,_Georgia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/LSTU_E120_Erika_Rich_Assignment_1.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
JosefinS&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_High_School_(Hillsboro,_Oregon)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:JosefinS_Assignment1.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ChanelRion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rule:&lt;br /&gt;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Notability&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Article:&lt;br /&gt;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Stratemeyer#Death&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rion Report:&lt;br /&gt;
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:WikipediaReport_Assignment_1_RION.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------&lt;br /&gt;
Caroline Borek&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rule:&lt;br /&gt;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Article:&lt;br /&gt;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Report:&lt;br /&gt;
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment_1_Borek.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edwin Duque Edwinduque Elduquews&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rule:&lt;br /&gt;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Article:&lt;br /&gt;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_law&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Report:&lt;br /&gt;
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment_1.doc&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•	Emily MacIntyre&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•	Link to rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•	Link to article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meetinghouse_Common_District&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•	Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/MacIntyre_Emily_Assignment_1.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
---------&lt;br /&gt;
Samaei1&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rule: &lt;br /&gt;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Article: &lt;br /&gt;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Justice#In_other_media&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Report: &lt;br /&gt;
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment_1_Samaei1.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
Mhoching&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mt._Baker_Sesh_Up&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment_1.docx&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
MeredithB&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_for_an_Open_Europe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Meredith_Blake._Assignment_1.rtf&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
Mishal R. Kennedy:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M15/42_tank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Essay_(Internet_and_Politics,_Assignment_1)_Mishal_Kennedy.rtf&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jan.Yburan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swimming_(sport)#Collegiate_Swimming&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Jan_Yburan.Assingment1.docx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Gia&lt;br /&gt;
Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymity&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Wikipedia_Assignment_1.docx&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Gary Brown (Intor1 on Wikipedia)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_aspects_of_computing#Internet_Law&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Gary_Brown_Assignment1.docx&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Michelle Byrne (Chelly.Byrne)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rule:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Article:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bim_Skala_Bim&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Report:  http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:ChellyByrne_Assignment1.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
MattK&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_resilience&lt;br /&gt;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness_%28race%29_in_the_United_States&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:MattK_WikiEdits_LSTU120.docx&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Tasha&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinder_(application)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment_1_NPOV_Tasha.docx&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
Kelly.Wilson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_divide#Infrastructure&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/KellyWilsonAssignment1.txt&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Njalbut&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governance,_risk_management,_and_compliance &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Harvard_Extension_School_-_Assignment_One_-_Report_-_Wikipedia_-_Njalbut.docx#file&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
AlexanderH&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_campaign_in_Egypt_and_Syria&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:AlexanaderH_Assignment_1.odt&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wesley Verge&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_syndrome&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment_1.pdf#filelinks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Brooke Tjarks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assistant_director&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Batjarks.Assignment1.txt&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Batjarks</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=File:Batjarks.Assignment1.txt&amp;diff=3657</id>
		<title>File:Batjarks.Assignment1.txt</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=File:Batjarks.Assignment1.txt&amp;diff=3657"/>
		<updated>2015-02-11T04:57:25Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Batjarks: Brooke Tjarks

Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assistant_director&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Brooke Tjarks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assistant_director&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Batjarks</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Politics_and_Technology_of_Control:_Introduction&amp;diff=3562</id>
		<title>Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Politics_and_Technology_of_Control:_Introduction&amp;diff=3562"/>
		<updated>2015-02-05T02:35:09Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Batjarks: /* Class Discussion */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{ClassCalendar}}&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;January 27&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 Internet 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;There is a small assignment to do before class. See [[#Preparation (Assignment &amp;quot;Zero&amp;quot;)|Assignment Zero]] below.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Preparation (&amp;quot;Assignment Zero&amp;quot;) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reflect on what you believe are the most significant social, cultural, political or economic changes associated with the spread of the Internet and 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Readings/Watchings ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;What is the Internet?&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2QdEj8UjBc Ethan Zuckerman, History of the Internet] (approx. 7 mins., watch all)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whmMNRHktX8 Jonathan Zittrain, How the Internet Works] (approx. 4 mins., watch all)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;How does the Internet change governance?&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://projects.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html John Perry Barlow, A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:* You can hear Barlow read this [http://departmentofrecords.co/dor1.html here].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/January-February-2006/feature_goldsmith_janfeb06.msp Jack Goldsmith &amp;amp; Tim Wu, Digital Borders (Legal Affairs)]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2009/03/the_third_wave.htm Eric Goldman, The Third Wave of Internet Exceptionalism]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://medium.com/@internetmonitor/platforms-and-policy-e9984e1be4c6 Rob Faris and Rebekah Heacock, Platforms and Policy] (from the [http://thenetmonitor.org/research/2014/ &#039;Internet Monitor&#039; 2014 annual report])&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who governs the Internet?&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/assets/governance-2500x1664-13jan14-en.png ICANN, Who Runs the Internet?] (infographic)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who is the Internet? Who is it not? What can we do about it?