Technologies and Politics of Control - User contributions [en]

File:Assignment4 Final Draft.docx

2015-05-12T16:58:45Z

Chanel Rion: Chanel Rion uploaded a new version of "File:Assignment4 Final Draft.docx"

Final Projects

2015-05-12T16:57:16Z

Chanel Rion: /* 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: Erika L Rich

Title: Reputation Management and Ethical Considerations for Members of the Warrior Forum Message Board

Link: [[File:LSTU_E120_Erika_Rich_FINAL_PAPER.docx]]

[[User:ErikaLRich|ErikaLRich]] ([[User talk:ErikaLRich|talk]]) 21:51, 10 May 2015 (EDT)

----
----
Name: Emily MacIntyre (EmiMac)

Title: Final Project: Analyzing the Regulatory Constraints and Chilling Effects of YouTube’s Content ID Sweep through a Representative Survey of the Nintendo Let’s Play Community

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Emily_MacIntyre_Final_Project.pdf

[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 09:52, 11 May 2015 (EDT)
----
Name: MattK

Title: Does the Hammer Ring True?: Assessing John Scalzi's Mallet of Loving Correction

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:MattK_Assignment5.docx

[[User:MattK|MattK]] ([[User talk:MattK|talk]]) 18:43, 11 May 2015 (EDT)
----

Name: Batjarks

Title: Mobile Alliance for Maternal Action

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:BrookeTjarksFINAL.docx

[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 21:30, 11 May 2015 (EDT)
----

Name: Hernando Romero & Michelle Byrne

Title: Privacy in Online Forum AfterSilence.org: Balancing Privacy for Victims of Sexual Crimes with Opportunity for Support

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:HRomero_ChellyByrne_Final.pdf

[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 12:42, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
----

Name: ChanelRion

Title: We The Judges: "SiteJabber"

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment4_Final_Draft.docx

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 12:57, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

File:Assignment4 Final Draft.docx

2015-05-12T16:55:48Z

Chanel Rion:

Main Page

2015-05-03T22:29:07Z

Chanel Rion: /* Office Hours */

= Internet and Society: Technologies and Politics of Control=
'''LSTU E–120 - Harvard Extension School - Spring 2015 - Tuesdays 5:30-7:30 pm EST'''

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

[https://continuinged.adobeconnect.com/_a931819597/lstu_e120_spring2015/ '''Adobe Connect session''']

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

='''Syllabus at a glance'''=
{| style="background-color:#CCCCCC;"
|-
| Jan 27
| [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction]]
|-
| Feb 3
| [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet]]
|-
| Feb 10
| [[Privacy Part 1: Corporate Data Gathering and Intrusions by the Public]]
| ''(Assignment 1 due)''
|-
| Feb 17
| [[A Series of Tubes: The Internet's Backbone and Network Neutrality]]
|-
| Feb 24
| [[Privacy Part 2: The Right to Be Forgotten]]
|-
| Mar 3
| [[Privacy Part 3: Government Surveillance]]
| ''(Assignment 2 due)''
|-
| Mar 10
| [[Speech, Day 1: Free Expression, Information, and Unwanted Speech]]
|-
| Mar 17
| ''No class - Spring Break''
|-
| Mar 24
| [[Speech, Day 2: Collective Action, Hacktivism, and Social Movements]]
|-
| Mar 31
| [[Cybersecurity and Computer Crimes]]
| ''(Assignment 3 due)''
|-
| Apr 7
| [[Copyright, Day 1: Guiding Principles and the Special Case of Anti-Circumvention]]
|-
| Apr 14
| [[Internet Governance and Governments]]
|-
| Apr 21
| [[Peer Production]]
|-
| Apr 28
| [[Copyright, Day 2: Copyright Enforcement and Applications to New Technology]]
| ''(Assignment 4 due)''
|-
| May 5
|''No class - final project preparation''
| ''(Optional [[Assignments#Extra_Credit|Extra Credit]] due)''
|-
| May 12
|Final class - wrap up and student presentations
|''([[Final Project]] due)''
|
|}

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

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

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

As noted in the section on [[Grading|class grades]], 30% of your final grade will be based on class participation. We expect all students to make a substantive contribution to the class every week. There are three ways you can do this:

# You can participate during class in the classroom. The class will be held in the conference room at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society, 23 Everett St., Second Floor, Cambridge, MA 02138 ([http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/contact directions])
# You can participate during class though our online portal on [https://continuinged.adobeconnect.com/_a931819597/lstu_e120_spring2015/ '''Adobe Connect''']. That is available [https://continuinged.adobeconnect.com/_a931819597/lstu_e120_spring2015/ here]. Join as a Guest using your class wiki username so we know how to identify you.
## We will be experimenting with remote audiovisual presentation through the Adobe Connect platform. We recommend that, if you would like to speak during class, you use a combination headphone/microphone to participate. Alternatively, you may use headphones along with your computer's built-in mic. As a last resort, you can use your computer's built-in mic without headphones, but please be aware that this may cause audio issues for both you and the class as a whole.
## If you have any trouble running Adobe Connect, please go to the [https://helpx.adobe.com/adobe-connect/connect-support.html support page on Adobe Connect's site] or click on the "Help" button in the upper right corner of the Connect window.
# You can also participate asynchronously with the class by making a substantive contribution in the "Class Discussion" section of the class day's wiki page ''before 4pm ET'' on the day of class. The comment doesn't have to be long, but should relate to the day's reading.
## The recorded videotapes of the class produced by Harvard Extension School will be made available [http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k108832&pageid=icb.page715558 here].

Further information on this can be found on the [[Class Participation]] page. Please note the special class participation requirement related to Assignment 2.

='''Contact Information'''=
* All questions, comments, etc. should be sent to: lstue120 [at] cyber [dot] law [dot] harvard [dot] edu.
:* For the majority of the year there are no set office hours; feel free to send an email, and the TAs will respond to it as soon as they can.
* If you need to contact an instructor or TA individually, please use their personal contact info located on the [[Staff Contact Info]] page.

='''Office Hours'''=

If you need to set up a time to talk, you should always feel free to email us at lstue120 [at] cyber [dot] law [dot] harvard [dot] edu. In addition, all three will be holding open office hours later on May 5th for students who would like to discuss this further. Please sign up at least 12 hours in advance of meeting if possible, and indicate either here or in an email whether you plan to meet in person, on the phone, or via Skype. If you plan to use Skype, please email us your username so we know where to find you.

'''Andy'''

5:00 - ''Chanel Rion (in person)''

5:15 - ''Joe Example (in person)''

5:30

5:45

6:00 - Kelly Wilson (in person)

6:15

6:30

6:45

7:00

7:15

'''David'''

5:30

5:45

6:00

6:15

6:30

6:45

7:00

7:15

'''Ryan'''

5:30

5:45

6:00

6:15

6:30

6:45

7:00

7:15

Extra Credit Submissions

2015-05-03T22:26:21Z

Chanel Rion: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

'''This assignment is due on May 5th.''' 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==

Name: JosefinS

Description: My presentation will explain what my project was about and what I found in my studies.

Link to Assignment: http://prezi.com/kdxxnoxomc2t/?utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=copy&rc=ex0share

[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 09:05, 3 May 2015 (EDT)
-----

Name: ChanelRion

Description: We the Judges: Sitejabber and Communities of User-Generated Reviews.

Type of Submission: In class presentation on the 13th.

Description: This presentation will be an overview of findings from my final project. This project surveys Sitejabber.com and explores by what mechanisms and architectures actors in the user-generated business-review community (like Yelp and Sitejabber) operate to determine the trustworthiness of unverifiable information/statements about businesses both on the ground and online.

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 18:19, 3 May 2015 (EDT)

Extra Credit Submissions

2015-05-03T22:19:25Z

Chanel Rion: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

'''This assignment is due on May 5th.''' 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==

Name: JosefinS

Description: My presentation will explain what my project was about and what I found in my studies.

Link to Assignment: http://prezi.com/kdxxnoxomc2t/?utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=copy&rc=ex0share

[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 09:05, 3 May 2015 (EDT)
-----

Name: ChanelRion

Description: We the Judges: Sitejabber and Communities of User-Generated Reviews.

Type of Submission: In class presentation on the 13th.

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 18:19, 3 May 2015 (EDT)

Copyright, Day 2: Copyright Enforcement and Applications to New Technology

2015-04-28T18:55:53Z

Chanel Rion: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 28'''

To end the substance of the class, we return to a topic we studied a few weeks ago and look to how various efforts have attempted to control the Web in light of the issue. Digital technologies spawned the proliferation of media and music sharing, which has led to a number of controversial legal and technological strategies for control and copyright enforcement. “Controversial” may be putting it lightly; the ongoing fight between copyright owners and Internet evangelists is one of the most popularly debated fights surrounding Internet control. This class focuses on how copyright is enforced online, with particular emphasis on the "notice-and-takedown" provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which allow Internet service providers to limit their liability for the copyright infringements of their users if the ISPs expeditiously remove material in response to complaints from copyright owners. The class will also look at a few other famous attempts to design within and around copyright’s regime, both with legislation and with new technologies.

== Assignment 4 ==

[[Assignments#Assignment_4:_Rough_Draft|Assignment 4]] is due before class today. You can submit your assignment [[Assignment_4_Submissions|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, [https://www.chillingeffects.org/pages/about About].

* [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 Studies

* [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]

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/node/98767 Radio Berkman #216: The Internet – A Yearbook] (5:58-15:13 only)

* [http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/21/walter-scott-video-footage-pr-firm-copyright Jon Swaine, Walter Scott: PR firm demands $10,000 from media outlets using shooting video]

; 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>

----

As said in the introduction of this week’s wiki page is ”the ongoing fight between copyright owners and Internet evangelists is one of the most popularly debated fights surrounding Internet control.”. What the literature show us, is that it is very tricky to find a solution and an ending to the fight. One reason is that there are different interests and players when it comes to this issue. There is always going to be groups that aren´t happy with the legislation. Another reason is that it simply is hard to create effective laws (especially since the Internet is a global phenomena), which you can see several examples of in the literature.

The blackout in 2012, that was a protest and a way of forming an opinion against SOPA among especially American citizens, is fascinating. It is a way of using Internet for activism. But it isn´t really created from a grass root level (which is what I usually think about when I hear the word ’activism’), but from Internet giants like Twitter and Wikipedia. It raises the question ”who has power in today’s society?” I would say that the people behind the largest Internet websites are in a very powerful position.

[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 16:58, 26 April 2015 (EDT)

----

It was interesting reading about the DMCA – or, as Matthew Ingram writes in Gigaom, how the DMCA “fosters bad behavior” – because I had rarely thought about the prominent role of the hosting platform in copyright takedowns before. The article about NASCAR, as well as the Takedown Hall of Shame, showed how problematic the system is when sites like YouTube immediately bow to commercial powers making takedown requests. I thought Ingram’s description was very compelling when he wrote that the NASCAR incident was “another case of a commercial entity taking advantage of copyright law to smother free speech.” (On a related note, I was very sad to discover that Prince, one of my favorite artists, was awarded the Raspberry Beret Lifetime Aggrievement Award for “extraordinary abuses of the takedown process in the name of silencing speech.”)

However, as much as the readings enlightened me about the role of the hosting platform, and the way copyright laws often smother the free speech of those using them, I also found myself wondering what it felt like to be on the other side, that is, to have your work be copied unfairly. After all, these laws were put into place for a reason, even if they have serious flaws, and as much as I care about free speech, I also care about fair compensation for artists. This is why Erin McKeown’s article was my favorite reading for the week. I love that she talks with sincere emotion and compassion about these issues – she cares about compensation of her own work, but she also has empathy for those that seemingly copies it. I love that she speaks about her ensuing advocacy as wanting to talk about scale, as well as “relationships and power structures.” She shows that there are valid points on both sides and that while there will always be issues on both sides, an open dialogue could help diffuse a lot of otherwise contentious copyright issues.

[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 08:19, 27 April 2015 (EDT)

----

The copyright infringement and DMCA article is of particular interest to me. In the fitness community there are always conversations about rightful uses of images. I have an associate is a photographer that contracted the one use of an image for a magazine. As what has happened with many other photographers, this image is now being used on the person’s website and used for promotional materials. Looking into the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, what is interesting is that person or website in question must not “... have no actual or effective knowledge that the material in question is infringing.” I researched quite a few large company websites and actually read through their terms and conditions to find their copyright policies.

In this day and age of selfies, many people take photos and post them online without thinking about their use. I know of one athlete who has had three Facebook profiles created in her image and many of her photos posted on highly suggestive website. Although her images were not sexually suggestive, them being placed on said websites has created havoc on her professional career as she finishes her PhD. Involuntary posting of pictures has the person’s name with it. If your name is Jennifer, it is not as much as a problem as someone with the name Chipo. I wondered how this act would apply to someone’s images being used on a controversial website against their wishes and I came across this great article on how Reddit approaches similar copyright material: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/09/08/how-copyright-became-the-best-defense-against-revenge-porn/. If there is question over copyright and since there is not a direct method to litigate this issue, it easy to see how Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act would protect the ‘free speech’ of the users of the internet community; additionally, images can be copied and reproduced. DMCA’s last point about embedded videos clearly demonstrates how this can be a difficult for victims as sites can potentially continue without recourse.

[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 14:08, 28 April 2015 (EDT)

---------

After today’s class reading I can only say that no matter how deep you go in copyright online subject, there are always going to be so many unexplored aspects left! I had not heard about the Walter Scott shooting video and after reading the article, I realized that an ordinary, everyday situation of making a video with a cell phone, could grow into a real copyright legal case. However I think the popularity of the case in question is coming not from the complexity of the IP legal issue but from the shocking content of the video.

Although the legal aspects of the copyright online are an important economical issue, the regulations put in place in order to solve the problems (regulations like SOPA) give the impression they use the copyright just as an “excuse” and try to regulate “something more”.

The NASCAR video case was really interesting because it could be regarded as a good example how a copyright case should be examined from all perspectives and measures should be taken regarding the concrete situation without prejudices. It should not be taken for granted that the copyright owners are always the “good guys”.
Regarding the Bit torrent websites , I know some of them are applying the “safe –harbor” provisions, stipulated in the DMCA by applying "notice-and-takedown" procedures. They remove content once they are signalized by the copyright owner but not otherwise. Beyond their business model is the idea that big Hollywood companies would not spend time and efforts chasing torrent websites all over the net. Claiming they do not know that User123 is not the copyright owner of the “Star Wars”, for example they would remove the movie from the torrent website if they are duly notified. I consider this is too obvious violation but on the other hand there is no exception in the DMCA saying the “safe-harbor” provisions can not apply to torrent websites.

([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]))

-----

The courts have, in the past, been fairly reluctant about taking sides about defining a “journalist” or what constitutes a “news outlet”—there have been instances where a journalist has been defined strictly as an individual who is paid by a news outlet for a significant portion of their yearly income; but then, the problem arises with the existence of fairly reliable or credible and totally freelance news writers who do not qualify as “journalists” under the salary definition attempts to operate under the protective laws that are granted to these more traditional journalists – granted, fair use is not exclusive to journalists, if it were a journalist who recorded the Nascar crash, Nascar would not have dared to take the video down (at least we should hope).
Google’s refusal to do so was a sound one, and hopefully, the types of corporate control mentality as expressed in the Nascar “owns everything produced by the ticket holder to its events” is a mentality that will get a future track record of uselessness. In this day and age, we are indeed all witnesses – and sometimes journalists. It is the content and not the source that matters and I was glad to read learn about Google’s actions on the matter.

As for controlling what publicity it has online, the best option for Nascar is not to “own everything ticket holders produce” but to either accept that everyone, at a moment’s notice can become the holder of fair use content, OR Nascar will have to just have all event goers hand over their digital and recording devices at the door. An unpopular track, surely and one they won’t be strange enough to take.

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 14:55, 28 April 2015 (EDT)

File:Assignment4.docx

2015-04-28T18:28:46Z

Chanel Rion:

Peer Production

2015-04-21T19:37:35Z

Chanel Rion: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 21'''

Although the point may seem obvious now, one of the Internet’s most powerful attributes is how it can facilitate the social production of information or computing. From the earliest experiments with dividing memory-intensive tasks amongst different computers, to modern efforts to crowdsource solutions to challenging or urgent problems, peer production is a major benefit from our networked world. And it raises some interesting questions of both Internet control and production theory: How much hierarchy and control is needed to produce? How good is the material that peer production creates? Are there types of things that should not be produced by the crowd? What are the risks to producers and society inherent to peer production?

Joining us this week is Berkman Fellow [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/sklein SJ Klein].

<onlyinclude>

== Assignments ==

[[Assignments#Assignment_4:_Rough_Draft|Assignment 4]] is now due on April 28th, but they will be accepted if turned in today. You can submit your assignment [[Assignment_4_Submissions|here]].

== 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 ==

* [http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/10/can-the-internet-bring-the-beginning-of-the-end-of-selfishness/246552/ Can the Internet Bring the Beginning of the End of Selfishness?]

* [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]

* [http://time.com/3040483/congress-wikipedia/ Congress Gets Banned From Editing Wikipedia]

</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>

----

I usually prefer to attend class via the live streaming session because our conversations are brilliant and I learn a lot more, and can contribute much better in that interactive situation. The class has been brilliant.

'''That said, I've just had a work emergency come up which means I may not make the live portion.'''

I wanted to post a memory about SETI@Home... I remember joining in 1999 and had the app running on my computer, 24/7, for YEARS! I always thought it was the coolest collaborative effort utilizing desktops across the globe. I didn't care whether it found anything or not, I was always mesmerized by the data scrolling across the screen. Yes, it didn't take much to bedazzle me back then... :)

I started traveling more, and switched from a desktop to a laptop somewhere around 2002-2003 and that ended my SETI installation. I never got around to installing it again.

Also.

Speaking about innovation and technology, I think one of the biggest things to have hit the globe is 3D printing. While still a bit expensive, it still allows people to get into markets and innovate products and inventions almost immediately upon perception rather than struggling with finding someone to build their prototype, let alone finance it.

Eric Von Hippel wrote about an example of how users want to modify their own products, which was spot on. I remember watching an episode of Shark Tank where an inventor had built an electrical connector and had even used 3D modeling to produce a prototype if I recall correctly. I thought that was just about the coolest thing ever. How far technology has come that anyone, anywhere, can create products and services from nothing but their imagination and problem solving.

Another inventor created an auxilary handle for a snow shovel, again, using 3D technology to prototype it. This one I have a link for: http://blog.nextfab.com/join-the-shovelution-from-a-rapid-prototype-to-shark

We have to love the era we are in right now.

[[User:ErikaLRich|ErikaLRich]] ([[User talk:ErikaLRich|talk]]) 12:20, 21 April 2015 (EDT)

----

Hey all, I'm screening the NYT at work this week and came across two articles that I thought would be relevant to share here:

Fighting homelessness with smartphones (a case for why technology has become a basic need):
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/15/upshot/fighting-homelessness-one-smartphone-at-a-time.html?abt=0002&abg=1

Europe formally challenges Google's dominance in web searches:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/16/business/international/european-union-google-antitrust-case.html

Enjoy!

[[User:Kelly.wilson|Kelly.wilson]] ([[User talk:Kelly.wilson|talk]])

-----------

'''Thumbs up for Zittrain Video'''

I usually post quite late, just before class, in case I think of something profound. Today I am posting early, firstly because experience has taught me profundity is unlikely in the hours remaining, and secondly to leave enough time that you might follow my thumbs-up for the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uJWwLVkKTU/ Jonathan Zittrain Minds for Sale Video] in the Optional Readings section of today’s assignment page. It is a little over 90 minutes, but I wish it were longer. It illuminates many of the questions I wrote in the margins of my notes on the other readings.

I was particularly interested in the discussion about the unusual world we are creating for ourselves as we begin to employ diverse human resources to perform tiny increments of work in return for pennies, points in a game, or nothing at all. Zittrain touches on the many imaginative ways that peer production, including the gamification of peer production, is employed. He asks whether our children will spend their leisure time making a few more dollars on their phones, rather than being a part of real/live activities. It is a fascinating discussion, very well presented.

I highly recommend venturing into this optional reading activity even if you don’t usually go there. If this subject area is at all interesting to you, Zittrain’s video is worthwhile.

[[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 20:14, 20 April 2015 (EDT)
----

In honor of peer production I would like to mention that I was inspired by Gary Brown’s post.

Gary, thank you so much for highlighting the “Minds for Sale” video. I agree that it does fill in the blanks and weave together themes from other reading. Zittrain offers a variety of examples of peer production in which communities work together under limited policies and control to benefit the public good. One of my favorite examples was the X Prize. I read about the X Prize in an advanced economics course at Pepperdine while working towards my MBA. Just like in Hergeaux’s Wikipedia experiment, or “Public Goods Game” individuals participating in the X Prize may forego their own financial gains in the event that their social image may be boosted. We can see also, just like in Creative Commons, individuals participating in the X Prize give up “right, title, and interest” to their work. Yet the potential benefit to both an individual company in charge of that specific X Prize, and public at large, can be monumental.

[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 14:18, 21 April 2015 (EDT)
----

While reading Eric Von Hippel’s Democratizing Innovation, particularly the passage about windsurfing, I was reminded of the first in-depth article I read about Twitter. I started my own account in January of 2009, but I rarely used it until that summer when I read an in-depth article about it in Time magazine. The article described how Twitter users – not the software team – developed the concept of the hashtag, as well as trending topics. Since that time, these innovations have more or less come to define Twitter as we know it. I specifically remember a quote likening Twitter’s use innovation to a group of people buying a toaster and transforming it into a microwave. This article was directly responsible for my increased usage of Twitter. At a time when Facebook was making sweeping changes to its platform, often to the dismay of its users, the idea of Twitter’s user-based innovation felt refreshing, democratic, and empowering.

What I was feeling is similar to what Yochai Benkler described about Wikipedia: that it has given us "a way of looking at the world around us and seeing the possibility of effective human cooperation, on really complex, large projects, without relying on either market or government processes” (of course, Twitter itself relies on the market, but its users do not necessarily). I was also struck by James Surowiecki’s arguments for the wisdom of crowds. I often fall into a trap of thinking that large groups succumb to the lowest common denominator or develop a mob mentality. However, the way Twitter users make use of hashtags should constantly be reminding me of the opposite. Consistently over the past several years, users have redefined media narratives that have traditionally excluded certain voices. For example, the #yesallwomen and #blacklivesmatter hashtags have given voices to women and African Americans and have launched conversations around gender and race in society in productive ways. It seems like I constantly hear about how the Internet makes us secluded, narcissistic, and vapid, so it was encouraging to read about the ways large numbers of users contribute to the public good through peer production.

[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 12:05, 21 April 2015 (EDT)
----

While learning about peer production on the internet, twitter came to mind, but also you tube, specifically in regards to the latest cases of police brutality that have been posted on line through You Tube, Instagram and other outlets. Along with the hashtag #blacklives matter, videos of police brutality have been crowd sourced in a non coordinated fashion by individuals and activists groups for many years now, and after all the video-body of evidence has been brought out in the open, a national conversation has begun about police and community relations, as well as racial profiling, the use of force and in general the american criminal justice system.

This is no small feat. No political organization could craft a message like this, no individual group could do it, no individual could ever do this on his own because the scope and complexity of the problem is beyond any one group or person to articulate, even less beginning a plan of action. And yet, comments from people who were not aware of this problem run the gamut of 'this country is becoming a police state' to 'I never thought it was this bad'. In reality, the problem has existed for the past 20-30 years, its just that now technology (video and phone cameras, plus access to the web)has made the evidence more visible to the general population. Let's not forget Rodney King's arrest was videotaped by somebody who happened to have one of those clunky video cameras the size of a briefcase, and the video went viral through the formal media outlets.

This is a form of spontaneous crowd sourcing through an informal (generic) platform and the results have been very specific and focused on a particular problem. [[User:Hromero10|Hromero10]] ([[User talk:Hromero10|talk]]) 15:02, 21 April 2015 (EDT)

----

'''Motivations Behind Peer Productions? – Still Fundamentally Selfish'''

While the idea that the Internet will be—and has proven be—the great floodgate opener of magnanimity, global and community cooperation, is a pleasant one, and one that is not wrong, it still seems misguided to say that cooperation is not selfishly motivated – even, perhaps especially, for the Internet. What Benckler’s ''The Penguin and the Leviathan'' (Frick’s Atlantic article) calls the “end of selfishness” is a well-meaning idea that holds water but only to an extent. There is still an argument to be made that community cooperation is at its core, a selfish endeavor and is simply part of human nature. If we help it is either to make ourselves feel better about ourselves or to ease our current and future consciences, or simply to know that we have spent our time well on an effort we deem worthy. Selfishness has its good masks and its bad masks. And the mistake is to say that the Internet, from peer produced efforts, to creative commons, to free software, to Wikipedia, simply because it seems to not support the bad kind of selfishness (on the whole) doesn’t mean it is devoid of the positive selfishness. One might even argue that all this cooperation is still a mask of the most mass positive selfishness humanity has ever experienced. And we still have the Internet to thank.

From what we can gather in Frick’s article, Benckler explores why people take the time and effort to, without monetary gain or recognition even, invest in such activities such as Wikipedia. Benckler explores the many reasons why it may be that we sit down before a screen with seemingly altruistic efforts at contributing to the global pool of knowledge and enlightenment.

The positive selfishness argument can easily make a case that contributing to Wikipedia is an expression of our desire to a) confirm our understanding of a topic, or b) learn more about a topic ourselves.

Take another peer produced community, like, say, a guitar chord community; a place where guitarists will go online and tabulate popular songs for the rest of the community – motivations I think, are largely driven by users who wanted to learn a song, and by participating in a forum like UltimateGuitar.com, they force themselves to not only learn the song they aimed for, but they also get feedback from other users. So these users are not altruistically motivated to contribute to the pool of lost guitarists. They are self motivated – in other words, goodly selfish.

Drawing from my own experience in this class through our assignment editing Wikipedia pages -- something I was never interested in doing before and never understood why friends were so excited about doing it… it wasn’t until I started editing my article that I understood why it was actually FUN: I had chosen a topic I was interested in, but not necessarily an expert in – and even when I KNEW the information I was inputting into the article, I had to find reliable sources to back up my claims.

In the process I learned more about the topic. I found myself enjoying the fact that I was:

1) Confirming knowledge previously held, but most importantly,

2) Furthering knowledge: Learning myself facts and details I didn’t previously know. The last consideration was merely an endorphinesque feeling one gets after an intense run:

3) I was helping contribute to a worldwide web of knowledge about my topic.

While this third consideration was an important one in my experience with the Wikipedia editing assignment, I certainly order it as THIRD behind the first two motivations for contributing anonymously and without compensation.

I would be curious to read Benckler’s ''The Penguin and the Leviathan'' – but this week’s readings clarified ideas about Peer Produced motivations for me. Fundamentally, we are still selfishly motivated; it’s just a question of from what side of the tree we are being driven; the good side or the bad side.

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 15:37, 21 April 2015 (EDT)

Internet Governance and Governments

2015-04-14T18:16:06Z

Chanel Rion: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 14'''

Today we revisit a topic that began in the first class day and has run throughout: who should control the Internet, and how. Three different powers have come to fill that role at the largest levels: governments, corporations, and multistakeholder organizations. Each will invariably have some role to play in how the Internet is run at various levels, but what is the right balance of power? What calibration of powers is most beneficial to the general public? Is one type of power more dangerous than another? Are there examples we can draw from other areas of complex governance to help us develop a plan for governance of the Internet? And what would be the harm if there were no controlling parties at all?

Leading the conversation today will be our own [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/rbudish Ryan Budish].

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==
* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2549270 The Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance in 'Multistakeholder as Governance Groups: Observations from Case Studies' ] (case study on p. 214-237)

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Multistakeholder_Meeting_on_the_Future_of_Internet_Governance NETmundial, Wikipedia]

* [http://www.apnic.net/community/iana-transition/IANA-Factsheet.pdf Explained: The IANA Transition]

* [http://www.internetgovernance.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/ICANNreformglobalizingIANAfinal.pdf Milton Mueller and Brenden Kuerbis, Roadmap for globalizing IANA: Four principles and a proposal for reform]

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyfpPJo2gnA Jonathan Zittrain and L. Gordon Crovitz Debate the Future of Internet Governance]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf NETmundial Output Document and Principles]

</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>

Hey class, I just read this op-ed by David Brooks on his stance on cop-cams. Though he's ultimately for cop cams he makes an eloquent case for privacy and the harms that could come from arming police with cameras. I thought it was a nice compliment to our own discussions around online privacy. Take a look --> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/opinion/david-brooks-the-lost-language-of-privacy.html

[[User:Kelly.wilson|Kelly.wilson]] ([[User talk:Kelly.wilson|talk]]) 09:49, 14 April 2015 (EDT)

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

Conversation about who controls the Internet - mainly governments or corporations - in the United States is extremely challenging in its own right, but when the discussion extends globally, we have a real mess on our hands. Different countries have such a vast range of the concept of censorship, and therefor both policy and legislation differ dramatically on the global scale. The various mentions of China versus California state law in the Zittrain and Crovitz debate caught my attention because of my own experience with the country and the state of California. I first studied China during economics and business courses in my undergrad while living in California. At the time I became a huge proponent of privatization and of course corporate control (better, faster, cheaper! competition!). I decided to go to China when I graduated expecting to hate it after studying it, but I really enjoyed myself. Despite the phenomenal government, economic, and humanitarian issues in China… the country was in a much better position that I expected. And having since visited, I have made friends with a few girls who grew up in China. Despite the very obvious censorship that we are aware of and I saw myself - from television to newspapers to Internet - the people I met have a surprisingly accurate view of their government and the world. The Internet and digital communication are the main sources of up to date and uncolored information in countries whose government policies favor censorship. One of the points that really resonated with me in this video we watched was that American values are being spread through the Internet to countries that do not have them. The fact that ICANN can have a global reach and still follow California state law supports that. Now that ICANN has moved into international control, the debate against this organization pushing US imperialism will subside. I believe that we are moving in the right direction, with walls of censorship being taken down even in Russia, Iran, and India, specifically on the Internet. Ultimately, however, the two main problems going forward as I see them are that ICANN platforms presented by individual countries (outside of the United States) will reflect their government policy, which does not always reflect the best interest of their people and that whatever agreements are made within ICANN (such as Internet Bill of Rights) will be difficult to enforce, especially in sophisticated and wealthy authoritarian governments.
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 12:57, 14 April 2015 (EDT)
------------

I actually found this week´s reading quite difficult to understand, so I´m looking forward to class. It was a lot of technical talk that was hard to grasp, for example exactly what the possible solutions are, even though I understood parts of it.

What I perceived was that the U.S. has power over ICANN (until this fall) and that it is problematic, since the Internet should be independent from any specific government.

I also begun to reflect about lobbyists and their power over the Internet. We´ve seen how lobbying earlier have been successful in other issues about the Internet, such as net neutrality. I wonder how powerful lobbyists are when it comes to these matters? The following quote about the meeting in Brazil is interesting since it also is about giving/not giving power to different groups: ”Other efforts were also made to treat contributions from a diverse range of stakeholders equitably. There were four microphones, labeled with construction paper and color-coded for governments, corporations, academics, and advocacy groups”.

That sounds fair, since the labeling of the microphones makes it difficult to hide where your interest are. However, there is always someone setting the agenda for the meeting and deciding who is welcome and not (in this case the smaller Executive Multistakeholder Committee). That someone (a person or a group, in this case a group) has consequently a lot of power. There are always informal power structures at meetings, which affect who is listened to. We sometimes think about the Internet as a free space, independent from governments and the market and without anyone who really governs it. In reality, that is not the case. The Internet is in many ways affected by powerful groups, both formally and informally.

[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 13:16, 14 April 2015 (EDT)
----

Today’s readings and especially the debate between Jonathan Zittrain and Gordon Crovitz, were very useful in order to answer myself what part of Internet is actually controlled and what impact this control has over the Internet final users.

I also asked myself the same question, many people are asking, should it continue the same way and in what direction things need to be changed and see diferent points of view on this. Gordon Crovittz says that he sees more potential problems than positive results if US government gives up the control over ICANN in order to have multi governments control but the reality is that many other countries wants to have their part in it. A very nice explanation of the actual influence of the US government has been given by Milton Mueller and Brenden Kuerbis which answers the question why IANA is actually subject to U.S. jurisdiction and provides America with greater political influence over ICANN.

Events like the NETmundial are a sign that many governments have already realized the importance and power of the Internet governance and feel they have been “left behind”. This is the reason international conferences and initiatives like NETmundial, have been organized. But we are still talking about the influence over ICANN, meaning over he domain names, in certain way. The position Jonathan Zittrain is defending, saying that we should not forget domain names do not equal Internet and actually ICANN is not the one who is deciding what is going to happen in the Internet generally, should be taken into account. The fact that this organization is having authority over the domain names but not over the content or the application of the net neutrality, should not be neglected. I agree that the conditions under which mass surveillance may be permitted, as well as the role of the search engines, which stayed out of the final text of the NETmundial’s final document, seems to be far more crucial than the management and the control over the domain names.
In order to establish a new order in the Internet governance many players and interests will be mixed up. The fact that the requirement for the Internet search companies to establish local data centers, was not included in the Brazilian Civil Rights Framework for the Internet as originally envisioned, due to effective lobbying by Internet companies, shows us that a many long and difficult battles are going to be led.
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]))

-----

Indeed, from what others on the forum are posting, this was a short reading list but not one to speed through for non-techies… Zittrain’s article on New Republic discussing ICANN put it so well in summing up the rudderless discussion about the great “unowned technology” that is the Internet: it’s confusing. There’s “[n]othing to see here, but Internet governance matters, so go on and get involved.” But for the less optimistic advocates of human nature, for a voice to say there’s nothing to see instantly means something is hiding – and in this case, somewhere in the great and tangled mass that is domain names, ISPs, owned and unowned technologies, and a baffling array of systems that the layman grows cross-eyed trying to understand.

Ultimately, given a choice, this latest move to put everything in the hands of ICANN doesn’t to my layman’s eyes, seem outright egregious… given the two evils I’d rather have a corporation, motivated by success and money, to maintain these kinds of controls instead of the State, operating in bureaucratic stasis and power-intrigues. I found Zittrain’s article, if not a little uncomfortably flippant about potential threats that the March 14 handover has brought about, overall very illuminating. “The Internet is a collective hallucination, one of the best humanity has ever generated.” Only this hallucination is confusingly real. And hallucinations are only “owned” by the eyes of the beholder – in turn, perhaps this principle applies to these policy “decisions” made by various states over a (mostly) stateless entity.

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 14:16, 14 April 2015 (EDT)

Copyright, Day 1: Guiding Principles and the Special Case of Anti-Circumvention

2015-04-07T18:23:24Z

Chanel Rion: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 7'''

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. This 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. It will also explore a subset of copyright law known as “anti-circumvention,” a very controversial solution to the problem of digital piracy.

Joining us this week will be [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/aenriquez Ana Enriquez], who work's on Berkman's [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/copyrightx CopyrightX] project.

<onlyinclude>

== 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)

; 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.

; Case Study

* [http://www.cakewrecks.com/home/2012/11/9/ways-to-play-it-safe.html Cake Wrecks, Ways to Play it Safe]

; Anti-Circumvention

* [https://www.chillingeffects.org/topics/12 Chilling Effects, Anticircumention (DMCA)] (skim)

* [http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/circumventing-copyright-controls Digital Media Law Project, Circumventing Copyright Controls]

* [http://cyberlawclinic.berkman.harvard.edu/2015/02/10/defending-research-into-medical-devices/ Cyberlaw Clinic, Defending Research into Medical Devices]

== Optional 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>

----

Pharrell Williams - Marvin Gaye - Copyright Kerkuffle. In a court decision last week in Los Angeles, musicians=producers Robin Thicke and Pharell williams were ordered to pay 7.3 million dollars for copyright infringement to the family of Marvin Gaye for the publication of the song "Blurred Lines". It alleges that Williams/Thike plagarized Marvin Gayes 1970's hit "Got to Give it Up", (awesome groove)and the previous standard of 30 bars of identical notes and rythm was pretty much blown out.
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/robin-thicke-and-pharrell-lose-blurred-lines-lawsuit-20150310

Apparently the lawyers for the musicians did a terrible job, beginning with the jury selection Did the people sitting on that jury have any idea of where rap came from? Or that the blues is made of eight basic drumbeats? Or that the essence of folk art is repetition, imitation and variations on a theme.
https://onpoint.wbur.org/2015/03/17/blurred-lines-copyright-robin-thicke-marvin-gaye-pharell

Pharell/Thicke should appeal the ruling and set the record straight. Likeness is not plagiarism. It has to be an exact copy. Besides, has any one heard the two songs, back to back, (Blurred lines, Give it Up) they may have the same drum groove, bu there is no way they are the same song. The bass line is totally different for starters.

Of course, it didn't help Mr. Thicke and Mr. Williams, admitting that they were drunk and on drugs in the studio when they were recording the song and didn't remember exactly how the song was composed. But the repercussions for copyright law, if this ruling goes unchallenged,is that pretty much any one can sue another person for copyright infringement in the music biz.

I'm with the camp that the ruling stifles creativity and will swamp the industry with lawsuits. I'm not so interested in the big acts, but more in the independent musician/DJ/producer who can be blindsided with a law suit from someone he has never heard of. What do you all think?

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/mar/20/pharrell-blurred-lines-copyright-lawsuit-stifle-creativity

[[User:Hromero|Hromero]] ([[User talk:Hromero|talk]]) 22:01, 6 April 2015 (EDT)

-----

Hromero here, wanted to add some assigned reading references to the issue of copyright in music. The Pharrell Williams-Margin Gaye copyright issue also affects royalties. When it comes to sampling bits of songs and other sound recordings, the current system is too complex, too burdensome and more work that is really worth. For example, Pnadora pays performance royalties to new artists on the range of .007 cents per play, meaning a song has to be played 700 times to earn 70 cents. What's the point? Exposure? Artist can get half the exposure on another medium and make three times more money. Re: Internet Policy Task force. Just the outlines of those regulations in regards to original and derivative work, performance and broadcast royalties can be mind numbing. It doesn't need to be that complex. I agree with Maria Pallante that there needs to be a new copyright law that fits better with the internet. It was fine in the old days when you could follow a paper trail and the speed of the transactions was relatively slow. That is not the case today.

Also, about creativity being stiffled, that is not a huge deal. Artists are coming up against limitations day in and day out and they produce art no matter what. For some the limitation may be money, for other it may be time. Notice that the only one who have a hard time producing work, (writers block, spending one month recording a song) are those artists with unlimited resources and time. [[User:Hromero|Hromero]] ([[User talk:Hromero|talk]]) 08:41, 7 April 2015 (EDT)

Copyright law is complex. It protects the inventor or creator but can sometimes be negative for the audience or society as a whole. Copyright law has become more and more important and plays a much greater part now than it has done in the past, which is a result of the evolution of technology.

Copyright law is essential when it comes to protecting the creators. Without the law, others would be able to make money on other people´s work, which in my opinion isn´t fair. However, as with almost every other law, it isn´t perfect. One example is when it comes to inventions that could be improved but isn´t because of obstacles created by copyright law. Also, we have the example of Creative Commons, a forum for creators to legally share their work since they see copyright law as an obstacle to do that in other ways.

I would say that I nowadays mostly hear about copyright law when it comes to piracy, eg. sharing and accessing copyright protected material online. One of the texts in the readings of this week talks about Pirate Parties, parties that are pro free information. The first Pirate Party was founded in 2006, and since then has this type of party been established in several countries across the globe. The reason for why I bring this up is that I see it as a sign of how much the significance and effect of copyright law has changed in recent years. Just a decade ago, we weren´t able to access and spread for example music the way we are today. If you wanted to hear a specific song, you either bought the CD, you listened to it in the (physical) store, or you waited for it to be played on the radio. As we all know, that is not what we do today. If I want to hear a song, I listen to spotify. And if it isn´t accessible there, I search for it on youtube. This has changed the whole entertainment industry (along with several other creative industries) and that is why an improved copyright law (if that means greater or weaker protection for the creator can be debated) is of great importance.

