Technologies and Politics of Control - User contributions [en]

Peer Production

2015-04-21T00:18:58Z

Gary Brown: /* 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>

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)
----

Peer Production

2015-04-21T00:17:43Z

Gary Brown: /* 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>

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]])

-----------

'''Two 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)
----

Peer Production

2015-04-21T00:14:14Z

Gary Brown: /* 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>

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]])

-----------

'''Two Thumbs up for Zittrain Video'''

I find this week’s subject thought provoking. 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 may be creating for ourselves as we begin to employ diverse human resources to perform tiny increments of work in return for pennies each, points in a game, or nothing at all. He touches on the many imaginative ways that peer production, including the gamification of peer production, is employed. It 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. 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)
----

Main Page

2015-04-16T22:34:42Z

Gary Brown: /* 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]]
| ''(Assignment 4 due)''
|-
| Apr 28
| [[Copyright, Day 2: Copyright Enforcement and Applications to New Technology]]
|
|-
| 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 in the week of April 14th 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. (All times are EDT.)

'''Andy'''

''Thursday, 4/16''

2:30pm - ''Jane Example (on Skype)''

2:45 - ''Joe Example (in person)''

3:00 -

3:15 -

3:30 -

3:45 -

4:00 -

4:15 -

4:30 -Kelly Wilson (in person)

4:45 -

''Friday, 4/17''

10:00am -

10:15 -

10:30 -

10:45 -

11:00 -

11:15 -

11:30 -

11:45 - Gary Brown (Phone)

'''David'''

''Wednesday, 4/15'' '''(available by phone or skype only, please email me to arrange/confirm a time)'''

9:00 -

9:30 -

10:00 -

10:30 -

11:00 -

11:30 -

12:00 -

''Thursday, 4/16'' '''(available by phone or skype only, please email me to arrange/confirm a time)'''

12:00 -

12:30 -

1:00 -

1:30 -

2:00 -

2:30 -

3:00 -

5:00 -

5:30 -

6:00 -

6:30 -

7:00 -

'''Ryan'''
''Thursday, 4/16''

3:00 -

3:15 -

3:30 -

3:45 -

4:00 -

4:15 -

4:30 - Meagan Moana HoChing (Phone)

4:45 -

''Friday, 4/17''

10:00am -

10:15 -

10:30 - Tasha Coppett(Phone)

10:45 -

11:00 -

11:15 -

11:30 -

11:45 - Alexander Horn (in person)

Internet Governance and Governments

2015-04-14T18:49:13Z

Gary Brown: /* 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)

----

I’m going to start off by giving some of my personal thoughts on the issue of “who should control the internet”. I believe this fundamental issue could be traced to the regime we have, the basic “rights” that we instilled into our population. (assuming its all about US) Lets start off by looking at who controls the flow of information. Without the internet, it appears to me that information is mostly controlled by the government. I mean, we do see the general public transferring information around, but they are restricted by their geographical location. Even with the creation of telegrams and telephones, the reliability of long distance information transfer was still minimal, and this transfer of information was pricy, as well as the target audience would likely be the recipient that the caller knows.

The next form of communication prior to the internet was news agencies. They would spread the information of recent happenings in the form of newspapers. It is a more efficient means of transferring information, but that too is dependent on the source they have. For example, a news agency’s news is only as accurate as the information they get, and where they get it. If their source does not release any information, then they get nothing. These sources would consider twice before releasing sensitive material, as the information releasing market isn’t very efficient, it would be easier to trace who did it; thus it’s easier for the government to pinpoint the traitor (if necessary).

So if you ask me who controls information prior to the internet? I believe it is the government. Or at least a big chunk of it would be controlled by the government. The government dictates laws and regulations on news corporations. The limitations of information transfer due to technology meant that the small players (individual citizens) were taken out of the equation to have the “power” to control data flow. The real “meat” of the information we “hope” to be transparent was under the control of the government, and the government has their control over what gets released. If a traitor plans to release data, I believe the efficiency of it would be very low, and it would be easy to trace this individual, thus preventing potential traitors.

We need not look too far away. Edward Snowden was a classic example of something that would only happen with the invention of the internet. Without the internet, he would need to think twice before releasing information. Furthermore, the news agency that he would have leaked it to, would also think twice before releasing it. So it makes it more difficult to do this. With the internet, it was simply a click of the button, and everyone would be public.

I like the idea of NetMundial Initiative. (Ref 1) The internet has boomed and developed so quickly that regulations could not go at the same pace. There is no universal governing of the internet. This sort of rings a bell about currencies. That too has no world central bank or something, and thus we always see these violent and volatile movements in the forex market. I believe that the internet is similar as that. It needs some sort of universal regulation or standard to unify things. Though ofcourse it does not always satisfy all parties during the meeting.

Even though NetMundial was a good thing to do, it was going to be hard to make all parties agree with each other’s philosophies. The issue on net neutrality was not addressed either. It went from supporting it, to saying it requires more discussion. (Ref 3) I believe net neutrality will always be a tricky one. It’s hard to agree on this entirely. It also depends deeply on the regime of that country and their core fundamental beliefs. For example, America has very different beliefs than China does. America is a democracy after all with constitutional beliefs for freedom of speech. China is a one party country that may consider too much freedom of speech to be dangerous; not only to the party’s strength, but other reasons too.

The other interesting point I’d like to point out is the issue on surveillance. There is not real “limit” to the surveillance that governments can use. I believe this too also has aligned interests from all governments. All governments have the incentive to have as much information as possible. This would make it easy to agree with one another. The phrase “necessary and proportionate” is too broad and is subject to interpretation; thus a limit is not identified. (Ref 3)

I particularly like the Root zone management where it “align incentives to ensure the accuracy and security of root zone maintenance”. I’m a big believer that when people have aligned interests, things get done much more efficiently. Such as to win a game, all players want to help each other achieve this goal. (ref 2)

“A better method would be to put IANA functions in the hands of actors with a strong self-interest in ensuring timely service, security and accuracy.” (ref 2)

This explains how it could be done to align the interests. I agree with it too. (ref 2)

So after much consideration, I do believe that government surveillance, monitoring, and censorship will be inevitable. There is no way around it. They will do it for sure. As long as we have government, they’d assume they know what’s best for us, and would like to keep tabs on our activities. We may get more transparency due to the freedom to write and share what we like and to receive data quickly from multiple sources, but at the end of the day, the government will monitor (as much as possible) on the types of data that is being shared. Though an internet with no government is rather scary as well. It will be open to hackers, and similar to capitalism; it is susceptible to monopoly. The internet could also be susceptible to hackers dominating the system and controlling data flow to only distribute what they want it to be. Of course all these scenarios are a little extreme; but if we use the assumption of capitalism and monopolies, it does make sense.

References:

Ref 1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetMundial_Initiative

Ref 2 - http://www.internetgovernance.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/ICANNreformglobalizingIANAfinal.pdf

Ref 3 - http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2549270

[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 14:19, 14 April 2015 (EDT)
----

This week offered a surprising glimpse into the complexities and technicalities of governing the Internet. While I considered myself a knowledgeable user of the Internet, I learned enough in this week’s reading to realize how little I know about its workings.

"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our endeavor to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears its ticking, but he has no way of opening the case…" (Ref 1, 31)

It was particularly fitting that our readings begin with the study of NETmudial (Ref 2, 217-237), which cracks open the metaphorical watchcase, above, to reveal the ingenious logistics of this meeting. I have participated in many formal efforts to create and revise codes and standards. My experience gives me a reference point from which to view how this diverse group brought together the tools and facilities that were needed in such short time and with so little financial support. Frankly, other efforts I have seen are weak in comparison to the NETmundial organizing effort.

The strengths of NETmundial seem to me to flow in part from the fundamental purpose to form a global organization capable of governing a global network. If such a global organization is to be formed and operate, its success would depend on its ability to communicate effectively and productively on a global basis. By offering physical meeting places, virtual connections, remote hubs, live multi-language translation, and crowdsourced consensus-building resources, the NETmundial organizing committee established a strong foundation for global governance. This is foundation enough to prove that communications and logistics are not substantial barriers to innovative models of wide area governance, and that we may exit familiar boxes relieve at least some of the constraints they impose. I return to Einstein and Infield and their view of how human perception tends to change over time, even with respect to what we consider fixed and immutable:

"In the case of the planets moving around the sun it is found that the system of mechanics works splendidly. Nevertheless we can well imagine that another system, based on different assumptions, might work just as well." (Ref 1, 31)

I think this week we learn that innovation in forms of governance is possible, and the values-based, collaborative, multistakeholder framework for NETmundial proves the hypothesis.

Works Cited

Reference 1 – Einstein, Albert and Infeld, Leopold. “The Evolution of Physics: The Growth of Ideas from Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta.” Second Edition (1961). Cambridge University Press. Cambridge (Great Britain). Online Google Books. Accessed 14 April 2015.