&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:* 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 &amp;amp; American Life Project, Who&#039;s Not Online and Why] (read the summary, skim the sections).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Optional Readings ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/2013/12/04/video-who-controls-the-internet/ Ellery Biddle, Who Controls the Internet? (&#039;&#039;Global Voices&#039;&#039;)] (video in Spanish with English subtitles, 10 mins., watch all)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.cluetrain.com Chris Locke, Doc Searls &amp;amp; David Weinberger, Cluetrain Manifesto] (just the manifesto); and [http://cluetrain.com/newclues/ New Clues]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1752415 Tim Wu, Is Internet Exceptionalism Dead?]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [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]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/onlyinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Videos Watched in Class ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Links From Adobe Connect Session ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Class Discussion ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div style=&amp;quot;background-color:#CCCCCC;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;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 &amp;quot;assignment zero.&amp;quot; Once you have registered an account, just click the &amp;quot;[edit]&amp;quot; button at the upper right hand corner of this section to add text! You can add a divider between comments by typing four hyphens (&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;----&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;) in an empty line between comments. &#039;&#039;&#039;Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;~~~~&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:Andy|Andy]] ([[User talk:Andy|talk]]) 09:50, 21 January 2015 (EST)&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
One of the more significant social and economic changes that I have not only experienced but seen, is the ability to find things out instantly. Whether it be news or education, sports or politics, we now have the ability to informed immediately about anything and everything. This is both a blessing and a curse.[[User:ErikaLRich|ErikaLRich]] ([[User talk:ErikaLRich|talk]]) 17:06, 3 February 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
The most significant social change resulting from the spread of the Internet is simply the opportunity for the average person (whoever that may be) to establish two way connections with people, businesses, information, and governments around the world in other than a physical environment. Having two way communication, even if indirectly, is empowerment. I grew up in a world of listeners and watchers, from newspapers, to magazines, radio, broadcast television, and brochures. The Internet has given us a world filled with conversation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most significant economic change is online sales of goods and services. I can buy just about anything on the Internet and never leave my home, my office, or the beach. I can’t imagine where I would have to physically go to buy, or how I would even locate, a 2 kilogram box of Scharfenberger cocoa without the Internet. I just would not take the time to locate it, and for that reason I would not buy it. More to the point, it would not be sold.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Culturally, email is the big change. Of course, instant messaging and social media are gaining ground, but it was email that changed our culture to the right now work and personal environments, even before it was being delivered on the cell phone.  Wait, maybe the cell phone is a bigger change. [[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 15:51, 3 February 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
There is some fascinating discussion taking place “below the line.” It makes me excited for this semester. To my mind, the internet and associated digital technologies remain the most influential invention of our time. They have been the facilitator of countless zeitgeists including the crumbling of oppressive kingdoms and the exploration of alternative currencies, as well as the breeding ground for unique forms of intellectual and social collaboration- be they twitter, Jstor journals, or your average online message board. This interconnectivity is, of course, not without its side-effects. While the relationship between various exchange and interest rates pre-dates the proliferation of the internet, I feel that such technologies have allowed the more unsavory characteristics of these economic relationships to be felt much more acutely by the average person.[[User:Jmerryma0287|Jmerryma0287]] ([[User talk:Jmerryma0287|talk]]) 14:39, 3 February 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the more recent ways in which the Internet is shaping our sociopolitical discourse is through the creation of strong cyber networks for more marginalized communities.  For example, the rise of feminist blogs and message boards or hashtags such as #blacklivesmatter can be used in connecting online activity and writing to other forms of non-cyber activism and understanding.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In terms of economic changes prompted by the Internet, online capitalist competition has facilitated the growth of huge online sellers of a variety of goods with versatile virtual purveyors like Amazon. ([[User:Amchugh|Amchugh]] ([[User talk:Amchugh|talk]]) 13:33, 3 February 2015 (EST))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Digital technologies have changes many aspects of life and society. One example is the fact that I can participate in this class even though I live in Europe. That is just one example of how digital technologies have played a huge part in globalization. Even though I live in Sweden, I can still study at an American university, easily stay in touch with my best friend who lives in Missouri, I can follow the life of a stranger in Australia through his or her blog, and I can connect and share my thoughts with other people who think like me but who live in other parts of the world. As a young person of today, I do not only identify myself as a citizen of a particular city, but also as European or as a ”global citizen”. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is also important to reflect on is how we can influence and affect others through the Internet and digital media. (And of course how we are influenced and affected by others.) One out of many possible examples on this matter is blogs. I use the Swedish blog &#039;&#039;blondinbella.se&#039;&#039; as my example. ”Blondinbella” is one of the most popular blogs in Sweden with over 1 million unique readers each week. Sweden a country with only about 10 million citizens, and that one blog reach more people than many newspapers do is very interesting and worth reflecting about. [[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 03:40, 26 January 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I completely agree with what Josefin said above. The generation that is now entering adulthood is inheriting a much smaller, more connected world than their parents did. &lt;br /&gt;
	I think it&#039;s important to reflect on the possible downsides of the ever increasing invasiveness of the internet. We are a generation that can ask Siri how badly the Patriots beat the Seahawks in the Superbowl — and she’ll tell us almost immediately that the Patriots won in a landslide. Or what song is playing on the radio. Or what the largest star in the Milky Way is. Or if Pixar is ever going to make a sequel to the Incredibles (they are, finally). You get the point. We are used to being able to find out almost anything, almost anywhere, at almost anytime. &lt;br /&gt;
	There may be a subtle danger in adapting an entire generation to instant gratification. As we put more and more of our lives into our phones and computers, we stop relying on our own mental faculties. For example, my grandfather has a razor sharp memory, and he knows all the phone numbers of our immediate and extended family by heart. If I lost my phone, I might remember my mom’s number, but my whole contact book would be lost if it wasn&#039;t for iCloud. I’m certainly not exercising my memory on a daily basis to make calls like my grandfather. Will that hurt me in the long run? Probably not — but it’s an interesting thought. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