[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 04:18, 7 April 2015 (EDT)

----

I have always been interested in how technology affects art and visa versa. For example, as a movie geek, it’s fascinating to observe how an entire new art form was born based on technologic innovations in the late 19th century, and how subsequent innovations have shaped it. I have also been interested in the way the Internet has shaped movies, tv shows, and even home videos. However, it wasn’t until this week’s readings that I thought about how much copyright around these works plays a part in my consumption on online media and how it even shapes the production of the content itself.

Terry Hart’s idea “mark piracy harder, make legal options easier” resonated with me, since in my personal experience, I often to defer to consuming media through the easiest legal option. Much like the example he outlined, I am often willing to pay for content on Amazon.com because of how easy it is to access. Amazon has an extremely diverse library, it is a trusted source, and it even stores my payment information, which improves ease of use. On the other hand, certain pieces of content (older episodes of Saturday Night Live come to mind) take great pains to keep themselves off of sites like YouTube, but also are not accessible on Amazon.com. In this case, they seem to be making legal options as difficult as possible, and I would imagine it leads to increased piracy of this content.

This reminds me of a related debate currently happening around music content and streaming services. The recent press event promoting the Tidal music streaming service was interesting to me for this reason. It is hard to disagree with the artist claims that they deserve more money from their music than services like Spotify provide. But it also seems like Tidal is asking people to do the “right” thing, rather than the “easy” thing, especially because it costs almost twice as much as its competitors. Recently, artists have started releasing “Tidal exclusives” which seems like a step in the right direction if it wants to get people on board, but I’m still dubious about how much the service can prove it is the easiest option.

[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 10:24, 7 April 2015 (EDT)

----

Michael Smith essentially argues that it is the market that will ultimately eliminate the problem of piracy – not only that, other non-market factors will also help resolve key issues in anti-piracy legislation; ease of access, variety, pricing, reliability, quality… that the general public, if a product is cheap enough and easier to get by legal means vs. free, illegal, and cumbersome to attain, the value of “free” becomes significantly diminished and obeying the law is very common-sensibly incentivized.

That said, there will always be that group, that slice in society that on principle alone, will continue to cumbersomely work around the laws in order to undermine the system. It is a lifestyle for some, an identity for others, and, from Coleman’s video from last week on Anonymous, an image and persona that is increasingly glamorized and on the edges of the novel.

Boston’s own history is somewhat of a testament to the allegory that pure economics can sometimes fail… Consider the parallel of the Sugar Act: American smugglers found it eminently more profitable to smuggle sugar by bypassing the taxes demanded by Mother England; consumers bought cheaper, smuggled sugar. No one stopped it. The law was weakly enforced; but when this weak-enforcement suddenly changed and taxes were being collected by British tax collectors and smuggling was clamped down, the smugglers upped their game; they made even greater profits. England, realizing a losing battle, changed everything again, through the market by adjusting the tax so that the LEGAL means was even cheaper than the SMUGGLER’S means. So the American people were expected to follow the law just under the sheer principle of pricing – legal sugar was cheaper sugar. The backlash from the smugglers ultimately resulted in societal upendings and a fundamental shift in the political landscape. Americans bought from Americans out of sheer principle. The details of this particular history are far more fascinating than I can surmise in this comment box, and certainly there are details overlooked. But the spirit of the thing is the very same spirit we face with this discussion of market based incentives for fighting piracy.

For the most part, I agree with the Smith line of arguing. Make the product cheaper, more reliable, more accessible, and just all around easier to use, and the basic incentive to gymnastically seek out the illegal means to attain low quality digital media for free are quite effectively tampered out. But the other side, the “whack a mole” perspective about Internet piracy are also right. Just not to the extent that they think that legal/market resolutions are impracticable; they are right to the extent that the CULTURE of piracy is never going to quite go away. Diminished, disempowered, waysided, but, not annihilated. For, humanity will always have a sliver of its kind who possess perverse and inseparable attractions to rebelling societal norms.

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 14:23, 7 April 2015 (EDT)
----

Cybersecurity and Computer Crimes

2015-03-31T02:18:35Z

Chanel Rion: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''March 31'''

Last week we looked at hacking as a form of social protest. This week, we take a closer look at the more sinister side of hacking, and the various responses to it. Hacking at its heart involves modifying or intruding upon another’s system. But not all intrusion is socially harmful, and writing laws against hacking have a troubling (and at times, tragic) history of being misused. How big a threat is hacking, really? How should systems respond to hacking? What, if anything, should be the role of government? In what ways can we govern those who don’t consider code to be a governing influence?

== Assignment 3 ==

[[Assignments#Assignment_3:_Project_Outline|Assignment 3]] is due ''before class'' today. [[Assignment_3_Submissions|You can upload that here.]]

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==

; Cybersecurity

* [http://krebsonsecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/HackedPC2012.png Brian Krebs, "The Scrap Value of a Hacked PC (infographic)," Oct 2012]
* [http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2015/01/13/the-big-data-breaches-of-2014/ Bill Hardekopf, "The Big Data Breaches of 2014, Forbes, January 13, 2015]
* [http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/26/us-sony-stoldendata-idUSTRE73P6WB20110426 Liana Baker and Jim Finkle, "Sony Playstation suffers massive data breach," Reuters, April 26, 2011]
* [http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/12/hackers-promise-christmas-present-sony-pictures-wont-like/ Sean Gallagher, "Hackers Promise 'Christmas Present' Sony Pictures Won't Like," Ars Technica, December 15, 2015] (for more on this, see [http://www.engadget.com/2014/12/10/sony-pictures-hack-the-whole-story/ here] and [https://www.riskbasedsecurity.com/2014/12/a-breakdown-and-analysis-of-the-december-2014-sony-hack/ here])
* [http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/12/us-government-fingers-north-korea-as-the-sony-hackers/ Peter Bright, "US Government Fingers North Korea as the Sony Hackers," Ars Technica, December 17 2014]

; Computer Crimes

* [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>

-----

There are several types of hacking, including for example reputation hijacking, hacking account or financial credentials and bot activity. This is something that affects private citizens as well as large companies and governments. In the article ”Sony Playstation suffers massive data breach”, that deals with a hacker attack against Sony in 2011, Braker and Finkle write ”In the rush to get out innovative new products, security can sometimes take a back seat.”. The interesting question here is if it will continue the same way, or if consumers will put more pressure on companies to care about security.

The article ”Hackers promise ”Christmas present” Sony Pictures won´t like” deals with other hacker attacks on Sony and the quote ”The sooner SPE accept our demands, the better, of course…The farther time goes by, the worse state SPE will be put into and we will have Sony go bankrupt in the end.” shows what power the hackers can have in the computer based society of today. Hacking can be used to blackmail people, companies and governments.

Operation payback was a group of attacks on opponents of Internet privacy by the decentralized community ”Anonymous”. It all begun with the crisis on Wikileaks, when they were under pressure after publishing secret US. diplomatic cables. Anonymous was on the side of Wikileaks and there it begun. What made me really angry was when I read that Anonymous threatened to disrupt British government websites because the group opposed the possible act of handing over Julian Assange (who is often called the founder of Wikileaks) to Sweden. This is upsetting in at least three ways.

Firstly, it would have been an act that would´ve denied the British citizens information that they by law have the right to access.

Secondly, it is to indirect aggravate a lawsuit since the reason for why the Swedish court system wanted Assange to be extradited was that there had been a subpoena about rape directed towards Assange. To make it difficult for the court system to plead someone guilty or not guilty is a very serious thing to do.

Thirdly, it is illegal and there are other ways of changing laws and systems. The laws are made by the government and the government is chosen by the citizens. To believe that you are above the laws is also to believe that you are above other citizens. Laws are there for a reason and if you don´t like it, you can either vote differently or try to change the opinion in ways that don´t hurt others.

Anonymous acted this way because they believe that information should be free and open for everyone to see. It is therefore very weird and contradictory that they protest through doing exactly what they are protesting against, i.e. limiting and blocking information.

As a conclusion to my thoughts, I want to say that I believe that Internet terror is the future military threat against most countries. It might be on the Internet that our future wars will be held. Consequently, we can´t dismiss crimes on the Internet as ”something that is just on the Internet and not in the real world”, but instead look at the Internet as a natural part of our society.
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 07:51, 25 March 2015 (EDT)

----

The first thing that comes to mind about cyber security and computer crimes are the financial errors in stock markets. As a stock trader, I get rather fearful when potential security issues happen. I’m not sure if they count as security issues, or… issues with their algorithms or partially hacking. Those would result in crashes. The second thing that comes to mind are those “reputation hijacking” (ref 1) on social networks. A family member of mine had this happened to her. She was using the application Line, and somehow pressed a bad link which asked for her logins. That wasn’t a smart move, but for a novice internet user, they would likely follow those instructions assuming it is legitimate. The end result was a long process of letting her friends know it was a hack, and to secure potential credit card information, etc. Therefore I really liked reference 1 which shows all the potential hacks others could do to a PC. I would suspect I had personally experienced a few of them.

Reference 2, 3, and 4 becomes very exciting to see the power of hackers obtaining information of normal citizens. Are we really safe by providing our information to corporations online? 77 million user accounts hacked, that is quite something. Not only is privacy an issue here, it also questions if authorities have what it takes to prevent these issues from happening. Sony not announcing it till Tuesday was, in my opinion, also a breach of it’s customers’ trust. It does raise a fair point of how the hackers will use the information that was illegally obtained. Will there be an outlet for the hackers to use it? Are these hacks individual, or are they political? It appears that hackers are yielding too much power. I still hold by my beliefs that “winners” take all. The winners get everything. Once a hacker cracks a code; that’s it, they can decrypt everything and obtain everything. Of course, as the US claims, it was hackers from Korea, most likely due to the release of The Interview. Personally I think it isn’t as bad as Team America that was released 10 years ago.

As I mentioned for last weeks readings, Anonymous has a lot of power. Not exactly sure if it is a good thing or a bad thing. But we should also consider if what they’re doing is just or not. Is it just to give “justice” to the ones they think deem it? Are they above the law? I’m not sure. As Operation Payback and Project Chanology has showed us. Were they really being just for doing what they did? Were they off base? I think the founder of Scientology website does have a point…

Heldal-Lund commented, "People should be able to have easy access to both sides and make up their own opinions. Freedom of speech means we need to allow all to speak - including those we strongly disagree with. I am of the opinion that the Church of Scientology is a criminal organisation and a cult which is designed by its delusional founder to abuse people. I am still committed to fight for their right to speak their opinion."

So it is therefore unconstitutional for what Anonymous did. This also led me to think about Edward Snowden. Was he really doing good for society, or was he doing it for fame, and his own ideals of justice? What constitutes as constitutional? This argument was shared by the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office too, as they had said the below after Operation Payback.

“The United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office said that when its site was attacked, those responsible were depriving its citizens of access to information they have a democratic right to access. Other critics claimed the attacks restricted Gene Simmons' right to free speech.”

Anonymous is not pro-democracy. They want to dictate what is right or wrong in their own hands. If they did things that reflected what people really believed in, then I believe they have done things “just”-ly. But to deprive people of their basic right to speech and beliefs; I’m not so sure. Was it a troll taken too far?

There have been increasing amounts of threats that we face, such as “Destroy Obama Care”. Also forbes gives a whole list of the top 20 data breaches. They are increasing in numbers, and it seems like corporations don’t know what to do. Just as technology has enhanced their reach, they would also be required to invest in technological defense against these potential hackers. It also feels that law really lags behind technology a lot. Technology advances so quickly that law requires time to pass. The amendments to the CFAA, which occurred many times. I believe there needs to be a better way to enforce new laws at the same pace as technological advancement, otherwise law would always be a step behind.

References:

http://krebsonsecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/HackedPC2012.png

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/26/us-sony-stoldendata-idUSTRE73P6WB20110426

http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/12/hackers-promise-christmas-present-sony-pictures-wont-like/

http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/12/us-government-fingers-north-korea-as-the-sony-hackers/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Chanology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Payback

http://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2013/1113/Hacking-tool-threatens-Healthcare.gov-site

http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2015/01/13/the-big-data-breaches-of-2014/

http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/docs/ccmanual.pdf

[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 17:32, 28 March 2015 (EDT)

----

'''A New Species of Crime – A New Species of Enforcement?'''

The 1986 Congress’ well meaning but clumsy efforts to address the world of computer crimes with the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)—and its eight subsequent amendments in a span of 10 years (pg 2. http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/docs/ccmanual.pdf) is a dismal picture of what happens when Ignorance marries Power. Or perhaps it was simply inevitable that the speed of Internet technology and hacking techniques would outdash the pace of the lugubrious State – a race that does not look too bright for lawmakers going through the usual snail’s pace of lawmaking.

Laskow’s article about the Scripps reporters prosecuted for hacking crimes because they engaged in industry practice to download publicly available information serves a chilling anecdote for the innumerable “crimes” committed everyday by the Internet-accessing world. Once again, in this course, we encounter a crisis of definition; this one is perhaps, the most sinister crisis in terms of criminal prosecution (compared to debates about the definitions of civic engagement or privacy, and their entailing prosecutions, for instance).

The speed by which hackers are able to change their tactics, work around legal frameworks of the CFAA, or simply develop more invisible but potent means of stealing identities, systems, and intellectual property, in a federal system attempting to accommodate 50 individual state laws – or even worse, international hackers operating on a system of web that ignores geographic and political boundaries poses direly complex legal problems.

As somewhat of a self-described Libertarian, I am dismayed to feel that there might have to be a specialized and internationally centralized court, and body of governance – one that can move faster than the legislative movements of nations to address these highly technical and ever changing crimes. The most effective and true hackers are invisible through technical prowess, while the most innocent of them such as the Scripps reporters, are the blatant criminals under laws like CFAA.

The illegal hacking issue is an ever-complicated result of a global problem that is outrunning its bumbling, localized resolutions. There are no single answers to the problem, and I am but a layman before the world of hacking issues and virtual crimes, but it seems that the starting point to resolving this disastrous diaspora is to conglomerate the governing and enforcement bodies into a more centralized system, a more synchronized strategy of attack.

Universal criminals who know no boundaries are destined to win when we are so bound to our disparate governing territories.

The moderate libertarian in me is protesting at my own words. But such is the result of my lay-thoughts after this week’s readings…

Chanel

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 22:18, 30 March 2015 (EDT)

Cybersecurity and Computer Crimes

2015-03-31T02:18:13Z

Chanel Rion: /* Class Discussion */

Assignment 3 Submissions

2015-03-31T00:02:10Z

Chanel Rion: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

This assignment is due on March 31st. Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (assignments submitted 4 days late or later will have a maximum grade of 1 point).

''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==

You can use the same bullet format if you wish:

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

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==

'''User:''' Chanel Rion

'''Title:''' We the Judges: Sitejabber -- Navigating Challenges of User-Generated Review Sites

'''Link:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment3_Project_Outline.docx

2015-03-03T19:11:28Z

Chanel Rion: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''March 3'''

Over the past two weeks we’ve looked at big-picture concepts of privacy and how the Internet reflects these issues in the context of corporations and people. This week, we dive into the specific question of surveillance by governments: how the Internet allows governments to observe their (and other governments') citizens, how these issues are different than from the corporate context, and what government surveillance does to us and the Internet as a system. We'll also look at how companies are working to inform citizens about surveillance, and the issues they encounter.

==Assignment 2==

Your [[Assignments#Assignment_2:_Prospectus|final project prospectus]] is due today before class. Please upload your prospectus [[Assignment_2_Submissions|here]].

==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]

; Surveillance Theory and Practice

* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2239412 Neil Richards, The Dangers of Surveillance] (pages 1934-96; 1942-45; and 1952-58)

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

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

* [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].

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaylQmnXztU Re/Code, An Interview with President Obama] (10:50-15:25 only)

* [http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/09/19/apples-dangerous-game/ Orin Kerr, Apple's Dangerous Game] and [http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/09/22/apples-dangerous-game-part-2-the-strongest-counterargument/ Apple's Dangerous Game, Part 2: The Strongest Counterargument]

; Transparency and Accountability

* [http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/12/what-transparency-reports-dont-tell-us/282529/ Ryan Budish, What Transparency Reports Don't Tell Us]

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

* [http://icontherecord.tumblr.com/ IC on the Record] (skim)

* [https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/US/ Google Transparency Report: United States] (skim)

* [https://transparency.twitter.com/ Twitter Transparency Report] (skim)

==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]

* [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)

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

* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/09/meet-the-machines-that-steal-your-phones-data/ Ryan Gallagher, Meet the Machines That Steal Your Phone's Data]

==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>

Hello everyone, just wanted to start off the discussions with net neutrality. Regardless of which camp you're on, it seems like it has taken a huge step towards one direction.

Links:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-26/fcc-adopts-net-neutrality-rule-backed-by-obama-for-open-internet

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/technology/net-neutrality-fcc-vote-internet-utility.html?_r=0

http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/26/technology/comcast-net-neutrality/

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/republicans-gop-split-on-net-neutrality-115564.html (government split on net neutrality)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/26/net-neutrality-fcc-vote_n_6761702.html

http://www.vox.com/2015/2/26/8117905/new-net-neutrality-rules-explained

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/26/net-neutrality-activists-landmark-victory-fcc (Net Neutrality activists)

[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 11:45, 27 February 2015 (EST)

----

:We'll talk more about Net Neutrality in a future class, after we get the written rules from the FCC. Thanks for sharing! [[User:Andy|Andy]] ([[User talk:Andy|talk]]) 11:57, 27 February 2015 (EST)

----

thanks Caelum. It seems net neutrality is another one of those issues of balancing the govmt's ability to function v. individual's rights. [[User:Hromero10|Hromero10]] ([[User talk:Hromero10|talk]]) 13:16, 2 March 2015 (EST)

----
Re: Government Surveillance. When the revelations of the NSA surveillance program first came to the surface my first reaction was, who the hell these CEO's think they are to just open the doors for the feds to come in and take whatever they want without even challenging their authority to do this? The answer quickly became clear - like everything else related to National Security - intimidation. Intimidation by the government against private companies for the consequences of refusing to cooperate which could cause them to be responsible for allowing the next 9-11 to happen. The scepter of a similar terrorist attack has been the cudgel the government has wielded over every questionable piece of legislation to come from the Patriot Act, like the approval of 'enhanced interrogations' to holding enemy combatants without charges, to the assassination of U.S. Citizens abroad without due process.

As expected, most companies folded promptly like a deck of cards, and only a few courageos souls had the conviction to challenge the government's authority and methods. Its important to note that many of those executives who opened the door for the feds to come in had already been helped handsomely by the government in previous years in their transition from phone providers to internet service providers like Verizon and Comcast, so they were not in a strong position to tell the government to take a hike - the feds practically owned them. So with the doors wide open - one stream of information went to the phone and internet companies, the other went straight to the government's servers - the feds have been collecting massive amounts of personal information on private citizens without a search warrant for years.

Because of the inaction of some spineless executives and CEOs, some of them simply beholden to the government's wishes, there is very little that can be done to stop the government's constant intrusion and gathering of relevant and irrelevant information about millions of citizens without a warrant. Court litigation and lobbying in congress will help some, but what citizens can do is hold these web service and phone companies' feet to the fire. Consumers should demand that our privacy be respected and guarded, not sold to the highest bidder, or third or fourth parties. On that, we are only in the begining stages - the public is only becoming more aware of the depth of the surveilance and the possible consequences in future years.

A very important question was raised in passing during RE/Code's interview with President Obama in which he asks: "Who owns your data? Your health records,your financial information, your e-mail?" He didn't elaborate much on the issue but it is a hugely important question. If the answer is data belongs to the individual that generates it, then we have a big problem because we know corporations are gonna find a way to own it and charge people to release it or erase it if they want, getting back tangentially to the issue of the right to be forgotten. But the bottom line is that all data about a person should belong to the individual. As it stands today, no one is really sure, but one thing is for certain, no one has any control of their own data today. No one can control what government does with it or what a company does with it, much less what any hacker can do with your personal information. The only thing I've seen on the web out there is a handful of websites that show people how to prevent advertisers and third parties from following your clicks on line and purchases for marketing purposes. In conclusion, the internet is a long way, hundreds of thousands of miles, perhaps even light years away from anything resembling privacy. [[User:Hromero10|Hromero10]] ([[User talk:Hromero10|talk]]) 13:16, 2 March 2015 (EST)

----

I enjoyed this week’s readings as it goes into the reasonings from the government’s perspectives. I also liked the video interview with Obama in it. Perhaps that is what I shall be talking first. Perhaps the main aspect I could draw out from the video is that US has no cyber army, and if so, these armies are not just for defense, but also offense. Furthermore, I liked how he explains that there are many non-state actors that are “hard to pinpoint”. Yet the greatest state actors would be China, Russia and Iran. The highlight would bring it to when Obama said it is hard to get information from companies as a warrant is required, and subsequently encryptions makes their job even harder. (ref 1)

I do share the same vision as Obama for teaching kids to code. For one, I too felt extremely dated for not being exposed to coding at an early age. Therefore I am now learning to code. Teaching code to kids earlier, or the concepts of it during “abc’s” would ensure more knowledge about computers and coding. The other issue deals with gender equality, and a bigger influence and encouragement of women into sciences and technology subjects. I started off by mentioning this video is because it summarizes the views of US about cyber security and surveillance right now. It came from the man himself. (ref 1)

The next point to emphasize is that the difference between a company and a government doing the surveillance means a whole big deal. The key here according to Fung is that us individual citizens could boycott a company if necessary, but we cannot do so for a government. The government has the power to imprison us, and from one of his responses it says, “I am a strong believer in the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th amendments”, which meant that individual privacy should be respected. (ref 2) Just as Obama said it was hard to get data about your online communications, Fung also mentioned the same thing that it is hard for NSA to crack the encryption (as of now). Yet as the price of technology goes down, it directly benefits the surveillance from companies and governments. The government’s use of the “three hops”, which meant that three connections away from a suspicious individual, meant that they could pretty much surveillance quite a number of people! (ref 3) Also the four hurdles is almost child’s play with the ways the government overcomes them. The NSA actually have a lot of spying power. (ref 4)

So now with relatively low levels of threat, it seems like net neutrality and low government surveillance seems like the right thing to do. But as Goldsmith points out, “If a “catastrophic cyber-attack occurs,” the Timesconcluded, “Americans will be justified in asking why their lawmakers ... failed to protect them.”. What do we do when something really does happen? Will it be too late then? As it continues, since anyone anywhere can do a cyber attack, it makes it very easy and vulnerable to do so. (ref 5)

With all that in place, I do see the value of having some balances in check. The NSA does have its powers, but it is limited when it requires to extract data from companies. You could also see a whole bunch of transparency reports. Yet it is also questionable whether such transparency reports tells us enough of what is going on. If the warrant leads to the search of a suspected individual’s messages which stops some sort of crime, it should be applauded. Yet it does seem that we have this rigid stance against government surveillance right now. I remember seeing a comic about two individuals on a phone conversation while Obama was listening in to their conversation. (I tried looking for it, but I can’t find it) Surveillance seems necessary but also unnecessary at the same time. I agree it is very contradictory, but perhaps a new type of “system” could be created to ensure more security and still allow people to obtain and maintain some of their liberties. (Ref 6, 7, 8)

Lastly, I really liked the NSA spying timeline. (ref 9) I believe that government surveillance would not lower. It would only increase, as the potential for a huge cyberattack is much more dangerous than for everyone to keep their liberties. Since if a cyberattack occurs, the US would be devastated, and whatever liberties doesn’t matter at that point. US’s online presence is too huge, and people would complain if that happens anyways.

References:

Ref 1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaylQmnXztU

Ref 2 - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/11/04/yes-there-actually-is-a-huge-difference-between-government-and-corporate-surveillance/

Ref 3 - https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/10/the_trajectorie.html

Ref 4 - http://www.dmlp.org/blog/2013/nsas-spying-powers-reading-statute

Ref 5 - http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115002/invasive-nsa-will-protect-us-cyber-attacks

Ref 6 - https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/US/

Ref 7 - https://transparency.twitter.com/

Ref 8 - http://icontherecord.tumblr.com/

[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 17:35, 2 March 2015 (EST)

----
As I contemplate this week’s readings on the concerns raised about whether or not government surveillance, through the collection of digital metadata, is unconstitutional, I find I must consider it against the intrusiveness of commercial entities that have been allowed to follow our moves as we seek information on the internet. I believe both of these instances pose a substantial risk with regards to invading our privacy. While I can see that in good measure both are becoming somewhat necessary and tolerable, I can also see that it would be quite easy for this information to be abused and I believe preventing these potential abuses should be a core focus of this debate.

After I watched Kara Swisher’s Re/Code interview with President Obama I became more sympathetic to the cause of the NSA, and the government surveillance camp, as I now realize we will need to accept some version of this intrusiveness as a way of life. One of the aspects of the interview that I found most interesting was when the President discussed the pros and cons between air tight encryption verses seeking protection from terrorist plots. Consequently I think we need to contemplate creating a new set of laws and/or protocols that outline how this data can be handled and used, after it's collected and stored, so that this information cannot be used to confine our civil liberties.

As Laura K. Donohue points out in her paper, “Bulk Metadata Collection: Statutory and Constitutional Considerations,” during the Nixon Administration the CIA collected more than 10,000 intelligence files on Americans in an effort to thwart “the antiwar movement and other dissident groups in the United States,” and they did so “under the auspices of foreign intelligence gathering”(7). Clearly, as we move forward we need to engage in the creation of restrictions that would prevent this type of exploitation and manipulation of the metadata that is being collected.

Works Cited

Swisher, Kara. “President Obama: The Re/code Interview.” YouTube.com. 13 February 2015.

Donohue, Laura K. “Bulk Metadata Collection: Statutory and Constitutional Considerations.” forthcoming in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. 2014.

[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 09:33, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----

EmiMac. I don't believe the public should let down their guard in terms of government surveillance, there have been many instances in which the U.S. government has taken expansive powers and not used them wisely, e.g. asset forfeiture laws, immigration enforcement, amongst others.

As to the question of how to reign in the government's surveillance powers and its abuses, one of the first things that needs to happen is for the FISA courts to be reformed. They need to stop being a rubber stamp agency made up of five judges meeting ex parte, or in secrecy, with requests being made by the NSA, the FBI or the Dept of Justice, going virtually uncontested.

The FISA court needs to be, as Laura Donahue suggested in one of the readings for this class (Comprehensive Case Against Metadata Collection), an adversarial proceeding in which one of the parties argues for the interest of the public or the individual. As it stands right now, the FISA courts is heavily weighed by considerations of national security and it rarely, if ever grants an appeal to a decision (.03 % of all applications) or a rejects a request, this has been done only four times since 2002.

Again, the establishment of these laws owe a lot to intimidation by the government and conservative proponents of more expansive and permissive rules regarding government surveillance in the aftermath of 9-11, at the expense of individual's civil rights and fourth amendment protection for illegal searches. This is one reason to reject the doctrine of 'perpetual war' because all these intrusions by the government are done in the name of the 'war against terror'. If the country is never at peace, the government has no reason to stop surveillance without warrants on its own citizens. Jack Goldsmith argues persuasively for government surveillance, but no one has been blasted by conservatives more than he has been, and I believe he still shell shocked from his dealings with the Bush administration. [[User:Hromero10|Hromero10]] ([[User talk:Hromero10|talk]]) 12:32, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----

'''Meta-Monsters'''

''[As] Flying Dragons rushing through the air counting time and space as nothing…. Producing companionship among communities in distant points, increasing intelligent intercourse, union, and productive wealth… these iron monsters have made their path… it has no passions and no motives… guided by its directors…it may be applied to so many uses, and expanded to any strength. We believe that it is to be the great moral agent in bringing the world into neighborhood.''

This passage, written anonymously, was written 175 years ago. The “Iron monster” was the steam engine. In time, the line between who the monster really was blurred as these engines carried men with undiscerning guns westward, decimating flora and fauna to an unprecedented degree. Man made a machine that enabled him to do as many great things as evil. With great systems and inventions come the inherent risks that their awesome power can bring as much good to the world as it can bring bad. The question is, in who’s hands do we put this huge and immeasurable Iron Monster. The Internet is today’s Iron Monster, but it is harmless without directive; whoever directs this has the immense ease and temptation of becoming the true Iron Monster. The question after this week’s readings is. Who is it? The Public or the Private sectors? Most of us err on one side or the other reluctantly, but it’s a question with no one answer.

Bruce Schneier’s article succinctly discusses the two “Hands” –the public and private sectors -- that wield the Internet in order to gather our “private data”; neither of whom are comforting rulers. Especially frightening is the seepage, this “merge” Schneier discusses between the two kinds of databases; as companies gather increasingly more information about customers, it becomes more tempting for the government to transition from “asking” for information from the corporate databases to “demanding” information.

And the chilling thought is the most simple one; Schneier’s argument that with the creation of data, surveillance is simply inevitable – that we have created a world of “ubiquitous surveillance.”

Few of us can deny this.

Even more suffocating is the increasing truth found in the Faris and O’Brien article on Privacy and Data from class 3; that “Currently, the only surefire way to protect one’s digital privacy is to opt out entirely.” An incredibly difficult proposition in today’s world seeing that we’re not only barraged from all sides for our data, the private and public sector, but that our notions of what Richard in his “The Dangers of Surveillance” article labels, “Intellectual Privacy” become so eroded or at least de-valued for that trade-off of using services or simply being a citizen, of essentially, living in a civilized world apart from Emerson’s desolate cabin in the woods.

We will never revolt against these essential ways of living; we return to Schneier’s argument that simply living provides enough of a digital footprint that surveillance is indeed inevitable.
Outstanding articles this week. Especially Neil Richards’ Dangers of Surveillance article in combination with Bruce Schneier’s thoughts.

In Richards’ words: “Our society lacks an understanding of why (and when) government surveillance is harmful.”

In Bruce Schneier’s words: “data equals surveillance.”

And in Robert Faris and David O’Brien’s words: “We constantly contradict ourselves: we want to protect “privacy” but constantly give it away.”

Mostly because, in Solove’s words: “Everybody is talking about [privacy] but no one knows what they are talking about…”

With this inevitable crawl towards surveillance and this weak and vague push against it because he have no idea what exactly we are defending – even with ideas as clear as Richards’ four principles – we are all riding this “Iron Monster” that is at once our own creation but the controlled monster of even greater monsters – also of our own collective creations. It is the inevitable crawl not to a doomed world but one that is not something we will accept – but we cannot stop it and surveillance will be an inevitable part of the next generations’ futures. They won’t stop it because they won’t likely care.

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 14:11, 3 March 2015 (EST)

File:Assignment2 Prospectus Rion.docx

2015-03-03T16:22:50Z

Chanel Rion: Chanel Rion uploaded a new version of "File:Assignment2 Prospectus Rion.docx"

Assignment 2 Submissions

2015-03-03T16:21:48Z

Chanel Rion: /* Comments */

File:Assignment2 Prospectus Rion.docx

2015-03-03T16:18:37Z

Chanel Rion:

Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction

2015-03-02T22:59:16Z

Chanel Rion: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}
'''January 27'''

'''''Class was cancelled on this day due to snow. Please see the class video for day 2 for the discussion of this material.'''''

The Internet at its core is simply an expression of a technological protocol that allows for a particular way of sharing information. But its role has never been this understated. The Internet has great potential for “good” (e.g. innovation, economic growth, education, and access to information), and likewise is a great platform for the bawdy, tawdry and illegal. So is this platform about fundamental social, political and economic change, or about access to solipsistic blogging, pornography, cheap pharmaceuticals, free music, and poker at home? This question leads us to a host of interesting issues that weave their way through the course related to openness, access, regulatory control, free speech, anonymity, intellectual property rights, democracy, transparency, norms and values, economic and cultural change, and cyber- terrorism, as well as scamsters and thieves.

'''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 the Internet and digital technologies. In a few sentences, please offer 2-3 examples in the [[#Class Discussion|Class Discussion]] section below and be prepared to discuss them during class.

== 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?'''

* [https://projects.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html John Perry Barlow, A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace]

:* You can hear Barlow read this [http://departmentofrecords.co/dor1.html here].

* [http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/January-February-2006/feature_goldsmith_janfeb06.msp 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]

* [https://medium.com/@internetmonitor/platforms-and-policy-e9984e1be4c6 Rob Faris and Rebekah Heacock, Platforms and Policy] (from the [http://thenetmonitor.org/research/2014/ 'Internet Monitor' 2014 annual report])

* [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); and [http://cluetrain.com/newclues/ New Clues]

* [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1752415 Tim Wu, Is Internet Exceptionalism Dead?]

* [http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2012/12/05/good-and-bad-reasons-to-be-worried-about-wcit/ Ethan Zuckerman, Good and Bad Reasons to be Worried About WCIT]

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links From Adobe Connect Session ==

== 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! You can add a divider between comments by typing four hyphens (<nowiki>----</nowiki>) in an empty line between comments. '''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]] ([[User talk:Andy|talk]]) 09:50, 21 January 2015 (EST)</div>

----
One of the more significant social and economic changes that I have not only experienced but seen, is the ability to find things out instantly. Whether it be news or education, sports or politics, we now have the ability to informed immediately about anything and everything. This is both a blessing and a curse.[[User:ErikaLRich|ErikaLRich]] ([[User talk:ErikaLRich|talk]]) 17:06, 3 February 2015 (EST)
----
The most significant social change resulting from the spread of the Internet is simply the opportunity for the average person (whoever that may be) to establish two way connections with people, businesses, information, and governments around the world in other than a physical environment. Having two way communication, even if indirectly, is empowerment. I grew up in a world of listeners and watchers, from newspapers, to magazines, radio, broadcast television, and brochures. The Internet has given us a world filled with conversation.

The most significant economic change is online sales of goods and services. I can buy just about anything on the Internet and never leave my home, my office, or the beach. I can’t imagine where I would have to physically go to buy, or how I would even locate, a 2 kilogram box of Scharfenberger cocoa without the Internet. I just would not take the time to locate it, and for that reason I would not buy it. More to the point, it would not be sold.

Culturally, email is the big change. Of course, instant messaging and social media are gaining ground, but it was email that changed our culture to the right now work and personal environments, even before it was being delivered on the cell phone. Wait, maybe the cell phone is a bigger change. [[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 15:51, 3 February 2015 (EST)

----
There is some fascinating discussion taking place “below the line.” It makes me excited for this semester. To my mind, the internet and associated digital technologies remain the most influential invention of our time. They have been the facilitator of countless zeitgeists including the crumbling of oppressive kingdoms and the exploration of alternative currencies, as well as the breeding ground for unique forms of intellectual and social collaboration- be they twitter, Jstor journals, or your average online message board. This interconnectivity is, of course, not without its side-effects. While the relationship between various exchange and interest rates pre-dates the proliferation of the internet, I feel that such technologies have allowed the more unsavory characteristics of these economic relationships to be felt much more acutely by the average person.[[User:Jmerryma0287|Jmerryma0287]] ([[User talk:Jmerryma0287|talk]]) 14:39, 3 February 2015 (EST)

----

One of the more recent ways in which the Internet is shaping our sociopolitical discourse is through the creation of strong cyber networks for more marginalized communities. For example, the rise of feminist blogs and message boards or hashtags such as #blacklivesmatter can be used in connecting online activity and writing to other forms of non-cyber activism and understanding.

In terms of economic changes prompted by the Internet, online capitalist competition has facilitated the growth of huge online sellers of a variety of goods with versatile virtual purveyors like Amazon. ([[User:Amchugh|Amchugh]] ([[User talk:Amchugh|talk]]) 13:33, 3 February 2015 (EST))

----

Digital technologies have changes many aspects of life and society. One example is the fact that I can participate in this class even though I live in Europe. That is just one example of how digital technologies have played a huge part in globalization. Even though I live in Sweden, I can still study at an American university, easily stay in touch with my best friend who lives in Missouri, I can follow the life of a stranger in Australia through his or her blog, and I can connect and share my thoughts with other people who think like me but who live in other parts of the world. As a young person of today, I do not only identify myself as a citizen of a particular city, but also as European or as a ”global citizen”.

What is also important to reflect on is how we can influence and affect others through the Internet and digital media. (And of course how we are influenced and affected by others.) One out of many possible examples on this matter is blogs. I use the Swedish blog ''blondinbella.se'' as my example. ”Blondinbella” is one of the most popular blogs in Sweden with over 1 million unique readers each week. Sweden a country with only about 10 million citizens, and that one blog reach more people than many newspapers do is very interesting and worth reflecting about. [[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 03:40, 26 January 2015 (EST)

----

I completely agree with what Josefin said above. The generation that is now entering adulthood is inheriting a much smaller, more connected world than their parents did.
I think it's important to reflect on the possible downsides of the ever increasing invasiveness of the internet. We are a generation that can ask Siri how badly the Patriots beat the Seahawks in the Superbowl — and she’ll tell us almost immediately that the Patriots won in a landslide. Or what song is playing on the radio. Or what the largest star in the Milky Way is. Or if Pixar is ever going to make a sequel to the Incredibles (they are, finally). You get the point. We are used to being able to find out almost anything, almost anywhere, at almost anytime.
There may be a subtle danger in adapting an entire generation to instant gratification. As we put more and more of our lives into our phones and computers, we stop relying on our own mental faculties. For example, my grandfather has a razor sharp memory, and he knows all the phone numbers of our immediate and extended family by heart. If I lost my phone, I might remember my mom’s number, but my whole contact book would be lost if it wasn't for iCloud. I’m certainly not exercising my memory on a daily basis to make calls like my grandfather. Will that hurt me in the long run? Probably not — but it’s an interesting thought.