Reference 2 – Gasser, Urs and Budish, Ryan and West, Sarah Myers. “Multistakeholder as Governance Groups: Observations from Case Studies (January 14, 2015). Berkman Center Research Publication No. 2015-1.” Online http://ssrn.com/abstract=2549270. Accessed 11 April 2015.

[[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 14:49, 14 April 2015 (EDT)

User talk:RMarkow

2015-04-08T04:20:47Z

Gary Brown: Created page with "Hi Rich. I just wanted to say I enjoyed your discussing the enforcement issues with me tonight in class. Also, I was looking back over the Chat, and now my comments might see..."

Hi Rich. I just wanted to say I enjoyed your discussing the enforcement issues with me tonight in class. Also, I was looking back over the Chat, and now my comments might seem a bit harsh. I want you to know that I was impressed with your points, and I hope my responses were not misunderstood. Thanks again.

[[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 00:20, 8 April 2015 (EDT)

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

2015-04-07T19:51:23Z

Gary Brown: /* 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)

----

Beccalew, you bring up some interesting points. Asking people to do the right thing is not the most efficient marketing tool, that's almost like asking customers to 'pay what you can'. The better model would be to make music recordings as accessible as amazon.com is for books. But here we run into another problem. Music has been brought into the copyright protection the same way that books by authors were. The difference is that while music can be replicated and performed limitless times, books can't be performed by others, as easily as music is. Maria Pallante in the 'The next great copyright act" brings up this point that musicians are at a distinct disadvantage in current copyright law, because no one pays for performance rights. But even if there was a law to enforce payments on performance of music, it would be unenforceable because people perform others music in countless of ways at bars, living rooms, country fairs and such without ever paying any performance royalties.

Another point on Maria Pallante's article that sticks out is that the only venue available for authors of creative content to enforce copyright infringement is a Federal Court. That is way too intimidating for a new or unknown artist to bring up a complaint, and the stakes are too high for both sides, so if you don't have the money to hire a lawyer, you're at a disadvantage.

There ought to be a streamlined process to deal with copyright infringement in claims of less than $ 500 because a new or unknown artist should be able to hold on to his or her copyright, the reason being that the protected work may be profitable many years afterward. [[User:Hromero10|Hromero10]] ([[User talk:Hromero10|talk]]) 15:21, 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)
----
Beccalew, when I came across the readings this week, I immediately thought about the new streaming service, Tidal. For those who are not aware, here is an article that give an overview on how this service is different from others: http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/apr/05/tidal-10-things-you-need-to-know-jay-z-madonna-music-streaming

Approximately a decade ago, I wanted began to study law in England because I was interested in international intellectual property; more specifically, the rights of athletes’ image in the domestic US and abroad. Historically, the NCAA required all athletes to sign releases, which would allow for their images to be managed in order to endorse NCAA events. For about over a decade the NCAA has made millions of dollars on the images of college athletes through television broadcasting, merchandising and advertising. The legality regarding the licensing of their images gained traction as athletes began to question copyright entitlements and initiated a lawsuit against the NCAA.

Here is a wonderful timeline about the NCAA lawsuit: http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/press-releases/student-athlete-likeness-lawsuit-timeline. As stated in the timeline, athletes wanted the NCAA and institutions to allow athletes the opportunity to profit from the revenue. Due to recent lawsuits, the NCAA dropped the requirement of athletes signing image releases; although at the conference level (SEC, PAC 12, BIG 12 etc) athletes are often still required to sign waivers that give up their publicity rights without compensation. Where my main position of advocacy for athletes is for the gaps in college expenses and funding. If you think across all three divisions, very few athletes are fortunate to receive full funding that cover tuition, fees, books, room and board. Given their practice and schedules, most athletes would like to work in a manner that optimizes their income with very little time required; but NCAA athletes did not have the ability to use their image for gain, this includes modeling, public speaking or having a funded blog.

In August 2014, Federal Judge Claudia Wilken concluded that the NCAA could not prohibit schools from giving football and men’s basketball players a share of licensing revenue; but it would have to manifest in the form of a stipend that reimburses expenses not covered by scholarships and a $5,000 a year trust fund once students graduate. Here is a link that outlines the full ruling: https://ia601404.us.archive.org/35/items/gov.uscourts.cand.218079/gov.uscourts.cand.218079.291.0.pdf.
Although the court made a remedy addressing the antitrust breaches by eliminating some practices, it still does not address the copyright issues pertaining to the monopoly over college athlete images. How does this ruling benefit athletes outside of large revenue generating football and men’s basketball athletic programs of Division I schools? How does this ruling benefit the gymnasts, track and field athletes, and women’s basketball players with established financial need?

[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 14:26, 7 April 2015 (EDT)
------

The Copyright in Internet seams to be the Pandora’s box. Everyone, starting from Lawrence Lessig in his beautiful lecture, seams to agree that copyright today “touches everyone and everything”, quoting Jessica Litman. It is very much true that because of the platform we use to access creations we can not escape the collision with the copyright law. Exactly because of this what should be better developed both in the legislation and in the practical use should be the “fair use” as well as the “customised copyright” the Creative Commons is offering. What is done by CC team is a simple and easy way to express your own opinion about how you want your work to be treated. I truly believe that if more people were aware of the CC idea and principle and mostly of the fact that by using CC license they would not “give up” their rights , more people would use it. The possibility given to authors and creators by CC to choose between different options and “levels” of protection, I think is the key to its success.

The article written by Terry Hart is a very interesting analyses and the perfect prove why copyright is truly a Pandora’s box issue. His article could be perfectly synthesised by the phrase “make piracy harder, make legal options easier”. The solution can not be making half of the population (even more maybe) criminals and skyrocketing sentences and penalties for copyright infringement. I believe users and mostly Internet users, who are particularly freedom-loving, should be convinced not to make copyright infringement. Тhey should be led and guided to the right choice of not doing this. Exactly like Terry Hart says: “Make piracy harder, make legal options easier”. On the other hand I dare to disagree with him saying that it is “insane” to think that copyright protection legal measures could lead to too much surveillance and personal freedom restrictions. I consider this a real danger , which should be taken into consideration.

I really enjoyed reading about the “Cake Wrecks” case. In a situation when a customer buys, a cake , pays for it and than makes a photo, could the case be regulated under the provisions of Section 101 of the copyright law defines a “work made for hire” (U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 1: Copyright Basics)?
And last but not least , I think that when we talk about copyright, people are mostly associating it with movie and musical industries but there are a lot of other types of “original works of authorship” which should be considered as well. In the U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 1: Copyright Basics I did not saw how are treated mathematical theorems, for example. Such kind of a work was not situated neither in the “What Works Are Protected?” Section, nor in the “What Is Not Protected by Copyright” Section?

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

----
'''How Can a Dissertaion Paper Be Hazardous Material?'''

This week’s readings hit home with me more than most of those past. The point is made in several of the works presented: in the past copyright was not a matter for daily life, but now, as Lessig notes, copyright “touches everyone and everything” and just about all digital uses are copies. Couple this fact with the narrow limitations of fair use, and the anti-circumvention laws, and I see my daily work, particularly researching a paper for class as a hazard rather than an opportunity.

Recently I downloaded an MIT Masters Candidates’ paper (Trepte, Kai and Narayanaswarmy. “Forecasting Consumer Products Using Prediction Markets” MIT. Jun 2009.) through Harvard Library. When I opened the PDF file and began reading in Adobe Acrobat®, I discovered that I could not highlight text. So, I thought I would just select text and copy it to my notes; I could not copy text either. Okay, I decided to print it out, all 106 pages, mark it with a highlighter and write my notes in the margins; I could not print it. I also could not add my own comments to the document or change the document in any way.

Using the tools available in Acrobat, I looked at the document’s security properties and found that it was password protected. Just about everything was restricted: “printing, changing the document, document assembly, content copying, page extraction, commenting….” So, even though I could access the document, and could not use it in a normal and reasonable way as I had expected to be able to do.

This weekend I read on the DMLP website that if I were to download a program (a circumvention tool) and use it to remove the password, thereby circumventing both copy and perhaps some level of access protection, I could be violating federal copyright laws, i.e., 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1), and the owners of the website that sell the program would also be violating the law by offering and providing the tools to me.

Even though I just want to highlight some of the text to make finding relevant portions more accessible, or copy an excerpt to fairly use in my paper, I find that doing so could be a federal crime, a felony, with a possible fine of $500,000 and five years in a federal prison, or a $1 million fine and ten years if I wanted to highlight another dissertation. “Fair use,” I say. Fair use is not a defense says the law.

So, is it homework or hazard to do research? I ask you.

[[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 15:51, 7 April 2015 (EDT)
----

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

2015-03-31T23:43:38Z

Gary Brown:

There is a legacy '''Assignment''' on this page. Likely no one would do Assignment 2 again, but neatness counts.

I also see that '''Optional Readings''' has changed into '''Recommended Readings'''. I am wondering if that was intended.

