Technologies and Politics of Control - User contributions [en]

Final Projects

2014-05-10T03:45:35Z

Castille: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

== Instructions ==

''Please name your file "wikiusername_Final," where "wikiusername" is replaced with your username, to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment or causing errors in the Wiki by including forbidden characters.'' So if your username is "jdoe" and your file is a Word document your file should be named "jdoe_Final.doc."

'''Upload your file here: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/Special:Upload Upload file]

Once you've uploaded your file, please link to it following the format below:

*Name or Pseudonym:
*Title:
*Link:

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

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

==Submissions ==

*Name or Pseudonym: [[User:Castille|Castille]] 23:45, 9 May 2014 (EDT)
*Title: Self Help or Self Harm? Tumblr's governance of its self harm communities
*Link:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:CastilleRath_LSTU_FINAL_PAPER.doc

Extra Credit Submissions

2014-05-05T05:26:13Z

Castille: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

'''This assignment is due on May 6th.''' 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.

If you do plan on uploading a file, ''please name your file "wikiusername_extracredit," where "wikiusername" is replaced with your username, to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment or causing errors in the Wiki by including forbidden characters.'' So if your username is "jdoe" and your file is a PowerPoint document your file should be named "jdoe_extracredit.ppt."

Link to your extra credit below (either by [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/Special:Upload uploading it to the wiki] or by linking to an external site) or indicate that you'd like to present your final paper. Please provide a short description of your project/the presentation you plan to give.

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

==Submissions==
----
{{AssignmentInfo|Watson|Video: The Internet, Liveleak, and the Dissemination of Information in Syria|
https://vimeo.com/93904486 Password: LSTUE120|}}
[[User:Watson|Watson]] 18:17, 4 May 2014 (EDT)

----

{{AssignmentInfo|Castille|Video: Self Help or Self Harm: Tumblr's governance of its self harm community|
https://vimeo.com/93921029 Password: LSTU|}}
[[[User:Castille|Castille]] 01:26, 5 May 2014 (EDT)]}

A Series of Tubes: Infrastructure, Broadband, and Baseline Content Control

2014-05-03T00:32:49Z

Castille: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 11'''

The late Senator Ted Stevens famously said in a 2006 committee meeting that the “Internet is not something that you just dump something on; it’s not a big truck. It’s a series of tubes.” While he was ridiculed widely at the time, Senator Stevens’s remarks actually reveal an interesting hortatory description of what the Internet should be (though given the rest of his comments, apparently not one that he intended). What Stevens’s metaphor suggests is that the physical conduits of the Internet should act like nothing more than non-judgmental conduits of the rest of the world’s traffic. We will see this week, however, that this is not a true reflection of how the tubes work, and we have strong debates as to what the government's role should be in ensuring that large enough "tubes" reach all those who would like to be online. The big questions for this week: What are the “tubes” of the Internet? Should the tubes have a role in controlling the throughput content? What is the role of government when it comes to developing and regulating our Internet-tubes?

[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Broadband.pdf '''Download slides from this week's class''']

<onlyinclude>
==Readings==

; Comparing and measuring connectivity

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPzjUMdpmSw The Berkman Center, How Do We Connect To The Internet?] (about 7 mins., watch all)

* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Berkman_Center_Broadband_Final_Report-C1_15Feb2010.pdf Yochai Benkler, Next Generation Connectivity] (executive summary and introduction only)

; What is the role of government?

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality Wikipedia, Net Neutrality]

* [http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/01/net_neutrality_d_c_circuit_court_ruling_the_battle_s_been_lost_but_we_can.html Marvin Ammori, The Net Neutrality Battle Has Been Lost, But Now We Can Finally Win the War]

* [http://www.wired.com/opinion/2014/01/one-talking-comes-net-neutrality/ Berin Szoka and Geoffrey Manne, The Feds Lost on Net Neutrality, But Won Control of the Internet]

* [http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/05/bright-ideas-nunziato-on-virtual-freedom-net-neutrality-and-free-speech-in-the-internet-age.html Daniel Solove, Interview with Dawn Nunziato on her book ''Virtual Freedom'']

* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MD9Ss3SI2v8 Susan Crawford, remarks at the 2013 National Conference on Media Reform]

* [http://techliberation.com/2011/03/01/more-confusion-about-internet-freedom/ Adam Thierer, More Confusion about Internet “Freedom” (Tech Liberation)]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://gizmodo.com/5912383/how-to-destroy-the-internet Sam Biddle, How to Destroy the Internet (Gizmodo)]

* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/digitaldemocracy/internetarchitecture.html Ethan Zuckerman & Andrew McLaughlin, Introduction to Internet Architecture and Institutions]

* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2353457 Rob Faris and Rebekah Heacock, Measuring Internet Activity: a (Selective) Review of Methods and Metrics] (pages 3-9)

* [https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/taking-stevens-seriously/ Ed Felten, Taking Ted Stevens Seriously]

* [http://www.renesys.com/2013/11/mitm-internet-hijacking/ Jim Cowie, The New Threat: Targeted Internet Traffic Misdirection]

</onlyinclude>

== Assignment 1 ==

[[Assignment 1 Details and Reporting|Assignment 1]] is due ''before class'' today (i.e., February 11th before 5:30pm ET). You can submit the assignment [[Assignment 1 Submissions|here]].

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== Class Discussion ==

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

----

I believe there is an underlying question surrounding the debate of net neutrality which is to what extent the state should intervene. The easy answer is to the point were the state does not crowd out investment and innovation. Even though in practice this is a hard thing to evaluate and achieve, I believe that regulatory bodies lose sight of it at times and should come back to this premise when deciding on a ruling that harms competition or stifles already functional markets.

[[User:Luciagamboaso|Luciagamboaso]] 16:30, 11 February 2014 (EST)
----

My personal opinions of net neutrality and connectivity became muddled as I read through this week’s reading. My initial viewpoint supported open access and little/no regulation. Data shows that the top countries that meet the benchmarks defined by Benkler (penetration, capacity, and price) establish an open access community and let competition be the harbinger of innovation. The US also got to its current internet state via open access and has since became the middle of the pack once it restricted open access when the FCC abandoned Telecommunications Act of 1996 in 2001 and 2002. If we restrict open access, and information/broadband companies hold monopolies (like Comcast), why should they improve their services since the end game always ends up being a question of efficient profits? However, my opinion on how the government should be involved once I watched Susan Crawford give her remarks at the 2013 National Conference on Media Reform. While her words seemed to agree with my formed opinions on open access and connectivity, her solution focused on using the power of the government to instate infrastructure similar to how highways and telecommunications became ubiquitous. This left me with the question (which everyone seems to have and why this is hotly debated) of how much regulation should be instituted by the government and other regulatory bodies? Although a n00b in this area, my take away thoughts are that some body must exisit to deliver open connectivity and access to the people. The only way to meet Benkler Benchmarks are to develop innovative strategies and technologies - new materials and information delivery systems - to drive down cost, which will increase capacity penetration. This will require that the government invest in science and engineering research and set benchmarks to ensure that the correct infrastructure is provided to achieve this benchmarks. Private funding is also an option, but private institutions usually have a mission that is company driven and not “we the people” driven.

[[User:Margorm|Margorm]] 11:03, 9 February 2014 (EST)

: Open and free access to the internet is possible for one who has a ham radio operator license. In some sense it is not really "open" because of technical barrier since it requires acquisition of new technical skills. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMPRNet [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 11:30, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

While working on Assignment One and doing the readings this week on Net neutrality, I have been left with a lot of confusion as to how much regulation I find appropriate. On one hand, I think the internet, as with the spoken word, should be unrestricted to allow freedom of speech and communication. In this age, there are forums for people to express themselves, learn extensively about every possible interest, exchange information and news immediately, and connect to others from around the world in a way never before seen in history. There are now outlets and communities for all-- no longer are people isolated. While that might be troublesome from a standpoint of privacy, in my opinion an issue just as pressing arises dealing with unrestricted hate language. With the internet providing a barrier between individuals, hateful language is easy to disperse as there is no immediate visible repercussion. People are allowed to hide behind their computers and anonymity, sometimes spewing shocking, racist, sexist or otherwise offensive language just to incite anger and controversy (this behavior is often referred to as "trolling"). With school systems and the like actively taking a stand against bullying, should internet bullying also be restricted? Whose responsibility is it to ensure the safety (mental, emotional, physical) of the public who use the internet-- the website itself? The government? Some other agency which is set up to police the internet? Or would things be more fair if a simple internet ID was implemented, which identified users so that they were held responsible for their postings? I would tend to go with the last option, so as not to actually implement a rule of neutrality, which would be restricting free speech and infringing upon basic human rights.
[[User:Castille|Castille]] 00:14, 8 February 2014 (EST)

: I like your comments. The Singapore government is very concerned about this and planning to take some practical measures, including one similar to your last option. See:
http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/pm-outlines-new-approach-online-engagement-0 [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 11:47, 11 February 2014 (EST

: Interesting! I think it's great that they're taking those measures. Unless I'm missing something, it seems that they are talking about having sites which require users to sign in so that they are at least consistently using a handle on that site. However, I didn't see anything which has posed a sort of all-encompassing "E-ID" (Internet Identity) which would be tied directly to a person and was basically just a virtual representation of that person which would require said person to take direct responsibility for the way they conduct themselves on the internet. A simple sign-in might be better than nothing, but it's easy to create a handle which still serves as a barrier between your real life identity and your internet identity. [[User:Castille|Castille]] 12:39, 17 February 2014 (EST)

----

I've been a Wikipedian for a long time, although not recently. One of the interesting things to look at in the context of Wikipedia is the deletionist/inclusionist divide (I think the deletionists have basically won). I wrote the original article on this subject on Wikipedia, and I thought some of you might find it interesting: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in_Wikipedia Deletionism and Inclusionism in Wikipedia]. I was the original author of this article (I'm [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarinth Tarinth] on Wikipedia) and it has an interesting history as an article, in that there was a fairly concerted attempt to have the article deleted as soon as I had created it. For further background on the subject, the following is an NPR interview I gave on the topic back in 2007: [http://weekendamerica.publicradio.org/programs/2007/01/20/marked_for_deletion.html "Marked for Deletion"]

My general feeling about Wikipedia: to move beyond casual editing, you need to become part of what amounts to a technological priesthood, and you have to fall in line with the prevailing philosophy to succeed at that. (Nevertheless, I do think Wikipedia is really awesome and super-useful, and it'll be fun to make some edits to an article again)
[[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 10:31, 8 February 2014 (EST)

:Thanks for sharing! As I'm sure you know, Wikimedia is trying to break down the technological barriers to entry, but the normative social order and its impact on edits is an interesting issue to explore more. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 14:15, 9 February 2014 (EST)

----

In both the first and second lecture, someone had mentioned that Wikipedia isn't accepted by universities as an acceptable source. To be fair, this isn't a problem with Wikipedia, because universities will ordinarily not accept Britannia as a source either. This is because these are both "tertiary sources," and in academic writing, you need to use either primary sources (original documents, etc.) or secondary sources (peer-reviewed articles, journalistic articles, etc.).
[[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 10:44, 8 February 2014 (EST)

:As I mentioned during the last class, Wikipedia has a pretty good page detailing the various studies conducted to test the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_wikipedia reliability of Wikipedia]. I think your point about tertiary sources is exactly right, and at least with Wikipedia (if people are following the guidelines in articles) you should be able to drive to those primary and secondary sources. And, of course, if you find an issue with Wikipedia, fix it! :-) [[User:Andy|Andy]] 14:12, 9 February 2014 (EST)

----

I had a discussion about Wikipedia with my wife and two sons while waiting for my flight from Changi Airport, Singapore, to Manila, Philippines, awhile ago. To my surprise, both my sons were aware of the problems with Wikipedia. They noted that while some of the citations were good, at least 50% was either crap or had broken links. They don't use Wikipedia seriously but scavenge its sites as a quick way of finding references from good citations.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 12:48, 9 February 2014 (EST)

----

ROLE OF GOVERNMENT AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES IN INTERNET CONNECTIVITY
CASE STUDY: SINGAPORE

The Ministry of Education and the Infocomm Development Authority had developed a set of specifications which e-learning vendors like my company must fulfill in terms of internet bandwidth, especially in national emergencies such as SARS, when schools are required to close to avoid spread of a virus, etc. In such cases, students are required to continue their studies online at home. To ensure requirements on internet access times are met, server load tests were carried out based on simulations for various numbers of concurrent users. We also had a contract with Oracle to work with our engineers and programmers to optimize the Php/MySQL coding. It was money well-spent.

In the past, the hardware was the major limitation. Video server vendors could only promise 50 concurrent users per server. This made connectivity into the internet broadband network too expensive because you need to pay for each server connection plus rack space....until I saw Steve Jobs on Youtube launching the new Mac G4 XServe demonstrating it can deliver video streams to 1000 iMacs. At that time I was working for the government and was the first person to order 2 units of G4 6 months ahead of its anticipated delivery. With 1000 concurrent users possible with the G4 XServe, I quit my job and started my e-learning company a year later in 2000.

Then, we found that the schools' internet bandwidth was the problem. The network in the school could only accomodate 3 classes of 40 students each, or a total of 120 students concurrently accessing our online videos. When there were more than 3 computer labs being used concurrently, all the PC's showed the online video had stalled. This happened to schools which subscribed for only 1 or 2 Mbps internet connectivity with their ISP. Schools using 5 or 10 Mbps had no issue. Over the years, the schools had upgraded their bandwidth connectivity to at least 5 or 10 Mbps. Today, almost all the secondary schools are using our online math program.

Two years ago, I was sourcing for better servers with fast solid-state drives (SSD's). The I/O with the storage devices could also significantly affect the access times, especially for connections to our database. But to our pleasant surprise IBM had produced new hard-disks that were even faster than SSD's! Subsequent server load tests we carried out showed significant improvement in access times with the new machines. Further improvement in access times were also obtained after modifying many segments of our code in consultation with Oracle.

But had the MOE and the schools not been pro-active in improving their internet infrastructure, online learning on a nation-wide scale in schools would not have been possible.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 14:03, 9 February 2014 (EST)

:The drive to having broadband in schools is a big part of communications policy in the US, as well. Several times in our communications law (Title 47 of the U.S. Code) Congress has indicated a clear preference for high-speed access in elementary and secondary schools. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 09:44, 11 February 2014 (EST)

Thank you for sharing this, Ichua! I am curious to know what the Singaporean population thinks of the government's involvement. In China, it seems that citizens tend to accept the government's control and restrictions. It is incredible how one's culture often defines how policies are rolled out and enforced.
--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 14:55, 14 February 2014 (EST)

----

WIKIPEDIA EDITING SYNTAX VS HTML

This may not be directly relevant to our coming lecture, but may be helpful for those who intend to add more than just texts to a Wikipedia page. I was wondering how a table or a URL might be added to a Wikipedia page and thought this could be done using HTML. To my pleasant surprise, there is a menu at the top of the edit page in edit mode which allows you to click to insert a table, etc., to minimize coding time. But it was a disappointment to find there is no math equation editor. Help for input of math expressions can be found in this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Displaying_a_formula.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 22:10, 9 February 2014 (EST)

: I finally figured out how to edit special tables from this Wiki help link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Table#Alignment [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 12:12, 10 February 2014 (EST)

----

APPRECIATING LSTU-E120

I'm beginning to appreciate the information presented in this course. The guidelines about editing Wikipedia and Assignment 1 exercise can help make Wikipedia a better place. While checking out some Wikipedia sites to assess their use for Assignment 1, I found many places in need of citations. For Assignment 1, I would attempt to search for appropriate citations and add these but if not, I now know how to add the "Citation needed" tag. But I also found citations used that were inappropriate....how do I flag these if I could not find appropriate citations?

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 22:30, 9 February 2014 (EST)

----

ONLINE PRE-QUALIFICATION TEST FOR WOULD-BE WIKIPEDIA EDITORS

Perhaps Wikipedia should require would-be editors to thoroughly read its policy and guidelines and make them take a rigorous online test which they need to pass before allowing them to do any edits on Wikipedia.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 22:40, 9 February 2014 (EST)

:What a great idea, Ichua! Would that be infringing on some kind of "right" that individuals have to post freely? I think that would be a reasonably simple way to implement some form of quality control. [[User:Castille|Castille]] 02:04, 15 February 2014 (EST)

----

NET NEUTRALITY VS FAIR USE POLICY: BIG BUFFET VS HUNGER RATION

In countries like S. Korea, US, or Singapore, where there are lots of internet bandwidth to spare, it is convenient to implement a net neutrality policy. More than 90% of the population in Singapore live in public housing apartments and all units are now provided with fibre-optic cables. But in the Philippines, the ISPs are greedy corporations and charge high prices for very poor services. They also cheat customers by telling them that they get unlimited access and unlimited surfing but disconnect them when they hit an unspecified MB of data transfers or total access time on a daily basis. Connectivity is typically restored at midnight. This had been my experience with all the ISPs since I moved to Manila for medical school in June 2012. If you come to my condo in Sampaloc, you will see on my desk all variety of routers, modems, and so-called broadband sticks from Globe, Smart, and Sun. PLDT never showed up despite contacting them twice. One reason why internet connectivity was very bad was because users get deliberately disconnected without their knowledge. However, this was all indicated in fine print in contracts which customers signed without reading under a Fair Use Policy. The Fair Use Policy is used to discourage customers from using the internet too much! The amount of MB or total time accessed used to determine service disconnection depends on the computed average MB transferred and average total time accessed. Finally, I decided to return to Singapore every weekend so that I could view the recorded lectures online for my Harvard Extension School coursework. Subsequently, the situation got better when Smart offered a promo of truly free 10-day unlimited access for purchasing their new broadband stick. But after the 10-day period subscription to the service was very expensive. I found it so much cheaper to buy 3 new broadband sticks every month. To my great relief, in August 2013, Smart began to offer a new 4G device for Php 7,000 upfront plus Php 995 for every 30 days of truly unlimited access. I am one of the few lucky guys who got this device as Smart does not sell this in the university belt area. I had to travel more than an hour to Mandaluyong to buy it. This is all very hard to fathom, especially when Smart has a 4G antenna in front of my block.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 14:30, 10 February 2014 (EST)

----

I find it very surprising that Yochai Benkler's article presents Japan as a country that emphasized ubiquitous, seamless connectivity. Having lived in the country, I would most certainly place it in the first category: ultra high speeds, but rarely there. The internet in Japan is "just there" only if you happen to have a mobile phone, with a relatively expensive data plan, haven't reached your limit, and don't happen to be in a subway.

I think that the problem with the study might be, that although it's more nuanced that most papers on connectivity, it's still not nuanced enough. For example, it uses the metric: Wi-Fi hotspots per 100000. But there's a huge difference between 100 open WiFi hotspots, 100 paid hotspots by one provider, or 100 paid hotspots from 20 providers incompatible with each other. Not to mention that there are many different pricing plans for access to said paid hotspots that can have a big impact on how useful they are.

Japan, for example, would probably not fare very well in this metric if the above-mentioned considerations would have been taken into account. Everyone who has visited the country, even its capital, knows that free hotspots are few and far between, paid hotspots are expensive and often require you to subscribe for long stretches of time, and even if you do pay for the access you'll soon find that different establishments side with different WiFi providers and if you really want a seamless experience you'll need to subscribe to at least 2-3 different WiFi providers at once.

(That said, it's worth noting that my point of view is that of someone who spends a lot of time in European and Asian countries with excellent, ubiquitous, and often free or dirt cheap connectivity, not someone from rural US.)
--[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 16:09, 10 February 2014 (EST)

:Great points! I believe later in the full report Benkler notes that Japan is more of a middle-of-the-pack performer on other metrics, including 3G penetration and price (though Japan has been growing very quickly in the former). Your point about the WiFi access points is a good one - I'm not sure if the OECD study that's referenced here took price into account when developing the definition of what is a "public hotspot." [[User:Andy|Andy]] 09:51, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

In Australia, net neutrality issues hardly impact us and receive minimal attention from consumers or industry. This week’s reading further piqued my curiosity to research what Australia is doing differently to keep these problems at bay, as we generally mimic structures of technology from America.

Unlimited broadband data plans in America planted seeds to the problems that sprouted with net neutrality. Services meant for access-granting could otherwise be boring and bill customers for simply providing access, however, a power struggle emerged within the market. The ISP’s that provide unlimited broadband failed to create additional revenue parallel to their traffic growth. This business model leaves a lot of temptation for the ISP’s to manipulate traffic, direct users to favoured websites, attempt to stifle their competitors or simply block them out. How else would a provider increase company revenue? This model also give little incentive for the ISP’s to invest in upgrades to capacity or network speeds for their customers, because they wouldn’t profit off of it.

Curiously, Australia does not have any laws in place regarding net neutrality, the ISP’s are structured to have disincentives for discriminating or favouring traffic based on source type. Australian ISPs operate on a volumetric billing system, so the user pays per MB, at a fixed rate, with a pre-determined speed and download capacity. Customers have a choice to upgrade to higher speeds and expand their download capacity, and ISPs manage congestion based on the customer’s willingness to pay. Blocking or manipulating web traffic would have an anticompetitive effect on the ISP. This system gives stronger incentives to maximise transition of all traffic regardless of source type, because that would translate to bigger profits. High market competition paired with low-entry barriers weakens incentives for ISPs to block content. Telstra, an Australian ISP, operates on a metered broadband system. If you choose Telstra as your provider, they have a list of partner sites that can be used on an unlimited basis. This is an effective way to steer the direction of customers without having to manipulate their open-access connectivity to other websites, if they so choose to use them.

ISPs should act as an affordance that suggest, rather than dictate, how their services are to be used. It would be naive to think that American ISPs could simply restructure to a volumetric system, which would run a huge risk of sending their customers running to their competitors who still provide unlimited access.
[[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 23:17, 10 February 2014 (EST)

: Talking about competition, there is hardly any competition amongst ISP's in Philippines. PLDT directly or indirectly own Smart and Sun. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 01:02, 11 February 2014 (EST)

::[[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] and [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] - if you don't mind my asking, what do you pay for broadband, and what is your average download and upload speed? You can use services like [http://www.speedtest.net/ Speedtest] to check. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 07:46, 11 February 2014 (EST)

::: Currently from my location in Sampaloc, Manila, using www.speedtest.net, I am getting 2.26 Mbps for downloads and 0.20 Mbps for uploads. I am paying Php 995 (about USD 25) for every 30 days of unlimited access using Smart's 4G network with ZTE's LTE device Model MF93D (made in China). I am now quite happy with the download speed, but not the upload speed as I have to upload videos for 1st and 2nd Year med school class lectures. It is actually very cheap now for me and I can bring the 4G device while travelling around Manila. This is a very far cry from my situation prior to August 2013. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 12:16, 11 February 2014 (EST)

::: I am on a plan with Telstra that costs $50 AUD per 8 Gigs of data. This sounds expensive by American standards, but bear in mind, minimum wage in Sydney (city) is around $22 AUD per hr. [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 16:52, 11 February 2014 (EST)

:::: Using speedtest.net from my location, at my work computer in Sydney city (This isn't my home plan as noted above, I will test that when I'm home today) Download Speed is 14.06mbps and Upload Speed is 2.04 Mbps. Good by Australian standards - this pales in comparison to America. [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 17:00, 11 February 2014 (EST)

::Also, to Marissa's point about competition, it's an interesting question whether folks would be as worried about net neutrality if there was genuine competition in the US over broadband, but that's typically not the case. Major metropolitan areas will have, at most, two or three choices, and for huge sections of the US there is only one cable provider in their area. Some cities have tried to build municipal networks to provide other choices, but several state legislatures have prevented cities in their states from doing so. Australia, as you probably know, is considering the near-opposite approach, embarking on a heroic effort to build [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Broadband_Network fiberoptic lines to every building] in Australia. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 07:52, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

UNSUNG WINTER HEROES OF THE TUBES

During my 4 years in West Lafayette, IN, from 2004-2008, we had very good internet access. But occasionally when the internet goes down, especially during winter, the internet outage extends throughout the whole state or several states. I learned that the technicians sometimes work under tough or hazardous conditions to restore damaged lines.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 01:02, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

FROM TUBES TO AIRSPACE

If any government intend to quickly setup broadband internet or intranet access, technology is now available which enable one to do so using very long range wifi or ethernet radio. The main transmission antenna can be installed and connected to a server within a day. Transmission can be up to 120km at 200 Mbps with equipment like the RAD's AirMux-400. Additional repeaters can be added for places which do not have line-of-sight. Cheap and powerful desktop receivers are also available. This can be a temporary solution until more stable networks such as those based on fiber-optics are installed. If I recall, my costing was merely Php 200,000 (USD 5,000) for a 50km range at 100 Mbps, including equipment and labor for installation and setup. Sounds good for poor and impoverished communities.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 01:19, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

NET NEUTRALITY IMPRACTICAL FOR COUNTRIES WITH BIG INCOME GAPS

Private ISP corporations want to make profit but governments want internet services to be delivered to the poor at almost no cost. To do so would require government ownership or regulated differential pricing and/or the provision of separate internet networks: one for entertainment and commerce and the other for education.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 01:36, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

Net Neutrality is the question which must be maintained by government and private entities in close cooperation. Of course, the ISPs want to make greater profits by means of prices fluctuation for different websites, traffics and etc. In this case, the government can be some kind of
"referee" by preventing the IPS to speculate with the mentioned aspects. However, we should bear in mind that the government cannot keep the total governance in its hands as this policy may lead to some restrictions in the development of this sphere in future. So, I think that the met neutrality must be recognized by law and the legislation must set the general rules and protect the consumers from being somehow harmed by the IPS. Still, IPS must possess enough freedom for development and advancement of the services they are engaged in.[[User:Aysel|Aysel]] 09:19, 11 February 2014 (EST)Aysel Ibayeva

----

In response to Castille, I am also finding myself at a crossroad on the issue of promoting liberty and safeguarding citizens by preventing injustices. I think this is a topic of endless, profound debate. I thoroughly enjoyed the weekly readings and found Adam Thierer's article "More Confusion about Internet 'Freedom' " to be particularly powerful and convincing. While I did not agree with all of the points he made, I think he makes a valid, logical argument debunking the mainstream point of view that has been engrained in us as a society. I did not realize the extent of power the FCC maintains over the internet and, as he mentions, these are not even elected officials. How can they promote the values or digital issues that we, the people of the internet, hold dear. Shouldn't we have a say in these decisions that directly impact the cyberspace we access on a daily basis? He admits there will inevitably be problems in a free information marketplace; however, in the name of innovation via the promotion of creativity and ingenuity within our society, perhaps these mistakes are well worth the risk and stunting this technological growth/exchange could do more damage than good.

I was surprised to find the end of the article when Thierer ultimately bashes the Senator's initial statement that Net neutrality is “the First Amendment issue of our time.” At first I thought he was in agreement with Senator Franken but he saw this as more of an attack on the goal of the first amendment. When I initially read Franken's statement I took it to mean that the internet is becoming a general issue for freedom of speech.

Thierer suggests that instead of putting more faith in these central planners, we should look to the evolutionary market forces through a bottom-up response as the "cyber-progressivists" have argued (Thierer 2011). The most important point that Thierer discusses, in my opinion, was when he mentioned that people are driven by incentives, but they are only truly free to do so if they are not held at the whim of a higher governing authority and this authority has a track record of always being two steps behind the latest technological advancements. They cannot keep up and in trying to do so, they are ultimately thwarting overall progression. While I cannot go as far as saying that I believe all regulatory intervention is tyranny as Thierer ends up insisting, I tend to agree with his overall convictions. However, as Castille pointed out, there are clearly times when it appears the government should step in to protect its citizens on the web. On the other hand, one intervention leads to another and it becomes a fast moving "slippery slope".

--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 10:57, 11 February 2014 (EST)

:There's a reason this has been a hot issue for about a decade! There are very compelling arguments to be made on all sides. Thierer does gloss over the fact that the FCC's actions are constrained by Congress, and Congress (at least in theory) is dependent upon the people, so as a matter of structure the influence of the public has a role, though we all know how hard that is to achieve in practice. The First Amendment issues themselves are fascinating and an area where I spend a lot of my time thinking about these issues; I hope to get to some of that in class today. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 10:58, 11 February 2014 (EST)

::Thierer complains, "We are asked to ignore our history lessons, which teach us that centralized planning and bureaucracy all too often lead to massively inefficient outcomes..." However, this is taking the libertarian complaint of inefficiency (that I normally side with) out of its economic context. If he were to balance the concerns of profitability of the architecture of the industry (for the ISPs) and of the fiber networks themselves, and weigh them against the potential economic growth as a result of ubiquitous internet, Thierer would find that one far outweighs the other in importance. [[User:MikeJohnson|MikeJohnson]] 15:48, 11 February 2014 (EST)

Interesting points here, Mike. I often wonder what the founding fathers would think if they lived today and wonder how they would grapple with the complexities digital technology presents for society. While I have tremendous respect for our great Constitution and the values invoked within it; I still find that it cannot effectively respond to modern advancements. After a bit of research it seems that the founding fathers would favor less government involvement in the face of economic advancement. As James Madison once said, "The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty." Patrick Henry also had a quote that may be relevant to this debate: "The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." No matter what side of the fence you find yourself, this is one of those debates (as Andy mentions) that does not appear to have a clear course of action that can be taken in the near future. Drafting modern technical policy and implementing it with the consent of the people is the most important task at hand.
--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 15:08, 14 February 2014 (EST)

--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 14:55, 14 February 2014 (EST)

----

When the key Net Neutrality cases were being presented before the court a few years back, I remember being firmly on the side of the FCC and hoping that a strict ruling against Comcast would have preserved Net Neutrality... or at least what I presumed "net neutrality" to encompass back then. I see that my view of Net Neutrality was overly narrow at that time...and although I still do not want to see service providers have that much power to manipulate what legal content a user chooses to access online, I see from the readings that the scope of the "problem" would, probably, neither have been fully resolved in a ruling that went in favor of the FCC. Constraints, as discussed last week, would have most likely just shifted, and placed regulated pressure on a marketplace. (an example might be thinking of an ISP that truly wants to enter the market and offer customers a filtered, "safe", online experience for certain families... they indeed would have subscribers and be successful and appeal to some sectors that opt for a “safe online community”). Conversely, with the judges ruling allowing the FCC to walk away with the ability to regulate the entire internet is more than a little worrisome knowing that political cycles could have such sweeping powers to re-define the internet landscape. And while service providers still enjoy their own monopolies within any given township of users who have only 1 (maybe 2) choices for an ISP, it seems that the consumer is the only one who lost some ground in the Net Neutrality rulings.

I think the reading "Net Neutrality and Free Speech in the Internet Age" strikes closer to where we need to be focusing our attention. To quote from the interview directly: "Dawn argues for an affirmative conception of the First Amendment, under which public and powerful private gatekeepers of Internet communications are subject to the First Amendment’s mandate to ensure the free flow of communications in the digital age." - Here too I originally presumed that the First Amendment *did* apply across-the-board to all communication...Internet, printing press, public speech - but I guess it is that word "public" that becomes an "undefined zone" within virtual spaces online. Is there anything like a national or municipal park in the Internet world where the marketplace has no sway on how we choose to behave in that public zone? Or is every “online space” in which we choose to speak or participate analogous to traveling to private island governed by the values (and whims) of the a single gatekeeper rather than any one nation's constitutional rights? (Why did Mr. Roarke and Tattoo just come to mind...?).
[[User:Psl|Psl]] 12:31, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

MAGNA CARTA FOR PHILIPPINES INTERNET FREEDOM (MCPIF)

See: http://democracy.net.ph/mcpif/full-text/

What do you think of Section 5(e)?

Schools in Singapore has a restriction policy. Only selected websites are permitted to be accessed within the school's network.

We also teach parents how to allow their children to access only selected websites and block all others to prevent children from playing online games and accessing pornographic and other undesirable websites.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 12:42, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

WEBSITES BANNED IN SINGAPORE

http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/singapore/story/extramarital-dating-website-ceo-disappointed-mdas-ban-20131109

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/05/23/us-singapore-internet-odd-idUSS2322899620080523

http://yawningbread.org/arch_2005/yax-504.htm

http://therealsingapore.com/content/singapore-government-plans-ban-websites-such-pirate-bay

See also Internet Filtering in Singapore:
https://opennet.net/studies/singapore

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 12:50, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

I have used Wikipedia as a starting point to gather resources and verify the accuracy of the information. I have never been a contributor. This assignment has proved useful in "breaking me out of my shell." I am reminded of the quote from an article that I ran across by Tom Simonite. In the article, The Decline of Wikipedia, he stated: "When Wikipedians achieved their most impressive feat of leaderless collective organization, they unwittingly set in motion the decline in participation that troubles their project today." I fear the mechanism is stifled from further growth due to its collective and bureaucratic structure. [[User:VACYBER|VACYBER]] 13:13, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

This week’s assignment was very enlightening. I am a casual browser in Wikipedia and have used it just for some very general preliminary information before going into the topic deeper in other websites. I was familiar with the issues of the website but I never really stepped behind the initial pages to edit or evaluate the rules. This was very helpful but I also suffered a bit on the learning curve being a complete beginner on that end. Regardless, I found it very interesting.

Now for the topic of government’s roles of the Internet, I think this would be best avoided. The Internet is where our freedom of speech gets most prolific and also most obscene. There’s room for it all and we should keep it like this. When control enters the picture it is a dangerous slope and it is never black and white. How do you decide what should be banned? Everyone will give a different method and a consensus is nearly impossible. I’m interest to see what the class will say on this topic.
[[User:Lpereira|Lpereira]] 13:28, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

According to research conducted by Yochai Benkler about search for improvement of high-capacity networks for the next generation in different developed and developing countries is based on download speed and complete connectivity. His study demonstrates the strengths and weaknesses in the broadband deal in several countries and makes a comparison to the technological transition in the next generation, while the video shows briefly how connectivity works today and makes a comparison between the most developed and developing countries. In analyzing both materials, I made the conclusion that the opportunities and technological barriers, experiences and skills gained by the different players in the innovation system flowing through this economic activity to another, establish a specific context for each country or region, that is that any set of economic incentives generate different incentives and constraints to innovation. To the extent and in cases where the divergence between economic incentives and stimulating innovation represented by externalities is substantial, differences are gradually decreased. [[User:Gisellebatista|Gisellebatista]] 14:08, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

Working on Assignment One (and the Wiki rule of neutrality in particular) got me thinking about objectivity as it relates to online journalistic content. It struck me that objectivity has been losing its power online, at least in the journalistic and content spheres. Outside of academic circles, the online news that gets the most attention seems to be quite opinionated — they are the articles that lead to shares, ‘likes’, high-fives, vitriol, and discussion. But it’s also these same pieces that people go to for sources of information. Often biased information. A couple of the readings have addressed this fact: that online communities and the net in general has a categorizing effect… so that it becomes not so much a large “worldwide web”, but a large collection of smaller, almost navel-gazing webs.

There’s a bit of a bipolarity going on here. As an example, Wikipedia seems to be doing a solid job of promoting objectivity, and yet online biases seem break through the clutter faster. On one hand we crave objectivity for our sources, and on the other hand we crave opinions for our entertainment. (Maybe it’s as simple as that? But it rarely is…)

When looking at different Wiki articles, a bit of a pattern started to emerge: Those articles that deviated from one rule, were more likely to deviate from at least one of the other rules, as well. This made it particularly difficult to focus on editing just the one area and led to making amendments of other rules as well. I found that as I delved deeper into the editing process, more issues seemed to pop up that “needed” editing — I could see how it could become quite addictive for regular Wiki editors.

I also found the idea of branching out to edit an article for which I had no previous knowledge to be daunting — even with sufficient sources at my disposal. It would be interesting to look at a study of how much prior knowledge Wiki editors have about the subjects they are editing… [[User:Twood|Twood]] 14:15, 11 February 2014 (EST)

:I would agree with Twood-the task of verifying sources for accuracy is daunting. The three fundamental rules Wiki has placed ( at first) seem simplistic. Application takes the steps to a different level. I found myself in the most interesting research hole imaginable. The error rate is high on Wiki-but understandable. --[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 15:36, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

Having created and submitted a single Wikipedia article previously, I had a reasonable familiarity with Wikipedia before completing Assignment 1. However, approaching Wikipedia as an editor with a targeted rule to address in a pre-existing article brought up many questions about the role of the individual, the community and the regulation of speech. A number of the readings helped work through these questions for me, none more so than Professor Dawn Nunziato's interview on net neutrality and free speech. I was pleased to consider the two conceptions of the first amendment in the context of the internet and regulation of speech online. As Nunziato explains, under the affirmative conception of the first amendment, "individuals enjoy an affirmative right to speak, free from content and viewpoint discrimination — regardless of whether such discrimination occurs at the hands of the government or other powerful regulators of speech." She also confirms, as I have understood from my lay person's perspective as a frequent user of web and social media, that the affirmative conception of the first amendment "has not taken root" in the internet context because the private entities that control internet speech are not subject to the first amendment's mandate prohibiting censorship. This of course leads to concern about whether our internet communication is really free-- and also leads to the unique case of Wikipedia. As we learned in other readings this week, and in completing Assignment 1 itself, there are certainly "gatekeepers" for speech on Wikipedia, but in a different form from broadband providers, email servers, and search engines that Nunziato cites. The community of editors on Wikipedia, and such reliability control features as autoconfirmed editors, serve as a less tangible but equally omnipresent entity that has the power to censor- but to protect from unreliable or overly biased information, rather than a singular interest. Whether Wikipedia can at the same time ensure neutrality and protect free speech is clearly an ongoing debate.

[[User:akk22|akk22]] 15:19, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

The Internet is a global infrastructure so measuring, defining, and ultimately controlling it can be accomplished in a variety of ways. In measuring speed, broadband, and the “always on” ubiquitously networked society, the US ranked mid to poor in performance and among the absolute lowest in category of price and future planning. This is one of the key issues debated in politics along with open access policies, network neutrality, First Amendment rights, and the FCC’s broad powers over regulating the Internet. The network neutrality view is that “broadband providers and wireless carriers should be prohibited from discriminating against speech on the basis of viewpoint or content” the right for all information to travel the Internet equally without discrimination. There have been several occurrences of major ISP’s manipulating the content provided on an individualized basis just because it benefited their own interests. How much regulation should we place over the Internet or should we just leave it to the great innovators and major corporations to work it out? [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:46, 11 February 2014 (EST)

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

As a first time contributor to Wikipedia, thanks to this class in general and assignment one in particular, I came to realize that it would be very difficult for governments to regulate the internet as it is already an enormous task for individual web-based organizations, such as Wikipedia, to manage all its editors. For example, bearing Wikipedia's first rule in mind (also known as "NPOV"), I read a few articles and edited one that was completely not in line with Wikipedia's policies. There was no citation from reliable sources of any kind. Besides, the author stated a lot of his opinions as facts and vice versa.

Having said that, I believe that if it is that hard for organizations such as Wikipedia to regulate their own user bases, which are relatively small portions of a countries' populations, and make them all stick to the rules, let alone governments of developed nations who manage an entire population with many fundamental rights and freedom to regulate the internet in the traditional governmental ways of regulating.