Another aspect of the internet that I sometimes reflect on is its contribution to political close-mindedness here in the US, if not the world over. I worked for a long time in DC, and have friends and family all over the political spectrum — even a tea party uncle in Texas, and I can say with certainty that I’ve witnessed a trend where my highly conservative friends will follow and subscribe to conservative news sources or blogs that produce news that corresponds with their pre-existing beliefs, and like-wise for my liberal friends. Constant exposure to “news” written or spun to enforce and vindicate your beliefs serves to cement your views, and lessens the amount of meaningful debate that takes place. I would say this definitely serves to further polarize the political climate here in the US. Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Jon Stewart, Stephan Colbert, all have large followings of people who watch their shows, listen to their radio stations, and subscribe to their social media outlets. The political influence of these individuals can, in some cases, easily shape the political landscape more than many politicians do. Interesting to consider. [[User:WesleyVerge|WesleyVerge]] ([[User talk:WesleyVerge|talk]]) 23:46, 26 January 2015 (EST)

----

Wesley Verge. The polarization of American Politics on the internet reflects popular attitudes, and at times exacerbate the problem. I think the problem has to do with journalistic standards. Remember those? They used to exist up until about the 1990's, or more precisely, since Rupert Murdoch bought Fox News -- and that's when the bar was lowered for everyone. With such a wide reach, high profits, and such obvious bias on all the publications under his ownership, journalistic standards went out the window in the pursuit of sensationalism and profit margin. And sadly, those who didn't adapt to this new way of selling news were left behind. The Philadelphia Inquirer comes to mind, but R. Murdoch's purchase of the Wall Street Journal is another good example. U.S. Politics have been in a sad state of affairs since G.W decided to invade Iraq, and the rancor and indignation that followed those years has still to subside. There are other factors that affect the current state of politics in the U.S, and two of those are geography and the diversity of demographics throughout the country. Notice that there isn't really a traditional democratic and republican party? Despite the fact that the two party system is still dominant in voting patterns, there are many factions within those two large groups. Hromero [[User:Hromero|Hromero]] ([[User talk:Hromero|talk]]) 12:41, 29 January 2015 (EST)

----
Hromero. You make valid points, though I would point out that they differ slightly from the point I was trying to make. To elaborate a little further, I was speaking only of how the internet plays a large role in exacerbating the political polarization of the country. You correctly point out that the shift in media tactics marked a shift towards increased polarization. I'm saying that the internet provides access to sensationalist news and propaganda, on both sides of the spectrum, to anyone with a connection or a smart phone. People no longer have to be challenged in their thinking. If the President says "yadayadayada", rather than reflect upon and come to consensus, people are bombarded with sound bites that penetrate the public sphere and shape political thought. New ideas never have the chance to take root, because they are razed quite immediately after inception. Of course, talking head pundits are nothing new, but at least years ago families could discuss news together over dinner, waiting to read the paper or see the news the next day. Now, The President says "yadayadayada" at 6pm, and John Boehner is able to issue a responsive speech at 8pm through twitter or youtube. You're right to point out the increased splintering of the parties, but where that meets the internet is now each of those factions has methods to connect to their support bases, issue videos, etc on a constant and consistent basis -- a change that surely helps to solidify and expand their support, further polarizing the country. I think its important that we focus on how the internet is used in correlation to politics, rather than focus on the people doing the using and whether or not we agree with them. It keeps discussion more clear and concise. [[User:WesleyVerge|WesleyVerge]] ([[User talk:WesleyVerge|talk]]) 17:37, 30 January 2015 (EST)

----

The evolution of the internet and our digital technologies has changed how we look at society and how we participate in it. For example social outlets such as Facebook and Twitter allows us to express any thought or feeling and connect with people all over the world. This gives us the ability to form connections and relationships with people that would not have been possible otherwise. With the internet always evolving information has become more and more accessible. Anything that we can imagine we can find through the Internet whether that be current events, a movie review, or personal information just to name a few. Search engines and online encyclopedias such as Google and Wikipedia have changed how we learn and search for information. Furthermore the internet has changed the way we do business . Now we are able to purchase products through websites like Amazon and any other retail site. We also can conduct business through the internet through trading which adds a new dimension to the business world. Our advancements in the internet and digital technologies added another wrinkle in how we view information and the economy as well as many other areas. [[User:Jan.Yburan|Jan.Yburan]] ([[User talk:Jan.Yburan|talk]]) 15:07, 27 January 2015 (EST)

----

As a distance student, participation has been possible in many HED classes with students world wide from Singapore, Malaysia, Great Britain, Indonesia, and Australia as well as the United States. The advantages the internet and exponential expansion of digital constantly creates awe in realizing what has become possible in a relatively short period of time.

It is possible to access historical and current information from the Internet from each of the categories listed above almost instantaneously whether it be cultural, political or economic or social. The online Wikipedia information saves gong to the library or an encyclopedia with each query…..which in the case of the library has advantages as well as disadvantages. For lovers of books, there is nothing like thumbing through the pages of a book….and reading the first and last chapter while standing in front of a bookshelf.

Shopping - it is possible to view the price and merchandise of a particular brand or manufacturer with a few keystrokes. A person can shop locally or nationwide or overseas for particular items. [[User:Rgrasser|Rgrasser]]

----

I like many of the posts above, and I think they're on the mark. My first thought on changes ushered in has to do with Wesley's comments on instant gratification - we can access information and purchase goods instantaneously, but being connected means we are always on-call. A text/SMS comes to our phones on our bodies, we don't want to be behind on emails or miss a post on Facebook, etc. The new, immediate connectedness of the turn of the century, it seems to me, is significantly notable, both in our ability to connect and the possibility of always being connected to.

This new connection brings me to my second thought, the new possibilities of surveillance. Typically conversation focuses on government censorship and the ability to monitor for unwanted speech. I would add that our new, ongoing connectedness also provides an increasingly continuous history of our identities. This history can be used to market specific products, tailor our searches, and generally show us content that will keep us connected more often. To be connected means to be watched, sometimes directly, sometimes passively. Many have written on how this leads us to begin policing ourselves.

This self-policing brings me to third major development I see, which also has much to do with Wesley's thoughts on how his friends' political views are continually fed. A variety of technologies now exist to keep us more within our preconceptions than before. Our identity and self-understanding is produced and maintained in a different and more controlled way in the past. It doesn't seem to me that there is (necessarily) a (wo)man behind the curtain, but the implementation and effect of these technologies remain the same.

[[User:MattK|MattK]] ([[User talk:MattK|talk]]) 17:42, 27 January 2015 (EST)

----

Internet access has changed the way information flows while increasing social and economic participation. As internet and digital technology continues to develop, it has changed the nature of how organizations market themselves to targeted their targeted consumers. Traditional methods of newspaper/magazine advertisements and email listservs no longer are the primary avenue of increasing consumer engagement. Social media platforms have expanded consumer outreach as companies use Twitter to tweet to their customers and smartphone apps to keep their consumers connected. This connectectivity has impacted the roles of employees as many of their job descriptions are now requiring evidence of technological competencies.

The internet and technologies has allowed the progression of global connectivity by creating meaningful experiences through intentional dialogue and engagement. Internet and digital technologies allows for access to consumer services previously limited due to geographic location. Historically, a fitness coach was someone typically found within your local community or an athlete was required to travel to the gym/sports facility. With the expansion of technology, people now have access to some of the best coaching in the world through the use of current technologies. As an example, I am now a posing coach for athletes throughout the USA, Canada and the UK.

People are now able to engage in a global experience without crossing international borders. [[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 18:57, 27 January 2015 (EST)

----

While reflecting on the Internet and the significant changes it has spread, I ironically type and post the following comments while flying on an airplane. Who would have imagined using internet on a plane 20 years ago? Yet, walking through the airport before boarding my flight I could see the changes the Internet and digital technologies has had on our society: customers ordering food via an iPad in the airport cafe; an older couple Skyping, what looked like their grandson, on a laptop; teenagers idly staring at their smart phones while their parents talk at them; the many airline passenger who boarded their flights by merely pulling up an image on their iPhones. Internet and digital technologies are everywhere...and it has changed every aspect of our lives.

The most significant of those changes I find is the globalized world we now live in. Post World War II, the international community entered an era of connectedness, and the Internet has only exacerbated this connectedness. The ability to share, like, post, tweet, retweet, reblog, blog, etc. has birthed a generation of globally connected citizens. It only takes a couple of clicks on Twitter to see or read about happenings half way around the world - in real time. This environment has created a more involved international community, especially when reviewing Twitter trending topics, for instance the events that happened in Ferguson, MO last year. Massive marches, stand ins, protests and rallies were organized across the globe - orchestrated primarily on social media.

Furthermore, the possibilities of outreach and global awareness is boundless. Internet and digital technologies now offer a tool for social good.
A recent article [http://www.information-age.com/technology/mobile-and-networking/123457289/facebook-launches-bid-to-bring-cheap-internet-to-the-developing-world] discussed how internet has become vital to survival for those living in the poorest of countries. Facebook, for example, launched a program with efforts to bring internet to lower income countries or rural areas who need the assistance with technology to better living conditions. The implementation of these technologies are ongoing, and it is unclear if they are helping more than they are hurting, but the social change of internet is here to stay.

[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 07:35, 28 January 2015 (EST)

----

Ok, speaking of internet morons, this is the third time I’m posting and I still don’t see it. Any tech has any hints as to why this is happening, I’m making a copy of this in a separate doc, please tell me where to send it.
My comment is as follows: 1) Since the advent of the internet people are interacting with devices and technology more often than they used to and as a result there have been some measurable changes in children’s cognitive development. I will find the resource later on. I think it also affects adults, especially those who are already predisposed to HDHD. 2) since it is very hard to tell when you’re blogging whether you’re speaking to only three people or three thousand, the power of bloggers should be taken with a generous dose of skepticism. 30 Innovation does not necessarily make us more effective, it merely makes us busier. Exhibit A: Facebook (A complete waste of time, and a truly distracting way of communicating with other people. Absolutely hate it.) Hromero[[User:Hromero|Hromero]] ([[User talk:Hromero|talk]]) 15:01, 28 January 2015 (EST)

----

Reflecting how the world has changed in the last few years is impressive, many things that could not be dreamed to be done in any other way that would have been physical, now in our current times, are possible.

Socially, the interaction of people on facebook and other social networks, like blogs, etc, have become from informational, to a way how people can meet one another, interact, and even date. This in the past was never thought, and now relationships, interaction of groups, like chats are very common. Social networks have

Culturally, it is important to see that there is a subculture, mostly in teenagers and younger people, the subculture, of the I Pad, and tablet, and aps people who are identified, by their cell phones, ring tones, and other characteristics of technology. This differs from the older generation that would not do monetary transactions, meet people, or even gather around a computer, this older folks may prefer to go to the bank, gather with friends, and bring a guitar and play. The culture has been subdivided.

Economically, Pay pawl, and other providers like e-bay, has become very popular in the market, aps for real estate and westlaw, for the legal field, has caused a huge impact, on people and their economy, it is taken over many jobs, and also has make people gain a lot o money, people needed to physically be instructed by someone or by reading, and now there is more accessibility through the internet, where most people can find the answers the they need most of the time. The economy is being monopolized by the electronic era. (Edwin Duque)

----

I agree with my colleagues contributions above. There is no doubt that we've had significant social, cultural, political, and economic changes associated with the spread of the Internet and digital technologies throughout the years in both spheres personal and professional.

Regarding the personal impacts, one example is that if we think about the new generation of people that is part of what they call "Generation Z", instead of playing with the traditional toys that we had in our childhood, when they are kids their main entertainment are the electronic devices with Internet access. A one-two year old child currently simply grab their parent's iPads/tablets or smartphones and play with apps. It's impressive how quickly they get used to those devices. Some years later they start interacting with people all over the world through online games, social media, Skype, whatsapp, blogs and others, as we are all able to do nowadays. Besides that, with the Internet we started having access to a variety of information, books, history, news, we can shop through it, take online courses provided by schools/institutions in several countries, we can make a reservation at a restaurant wherever we want, we can compare prices and quality of products and services, we can be always updated about what is happening in any part of the world, all without leaving home. In addition, basically we register "our lives" in those devices, which have become more and more multifunctional, as we use our cell phones to make calls, as an agenda, to take pictures and record videos, to message our contacts, everything to make life more practical.

So, the Internet really broke barriers and made our lives much easier, also in the professional sphere, as for instance we can attend online meetings, what also economically saying the companies can save money that would be invested in trips, we can have more flexibility when the home office is allowed, the companies can storage their data and also their client's in those devices and the physical archive has been practically extinguished etc.

However, in both spheres people and companies have been facing problems regarding privacy matters, cyber crimes, as it occurred recently with Sony Pictures, cyber espionage, also between countries, what has a political impact, and the legislation hasn't been able to follow the technological advancement in the same speed.

Therefore, one of the most important topics currently, which is a global concern and that is in the spotlight is Cyber Security.
[[User:Natasha Jalbut|Natasha Jalbut]] ([[User talk:Natasha Jalbut|talk]]) 00:21, 30 January 2015 (EST)

----

The internet, and with it the information age, has vastly changed the world and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. I believe the internet has both managed to make the world smaller and at the same time individual's interaction with the world larger.

On a Social level anyone can make an immediate connection with anyone else in the world provided they both have access to the internet. This breaks down many barriers in itself from where we were only a few decades ago where individual towns and neighborhoods became a cocoon for anyone who did not or could not venture out. Today those same towns have citizens who are in relationships with people they may never have met through dating websites and other forms of communication. Distance is no longer an issue for many.

From a cultural perspective we are exposed to new lifestyles and languages that you many never have seen otherwise. One great example is the growing 'Anime' (Japanese style for animation in television and movies) following. If it wasn't for the internet many of these popular shows in Asia would not be known in the United States. At the same time this form of information/entertainment sharing can lead to a narrow and specific view of what is a diverse culture in itself.

Politically the internet has created a new powerful platform that politicians need to work with in order to win elections or pass a vote with the public support. A few years ago an internet following might not have made a campaign but today groups like the Human Rights Campaign rely heavily on it and in doing so have made changes in the political landscape.

[[User:Samaei1|Samaei1]] ([[User talk:Samaei1|talk]]) 14:06, 30 January 2015 (EST)

----

The information age, by way of the Internet, has revolutionized the world exponentially. Socially, the internet was initially utilized to communicate
via email and to obtain readily available information. Today the use of email has practically bankrupted the United States Postal Service and the internet in some aspects has become the primary source of information enabling proponents of civil unrest to generate support throughout the world. This is an overly generalized outlook on the growth of the internet but as one can see even in these sectors the great impact it has had on society.

Culturally, the evolution of myspace, facebook, twitter and the like has reflected how the young guides the old on this highway. The adaptability of the young and their ability to embrace new arenas in cyberspace dictates how and where their parents socially intermingle on line. Additionally, it also reflects how providers of such social networks have to adapt to the young or become irrelevant such as the case with myspace. The online language that we engage in has become a part of our day to day interpersonal communication with others. Our day to day realities is not concrete reality until it becomes "facebook official". Sadly, as with any revolution, I fear that legislative policy such as censorship and intermediary provider responsibility will begin to take affect and slow the amazing advances that have been made culturally in this technological era. Case in point, it is beyond my wildest dreams that I have the privilege to participate in a course taught online by Professor Sellars at HES. The paths to education through coursera and edx which are free is an opportunity and path for learning that we never had before. However, with continuing legislation, censorship and/or surveillance the ideas that we formulate from the knowledge that we now have equal access will have a limited capacity to flourish. So I reflect on how that will affect our culture.

Lastly, the political aspect of the internet is one of the primary reasons I registered for the course. As a news junkie, I followed the sony hacking incident closely. I am discombobulated by the fact that a nation state such as North Korea has the power to limit the freedoms of United States Citizens. The reality that the internet can be used as an effective tool for cyber warfare between countries is astounding yet twistedly intriguing.
Additionally, speeches that were once hard to circulate can be uploaded within seconds and has ended political careers. Most recently, the ramble of Sarah Palin has been looped so many times any serious presidential contention in 2016 is now forgotten. So the political media power of the internet has grown significantly.
[[User:Mmcasse|Mmcasse]] ([[User talk:Mmcasse|talk]]) 13:30, 31 January 2015 (EST)

----

Today, internet is all around us and with that, we live in a world where we are constanly connected to family and friends, miles away, whether via our phone, laptop, iPad/etc. Socially, Skype and Facetime allow us real time conversation across oceans and Facebook/Twitter allow us instant gratification whether uploading a status or liking a tweet. Games on phones allow us to challenge an oppenent all only possible with Internet.

Politically speaking, Twitter has created an outlet for involved leaders to voice their opinions while receiving instant “reviews” from followers. This allows people to receive news from figures regarding a wide variety from the birth of Hilary Clintons grandchild to Secretary of State Kerry being fined for not shoveling his walkway. In addiiton, leaders can upload videos and one can watch President Obama give the State of the Union online.

Econimically, the Interent has created online banking. Paper bills are a thing of the past and many of us rely on the Internet to not only pay our bills but to online bank. Accounts are saved on smart phones and bills are set on a recurring cycle to be paid online, many times without the payer even having to log in for a transcation to be complete. [[User:Cbore001|Cbore001]] ([[User talk:Cbore001|talk]]) 21:28, 31 January 2015 (EST)

----

Significant changes are visible all around us. Socially, the internet has become our connection to many people we would otherwise never meet be it through online dating, an internet job search, or any one of the shared economy apps or sites we now use like Uber or Airbnb. We are easily connected to people directly without much hassle or obstacle. Another social change is that we no longer have to wait for an audience, we can just throw things out there and sit back and see how people react without any direct implications. Some sites and apps even allow us to do this anonymously like YikYak or Reddit causing an even greater cushion of safety to the speaker. This can be good or bad, in some cases giving people the freedom to seek support or help for a problem anonymously, or by giving predators an easy way to track down their prey and slanderers an easy way to disseminate harmful information. These things were possible in the past, but never before have they been so freely at our fingertips.

Economically, the Internet has completely altered the landscape of enterprise. If a business doesn’t have a website it is considered obsolete. In large cities, it goes further, a business needs to have an app to stay relevant. Then there’s the matter of online shopping. I can’t remember the last time I went shoe shopping at a physical store. I would feel it’s a waste of time because online I have so much more information on the products available to me and usually at a better price. We also have working from home. Many tech companies offer this option and there are other companies which solely have remote employees due to the ubiquity of internet access in major cities in the U.S. and the nature of the work. For personal affairs we can do online banking, pay bills online, order food online, and the list goes on.

Culturally, people have greater exposure to the outside world. This has caused some to become more diverse and open and yet others to try to close themselves off even more and fight the compromise of their own culture. Western culture is spreading to less developed countries at an alarming rate causing younger people in those countries to reject many cultural norms such as respect for authority figures, arranged marriages, and religion. There is also much positive dispersal of cultural information, such as in the form of languages. Programs for learning languages are offered on many websites, sometimes for free as in the case of livemocha.com. Even on youtube.com there are many videos offered for learning just about any language.

Politically, we now have more avenues than ever before to voice our opinions. No more letters to the editor or opinion columns in local newspapers, we can now holler our opinions far and wide using the help of social media sites, opinion polls, debate forums, and much much more. That’s not to say that we’ve become more intelligent politically, that’s a whole different story. More information is available at our fingertips, the only problem is that we only click on the things that reinforce the opinions we already have. But updates about political activity are available literally 24/7 which keeps the race ruthless and tireless. Furthermore, a politician’s online presence can make or break their career. There are no more secret affairs or fetishes. Though people may get away with these things still, they must be much more careful because one slip up could mean their last. ([[User:Oliviabrinich|Oliviabrinich]] ([[User talk:Oliviabrinich|talk]]) 22:37, 31 January 2015 (EST))

----
The proliferation of the internet and social media, have facilitated the spread of information, from viral marketing campaigns to political campaigns. Both the 2008 and 2012 Presidential elections, demonstrated the importance of digital technologies for cultivating grass-roots support and financial contributions. Since then the appeals from political campaigns, for supporter contributions have become continuous, and hard to avoid.

Social media has helped to disseminate opinions, of both high profile people and those in one's own social circle, more widely than they might otherwise have been, and perhaps also more quickly than desirable. It is now very easy to write ill considered words, which then get disseminated and dissected, potentially causing a media controversy. Equally, digital technology has had a great impact on the notion of privacy. Julian Assange, Wikileaks and the proliferation of online activism, has renewed the civil liberties debate and discussions about privacy. The internet continually reaffirms how interconnected the world now is, and how tangible something that begins in cyberspace can be. [[User:AlexanderH|AlexanderH]] ([[User talk:AlexanderH|talk]]) 16:13, 1 February 2015 (EST)

----

First of all, I would like to say I find all posts very interesting to read and judging by them, it is obviously that we all agree on the fact that Internet has a huge impact on our lives. Every aspect of our everyday activity is somehow connected online - communication with friends is going through social networks, chats, almost any type of business has its website which has become more important than the business card. When we are choosing provider of any kind, the first thing to do is to check him online, his website, some reviews in the forums if possible. Leisure and free time, of course - movies, music, computer games and so on, picnics and walks in the park are getting behind somehow. It has even become an obsession for many people to be online 24/7 and not being connected makes them feel uncomfortable.

From cultural stand point, I would rather say that there are more positive effects than negative. I would point out Google Cultural Institute as my favourite cultural, on-line invention. It is amazing that people from everywhere could actually explore cultural treasures from all around the world in the smallest details and for free. This as well as free e-books projects, like Project Gutenberg, are priceless gifts for our generations, showing that information and knowledge most of all, could be accessible to everyone who desires. I very much like the example Josefin has given in her post, saying that the mere existence of this online course and our participation in it is a proof enough how Internet helps us achieving things, that some years ago would have been impossible for many of us. This being said, I would not like to ignore the fact that the endless ocean of information Internet is, could very easily become a danger, especially for children which without a proper control over the online activities, could easily be endangered or at least loos themselves in the immense quantity of information without getting the real knowledge.

The political sphere has not stayed untouched. Many of the political changes now a days, would have been impossible without the Internet “contributing”. The snow ball phenomenon Arab Spring, for example, is showing that Internet is a powerful tool for people to connect, organize, share ideas and act. The nature of Internet is combining the features and tools of radio, television and newspapers. Therefor if media are defined as an alleged fourth power, I dare say Internet should be defined as the fifth. Another good example of the influence over the political live would be the electronic voting, more precisely the remote e-voting, exercised via Internet. This is an innovation some countries like Australia,Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Estonia , have already implemented.

Talking about the economy, if only we take a look at the numbers Forbes has forecasted saying that "'''By 2017 eMarketer estimates that there will be $440 billion in sales for a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 13.8% (...)'"'' (Chuck Jones, Forbes,10/02/2013) , we would easily understand why expressions like "Cyber Monday”, were forged, referring to the online sales following the Black Friday sales. There are many other examples of how Internet has become a factor in the economy like the stock exchange market, which would not be the same as we know it without the net, the Bitcoin, the payment processing business and many others. ([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 11:31, 2 February 2015 (EST))
-----
Socially, I am that group of parents that drove my children away from FaceBook. I have over 500 friends, including my children, high school and college classmates, work friends, my mom and aunts and uncles and cousins. I also use LinkedIn, which provides another means of social networking and getting your name and resume out to business colleagues. I believe it is a great means of reconnecting with old friends and staying in touch with what is going on around us. But I also understand how we get pigeonholed into a group of people and content that we already agree with.

Politically, I doubt there is a person alive who could stand up to the scrutiny brought on by all the sound bites. (The example of Sarah Palin someone mentioned above). I am sure there are talented people who would be great as President but dare not run because of the heartache and humiliation brought on by posts and opinions on the internet.

Economically, I love that I can schedule all my bills to be paid automatically and I don’t even know how much my electric bill is! I have done my Christmas shopping online before they coined the phrase “Black Friday”. With all our internet transactions, we have less and less privacy. I hired a new plow company for these snowstorms and he called me to describe my house and driveway. Google Earth.

Bottom line, this generation has grown up with the internet, and I imagine could not fathom life without it. I have known life on both sides…. I know most of my family, work and doctors’ phone numbers – from memory. I can drive from here to New York and beyond without a GPS, (we actually had map books!) I also think the internet has a life of its own and has grown beyond our social ability to manage it. I have a particular interest in bullying, and the internet has given huge and dangerous power to the bullies. I look forward to the exchanges in class and here on the discussion board![[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 22:11, 2 February 2015 (EST)

----

I can describe a personal experience that illustrates how the Internet and digital technologies changed our social life. In 2001, I spend six months in New Zealand and all my connection with family and friends in Brazil were via Internet. It was very effective but it was not in real time as it is nowadays. The social medias such as Facebook and Instagram combined with several apps that we can download to our smartphones created a virtual world where we can be in touch with every one in real time. We are able to interact and live the moment that the person in the other side of the line is living. So, when you are far away from home, like I am, you do not feel you are losing so many moments with your family and friends as it used do be. In some way, connected, we get ourselves closer.
In addition, I think that the stock markets are much more sensitive of any changes and news, so the speculation game is faster and dynamic. In a few minutes, every thing can change so it is imperative to be connected. That defines who earn and who lost money. [[User:Lucasrio|Lucasrio]] ([[User talk:Lucasrio|talk]]) 10:02, 3 February 2015 (EST)

----

Information and its more cultured offspring – knowledge -- will always be the unquenchable and unending journey and destination for man and the society he builds. The Internet is, at its essence, a reflection of this yearning -- the Internet and its related digital technologies are merely vehicles expressing a most animal desire; the pursuit of more.

1. An Outlet To Play God: The Social Change

And tricked by our own early dream
And need of solace, we grew self-deceived,
Our making soon our maker did we deem,
And what we had imagined we believed.
--God’s Funeral, T. Hardy

From the Goldsmith and Wu article on Digital Borders, Net use was dominated initially by English-speakers who “…created the Net in their image.”

This line stuck out above the rest and seemed to not only brightly elaborate on the fact at hand, but at a generally applicable trend that the Internet has graced us with; the trend of power-granting – or at least lending us with the illusion of power. We have created in the Internet our perfected selves: it knows everything, it socializes brilliantly, it possesses a strange but alluring appearance of being infinite. Before, man might have turned to the divine for his answers. Now he “Googles” it.

With this tendency, there is also this funny but simultaneous dimension where man knows that not only does he have an alternative to what his ancestors once believed in, modern man has created this entity. The Internet has become at once, a strange kind of divine – unknowable in its vastness, knowable in its man-made fragments.

2. Cheapening of Privacy: The Cultural Change

We now sign sixty, hundred-twenty, two-hundred page software or user agreements just to have the privilege of sharing our entire photographed lives with what we think are a select few eyes – of for some people, not even that. A picture sharing website will usually have some kind of clause saying they have the right to use your picture from an album for “advertising purposes” (Picasa, a few years ago), or the blatant example, Facebook – who is not in the business of social media, rather, it is in the business of information. More specifically, the selling of information – more specifically, the selling of your personal information.

With the rise of the Internet and the software platforms it makes possible, we are now raising a generation of people who have desensitized themselves from any sense of privacy. Any arguments as to the intrusiveness of the likes of Google or Facebook is mostly met with a shrug of “I’ve nothing to hide…. Let them have my information.” Translation: My information, the data that constitutes my persona, my self, my identity, is free for the taking – I have no use for it.”

3. Headless Ubiquity: The Political Change

The structuring of people, the organizing people, the mobilizing of people, and the dividing and unifying of people has been forever changed by the Internet’s introduction of a new management model. The Starfish model.

Brafman and Beckstrom’s “The Starfish and the Spider” is a book about leaderless organizations and their power. They use the Internet as prime example of the omnipotent “Starfish” – a headless creature that moves and lives and in a way, cannot be destroyed. One limb moves and the others follow. Cut a limb and another grows in its place. It has no “brain” it has no “leader” – every piece of itself is self-reliant, self-initiated, yet entirely synchronized. Brafman and Beckstrom compare the starfish with the “Spider – a system of governing people in which there is a clear “head” and there are legs and a body. If the head (president, leader) is cut off the whole thing dies. The Internet has no head (unless we want to get technical here and argue that literal energy is the “head” but technicalities aside...). The Internet is all-powerful while having no single source of its power – if Google dies tomorrow, Yahoo will take its place.

This has powerful implications in our understanding of politics. In our understanding of power. From Twitter-feeds to start a revolution (Arab Spring and Egypt) to the rise of the viral video to satirize and ridicule the previously fearful or the potentially powerful and render them powerless – literally laughing leaders off the political stage. The Internet has become the world’s newest, headless dictator. It is the first dictator without a head but with a body that is all dictator.

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 17:57, 2 March 2015 (EST)

----

One of the most interesting, and significant, changes that I think we can attribute to the spread of digital technologies is the toppling of various totalitarian regimes across the Middle East. In 2011, Hosni Mubarak was forced to resign as President of Egypt after only a few months of non-stop protests. The protesters managed to mobilize the Egyptian people on the Internet, through mobile devices and social media, even as they were being censored by the Egyptian government. I believe the experience in Egypt has taught us that, even with censorship of the mainstream media, the Internet can still be used as a weapon against tyrannical dictatorships.

This leads me to another interesting point that I would like to talk about, and that is the question of privacy and the internet. With the evolution of the Internet and its supporting digital technologies, privacy has become a thing of the past. Companies and government agencies often spy and tap into our personal data ostensibly to show us show us adds that we may like and, according to authorities, to protect us from those who may wish to do us harm. But with the recent NSA spying debacle, and with controversy over whether or not the IRS has been using personal data to target certain groups because of their political beliefs, I believe that there should be a limit to how much data people allow the government and private companies to see. Unless we act now, I believe that a lack of privacy will become a major problem for future generations.

[[User:Mishal R. Kennedy|Mishal R. Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Mishal R. Kennedy|talk]]) 12:38PM, 3 February 2015 (EST)

----

I think the greatest economic change (since I'm in finance) that occurred due to the internet is that things became very efficient. We're talking about transparency efficiency and the availability of information that was not previously available. We have lower spreads in stocks, and quicker executions. Trading volume went up, and it's easier for the little guy to be part of the market. This meant that economic indicators could also be reflected instantaneously. In general, the way the world seems to have developed is to make things more efficient. We went from a lack of efficiency during paleolithic humans till now. The invention of spears for hunting, or fire for cooking. Wool for warmth, shelter for protection. Efficiency has dictated whether we humans will advance as a civilization or not. The boom of the internet has increased our efficiency tremendously and sets the stage for the next step in inventions.
[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 05:02, 16 February 2015 (EST)

One of the more recent ways in which the Internet is shaping our sociopolitical discourse is through the creation of strong cyber networks for more marginalized communities. For example, the rise of feminist blogs and message boards or hashtags such as #blacklivesmatter can be used in connecting online activity and writing to other forms of non-cyber activism and understanding.

In terms of economic changes prompted by the Internet, online capitalist competition has facilitated the growth of huge online sellers of a variety of goods with versatile virtual purveyors like Amazon. ([[User:Amchugh|Amchugh]] ([[User talk:Amchugh|talk]]) 13:30, 3 February 2015 (EST))

----

One major change the Internet has brought is the democratization of media narratives. I know my classmates have mentioned above a few negative aspects of Internet media and the way it's shaping our political behaviors, but I find the swell of larger contributions by the online public to be incredibly empowering and exciting. For example, after the shootings in Isla Vista, California last spring, when traditional media outlets were largely ignoring the misogynistic motives of the killer, female Twitter users posted millions of tweets with the hashtag #YesAllWomen in order to redirect the narrative and share their experiences of sexism and abuse. Similarly, after the events in Ferguson, Missouri, social media was a cathartic and powerful outlet for the public to rally together, using the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter. Citizen-driven stories like this can even play a large role in political events - back in 2012 when Romney made the comment about "binders full of women," it was social media outlets that exploded, generated a meme, and ultimately shaped the public perception of Romney. The tangible effects of these conversations may be tough to measure, but mass participation in social discussions have been cropping up all throughout the year online.

I'm also fascinated by the social progress the Internet has helped usher in, as well as the intense backlash it has sometimes produced. For example, I think it could be argued that the Internet was at least partially responsible for how swiftly the gay marriage debate has shifted in the past several years. Online campaigns like "It Gets Better" and "No H8" have gone viral and reached ears that might otherwise not have been willing to listen. On the other hand, incidents like Gamergate show the danger of anonymity and lack of regulation online, and the way it can impact groups like women. As a personal note, the experience of women online is something that fascinates me greatly and one of the big reasons I enrolled in this course.

[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 13:56, 3 February 2015 (EST)

----
Indelibly, electronic commerce has changed the way the world purchases goods. Whether for personal or business use, the model of internet purchasing has created a subgenre of the way economic business is transacted. For example, large companies use intranets (modeled from the internet, for internal purchasing) which streamline purchasing and can allow the company to be for fiscally efficient.

The internet is a boon to introverts. The timid and shy have a vehicle for clearly expressing him or herself with very little risk to their person; visually creative with design, literally with blogs and other form of written communication, or even purchasing- avoiding crowds, unnecessary conversation or aggressive sales persons.

It is interesting to note that with the advancement of how much the internet is used; adept users develop tools to help others exploit every measure of that success to enable it to grow further. For example the use of filters when shopping: gone are the days when one sat at the computer screen scrolling through all options in order to view a specific type of garment or car. Another example can be the use of customizations in items that are rather hard to customize in reality, i.e. cars, homes, shoes. I think it is often forgotten how far internet technology has advanced in such a short period of time as 20 years.

Economic – Social [[User:JGadson|JGadson]] ([[User talk:JGadson|talk]]) 14:24, 3 February 2015 (EST)

-----

Great conversation everyone. One aspect of the spread of the internet that I find particularly fascinating is the decentralization of journalism. Like when digital cameras - and then camera phones - turned almost every amateur on the street into a photographer, the internet gave everyone who can write and type (and has access to a computer) a platform for broadcasting their thoughts, opinions, and experiences. No printing press, copy editor, or delivery boy needed.

You would think that with so many people putting their thoughts into the marketplace of ideas, we’d be better off. But with everything that’s now on the internet, it’s constant information overload and that makes it all too tempting to pick news sources that reinforce preexisting beliefs, rather than listen to anyone who might call into question or expand our thinking.

What I find more dangerous than humans boxing themselves into ideological corners, however, is when coders box people into ideological corners, especially without their knowledge. Google searches, for example, are no longer created equal; we see results that google thinks we want to see. Facebook no longer shows us all our friends’ posts but rather just the ones it thinks we’ll like most. The internet is trying to be a golden retriever and just please us, but that’s not what we need it to do or be.

Another significant change associated with the spread of the internet has been the normalization of invasions of privacy. We have come to expect and even joke about how visiting a site like WikiLeaks has put us on “a list somewhere.” We’ve accepted that that’s just the cost of having a “free” internet.

All that said I believe the internet has become critically important for information sharing and gathering, for maintaining social networks, and for social justice movements.

--[[User:Kelly.wilson|Kelly.wilson]] ([[User talk:Kelly.wilson|talk]]) 14:39, 3 February 2015 (EST)

----
The individualized nature of current social media, springing from initial mediums like personalized web pages and blogs, finds an unusual home in current political trends and more specifically uprisings. The Arab Spring is typically pointed to as an unprecedented example of utilizing Facebook and Twitter to organize mass demonstrations, even coining the term “Twitter Revolution” to help explain what modern physical protests actualized through an interconnected social platform look like. The internet also impacts the accessibility of stories taking place across the globe. The 2011 Egyptian Revolution and the 2014 invasion of Crimea by Russian forces are examples of highly visible events whose influence in the social media sphere permeated traditional media and coverage. The advent of crowdsourcing, which has seen particular growth in the last five years has managed to leverage online spaces to send aid or relief to less advantaged people not only in the communities of its users, but across the world as well. So while many of the readings we did for this week and videos we watched online offered a slightly more pessimistic view of how we have potentially stumbled into misuse of the enormous resource the internet is, many of the largest sociopolitical upheavals of the 21st century so far owe a great debt to its ability to connect people to pertinent and rapidly shifting information.
[[User:Meredithmblake|Meredith]] ([[User talk:Meredithmblake|talk]]) 15:46, 3 February 2015 (EST)

----
As a young person who has grown up with the internet I have witnessed first-hand how powerful and life-altering the internet and digital technologies have become. Some of my friends have built their lives around the internet. For example, one of my friends is a filmmaker and a musician and he started using the internet as an avenue to pursue his interests as a child. Before he even turned 18, he was already generating a significant income from selling his music and becoming one of the first YouTube partners. Today, one of his YouTube videos has more than 180,000,000 hits and he has 410,701 subscribers. Clearly, he is not alone in his pursuits. He is just one of a vast number of people in the world who have experienced significant economic success from the internet. More recently, it came to light in both the mainstream news and internet media that YouTube user, DisneyCollectorBR’s estimated income after YouTube’s 45% cut was $5.06 Million this year and the only thing she does is post videos of herself, without showing her face, unboxing Disney toys. Now, that’s what I call a significant economic gain.
[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 14:21, 4 February 2015 (EST)

----
The Internet has shaped our world and culture in many ways. Our social circles are closer than they have ever been thanks to tools such as Facebook and texting, yet they are strangely distant as well -- no longer do people stop by to say "hi" or see how you're doing, they can just see it on Facebook! The "Internet culture" has spread far and wide, and memes are commonplace in everyday society now. One was even featured in a super bowl commercial! Politically, it's still just as easy to be spoonfed whatever you choose to believe in, but all the arguments from everyone's side are available for easy viewing on the Internet -- if you know where to find them. Also, electronic voting machines are incredibly commonplace, and the vulnerabilities reported in them should make anyone worry. Perhaps the most significant area of interest, however, is the economic impact of the Internet. The ability to buy and sell goods from the comfort of your home should not be understated, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. Two thirds of all US searches are done through Google, and their targeted advertising makes them billions of dollars. Delivering goods virtually is also a huge market right now - Netflix and Steam are booming, while Blockbuster and Gamestop are busting. There are even virtual currencies now, and Bitcoin has a wide reach. Restaurants in major cities all over the country are beginning to accept Bitcoins!

We are barely scraping the surface of what the Internet has to offer, in all aspects of life. The rapid flow of data is what makes the human brain function, after all, and the Internet looks more and more like a neural network every day. The possibilities the future hold are endless. [[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 21:35, 4 February 2015 (EST)

----
Sorry for the late comment but if a computer in teh U.S. violates French law does it mean that the user in the U.S. should comply with the French court order to shut it down?

[[User:Rpeisch|Rpeisch]] ([[User talk:Rpeisch|talk]]) 13:47, 24 February 2015 (EST)

Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction

2015-03-02T22:57:56Z

Chanel Rion: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}
'''January 27'''

'''''Class was cancelled on this day due to snow. Please see the class video for day 2 for the discussion of this material.'''''

The Internet at its core is simply an expression of a technological protocol that allows for a particular way of sharing information. But its role has never been this understated. The Internet has great potential for “good” (e.g. innovation, economic growth, education, and access to information), and likewise is a great platform for the bawdy, tawdry and illegal. So is this platform about fundamental social, political and economic change, or about access to solipsistic blogging, pornography, cheap pharmaceuticals, free music, and poker at home? This question leads us to a host of interesting issues that weave their way through the course related to openness, access, regulatory control, free speech, anonymity, intellectual property rights, democracy, transparency, norms and values, economic and cultural change, and cyber- terrorism, as well as scamsters and thieves.

'''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 the Internet and digital technologies. In a few sentences, please offer 2-3 examples in the [[#Class Discussion|Class Discussion]] section below and be prepared to discuss them during class.

== 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?'''

* [https://projects.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html John Perry Barlow, A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace]

:* You can hear Barlow read this [http://departmentofrecords.co/dor1.html here].

* [http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/January-February-2006/feature_goldsmith_janfeb06.msp 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]

* [https://medium.com/@internetmonitor/platforms-and-policy-e9984e1be4c6 Rob Faris and Rebekah Heacock, Platforms and Policy] (from the [http://thenetmonitor.org/research/2014/ 'Internet Monitor' 2014 annual report])

* [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); and [http://cluetrain.com/newclues/ New Clues]

* [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1752415 Tim Wu, Is Internet Exceptionalism Dead?]

* [http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2012/12/05/good-and-bad-reasons-to-be-worried-about-wcit/ Ethan Zuckerman, Good and Bad Reasons to be Worried About WCIT]

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links From Adobe Connect Session ==

== 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! You can add a divider between comments by typing four hyphens (<nowiki>----</nowiki>) in an empty line between comments. '''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]] ([[User talk:Andy|talk]]) 09:50, 21 January 2015 (EST)</div>

----
One of the more significant social and economic changes that I have not only experienced but seen, is the ability to find things out instantly. Whether it be news or education, sports or politics, we now have the ability to informed immediately about anything and everything. This is both a blessing and a curse.[[User:ErikaLRich|ErikaLRich]] ([[User talk:ErikaLRich|talk]]) 17:06, 3 February 2015 (EST)
----
The most significant social change resulting from the spread of the Internet is simply the opportunity for the average person (whoever that may be) to establish two way connections with people, businesses, information, and governments around the world in other than a physical environment. Having two way communication, even if indirectly, is empowerment. I grew up in a world of listeners and watchers, from newspapers, to magazines, radio, broadcast television, and brochures. The Internet has given us a world filled with conversation.

The most significant economic change is online sales of goods and services. I can buy just about anything on the Internet and never leave my home, my office, or the beach. I can’t imagine where I would have to physically go to buy, or how I would even locate, a 2 kilogram box of Scharfenberger cocoa without the Internet. I just would not take the time to locate it, and for that reason I would not buy it. More to the point, it would not be sold.