	Another aspect of the internet that I sometimes reflect on is its contribution to political close-mindedness here in the US, if not the world over. I worked for a long time in DC, and have friends and family all over the political spectrum — even a tea party uncle in Texas, and I can say with certainty that I’ve witnessed a trend where my highly conservative friends will follow and subscribe to conservative news sources or blogs that produce news that corresponds with their pre-existing beliefs, and like-wise for my liberal friends. Constant exposure to “news” written or spun to enforce and vindicate your beliefs serves to cement your views, and lessens the amount of meaningful debate that takes place. I would say this definitely serves to further polarize the political climate here in the US. Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Jon Stewart, Stephan Colbert, all have large followings of people who watch their shows, listen to their radio stations, and subscribe to their social media outlets. The political influence of these individuals can, in some cases, easily shape the political landscape more than many politicians do. Interesting to consider. [[User:WesleyVerge|WesleyVerge]] ([[User talk:WesleyVerge|talk]]) 23:46, 26 January 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wesley Verge. The polarization of American Politics on the internet reflects popular attitudes, and at times exacerbate the problem. I think the problem has to do with journalistic standards. Remember those? They used to exist up until about the 1990&#039;s, or more precisely, since Rupert Murdoch bought Fox News -- and that&#039;s when the bar was lowered for everyone. With such a wide reach, high profits, and such obvious bias on all the publications under his ownership, journalistic standards went out the window in the pursuit of sensationalism and profit margin. And sadly, those who didn&#039;t adapt to this new way of selling news were left behind. The Philadelphia Inquirer comes to mind, but R. Murdoch&#039;s purchase of the Wall Street Journal is another good example. U.S. Politics have been in a sad state of affairs since G.W decided to invade Iraq, and the rancor and indignation that followed those years has still to subside. There are other factors that affect the current state of politics in the U.S, and two of those are geography and the diversity of demographics throughout the country. Notice that there isn&#039;t really a traditional democratic and republican party?  Despite the fact that the two party system is still dominant in voting patterns, there are many factions within those two large groups. Hromero [[User:Hromero|Hromero]] ([[User talk:Hromero|talk]]) 12:41, 29 January 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Hromero. You make valid points, though I would point out that they differ slightly from the point I was trying to make. To elaborate a little further, I was speaking only of how the internet plays a large role in exacerbating the political polarization of the country. You correctly point out that the shift in media tactics marked a shift towards increased polarization. I&#039;m saying that the internet provides access to sensationalist news and propaganda, on both sides of the spectrum, to anyone with a connection or a smart phone. People no longer have to be challenged in their thinking. If the President says &amp;quot;yadayadayada&amp;quot;, rather than reflect upon and come to consensus, people are bombarded with sound bites that penetrate the public sphere and shape political thought. New ideas never have the chance to take root, because they are razed quite immediately after inception. Of course, talking head pundits are nothing new, but at least years ago families could discuss news together over dinner, waiting to read the paper or see the news the next day. Now, The President says &amp;quot;yadayadayada&amp;quot; at 6pm, and John Boehner is able to issue a responsive speech at 8pm through twitter or youtube. You&#039;re right to point out the increased splintering of the parties, but where that meets the internet is now each of those factions has methods to connect to their support bases, issue videos, etc on a constant and consistent basis -- a change that surely helps to solidify and expand their support, further polarizing the country. I think its important that we focus on how the internet is used in correlation to politics, rather than focus on the people doing the using and whether or not we agree with them. It keeps discussion more clear and concise. [[User:WesleyVerge|WesleyVerge]] ([[User talk:WesleyVerge|talk]]) 17:37, 30 January 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The evolution of the internet and our digital technologies has changed how we look at society and how we participate in it. For example social outlets such as Facebook and Twitter allows us to express any thought or feeling and connect with people all over the world. This gives us the ability to form connections and relationships with people that would not have been possible otherwise. With the internet always evolving information has become more and more accessible. Anything that we can imagine we can find through the Internet whether that be current events, a movie review, or personal information just to name a few. Search engines and online encyclopedias such as Google and Wikipedia have changed how we learn and search for information. Furthermore the internet has changed the way we do business . Now we are able to purchase products through websites like Amazon and any other retail site. We also can conduct business through the internet through trading which adds a new dimension to the business world. Our advancements in the internet and digital technologies added another wrinkle in how we view information and the economy as well as many other areas. [[User:Jan.Yburan|Jan.Yburan]] ([[User talk:Jan.Yburan|talk]]) 15:07, 27 January 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a distance student, participation has been possible in many HED classes with students world wide from Singapore, Malaysia, Great Britain, Indonesia, and Australia as well as the United States.  The advantages the internet and exponential expansion of digital constantly creates awe in realizing what has become possible in a relatively short period of time. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is possible to access historical and current information from the Internet from each of the categories listed above almost instantaneously whether it be cultural, political or economic or social.  The online Wikipedia information saves gong to the library or an encyclopedia with each query…..which in the case of the library has advantages as well as disadvantages.  For lovers of books, there is nothing like thumbing through the pages of a book….and reading the first and last chapter while standing in front of a bookshelf. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Shopping - it is possible to view the price and merchandise of a particular brand or manufacturer with a few keystrokes.  A person can shop locally or nationwide or overseas for particular items. [[User:Rgrasser|Rgrasser]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like many of the posts above, and I think they&#039;re on the mark. My first thought on changes ushered in has to do with Wesley&#039;s comments on instant gratification - we can access information and purchase goods instantaneously, but being connected means we are always on-call. A text/SMS comes to our phones on our bodies, we don&#039;t want to be behind on emails or miss a post on Facebook, etc. The new, immediate connectedness of the turn of the century, it seems to me, is significantly notable, both in our ability to connect and the possibility of always being connected to.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This new connection brings me to my second thought, the new possibilities of surveillance. Typically conversation focuses on government censorship and the ability to monitor for unwanted speech. I would add that our new, ongoing connectedness also provides an increasingly continuous history of our identities. This history can be used to market specific products, tailor our searches, and generally show us content that will keep us connected more often. To be connected means to be watched, sometimes directly, sometimes passively. Many have written on how this leads us to begin policing ourselves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This self-policing brings me to third major development I see, which also has much to do with Wesley&#039;s thoughts on how his friends&#039; political views are continually fed. A variety of technologies now exist to keep us more within our preconceptions than before. Our identity and self-understanding is produced and maintained in a different and more controlled way in the past. It doesn&#039;t seem to me that there is (necessarily) a (wo)man behind the curtain, but the implementation and effect of these technologies remain the same.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:MattK|MattK]] ([[User talk:MattK|talk]]) 17:42, 27 January 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Internet access has changed the way information flows while increasing social and economic participation. As internet and digital technology continues to develop, it has changed the nature of how organizations market themselves to targeted their targeted consumers. Traditional methods of newspaper/magazine advertisements and email listservs no longer are the primary avenue of increasing consumer engagement. Social media platforms have expanded consumer outreach as companies use Twitter to tweet to their customers and smartphone apps to keep their consumers connected. This connectectivity has impacted the roles of employees as many of their job descriptions are now requiring evidence of technological competencies.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The internet and technologies has allowed the progression of global connectivity by creating meaningful experiences through intentional dialogue and engagement. Internet and digital technologies allows for access to consumer services previously limited due to geographic location. Historically, a fitness coach was someone typically found within your local community or an athlete was required to travel to the gym/sports facility. With the expansion of technology, people now have access to some of the best coaching in the world through the use of current technologies. As an example, I am now a posing coach for athletes throughout the USA, Canada and the UK. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