[[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 19:39, 31 March 2015 (EDT)

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

2015-03-31T23:39:53Z

Gary Brown: Created page with "There is a legacy '''Assignment''' on this page. Likely no one would do Assignment 2 again, but neatness counts. ~~~~"

There is a legacy '''Assignment''' on this page. Likely no one would do Assignment 2 again, but neatness counts.

[[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 19:39, 31 March 2015 (EDT)

Cybersecurity and Computer Crimes

2015-03-31T20:01:13Z

Gary Brown: /* 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>

-----

Operation Payback seems to be one of the more non-sensical, and perhaps simply juvenile examples listed in these hacks (hopefully I'm not hacked for this-- hello out there Anonymous!). The violation of free speech that occurs as a result of these cyberattacks seems to be in direct opposition to the message of open internet platforms. When sites are pulled down (even if temporarily) free speech suffers as do those who may depend on the contents of the site. For example, if a constituent was looking to contact Senator Lieberman who was attacked, a shut down of his site could block this. Furthermore, while I understand the qualms that Anonymous has with copyrights, I don't know how a musician could produce new music without any sort of revenue from sales. This also causes a threat to free speech. Gene Simmons has never made more sense than on this issue. ([[User:Amchugh|Amchugh]] ([[User talk:Amchugh|talk]]) 15:02, 31 March 2015 (EDT))

----

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)

----

It seems like we hear about big data breaches all the time these days, but it was still startling to read Bill Hardekopf’s compiled list of “The Big Data Breaches of 2014” in Forbes. Seeing several instances combined was a bit of a wake up call (especially since I wasn’t even aware of many of these), and it prompted several questions for me. For example, are data breaches a new fact of life and an inevitability of using credit cards and putting our information online? Should we be focusing on beefing up security in order to minimize the likelihood of breaches like this, or should we focus on taking swift action once a breach inevitably occurs? Are there any patterns we can find in the victims of the hacks (the companies, not the credit card users), or in the hacking approaches themselves?

Reading about the various Sony hacks in Ars Technica also made me think about the wide range of motives that might be at work from the hacker’s perspective, and the various degrees of damage different acts of hacking can lead to. The Sony hacks from this year are a perfect example: presumably they were meant as an act of political intimidation, in order to scare Sony into shelving “The Interview” before its release, but the hacked data held a range of implications the hackers might not have anticipated. For example, racist emails between producer Scott Rudin and Sony executive Amy Pascal became a huge embarrassment for Sony and led to discussions about race in Hollywood. Similarly, breached data showing how much each actor made for the movie “American Hustle” showed that there is still a problematic gender pay gap in Hollywood as well, and led to discussions of income inequality between the sexes. It was interesting and strange to me that an act meant to bully a studio into self-inflicted censorship ended up spurring productive conversations about race and gender.

It was similarly interesting to see the fallout and reactions following the release of several private celebrity photos, showing them naked. The breach was an undisputed criminal act, and furthermore it was a gendered act of bullying and power dynamics, but it also led to widespread conversations that were not in the public light before (for example, questioning the previous shaming of the celebrities for having naked photos on their phones). Overall, it is helpful to examine cybersecurity and computer crimes right after our session about “Hacktivism,” because clearly sometimes (for example, with Anonymous), online crimes are used as a form of Hacktivism, but in many cases, online crime can have unintended consequences with bizarre and fascinating effects.

[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 06:58, 31 March 2015 (EDT)
----
This topic definitely has made a recent impact on me and some fellow colleagues. Just recently, I received the following email from Anthem:

''“To Members:

On January 29, 2015, Anthem, Inc. (Anthem) discovered that cyber attackers executed a sophisticated attack to gain unauthorized access to Anthem's IT system and obtained
personal information relating to consumers who were or are currently covered by Anthem or other independent Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans that work with Anthem. Anthem
believes that this suspicious activity may have occurred over the course of several weeks beginning in early December, 2014...

'''Information Accessed'''
The information accessed may have included names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, health care ID numbers, home addresses, email addresses, employment information,
including income data. We have no reason to believe credit card or banking information was compromised, nor is there evidence at this time that medical information such as
claims, test results, or diagnostic codes, was targeted or obtained.”''

It is safe to assume the hackers were not highly interested in our medical history; but rather our identifiable information. While I have added additional safeguards including credit monitoring, a former colleague was not as fortunate. With great misfortune, she discovered the hackers used her identification information to file her taxes. Here is an article about the Anthem breach and tax returns:http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/02/06/turbotax-stops-processing-state-tax-returns-fraud-reports/dvPJbZC9G4tpzJx9ORsZcJ/story.html

The sophistication and frequency of current data breaches, shows why a proactive response would be beneficial as compared to a reactive response. O’Farrell (2014) reported, “ The FBI admitted that the malware used in the attack on Sony was so sophisticated, it would have blown past 90% of security defenses. Which means all kinds of businesses must be worried about this new battle front where not only is their intellectual property the target of attacks, but highly sensitive and potentially embarrassing secrets and internal communications could be exposed to the world.”

It is obvious that hackers do not discriminate what websites they choose to target, which call to question how many breaches have truly occurred and are not reported. Here is a link to an awesome interactive graphic on breaches over 30,000 records: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/worlds-biggest-data-breaches-hacks/

Moreover, I question the probability of a cyber attack that will delete information or render a system completely inoperable. While CodeSpaces was clearly a case of substandard security (http://www.networkcomputing.com/cloud-infrastructure/code-spaces-a-lesson-in-cloud-backup/a/d-id/1279116), the increase sophistication of hacking leaves the question, what are large corporations doing proactively to ensure our data is being kept safe.

Reference:

O'Farrell, N. (2014) Why The Sony Hack Could Be A Game Changer For Us All. Huffington Post. Retrieved from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/creditsesamecom/why-the-sony-hack-could-be-a-game-changer_b_6335082.html

[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 15:13, 31 March 2015 (EDT)

----
I really appreciate that the readings today highlighted the danger of the broad and vague nature of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. “The Impact of ‘Aaron’s Law’ on Aaron Swartz Case” enlightened me about the challenges facing CFAA’s Obtaining Information Through Unauthorized Access to a Protected Computer section. Clearly, the law is so broad that it can be applied inappropriately and disproportionally as this reading states. Aaron Swartz’s case was only one example that we looked at this week. The articles “Reporting, or illegal hacking” and “Appeals court reverses hacker/troll ‘weev’ conviction and sentence” raise the same issue. Though of course the main issue in the latter of these two articles was venue in persecuting Internet crime, the CFAA issue cannot be ignored. I agree with Andy’s statement that the way the law exists today: “a persecutor can frame many benign activities online as a felony” and also that the proper role of a persecutor is to “be reactive to the will of Congress and not stretch laws as… a way of sending of message.” I could relate personally to the CFAA issue because I was once accused of overstepping authorization and illegally hacking a work computer. The fact that I was formally accused of computer crime by a prestigious Los Angeles law firm is a laughable joke for anybody who knows anything about my computer abilities !!! It was a compliment, really, for the people I worked with to think me capable of such a feat. I was threatened criminal persecution for this “hacking” when really, just as the examples we read today, I accessed documents that were readily available without any expertise or authorization needed. The files I accessed were downloaded and saved in the “Download” folder on the MAC desktop that I shared with coworkers nearly everyday, without any sort of password requirement. I had not attempted to spread the “sensitive” material that I had accessed on the computer in any way. I simply told my boss and another person who had limited access to the same computer that I had found the documents. (People in entertainment can be high strung). Of course, in my case, no criminal charges were pursued because it really was a laughable claim, but it definitely is unpleasant to get a threatening phone call and email from a strange lawyer. It is unacceptable that companies or individuals that fail to put up proper protection – such as TerraCom and AT&T - can tarnish the reputations of individuals like Wolf and Aurnheimer due to the fact that a very important law has weak syntax. Of course, I do not know all the facts of either case, but it is very clear to me that the CFAA is too often used inappropriately. We need a reform that protects against hacking, but with more clarity so as not to bloat our judiciary system. We can start with revisions of the terms “without authorization” and “exceeding authorized access.”
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 15:23, 31 March 2015 (EDT)

-----

After reading the Bill Hardekopf’s article summarizing of the biggest data breaches of 2014, I was left with the impression that all those attacks were led by people with financial motivation, which hardly inspires sympathy, on the other hand reading the analysis made by Mr. Sellars on Aaron Swartz case makes my have a totally different attitude towards the act committed and the accused. What was made clear to me is that the CFAA is criminalizing the simple act of “Accessing a Computer and Obtaining Information” which is penalized by 1 to 5 years. It is said by the USDJ that the “Violations of this section are misdemeanors unless aggravating factors exist". I would say that the logic is reversed here. A certain act is criminalized but it is said in advance that in most of the cases the negative effect this act would have on the society would be negligible and should not be punished. The CFAA is creating a legal norm for the exception. This is leading to a wide range of interpretation to be made by the enforcement authorities which are given a tool they could use or not under their discretion. It would be wrong to compare a security breach like the ones in Sally Beauty or White Lodging with the actions of Arron Swarts for example. The motivation which lies behind an action could not be irrelevant. leaving a back door for the law enforcement authorities, by giving them a legal act which could be broadly interpreted depending on the person who does it, is not reassuring. The case of Scripps Howard News Service is another prove that when there is too much space for interpretation of the legal norms, this could be a reason for misinterpretation of what is just and instead of protecting the society to harm it.