Finally, I am not totally dismissing the idea that governments should not intervene on internet issues. It is not impossible to regulate it to some extent. On the contrary, I think it is even necessary for governments and individual internet organizations to collaborate and continue to establish policies and regulations that will be in the benefits of their populations and users, respectively.
[[User:cheikhmbacke|cheikhmbacke]] 15:55, 11 February 2014 (EST)

:Did you see the posting earlier where Ichua suggested implementing a survey or "quiz" of sorts which would test prospective users based on information given in the Terms of Use/Conditions of Wikipedia to ensure that they understood the rules and how to use them before they were allowed to create new posts or make alterations to existing posts. On what sort of issues would you propose governments intervene? Should they monitor or regulate content or one of the four "forces"-- excluding law, which is obvious-- (architecture, market, norms)? As far as content, I don't think it would be the government's duty or right to ensure accuracy or even to prevent "hate speech", as I think that sort of involvement would be a slippery slope towards infringing on free speech. [[User:Castille|Castille]] 02:13, 15 February 2014 (EST)

----

Not sure if I should post this on the most recent board or on this one, where it seems more in line with the topic. The internet has recently exploded with articles about the purported "end of Net Neutrality" due to the January court ruling that the FCC could no longer enforce the rules governing Net Neutrality. Being that I gravitate towards graphics, I found this article to be particularly interesting:
[http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/how-the-end-of-net-neutrality-might-look-to-an-ordinary-customer/]. This article by the Huffington Post also breaks down the controversy into an easily-understood FAQ page: [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-white/net-neutrality_b_5256423.html]
[[User:Castille|Castille]] 20:32, 2 May 2014 (EDT)

The Internet as a Tool of Education

2014-05-01T17:42:40Z

Castille: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 29'''

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

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

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

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==

; Modern distance education

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

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

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

; What is new and what is not?

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

; Concerns, doubts, and issues

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

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

; Case Studies - HarvardX and CopyrightX

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

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

== Optional Readings ==

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moocthulhu: http://moocthulhu.com/

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

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

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

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

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

DS106: http://ds106.us/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

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

::I would think for those very reasons, it would behoove employers to actually prioritize students who had been involved in an online learning program (either in conjunction with their brick-and-mortar school or as a solely-online program, given that it was through a legitimate university). Not only does completion of an online program ensure that the individual has a firm grasp of how to operate technology, but also ensures that the individual is a self-starter and able to organize, schedule, and complete their work load in an effective and efficient manner, at least to some extent. [[User:Castille|Castille]] 13:42, 1 May 2014 (EDT)

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

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

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

----

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

::I completely agree! I think the MOOCs encourage professors to "step up their game", so to speak. I was watching a Yale professor's Philosophy of Death class recently and it was AMAZING-- that's what classes should be! As the MOOCs evolve, I would imagine professors and TA's will actually be even more necessary as people enroll for grades (like this program), which means that interaction and grading will have to occur.[[User:Castille|Castille]] 13:42, 1 May 2014 (EDT)

----

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

::The last part of what you said seems like a chicken-or-an-egg kind of thing, as I think completion rates would increase if the classes were able to be taken for credit. It is hard enough to stay committed to a course as it is, but to take an educational class purely for the enjoyment of learning, rather than for a grade or some sort of end goal, is nearly impossible! [[User:Castille|Castille]] 13:42, 1 May 2014 (EDT)

----

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

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

The Internet as a Tool of Education

2014-04-27T20:44:09Z

Castille: /* Class Discussion */

The Internet as a Tool of Education

2014-04-24T22:45:32Z

Castille: /* Class Discussion */

Hacking, Hackers, and Hacktivism

2014-04-22T19:14:18Z

Castille: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 22'''

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

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==

; Defining hackers, hacking, and hacktivism

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

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

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

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

; Law and law enforcement

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

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

; Case studies

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

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

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

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

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

== Optional Readings ==

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

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

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

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

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

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

----

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

Assignment 4 Submissions

2014-04-22T15:40:25Z

Castille: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

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

''Please name your file "wikiusername_Assignment4," where "wikiusername" is replaced with your username, to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment or causing errors in the Wiki by including forbidden characters.'' So if your username is "jdoe" and your file is a Word document your file should be named "jdoe_Assignment4.doc."

'''Upload your rough draft here: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/Special:Upload Upload file]'''

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

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

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

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

==Submissions==

{{AssignmentInfo|Margo Monroe|Controlling our personal genomes|
[[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Monroe_Assignment_Four.docx]]}}
([[User:Margorm|Margorm]] 08:21, 1 April 2014 (EDT))

----

{{AssignmentInfo|Philip Seyfi|Bounties and underrepresented topics|
[[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/LSTUE-120Assignment4.pdf]]}}
([[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 04:52, 22 April 2014 (EDT))

----

{{AssignmentInfo|[[User:Lpereira|Lpereira]] 09:01, 22 April 2014 (EDT)|Who Sets the Norm on Youtube Communities?|
[[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assingment_4.docx]]}}

----

{{AssignmentInfo|Castille Rath|Self Help or Self Harm?: Tumblr's governance of its self harm community|
[[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:CastilleRath_ASSIGNMENT_FOUR.doc]]}}
([[[User:Castille|Castille]] 11:40, 22 April 2014 (EDT))

Informing the Public in the Internet Age

2014-04-20T14:21:53Z

Castille: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 15'''

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

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==

; The whos and wheres of modern journalism

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

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

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

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

; Threats and issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

; New technologies and models

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

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

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

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

== Optional Readings ==

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

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

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

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

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

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

----

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

----

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

::I very much enjoyed this article and am glad to see that someone chose to respond. I agree with you, and find that it also serves as a reminder that not only is the public being fed slanted views, but that the news neglects to consider certain topics altogether. One must use his or her discretion at all times, and must do his or her own research if intending to be entirely informed. It is clear that in many cases, opinions are no longer organically developed, nor are they passed down through traditional family values, but rather mass produced and disseminated by the media.[[User:Castille|Castille]] 10:21, 20 April 2014 (EDT)

----

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

----

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

----

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

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

----

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

----

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

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

----

Informing the Public in the Internet Age

2014-04-13T21:27:34Z

Castille: /* Class Discussion */

Informing the Public in the Internet Age

2014-04-09T17:12:09Z

Castille: /* Class Discussion */

Privacy Part 2: Government Surveillance

2014-04-08T16:19:22Z

Castille: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 8'''

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

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

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

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==

; Government vs. Corporate Surveillance

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

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

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

; Case Study - the NSA Scandal and Surveillance Policy

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

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

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

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

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

; Surveillance and U.S. law

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

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

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

== Optional Readings ==

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

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

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

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

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

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

----

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

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

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

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

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

----

Privacy Part 2: Government Surveillance

2014-04-05T19:52:02Z

Castille: /* Class Discussion */

Privacy Part 1: Corporate Data Gathering

2014-04-05T16:55:00Z

Castille: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 1'''

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

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

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

== Assignments ==

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

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==

; Conceptualizing privacy

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

; Privacy and data

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

; Corporate data practices

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

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

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

== Optional Readings ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

-----

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

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

----

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

----

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

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

Privacy Part 1: Corporate Data Gathering

2014-03-29T20:33:06Z

Castille: /* Class Discussion */

Peer Production: Development from the Edges and from the Crowd

2014-03-28T17:17:31Z

Castille: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''March 25'''

Beyond merely providing a forum for political activism, scholars are increasingly aware of the benefits the Internet provides as a mode of production. How can the Internet help us make things together? How much hierarchy and control is needed to produce? How good is the material that peer production creates? And finally, what are the risks to producers (and society) inherent to peer production?

Joining us this week is [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/rfaris Rob Faris], the Research Director for the Berkman Center.

== Assignments ==

'''''The deadline for [[Assignments#Assignment_3:_Project_Outline|Assignment 3]] has moved from March 25th to April 1st.''''' All other deadlines will not change.

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==

; Development from the edges

* [http://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/democ1.htm Eric Von Hippel, ''Democratizing Innovation''] (Chapter 1, focus on pages 1-3 and 13-15, skim rest)

; Development as a crowd

* [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)

* [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)

:* 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].

* [http://web.media.mit.edu/~cebrian/p78-tang.pdf John Tang et al, Reflecting on the DARPA Red Balloon Challenge (''Communications of the ACM'')]

; Crowd intelligence

* [http://www.randomhouse.com/features/wisdomofcrowds/excerpt.html James Surowiecki, ''The Wisdom of Crowds''] (read excerpt)

* [http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2006/11/30/cass-sunsteins-infotopia/ Ethan Zuckerman, Review of Cass Sunstein’s “Infotopia”]

== Optional Readings ==

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia Wikipedia, Reliability of Wikipedia]

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uJWwLVkKTU Jonathan Zittrain, Minds for Sale] (video, watch all)

* [http://rcmap.hatnote.com/#en Hatnote, Real Time Wikipedia Changes Map]

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

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

----
Having an extensive background in the social sciences I found the Jerome Hergeaux presentation to be a useful study for sociologists and psychologists alike. A question that came to mind during the presentation was how websites like wikipedia are changing social relationships and forms of gratification. Furthermore do certain groups benefit from these type of platforms more than others? The digital age has proven to be a time of change where "we, the people" feel more and more connected, or at least that's what we believe, but is this statement true across the board for the various socio-economic groups?

[[User:Jacqueline Argueta|Jacqueline Argueta]] 16:10, 25 March 2014 (EDT)

----

COMMENTS ON "Jerome Hergeaux, Cooperation in a Peer Production Economy: Experimental Evidence from Wikipedia"

Coming from an operations research background, I find the application of game theoretic approaches to this project rather interesting. However, there are other aspects which were not taken into account. For example, the utility of social recognition derived by contributors to Wikipedia can be obtained at significantly reduced cost and risk compared to other options like authoring a book or publishing a paper in a peer-reviewed journal. Furthermore, the results are immediate so the perceived utility is also immediate.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 08:40, 25 March 2014 (EDT)

----

QUALITY OF CONTENT FROM PEER PRODUCTION IN WIKIPEDIA

Because Wikipedia content lacks originality and are mostly copied from other sources, I beg to differ on the usefulness of mentioning contributions to Wikipedia in one's resume. Real scholars would rather contribute to peer-reviewed journals where the benefits are far greater, including promotion and salary increase if working in an academic institution. So while Wikipedia content may be useful to the general public, the quality of the content may not be of high academic value.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 09:17, 25 March 2014 (EDT)

----

I think that one of the great examples of Democratizing Innovation are games... A number of highly successful games have been initially created as mods developed by gamers, and later turned into commercial products by the companies whose games were built upon... Some examples off the top of my head include many Half Life/Source engine based multiplayer games, DotA - originally based on Warcraft III, or, outside of video games, the many unofficial rulebooks, expansions and modifications of Dungeons & Dragons or some of the Wizards of the Coast's collectible card games. --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 10:24, 25 March 2014 (EDT)

----

AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL OPEN COLLABORATION NETWORK

SETi@HOME gave me an idea to enhance air transport safety. The case of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370 might have been more clear if air traffic is also being monitored by air control gamers and air traffic control towers can receive alerts, comments, and suggested routings from these gamers in real-time over the internet. For this to be possible, satellite and transponder data from all aircrafts need to be available, also in real-time over the internet, to the gamers. Software programmers can also develop new codes which can analyze traffic patterns or which can make predictions of flight paths based on current and new vectors using the real-time data.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 11:02, 25 March 2014 (EDT)

----

PEER PRODUCTION BY AMSAT ENTHUSIASTS OF SECOND INTERNET

When I read how I could access internet for free via the AMSAT satellites, I decided to get the amateur radio license (call sign KC9HKA) while in West Lafayette, IN. I was just curious to find out latest information about AMSAT and found this:

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Chaos-Computer-Club-Hackerspace-Global-Grid-SOPA-Protect-IP-Nick-Farr,news-13742.html

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 11:26, 25 March 2014 (EDT)

----

I will have to look into the AMSAT satellites. Just recently we were discussing an article that appeared in the Daily Mail regarding an "OuterNet."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2552177/Forget-Internet-soon-OUTERNET-Company-plans-beam-free-wi-fi-person-Earth-space.html

The collaboration of people who "tinker" with technology is a fascinating subject. It remains much easier to verify results than from within the academic write-ups. [[User:VACYBER|VACYBER]] 13:23, 25 March 2014 (EDT)

:: I like this kind of news! I often tell colleagues at my office that "If you can't do it, it is expensive; if you know how to do it, it can be free!" While in the "Optimization in Aerospace Engineering" class as a aeronautical/astronautucal graduate student at Purdue University, I did a project to ascertain the viability of launching low orbit satellites (LEOs). The traditional thinking then was that it is too expensive and rockets typically carry more than a single payload. But calculations showed that it is economically viable to launch single payload of lightweight LEO. Such a project is crucial for education of the poor because the poor have limited or no access to the internet. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 15:04, 25 March 2014 (EDT)

----

Thus far, most "peer production" has been limited to the entirely digital world. I'm interested in the intersection between peer-production and the emerging technology of 3D printing. It seems to me that most of the things sold on etsy.com could be printed by a 3D printer; there are even technologies emerging that allow printing of electronic circuits (e.g., the Kickstarter EX project). Clothing seems like one of the first things that could be a mass-market success for 3D printing. It seems like there's a huge range of new issues that will emerge, not only in the area of intellectual property but also things like product liability, etc. Once the technology exists on a massive scale at consumer homes, it seems like some of the same things that promote prosocial peer-production behavior, as discussed by the writers/speakers in this section, could unleash even more world-changing innovation once it includes the world of physical goods.
[[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 14:18, 25 March 2014 (EDT)

----

The idea that crowd intelligence boosts the wisdom of the whole seems completely intuitive....and yet research does suggest (strongly) that people are more creative/innovative when they work alone. [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/opinion/sunday/the-rise-of-the-new-groupthink.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0] Mind you, it could be that people are individually more creative, and then when they put these individual efforts together, the strength of that innovation is heightened…. And perhaps it's dependant upon what it is that is actually being produced. [[User:Twood|Twood]] 15:25, 25 March 2014 (EDT)
----
::What a great article! Thank you for sharing.
I was wondering, when I read your message, if perhaps communicating through the internet is a convergence point whereby people are able to operate and create individually, and then join their individual thoughts, ideas, etc. with a group so that the benefits of both solitude and collaboration are achieved. It begs the question of whether spacial distance allows people to not only be more creative for whatever reason, but to also be stronger in their convictions. By this I mean to suggest that in a group-- especially when a group is physically together-- people are more likely to compromise or go with the most popular opinion, as seen in the famous Milgram experiments (not only the one on authority, but his later experiment in which a subject would be placed with a group who would answer a question incorrectly and the subject would be asked the answer, which was nearly always the incorrect answer). [[User:Castille|Castille]] 13:17, 28 March 2014 (EDT)

----
Peer Production and Crowdsourcing is very effective elements for civil society. It is self-organizing community which proves to be very effective, for example Wikipedia and experience with Red Balloons. PP is very essential for firms and companies. They can benefit from solutions provided by PP for their services and products and etc. But, the main concern is lack of the organizational and legsialtive aspects of these little communities. Can these little communities be relaible wihout proper organizational and legislative support? Let's take Wikipedia as an example. As it is mentioned by one of students, Wikipedia is not considered as relaible source at universities in our coutry. Aysel Ibayeva ([[User:Aysel|Aysel]] 15:39, 25 March 2014 (EDT))
----

Democratization of innovation seems to have positive side effects on product development. While far from being ideal for intricate and sophisticated research projects, user innovation benefits the community as a whole especially when the users/innovators share their work freely. This provides an opportunity for other users to improve upon the work thus creating rich opportunities for improvement. This democratization of the creative development segment of the market goes in hand with freely sharing alterations and product innovation. This mutually benefits both manufactures and consumers, as the user knows what they want and need most.
SETI@home is a novel idea and an excellent example of using the Internet not just as a social tool, but as way to connect thousands if not even millions of personal computers as a useful tool. The concept of the SETI is to search the universe for “radio transmissions from extraterrestrial intelligence”. By utilizing the down time of millions of computers CPU, the program is able to achieve monumental advancements that previously were possible only from supercomputers. That is similar in a way to the social strategies that the teams employed in the Red Balloon Challenge. MIT won, and by using a pay for information approach, they were able to quickly connect a web of people to help them pinpoint the position of all ten balloons. Even though the other teams did not find all the balloons, their approach to the search is an excellent example of how social networks and group efforts can achieve a far greater number of things than a lone individual could.
James Surowiecki brings up an interesting point, that crowds can and normally do perform much better then individuals in making predictions and decisions, but it’s also possible for a large group to do much worse. [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:51, 25 March 2014 (EDT)
----

The James Surowiecki reading points to an important issue involving internet and society: the use of crowdsourcing. Increasingly, artists, even major players such as Spike Lee now resort to Kickstarter and other “crowd funding” sites. Arguably, the repercussions from such use are negligible; perhaps bigger names will eclipse up-and-coming artists? Yet, certain forms of crowd sourcing do hold the potential for danger.

For instance, after the horrific Boston Marathon bombings last April, Reddit users perused photos from the event, which, per the sites founder, “fueled online witch hunts.” Redditors pointed to Brown University student Sunil Tripathi. Authorities found Tripathi dead days after the arrest of Dhokhar Tsarnaev, with no cause of death known. But the unnecessary finger pointing led to harassment of Tripathi’s family who had their own grief to contend with. [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/29/business/media/bombings-trip-up-reddit-in-its-turn-in-spotlight.html]

Perhaps in cases involving criminal investigations it is best to leave sleuthing to the professionals. Yes, citizens can still participate in the process by sharing information with authorities, but sites like Reddit are not the best means with which to do so. Are there instances where online crowd sourcing has turned up successful leads in a criminal investigation?

In a somewhat related story, 90’s grunge icon Courtney Love believes that she discovered the wreckage of MH370. [http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/courtney-love-malaysia-flight-370-104760.html] [[User:Vance.puchalski|Vance.puchalski]] 15:54, 25 March 2014 (EDT)

-----

As the saying goes, "Union makes strength." I am not claiming that this ancient wisdom perfectly holds in all circumstances but I think that it could greatly help scholars make things together on the internet. It is true that some people do work better individually than in groups. However, when it comes to the internet, one can easily see the power of collective work and peer production particularly in the academia. Even the world's most famous online sources of knowledge were produced by groups of people of the same interest. For example, the Wikipedia platform would not have gone this far had it not been for its community's peer production. Albeit its lack of originality and sometimes questionable quality of its content, the concept of aggregating such vast areas of knowledge into a single free online encyclopedia would not have been possible had it not been for peer production. Yes there is still much hierarchy and control in the production process. Yes there are risks inherent to peer production as well. However, I believe that the advantages of creating an atmosphere for either groups (political activists and scholars) outweighs the disadvantages not to.
[[User:cheikhmbacke|cheikhmbacke]] 15:56, 25 March 2014 (EDT)

COMMENTS ON THE WISDOM OF CROWDS
I found the excerpt from The wisdom of crowds really interesting. The last sentence in the article "The judgment of crowds may be good in laboratory settings and classrooms, but what happens in the real world? " From my understanding, the judgement of crowds is not as good as the judgement of an individual most of the time. As people tend to make more mistakes when they make decision together. However, this is not what we see in the experiments. I wonder what makes the difference between the results we have from the experiments and the real world. Perhaps, it is just because there is no such thing as a correct answer in the real world.

[[User:Jolietheone|Jolietheone]] 16:12, 25 March 2014 (EDT)

----

I apologize for the tardy posting. I tried to post on the Wiki several times today from my office in Boston, which situates over 50 companies. We were all affected in some way this afternoon. On a side bar, it is amazing to see what happens when the Internet is not accessible.

This brings light to Ethan’s article this week in our course readings. Ethan discussed Sunstein’s argument, and concerns in regards to the isolation of individuals/society, and exposure to certain materials not normally sought after.

For those who are not connected to the internet, (which would be me today), Sunstein argues a lack of joint decision making and common experience could potentially be lacking.

At the basis of his argument, we do find a bit of truth. Multiple companies would not make decisions today in the building, due to the lack of Internet and information. It was like the Wiki Blackout. Although decisions could be made, they were put on hold.

Hours later, I found myself at John Harvard’s Brewery & Ale House. It became my new office. I could still make a decision; hence my selection of an Ale house over a coffee shop. However; I could not make some critical decisions, and lacked information to do my job (to include posting this thought on time).

Interesting.

Try to Work at John Harvard’s Brewery. It’s impossible. The beer is too good.
--[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 17:43, 25 March 2014 (EDT)

----

Ugh. I just realized that my posting apparently didn't go through from my iPad last week :(

I have taken a particular interest in the articles on Crowd Intelligence, as there seems to exist a fine line between trusting the accuracy of crowd response and following blindly. Not that I mean to start something too controversial, but how can one distinguish the difference between accurate answers, such as the average in the jelly bean experiments, versus what could be dangerous thoughts disseminated throughout a small group. As Ethan Zuckerman states in his article about Sunstein's Infotopia, "People find it difficult to defy the will of a group, and may polarize to avoid interpersonal conflict." How does the internet factor into this? Does the isolation-- since one is typically operating alone when they use their computer-- serve as a buffer, thus enhancing creativity and maintaining individual beliefs? Or does the ability to attract a large audience and build a "fanbase", for lack of a better word, only increase the likelihood of falling into a collective ideology that may or may not be legitimate or accurate? [[User:Castille|Castille]] 13:17, 28 March 2014 (EDT)

Assignment 3 Submissions

2014-03-25T15:53:35Z

Castille: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

'''''Please note that the deadline for this assignment has moved from March 25th to April 1st.'''''

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

''Please name your file "wikiusername_Assignment3," where "wikiusername" is replaced with your username, to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment or causing errors in the Wiki by including forbidden characters.'' So if your username is "jdoe" and your file is a Word document your file should be named "jdoe_Assignment3.doc."

'''Upload your file here: [[Special:Upload|Upload file]]'''

Once you've uploaded your file, please link to it following the format below:

*Name or pseudonym:
*Description:
*Link to your outline: (the file you uploaded)

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [[Special:ImageList|list of uploaded files]].

==Submission Instructions==

*Name or pseudonym:
*Description:
*Link to your outline:

Optionally you can use a new template to create a title box for your assignment. In order to do this use the following format:
<pre>
{{AssignmentInfo|Name|My assignment description|Link to your file}}
</pre>

If used properly you should see the following:
{{AssignmentInfo|My Name|My assignment description|http://yourlinkhere}}

You may also use some new templates for comments and responses.

<pre>
{{Comment|type your comment here}}
</pre>

Should look like:
{{Comment|Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor inviduntut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. }}

You can enter a response in a similar way:
<pre>
{{Response|type your response here}}
</pre>
Should look like:
{{Response|thank you very much for commenting on my assignment.}}

'''Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post.'''

==Submissions==

<pre>
{{Assignment Three|Castille Rath|Tumblr's Self-Harm Blogs)|
[[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/CastilleRath_ASSIGNMENT_THREE.doc]]}}
</pre>
[[User:Castille|Castille]] 11:52, 25 March 2014 (EDT)

Assignment 3 Submissions

2014-03-25T15:52:42Z

Castille: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

'''''Please note that the deadline for this assignment has moved from March 25th to April 1st.'''''

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

''Please name your file "wikiusername_Assignment3," where "wikiusername" is replaced with your username, to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment or causing errors in the Wiki by including forbidden characters.'' So if your username is "jdoe" and your file is a Word document your file should be named "jdoe_Assignment3.doc."

'''Upload your file here: [[Special:Upload|Upload file]]'''

Once you've uploaded your file, please link to it following the format below:

*Name or pseudonym:
*Description:
*Link to your outline: (the file you uploaded)

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [[Special:ImageList|list of uploaded files]].

==Submission Instructions==

*Name or pseudonym:
*Description:
*Link to your outline:

Optionally you can use a new template to create a title box for your assignment. In order to do this use the following format:
<pre>
{{AssignmentInfo|Name|My assignment description|Link to your file}}
</pre>

If used properly you should see the following:
{{AssignmentInfo|My Name|My assignment description|http://yourlinkhere}}

You may also use some new templates for comments and responses.

<pre>
{{Comment|type your comment here}}
</pre>

Should look like:
{{Comment|Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor inviduntut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. }}

You can enter a response in a similar way:
<pre>
{{Response|type your response here}}
</pre>
Should look like:
{{Response|thank you very much for commenting on my assignment.}}

'''Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post.'''

==Submissions==

<pre>
{{AssignmentInfo|Castille Rath|Tumblr's Self-Harm Blogs)|[[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/CastilleRath_ASSIGNMENT_THREE.doc]]}}
</pre>
[[User:Castille|Castille]] 11:52, 25 March 2014 (EDT)

Assignment 3 Submissions

2014-03-25T15:52:07Z

Castille: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

'''''Please note that the deadline for this assignment has moved from March 25th to April 1st.'''''

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

''Please name your file "wikiusername_Assignment3," where "wikiusername" is replaced with your username, to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment or causing errors in the Wiki by including forbidden characters.'' So if your username is "jdoe" and your file is a Word document your file should be named "jdoe_Assignment3.doc."

'''Upload your file here: [[Special:Upload|Upload file]]'''

Once you've uploaded your file, please link to it following the format below:

*Name or pseudonym:
*Description:
*Link to your outline: (the file you uploaded)

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [[Special:ImageList|list of uploaded files]].

==Submission Instructions==

*Name or pseudonym:
*Description:
*Link to your outline:

Optionally you can use a new template to create a title box for your assignment. In order to do this use the following format:
<pre>
{{AssignmentInfo|Name|My assignment description|Link to your file}}
</pre>

If used properly you should see the following:
{{AssignmentInfo|My Name|My assignment description|http://yourlinkhere}}

You may also use some new templates for comments and responses.

<pre>
{{Comment|type your comment here}}
</pre>

Should look like:
{{Comment|Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor inviduntut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. }}

You can enter a response in a similar way:
<pre>
{{Response|type your response here}}
</pre>
Should look like:
{{Response|thank you very much for commenting on my assignment.}}

'''Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post.'''

==Submissions==

<pre>
{{AssignmentInfo|Castille Rath|Tumblr's Self-Harm Blogs)|[[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/CastilleRath_ASSIGNMENT_THREE.doc]]}}~~~~
</pre>

Assignment 3 Submissions

2014-03-25T15:51:18Z

Castille: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

'''''Please note that the deadline for this assignment has moved from March 25th to April 1st.'''''

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

''Please name your file "wikiusername_Assignment3," where "wikiusername" is replaced with your username, to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment or causing errors in the Wiki by including forbidden characters.'' So if your username is "jdoe" and your file is a Word document your file should be named "jdoe_Assignment3.doc."

'''Upload your file here: [[Special:Upload|Upload file]]'''

Once you've uploaded your file, please link to it following the format below:

*Name or pseudonym:
*Description:
*Link to your outline: (the file you uploaded)

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [[Special:ImageList|list of uploaded files]].

==Submission Instructions==

*Name or pseudonym:
*Description:
*Link to your outline:

Optionally you can use a new template to create a title box for your assignment. In order to do this use the following format:
<pre>
{{AssignmentInfo|Name|My assignment description|Link to your file}}
</pre>

If used properly you should see the following:
{{AssignmentInfo|My Name|My assignment description|http://yourlinkhere}}

You may also use some new templates for comments and responses.

<pre>
{{Comment|type your comment here}}
</pre>

Should look like:
{{Comment|Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor inviduntut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. }}

You can enter a response in a similar way:
<pre>
{{Response|type your response here}}
</pre>
Should look like:
{{Response|thank you very much for commenting on my assignment.}}

'''Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post.'''

==Submissions==

<pre>
{{AssignmentInfo|Castille Rath|Tumblr's Self-Harm Blogs)|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/CastilleRath_ASSIGNMENT_THREE.doc}}
</pre>

Collective Action, Politics, and Protests

2014-03-12T19:42:12Z

Castille: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''March 11'''

Last class we learned about SOPA, and the fear that it engendered in many Internet commentators. SOPA lead to what is often considered the high-water mark of American engagement online in domestic policy circles (so far). But the Internet has been used for collective action since its inception. 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?

Today will be an exploration of online protests and collective action, both in general and through the lens of some famous recent examples. Along the way we'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.

Joining us this week will be [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/aliciasn Alicia Solow-Niederman], a Berkman project manager who studies collective action online.

<onlyinclude>

== Readings/Watchings ==

; Framing

* [http://web.mit.edu/comm-forum/forums/civic_media.html MIT Communications Forum, What is Civic Media?] (skim)

* [http://www.utsc.utoronto.ca/~farrell/blogpaperfinal.pdf Daniel Drezner and Henry Farrel, The Power and Politics of Blogs] (read introduction, "The networked structure of the blogosphere;" skim "How skewedness affects politics;" read "The constraints on blog influence" and conclusion)

* [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, "Digital Technologies, Information and Political Transitions," "Online Organizing and Contentious Politics," and "The Uncertain Future of Digital Organizing")

; Case Studies

* [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] (read 4-10, skim 12-38, read 39-46)

:* You may also want to play around with the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/research/mediacloud/2013/mapping_sopa_pipa/# controversy mapper] Media Cloud put together in connection with this report.

* [http://civic.mit.edu/blog/erhardt/mapping-the-trayvon-martin-media-controversy Erhardt Graeff, Mapping the Trayvon Martin Media Controversy]

* [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)

* [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]

* [http://technosociology.org/?p=904 Zeynep Tufekci, #Kony2012, Understanding Networked Symbolic Action & Why Slacktivism is Conceptually Misleading]

; Observations, tactics, and methods

* [http://civicmedia.info/ideas/aaron-swartz-theory-of-change/ Aaron Swartz, A Theory of Change]

* [http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2012/04/20/the-tweetbomb-and-the-ethics-of-attention/ Ethan Zuckerman, The Tweetbomb and the Ethics of Attention]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgh2dFngFsg Aaron Swartz, How We Stopped SOPA]

* [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]

* [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]

* [http://opennet.net/sites/opennet.net/files/PolicingContent.pdf Jillian York, Policing Content in the Quasi-Public Sphere] (focus on the Introduction, and “Social Media: Privacy Companies, Public Responsibilities”)

* [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks_Chapter_7.pdf Yochai Benker, ''The Wealth of Networks''] (Chapter 7 - "The Emergence of a Networked Public Sphere")

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== Class Discussion ==
<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">'''Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:51, 11 February 2014 (EST)'''</div>

----

Below is an interesting article on the "Internet of Things" where Business Insider estimates that by 2018, 9 billion household or utility devices will be operated by the internet from parking meters to home appliances. The study predicts the revenue increase will be enormous but, on the other hand, it may drive many industries and jobs out of business.

http://www.businessinsider.com/growth-in-the-internet-of-things-market-2-2014-2?utm_source=trove&utm_medium=referral

--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 13:29, 12 March 2014 (EDT)

<blockquote>
He also explained that people who claim that technology is neutral have typically zoomed out so far that the relationship between the individual, society and the technology are lost. He used the argument that while it may be accurate to say that either a gun or a toothbrush can be used to kill, but this theoretical accuracy is so abstract that it loses credibility.</blockquote>
I really like this, reminds me of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence Emergent properties]
[[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 15:48, 9 March 2014 (EDT)

----

Benkler et al's "Social Mobilization and the Networked Public Sphere" defines the networked public sphere as "an alternative arena for public discourse and political debate, an arena that is less dominated by large media entities, less subject to government control, and more open to wider participation." Thinking about how other parts of the public sphere are subject to each of these forces of control certainly makes the "public sphere" sound a little less "public." While the mainstream American media can often look like a circus, particularly if you're looking at the 24 hour news networks, with Benkler's ideas about the networked public sphere in mind, they don't really feel like something the public engages in. Rather, it is something we can engage with. Less a participatory medium than one that we have the option to either consume or not.
[[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 12:01, 10 March 2014 (EDT)

:I enjoyed Benkler's descriptions as well, but I also found Jilian York's contrast of public versus private to be compelling. She discusses the evolution of this "Quasi-Public Sphere" which Jkelly seems to capture to a certain extent what Jkelly mentions. Privately owned platforms (such as social media) have become thrust into the public sphere. This vast information exchange has prompted centralized platforms and York argues they also serve as public spaces in a "quasi-public sphere" that makes policing much more convoluted. As discussed in class, York feels that the content is now being policed both by private controls as well as coming colliding into the sphere of public scrutiny/controls. In essence, the private sector continues to engage its role in the public arena with increasing extension and (arguably) vice versa. York brings up the point that this can both benefit and thwart society as she mentions how internet-goers in repressive societies can gain access to material once prohibited from them; however, a negative example she references is how companies can make their own private rules of engagement which may (or may not) be favorable towards the general public. Either way, the article was extremely profound in the author's rendition of how the internet can impact life as we know it. --[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 14:28, 11 March 2014 (EDT)

----

I found the article mapping the Trayvon Martin case particularly interesting as I grew up near where the incident occurred and it caused such a frenzy all over Florida (and all over the country, for that matter). I happen to know someone really high up in the DA's office in FL, so hearing the facts of the case in comparison to what the media was broadcasting was shocking. The media completely created a story to propel their own political agenda and made it fit what they wanted to say. This is not at all to say that the message regarding race relations wasn't important, but it is interesting how they would squash facts which came up on the opposing side and emphasize and exaggerate other aspects so that they're telling the story that they want to tell. It's especially fascinating when you consider the story of Travyon to that of Jordan Davis, another black teenager who was shot by a white man in Florida, which was CLEARLY a race issue. Unlike the case of Trayvon, Davis's case was cut-and-dry, yet the latter case didn't get nearly as much media attention despite the fact that it could've actually spoken more loudly and to a more severe degree about race relations.

[[User:Castille|Castille]] 12:07, 10 March 2014 (EDT)

----

I thought the article on the KONY 2012 campaign and the concept of slack-tivism very interesting, especially since I remember very well watching the movement unfold and ultimately deflate. I do think that the internet can be effective in stirring debate and real change, but how we harness that power is ultimately unable to be controlled and can be easily manipulated, as we saw with the whole Kony movement. The organization was followed by scrutiny and met with a lot of accusations and controversy. However, the campaign did teach a valuable lesson: online movements can have real impacts and stir public conversation. The response from the video definitely brought Uganda to media attention as people investigated the message and the country.

There are some positive examples of collective action online, such as sites like Kickstarter that depend on action by strangers to support projects. It is a successful example, in a smaller and arguably more effective scale, on how the Internet is able to influence people’s lives and connect strangers. It would be interesting to see how sites like this can maintain it's audience and continue to inspire people to donate and participate.

[[User:Lpereira|Lpereira]] 19:51, 10 March 2014 (EDT)

-----

I found the article “The Power and Politics of Blogs” by Daniel Drezner and Henry Farrel really interesting. I always wonder why blogging has such a big impact and influence on people and the media when as a matter of fact, there are not many readers. “Blogging is many things, yet the typical blog is written by a teenage girl who uses it twice a month to update her friends and classmates on happenings in her life”, when now it has become an important media that could make a Senate Majority Leader resigns from the position.

[[User:Jolietheone|Jolietheone]] 02:26, 11 March 2014 (EDT)

----

A CRITIQUE OF THE PAPER BY DREZNER AND FARREL

The distribution graphs shown at the end of the paper are too academic and technical and serves no practical purpose. They cannot be easily be interpreted. There are no graphs showing relationship between skewness and the variables the authors were supposedly measuring. No variables, political or otherwise, were explicity mentioned.

It also seems flawed to argue that politicians or the government should make decisions or "coordinate" their actions around a somewhat mysterious "Z" variable. One won't get a majority vote or approval by making decisions based on such a "calculation". And the problem of decision-making does not encompass a single "z" variable but more often an interplay of multiple factors. Cognitive maps, stakeholder analyses, and game theoretic approaches, etc., taking into account multiple criteria may be more appropriate.

The importance of blogs may have been overstated and needs some qualification. Generally, nobody is interested to read just anybody's blog. But if an articulate, prominent and influential blogger continues to write and maintains his blog online, people may pay attention. Some such blogs may get the attention of lots of people and lots of contributions. But my bet is majority of individual blogs don't get significant attention. It is true though, if one intends to get more attention, one would write on blogs of popular bloggers or blogs of popular online communities...and also link them to one's own blog. The people who has the power and means to take action to improve our world do not have time to scour and read the blogs. The need for more organized online information and data flow cannot be over-emphasized and blogs are not the appropriate medium.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 08:33, 11 March 2014 (EDT)

----

I was in Cambridge when Aaron Swartz committed suicide last year, and witnessed how vocal the local community became during the weeks that followed. It was a pleasure to reread and rewatch some of his work today, and a wonderful reminder how much impact a person can have by mobilizing online communities, especially through the theory of change he described so well on his blog. --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 09:37, 11 March 2014 (EDT)

:Did he really committed suicide? The Court seems to have treated him too harshly, perhaps to make an example of him.
:I noticed this on Youtube while watching "Aaron Swartz, How We Stopped SOPA": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVMGG3flGdk [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 11:07, 11 March 2014 (EDT)

::He did commit suicide, and while it's very, very hard to ascribe cause to something like that, he was in the middle of defending a criminal charge under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act at the time. We'll talk a little more about the Swartz case in a few weeks. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 15:56, 11 March 2014 (EDT)

----

Ethan Zuckerman, "The Tweetbomb and the Ethics of Attention" raises the awareness of another new social behavior because of the internet. I will avoid Tweeter. And how can I eliminate spam emails? The "Block Sender" function doesn't seem to work most of the time! In the old days, we can protect ourselves from nuisance or harm by staying at home. But in our internet age, the technology cannot protect us from mischief and invasion of personal privacy. So, if there's something really important which requires our attention and collective action, will we miss it? [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 11:31, 11 March 2014 (EDT)

----

TV AND INTERNET - NEW TOOLS FOR COLLECTIVE ACTION AND DECISION-MAKING

Bills are passed depending on only a few votes in Congress. With the internet, voting on Bills can be done online, so that every citizen can participate in voting, not just members of Congress. Members of Congress may contribute by making their speeches and presenting their analyses online, with participation from the public. The TV can be used in conjunction with the internet (with 2 screens, one for TV and one for a live focused blog) with Congressmen and/or panel of experts or thinkers to debate issues and organize the information. The process can then involve virtual but live interaction with concerned bloggers. The video of the open forum can be made available online for repeated viewing and sharing of further thoughts for several days or weeks, and culminating in a call for public online voting. Every voter must be pre-registered and have his/her own government-issued secured password to vote. Some politicians may feel that illiterate people should not participate in voting? How can we be inclusive and yet make a good collective decision which will not ignore the needs of the illiterate? [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 11:46, 11 March 2014 (EDT)

CAN POOR PEOPLE THINK AND MAKE GOOD DECISIONS? [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 06:49, 12 March 2014 (EDT)

----

I found Adamic and Glance's paper "Divided They Blog" fascinating, given how the political blogosphere has developed 10 years on and the significant respect that political bloggers now command. According to the authors, in 2004 62% of Americans did not know what a web blog was- today I imagine that most internet users rely on targeted and well-curated blogs for news, information and reliable opinions on everything from national elections to NASCAR.

Another statistic that jumped at me was that in mid-2004, 63 million Americans used the internet to stay informed about politics. The Pew Charitable Trust 'Web at 25' Report published in 2013 found that 87% of American adults, roughly 178 million people, use the internet- and the majority of adult internet users had at least some exposure to information about state, local and national politics and elections. Given that level of exposure to the internet, the potential for the influence of news sources and individual voices outside of mainstream media outlets has never been greater.