People are now able to engage in a global experience without crossing international borders. [[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 18:57, 27 January 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While reflecting on the Internet and the significant changes it has spread, I ironically type and post the following comments while flying on an airplane. Who would have imagined using internet on a plane 20 years ago?  Yet, walking through the airport before boarding my flight I could see the changes the Internet and digital technologies has had on our society: customers ordering food via an iPad in the airport cafe; an older couple Skyping, what looked like their grandson, on a laptop; teenagers idly staring at their smart phones while their parents talk at them; the many airline passenger who boarded their flights by merely pulling up an image on their iPhones. Internet and digital technologies are everywhere...and it has changed every aspect of our lives. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most significant of those changes I find is the globalized world we now live in. Post World War II, the international community entered an era of connectedness, and the Internet has only exacerbated this connectedness. The ability to share, like, post, tweet, retweet, reblog, blog, etc. has birthed a generation of globally connected citizens. It only takes a couple of clicks on Twitter to see or read about happenings half way around the world - in real time. This environment has created a more involved international community, especially when reviewing Twitter trending topics, for instance the events that happened in Ferguson, MO last year. Massive marches, stand ins, protests and rallies were organized across the globe - orchestrated primarily on social media. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Furthermore, the possibilities of outreach and global awareness is boundless. Internet and digital technologies now offer a tool for social good. &lt;br /&gt;
A recent article [http://www.information-age.com/technology/mobile-and-networking/123457289/facebook-launches-bid-to-bring-cheap-internet-to-the-developing-world] discussed how internet has become vital to survival for those living in the poorest of countries. Facebook, for example, launched a program with efforts to bring internet to lower income countries or rural areas who need the assistance with technology to better living conditions. The implementation of these technologies are ongoing, and it is unclear if they are helping more than they are hurting, but the social change of internet is here to stay.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 07:35, 28 January 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ok, speaking of internet morons, this is the third time I’m posting and I still don’t see it. Any tech has any hints as to why this is happening, I’m making a copy of this in a separate doc, please tell me where to send it.&lt;br /&gt;
My comment is as follows: 1) Since the advent of the internet people are interacting with devices and technology more often than they used to and as a result there have been some measurable changes in children’s cognitive development. I will find the resource later on. I think it also affects adults, especially those who are already predisposed to HDHD. 2) since it is very hard to tell when you’re blogging whether you’re speaking to only three people or three thousand, the power of bloggers should be taken with a generous dose of skepticism. 30 Innovation does not necessarily make us more effective, it merely makes us busier. Exhibit A: Facebook (A complete waste of time, and a truly distracting way of communicating with other people. Absolutely hate it.) Hromero[[User:Hromero|Hromero]] ([[User talk:Hromero|talk]]) 15:01, 28 January 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reflecting how the world has changed in the last few years is impressive, many things that could not be dreamed to be done in any other way that would have been physical, now in our current times, are possible. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socially, the interaction of people on facebook and other social networks, like blogs, etc, have become from informational, to a way how people can meet one another, interact, and even date. This in the past was never thought, and now relationships, interaction of groups, like chats are very common. Social networks have &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Culturally, it is important to see that there is a subculture, mostly in teenagers and younger people, the subculture, of the I Pad, and tablet, and aps people who are identified, by their cell phones, ring tones, and other characteristics of technology. This differs from the older generation that would not do monetary transactions, meet people, or even gather around a computer, this older folks may prefer to go to the bank, gather with friends, and bring a guitar and play. The culture has been subdivided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economically, Pay pawl, and other providers like e-bay, has become very popular in the market, aps for real estate and westlaw, for the legal field, has caused a huge impact, on people and their economy, it is taken over many jobs, and also has make people gain a lot o money, people needed to physically be instructed by someone or by reading, and now there is more accessibility through the internet, where most people can find the answers the they need most of the time. The economy is being monopolized by the electronic era. (Edwin Duque)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with my colleagues contributions above. There is no doubt that we&#039;ve had significant social, cultural, political, and economic changes associated with the spread of the Internet and digital technologies throughout the years in both spheres personal and professional. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding the personal impacts, one example is that if we think about the new generation of people that is part of what they call &amp;quot;Generation Z&amp;quot;, instead of playing with the traditional toys that we had in our childhood, when they are kids their main entertainment are the electronic devices with Internet access. A one-two year old child currently simply grab their parent&#039;s iPads/tablets or smartphones and play with apps. It&#039;s impressive how quickly they get used to those devices. Some years later they start interacting with people all over the world through online games, social media, Skype, whatsapp, blogs and others, as we are all able to do nowadays. Besides that, with the Internet we started having access to a variety of information, books, history, news, we can shop through it, take online courses provided by schools/institutions in several countries, we can make a reservation at a restaurant wherever we want, we can compare prices and quality of products and services, we can be always updated about what is happening in any part of the world, all without leaving home. In addition, basically we register &amp;quot;our lives&amp;quot; in those devices, which have become more and more multifunctional, as we use our cell phones to make calls, as an agenda, to take pictures and record videos, to message our contacts, everything to make life more practical. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, the Internet really broke barriers and made our lives much easier, also in the professional sphere, as for instance we can attend online meetings, what also economically saying the companies can save money that would be invested in trips, we can have more flexibility when the home office is allowed, the companies can storage their data and also their client&#039;s in those devices and the physical archive has been practically extinguished etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, in both spheres people and companies have been facing problems regarding privacy matters, cyber crimes, as it occurred recently with Sony Pictures, cyber espionage, also between countries, what has a political impact, and the legislation hasn&#039;t been able to follow the technological advancement in the same speed. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, one of the most important topics currently, which is a global concern and that is in the spotlight is Cyber Security. &lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Natasha Jalbut|Natasha Jalbut]] ([[User talk:Natasha Jalbut|talk]]) 00:21, 30 January 2015 (EST) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The internet, and with it the information age, has vastly changed the world and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. I believe the internet has both managed to make the world smaller and at the same time individual&#039;s interaction with the world larger. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a Social level anyone can make an immediate connection with anyone else in the world provided they both have access to the internet. This breaks down many barriers in itself from where we were only a few decades ago where individual towns and neighborhoods became a cocoon for anyone who did not or could not venture out. Today those same towns have citizens who are in relationships with people they may never have met through dating websites and other forms of communication. Distance is no longer an issue for many. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From a cultural perspective we are exposed to new lifestyles and languages that you many never have seen otherwise. One great example is the growing &#039;Anime&#039; (Japanese style for animation in television and movies) following. If it wasn&#039;t for the internet many of these popular shows in Asia would not be known in the United States. At the same time this form of information/entertainment sharing can lead to a narrow and specific view of what is a diverse culture in itself. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Politically the internet has created a new powerful platform that politicians need to work with in order to win elections or pass a vote with the public support. A few years ago an internet following might not have made a campaign but today groups like the Human Rights Campaign rely heavily on it and in doing so have made changes in the political landscape. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Samaei1|Samaei1]] ([[User talk:Samaei1|talk]]) 14:06, 30 January 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The information age, by way of the Internet, has revolutionized the world exponentially. Socially, the internet was initially utilized to communicate &lt;br /&gt;
via email and to obtain readily available information. Today the use of email has practically bankrupted the United States Postal Service and the internet in some aspects has become the primary source of information enabling proponents of civil unrest to generate support throughout the world. This is an overly generalized outlook on the growth of the internet but as one can see even in these sectors the great impact it has had on society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Culturally, the evolution of myspace, facebook, twitter and the like has reflected how the young guides the old on this highway. The adaptability of the young and their ability to embrace new arenas in cyberspace dictates how and where their parents socially intermingle on line. Additionally, it also reflects how providers of such social networks have to adapt to the young or become irrelevant such as the case with myspace. The online language that we engage in has become a part of our day to day interpersonal communication with others. Our day to day realities is not concrete reality until it becomes &amp;quot;facebook official&amp;quot;. Sadly, as with any revolution, I fear that legislative policy such as censorship and intermediary provider responsibility will begin to take affect and slow the amazing advances that have been made culturally in this technological era. Case in point, it is beyond my wildest dreams that I have the privilege to participate in a course taught online by Professor Sellars at HES. The paths to education through coursera and edx which are free is an opportunity and path for learning that we never had before. However, with continuing legislation, censorship and/or surveillance the ideas that we formulate from the knowledge that we now have equal access will have a limited capacity to flourish. So I reflect on how that will affect our culture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lastly, the political aspect of the internet is one of the primary reasons I registered for the course. As a news junkie, I followed the sony hacking incident closely. I am discombobulated by the fact that a nation state such as North Korea has the power to limit the freedoms of United States Citizens. The reality that the internet can be used as an effective tool for cyber warfare between countries is astounding yet twistedly intriguing.&lt;br /&gt;
Additionally, speeches that were once hard to circulate can be uploaded within seconds and has ended political careers. Most recently, the ramble of Sarah Palin has been looped so many times any serious presidential contention in 2016 is now forgotten. So the political media power of the internet has grown significantly. &lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Mmcasse|Mmcasse]] ([[User talk:Mmcasse|talk]]) 13:30, 31 January 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today, internet is all around us and with that, we live in a world where we are constanly connected to family and friends, miles away, whether via our phone, laptop, iPad/etc. Socially, Skype and Facetime allow us real time conversation across oceans and Facebook/Twitter allow us instant gratification whether uploading a status or liking a tweet. Games on phones allow us to challenge an oppenent all only possible with Internet. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Politically speaking, Twitter has created an outlet for involved leaders to voice their opinions while receiving instant “reviews” from followers. This allows people to receive news from figures regarding a wide variety from the birth of Hilary Clintons grandchild to Secretary of State Kerry being fined for not shoveling his walkway. In addiiton, leaders can upload videos and one can watch President Obama give the State of the Union online. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Econimically, the Interent has created online banking. Paper bills are a thing of the past and many of us rely on the Internet to not only pay our bills but to online bank. Accounts are saved on smart phones and bills are set on a recurring cycle to be paid online, many times without the payer even having to log in for a transcation to be complete. [[User:Cbore001|Cbore001]] ([[User talk:Cbore001|talk]]) 21:28, 31 January 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Significant changes are visible all around us. Socially, the internet has become our connection to many people we would otherwise never meet be it through online dating, an internet job search, or any one of the shared economy apps or sites we now use like Uber or Airbnb. We are easily connected to people directly without much hassle or obstacle. Another social change is that we no longer have to wait for an audience, we can just throw things out there and sit back and see how people react without any direct implications. Some sites and apps even allow us to do this anonymously like YikYak or Reddit causing an even greater cushion of safety to the speaker. This can be good or bad, in some cases giving people the freedom to seek support or help for a problem anonymously, or by giving predators an easy way to track down their prey and slanderers an easy way to disseminate harmful information. These things were possible in the past, but never before have they been so freely at our fingertips. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economically, the Internet has completely altered the landscape of enterprise. If a business doesn’t have a website it is considered obsolete. In large cities, it goes further, a business needs to have an app to stay relevant. Then there’s the matter of online shopping. I can’t remember the last time I went shoe shopping at a physical store. I would feel it’s a waste of time because online I have so much more information on the products available to me and usually at a better price. We also have working from home. Many tech companies offer this option and there are other companies which solely have remote employees due to the ubiquity of internet access in major cities in the U.S. and the nature of the work. For personal affairs we can do online banking, pay bills online, order food online, and the list goes on. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Culturally, people have greater exposure to the outside world. This has caused some to become more diverse and open and yet others to try to close themselves off even more and fight the compromise of their own culture. Western culture is spreading to less developed countries at an alarming rate causing younger people in those countries to reject many cultural norms such as respect for authority figures, arranged marriages, and religion. There is also much positive dispersal of cultural information, such as in the form of languages. Programs for learning languages are offered on many websites, sometimes for free as in the case of livemocha.com. Even on youtube.com there are many videos offered for learning just about any language.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Politically, we now have more avenues than ever before to voice our opinions. No more letters to the editor or opinion columns in local newspapers, we can now holler our opinions far and wide using the help of social media sites, opinion polls, debate forums, and much much more. That’s not to say that we’ve become more intelligent politically, that’s a whole different story. More information is available at our fingertips, the only problem is that we only click on the things that reinforce the opinions we already have. But updates about political activity are available literally 24/7 which keeps the race ruthless and tireless. Furthermore, a politician’s online presence can make or break their career. There are no more secret affairs or fetishes. Though people may get away with these things still, they must be much more careful because one slip up could mean their last. ([[User:Oliviabrinich|Oliviabrinich]] ([[User talk:Oliviabrinich|talk]]) 22:37, 31 January 2015 (EST))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