([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]))
----
Obvious from today’s readings that the risks to our personal information are neither isolated nor narrow. The fact that Sony’s IT Security officer at the time was the former Director of the National Cyber Security Center at the Department of Homeland Security does not give me reason to sleep better. Protected against familiar DDoS but not direct access to critical txt files.

Some language from United States v. Nosal should be considered in looking and Andy’s points about Schwartz: “The rule of lenity not only ensures that citizens will have fair notice of the criminal laws, but also that Congress will have fair notice of what conduct its laws criminalize. We con- strue criminal statutes narrowly so that Congress will not unintentionally turn ordinary citizens into criminals.

“[B]ecause of the seriousness of criminal penalties, and because criminal punishment usually represents the moral condemnation of the community, legislatures and not courts should define criminal activity."

[[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 16:01, 31 March 2015 (EDT)
----

Cybersecurity and Computer Crimes

2015-03-31T20:00:27Z

Gary Brown: /* Class Discussion */

Assignment 3 Submissions

2015-03-31T18:26:10Z

Gary Brown: /* 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:''' Erika L. Rich

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

'''Link:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:LSTU_E120_Erika_Rich_Assignment_3.docx

----

'''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

----

'''User:''' MattK

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

'''Link:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:MattK_Assignment3.docx

[[User:MattK|MattK]] ([[User talk:MattK|talk]]) 21:52, 30 March 2015 (EDT)

----

'''Name:''' Emily MacIntyre

'''Title:''' Analyzing the Legal Challenges and Chilling Effects of the Nintendo Creator Program through a Representative Survey of Let’s Play Videos and Vlogs

'''Link:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Emily_MacIntyre_Assignment_3.pdf

[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 22:56, 30 March 2015 (EDT)

----

'''User:''' JosefinS

'''Title:''' A case study on the children's website Kidzworld and how they deal with threats against being a safe environment for children.

'''Link:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:JosefinS_Assignment3.pdf

[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 07:18, 31 March 2015 (EDT)

----

'''Name or pseudonym''': Group: Ginka Todorova, Mishal Kennedy and Natasha Jalbut

'''Description''': PROJECT OUTLINE "The impact of the 419Eater.com community on the fight against scam baiting"

'''Link to your outline:''' (the file you uploaded) http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Natasha_Mishal_Gia_Assignment3.pdf

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

----
'''User Group:''' Chelly.Byrne and HRomero

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

'''Link:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:HRomero_ChellyByrne_Assignment3.pdf

[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 09:43, 31 March 2015 (EDT)
----

'''User:''' Becca Lewis

'''Title:''' /r/TwoXChromosomes: Promoting Feminism on Reddit While Upholding the Values of Privacy and Free Speech

'''Link:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Beccalew_Assignment3.docx
----

'''User:''' Alex Samaei

'''Title:''' The Cyber Curtain Between Creators and Backers On Kickstarter

'''Link:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:InternetFinalOutline.pdf
----
'''User:''' Gary Brown

'''Title:''' Crowdsourcing Geospatial Data for Search and Rescue, Disasters, Emergency Operations, and Social Objectives: Tomnod.com

'''Link:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Gary_Brown_Assignment3.docx

File:Gary Brown Assignment3.docx

2015-03-31T18:17:53Z

Gary Brown: Crowdsourcing Geospatial Data for Search and Rescue, Disasters, Emergency Operations, and Social Objectives: Tomnod.com

Crowdsourcing Geospatial Data for Search and Rescue, Disasters, Emergency Operations, and Social Objectives: Tomnod.com

Speech, Day 2: Collective Action, Hacktivism, and Social Movements

2015-03-24T19:57:56Z

Gary Brown: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''March 24'''

Just before the break we started exploring speech online. Today, we look at what happens when speech is aggregated into social movements. When does this work? When does it fail? Who gets included and who are we leaving behind? Does the Internet serve as a better facilitator to protests in some areas versus others? We’ll also look at a particular new form of online protest –
hacktivism – and the special considerations that come into play when people engage in protest through altering or disabling websites. Along the way we'll grapple with limitations of online protest activity, the criticisms weighed against online protest behavior, and some of the ethical questions that come up when different organizations fight for attention to their specific causes.

Joining us this week will be [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/dothman Dalia Othman], a Berkman fellow and expert on civic engagement.

<onlyinclude>

== Readings/Watchings ==

; Framing

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

* [http://ethanzuckerman.com/papers/newmedianewcivicsprepress.pdf Ethan Zuckerman, New Media, New Civics?] (read "The Thick and the Thin of Participatory Civics", skim rest)

* [http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4609956/SAIS%20online%20organizing%20paper%20final.pdf?sequence=1 Bruce Etling et al., Political Change in the Digital Age: The Fragility and Promise of Online Organizing] (read introduction, "Digital Technologies, Information and Political Transitions," "Online Organizing and Contentious Politics," and "The Uncertain Future of Digital Organizing")

; Defining hackers, hacking, and hacktivism

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tB4onhtAmQ Gabriella Coleman, Anonymous from lulz to activists] (from 0:00 to 54:26)

; Case Studies

* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2295953 Yochai Benkler et al., Social Mobilization and the Networked Public Sphere: Mapping the SOPA/PIPA Debate] (pg. 4-10 only)

* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/2015_02_10_Score_Another_One_for_the_Internet_0.pdf Rob Faris et al., Score Another One for the Open Internet? The Role of the Networked Public Sphere in the U.S. Net Neutrality Debate] (read intro and conclusion, skim rest)

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Mapping_the_Arabic_Blogosphere_0.pdf Bruce Etling et al., Mapping the Arabic Blogosphere: Politics, Culture, and Dissent] (read Key Findings and Introduction, skim rest)

* [http://civicmediaproject.org/works/civic-media-project/index Eric Gordon and Paul Mihailidis, Civic Media Project] (peruse)

== Optional Readings ==

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

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

* [https://civic.mit.edu/blog/erhardt/molly-sauter-and-the-coming-swarm-a-fireside-chat Erhardt Graeff, Molly Sauter and the Coming Swarm: A Fireside Chat]

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

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

* [http://www2.scedu.unibo.it/roversi/SocioNet/AdamicGlanceBlogWWW.pdf Lada Adamic and Natalie Glance, The Political Blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. Election: Divided They Blog] (read introduction, analysis, and conclusion – i.e., pages 1-3 and 8-15)

* [http://journalistsresource.org/studies/international/global-tech/social-media-protest-egypt-tahrir-square Alex Remington, Social Media and Participation in Political Protest: Observations from Tahrir Square]

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

* [http://blog.socialflow.com/post/7120244932/data-viz-kony2012-see-how-invisible-networks-helped-a-campaign-capture-the-worlds-attention Gilad Lotan, KONY2012: See How Invisible Networks Helped a Campaign Capture the World’s Attention]

* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2010/Tale_Two_Blogospheres_Discursive_Practices_Left_Right Yochai Benkler and Aaron Shaw, A Tale of Two Blogospheres: Discursive Practices on the Left and Right]

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

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

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

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

Hope everyone had a great break! This is not class related specifically - I just wanted to pop in and post about Facebook's new changes in service regarding the banning of certain content. I can certainly see where some people's freedom of expression would be insulted. "How dare they censor me!" are the cries being heard.

That said, Facebook is a private enterprise (as in not a government agency paid for by tax dollars) and can therefore do whatever they please. You don't like it? Go use Twitter. Go make your own forum, go do your own blog, pound sand, you certainly are not required to use Facebook.

What do you all think?

Soundbites from the NYTimes Article:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/16/facebook-explains-what-it-bans-and-why/?_r=0

'''Facebook Clarifies Rules on What It Bans and Why'''

On Monday, the company clarified its community standards to give its users more guidance about what types of posts are not allowed on the service.

“We’re trying to strike the balance based on the way our community works,” Monika Bickert, Facebook’s head of global policy management, said in an interview. “The landscape is complicated.”

Terrorist organizations like the Islamic State have long been banned from the service. But supporting or praising groups involved in “violent, criminal or hateful behavior” is also banned, the updated rules say.

Threatening people with physical or financial harm, or bullying them by posting items intended to degrade or shame them, is also prohibited. So is anything that encourages suicide or eating disorders.

“It’s tempting to think of free expression and having a voice as black and white — either you have it or you don’t,” Mr. Zuckerberg said. “But giving people a voice, like most things in our society, is something that we must make incremental progress towards.”