The figures provided by Adamic and Glance demonstrate how citation of blogs with similar themes or supporting similar viewpoints compounds their reach and impact- as well as searchability and subsequent blog selection by the user seeking information about a given political party, politician or issue-- or to influence the searchability and online image of a given candidate. This brought to mind the campaign for the neologism "santorum" started in May 2003 by Dan Savage, a columnist and LGBT rights activist who sought to link then- U.S. Senator Rick Santorum's name with a sex act following homophobic comments made by the Senator, thereby significantly impacting the Senator's internet image. The power of the blogosphere and Savage's community of followers worked-- to this day, the first listing on Google when "Santorum" is searched for is the Wikipedia entry on Savage's campaign against Santorum. Given the number of hits on political blogs speculating about the 2016 Presidential race two years out, I imagine that Adamic and Glance's findings still ring true and are worth revisiting with a current data set. [[User:akk22|akk22]] 13:13, 11 March 2014 (EDT)

----

Aaron Swartz' "Theory of Change" is one of the best essays I've ever read (and have to admit I'd read it prior to this course). Last night when I watched his video from 'Optional readings' for the first time... I felt inspired by him all over again. I can't believe he was so young to have achieved so much. Cambridge, and the Internet, feels less safe without him. [[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 13:29, 11 March 2014 (EDT)

-----

The internet can be a effective medium in education, timely updates, stirring debate. However, real change, occurs through activism that is either hands-on or encourages hands on activities. Activism in its pre-internet form included activities such as door-to-door networking, participating in telephone trees, and physical presence. The support by clicking "Like" seems silly and half-spirited.[[User:VACYBER|VACYBER]] 13:51, 11 March 2014 (EDT)

----

Ethan Zuckerman’s introduction to Athene (I had never heard of him either) covering the abuse of his friend Xeni on Twitter was of high interest to me from a corporate perspective. Although Athene has a large following, he clearly can’t manage the community well. Regardless if “celebrity bombing ” is tolerated on Twitter, Athene’s leadership abilities show a considerable amount of pure failure under the ethics of attention, simply by the way his followers reacted. If the American Cancer Society asked me to donate to their cause, and called me a whore for not doing so, I would think negatively of the entire community-not the person making the statement.

Regardless if Athene’s community is helping reduce hunger in Africa, or preventing the next holocaust, the attitudes of his members will eventually limit his ability to lead effectively. I wouldn’t donate a penny to Athene causes, simply due to the awareness made of his affiliates by Zuckerman’s article. This leads to a peculiar thought: Will sites such as Twitter allow the public to visually see the rise and fall of individuals through their behavior versus reading secondary information and then needing to make an educated guess? Could we potentially learn far more by allowing everyone to be ones true self?
--[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 14:02, 11 March 2014 (EDT)

----

Internet is very powerful tool in civil society. The necessary elements of civil society can be freely established and developed through internet: various civil communities, trade organizationts, non-governmental organizations, non-political organizations, groups, bloggers and etc. In coming decades, with support of state agencies (electronic notary, electronic state registry on judicial persons, electronic state registry on real estate and etc.)the enterprises, associations, trade organizations can registered (even on the basis of legislation of foreign country) which will lead to development of business and trade. Nevertheless, the impact of Internet in politics should be minimum. The politics is the sphere which is directly related to governance and state. Only certain category of people, who meet the requirements in terms of background and experience, may have access to politics. Let us assume that ordinary people without appropriate background can vote "for or against" passing bills at Congress?How can they properly assess the significance of the bills discussed? Isn't it dangerous? Additionaly, the role of Internet in protets activity is still not effective as the governments can control the content of published posts. Aysel Ibayeva ([[User:Aysel|Aysel]] 14:32, 11 March 2014 (EDT))

----

It's interesting to see some of the older documents covering blogs, suck as the 2004 paper quoting the NYT with “Never have so many people written so much to be read by so few.” Clearly, a ton has changed in the last decade--one of the big changes is the intersection between social networking sites (Twitter, Facebook) and the blogosphere. Prior to the prevalence social networking sites, blog posts were definitely funneled from the most-trafficked sites to smaller blogs (and similar effects, such as the the creation of red/blue partitions around political blogs). I wonder how much social networks have changed a lot of this. It seems to me that I see posts in my Facebook timeline from a wider variety of political attitudes than would happen in the tightly-controlled universe of blogroll-linking.
[[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 15:50, 11 March 2014 (EDT)

----

First off, I absolutely loved the readings this week. As I stated in introductions, my research focus on the issue-framing processes of social movements, so this module jibes nicely with my interests. At the same time, most of these sources were new to me, which means I’ve been able to add to my arsenal of quality sources.

With respect to the “What is Civic media?” piece, the presenters begin discussing the work of Robert Putnam, which highlighted declining rates of civic engagement among Americans toward the end of the 20th century; Putnam attributes some of this decline to increased use of technology. While this work was groundbreaking, there was another scholar who presented a counterargument to Putnam’s theory, and perhaps ironically, she is also with Harvard.

In “The Tocqueville Problem: Civic Engagement in American Democracy,” Theda Skocpol points to members only clubs such as the AARP, which has existed since 1958, and though it maintains 36 million members, these members’ participation requires little more than mailing a check. Skocpol uses this example to support her claim that there is far more to blame for declining civic engagement than simply technological determinism.

I think that the “What is Civic Media?” piece does a great job of analyzing this perceived tension between technology and civic engagement. I especially liked Beth Noveck’s point that civic engagement does not necessarily translate into increased political participation. I think this point adds another important layer to the overall argument. [[User:Vance.puchalski|Vance.puchalski]] 15:51, 11 March 2014 (EDT)

----

Another item of note from the recent reading is how vulnerable free speech is when it is centralized around particular websites; this echoes similar comments I made on the second lecture pertaining to how the "architecture" of the net is becoming increasingly interdependent on a few large-scale APIs and SaaS components (which leads to centralized control and/or single points of failure). Right now, we're seeing a lot of blog traffic being absorbed into newer blogging platforms (tumblr, medium.com, etc.) that centralize blogging in a similar way, which defeats the argument mentioned in some of the papers about how the blogosphere might be an antidote to government shutdowns of centralized sites.

I'm wondering if more peer-to-peer stuff is an answer. I did a little bit of searching and did find that there's at least one microblogging platform that uses p2p technology to provide a twitter-like experience without the centralized point of failure. Google on "twister p2p" and you'll find it.
[[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 15:55, 11 March 2014 (EDT)

----

I particularly enjoyed the approach that Etling et al. take in the Political Change in the Digital Age reading by analyzing the cost-benefit relationship between access to information and control. The paper portrays the tradeoff between empowering individuals and repression from authoritarian regimes (which extends in many ways to democracies as well); a point of view that might not be very obvious to many at first. Information Communication Technologies have most often only been analyzed for their benefits to society but we, as civic society, must remain aware of their limitations and threats.
[[User:Luciagamboaso|Luciagamboaso]] 15:53, 11 March 2014 (EDT)

----
I have been fascinated by the use of social media and its role in the Tahrir Square protests. Aside from the very good statistics about its actual usefulness in today's reading, I recommend everyone to go on to Netflix and watch the documentary The Square. You'll see footage of the protesters going back to their homes, or base, and uploading footage to facebook. Protesters would also use the footage on Facebook to get caught up with the events they had missed. The usefulness of social media in protest and collective action can then probably be assumed to fall into two categories: purely online, and aiding real world protest.
[[User:MikeJohnson|MikeJohnson]] 15:59, 11 March 2014 (EDT)
----

I think that it would be dangerous to centralize free speech in certain interest groups who do not always voice out the needs of others. Sorry that I don't have much more to say because Jradoff already articulated my points very clearly. Thanks for that by the way.

[[User:cheikhmbacke|cheikhmbacke]] 15:59, 11 March 2014 (EDT)
----

Mapping Internet use is a major area of study today. It’s amazing how influential and yet insignificant a blog can be. “The Power of Politics of Blogs” observes how various blogs can use links to work together to achieve greater results then they ever could on their own. Embedding links and maintaining a “blogroll” can help boost the viewers of a blog, but viewer distribution trends create a power law making the “rich blogs get richer”. By linking websites and blogs one to another, seemingly insignificant topics could potentially be used to alter powerful legislation. A Russian police officer fought corruption through a YouTube video, and while it seemed to be a slow process, the end results were enormous. As we saw in the SOPA-PIPA controversy, even though it took a few years, persistent work by a few dedicated individuals eventually amassed a huge Internet following including the major Internet players, and prohibited the enacting of government legislation.
Tracking, tracing and organizing all the information is humanly impossible. This can be seen most prevalently with the case of Twitterbombing. That allows even the most casual internet user to be a social activist on a major scale. [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 16:22, 11 March 2014 (EDT)

----

HAPPY 25TH BIRTHDAY TO THE WORLD WIDE WEB!
With this anniversary, there have been many news reports today celebrating the history of the world wide web and also discussing the newly proposed Internet Bill of Rights, which calls for more privacy for internet users and has a major supporter in Tim Berners Lee, the creator of the WWW. Hopefully this will get some widespread conversation going about internet privacy!
http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/2014/0312/As-Web-turns-25-founder-calls-for-Internet-Bill-of-Rights
[[User:Castille|Castille]] 15:42, 12 March 2014 (EDT)

Collective Action, Politics, and Protests

2014-03-10T16:12:44Z

Castille: /* Class Discussion */

Collective Action, Politics, and Protests

2014-03-10T16:07:34Z

Castille: /* Class Discussion */

Copyright Part 2: Enforcement and Balances

2014-03-04T05:22:02Z

Castille: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''March 4'''

Digital technologies spawned the proliferation of sharing of media and music, which has led to a number of controversial legal and technological strategies for control and copyright enforcement. “Controversial” may be putting it lightly; the ongoing fight between copyright owners and Internet evangelists is one of the most popularly debated fights surrounding Internet control.

This class focuses on how copyright is enforced online, with particular emphasis on the "notice-and-takedown" provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"), which allow Internet service providers to limit their liability for the copyright infringements of their users if the ISPs expeditiously remove material in response to complaints from copyright owners. The class will also look to the now-famous fight concerning SOPA and PIPA, and other attempts to more strictly regulate against online piracy.

Joining us will be [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/aholland Adam Holland], who works here at Berkman on the [https://www.chillingeffects.org/ Chilling Effects] project.

== Assignments ==

The second half of assignment 2 (commenting on prospectuses) is due ''before class'' today. Information on the assignment can be found [[Assignments#Assignment_2:_Prospectus|here]].

<onlyinclude>
== Readings/Watchings ==

; The DMCA Notice-And-Takedown Process

* Digital Media Law Project, [http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/copyright-claims-based-user-content Claims Based on User Content] and [http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/protecting-yourself-against-copyright-claims-based-user-content Protecting Yourself Against Copyright Claims Based on User Content]

* [https://www.eff.org/takedowns Electronic Frontier Foundation, Takedown Hall of Shame] (peruse)

* Chilling Effects, [http://www.chillingeffects.org/about About] and peruse the [http://www.chillingeffects.org/weather.cgi weather reports].

* [http://paidcontent.org/2013/02/24/how-google-did-the-right-thing-with-the-nascar-crash-video-and-why-it-matters/ Matthew Ingram, Paid Content, How Google did the right thing with the NASCAR crash video, and why it matters]

; Case Study - SOPA/PIPA

* [http://futureoftheinternet.org/reading-sopa Jonathan Zittrain, Kendra Albert, and Alicia Solow-Niederman, A Close Look at SOPA]

* [http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2012/01/15/mit-media-lab-opposes-sopa-pipa/ Ethan Zuckerman and Joi Ito, MIT Media Lab Opposes SOPA, PIPA]

; The big picture

* [http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-traffic-drops-in-america-grows-in-europe-131111/ Ernesto Van Der Sar, BitTorrent Traffic Drops in America, Grows in Europe]

* [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]

== Optional Readings ==

; Case Study - ISP "Six Strikes

* [http://www.onthemedia.org/2013/feb/01/copyright-alert-system-and-six-strikes/ Brooke Gladstone, Interview with Jill Lesser of Center for Copyright Information (''On The Media'')]

* [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]

; Case Study - Operation In Our Sites

* [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1835604 Andy Sellars, Seized Sites: The In Rem Forfeiture of Copyright-Infringing Domain Names]

* [http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2011/02/02/super-bust-due-process-and-domain-name-seizure.html Wendy Seltzer, Super Bust: Due Process and Domain Name Seizure]

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

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

----

Yet again, related to an earlier class, but another interesting write-up was just published on The Verge: [http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/25/5431382/the-internet-is-fucked The Internet Is Fucked (but we can fix it)] --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 19:05, 26 February 2014 (EST)

----

Ditto, not related to Copyright, but the theme of the class in general, politics & control of the Internet. The Quebec government started [http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/02/26/quebecs_language_watchdog_targets_stores_use_of_english_on_facebook.html fining businesses] for not writing in French on their Facebook pages. I've never understood why Canada has such a stereotype of being 'nice'. [[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 23:37, 26 February 2014 (EST)

:Erin, thanks for sharing this. Seems like a really interesting example of the ways in which the Internet and digital technologies are a new place for old and ongoing debates to play out. With so much of our lives now taking place online, it makes sense that concerns about language, heritage, and culture have to be grappled with anew. I wonder if some of the push-back from business owners-- like the one in this article who says "Facebook has nothing to do with Quebec"-- stems from the idea that the Internet is a malleable and border-less place and confusion over what laws govern speech on a global forum run by a US-based company. And yes, I have heard some Quebecois friends get a little less than "nice" when it comes to discussing their francophone heritage... [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 15:16, 2 March 2014 (EST)
::Wow! That's crazy. Do you know what justification they have (or are using) to fine the businesses? Is it a case like the ADA, which prohibits discrimination against disabilities by such measures as requiring all public establishments to follow building codes to ensure disabled individuals are accommodated? By this I mean, is Quebec doing this so that French-speaking people are not excluded?[[User:Castille|Castille]] 15:51, 3 March 2014 (EST)

----

The highly controversial Section 512 of the DMCA, 17 U.S.C. § 512 provides a “safety zone”, where online service providers could operate shielded from liability charges on account of copyright infringement. Service providers function by allowing people to modify, post, and search content on their servers. By hosting foreign content that is not generated by the OSP or ISP, they were placing themselves into position of being held liable on infringement charges. This changed in 1998, because as long as roughly three essential steps were taken, an OSP could take advantage of the “safe-harbor” clause. One of those steps is the “expeditious” removal of infringing content. On the other side, the alleged offender can send a counter-notice disputing the copyright holders claim. This might seem in favor of the public domain with an anti-copyright agenda, but it does not diminish the copyright holders privileges in any way. This provision also allows the first step of prosecution in the form of takedown notices. While these measures are beneficial for the public good and provide a degree of protection, they seem utterly inefficient in situations like Erin McKeown experienced. In an attempt to control infringers and pirates, the ICE has engaged in domain seizures, which resulted in tens of thousands of innocent websites being shut down. [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 22:26, 1 March 2014 (EST)

The Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Takedown Hall of Shame has excellent examples of cease and desist letter offenders, even citing unusual claims such as one over the copyright privileges of a monkey’s photos! That is where major companies should take and follow Google’s example of standing up for users rights. The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA), MIT points out that to stop pirating has many dangerous side effects including but not limited to being unconstitutional in violating certain aspects of free speech. [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 00:06, 3 March 2014 (EST)

----

I was unable to find out anything about how many actions have been taken under the Copyright Alert System. Are there any known statistics on how many of these notices have been sent out or how many consumers have been affected? (whether centrally managed, or done by a third-party watchdog like EFF?)
[[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 13:48, 3 March 2014 (EST)

----

I'm in a creative industry where intellectual property is important (software / online games). Yet I think that criminalization of intellectual property violations is ridiculous.

I called all my U.S. senators and representatives back when SOPA/PIPA was in the legislative process--I found it highly offensive. It seems absurd to me that someone would be placed in jail for copyright infringement, or that we are making agencies of the U.S. government an arm of private industry by using them to enforce this (not to mention giving government broad control over shutting down content that some moneyed interest finds objectionable).

The argument used by the industry is that copyright violation is equivalent to theft. I agree that many cases of copyvio are totally wrong, but I don't see why it can't be handled entirely through civil systems. The fact is that intellectual property violations *are* different from stealing a physical good, simply because in the former case we're dealing with a nonrival good (i.e., if you steal my car then I can't use it anymore; if you copy my software package, I've lost some potential revenue from you but you haven't deprived my ability to sell it to others). Furthermore, intellectual property violations are way more complex--these are cases that just aren't as clear-cut as showing that a theft actually occurred when you are caught with my stolen car.

I listened to the songs mentioned in the "Touch the Sun" / "Slung-lo" controversy referred to in the reading materials. I empathize with the creator of Slung-lo if they really feel their creation was improperly exploited, but I simply don't see the basis for their claim. But upon my listening I found both songs to be different, and the lyrics were (as far as I could tell) totally different. Billions of songs get made--lots will be similar. I shudder to think that a large and well-funded copyright holder could use claims like this to abuse others with the threat of criminal enforcement.
[[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 13:58, 3 March 2014 (EST)

----

It seems that SOPA, PIPA, and the DCMA all seem to be working towards the same goal, that of eradicating copyright infringement/piracy. Why is the DCMA not sufficient? Internet piracy is a huge issue for the motion picture and music industries (and I'm sure for plenty of other industries) as it is stealing. I agree with Jradoff that it's not ''quite'' as bad as actual theft of property and therefore might not warrant a jail sentence, but it is essentially the same thing. What is the difference between going into a Best Buy and stealing a DVD or CD and stealing it from home? It seems the primary difference is simply the ease of convenience for the thief. I think we have only been desensitized to this kind of theft because it is so prevalent in society. Anyways, if we agree that internet piracy is "wrong", what can be done to curtail it further than the rules currently in place (i.e. the DCMA)? Have SOPA and/or PIPA been revised? In this article that I found on Forbes [http://www.forbes.com/sites/derekbroes/2012/01/20/why-should-you-fear-sopa-and-pipa/], author Derek Broes claims to have testified before Congress to propose "many solutions, none of which violate our First Amendment Right to Free Speech", but he does not elaborate on any specific alternatives or amendments to SOPA/PIPA. What effective alternatives are there, which would go above and beyond what is already in place, but wouldn't be as "harmful" as SOPA/PIPA? Is there still talk of a new iteration of the legislature? I would imagine that with the onslaught of backlash from the initial bills, they would have to call them something different to mitigate any potential hate...[[User:Castille|Castille]] 15:51, 3 March 2014 (EST)

----
:The former government in Australia tried for many years to implement a voluntary scheme to crack down on piracy through a series of discussions with ISPs, instead of having the government legislating enforcement of copyright. The meetings stopped happening, as the representatives from iiNet (large Australian ISP), would often get up and walk out of the meetings.
:About 18 months ago, Australian Attorney-General George Brandis made a case against iiNet which attempted to hold them liable for their users on BitTorrent for piracy purposes, which was taken to the High Court. The entertainment industry was attempting to hold the ISP's liable because it is obviously not economically viable, (even if it is in fact possible) to prosecute each piracy user individually. iiNet was successful in their defense to which the High Court unanimously ruled the ISP is not liable for the acts of their users.
:iiNet’s routine business of providing access to the internet will not, by itself, mean that they authorise their customers' acts of copyright infringement. At the same time, iiNet is not obliged to contact customers or terminate their accounts in response to notices from copyright owners. Although users are liable for copyright infringement, it is hardly enforced at all in Australia. Australia is needing legislative reform in regard to copyright laws, as their attempts to enforce it have been futile. [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 20:41, 3 March 2014 (EST)

::: I should also note that this is very low on the government's agenda. Most of the pirated entertainment comes from the USA. There’s no motive or benefit for the Australian Government to fight against illegal downloading on behalf of the American entertainment industry. In addition, most websites used by Australians to pirate, like BitTorrent and Pirates Bay, are American-based websites, which adds another disincentive for them. Unfortunately, a lot of piracy goes on here all too easily without intervention or blocking; almost makes me wonder if (per capita), more piracy happens here. Unless it becomes a political issue or the Australian government loses money over it, they’ll remain reluctant to spend the time or energy to fix it. [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 00:03, 4 March 2014 (EST)

:Exciting-- I was just searching Google for an episode of Girls that I accidentally deleted from my DVR and found the following notification at the bottom of the search page:
In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org. [[User:Castille|Castille]] 00:22, 4 March 2014 (EST)

-----

It was interesting to read more on DMCA. I've never been too familiar with the specifics of the law but have faced it's effects constantly on YouTube as so many videos are removed over copyright claims. Reading more on it, I found this article very interesting: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/10/ten-years-later/ It portrays DMCA in a positive light, going as far as saying it "saved the web." I don't completely agree with the article, but I do think that content creators should have some safety net to ensure that their content cannot be used without proper credit or consent. And so, some safety net needs to be present but a filter that is too large is very concerning. The list of Takedown Hall of Shame is an alerting example of filtering gone wrong for the wrong reasons. It would interesting to see the solutions we come up with in the future. Will greater efforts of copyright regulation always be followed by an internet protest as large as the SOPA/PIPA one?

[[User:Lpereira|Lpereira]] 20:45, 3 March 2014 (EST)

----

Copyright Part 2: Enforcement and Balances

2014-03-03T20:51:34Z

Castille: /* Class Discussion */

Assignment 2 Submissions

2014-03-01T02:16:18Z

Castille: /* Comments */

{{AssignmentCal}}

===Submission Instructions===

''Please note that we have updated the [[Final_Project#Frequently_Asked_Questions|final project page's FAQ section]] based on some student questions that have come to us over the past week.''

This assignment is due on February 25. Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (assignments submitted 4 days late or later will have a maximum grade of 1 point).

Please name your file "wikiusername_Assignment2," where "wikiusername" is replaced with your username, to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment or causing errors in the Wiki by including forbidden characters.'' So if your username is "jdoe" and your file is a Word document your file should be named "jdoe_Assignment2.doc."

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]].

In the submissions section below please post the following information:

*Name or pseudonym:
*Prospectus title:
*Link to prospectus: (add your link here)

==Comments==

Everyone will receive an additional participation grade for this assignment. You should read through everyone's proposals after they are uploaded and add constructive comments below the proposal on which you're commenting. Comments should be submitted by March 5 so you have time to incorporate them, if applicable, into your project outline. '''Please remember to sign your comments by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post.''' If we don't know who you are we can't give you credit for finishing this assignment!

----
*Name: Jolie Ho - Wan Lap Ho
*Instagram vs Flickr
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Jolie_Assignment_2.docx
[[User:Jolietheone|Jolietheone]] 16:15, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:: How do you propose to collect data to answer the last question? [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 15:22, 27 February 2014 (EST)

----

*Name: Drogowski - Daniel Rogowski
*Regulating Digital Currencies: The Bitcoin Conundrum
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Regulating_Digital_Currencies-_The_Bitcoin_Conundrum_Daniel_Rogowski.docx
[[User:Drogowski|Drogowski]] 14:58, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:: How would this differ from other imaginary items of trade like currency/commodity derivatives and futures and virtual commodities like pork bellies? [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 15:17, 27 February 2014 (EST)

----
*Pseudonym: Marissa1989
*Prospectus title: The rise of the collaborative consumption movement: Analyzing effective control of communication, structures of gaining trust & verification, and legal issues.
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment_2_Barkey-2.pdf
[[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 23:37, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:Hi, Marissa! I used AirBnB to rent out my apartment last summer and it actually resulted in me being robbed by the person to the tune of $10,000-- not including the rent for the summer, which he didn't pay (I didn't get any of it back, either, despite the insurance). It was a nasty situation. Anyways, from what I understand, the majority of communication on AirBnB is done privately. Without staging anything or intervening, how do you plan to observe enough to answer your question(s)? I think this is basically the same concern with one of the other treatments I read, regarding Facebook. I do think the security of platforms like AirBnB is of great concern and would be a very interesting subject to study in depth![[User:Castille|Castille]] 21:16, 28 February 2014 (EST)

----

*[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 18:36, 25 February 2014 (EST)
*Change.org vrs Ripp Off Report
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Harvard_Research_Paper-Final.docx

----

*[[User:MikeJohnson|MikeJohnson]] 14:32, 25 February 2014 (EST)
*Twitch Plays Pokémon – How Mediating Gameplay Changes the Game
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/MikeJohnson_Assignment2.docx

:Hey Mike, it would absolutely be my pleasure to provide feedback to you. I won't go too far before having the time to focus & read it completely- so my first feedback to you is: if you didn't pick such an interesting topic, I would have actually read the full prospectus. However after reading your first paragraph, I ended up watching TPP and reading its subreddit and forgot to finish reading your prospectus! hahaha. But this weekend I'll spend time focusing and try to provide you feedback, hopefully as good as the feedback you gave me (: [[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 10:34, 28 February 2014 (EST)

----

*[[User:Mikewitwicki|Mikewitwicki]] 14:03, 25 February 2014 (EST)
*How does the online Flickr community operate within the Creative Commons feature? How do they share their work, and work together?
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Prospectus_for_final_paper_Michael_Thomas.docx

----
[[User:Luciagamboaso|Luciagamboaso]] 10:42, 25 February 2014 (EST)
*Framework of control in government run collaborative platform
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment_2_LGS.docx‎

: Hi Lucia, are there specified rules of engagement so that government effort to filter or modify inappropriate inputs are minimized? [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 13:32, 25 February 2014 (EST)

----
*Assignment 2:
*Gendered Online Communities: Targeted Harassment and Successful Interventions
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:akk22_assignment2.docx
*[[User:akk22|akk22]] 10:23, 25 February 2014 (EST)

::I'd really like to read and comment on your prospectus, but it seems like the file didn't upload. Happy to respond to it once it's up!
::[[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 20:57, 26 February 2014 (EST)
----

*Assignment 2:

*Can websites with online forums, control the behavior of its members for the sake of growth?

*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Dan_Coronado_assignmen_2b.docx

[[User:Dancoron|Dancoron]] 09:47, 25 February 2014 (EST)

----

*Assignment Two:

*A Web of Lies and Licentious Lure: Temptation, Divorce, and the Internet

* http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Divorce_and_the_Internet_Harvard_Project.docx

--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 17:24, 24 February 2014 (EST)

:First of all, GREAT TITLE!!! Second of all, this seems like an extremely interesting subject and I'd love to read more about it. I do wonder whether you'll be able to get access to the material you might be looking for by doing "undercover investigation" and the other research methods you listed. It seems to me that the kind of exchanges you're discussing would be difficult to observe on Facebook as they likely wouldn't be out in the open. I may be completely mistaken, but I was also under the impression that the assignment encouraged examining a more open forum or something of the like where observation was more feasible. I know that there are public matchmaking sites and I would assume there are also forums geared towards those who wish to have illicit affairs, so that might be an area into which you may want to delve. [[User:Castille|Castille]] 02:19, 28 February 2014 (EST)

----

*Assignment Two:
*Who has the right to control our personal genetic information?
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Monroe_Assignment_Two.docx

[[User:Margorm|Margorm]] 18:30, 23 February 2014 (EST)
: Hi Margo, I'm not sure if you'll ever read this, but if you do, would you by any chance be interested in working on your project in a group? I'm highly interested in this topic (in part because I'm considering founding my next startup in this field), and I've been following it both from a distance as an observer, and from the inside as a customer of 23andMe. I'd love to dig deeper and work with you on this project. Cheers, Philip Seyfi --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 19:28, 24 February 2014 (EST)

::''For Assignment 2-b, I would love to comment on this prospectus! Very interesting topic, excellent questions and the FDA is the US gov't organization with which I am most familiar. I will begin now, but please don't take my comments as complete until deadline of Assm't 2-b.''
::*I'm not sure what this sentence means (and would like to know, in order to be sure I am understanding current situation of 23andme: ''December 5, 2013, 23andMe resumed selling its genetic data only related to ancestry-related results''
::*It is '''very''' cool that you are taking an empirical approach to the community discussion, and I will have to read your prospectus again later to refine this comment, but I want to be confident that the data you collect will contribute to answering your question, which I believe to be "Is the FDA indeed fit to regulate genomic tests/databases".
::[[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 12:07, 25 February 2014 (EST)

----

[[User:Castille|Castille]] 18:58, 22 February 2014 (EST)
*Assignment Two:
*LESS IS MORE?; Tumblr's Policies Against Self-Harm
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:CastilleRath_ASSIGNMENT_TWO.doc

::Castille, I think you have a really excellent topic here. My first thought is that it would probably be helpful to choose a particular self-harming behavior that's discussed on Tumblr to help narrow the scope of your work. Additionally, while these issues can and often are related, I imagine that the Tumblr communities that surround each issue probably have a distinct culture. This topic makes me think of the Jessica McKenzie piece, "Obeying French Courts, Twitter Hands Over Identities of Users Who Employed Anti-Semitic Hashtag" we read in week four. I would be curious to know how many of the controversial hashtags are actually used in subversive ways. Some of the reactions to Tumblr's policy change seem to touch on this when users write that they use these tags to address their own struggle with self-harming behavior. After these policy changes got some press, did it shed enough light on these self-harm blogs to inspire users to use these potentially triggering hashtags in new and positive ways?
::[[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 13:56, 26 February 2014 (EST)

::Thanks for your feedback! I'm planning to narrow the scope to primarily center on pro-suicide blog postings, but I think I'll have to use some other examples such as cutting and possibly even pro-eating disorder blogs, as they all seem to interact with each other. It appears from my research thus far that the communities are intrinsically linked much more so than I expected. I agree, it would be interesting to see if things have changed-- though I'm not quite sure how to gauge pre-policy versus post-policy changes. If you have any ideas, I'd love to hear them! [[User:Castille|Castille]] 02:19, 28 February 2014 (EST)

----

*Watson
*To Publish Or Not: Social Media and the Syrian Conflict
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Watson_Assignment2.docx
[[User:Watson|Watson]] 23:33, 23 February 2014 (EST)

------
*Assignment 2
* Instagram: a public space for free expression?
* http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:LRS_IS_prospectus.docx
[[User:Lrsanchez|Lrsanchez]] 21:42, 24 February 2014 (EST)

:Laura - Your prospectus is not uploaded at the link included here. I will follow up again when you correct the link, because I am interested in your study of instagram based on your in-class introduction.
:[[User:MikeJohnson|MikeJohnson]] 11:35, 26 February 2014 (EST)

:Mike- thanks for pointing that out. I have fixed the issue and you should be able to look at it now. Any and all feedback are welcome!
[[User:Lrsanchez|Lrsanchez]] 18:01, 27 February 2014 (EST)

::Hi, Laura! I think Instagram is a really great topic and will provide a massive amount of material, which I think can be beneficial and detrimental. It seems you might want to consider focusing on a specific aspect of censorship on Instagram, like nudity, drug references, or profanity (if any of those are prohibited-- I don't know their specific terms of use). What aspect of Instagram's censorship do you find to have the highest potential to become problematic? Is their choice as a company to disallow certain messages/images actually infringing on free speech, when they don't have any power over whether an individual chooses to express himself (IE he/she is still capable of posting the material on another site), they merely control/monitor the postings on their own site? [[User:Castille|Castille]] 02:19, 28 February 2014 (EST)

----
* [[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 21:56, 24 February 2014 (EST)
* Comparing Regulation of Free Expression in Online Game Forums
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Prospectus-Radoff.txt Prospectus Text]

----
* jkelly
* Does "toxic" online culture stifle feminist discourse?
* http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Jkelly_Assignment_2.odt
[[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 22:15, 24 February 2014 (EST)

:: Jane – It is a great idea to compare feminist discussion within the confines of a feminist-oriented website to discussion in a public space without this slant. The regulations on discussion are obviously going to be wildly different in each of these communities. You identify Facebook and Twitter as less thoughtful in their discussion for feminist topics - perhaps as a result of their differences in comment policy? I was interested in the comment policy of Bitch Media that you mentioned in the prospectus, so I looked it up. (For others: it can be found here: http://bitchmagazine.org/comments-policy) One line that stood out to me was the following: “As far as moderation of this space goes, guest bloggers moderate the comments on their respective posts, but website moderators will step in when necessary.” – Does this mean that each blog post is technically regulated in a different way? It is not a deal killer if so, because it sparked the following idea: Because FB and Twitter are big places, could you find a smaller community (that is not inherently feminist-oriented) that is discussing the same thing as mentioned in one or a few of the Bitch Media posts, and compare the discussions directly? Just a thought!
::[[User:MikeJohnson|MikeJohnson]] 11:54, 26 February 2014 (EST)

::Does ''anyone else'' see the awesome irony of a woman named Jane writing about Bitch magazine? Am I the only one on here who was a teenage girl in the '90s? I remember clear as day, reading [http://bitchmagazine.org/article/ten-things-hate-about-jane Bitch's criticisms of Jane] back in 1998. BTW [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] I hope you understand that as a very longtime fan of Bitch magazine I am in no way criticizing your project, I actually think it's '''such''' a cool topic. You & I would probably have been awesome friends as teenagers. p.s. This doesn't count as a comment on the prospectus!!! I hope. [[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 21:44, 26 February 2014 (EST)

:::Haha, thanks so much for sharing that Erin!! I haven't had a chance to read the whole thing, but when you see words and phrases like "fake, sanctimonious," "self-obsessed," "narcissism," "blithe unconcern with which they suggest spending huge amounts of money on items of debatable utility," and "overweening focus on the superficial, ersatz do-it-for-you tone, and fake individualism" in just a quick scan of the article, it's bound to be a fun read. Thanks! [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 08:53, 27 February 2014 (EST)

----

*Name: Erin Saucke-Lacelle
*Prospectus title: Effect of rules & regulations on political discussion
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/ErinSaucke-Lacelle-Assignment2.pdf
[[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 23:33, 24 February 2014 (EST)

:: Hi Erin, I agree with your hypothesis about alienation. For example the weak and poor citizens do not have access to the internet and will be left out of the discussion. Their needs are often under-represented or not represented at all. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 08:04, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:::Thank you for the feedback [[User:Ichua|Ichua]]! Your comment makes me wonder though- for this project, we are assigned to studying an online community. Wouldn't the nature of the assignment therefore assume that all students completing this assignment will be leaving out the interest and opinions of people who do not have access to the Internet? Also, I am curious what you mean when you refer to 'weak' citizens? Again, thanks so much for the feedback! [[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 11:47, 25 February 2014 (EST)

::::"Weak" = "Not powerful", have no voice or influence in government discussions and policy-making. Some politicians even believe these people should not participate in voting. Typically viewed as a country's liability rather than an asset. In a country like the Philippines with a total population of 90 million, a great economic revolution can happen if the 40 million in poverty and unemployed are mobilized. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 13:49, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:: Erin - I think the comparison of two subreddits with different regulations is a solid method of studying the effect of regulation on political discussion. I also believe the two subreddits you have chosen make for a great comparison. The only reservation I have in your prospectus is the focus on word count of the regulations as indicative of the rigor of the moderation. For example, one subreddit may simply say "Discussion of Russia is forbidden" - which in five words hampers more conversation than either of the two sets of regulations do in actuality. I do not think the word count is a meaningful statistic. Apropos your question of whether those without internet access will be under-represented in our studies, I would say that because we are focusing on specific small communities to begin with, we are under-representing the reactions (to control) of everyone in the world who is not in that community. The vast majority of the world is not included. Our focus is on only those within the community itself that we can observe. Ultimately I believe your project is designed very well. Since I too am studying a subreddit for my project, I will be following your progress closely!
::[[User:MikeJohnson|MikeJohnson]] 11:23, 26 February 2014 (EST)

:::Hi [[User:MikeJohnson|MikeJohnson]]! Thank you very much for the feedback, very good point about the empirical data on the rules, hopefully I can expand when I have 2500 words to work with. BTW, I just wanted to comment- the question about people without Internet access was actually [[User:Ichua|Ichua]]'s question. My understanding of the assignment is to study ''only'' online communities for this assignment (and not offline humans, which excludes anyone who doesn't or can't access the Internets). My question that [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] commented on is whether ''"users are intimidated by the effort or research required to post, thus limiting participation to a narrow audience"''. Sidenote- '''Thank you''' very much for introducing us to the Twitch Plays Pokémon phenomenon in class. So freaking cool. My God do I ever love the Internet.-[[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]]

:::: Thanks Erin! I think it is absolutely amazing as well, and I've never played Pokémon. If you would like to read my prospectus and help me think about potential research questions using their subreddit, I am all ears. [[User:MikeJohnson|MikeJohnson]] 11:34, 27 February 2014 (EST)

----

*Name: Ian Chua
*Prospectus title: Resolving National Issues With Online Collaborative And Interactive Cognitive Mapping
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/LSTU-E120_Assignment2_IanChua.pdf
[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 06:31, 25 February 2014 (EST)

: I learned from Erin that a project of this nature has its limitations. Government leaders or concerned individuals need to go to Ground Zero and observe for themselves the problems of the poor and weak citizenry. And if democratic rule has failed to eliminate poverty, why not consider compassionate rule?

::@[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] you know, I might be wrong!!! Not sure yet, I guess, til we hear back from more students, or the prof/TAs (: [[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 15:40, 25 February 2014 (EST)
----

*Name: P. Scott Lapinski
*Prospectus title: “Crowd Control”. Content and community controls which impact scholarly communication within the PubMed Commons scientific forum
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/PSL_Assignment2.rtf
[[User:Psl|Psl]] 11:57, 25 February 2014 (EST)
::''For Assignment 2-b, I would love to comment on this prospectus- I will begin now, but please don't take my comments as complete until deadline of Assm't 2-b.''
::Not sure if this will count for feedback for assignment 2-b, but I thought I might share. After reading about how exclusive PubMed Commons is, of course I really wanted to join. As an author of a PubMed article, I ''should'' theoretically have access, if I understand the rules correctly. However PubMed doesn't have my current email address on file (and I can't guess which former email they would have). I think this might be an ineffective means of control, as only 1 in 6 authors on my publication have submitted their email addresses when submitting the article- the rest of us just signed a waiver allowing publication. I sent a request to HelpDesk, and will let you know what they say... (: BTW, for what it's worth, I think you did a very good job at following assignment guidelines. [[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 13:38, 25 February 2014 (EST)

----

*Name: VACYBER
*Prospectus title: Regulatory steps for hacking tools in light of the tremendous potential for fiscal and data loss
*Link to prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:VACYBER_Assignment2.docx
[[User:VACYBER|VACYBER]] 12:46, 25 February 2014 (EST)

----

*Name: Twood
*Prospectus Title: Online Independent Music Communities: The Mechanisms and Effects of Copyright Control
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Twood_Assignment2.rtf
[[User:Twood|Twood]] 14:03, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:: Somehow the uploaded RTF file had been converted to a CALC spreadsheet file, making some of the contents hard to read. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 15:08, 27 February 2014 (EST)

:: Hi Twood. I find your paper topic to be incredibly interesting and well-thought out. I wish I had constructive criticism to give you, but I find that you are on the right path. My only question at the moment: how do you plan on measuring the response of community members to the each sites' control mechanisms? [[User:Lrsanchez|Lrsanchez]] 11:41, 28 February 2014 (EST)

----------
*Name: Cheikh Mbacke
*Prospectus Title: Re/Code: A Neutral Endorser of Disruptive Technology Companies
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Cheikh_Mbacke_Assignment_2.txt
[[User:cheikhmbacke|cheikhmbacke]] 15:15, 25 February 2014 (EST)

------

*Name: Emmanuelsurillo
*Prospectus title: "emmanuelsurillo_Assignment2.doc."
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:%22emmanuelsurillo_Assignment2.doc.%22.docx [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:41, 25 February 2014 (EST)

----

*[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 15:42, 25 February 2014 (EST)
*Architectural choices for a better Q&A community (StackOverflow)
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/LSTUE-120Assignment2.pdf

----

*Name: Art.Mescon
*Title: Do Etsy’s regulations aim to help buyers and/or sellers or are they primarily protective of the company itself, leaving third parties on their own to seek out reputable transaction partners?
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Art.Mescon_Assignment2.docx

::You raise some great ideas in your prospectus that would make for an interesting research paper around Etsy. However, I wonder if it might be best to focus more on the controls for which you can already observe playing out within the Etsy community's online activities? In other words, the community norms and architecture controls within Etsy itself (user-"self-regulation" and Etsy's-"private-regulation") might be the most reliable "observable data" that you will be able to anticipate over the next few weeks. The government level controls (public-regulation) you suggest may require moving outside this community, and I am not sure that a useful discussion (with observational data) will be possible within the page limit, nor would it be crucial to answering your research question.