The proliferation of the internet and social media, have facilitated the spread of information, from viral marketing campaigns to political campaigns.  Both the 2008 and 2012 Presidential elections, demonstrated the importance of digital technologies for cultivating grass-roots support and financial contributions. Since then the appeals from political campaigns, for supporter contributions have become continuous, and hard to avoid.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Social media has helped to disseminate opinions, of both high profile people and those in one&#039;s own social circle, more widely than they might otherwise have been, and perhaps also more quickly than desirable.  It is now very easy to write ill considered words, which then get disseminated and dissected, potentially causing a media controversy. Equally, digital technology has had a great impact on the notion of privacy.  Julian Assange, Wikileaks and the proliferation of online activism, has renewed the civil liberties debate and discussions about privacy.  The internet continually reaffirms how interconnected the world now is, and how tangible something that begins in cyberspace can be. [[User:AlexanderH|AlexanderH]] ([[User talk:AlexanderH|talk]]) 16:13, 1 February 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First of  all, I  would like to say I  find all  posts very interesting to read  and  judging by them, it is obviously that we all agree on the fact that Internet has a  huge  impact on our  lives. Every aspect of our everyday activity is somehow  connected online - communication  with  friends is going through social networks, chats, almost any  type of business has its website which has become more important than the business card. When we are choosing  provider of any kind,  the first thing to do is to  check him online, his website, some reviews  in the forums if possible. Leisure and free time, of course - movies, music, computer games  and  so on, picnics and  walks in the park are  getting  behind somehow.  It has even become an obsession for many people to be online 24/7 and not being connected makes them feel uncomfortable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From cultural stand point, I  would  rather say that  there are more  positive  effects  than negative. I would point out  Google Cultural Institute as my favourite cultural, on-line invention. It is  amazing  that people from everywhere could actually explore cultural treasures from all around the  world in the smallest details and for free. This as well as free e-books projects, like Project Gutenberg, are priceless gifts for our generations, showing that information and knowledge most of all, could be accessible to everyone who desires. I very  much like  the  example Josefin has  given in her post, saying  that the  mere  existence  of this  online course and our  participation in it is a proof enough  how  Internet helps  us  achieving things, that some  years  ago would  have  been  impossible for many of  us. This being said, I would not like to ignore the fact that  the endless  ocean  of  information Internet is, could very  easily  become a danger, especially for children which without a  proper   control over the online activities, could easily be endangered or at least loos themselves in the immense quantity of information without getting the real knowledge.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The political sphere has not stayed untouched. Many of the political changes now a days, would have been impossible without the Internet “contributing”. The snow ball phenomenon  Arab  Spring, for example, is showing  that  Internet  is a powerful tool for people to connect, organize, share  ideas and act.  The nature of Internet is combining the features and tools of radio, television  and  newspapers. Therefor if media are  defined as an alleged fourth power, I dare say Internet should  be defined as the fifth. Another good  example of  the  influence  over  the political live would be the electronic  voting, more precisely  the remote e-voting, exercised via Internet. This is an innovation some countries like  Australia,Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Estonia , have already  implemented.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Talking about the economy, if only we take a look at the numbers Forbes has forecasted saying that &amp;quot;&#039;&#039;&#039;By 2017 eMarketer estimates that there will be $440 billion in sales for a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 13.8% (...)&#039;&amp;quot;&#039;&#039; (Chuck  Jones, Forbes,10/02/2013) , we would easily understand why  expressions like &amp;quot;Cyber Monday”, were forged, referring to the  online sales following the Black Friday sales. There are many other examples of how Internet has become a factor in the economy like the stock exchange market, which would not be the same as we know it without the net, the Bitcoin, the payment processing business and many others.  ([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 11:31, 2 February 2015 (EST))&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
Socially, I am that group of parents that drove my children away from FaceBook.   I have over 500 friends, including my children, high school and college classmates, work friends, my mom and aunts and uncles and cousins.   I also use LinkedIn, which provides another means of social networking and getting your name and resume out to business colleagues.   I believe it is a great means of reconnecting with old friends and staying in touch with what is going on around us.   But I also understand how we get pigeonholed into a group of people and content that we already agree with.&lt;br /&gt;
   &lt;br /&gt;
Politically, I doubt there is a person alive who could stand up to the scrutiny brought on by all the sound bites.  (The example of Sarah Palin someone mentioned above).   I am sure there are talented people who would be great as President but dare not run because of the heartache and humiliation brought on by posts and opinions on the internet.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economically, I love that I can schedule all my bills to be paid automatically and I don’t even know how much my electric bill is!  I have done my Christmas shopping online before they coined the phrase “Black Friday”.   With all our internet transactions, we have less and less privacy.  I hired a new plow company for these snowstorms and he called me to describe my house and driveway.   Google Earth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bottom line, this generation has grown up with the internet, and I imagine could not fathom life without it. I have known life on both sides…. I know most of my family, work and doctors’ phone numbers – from memory.   I can drive from here to New York and beyond without a GPS, (we actually had map books!)   I also think the internet has a life of its own and has grown beyond our social ability to manage it.  I have a particular interest in bullying, and the internet has given huge and dangerous power to the bullies.  I look forward to the exchanges in class and here on the discussion board![[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 22:11, 2 February 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can describe a personal experience that illustrates how the Internet and digital technologies changed our social life. In 2001, I spend six months in New Zealand and all my connection with family and friends in Brazil were via Internet. It was very effective but it was not in real time as it is nowadays. The social medias such as Facebook and Instagram combined with several apps that we can download to our smartphones created a virtual world where we can be in touch with every one in real time. We are able to interact and live the moment that the person in the other side of the line is living. So, when you are far away from home, like I am, you do not feel you are losing so many moments with your family and friends as it used do be. In some way, connected, we get ourselves closer.&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, I think that the stock markets are much more sensitive of any changes and news, so the speculation game is faster and dynamic. In a few minutes, every thing can change so it is imperative to be connected. That defines who earn and who lost money.   [[User:Lucasrio|Lucasrio]] ([[User talk:Lucasrio|talk]]) 10:02, 3 February 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Information and its more cultured offspring – knowledge -- will always be the unquenchable and unending journey and destination for man and the society he builds. The Internet is, at its essence, a reflection of this yearning -- the Internet and its related digital technologies are merely vehicles expressing a most animal desire; the pursuit of more. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1.	An Outlet To Play God: The Social Change&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And tricked by our own early dream&lt;br /&gt;