'''And another writeup:'''
http://pontiactribune.com/new-facebook-rules-sharing-this-article-might-get-you-banned/

Just to add my viewpoint, this was my response to a friend that posted the above Pontiac Tribune link on Facebook. I may of course only be in the minority.:

<blockquote><i>I was reading this, and as someone who does not usually post anything controversial unless it's about which hard wood is better for making a portable bar, I thought this was interesting enough to take a devil's advocate stand on. Facebook is not a government agency. It's a private enterprise (I don't mean private company in relation to I know it's 'publicly traded').

Therefore what they allow and don't allow is completely and utterly their choice. We don't have to use Facebook. We can go create our own blogs, our own sites, post our own content on a forum that we own and control, without risk of being "banned". Now depending on what you are posting, you may or may not run afoul of the government, but that's between you and the government, and maybe the terms and conditions of wherever you are hosting said content.... but overall, I don't see this as a "freedom of speech" argument.

This quote from the article is rather disingenuous. "Facebook has decided to become the world’s censor. This may end up being the final nail in the coffin of a social media outlet that has seen users flee from other idiotic policies." (I doubt it by the way - the nail analogy)

Facebook is only becoming the thought police FOR THEMSELVES. If they don't want certain content on THEIR servers, being fed to the masses that are THEIR users, then that is THEIR prerogative, not ours.

Will people abandon Facebook because their feelings are hurt that they can't share that rape video? Or that gang beating? Or that gorgeous naked man with the sculpted 6-pack? Or whatever else pissed FB off? Of course. So be it. Get out of the sandbox and go build your own.</i></blockquote>

[[User:ErikaLRich|ErikaLRich]] ([[User talk:ErikaLRich|talk]]) 14:28, 22 March 2015 (EDT)

-----

Hi Erika (and everyone else)!
Interesting what you wrote. I liked the quote from Mr. Zuckerberg; “It’s tempting to think of free expression and having a voice as black and white — either you have it or you don’t...”, because that is something I believe often is forgotten in the debate about free speech. In my opinion is protecting the freedom of expression not the same as letting everyone say exactly what they want. Because that can limit the freedom of others. Here are some examples of why freedom of expression is not black and white:

1. If someone threatens you, you might not have the courage to express yourself, and your freedom is therefore limited. (In some cases can threats even effect all aspects of your life.)
2. If you get triggered through pro-eating disorder material (like you talked about Erika), you will also be silenced since someone who is suffering from an eating disorder have a hard time focusing on anything else than food and weight (and therefore probably won´t be very active in debates). Consequently is such material limiting the expression of others.
3. If you bully someone online (or offline), you mentally break down the other person. That can result in lower self esteem of the bullied and he or she might no longer have the courage to speak up and express him/herself.

It is hard to know what should be censored and what should´t. But it is important to reflect upon the fact that freedom never is black or white, and that liberalism isn´t a synonym to letting everyone do exactly what they want.

[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 07:46, 23 March 2015 (EDT)

-----

This week's readings were wonderful and engaging but internet activism and online social movements cannot always be categorized in the same way as traditional activism. I feel that there is a heavy emphasis placed on an assumed laziness (perhaps the wrong phrasing) on the part of the blogger, online organizer, what have you. Yes, traditional organizing like real life marches or on the ground activism translates to a certain kind of activism and can lead to social and political change that cannot be achieved if the efforts remain online, as articles like Ethan Zuckerman’s, “New Media, New Civics?” point out. But we cannot define online activism in the same framework we use in examining our traditional notions of activism. The Internet, this still relatively young space, doesn't yet have as much of a "status quo" of sorts - - meaning, space can be taken up by more people than before (granted, exceptions for places that don't easy access to the internet or their internet is censored and/or blocked). In this way, saturating this new media with a marginalized viewpoint, perhaps from members of of traditionally marginalized groups is a strong political act within itself. Making it so that new media is not the same as what you would get by turning on the regular news, this is an action itself. For example, I found the "Mapping the Arabic Blogosphere" article pointed to the phenomenon. In looking at the different descriptions of peoples' blogs one can see a range of traditional ones to a growing degree of ones discussing HIV/AIDS, women's issues, etc.
([[User:Amchugh|Amchugh]] ([[User talk:Amchugh|talk]]) 15:49, 24 March 2015 (EDT))

----

I loved watching Gabriella Coleman’s speech on Anonymous this week, particularly because I’ve been fascinated by – and conflicted in my opinions about – the group over the course of the past few years. I first read about them in detail in 2012, following their focus on a rape case in Missouri. The case had been all but dismissed by the courts and the media, until Anonymous seized on an exposé that had been published in the Kansas City Star. In this case, I was immediately favorable to how they handled the situation; it truly seemed like they were bringing justice to a case that otherwise would have been brutally unjust. But I also felt complications around the power of “online vigilantism,” since if a powerful group like Anonymous could focus its energies in a direction I agreed with, it could just as easily use its powers towards an end I (or others) felt was wrong. For example, the group drew controversy when it released incorrect information about the supposed police officer that had shot Michael Brown in Ferguson. It’s also potentially just as problematic to see what Anonymous chooses not to highlight, including this follow-up to the rape case in Missouri, when earlier this year, the victim attempted suicide again, and her mother wondered where the online group’s support had gone (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2014/01/07/daisy-coleman-alleged-rape-victim-attempts-suicide-again/).

Another thing I have had difficulty grappling with is how the group balances its “lulz” mentality with more serious political activism. It was very interesting to hear Gabriella Coleman address this tension and show how it is clearly a big source of confusion even within the group itself. But it was equally helpful to hear her assessment that the humor and irreverence are political statements in and of themselves. I particularly liked her comparison of Anonymous to other groups in the past, such as the Cynics and the Dadaists. I had not thought about the fact that confusion and humor can be powerful cultural forces of protest and activism, and I had never thought of the “lulz” as an essential part of the group’s activism until she drew those comparisons. The humorous elements of the group also seem to help it gain legitimacy and respect among certain communities that might not afford such privilege to other activist groups. It reminds me of Ethan Zuckerman’s “cute cat theory of digital activism,” because of the idea that sometimes political activism needs to be masked in other forms of content in order to gain traction online.

[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 09:02, 23 March 2015 (EDT)

-----

Hi everyone!

This week´s reading was very interesting since it was about something you hear about almost every day. The Internet can be used in many ways, and social movements on the Internet don´t always look the same.

Drezner and Farrel write that ”the typical blog is written by a teenage girl”. However, all blogs in table 3 - Blogs read by the media and Table 4 - Blogs read by elite media (they show influential blogs/bloggers) are as far as I can see, written by men. This is very interesting since it means that even though the typical blogger is a teenage girl (or at least was when this was written in 2004), the most influential bloggers are male. I also thought about gender when I read Etling´s text about the Arabic Blogosphere, when he wrote that ”Arabic bloggers are prominently young and male”.

What I also found interesting was that it often is critical that traditional media pick up and write about what the blogs have posted if the big audience should pay notice to it. Traditional media has in that way power that sometimes is difficult for new media to claim.

Zuckerman wrote about ”the thick and the thin of participatory civics”. He meant that ”thick” participation is when you have to use your head while ”thin” participation is when you need your feet, or when you don´t have to think and use your brain. He mentioned that thin participation often is negatively called slacktivism and that a lot of people blame those activists to be lazy and not doing ”real activism”. Zuckerman wanted to challenge that view and problematize the issue in new ways.

Thin participatory civics is often connected to new and social media. However, I would say that traditional media sometimes take advantage of this type of activism as well. One example is the annual radio/TV program Serious request from the Netherlands that has been broadcasted every December since 2004. The project has now been spread to several countries, but in most cases under another name. The purpose of the project is to involve as many persons as possible in collecting money to a different cause each year. Money has been raised for victims of land mines, for clean drinking water, HIV/AIDS, for victims of sexual violence, etc. (Wikipedia, 2015). The following paragraph explains the project:

"During the Dutch 3FM Serious Request three popular radio DJs are locked up for six days in a small temporary radio studio (the "Glass House"), placed in a main square in a different city each year. Living on a juice-only fast, the DJs make an interactive, themed broadcast around the clock, while regular programming on the station is suspended. Instead 3FM and its website are completely dedicated to the event, which is also transmitted as a continuous audio and video live-stream. Additionally there is television coverage, integration with social media, and a dedicated mobile app." (Wikipedia, 2015)

'''Some of the things the project include:'''

-Radio/TV profiles that lead the show.

-Auctions on the internet.

-Telephone calls to raise money.

-Projects that anyone can start to raise money.

-Sharing for example TV clips on social media to raise people´s awareness.

-Listening to the radio/watching TV (without listeners, there wouldn´t be a show.)

As you can see, there are many ways (both ”thin” and ”thick”) in which people can participate and organize themselves. I think that it shows how both the ”thick” and ”thin” can be crucial and good.

Wikipedia, 2015. Retrieved 3/23/2015 from ''http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serious_Request''.