::I like the research question very much, and I think it couches the challenges you hope to observe within the methodology you propose. Also, I anticipate that the community interactions over the next couple of months should provide you with enough observational data to answer your question. One more tip on the question... What would you think about starting the question with "How" rather than "Do"...? Play around with the phrase of your question, and see how it feels. My thinking is that you will allow yourself some flexibility in what you will truly have to report on when it comes time to write up the results. The answer to a "Do" question requires one to choose a yes or no and your findings will likely challenge any "absolute" judgment call... So don't let yourself get cornered into having to make that choice (at least not at this early stage). By starting the question with "How do Etsy’s regulations...", will allow you to have more flexibility to report on what the observations will show, and your can balance your discussion section on some good and not-so-good controls that play out over the next few weeks.

::Last point. In your sentence "I intend to identify how Etsy controls, or fails to control content in a manner that is advantageous to their users.", I wasn't sure if by "users" you meant the buyers, sellers, or both. My mind is interpreting that "user" is the buyer in this sentence’s context, and the word "content" is used to define both the items and community sellers that are being controlled. True? That distinction may be important to clarify as the full report gets written, because the Etsy controls and observations being gathered will (I suspect) impact buyers vs sellers vs content each a little differently. On a similar note... To cut down on the need to follow every buyer, seller and thing in "Top Searches" for this community, do you think it would be helpful to focus on just one type of craft? I don't know enough about Etsy specifically to determine if that would work for this project, but it might be another way to find a sub-group/sub-community limit, and still provide you with enough observational data to draw some conclusions.

::Hoping these comments are helpful! [[User:Psl|Psl]] 12:22, 28 February 2014 (EST)

----

Title: YouTube Comment Filtering and Other Cyberbullying Initiatives

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Lpereira_Prospectus.docx

[[User:Lpereira|Lpereira]] 16:07, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:: Might be interesting to determine whether and how Youtube encourages positive comments and discourage negative or hate comments. Ultimately, it would be ideal if the character of misbehaving individuals could be improved. Some ideas might be the use of "Like" and "Dislike" votes on these comments and/or the award/deduction of "attitude points". The individuals posting hate and aggressive comments could be prohibited from further postings if the attitude point reaches a certain limit. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 15:02, 27 February 2014 (EST)

::I really like the focal point you will be observing, and you are quite right in pointing out that this "negativity" is becoming an unfortunate reality for many "open comment" sections within these online spaces. Even what can begin as constructive dialog and healthy debate, can quickly degenerate into blather, flames, and hate words when anonymity can be so effectively used as a shield. Interestingly, we can't always point our finger at just one "troll" injecting some deliberate provocation...because sometimes the breakdown occurs with the 3 or 4 community members who (hither to) we're exchanging words in a perfectly eloquent & respectful manner. But the hate, racism, and bullying that poison the dialog on these comment-boards are on a much more disturbing level, and one that certainly will make for an interesting study.

::So, The broad question that I am hearing in your prospectus is "What are the most important controls that an online service provider can successfully implement to intercept and discourage cyberbullying, hate-speech, and irrelevant negativity? The sub-question then would be "How effective and/or constraining are those controls on the community's ability to engage with each other in a meaningful unbiased dialog about the content? (YouTube in this example)?

::Have you given some thought to the subject matter that you will focus on, as a way to observe how these comments progress? It may be helpful to put your lens onto a consistent subject to observe the cycle of communication. From there you should be able to witness what prompts the conversation to begin in the first place; when do counter-points get introduced, how long is constructive dialog able to bridge back and fourth, what is the "poison-pill" that kills the conversation, and when do the controls kick-in?. (Observing where the controls kick in would obviously be the essential part to report on, not so much each of those elements of the cycle of communication I itemized there.)

::I’d be curious to also know if the observation shows that the cycle of communication is more (or less) positive throughout based on the type of subject that initiates the conversation? News stories on "hot button" topics or baseball contrasted with (say) a page dealing with baking fudge probably have different trajectories of "success" in remaining positive. (I am thinking about the inherent behavior of the potential community members themselves… one lends itself to polarized opinions with predictable “zealots” appearing in either camp, while the other community may be more welcoming of differing opinions and tastes). SO for example, thinking of an individual wearing that New York Yankees hat in Fenway Park on game day....vs... a group of bakers talking about chocolate vs. peanut butter fudge recipes…The former is likely to risk some taunting, a black eye, a broken tooth, and perhaps a small riot... while those in the latter group, might, at worst, receive only a cavity. Anyway, my point is that it might be interesting compare a couple of focused topics of conversation as a way of discovering a smaller sub-community that builds around a YouTube comment-board (With one engaging in a "Hot button" topic.... While the other group is discussing something seemingly non-polarizing.)[[User:Psl|Psl]] 12:00, 28 February 2014 (EST)

----
*Ben Harmatz
*Government Entities: Internet Surveillance and Censorship
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Harvard_NSA_1_draft_copy.doc
[[User:Benh|Benh]] 16:49, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:: Hi Ben. While I think your prospectus brings up the interesting and very pertinent topic of government control, surveillance, and censorship, I think that it is simply far too broad of a topic. For the assignment, we are supposed to monitor the activities of users on a particular site or group of sites, but looking at the internet as a whole is far too much for an 8-10 page paper! Perhaps consider government control, surveillance, and censorship while observing a particular website that has been named as a victim (by the media) of NSA's surveillance and dig deeper there. [[User:Lrsanchez|Lrsanchez]] 13:02, 28 February 2014 (EST)

------
*Patricia Byrnes
*Title: Are moderators effective for policing and protecting a site from illegal use?
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Patricia_Byrnes_Assig._Two.doc
[[User:TriciaBy|TriciaBy]] 16:59, 25 February 2014 (EST)

-------

*Name or pseudonym: Vance.Puchalski
*Regulators and the Spread of (Mis)Information
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Puchalski-Assignment2.docx
[[User:Vance.puchalski|Vance.puchalski]] 17:17, 25 February 2014 (EST)

----
*A. Tom Anteus
*Cryptocurrency Uses in Conflict Zones Around the World
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Cryptocurrency_Uses_in_Conflict_Zones_Around_the_World.pdf
[[User:A. Tom Anteus|A. Tom Anteus]] 17:26, 25 February 2014 (EST)

-----

*Julie Dubela
*Mapping Social Media Debate on the OHCHR Report on North Korea
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Julie_Assignment2.txt
[[User:Julie|Julie]] 18:37, 25 February 2014 (EST)

----
*Andrew Grant
*Quantified Self and Qualified Liability: Strava and Lessig's Four Forces
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Andrew_Grant_Assigmnment_Two_02252014.docx
[[User:AndrewGrant|Andrew Grant]]

::Andrew, your prospectus sounds fantastic. Lots of interesting questions being asked in light of Lessig's Four Forces and the Quantified Self movement. I think that you many be asking too many questions for an 8-10 page paper, if you are to go into sufficient depth for each one. Do you think that it's realistic to answer the five research questions in so short of a paper? Other than that, I think you are off to a great start and I am interested in hearing more about it. [[User:Lrsanchez|Lrsanchez]] 11:49, 28 February 2014 (EST)

----

In general, it might be helpful to state why your project is important and how the outcome of the research might help regulate/control or improve human behavior on the internet. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 19:58, 27 February 2014 (EST)

Assignment 2 Submissions

2014-02-28T07:19:34Z

Castille: /* Comments */

{{AssignmentCal}}

===Submission Instructions===

''Please note that we have updated the [[Final_Project#Frequently_Asked_Questions|final project page's FAQ section]] based on some student questions that have come to us over the past week.''

This assignment is due on February 25. Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (assignments submitted 4 days late or later will have a maximum grade of 1 point).

Please name your file "wikiusername_Assignment2," where "wikiusername" is replaced with your username, to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment or causing errors in the Wiki by including forbidden characters.'' So if your username is "jdoe" and your file is a Word document your file should be named "jdoe_Assignment2.doc."

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]].

In the submissions section below please post the following information:

*Name or pseudonym:
*Prospectus title:
*Link to prospectus: (add your link here)

==Comments==

Everyone will receive an additional participation grade for this assignment. You should read through everyone's proposals after they are uploaded and add constructive comments below the proposal on which you're commenting. Comments should be submitted by March 5 so you have time to incorporate them, if applicable, into your project outline. '''Please remember to sign your comments by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post.''' If we don't know who you are we can't give you credit for finishing this assignment!

----
*Name: Jolie Ho - Wan Lap Ho
*Instagram vs Flickr
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Jolie_Assignment_2.docx
[[User:Jolietheone|Jolietheone]] 16:15, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:: How do you propose to collect data to answer the last question? [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 15:22, 27 February 2014 (EST)

----

*Name: Drogowski - Daniel Rogowski
*Regulating Digital Currencies: The Bitcoin Conundrum
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Regulating_Digital_Currencies-_The_Bitcoin_Conundrum_Daniel_Rogowski.docx
[[User:Drogowski|Drogowski]] 14:58, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:: How would this differ from other imaginary items of trade like currency/commodity derivatives and futures and virtual commodities like pork bellies? [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 15:17, 27 February 2014 (EST)

----
*Pseudonym: Marissa1989
*Prospectus title: The rise of the collaborative consumption movement: Analyzing effective control of communication, structures of gaining trust & verification, and legal issues.
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment_2_Barkey-2.pdf
[[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 23:37, 25 February 2014 (EST)
----

*[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 18:36, 25 February 2014 (EST)
*Change.org vrs Ripp Off Report
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Harvard_Research_Paper-Final.docx

----

*[[User:MikeJohnson|MikeJohnson]] 14:32, 25 February 2014 (EST)
*Twitch Plays Pokémon – How Mediating Gameplay Changes the Game
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/MikeJohnson_Assignment2.docx

----

*[[User:Mikewitwicki|Mikewitwicki]] 14:03, 25 February 2014 (EST)
*How does the online Flickr community operate within the Creative Commons feature? How do they share their work, and work together?
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Prospectus_for_final_paper_Michael_Thomas.docx

----
[[User:Luciagamboaso|Luciagamboaso]] 10:42, 25 February 2014 (EST)
*Framework of control in government run collaborative platform
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment_2_LGS.docx‎

: Hi Lucia, are there specified rules of engagement so that government effort to filter or modify inappropriate inputs are minimized? [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 13:32, 25 February 2014 (EST)

----
*Assignment 2:
*Gendered Online Communities: Targeted Harassment and Successful Interventions
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:akk22_assignment2.docx
*[[User:akk22|akk22]] 10:23, 25 February 2014 (EST)

::I'd really like to read and comment on your prospectus, but it seems like the file didn't upload. Happy to respond to it once it's up!
::[[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 20:57, 26 February 2014 (EST)
----

*Assignment 2:

*Can websites with online forums, control the behavior of its members for the sake of growth?

*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Dan_Coronado_assignmen_2b.docx

[[User:Dancoron|Dancoron]] 09:47, 25 February 2014 (EST)

----

*Assignment Two:

*A Web of Lies and Licentious Lure: Temptation, Divorce, and the Internet

* http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Divorce_and_the_Internet_Harvard_Project.docx

--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 17:24, 24 February 2014 (EST)

:First of all, GREAT TITLE!!! Second of all, this seems like an extremely interesting subject and I'd love to read more about it. I do wonder whether you'll be able to get access to the material you might be looking for by doing "undercover investigation" and the other research methods you listed. It seems to me that the kind of exchanges you're discussing would be difficult to observe on Facebook as they likely wouldn't be out in the open. I may be completely mistaken, but I was also under the impression that the assignment encouraged examining a more open forum or something of the like where observation was more feasible. I know that there are public matchmaking sites and I would assume there are also forums geared towards those who wish to have illicit affairs, so that might be an area into which you may want to delve. [[User:Castille|Castille]] 02:19, 28 February 2014 (EST)

----

*Assignment Two:
*Who has the right to control our personal genetic information?
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Monroe_Assignment_Two.docx

[[User:Margorm|Margorm]] 18:30, 23 February 2014 (EST)
: Hi Margo, I'm not sure if you'll ever read this, but if you do, would you by any chance be interested in working on your project in a group? I'm highly interested in this topic (in part because I'm considering founding my next startup in this field), and I've been following it both from a distance as an observer, and from the inside as a customer of 23andMe. I'd love to dig deeper and work with you on this project. Cheers, Philip Seyfi --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 19:28, 24 February 2014 (EST)

::''For Assignment 2-b, I would love to comment on this prospectus! Very interesting topic, excellent questions and the FDA is the US gov't organization with which I am most familiar. I will begin now, but please don't take my comments as complete until deadline of Assm't 2-b.''
::*I'm not sure what this sentence means (and would like to know, in order to be sure I am understanding current situation of 23andme: ''December 5, 2013, 23andMe resumed selling its genetic data only related to ancestry-related results''
::*It is '''very''' cool that you are taking an empirical approach to the community discussion, and I will have to read your prospectus again later to refine this comment, but I want to be confident that the data you collect will contribute to answering your question, which I believe to be "Is the FDA indeed fit to regulate genomic tests/databases".
::[[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 12:07, 25 February 2014 (EST)

----

[[User:Castille|Castille]] 18:58, 22 February 2014 (EST)
*Assignment Two:
*LESS IS MORE?; Tumblr's Policies Against Self-Harm
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:CastilleRath_ASSIGNMENT_TWO.doc

::Castille, I think you have a really excellent topic here. My first thought is that it would probably be helpful to choose a particular self-harming behavior that's discussed on Tumblr to help narrow the scope of your work. Additionally, while these issues can and often are related, I imagine that the Tumblr communities that surround each issue probably have a distinct culture. This topic makes me think of the Jessica McKenzie piece, "Obeying French Courts, Twitter Hands Over Identities of Users Who Employed Anti-Semitic Hashtag" we read in week four. I would be curious to know how many of the controversial hashtags are actually used in subversive ways. Some of the reactions to Tumblr's policy change seem to touch on this when users write that they use these tags to address their own struggle with self-harming behavior. After these policy changes got some press, did it shed enough light on these self-harm blogs to inspire users to use these potentially triggering hashtags in new and positive ways?
::[[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 13:56, 26 February 2014 (EST)

::Thanks for your feedback! I'm planning to narrow the scope to primarily center on pro-suicide blog postings, but I think I'll have to use some other examples such as cutting and possibly even pro-eating disorder blogs, as they all seem to interact with each other. It appears from my research thus far that the communities are intrinsically linked much more so than I expected. I agree, it would be interesting to see if things have changed-- though I'm not quite sure how to gauge pre-policy versus post-policy changes. If you have any ideas, I'd love to hear them! [[User:Castille|Castille]] 02:19, 28 February 2014 (EST)

----

*Watson
*To Publish Or Not: Social Media and the Syrian Conflict
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Watson_Assignment2.docx
[[User:Watson|Watson]] 23:33, 23 February 2014 (EST)

------
*Assignment 2
* Instagram: a public space for free expression?
* http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:LRS_IS_prospectus.docx
[[User:Lrsanchez|Lrsanchez]] 21:42, 24 February 2014 (EST)

:Laura - Your prospectus is not uploaded at the link included here. I will follow up again when you correct the link, because I am interested in your study of instagram based on your in-class introduction.
:[[User:MikeJohnson|MikeJohnson]] 11:35, 26 February 2014 (EST)

:Mike- thanks for pointing that out. I have fixed the issue and you should be able to look at it now. Any and all feedback are welcome!
[[User:Lrsanchez|Lrsanchez]] 18:01, 27 February 2014 (EST)

::Hi, Laura! I think Instagram is a really great topic and will provide a massive amount of material, which I think can be beneficial and detrimental. It seems you might want to consider focusing on a specific aspect of censorship on Instagram, like nudity, drug references, or profanity (if any of those are prohibited-- I don't know their specific terms of use). What aspect of Instagram's censorship do you find to have the highest potential to become problematic? Is their choice as a company to disallow certain messages/images actually infringing on free speech, when they don't have any power over whether an individual chooses to express himself (IE he/she is still capable of posting the material on another site), they merely control/monitor the postings on their own site? [[User:Castille|Castille]] 02:19, 28 February 2014 (EST)

----
* [[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 21:56, 24 February 2014 (EST)
* Comparing Regulation of Free Expression in Online Game Forums
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Prospectus-Radoff.txt Prospectus Text]

----
* jkelly
* Does "toxic" online culture stifle feminist discourse?
* http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Jkelly_Assignment_2.odt
[[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 22:15, 24 February 2014 (EST)

:: Jane – It is a great idea to compare feminist discussion within the confines of a feminist-oriented website to discussion in a public space without this slant. The regulations on discussion are obviously going to be wildly different in each of these communities. You identify Facebook and Twitter as less thoughtful in their discussion for feminist topics - perhaps as a result of their differences in comment policy? I was interested in the comment policy of Bitch Media that you mentioned in the prospectus, so I looked it up. (For others: it can be found here: http://bitchmagazine.org/comments-policy) One line that stood out to me was the following: “As far as moderation of this space goes, guest bloggers moderate the comments on their respective posts, but website moderators will step in when necessary.” – Does this mean that each blog post is technically regulated in a different way? It is not a deal killer if so, because it sparked the following idea: Because FB and Twitter are big places, could you find a smaller community (that is not inherently feminist-oriented) that is discussing the same thing as mentioned in one or a few of the Bitch Media posts, and compare the discussions directly? Just a thought!
::[[User:MikeJohnson|MikeJohnson]] 11:54, 26 February 2014 (EST)

::Does ''anyone else'' see the awesome irony of a woman named Jane writing about Bitch magazine? Am I the only one on here who was a teenage girl in the '90s? I remember clear as day, reading [http://bitchmagazine.org/article/ten-things-hate-about-jane Bitch's criticisms of Jane] back in 1998. BTW [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] I hope you understand that as a very longtime fan of Bitch magazine I am in no way criticizing your project, I actually think it's '''such''' a cool topic. You & I would probably have been awesome friends as teenagers. p.s. This doesn't count as a comment on the prospectus!!! I hope. [[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 21:44, 26 February 2014 (EST)

:::Haha, thanks so much for sharing that Erin!! I haven't had a chance to read the whole thing, but when you see words and phrases like "fake, sanctimonious," "self-obsessed," "narcissism," "blithe unconcern with which they suggest spending huge amounts of money on items of debatable utility," and "overweening focus on the superficial, ersatz do-it-for-you tone, and fake individualism" in just a quick scan of the article, it's bound to be a fun read. Thanks! [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 08:53, 27 February 2014 (EST)

----

*Name: Erin Saucke-Lacelle
*Prospectus title: Effect of rules & regulations on political discussion
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/ErinSaucke-Lacelle-Assignment2.pdf
[[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 23:33, 24 February 2014 (EST)

:: Hi Erin, I agree with your hypothesis about alienation. For example the weak and poor citizens do not have access to the internet and will be left out of the discussion. Their needs are often under-represented or not represented at all. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 08:04, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:::Thank you for the feedback [[User:Ichua|Ichua]]! Your comment makes me wonder though- for this project, we are assigned to studying an online community. Wouldn't the nature of the assignment therefore assume that all students completing this assignment will be leaving out the interest and opinions of people who do not have access to the Internet? Also, I am curious what you mean when you refer to 'weak' citizens? Again, thanks so much for the feedback! [[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 11:47, 25 February 2014 (EST)

::::"Weak" = "Not powerful", have no voice or influence in government discussions and policy-making. Some politicians even believe these people should not participate in voting. Typically viewed as a country's liability rather than an asset. In a country like the Philippines with a total population of 90 million, a great economic revolution can happen if the 40 million in poverty and unemployed are mobilized. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 13:49, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:: Erin - I think the comparison of two subreddits with different regulations is a solid method of studying the effect of regulation on political discussion. I also believe the two subreddits you have chosen make for a great comparison. The only reservation I have in your prospectus is the focus on word count of the regulations as indicative of the rigor of the moderation. For example, one subreddit may simply say "Discussion of Russia is forbidden" - which in five words hampers more conversation than either of the two sets of regulations do in actuality. I do not think the word count is a meaningful statistic. Apropos your question of whether those without internet access will be under-represented in our studies, I would say that because we are focusing on specific small communities to begin with, we are under-representing the reactions (to control) of everyone in the world who is not in that community. The vast majority of the world is not included. Our focus is on only those within the community itself that we can observe. Ultimately I believe your project is designed very well. Since I too am studying a subreddit for my project, I will be following your progress closely!
::[[User:MikeJohnson|MikeJohnson]] 11:23, 26 February 2014 (EST)

:::Hi [[User:MikeJohnson|MikeJohnson]]! Thank you very much for the feedback, very good point about the empirical data on the rules, hopefully I can expand when I have 2500 words to work with. BTW, I just wanted to comment- the question about people without Internet access was actually [[User:Ichua|Ichua]]'s question. My understanding of the assignment is to study ''only'' online communities for this assignment (and not offline humans, which excludes anyone who doesn't or can't access the Internets). My question that [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] commented on is whether ''"users are intimidated by the effort or research required to post, thus limiting participation to a narrow audience"''. Sidenote- '''Thank you''' very much for introducing us to the Twitch Plays Pokémon phenomenon in class. So freaking cool. My God do I ever love the Internet.-[[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]]

:::: Thanks Erin! I think it is absolutely amazing as well, and I've never played Pokémon. If you would like to read my prospectus and help me think about potential research questions using their subreddit, I am all ears. [[User:MikeJohnson|MikeJohnson]] 11:34, 27 February 2014 (EST)

----

*Name: Ian Chua
*Prospectus title: Resolving National Issues With Online Collaborative And Interactive Cognitive Mapping
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/LSTU-E120_Assignment2_IanChua.pdf
[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 06:31, 25 February 2014 (EST)

: I learned from Erin that a project of this nature has its limitations. Government leaders or concerned individuals need to go to Ground Zero and observe for themselves the problems of the poor and weak citizenry. And if democratic rule has failed to eliminate poverty, why not consider compassionate rule?

::@[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] you know, I might be wrong!!! Not sure yet, I guess, til we hear back from more students, or the prof/TAs (: [[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 15:40, 25 February 2014 (EST)
----

*Name: P. Scott Lapinski
*Prospectus title: “Crowd Control”. Content and community controls which impact scholarly communication within the PubMed Commons scientific forum
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/PSL_Assignment2.rtf
[[User:Psl|Psl]] 11:57, 25 February 2014 (EST)
::''For Assignment 2-b, I would love to comment on this prospectus- I will begin now, but please don't take my comments as complete until deadline of Assm't 2-b.''
::Not sure if this will count for feedback for assignment 2-b, but I thought I might share. After reading about how exclusive PubMed Commons is, of course I really wanted to join. As an author of a PubMed article, I ''should'' theoretically have access, if I understand the rules correctly. However PubMed doesn't have my current email address on file (and I can't guess which former email they would have). I think this might be an ineffective means of control, as only 1 in 6 authors on my publication have submitted their email addresses when submitting the article- the rest of us just signed a waiver allowing publication. I sent a request to HelpDesk, and will let you know what they say... (: BTW, for what it's worth, I think you did a very good job at following assignment guidelines. [[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 13:38, 25 February 2014 (EST)

----

*Name: VACYBER
*Prospectus title: Regulatory steps for hacking tools in light of the tremendous potential for fiscal and data loss
*Link to prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:VACYBER_Assignment2.docx
[[User:VACYBER|VACYBER]] 12:46, 25 February 2014 (EST)

----

*Name: Twood
*Prospectus Title: Online Independent Music Communities: The Mechanisms and Effects of Copyright Control
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Twood_Assignment2.rtf
[[User:Twood|Twood]] 14:03, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:: Somehow the uploaded RTF file had been converted to a CALC spreadsheet file, making some of the contents hard to read. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 15:08, 27 February 2014 (EST)

----------
*Name: Cheikh Mbacke
*Prospectus Title: Re/Code: A Neutral Endorser of Disruptive Technology Companies
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Cheikh_Mbacke_Assignment_2.txt
[[User:cheikhmbacke|cheikhmbacke]] 15:15, 25 February 2014 (EST)

------

*Name: Emmanuelsurillo
*Prospectus title: "emmanuelsurillo_Assignment2.doc."
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:%22emmanuelsurillo_Assignment2.doc.%22.docx [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:41, 25 February 2014 (EST)

----

*[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 15:42, 25 February 2014 (EST)
*Architectural choices for a better Q&A community (StackOverflow)
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/LSTUE-120Assignment2.pdf

----

*Name: Art.Mescon
*Title: Do Etsy’s regulations aim to help buyers and/or sellers or are they primarily protective of the company itself, leaving third parties on their own to seek out reputable transaction partners?
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Art.Mescon_Assignment2.docx

----

Title: YouTube Comment Filtering and Other Cyberbullying Initiatives

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Lpereira_Prospectus.docx

[[User:Lpereira|Lpereira]] 16:07, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:: Might be interesting to determine whether and how Youtube encourages positive comments and discourage negative or hate comments. Ultimately, it would be ideal if the character of misbehaving individuals could be improved. Some ideas might be the use of "Like" and "Dislike" votes on these comments and/or the award/deduction of "attitude points". The individuals posting hate and aggressive comments could be prohibited from further postings if the attitude point reaches a certain limit. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 15:02, 27 February 2014 (EST)

----
*Ben Harmatz
*Government Entities: Internet Surveillance and Censorship
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Harvard_NSA_1_draft_copy.doc
[[User:Benh|Benh]] 16:49, 25 February 2014 (EST)

------
*Patricia Byrnes
*Title: Are moderators effective for policing and protecting a site from illegal use?
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Patricia_Byrnes_Assig._Two.doc
[[User:TriciaBy|TriciaBy]] 16:59, 25 February 2014 (EST)

-------

*Name or pseudonym: Vance.Puchalski
*Regulators and the Spread of (Mis)Information
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Puchalski-Assignment2.docx
[[User:Vance.puchalski|Vance.puchalski]] 17:17, 25 February 2014 (EST)

----
*A. Tom Anteus
*Cryptocurrency Uses in Conflict Zones Around the World
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Cryptocurrency_Uses_in_Conflict_Zones_Around_the_World.pdf
[[User:A. Tom Anteus|A. Tom Anteus]] 17:26, 25 February 2014 (EST)

-----

*Julie Dubela
*Mapping Social Media Debate on the OHCHR Report on North Korea
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Julie_Assignment2.txt
[[User:Julie|Julie]] 18:37, 25 February 2014 (EST)

----
*Andrew Grant
*Quantified Self and Qualified Liability: Strava and Lessig's Four Forces
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Andrew_Grant_Assigmnment_Two_02252014.docx
[[User:AndrewGrant|Andrew Grant]]

----

In general, it might be helpful to state why your project is important and how the outcome of the research might help regulate/control or improve human behavior on the internet. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 19:58, 27 February 2014 (EST)

Assignment 2 Submissions

2014-02-28T07:00:57Z

Castille: /* Comments */

Copyright Part 1: Guiding Principles and Online Application

2014-02-27T04:05:19Z

Castille: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 25'''

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

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

<onlyinclude>

== Assignments ==

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

== Readings/Watchings ==

; The mechanics of copyright law

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

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

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

; Digital applications and new challenges

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

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

; Copyright solutions

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

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

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

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

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

== Recommended Readings ==

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

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

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

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

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== Class Discussion ==

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

----

COPYRIGHT OF TEXTBOOKS

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

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

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

----
NPOV AND COPYRIGHT IN WIKIPEDIA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

WHY COPYRIGHT ISN'T AN ISSUE FOR ONLINE LEARNING:

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

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

----

PLAGIARISM AND ONLINE APPLICATION OF COPYRIGHT

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

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

----

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

CUSTOMIZABLE ROYALTY FREE SOUNDRACKS

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

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

----

NEW SOFTWARE WHICH ENHANCES CREATIVITY AND REDUCES INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

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

-------

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

----

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

----

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

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

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

Copyright Part 1: Guiding Principles and Online Application

2014-02-27T04:04:52Z

Castille: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 25'''

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

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

<onlyinclude>

== Assignments ==

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

== Readings/Watchings ==

; The mechanics of copyright law

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

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

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

; Digital applications and new challenges

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

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

; Copyright solutions

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

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

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

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

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

== Recommended Readings ==

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

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

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

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

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== Class Discussion ==

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

----

COPYRIGHT OF TEXTBOOKS

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

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

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

----
NPOV AND COPYRIGHT IN WIKIPEDIA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

WHY COPYRIGHT ISN'T AN ISSUE FOR ONLINE LEARNING:

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

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

----

PLAGIARISM AND ONLINE APPLICATION OF COPYRIGHT

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

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

----

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

CUSTOMIZABLE ROYALTY FREE SOUNDRACKS

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

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

----

NEW SOFTWARE WHICH ENHANCES CREATIVITY AND REDUCES INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

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

-------

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

----

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

----

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

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

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

Copyright Part 1: Guiding Principles and Online Application

2014-02-24T21:01:04Z

Castille: /* Class Discussion */

Copyright Part 1: Guiding Principles and Online Application

2014-02-23T18:08:44Z

Castille: /* Class Discussion */

Copyright Part 1: Guiding Principles and Online Application

2014-02-23T17:36:32Z

Castille: /* Class Discussion */

Assignment 2 Submissions

2014-02-22T23:59:57Z

Castille: /* Comments */

{{AssignmentCal}}

===Submission Instructions===
This assignment is due on February 21. Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (assignments submitted 4 days late or later will have a maximum grade of 1 point).

''Please name your file "wikiusername_Assignment2," where "wikiusername" is replaced with your username, to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment or causing errors in the Wiki by including forbidden characters.'' So if your username is "jdoe" and your file is a Word document your file should be named "jdoe_Assignment2.doc."

Upload your rough draft here: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/Special:Upload Upload file]. If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

In the [[#Submissions|submissions]] section below please post the following information:

*Name or pseudonym:
*Prospectus title:
*Link to prospectus: (add your link here)

==Comments==

Everyone will receive an additional participation grade for this assignment. You should read through everyone's proposals after they are uploaded and add constructive comments below the proposal on which you're commenting. Comments should be submitted by March 5 so you have time to incorporate them, if applicable, into your project outline. '''Please remember to sign your comments by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post.''' If we don't know who you are we can't give you credit for finishing this assignment!

----

[[User:Castille|Castille]] 18:58, 22 February 2014 (EST)
*Assignment Two:
*LESS IS MORE?; Tumblr's Policies Against Self-Harm
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:CastilleRath_ASSIGNMENT_TWO.doc

Assignment 2 Submissions

2014-02-22T23:59:22Z

Castille: /* Comments */

{{AssignmentCal}}

===Submission Instructions===
This assignment is due on February 21. Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (assignments submitted 4 days late or later will have a maximum grade of 1 point).

''Please name your file "wikiusername_Assignment2," where "wikiusername" is replaced with your username, to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment or causing errors in the Wiki by including forbidden characters.'' So if your username is "jdoe" and your file is a Word document your file should be named "jdoe_Assignment2.doc."

Upload your rough draft here: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/Special:Upload Upload file]. If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

In the [[#Submissions|submissions]] section below please post the following information:

*Name or pseudonym:
*Prospectus title:
*Link to prospectus: (add your link here)

==Comments==

Everyone will receive an additional participation grade for this assignment. You should read through everyone's proposals after they are uploaded and add constructive comments below the proposal on which you're commenting. Comments should be submitted by March 5 so you have time to incorporate them, if applicable, into your project outline. '''Please remember to sign your comments by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post.''' If we don't know who you are we can't give you credit for finishing this assignment!

----

[[User:Castille|Castille]] 18:58, 22 February 2014 (EST)
Assignment Two:
LESS IS MORE?; Tumblr's Policies Against Self-Harm
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:CastilleRath_ASSIGNMENT_TWO.doc

Assignment 2 Submissions

2014-02-22T23:58:24Z

Castille: /* Comments */

{{AssignmentCal}}

===Submission Instructions===
This assignment is due on February 21. Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (assignments submitted 4 days late or later will have a maximum grade of 1 point).

''Please name your file "wikiusername_Assignment2," where "wikiusername" is replaced with your username, to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment or causing errors in the Wiki by including forbidden characters.'' So if your username is "jdoe" and your file is a Word document your file should be named "jdoe_Assignment2.doc."

Upload your rough draft here: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/Special:Upload Upload file]. If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

In the [[#Submissions|submissions]] section below please post the following information:

*Name or pseudonym:
*Prospectus title:
*Link to prospectus: (add your link here)

==Comments==

Everyone will receive an additional participation grade for this assignment. You should read through everyone's proposals after they are uploaded and add constructive comments below the proposal on which you're commenting. Comments should be submitted by March 5 so you have time to incorporate them, if applicable, into your project outline. '''Please remember to sign your comments by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post.''' If we don't know who you are we can't give you credit for finishing this assignment!

----

[[User:Castille|Castille]] 18:58, 22 February 2014 (EST)
Assignment Two:
LESS IS MORE?; Tumblr's Policies Against Self-Harm
[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:CastilleRath_ASSIGNMENT_TWO.doc]

Regulating Speech Online

2014-02-22T22:05:08Z

Castille: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 18'''

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

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

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

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

== Assignments ==

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

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==

; Private and public control of speech online

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

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

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

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

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

; Speech laws and liabilities in the United States

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

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

; Cross-border concerns

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

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

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

== Optional Readings ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Class Discussion==

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

----

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

:: Yeah, and it also seems unlikely that they have an entire team of lawyers (or other equally "qualified" professionals) working on every single claim. I wonder-- and perhaps I just missed it, if it's mentioned-- whether they favor a more lenient or strict position, on average. It seems "easier"/"safer" to delete anything that becomes an issue and deal with it again if and only if the deletion is contested. I know I've had several friends' profiles, including all of their photos, comments, etc. over the years, deleted and content removed without so much as a notice.

----

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

----

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

The Miller test for obscenity includes the following criteria

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

While self-policing within a given online community is an ideal way of regulating instances of hate speech, this clearly does not always happen. Partly because citizens may not know how to police such behavior and also because the internet is such a vast sphere that human regulation in its fullest extent has become somewhat unrealistic even if every cyber-goer were moral and acted upon such values. The greatest concern is how many crimes (particularly school shootings) could have been prevented if officials would or could do more to act on the "warning signs" often present on a teenager's social media sites.

A recent article below posted by Staten Island discusses how lack of proactive policy has obstructed investigations. For example, if a student is reported for violent content posted online, it is solely up to the discretion of the school Principal to take action or dismiss the behavior as child's play; this is true even if an explicit threat is made. In one instance a threat was posted and the Principal chose to ignore it because he/she did not know what could be done. This is an issue because a Principal is not formally trained in law enforcement and making these types of decisions comes with an enormous amount of responsibility. In the case of the article below, law enforcement stepped in and conducted an interrogation determining that the posting was nothing more than a hoax. Determining this, however, would be extremely difficult for a Principal without the tools and training of a law enforcement officer.

http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2014/02/post_716.html

--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 13:53, 20 February 2014 (EST)

----

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

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

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

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

----

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

----

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

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

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

----

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

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

----

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

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

-----

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

----

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

Regulating Speech Online

2014-02-17T17:55:08Z

Castille: /* Class Discussion */

Regulating Speech Online

2014-02-17T17:54:51Z

Castille: /* Class Discussion */

A Series of Tubes: Infrastructure, Broadband, and Baseline Content Control

2014-02-17T17:39:23Z

Castille: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 11'''

The late Senator Ted Stevens famously said in a 2006 committee meeting that the “Internet is not something that you just dump something on; it’s not a big truck. It’s a series of tubes.” While he was ridiculed widely at the time, Senator Stevens’s remarks actually reveal an interesting hortatory description of what the Internet should be (though given the rest of his comments, apparently not one that he intended). What Stevens’s metaphor suggests is that the physical conduits of the Internet should act like nothing more than non-judgmental conduits of the rest of the world’s traffic. We will see this week, however, that this is not a true reflection of how the tubes work, and we have strong debates as to what the government's role should be in ensuring that large enough "tubes" reach all those who would like to be online. The big questions for this week: What are the “tubes” of the Internet? Should the tubes have a role in controlling the throughput content? What is the role of government when it comes to developing and regulating our Internet-tubes?

<onlyinclude>
==Readings==

; Comparing and measuring connectivity

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPzjUMdpmSw The Berkman Center, How Do We Connect To The Internet?] (about 7 mins., watch all)

* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Berkman_Center_Broadband_Final_Report-C1_15Feb2010.pdf Yochai Benkler, Next Generation Connectivity] (executive summary and introduction only)

; What is the role of government?

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality Wikipedia, Net Neutrality]

* [http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/01/net_neutrality_d_c_circuit_court_ruling_the_battle_s_been_lost_but_we_can.html Marvin Ammori, The Net Neutrality Battle Has Been Lost, But Now We Can Finally Win the War]

* [http://www.wired.com/opinion/2014/01/one-talking-comes-net-neutrality/ Berin Szoka and Geoffrey Manne, The Feds Lost on Net Neutrality, But Won Control of the Internet]

* [http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/05/bright-ideas-nunziato-on-virtual-freedom-net-neutrality-and-free-speech-in-the-internet-age.html Daniel Solove, Interview with Dawn Nunziato on her book ''Virtual Freedom'']

* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MD9Ss3SI2v8 Susan Crawford, remarks at the 2013 National Conference on Media Reform]

* [http://techliberation.com/2011/03/01/more-confusion-about-internet-freedom/ Adam Thierer, More Confusion about Internet “Freedom” (Tech Liberation)]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://gizmodo.com/5912383/how-to-destroy-the-internet Sam Biddle, How to Destroy the Internet (Gizmodo)]

* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/digitaldemocracy/internetarchitecture.html Ethan Zuckerman & Andrew McLaughlin, Introduction to Internet Architecture and Institutions]

* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2353457 Rob Faris and Rebekah Heacock, Measuring Internet Activity: a (Selective) Review of Methods and Metrics] (pages 3-9)

* [https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/taking-stevens-seriously/ Ed Felten, Taking Ted Stevens Seriously]

* [http://www.renesys.com/2013/11/mitm-internet-hijacking/ Jim Cowie, The New Threat: Targeted Internet Traffic Misdirection]

</onlyinclude>

== Assignment 1 ==

[[Assignment 1 Details and Reporting|Assignment 1]] is due ''before class'' today (i.e., February 11th before 5:30pm ET). You can submit the assignment [[Assignment 1 Submissions|here]].

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== Class Discussion ==

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

----

I believe there is an underlying question surrounding the debate of net neutrality which is to what extent the state should intervene. The easy answer is to the point were the state does not crowd out investment and innovation. Even though in practice this is a hard thing to evaluate and achieve, I believe that regulatory bodies lose sight of it at times and should come back to this premise when deciding on a ruling that harms competition or stifles already functional markets.