And need of solace, we grew self-deceived,&lt;br /&gt;
Our making soon our maker did we deem,&lt;br /&gt;
And what we had imagined we believed.&lt;br /&gt;
--God’s Funeral, T. Hardy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From the Goldsmith and Wu article on Digital Borders, Net use was dominated initially by English-speakers who “…created the Net in their image.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This line stuck out above the rest and seemed to not only brightly elaborate on the fact at hand, but at a generally applicable trend that the Internet has graced us with; the trend of power-granting – or at least lending us with the illusion of power. We have created in the Internet our perfected selves: it knows everything, it socializes brilliantly, it possesses a strange but alluring appearance of being infinite. Before, man might have turned to the divine for his answers. Now he “Googles” it. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With this tendency, there is also this funny but simultaneous dimension where man knows that not only does he have an alternative to what his ancestors once believed in, modern man has created this entity. The Internet has become at once, a strange kind of divine – unknowable in its vastness, knowable in its man-made fragments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2.	Cheapening of Privacy: The Cultural Change&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We now sign sixty, hundred-twenty, two-hundred page software or user agreements just to have the privilege of sharing our entire photographed lives with what we think are a select few eyes – of for some people, not even that. A picture sharing website will usually have some kind of clause saying they have the right to use your picture from an album for “advertising purposes” (Picasa, a few years ago), or the blatant example, Facebook – who is not in the business of social media, rather, it is in the business of information. More specifically, the selling of information – more specifically, the selling of your personal information. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the rise of the Internet and the software platforms it makes possible, we are now raising a generation of people who have desensitized themselves from any sense of privacy. Any arguments as to the intrusiveness of the likes of Google or Facebook is mostly met with a shrug of “I’ve nothing to hide…. Let them have my information.” Translation: My information, the data that constitutes my persona, my self, my identity, is free for the taking – I have no use for it.”  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3.	Headless Ubiquity: The Political Change&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The structuring of people, the organizing people, the mobilizing of people, and the dividing and unifying of people has been forever changed by the Internet’s introduction of a new management model. The Starfish model. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Brafman and Beckstrom’s “The Starfish and the Spider” is a book about leaderless organizations and their power. They use the Internet as prime example of the omnipotent “Starfish” – a headless creature that moves and lives and in a way, cannot be destroyed. One limb moves and the others follow. Cut a limb and another grows in its place. It has no “brain” it has no “leader” – every piece of itself is self-reliant, self-initiated, yet entirely synchronized. Brafman and Beckstrom compare the starfish with the “Spider – a system of governing people in which there is a clear “head” and there are legs and a body. If the head (president, leader) is cut off the whole thing dies. The Internet has no head (unless we want to get technical here and argue that literal energy is the “head” but technicalities aside...). The Internet is all-powerful while having no single source of its power – if Google dies tomorrow, Yahoo will take its place. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This has powerful implications in our understanding of politics. In our understanding of power. From Twitter-feeds to start a revolution (Arab Spring and Egypt) to the rise of the viral video to satirize and ridicule the previously fearful or the potentially powerful and render them powerless – literally laughing leaders off the political stage. The Internet has become the world’s newest, headless dictator. It is the first dictator without a head but with a body that is all dictator. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the most interesting, and significant, changes that I think we can attribute to the spread of digital technologies is the toppling of various totalitarian regimes across the Middle East. In 2011, Hosni Mubarak was forced to resign as President of Egypt after only a few months of non-stop protests. The protesters managed to mobilize the Egyptian people on the Internet, through mobile devices and social media, even as they were being censored by the Egyptian government. I believe the experience in Egypt has taught us that, even with censorship of the mainstream media, the Internet can still be used as a weapon against tyrannical dictatorships. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This leads me to another interesting point that I would like to talk about, and that is the question of privacy and the internet. With the evolution of the Internet and its supporting digital technologies, privacy has become a thing of the past. Companies and government agencies often spy and tap into our personal data ostensibly to show us show us adds that we may like and, according to authorities, to protect us from those who may wish to do us harm. But with the recent NSA spying debacle, and with controversy over whether or not the IRS has been using personal data to target certain groups because of their political beliefs, I believe that there should be a limit to how much data people allow the government and private companies to see. Unless we act now, I believe that a lack of privacy will become a major problem for future generations. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Mishal R. Kennedy|Mishal R. Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Mishal R. Kennedy|talk]]) 12:38PM, 3 February 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the more recent ways in which the Internet is shaping our sociopolitical discourse is through the creation of strong cyber networks for more marginalized communities.  For example, the rise of feminist blogs and message boards or hashtags such as #blacklivesmatter can be used in connecting online activity and writing to other forms of non-cyber activism and understanding.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In terms of economic changes prompted by the Internet, online capitalist competition has facilitated the growth of huge online sellers of a variety of goods with versatile virtual purveyors like Amazon. ([[User:Amchugh|Amchugh]] ([[User talk:Amchugh|talk]]) 13:30, 3 February 2015 (EST))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One major change the Internet has brought is the democratization of media narratives.  I know my classmates have mentioned above a few negative aspects of Internet media and the way it&#039;s shaping our political behaviors, but I find the swell of larger contributions by the online public to be incredibly empowering and exciting.  For example, after the shootings in Isla Vista, California last spring, when traditional media outlets were largely ignoring the misogynistic motives of the killer, female Twitter users posted millions of tweets with the hashtag #YesAllWomen in order to redirect the narrative and share their experiences of sexism and abuse.  Similarly, after the events in Ferguson, Missouri, social media was a cathartic and powerful outlet for the public to rally together, using the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter.  Citizen-driven stories like this can even play a large role in political events - back in 2012 when Romney made the comment about &amp;quot;binders full of women,&amp;quot; it was social media outlets that exploded, generated a meme, and ultimately shaped the public perception of Romney.  The tangible effects of these conversations may be tough to measure, but mass participation in social discussions have been cropping up all throughout the year online.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&#039;m also fascinated by the social progress the Internet has helped usher in, as well as the intense backlash it has sometimes produced.  For example, I think it could be argued that the Internet was at least partially responsible for how swiftly the gay marriage debate has shifted in the past several years.  Online campaigns like &amp;quot;It Gets Better&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;No H8&amp;quot; have gone viral and reached ears that might otherwise not have been willing to listen.  On the other hand, incidents like Gamergate show the danger of anonymity and lack of regulation online, and the way it can impact groups like women.  As a personal note, the experience of women online is something that fascinates me greatly and one of the big reasons I enrolled in this course.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 13:56, 3 February 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