[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 11:52, 23 March 2015 (EDT)

-----

Great points, everyone! Another fun piece of reading that was just posted related to tomorrow's discussion is [http://civicmediaproject.org/works/civic-media-project/binders-full-of-election-memes-participatory-culture-invades-the-2012-us-election Binders Full of Election Memes] by fellow Berkman Fellow Erhardt Graeff. [[User:Andy|Andy]] ([[User talk:Andy|talk]]) 14:45, 23 March 2015 (EDT)

-----

I think that the internet is a great device for a civic debate, protest or manifestation of society, however there may be some dangers that these groups of activists can face such as being labeled, hacked, or portrait in different way than what they really are, so I think that the balance that one must strive to reach is the idea of non violence over the platform of the internet, and the education and security that can ensure safety, of everyone in every way.

If some news are exposed can create a great impact on people, however it will take sometimes for people to be able to understand the way how information on the internet functions for the ones that posted and find it, this is we should strive to a greater level of awareness to only enjoy the benefits of the internet in social movements.

Edwin Duque (15:54, 23 March 2015 (EDT))

----

Hello All!

I hope everyone had a fun and restful spring break. Even though I spent the week in Florida, thanks to my iPhone I was able to get through this week’s readings.

While all of the readings on collective action, hacktivism, and social movements were extremely thought-provoking, I was especially intrigued by Ethan Zuckerman’s, “New Media, New Civics?” article about online activism because, even though I am a huge fan of Malcolm Gladwell’s work, I totally agree with Zuckerman’s opposing stance on the value of participatory civics in the digital public sphere as an agent for change.

In his article, Zuckerman applies a very useful matrix to case studies of digital activism which denotes how varying degrees of thin and thick engagement can collectively impact change of both norms and codes, as he eloquently points out, “if enough of us raise our voices loud enough, we may persuade our mobile phone company or our nation to change its path” (14).

I know from personal experience that organizations such as Change.org not only collectively involve a large enough population of thin engagement participants to enact normative and instrumental change but they have also become an avenue of inspiration for others to participate in subsequent thick forms of engagement to solve additional problems and recruit even more participants.

According to their “About” page Change.org currently has more than 85 million users in 196 countries. That is certainly a significant number of voices actively contributing to a wide array of social movements.

[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 00:28, 24 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Beth Noveck's take on civic engagement was particularly controversial to me; at once I agree with her view that community engagements don't "scale" -- this idea brings to mind the example of the stereotype cookie-bake ladies who, getting together, stand on the proverbial corner of the road, put up a bake sale, and send all $124 of the proceeds to the Pentagon to help out with the war. They go to sleep thinking they have come together and done a great thing. When in the bigger picture, it is not society they have helped but their own consciences. Noveck's point about civic scaleability is pertinent everywhere we watch community efforts like this come to fruition only to cause the smallest of imperceptible ripples across the water. I would add that in addition to this problem of non-effectively translatable community engagement to politics, the discussion about words to action also suffers from information-flooding and information-dilution. This problem aside, the part where Noveck's stance is problematic is that community engagement does not necessarily translate into action. This stance overly discounts the power of norms as understood from Lessig's Code point of view. While this may be the case short term, Zuckerman is a treasure trove of examples to counter this argument -- especially from the Middle East and Islamic states -- where community engagement translates into fundamental shifts in norms. And norms are, in the end, the most powerful political actors in a democracy -- even in non-democracies.

In the Berkman report about trends in Arabic civic engagement, it was noted that most of these online activities seem to have the most "impact" in semi-repressive governments; doing less well in the least repressive governments and in the most repressive governments. One reason for this could be back to the problem of information dilution and over access in affluent communities. With societies in the least repressive governments, there is an overflow of news, of interests, of general online activity that have little to do with discussions about community. Rather, out of contentedness are born the classic children Complacency and Inaction. Digital media merely increases the speed of confusion and dilution. So the considerations of a society's comfort, it's information dilution levels, and its general government regulation are considerations that have come to the table about civic involvement and digital media in a way that is at once encouraging and discouraging. Encouraging when we read about Zuckerman's highlighting of the Pakistani community of women embroiderers who have been empowered to change societal norms via social media, and discouraging when we think about the majority of a comfortable society's use of its digital tools to do less than community-beneficial things. Great readings this week. Looking forward to piecing them together through lecture.

Chanel

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 00:45, 24 March 2015 (EDT)
------

Hello everyone after the spring break!

Staring a Collective Action, Hacktivism or a Social Movement, they all are provoked by certain political or social events, by something done or something not being done by the government. From today’s reading it seams that in most of the cases the trigger has always something to do with the government not doing the right thing or not doing anything at all, Aaron Swartz telling us how KOIKA , later on SOPA was stopped, the Arab Spring, the hactivism organized by the Anonymous, the common element is that in all these cases single, otherwise ordinary individuals, combine forces in order to oppose the government united by a common goal. During the history people has done this using different means , more or less violent, but civil protests are not new phenomenon. What is new is the means we use nowadays. Internet is a very powerful tool. After today’s reading (and listening), I would conclude it’s power is based on three main pillars – Accessibility, Speed and Anonymity. Internet is an open tribune for everyone, everyone can make its opinion public and can easily find supporters by sharing it through the social communities. The second thing is the speed, the number of the supporters can reach thousands for just few days, as Aaron Swartz said it happened with the anti- SOPA campaign. Last but not least is the anonymity Internet is offering. An Internet user can initiate a group, community or be counted as a supporter of such one and still stay anonymous. A lot of people who would not dear to stand behind a cause and defend it on live, are gladly supporting the same cause online. This is bringing the question, how real all online movements and initiatives are? In some cases it turns out to be as real as it could be. When we take examples like the Arab Spring where the people transmitted the movement from Internet to the streets and keep on defending the idea. The most recent example I found is in Istanbul, last week where more than 100,000 people turned the funeral of Berkin Elvan into a mass demonstration for civil rights. As Zeynep Tufecki Is commenting on the event “No formal organization made the call” she says, it all has started in Twitter and later on turned out that Berkin's face had become a “symbol of civic resistance shared on social media from Facebook to Instagram”.

On the other hand there are cases when people are sharing a politically orientated image macro memes (Erhardt Graeff’s analysis on the election memes) but we could hardly conclude all of them are truly engaged with the cause. Most of them are just finding the memes amusing and funny . We could judge by the number of people sharing and liking the memes for certain tendencies in the society but it would not be right to assume all those people would defend the idea or cause behind the funny memes on the street. The research showing that actually most of the tweets regarding the Arab Spring were coming from Arabs in US and Europe is another prove that the conclusions based on the “online support” should be carefully examined and could be deceiving in some cases. I think Bruce Etling, Robert Faris and John Palfrey made a very good point on this, categorizing the social online activities into Mobs, Movements and CSOs. In the same spirit is the “Thick and Thin of Participatory Civics” theory of , Ethan Zuckerman who clearly explains that there is a big difference between the “lazy”, thin participation with by clicking the mouse and the thick one, where some dedication is needed.

I really liked the speech of Aaron Swartz and felt very sorry for his tragic end of his personal story but back to the subject , I was mostly impressed by the number of online petitions he had organized. What I am curious about is to know a little bit more about the legal value of such a petition. I think that some issues like the act of signing an online petition are not very clear to me. Should each of the signatures use an e-signature in order his vote to be recognized as a valid one. I think this would be impossible for realization but otherwise how the authenticity of such a petition could be assured so it could have a legal value? ([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]))

----

[[Shouting from a soap box or singing in the shower?]] This line stuck in my head as i read Yockhai Benkler et al. This is a question often ask amongst activist and friends in regards to political blogs. When you blog, do you speak to three thousand people or only three? Very difficult to know. This is why i've developed a few techniques to not waste time blogging. A quick short paragraph is usually best, no need for an entire manifesto because, again, you may be communicating with only three people. When it comes to countering hate speech, I only respond to those that cross the line into racism and violent threats, often referencing the audience and the possibility that someone in law enforcement might be reading the blog. Finally when it comes to arguing opposing points of view I try to respond to those who write full sentences and try to make an argument.

From Anonymus to LULZ by Gabriella Coleman was a very interesting presentation. There is a big difference between blogging and actual face to face, hand shaking community organizing work. Furthermore, one doesn't work without the other. The occupy movement used both tactics to some extent, but in my opinion, got caught up in the anonymous philosophy and wasted a tremendous opportunity to really organize and have an impact. Sadly their obsession with no leadership and their endlessly mind numbing deliberation sessions won over reason, instinct and action. I still give the young kids Kudos for revolting and shaking up the tree. I'll admit, I used the occupy movement to further my own agenda and the movement happily obliged, and it was a net positive for the communty organization i worked with, but in terms of real impact on public opinion and legislation, I would say it's minimum. Mainly because their actions became more and more lame over time, and never even came close to anything 'audacious' or daring as Anonymous' could come up with. [[User:Hromero10|Hromero10]] ([[User talk:Hromero10|talk]]) 13:25, 24 March 2015 (EDT)

[[Hacktivism and civic media]]. Wanted to add another post in response to some comments. The problem of scaling up is very real in activist blogs. this type of thin involvement is what you get from on line petitions and so forth, and in order to have real impact it must be coupled with community organizing. meaning actual people, who get together, meet face to face, organize actions and actually show up at city hall or the state house and make their case to law makers. If people are not willing to do this it is difficult for online activism to scale up beyond a group of like minded individuals or to have any meaningful impact on their goals.[[User:Hromero10|Hromero10]] ([[User talk:Hromero10|talk]]) 13:44, 24 March 2015 (EDT)
----

This week’s topic, by far, is my favorite topic we have covered in class! I thoroughly enjoyed all of this week’s readings and was pleasantly surprised by what I learned. Before this week I considered myself proficient in the knowledge of online social movements, because I have been heavily involved with a lot of campus and student groups who participate heavily within avenues of civic engagement written about. Boy, was I wrong!