[[User:Luciagamboaso|Luciagamboaso]] 16:30, 11 February 2014 (EST)
----

My personal opinions of net neutrality and connectivity became muddled as I read through this week’s reading. My initial viewpoint supported open access and little/no regulation. Data shows that the top countries that meet the benchmarks defined by Benkler (penetration, capacity, and price) establish an open access community and let competition be the harbinger of innovation. The US also got to its current internet state via open access and has since became the middle of the pack once it restricted open access when the FCC abandoned Telecommunications Act of 1996 in 2001 and 2002. If we restrict open access, and information/broadband companies hold monopolies (like Comcast), why should they improve their services since the end game always ends up being a question of efficient profits? However, my opinion on how the government should be involved once I watched Susan Crawford give her remarks at the 2013 National Conference on Media Reform. While her words seemed to agree with my formed opinions on open access and connectivity, her solution focused on using the power of the government to instate infrastructure similar to how highways and telecommunications became ubiquitous. This left me with the question (which everyone seems to have and why this is hotly debated) of how much regulation should be instituted by the government and other regulatory bodies? Although a n00b in this area, my take away thoughts are that some body must exisit to deliver open connectivity and access to the people. The only way to meet Benkler Benchmarks are to develop innovative strategies and technologies - new materials and information delivery systems - to drive down cost, which will increase capacity penetration. This will require that the government invest in science and engineering research and set benchmarks to ensure that the correct infrastructure is provided to achieve this benchmarks. Private funding is also an option, but private institutions usually have a mission that is company driven and not “we the people” driven.

[[User:Margorm|Margorm]] 11:03, 9 February 2014 (EST)

: Open and free access to the internet is possible for one who has a ham radio operator license. In some sense it is not really "open" because of technical barrier since it requires acquisition of new technical skills. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMPRNet [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 11:30, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

While working on Assignment One and doing the readings this week on Net neutrality, I have been left with a lot of confusion as to how much regulation I find appropriate. On one hand, I think the internet, as with the spoken word, should be unrestricted to allow freedom of speech and communication. In this age, there are forums for people to express themselves, learn extensively about every possible interest, exchange information and news immediately, and connect to others from around the world in a way never before seen in history. There are now outlets and communities for all-- no longer are people isolated. While that might be troublesome from a standpoint of privacy, in my opinion an issue just as pressing arises dealing with unrestricted hate language. With the internet providing a barrier between individuals, hateful language is easy to disperse as there is no immediate visible repercussion. People are allowed to hide behind their computers and anonymity, sometimes spewing shocking, racist, sexist or otherwise offensive language just to incite anger and controversy (this behavior is often referred to as "trolling"). With school systems and the like actively taking a stand against bullying, should internet bullying also be restricted? Whose responsibility is it to ensure the safety (mental, emotional, physical) of the public who use the internet-- the website itself? The government? Some other agency which is set up to police the internet? Or would things be more fair if a simple internet ID was implemented, which identified users so that they were held responsible for their postings? I would tend to go with the last option, so as not to actually implement a rule of neutrality, which would be restricting free speech and infringing upon basic human rights.
[[User:Castille|Castille]] 00:14, 8 February 2014 (EST)

: I like your comments. The Singapore government is very concerned about this and planning to take some practical measures, including one similar to your last option. See:
http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/pm-outlines-new-approach-online-engagement-0 [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 11:47, 11 February 2014 (EST

: Interesting! I think it's great that they're taking those measures. Unless I'm missing something, it seems that they are talking about having sites which require users to sign in so that they are at least consistently using a handle on that site. However, I didn't see anything which has posed a sort of all-encompassing "E-ID" (Internet Identity) which would be tied directly to a person and was basically just a virtual representation of that person which would require said person to take direct responsibility for the way they conduct themselves on the internet. A simple sign-in might be better than nothing, but it's easy to create a handle which still serves as a barrier between your real life identity and your internet identity. [[User:Castille|Castille]] 12:39, 17 February 2014 (EST)

----

I've been a Wikipedian for a long time, although not recently. One of the interesting things to look at in the context of Wikipedia is the deletionist/inclusionist divide (I think the deletionists have basically won). I wrote the original article on this subject on Wikipedia, and I thought some of you might find it interesting: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in_Wikipedia Deletionism and Inclusionism in Wikipedia]. I was the original author of this article (I'm [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarinth Tarinth] on Wikipedia) and it has an interesting history as an article, in that there was a fairly concerted attempt to have the article deleted as soon as I had created it. For further background on the subject, the following is an NPR interview I gave on the topic back in 2007: [http://weekendamerica.publicradio.org/programs/2007/01/20/marked_for_deletion.html "Marked for Deletion"]

My general feeling about Wikipedia: to move beyond casual editing, you need to become part of what amounts to a technological priesthood, and you have to fall in line with the prevailing philosophy to succeed at that. (Nevertheless, I do think Wikipedia is really awesome and super-useful, and it'll be fun to make some edits to an article again)
[[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 10:31, 8 February 2014 (EST)

:Thanks for sharing! As I'm sure you know, Wikimedia is trying to break down the technological barriers to entry, but the normative social order and its impact on edits is an interesting issue to explore more. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 14:15, 9 February 2014 (EST)

----

In both the first and second lecture, someone had mentioned that Wikipedia isn't accepted by universities as an acceptable source. To be fair, this isn't a problem with Wikipedia, because universities will ordinarily not accept Britannia as a source either. This is because these are both "tertiary sources," and in academic writing, you need to use either primary sources (original documents, etc.) or secondary sources (peer-reviewed articles, journalistic articles, etc.).
[[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 10:44, 8 February 2014 (EST)

:As I mentioned during the last class, Wikipedia has a pretty good page detailing the various studies conducted to test the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_wikipedia reliability of Wikipedia]. I think your point about tertiary sources is exactly right, and at least with Wikipedia (if people are following the guidelines in articles) you should be able to drive to those primary and secondary sources. And, of course, if you find an issue with Wikipedia, fix it! :-) [[User:Andy|Andy]] 14:12, 9 February 2014 (EST)

----

I had a discussion about Wikipedia with my wife and two sons while waiting for my flight from Changi Airport, Singapore, to Manila, Philippines, awhile ago. To my surprise, both my sons were aware of the problems with Wikipedia. They noted that while some of the citations were good, at least 50% was either crap or had broken links. They don't use Wikipedia seriously but scavenge its sites as a quick way of finding references from good citations.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 12:48, 9 February 2014 (EST)

----

ROLE OF GOVERNMENT AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES IN INTERNET CONNECTIVITY
CASE STUDY: SINGAPORE

The Ministry of Education and the Infocomm Development Authority had developed a set of specifications which e-learning vendors like my company must fulfill in terms of internet bandwidth, especially in national emergencies such as SARS, when schools are required to close to avoid spread of a virus, etc. In such cases, students are required to continue their studies online at home. To ensure requirements on internet access times are met, server load tests were carried out based on simulations for various numbers of concurrent users. We also had a contract with Oracle to work with our engineers and programmers to optimize the Php/MySQL coding. It was money well-spent.

In the past, the hardware was the major limitation. Video server vendors could only promise 50 concurrent users per server. This made connectivity into the internet broadband network too expensive because you need to pay for each server connection plus rack space....until I saw Steve Jobs on Youtube launching the new Mac G4 XServe demonstrating it can deliver video streams to 1000 iMacs. At that time I was working for the government and was the first person to order 2 units of G4 6 months ahead of its anticipated delivery. With 1000 concurrent users possible with the G4 XServe, I quit my job and started my e-learning company a year later in 2000.

Then, we found that the schools' internet bandwidth was the problem. The network in the school could only accomodate 3 classes of 40 students each, or a total of 120 students concurrently accessing our online videos. When there were more than 3 computer labs being used concurrently, all the PC's showed the online video had stalled. This happened to schools which subscribed for only 1 or 2 Mbps internet connectivity with their ISP. Schools using 5 or 10 Mbps had no issue. Over the years, the schools had upgraded their bandwidth connectivity to at least 5 or 10 Mbps. Today, almost all the secondary schools are using our online math program.

Two years ago, I was sourcing for better servers with fast solid-state drives (SSD's). The I/O with the storage devices could also significantly affect the access times, especially for connections to our database. But to our pleasant surprise IBM had produced new hard-disks that were even faster than SSD's! Subsequent server load tests we carried out showed significant improvement in access times with the new machines. Further improvement in access times were also obtained after modifying many segments of our code in consultation with Oracle.

But had the MOE and the schools not been pro-active in improving their internet infrastructure, online learning on a nation-wide scale in schools would not have been possible.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 14:03, 9 February 2014 (EST)

:The drive to having broadband in schools is a big part of communications policy in the US, as well. Several times in our communications law (Title 47 of the U.S. Code) Congress has indicated a clear preference for high-speed access in elementary and secondary schools. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 09:44, 11 February 2014 (EST)

Thank you for sharing this, Ichua! I am curious to know what the Singaporean population thinks of the government's involvement. In China, it seems that citizens tend to accept the government's control and restrictions. It is incredible how one's culture often defines how policies are rolled out and enforced.
--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 14:55, 14 February 2014 (EST)

----

WIKIPEDIA EDITING SYNTAX VS HTML

This may not be directly relevant to our coming lecture, but may be helpful for those who intend to add more than just texts to a Wikipedia page. I was wondering how a table or a URL might be added to a Wikipedia page and thought this could be done using HTML. To my pleasant surprise, there is a menu at the top of the edit page in edit mode which allows you to click to insert a table, etc., to minimize coding time. But it was a disappointment to find there is no math equation editor. Help for input of math expressions can be found in this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Displaying_a_formula.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 22:10, 9 February 2014 (EST)

: I finally figured out how to edit special tables from this Wiki help link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Table#Alignment [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 12:12, 10 February 2014 (EST)

----

APPRECIATING LSTU-E120

I'm beginning to appreciate the information presented in this course. The guidelines about editing Wikipedia and Assignment 1 exercise can help make Wikipedia a better place. While checking out some Wikipedia sites to assess their use for Assignment 1, I found many places in need of citations. For Assignment 1, I would attempt to search for appropriate citations and add these but if not, I now know how to add the "Citation needed" tag. But I also found citations used that were inappropriate....how do I flag these if I could not find appropriate citations?

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 22:30, 9 February 2014 (EST)

----

ONLINE PRE-QUALIFICATION TEST FOR WOULD-BE WIKIPEDIA EDITORS

Perhaps Wikipedia should require would-be editors to thoroughly read its policy and guidelines and make them take a rigorous online test which they need to pass before allowing them to do any edits on Wikipedia.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 22:40, 9 February 2014 (EST)

:What a great idea, Ichua! Would that be infringing on some kind of "right" that individuals have to post freely? I think that would be a reasonably simple way to implement some form of quality control. [[User:Castille|Castille]] 02:04, 15 February 2014 (EST)

----

NET NEUTRALITY VS FAIR USE POLICY: BIG BUFFET VS HUNGER RATION

In countries like S. Korea, US, or Singapore, where there are lots of internet bandwidth to spare, it is convenient to implement a net neutrality policy. More than 90% of the population in Singapore live in public housing apartments and all units are now provided with fibre-optic cables. But in the Philippines, the ISPs are greedy corporations and charge high prices for very poor services. They also cheat customers by telling them that they get unlimited access and unlimited surfing but disconnect them when they hit an unspecified MB of data transfers or total access time on a daily basis. Connectivity is typically restored at midnight. This had been my experience with all the ISPs since I moved to Manila for medical school in June 2012. If you come to my condo in Sampaloc, you will see on my desk all variety of routers, modems, and so-called broadband sticks from Globe, Smart, and Sun. PLDT never showed up despite contacting them twice. One reason why internet connectivity was very bad was because users get deliberately disconnected without their knowledge. However, this was all indicated in fine print in contracts which customers signed without reading under a Fair Use Policy. The Fair Use Policy is used to discourage customers from using the internet too much! The amount of MB or total time accessed used to determine service disconnection depends on the computed average MB transferred and average total time accessed. Finally, I decided to return to Singapore every weekend so that I could view the recorded lectures online for my Harvard Extension School coursework. Subsequently, the situation got better when Smart offered a promo of truly free 10-day unlimited access for purchasing their new broadband stick. But after the 10-day period subscription to the service was very expensive. I found it so much cheaper to buy 3 new broadband sticks every month. To my great relief, in August 2013, Smart began to offer a new 4G device for Php 7,000 upfront plus Php 995 for every 30 days of truly unlimited access. I am one of the few lucky guys who got this device as Smart does not sell this in the university belt area. I had to travel more than an hour to Mandaluyong to buy it. This is all very hard to fathom, especially when Smart has a 4G antenna in front of my block.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 14:30, 10 February 2014 (EST)

----

I find it very surprising that Yochai Benkler's article presents Japan as a country that emphasized ubiquitous, seamless connectivity. Having lived in the country, I would most certainly place it in the first category: ultra high speeds, but rarely there. The internet in Japan is "just there" only if you happen to have a mobile phone, with a relatively expensive data plan, haven't reached your limit, and don't happen to be in a subway.

I think that the problem with the study might be, that although it's more nuanced that most papers on connectivity, it's still not nuanced enough. For example, it uses the metric: Wi-Fi hotspots per 100000. But there's a huge difference between 100 open WiFi hotspots, 100 paid hotspots by one provider, or 100 paid hotspots from 20 providers incompatible with each other. Not to mention that there are many different pricing plans for access to said paid hotspots that can have a big impact on how useful they are.

Japan, for example, would probably not fare very well in this metric if the above-mentioned considerations would have been taken into account. Everyone who has visited the country, even its capital, knows that free hotspots are few and far between, paid hotspots are expensive and often require you to subscribe for long stretches of time, and even if you do pay for the access you'll soon find that different establishments side with different WiFi providers and if you really want a seamless experience you'll need to subscribe to at least 2-3 different WiFi providers at once.

(That said, it's worth noting that my point of view is that of someone who spends a lot of time in European and Asian countries with excellent, ubiquitous, and often free or dirt cheap connectivity, not someone from rural US.)
--[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 16:09, 10 February 2014 (EST)

:Great points! I believe later in the full report Benkler notes that Japan is more of a middle-of-the-pack performer on other metrics, including 3G penetration and price (though Japan has been growing very quickly in the former). Your point about the WiFi access points is a good one - I'm not sure if the OECD study that's referenced here took price into account when developing the definition of what is a "public hotspot." [[User:Andy|Andy]] 09:51, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

In Australia, net neutrality issues hardly impact us and receive minimal attention from consumers or industry. This week’s reading further piqued my curiosity to research what Australia is doing differently to keep these problems at bay, as we generally mimic structures of technology from America.

Unlimited broadband data plans in America planted seeds to the problems that sprouted with net neutrality. Services meant for access-granting could otherwise be boring and bill customers for simply providing access, however, a power struggle emerged within the market. The ISP’s that provide unlimited broadband failed to create additional revenue parallel to their traffic growth. This business model leaves a lot of temptation for the ISP’s to manipulate traffic, direct users to favoured websites, attempt to stifle their competitors or simply block them out. How else would a provider increase company revenue? This model also give little incentive for the ISP’s to invest in upgrades to capacity or network speeds for their customers, because they wouldn’t profit off of it.

Curiously, Australia does not have any laws in place regarding net neutrality, the ISP’s are structured to have disincentives for discriminating or favouring traffic based on source type. Australian ISPs operate on a volumetric billing system, so the user pays per MB, at a fixed rate, with a pre-determined speed and download capacity. Customers have a choice to upgrade to higher speeds and expand their download capacity, and ISPs manage congestion based on the customer’s willingness to pay. Blocking or manipulating web traffic would have an anticompetitive effect on the ISP. This system gives stronger incentives to maximise transition of all traffic regardless of source type, because that would translate to bigger profits. High market competition paired with low-entry barriers weakens incentives for ISPs to block content. Telstra, an Australian ISP, operates on a metered broadband system. If you choose Telstra as your provider, they have a list of partner sites that can be used on an unlimited basis. This is an effective way to steer the direction of customers without having to manipulate their open-access connectivity to other websites, if they so choose to use them.

ISPs should act as an affordance that suggest, rather than dictate, how their services are to be used. It would be naive to think that American ISPs could simply restructure to a volumetric system, which would run a huge risk of sending their customers running to their competitors who still provide unlimited access.
[[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 23:17, 10 February 2014 (EST)

: Talking about competition, there is hardly any competition amongst ISP's in Philippines. PLDT directly or indirectly own Smart and Sun. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 01:02, 11 February 2014 (EST)

::[[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] and [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] - if you don't mind my asking, what do you pay for broadband, and what is your average download and upload speed? You can use services like [http://www.speedtest.net/ Speedtest] to check. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 07:46, 11 February 2014 (EST)

::: Currently from my location in Sampaloc, Manila, using www.speedtest.net, I am getting 2.26 Mbps for downloads and 0.20 Mbps for uploads. I am paying Php 995 (about USD 25) for every 30 days of unlimited access using Smart's 4G network with ZTE's LTE device Model MF93D (made in China). I am now quite happy with the download speed, but not the upload speed as I have to upload videos for 1st and 2nd Year med school class lectures. It is actually very cheap now for me and I can bring the 4G device while travelling around Manila. This is a very far cry from my situation prior to August 2013. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 12:16, 11 February 2014 (EST)

::: I am on a plan with Telstra that costs $50 AUD per 8 Gigs of data. This sounds expensive by American standards, but bear in mind, minimum wage in Sydney (city) is around $22 AUD per hr. [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 16:52, 11 February 2014 (EST)

:::: Using speedtest.net from my location, at my work computer in Sydney city (This isn't my home plan as noted above, I will test that when I'm home today) Download Speed is 14.06mbps and Upload Speed is 2.04 Mbps. Good by Australian standards - this pales in comparison to America. [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 17:00, 11 February 2014 (EST)

::Also, to Marissa's point about competition, it's an interesting question whether folks would be as worried about net neutrality if there was genuine competition in the US over broadband, but that's typically not the case. Major metropolitan areas will have, at most, two or three choices, and for huge sections of the US there is only one cable provider in their area. Some cities have tried to build municipal networks to provide other choices, but several state legislatures have prevented cities in their states from doing so. Australia, as you probably know, is considering the near-opposite approach, embarking on a heroic effort to build [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Broadband_Network fiberoptic lines to every building] in Australia. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 07:52, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

UNSUNG WINTER HEROES OF THE TUBES

During my 4 years in West Lafayette, IN, from 2004-2008, we had very good internet access. But occasionally when the internet goes down, especially during winter, the internet outage extends throughout the whole state or several states. I learned that the technicians sometimes work under tough or hazardous conditions to restore damaged lines.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 01:02, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

FROM TUBES TO AIRSPACE

If any government intend to quickly setup broadband internet or intranet access, technology is now available which enable one to do so using very long range wifi or ethernet radio. The main transmission antenna can be installed and connected to a server within a day. Transmission can be up to 120km at 200 Mbps with equipment like the RAD's AirMux-400. Additional repeaters can be added for places which do not have line-of-sight. Cheap and powerful desktop receivers are also available. This can be a temporary solution until more stable networks such as those based on fiber-optics are installed. If I recall, my costing was merely Php 200,000 (USD 5,000) for a 50km range at 100 Mbps, including equipment and labor for installation and setup. Sounds good for poor and impoverished communities.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 01:19, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

NET NEUTRALITY IMPRACTICAL FOR COUNTRIES WITH BIG INCOME GAPS

Private ISP corporations want to make profit but governments want internet services to be delivered to the poor at almost no cost. To do so would require government ownership or regulated differential pricing and/or the provision of separate internet networks: one for entertainment and commerce and the other for education.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 01:36, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

Net Neutrality is the question which must be maintained by government and private entities in close cooperation. Of course, the ISPs want to make greater profits by means of prices fluctuation for different websites, traffics and etc. In this case, the government can be some kind of
"referee" by preventing the IPS to speculate with the mentioned aspects. However, we should bear in mind that the government cannot keep the total governance in its hands as this policy may lead to some restrictions in the development of this sphere in future. So, I think that the met neutrality must be recognized by law and the legislation must set the general rules and protect the consumers from being somehow harmed by the IPS. Still, IPS must possess enough freedom for development and advancement of the services they are engaged in.[[User:Aysel|Aysel]] 09:19, 11 February 2014 (EST)Aysel Ibayeva

----

In response to Castille, I am also finding myself at a crossroad on the issue of promoting liberty and safeguarding citizens by preventing injustices. I think this is a topic of endless, profound debate. I thoroughly enjoyed the weekly readings and found Adam Thierer's article "More Confusion about Internet 'Freedom' " to be particularly powerful and convincing. While I did not agree with all of the points he made, I think he makes a valid, logical argument debunking the mainstream point of view that has been engrained in us as a society. I did not realize the extent of power the FCC maintains over the internet and, as he mentions, these are not even elected officials. How can they promote the values or digital issues that we, the people of the internet, hold dear. Shouldn't we have a say in these decisions that directly impact the cyberspace we access on a daily basis? He admits there will inevitably be problems in a free information marketplace; however, in the name of innovation via the promotion of creativity and ingenuity within our society, perhaps these mistakes are well worth the risk and stunting this technological growth/exchange could do more damage than good.

I was surprised to find the end of the article when Thierer ultimately bashes the Senator's initial statement that Net neutrality is “the First Amendment issue of our time.” At first I thought he was in agreement with Senator Franken but he saw this as more of an attack on the goal of the first amendment. When I initially read Franken's statement I took it to mean that the internet is becoming a general issue for freedom of speech.

Thierer suggests that instead of putting more faith in these central planners, we should look to the evolutionary market forces through a bottom-up response as the "cyber-progressivists" have argued (Thierer 2011). The most important point that Thierer discusses, in my opinion, was when he mentioned that people are driven by incentives, but they are only truly free to do so if they are not held at the whim of a higher governing authority and this authority has a track record of always being two steps behind the latest technological advancements. They cannot keep up and in trying to do so, they are ultimately thwarting overall progression. While I cannot go as far as saying that I believe all regulatory intervention is tyranny as Thierer ends up insisting, I tend to agree with his overall convictions. However, as Castille pointed out, there are clearly times when it appears the government should step in to protect its citizens on the web. On the other hand, one intervention leads to another and it becomes a fast moving "slippery slope".

--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 10:57, 11 February 2014 (EST)

:There's a reason this has been a hot issue for about a decade! There are very compelling arguments to be made on all sides. Thierer does gloss over the fact that the FCC's actions are constrained by Congress, and Congress (at least in theory) is dependent upon the people, so as a matter of structure the influence of the public has a role, though we all know how hard that is to achieve in practice. The First Amendment issues themselves are fascinating and an area where I spend a lot of my time thinking about these issues; I hope to get to some of that in class today. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 10:58, 11 February 2014 (EST)

::Thierer complains, "We are asked to ignore our history lessons, which teach us that centralized planning and bureaucracy all too often lead to massively inefficient outcomes..." However, this is taking the libertarian complaint of inefficiency (that I normally side with) out of its economic context. If he were to balance the concerns of profitability of the architecture of the industry (for the ISPs) and of the fiber networks themselves, and weigh them against the potential economic growth as a result of ubiquitous internet, Thierer would find that one far outweighs the other in importance. [[User:MikeJohnson|MikeJohnson]] 15:48, 11 February 2014 (EST)

Interesting points here, Mike. I often wonder what the founding fathers would think if they lived today and wonder how they would grapple with the complexities digital technology presents for society. While I have tremendous respect for our great Constitution and the values invoked within it; I still find that it cannot effectively respond to modern advancements. After a bit of research it seems that the founding fathers would favor less government involvement in the face of economic advancement. As James Madison once said, "The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty." Patrick Henry also had a quote that may be relevant to this debate: "The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." No matter what side of the fence you find yourself, this is one of those debates (as Andy mentions) that does not appear to have a clear course of action that can be taken in the near future. Drafting modern technical policy and implementing it with the consent of the people is the most important task at hand.
--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 15:08, 14 February 2014 (EST)

--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 14:55, 14 February 2014 (EST)

----

When the key Net Neutrality cases were being presented before the court a few years back, I remember being firmly on the side of the FCC and hoping that a strict ruling against Comcast would have preserved Net Neutrality... or at least what I presumed "net neutrality" to encompass back then. I see that my view of Net Neutrality was overly narrow at that time...and although I still do not want to see service providers have that much power to manipulate what legal content a user chooses to access online, I see from the readings that the scope of the "problem" would, probably, neither have been fully resolved in a ruling that went in favor of the FCC. Constraints, as discussed last week, would have most likely just shifted, and placed regulated pressure on a marketplace. (an example might be thinking of an ISP that truly wants to enter the market and offer customers a filtered, "safe", online experience for certain families... they indeed would have subscribers and be successful and appeal to some sectors that opt for a “safe online community”). Conversely, with the judges ruling allowing the FCC to walk away with the ability to regulate the entire internet is more than a little worrisome knowing that political cycles could have such sweeping powers to re-define the internet landscape. And while service providers still enjoy their own monopolies within any given township of users who have only 1 (maybe 2) choices for an ISP, it seems that the consumer is the only one who lost some ground in the Net Neutrality rulings.

I think the reading "Net Neutrality and Free Speech in the Internet Age" strikes closer to where we need to be focusing our attention. To quote from the interview directly: "Dawn argues for an affirmative conception of the First Amendment, under which public and powerful private gatekeepers of Internet communications are subject to the First Amendment’s mandate to ensure the free flow of communications in the digital age." - Here too I originally presumed that the First Amendment *did* apply across-the-board to all communication...Internet, printing press, public speech - but I guess it is that word "public" that becomes an "undefined zone" within virtual spaces online. Is there anything like a national or municipal park in the Internet world where the marketplace has no sway on how we choose to behave in that public zone? Or is every “online space” in which we choose to speak or participate analogous to traveling to private island governed by the values (and whims) of the a single gatekeeper rather than any one nation's constitutional rights? (Why did Mr. Roarke and Tattoo just come to mind...?).
[[User:Psl|Psl]] 12:31, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

MAGNA CARTA FOR PHILIPPINES INTERNET FREEDOM (MCPIF)

See: http://democracy.net.ph/mcpif/full-text/

What do you think of Section 5(e)?

Schools in Singapore has a restriction policy. Only selected websites are permitted to be accessed within the school's network.

We also teach parents how to allow their children to access only selected websites and block all others to prevent children from playing online games and accessing pornographic and other undesirable websites.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 12:42, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

WEBSITES BANNED IN SINGAPORE

http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/singapore/story/extramarital-dating-website-ceo-disappointed-mdas-ban-20131109

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/05/23/us-singapore-internet-odd-idUSS2322899620080523

http://yawningbread.org/arch_2005/yax-504.htm

http://therealsingapore.com/content/singapore-government-plans-ban-websites-such-pirate-bay

See also Internet Filtering in Singapore:
https://opennet.net/studies/singapore

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 12:50, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

I have used Wikipedia as a starting point to gather resources and verify the accuracy of the information. I have never been a contributor. This assignment has proved useful in "breaking me out of my shell." I am reminded of the quote from an article that I ran across by Tom Simonite. In the article, The Decline of Wikipedia, he stated: "When Wikipedians achieved their most impressive feat of leaderless collective organization, they unwittingly set in motion the decline in participation that troubles their project today." I fear the mechanism is stifled from further growth due to its collective and bureaucratic structure. [[User:VACYBER|VACYBER]] 13:13, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

This week’s assignment was very enlightening. I am a casual browser in Wikipedia and have used it just for some very general preliminary information before going into the topic deeper in other websites. I was familiar with the issues of the website but I never really stepped behind the initial pages to edit or evaluate the rules. This was very helpful but I also suffered a bit on the learning curve being a complete beginner on that end. Regardless, I found it very interesting.

Now for the topic of government’s roles of the Internet, I think this would be best avoided. The Internet is where our freedom of speech gets most prolific and also most obscene. There’s room for it all and we should keep it like this. When control enters the picture it is a dangerous slope and it is never black and white. How do you decide what should be banned? Everyone will give a different method and a consensus is nearly impossible. I’m interest to see what the class will say on this topic.
[[User:Lpereira|Lpereira]] 13:28, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

According to research conducted by Yochai Benkler about search for improvement of high-capacity networks for the next generation in different developed and developing countries is based on download speed and complete connectivity. His study demonstrates the strengths and weaknesses in the broadband deal in several countries and makes a comparison to the technological transition in the next generation, while the video shows briefly how connectivity works today and makes a comparison between the most developed and developing countries. In analyzing both materials, I made the conclusion that the opportunities and technological barriers, experiences and skills gained by the different players in the innovation system flowing through this economic activity to another, establish a specific context for each country or region, that is that any set of economic incentives generate different incentives and constraints to innovation. To the extent and in cases where the divergence between economic incentives and stimulating innovation represented by externalities is substantial, differences are gradually decreased. [[User:Gisellebatista|Gisellebatista]] 14:08, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

Working on Assignment One (and the Wiki rule of neutrality in particular) got me thinking about objectivity as it relates to online journalistic content. It struck me that objectivity has been losing its power online, at least in the journalistic and content spheres. Outside of academic circles, the online news that gets the most attention seems to be quite opinionated — they are the articles that lead to shares, ‘likes’, high-fives, vitriol, and discussion. But it’s also these same pieces that people go to for sources of information. Often biased information. A couple of the readings have addressed this fact: that online communities and the net in general has a categorizing effect… so that it becomes not so much a large “worldwide web”, but a large collection of smaller, almost navel-gazing webs.

There’s a bit of a bipolarity going on here. As an example, Wikipedia seems to be doing a solid job of promoting objectivity, and yet online biases seem break through the clutter faster. On one hand we crave objectivity for our sources, and on the other hand we crave opinions for our entertainment. (Maybe it’s as simple as that? But it rarely is…)

When looking at different Wiki articles, a bit of a pattern started to emerge: Those articles that deviated from one rule, were more likely to deviate from at least one of the other rules, as well. This made it particularly difficult to focus on editing just the one area and led to making amendments of other rules as well. I found that as I delved deeper into the editing process, more issues seemed to pop up that “needed” editing — I could see how it could become quite addictive for regular Wiki editors.

I also found the idea of branching out to edit an article for which I had no previous knowledge to be daunting — even with sufficient sources at my disposal. It would be interesting to look at a study of how much prior knowledge Wiki editors have about the subjects they are editing… [[User:Twood|Twood]] 14:15, 11 February 2014 (EST)

:I would agree with Twood-the task of verifying sources for accuracy is daunting. The three fundamental rules Wiki has placed ( at first) seem simplistic. Application takes the steps to a different level. I found myself in the most interesting research hole imaginable. The error rate is high on Wiki-but understandable. --[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 15:36, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

Having created and submitted a single Wikipedia article previously, I had a reasonable familiarity with Wikipedia before completing Assignment 1. However, approaching Wikipedia as an editor with a targeted rule to address in a pre-existing article brought up many questions about the role of the individual, the community and the regulation of speech. A number of the readings helped work through these questions for me, none more so than Professor Dawn Nunziato's interview on net neutrality and free speech. I was pleased to consider the two conceptions of the first amendment in the context of the internet and regulation of speech online. As Nunziato explains, under the affirmative conception of the first amendment, "individuals enjoy an affirmative right to speak, free from content and viewpoint discrimination — regardless of whether such discrimination occurs at the hands of the government or other powerful regulators of speech." She also confirms, as I have understood from my lay person's perspective as a frequent user of web and social media, that the affirmative conception of the first amendment "has not taken root" in the internet context because the private entities that control internet speech are not subject to the first amendment's mandate prohibiting censorship. This of course leads to concern about whether our internet communication is really free-- and also leads to the unique case of Wikipedia. As we learned in other readings this week, and in completing Assignment 1 itself, there are certainly "gatekeepers" for speech on Wikipedia, but in a different form from broadband providers, email servers, and search engines that Nunziato cites. The community of editors on Wikipedia, and such reliability control features as autoconfirmed editors, serve as a less tangible but equally omnipresent entity that has the power to censor- but to protect from unreliable or overly biased information, rather than a singular interest. Whether Wikipedia can at the same time ensure neutrality and protect free speech is clearly an ongoing debate.

[[User:akk22|akk22]] 15:19, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

The Internet is a global infrastructure so measuring, defining, and ultimately controlling it can be accomplished in a variety of ways. In measuring speed, broadband, and the “always on” ubiquitously networked society, the US ranked mid to poor in performance and among the absolute lowest in category of price and future planning. This is one of the key issues debated in politics along with open access policies, network neutrality, First Amendment rights, and the FCC’s broad powers over regulating the Internet. The network neutrality view is that “broadband providers and wireless carriers should be prohibited from discriminating against speech on the basis of viewpoint or content” the right for all information to travel the Internet equally without discrimination. There have been several occurrences of major ISP’s manipulating the content provided on an individualized basis just because it benefited their own interests. How much regulation should we place over the Internet or should we just leave it to the great innovators and major corporations to work it out? [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:46, 11 February 2014 (EST)

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

As a first time contributor to Wikipedia, thanks to this class in general and assignment one in particular, I came to realize that it would be very difficult for governments to regulate the internet as it is already an enormous task for individual web-based organizations, such as Wikipedia, to manage all its editors. For example, bearing Wikipedia's first rule in mind (also known as "NPOV"), I read a few articles and edited one that was completely not in line with Wikipedia's policies. There was no citation from reliable sources of any kind. Besides, the author stated a lot of his opinions as facts and vice versa.

Having said that, I believe that if it is that hard for organizations such as Wikipedia to regulate their own user bases, which are relatively small portions of a countries' populations, and make them all stick to the rules, let alone governments of developed nations who manage an entire population with many fundamental rights and freedom to regulate the internet in the traditional governmental ways of regulating.

Finally, I am not totally dismissing the idea that governments should not intervene on internet issues. It is not impossible to regulate it to some extent. On the contrary, I think it is even necessary for governments and individual internet organizations to collaborate and continue to establish policies and regulations that will be in the benefits of their populations and users, respectively.
[[User:cheikhmbacke|cheikhmbacke]] 15:55, 11 February 2014 (EST)

:Did you see the posting earlier where Ichua suggested implementing a survey or "quiz" of sorts which would test prospective users based on information given in the Terms of Use/Conditions of Wikipedia to ensure that they understood the rules and how to use them before they were allowed to create new posts or make alterations to existing posts. On what sort of issues would you propose governments intervene? Should they monitor or regulate content or one of the four "forces"-- excluding law, which is obvious-- (architecture, market, norms)? As far as content, I don't think it would be the government's duty or right to ensure accuracy or even to prevent "hate speech", as I think that sort of involvement would be a slippery slope towards infringing on free speech. [[User:Castille|Castille]] 02:13, 15 February 2014 (EST)

Regulating Speech Online

2014-02-15T07:26:37Z

Castille: /* Class Discussion */

A Series of Tubes: Infrastructure, Broadband, and Baseline Content Control

2014-02-15T07:14:28Z

Castille: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 11'''

The late Senator Ted Stevens famously said in a 2006 committee meeting that the “Internet is not something that you just dump something on; it’s not a big truck. It’s a series of tubes.” While he was ridiculed widely at the time, Senator Stevens’s remarks actually reveal an interesting hortatory description of what the Internet should be (though given the rest of his comments, apparently not one that he intended). What Stevens’s metaphor suggests is that the physical conduits of the Internet should act like nothing more than non-judgmental conduits of the rest of the world’s traffic. We will see this week, however, that this is not a true reflection of how the tubes work, and we have strong debates as to what the government's role should be in ensuring that large enough "tubes" reach all those who would like to be online. The big questions for this week: What are the “tubes” of the Internet? Should the tubes have a role in controlling the throughput content? What is the role of government when it comes to developing and regulating our Internet-tubes?

<onlyinclude>
==Readings==

; Comparing and measuring connectivity

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPzjUMdpmSw The Berkman Center, How Do We Connect To The Internet?] (about 7 mins., watch all)

* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Berkman_Center_Broadband_Final_Report-C1_15Feb2010.pdf Yochai Benkler, Next Generation Connectivity] (executive summary and introduction only)

; What is the role of government?

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality Wikipedia, Net Neutrality]

* [http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/01/net_neutrality_d_c_circuit_court_ruling_the_battle_s_been_lost_but_we_can.html Marvin Ammori, The Net Neutrality Battle Has Been Lost, But Now We Can Finally Win the War]

* [http://www.wired.com/opinion/2014/01/one-talking-comes-net-neutrality/ Berin Szoka and Geoffrey Manne, The Feds Lost on Net Neutrality, But Won Control of the Internet]

* [http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/05/bright-ideas-nunziato-on-virtual-freedom-net-neutrality-and-free-speech-in-the-internet-age.html Daniel Solove, Interview with Dawn Nunziato on her book ''Virtual Freedom'']

* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MD9Ss3SI2v8 Susan Crawford, remarks at the 2013 National Conference on Media Reform]

* [http://techliberation.com/2011/03/01/more-confusion-about-internet-freedom/ Adam Thierer, More Confusion about Internet “Freedom” (Tech Liberation)]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://gizmodo.com/5912383/how-to-destroy-the-internet Sam Biddle, How to Destroy the Internet (Gizmodo)]

* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/digitaldemocracy/internetarchitecture.html Ethan Zuckerman & Andrew McLaughlin, Introduction to Internet Architecture and Institutions]

* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2353457 Rob Faris and Rebekah Heacock, Measuring Internet Activity: a (Selective) Review of Methods and Metrics] (pages 3-9)

* [https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/taking-stevens-seriously/ Ed Felten, Taking Ted Stevens Seriously]

* [http://www.renesys.com/2013/11/mitm-internet-hijacking/ Jim Cowie, The New Threat: Targeted Internet Traffic Misdirection]

</onlyinclude>

== Assignment 1 ==

[[Assignment 1 Details and Reporting|Assignment 1]] is due ''before class'' today (i.e., February 11th before 5:30pm ET). You can submit the assignment [[Assignment 1 Submissions|here]].

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== Class Discussion ==

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

----

I believe there is an underlying question surrounding the debate of net neutrality which is to what extent the state should intervene. The easy answer is to the point were the state does not crowd out investment and innovation. Even though in practice this is a hard thing to evaluate and achieve, I believe that regulatory bodies lose sight of it at times and should come back to this premise when deciding on a ruling that harms competition or stifles already functional markets.

[[User:Luciagamboaso|Luciagamboaso]] 16:30, 11 February 2014 (EST)
----

My personal opinions of net neutrality and connectivity became muddled as I read through this week’s reading. My initial viewpoint supported open access and little/no regulation. Data shows that the top countries that meet the benchmarks defined by Benkler (penetration, capacity, and price) establish an open access community and let competition be the harbinger of innovation. The US also got to its current internet state via open access and has since became the middle of the pack once it restricted open access when the FCC abandoned Telecommunications Act of 1996 in 2001 and 2002. If we restrict open access, and information/broadband companies hold monopolies (like Comcast), why should they improve their services since the end game always ends up being a question of efficient profits? However, my opinion on how the government should be involved once I watched Susan Crawford give her remarks at the 2013 National Conference on Media Reform. While her words seemed to agree with my formed opinions on open access and connectivity, her solution focused on using the power of the government to instate infrastructure similar to how highways and telecommunications became ubiquitous. This left me with the question (which everyone seems to have and why this is hotly debated) of how much regulation should be instituted by the government and other regulatory bodies? Although a n00b in this area, my take away thoughts are that some body must exisit to deliver open connectivity and access to the people. The only way to meet Benkler Benchmarks are to develop innovative strategies and technologies - new materials and information delivery systems - to drive down cost, which will increase capacity penetration. This will require that the government invest in science and engineering research and set benchmarks to ensure that the correct infrastructure is provided to achieve this benchmarks. Private funding is also an option, but private institutions usually have a mission that is company driven and not “we the people” driven.