Indelibly, electronic commerce has changed the way the world purchases goods.  Whether for personal or business use, the model of internet purchasing has created a subgenre of the way economic business is transacted.  For example, large companies use intranets (modeled from the internet, for internal purchasing) which streamline purchasing and can allow the company to be for fiscally efficient.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The internet is a boon to introverts. The timid and shy have a vehicle for clearly expressing him or herself with very little risk to their person; visually creative with design, literally with blogs and other form of written communication, or even purchasing- avoiding crowds, unnecessary conversation or aggressive sales persons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is interesting to note that with the advancement of how much the internet is used; adept users develop tools to help others exploit every measure of that success to enable it to grow further.  For example the use of filters when shopping: gone are the days when one sat at the computer screen scrolling through all options in order to view a specific type of garment or car.  Another example can be the use of customizations in items that are rather hard to customize in reality, i.e. cars, homes, shoes.  I think it is often forgotten how far internet technology has advanced in such a short period of time as 20 years. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic – Social [[User:JGadson|JGadson]] ([[User talk:JGadson|talk]]) 14:24, 3 February 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Great conversation everyone. One aspect of the spread of the internet that I find particularly fascinating is the decentralization of journalism. Like when digital cameras - and then camera phones  -  turned almost every amateur on the street into a photographer, the internet gave everyone who can write and type (and has access to a computer) a platform for broadcasting their thoughts, opinions, and experiences. No printing press, copy editor, or delivery boy needed. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You would think that with so many people putting their thoughts into the marketplace of ideas, we’d be better off. But with everything that’s now on the internet, it’s constant information overload and that makes it all too tempting to pick news sources that reinforce preexisting beliefs, rather than listen to anyone who might call into question or expand our thinking. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I find more dangerous than humans boxing themselves into ideological corners, however, is when coders box people into ideological corners, especially without their knowledge. Google searches, for example, are no longer created equal; we see results that google thinks we want to see. Facebook no longer shows us all our friends’ posts but rather just the ones it thinks we’ll like most. The internet is trying to be a golden retriever and just please us, but that’s not what we need it to do or be. &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Another significant change associated with the spread of the internet has been the normalization of invasions of privacy. We have come to expect and even joke about how visiting a site like WikiLeaks has put us on “a list somewhere.” We’ve accepted that that’s just the cost of having a “free” internet. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All that said I believe the internet has become critically important for information sharing and gathering, for maintaining social networks, and for social justice movements.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Kelly.wilson|Kelly.wilson]] ([[User talk:Kelly.wilson|talk]]) 14:39, 3 February 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
The individualized nature of current social media, springing from initial mediums like personalized web pages and blogs, finds an unusual home in current political trends and more specifically uprisings. The Arab Spring is typically pointed to as an unprecedented example of utilizing Facebook and Twitter to organize mass demonstrations, even coining the term “Twitter Revolution” to help explain what modern physical protests actualized through an interconnected social platform look like. The internet also impacts the accessibility of stories taking place across the globe. The 2011 Egyptian Revolution and the 2014 invasion of Crimea by Russian forces are examples of highly visible events whose influence in the social media sphere permeated traditional media and coverage. The advent of crowdsourcing, which has seen particular growth in the last five years has managed to leverage online spaces to send aid or relief to less advantaged people not only in the communities of its users, but across the world as well. So while many of the readings we did for this week and videos we watched online offered a slightly more pessimistic view of how we have potentially stumbled into misuse of the enormous resource the internet is, many of the largest sociopolitical upheavals of the 21st century so far owe a great debt to its ability to connect people to pertinent and rapidly shifting information.  &lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Meredithmblake|Meredith]] ([[User talk:Meredithmblake|talk]]) 15:46, 3 February 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
As a young person who has grown up with the internet I have witnessed first-hand how powerful and life-altering the internet and digital technologies have become. Some of my friends have built their lives around the internet. For example, one of my friends is a filmmaker and a musician and he started using the internet as an avenue to pursue his interests as a child. Before he even turned 18, he was already generating a significant income from selling his music and becoming one of the first YouTube partners. Today, one of his YouTube videos has more than 180,000,000 hits and he has 410,701 subscribers. Clearly, he is not alone in his pursuits. He is just one of a vast number of people in the world who have experienced significant economic success from the internet. More recently, it came to light in both the mainstream news and internet media that YouTube user, DisneyCollectorBR’s estimated income after YouTube’s 45% cut was $5.06 Million this year and the only thing she does is post videos of herself, without showing her face, unboxing Disney toys. Now, that’s what I call a significant economic gain.&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 14:21, 4 February 2015 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
The Internet has shaped our world and culture in many ways. Our social circles are closer than they have ever been thanks to tools such as Facebook and texting, yet they are strangely distant as well -- no longer do people stop by to say &amp;quot;hi&amp;quot; or see how you&#039;re doing, they can just see it on Facebook! The &amp;quot;Internet culture&amp;quot; has spread far and wide, and memes are commonplace in everyday society now. One was even featured in a super bowl commercial! Politically, it&#039;s still just as easy to be spoonfed whatever you choose to believe in, but all the arguments from everyone&#039;s side are available for easy viewing on the Internet -- if you know where to find them. Also, electronic voting machines are incredibly commonplace, and the vulnerabilities reported in them should make anyone worry. Perhaps the most significant area of interest, however, is the economic impact of the Internet. The ability to buy and sell goods from the comfort of your home should not be understated, but that&#039;s just the tip of the iceberg. Two thirds of all US searches are done through Google, and their targeted advertising makes them billions of dollars. Delivering goods virtually is also a huge market right now - Netflix and Steam are booming, while Blockbuster and Gamestop are busting. There are even virtual currencies now, and Bitcoin has a wide reach. Restaurants in major cities all over the country are beginning to accept Bitcoins!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We are barely scraping the surface of what the Internet has to offer, in all aspects of life. The rapid flow of data is what makes the human brain function, after all, and the Internet looks more and more like a neural network every day. The possibilities the future hold are endless. [[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 21:35, 4 February 2015 (EST)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Batjarks</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>