The piece that most interested me was Erhardt Graeff’s “Binders Full of Election Memes”. Admittedly, I think this spoke to me because I was guilty of “trolling” the Internet around election time. Although I may have been trolling, I am proud to say I refrained from malicious acts described by Gabriella Coleman. The type of trolling I participated in was far from anything Anonymous has committed, yet I still had a hand in retweeting or reblogging the occasional funny meme about a presidential candidate – because “I did it all for the lulz”. Naturally, because I believe I am a political animal, I would follow debates on the news between presidential candidates and then would return to social media outlets to see what would resonate with Twitter followers, Tumblr feeds, or even my own Facebook group of friends. What amazed me was Graeff’s ability to describe and articulate what I would find on my social groups.

Meme sharing indicates there is something worth paying attention to in that moment. Maybe it is just funny. Maybe it is a little too true, which underlies the humor and implores us to pass it on. A lot of memes act as shibboleths—they indicate that you are part of the in-crowd, you get the joke, you were there when it happened. This is the power of the meme speech act. It quickly creates a networked public from its in-group. That feeling of inclusion can inspire further and future discourse.

Like Graeff alluded to, the memes that I would post or repost, would initiate a conversation with a) people who watched political debates b) people who shared similar political views. It created this “in crowd” of people, which only perpetuated people to read or participate in politics to ensure they could get these jokes. I know there was a point in the running where Romney had made the famous “47 percent” comment for which I had not yet accessed. Sure enough, all my social media was blowing up with 47% hashtags, memes, and funny gifs. Not being able to understand what the trends were about, I was motivated to seek out legitimate news sources to read what had happened. The comment by Romney, exacerbated by online groups and memes, undoubtedly tainted the candidate’s image and I’m not sure he has been able to recover from this perspective. This small example shows the strength of social movements online is powerful, and has yet to know no boundaries.

I think in situations such as a presidential campaign, which promotes the freedoms of democracy, it is ideal to have as many citizens participate in the matters. In this aspect, social movements have done a wonderful job of providing information to as many people as possible. Before, matters of political platforms were somewhat reserved for the elite and privileged. Recent developments have made information more accessible and relevant. Secondly, social movements can positively reinforce the desire to be involved, even if it’s out of social pressure to be part of the “in crowd”. My wanting to be involved with the latest 47% topic drove me to seek out information and stay more current with politics and national news. In this respect, social movements can promote participation.

But, I believe that politics nowadays have moved away from what originally was concentrated on the validity of the content being discussed, to highlighting who flubbed or what mistake can be made in to memes. This, I believe, is one of the negative perspectives for which social movements fail online. The focus of participation can be shifted to aspects that may be funny, but take away from the real issues at hand. Henry Jenkin’s “civic media” suggests that social media and television are not solitary actions, which I agree with, but at what degree does participation look like? Does change come about when things are being retweeted or reblogged, but not translating into action. Graeff’s describes some of these concerns as:

Although this corroborates the value of connective action and the argument that election memes represent legitimate political speech acts, it also calls into question the quality of personalized expression and grassroots mobilization involved. But “authentic” and even cynical political participation through memes can coexist with their adoption and exploitation by professional political organizations.

When speech becomes aggregated into social movements, the results are simply unfathomable. As past events have shown, massive movements (i.e. #blacklivematter, #occupy) or social injustice campaigns (i.e. Aziz Ansari’s #rupertsfault campaign against Rupert Murdoch) have happened due to the ability to assemble on online forums. I think the reason I am so attracted to this topic is because the environment of social movements have endless possibilities and unlimited abilities to include more, and more participants.
[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 15:11, 24 March 2015 (EDT)
----

'''Why Accountability Matters'''

Beth Novek asks, “what does civic, rather than deliberative, media look like?” She answers, “Ultimately it means recasting our conceptualization of the First Amendment to be not simply about talking about talk but also talking about action.” We do need to talk about action, but that is not enough. We need to talk about responsibility and accountability in taking action.

Action is an abstract word that evokes a virtually infinite number of manifestations, weak, strong, legal, illegal, disobedient, constructive, and destructive. Action, particularly concerted action, without the constraint of accountability is a very dangerous movement. I am not limiting my discussion to physical action, as in moving online bullying to physical bullying. Digital action in our digitally dependent and digitally empowered world holds many risks. We will never agree on regulating action based on our opinions of whether a particular action is positive or negative. There are those that would contend that the actions of the 9/11 terrorists had positive effects. What we can do is take the steps to help ensure that actors are accountable for the actions. This would seem a basic tenant of a civil society, digital or physical.

Certainly, accountability inhibits in varying degrees the actions that a community or individual might be willing to take, as exemplified in the reactions by the government to the demonstrations against Mubarek in Egypt. There demonstrators were identified and arrested based on their Facebook identities. The videos of the release of the demonstrators were employed by the government as propaganda that it still had power over such demonstrations. But the story does not need to end there, and we may also consider the reactions of the online world to those videos and to the actions of the government in making the arrests. Here, everyone, demonstrator and government alike, is accountable. It is when action is taken anonymously, when actors are not accountable for their actions, that we are most at risk of abuses of power. Anonymity would appear to offer far more risks of abuse than sanctity for concerted action. As Etling observes, “anonymity diminishes the effectiveness of the very factors that facilitate effective social and political organizing…: leadership and displays of unity and commitment. It is therefore not surprising that there are no examples of influential political movements comprised of anonymous participants…. digital technologies can be used just as easily by those with nefarious intentions as those acting in the public interest.”

[[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 15:57, 24 March 2015 (EDT)

Talk:Main Page

2015-03-18T17:37:36Z

Gary Brown: Link to Complete List of Assigned Readings is out of date

The link to the [[Assigned Readings|Complete List of Assigned Readings]] leads to a page that is more than a year out of date. Perhaps there is a more current page?

[[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 13:37, 18 March 2015 (EDT)

Talk:Assigned Readings

2015-03-18T17:27:57Z

Gary Brown: This page is out of date.

This page has not been updated for quite a long time. The links to reading assignments are for a different term, 2013, it would appear from the history.

[[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 13:27, 18 March 2015 (EDT)

Speech, Day 1: Free Expression, Information, and Unwanted Speech

2015-03-10T19:58:58Z

Gary Brown: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''March 10'''

The Internet has the potential to revolutionize public discourse. Instead of large media companies and corporate advertisers controlling the channels of speech, anyone with an Internet connection can speak to a wide audience. With this great potential, however, comes new questions. What happens when anyone can publish to a global audience with virtually no oversight? Is this form of information dissemination a passing fad of enthusiastic amateurs or the beginning of a fundamental restructuring of the way media and news are produced and consumed? Will the current trends lead to more information, better information, and better- informed people or to an infinite stream of unreliable chatter? When different countries take different approaches on speech, whose values should take precedence? This class will explore speech online, the laws and corporations that regulate it, and how the Internet deals with speech that is hateful, hurtful, or otherwise objectionable.

==Assignments==

The second half of Assignment 2 (commenting on at least three [[Assignment_2_Submissions|prospectuses]]) is due before class today.