[[User:Margorm|Margorm]] 11:03, 9 February 2014 (EST)

: Open and free access to the internet is possible for one who has a ham radio operator license. In some sense it is not really "open" because of technical barrier since it requires acquisition of new technical skills. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMPRNet [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 11:30, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

While working on Assignment One and doing the readings this week on Net neutrality, I have been left with a lot of confusion as to how much regulation I find appropriate. On one hand, I think the internet, as with the spoken word, should be unrestricted to allow freedom of speech and communication. In this age, there are forums for people to express themselves, learn extensively about every possible interest, exchange information and news immediately, and connect to others from around the world in a way never before seen in history. There are now outlets and communities for all-- no longer are people isolated. While that might be troublesome from a standpoint of privacy, in my opinion an issue just as pressing arises dealing with unrestricted hate language. With the internet providing a barrier between individuals, hateful language is easy to disperse as there is no immediate visible repercussion. People are allowed to hide behind their computers and anonymity, sometimes spewing shocking, racist, sexist or otherwise offensive language just to incite anger and controversy (this behavior is often referred to as "trolling"). With school systems and the like actively taking a stand against bullying, should internet bullying also be restricted? Whose responsibility is it to ensure the safety (mental, emotional, physical) of the public who use the internet-- the website itself? The government? Some other agency which is set up to police the internet? Or would things be more fair if a simple internet ID was implemented, which identified users so that they were held responsible for their postings? I would tend to go with the last option, so as not to actually implement a rule of neutrality, which would be restricting free speech and infringing upon basic human rights.
[[User:Castille|Castille]] 00:14, 8 February 2014 (EST)

: I like your comments. The Singapore government is very concerned about this and planning to take some practical measures, including one similar to your last option. See:
http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/pm-outlines-new-approach-online-engagement-0 [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 11:47, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

I've been a Wikipedian for a long time, although not recently. One of the interesting things to look at in the context of Wikipedia is the deletionist/inclusionist divide (I think the deletionists have basically won). I wrote the original article on this subject on Wikipedia, and I thought some of you might find it interesting: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in_Wikipedia Deletionism and Inclusionism in Wikipedia]. I was the original author of this article (I'm [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarinth Tarinth] on Wikipedia) and it has an interesting history as an article, in that there was a fairly concerted attempt to have the article deleted as soon as I had created it. For further background on the subject, the following is an NPR interview I gave on the topic back in 2007: [http://weekendamerica.publicradio.org/programs/2007/01/20/marked_for_deletion.html "Marked for Deletion"]

My general feeling about Wikipedia: to move beyond casual editing, you need to become part of what amounts to a technological priesthood, and you have to fall in line with the prevailing philosophy to succeed at that. (Nevertheless, I do think Wikipedia is really awesome and super-useful, and it'll be fun to make some edits to an article again)
[[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 10:31, 8 February 2014 (EST)

:Thanks for sharing! As I'm sure you know, Wikimedia is trying to break down the technological barriers to entry, but the normative social order and its impact on edits is an interesting issue to explore more. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 14:15, 9 February 2014 (EST)

----

In both the first and second lecture, someone had mentioned that Wikipedia isn't accepted by universities as an acceptable source. To be fair, this isn't a problem with Wikipedia, because universities will ordinarily not accept Britannia as a source either. This is because these are both "tertiary sources," and in academic writing, you need to use either primary sources (original documents, etc.) or secondary sources (peer-reviewed articles, journalistic articles, etc.).
[[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 10:44, 8 February 2014 (EST)

:As I mentioned during the last class, Wikipedia has a pretty good page detailing the various studies conducted to test the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_wikipedia reliability of Wikipedia]. I think your point about tertiary sources is exactly right, and at least with Wikipedia (if people are following the guidelines in articles) you should be able to drive to those primary and secondary sources. And, of course, if you find an issue with Wikipedia, fix it! :-) [[User:Andy|Andy]] 14:12, 9 February 2014 (EST)

----

I had a discussion about Wikipedia with my wife and two sons while waiting for my flight from Changi Airport, Singapore, to Manila, Philippines, awhile ago. To my surprise, both my sons were aware of the problems with Wikipedia. They noted that while some of the citations were good, at least 50% was either crap or had broken links. They don't use Wikipedia seriously but scavenge its sites as a quick way of finding references from good citations.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 12:48, 9 February 2014 (EST)

----

ROLE OF GOVERNMENT AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES IN INTERNET CONNECTIVITY
CASE STUDY: SINGAPORE

The Ministry of Education and the Infocomm Development Authority had developed a set of specifications which e-learning vendors like my company must fulfill in terms of internet bandwidth, especially in national emergencies such as SARS, when schools are required to close to avoid spread of a virus, etc. In such cases, students are required to continue their studies online at home. To ensure requirements on internet access times are met, server load tests were carried out based on simulations for various numbers of concurrent users. We also had a contract with Oracle to work with our engineers and programmers to optimize the Php/MySQL coding. It was money well-spent.

In the past, the hardware was the major limitation. Video server vendors could only promise 50 concurrent users per server. This made connectivity into the internet broadband network too expensive because you need to pay for each server connection plus rack space....until I saw Steve Jobs on Youtube launching the new Mac G4 XServe demonstrating it can deliver video streams to 1000 iMacs. At that time I was working for the government and was the first person to order 2 units of G4 6 months ahead of its anticipated delivery. With 1000 concurrent users possible with the G4 XServe, I quit my job and started my e-learning company a year later in 2000.

Then, we found that the schools' internet bandwidth was the problem. The network in the school could only accomodate 3 classes of 40 students each, or a total of 120 students concurrently accessing our online videos. When there were more than 3 computer labs being used concurrently, all the PC's showed the online video had stalled. This happened to schools which subscribed for only 1 or 2 Mbps internet connectivity with their ISP. Schools using 5 or 10 Mbps had no issue. Over the years, the schools had upgraded their bandwidth connectivity to at least 5 or 10 Mbps. Today, almost all the secondary schools are using our online math program.

Two years ago, I was sourcing for better servers with fast solid-state drives (SSD's). The I/O with the storage devices could also significantly affect the access times, especially for connections to our database. But to our pleasant surprise IBM had produced new hard-disks that were even faster than SSD's! Subsequent server load tests we carried out showed significant improvement in access times with the new machines. Further improvement in access times were also obtained after modifying many segments of our code in consultation with Oracle.

But had the MOE and the schools not been pro-active in improving their internet infrastructure, online learning on a nation-wide scale in schools would not have been possible.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 14:03, 9 February 2014 (EST)

:The drive to having broadband in schools is a big part of communications policy in the US, as well. Several times in our communications law (Title 47 of the U.S. Code) Congress has indicated a clear preference for high-speed access in elementary and secondary schools. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 09:44, 11 February 2014 (EST)

Thank you for sharing this, Ichua! I am curious to know what the Singaporean population thinks of the government's involvement. In China, it seems that citizens tend to accept the government's control and restrictions. It is incredible how one's culture often defines how policies are rolled out and enforced.
--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 14:55, 14 February 2014 (EST)

----

WIKIPEDIA EDITING SYNTAX VS HTML

This may not be directly relevant to our coming lecture, but may be helpful for those who intend to add more than just texts to a Wikipedia page. I was wondering how a table or a URL might be added to a Wikipedia page and thought this could be done using HTML. To my pleasant surprise, there is a menu at the top of the edit page in edit mode which allows you to click to insert a table, etc., to minimize coding time. But it was a disappointment to find there is no math equation editor. Help for input of math expressions can be found in this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Displaying_a_formula.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 22:10, 9 February 2014 (EST)

: I finally figured out how to edit special tables from this Wiki help link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Table#Alignment [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 12:12, 10 February 2014 (EST)

----

APPRECIATING LSTU-E120

I'm beginning to appreciate the information presented in this course. The guidelines about editing Wikipedia and Assignment 1 exercise can help make Wikipedia a better place. While checking out some Wikipedia sites to assess their use for Assignment 1, I found many places in need of citations. For Assignment 1, I would attempt to search for appropriate citations and add these but if not, I now know how to add the "Citation needed" tag. But I also found citations used that were inappropriate....how do I flag these if I could not find appropriate citations?

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 22:30, 9 February 2014 (EST)

----

ONLINE PRE-QUALIFICATION TEST FOR WOULD-BE WIKIPEDIA EDITORS

Perhaps Wikipedia should require would-be editors to thoroughly read its policy and guidelines and make them take a rigorous online test which they need to pass before allowing them to do any edits on Wikipedia.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 22:40, 9 February 2014 (EST)

:What a great idea, Ichua! Would that be infringing on some kind of "right" that individuals have to post freely? I think that would be a reasonably simple way to implement some form of quality control. [[User:Castille|Castille]] 02:04, 15 February 2014 (EST)

----

NET NEUTRALITY VS FAIR USE POLICY: BIG BUFFET VS HUNGER RATION

In countries like S. Korea, US, or Singapore, where there are lots of internet bandwidth to spare, it is convenient to implement a net neutrality policy. More than 90% of the population in Singapore live in public housing apartments and all units are now provided with fibre-optic cables. But in the Philippines, the ISPs are greedy corporations and charge high prices for very poor services. They also cheat customers by telling them that they get unlimited access and unlimited surfing but disconnect them when they hit an unspecified MB of data transfers or total access time on a daily basis. Connectivity is typically restored at midnight. This had been my experience with all the ISPs since I moved to Manila for medical school in June 2012. If you come to my condo in Sampaloc, you will see on my desk all variety of routers, modems, and so-called broadband sticks from Globe, Smart, and Sun. PLDT never showed up despite contacting them twice. One reason why internet connectivity was very bad was because users get deliberately disconnected without their knowledge. However, this was all indicated in fine print in contracts which customers signed without reading under a Fair Use Policy. The Fair Use Policy is used to discourage customers from using the internet too much! The amount of MB or total time accessed used to determine service disconnection depends on the computed average MB transferred and average total time accessed. Finally, I decided to return to Singapore every weekend so that I could view the recorded lectures online for my Harvard Extension School coursework. Subsequently, the situation got better when Smart offered a promo of truly free 10-day unlimited access for purchasing their new broadband stick. But after the 10-day period subscription to the service was very expensive. I found it so much cheaper to buy 3 new broadband sticks every month. To my great relief, in August 2013, Smart began to offer a new 4G device for Php 7,000 upfront plus Php 995 for every 30 days of truly unlimited access. I am one of the few lucky guys who got this device as Smart does not sell this in the university belt area. I had to travel more than an hour to Mandaluyong to buy it. This is all very hard to fathom, especially when Smart has a 4G antenna in front of my block.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 14:30, 10 February 2014 (EST)

----

I find it very surprising that Yochai Benkler's article presents Japan as a country that emphasized ubiquitous, seamless connectivity. Having lived in the country, I would most certainly place it in the first category: ultra high speeds, but rarely there. The internet in Japan is "just there" only if you happen to have a mobile phone, with a relatively expensive data plan, haven't reached your limit, and don't happen to be in a subway.

I think that the problem with the study might be, that although it's more nuanced that most papers on connectivity, it's still not nuanced enough. For example, it uses the metric: Wi-Fi hotspots per 100000. But there's a huge difference between 100 open WiFi hotspots, 100 paid hotspots by one provider, or 100 paid hotspots from 20 providers incompatible with each other. Not to mention that there are many different pricing plans for access to said paid hotspots that can have a big impact on how useful they are.

Japan, for example, would probably not fare very well in this metric if the above-mentioned considerations would have been taken into account. Everyone who has visited the country, even its capital, knows that free hotspots are few and far between, paid hotspots are expensive and often require you to subscribe for long stretches of time, and even if you do pay for the access you'll soon find that different establishments side with different WiFi providers and if you really want a seamless experience you'll need to subscribe to at least 2-3 different WiFi providers at once.

(That said, it's worth noting that my point of view is that of someone who spends a lot of time in European and Asian countries with excellent, ubiquitous, and often free or dirt cheap connectivity, not someone from rural US.)
--[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 16:09, 10 February 2014 (EST)

:Great points! I believe later in the full report Benkler notes that Japan is more of a middle-of-the-pack performer on other metrics, including 3G penetration and price (though Japan has been growing very quickly in the former). Your point about the WiFi access points is a good one - I'm not sure if the OECD study that's referenced here took price into account when developing the definition of what is a "public hotspot." [[User:Andy|Andy]] 09:51, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

In Australia, net neutrality issues hardly impact us and receive minimal attention from consumers or industry. This week’s reading further piqued my curiosity to research what Australia is doing differently to keep these problems at bay, as we generally mimic structures of technology from America.

Unlimited broadband data plans in America planted seeds to the problems that sprouted with net neutrality. Services meant for access-granting could otherwise be boring and bill customers for simply providing access, however, a power struggle emerged within the market. The ISP’s that provide unlimited broadband failed to create additional revenue parallel to their traffic growth. This business model leaves a lot of temptation for the ISP’s to manipulate traffic, direct users to favoured websites, attempt to stifle their competitors or simply block them out. How else would a provider increase company revenue? This model also give little incentive for the ISP’s to invest in upgrades to capacity or network speeds for their customers, because they wouldn’t profit off of it.

Curiously, Australia does not have any laws in place regarding net neutrality, the ISP’s are structured to have disincentives for discriminating or favouring traffic based on source type. Australian ISPs operate on a volumetric billing system, so the user pays per MB, at a fixed rate, with a pre-determined speed and download capacity. Customers have a choice to upgrade to higher speeds and expand their download capacity, and ISPs manage congestion based on the customer’s willingness to pay. Blocking or manipulating web traffic would have an anticompetitive effect on the ISP. This system gives stronger incentives to maximise transition of all traffic regardless of source type, because that would translate to bigger profits. High market competition paired with low-entry barriers weakens incentives for ISPs to block content. Telstra, an Australian ISP, operates on a metered broadband system. If you choose Telstra as your provider, they have a list of partner sites that can be used on an unlimited basis. This is an effective way to steer the direction of customers without having to manipulate their open-access connectivity to other websites, if they so choose to use them.

ISPs should act as an affordance that suggest, rather than dictate, how their services are to be used. It would be naive to think that American ISPs could simply restructure to a volumetric system, which would run a huge risk of sending their customers running to their competitors who still provide unlimited access.
[[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 23:17, 10 February 2014 (EST)

: Talking about competition, there is hardly any competition amongst ISP's in Philippines. PLDT directly or indirectly own Smart and Sun. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 01:02, 11 February 2014 (EST)

::[[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] and [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] - if you don't mind my asking, what do you pay for broadband, and what is your average download and upload speed? You can use services like [http://www.speedtest.net/ Speedtest] to check. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 07:46, 11 February 2014 (EST)

::: Currently from my location in Sampaloc, Manila, using www.speedtest.net, I am getting 2.26 Mbps for downloads and 0.20 Mbps for uploads. I am paying Php 995 (about USD 25) for every 30 days of unlimited access using Smart's 4G network with ZTE's LTE device Model MF93D (made in China). I am now quite happy with the download speed, but not the upload speed as I have to upload videos for 1st and 2nd Year med school class lectures. It is actually very cheap now for me and I can bring the 4G device while travelling around Manila. This is a very far cry from my situation prior to August 2013. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 12:16, 11 February 2014 (EST)

::: I am on a plan with Telstra that costs $50 AUD per 8 Gigs of data. This sounds expensive by American standards, but bear in mind, minimum wage in Sydney (city) is around $22 AUD per hr. [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 16:52, 11 February 2014 (EST)

:::: Using speedtest.net from my location, at my work computer in Sydney city (This isn't my home plan as noted above, I will test that when I'm home today) Download Speed is 14.06mbps and Upload Speed is 2.04 Mbps. Good by Australian standards - this pales in comparison to America. [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 17:00, 11 February 2014 (EST)

::Also, to Marissa's point about competition, it's an interesting question whether folks would be as worried about net neutrality if there was genuine competition in the US over broadband, but that's typically not the case. Major metropolitan areas will have, at most, two or three choices, and for huge sections of the US there is only one cable provider in their area. Some cities have tried to build municipal networks to provide other choices, but several state legislatures have prevented cities in their states from doing so. Australia, as you probably know, is considering the near-opposite approach, embarking on a heroic effort to build [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Broadband_Network fiberoptic lines to every building] in Australia. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 07:52, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

UNSUNG WINTER HEROES OF THE TUBES

During my 4 years in West Lafayette, IN, from 2004-2008, we had very good internet access. But occasionally when the internet goes down, especially during winter, the internet outage extends throughout the whole state or several states. I learned that the technicians sometimes work under tough or hazardous conditions to restore damaged lines.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 01:02, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

FROM TUBES TO AIRSPACE

If any government intend to quickly setup broadband internet or intranet access, technology is now available which enable one to do so using very long range wifi or ethernet radio. The main transmission antenna can be installed and connected to a server within a day. Transmission can be up to 120km at 200 Mbps with equipment like the RAD's AirMux-400. Additional repeaters can be added for places which do not have line-of-sight. Cheap and powerful desktop receivers are also available. This can be a temporary solution until more stable networks such as those based on fiber-optics are installed. If I recall, my costing was merely Php 200,000 (USD 5,000) for a 50km range at 100 Mbps, including equipment and labor for installation and setup. Sounds good for poor and impoverished communities.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 01:19, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

NET NEUTRALITY IMPRACTICAL FOR COUNTRIES WITH BIG INCOME GAPS

Private ISP corporations want to make profit but governments want internet services to be delivered to the poor at almost no cost. To do so would require government ownership or regulated differential pricing and/or the provision of separate internet networks: one for entertainment and commerce and the other for education.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 01:36, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

Net Neutrality is the question which must be maintained by government and private entities in close cooperation. Of course, the ISPs want to make greater profits by means of prices fluctuation for different websites, traffics and etc. In this case, the government can be some kind of
"referee" by preventing the IPS to speculate with the mentioned aspects. However, we should bear in mind that the government cannot keep the total governance in its hands as this policy may lead to some restrictions in the development of this sphere in future. So, I think that the met neutrality must be recognized by law and the legislation must set the general rules and protect the consumers from being somehow harmed by the IPS. Still, IPS must possess enough freedom for development and advancement of the services they are engaged in.[[User:Aysel|Aysel]] 09:19, 11 February 2014 (EST)Aysel Ibayeva

----

In response to Castille, I am also finding myself at a crossroad on the issue of promoting liberty and safeguarding citizens by preventing injustices. I think this is a topic of endless, profound debate. I thoroughly enjoyed the weekly readings and found Adam Thierer's article "More Confusion about Internet 'Freedom' " to be particularly powerful and convincing. While I did not agree with all of the points he made, I think he makes a valid, logical argument debunking the mainstream point of view that has been engrained in us as a society. I did not realize the extent of power the FCC maintains over the internet and, as he mentions, these are not even elected officials. How can they promote the values or digital issues that we, the people of the internet, hold dear. Shouldn't we have a say in these decisions that directly impact the cyberspace we access on a daily basis? He admits there will inevitably be problems in a free information marketplace; however, in the name of innovation via the promotion of creativity and ingenuity within our society, perhaps these mistakes are well worth the risk and stunting this technological growth/exchange could do more damage than good.

I was surprised to find the end of the article when Thierer ultimately bashes the Senator's initial statement that Net neutrality is “the First Amendment issue of our time.” At first I thought he was in agreement with Senator Franken but he saw this as more of an attack on the goal of the first amendment. When I initially read Franken's statement I took it to mean that the internet is becoming a general issue for freedom of speech.

Thierer suggests that instead of putting more faith in these central planners, we should look to the evolutionary market forces through a bottom-up response as the "cyber-progressivists" have argued (Thierer 2011). The most important point that Thierer discusses, in my opinion, was when he mentioned that people are driven by incentives, but they are only truly free to do so if they are not held at the whim of a higher governing authority and this authority has a track record of always being two steps behind the latest technological advancements. They cannot keep up and in trying to do so, they are ultimately thwarting overall progression. While I cannot go as far as saying that I believe all regulatory intervention is tyranny as Thierer ends up insisting, I tend to agree with his overall convictions. However, as Castille pointed out, there are clearly times when it appears the government should step in to protect its citizens on the web. On the other hand, one intervention leads to another and it becomes a fast moving "slippery slope".

--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 10:57, 11 February 2014 (EST)

:There's a reason this has been a hot issue for about a decade! There are very compelling arguments to be made on all sides. Thierer does gloss over the fact that the FCC's actions are constrained by Congress, and Congress (at least in theory) is dependent upon the people, so as a matter of structure the influence of the public has a role, though we all know how hard that is to achieve in practice. The First Amendment issues themselves are fascinating and an area where I spend a lot of my time thinking about these issues; I hope to get to some of that in class today. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 10:58, 11 February 2014 (EST)

::Thierer complains, "We are asked to ignore our history lessons, which teach us that centralized planning and bureaucracy all too often lead to massively inefficient outcomes..." However, this is taking the libertarian complaint of inefficiency (that I normally side with) out of its economic context. If he were to balance the concerns of profitability of the architecture of the industry (for the ISPs) and of the fiber networks themselves, and weigh them against the potential economic growth as a result of ubiquitous internet, Thierer would find that one far outweighs the other in importance. [[User:MikeJohnson|MikeJohnson]] 15:48, 11 February 2014 (EST)

Interesting points here, Mike. I often wonder what the founding fathers would think if they lived today and wonder how they would grapple with the complexities digital technology presents for society. While I have tremendous respect for our great Constitution and the values invoked within it; I still find that it cannot effectively respond to modern advancements. After a bit of research it seems that the founding fathers would favor less government involvement in the face of economic advancement. As James Madison once said, "The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty." Patrick Henry also had a quote that may be relevant to this debate: "The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." No matter what side of the fence you find yourself, this is one of those debates (as Andy mentions) that does not appear to have a clear course of action that can be taken in the near future. Drafting modern technical policy and implementing it with the consent of the people is the most important task at hand.
--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 15:08, 14 February 2014 (EST)

--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 14:55, 14 February 2014 (EST)

----

When the key Net Neutrality cases were being presented before the court a few years back, I remember being firmly on the side of the FCC and hoping that a strict ruling against Comcast would have preserved Net Neutrality... or at least what I presumed "net neutrality" to encompass back then. I see that my view of Net Neutrality was overly narrow at that time...and although I still do not want to see service providers have that much power to manipulate what legal content a user chooses to access online, I see from the readings that the scope of the "problem" would, probably, neither have been fully resolved in a ruling that went in favor of the FCC. Constraints, as discussed last week, would have most likely just shifted, and placed regulated pressure on a marketplace. (an example might be thinking of an ISP that truly wants to enter the market and offer customers a filtered, "safe", online experience for certain families... they indeed would have subscribers and be successful and appeal to some sectors that opt for a “safe online community”). Conversely, with the judges ruling allowing the FCC to walk away with the ability to regulate the entire internet is more than a little worrisome knowing that political cycles could have such sweeping powers to re-define the internet landscape. And while service providers still enjoy their own monopolies within any given township of users who have only 1 (maybe 2) choices for an ISP, it seems that the consumer is the only one who lost some ground in the Net Neutrality rulings.

I think the reading "Net Neutrality and Free Speech in the Internet Age" strikes closer to where we need to be focusing our attention. To quote from the interview directly: "Dawn argues for an affirmative conception of the First Amendment, under which public and powerful private gatekeepers of Internet communications are subject to the First Amendment’s mandate to ensure the free flow of communications in the digital age." - Here too I originally presumed that the First Amendment *did* apply across-the-board to all communication...Internet, printing press, public speech - but I guess it is that word "public" that becomes an "undefined zone" within virtual spaces online. Is there anything like a national or municipal park in the Internet world where the marketplace has no sway on how we choose to behave in that public zone? Or is every “online space” in which we choose to speak or participate analogous to traveling to private island governed by the values (and whims) of the a single gatekeeper rather than any one nation's constitutional rights? (Why did Mr. Roarke and Tattoo just come to mind...?).
[[User:Psl|Psl]] 12:31, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

MAGNA CARTA FOR PHILIPPINES INTERNET FREEDOM (MCPIF)

See: http://democracy.net.ph/mcpif/full-text/

What do you think of Section 5(e)?

Schools in Singapore has a restriction policy. Only selected websites are permitted to be accessed within the school's network.

We also teach parents how to allow their children to access only selected websites and block all others to prevent children from playing online games and accessing pornographic and other undesirable websites.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 12:42, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

WEBSITES BANNED IN SINGAPORE

http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/singapore/story/extramarital-dating-website-ceo-disappointed-mdas-ban-20131109

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/05/23/us-singapore-internet-odd-idUSS2322899620080523

http://yawningbread.org/arch_2005/yax-504.htm

http://therealsingapore.com/content/singapore-government-plans-ban-websites-such-pirate-bay

See also Internet Filtering in Singapore:
https://opennet.net/studies/singapore

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 12:50, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

I have used Wikipedia as a starting point to gather resources and verify the accuracy of the information. I have never been a contributor. This assignment has proved useful in "breaking me out of my shell." I am reminded of the quote from an article that I ran across by Tom Simonite. In the article, The Decline of Wikipedia, he stated: "When Wikipedians achieved their most impressive feat of leaderless collective organization, they unwittingly set in motion the decline in participation that troubles their project today." I fear the mechanism is stifled from further growth due to its collective and bureaucratic structure. [[User:VACYBER|VACYBER]] 13:13, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

This week’s assignment was very enlightening. I am a casual browser in Wikipedia and have used it just for some very general preliminary information before going into the topic deeper in other websites. I was familiar with the issues of the website but I never really stepped behind the initial pages to edit or evaluate the rules. This was very helpful but I also suffered a bit on the learning curve being a complete beginner on that end. Regardless, I found it very interesting.

Now for the topic of government’s roles of the Internet, I think this would be best avoided. The Internet is where our freedom of speech gets most prolific and also most obscene. There’s room for it all and we should keep it like this. When control enters the picture it is a dangerous slope and it is never black and white. How do you decide what should be banned? Everyone will give a different method and a consensus is nearly impossible. I’m interest to see what the class will say on this topic.
[[User:Lpereira|Lpereira]] 13:28, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

According to research conducted by Yochai Benkler about search for improvement of high-capacity networks for the next generation in different developed and developing countries is based on download speed and complete connectivity. His study demonstrates the strengths and weaknesses in the broadband deal in several countries and makes a comparison to the technological transition in the next generation, while the video shows briefly how connectivity works today and makes a comparison between the most developed and developing countries. In analyzing both materials, I made the conclusion that the opportunities and technological barriers, experiences and skills gained by the different players in the innovation system flowing through this economic activity to another, establish a specific context for each country or region, that is that any set of economic incentives generate different incentives and constraints to innovation. To the extent and in cases where the divergence between economic incentives and stimulating innovation represented by externalities is substantial, differences are gradually decreased. [[User:Gisellebatista|Gisellebatista]] 14:08, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

Working on Assignment One (and the Wiki rule of neutrality in particular) got me thinking about objectivity as it relates to online journalistic content. It struck me that objectivity has been losing its power online, at least in the journalistic and content spheres. Outside of academic circles, the online news that gets the most attention seems to be quite opinionated — they are the articles that lead to shares, ‘likes’, high-fives, vitriol, and discussion. But it’s also these same pieces that people go to for sources of information. Often biased information. A couple of the readings have addressed this fact: that online communities and the net in general has a categorizing effect… so that it becomes not so much a large “worldwide web”, but a large collection of smaller, almost navel-gazing webs.

There’s a bit of a bipolarity going on here. As an example, Wikipedia seems to be doing a solid job of promoting objectivity, and yet online biases seem break through the clutter faster. On one hand we crave objectivity for our sources, and on the other hand we crave opinions for our entertainment. (Maybe it’s as simple as that? But it rarely is…)

When looking at different Wiki articles, a bit of a pattern started to emerge: Those articles that deviated from one rule, were more likely to deviate from at least one of the other rules, as well. This made it particularly difficult to focus on editing just the one area and led to making amendments of other rules as well. I found that as I delved deeper into the editing process, more issues seemed to pop up that “needed” editing — I could see how it could become quite addictive for regular Wiki editors.

I also found the idea of branching out to edit an article for which I had no previous knowledge to be daunting — even with sufficient sources at my disposal. It would be interesting to look at a study of how much prior knowledge Wiki editors have about the subjects they are editing… [[User:Twood|Twood]] 14:15, 11 February 2014 (EST)

:I would agree with Twood-the task of verifying sources for accuracy is daunting. The three fundamental rules Wiki has placed ( at first) seem simplistic. Application takes the steps to a different level. I found myself in the most interesting research hole imaginable. The error rate is high on Wiki-but understandable. --[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 15:36, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

Having created and submitted a single Wikipedia article previously, I had a reasonable familiarity with Wikipedia before completing Assignment 1. However, approaching Wikipedia as an editor with a targeted rule to address in a pre-existing article brought up many questions about the role of the individual, the community and the regulation of speech. A number of the readings helped work through these questions for me, none more so than Professor Dawn Nunziato's interview on net neutrality and free speech. I was pleased to consider the two conceptions of the first amendment in the context of the internet and regulation of speech online. As Nunziato explains, under the affirmative conception of the first amendment, "individuals enjoy an affirmative right to speak, free from content and viewpoint discrimination — regardless of whether such discrimination occurs at the hands of the government or other powerful regulators of speech." She also confirms, as I have understood from my lay person's perspective as a frequent user of web and social media, that the affirmative conception of the first amendment "has not taken root" in the internet context because the private entities that control internet speech are not subject to the first amendment's mandate prohibiting censorship. This of course leads to concern about whether our internet communication is really free-- and also leads to the unique case of Wikipedia. As we learned in other readings this week, and in completing Assignment 1 itself, there are certainly "gatekeepers" for speech on Wikipedia, but in a different form from broadband providers, email servers, and search engines that Nunziato cites. The community of editors on Wikipedia, and such reliability control features as autoconfirmed editors, serve as a less tangible but equally omnipresent entity that has the power to censor- but to protect from unreliable or overly biased information, rather than a singular interest. Whether Wikipedia can at the same time ensure neutrality and protect free speech is clearly an ongoing debate.

[[User:akk22|akk22]] 15:19, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

The Internet is a global infrastructure so measuring, defining, and ultimately controlling it can be accomplished in a variety of ways. In measuring speed, broadband, and the “always on” ubiquitously networked society, the US ranked mid to poor in performance and among the absolute lowest in category of price and future planning. This is one of the key issues debated in politics along with open access policies, network neutrality, First Amendment rights, and the FCC’s broad powers over regulating the Internet. The network neutrality view is that “broadband providers and wireless carriers should be prohibited from discriminating against speech on the basis of viewpoint or content” the right for all information to travel the Internet equally without discrimination. There have been several occurrences of major ISP’s manipulating the content provided on an individualized basis just because it benefited their own interests. How much regulation should we place over the Internet or should we just leave it to the great innovators and major corporations to work it out? [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:46, 11 February 2014 (EST)

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

As a first time contributor to Wikipedia, thanks to this class in general and assignment one in particular, I came to realize that it would be very difficult for governments to regulate the internet as it is already an enormous task for individual web-based organizations, such as Wikipedia, to manage all its editors. For example, bearing Wikipedia's first rule in mind (also known as "NPOV"), I read a few articles and edited one that was completely not in line with Wikipedia's policies. There was no citation from reliable sources of any kind. Besides, the author stated a lot of his opinions as facts and vice versa.

Having said that, I believe that if it is that hard for organizations such as Wikipedia to regulate their own user bases, which are relatively small portions of a countries' populations, and make them all stick to the rules, let alone governments of developed nations who manage an entire population with many fundamental rights and freedom to regulate the internet in the traditional governmental ways of regulating.

Finally, I am not totally dismissing the idea that governments should not intervene on internet issues. It is not impossible to regulate it to some extent. On the contrary, I think it is even necessary for governments and individual internet organizations to collaborate and continue to establish policies and regulations that will be in the benefits of their populations and users, respectively.
[[User:cheikhmbacke|cheikhmbacke]] 15:55, 11 February 2014 (EST)

:Did you see the posting earlier where Ichua suggested implementing a survey or "quiz" of sorts which would test prospective users based on information given in the Terms of Use/Conditions of Wikipedia to ensure that they understood the rules and how to use them before they were allowed to create new posts or make alterations to existing posts. On what sort of issues would you propose governments intervene? Should they monitor or regulate content or one of the four "forces"-- excluding law, which is obvious-- (architecture, market, norms)? As far as content, I don't think it would be the government's duty or right to ensure accuracy or even to prevent "hate speech", as I think that sort of involvement would be a slippery slope towards infringing on free speech. [[User:Castille|Castille]] 02:13, 15 February 2014 (EST)

A Series of Tubes: Infrastructure, Broadband, and Baseline Content Control

2014-02-15T07:13:39Z

Castille: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 11'''

The late Senator Ted Stevens famously said in a 2006 committee meeting that the “Internet is not something that you just dump something on; it’s not a big truck. It’s a series of tubes.” While he was ridiculed widely at the time, Senator Stevens’s remarks actually reveal an interesting hortatory description of what the Internet should be (though given the rest of his comments, apparently not one that he intended). What Stevens’s metaphor suggests is that the physical conduits of the Internet should act like nothing more than non-judgmental conduits of the rest of the world’s traffic. We will see this week, however, that this is not a true reflection of how the tubes work, and we have strong debates as to what the government's role should be in ensuring that large enough "tubes" reach all those who would like to be online. The big questions for this week: What are the “tubes” of the Internet? Should the tubes have a role in controlling the throughput content? What is the role of government when it comes to developing and regulating our Internet-tubes?

<onlyinclude>
==Readings==

; Comparing and measuring connectivity

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPzjUMdpmSw The Berkman Center, How Do We Connect To The Internet?] (about 7 mins., watch all)

* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Berkman_Center_Broadband_Final_Report-C1_15Feb2010.pdf Yochai Benkler, Next Generation Connectivity] (executive summary and introduction only)

; What is the role of government?

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality Wikipedia, Net Neutrality]

* [http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/01/net_neutrality_d_c_circuit_court_ruling_the_battle_s_been_lost_but_we_can.html Marvin Ammori, The Net Neutrality Battle Has Been Lost, But Now We Can Finally Win the War]

* [http://www.wired.com/opinion/2014/01/one-talking-comes-net-neutrality/ Berin Szoka and Geoffrey Manne, The Feds Lost on Net Neutrality, But Won Control of the Internet]

* [http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/05/bright-ideas-nunziato-on-virtual-freedom-net-neutrality-and-free-speech-in-the-internet-age.html Daniel Solove, Interview with Dawn Nunziato on her book ''Virtual Freedom'']

* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MD9Ss3SI2v8 Susan Crawford, remarks at the 2013 National Conference on Media Reform]

* [http://techliberation.com/2011/03/01/more-confusion-about-internet-freedom/ Adam Thierer, More Confusion about Internet “Freedom” (Tech Liberation)]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://gizmodo.com/5912383/how-to-destroy-the-internet Sam Biddle, How to Destroy the Internet (Gizmodo)]

* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/digitaldemocracy/internetarchitecture.html Ethan Zuckerman & Andrew McLaughlin, Introduction to Internet Architecture and Institutions]

* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2353457 Rob Faris and Rebekah Heacock, Measuring Internet Activity: a (Selective) Review of Methods and Metrics] (pages 3-9)

* [https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/taking-stevens-seriously/ Ed Felten, Taking Ted Stevens Seriously]

* [http://www.renesys.com/2013/11/mitm-internet-hijacking/ Jim Cowie, The New Threat: Targeted Internet Traffic Misdirection]

</onlyinclude>

== Assignment 1 ==

[[Assignment 1 Details and Reporting|Assignment 1]] is due ''before class'' today (i.e., February 11th before 5:30pm ET). You can submit the assignment [[Assignment 1 Submissions|here]].

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== Class Discussion ==

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

----

I believe there is an underlying question surrounding the debate of net neutrality which is to what extent the state should intervene. The easy answer is to the point were the state does not crowd out investment and innovation. Even though in practice this is a hard thing to evaluate and achieve, I believe that regulatory bodies lose sight of it at times and should come back to this premise when deciding on a ruling that harms competition or stifles already functional markets.

[[User:Luciagamboaso|Luciagamboaso]] 16:30, 11 February 2014 (EST)
----

My personal opinions of net neutrality and connectivity became muddled as I read through this week’s reading. My initial viewpoint supported open access and little/no regulation. Data shows that the top countries that meet the benchmarks defined by Benkler (penetration, capacity, and price) establish an open access community and let competition be the harbinger of innovation. The US also got to its current internet state via open access and has since became the middle of the pack once it restricted open access when the FCC abandoned Telecommunications Act of 1996 in 2001 and 2002. If we restrict open access, and information/broadband companies hold monopolies (like Comcast), why should they improve their services since the end game always ends up being a question of efficient profits? However, my opinion on how the government should be involved once I watched Susan Crawford give her remarks at the 2013 National Conference on Media Reform. While her words seemed to agree with my formed opinions on open access and connectivity, her solution focused on using the power of the government to instate infrastructure similar to how highways and telecommunications became ubiquitous. This left me with the question (which everyone seems to have and why this is hotly debated) of how much regulation should be instituted by the government and other regulatory bodies? Although a n00b in this area, my take away thoughts are that some body must exisit to deliver open connectivity and access to the people. The only way to meet Benkler Benchmarks are to develop innovative strategies and technologies - new materials and information delivery systems - to drive down cost, which will increase capacity penetration. This will require that the government invest in science and engineering research and set benchmarks to ensure that the correct infrastructure is provided to achieve this benchmarks. Private funding is also an option, but private institutions usually have a mission that is company driven and not “we the people” driven.