Culturally, email is the big change. Of course, instant messaging and social media are gaining ground, but it was email that changed our culture to the right now work and personal environments, even before it was being delivered on the cell phone. Wait, maybe the cell phone is a bigger change. [[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 15:51, 3 February 2015 (EST)

----
There is some fascinating discussion taking place “below the line.” It makes me excited for this semester. To my mind, the internet and associated digital technologies remain the most influential invention of our time. They have been the facilitator of countless zeitgeists including the crumbling of oppressive kingdoms and the exploration of alternative currencies, as well as the breeding ground for unique forms of intellectual and social collaboration- be they twitter, Jstor journals, or your average online message board. This interconnectivity is, of course, not without its side-effects. While the relationship between various exchange and interest rates pre-dates the proliferation of the internet, I feel that such technologies have allowed the more unsavory characteristics of these economic relationships to be felt much more acutely by the average person.[[User:Jmerryma0287|Jmerryma0287]] ([[User talk:Jmerryma0287|talk]]) 14:39, 3 February 2015 (EST)

----

One of the more recent ways in which the Internet is shaping our sociopolitical discourse is through the creation of strong cyber networks for more marginalized communities. For example, the rise of feminist blogs and message boards or hashtags such as #blacklivesmatter can be used in connecting online activity and writing to other forms of non-cyber activism and understanding.

In terms of economic changes prompted by the Internet, online capitalist competition has facilitated the growth of huge online sellers of a variety of goods with versatile virtual purveyors like Amazon. ([[User:Amchugh|Amchugh]] ([[User talk:Amchugh|talk]]) 13:33, 3 February 2015 (EST))

----

Digital technologies have changes many aspects of life and society. One example is the fact that I can participate in this class even though I live in Europe. That is just one example of how digital technologies have played a huge part in globalization. Even though I live in Sweden, I can still study at an American university, easily stay in touch with my best friend who lives in Missouri, I can follow the life of a stranger in Australia through his or her blog, and I can connect and share my thoughts with other people who think like me but who live in other parts of the world. As a young person of today, I do not only identify myself as a citizen of a particular city, but also as European or as a ”global citizen”.

What is also important to reflect on is how we can influence and affect others through the Internet and digital media. (And of course how we are influenced and affected by others.) One out of many possible examples on this matter is blogs. I use the Swedish blog ''blondinbella.se'' as my example. ”Blondinbella” is one of the most popular blogs in Sweden with over 1 million unique readers each week. Sweden a country with only about 10 million citizens, and that one blog reach more people than many newspapers do is very interesting and worth reflecting about. [[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 03:40, 26 January 2015 (EST)

----

I completely agree with what Josefin said above. The generation that is now entering adulthood is inheriting a much smaller, more connected world than their parents did.
I think it's important to reflect on the possible downsides of the ever increasing invasiveness of the internet. We are a generation that can ask Siri how badly the Patriots beat the Seahawks in the Superbowl — and she’ll tell us almost immediately that the Patriots won in a landslide. Or what song is playing on the radio. Or what the largest star in the Milky Way is. Or if Pixar is ever going to make a sequel to the Incredibles (they are, finally). You get the point. We are used to being able to find out almost anything, almost anywhere, at almost anytime.
There may be a subtle danger in adapting an entire generation to instant gratification. As we put more and more of our lives into our phones and computers, we stop relying on our own mental faculties. For example, my grandfather has a razor sharp memory, and he knows all the phone numbers of our immediate and extended family by heart. If I lost my phone, I might remember my mom’s number, but my whole contact book would be lost if it wasn't for iCloud. I’m certainly not exercising my memory on a daily basis to make calls like my grandfather. Will that hurt me in the long run? Probably not — but it’s an interesting thought.

Another aspect of the internet that I sometimes reflect on is its contribution to political close-mindedness here in the US, if not the world over. I worked for a long time in DC, and have friends and family all over the political spectrum — even a tea party uncle in Texas, and I can say with certainty that I’ve witnessed a trend where my highly conservative friends will follow and subscribe to conservative news sources or blogs that produce news that corresponds with their pre-existing beliefs, and like-wise for my liberal friends. Constant exposure to “news” written or spun to enforce and vindicate your beliefs serves to cement your views, and lessens the amount of meaningful debate that takes place. I would say this definitely serves to further polarize the political climate here in the US. Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Jon Stewart, Stephan Colbert, all have large followings of people who watch their shows, listen to their radio stations, and subscribe to their social media outlets. The political influence of these individuals can, in some cases, easily shape the political landscape more than many politicians do. Interesting to consider. [[User:WesleyVerge|WesleyVerge]] ([[User talk:WesleyVerge|talk]]) 23:46, 26 January 2015 (EST)

----

Wesley Verge. The polarization of American Politics on the internet reflects popular attitudes, and at times exacerbate the problem. I think the problem has to do with journalistic standards. Remember those? They used to exist up until about the 1990's, or more precisely, since Rupert Murdoch bought Fox News -- and that's when the bar was lowered for everyone. With such a wide reach, high profits, and such obvious bias on all the publications under his ownership, journalistic standards went out the window in the pursuit of sensationalism and profit margin. And sadly, those who didn't adapt to this new way of selling news were left behind. The Philadelphia Inquirer comes to mind, but R. Murdoch's purchase of the Wall Street Journal is another good example. U.S. Politics have been in a sad state of affairs since G.W decided to invade Iraq, and the rancor and indignation that followed those years has still to subside. There are other factors that affect the current state of politics in the U.S, and two of those are geography and the diversity of demographics throughout the country. Notice that there isn't really a traditional democratic and republican party? Despite the fact that the two party system is still dominant in voting patterns, there are many factions within those two large groups. Hromero [[User:Hromero|Hromero]] ([[User talk:Hromero|talk]]) 12:41, 29 January 2015 (EST)

----
Hromero. You make valid points, though I would point out that they differ slightly from the point I was trying to make. To elaborate a little further, I was speaking only of how the internet plays a large role in exacerbating the political polarization of the country. You correctly point out that the shift in media tactics marked a shift towards increased polarization. I'm saying that the internet provides access to sensationalist news and propaganda, on both sides of the spectrum, to anyone with a connection or a smart phone. People no longer have to be challenged in their thinking. If the President says "yadayadayada", rather than reflect upon and come to consensus, people are bombarded with sound bites that penetrate the public sphere and shape political thought. New ideas never have the chance to take root, because they are razed quite immediately after inception. Of course, talking head pundits are nothing new, but at least years ago families could discuss news together over dinner, waiting to read the paper or see the news the next day. Now, The President says "yadayadayada" at 6pm, and John Boehner is able to issue a responsive speech at 8pm through twitter or youtube. You're right to point out the increased splintering of the parties, but where that meets the internet is now each of those factions has methods to connect to their support bases, issue videos, etc on a constant and consistent basis -- a change that surely helps to solidify and expand their support, further polarizing the country. I think its important that we focus on how the internet is used in correlation to politics, rather than focus on the people doing the using and whether or not we agree with them. It keeps discussion more clear and concise. [[User:WesleyVerge|WesleyVerge]] ([[User talk:WesleyVerge|talk]]) 17:37, 30 January 2015 (EST)

----

The evolution of the internet and our digital technologies has changed how we look at society and how we participate in it. For example social outlets such as Facebook and Twitter allows us to express any thought or feeling and connect with people all over the world. This gives us the ability to form connections and relationships with people that would not have been possible otherwise. With the internet always evolving information has become more and more accessible. Anything that we can imagine we can find through the Internet whether that be current events, a movie review, or personal information just to name a few. Search engines and online encyclopedias such as Google and Wikipedia have changed how we learn and search for information. Furthermore the internet has changed the way we do business . Now we are able to purchase products through websites like Amazon and any other retail site. We also can conduct business through the internet through trading which adds a new dimension to the business world. Our advancements in the internet and digital technologies added another wrinkle in how we view information and the economy as well as many other areas. [[User:Jan.Yburan|Jan.Yburan]] ([[User talk:Jan.Yburan|talk]]) 15:07, 27 January 2015 (EST)

----

As a distance student, participation has been possible in many HED classes with students world wide from Singapore, Malaysia, Great Britain, Indonesia, and Australia as well as the United States. The advantages the internet and exponential expansion of digital constantly creates awe in realizing what has become possible in a relatively short period of time.

It is possible to access historical and current information from the Internet from each of the categories listed above almost instantaneously whether it be cultural, political or economic or social. The online Wikipedia information saves gong to the library or an encyclopedia with each query…..which in the case of the library has advantages as well as disadvantages. For lovers of books, there is nothing like thumbing through the pages of a book….and reading the first and last chapter while standing in front of a bookshelf.

Shopping - it is possible to view the price and merchandise of a particular brand or manufacturer with a few keystrokes. A person can shop locally or nationwide or overseas for particular items. [[User:Rgrasser|Rgrasser]]

----

I like many of the posts above, and I think they're on the mark. My first thought on changes ushered in has to do with Wesley's comments on instant gratification - we can access information and purchase goods instantaneously, but being connected means we are always on-call. A text/SMS comes to our phones on our bodies, we don't want to be behind on emails or miss a post on Facebook, etc. The new, immediate connectedness of the turn of the century, it seems to me, is significantly notable, both in our ability to connect and the possibility of always being connected to.

This new connection brings me to my second thought, the new possibilities of surveillance. Typically conversation focuses on government censorship and the ability to monitor for unwanted speech. I would add that our new, ongoing connectedness also provides an increasingly continuous history of our identities. This history can be used to market specific products, tailor our searches, and generally show us content that will keep us connected more often. To be connected means to be watched, sometimes directly, sometimes passively. Many have written on how this leads us to begin policing ourselves.

This self-policing brings me to third major development I see, which also has much to do with Wesley's thoughts on how his friends' political views are continually fed. A variety of technologies now exist to keep us more within our preconceptions than before. Our identity and self-understanding is produced and maintained in a different and more controlled way in the past. It doesn't seem to me that there is (necessarily) a (wo)man behind the curtain, but the implementation and effect of these technologies remain the same.

[[User:MattK|MattK]] ([[User talk:MattK|talk]]) 17:42, 27 January 2015 (EST)

----

Internet access has changed the way information flows while increasing social and economic participation. As internet and digital technology continues to develop, it has changed the nature of how organizations market themselves to targeted their targeted consumers. Traditional methods of newspaper/magazine advertisements and email listservs no longer are the primary avenue of increasing consumer engagement. Social media platforms have expanded consumer outreach as companies use Twitter to tweet to their customers and smartphone apps to keep their consumers connected. This connectectivity has impacted the roles of employees as many of their job descriptions are now requiring evidence of technological competencies.

The internet and technologies has allowed the progression of global connectivity by creating meaningful experiences through intentional dialogue and engagement. Internet and digital technologies allows for access to consumer services previously limited due to geographic location. Historically, a fitness coach was someone typically found within your local community or an athlete was required to travel to the gym/sports facility. With the expansion of technology, people now have access to some of the best coaching in the world through the use of current technologies. As an example, I am now a posing coach for athletes throughout the USA, Canada and the UK.

People are now able to engage in a global experience without crossing international borders. [[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 18:57, 27 January 2015 (EST)

----

While reflecting on the Internet and the significant changes it has spread, I ironically type and post the following comments while flying on an airplane. Who would have imagined using internet on a plane 20 years ago? Yet, walking through the airport before boarding my flight I could see the changes the Internet and digital technologies has had on our society: customers ordering food via an iPad in the airport cafe; an older couple Skyping, what looked like their grandson, on a laptop; teenagers idly staring at their smart phones while their parents talk at them; the many airline passenger who boarded their flights by merely pulling up an image on their iPhones. Internet and digital technologies are everywhere...and it has changed every aspect of our lives.

The most significant of those changes I find is the globalized world we now live in. Post World War II, the international community entered an era of connectedness, and the Internet has only exacerbated this connectedness. The ability to share, like, post, tweet, retweet, reblog, blog, etc. has birthed a generation of globally connected citizens. It only takes a couple of clicks on Twitter to see or read about happenings half way around the world - in real time. This environment has created a more involved international community, especially when reviewing Twitter trending topics, for instance the events that happened in Ferguson, MO last year. Massive marches, stand ins, protests and rallies were organized across the globe - orchestrated primarily on social media.

Furthermore, the possibilities of outreach and global awareness is boundless. Internet and digital technologies now offer a tool for social good.
A recent article [http://www.information-age.com/technology/mobile-and-networking/123457289/facebook-launches-bid-to-bring-cheap-internet-to-the-developing-world] discussed how internet has become vital to survival for those living in the poorest of countries. Facebook, for example, launched a program with efforts to bring internet to lower income countries or rural areas who need the assistance with technology to better living conditions. The implementation of these technologies are ongoing, and it is unclear if they are helping more than they are hurting, but the social change of internet is here to stay.

[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 07:35, 28 January 2015 (EST)

----

Ok, speaking of internet morons, this is the third time I’m posting and I still don’t see it. Any tech has any hints as to why this is happening, I’m making a copy of this in a separate doc, please tell me where to send it.
My comment is as follows: 1) Since the advent of the internet people are interacting with devices and technology more often than they used to and as a result there have been some measurable changes in children’s cognitive development. I will find the resource later on. I think it also affects adults, especially those who are already predisposed to HDHD. 2) since it is very hard to tell when you’re blogging whether you’re speaking to only three people or three thousand, the power of bloggers should be taken with a generous dose of skepticism. 30 Innovation does not necessarily make us more effective, it merely makes us busier. Exhibit A: Facebook (A complete waste of time, and a truly distracting way of communicating with other people. Absolutely hate it.) Hromero[[User:Hromero|Hromero]] ([[User talk:Hromero|talk]]) 15:01, 28 January 2015 (EST)

----

Reflecting how the world has changed in the last few years is impressive, many things that could not be dreamed to be done in any other way that would have been physical, now in our current times, are possible.

Socially, the interaction of people on facebook and other social networks, like blogs, etc, have become from informational, to a way how people can meet one another, interact, and even date. This in the past was never thought, and now relationships, interaction of groups, like chats are very common. Social networks have

Culturally, it is important to see that there is a subculture, mostly in teenagers and younger people, the subculture, of the I Pad, and tablet, and aps people who are identified, by their cell phones, ring tones, and other characteristics of technology. This differs from the older generation that would not do monetary transactions, meet people, or even gather around a computer, this older folks may prefer to go to the bank, gather with friends, and bring a guitar and play. The culture has been subdivided.

Economically, Pay pawl, and other providers like e-bay, has become very popular in the market, aps for real estate and westlaw, for the legal field, has caused a huge impact, on people and their economy, it is taken over many jobs, and also has make people gain a lot o money, people needed to physically be instructed by someone or by reading, and now there is more accessibility through the internet, where most people can find the answers the they need most of the time. The economy is being monopolized by the electronic era. (Edwin Duque)

----

I agree with my colleagues contributions above. There is no doubt that we've had significant social, cultural, political, and economic changes associated with the spread of the Internet and digital technologies throughout the years in both spheres personal and professional.

Regarding the personal impacts, one example is that if we think about the new generation of people that is part of what they call "Generation Z", instead of playing with the traditional toys that we had in our childhood, when they are kids their main entertainment are the electronic devices with Internet access. A one-two year old child currently simply grab their parent's iPads/tablets or smartphones and play with apps. It's impressive how quickly they get used to those devices. Some years later they start interacting with people all over the world through online games, social media, Skype, whatsapp, blogs and others, as we are all able to do nowadays. Besides that, with the Internet we started having access to a variety of information, books, history, news, we can shop through it, take online courses provided by schools/institutions in several countries, we can make a reservation at a restaurant wherever we want, we can compare prices and quality of products and services, we can be always updated about what is happening in any part of the world, all without leaving home. In addition, basically we register "our lives" in those devices, which have become more and more multifunctional, as we use our cell phones to make calls, as an agenda, to take pictures and record videos, to message our contacts, everything to make life more practical.

So, the Internet really broke barriers and made our lives much easier, also in the professional sphere, as for instance we can attend online meetings, what also economically saying the companies can save money that would be invested in trips, we can have more flexibility when the home office is allowed, the companies can storage their data and also their client's in those devices and the physical archive has been practically extinguished etc.

However, in both spheres people and companies have been facing problems regarding privacy matters, cyber crimes, as it occurred recently with Sony Pictures, cyber espionage, also between countries, what has a political impact, and the legislation hasn't been able to follow the technological advancement in the same speed.

Therefore, one of the most important topics currently, which is a global concern and that is in the spotlight is Cyber Security.
[[User:Natasha Jalbut|Natasha Jalbut]] ([[User talk:Natasha Jalbut|talk]]) 00:21, 30 January 2015 (EST)

----

The internet, and with it the information age, has vastly changed the world and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. I believe the internet has both managed to make the world smaller and at the same time individual's interaction with the world larger.

On a Social level anyone can make an immediate connection with anyone else in the world provided they both have access to the internet. This breaks down many barriers in itself from where we were only a few decades ago where individual towns and neighborhoods became a cocoon for anyone who did not or could not venture out. Today those same towns have citizens who are in relationships with people they may never have met through dating websites and other forms of communication. Distance is no longer an issue for many.

From a cultural perspective we are exposed to new lifestyles and languages that you many never have seen otherwise. One great example is the growing 'Anime' (Japanese style for animation in television and movies) following. If it wasn't for the internet many of these popular shows in Asia would not be known in the United States. At the same time this form of information/entertainment sharing can lead to a narrow and specific view of what is a diverse culture in itself.

Politically the internet has created a new powerful platform that politicians need to work with in order to win elections or pass a vote with the public support. A few years ago an internet following might not have made a campaign but today groups like the Human Rights Campaign rely heavily on it and in doing so have made changes in the political landscape.

[[User:Samaei1|Samaei1]] ([[User talk:Samaei1|talk]]) 14:06, 30 January 2015 (EST)

----

The information age, by way of the Internet, has revolutionized the world exponentially. Socially, the internet was initially utilized to communicate
via email and to obtain readily available information. Today the use of email has practically bankrupted the United States Postal Service and the internet in some aspects has become the primary source of information enabling proponents of civil unrest to generate support throughout the world. This is an overly generalized outlook on the growth of the internet but as one can see even in these sectors the great impact it has had on society.

Culturally, the evolution of myspace, facebook, twitter and the like has reflected how the young guides the old on this highway. The adaptability of the young and their ability to embrace new arenas in cyberspace dictates how and where their parents socially intermingle on line. Additionally, it also reflects how providers of such social networks have to adapt to the young or become irrelevant such as the case with myspace. The online language that we engage in has become a part of our day to day interpersonal communication with others. Our day to day realities is not concrete reality until it becomes "facebook official". Sadly, as with any revolution, I fear that legislative policy such as censorship and intermediary provider responsibility will begin to take affect and slow the amazing advances that have been made culturally in this technological era. Case in point, it is beyond my wildest dreams that I have the privilege to participate in a course taught online by Professor Sellars at HES. The paths to education through coursera and edx which are free is an opportunity and path for learning that we never had before. However, with continuing legislation, censorship and/or surveillance the ideas that we formulate from the knowledge that we now have equal access will have a limited capacity to flourish. So I reflect on how that will affect our culture.

Lastly, the political aspect of the internet is one of the primary reasons I registered for the course. As a news junkie, I followed the sony hacking incident closely. I am discombobulated by the fact that a nation state such as North Korea has the power to limit the freedoms of United States Citizens. The reality that the internet can be used as an effective tool for cyber warfare between countries is astounding yet twistedly intriguing.
Additionally, speeches that were once hard to circulate can be uploaded within seconds and has ended political careers. Most recently, the ramble of Sarah Palin has been looped so many times any serious presidential contention in 2016 is now forgotten. So the political media power of the internet has grown significantly.
[[User:Mmcasse|Mmcasse]] ([[User talk:Mmcasse|talk]]) 13:30, 31 January 2015 (EST)

----

Today, internet is all around us and with that, we live in a world where we are constanly connected to family and friends, miles away, whether via our phone, laptop, iPad/etc. Socially, Skype and Facetime allow us real time conversation across oceans and Facebook/Twitter allow us instant gratification whether uploading a status or liking a tweet. Games on phones allow us to challenge an oppenent all only possible with Internet.

Politically speaking, Twitter has created an outlet for involved leaders to voice their opinions while receiving instant “reviews” from followers. This allows people to receive news from figures regarding a wide variety from the birth of Hilary Clintons grandchild to Secretary of State Kerry being fined for not shoveling his walkway. In addiiton, leaders can upload videos and one can watch President Obama give the State of the Union online.

Econimically, the Interent has created online banking. Paper bills are a thing of the past and many of us rely on the Internet to not only pay our bills but to online bank. Accounts are saved on smart phones and bills are set on a recurring cycle to be paid online, many times without the payer even having to log in for a transcation to be complete. [[User:Cbore001|Cbore001]] ([[User talk:Cbore001|talk]]) 21:28, 31 January 2015 (EST)

----

Significant changes are visible all around us. Socially, the internet has become our connection to many people we would otherwise never meet be it through online dating, an internet job search, or any one of the shared economy apps or sites we now use like Uber or Airbnb. We are easily connected to people directly without much hassle or obstacle. Another social change is that we no longer have to wait for an audience, we can just throw things out there and sit back and see how people react without any direct implications. Some sites and apps even allow us to do this anonymously like YikYak or Reddit causing an even greater cushion of safety to the speaker. This can be good or bad, in some cases giving people the freedom to seek support or help for a problem anonymously, or by giving predators an easy way to track down their prey and slanderers an easy way to disseminate harmful information. These things were possible in the past, but never before have they been so freely at our fingertips.

Economically, the Internet has completely altered the landscape of enterprise. If a business doesn’t have a website it is considered obsolete. In large cities, it goes further, a business needs to have an app to stay relevant. Then there’s the matter of online shopping. I can’t remember the last time I went shoe shopping at a physical store. I would feel it’s a waste of time because online I have so much more information on the products available to me and usually at a better price. We also have working from home. Many tech companies offer this option and there are other companies which solely have remote employees due to the ubiquity of internet access in major cities in the U.S. and the nature of the work. For personal affairs we can do online banking, pay bills online, order food online, and the list goes on.

Culturally, people have greater exposure to the outside world. This has caused some to become more diverse and open and yet others to try to close themselves off even more and fight the compromise of their own culture. Western culture is spreading to less developed countries at an alarming rate causing younger people in those countries to reject many cultural norms such as respect for authority figures, arranged marriages, and religion. There is also much positive dispersal of cultural information, such as in the form of languages. Programs for learning languages are offered on many websites, sometimes for free as in the case of livemocha.com. Even on youtube.com there are many videos offered for learning just about any language.

Politically, we now have more avenues than ever before to voice our opinions. No more letters to the editor or opinion columns in local newspapers, we can now holler our opinions far and wide using the help of social media sites, opinion polls, debate forums, and much much more. That’s not to say that we’ve become more intelligent politically, that’s a whole different story. More information is available at our fingertips, the only problem is that we only click on the things that reinforce the opinions we already have. But updates about political activity are available literally 24/7 which keeps the race ruthless and tireless. Furthermore, a politician’s online presence can make or break their career. There are no more secret affairs or fetishes. Though people may get away with these things still, they must be much more careful because one slip up could mean their last. ([[User:Oliviabrinich|Oliviabrinich]] ([[User talk:Oliviabrinich|talk]]) 22:37, 31 January 2015 (EST))

----
The proliferation of the internet and social media, have facilitated the spread of information, from viral marketing campaigns to political campaigns. Both the 2008 and 2012 Presidential elections, demonstrated the importance of digital technologies for cultivating grass-roots support and financial contributions. Since then the appeals from political campaigns, for supporter contributions have become continuous, and hard to avoid.

Social media has helped to disseminate opinions, of both high profile people and those in one's own social circle, more widely than they might otherwise have been, and perhaps also more quickly than desirable. It is now very easy to write ill considered words, which then get disseminated and dissected, potentially causing a media controversy. Equally, digital technology has had a great impact on the notion of privacy. Julian Assange, Wikileaks and the proliferation of online activism, has renewed the civil liberties debate and discussions about privacy. The internet continually reaffirms how interconnected the world now is, and how tangible something that begins in cyberspace can be. [[User:AlexanderH|AlexanderH]] ([[User talk:AlexanderH|talk]]) 16:13, 1 February 2015 (EST)

----

First of all, I would like to say I find all posts very interesting to read and judging by them, it is obviously that we all agree on the fact that Internet has a huge impact on our lives. Every aspect of our everyday activity is somehow connected online - communication with friends is going through social networks, chats, almost any type of business has its website which has become more important than the business card. When we are choosing provider of any kind, the first thing to do is to check him online, his website, some reviews in the forums if possible. Leisure and free time, of course - movies, music, computer games and so on, picnics and walks in the park are getting behind somehow. It has even become an obsession for many people to be online 24/7 and not being connected makes them feel uncomfortable.

From cultural stand point, I would rather say that there are more positive effects than negative. I would point out Google Cultural Institute as my favourite cultural, on-line invention. It is amazing that people from everywhere could actually explore cultural treasures from all around the world in the smallest details and for free. This as well as free e-books projects, like Project Gutenberg, are priceless gifts for our generations, showing that information and knowledge most of all, could be accessible to everyone who desires. I very much like the example Josefin has given in her post, saying that the mere existence of this online course and our participation in it is a proof enough how Internet helps us achieving things, that some years ago would have been impossible for many of us. This being said, I would not like to ignore the fact that the endless ocean of information Internet is, could very easily become a danger, especially for children which without a proper control over the online activities, could easily be endangered or at least loos themselves in the immense quantity of information without getting the real knowledge.

The political sphere has not stayed untouched. Many of the political changes now a days, would have been impossible without the Internet “contributing”. The snow ball phenomenon Arab Spring, for example, is showing that Internet is a powerful tool for people to connect, organize, share ideas and act. The nature of Internet is combining the features and tools of radio, television and newspapers. Therefor if media are defined as an alleged fourth power, I dare say Internet should be defined as the fifth. Another good example of the influence over the political live would be the electronic voting, more precisely the remote e-voting, exercised via Internet. This is an innovation some countries like Australia,Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Estonia , have already implemented.

Talking about the economy, if only we take a look at the numbers Forbes has forecasted saying that "'''By 2017 eMarketer estimates that there will be $440 billion in sales for a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 13.8% (...)'"'' (Chuck Jones, Forbes,10/02/2013) , we would easily understand why expressions like "Cyber Monday”, were forged, referring to the online sales following the Black Friday sales. There are many other examples of how Internet has become a factor in the economy like the stock exchange market, which would not be the same as we know it without the net, the Bitcoin, the payment processing business and many others. ([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 11:31, 2 February 2015 (EST))
-----
Socially, I am that group of parents that drove my children away from FaceBook. I have over 500 friends, including my children, high school and college classmates, work friends, my mom and aunts and uncles and cousins. I also use LinkedIn, which provides another means of social networking and getting your name and resume out to business colleagues. I believe it is a great means of reconnecting with old friends and staying in touch with what is going on around us. But I also understand how we get pigeonholed into a group of people and content that we already agree with.

Politically, I doubt there is a person alive who could stand up to the scrutiny brought on by all the sound bites. (The example of Sarah Palin someone mentioned above). I am sure there are talented people who would be great as President but dare not run because of the heartache and humiliation brought on by posts and opinions on the internet.

Economically, I love that I can schedule all my bills to be paid automatically and I don’t even know how much my electric bill is! I have done my Christmas shopping online before they coined the phrase “Black Friday”. With all our internet transactions, we have less and less privacy. I hired a new plow company for these snowstorms and he called me to describe my house and driveway. Google Earth.

Bottom line, this generation has grown up with the internet, and I imagine could not fathom life without it. I have known life on both sides…. I know most of my family, work and doctors’ phone numbers – from memory. I can drive from here to New York and beyond without a GPS, (we actually had map books!) I also think the internet has a life of its own and has grown beyond our social ability to manage it. I have a particular interest in bullying, and the internet has given huge and dangerous power to the bullies. I look forward to the exchanges in class and here on the discussion board![[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 22:11, 2 February 2015 (EST)

----

I can describe a personal experience that illustrates how the Internet and digital technologies changed our social life. In 2001, I spend six months in New Zealand and all my connection with family and friends in Brazil were via Internet. It was very effective but it was not in real time as it is nowadays. The social medias such as Facebook and Instagram combined with several apps that we can download to our smartphones created a virtual world where we can be in touch with every one in real time. We are able to interact and live the moment that the person in the other side of the line is living. So, when you are far away from home, like I am, you do not feel you are losing so many moments with your family and friends as it used do be. In some way, connected, we get ourselves closer.
In addition, I think that the stock markets are much more sensitive of any changes and news, so the speculation game is faster and dynamic. In a few minutes, every thing can change so it is imperative to be connected. That defines who earn and who lost money. [[User:Lucasrio|Lucasrio]] ([[User talk:Lucasrio|talk]]) 10:02, 3 February 2015 (EST)

----

Information and its more cultured offspring – knowledge -- will always be the unquenchable and unending journey and destination for man and the society he builds. The Internet is, at its essence, a reflection of this yearning -- the Internet and its related digital technologies are merely vehicles expressing a most animal desire; the pursuit of more.

1. An Outlet To Play God: The Social Change

And tricked by our own early dream
And need of solace, we grew self-deceived,
Our making soon our maker did we deem,
And what we had imagined we believed.
--God’s Funeral, T. Hardy

From the Goldsmith and Wu article on Digital Borders, Net use was dominated initially by English-speakers who “…created the Net in their image.”

This line stuck out above the rest and seemed to not only brightly elaborate on the fact at hand, but at a generally applicable trend that the Internet has graced us with; the trend of power-granting – or at least lending us with the illusion of power. We have created in the Internet our perfected selves: it knows everything, it socializes brilliantly, it possesses a strange but alluring appearance of being infinite. Before, man might have turned to the divine for his answers. Now he “Googles” it.

With this tendency, there is also this funny but simultaneous dimension where man knows that not only does he have an alternative to what his ancestors once believed in, modern man has created this entity. The Internet has become at once, a strange kind of divine – unknowable in its vastness, knowable in its man-made fragments.

2. Cheapening of Privacy: The Cultural Change

We now sign sixty, hundred-twenty, two-hundred page software or user agreements just to have the privilege of sharing our entire photographed lives with what we think are a select few eyes – of for some people, not even that. A picture sharing website will usually have some kind of clause saying they have the right to use your picture from an album for “advertising purposes” (Picasa, a few years ago), or the blatant example, Facebook – who is not in the business of social media, rather, it is in the business of information. More specifically, the selling of information – more specifically, the selling of your personal information.

With the rise of the Internet and the software platforms it makes possible, we are now raising a generation of people who have desensitized themselves from any sense of privacy. Any arguments as to the intrusiveness of the likes of Google or Facebook is mostly met with a shrug of “I’ve nothing to hide…. Let them have my information.” Translation: My information, the data that constitutes my persona, my self, my identity, is free for the taking – I have no use for it.”

3. Headless Ubiquity: The Political Change

The structuring of people, the organizing people, the mobilizing of people, and the dividing and unifying of people has been forever changed by the Internet’s introduction of a new management model. The Starfish model.

Brafman and Beckstrom’s “The Starfish and the Spider” is a book about leaderless organizations and their power. They use the Internet as prime example of the omnipotent “Starfish” – a headless creature that moves and lives and in a way, cannot be destroyed. One limb moves and the others follow. Cut a limb and another grows in its place. It has no “brain” it has no “leader” – every piece of itself is self-reliant, self-initiated, yet entirely synchronized. Brafman and Beckstrom compare the starfish with the “Spider – a system of governing people in which there is a clear “head” and there are legs and a body. If the head (president, leader) is cut off the whole thing dies. The Internet has no head (unless we want to get technical here and argue that literal energy is the “head” but technicalities aside...). The Internet is all-powerful while having no single source of its power – if Google dies tomorrow, Yahoo will take its place.

This has powerful implications in our understanding of politics. In our understanding of power. From Twitter-feeds to start a revolution (Arab Spring and Egypt) to the rise of the viral video to satirize and ridicule the previously fearful or the potentially powerful and render them powerless – literally laughing leaders off the political stage. The Internet has become the world’s newest, headless dictator. It is the first dictator without a head but with a body that is all dictator.

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 17:57, 2 March 2015 (EST)

One of the most interesting, and significant, changes that I think we can attribute to the spread of digital technologies is the toppling of various totalitarian regimes across the Middle East. In 2011, Hosni Mubarak was forced to resign as President of Egypt after only a few months of non-stop protests. The protesters managed to mobilize the Egyptian people on the Internet, through mobile devices and social media, even as they were being censored by the Egyptian government. I believe the experience in Egypt has taught us that, even with censorship of the mainstream media, the Internet can still be used as a weapon against tyrannical dictatorships.

This leads me to another interesting point that I would like to talk about, and that is the question of privacy and the internet. With the evolution of the Internet and its supporting digital technologies, privacy has become a thing of the past. Companies and government agencies often spy and tap into our personal data ostensibly to show us show us adds that we may like and, according to authorities, to protect us from those who may wish to do us harm. But with the recent NSA spying debacle, and with controversy over whether or not the IRS has been using personal data to target certain groups because of their political beliefs, I believe that there should be a limit to how much data people allow the government and private companies to see. Unless we act now, I believe that a lack of privacy will become a major problem for future generations.

[[User:Mishal R. Kennedy|Mishal R. Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Mishal R. Kennedy|talk]]) 12:38PM, 3 February 2015 (EST)

----

I think the greatest economic change (since I'm in finance) that occurred due to the internet is that things became very efficient. We're talking about transparency efficiency and the availability of information that was not previously available. We have lower spreads in stocks, and quicker executions. Trading volume went up, and it's easier for the little guy to be part of the market. This meant that economic indicators could also be reflected instantaneously. In general, the way the world seems to have developed is to make things more efficient. We went from a lack of efficiency during paleolithic humans till now. The invention of spears for hunting, or fire for cooking. Wool for warmth, shelter for protection. Efficiency has dictated whether we humans will advance as a civilization or not. The boom of the internet has increased our efficiency tremendously and sets the stage for the next step in inventions.
[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 05:02, 16 February 2015 (EST)

One of the more recent ways in which the Internet is shaping our sociopolitical discourse is through the creation of strong cyber networks for more marginalized communities. For example, the rise of feminist blogs and message boards or hashtags such as #blacklivesmatter can be used in connecting online activity and writing to other forms of non-cyber activism and understanding.

In terms of economic changes prompted by the Internet, online capitalist competition has facilitated the growth of huge online sellers of a variety of goods with versatile virtual purveyors like Amazon. ([[User:Amchugh|Amchugh]] ([[User talk:Amchugh|talk]]) 13:30, 3 February 2015 (EST))

----

One major change the Internet has brought is the democratization of media narratives. I know my classmates have mentioned above a few negative aspects of Internet media and the way it's shaping our political behaviors, but I find the swell of larger contributions by the online public to be incredibly empowering and exciting. For example, after the shootings in Isla Vista, California last spring, when traditional media outlets were largely ignoring the misogynistic motives of the killer, female Twitter users posted millions of tweets with the hashtag #YesAllWomen in order to redirect the narrative and share their experiences of sexism and abuse. Similarly, after the events in Ferguson, Missouri, social media was a cathartic and powerful outlet for the public to rally together, using the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter. Citizen-driven stories like this can even play a large role in political events - back in 2012 when Romney made the comment about "binders full of women," it was social media outlets that exploded, generated a meme, and ultimately shaped the public perception of Romney. The tangible effects of these conversations may be tough to measure, but mass participation in social discussions have been cropping up all throughout the year online.

I'm also fascinated by the social progress the Internet has helped usher in, as well as the intense backlash it has sometimes produced. For example, I think it could be argued that the Internet was at least partially responsible for how swiftly the gay marriage debate has shifted in the past several years. Online campaigns like "It Gets Better" and "No H8" have gone viral and reached ears that might otherwise not have been willing to listen. On the other hand, incidents like Gamergate show the danger of anonymity and lack of regulation online, and the way it can impact groups like women. As a personal note, the experience of women online is something that fascinates me greatly and one of the big reasons I enrolled in this course.

[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 13:56, 3 February 2015 (EST)

----
Indelibly, electronic commerce has changed the way the world purchases goods. Whether for personal or business use, the model of internet purchasing has created a subgenre of the way economic business is transacted. For example, large companies use intranets (modeled from the internet, for internal purchasing) which streamline purchasing and can allow the company to be for fiscally efficient.

The internet is a boon to introverts. The timid and shy have a vehicle for clearly expressing him or herself with very little risk to their person; visually creative with design, literally with blogs and other form of written communication, or even purchasing- avoiding crowds, unnecessary conversation or aggressive sales persons.

It is interesting to note that with the advancement of how much the internet is used; adept users develop tools to help others exploit every measure of that success to enable it to grow further. For example the use of filters when shopping: gone are the days when one sat at the computer screen scrolling through all options in order to view a specific type of garment or car. Another example can be the use of customizations in items that are rather hard to customize in reality, i.e. cars, homes, shoes. I think it is often forgotten how far internet technology has advanced in such a short period of time as 20 years.

Economic – Social [[User:JGadson|JGadson]] ([[User talk:JGadson|talk]]) 14:24, 3 February 2015 (EST)

-----

Great conversation everyone. One aspect of the spread of the internet that I find particularly fascinating is the decentralization of journalism. Like when digital cameras - and then camera phones - turned almost every amateur on the street into a photographer, the internet gave everyone who can write and type (and has access to a computer) a platform for broadcasting their thoughts, opinions, and experiences. No printing press, copy editor, or delivery boy needed.

You would think that with so many people putting their thoughts into the marketplace of ideas, we’d be better off. But with everything that’s now on the internet, it’s constant information overload and that makes it all too tempting to pick news sources that reinforce preexisting beliefs, rather than listen to anyone who might call into question or expand our thinking.

What I find more dangerous than humans boxing themselves into ideological corners, however, is when coders box people into ideological corners, especially without their knowledge. Google searches, for example, are no longer created equal; we see results that google thinks we want to see. Facebook no longer shows us all our friends’ posts but rather just the ones it thinks we’ll like most. The internet is trying to be a golden retriever and just please us, but that’s not what we need it to do or be.

Another significant change associated with the spread of the internet has been the normalization of invasions of privacy. We have come to expect and even joke about how visiting a site like WikiLeaks has put us on “a list somewhere.” We’ve accepted that that’s just the cost of having a “free” internet.

All that said I believe the internet has become critically important for information sharing and gathering, for maintaining social networks, and for social justice movements.