[[User:Margorm|Margorm]] 11:03, 9 February 2014 (EST)

: Open and free access to the internet is possible for one who has a ham radio operator license. In some sense it is not really "open" because of technical barrier since it requires acquisition of new technical skills. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMPRNet [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 11:30, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

While working on Assignment One and doing the readings this week on Net neutrality, I have been left with a lot of confusion as to how much regulation I find appropriate. On one hand, I think the internet, as with the spoken word, should be unrestricted to allow freedom of speech and communication. In this age, there are forums for people to express themselves, learn extensively about every possible interest, exchange information and news immediately, and connect to others from around the world in a way never before seen in history. There are now outlets and communities for all-- no longer are people isolated. While that might be troublesome from a standpoint of privacy, in my opinion an issue just as pressing arises dealing with unrestricted hate language. With the internet providing a barrier between individuals, hateful language is easy to disperse as there is no immediate visible repercussion. People are allowed to hide behind their computers and anonymity, sometimes spewing shocking, racist, sexist or otherwise offensive language just to incite anger and controversy (this behavior is often referred to as "trolling"). With school systems and the like actively taking a stand against bullying, should internet bullying also be restricted? Whose responsibility is it to ensure the safety (mental, emotional, physical) of the public who use the internet-- the website itself? The government? Some other agency which is set up to police the internet? Or would things be more fair if a simple internet ID was implemented, which identified users so that they were held responsible for their postings? I would tend to go with the last option, so as not to actually implement a rule of neutrality, which would be restricting free speech and infringing upon basic human rights.
[[User:Castille|Castille]] 00:14, 8 February 2014 (EST)

: I like your comments. The Singapore government is very concerned about this and planning to take some practical measures, including one similar to your last option. See:
http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/pm-outlines-new-approach-online-engagement-0 [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 11:47, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

I've been a Wikipedian for a long time, although not recently. One of the interesting things to look at in the context of Wikipedia is the deletionist/inclusionist divide (I think the deletionists have basically won). I wrote the original article on this subject on Wikipedia, and I thought some of you might find it interesting: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in_Wikipedia Deletionism and Inclusionism in Wikipedia]. I was the original author of this article (I'm [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarinth Tarinth] on Wikipedia) and it has an interesting history as an article, in that there was a fairly concerted attempt to have the article deleted as soon as I had created it. For further background on the subject, the following is an NPR interview I gave on the topic back in 2007: [http://weekendamerica.publicradio.org/programs/2007/01/20/marked_for_deletion.html "Marked for Deletion"]

My general feeling about Wikipedia: to move beyond casual editing, you need to become part of what amounts to a technological priesthood, and you have to fall in line with the prevailing philosophy to succeed at that. (Nevertheless, I do think Wikipedia is really awesome and super-useful, and it'll be fun to make some edits to an article again)
[[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 10:31, 8 February 2014 (EST)

:Thanks for sharing! As I'm sure you know, Wikimedia is trying to break down the technological barriers to entry, but the normative social order and its impact on edits is an interesting issue to explore more. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 14:15, 9 February 2014 (EST)

----

In both the first and second lecture, someone had mentioned that Wikipedia isn't accepted by universities as an acceptable source. To be fair, this isn't a problem with Wikipedia, because universities will ordinarily not accept Britannia as a source either. This is because these are both "tertiary sources," and in academic writing, you need to use either primary sources (original documents, etc.) or secondary sources (peer-reviewed articles, journalistic articles, etc.).
[[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 10:44, 8 February 2014 (EST)

:As I mentioned during the last class, Wikipedia has a pretty good page detailing the various studies conducted to test the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_wikipedia reliability of Wikipedia]. I think your point about tertiary sources is exactly right, and at least with Wikipedia (if people are following the guidelines in articles) you should be able to drive to those primary and secondary sources. And, of course, if you find an issue with Wikipedia, fix it! :-) [[User:Andy|Andy]] 14:12, 9 February 2014 (EST)

----

I had a discussion about Wikipedia with my wife and two sons while waiting for my flight from Changi Airport, Singapore, to Manila, Philippines, awhile ago. To my surprise, both my sons were aware of the problems with Wikipedia. They noted that while some of the citations were good, at least 50% was either crap or had broken links. They don't use Wikipedia seriously but scavenge its sites as a quick way of finding references from good citations.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 12:48, 9 February 2014 (EST)

----

ROLE OF GOVERNMENT AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES IN INTERNET CONNECTIVITY
CASE STUDY: SINGAPORE

The Ministry of Education and the Infocomm Development Authority had developed a set of specifications which e-learning vendors like my company must fulfill in terms of internet bandwidth, especially in national emergencies such as SARS, when schools are required to close to avoid spread of a virus, etc. In such cases, students are required to continue their studies online at home. To ensure requirements on internet access times are met, server load tests were carried out based on simulations for various numbers of concurrent users. We also had a contract with Oracle to work with our engineers and programmers to optimize the Php/MySQL coding. It was money well-spent.

In the past, the hardware was the major limitation. Video server vendors could only promise 50 concurrent users per server. This made connectivity into the internet broadband network too expensive because you need to pay for each server connection plus rack space....until I saw Steve Jobs on Youtube launching the new Mac G4 XServe demonstrating it can deliver video streams to 1000 iMacs. At that time I was working for the government and was the first person to order 2 units of G4 6 months ahead of its anticipated delivery. With 1000 concurrent users possible with the G4 XServe, I quit my job and started my e-learning company a year later in 2000.

Then, we found that the schools' internet bandwidth was the problem. The network in the school could only accomodate 3 classes of 40 students each, or a total of 120 students concurrently accessing our online videos. When there were more than 3 computer labs being used concurrently, all the PC's showed the online video had stalled. This happened to schools which subscribed for only 1 or 2 Mbps internet connectivity with their ISP. Schools using 5 or 10 Mbps had no issue. Over the years, the schools had upgraded their bandwidth connectivity to at least 5 or 10 Mbps. Today, almost all the secondary schools are using our online math program.

Two years ago, I was sourcing for better servers with fast solid-state drives (SSD's). The I/O with the storage devices could also significantly affect the access times, especially for connections to our database. But to our pleasant surprise IBM had produced new hard-disks that were even faster than SSD's! Subsequent server load tests we carried out showed significant improvement in access times with the new machines. Further improvement in access times were also obtained after modifying many segments of our code in consultation with Oracle.

But had the MOE and the schools not been pro-active in improving their internet infrastructure, online learning on a nation-wide scale in schools would not have been possible.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 14:03, 9 February 2014 (EST)

:The drive to having broadband in schools is a big part of communications policy in the US, as well. Several times in our communications law (Title 47 of the U.S. Code) Congress has indicated a clear preference for high-speed access in elementary and secondary schools. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 09:44, 11 February 2014 (EST)

Thank you for sharing this, Ichua! I am curious to know what the Singaporean population thinks of the government's involvement. In China, it seems that citizens tend to accept the government's control and restrictions. It is incredible how one's culture often defines how policies are rolled out and enforced.
--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 14:55, 14 February 2014 (EST)

----

WIKIPEDIA EDITING SYNTAX VS HTML

This may not be directly relevant to our coming lecture, but may be helpful for those who intend to add more than just texts to a Wikipedia page. I was wondering how a table or a URL might be added to a Wikipedia page and thought this could be done using HTML. To my pleasant surprise, there is a menu at the top of the edit page in edit mode which allows you to click to insert a table, etc., to minimize coding time. But it was a disappointment to find there is no math equation editor. Help for input of math expressions can be found in this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Displaying_a_formula.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 22:10, 9 February 2014 (EST)

: I finally figured out how to edit special tables from this Wiki help link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Table#Alignment [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 12:12, 10 February 2014 (EST)

----

APPRECIATING LSTU-E120

I'm beginning to appreciate the information presented in this course. The guidelines about editing Wikipedia and Assignment 1 exercise can help make Wikipedia a better place. While checking out some Wikipedia sites to assess their use for Assignment 1, I found many places in need of citations. For Assignment 1, I would attempt to search for appropriate citations and add these but if not, I now know how to add the "Citation needed" tag. But I also found citations used that were inappropriate....how do I flag these if I could not find appropriate citations?

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 22:30, 9 February 2014 (EST)

----

ONLINE PRE-QUALIFICATION TEST FOR WOULD-BE WIKIPEDIA EDITORS

Perhaps Wikipedia should require would-be editors to thoroughly read its policy and guidelines and make them take a rigorous online test which they need to pass before allowing them to do any edits on Wikipedia.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 22:40, 9 February 2014 (EST)

:What a great idea, Ichua! Would that be infringing on some kind of "right" that individuals have to post freely? I think that would be a reasonably simple way to implement some form of quality control.
[[User:Castille|Castille]] 02:04, 15 February 2014 (EST)

----

NET NEUTRALITY VS FAIR USE POLICY: BIG BUFFET VS HUNGER RATION

In countries like S. Korea, US, or Singapore, where there are lots of internet bandwidth to spare, it is convenient to implement a net neutrality policy. More than 90% of the population in Singapore live in public housing apartments and all units are now provided with fibre-optic cables. But in the Philippines, the ISPs are greedy corporations and charge high prices for very poor services. They also cheat customers by telling them that they get unlimited access and unlimited surfing but disconnect them when they hit an unspecified MB of data transfers or total access time on a daily basis. Connectivity is typically restored at midnight. This had been my experience with all the ISPs since I moved to Manila for medical school in June 2012. If you come to my condo in Sampaloc, you will see on my desk all variety of routers, modems, and so-called broadband sticks from Globe, Smart, and Sun. PLDT never showed up despite contacting them twice. One reason why internet connectivity was very bad was because users get deliberately disconnected without their knowledge. However, this was all indicated in fine print in contracts which customers signed without reading under a Fair Use Policy. The Fair Use Policy is used to discourage customers from using the internet too much! The amount of MB or total time accessed used to determine service disconnection depends on the computed average MB transferred and average total time accessed. Finally, I decided to return to Singapore every weekend so that I could view the recorded lectures online for my Harvard Extension School coursework. Subsequently, the situation got better when Smart offered a promo of truly free 10-day unlimited access for purchasing their new broadband stick. But after the 10-day period subscription to the service was very expensive. I found it so much cheaper to buy 3 new broadband sticks every month. To my great relief, in August 2013, Smart began to offer a new 4G device for Php 7,000 upfront plus Php 995 for every 30 days of truly unlimited access. I am one of the few lucky guys who got this device as Smart does not sell this in the university belt area. I had to travel more than an hour to Mandaluyong to buy it. This is all very hard to fathom, especially when Smart has a 4G antenna in front of my block.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 14:30, 10 February 2014 (EST)

----

I find it very surprising that Yochai Benkler's article presents Japan as a country that emphasized ubiquitous, seamless connectivity. Having lived in the country, I would most certainly place it in the first category: ultra high speeds, but rarely there. The internet in Japan is "just there" only if you happen to have a mobile phone, with a relatively expensive data plan, haven't reached your limit, and don't happen to be in a subway.

I think that the problem with the study might be, that although it's more nuanced that most papers on connectivity, it's still not nuanced enough. For example, it uses the metric: Wi-Fi hotspots per 100000. But there's a huge difference between 100 open WiFi hotspots, 100 paid hotspots by one provider, or 100 paid hotspots from 20 providers incompatible with each other. Not to mention that there are many different pricing plans for access to said paid hotspots that can have a big impact on how useful they are.

Japan, for example, would probably not fare very well in this metric if the above-mentioned considerations would have been taken into account. Everyone who has visited the country, even its capital, knows that free hotspots are few and far between, paid hotspots are expensive and often require you to subscribe for long stretches of time, and even if you do pay for the access you'll soon find that different establishments side with different WiFi providers and if you really want a seamless experience you'll need to subscribe to at least 2-3 different WiFi providers at once.

(That said, it's worth noting that my point of view is that of someone who spends a lot of time in European and Asian countries with excellent, ubiquitous, and often free or dirt cheap connectivity, not someone from rural US.)
--[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 16:09, 10 February 2014 (EST)

:Great points! I believe later in the full report Benkler notes that Japan is more of a middle-of-the-pack performer on other metrics, including 3G penetration and price (though Japan has been growing very quickly in the former). Your point about the WiFi access points is a good one - I'm not sure if the OECD study that's referenced here took price into account when developing the definition of what is a "public hotspot." [[User:Andy|Andy]] 09:51, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

In Australia, net neutrality issues hardly impact us and receive minimal attention from consumers or industry. This week’s reading further piqued my curiosity to research what Australia is doing differently to keep these problems at bay, as we generally mimic structures of technology from America.

Unlimited broadband data plans in America planted seeds to the problems that sprouted with net neutrality. Services meant for access-granting could otherwise be boring and bill customers for simply providing access, however, a power struggle emerged within the market. The ISP’s that provide unlimited broadband failed to create additional revenue parallel to their traffic growth. This business model leaves a lot of temptation for the ISP’s to manipulate traffic, direct users to favoured websites, attempt to stifle their competitors or simply block them out. How else would a provider increase company revenue? This model also give little incentive for the ISP’s to invest in upgrades to capacity or network speeds for their customers, because they wouldn’t profit off of it.

Curiously, Australia does not have any laws in place regarding net neutrality, the ISP’s are structured to have disincentives for discriminating or favouring traffic based on source type. Australian ISPs operate on a volumetric billing system, so the user pays per MB, at a fixed rate, with a pre-determined speed and download capacity. Customers have a choice to upgrade to higher speeds and expand their download capacity, and ISPs manage congestion based on the customer’s willingness to pay. Blocking or manipulating web traffic would have an anticompetitive effect on the ISP. This system gives stronger incentives to maximise transition of all traffic regardless of source type, because that would translate to bigger profits. High market competition paired with low-entry barriers weakens incentives for ISPs to block content. Telstra, an Australian ISP, operates on a metered broadband system. If you choose Telstra as your provider, they have a list of partner sites that can be used on an unlimited basis. This is an effective way to steer the direction of customers without having to manipulate their open-access connectivity to other websites, if they so choose to use them.

ISPs should act as an affordance that suggest, rather than dictate, how their services are to be used. It would be naive to think that American ISPs could simply restructure to a volumetric system, which would run a huge risk of sending their customers running to their competitors who still provide unlimited access.
[[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 23:17, 10 February 2014 (EST)

: Talking about competition, there is hardly any competition amongst ISP's in Philippines. PLDT directly or indirectly own Smart and Sun. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 01:02, 11 February 2014 (EST)

::[[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] and [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] - if you don't mind my asking, what do you pay for broadband, and what is your average download and upload speed? You can use services like [http://www.speedtest.net/ Speedtest] to check. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 07:46, 11 February 2014 (EST)

::: Currently from my location in Sampaloc, Manila, using www.speedtest.net, I am getting 2.26 Mbps for downloads and 0.20 Mbps for uploads. I am paying Php 995 (about USD 25) for every 30 days of unlimited access using Smart's 4G network with ZTE's LTE device Model MF93D (made in China). I am now quite happy with the download speed, but not the upload speed as I have to upload videos for 1st and 2nd Year med school class lectures. It is actually very cheap now for me and I can bring the 4G device while travelling around Manila. This is a very far cry from my situation prior to August 2013. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 12:16, 11 February 2014 (EST)

::: I am on a plan with Telstra that costs $50 AUD per 8 Gigs of data. This sounds expensive by American standards, but bear in mind, minimum wage in Sydney (city) is around $22 AUD per hr. [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 16:52, 11 February 2014 (EST)

:::: Using speedtest.net from my location, at my work computer in Sydney city (This isn't my home plan as noted above, I will test that when I'm home today) Download Speed is 14.06mbps and Upload Speed is 2.04 Mbps. Good by Australian standards - this pales in comparison to America. [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 17:00, 11 February 2014 (EST)

::Also, to Marissa's point about competition, it's an interesting question whether folks would be as worried about net neutrality if there was genuine competition in the US over broadband, but that's typically not the case. Major metropolitan areas will have, at most, two or three choices, and for huge sections of the US there is only one cable provider in their area. Some cities have tried to build municipal networks to provide other choices, but several state legislatures have prevented cities in their states from doing so. Australia, as you probably know, is considering the near-opposite approach, embarking on a heroic effort to build [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Broadband_Network fiberoptic lines to every building] in Australia. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 07:52, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

UNSUNG WINTER HEROES OF THE TUBES

During my 4 years in West Lafayette, IN, from 2004-2008, we had very good internet access. But occasionally when the internet goes down, especially during winter, the internet outage extends throughout the whole state or several states. I learned that the technicians sometimes work under tough or hazardous conditions to restore damaged lines.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 01:02, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

FROM TUBES TO AIRSPACE

If any government intend to quickly setup broadband internet or intranet access, technology is now available which enable one to do so using very long range wifi or ethernet radio. The main transmission antenna can be installed and connected to a server within a day. Transmission can be up to 120km at 200 Mbps with equipment like the RAD's AirMux-400. Additional repeaters can be added for places which do not have line-of-sight. Cheap and powerful desktop receivers are also available. This can be a temporary solution until more stable networks such as those based on fiber-optics are installed. If I recall, my costing was merely Php 200,000 (USD 5,000) for a 50km range at 100 Mbps, including equipment and labor for installation and setup. Sounds good for poor and impoverished communities.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 01:19, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

NET NEUTRALITY IMPRACTICAL FOR COUNTRIES WITH BIG INCOME GAPS

Private ISP corporations want to make profit but governments want internet services to be delivered to the poor at almost no cost. To do so would require government ownership or regulated differential pricing and/or the provision of separate internet networks: one for entertainment and commerce and the other for education.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 01:36, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

Net Neutrality is the question which must be maintained by government and private entities in close cooperation. Of course, the ISPs want to make greater profits by means of prices fluctuation for different websites, traffics and etc. In this case, the government can be some kind of
"referee" by preventing the IPS to speculate with the mentioned aspects. However, we should bear in mind that the government cannot keep the total governance in its hands as this policy may lead to some restrictions in the development of this sphere in future. So, I think that the met neutrality must be recognized by law and the legislation must set the general rules and protect the consumers from being somehow harmed by the IPS. Still, IPS must possess enough freedom for development and advancement of the services they are engaged in.[[User:Aysel|Aysel]] 09:19, 11 February 2014 (EST)Aysel Ibayeva

----

In response to Castille, I am also finding myself at a crossroad on the issue of promoting liberty and safeguarding citizens by preventing injustices. I think this is a topic of endless, profound debate. I thoroughly enjoyed the weekly readings and found Adam Thierer's article "More Confusion about Internet 'Freedom' " to be particularly powerful and convincing. While I did not agree with all of the points he made, I think he makes a valid, logical argument debunking the mainstream point of view that has been engrained in us as a society. I did not realize the extent of power the FCC maintains over the internet and, as he mentions, these are not even elected officials. How can they promote the values or digital issues that we, the people of the internet, hold dear. Shouldn't we have a say in these decisions that directly impact the cyberspace we access on a daily basis? He admits there will inevitably be problems in a free information marketplace; however, in the name of innovation via the promotion of creativity and ingenuity within our society, perhaps these mistakes are well worth the risk and stunting this technological growth/exchange could do more damage than good.

I was surprised to find the end of the article when Thierer ultimately bashes the Senator's initial statement that Net neutrality is “the First Amendment issue of our time.” At first I thought he was in agreement with Senator Franken but he saw this as more of an attack on the goal of the first amendment. When I initially read Franken's statement I took it to mean that the internet is becoming a general issue for freedom of speech.

Thierer suggests that instead of putting more faith in these central planners, we should look to the evolutionary market forces through a bottom-up response as the "cyber-progressivists" have argued (Thierer 2011). The most important point that Thierer discusses, in my opinion, was when he mentioned that people are driven by incentives, but they are only truly free to do so if they are not held at the whim of a higher governing authority and this authority has a track record of always being two steps behind the latest technological advancements. They cannot keep up and in trying to do so, they are ultimately thwarting overall progression. While I cannot go as far as saying that I believe all regulatory intervention is tyranny as Thierer ends up insisting, I tend to agree with his overall convictions. However, as Castille pointed out, there are clearly times when it appears the government should step in to protect its citizens on the web. On the other hand, one intervention leads to another and it becomes a fast moving "slippery slope".

--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 10:57, 11 February 2014 (EST)

:There's a reason this has been a hot issue for about a decade! There are very compelling arguments to be made on all sides. Thierer does gloss over the fact that the FCC's actions are constrained by Congress, and Congress (at least in theory) is dependent upon the people, so as a matter of structure the influence of the public has a role, though we all know how hard that is to achieve in practice. The First Amendment issues themselves are fascinating and an area where I spend a lot of my time thinking about these issues; I hope to get to some of that in class today. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 10:58, 11 February 2014 (EST)

::Thierer complains, "We are asked to ignore our history lessons, which teach us that centralized planning and bureaucracy all too often lead to massively inefficient outcomes..." However, this is taking the libertarian complaint of inefficiency (that I normally side with) out of its economic context. If he were to balance the concerns of profitability of the architecture of the industry (for the ISPs) and of the fiber networks themselves, and weigh them against the potential economic growth as a result of ubiquitous internet, Thierer would find that one far outweighs the other in importance. [[User:MikeJohnson|MikeJohnson]] 15:48, 11 February 2014 (EST)

Interesting points here, Mike. I often wonder what the founding fathers would think if they lived today and wonder how they would grapple with the complexities digital technology presents for society. While I have tremendous respect for our great Constitution and the values invoked within it; I still find that it cannot effectively respond to modern advancements. After a bit of research it seems that the founding fathers would favor less government involvement in the face of economic advancement. As James Madison once said, "The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty." Patrick Henry also had a quote that may be relevant to this debate: "The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." No matter what side of the fence you find yourself, this is one of those debates (as Andy mentions) that does not appear to have a clear course of action that can be taken in the near future. Drafting modern technical policy and implementing it with the consent of the people is the most important task at hand.
--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 15:08, 14 February 2014 (EST)

--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 14:55, 14 February 2014 (EST)

----

When the key Net Neutrality cases were being presented before the court a few years back, I remember being firmly on the side of the FCC and hoping that a strict ruling against Comcast would have preserved Net Neutrality... or at least what I presumed "net neutrality" to encompass back then. I see that my view of Net Neutrality was overly narrow at that time...and although I still do not want to see service providers have that much power to manipulate what legal content a user chooses to access online, I see from the readings that the scope of the "problem" would, probably, neither have been fully resolved in a ruling that went in favor of the FCC. Constraints, as discussed last week, would have most likely just shifted, and placed regulated pressure on a marketplace. (an example might be thinking of an ISP that truly wants to enter the market and offer customers a filtered, "safe", online experience for certain families... they indeed would have subscribers and be successful and appeal to some sectors that opt for a “safe online community”). Conversely, with the judges ruling allowing the FCC to walk away with the ability to regulate the entire internet is more than a little worrisome knowing that political cycles could have such sweeping powers to re-define the internet landscape. And while service providers still enjoy their own monopolies within any given township of users who have only 1 (maybe 2) choices for an ISP, it seems that the consumer is the only one who lost some ground in the Net Neutrality rulings.

I think the reading "Net Neutrality and Free Speech in the Internet Age" strikes closer to where we need to be focusing our attention. To quote from the interview directly: "Dawn argues for an affirmative conception of the First Amendment, under which public and powerful private gatekeepers of Internet communications are subject to the First Amendment’s mandate to ensure the free flow of communications in the digital age." - Here too I originally presumed that the First Amendment *did* apply across-the-board to all communication...Internet, printing press, public speech - but I guess it is that word "public" that becomes an "undefined zone" within virtual spaces online. Is there anything like a national or municipal park in the Internet world where the marketplace has no sway on how we choose to behave in that public zone? Or is every “online space” in which we choose to speak or participate analogous to traveling to private island governed by the values (and whims) of the a single gatekeeper rather than any one nation's constitutional rights? (Why did Mr. Roarke and Tattoo just come to mind...?).
[[User:Psl|Psl]] 12:31, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

MAGNA CARTA FOR PHILIPPINES INTERNET FREEDOM (MCPIF)

See: http://democracy.net.ph/mcpif/full-text/

What do you think of Section 5(e)?

Schools in Singapore has a restriction policy. Only selected websites are permitted to be accessed within the school's network.

We also teach parents how to allow their children to access only selected websites and block all others to prevent children from playing online games and accessing pornographic and other undesirable websites.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 12:42, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

WEBSITES BANNED IN SINGAPORE

http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/singapore/story/extramarital-dating-website-ceo-disappointed-mdas-ban-20131109

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/05/23/us-singapore-internet-odd-idUSS2322899620080523

http://yawningbread.org/arch_2005/yax-504.htm

http://therealsingapore.com/content/singapore-government-plans-ban-websites-such-pirate-bay

See also Internet Filtering in Singapore:
https://opennet.net/studies/singapore

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 12:50, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

I have used Wikipedia as a starting point to gather resources and verify the accuracy of the information. I have never been a contributor. This assignment has proved useful in "breaking me out of my shell." I am reminded of the quote from an article that I ran across by Tom Simonite. In the article, The Decline of Wikipedia, he stated: "When Wikipedians achieved their most impressive feat of leaderless collective organization, they unwittingly set in motion the decline in participation that troubles their project today." I fear the mechanism is stifled from further growth due to its collective and bureaucratic structure. [[User:VACYBER|VACYBER]] 13:13, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

This week’s assignment was very enlightening. I am a casual browser in Wikipedia and have used it just for some very general preliminary information before going into the topic deeper in other websites. I was familiar with the issues of the website but I never really stepped behind the initial pages to edit or evaluate the rules. This was very helpful but I also suffered a bit on the learning curve being a complete beginner on that end. Regardless, I found it very interesting.

Now for the topic of government’s roles of the Internet, I think this would be best avoided. The Internet is where our freedom of speech gets most prolific and also most obscene. There’s room for it all and we should keep it like this. When control enters the picture it is a dangerous slope and it is never black and white. How do you decide what should be banned? Everyone will give a different method and a consensus is nearly impossible. I’m interest to see what the class will say on this topic.
[[User:Lpereira|Lpereira]] 13:28, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

According to research conducted by Yochai Benkler about search for improvement of high-capacity networks for the next generation in different developed and developing countries is based on download speed and complete connectivity. His study demonstrates the strengths and weaknesses in the broadband deal in several countries and makes a comparison to the technological transition in the next generation, while the video shows briefly how connectivity works today and makes a comparison between the most developed and developing countries. In analyzing both materials, I made the conclusion that the opportunities and technological barriers, experiences and skills gained by the different players in the innovation system flowing through this economic activity to another, establish a specific context for each country or region, that is that any set of economic incentives generate different incentives and constraints to innovation. To the extent and in cases where the divergence between economic incentives and stimulating innovation represented by externalities is substantial, differences are gradually decreased. [[User:Gisellebatista|Gisellebatista]] 14:08, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

Working on Assignment One (and the Wiki rule of neutrality in particular) got me thinking about objectivity as it relates to online journalistic content. It struck me that objectivity has been losing its power online, at least in the journalistic and content spheres. Outside of academic circles, the online news that gets the most attention seems to be quite opinionated — they are the articles that lead to shares, ‘likes’, high-fives, vitriol, and discussion. But it’s also these same pieces that people go to for sources of information. Often biased information. A couple of the readings have addressed this fact: that online communities and the net in general has a categorizing effect… so that it becomes not so much a large “worldwide web”, but a large collection of smaller, almost navel-gazing webs.

There’s a bit of a bipolarity going on here. As an example, Wikipedia seems to be doing a solid job of promoting objectivity, and yet online biases seem break through the clutter faster. On one hand we crave objectivity for our sources, and on the other hand we crave opinions for our entertainment. (Maybe it’s as simple as that? But it rarely is…)

When looking at different Wiki articles, a bit of a pattern started to emerge: Those articles that deviated from one rule, were more likely to deviate from at least one of the other rules, as well. This made it particularly difficult to focus on editing just the one area and led to making amendments of other rules as well. I found that as I delved deeper into the editing process, more issues seemed to pop up that “needed” editing — I could see how it could become quite addictive for regular Wiki editors.

I also found the idea of branching out to edit an article for which I had no previous knowledge to be daunting — even with sufficient sources at my disposal. It would be interesting to look at a study of how much prior knowledge Wiki editors have about the subjects they are editing… [[User:Twood|Twood]] 14:15, 11 February 2014 (EST)

:I would agree with Twood-the task of verifying sources for accuracy is daunting. The three fundamental rules Wiki has placed ( at first) seem simplistic. Application takes the steps to a different level. I found myself in the most interesting research hole imaginable. The error rate is high on Wiki-but understandable. --[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 15:36, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

Having created and submitted a single Wikipedia article previously, I had a reasonable familiarity with Wikipedia before completing Assignment 1. However, approaching Wikipedia as an editor with a targeted rule to address in a pre-existing article brought up many questions about the role of the individual, the community and the regulation of speech. A number of the readings helped work through these questions for me, none more so than Professor Dawn Nunziato's interview on net neutrality and free speech. I was pleased to consider the two conceptions of the first amendment in the context of the internet and regulation of speech online. As Nunziato explains, under the affirmative conception of the first amendment, "individuals enjoy an affirmative right to speak, free from content and viewpoint discrimination — regardless of whether such discrimination occurs at the hands of the government or other powerful regulators of speech." She also confirms, as I have understood from my lay person's perspective as a frequent user of web and social media, that the affirmative conception of the first amendment "has not taken root" in the internet context because the private entities that control internet speech are not subject to the first amendment's mandate prohibiting censorship. This of course leads to concern about whether our internet communication is really free-- and also leads to the unique case of Wikipedia. As we learned in other readings this week, and in completing Assignment 1 itself, there are certainly "gatekeepers" for speech on Wikipedia, but in a different form from broadband providers, email servers, and search engines that Nunziato cites. The community of editors on Wikipedia, and such reliability control features as autoconfirmed editors, serve as a less tangible but equally omnipresent entity that has the power to censor- but to protect from unreliable or overly biased information, rather than a singular interest. Whether Wikipedia can at the same time ensure neutrality and protect free speech is clearly an ongoing debate.

[[User:akk22|akk22]] 15:19, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

The Internet is a global infrastructure so measuring, defining, and ultimately controlling it can be accomplished in a variety of ways. In measuring speed, broadband, and the “always on” ubiquitously networked society, the US ranked mid to poor in performance and among the absolute lowest in category of price and future planning. This is one of the key issues debated in politics along with open access policies, network neutrality, First Amendment rights, and the FCC’s broad powers over regulating the Internet. The network neutrality view is that “broadband providers and wireless carriers should be prohibited from discriminating against speech on the basis of viewpoint or content” the right for all information to travel the Internet equally without discrimination. There have been several occurrences of major ISP’s manipulating the content provided on an individualized basis just because it benefited their own interests. How much regulation should we place over the Internet or should we just leave it to the great innovators and major corporations to work it out? [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:46, 11 February 2014 (EST)

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

As a first time contributor to Wikipedia, thanks to this class in general and assignment one in particular, I came to realize that it would be very difficult for governments to regulate the internet as it is already an enormous task for individual web-based organizations, such as Wikipedia, to manage all its editors. For example, bearing Wikipedia's first rule in mind (also known as "NPOV"), I read a few articles and edited one that was completely not in line with Wikipedia's policies. There was no citation from reliable sources of any kind. Besides, the author stated a lot of his opinions as facts and vice versa.

Having said that, I believe that if it is that hard for organizations such as Wikipedia to regulate their own user bases, which are relatively small portions of a countries' populations, and make them all stick to the rules, let alone governments of developed nations who manage an entire population with many fundamental rights and freedom to regulate the internet in the traditional governmental ways of regulating.

Finally, I am not totally dismissing the idea that governments should not intervene on internet issues. It is not impossible to regulate it to some extent. On the contrary, I think it is even necessary for governments and individual internet organizations to collaborate and continue to establish policies and regulations that will be in the benefits of their populations and users, respectively.
[[User:cheikhmbacke|cheikhmbacke]] 15:55, 11 February 2014 (EST)

:Did you see the posting earlier where Ichua suggested implementing a survey or "quiz" of sorts which would test prospective users based on information given in the Terms of Use/Conditions of Wikipedia to ensure that they understood the rules and how to use them before they were allowed to create new posts or make alterations to existing posts. On what sort of issues would you propose governments intervene? Should they monitor or regulate content or one of the four "forces"-- excluding law, which is obvious-- (architecture, market, norms)? As far as content, I don't think it would be the government's duty or right to ensure accuracy or even to prevent "hate speech", as I think that sort of involvement would be a slippery slope towards infringing on free speech.
[[User:Castille|Castille]] 02:13, 15 February 2014 (EST)

A Series of Tubes: Infrastructure, Broadband, and Baseline Content Control

2014-02-15T07:04:49Z

Castille: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 11'''

The late Senator Ted Stevens famously said in a 2006 committee meeting that the “Internet is not something that you just dump something on; it’s not a big truck. It’s a series of tubes.” While he was ridiculed widely at the time, Senator Stevens’s remarks actually reveal an interesting hortatory description of what the Internet should be (though given the rest of his comments, apparently not one that he intended). What Stevens’s metaphor suggests is that the physical conduits of the Internet should act like nothing more than non-judgmental conduits of the rest of the world’s traffic. We will see this week, however, that this is not a true reflection of how the tubes work, and we have strong debates as to what the government's role should be in ensuring that large enough "tubes" reach all those who would like to be online. The big questions for this week: What are the “tubes” of the Internet? Should the tubes have a role in controlling the throughput content? What is the role of government when it comes to developing and regulating our Internet-tubes?

<onlyinclude>
==Readings==

; Comparing and measuring connectivity

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPzjUMdpmSw The Berkman Center, How Do We Connect To The Internet?] (about 7 mins., watch all)

* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Berkman_Center_Broadband_Final_Report-C1_15Feb2010.pdf Yochai Benkler, Next Generation Connectivity] (executive summary and introduction only)

; What is the role of government?

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality Wikipedia, Net Neutrality]

* [http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/01/net_neutrality_d_c_circuit_court_ruling_the_battle_s_been_lost_but_we_can.html Marvin Ammori, The Net Neutrality Battle Has Been Lost, But Now We Can Finally Win the War]

* [http://www.wired.com/opinion/2014/01/one-talking-comes-net-neutrality/ Berin Szoka and Geoffrey Manne, The Feds Lost on Net Neutrality, But Won Control of the Internet]

* [http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/05/bright-ideas-nunziato-on-virtual-freedom-net-neutrality-and-free-speech-in-the-internet-age.html Daniel Solove, Interview with Dawn Nunziato on her book ''Virtual Freedom'']

* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MD9Ss3SI2v8 Susan Crawford, remarks at the 2013 National Conference on Media Reform]

* [http://techliberation.com/2011/03/01/more-confusion-about-internet-freedom/ Adam Thierer, More Confusion about Internet “Freedom” (Tech Liberation)]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://gizmodo.com/5912383/how-to-destroy-the-internet Sam Biddle, How to Destroy the Internet (Gizmodo)]

* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/digitaldemocracy/internetarchitecture.html Ethan Zuckerman & Andrew McLaughlin, Introduction to Internet Architecture and Institutions]

* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2353457 Rob Faris and Rebekah Heacock, Measuring Internet Activity: a (Selective) Review of Methods and Metrics] (pages 3-9)

* [https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/taking-stevens-seriously/ Ed Felten, Taking Ted Stevens Seriously]

* [http://www.renesys.com/2013/11/mitm-internet-hijacking/ Jim Cowie, The New Threat: Targeted Internet Traffic Misdirection]

</onlyinclude>

== Assignment 1 ==

[[Assignment 1 Details and Reporting|Assignment 1]] is due ''before class'' today (i.e., February 11th before 5:30pm ET). You can submit the assignment [[Assignment 1 Submissions|here]].

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== Class Discussion ==

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

----

I believe there is an underlying question surrounding the debate of net neutrality which is to what extent the state should intervene. The easy answer is to the point were the state does not crowd out investment and innovation. Even though in practice this is a hard thing to evaluate and achieve, I believe that regulatory bodies lose sight of it at times and should come back to this premise when deciding on a ruling that harms competition or stifles already functional markets.

[[User:Luciagamboaso|Luciagamboaso]] 16:30, 11 February 2014 (EST)
----

My personal opinions of net neutrality and connectivity became muddled as I read through this week’s reading. My initial viewpoint supported open access and little/no regulation. Data shows that the top countries that meet the benchmarks defined by Benkler (penetration, capacity, and price) establish an open access community and let competition be the harbinger of innovation. The US also got to its current internet state via open access and has since became the middle of the pack once it restricted open access when the FCC abandoned Telecommunications Act of 1996 in 2001 and 2002. If we restrict open access, and information/broadband companies hold monopolies (like Comcast), why should they improve their services since the end game always ends up being a question of efficient profits? However, my opinion on how the government should be involved once I watched Susan Crawford give her remarks at the 2013 National Conference on Media Reform. While her words seemed to agree with my formed opinions on open access and connectivity, her solution focused on using the power of the government to instate infrastructure similar to how highways and telecommunications became ubiquitous. This left me with the question (which everyone seems to have and why this is hotly debated) of how much regulation should be instituted by the government and other regulatory bodies? Although a n00b in this area, my take away thoughts are that some body must exisit to deliver open connectivity and access to the people. The only way to meet Benkler Benchmarks are to develop innovative strategies and technologies - new materials and information delivery systems - to drive down cost, which will increase capacity penetration. This will require that the government invest in science and engineering research and set benchmarks to ensure that the correct infrastructure is provided to achieve this benchmarks. Private funding is also an option, but private institutions usually have a mission that is company driven and not “we the people” driven.

[[User:Margorm|Margorm]] 11:03, 9 February 2014 (EST)

: Open and free access to the internet is possible for one who has a ham radio operator license. In some sense it is not really "open" because of technical barrier since it requires acquisition of new technical skills. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMPRNet [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 11:30, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

While working on Assignment One and doing the readings this week on Net neutrality, I have been left with a lot of confusion as to how much regulation I find appropriate. On one hand, I think the internet, as with the spoken word, should be unrestricted to allow freedom of speech and communication. In this age, there are forums for people to express themselves, learn extensively about every possible interest, exchange information and news immediately, and connect to others from around the world in a way never before seen in history. There are now outlets and communities for all-- no longer are people isolated. While that might be troublesome from a standpoint of privacy, in my opinion an issue just as pressing arises dealing with unrestricted hate language. With the internet providing a barrier between individuals, hateful language is easy to disperse as there is no immediate visible repercussion. People are allowed to hide behind their computers and anonymity, sometimes spewing shocking, racist, sexist or otherwise offensive language just to incite anger and controversy (this behavior is often referred to as "trolling"). With school systems and the like actively taking a stand against bullying, should internet bullying also be restricted? Whose responsibility is it to ensure the safety (mental, emotional, physical) of the public who use the internet-- the website itself? The government? Some other agency which is set up to police the internet? Or would things be more fair if a simple internet ID was implemented, which identified users so that they were held responsible for their postings? I would tend to go with the last option, so as not to actually implement a rule of neutrality, which would be restricting free speech and infringing upon basic human rights.
[[User:Castille|Castille]] 00:14, 8 February 2014 (EST)

: I like your comments. The Singapore government is very concerned about this and planning to take some practical measures, including one similar to your last option. See:
http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/pm-outlines-new-approach-online-engagement-0 [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 11:47, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

I've been a Wikipedian for a long time, although not recently. One of the interesting things to look at in the context of Wikipedia is the deletionist/inclusionist divide (I think the deletionists have basically won). I wrote the original article on this subject on Wikipedia, and I thought some of you might find it interesting: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in_Wikipedia Deletionism and Inclusionism in Wikipedia]. I was the original author of this article (I'm [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarinth Tarinth] on Wikipedia) and it has an interesting history as an article, in that there was a fairly concerted attempt to have the article deleted as soon as I had created it. For further background on the subject, the following is an NPR interview I gave on the topic back in 2007: [http://weekendamerica.publicradio.org/programs/2007/01/20/marked_for_deletion.html "Marked for Deletion"]

My general feeling about Wikipedia: to move beyond casual editing, you need to become part of what amounts to a technological priesthood, and you have to fall in line with the prevailing philosophy to succeed at that. (Nevertheless, I do think Wikipedia is really awesome and super-useful, and it'll be fun to make some edits to an article again)
[[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 10:31, 8 February 2014 (EST)

:Thanks for sharing! As I'm sure you know, Wikimedia is trying to break down the technological barriers to entry, but the normative social order and its impact on edits is an interesting issue to explore more. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 14:15, 9 February 2014 (EST)

----

In both the first and second lecture, someone had mentioned that Wikipedia isn't accepted by universities as an acceptable source. To be fair, this isn't a problem with Wikipedia, because universities will ordinarily not accept Britannia as a source either. This is because these are both "tertiary sources," and in academic writing, you need to use either primary sources (original documents, etc.) or secondary sources (peer-reviewed articles, journalistic articles, etc.).
[[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 10:44, 8 February 2014 (EST)

:As I mentioned during the last class, Wikipedia has a pretty good page detailing the various studies conducted to test the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_wikipedia reliability of Wikipedia]. I think your point about tertiary sources is exactly right, and at least with Wikipedia (if people are following the guidelines in articles) you should be able to drive to those primary and secondary sources. And, of course, if you find an issue with Wikipedia, fix it! :-) [[User:Andy|Andy]] 14:12, 9 February 2014 (EST)

----

I had a discussion about Wikipedia with my wife and two sons while waiting for my flight from Changi Airport, Singapore, to Manila, Philippines, awhile ago. To my surprise, both my sons were aware of the problems with Wikipedia. They noted that while some of the citations were good, at least 50% was either crap or had broken links. They don't use Wikipedia seriously but scavenge its sites as a quick way of finding references from good citations.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 12:48, 9 February 2014 (EST)

----

ROLE OF GOVERNMENT AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES IN INTERNET CONNECTIVITY
CASE STUDY: SINGAPORE

The Ministry of Education and the Infocomm Development Authority had developed a set of specifications which e-learning vendors like my company must fulfill in terms of internet bandwidth, especially in national emergencies such as SARS, when schools are required to close to avoid spread of a virus, etc. In such cases, students are required to continue their studies online at home. To ensure requirements on internet access times are met, server load tests were carried out based on simulations for various numbers of concurrent users. We also had a contract with Oracle to work with our engineers and programmers to optimize the Php/MySQL coding. It was money well-spent.