--[[User:Kelly.wilson|Kelly.wilson]] ([[User talk:Kelly.wilson|talk]]) 14:39, 3 February 2015 (EST)

----
The individualized nature of current social media, springing from initial mediums like personalized web pages and blogs, finds an unusual home in current political trends and more specifically uprisings. The Arab Spring is typically pointed to as an unprecedented example of utilizing Facebook and Twitter to organize mass demonstrations, even coining the term “Twitter Revolution” to help explain what modern physical protests actualized through an interconnected social platform look like. The internet also impacts the accessibility of stories taking place across the globe. The 2011 Egyptian Revolution and the 2014 invasion of Crimea by Russian forces are examples of highly visible events whose influence in the social media sphere permeated traditional media and coverage. The advent of crowdsourcing, which has seen particular growth in the last five years has managed to leverage online spaces to send aid or relief to less advantaged people not only in the communities of its users, but across the world as well. So while many of the readings we did for this week and videos we watched online offered a slightly more pessimistic view of how we have potentially stumbled into misuse of the enormous resource the internet is, many of the largest sociopolitical upheavals of the 21st century so far owe a great debt to its ability to connect people to pertinent and rapidly shifting information.
[[User:Meredithmblake|Meredith]] ([[User talk:Meredithmblake|talk]]) 15:46, 3 February 2015 (EST)

----
As a young person who has grown up with the internet I have witnessed first-hand how powerful and life-altering the internet and digital technologies have become. Some of my friends have built their lives around the internet. For example, one of my friends is a filmmaker and a musician and he started using the internet as an avenue to pursue his interests as a child. Before he even turned 18, he was already generating a significant income from selling his music and becoming one of the first YouTube partners. Today, one of his YouTube videos has more than 180,000,000 hits and he has 410,701 subscribers. Clearly, he is not alone in his pursuits. He is just one of a vast number of people in the world who have experienced significant economic success from the internet. More recently, it came to light in both the mainstream news and internet media that YouTube user, DisneyCollectorBR’s estimated income after YouTube’s 45% cut was $5.06 Million this year and the only thing she does is post videos of herself, without showing her face, unboxing Disney toys. Now, that’s what I call a significant economic gain.
[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 14:21, 4 February 2015 (EST)

----
The Internet has shaped our world and culture in many ways. Our social circles are closer than they have ever been thanks to tools such as Facebook and texting, yet they are strangely distant as well -- no longer do people stop by to say "hi" or see how you're doing, they can just see it on Facebook! The "Internet culture" has spread far and wide, and memes are commonplace in everyday society now. One was even featured in a super bowl commercial! Politically, it's still just as easy to be spoonfed whatever you choose to believe in, but all the arguments from everyone's side are available for easy viewing on the Internet -- if you know where to find them. Also, electronic voting machines are incredibly commonplace, and the vulnerabilities reported in them should make anyone worry. Perhaps the most significant area of interest, however, is the economic impact of the Internet. The ability to buy and sell goods from the comfort of your home should not be understated, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. Two thirds of all US searches are done through Google, and their targeted advertising makes them billions of dollars. Delivering goods virtually is also a huge market right now - Netflix and Steam are booming, while Blockbuster and Gamestop are busting. There are even virtual currencies now, and Bitcoin has a wide reach. Restaurants in major cities all over the country are beginning to accept Bitcoins!

We are barely scraping the surface of what the Internet has to offer, in all aspects of life. The rapid flow of data is what makes the human brain function, after all, and the Internet looks more and more like a neural network every day. The possibilities the future hold are endless. [[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 21:35, 4 February 2015 (EST)

----
Sorry for the late comment but if a computer in teh U.S. violates French law does it mean that the user in the U.S. should comply with the French court order to shut it down?

[[User:Rpeisch|Rpeisch]] ([[User talk:Rpeisch|talk]]) 13:47, 24 February 2015 (EST)

Privacy Part 2: The Right to Be Forgotten

2015-02-24T14:43:09Z

Chanel Rion: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 24'''

The Court of Justice of the European Union made big waves last May when it ruled against Google on a claim brought by a Spanish citizen asserting a right to remove two news articles that appeared in Google search results when he searched for his own name. The case, now known as the case that recognized the “right to be forgotten,” has come to the forefront of discussions of online privacy. In today’s class, we’ll explore the “right to be forgotten,” how it applies in Europe, whether it could ever come to the United States, and how international companies address competing national balances over privacy and free speech.

We’ll also spend part of this day describing the final project for the class, and discuss how to pick a good community and issue to study for the project.

Our guest this week is Berkman staffer [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/aholland Adam Holland], who oversees the operations of several projects, including [https://www.chillingeffects.org/ Chilling Effects], which tracks legal threats against online speech.

==Readings==

* [http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/privacy-paradox/right-to-be-forgotten Jeffery Rosen, "The Right to Be Forgotten," 64 Stanford Law Review Online 88 (February 13, 2012)]

* [http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2014/05/the_european_right_to_be_forgotten_is_just_what_the_internet_needs.single.html Eric Posner, "We All Have the Right to Be Forgotten," Slate, May 14, 2014]

* [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/15/opinion/dont-force-google-to-forget.html Jonathan Zittrain, "Don't Force Google to 'Forget'," New York Times, May 14, 2014]

* [http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/03/google-erases-unflattering-news-stories-because-of-right-to-be-forgotten-is-this-like-burning-books-in-a-library/ Gail Sullivan, "'Right to be Forgotten' gets real as Google wipes stories from search results," July 3, 2014]

* [http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/29/solace-oblivion Jeffery Toobin, "The Solace of Oblivion," The New Yorker, September 29, 2014]

==Optional Readings==

* [https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/collages/31818 Google Spain SL v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos] (an abridged version of the ECJ decision from May 2014 - built on the Berkman Center's own [https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/p/about H2O Platform] for online textbooks)

* [https://publixphere.net/i/noc/page/OI_Case_Study_European_Union_and_Google_Spain Aleksandra Kuczerawy and Jef Ausloos, European Union and Google Spain] (from the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/node/98684 brand new report from the Global Network of Internet and Society centers])

==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>

Andy, could you please look over the microphones in the classroom? I had a really hard time hearing what was said in class last week. There was no problem with hearing the people closest to the camera, but those further away (including Mr. Faris) were really difficult to hear. :) [[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 06:38, 19 February 2015 (EST)

----

:Thanks for the heads up, Josefin. I think we were having some problems with Rob's mic, and I'll tell folks in class to speak up to make sure the table mics pick up the sound. [[User:Andy|Andy]] ([[User talk:Andy|talk]]) 08:09, 19 February 2015 (EST)

----

I have a hard time deciding wether I like the ”right to be forgotten law” or not. It can be a good thing when it comes to giving people a second chance in life or preventing false rumors from destroing peoples lives. But it could at the same time undermine the freedom of speech, which is a very important important element in a democracy.

Also, three reasons for search results to be removed are that they are ”inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant”, which is very subjective. Who should have the power to decide what is irrelevant and what is important information to the public? And what if information that is irrelevant today unexpectedly happens to be relevant in a few years?

I was surprised to know that ”Google has fielded about a hundred and twenty thousand requests for deletions and granted roughly half of them.”, because I haven´t heard about this law since last spring and didn´t reflect upon the fact that a lot of people could´ve used this ”right to be forgotten”. I wonder what kind of people that use it, why they do it, etc. Is it to be able to move on from previous mistakes? Is it to hide things about themselves to be able to defraud others? Whatever you think is right (to implement this right or not) there are several approaches on this matter that are relevant. It is important that we discuss these issues now, when more and more information can be found on the Internet. [[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 14:12, 22 February 2015 (EST)

----

I’m sure I’m not the only one who has embarrassing photos on Facebook and wished to delete them. Some of them were posted by myself and later realized how idiotic they were; some were then copied from mine and reposted by my friends; and ofcourse, some were taken by my friends of me doing embarrassing things. This is precisely what we fear, and the sensitive issue about privacy in the internet world.

Sometimes I wonder what exactly constitutes the internet? Freedom to post everything and share everything without restrictions? But the other issue is the problem about privacy. It is hard to have a completely free society on the internet if there are restrictions here and there. So where should privacy start? Should it be based upon the existing privacy laws in real life? I guess since we do live in the physical world, some of it have to derive from the real world. “The right to be forgotten” is precisely that. It governs the areas in Europe to have those rights. (Ref 1 and 2) From paragraph one I mentioned the three things that were questionable. Under the right to be forgotten law, Europeans could demand to have their data deleted regardless if it was posted by them, redistributed, or taken by someone else.

Google tried a different approach of allowing users to comment on searches of you. (ref 3) but against such tough regulations on privacy, I’m not surprised that Google abandoned it soon after. I believe they do not have aligned interests with regulators. Search engines should be pro- openness, pro-free data, anti-regulations. But such is difficult when the internet is actually possible to be governed by geographical location (as we learned previously). “The right to be forgotten” has really forced Google and other search engines to remove certain results from some searches. (ref 4) It goes into the territory of whether they would be reliable for keeping certain data online. I think Toobin’s story proved a very valid point. The way Nikki Catsouras was decapitated was gruesome, and the employees of the California Highway Patrol should not have spread the photos. (ref 5) It should be kept professional. When issues like this occur, it really brings us back to the privacy issue. Is it better to have an open internet where everything is available? Or is it better to control the internet with certain privacy settings? It seems that this topic would continue for a while.

I think “the right to be forgotten” comes in handy when it needs to be used, but also restricts true freedom of sharing data. When the internet first started and everyone thought it would not be under the jurisdiction of governments were very wrong. It was not only geographically controlled, not only digitally but physically (wires and cables), it was also controlled by means of “rights”, such as privacy. I could see issues with and without “the Right to Be Forgotten”. Both sides of the argument seems valid. Yet I do think the digital world reflects the physical one more than the other way round. So for the time being, I believe it benefits society more with these privacy settings than it harms us.

'''References:'''

Ref 1 - http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/privacy-paradox/right-to-be-forgotten

Ref 2 - http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2014/05/the_european_right_to_be_forgotten_is_just_what_the_internet_needs.single.html

Ref 3 - http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/15/opinion/dont-force-google-to-forget.html?_r=0

Ref 4 - http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/03/google-erases-unflattering-news-stories-because-of-right-to-be-forgotten-is-this-like-burning-books-in-a-library/

Ref 5 - http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/29/solace-oblivion

[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 21:40, 22 February 2015 (EST)

----

The discussion about the balance between "the right to be forgotten" and free speech is another difficult perspective to the privacy debate and reiterates that it's extremely hard to define and, therefore, to make boundaries. I appreciate how the articles provided a variety of perspectives both for and against the right to be forgotten which allowed for some valuable insights. It seems as though coming up with an overall policy to allow people the right to be forgotten is practically impossible because of the variety of situations which cause people to want to practice that principle. It seems that the main argument for the right to be forgotten is that, "we didn't use to have immediate access to people's pasts and things were just fine back then, why do we have to change it?". The important fact they're leaving out is that the playing field is completely different now so the old rules won't work. We're dealing with a completely different situation, in that, even if there were regulation, things are STILL so much easier to find and unless the Internet is completely destroyed, that's not going to change. Like in Germany, someone can just as easily log in to google.com instead of google.de and turn up the unfiltered search results. The legislation can only hold for the EU, and unless they want to be like China and censor access to outside websites, they will have to accept that they can't control information in the way they feel they need to. That may be unfortunate for some people, but it's the bad that comes with the good. We can't choose to have an amazing resource of information which causes billions of people access to education, communication, work, travel, etc., and then say, "oh, but we only want the good stuff". Life doesn't work like that, and the internet certainly isn't an exception. [[User:Oliviabrinich|Oliviabrinich]] ([[User talk:Oliviabrinich|talk]]) 21:49, 22 February 2015 (EST)

----

In the context of human rights, the right to be forgotten is akin the right to be left alone. Also similar to the right to be protected from unlawful searches in the home, and the right to peaceful enjoyment of a dwelling in the context of housing law. All this talk of free speech being under assault is a lot of hyperventilating, mostly espoused by those who think corporations have a right to collect any information from anybody at any time in the pursuit of profit. Sorry, those click disclosures on every internet transaction don’t count as full disclosure, and have been proven in court in many occasions to be insufficient. The reason being that those disclosures act as a one sided negotiation – either you accept the terms of the purchase, including sharing the information with third parties or you don’t get to make X-mas purchases on line. That’s an unfair contract.

The internet is finally bumping against its limits on free information and privacy. In fact, there are already laws protecting individuals from bullying on line and online breaches of bank accounts and financial information. So, if the rights of corporations and individuals are protected from libel and defamation, why shouldn’t individuals receive the same protection if they are private citizens? The problem in the U.S. is that profits trump everything else including free speech, in fact, they already censor blogs and social websites. Furthermore, the U.S. government has a free run to retrieve whatever information it wants from any individual living in the U.S., citizen or not.

Asking Goggle to delete records under the current guidelines established in the European Union is the least that can be asked of Google and other search engines in the U.S. as well as Face book and other social networks. Those who clamor for freedom of speech are forgetting that privacy does not exists any more, it is merely an illusion. Unless an individual takes complete control of his or her information, one cannot expect anyone in the U.S. to respect his or her privacy. The internet is heading into uncharted waters with this privacy issue and the right to be forgotten. Expect them to be barraged with thousands of law suits from individuals with criminal records who long after serving their sentences will still be haunted by their criminal past, from private citizens who have been victims of bullying and crimes on line and about a hundred other reasons I cannot enumerate on this blog.[[User:Hromero10|Hromero10]] ([[User talk:Hromero10|talk]]) 08:36, 23 February 2015 (EST)

----
Hello All!

As I contemplate “the right to be forgotten” on the internet I like to consider how these scenarios would have played out before the internet existed and try to apply a similar logic to our current situation.

In the past, if libelous information was published in a newspaper, the paper’s recourse would be to publish a retraction. However they could not ask for all their subscribers to destroy their copies. Consequently, in some circumstances the plaintiff could be awarded compensation for these damages.

Keeping this in mind, while I do believe libelous defamatory statements should be removable on the internet, I do not think it is wise to condone the removal of truthful statements and images from the internet because it would erase an accurate history and replace it with a false one.

Ironically, I suppose allowances such as these would benefit future historians, since it would validate their purpose, as they would have to not trust their initial findings through online searches. Instead, they would have to search for truthful information in more obscure locations.

Just as today’s historians need to look at primary sources including personal journals, I imagine historians of the future will be in search of the personal hard drives of the famous figures of our era.

-Emily MacIntyre

[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 12:07, 23 February 2015 (EST)
----

What we all fight for is to accomplish something in life in order to be remembered, with our achievements, creations, contributions to the society. At the same time we are fighting for staying in world’s collective memory, many of us are craving for a fresh start, for an opportunity for a second chance. The European union’s response is the proclaiming of the “right to be forgotten”. EU is motivating this newly established right with the need of protection of privacy. Jeffrey Rosen is saying “the right to be forgotten addresses an urgent problem in the digital age: it is very hard to escape your past on the Internet ” which shows exactly that people are projecting this issue just in the online world. I think that we should not limit our reflections on the subject by transposing this right only to the digital environment. Eric Posner says “ Once information is online, it can be forever instantly accessible through search engines. No need to dig through archives or court records for the record of Costeja’s debt”. This clearly shows that Internet is not the problem, it is not the net which is menacing the right of privacy , it just makes things faster. The information would still exist on paper based records just it would not be so easily accessible. I find it rather unfair to blame Internet for just speeding up the process of search.

At the beginning I was very controversial about whether I am more a supporter of the European thesis regarding the issue or the American one. On one hand a situation like one described at the beginning of “the Solace of oblivion” by Jeffrey Toobin is really something we all would like to prevent as horrible and unjust. On the other hand, the demand of the two German killers demanding anonymity and suing Wikipedia’s, I find equally unjust.

I think there are really different aspects of this “right to be forgotten” which are still not well defined and speared neither by the legislation nor by the jurisprudence. I very much like the three categories of this right as described by Peter Fleischer. When it is about a personal information disclosed by someone, this person should be the one able to take it out of the public space the same way he put it there – the first category. But once this information, fact or action, has affected and interacted with the existence of someone else, it has become part of his “world” already , as I believe is the case with the German killers. We should be mastering our own lives but not those of other people and if through our actions we had become in someway part of someone else’s existence it would be unfair to dispose of his life as well. There are many dark periods in human’s history but it does not mean we should erase the names of the villains out of it.

The desire for a clean start, where no one would know about crazy parties we had as teenagers or personal tragedies , is a tempting option for everyone but I consider it first of all, impossible for execution and second I do not agree it is right to be claimed. Even if we make filter in search engines and ban certain websites, we would just use the technological capacity of the net to restrict the information in it but what we are supposed to do with books and newspapers? Does it mean we should burn them all if we found in them such kind of violation of the right to be forgotten or it is not the same just because they could be found only in libraries but not in Google ?

Second, in our lives we make choices every day, some of them turn out to be more important than others but these choices are defining us and make us what we are and we should be ready to face the consequences of each and every one of them otherwise it is cheating. And to the question that some people ask, whether we are supposed to bear the consequences. ([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 06:01, 24 February 2015 (EST))
----

'''Neuralizers for All'''

The Slate article by Eric Posner made an imperative distinction in the discourse of Privacy and the Right to be Forgotten; that is, personal information is trickier to control in this day and age not because it cannot be erased, but simply because the Internet makes it easier to access.

A cogent commentary on the state of our society, the zeitgeist of our evolving understandings of what is “personal” and what is “public.” A commentary on what we are accepting as reality and perception – about ourselves. And down into the Carrolian Rabbit hole we go, falling, falling, falling – the machine, the world that we have created within these machines and within this network of machines is now fashioning us into things we are not; with the capacity to put information out there selectively, recklesslessly, ignorantly, and consciously, we are increasingly aware and sensitive to this notion of designing who we are and how we are perceived – and when embarrassing or private details about ourselves begin to create this digital narrative of who we are, our instant reaction is to press some buttons to change people’s perceptions about us –- be they true or not.

This fear of the Internet and the parts of it we cannot control is a perfect example of how man has finally created a mirror of himself that is haunting him more and more; he has created a creature, amorphous and ungraspable, that has the power to make perception reality. And make us believe that what everyone sees online is what everyone will believe.

I continue to return to the Solove article from two classes back on the confusion of what it is to have private information and what, exactly, privacy means now – if it ever had a meaning to begin with. A chilling idea that such a treasured notion can be so confused, interpreted and misinterpreted, and, even, abused, as in the case of the German murderers suing Wiki to have their names removed from an article. But even if our notions of privacy is as treasured to us as it is confusing, we still cannot allow our personal follies to reinvent what is true. Again, returning to the Posner article; it’s not that this information or facts about ourselves are “erased” – rather, it is simply made harder to access by the general world.

Gia, the poster on this board just before me made a rather wonderful summation of the situation in which we wish to extract information about ourselves even after it has come into possession of another individual. And yes, Gia, I agree with you in the particular way that you phrased it: that once information has been released by ourselves and becomes part of someone else’s “world” it is now of this world and it is no longer our clear and divine right to remove such information. By no means do I agree with the idea that our information is free and usable by all -- my information is my currency, it’s worth a lot to me and I will jealously guard it as best I can even if I know that for the most part it is a losing battle especially in the US. The EU is on the right track in putting this concern for protecting the individual on the table but it has yet to iron out the practicalities of what is enforceable, what is true to free speech and what is true to the act of recording history.

Tbe EU’s Right to be Forgotten movement seems to believe that we all have the individual right to pull out a Neuralizer – that gun from Men in Black otherwise known as the “memory eraser” – whether the memory is fact or fiction, we have the right to manipulate this certain virtual space to a reality that we are most “comfortable” with.

I’m finding myself more and more in the camp of regulation starts with yourself; if you post it it was your decision; if you acted that way, that was also your decision. In this Internet, smartphone, cameras everywhere age, I think it is more a matter of us changing our perception of our environment so that it has caught up with the modern age; we still somehow believe that we are living in the 19th century regarding what we believe we can get away with. The Internet has brought wonders to our world; but it has also brought this new world where we must always be more conscious about our actions; everyone has a camera, everyone has a blog, and, we are also humans – everyone makes mistakes. The lines where I see potential protection and hope in this grim and overexposed world is in the world of copyright (as Nikki Catsouras’ family attempted to approach it through) where you can order someone to take down an image, video, or recording that actually belongs to you, and in the legal worlds of defamation, false light, and appropriation.

To me, it is within these realms that there is hope to morally correct false or morally remove true information from public access. The other options currently visible on the table are just different iterations of a rather dangerous-looking Memory Erasing Gun.

Chanel Rion

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 09:38, 24 February 2015 (EST)

Privacy Part 2: The Right to Be Forgotten

2015-02-24T14:38:38Z

Chanel Rion: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 24'''

The Court of Justice of the European Union made big waves last May when it ruled against Google on a claim brought by a Spanish citizen asserting a right to remove two news articles that appeared in Google search results when he searched for his own name. The case, now known as the case that recognized the “right to be forgotten,” has come to the forefront of discussions of online privacy. In today’s class, we’ll explore the “right to be forgotten,” how it applies in Europe, whether it could ever come to the United States, and how international companies address competing national balances over privacy and free speech.

We’ll also spend part of this day describing the final project for the class, and discuss how to pick a good community and issue to study for the project.

Our guest this week is Berkman staffer [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/aholland Adam Holland], who oversees the operations of several projects, including [https://www.chillingeffects.org/ Chilling Effects], which tracks legal threats against online speech.

==Readings==

* [http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/privacy-paradox/right-to-be-forgotten Jeffery Rosen, "The Right to Be Forgotten," 64 Stanford Law Review Online 88 (February 13, 2012)]

* [http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2014/05/the_european_right_to_be_forgotten_is_just_what_the_internet_needs.single.html Eric Posner, "We All Have the Right to Be Forgotten," Slate, May 14, 2014]

* [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/15/opinion/dont-force-google-to-forget.html Jonathan Zittrain, "Don't Force Google to 'Forget'," New York Times, May 14, 2014]

* [http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/03/google-erases-unflattering-news-stories-because-of-right-to-be-forgotten-is-this-like-burning-books-in-a-library/ Gail Sullivan, "'Right to be Forgotten' gets real as Google wipes stories from search results," July 3, 2014]

* [http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/29/solace-oblivion Jeffery Toobin, "The Solace of Oblivion," The New Yorker, September 29, 2014]

==Optional Readings==

* [https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/collages/31818 Google Spain SL v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos] (an abridged version of the ECJ decision from May 2014 - built on the Berkman Center's own [https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/p/about H2O Platform] for online textbooks)

* [https://publixphere.net/i/noc/page/OI_Case_Study_European_Union_and_Google_Spain Aleksandra Kuczerawy and Jef Ausloos, European Union and Google Spain] (from the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/node/98684 brand new report from the Global Network of Internet and Society centers])

==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>

Andy, could you please look over the microphones in the classroom? I had a really hard time hearing what was said in class last week. There was no problem with hearing the people closest to the camera, but those further away (including Mr. Faris) were really difficult to hear. :) [[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 06:38, 19 February 2015 (EST)

----

:Thanks for the heads up, Josefin. I think we were having some problems with Rob's mic, and I'll tell folks in class to speak up to make sure the table mics pick up the sound. [[User:Andy|Andy]] ([[User talk:Andy|talk]]) 08:09, 19 February 2015 (EST)

----

I have a hard time deciding wether I like the ”right to be forgotten law” or not. It can be a good thing when it comes to giving people a second chance in life or preventing false rumors from destroing peoples lives. But it could at the same time undermine the freedom of speech, which is a very important important element in a democracy.

Also, three reasons for search results to be removed are that they are ”inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant”, which is very subjective. Who should have the power to decide what is irrelevant and what is important information to the public? And what if information that is irrelevant today unexpectedly happens to be relevant in a few years?

I was surprised to know that ”Google has fielded about a hundred and twenty thousand requests for deletions and granted roughly half of them.”, because I haven´t heard about this law since last spring and didn´t reflect upon the fact that a lot of people could´ve used this ”right to be forgotten”. I wonder what kind of people that use it, why they do it, etc. Is it to be able to move on from previous mistakes? Is it to hide things about themselves to be able to defraud others? Whatever you think is right (to implement this right or not) there are several approaches on this matter that are relevant. It is important that we discuss these issues now, when more and more information can be found on the Internet. [[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 14:12, 22 February 2015 (EST)

----

I’m sure I’m not the only one who has embarrassing photos on Facebook and wished to delete them. Some of them were posted by myself and later realized how idiotic they were; some were then copied from mine and reposted by my friends; and ofcourse, some were taken by my friends of me doing embarrassing things. This is precisely what we fear, and the sensitive issue about privacy in the internet world.

Sometimes I wonder what exactly constitutes the internet? Freedom to post everything and share everything without restrictions? But the other issue is the problem about privacy. It is hard to have a completely free society on the internet if there are restrictions here and there. So where should privacy start? Should it be based upon the existing privacy laws in real life? I guess since we do live in the physical world, some of it have to derive from the real world. “The right to be forgotten” is precisely that. It governs the areas in Europe to have those rights. (Ref 1 and 2) From paragraph one I mentioned the three things that were questionable. Under the right to be forgotten law, Europeans could demand to have their data deleted regardless if it was posted by them, redistributed, or taken by someone else.

Google tried a different approach of allowing users to comment on searches of you. (ref 3) but against such tough regulations on privacy, I’m not surprised that Google abandoned it soon after. I believe they do not have aligned interests with regulators. Search engines should be pro- openness, pro-free data, anti-regulations. But such is difficult when the internet is actually possible to be governed by geographical location (as we learned previously). “The right to be forgotten” has really forced Google and other search engines to remove certain results from some searches. (ref 4) It goes into the territory of whether they would be reliable for keeping certain data online. I think Toobin’s story proved a very valid point. The way Nikki Catsouras was decapitated was gruesome, and the employees of the California Highway Patrol should not have spread the photos. (ref 5) It should be kept professional. When issues like this occur, it really brings us back to the privacy issue. Is it better to have an open internet where everything is available? Or is it better to control the internet with certain privacy settings? It seems that this topic would continue for a while.

I think “the right to be forgotten” comes in handy when it needs to be used, but also restricts true freedom of sharing data. When the internet first started and everyone thought it would not be under the jurisdiction of governments were very wrong. It was not only geographically controlled, not only digitally but physically (wires and cables), it was also controlled by means of “rights”, such as privacy. I could see issues with and without “the Right to Be Forgotten”. Both sides of the argument seems valid. Yet I do think the digital world reflects the physical one more than the other way round. So for the time being, I believe it benefits society more with these privacy settings than it harms us.

'''References:'''

Ref 1 - http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/privacy-paradox/right-to-be-forgotten

Ref 2 - http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2014/05/the_european_right_to_be_forgotten_is_just_what_the_internet_needs.single.html

Ref 3 - http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/15/opinion/dont-force-google-to-forget.html?_r=0

Ref 4 - http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/03/google-erases-unflattering-news-stories-because-of-right-to-be-forgotten-is-this-like-burning-books-in-a-library/

Ref 5 - http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/29/solace-oblivion

[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 21:40, 22 February 2015 (EST)

----

The discussion about the balance between "the right to be forgotten" and free speech is another difficult perspective to the privacy debate and reiterates that it's extremely hard to define and, therefore, to make boundaries. I appreciate how the articles provided a variety of perspectives both for and against the right to be forgotten which allowed for some valuable insights. It seems as though coming up with an overall policy to allow people the right to be forgotten is practically impossible because of the variety of situations which cause people to want to practice that principle. It seems that the main argument for the right to be forgotten is that, "we didn't use to have immediate access to people's pasts and things were just fine back then, why do we have to change it?". The important fact they're leaving out is that the playing field is completely different now so the old rules won't work. We're dealing with a completely different situation, in that, even if there were regulation, things are STILL so much easier to find and unless the Internet is completely destroyed, that's not going to change. Like in Germany, someone can just as easily log in to google.com instead of google.de and turn up the unfiltered search results. The legislation can only hold for the EU, and unless they want to be like China and censor access to outside websites, they will have to accept that they can't control information in the way they feel they need to. That may be unfortunate for some people, but it's the bad that comes with the good. We can't choose to have an amazing resource of information which causes billions of people access to education, communication, work, travel, etc., and then say, "oh, but we only want the good stuff". Life doesn't work like that, and the internet certainly isn't an exception. [[User:Oliviabrinich|Oliviabrinich]] ([[User talk:Oliviabrinich|talk]]) 21:49, 22 February 2015 (EST)

----

In the context of human rights, the right to be forgotten is akin the right to be left alone. Also similar to the right to be protected from unlawful searches in the home, and the right to peaceful enjoyment of a dwelling in the context of housing law. All this talk of free speech being under assault is a lot of hyperventilating, mostly espoused by those who think corporations have a right to collect any information from anybody at any time in the pursuit of profit. Sorry, those click disclosures on every internet transaction don’t count as full disclosure, and have been proven in court in many occasions to be insufficient. The reason being that those disclosures act as a one sided negotiation – either you accept the terms of the purchase, including sharing the information with third parties or you don’t get to make X-mas purchases on line. That’s an unfair contract.

The internet is finally bumping against its limits on free information and privacy. In fact, there are already laws protecting individuals from bullying on line and online breaches of bank accounts and financial information. So, if the rights of corporations and individuals are protected from libel and defamation, why shouldn’t individuals receive the same protection if they are private citizens? The problem in the U.S. is that profits trump everything else including free speech, in fact, they already censor blogs and social websites. Furthermore, the U.S. government has a free run to retrieve whatever information it wants from any individual living in the U.S., citizen or not.

Asking Goggle to delete records under the current guidelines established in the European Union is the least that can be asked of Google and other search engines in the U.S. as well as Face book and other social networks. Those who clamor for freedom of speech are forgetting that privacy does not exists any more, it is merely an illusion. Unless an individual takes complete control of his or her information, one cannot expect anyone in the U.S. to respect his or her privacy. The internet is heading into uncharted waters with this privacy issue and the right to be forgotten. Expect them to be barraged with thousands of law suits from individuals with criminal records who long after serving their sentences will still be haunted by their criminal past, from private citizens who have been victims of bullying and crimes on line and about a hundred other reasons I cannot enumerate on this blog.[[User:Hromero10|Hromero10]] ([[User talk:Hromero10|talk]]) 08:36, 23 February 2015 (EST)

----
Hello All!

As I contemplate “the right to be forgotten” on the internet I like to consider how these scenarios would have played out before the internet existed and try to apply a similar logic to our current situation.

In the past, if libelous information was published in a newspaper, the paper’s recourse would be to publish a retraction. However they could not ask for all their subscribers to destroy their copies. Consequently, in some circumstances the plaintiff could be awarded compensation for these damages.

Keeping this in mind, while I do believe libelous defamatory statements should be removable on the internet, I do not think it is wise to condone the removal of truthful statements and images from the internet because it would erase an accurate history and replace it with a false one.

Ironically, I suppose allowances such as these would benefit future historians, since it would validate their purpose, as they would have to not trust their initial findings through online searches. Instead, they would have to search for truthful information in more obscure locations.

Just as today’s historians need to look at primary sources including personal journals, I imagine historians of the future will be in search of the personal hard drives of the famous figures of our era.

-Emily MacIntyre

[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 12:07, 23 February 2015 (EST)
----

What we all fight for is to accomplish something in life in order to be remembered, with our achievements, creations, contributions to the society. At the same time we are fighting for staying in world’s collective memory, many of us are craving for a fresh start, for an opportunity for a second chance. The European union’s response is the proclaiming of the “right to be forgotten”. EU is motivating this newly established right with the need of protection of privacy. Jeffrey Rosen is saying “the right to be forgotten addresses an urgent problem in the digital age: it is very hard to escape your past on the Internet ” which shows exactly that people are projecting this issue just in the online world. I think that we should not limit our reflections on the subject by transposing this right only to the digital environment. Eric Posner says “ Once information is online, it can be forever instantly accessible through search engines. No need to dig through archives or court records for the record of Costeja’s debt”. This clearly shows that Internet is not the problem, it is not the net which is menacing the right of privacy , it just makes things faster. The information would still exist on paper based records just it would not be so easily accessible. I find it rather unfair to blame Internet for just speeding up the process of search.

At the beginning I was very controversial about whether I am more a supporter of the European thesis regarding the issue or the American one. On one hand a situation like one described at the beginning of “the Solace of oblivion” by Jeffrey Toobin is really something we all would like to prevent as horrible and unjust. On the other hand, the demand of the two German killers demanding anonymity and suing Wikipedia’s, I find equally unjust.

I think there are really different aspects of this “right to be forgotten” which are still not well defined and speared neither by the legislation nor by the jurisprudence. I very much like the three categories of this right as described by Peter Fleischer. When it is about a personal information disclosed by someone, this person should be the one able to take it out of the public space the same way he put it there – the first category. But once this information, fact or action, has affected and interacted with the existence of someone else, it has become part of his “world” already , as I believe is the case with the German killers. We should be mastering our own lives but not those of other people and if through our actions we had become in someway part of someone else’s existence it would be unfair to dispose of his life as well. There are many dark periods in human’s history but it does not mean we should erase the names of the villains out of it.

The desire for a clean start, where no one would know about crazy parties we had as teenagers or personal tragedies , is a tempting option for everyone but I consider it first of all, impossible for execution and second I do not agree it is right to be claimed. Even if we make filter in search engines and ban certain websites, we would just use the technological capacity of the net to restrict the information in it but what we are supposed to do with books and newspapers? Does it mean we should burn them all if we found in them such kind of violation of the right to be forgotten or it is not the same just because they could be found only in libraries but not in Google ?

Second, in our lives we make choices every day, some of them turn out to be more important than others but these choices are defining us and make us what we are and we should be ready to face the consequences of each and every one of them otherwise it is cheating. And to the question that some people ask, whether we are supposed to bear the consequences. ([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 06:01, 24 February 2015 (EST))
----

The Slate article by Eric Posner made an imperative distinction in the discourse of Privacy and the Right to be Forgotten; that is, personal information is trickier to control in this day and age not because it cannot be erased, but simply because the Internet makes it easier to access.

A cogent commentary on the state of our society, the zeitgeist of our evolving understandings of what is “personal” and what is “public.” A commentary on what we are accepting as reality and perception – about ourselves. And down into the Carrolian Rabbit hole we go, falling, falling, falling – the machine, the world that we have created within these machines and within this network of machines is now fashioning us into things we are not; with the capacity to put information out there selectively, recklesslessly, ignorantly, and consciously, we are increasingly aware and sensitive to this notion of designing who we are and how we are perceived – and when embarrassing or private details about ourselves begin to create this digital narrative of who we are, our instant reaction is to press some buttons to change people’s perceptions about us –- be they true or not.

This fear of the Internet and the parts of it we cannot control is a perfect example of how man has finally created a mirror of himself that is haunting him more and more; he has created a creature, amorphous and ungraspable, that has the power to make perception reality. And make us believe that what everyone sees online is what everyone will believe.

I continue to return to the Solove article from two classes back on the confusion of what it is to have private information and what, exactly, privacy means now – if it ever had a meaning to begin with. A chilling idea that such a treasured notion can be so confused, interpreted and misinterpreted, and, even, abused, as in the case of the German murderers suing Wiki to have their names removed from an article. But even if our notions of privacy is as treasured to us as it is confusing, we still cannot allow our personal follies to reinvent what is true. Again, returning to the Posner article; it’s not that this information or facts about ourselves are “erased” – rather, it is simply made harder to access by the general world.

Gia, the poster on this board just before me made a rather wonderful summation of the situation in which we wish to extract information about ourselves even after it has come into possession of another individual. And yes, Gia, I agree with you in the particular way that you phrased it: that once information has been released by ourselves and becomes part of someone else’s “world” it is now of this world and it is no longer our clear and divine right to remove such information. By no means do I agree with the idea that our information is free and usable by all -- my information is my currency, it’s worth a lot to me and I will jealously guard it as best I can even if I know that for the most part it is a losing battle especially in the US. The EU is on the right track in putting this concern for protecting the individual on the table but it has yet to iron out the practicalities of what is enforceable, what is true to free speech and what is true to the act of recording history.

Tbe EU’s Right to be Forgotten movement seems to believe that we all have the individual right to pull out a Neuralizer – that gun from Men in Black otherwise known as the “memory eraser” – whether the memory is fact or fiction, we have the right to manipulate this certain virtual space to a reality that we are most “comfortable” with.

I’m finding myself more and more in the camp of regulation starts with yourself; if you post it it was your decision; if you acted that way, that was also your decision. In this Internet, smartphone, cameras everywhere age, I think it is more a matter of us changing our perception of our environment so that it has caught up with the modern age; we still somehow believe that we are living in the 19th century regarding what we believe we can get away with. The Internet has brought wonders to our world; but it has also brought this new world where we must always be more conscious about our actions; everyone has a camera, everyone has a blog, and, we are also humans – everyone makes mistakes. The lines where I see potential protection and hope in this grim and overexposed world is in the world of copyright (as Nikki Catsouras’ family attempted to approach it through) where you can order someone to take down an image, video, or recording that actually belongs to you, and in the legal worlds of defamation, false light, and appropriation.

To me, it is within these realms that there is hope to morally correct false or morally remove true information from public access. The other options currently visible on the table are just different iterations of a rather dangerous-looking Memory Erasing Gun.

Chanel Rion

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 09:38, 24 February 2015 (EST)

A Series of Tubes: The Internet's Backbone and Network Neutrality

2015-02-17T20:35:02Z

Chanel Rion: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 17'''

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. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f99PcP0aFNE 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 conduits?

Our guest this week will be [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/rfaris Rob Faris], the Research Director of the Berkman Center.

<onlyinclude>
==Readings==

; 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 et al., Next Generation Connectivity] (executive summary and introduction only)

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

* [http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/community-based_broadband_report_by_executive_office_of_the_president.pdf White House Report - Community Based Broadband Solutions: The Benefits of Competition and Choice for Community Development and Highspeed Internet Access] (p. 5-19)

; Network Neutrality

* [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.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/technology/obama-net-neutrality-fcc.html NYT: Obama Asks FCC to Adopt Tough Net Neutrality Rules]

* [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/10/obamas-gone-old-school-net-neutrality-a-tim-wu-qa/ Obama's Gone Old School Net Neutrality: A Tim Wu Q&A]

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

* '''New reading''' (optional, but highly recommended) - [https://www.fcc.gov/document/chairman-wheeler-proposes-new-rules-protecting-open-internet Federal Communications Commission, Chairman Wheeler Proposes New Rules for Protecting the Open Internet]

== 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://seeingnetworks.in/nyc/ Ingrid Burrington, Seeing Networks in New York City] (peruse)

* [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]

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU Last Week Tonight With John Oliver: Net Neutrality]

</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>

----
Perhaps I have somewhat Orwellian views on the Net Neutrality debate, but a world without open internet and a permanent absence of net neutrality feels incredibly frightening. I found the Slate article by Marvin Ammori to be particularly enlightening in that a problem with the view opposing net neutrality is that it fails to account for future iterations of what the Internet and related technologies could look like. Ammori writes about the ways in which start ups could be shut out and innovation could be stifled. Furthermore, the ability of providers to block specific sites or slow them down is a direct affront to free speech. What if providers found loopholes in which they could speed up sites for a specific candidate and thus make that information more readily available? Furthermore, I find the argument about blocking porn and videos of Afghanistan to be a bit misinformed and the solution not narrowly tailored to the issue. Schools, workplaces, and individual parents at home can already block certain sites and content. Products and services regarding malware protect against viruses, and these are things individuals can decide to purchase or not. Using these arguments in relation to net neutrality sounds a lot like the imposition of a moral code to me… The state should not be a parent. Neither should an internet provider. ([[User:Amchugh|Amchugh]] ([[User talk:Amchugh|talk]]) 14:59, 17 February 2015 (EST))

----

Hi everyone - thought you might like to see the [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2015/score_another_one_for_the_internet new report] from Media Cloud, a joint project of the Berkman Center and the MIT Center for Civic Media about the role of the networked public sphere (see our class 2 reading from Yochai Benkler for discussion of the term) in shaping the net neutrality debate in the United States. We may revisit this in our class days about online speech, but for now I wanted to make sure you also had it as part of our class discussion for today. Enjoy! [[User:Andy|Andy]] ([[User talk:Andy|talk]]) 09:36, 10 February 2015 (EST)

----

:Another late-breaking piece of additional reading - the FCC has issued an interesting [http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0204/DOC-331869A1.pdf fact sheet] about it's pending decision to reclassify broadband under Title II. It's a good overview of the pending reclassification of broadband. [[User:Andy|Andy]] ([[User talk:Andy|talk]]) 07:12, 17 February 2015 (EST)

----

Hello All!

This week’s readings surprised me in many ways. First, before reading the Berkman Center’s 2010 report on ''Next Generation Connectivity'' I had no idea that the United States, when compared to other nations, was a “middle-of-the-pack performer on most first generation broadband measures, [and] a weak performer on prices for high and next-generation speeds”(12).

Then when I watched the 2012 Berkman Center YouTube video on ''How Do We Connect to the Internet?'' I was quite impressed with the penetration rates in the Scandinavian countries listed, as well as the extremely high average line speed in South Korea.

Consequently, while I contemplate this week’s question about, “what is the role of government when it comes to developing and regulating our Internet conduits,” I cannot help but notice that according to the ''Next Generation Connectivity'' report there is a strong correlation between government intervention, penetration and available line speeds, as it states, “it does appear that the leaders in fiber deployment—South Korea, Japan, and Sweden—are also the leading examples of large, long term public capital investments through expenditures, tax breaks, and low cost loans that helped deployment in those countries” (16).

As I continued to consider the role of government, I can see from the ''Community-Based Broadband Solutions'' report recently published by The Executive Office of the President, that issues persist regarding penetration, speed and cost in the United States. According to the President’s report there are still “nearly 51 million Americans [who] cannot purchase a wired broadband connection with download speeds of at least 25 Mbps, and only 63 percent have access to speeds of 100 Mbps or more” (7). Likewise the report describes how a great disparity exists between urban and rural communities with rural residents having limited access to line speeds equal or greater than 25 Mbps (TEOP, 8).

Even though the President’s report proposes that promoting competitive markets is a “proven mechanism for increasing Internet access, quality and affordability,” (11) it also suggests that it “will not necessarily solve all broadband access challenges” (12). Subsequently the report recommends that government infrastructure investments are worthwhile because they can “put in place the ‘middle mile’ network that lowers costs of entering the ‘last mile’ market” (TEOP,13).

Granted it does seem as though some states such as Massachusetts are on the right track when it comes to investing in infrastructure. However other states are clearly still lagging behind. As a result it seems as though the Federal government will need to intervene more on their behalf.

Thanks, Emily M.

Works Cited

Benkler, Yochai et al. ''Next Generation Connectivity: A review of broadband Internet transitions and policy from around the world.'' Berkmen Center: Harvard University. February 2010. PDF.

Berkman Center. ''“How Do We Connect to the Internet?”'' Youtube.com 2012. Video.

The Executive Office of the President. ''Community-Based Broadband Solutions: The Benefits of Compition and Choice for Community Development and Highspeed Internet Access.'' January 2015.

[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 21:56, 14 February 2015 (EST)

----

Solove (2010), interviewed one of his colleagues to discuss his views about the internet usage and censorship. His colleague indicated that the controversy is that most Americans believe that the internet is an opportunity to voice free speech. However, it lends itself to being censored by many private parties. This action violates the 1st amendment that guarantees free speech.

Solove ( 2010) , asked his colleague which of the internet gatekeepers was the most troubling. He reported broadband providers and wireless carriers were the most troubling. Large search engines such as Google have oversight to minimize or eliminate discriminatory practices. After reading this article, I continued to research this topic and realized there are other organizations that are concerned with internet censorship and freedom of speech and advocating for a civil liberties.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) reported that their views on internet censorship was explained in a Supreme Court case. In Reno v. ACLU, the court decided the Internet to be a free speech zone, deserving at least as much First Amendment protection as that afforded to books, newspapers and magazines. The court said the government can no more restrict a person's access to words or images on the Internet than it could be allowed to snatch a book out of a reader's hands in the library, or cover over a statue of a nude in a museum. I have included a website that reviews this case and how it addresses the transmission of information via the internet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union.

Tasha

References:

American Civil Liberties Union (n.d.). Retrieved from http://aclu.org/free-speech/internet-cer

Solove,D., (2010). Brightideas: Nunziato on virtual freedom: Net neutrality and free speech in the internet age. Retrieved from http://www.concurringopinion

Tasha[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 21:28, 16 February 2015 (EST)

----

I know I am going to open a can of worms, but I would like to present a couple of other ways for looking at what I think are two of the major issues from this week’s readings. I will be in class today for discussion but I thought I would take a risk and put this out there.

1. Internet connectivity, cost of service, higher cost for faster speeds, throttling of bandwidth. It is quite humbling to learn that US is only middle of the pack. However, the infrastructure has been largely built by private companies who did so in order to sell the service. If the government paid for the labor, time and materials to install over these past decades, then they can dictate same cost of service across the board. Communities investing tax dollars to provide this service are great and can therefore provide service to everyone at the same rate, because their tax dollars helped pay for it. Otherwise, Comcast and RCN should have a right to charge higher rates if they are providing a better service. They have to maintain the infrastructure as well and make a profit. Is the government going to repair the routers and switches that may have been damaged in the past couple of blizzards?

2. Net Neutrality, unfettered conduit, First Amendment rights to speech, no manipulation of searches, no blocking of sites. Be careful what you ask for – you may receive it. Do you really want a company’s SPAM email and stealing of cycles to interrupt your service or block your online streaming of 50 Shades of Grey? Do you really want your children browsing porn sites while they are at school simply because those people creating porn have the right to express themselves? Remember, even the FCC regulates content during certain hours of the day. If someone wants to watch violent action movies or porn, nobody is stopping them (as long as they are 18) from going to the video store. But I don’t want my 10 year old nephew having unfettered access to that or streaming of war scenes from Afghanistan. Sometimes putting restrictions on malicious virus/spamming or dangerous content is not a bad thing.

Just remember – there may be other factors and reasons at play. Sometimes it’s about a profit, and sometimes not. [[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 09:02, 17 February 2015 (EST)

PS - In reading the newly added FCC proposal, I see they did provision for "legal content" not being blocked... but it is hard to determine the age of the audience on the internet. [[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 09:07, 17 February 2015 (EST)

----

:Really interesting inputs, Chelly. Your second numbered comment raises an issue that I think needs to be part of the policy discussion around net neutrality - specifically, at what tier do we impose the neutrality? At the physical network (ISP) layer? At the protocol layer? At the service layer? On the platforms themselves? My sense is most of the discussion has been only at the first level, but even in that tier there are hard questions - whether ISPs should be able to prioritize packets from certain protocols (VOIP, streaming video), especially in lower-bandwidth environments (mobile, on planes/trains, etc.). [[User:Andy|Andy]] ([[User talk:Andy|talk]]) 14:21, 17 February 2015 (EST)

----

I, too, was surprised with this weeks readings. First, I will begin with the question asked on the short clip-- "With no internet, how would life be different" -- I rarely stop to think about this, but life would be no where near the same without Internet. We are constantly connected everywhere we go that in many ways, people would not be able to exist and function "properly" without Internet. I was a little surprised with then numbers and statistics presented on Internet use throughout country and was also surprised South Korea houses the fastest Internet in the world.

I agree with point two on the post above mine, from Chelly. Restrictions of dangerous/inappropriate content is a good thing becasue it allows innocent children protection from the world we live in. However, the argument goes much deeper in terms of where free speech plays in to violating that amendment. There needs to be a balance with no loop holes, which seems to be the case with Internet in general. [[User:Cbore001|Cbore001]] ([[User talk:Cbore001|talk]]) 12:54, 17 February 2015 (EST)

----

While reading on Net Neutrality I felt that the articles included were, overall, a little one sided in favor of net neutrality. While I support net neutrality, I wanted to read more in detail about the opposing viewpoint. The final article in the required reading by Adam Thierer 'More Confusion about Internet “Freedom”' touched on this and brought up some important questions like, “how much faith should we place in central planners as opposed to evolutionary market forces?” First of all, I’d like to say that the government and evolutionary market forces are both inherently flawed in that they are equally subject to manipulation by special interest parties, but the above question is highly relevant in the net neutrality debate.

In my opinion, Thierer goes a bit overboard in his argument against government intervention and his unwavering faith in the marketplace (not to mention that he needs a proofreader) by assuming that corporate power is less tyrannical than government power. I think that total power by either is equally damaging to the freedom of consumers and the question should become, “How can we prevent any major player from restricting Internet access?” While parts of his argument are compelling, the research shared in Yonchai Benkler’s Next Generation Connectivity that we are a middle-of-the-pack performer precisely because of our government policies against open access (something which may never change if left to “evolutionary market forces”) offers a picture that favors some government regulation.

While connectivity and net neutrality are parallel issues, the example of open access and the consequent innovation and increased Internet penetration in the countries that have adopted it says that government intervention is not always a bad thing. These very government interventions are exactly what have caused countries like Japan and South Korea to leave us in the cyber dust in the area of connectivity. We are behind in price, penetration, and speed partially because we allow the top monopolies to continue dominating unfettered and are allowed to control what happens to be one of the most important resources to the human race. The fact that the Internet so important is exactly why they will fight tooth and nail to keep control of it, because if they are in control they will always be in business.

What this comes down to is that the Internet is not just a marketplace matter. The Internet is not just another consumer good that people can take or leave, it’s something they must have access to or they will be left behind in education, status, and income. So, why would we, in good conscience, allow corporate profit to remain the bottom line for our access to this vital resource? Taking that one step further, I refer to Sovlove’s interview with Nunziato where it’s pointed out that communications have been blocked by companies based solely on content with no financial incentives in mind. Thus, the argument that the government will try to violate our constitutional rights by regulating the Internet ignores the fact that companies are already doing so, the difference being that they are not held accountable to the same provisions as the government. Obviously, just because one option is not working, does not mean that the alternative is ideal. The conversation on how to regulate the Internet needs to continue, but leaving it to the “open marketplace” clearly isn’t working.

Unfortunately, I won't be able to attend class in real time today because of work, but I look forward to hearing the discussion on this. [[User:Oliviabrinich|Oliviabrinich]] ([[User talk:Oliviabrinich|talk]]) 14:34, 17 February 2015 (EST)

----

:That's a great critique in terms of the readings being a bit one-sided; we'll try and shape that up in the future. One good reading that didn't make the list on the debate side is [http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1485&context=fclj Christopher Yoo and Tim Wu's debate on net neutrality for the Maurer Law Journal]. We left it off because it's a bit dated and very technical, but it cuts a bit deeper than the Therier article. Thanks for the comments! [[User:Andy|Andy]] ([[User talk:Andy|talk]]) 15:19, 17 February 2015 (EST)

Greetings Everyone,

Olivia, I agree in that the many positive articles about the beauties of net neutrality caused me to question what the other side had to say about it. My conclusions have left me in a sort of confused middling field where I absolutely cannot agree with either side and I can only see nefarious motives from all directions -- thanks to this week's readings I'm feeling stuck in a bad Roger Corman movie or a Kafka-esque moral limbo.

Theirer's article was indeed a fresh breather from all the pro-net-neutrality discussions and the question surrounding net neutrality left me with the conclusion that all these scenerios were merely choices presenting us with merely differentiating degrees of evils-- which scenario was the lesser of them? Centralized regulation? Marketplace havoc? Corporate shenanigans? I had most trouble wrapping my mind around what is actually happening right now and who in fact, knows the facts in totality. To what extent are we positive that these individual companies have the power and control or manipulate access and to what extent are they doing so? To what extent would the FCC actually be able to regulate Internet under a telecommunications classification?

Conclusions were bleaker leaving the readings than in anticipating them: placing the Internet and all its cables into a kind of "box" and then handing over the care of that box to any one actor in the world is a terrifically calamitous idea. Be it via government regulation or Corporate market puppeteering.

Net neutrality is a discussion about GIVING. Giving free and equal access to all for all. Or it is one about ensuring free and equal access to all for all. But vest any one actor with the power to give, the power to ensure, and that same actor has the power to take. Ensuring is also a two way street -- ensuring good or ensuring bad.

The Slate article painted a bleak picture with the idea that the murder of net neutrality would mean corporate censorship of the most nefarious kinds -- of the kinds driven by money, power, and corporate monopolistic self-interest. Again, the same discussion against giving the State power to control and "ensure freedom" on the Internet can be applied here to the market world.

With the power to give comes the power to take. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Keeping this simple lesson in mind, I found myself very confused as to what to think about how we are to best ensure the ideal of Internet freedom of communication and connection.

So at the end of the day, what really is the difference? The core problem to me seems to be that the Internet is at all controllable in any sense. Once it has handles to its large and once chaotic and incomprehensible body, the Internet becomes something that is up for grabs by whomever has the hands and the arm strength big enough. And someone with the hand and arm strength big enough to pick up and mold and design and direct something as organic as the Internet is a scary character indeed. Be it state or marketplace.

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 15:35, 17 February 2015 (EST)

Privacy Part 1: Corporate Data Gathering and Intrusions by the Public

2015-02-10T17:22:03Z

Chanel Rion: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 10'''

A persistent fear throughout all of the Internet’s operation is the Internet’s treatment of a person’s 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 control. 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 few 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 raised by corporations gathering data on people online and what happens when highly private information about a person finds its way online.

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

==Readings==

; Conceptualizing privacy

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

; Privacy and data

* [https://medium.com/internet-monitor-2014-data-and-privacy/data-and-privacy-f7bfa24bbddc Robert Faris and David O'Brien, ''Data and Privacy''] (from [https://thenetmonitor.org/research/2014/ ''Internet Monitor 2014: Reflections on the Digital World''])

* [http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/magazine/16-07/pb_theory Chris Anderson, The End of Theory]

* [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]

* 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://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'')]

== Assignment 1 ==

[[Assignment 1 Details and Reporting|Assignment 1]] is due ''before class'' today (i.e., February 10th before 5:30pm ET). You can submit the assignment [[Assignment 1 Submissions|here]].

==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>

----
Hello All!

Delving into this week’s readings has definitely opened my eyes to the seemingly limitless complexities of defining privacy boundaries in an effort to create adequate laws and policy to address privacy issues in what Chris Anderson calls the “Petabyte Age”.

In our first reading from ''Understanding Privacy,'' Daniel Solove illustrates how difficult it has become for every tier of society “to adequately conceptualize the problems that privacy law is asked to redress” (2). In an effort to offer a solution to this dilemma, Solove proposes a new theory of privacy as a means to “aid the creation of law and policy to address privacy issues” (11). By conceptualizing privacy as pluralistic and contextual Solove creates a “taxonomy of privacy,” which focuses on “the specific activities that pose privacy problems” that bombard us with ever increasing frequency including: information collection, information processing, information dissemination and invasion (10-11).

The ease at which this data can be invasively collected and disseminated was clearly illustrated to me when I plugged my birthdate and zipcode into Latanya Sweeny’s ''Data Privacy Lab'' search tool. With two simple key strokes I was shown that I am uniquely identifiable. Add this to the “Click-tracking” and “CSS history sniffing” used by companies such as Dataium LLC as discussed in Jeremy Singer-Vine’s article on “How Dataium Watches You,” it is easy to become paranoid. Nonetheless, I am trying to remain as optimistic as possible. In some ways I like it when ads are generated on the internet, geared towards my personal interests. Still I think it should be feasible for consumers to have a choice as to what data is being collected on their habits and how it is being shared. Perhaps there should be an app for that. If there already is one, please let me know where I can get it.

Thanks,
Emily M.

Works Cited

Anderson, Chris. “The End of Theory: The Data Deluge Makes the Scientific Method Obsolete.” ''Wired Magazine.'' 23 June 2008.

Singer-Vine, Jeremy. “How Dataium Watches You” ''Wall Street Journal.com'' 12 Dec. 2012.

Solove, Daniel. ''Understanding Privacy.'' Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 2008.

Sweeney, Latanya. “How Unique are You?.” ''Data Privacy Lab.'' Harvard University: Institute for Quantitative Social Science. 2013.

[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 12:22, 6 February 2015 (EST)

----
The assignment to update a wikipedia page has been challenging! It took me a few days to come across a page that needed updating and one which I could make a contribution. I have spent all day verifying sources and editing the page, and I feel like I haven't made much headway! I'll keep at this tonight and all day tomorrow. How is everyone else doing? [[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 17:45, 7 February 2015 (EST)
----
::Hello, Chelly! I had the same feelings in regards to the assignment. I recommend that you find an article that goes over a topic that you know a lot about (in my case, it was military history in regards to armored fighting vehicles.) If you have books on the topic, they will definitely prove helpful! I had plenty of books that went over the rifles used by Finnish troops during the Winter War! (NOTE: Will be creating a second post that goes over the lesson material!) [[User:Mishal R. Kennedy|Mishal R. Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Mishal R. Kennedy|talk]]) 1:35PM, 8 February 2015 (EST)
----
::Thank you Mishal! It sounds like you found a really good page to update for yourself! I came across a “stub” page for a music band started by one of my school mates, so I researched more about their discography and band members. He was delighted that I was helping with their Wikipedia page. I will complete the assignment and then do more research in the future to help him out some more! Good luck on the rest of the work. I have finished most of this week’s readings and will also post additionally. [[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 16:28, 8 February 2015 (EST)
----
::Fantastic work, Chelly! I've almost gotten done with my page, but have yet to read the lesson material (have a class on Monday, and have to stay up until 2:30 in the morning to attend this, and my class on expository writing [mandatory!]) Good luck on your assignment, and I can't wait to see you in the classroom! (If you attend the lectures online!) [[User:Mishal R. Kennedy|Mishal R. Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Mishal R. Kennedy|talk]]) 1:35PM, 8 February 2015 (EST)
----
Hi everyone!
First I want to say that it was nice seeing you guys in class last tuesday. I participated asynchronously but I am hoping to be able to participate online synchronously next time :)

I have always been one of those who really aren´t participating in or are interested in the debate about privacy on the internet. Mostly because I know so little about it, but also because I haven´t considered it being something particularly serious. Or perhaps it´s because it is an issue too wide and complex to dig in to, it is almost like thinking about the universe. Whatever the reason for my previous lack of interest is, this week´s literature made me more curious about the subject.

Privacy on the Internet has been very discussed in society, but my own experience tell me that it isn´t as much anymore. As I’ve mentioned I live in Europe, and during the campaigns for the elections to the European Parliament in 2009, this was an issue several parties focused on throughout the debate. For example, there was one party (Piratpartiet) from my country that had Internet privacy as their only political issue. Pretty much their entire political program was about privacy on the Internet and they ended up getting two seats in the parliament in Brussels. Last year, there was a new election to the European Parliament. This time, Internet privacy was not as discussed in the media nor in society as in 2009, and the party I mentioned above lost both of their seats.

Faris and O´Brien write in ”Data and privacy” that ”…our actions contradict our stated preferences on privacy; when asked in surveys, Internet users express growing concerns over online privacy, yet they continue to share a stunning amount of sensitive information online.”. This is a statement that correspond with my picture of how most people think about privacy on the Internet. Our will to reach access to certain websites is stronger than our fear of an intruded privacy and we are therefore willing to submit private information to those websites we want to access.

The discussion about what privacy actually is was also interesting. We talk and discuss about something that we can´t even define properly. It is also important to discuss when privacy is good and when it is bad. I take a class at another university and we read classics right now. I read Walter Lippman´s ”Public Opinion” and he says ”Privacy is insisted upon at all kinds of places in the area of what is called public affairs.”. That is something that I would say still is up-to-date, but we can today also say the opposite, that parts of what used to be private now is public. [[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 08:21, 10 February 2015 (EST)

----

'''The Self is an Illusion: Chariots of the Internet Gods'''
-C. Rion

The question of privacy raised in this week’s readings, to me, raised some active discourse regarding what exactly is the Self. Privacy implies that something is guarded. Before we even understand what the act of privacy even looks like, we must first visualize what it is this guard is protecting.

There is a marvelous parable told in Buddhism about how the self exists and yet it doesn’t… It is a paradox in and of itself and to think otherwise is to blind oneself to the Self. To truly understand something so un-understandable, one must look at all the elements in a very certain way.

Solove’s (and history’s) understandable fumbling with the term, the word, the meaning of “Privacy” was, to me, a revelatory mirror to the parable of the Chariot.

In thinking about this parable in conjunction with some of our readings on what Privacy is, I can but clumsily conclude that one reason privacy is so difficult to define is because it is a shield, a forcefield, a protector of something even more undefineable – or at least debatable and that is, the self. For something so metamorphic, so subjective to each individual it is understandable, if not expected that “privacy” will always be a term never quite captured. We will forever hunt it. It will change with the ebb and flow of the zeitgeist, of the individual, and now, of the technology.

Solove condenses this feeling so well:

''Other commentators have lamented that privacy is “protean” and suffers from “an embarrassment of meanings. “Perhaps the most striking thing about the right to privacy,” philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson has observed, “is that nobody seems to have any clear idea what it is.” (7)''

The following dialogue between King Milinda and the Buddhist sage Nagasena examines this concept of the indescribable describable in a way that was revealing to me in conceptualizing “Privacy” and how we might universalize its meaning for more than just one individual in today’s world:

'''KING MILINDA AND THE CHARIOT'''

King Milinda asks the sage how he might address him by name, how he is “to be known.“

The sage replies:

"As Nagasena I am known, O Great King, and as Nagasena do my fellow religious habitually address me. But although parents give names such as Nagasena, or Surasena, or Virasena, or Sihasena, nevertheless, this word ‘Nagasena’ is just a denomination, a designation, a conceptual term, a current appellation, a mere name. For no real person can here be apprehended."

The King scoffs the sage, asking how he can possibly agree that Nagasena is not actually a person. Nagasena responds by asking if the King has a chariot and the King responds that he has.

“What is the chariot?” asks Nagasena. Was it the wheels? The King responds “No.” Was the chariot the spokes, the axle, the seat, the frame, the yoke, the wood? To all of these, the King answers “No” because none of these could be singled out and called a “chariot” individually.

Then is it the collection of these elements? The answer again, is “no” because if they were simply put together in large pile, a chariot the pile does not make. So the chariot cannot be found within this collection of elements – so too, it cannot be found outside this collection of elements. So where and what is the chariot?

'''Nagasena:''' “Then, ask as I may, I can discover no chariot at all. Just a mere sound is this ‘chariot’. But what is the real chariot? Your Majesty has told a lie, has spoken a falsehood! There really is no chariot…”

'''Milinda:''' “I have not, Nagasena, spoken a falsehood. [[For it is in dependence on the pole, the axle, the wheels, the framework, the flag-staff, etc., that there takes place this denomination ‘chariot,’ this designation, this conceptual term, a current appellation, and a mere name.”]]

'''Nagasena:''' “Your Majesty has spoken well about the chariot. It is just so with me. In dependence on the thirty-two parts of the body and the five Skandhas there takes place this denomination ‘Nagasena,’ this designation, this conceptual term, a current appellation, and a mere name. In ultimate reality, however, this person cannot be apprehended.”

- - - - - - - -

For it is in dependence on all the other elements that constitute Privacy that we are to even begin to conceptualize it. Privacy as the shield of the self – and the self is constantly changing, it is never a constant idea and so, in turn, privacy is constantly changing, our ideas about it, as Solove seems to suggest through history, will never unite to mean any one thing.

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 12:19, 10 February 2015 (EST)

Privacy Part 1: Corporate Data Gathering and Intrusions by the Public

2015-02-10T17:20:05Z

Chanel Rion: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 10'''

A persistent fear throughout all of the Internet’s operation is the Internet’s treatment of a person’s 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 control. 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 few 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 raised by corporations gathering data on people online and what happens when highly private information about a person finds its way online.

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

==Readings==

; Conceptualizing privacy

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

; Privacy and data

* [https://medium.com/internet-monitor-2014-data-and-privacy/data-and-privacy-f7bfa24bbddc Robert Faris and David O'Brien, ''Data and Privacy''] (from [https://thenetmonitor.org/research/2014/ ''Internet Monitor 2014: Reflections on the Digital World''])

* [http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/magazine/16-07/pb_theory Chris Anderson, The End of Theory]

* [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]

* 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://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'')]

== Assignment 1 ==

[[Assignment 1 Details and Reporting|Assignment 1]] is due ''before class'' today (i.e., February 10th before 5:30pm ET). You can submit the assignment [[Assignment 1 Submissions|here]].

==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>

----
Hello All!

Delving into this week’s readings has definitely opened my eyes to the seemingly limitless complexities of defining privacy boundaries in an effort to create adequate laws and policy to address privacy issues in what Chris Anderson calls the “Petabyte Age”.

In our first reading from ''Understanding Privacy,'' Daniel Solove illustrates how difficult it has become for every tier of society “to adequately conceptualize the problems that privacy law is asked to redress” (2). In an effort to offer a solution to this dilemma, Solove proposes a new theory of privacy as a means to “aid the creation of law and policy to address privacy issues” (11). By conceptualizing privacy as pluralistic and contextual Solove creates a “taxonomy of privacy,” which focuses on “the specific activities that pose privacy problems” that bombard us with ever increasing frequency including: information collection, information processing, information dissemination and invasion (10-11).

The ease at which this data can be invasively collected and disseminated was clearly illustrated to me when I plugged my birthdate and zipcode into Latanya Sweeny’s ''Data Privacy Lab'' search tool. With two simple key strokes I was shown that I am uniquely identifiable. Add this to the “Click-tracking” and “CSS history sniffing” used by companies such as Dataium LLC as discussed in Jeremy Singer-Vine’s article on “How Dataium Watches You,” it is easy to become paranoid. Nonetheless, I am trying to remain as optimistic as possible. In some ways I like it when ads are generated on the internet, geared towards my personal interests. Still I think it should be feasible for consumers to have a choice as to what data is being collected on their habits and how it is being shared. Perhaps there should be an app for that. If there already is one, please let me know where I can get it.

Thanks,
Emily M.

Works Cited

Anderson, Chris. “The End of Theory: The Data Deluge Makes the Scientific Method Obsolete.” ''Wired Magazine.'' 23 June 2008.

Singer-Vine, Jeremy. “How Dataium Watches You” ''Wall Street Journal.com'' 12 Dec. 2012.

Solove, Daniel. ''Understanding Privacy.'' Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 2008.

Sweeney, Latanya. “How Unique are You?.” ''Data Privacy Lab.'' Harvard University: Institute for Quantitative Social Science. 2013.

[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 12:22, 6 February 2015 (EST)

----
The assignment to update a wikipedia page has been challenging! It took me a few days to come across a page that needed updating and one which I could make a contribution. I have spent all day verifying sources and editing the page, and I feel like I haven't made much headway! I'll keep at this tonight and all day tomorrow. How is everyone else doing? [[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 17:45, 7 February 2015 (EST)
----
::Hello, Chelly! I had the same feelings in regards to the assignment. I recommend that you find an article that goes over a topic that you know a lot about (in my case, it was military history in regards to armored fighting vehicles.) If you have books on the topic, they will definitely prove helpful! I had plenty of books that went over the rifles used by Finnish troops during the Winter War! (NOTE: Will be creating a second post that goes over the lesson material!) [[User:Mishal R. Kennedy|Mishal R. Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Mishal R. Kennedy|talk]]) 1:35PM, 8 February 2015 (EST)
----
::Thank you Mishal! It sounds like you found a really good page to update for yourself! I came across a “stub” page for a music band started by one of my school mates, so I researched more about their discography and band members. He was delighted that I was helping with their Wikipedia page. I will complete the assignment and then do more research in the future to help him out some more! Good luck on the rest of the work. I have finished most of this week’s readings and will also post additionally. [[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 16:28, 8 February 2015 (EST)
----
::Fantastic work, Chelly! I've almost gotten done with my page, but have yet to read the lesson material (have a class on Monday, and have to stay up until 2:30 in the morning to attend this, and my class on expository writing [mandatory!]) Good luck on your assignment, and I can't wait to see you in the classroom! (If you attend the lectures online!) [[User:Mishal R. Kennedy|Mishal R. Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Mishal R. Kennedy|talk]]) 1:35PM, 8 February 2015 (EST)
----
Hi everyone!
First I want to say that it was nice seeing you guys in class last tuesday. I participated asynchronously but I am hoping to be able to participate online synchronously next time :)

I have always been one of those who really aren´t participating in or are interested in the debate about privacy on the internet. Mostly because I know so little about it, but also because I haven´t considered it being something particularly serious. Or perhaps it´s because it is an issue too wide and complex to dig in to, it is almost like thinking about the universe. Whatever the reason for my previous lack of interest is, this week´s literature made me more curious about the subject.

Privacy on the Internet has been very discussed in society, but my own experience tell me that it isn´t as much anymore. As I’ve mentioned I live in Europe, and during the campaigns for the elections to the European Parliament in 2009, this was an issue several parties focused on throughout the debate. For example, there was one party (Piratpartiet) from my country that had Internet privacy as their only political issue. Pretty much their entire political program was about privacy on the Internet and they ended up getting two seats in the parliament in Brussels. Last year, there was a new election to the European Parliament. This time, Internet privacy was not as discussed in the media nor in society as in 2009, and the party I mentioned above lost both of their seats.

Faris and O´Brien write in ”Data and privacy” that ”…our actions contradict our stated preferences on privacy; when asked in surveys, Internet users express growing concerns over online privacy, yet they continue to share a stunning amount of sensitive information online.”. This is a statement that correspond with my picture of how most people think about privacy on the Internet. Our will to reach access to certain websites is stronger than our fear of an intruded privacy and we are therefore willing to submit private information to those websites we want to access.

The discussion about what privacy actually is was also interesting. We talk and discuss about something that we can´t even define properly. It is also important to discuss when privacy is good and when it is bad. I take a class at another university and we read classics right now. I read Walter Lippman´s ”Public Opinion” and he says ”Privacy is insisted upon at all kinds of places in the area of what is called public affairs.”. That is something that I would say still is up-to-date, but we can today also say the opposite, that parts of what used to be private now is public. [[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 08:21, 10 February 2015 (EST)

'''The Self is an Illusion: Chariots of the Internet Gods'''

The question of privacy raised in this week’s readings, to me, raised some active discourse regarding what exactly is the Self. Privacy implies that something is guarded. Before we even understand what the act of privacy even looks like, we must first visualize what it is this guard is protecting.

There is a marvelous parable told in Buddhism about how the self exists and yet it doesn’t… It is a paradox in and of itself and to think otherwise is to blind oneself to the Self. To truly understand something so un-understandable, one must look at all the elements in a very certain way.

Solove’s (and history’s) understandable fumbling with the term, the word, the meaning of “Privacy” was, to me, a revelatory mirror to the parable of the Chariot.

In thinking about this parable in conjunction with some of our readings on what Privacy is, I can but clumsily conclude that one reason privacy is so difficult to define is because it is a shield, a forcefield, a protector of something even more undefineable – or at least debatable and that is, the self. For something so metamorphic, so subjective to each individual it is understandable, if not expected that “privacy” will always be a term never quite captured. We will forever hunt it. It will change with the ebb and flow of the zeitgeist, of the individual, and now, of the technology.

Solove condenses this feeling so well:

''Other commentators have lamented that privacy is “protean” and suffers from “an embarrassment of meanings. “Perhaps the most striking thing about the right to privacy,” philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson has observed, “is that nobody seems to have any clear idea what it is.” (7)''

The following dialogue between King Milinda and the Buddhist sage Nagasena examines this concept of the indescribable describable in a way that was revealing to me in conceptualizing “Privacy” and how we might universalize its meaning for more than just one individual in today’s world:

'''KING MILINDA AND THE CHARIOT'''

King Milinda asks the sage how he might address him by name, how he is “to be known.“

The sage replies:

"As Nagasena I am known, O Great King, and as Nagasena do my fellow religious habitually address me. But although parents give names such as Nagasena, or Surasena, or Virasena, or Sihasena, nevertheless, this word ‘Nagasena’ is just a denomination, a designation, a conceptual term, a current appellation, a mere name. For no real person can here be apprehended."

The King scoffs the sage, asking how he can possibly agree that Nagasena is not actually a person. Nagasena responds by asking if the King has a chariot and the King responds that he has.

“What is the chariot?” asks Nagasena. Was it the wheels? The King responds “No.” Was the chariot the spokes, the axle, the seat, the frame, the yoke, the wood? To all of these, the King answers “No” because none of these could be singled out and called a “chariot” individually.

Then is it the collection of these elements? The answer again, is “no” because if they were simply put together in large pile, a chariot the pile does not make. So the chariot cannot be found within this collection of elements – so too, it cannot be found outside this collection of elements. So where and what is the chariot?

'''Nagasena:''' “Then, ask as I may, I can discover no chariot at all. Just a mere sound is this ‘chariot’. But what is the real chariot? Your Majesty has told a lie, has spoken a falsehood! There really is no chariot…”

'''Milinda:''' “I have not, Nagasena, spoken a falsehood. [[For it is in dependence on the pole, the axle, the wheels, the framework, the flag-staff, etc., that there takes place this denomination ‘chariot,’ this designation, this conceptual term, a current appellation, and a mere name.”]]

'''Nagasena:''' “Your Majesty has spoken well about the chariot. It is just so with me. In dependence on the thirty-two parts of the body and the five Skandhas there takes place this denomination ‘Nagasena,’ this designation, this conceptual term, a current appellation, and a mere name. In ultimate reality, however, this person cannot be apprehended.”

- - - - - - - -

For it is in dependence on all the other elements that constitute Privacy that we are to even begin to conceptualize it. Privacy as the shield of the self – and the self is constantly changing, it is never a constant idea and so, in turn, privacy is constantly changing, our ideas about it, as Solove seems to suggest through history, will never unite to mean any one thing.

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 12:19, 10 February 2015 (EST)

Privacy Part 1: Corporate Data Gathering and Intrusions by the Public

2015-02-10T17:19:24Z

Chanel Rion: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 10'''

A persistent fear throughout all of the Internet’s operation is the Internet’s treatment of a person’s 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 control. 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 few 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 raised by corporations gathering data on people online and what happens when highly private information about a person finds its way online.

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

==Readings==

; Conceptualizing privacy

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

; Privacy and data

* [https://medium.com/internet-monitor-2014-data-and-privacy/data-and-privacy-f7bfa24bbddc Robert Faris and David O'Brien, ''Data and Privacy''] (from [https://thenetmonitor.org/research/2014/ ''Internet Monitor 2014: Reflections on the Digital World''])

* [http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/magazine/16-07/pb_theory Chris Anderson, The End of Theory]

* [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]

* 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://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'')]

== Assignment 1 ==

[[Assignment 1 Details and Reporting|Assignment 1]] is due ''before class'' today (i.e., February 10th before 5:30pm ET). You can submit the assignment [[Assignment 1 Submissions|here]].

==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>

----
Hello All!

Delving into this week’s readings has definitely opened my eyes to the seemingly limitless complexities of defining privacy boundaries in an effort to create adequate laws and policy to address privacy issues in what Chris Anderson calls the “Petabyte Age”.

In our first reading from ''Understanding Privacy,'' Daniel Solove illustrates how difficult it has become for every tier of society “to adequately conceptualize the problems that privacy law is asked to redress” (2). In an effort to offer a solution to this dilemma, Solove proposes a new theory of privacy as a means to “aid the creation of law and policy to address privacy issues” (11). By conceptualizing privacy as pluralistic and contextual Solove creates a “taxonomy of privacy,” which focuses on “the specific activities that pose privacy problems” that bombard us with ever increasing frequency including: information collection, information processing, information dissemination and invasion (10-11).

The ease at which this data can be invasively collected and disseminated was clearly illustrated to me when I plugged my birthdate and zipcode into Latanya Sweeny’s ''Data Privacy Lab'' search tool. With two simple key strokes I was shown that I am uniquely identifiable. Add this to the “Click-tracking” and “CSS history sniffing” used by companies such as Dataium LLC as discussed in Jeremy Singer-Vine’s article on “How Dataium Watches You,” it is easy to become paranoid. Nonetheless, I am trying to remain as optimistic as possible. In some ways I like it when ads are generated on the internet, geared towards my personal interests. Still I think it should be feasible for consumers to have a choice as to what data is being collected on their habits and how it is being shared. Perhaps there should be an app for that. If there already is one, please let me know where I can get it.

Thanks,
Emily M.

Works Cited

Anderson, Chris. “The End of Theory: The Data Deluge Makes the Scientific Method Obsolete.” ''Wired Magazine.'' 23 June 2008.

Singer-Vine, Jeremy. “How Dataium Watches You” ''Wall Street Journal.com'' 12 Dec. 2012.

Solove, Daniel. ''Understanding Privacy.'' Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 2008.

Sweeney, Latanya. “How Unique are You?.” ''Data Privacy Lab.'' Harvard University: Institute for Quantitative Social Science. 2013.

[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 12:22, 6 February 2015 (EST)

----
The assignment to update a wikipedia page has been challenging! It took me a few days to come across a page that needed updating and one which I could make a contribution. I have spent all day verifying sources and editing the page, and I feel like I haven't made much headway! I'll keep at this tonight and all day tomorrow. How is everyone else doing? [[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 17:45, 7 February 2015 (EST)
----
::Hello, Chelly! I had the same feelings in regards to the assignment. I recommend that you find an article that goes over a topic that you know a lot about (in my case, it was military history in regards to armored fighting vehicles.) If you have books on the topic, they will definitely prove helpful! I had plenty of books that went over the rifles used by Finnish troops during the Winter War! (NOTE: Will be creating a second post that goes over the lesson material!) [[User:Mishal R. Kennedy|Mishal R. Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Mishal R. Kennedy|talk]]) 1:35PM, 8 February 2015 (EST)
----
::Thank you Mishal! It sounds like you found a really good page to update for yourself! I came across a “stub” page for a music band started by one of my school mates, so I researched more about their discography and band members. He was delighted that I was helping with their Wikipedia page. I will complete the assignment and then do more research in the future to help him out some more! Good luck on the rest of the work. I have finished most of this week’s readings and will also post additionally. [[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 16:28, 8 February 2015 (EST)
----
::Fantastic work, Chelly! I've almost gotten done with my page, but have yet to read the lesson material (have a class on Monday, and have to stay up until 2:30 in the morning to attend this, and my class on expository writing [mandatory!]) Good luck on your assignment, and I can't wait to see you in the classroom! (If you attend the lectures online!) [[User:Mishal R. Kennedy|Mishal R. Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Mishal R. Kennedy|talk]]) 1:35PM, 8 February 2015 (EST)
----
Hi everyone!
First I want to say that it was nice seeing you guys in class last tuesday. I participated asynchronously but I am hoping to be able to participate online synchronously next time :)

I have always been one of those who really aren´t participating in or are interested in the debate about privacy on the internet. Mostly because I know so little about it, but also because I haven´t considered it being something particularly serious. Or perhaps it´s because it is an issue too wide and complex to dig in to, it is almost like thinking about the universe. Whatever the reason for my previous lack of interest is, this week´s literature made me more curious about the subject.

Privacy on the Internet has been very discussed in society, but my own experience tell me that it isn´t as much anymore. As I’ve mentioned I live in Europe, and during the campaigns for the elections to the European Parliament in 2009, this was an issue several parties focused on throughout the debate. For example, there was one party (Piratpartiet) from my country that had Internet privacy as their only political issue. Pretty much their entire political program was about privacy on the Internet and they ended up getting two seats in the parliament in Brussels. Last year, there was a new election to the European Parliament. This time, Internet privacy was not as discussed in the media nor in society as in 2009, and the party I mentioned above lost both of their seats.

Faris and O´Brien write in ”Data and privacy” that ”…our actions contradict our stated preferences on privacy; when asked in surveys, Internet users express growing concerns over online privacy, yet they continue to share a stunning amount of sensitive information online.”. This is a statement that correspond with my picture of how most people think about privacy on the Internet. Our will to reach access to certain websites is stronger than our fear of an intruded privacy and we are therefore willing to submit private information to those websites we want to access.

The discussion about what privacy actually is was also interesting. We talk and discuss about something that we can´t even define properly. It is also important to discuss when privacy is good and when it is bad. I take a class at another university and we read classics right now. I read Walter Lippman´s ”Public Opinion” and he says ”Privacy is insisted upon at all kinds of places in the area of what is called public affairs.”. That is something that I would say still is up-to-date, but we can today also say the opposite, that parts of what used to be private now is public. [[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 08:21, 10 February 2015 (EST)
[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 12:19, 10 February 2015 (EST)
'''The Self is an Illusion: Chariots of the Internet Gods'''

The question of privacy raised in this week’s readings, to me, raised some active discourse regarding what exactly is the Self. Privacy implies that something is guarded. Before we even understand what the act of privacy even looks like, we must first visualize what it is this guard is protecting.