In the past, the hardware was the major limitation. Video server vendors could only promise 50 concurrent users per server. This made connectivity into the internet broadband network too expensive because you need to pay for each server connection plus rack space....until I saw Steve Jobs on Youtube launching the new Mac G4 XServe demonstrating it can deliver video streams to 1000 iMacs. At that time I was working for the government and was the first person to order 2 units of G4 6 months ahead of its anticipated delivery. With 1000 concurrent users possible with the G4 XServe, I quit my job and started my e-learning company a year later in 2000.

Then, we found that the schools' internet bandwidth was the problem. The network in the school could only accomodate 3 classes of 40 students each, or a total of 120 students concurrently accessing our online videos. When there were more than 3 computer labs being used concurrently, all the PC's showed the online video had stalled. This happened to schools which subscribed for only 1 or 2 Mbps internet connectivity with their ISP. Schools using 5 or 10 Mbps had no issue. Over the years, the schools had upgraded their bandwidth connectivity to at least 5 or 10 Mbps. Today, almost all the secondary schools are using our online math program.

Two years ago, I was sourcing for better servers with fast solid-state drives (SSD's). The I/O with the storage devices could also significantly affect the access times, especially for connections to our database. But to our pleasant surprise IBM had produced new hard-disks that were even faster than SSD's! Subsequent server load tests we carried out showed significant improvement in access times with the new machines. Further improvement in access times were also obtained after modifying many segments of our code in consultation with Oracle.

But had the MOE and the schools not been pro-active in improving their internet infrastructure, online learning on a nation-wide scale in schools would not have been possible.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 14:03, 9 February 2014 (EST)

:The drive to having broadband in schools is a big part of communications policy in the US, as well. Several times in our communications law (Title 47 of the U.S. Code) Congress has indicated a clear preference for high-speed access in elementary and secondary schools. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 09:44, 11 February 2014 (EST)

Thank you for sharing this, Ichua! I am curious to know what the Singaporean population thinks of the government's involvement. In China, it seems that citizens tend to accept the government's control and restrictions. It is incredible how one's culture often defines how policies are rolled out and enforced.
--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 14:55, 14 February 2014 (EST)

----

WIKIPEDIA EDITING SYNTAX VS HTML

This may not be directly relevant to our coming lecture, but may be helpful for those who intend to add more than just texts to a Wikipedia page. I was wondering how a table or a URL might be added to a Wikipedia page and thought this could be done using HTML. To my pleasant surprise, there is a menu at the top of the edit page in edit mode which allows you to click to insert a table, etc., to minimize coding time. But it was a disappointment to find there is no math equation editor. Help for input of math expressions can be found in this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Displaying_a_formula.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 22:10, 9 February 2014 (EST)

: I finally figured out how to edit special tables from this Wiki help link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Table#Alignment [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 12:12, 10 February 2014 (EST)

----

APPRECIATING LSTU-E120

I'm beginning to appreciate the information presented in this course. The guidelines about editing Wikipedia and Assignment 1 exercise can help make Wikipedia a better place. While checking out some Wikipedia sites to assess their use for Assignment 1, I found many places in need of citations. For Assignment 1, I would attempt to search for appropriate citations and add these but if not, I now know how to add the "Citation needed" tag. But I also found citations used that were inappropriate....how do I flag these if I could not find appropriate citations?

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 22:30, 9 February 2014 (EST)

----

ONLINE PRE-QUALIFICATION TEST FOR WOULD-BE WIKIPEDIA EDITORS

Perhaps Wikipedia should require would-be editors to thoroughly read its policy and guidelines and make them take a rigorous online test which they need to pass before allowing them to do any edits on Wikipedia.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 22:40, 9 February 2014 (EST)

What a great idea, Ichua! Would that be infringing on some kind of "right" that individuals have to post freely? I think that would be a reasonably simple way to implement some form of quality control.
[[User:Castille|Castille]] 02:04, 15 February 2014 (EST)

----

NET NEUTRALITY VS FAIR USE POLICY: BIG BUFFET VS HUNGER RATION

In countries like S. Korea, US, or Singapore, where there are lots of internet bandwidth to spare, it is convenient to implement a net neutrality policy. More than 90% of the population in Singapore live in public housing apartments and all units are now provided with fibre-optic cables. But in the Philippines, the ISPs are greedy corporations and charge high prices for very poor services. They also cheat customers by telling them that they get unlimited access and unlimited surfing but disconnect them when they hit an unspecified MB of data transfers or total access time on a daily basis. Connectivity is typically restored at midnight. This had been my experience with all the ISPs since I moved to Manila for medical school in June 2012. If you come to my condo in Sampaloc, you will see on my desk all variety of routers, modems, and so-called broadband sticks from Globe, Smart, and Sun. PLDT never showed up despite contacting them twice. One reason why internet connectivity was very bad was because users get deliberately disconnected without their knowledge. However, this was all indicated in fine print in contracts which customers signed without reading under a Fair Use Policy. The Fair Use Policy is used to discourage customers from using the internet too much! The amount of MB or total time accessed used to determine service disconnection depends on the computed average MB transferred and average total time accessed. Finally, I decided to return to Singapore every weekend so that I could view the recorded lectures online for my Harvard Extension School coursework. Subsequently, the situation got better when Smart offered a promo of truly free 10-day unlimited access for purchasing their new broadband stick. But after the 10-day period subscription to the service was very expensive. I found it so much cheaper to buy 3 new broadband sticks every month. To my great relief, in August 2013, Smart began to offer a new 4G device for Php 7,000 upfront plus Php 995 for every 30 days of truly unlimited access. I am one of the few lucky guys who got this device as Smart does not sell this in the university belt area. I had to travel more than an hour to Mandaluyong to buy it. This is all very hard to fathom, especially when Smart has a 4G antenna in front of my block.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 14:30, 10 February 2014 (EST)

----

I find it very surprising that Yochai Benkler's article presents Japan as a country that emphasized ubiquitous, seamless connectivity. Having lived in the country, I would most certainly place it in the first category: ultra high speeds, but rarely there. The internet in Japan is "just there" only if you happen to have a mobile phone, with a relatively expensive data plan, haven't reached your limit, and don't happen to be in a subway.

I think that the problem with the study might be, that although it's more nuanced that most papers on connectivity, it's still not nuanced enough. For example, it uses the metric: Wi-Fi hotspots per 100000. But there's a huge difference between 100 open WiFi hotspots, 100 paid hotspots by one provider, or 100 paid hotspots from 20 providers incompatible with each other. Not to mention that there are many different pricing plans for access to said paid hotspots that can have a big impact on how useful they are.

Japan, for example, would probably not fare very well in this metric if the above-mentioned considerations would have been taken into account. Everyone who has visited the country, even its capital, knows that free hotspots are few and far between, paid hotspots are expensive and often require you to subscribe for long stretches of time, and even if you do pay for the access you'll soon find that different establishments side with different WiFi providers and if you really want a seamless experience you'll need to subscribe to at least 2-3 different WiFi providers at once.

(That said, it's worth noting that my point of view is that of someone who spends a lot of time in European and Asian countries with excellent, ubiquitous, and often free or dirt cheap connectivity, not someone from rural US.)
--[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 16:09, 10 February 2014 (EST)

:Great points! I believe later in the full report Benkler notes that Japan is more of a middle-of-the-pack performer on other metrics, including 3G penetration and price (though Japan has been growing very quickly in the former). Your point about the WiFi access points is a good one - I'm not sure if the OECD study that's referenced here took price into account when developing the definition of what is a "public hotspot." [[User:Andy|Andy]] 09:51, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

In Australia, net neutrality issues hardly impact us and receive minimal attention from consumers or industry. This week’s reading further piqued my curiosity to research what Australia is doing differently to keep these problems at bay, as we generally mimic structures of technology from America.

Unlimited broadband data plans in America planted seeds to the problems that sprouted with net neutrality. Services meant for access-granting could otherwise be boring and bill customers for simply providing access, however, a power struggle emerged within the market. The ISP’s that provide unlimited broadband failed to create additional revenue parallel to their traffic growth. This business model leaves a lot of temptation for the ISP’s to manipulate traffic, direct users to favoured websites, attempt to stifle their competitors or simply block them out. How else would a provider increase company revenue? This model also give little incentive for the ISP’s to invest in upgrades to capacity or network speeds for their customers, because they wouldn’t profit off of it.

Curiously, Australia does not have any laws in place regarding net neutrality, the ISP’s are structured to have disincentives for discriminating or favouring traffic based on source type. Australian ISPs operate on a volumetric billing system, so the user pays per MB, at a fixed rate, with a pre-determined speed and download capacity. Customers have a choice to upgrade to higher speeds and expand their download capacity, and ISPs manage congestion based on the customer’s willingness to pay. Blocking or manipulating web traffic would have an anticompetitive effect on the ISP. This system gives stronger incentives to maximise transition of all traffic regardless of source type, because that would translate to bigger profits. High market competition paired with low-entry barriers weakens incentives for ISPs to block content. Telstra, an Australian ISP, operates on a metered broadband system. If you choose Telstra as your provider, they have a list of partner sites that can be used on an unlimited basis. This is an effective way to steer the direction of customers without having to manipulate their open-access connectivity to other websites, if they so choose to use them.

ISPs should act as an affordance that suggest, rather than dictate, how their services are to be used. It would be naive to think that American ISPs could simply restructure to a volumetric system, which would run a huge risk of sending their customers running to their competitors who still provide unlimited access.
[[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 23:17, 10 February 2014 (EST)

: Talking about competition, there is hardly any competition amongst ISP's in Philippines. PLDT directly or indirectly own Smart and Sun. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 01:02, 11 February 2014 (EST)

::[[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] and [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] - if you don't mind my asking, what do you pay for broadband, and what is your average download and upload speed? You can use services like [http://www.speedtest.net/ Speedtest] to check. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 07:46, 11 February 2014 (EST)

::: Currently from my location in Sampaloc, Manila, using www.speedtest.net, I am getting 2.26 Mbps for downloads and 0.20 Mbps for uploads. I am paying Php 995 (about USD 25) for every 30 days of unlimited access using Smart's 4G network with ZTE's LTE device Model MF93D (made in China). I am now quite happy with the download speed, but not the upload speed as I have to upload videos for 1st and 2nd Year med school class lectures. It is actually very cheap now for me and I can bring the 4G device while travelling around Manila. This is a very far cry from my situation prior to August 2013. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 12:16, 11 February 2014 (EST)

::: I am on a plan with Telstra that costs $50 AUD per 8 Gigs of data. This sounds expensive by American standards, but bear in mind, minimum wage in Sydney (city) is around $22 AUD per hr. [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 16:52, 11 February 2014 (EST)

:::: Using speedtest.net from my location, at my work computer in Sydney city (This isn't my home plan as noted above, I will test that when I'm home today) Download Speed is 14.06mbps and Upload Speed is 2.04 Mbps. Good by Australian standards - this pales in comparison to America. [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 17:00, 11 February 2014 (EST)

::Also, to Marissa's point about competition, it's an interesting question whether folks would be as worried about net neutrality if there was genuine competition in the US over broadband, but that's typically not the case. Major metropolitan areas will have, at most, two or three choices, and for huge sections of the US there is only one cable provider in their area. Some cities have tried to build municipal networks to provide other choices, but several state legislatures have prevented cities in their states from doing so. Australia, as you probably know, is considering the near-opposite approach, embarking on a heroic effort to build [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Broadband_Network fiberoptic lines to every building] in Australia. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 07:52, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

UNSUNG WINTER HEROES OF THE TUBES

During my 4 years in West Lafayette, IN, from 2004-2008, we had very good internet access. But occasionally when the internet goes down, especially during winter, the internet outage extends throughout the whole state or several states. I learned that the technicians sometimes work under tough or hazardous conditions to restore damaged lines.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 01:02, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

FROM TUBES TO AIRSPACE

If any government intend to quickly setup broadband internet or intranet access, technology is now available which enable one to do so using very long range wifi or ethernet radio. The main transmission antenna can be installed and connected to a server within a day. Transmission can be up to 120km at 200 Mbps with equipment like the RAD's AirMux-400. Additional repeaters can be added for places which do not have line-of-sight. Cheap and powerful desktop receivers are also available. This can be a temporary solution until more stable networks such as those based on fiber-optics are installed. If I recall, my costing was merely Php 200,000 (USD 5,000) for a 50km range at 100 Mbps, including equipment and labor for installation and setup. Sounds good for poor and impoverished communities.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 01:19, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

NET NEUTRALITY IMPRACTICAL FOR COUNTRIES WITH BIG INCOME GAPS

Private ISP corporations want to make profit but governments want internet services to be delivered to the poor at almost no cost. To do so would require government ownership or regulated differential pricing and/or the provision of separate internet networks: one for entertainment and commerce and the other for education.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 01:36, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

Net Neutrality is the question which must be maintained by government and private entities in close cooperation. Of course, the ISPs want to make greater profits by means of prices fluctuation for different websites, traffics and etc. In this case, the government can be some kind of
"referee" by preventing the IPS to speculate with the mentioned aspects. However, we should bear in mind that the government cannot keep the total governance in its hands as this policy may lead to some restrictions in the development of this sphere in future. So, I think that the met neutrality must be recognized by law and the legislation must set the general rules and protect the consumers from being somehow harmed by the IPS. Still, IPS must possess enough freedom for development and advancement of the services they are engaged in.[[User:Aysel|Aysel]] 09:19, 11 February 2014 (EST)Aysel Ibayeva

----

In response to Castille, I am also finding myself at a crossroad on the issue of promoting liberty and safeguarding citizens by preventing injustices. I think this is a topic of endless, profound debate. I thoroughly enjoyed the weekly readings and found Adam Thierer's article "More Confusion about Internet 'Freedom' " to be particularly powerful and convincing. While I did not agree with all of the points he made, I think he makes a valid, logical argument debunking the mainstream point of view that has been engrained in us as a society. I did not realize the extent of power the FCC maintains over the internet and, as he mentions, these are not even elected officials. How can they promote the values or digital issues that we, the people of the internet, hold dear. Shouldn't we have a say in these decisions that directly impact the cyberspace we access on a daily basis? He admits there will inevitably be problems in a free information marketplace; however, in the name of innovation via the promotion of creativity and ingenuity within our society, perhaps these mistakes are well worth the risk and stunting this technological growth/exchange could do more damage than good.

I was surprised to find the end of the article when Thierer ultimately bashes the Senator's initial statement that Net neutrality is “the First Amendment issue of our time.” At first I thought he was in agreement with Senator Franken but he saw this as more of an attack on the goal of the first amendment. When I initially read Franken's statement I took it to mean that the internet is becoming a general issue for freedom of speech.

Thierer suggests that instead of putting more faith in these central planners, we should look to the evolutionary market forces through a bottom-up response as the "cyber-progressivists" have argued (Thierer 2011). The most important point that Thierer discusses, in my opinion, was when he mentioned that people are driven by incentives, but they are only truly free to do so if they are not held at the whim of a higher governing authority and this authority has a track record of always being two steps behind the latest technological advancements. They cannot keep up and in trying to do so, they are ultimately thwarting overall progression. While I cannot go as far as saying that I believe all regulatory intervention is tyranny as Thierer ends up insisting, I tend to agree with his overall convictions. However, as Castille pointed out, there are clearly times when it appears the government should step in to protect its citizens on the web. On the other hand, one intervention leads to another and it becomes a fast moving "slippery slope".

--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 10:57, 11 February 2014 (EST)

:There's a reason this has been a hot issue for about a decade! There are very compelling arguments to be made on all sides. Thierer does gloss over the fact that the FCC's actions are constrained by Congress, and Congress (at least in theory) is dependent upon the people, so as a matter of structure the influence of the public has a role, though we all know how hard that is to achieve in practice. The First Amendment issues themselves are fascinating and an area where I spend a lot of my time thinking about these issues; I hope to get to some of that in class today. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 10:58, 11 February 2014 (EST)

::Thierer complains, "We are asked to ignore our history lessons, which teach us that centralized planning and bureaucracy all too often lead to massively inefficient outcomes..." However, this is taking the libertarian complaint of inefficiency (that I normally side with) out of its economic context. If he were to balance the concerns of profitability of the architecture of the industry (for the ISPs) and of the fiber networks themselves, and weigh them against the potential economic growth as a result of ubiquitous internet, Thierer would find that one far outweighs the other in importance. [[User:MikeJohnson|MikeJohnson]] 15:48, 11 February 2014 (EST)

Interesting points here, Mike. I often wonder what the founding fathers would think if they lived today and wonder how they would grapple with the complexities digital technology presents for society. While I have tremendous respect for our great Constitution and the values invoked within it; I still find that it cannot effectively respond to modern advancements. After a bit of research it seems that the founding fathers would favor less government involvement in the face of economic advancement. As James Madison once said, "The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty." Patrick Henry also had a quote that may be relevant to this debate: "The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." No matter what side of the fence you find yourself, this is one of those debates (as Andy mentions) that does not appear to have a clear course of action that can be taken in the near future. Drafting modern technical policy and implementing it with the consent of the people is the most important task at hand.
--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 15:08, 14 February 2014 (EST)

--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 14:55, 14 February 2014 (EST)

----

When the key Net Neutrality cases were being presented before the court a few years back, I remember being firmly on the side of the FCC and hoping that a strict ruling against Comcast would have preserved Net Neutrality... or at least what I presumed "net neutrality" to encompass back then. I see that my view of Net Neutrality was overly narrow at that time...and although I still do not want to see service providers have that much power to manipulate what legal content a user chooses to access online, I see from the readings that the scope of the "problem" would, probably, neither have been fully resolved in a ruling that went in favor of the FCC. Constraints, as discussed last week, would have most likely just shifted, and placed regulated pressure on a marketplace. (an example might be thinking of an ISP that truly wants to enter the market and offer customers a filtered, "safe", online experience for certain families... they indeed would have subscribers and be successful and appeal to some sectors that opt for a “safe online community”). Conversely, with the judges ruling allowing the FCC to walk away with the ability to regulate the entire internet is more than a little worrisome knowing that political cycles could have such sweeping powers to re-define the internet landscape. And while service providers still enjoy their own monopolies within any given township of users who have only 1 (maybe 2) choices for an ISP, it seems that the consumer is the only one who lost some ground in the Net Neutrality rulings.

I think the reading "Net Neutrality and Free Speech in the Internet Age" strikes closer to where we need to be focusing our attention. To quote from the interview directly: "Dawn argues for an affirmative conception of the First Amendment, under which public and powerful private gatekeepers of Internet communications are subject to the First Amendment’s mandate to ensure the free flow of communications in the digital age." - Here too I originally presumed that the First Amendment *did* apply across-the-board to all communication...Internet, printing press, public speech - but I guess it is that word "public" that becomes an "undefined zone" within virtual spaces online. Is there anything like a national or municipal park in the Internet world where the marketplace has no sway on how we choose to behave in that public zone? Or is every “online space” in which we choose to speak or participate analogous to traveling to private island governed by the values (and whims) of the a single gatekeeper rather than any one nation's constitutional rights? (Why did Mr. Roarke and Tattoo just come to mind...?).
[[User:Psl|Psl]] 12:31, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

MAGNA CARTA FOR PHILIPPINES INTERNET FREEDOM (MCPIF)

See: http://democracy.net.ph/mcpif/full-text/

What do you think of Section 5(e)?

Schools in Singapore has a restriction policy. Only selected websites are permitted to be accessed within the school's network.

We also teach parents how to allow their children to access only selected websites and block all others to prevent children from playing online games and accessing pornographic and other undesirable websites.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 12:42, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

WEBSITES BANNED IN SINGAPORE

http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/singapore/story/extramarital-dating-website-ceo-disappointed-mdas-ban-20131109

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/05/23/us-singapore-internet-odd-idUSS2322899620080523

http://yawningbread.org/arch_2005/yax-504.htm

http://therealsingapore.com/content/singapore-government-plans-ban-websites-such-pirate-bay

See also Internet Filtering in Singapore:
https://opennet.net/studies/singapore

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 12:50, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

I have used Wikipedia as a starting point to gather resources and verify the accuracy of the information. I have never been a contributor. This assignment has proved useful in "breaking me out of my shell." I am reminded of the quote from an article that I ran across by Tom Simonite. In the article, The Decline of Wikipedia, he stated: "When Wikipedians achieved their most impressive feat of leaderless collective organization, they unwittingly set in motion the decline in participation that troubles their project today." I fear the mechanism is stifled from further growth due to its collective and bureaucratic structure. [[User:VACYBER|VACYBER]] 13:13, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

This week’s assignment was very enlightening. I am a casual browser in Wikipedia and have used it just for some very general preliminary information before going into the topic deeper in other websites. I was familiar with the issues of the website but I never really stepped behind the initial pages to edit or evaluate the rules. This was very helpful but I also suffered a bit on the learning curve being a complete beginner on that end. Regardless, I found it very interesting.

Now for the topic of government’s roles of the Internet, I think this would be best avoided. The Internet is where our freedom of speech gets most prolific and also most obscene. There’s room for it all and we should keep it like this. When control enters the picture it is a dangerous slope and it is never black and white. How do you decide what should be banned? Everyone will give a different method and a consensus is nearly impossible. I’m interest to see what the class will say on this topic.
[[User:Lpereira|Lpereira]] 13:28, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

According to research conducted by Yochai Benkler about search for improvement of high-capacity networks for the next generation in different developed and developing countries is based on download speed and complete connectivity. His study demonstrates the strengths and weaknesses in the broadband deal in several countries and makes a comparison to the technological transition in the next generation, while the video shows briefly how connectivity works today and makes a comparison between the most developed and developing countries. In analyzing both materials, I made the conclusion that the opportunities and technological barriers, experiences and skills gained by the different players in the innovation system flowing through this economic activity to another, establish a specific context for each country or region, that is that any set of economic incentives generate different incentives and constraints to innovation. To the extent and in cases where the divergence between economic incentives and stimulating innovation represented by externalities is substantial, differences are gradually decreased. [[User:Gisellebatista|Gisellebatista]] 14:08, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

Working on Assignment One (and the Wiki rule of neutrality in particular) got me thinking about objectivity as it relates to online journalistic content. It struck me that objectivity has been losing its power online, at least in the journalistic and content spheres. Outside of academic circles, the online news that gets the most attention seems to be quite opinionated — they are the articles that lead to shares, ‘likes’, high-fives, vitriol, and discussion. But it’s also these same pieces that people go to for sources of information. Often biased information. A couple of the readings have addressed this fact: that online communities and the net in general has a categorizing effect… so that it becomes not so much a large “worldwide web”, but a large collection of smaller, almost navel-gazing webs.

There’s a bit of a bipolarity going on here. As an example, Wikipedia seems to be doing a solid job of promoting objectivity, and yet online biases seem break through the clutter faster. On one hand we crave objectivity for our sources, and on the other hand we crave opinions for our entertainment. (Maybe it’s as simple as that? But it rarely is…)

When looking at different Wiki articles, a bit of a pattern started to emerge: Those articles that deviated from one rule, were more likely to deviate from at least one of the other rules, as well. This made it particularly difficult to focus on editing just the one area and led to making amendments of other rules as well. I found that as I delved deeper into the editing process, more issues seemed to pop up that “needed” editing — I could see how it could become quite addictive for regular Wiki editors.

I also found the idea of branching out to edit an article for which I had no previous knowledge to be daunting — even with sufficient sources at my disposal. It would be interesting to look at a study of how much prior knowledge Wiki editors have about the subjects they are editing… [[User:Twood|Twood]] 14:15, 11 February 2014 (EST)

:I would agree with Twood-the task of verifying sources for accuracy is daunting. The three fundamental rules Wiki has placed ( at first) seem simplistic. Application takes the steps to a different level. I found myself in the most interesting research hole imaginable. The error rate is high on Wiki-but understandable. --[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 15:36, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

Having created and submitted a single Wikipedia article previously, I had a reasonable familiarity with Wikipedia before completing Assignment 1. However, approaching Wikipedia as an editor with a targeted rule to address in a pre-existing article brought up many questions about the role of the individual, the community and the regulation of speech. A number of the readings helped work through these questions for me, none more so than Professor Dawn Nunziato's interview on net neutrality and free speech. I was pleased to consider the two conceptions of the first amendment in the context of the internet and regulation of speech online. As Nunziato explains, under the affirmative conception of the first amendment, "individuals enjoy an affirmative right to speak, free from content and viewpoint discrimination — regardless of whether such discrimination occurs at the hands of the government or other powerful regulators of speech." She also confirms, as I have understood from my lay person's perspective as a frequent user of web and social media, that the affirmative conception of the first amendment "has not taken root" in the internet context because the private entities that control internet speech are not subject to the first amendment's mandate prohibiting censorship. This of course leads to concern about whether our internet communication is really free-- and also leads to the unique case of Wikipedia. As we learned in other readings this week, and in completing Assignment 1 itself, there are certainly "gatekeepers" for speech on Wikipedia, but in a different form from broadband providers, email servers, and search engines that Nunziato cites. The community of editors on Wikipedia, and such reliability control features as autoconfirmed editors, serve as a less tangible but equally omnipresent entity that has the power to censor- but to protect from unreliable or overly biased information, rather than a singular interest. Whether Wikipedia can at the same time ensure neutrality and protect free speech is clearly an ongoing debate.

[[User:akk22|akk22]] 15:19, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

The Internet is a global infrastructure so measuring, defining, and ultimately controlling it can be accomplished in a variety of ways. In measuring speed, broadband, and the “always on” ubiquitously networked society, the US ranked mid to poor in performance and among the absolute lowest in category of price and future planning. This is one of the key issues debated in politics along with open access policies, network neutrality, First Amendment rights, and the FCC’s broad powers over regulating the Internet. The network neutrality view is that “broadband providers and wireless carriers should be prohibited from discriminating against speech on the basis of viewpoint or content” the right for all information to travel the Internet equally without discrimination. There have been several occurrences of major ISP’s manipulating the content provided on an individualized basis just because it benefited their own interests. How much regulation should we place over the Internet or should we just leave it to the great innovators and major corporations to work it out? [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:46, 11 February 2014 (EST)

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

As a first time contributor to Wikipedia, thanks to this class in general and assignment one in particular, I came to realize that it would be very difficult for governments to regulate the internet as it is already an enormous task for individual web-based organizations, such as Wikipedia, to manage all its editors. For example, bearing Wikipedia's first rule in mind (also known as "NPOV"), I read a few articles and edited one that was completely not in line with Wikipedia's policies. There was no citation from reliable sources of any kind. Besides, the author stated a lot of his opinions as facts and vice versa.

Having said that, I believe that if it is that hard for organizations such as Wikipedia to regulate their own user bases, which are relatively small portions of a countries' populations, and make them all stick to the rules, let alone governments of developed nations who manage an entire population with many fundamental rights and freedom to regulate the internet in the traditional governmental ways of regulating.

Finally, I am not totally dismissing the idea that governments should not intervene on internet issues. It is not impossible to regulate it to some extent. On the contrary, I think it is even necessary for governments and individual internet organizations to collaborate and continue to establish policies and regulations that will be in the benefits of their populations and users, respectively.
[[User:cheikhmbacke|cheikhmbacke]] 15:55, 11 February 2014 (EST)

Assignment 1 Submissions

2014-02-09T17:30:23Z

Castille: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

===Submission Instructions===

'''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.'''

''Please make sure the name of your file includes your name or pseudonym (example: Name_Assignment1.doc) to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment.''

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 12, 5:30pm ET).

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 "Submissions" section below in the following format:

* Your Name or Chosen Pseudonym:
* Link to rule: (URL of the Wikipedia editing policy you chose)
* Link to article: (URL of the Wikipedia article you edited)
* Link to report: (URL of the file you uploaded)

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

Need help editing? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page Check out this guide]

===Submissions===
Please post your link to your report below, in the following format:

* (Name or Pseudonym)

* (Link to rule)

* (Link to article)

* (Link to your submitted report)

[[User:Andy|Andy]] 19:58, 14 November 2013 (EST)

----

* Jradoff (on this wiki), Tarinth (on Wikipedia)
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability WP:V]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_systems Generative systems]
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment1Radoff.txt Report Text]

[[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 12:21, 8 February 2014 (EST)

----

* Dancoron (in the class wiki), DCorona501st (is my name on Wikipedia)
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability WP:VERIFY]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Corp - My addition Roland JV-80 Synthesizer & ROland SR-JV80 Expansion boards]
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Dancoron_assignment1.doc My report of Verifiability]
[[User:Dancoron|Dancoron]] 15:33, 8 February 2014 (EST)

----
* Castille (on class Wiki), Stille1002 (on Wikipedia)
* [RULE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view]
* [ARTICLE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_compensation]
* [REPORT: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:CastilleRath_ASSIGNMENT_ONE.doc]
[[User:Castille|Castille]] 12:30, 9 February 2014 (EST)

A Series of Tubes: Infrastructure, Broadband, and Baseline Content Control

2014-02-08T05:24:18Z

Castille: /* Class Discussion */

A Series of Tubes: Infrastructure, Broadband, and Baseline Content Control

2014-02-08T05:14:41Z

Castille: /* Class Discussion */

Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction

2014-01-27T17:46:28Z

Castille: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}
'''January 28'''

The Internet at its core is simply an expression of a technological protocol that allows for a particular way of sharing information. But its role has never been this understated. The Net has great potential for “good” (e.g. innovation, economic growth, education, and access to information), and likewise is a great platform for the bawdy, tawdry and illegal. So is this platform about fundamental social, political and economic change, or about access to solipsistic blogging, pornography, cheap pharmaceuticals, free music, and poker at home? This question leads us to a host of interesting issues that weave their way through the course related to openness, access, regulatory control, free speech, anonymity, intellectual property rights, democracy, transparency, norms and values, economic and cultural change, and cyber-terrorism, as well as scamsters and thieves.

'''There is a small assignment to do before class. See [[#Preparation (Assignment "Zero")|Assignment Zero]] below.

== Preparation (Assignment "Zero") ==

* Reflect on what you believe are the most significant social, cultural, political or economic changes associated with the spread of digital technologies. In a few sentences, please offer 2-3 examples in the [[#Class Discussion|Class Discussion]] section below and be prepared to discuss them during class.

<onlyinclude>

== Readings/Watchings ==

'''What is the Internet?'''

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2QdEj8UjBc Ethan Zuckerman, History of the Internet] (approx. 7 mins., watch all)

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whmMNRHktX8 Jonathan Zittrain, How the Internet Works] (approx. 4 mins., watch all)

'''How does the Internet change governance?'''

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

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

* [http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2009/03/the_third_wave.htm Eric Goldman, The Third Wave of Internet Exceptionalism]

* [http://www.ted.com/talks/rebecca_mackinnon_let_s_take_back_the_internet.html Rebecca MacKinnon, Let’s Take Back the Internet! (TED.com)] (approx. 15 mins., watch all)

'''Who governs the Internet?'''

* [http://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/assets/governance-2500x1664-13jan14-en.png ICANN, Who Runs the Internet?] (infographic)

* [http://ubiquity.acm.org/article.cfm?id=1071915 Alex Simonelis, A Concise Guide to the Major Internet Bodies] (skim, but focus on ICANN, IETF, IANA, and W3C)

'''Who is the Internet? Who is it not? What can we do about it?'''

* [http://www.webuse.org/pdf/Hargittai-DigitalDivideWhatToDo2007.pdf Eszter Hargittai, The Digital Divide and What to Do About It (New Economy Handbook)] (focus on Sections I-III)

:* Hargittai’s data is from 2003. For more recent data, see [http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2013/PIP_Offline%20adults_092513_PDF.pdf Pew Internet & American Life Project, Who's Not Online and Why] (read the summary, skim the sections).

* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNHkG7w2IA8 Ethan Zuckerman, Why Our Webs Are Rarely Worldwide, And What We Can Do About It] (approx. 14 mins., watch all)

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/2013/12/04/video-who-controls-the-internet/ Ellery Biddle, Who Controls the Internet? (''Global Voices'')] (video in Spanish with English subtitles, 10 mins., watch all)

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

* [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1752415 Tim Wu, Is Internet Exceptionalism Dead?]

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Class Discussion ==

<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">Welcome to Internet and Society: Technologies and Politics of Control! This is the section of the page where you should add your comments to complete "assignment zero." Once you have registered an account, just click the "[edit]" button at the upper right hand corner of this section to add text! '''Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:Andy|Andy]] 15:12, 7 November 2013 (EST)</div>

“Change” holds neither a positive, nor negative connotation, so I will provide an example of each:

The negative: The ubiquity of camera-equipped, internet-connected smartphones allows millions of Americans to digitally upload and share photographs with ease. Sometimes, though, these photos are compromising and end up in the hands of nefarious purveyors of “revenge porn.” The proliferation of revenge porn can and does compromise the privacy (and oftentimes safety) of private citizens who become unwitting victims of sexual harassment. And in most cases, law enforcement is unable to prosecute offenders. Many U.S. states punish “cyberstalking,” but only as a misdemeanor, which means that law enforcement cannot obtain warrants that are necessary to collect evidence needed to prosecute. Recourse in civil court proves equally futile due in large part to antiquated copyright law. I believe that revenge porn serves as an example of the social and political problems that can arise when technology moves faster than the law.

The positive: Digital technology continues to reinvent the culture of higher learning. For instance, I am currently participating in this discussion, and will attend this Cambridge-based class remotely, from my home in Manhattan, NYC. Moreover, MOOCs offered by EdX and similar providers allow interested parties to engage in courses out of genuine interest.

[[User:Vance.puchalski|Vance.puchalski]] 00:33, 27 January 2014 (EST)

significant social, cultural, political or economic changes associated with the spread of digital technologies:

1) culturally and politically, spin control held by governments and regional authorities ( religious, corporate, ethnic ) loses traction in the minds of individual internet users; digital tech results in a macro shift of the rhetoric of belief from formerly established originators of spin to the web itself as provider of deconstructed information that individuals more typically use to form their own beliefs and to question the validity of formerly established paradigms.

2)economically, web commerce fast outdates the economics of traditional physically-based logistics. Serious privacy issues among users of new technologies stand as barriers to user confidence, even as new tech info systems tend to present prospective users with no viable lesser-cost alternatives.

[[User:Mbouscaren|Mbouscaren]] 14:55, 25 January 2014 (EST)

1. The ability to communicate instantly has changed social interactions and relationships on a personal level (i.e. the instant feedback available on social media and communication via email, text, etc.) and in wider communities (i.e. forums, comments on news articles and blogs, etc.). The access to and engagement with new communication technologies can be empowering for those who may have otherwise felt voiceless, while a sense of anonymity can lead to harassment with minimal consequences.

2. Fast and easy access to information that allows individuals to educate themselves (though that has to be balanced against the challenges of finding reliable sources) and have more control as consumers (compare products, read reviews, etc.).

[[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 16:25, 26 January 2014 (EST)

*'''Significant social change -''' People with traits of autism, Asperger's, ADD, dyslexia, social anxiety are becoming over-represented amongst successful CEOs and entrepreneurs, relative to the population at large. The current economy has been rewarding companies run by people who have mental characteristics adapted to software programming, engineering, and creativity (for example) much more than in the past.

*'''Economic change -''' ''(To be honest, both of my answers could fit into social, political and economic...)'' Markets are shifting from broadcast, one-size fits all models of communication towards narrowcast, peer-to-peer conversations. On the Internet, consumer-driven input, quality products/content and sometimes even user-generated content are valued more highly than tightly-controlled corporate 'spin'. Of course this may change substantially with the fall of net neutrality.

[[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 20:15, 26 January 2014 (EST)

Significant social change: The way in which news spreads has changed drastically with the advent of the internet. Social networking sites, such as Facebook and particularly Twitter, have become news outlets that have, in some cases, proved to be quicker at providing up-to-the-minute current event info than traditional news providers.

Cultural/legal change: The spread of digital technologies has impacted the music industry and amateur artists in a profound way. A great example is the issue of mash-ups, the cutting and pasting of previously-recorded songs to make a brand new tune. Mash-ups have proven to be an outlet for amateur creativity, as the average person can take different songs (often times of different genres and beats) off the internet and make something entirely new. That amateur can then share her music with others. The music industry is not a fan of mash-ups, claiming that the infringe upon copy-right law. Current copy-right laws in the US are far behind the internet and do not provide guidelines on how to maintain a balance between what mash-up artists consider their 1st Amendment rights and what the music industry consider copy-right infringement.( There's a lot more I could say about this, as I wrote a paper on it, but in the interest of keeping it short, I'll end here.)

[[User:Lrsanchez|Lrsanchez]] 10:25, 27 January 2014 (EST)

Technology and the internet have changed the face of communication in all of its various subjects-- political, social, cultural, etc.-- which is to say that it has mostly replaced actual faces and voices with a computer screen. This is not to say that there aren't benefits, as there certainly are a plethora of benefits, ranging from the accessibility of information and quick dissemination of news. With a mere device, one is capable of staying connected to their family, friends, and the community at large no matter where they travel. Like never before, people are being brought together from drastically different backgrounds and geographical locations. We are being exposed to stories about the cultural traditions of the smallest microcosms and have access to nearly every facet of companies, governments, et cetera. While there is certainly power in this digital age of communication, as demonstrated clearly in the political realm with the recent revolution in Egypt, the internet and technology have paradoxically separated us from one another. There is less and less human-to-human contact, with people preferring to sit at home behind their computer or telephone screens instead of discussing events in person. Individuals may now be able to see everything with Google Maps, for instance, but is this a satisfactory substitute for actually experiencing these places and incidents with every sense? And aside from sensory deprivation, we are creating an emotional barrier which spans the gamut from creating social awkwardness in person to allowing thoughtless online bullying to run rampant. However, even with plenty of negatives, can we condemn the very same internet and technologies which have advanced medicine and businesses the world over? The world economy has benefitted greatly, with global commerce being as easy as clicking a button or filling out a billing form. Individuals anywhere can start a business with minimal effort and are able to participate in global trade. As with most good things, there are certainly positives and negatives that go along with the internet and technological advances.
[[User:Castille|Castille]] 12:46, 27 January 2014 (EST)