There is a marvelous parable told in Buddhism about how the self exists and yet it doesn’t… It is a paradox in and of itself and to think otherwise is to blind oneself to the Self. To truly understand something so un-understandable, one must look at all the elements in a very certain way.

Solove’s (and history’s) understandable fumbling with the term, the word, the meaning of “Privacy” was, to me, a revelatory mirror to the parable of the Chariot.

In thinking about this parable in conjunction with some of our readings on what Privacy is, I can but clumsily conclude that one reason privacy is so difficult to define is because it is a shield, a forcefield, a protector of something even more undefineable – or at least debatable and that is, the self. For something so metamorphic, so subjective to each individual it is understandable, if not expected that “privacy” will always be a term never quite captured. We will forever hunt it. It will change with the ebb and flow of the zeitgeist, of the individual, and now, of the technology.

Solove condenses this feeling so well:

''Other commentators have lamented that privacy is “protean” and suffers from “an embarrassment of meanings. “Perhaps the most striking thing about the right to privacy,” philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson has observed, “is that nobody seems to have any clear idea what it is.” (7)''

The following dialogue between King Milinda and the Buddhist sage Nagasena examines this concept of the indescribable describable in a way that was revealing to me in conceptualizing “Privacy” and how we might universalize its meaning for more than just one individual in today’s world:

'''KING MILINDA AND THE CHARIOT'''

King Milinda asks the sage how he might address him by name, how he is “to be known.“

The sage replies:

"As Nagasena I am known, O Great King, and as Nagasena do my fellow religious habitually address me. But although parents give names such as Nagasena, or Surasena, or Virasena, or Sihasena, nevertheless, this word ‘Nagasena’ is just a denomination, a designation, a conceptual term, a current appellation, a mere name. For no real person can here be apprehended."

The King scoffs the sage, asking how he can possibly agree that Nagasena is not actually a person. Nagasena responds by asking if the King has a chariot and the King responds that he has.

“What is the chariot?” asks Nagasena. Was it the wheels? The King responds “No.” Was the chariot the spokes, the axle, the seat, the frame, the yoke, the wood? To all of these, the King answers “No” because none of these could be singled out and called a “chariot” individually.

Then is it the collection of these elements? The answer again, is “no” because if they were simply put together in large pile, a chariot the pile does not make. So the chariot cannot be found within this collection of elements – so too, it cannot be found outside this collection of elements. So where and what is the chariot?

'''Nagasena:''' “Then, ask as I may, I can discover no chariot at all. Just a mere sound is this ‘chariot’. But what is the real chariot? Your Majesty has told a lie, has spoken a falsehood! There really is no chariot…”

'''Milinda:''' “I have not, Nagasena, spoken a falsehood. [[For it is in dependence on the pole, the axle, the wheels, the framework, the flag-staff, etc., that there takes place this denomination ‘chariot,’ this designation, this conceptual term, a current appellation, and a mere name.”]]

'''Nagasena:''' “Your Majesty has spoken well about the chariot. It is just so with me. In dependence on the thirty-two parts of the body and the five Skandhas there takes place this denomination ‘Nagasena,’ this designation, this conceptual term, a current appellation, and a mere name. In ultimate reality, however, this person cannot be apprehended.”

- - - - - - - -

For it is in dependence on all the other elements that constitute Privacy that we are to even begin to conceptualize it. Privacy as the shield of the self – and the self is constantly changing, it is never a constant idea and so, in turn, privacy is constantly changing, our ideas about it, as Solove seems to suggest through history, will never unite to mean any one thing.

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 12:19, 10 February 2015 (EST)

Assignment 1 Submissions

2015-02-09T23:03:53Z

Chanel Rion: /* 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 as a pseudonym.'''

''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 10, 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/is2015/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:

ChanelRion

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

Article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Stratemeyer#Death

Rion Report:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:WikipediaReport_Assignment_1_RION.docx

File:WikipediaReport Assignment 1 RION.docx

2015-02-09T23:03:01Z

Chanel Rion:

Assignment 1 Submissions

2015-02-09T23:02:19Z

Chanel Rion: /* Submissions */

Assignment 1 Submissions

2015-02-09T23:01:27Z

Chanel Rion: /* 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 as a pseudonym.'''

''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 10, 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/is2015/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:

ChanelRion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Notability

Paradigms for Studying the Internet

2015-02-06T19:55:39Z

Chanel Rion: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 3'''

Before we can even begin exploring the who's, what's, and why's – we need to answer the critical question of how. Indeed, the phrase "studying the web" could embrace a staggering world of possible routes to explore, even before beginning to examine its relationship with society and culture. We need something to guide us through this massive field of (very interesting!) foxholes, and link the ideas we encounter into a consistent piece. We need some kind of structure to allow us to understand what we are looking at, the same way a chemist thinks of things in terms of atoms and molecules, or a philosopher can think about things in terms of schools of thought. This class will explore different frameworks for studying the web, which will structure both the discussion and topic matter covered in the course, as well as the methodology that you should apply to your assignments.

[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Class_Days_1_and_2.pdf '''Download slides from this week's class''']

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==

; Mechanisms of control

* [https://www.socialtext.net/codev2/what_things_regulate Lawrence Lessig, ''Code 2.0,'' Chapter 7] (read intro, "A Dot's Life," and "On Governments and Ways to Regulate")

* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2353457 Rob Faris and Rebekah Heacock, Measuring Internet Activity: a (Selective) Review of Methods and Metrics] (read 1-3 and 9-22)

* [http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/ Maeve Duggan, Online Harassment: Summary of Findings] (from the [http://www.pewinternet.org/ PewResearch Internet Project])

; The effects of control

* [http://arstechnica.com/features/2008/06/book-review-2008-06-2-admin/ Nate Anderson, Book Review: Jonathan Zittrain's "The Future of the Internet And How to Stop It" (from ''Ars Technica'')]

* [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ Jonathan Zittrain, The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It] (Chapter 1, "The Battle of the Boxes," and Chapter 4, "The Generative Pattern," only)

* [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks_Chapter_11.pdf Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks] (pp. 379-396 only; stop at "The Physical Layer")

* [http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/08/advertising-is-the-internets-original-sin/376041/ Ethan Zuckerman, The Internet's Original Sin]

* [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/01/facing-challenge-online-harassment Nadiya Kayyali and Danny O'Brien, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Facing the Challenge of Online Harassment]

== Optional Readings ==

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbYQ0AVVBGU Jeffrey Lin, Play Nice: the Science and Behavior of Online Games] (Focus on 0:00-27:17. It's a long video, but an interesting exploration of how one company uses game design to regulate griefing and other online bad behavior. Some of the discussed language is NSFW.)

* [http://www.danah.org/papers/2011/WhiteFlight.pdf danah boyd, White Flight in Networked Publics? How Race and Class Shaped American Teen Engagement with MySpace and Facebook] (read 1-11, skim 12-18, read 19-end)

* [http://www.niemanlab.org/2011/10/the-contribution-conundrum-why-did-wikipedia-succeed-while-other-encyclopedias-failed/ Megan Garber, The contribution conundrum: Why did Wikipedia succeed while other encyclopedias failed?, Nieman Journalism Lab]

* [http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/28/7927425/wikipedia-bans-gamergate-editors-violating-policies Adi Robertson, Wikipedia Denies 'Purging' Feminist Editors over Gamergate Debate]

* [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=310020 Orin Kerr, The Problem of Perspective in Internet Law] (Focus on sections I and II)

</onlyinclude>

== Assignment 1 ==

Assignment 1 is due before next week's class (February 11th). Details of the assignment will be discussed in today's class; see [[Assignment 1 Details and Reporting|this page]] for further information. You can submit the assignment [[Assignment 1 Submissions|here]].

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

Article about submarine cable cuts: http://research.dyn.com/2014/03/beware-the-ides-of-march/

Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF): https://www.eff.org

Buy an LP of Barlow reading his declaration of cyberspace: http://boingboing.net/2014/12/08/limited-edition-vinyl-john-pe.html

IP Geolocation Example: http://www.iplocation.net

Tor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_(anonymity_network)

Apple 1984 commercial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axSnW-ygU5g

Ello social network: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ello_(social_network)

Boston's office of new urban mechanics: http://www.cityofboston.gov/newurbanmechanics/

On the FCC changing definition of "broadband" in the US: http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/29/7932653/fcc-changed-definition-broadband-25mbps

Denial of Service Attacks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial-of-service_attack

Herdict: http://herdict.org

Chilling Effects: https://www.chillingeffects.org

SOPA/PIPA protests: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA

Born This Way Foundation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_This_Way_Foundation

danah's It's Complicated: http://www.danah.org/itscomplicated/

A recent issue where apple approved, then un-approved, then re-approved an app for OS X: http://www.macrumors.com/2014/10/30/apple-reverses-course-on-calculator-widgets/

Sports Illustrated just laid off their entire photojournalism staff: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/23/sports-illustrated-photographers-lay-offs-magazine_n_6533142.html

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

Using Twitter to predict flu trends: http://www.technologyreview.com/view/520116/twitter-datastream-used-to-predict-flu-outbreaks/

Using technology platforms is not always perfect: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/mar/27/google-flu-trends-predicting-flu

== 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]] ([[User talk:Andy|talk]]) 10:17, 21 January 2015 (EST)</div>

----

The Internet is the next frontier - not space. Grappling with the issues of how best to improve the logical layer of the Internet (with generativity or without), how to protect the harassed while protecting free speech, and how to protect copyrighted content are the big questions of our era. Many solutions are proffered in the readings in this section, some more reasonable than others, but we will only know how these will play out once they are put into practice. That’s why it’s a frontier, because we don’t know what’s out there or what will happen as a result of our actions until we do it.

Scammers didn’t appear out of nowhere with the popularization of the internet, nor did bullies or content thieves, but the Internet has acted as an enabling force for these kinds of people. Yet, almost every attempt to head off these “wrongdoers” (depending on whom you ask) is met with a catch 22. On the Internet everyone is equal, everyone is an IP address. Thus, those that gain greater skill in the use of the Internet can cause great harm to people in the real world whom they would never have a chance against in real life. It’s created a whole new playing field where the bullied are turning into the bullies, and the bullies are able to be better bullies.

Obviously, the Internet offers many positives as well, but we aren’t worried about those. Those are just there and we like them, but what we really need to deal with are the bad things. This opens us up to a whole new world of morality where relativism holds a lot of sway. We’re in an era where Redbox is going out of business because people either watch movies online or download them illegally. Some might say this is “bad” while others might view it from more of a Robinhoodesque perspective - take from the corporations and allow the little guys to benefit. We’re finding people staying out of trouble by using the “how” of things, for example, peer to peer sharing, which makes the waters even murkier.

Many governments have found ways of controlling internet access and use in their countries. Will the whole world move more in this direction, or will we find ourselves more and more in a cyberpirate world were anything goes and anything can be done? This seems to depend on who develops what first and how well they do it. [[User:Oliviabrinich|Oliviabrinich]] ([[User talk:Oliviabrinich|talk]]) 21:37, 1 February 2015 (EST)

----

Quite often, the Internet´s impact on society and on individuals is discussed in the media. However, the subjects discussed do almost solely concern the social effects or the long-term effects on sitting in front of a screen too much. What we should start focusing on is instead (or also) who and what it is that decide what we see and do on the Internet, because that can affect both our individual privacy and our view on the world.

One thing that is very interesting is that there is not one person or one government that rule over the Internet. The Internet is shaped by its users, people that build the softwares and other infrastructure, private corporations, and of course by governments. Internet security/Internet terrorism and online harassment are two issues that concerns all of these groups in one way or another. What is also interesting is that even though we all are part of shaping the Internet, we do have different interests in doing so. Individuals use the internet for their own purpose, for example for amusement and to gather information. Those who build the infrastructure might do so because they want to improve the Internet or because out of curiosity. Private corporations want to do business, while governments are interested in protecting individuals and the country from threats.

Even though the Internet is the source of a lot of good, there are like I mentioned also a lot of bad consequences to deal with. Issues like what to do about online harassment and online privacy problems are two of multiple hard nuts to crack. Laws are often important but not always the best and only solutions. Kayyali and O’Brien advocate in ''Facing the challenge of online harassment'' a more representative pool of toolmakers, to empower the users and to embrace counter-speak, etc., as part of a solution to the problems of harassment. I believe that it will take some time before we see a solution since there are so many players in this game called the Internet. The market, laws, norms and the Internet´s architecture all regulate the Internet in one way or another, even if they don´t mean to, and that is both a strength and a weakness. [[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 12:19, 3 February 2015 (EST)
----
From today's class reading I was mostly impressed by the Online Harassment article, by Mave Duggan and more precisely by the survey on how people response to online harassment . Only 5 % among those who have experienced online harassment reported the problem to law enforcement, it says. It means Internet users do not seek help from the offline authorities for violation of of their rights committed online. Considering this, I asked myself the question, is it so because the online community has already elaborated it's own methods of enforcement and response to online violence or is it just because people believe traditional, meaning offline measures, would not be sufficiently applicable and efficient regarding Internet cases? Another question I asked myself is whether people react the same way to one and the same aggression online and offline. For example our job performance being criticized in Facebook (Online Harassment, Part 4:The Aftermath of Online Harassment), would it hurt more or less than being criticized in a face to face conversation? ([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 14:23, 3 February 2015 (EST))
----
I too was very drawn to the articles about online harassment. As student affairs professional that has worked in higher education institutions for over 10 years, it has been very profound how the perception of internet bullying and the governance of such behavior has changed radically. Approximately a decade ago, there was a large amount of discussion about institution jurisdiction and the ability to adjudicate students and hold them accountable for actions occurring via the internet; but little was being done. As social media and technology became the forefront of communication for millennial students, institutions and practitioners had to reevaluate institution policies. As specific examples, I have served on committees that redefined internet harassment and code of conduct policies that no longer allowed for ‘remote’ behaviors to go unpunished. In a number of colleges and universities, harassment that takes places through a university’s technology network is subject to disciplinary and potential criminal action. Some institutions have gone so far as to create a code of conduct that governs student behavior and bullying/harassment off-campus, which is subject to institution discipline and potentially criminal action. In my previous institution, we saw approximately a 30% increase in judicial cases that included internet harassment from the preceding year. What is interesting is the increase of reporting in a university setting while reporting incidents to law enforcement by the general public may not occur frequently. I would assume, with increased legislation about universities’ reporting criminal behaviors, there has been additional scrutiny about institutions demonstrating proactive comportments in protecting our students holistically. Tasha[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 15:44, 3 February 2015 (EST)
----
I have to chime in on the Online Harassment article as well. Don’t know if I missed it, but I think they overlooked a huge demographic of young people who are harassed online. There is a population of middle school students who are severely harassed and bullied, such that many states are enacting anti-bullying legislation (which borders on infringement of free speech in some cases). These are victims who honestly don’t know how to handle the harassment and could face major depression and in some cases suicide. [[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 16:15, 3 February 2015 (EST)

----
One of the readings that caught my attention for today’s class is the concept of generativity from Zittrain’s book The Future of the Internet. Zittrain defines generativity as “a system’s capacity to produce unanticipated change through unfiltered contributions from broad and varied audiences” and he uses this term to describe open source software systems as well as closed-source systems. My initial thought from this definition was that it perfectly encapsulates what the modern Internet has allowed people to create. We were once closed into what Zittrain refers to as a “walled garden” which by its very nature limits our creativity, but we were able to break out of that shell via PCs and the internet. But I do agree with one of Zittrain’s main points being that this “walled garden” invites a problem that if we do not take seriously it could derail further progress in our internet age.

[[User:Jan.Yburan|Jan.Yburan]] ([[User talk:Jan.Yburan|talk]]) 16:29, 3 February 2015 (EST)

----
I agree with Olivia's point in regards to piracy. I personally see piracy as a major threat to the "generativity" that Mr. Zittrain mentioned in his book titled, "The Future of the Internet." Online piracy encourages the governments to implement, and to enforce new laws that may make it harder for entrepreneurs to create and to innovate (Thus leading to stagnation - the nemesis of generativity.)

The article titled, "Code 2.0" by Lawrence Lessig taught me a lot in regards to the constraints that we, as individuals, face online. I never considered social norms, or the architecture of the internet, as powerful factors that could regulate our every movements. The

[[User:Mishal R. Kennedy|Mishal R. Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Mishal R. Kennedy|talk]]) 4:40PM, 3 February 2015 (EST)

----

'''== The Internet's Chilling Effect: The Sound of Anonymity and the Silence of Vanity =='''

Duggan reveals to us the numbing numbers of online harassment and reveals in numbers what many of us may have already suspected about society and its Internet and what the two entities are doing to each other:

Words are cheap, feelings cheaper, and attacks are virtual (at least half the population, according to Duggan, found their most recent experience with online harassment as being "not too upsetting").

Duggan's article on Internet harassment brought to mind two thoughts from the realm of crowd psychology that might be useful in considering the Internet's behavioral effects on us.

''Crowd mentality parallel 1: The more people in a situation, the simpler their collective mental capacity.''

Gustave Le Bon wrote a book entitled "The Crowd" -- in it he claims that the mental capacity of a crowd boils down to "Yes's and No's"; the larger the crowd the more so and the more the crowd simplifies the choices, the more fervent they become.

There's a potent amount of activity on platforms where people, no longer using their personal identities spur off on commentary and discussions that quickly turn nasty. The ability to disconnect peoples' identities from reality and install their avatars in the virtual world of the Internet creates a surprising cacophony that only the anonymity of the crowd and of the Internet can inspire which segues us into…

''Crowd mentality parallel 2: The more anonymous, the less responsibility, the more the attack.''

With Internet Crowd Mentality, the Internet becomes an even more powerful assembler, rally-mongerer than any physical, on the ground crowd mongerer could ever be. It's effects are similar to Le Bon's thesis about the simplification of crowd mentality.

The Internet is at once a paradise of (perceived) anonymity and a kingdom of exposure. In physical life, crowds have this terrifying ability to de-individuate -- to strip the individual of their identity and meld them with a larger identity -- the Crowd's. With the loss or in the Internet's case, the discarding of identity also comes the loss of personal responsibility, thus explaining the awful phenomena of normal individuals doing horrific things when in a mob. The exact phenomena can be seen with the Internet only with individuals sitting all alone in front of their computers-- that very same feeling of not being personally accountable that is found when surrounded by hundreds of people is brilliantly emulated through the portal of the Internet.

Duggar well exhibits this with her Pew numbers.

On a topic opposite crowd mentality, we turn to ultimate individualization; the power of vanity and how the Internet and its many actors are utilizing this to control the landscape before it.

In discussing the construction of the architectures of control, Lessig used a funny example of how a hotel was able to control their customers' complaints about the elevator:

"A large hotel in an American city received many complaints about the slowness of its elevators. It installed mirrors next to the elevator doors. The complaints ended."

The plausibility of this story makes it even funnier.

In parallel, to discussions of the Internet and its means of control via its controllers, we learn from this elevator-mirror example something about human nature that will always work in conjunction with the Internet. Vanity is one of the most powerful manipulators and the most potently disguised usurpers of our liberties… Prime example, Facebook, where we witness the tradeoff of using a media platform to connect and to show off in exchange for the selling of our private information to megacompanies.

Vanity is a great silencer. Social media platforms cater to this concept brilliantly. Through the Internet, they are the proverbial Mirrors before the Elevators. So long as we are admiring ourselves on our social media platforms, we will be distracted from the inherent malfunctionings and pitfalls of a devious system.

Chanel Rion
[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 14:55, 6 February 2015 (EST)

Paradigms for Studying the Internet

2015-02-04T19:47:46Z

Chanel Rion: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 3'''

Before we can even begin exploring the who's, what's, and why's – we need to answer the critical question of how. Indeed, the phrase "studying the web" could embrace a staggering world of possible routes to explore, even before beginning to examine its relationship with society and culture. We need something to guide us through this massive field of (very interesting!) foxholes, and link the ideas we encounter into a consistent piece. We need some kind of structure to allow us to understand what we are looking at, the same way a chemist thinks of things in terms of atoms and molecules, or a philosopher can think about things in terms of schools of thought. This class will explore different frameworks for studying the web, which will structure both the discussion and topic matter covered in the course, as well as the methodology that you should apply to your assignments.

[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Class_Days_1_and_2.pdf '''Download slides from this week's class''']

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==

; Mechanisms of control

* [https://www.socialtext.net/codev2/what_things_regulate Lawrence Lessig, ''Code 2.0,'' Chapter 7] (read intro, "A Dot's Life," and "On Governments and Ways to Regulate")

* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2353457 Rob Faris and Rebekah Heacock, Measuring Internet Activity: a (Selective) Review of Methods and Metrics] (read 1-3 and 9-22)

* [http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/ Maeve Duggan, Online Harassment: Summary of Findings] (from the [http://www.pewinternet.org/ PewResearch Internet Project])

; The effects of control

* [http://arstechnica.com/features/2008/06/book-review-2008-06-2-admin/ Nate Anderson, Book Review: Jonathan Zittrain's "The Future of the Internet And How to Stop It" (from ''Ars Technica'')]

* [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ Jonathan Zittrain, The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It] (Chapter 1, "The Battle of the Boxes," and Chapter 4, "The Generative Pattern," only)

* [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks_Chapter_11.pdf Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks] (pp. 379-396 only; stop at "The Physical Layer")

* [http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/08/advertising-is-the-internets-original-sin/376041/ Ethan Zuckerman, The Internet's Original Sin]

* [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/01/facing-challenge-online-harassment Nadiya Kayyali and Danny O'Brien, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Facing the Challenge of Online Harassment]

== Optional Readings ==

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbYQ0AVVBGU Jeffrey Lin, Play Nice: the Science and Behavior of Online Games] (Focus on 0:00-27:17. It's a long video, but an interesting exploration of how one company uses game design to regulate griefing and other online bad behavior. Some of the discussed language is NSFW.)

* [http://www.danah.org/papers/2011/WhiteFlight.pdf danah boyd, White Flight in Networked Publics? How Race and Class Shaped American Teen Engagement with MySpace and Facebook] (read 1-11, skim 12-18, read 19-end)

* [http://www.niemanlab.org/2011/10/the-contribution-conundrum-why-did-wikipedia-succeed-while-other-encyclopedias-failed/ Megan Garber, The contribution conundrum: Why did Wikipedia succeed while other encyclopedias failed?, Nieman Journalism Lab]

* [http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/28/7927425/wikipedia-bans-gamergate-editors-violating-policies Adi Robertson, Wikipedia Denies 'Purging' Feminist Editors over Gamergate Debate]

* [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=310020 Orin Kerr, The Problem of Perspective in Internet Law] (Focus on sections I and II)

</onlyinclude>

== Assignment 1 ==

Assignment 1 is due before next week's class (February 11th). Details of the assignment will be discussed in today's class; see [[Assignment 1 Details and Reporting|this page]] for further information. You can submit the assignment [[Assignment 1 Submissions|here]].

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== 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]] ([[User talk:Andy|talk]]) 10:17, 21 January 2015 (EST)</div>

----

The Internet is the next frontier - not space. Grappling with the issues of how best to improve the logical layer of the Internet (with generativity or without), how to protect the harassed while protecting free speech, and how to protect copyrighted content are the big questions of our era. Many solutions are proffered in the readings in this section, some more reasonable than others, but we will only know how these will play out once they are put into practice. That’s why it’s a frontier, because we don’t know what’s out there or what will happen as a result of our actions until we do it.

Scammers didn’t appear out of nowhere with the popularization of the internet, nor did bullies or content thieves, but the Internet has acted as an enabling force for these kinds of people. Yet, almost every attempt to head off these “wrongdoers” (depending on whom you ask) is met with a catch 22. On the Internet everyone is equal, everyone is an IP address. Thus, those that gain greater skill in the use of the Internet can cause great harm to people in the real world whom they would never have a chance against in real life. It’s created a whole new playing field where the bullied are turning into the bullies, and the bullies are able to be better bullies.

Obviously, the Internet offers many positives as well, but we aren’t worried about those. Those are just there and we like them, but what we really need to deal with are the bad things. This opens us up to a whole new world of morality where relativism holds a lot of sway. We’re in an era where Redbox is going out of business because people either watch movies online or download them illegally. Some might say this is “bad” while others might view it from more of a Robinhoodesque perspective - take from the corporations and allow the little guys to benefit. We’re finding people staying out of trouble by using the “how” of things, for example, peer to peer sharing, which makes the waters even murkier.

Many governments have found ways of controlling internet access and use in their countries. Will the whole world move more in this direction, or will we find ourselves more and more in a cyberpirate world were anything goes and anything can be done? This seems to depend on who develops what first and how well they do it. [[User:Oliviabrinich|Oliviabrinich]] ([[User talk:Oliviabrinich|talk]]) 21:37, 1 February 2015 (EST)

----

Quite often, the Internet´s impact on society and on individuals is discussed in the media. However, the subjects discussed do almost solely concern the social effects or the long-term effects on sitting in front of a screen too much. What we should start focusing on is instead (or also) who and what it is that decide what we see and do on the Internet, because that can affect both our individual privacy and our view on the world.

One thing that is very interesting is that there is not one person or one government that rule over the Internet. The Internet is shaped by its users, people that build the softwares and other infrastructure, private corporations, and of course by governments. Internet security/Internet terrorism and online harassment are two issues that concerns all of these groups in one way or another. What is also interesting is that even though we all are part of shaping the Internet, we do have different interests in doing so. Individuals use the internet for their own purpose, for example for amusement and to gather information. Those who build the infrastructure might do so because they want to improve the Internet or because out of curiosity. Private corporations want to do business, while governments are interested in protecting individuals and the country from threats.

Even though the Internet is the source of a lot of good, there are like I mentioned also a lot of bad consequences to deal with. Issues like what to do about online harassment and online privacy problems are two of multiple hard nuts to crack. Laws are often important but not always the best and only solutions. Kayyali and O’Brien advocate in ''Facing the challenge of online harassment'' a more representative pool of toolmakers, to empower the users and to embrace counter-speak, etc., as part of a solution to the problems of harassment. I believe that it will take some time before we see a solution since there are so many players in this game called the Internet. The market, laws, norms and the Internet´s architecture all regulate the Internet in one way or another, even if they don´t mean to, and that is both a strength and a weakness. [[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 12:19, 3 February 2015 (EST)
----
From today's class reading I was mostly impressed by the Online Harassment article, by Mave Duggan and more precisely by the survey on how people response to online harassment . Only 5 % among those who have experienced online harassment reported the problem to law enforcement, it says. It means Internet users do not seek help from the offline authorities for violation of of their rights committed online. Considering this, I asked myself the question, is it so because the online community has already elaborated it's own methods of enforcement and response to online violence or is it just because people believe traditional, meaning offline measures, would not be sufficiently applicable and efficient regarding Internet cases? Another question I asked myself is whether people react the same way to one and the same aggression online and offline. For example our job performance being criticized in Facebook (Online Harassment, Part 4:The Aftermath of Online Harassment), would it hurt more or less than being criticized in a face to face conversation? ([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 14:23, 3 February 2015 (EST))
----
I too was very drawn to the articles about online harassment. As student affairs professional that has worked in higher education institutions for over 10 years, it has been very profound how the perception of internet bullying and the governance of such behavior has changed radically. Approximately a decade ago, there was a large amount of discussion about institution jurisdiction and the ability to adjudicate students and hold them accountable for actions occurring via the internet; but little was being done. As social media and technology became the forefront of communication for millennial students, institutions and practitioners had to reevaluate institution policies. As specific examples, I have served on committees that redefined internet harassment and code of conduct policies that no longer allowed for ‘remote’ behaviors to go unpunished. In a number of colleges and universities, harassment that takes places through a university’s technology network is subject to disciplinary and potential criminal action. Some institutions have gone so far as to create a code of conduct that governs student behavior and bullying/harassment off-campus, which is subject to institution discipline and potentially criminal action. In my previous institution, we saw approximately a 30% increase in judicial cases that included internet harassment from the preceding year. What is interesting is the increase of reporting in a university setting while reporting incidents to law enforcement by the general public may not occur frequently. I would assume, with increased legislation about universities’ reporting criminal behaviors, there has been additional scrutiny about institutions demonstrating proactive comportments in protecting our students holistically. Tasha[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 15:44, 3 February 2015 (EST)
----
I have to chime in on the Online Harassment article as well. Don’t know if I missed it, but I think they overlooked a huge demographic of young people who are harassed online. There is a population of middle school students who are severely harassed and bullied, such that many states are enacting anti-bullying legislation (which borders on infringement of free speech in some cases). These are victims who honestly don’t know how to handle the harassment and could face major depression and in some cases suicide. [[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 16:15, 3 February 2015 (EST)

----
One of the readings that caught my attention for today’s class is the concept of generativity from Zittrain’s book The Future of the Internet. Zittrain defines generativity as “a system’s capacity to produce unanticipated change through unfiltered contributions from broad and varied audiences” and he uses this term to describe open source software systems as well as closed-source systems. My initial thought from this definition was that it perfectly encapsulates what the modern Internet has allowed people to create. We were once closed into what Zittrain refers to as a “walled garden” which by its very nature limits our creativity, but we were able to break out of that shell via PCs and the internet. But I do agree with one of Zittrain’s main points being that this “walled garden” invites a problem that if we do not take seriously it could derail further progress in our internet age.

[[User:Jan.Yburan|Jan.Yburan]] ([[User talk:Jan.Yburan|talk]]) 16:29, 3 February 2015 (EST)

----
I agree with Olivia's point in regards to piracy. I personally see piracy as a major threat to the "generativity" that Mr. Zittrain mentioned in his book titled, "The Future of the Internet." Online piracy encourages the governments to implement, and to enforce new laws that may make it harder for entrepreneurs to create and to innovate (Thus leading to stagnation - the nemesis of generativity.)

The article titled, "Code 2.0" by Lawrence Lessig taught me a lot in regards to the constraints that we, as individuals, face online. I never considered social norms, or the architecture of the internet, as powerful factors that could regulate our every movements. The

[[User:Mishal R. Kennedy|Mishal R. Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Mishal R. Kennedy|talk]]) 4:40PM, 3 February 2015 (EST)

----

'''== The Internet's Chilling Effect: The Sound of Anonymity and the Silence of Vanity =='''

Duggan reveals to us the numbing numbers of online harassment and reveals in numbers what many of us may have already suspected about society and its Internet and what the two entities are doing to each other:

Words are cheap, feelings cheaper, and attacks are virtual (at least half the population, according to Duggan, found their most recent experience with online harassment as being "not too upsetting").

Duggan's article on Internet harassment brought to mind two thoughts from the realm of crowd psychology that might be useful in considering the Internet's behavioral effects on us.

''Crowd mentality parallel 1: The more people in a situation, the simpler their collective mental capacity.''

Gustave Le Bon wrote a book entitled "The Crowd" -- in it he claims that the mental capacity of a crowd boils down to "Yes's and No's"; the larger the crowd the more so and the more the crowd simplifies the choices, the more fervent they become.

There's a potent amount of activity on platforms where people, no longer using their personal identities spur off on commentary and discussions that quickly turn nasty. The ability to disconnect peoples' identities from reality and install their avatars in the virtual world of the Internet creates a surprising cacophony that only the anonymity of the crowd and of the Internet can inspire which segues us into…

''Crowd mentality parallel 2: The more anonymous, the less responsibility, the more the attack.''

With Internet Crowd Mentality, the Internet becomes an even more powerful assembler, rally-mongerer than any physical, on the ground crowd mongerer could ever be. It's effects are similar to Le Bon's thesis about the simplification of crowd mentality.

The Internet is at once a paradise of (perceived) anonymity and a kingdom of exposure. In physical life, crowds have this terrifying ability to de-individuate -- to strip the individual of their identity and meld them with a larger identity -- the Crowd's. With the loss or in the Internet's case, the discarding of identity also comes the loss of personal responsibility, thus explaining the awful phenomena of normal individuals doing horrific things when in a mob. The exact phenomena can be seen with the Internet only with individuals sitting all alone in front of their computers-- that very same feeling of not being personally accountable that is found when surrounded by hundreds of people is brilliantly emulated through the portal of the Internet.

Duggar well exhibits this with her Pew numbers.

On a topic opposite crowd mentality, we turn to ultimate individualization; the power of vanity and how the Internet and its many actors are utilizing this to control the landscape before it.

In discussing the construction of the architectures of control, Lessig used a funny example of how a hotel was able to control their customers' complaints about the elevator:

"A large hotel in an American city received many complaints about the slowness of its elevators. It installed mirrors next to the elevator doors. The complaints ended."

The plausibility of this story makes it even funnier.

In parallel, to discussions of the Internet and its means of control via its controllers, we learn from this elevator-mirror example something about human nature that will always work in conjunction with the Internet. Vanity is one of the most powerful manipulators and the most potently disguised usurpers of our liberties… Prime example, Facebook, where we witness the tradeoff of using a media platform to connect and to show off in exchange for the selling of our private information to megacompanies.

Vanity is a great silencer. Social media platforms cater to this concept brilliantly. Through the Internet, they are the proverbial Mirrors before the Elevators. So long as we are admiring ourselves on our social media platforms, we will be distracted from the inherent malfunctionings and pitfalls of a devious system.

Chanel Rion
----

Paradigms for Studying the Internet

2015-02-04T19:45:55Z

Chanel Rion: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 3'''

Before we can even begin exploring the who's, what's, and why's – we need to answer the critical question of how. Indeed, the phrase "studying the web" could embrace a staggering world of possible routes to explore, even before beginning to examine its relationship with society and culture. We need something to guide us through this massive field of (very interesting!) foxholes, and link the ideas we encounter into a consistent piece. We need some kind of structure to allow us to understand what we are looking at, the same way a chemist thinks of things in terms of atoms and molecules, or a philosopher can think about things in terms of schools of thought. This class will explore different frameworks for studying the web, which will structure both the discussion and topic matter covered in the course, as well as the methodology that you should apply to your assignments.

[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Class_Days_1_and_2.pdf '''Download slides from this week's class''']

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==

; Mechanisms of control

* [https://www.socialtext.net/codev2/what_things_regulate Lawrence Lessig, ''Code 2.0,'' Chapter 7] (read intro, "A Dot's Life," and "On Governments and Ways to Regulate")

* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2353457 Rob Faris and Rebekah Heacock, Measuring Internet Activity: a (Selective) Review of Methods and Metrics] (read 1-3 and 9-22)

* [http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/ Maeve Duggan, Online Harassment: Summary of Findings] (from the [http://www.pewinternet.org/ PewResearch Internet Project])

; The effects of control

* [http://arstechnica.com/features/2008/06/book-review-2008-06-2-admin/ Nate Anderson, Book Review: Jonathan Zittrain's "The Future of the Internet And How to Stop It" (from ''Ars Technica'')]

* [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ Jonathan Zittrain, The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It] (Chapter 1, "The Battle of the Boxes," and Chapter 4, "The Generative Pattern," only)

* [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks_Chapter_11.pdf Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks] (pp. 379-396 only; stop at "The Physical Layer")

* [http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/08/advertising-is-the-internets-original-sin/376041/ Ethan Zuckerman, The Internet's Original Sin]

* [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/01/facing-challenge-online-harassment Nadiya Kayyali and Danny O'Brien, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Facing the Challenge of Online Harassment]

== Optional Readings ==

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbYQ0AVVBGU Jeffrey Lin, Play Nice: the Science and Behavior of Online Games] (Focus on 0:00-27:17. It's a long video, but an interesting exploration of how one company uses game design to regulate griefing and other online bad behavior. Some of the discussed language is NSFW.)

* [http://www.danah.org/papers/2011/WhiteFlight.pdf danah boyd, White Flight in Networked Publics? How Race and Class Shaped American Teen Engagement with MySpace and Facebook] (read 1-11, skim 12-18, read 19-end)

* [http://www.niemanlab.org/2011/10/the-contribution-conundrum-why-did-wikipedia-succeed-while-other-encyclopedias-failed/ Megan Garber, The contribution conundrum: Why did Wikipedia succeed while other encyclopedias failed?, Nieman Journalism Lab]

* [http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/28/7927425/wikipedia-bans-gamergate-editors-violating-policies Adi Robertson, Wikipedia Denies 'Purging' Feminist Editors over Gamergate Debate]

* [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=310020 Orin Kerr, The Problem of Perspective in Internet Law] (Focus on sections I and II)

</onlyinclude>

== Assignment 1 ==

Assignment 1 is due before next week's class (February 11th). Details of the assignment will be discussed in today's class; see [[Assignment 1 Details and Reporting|this page]] for further information. You can submit the assignment [[Assignment 1 Submissions|here]].

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== 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]] ([[User talk:Andy|talk]]) 10:17, 21 January 2015 (EST)</div>

----

The Internet is the next frontier - not space. Grappling with the issues of how best to improve the logical layer of the Internet (with generativity or without), how to protect the harassed while protecting free speech, and how to protect copyrighted content are the big questions of our era. Many solutions are proffered in the readings in this section, some more reasonable than others, but we will only know how these will play out once they are put into practice. That’s why it’s a frontier, because we don’t know what’s out there or what will happen as a result of our actions until we do it.

Scammers didn’t appear out of nowhere with the popularization of the internet, nor did bullies or content thieves, but the Internet has acted as an enabling force for these kinds of people. Yet, almost every attempt to head off these “wrongdoers” (depending on whom you ask) is met with a catch 22. On the Internet everyone is equal, everyone is an IP address. Thus, those that gain greater skill in the use of the Internet can cause great harm to people in the real world whom they would never have a chance against in real life. It’s created a whole new playing field where the bullied are turning into the bullies, and the bullies are able to be better bullies.

Obviously, the Internet offers many positives as well, but we aren’t worried about those. Those are just there and we like them, but what we really need to deal with are the bad things. This opens us up to a whole new world of morality where relativism holds a lot of sway. We’re in an era where Redbox is going out of business because people either watch movies online or download them illegally. Some might say this is “bad” while others might view it from more of a Robinhoodesque perspective - take from the corporations and allow the little guys to benefit. We’re finding people staying out of trouble by using the “how” of things, for example, peer to peer sharing, which makes the waters even murkier.

Many governments have found ways of controlling internet access and use in their countries. Will the whole world move more in this direction, or will we find ourselves more and more in a cyberpirate world were anything goes and anything can be done? This seems to depend on who develops what first and how well they do it. [[User:Oliviabrinich|Oliviabrinich]] ([[User talk:Oliviabrinich|talk]]) 21:37, 1 February 2015 (EST)

----

Quite often, the Internet´s impact on society and on individuals is discussed in the media. However, the subjects discussed do almost solely concern the social effects or the long-term effects on sitting in front of a screen too much. What we should start focusing on is instead (or also) who and what it is that decide what we see and do on the Internet, because that can affect both our individual privacy and our view on the world.

One thing that is very interesting is that there is not one person or one government that rule over the Internet. The Internet is shaped by its users, people that build the softwares and other infrastructure, private corporations, and of course by governments. Internet security/Internet terrorism and online harassment are two issues that concerns all of these groups in one way or another. What is also interesting is that even though we all are part of shaping the Internet, we do have different interests in doing so. Individuals use the internet for their own purpose, for example for amusement and to gather information. Those who build the infrastructure might do so because they want to improve the Internet or because out of curiosity. Private corporations want to do business, while governments are interested in protecting individuals and the country from threats.

Even though the Internet is the source of a lot of good, there are like I mentioned also a lot of bad consequences to deal with. Issues like what to do about online harassment and online privacy problems are two of multiple hard nuts to crack. Laws are often important but not always the best and only solutions. Kayyali and O’Brien advocate in ''Facing the challenge of online harassment'' a more representative pool of toolmakers, to empower the users and to embrace counter-speak, etc., as part of a solution to the problems of harassment. I believe that it will take some time before we see a solution since there are so many players in this game called the Internet. The market, laws, norms and the Internet´s architecture all regulate the Internet in one way or another, even if they don´t mean to, and that is both a strength and a weakness. [[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 12:19, 3 February 2015 (EST)
----
From today's class reading I was mostly impressed by the Online Harassment article, by Mave Duggan and more precisely by the survey on how people response to online harassment . Only 5 % among those who have experienced online harassment reported the problem to law enforcement, it says. It means Internet users do not seek help from the offline authorities for violation of of their rights committed online. Considering this, I asked myself the question, is it so because the online community has already elaborated it's own methods of enforcement and response to online violence or is it just because people believe traditional, meaning offline measures, would not be sufficiently applicable and efficient regarding Internet cases? Another question I asked myself is whether people react the same way to one and the same aggression online and offline. For example our job performance being criticized in Facebook (Online Harassment, Part 4:The Aftermath of Online Harassment), would it hurt more or less than being criticized in a face to face conversation? ([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 14:23, 3 February 2015 (EST))
----
I too was very drawn to the articles about online harassment. As student affairs professional that has worked in higher education institutions for over 10 years, it has been very profound how the perception of internet bullying and the governance of such behavior has changed radically. Approximately a decade ago, there was a large amount of discussion about institution jurisdiction and the ability to adjudicate students and hold them accountable for actions occurring via the internet; but little was being done. As social media and technology became the forefront of communication for millennial students, institutions and practitioners had to reevaluate institution policies. As specific examples, I have served on committees that redefined internet harassment and code of conduct policies that no longer allowed for ‘remote’ behaviors to go unpunished. In a number of colleges and universities, harassment that takes places through a university’s technology network is subject to disciplinary and potential criminal action. Some institutions have gone so far as to create a code of conduct that governs student behavior and bullying/harassment off-campus, which is subject to institution discipline and potentially criminal action. In my previous institution, we saw approximately a 30% increase in judicial cases that included internet harassment from the preceding year. What is interesting is the increase of reporting in a university setting while reporting incidents to law enforcement by the general public may not occur frequently. I would assume, with increased legislation about universities’ reporting criminal behaviors, there has been additional scrutiny about institutions demonstrating proactive comportments in protecting our students holistically. Tasha[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 15:44, 3 February 2015 (EST)
----
I have to chime in on the Online Harassment article as well. Don’t know if I missed it, but I think they overlooked a huge demographic of young people who are harassed online. There is a population of middle school students who are severely harassed and bullied, such that many states are enacting anti-bullying legislation (which borders on infringement of free speech in some cases). These are victims who honestly don’t know how to handle the harassment and could face major depression and in some cases suicide. [[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 16:15, 3 February 2015 (EST)

----
One of the readings that caught my attention for today’s class is the concept of generativity from Zittrain’s book The Future of the Internet. Zittrain defines generativity as “a system’s capacity to produce unanticipated change through unfiltered contributions from broad and varied audiences” and he uses this term to describe open source software systems as well as closed-source systems. My initial thought from this definition was that it perfectly encapsulates what the modern Internet has allowed people to create. We were once closed into what Zittrain refers to as a “walled garden” which by its very nature limits our creativity, but we were able to break out of that shell via PCs and the internet. But I do agree with one of Zittrain’s main points being that this “walled garden” invites a problem that if we do not take seriously it could derail further progress in our internet age.

[[User:Jan.Yburan|Jan.Yburan]] ([[User talk:Jan.Yburan|talk]]) 16:29, 3 February 2015 (EST)

----
I agree with Olivia's point in regards to piracy. I personally see piracy as a major threat to the "generativity" that Mr. Zittrain mentioned in his book titled, "The Future of the Internet." Online piracy encourages the governments to implement, and to enforce new laws that may make it harder for entrepreneurs to create and to innovate (Thus leading to stagnation - the nemesis of generativity.)

The article titled, "Code 2.0" by Lawrence Lessig taught me a lot in regards to the constraints that we, as individuals, face online. I never considered social norms, or the architecture of the internet, as powerful factors that could regulate our every movements. The

[[User:Mishal R. Kennedy|Mishal R. Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Mishal R. Kennedy|talk]]) 4:40PM, 3 February 2015 (EST)

----

'''== The Internet's Chilling Effect: The Sound of Anonymity and the Silence of Vanity =='''

Duggan reveals to us the numbing numbers of online harassment and reveals in numbers what many of us may have already suspected about society and its Internet and what the two entities are doing to each other:

Words are cheap, feelings cheaper, and attacks are virtual (at least half the population, according to Duggan, found their most recent experience with online harassment as being "not too upsetting").

Duggan's article on Internet harassment brought to mind two thoughts from the realm of crowd psychology that might be useful in considering the Internet's behavioral effects on us.

''Crowd mentality parallel 1: The more people in a situation, the simpler their collective mental capacity.''

Gustave Le Bon wrote a book entitled "The Crowd" -- in it he claims that the mental capacity of a crowd boils down to "Yes's and No's"; the larger the crowd the more so and the more the crowd simplifies the choices, the more fervent they become.

There's a potent amount of activity on platforms where people, no longer using their personal identities spur off on commentary and discussions that quickly turn nasty. The ability to disconnect peoples' identities from reality and install their avatars in the virtual world of the Internet creates a surprising cacophony that only the anonymity of the crowd and of the Internet can inspire which segues us into…

''Crowd mentality parallel 2: The more anonymous, the less responsibility, the more the attack.''

With Internet Crowd Mentality, the Internet becomes an even more powerful assembler, rally-mongerer than any physical, on the ground crowd mongerer could ever be. It's effects are similar to Le Bon's thesis about the simplification of crowd mentality.

The Internet is at once a paradise of (perceived) anonymity and a kingdom of exposure. In physical life, crowds have this terrifying ability to de-individuate -- to strip the individual of their identity and meld them with a larger identity -- the Crowd's. With the loss or in the Internet's case, the discarding of identity also comes the loss of personal responsibility, thus explaining the awful phenomena of normal individuals doing horrific things when in a mob. The exact phenomena can be seen with the Internet only with individuals sitting all alone in front of their computers-- that very same feeling of not being personally accountable that is found when surrounded by hundreds of people is brilliantly emulated through the portal of the Internet.

Duggar well exhibits this with her Pew numbers.

On a topic opposite crowd mentality, we turn to ultimate individualization; the power of vanity and how the Internet and its many actors are utilizing this to control the landscape before it.

In discussing the construction of the architectures of control, Lessig used a funny example of how a hotel was able to control their customers' complaints about the elevator:

"A large hotel in an American city received many complaints about the slowness of its elevators. It installed mirrors next to the elevator doors. The complaints ended."

The plausibility of this story makes it even funnier.

In parallel, to discussions of the Internet and its means of control via its controllers, we learn from this elevator-mirror example something about human nature that will always work in conjunction with the Internet. Vanity is one of the most powerful manipulators and the most potently disguised usurpers of our liberties… Prime example, Facebook, where we witness the tradeoff of using a media platform to connect and to show off in exchange for the selling of our private information to megacompanies.

Vanity is a great silencer. Social media platforms cater to this concept brilliantly. Through the Internet, they are the proverbial Mirrors before the Elevators. So long as we are admiring ourselves on our social media platforms, we will be distracted from the inherent malfunctionings and pitfalls of a devious system.

----

Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction

2015-02-03T15:52:12Z

Chanel Rion: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}
'''January 27'''

The Internet at its core is simply an expression of a technological protocol that allows for a particular way of sharing information. But its role has never been this understated. The Internet has great potential for “good” (e.g. innovation, economic growth, education, and access to information), and likewise is a great platform for the bawdy, tawdry and illegal. So is this platform about fundamental social, political and economic change, or about access to solipsistic blogging, pornography, cheap pharmaceuticals, free music, and poker at home? This question leads us to a host of interesting issues that weave their way through the course related to openness, access, regulatory control, free speech, anonymity, intellectual property rights, democracy, transparency, norms and values, economic and cultural change, and cyber- terrorism, as well as scamsters and thieves.

'''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 the Internet and digital technologies. In a few sentences, please offer 2-3 examples in the [[#Class Discussion|Class Discussion]] section below and be prepared to discuss them during class.

<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?'''

* [https://projects.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html John Perry Barlow, A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace]

:* You can hear Barlow read this [http://departmentofrecords.co/dor1.html here].

* [http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/January-February-2006/feature_goldsmith_janfeb06.msp 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]

* [https://medium.com/@internetmonitor/platforms-and-policy-e9984e1be4c6 Rob Faris and Rebekah Heacock, Platforms and Policy] (from the [http://thenetmonitor.org/research/2014/ 'Internet Monitor' 2014 annual report])

* [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); and [http://cluetrain.com/newclues/ New Clues]

* [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1752415 Tim Wu, Is Internet Exceptionalism Dead?]

* [http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2012/12/05/good-and-bad-reasons-to-be-worried-about-wcit/ Ethan Zuckerman, Good and Bad Reasons to be Worried About WCIT]

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links From Adobe Connect Session ==

== 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! You can add a divider between comments by typing four hyphens (<nowiki>----</nowiki>) in an empty line between comments. '''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]] ([[User talk:Andy|talk]]) 09:50, 21 January 2015 (EST)</div>

----

Digital technologies have changes many aspects of life and society. One example is the fact that I can participate in this class even though I live in Europe. That is just one example of how digital technologies have played a huge part in globalization. Even though I live in Sweden, I can still study at an American university, easily stay in touch with my best friend who lives in Missouri, I can follow the life of a stranger in Australia through his or her blog, and I can connect and share my thoughts with other people who think like me but who live in other parts of the world. As a young person of today, I do not only identify myself as a citizen of a particular city, but also as European or as a ”global citizen”.

What is also important to reflect on is how we can influence and affect others through the Internet and digital media. (And of course how we are influenced and affected by others.) One out of many possible examples on this matter is blogs. I use the Swedish blog ''blondinbella.se'' as my example. ”Blondinbella” is one of the most popular blogs in Sweden with over 1 million unique readers each week. Sweden a country with only about 10 million citizens, and that one blog reach more people than many newspapers do is very interesting and worth reflecting about. [[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 03:40, 26 January 2015 (EST)

----

I completely agree with what Josefin said above. The generation that is now entering adulthood is inheriting a much smaller, more connected world than their parents did.
I think it's important to reflect on the possible downsides of the ever increasing invasiveness of the internet. We are a generation that can ask Siri how badly the Patriots beat the Seahawks in the Superbowl — and she’ll tell us almost immediately that the Patriots won in a landslide. Or what song is playing on the radio. Or what the largest star in the Milky Way is. Or if Pixar is ever going to make a sequel to the Incredibles (they are, finally). You get the point. We are used to being able to find out almost anything, almost anywhere, at almost anytime.
There may be a subtle danger in adapting an entire generation to instant gratification. As we put more and more of our lives into our phones and computers, we stop relying on our own mental faculties. For example, my grandfather has a razor sharp memory, and he knows all the phone numbers of our immediate and extended family by heart. If I lost my phone, I might remember my mom’s number, but my whole contact book would be lost if it wasn't for iCloud. I’m certainly not exercising my memory on a daily basis to make calls like my grandfather. Will that hurt me in the long run? Probably not — but it’s an interesting thought.

Another aspect of the internet that I sometimes reflect on is its contribution to political close-mindedness here in the US, if not the world over. I worked for a long time in DC, and have friends and family all over the political spectrum — even a tea party uncle in Texas, and I can say with certainty that I’ve witnessed a trend where my highly conservative friends will follow and subscribe to conservative news sources or blogs that produce news that corresponds with their pre-existing beliefs, and like-wise for my liberal friends. Constant exposure to “news” written or spun to enforce and vindicate your beliefs serves to cement your views, and lessens the amount of meaningful debate that takes place. I would say this definitely serves to further polarize the political climate here in the US. Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Jon Stewart, Stephan Colbert, all have large followings of people who watch their shows, listen to their radio stations, and subscribe to their social media outlets. The political influence of these individuals can, in some cases, easily shape the political landscape more than many politicians do. Interesting to consider. [[User:WesleyVerge|WesleyVerge]] ([[User talk:WesleyVerge|talk]]) 23:46, 26 January 2015 (EST)

----

Wesley Verge. The polarization of American Politics on the internet reflects popular attitudes, and at times exacerbate the problem. I think the problem has to do with journalistic standards. Remember those? They used to exist up until about the 1990's, or more precisely, since Rupert Murdoch bought Fox News -- and that's when the bar was lowered for everyone. With such a wide reach, high profits, and such obvious bias on all the publications under his ownership, journalistic standards went out the window in the pursuit of sensationalism and profit margin. And sadly, those who didn't adapt to this new way of selling news were left behind. The Philadelphia Inquirer comes to mind, but R. Murdoch's purchase of the Wall Street Journal is another good example. U.S. Politics have been in a sad state of affairs since G.W decided to invade Iraq, and the rancor and indignation that followed those years has still to subside. There are other factors that affect the current state of politics in the U.S, and two of those are geography and the diversity of demographics throughout the country. Notice that there isn't really a traditional democratic and republican party? Despite the fact that the two party system is still dominant in voting patterns, there are many factions within those two large groups. Hromero [[User:Hromero|Hromero]] ([[User talk:Hromero|talk]]) 12:41, 29 January 2015 (EST)

----
Hromero. You make valid points, though I would point out that they differ slightly from the point I was trying to make. To elaborate a little further, I was speaking only of how the internet plays a large role in exacerbating the political polarization of the country. You correctly point out that the shift in media tactics marked a shift towards increased polarization. I'm saying that the internet provides access to sensationalist news and propaganda, on both sides of the spectrum, to anyone with a connection or a smart phone. People no longer have to be challenged in their thinking. If the President says "yadayadayada", rather than reflect upon and come to consensus, people are bombarded with sound bites that penetrate the public sphere and shape political thought. New ideas never have the chance to take root, because they are razed quite immediately after inception. Of course, talking head pundits are nothing new, but at least years ago families could discuss news together over dinner, waiting to read the paper or see the news the next day. Now, The President says "yadayadayada" at 6pm, and John Boehner is able to issue a responsive speech at 8pm through twitter or youtube. You're right to point out the increased splintering of the parties, but where that meets the internet is now each of those factions has methods to connect to their support bases, issue videos, etc on a constant and consistent basis -- a change that surely helps to solidify and expand their support, further polarizing the country. I think its important that we focus on how the internet is used in correlation to politics, rather than focus on the people doing the using and whether or not we agree with them. It keeps discussion more clear and concise. [[User:WesleyVerge|WesleyVerge]] ([[User talk:WesleyVerge|talk]]) 17:37, 30 January 2015 (EST)

----

The evolution of the internet and our digital technologies has changed how we look at society and how we participate in it. For example social outlets such as Facebook and Twitter allows us to express any thought or feeling and connect with people all over the world. This gives us the ability to form connections and relationships with people that would not have been possible otherwise. With the internet always evolving information has become more and more accessible. Anything that we can imagine we can find through the Internet whether that be current events, a movie review, or personal information just to name a few. Search engines and online encyclopedias such as Google and Wikipedia have changed how we learn and search for information. Furthermore the internet has changed the way we do business . Now we are able to purchase products through websites like Amazon and any other retail site. We also can conduct business through the internet through trading which adds a new dimension to the business world. Our advancements in the internet and digital technologies added another wrinkle in how we view information and the economy as well as many other areas. [[User:Jan.Yburan|Jan.Yburan]] ([[User talk:Jan.Yburan|talk]]) 15:07, 27 January 2015 (EST)

----

As a distance student, participation has been possible in many HED classes with students world wide from Singapore, Malaysia, Great Britain, Indonesia, and Australia as well as the United States. The advantages the internet and exponential expansion of digital constantly creates awe in realizing what has become possible in a relatively short period of time.

It is possible to access historical and current information from the Internet from each of the categories listed above almost instantaneously whether it be cultural, political or economic or social. The online Wikipedia information saves gong to the library or an encyclopedia with each query…..which in the case of the library has advantages as well as disadvantages. For lovers of books, there is nothing like thumbing through the pages of a book….and reading the first and last chapter while standing in front of a bookshelf.

Shopping - it is possible to view the price and merchandise of a particular brand or manufacturer with a few keystrokes. A person can shop locally or nationwide or overseas for particular items. [[User:Rgrasser|Rgrasser]]

----

I like many of the posts above, and I think they're on the mark. My first thought on changes ushered in has to do with Wesley's comments on instant gratification - we can access information and purchase goods instantaneously, but being connected means we are always on-call. A text/SMS comes to our phones on our bodies, we don't want to be behind on emails or miss a post on Facebook, etc. The new, immediate connectedness of the turn of the century, it seems to me, is significantly notable, both in our ability to connect and the possibility of always being connected to.

This new connection brings me to my second thought, the new possibilities of surveillance. Typically conversation focuses on government censorship and the ability to monitor for unwanted speech. I would add that our new, ongoing connectedness also provides an increasingly continuous history of our identities. This history can be used to market specific products, tailor our searches, and generally show us content that will keep us connected more often. To be connected means to be watched, sometimes directly, sometimes passively. Many have written on how this leads us to begin policing ourselves.

This self-policing brings me to third major development I see, which also has much to do with Wesley's thoughts on how his friends' political views are continually fed. A variety of technologies now exist to keep us more within our preconceptions than before. Our identity and self-understanding is produced and maintained in a different and more controlled way in the past. It doesn't seem to me that there is (necessarily) a (wo)man behind the curtain, but the implementation and effect of these technologies remain the same.

[[User:MattK|MattK]] ([[User talk:MattK|talk]]) 17:42, 27 January 2015 (EST)

----

Internet access has changed the way information flows while increasing social and economic participation. As internet and digital technology continues to develop, it has changed the nature of how organizations market themselves to targeted their targeted consumers. Traditional methods of newspaper/magazine advertisements and email listservs no longer are the primary avenue of increasing consumer engagement. Social media platforms have expanded consumer outreach as companies use Twitter to tweet to their customers and smartphone apps to keep their consumers connected. This connectectivity has impacted the roles of employees as many of their job descriptions are now requiring evidence of technological competencies.

The internet and technologies has allowed the progression of global connectivity by creating meaningful experiences through intentional dialogue and engagement. Internet and digital technologies allows for access to consumer services previously limited due to geographic location. Historically, a fitness coach was someone typically found within your local community or an athlete was required to travel to the gym/sports facility. With the expansion of technology, people now have access to some of the best coaching in the world through the use of current technologies. As an example, I am now a posing coach for athletes throughout the USA, Canada and the UK.

People are now able to engage in a global experience without crossing international borders. [[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 18:57, 27 January 2015 (EST)

----

While reflecting on the Internet and the significant changes it has spread, I ironically type and post the following comments while flying on an airplane. Who would have imagined using internet on a plane 20 years ago? Yet, walking through the airport before boarding my flight I could see the changes the Internet and digital technologies has had on our society: customers ordering food via an iPad in the airport cafe; an older couple Skyping, what looked like their grandson, on a laptop; teenagers idly staring at their smart phones while their parents talk at them; the many airline passenger who boarded their flights by merely pulling up an image on their iPhones. Internet and digital technologies are everywhere...and it has changed every aspect of our lives.

The most significant of those changes I find is the globalized world we now live in. Post World War II, the international community entered an era of connectedness, and the Internet has only exacerbated this connectedness. The ability to share, like, post, tweet, retweet, reblog, blog, etc. has birthed a generation of globally connected citizens. It only takes a couple of clicks on Twitter to see or read about happenings half way around the world - in real time. This environment has created a more involved international community, especially when reviewing Twitter trending topics, for instance the events that happened in Ferguson, MO last year. Massive marches, stand ins, protests and rallies were organized across the globe - orchestrated primarily on social media.

Furthermore, the possibilities of outreach and global awareness is boundless. Internet and digital technologies now offer a tool for social good.
A recent article [http://www.information-age.com/technology/mobile-and-networking/123457289/facebook-launches-bid-to-bring-cheap-internet-to-the-developing-world] discussed how internet has become vital to survival for those living in the poorest of countries. Facebook, for example, launched a program with efforts to bring internet to lower income countries or rural areas who need the assistance with technology to better living conditions. The implementation of these technologies are ongoing, and it is unclear if they are helping more than they are hurting, but the social change of internet is here to stay.

[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 07:35, 28 January 2015 (EST)

----

Ok, speaking of internet morons, this is the third time I’m posting and I still don’t see it. Any tech has any hints as to why this is happening, I’m making a copy of this in a separate doc, please tell me where to send it.
My comment is as follows: 1) Since the advent of the internet people are interacting with devices and technology more often than they used to and as a result there have been some measurable changes in children’s cognitive development. I will find the resource later on. I think it also affects adults, especially those who are already predisposed to HDHD. 2) since it is very hard to tell when you’re blogging whether you’re speaking to only three people or three thousand, the power of bloggers should be taken with a generous dose of skepticism. 30 Innovation does not necessarily make us more effective, it merely makes us busier. Exhibit A: Facebook (A complete waste of time, and a truly distracting way of communicating with other people. Absolutely hate it.) Hromero[[User:Hromero|Hromero]] ([[User talk:Hromero|talk]]) 15:01, 28 January 2015 (EST)

----

Reflecting how the world has changed in the last few years is impressive, many things that could not be dreamed to be done in any other way that would have been physical, now in our current times, are possible.

Socially, the interaction of people on facebook and other social networks, like blogs, etc, have become from informational, to a way how people can meet one another, interact, and even date. This in the past was never thought, and now relationships, interaction of groups, like chats are very common. Social networks have

Culturally, it is important to see that there is a subculture, mostly in teenagers and younger people, the subculture, of the I Pad, and tablet, and aps people who are identified, by their cell phones, ring tones, and other characteristics of technology. This differs from the older generation that would not do monetary transactions, meet people, or even gather around a computer, this older folks may prefer to go to the bank, gather with friends, and bring a guitar and play. The culture has been subdivided.

Economically, Pay pawl, and other providers like e-bay, has become very popular in the market, aps for real estate and westlaw, for the legal field, has caused a huge impact, on people and their economy, it is taken over many jobs, and also has make people gain a lot o money, people needed to physically be instructed by someone or by reading, and now there is more accessibility through the internet, where most people can find the answers the they need most of the time. The economy is being monopolized by the electronic era. (Edwin Duque)

----

I agree with my colleagues contributions above. There is no doubt that we've had significant social, cultural, political, and economic changes associated with the spread of the Internet and digital technologies throughout the years in both spheres personal and professional.

Regarding the personal impacts, one example is that if we think about the new generation of people that is part of what they call "Generation Z", instead of playing with the traditional toys that we had in our childhood, when they are kids their main entertainment are the electronic devices with Internet access. A one-two year old child currently simply grab their parent's iPads/tablets or smartphones and play with apps. It's impressive how quickly they get used to those devices. Some years later they start interacting with people all over the world through online games, social media, Skype, whatsapp, blogs and others, as we are all able to do nowadays. Besides that, with the Internet we started having access to a variety of information, books, history, news, we can shop through it, take online courses provided by schools/institutions in several countries, we can make a reservation at a restaurant wherever we want, we can compare prices and quality of products and services, we can be always updated about what is happening in any part of the world, all without leaving home. In addition, basically we register "our lives" in those devices, which have become more and more multifunctional, as we use our cell phones to make calls, as an agenda, to take pictures and record videos, to message our contacts, everything to make life more practical.

So, the Internet really broke barriers and made our lives much easier, also in the professional sphere, as for instance we can attend online meetings, what also economically saying the companies can save money that would be invested in trips, we can have more flexibility when the home office is allowed, the companies can storage their data and also their client's in those devices and the physical archive has been practically extinguished etc.

However, in both spheres people and companies have been facing problems regarding privacy matters, cyber crimes, as it occurred recently with Sony Pictures, cyber espionage, also between countries, what has a political impact, and the legislation hasn't been able to follow the technological advancement in the same speed.

Therefore, one of the most important topics currently, which is a global concern and that is in the spotlight is Cyber Security.
[[User:Natasha Jalbut|Natasha Jalbut]] ([[User talk:Natasha Jalbut|talk]]) 00:21, 30 January 2015 (EST)

----

The internet, and with it the information age, has vastly changed the world and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. I believe the internet has both managed to make the world smaller and at the same time individual's interaction with the world larger.

On a Social level anyone can make an immediate connection with anyone else in the world provided they both have access to the internet. This breaks down many barriers in itself from where we were only a few decades ago where individual towns and neighborhoods became a cocoon for anyone who did not or could not venture out. Today those same towns have citizens who are in relationships with people they may never have met through dating websites and other forms of communication. Distance is no longer an issue for many.

From a cultural perspective we are exposed to new lifestyles and languages that you many never have seen otherwise. One great example is the growing 'Anime' (Japanese style for animation in television and movies) following. If it wasn't for the internet many of these popular shows in Asia would not be known in the United States. At the same time this form of information/entertainment sharing can lead to a narrow and specific view of what is a diverse culture in itself.

Politically the internet has created a new powerful platform that politicians need to work with in order to win elections or pass a vote with the public support. A few years ago an internet following might not have made a campaign but today groups like the Human Rights Campaign rely heavily on it and in doing so have made changes in the political landscape.

[[User:Samaei1|Samaei1]] ([[User talk:Samaei1|talk]]) 14:06, 30 January 2015 (EST)

----

The information age, by way of the Internet, has revolutionized the world exponentially. Socially, the internet was initially utilized to communicate
via email and to obtain readily available information. Today the use of email has practically bankrupted the United States Postal Service and the internet in some aspects has become the primary source of information enabling proponents of civil unrest to generate support throughout the world. This is an overly generalized outlook on the growth of the internet but as one can see even in these sectors the great impact it has had on society.

Culturally, the evolution of myspace, facebook, twitter and the like has reflected how the young guides the old on this highway. The adaptability of the young and their ability to embrace new arenas in cyberspace dictates how and where their parents socially intermingle on line. Additionally, it also reflects how providers of such social networks have to adapt to the young or become irrelevant such as the case with myspace. The online language that we engage in has become a part of our day to day interpersonal communication with others. Our day to day realities is not concrete reality until it becomes "facebook official". Sadly, as with any revolution, I fear that legislative policy such as censorship and intermediary provider responsibility will begin to take affect and slow the amazing advances that have been made culturally in this technological era. Case in point, it is beyond my wildest dreams that I have the privilege to participate in a course taught online by Professor Sellars at HES. The paths to education through coursera and edx which are free is an opportunity and path for learning that we never had before. However, with continuing legislation, censorship and/or surveillance the ideas that we formulate from the knowledge that we now have equal access will have a limited capacity to flourish. So I reflect on how that will affect our culture.

Lastly, the political aspect of the internet is one of the primary reasons I registered for the course. As a news junkie, I followed the sony hacking incident closely. I am discombobulated by the fact that a nation state such as North Korea has the power to limit the freedoms of United States Citizens. The reality that the internet can be used as an effective tool for cyber warfare between countries is astounding yet twistedly intriguing.
Additionally, speeches that were once hard to circulate can be uploaded within seconds and has ended political careers. Most recently, the ramble of Sarah Palin has been looped so many times any serious presidential contention in 2016 is now forgotten. So the political media power of the internet has grown significantly.
[[User:Mmcasse|Mmcasse]] ([[User talk:Mmcasse|talk]]) 13:30, 31 January 2015 (EST)

----

Today, internet is all around us and with that, we live in a world where we are constanly connected to family and friends, miles away, whether via our phone, laptop, iPad/etc. Socially, Skype and Facetime allow us real time conversation across oceans and Facebook/Twitter allow us instant gratification whether uploading a status or liking a tweet. Games on phones allow us to challenge an oppenent all only possible with Internet.

Politically speaking, Twitter has created an outlet for involved leaders to voice their opinions while receiving instant “reviews” from followers. This allows people to receive news from figures regarding a wide variety from the birth of Hilary Clintons grandchild to Secretary of State Kerry being fined for not shoveling his walkway. In addiiton, leaders can upload videos and one can watch President Obama give the State of the Union online.

Econimically, the Interent has created online banking. Paper bills are a thing of the past and many of us rely on the Internet to not only pay our bills but to online bank. Accounts are saved on smart phones and bills are set on a recurring cycle to be paid online, many times without the payer even having to log in for a transcation to be complete. [[User:Cbore001|Cbore001]] ([[User talk:Cbore001|talk]]) 21:28, 31 January 2015 (EST)

----

Significant changes are visible all around us. Socially, the internet has become our connection to many people we would otherwise never meet be it through online dating, an internet job search, or any one of the shared economy apps or sites we now use like Uber or Airbnb. We are easily connected to people directly without much hassle or obstacle. Another social change is that we no longer have to wait for an audience, we can just throw things out there and sit back and see how people react without any direct implications. Some sites and apps even allow us to do this anonymously like YikYak or Reddit causing an even greater cushion of safety to the speaker. This can be good or bad, in some cases giving people the freedom to seek support or help for a problem anonymously, or by giving predators an easy way to track down their prey and slanderers an easy way to disseminate harmful information. These things were possible in the past, but never before have they been so freely at our fingertips.

Economically, the Internet has completely altered the landscape of enterprise. If a business doesn’t have a website it is considered obsolete. In large cities, it goes further, a business needs to have an app to stay relevant. Then there’s the matter of online shopping. I can’t remember the last time I went shoe shopping at a physical store. I would feel it’s a waste of time because online I have so much more information on the products available to me and usually at a better price. We also have working from home. Many tech companies offer this option and there are other companies which solely have remote employees due to the ubiquity of internet access in major cities in the U.S. and the nature of the work. For personal affairs we can do online banking, pay bills online, order food online, and the list goes on.

Culturally, people have greater exposure to the outside world. This has caused some to become more diverse and open and yet others to try to close themselves off even more and fight the compromise of their own culture. Western culture is spreading to less developed countries at an alarming rate causing younger people in those countries to reject many cultural norms such as respect for authority figures, arranged marriages, and religion. There is also much positive dispersal of cultural information, such as in the form of languages. Programs for learning languages are offered on many websites, sometimes for free as in the case of livemocha.com. Even on youtube.com there are many videos offered for learning just about any language.

Politically, we now have more avenues than ever before to voice our opinions. No more letters to the editor or opinion columns in local newspapers, we can now holler our opinions far and wide using the help of social media sites, opinion polls, debate forums, and much much more. That’s not to say that we’ve become more intelligent politically, that’s a whole different story. More information is available at our fingertips, the only problem is that we only click on the things that reinforce the opinions we already have. But updates about political activity are available literally 24/7 which keeps the race ruthless and tireless. Furthermore, a politician’s online presence can make or break their career. There are no more secret affairs or fetishes. Though people may get away with these things still, they must be much more careful because one slip up could mean their last. ([[User:Oliviabrinich|Oliviabrinich]] ([[User talk:Oliviabrinich|talk]]) 22:37, 31 January 2015 (EST))

----
The proliferation of the internet and social media, have facilitated the spread of information, from viral marketing campaigns to political campaigns. Both the 2008 and 2012 Presidential elections, demonstrated the importance of digital technologies for cultivating grass-roots support and financial contributions. Since then the appeals from political campaigns, for supporter contributions have become continuous, and hard to avoid.

Social media has helped to disseminate opinions, of both high profile people and those in one's own social circle, more widely than they might otherwise have been, and perhaps also more quickly than desirable. It is now very easy to write ill considered words, which then get disseminated and dissected, potentially causing a media controversy. Equally, digital technology has had a great impact on the notion of privacy. Julian Assange, Wikileaks and the proliferation of online activism, has renewed the civil liberties debate and discussions about privacy. The internet continually reaffirms how interconnected the world now is, and how tangible something that begins in cyberspace can be. [[User:AlexanderH|AlexanderH]] ([[User talk:AlexanderH|talk]]) 16:13, 1 February 2015 (EST)

----

First of all, I would like to say I find all posts very interesting to read and judging by them, it is obviously that we all agree on the fact that Internet has a huge impact on our lives. Every aspect of our everyday activity is somehow connected online - communication with friends is going through social networks, chats, almost any type of business has its website which has become more important than the business card. When we are choosing provider of any kind, the first thing to do is to check him online, his website, some reviews in the forums if possible. Leisure and free time, of course - movies, music, computer games and so on, picnics and walks in the park are getting behind somehow. It has even become an obsession for many people to be online 24/7 and not being connected makes them feel uncomfortable.

From cultural stand point, I would rather say that there are more positive effects than negative. I would point out Google Cultural Institute as my favourite cultural, on-line invention. It is amazing that people from everywhere could actually explore cultural treasures from all around the world in the smallest details and for free. This as well as free e-books projects, like Project Gutenberg, are priceless gifts for our generations, showing that information and knowledge most of all, could be accessible to everyone who desires. I very much like the example Josefin has given in her post, saying that the mere existence of this online course and our participation in it is a proof enough how Internet helps us achieving things, that some years ago would have been impossible for many of us. This being said, I would not like to ignore the fact that the endless ocean of information Internet is, could very easily become a danger, especially for children which without a proper control over the online activities, could easily be endangered or at least loos themselves in the immense quantity of information without getting the real knowledge.

The political sphere has not stayed untouched. Many of the political changes now a days, would have been impossible without the Internet “contributing”. The snow ball phenomenon Arab Spring, for example, is showing that Internet is a powerful tool for people to connect, organize, share ideas and act. The nature of Internet is combining the features and tools of radio, television and newspapers. Therefor if media are defined as an alleged fourth power, I dare say Internet should be defined as the fifth. Another good example of the influence over the political live would be the electronic voting, more precisely the remote e-voting, exercised via Internet. This is an innovation some countries like Australia,Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Estonia , have already implemented.

Talking about the economy, if only we take a look at the numbers Forbes has forecasted saying that "'''By 2017 eMarketer estimates that there will be $440 billion in sales for a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 13.8% (...)'"'' (Chuck Jones, Forbes,10/02/2013) , we would easily understand why expressions like "Cyber Monday”, were forged, referring to the online sales following the Black Friday sales. There are many other examples of how Internet has become a factor in the economy like the stock exchange market, which would not be the same as we know it without the net, the Bitcoin, the payment processing business and many others. ([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 11:31, 2 February 2015 (EST))
-----
Socially, I am that group of parents that drove my children away from FaceBook. I have over 500 friends, including my children, high school and college classmates, work friends, my mom and aunts and uncles and cousins. I also use LinkedIn, which provides another means of social networking and getting your name and resume out to business colleagues. I believe it is a great means of reconnecting with old friends and staying in touch with what is going on around us. But I also understand how we get pigeonholed into a group of people and content that we already agree with.

Politically, I doubt there is a person alive who could stand up to the scrutiny brought on by all the sound bites. (The example of Sarah Palin someone mentioned above). I am sure there are talented people who would be great as President but dare not run because of the heartache and humiliation brought on by posts and opinions on the internet.

Economically, I love that I can schedule all my bills to be paid automatically and I don’t even know how much my electric bill is! I have done my Christmas shopping online before they coined the phrase “Black Friday”. With all our internet transactions, we have less and less privacy. I hired a new plow company for these snowstorms and he called me to describe my house and driveway. Google Earth.

Bottom line, this generation has grown up with the internet, and I imagine could not fathom life without it. I have known life on both sides…. I know most of my family, work and doctors’ phone numbers – from memory. I can drive from here to New York and beyond without a GPS, (we actually had map books!) I also think the internet has a life of its own and has grown beyond our social ability to manage it. I have a particular interest in bullying, and the internet has given huge and dangerous power to the bullies. I look forward to the exchanges in class and here on the discussion board![[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 22:11, 2 February 2015 (EST)

----

I can describe a personal experience that illustrates how the Internet and digital technologies changed our social life. In 2001, I spend six months in New Zealand and all my connection with family and friends in Brazil were via Internet. It was very effective but it was not in real time as it is nowadays. The social medias such as Facebook and Instagram combined with several apps that we can download to our smartphones created a virtual world where we can be in touch with every one in real time. We are able to interact and live the moment that the person in the other side of the line is living. So, when you are far away from home, like I am, you do not feel you are losing so many moments with your family and friends as it used do be. In some way, connected, we get ourselves closer.
In addition, I think that the stock markets are much more sensitive of any changes and news, so the speculation game is faster and dynamic. In a few minutes, every thing can change so it is imperative to be connected. That defines who earn and who lost money. [[User:Lucasrio|Lucasrio]] ([[User talk:Lucasrio|talk]]) 10:02, 3 February 2015 (EST)

----

Information and its more cultured offspring – knowledge -- will always be the unquenchable and unending journey and destination for man and the society he builds. The Internet is, at its essence, a reflection of this yearning -- the Internet and its related digital technologies are merely vehicles expressing a most animal desire; the pursuit of more.

1. An Outlet To Play God: The Social Change

And tricked by our own early dream
And need of solace, we grew self-deceived,
Our making soon our maker did we deem,
And what we had imagined we believed.
--God’s Funeral, T. Hardy

From the Goldsmith and Wu article on Digital Borders, Net use was dominated initially by English-speakers who “…created the Net in their image.”

This line stuck out above the rest and seemed to not only brightly elaborate on the fact at hand, but at a generally applicable trend that the Internet has graced us with; the trend of power-granting – or at least lending us with the illusion of power. We have created in the Internet our perfected selves: it knows everything, it socializes brilliantly, it possesses a strange but alluring appearance of being infinite. Before, man might have turned to the divine for his answers. Now he “Googles” it.

With this tendency, there is also this funny but simultaneous dimension where man knows that not only does he have an alternative to what his ancestors once believed in, modern man has created this entity. The Internet has become at once, a strange kind of divine – unknowable in its vastness, knowable in its man-made fragments.

2. Cheapening of Privacy: The Cultural Change

We now sign sixty, hundred-twenty, two-hundred page software or user agreements just to have the privilege of sharing our entire photographed lives with what we think are a select few eyes – of for some people, not even that. A picture sharing website will usually have some kind of clause saying they have the right to use your picture from an album for “advertising purposes” (Picasa, a few years ago), or the blatant example, Facebook – who is not in the business of social media, rather, it is in the business of information. More specifically, the selling of information – more specifically, the selling of your personal information.

With the rise of the Internet and the software platforms it makes possible, we are now raising a generation of people who have desensitized themselves from any sense of privacy. Any arguments as to the intrusiveness of the likes of Google or Facebook is mostly met with a shrug of “I’ve nothing to hide…. Let them have my information.” Translation: My information, the data that constitutes my persona, my self, my identity, is free for the taking – I have no use for it.”

3. Headless Ubiquity: The Political Change

The structuring of people, the organizing people, the mobilizing of people, and the dividing and unifying of people has been forever changed by the Internet’s introduction of a new management model. The Starfish model.

Brafman and Beckstrom’s “The Starfish and the Spider” is a book about leaderless organizations and their power. They use the Internet as prime example of the omnipotent “Starfish” – a headless creature that moves and lives and in a way, cannot be destroyed. One limb moves and the others follow. Cut a limb and another grows in its place. It has no “brain” it has no “leader” – every piece of itself is self-reliant, self-initiated, yet entirely synchronized. Brafman and Beckstrom compare the starfish with the “Spider – a system of governing people in which there is a clear “head” and there are legs and a body. If the head (president, leader) is cut off the whole thing dies. The Internet has no head (unless we want to get technical here and argue that literal energy is the “head” but technicalities aside...). The Internet is all-powerful while having no single source of its power – if Google dies tomorrow, Yahoo will take its place.

This has powerful implications in our understanding of politics. In our understanding of power. From Twitter-feeds to start a revolution (Arab Spring and Egypt) to the rise of the viral video to satirize and ridicule the previously fearful or the potentially powerful and render them powerless – literally laughing leaders off the political stage. The Internet has become the world’s newest, headless dictator. It is the first dictator without a head but with a body that is all dictator.

----