<onlyinclude>
==Readings==

; Speech Theory

* [https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/collages/32505 ''Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union'', 521 U.S. 844 (1997)]

; Informing the Public in the Internet Age

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

* [http://towcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/LiesDamnLies_Silverman_TowCenter.pdf Craig Silverman, Lies, Damned Lies, and Viral Content: How News Websites Spread (And Debunk) Online Rumors, Unverified Claims, and Misinformation] (read executive summary)

; Private, public, and platforms - control of speech online

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/NOC_United_States_case_study.pdf Adam Holland et al., NoC Intermediary Case Studies: Intermediary Liability of Intermediaries in the United States] (Sections I and II.A. only)

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

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

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

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

; Unwanted and Dangerous Speech

* [http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/01/28/us/politics/ap-us-police-tracking-app.html Sheriffs Expand Concerns About Waze Mobile Traffic App]

* [http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2014/03/25/susan-benesch-on-dangerous-speech-and-counterspeech/ Ethan Zuckerman, Susan Benesch on Dangerous Speech and Counterspeech]

* [https://medium.com/internet-monitor-2014-public-discourse/flower-speech-new-responses-to-hatred-online-d98bf67735b7 Susan Benesch, Flower Speech: New Responses to Hatred Online]

* [http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/233660-gop-lawmaker-isis-shouldnt-have-access-to-twitter Christina Marcos, GOP Lawmaker: ISIS Shouldn't Have Access to Twitter]

== Optional Readings ==

* You may want to revisit EFF's [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/01/facing-challenge-online-harassment Facing the Challenge of Online Harassment], from the second class's readings

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

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

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

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

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

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCk97LyrqYQ Yochai Benkler, Truthiness and the Networked Public Sphere]

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

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

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

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

* [http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2015/02/237610.htm Secretary John Kerry, Outlining an Action Agenda to Counter Violent Extremism]

</onlyinclude>

==Links from Class Discussion==

==Class Discussion==

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

----

I really liked this week’s readings as we start to enter the topics about speech. It certainly is an interesting and back and forth topic as we must consider the implications of allowing speech (first Amendment), or censoring it incase of certain harms. (such as Apple removing the shaking baby and Bush countdown apps) The Innocence of the Muslim is definitely the most controversial of them all. Though I do agree with Facebook’s and YouTube’s decisions to only censor it for countries that it is considered offensive, and keep it up in the United States due to the first Amendment. The Constitution was created hundreds of years ago, and just as Professor Sellars has said, it’s not like its California Constitution that could be given less importance. The First Amendment has great importance and would be extremely hard to undermine or to change. This reflects hugely on laws that govern the United States as well as firms based in the US. (which means a lot of websites)

It is quite shocking to realize that verification is so difficult on the internet. As Professor Sellars has mentioned, credit card verification for age is difficult for non-commercial websites since extra costs would be required that threatens them to close down. Passwords wouldn’t help much either. With it’s enforcement, even the government has doubts of its ability to really identify if a person is under 18 and visiting a pornographic website. This tough verification process isn’t just in explicit websites but very important too in media outlets on the web. The “blurring” between amateurs and professionals and the different forms of media forces companies to adapt. Profitability comes from internet traffic and when that is the main concern, the quality of the news becomes secondary. There is a conflict on interest between internet traffic and quality of news. As long as traffic is high, it justifies the lower quality of news.

As such, the unfortunate feedback loop of how these fake rumor news becomes headlines and makes the news environment highly delusional. Furthermore, when multiple news outlets release the same fake story, it becomes self fulfilling. The belief that “perception is reality” makes people believe in the rumor already even if they know it is fake. They would associate “some truths” to it. But that should be left for another time to discuss. According to Silverman, the trend goes like this: a rumor happens on the internet, then some news outlets report it. It therefore gains traction which makes more news media outlets think it is legitimate and also report it. With so many news websites supporting it, it gains credibility and could no longer trace the source of origin anymore. This is all due to the inability to verify, or the ignorance to verify rumors, especially when these rumor news generate a lot of internet traffic, which translates into advertisement money or click-through-rates, etc.

As mentioned above, the First Amendment is the basic Constitutional law of the United States and would be extremely hard to undermine or ignore. It is in built into the American way of life. This provides the breeding ground of another huge debate between the increasing amount of internet platforms (which are mostly US companies) and the traditional industries that generate content. The former wants “immunity from third party claims” whereas the latter wants laws against copyright infringement. It is hard to satisfy both sides, but both sides do have their points as well. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act criminalizes copyright work. Yet in contrast, radio and television that infringe this law in live broadcasts tend to be given a better treatment than do websites that are live all the time.

Next I’d like to talk about whether hate speech should be censored. There is always the consideration of censoring hate speech to prevent potential harms coming the way of the institutions or countries. Yet is it against the fundamental laws of that country? I think what Facebook and YouTube did on the video “Innocence of the Muslims” reflected their careful thinking in balancing between regulations (and potential consequences) and the belief of maintaining freedom of speech. According to Rosen, Wong and Willner had the conviction to do what they believed in. Willner finalized Facebook’s hate speech policy to “ban attack on groups, but not institutions”. This was a very good framework to start from. It prevents discrimination to groups of people, but allows opinions towards things, like institutions. This actually resonates with the Waze Traffic application. Facebook and Google (YouTube) were smart to make changes dependent on the laws of those countries it affects. The Waze application lets the app users know where police are. I do not see a problem with this as they are on public territory and once again should be protected by the First Amendment. If it protects me to tell my friend that a cop car is in front of me, it should also protect me to tell people using the app that a cop car is in front of me. This action should be exactly the same.

Now I’d like to give some views on this topic. It is a very fine line between allowing speech to be free on the internet, and potential hazards or discriminations that could occur due to that. I really liked the way Facebook (Willner) did it. I too agree that groups of people should not be allowed to be discriminated against, but institutions should be given the freedom to be criticized if necessary. A just way could be achieved from this. If localizing rules and regulations to websites is plausible (as we learned in previous lectures from the Yahoo case with Nazi products in France), then it should also be plausible to filter down to see what sort of speeches would be against local laws in different countries. I do not agree with the way Apple does things; being scared and taking down apps because they were afraid that a backlash would occur. Corporations should take a strong stance on this too. Yet I feel that because the internet has grown so quickly, it is hard to create “norms” for the internet society. Who should regulate them? Ideally I think a government department should be in charge of this; to create laws and regulations as well as guidelines for these potential sensitive issues. Make it universal so corporations like Facebook and Google could follow. If these two giant corporations follow, so would the rest of the internet.

References:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfS_2oXVch0

https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/collages/32505

https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Overview_MR.pdf

http://towcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/LiesDamnLies_Silverman_TowCenter.pdf

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/NOC_United_States_case_study.pdf

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

http://www.dmlp.org/blog/2012/structural-weakness-internet-speech

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113045/free-speech-internet-silicon-valley-making-rules

https://medium.com/internet-monitor-2014-public-discourse/flower-speech-new-responses-to-hatred-online-d98bf67735b7

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfS_2oXVch0

[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 11:33, 7 March 2015 (EST)

----

On the topic of ISIS use of Twitter, you may want to check out the [http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2015/03/isis-twitter-census-berger-morgan/the-isis-twitter-census-defining-and-describing-the-population-of-isis-supporters-on-twitter.pdf brand new study] by the Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings. [http://boingboing.net/2015/03/07/isis-vs-twitter-a-cautionary.html BoingBoing] already pulled some highlights. [[User:Andy|Andy]] ([[User talk:Andy|talk]]) 09:31, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----

'''The Hypocrisy of Watchers: Waze'''

Full concurrence with Caelum; this has been a fascinating week of readings.

I was caught especially by the New York Times article about the Waze mobile traffic app alerting users to locations of police cars in their neighborhoods.

I’ve noted this app before on the app store and I always viewed it as similar to those pseudo-spy/surveillance shops. Surely, some kind of undercover detail was covering these places and keeping a sort of watch and tracking of who was buying super secret surveillance cameras that could be hidden inside bobby pins and fountain pens. Surely, these places are tracked and watched themselves by law enforcement. Moreso if these shops are online and it is easier than ever to not only determine who is buying these on the edge of legality spy gadgets, but where they are and what their other purchasing history might be. I associated apps like Waze to be in a similar category; not illegal but certainly not chummy with law enforcement. And certainly watched.

But this is the conspiracist in me. That enforcement is actually concerned enough about these apps seems to imply that they have no real way to track users.

So why do watchers fear being watched? Are they afraid that they will become targets? Law enforcement? So long as they have police cars and wear uniforms that all of us can actually see, unfortunately, they will always be targets to those who want them to be.

It seems that this is more a protest against loss of speeding ticket revenues using the pretense of safety concerns.

In Japan, they have life size silhouettes and pictures of police officers with whistles in their mouths reminding drivers to keep to the speed limit and drive carefully. The result has been that these signs have proven to be effective at preventing traffic infringements on Japanese roadways. The mere presence and reminder is enough to keep law-abiding citizens on the up and up. Waze has a similar effect. If anything, it reminds drivers that we are being watched. And watchers would much rather see things from the shadows than from the spotlight.

This case of protest from law enforcement is a fascinating miniature study into the broader topic of this week’s readings. Watchers don’t appreciate being watched themselves because it has a chilling effect on society when we know and identify those giant cameras in the room. Interestingly, it is an example where the chilling effect is on behavior and on behavior that is illegal or not appropriate to begin with. A positive chilling effect if ever there was one.

The only major loss I see here is that from a traffic enforcement perspective, speeders are going to slow down and as a result, majorly impede police enforcement’s abilities to bring revenue from speed traps. We cannot punish society from sharing public information. Waze deals with public information about police cars parked or located in full view. It simply propates the information so that we “see” the police car one intersection earlier. If law enforcement were truly fearful of their own safety and fearful of targeting, then they wouldn’t put sirens on their cars or decals on their doors or drive around in a police badge or uniform. If they were truly afraid of the light, they’d hide in the darkness wearing not uniforms but in plainscothes and driving unmarked police cars.

In the broader scope of discussion between the tensions of free speech and public safety – this is a case where I fail to see the public safety argument coming on top. It just doesn’t work when it comes from the mouths of the ones who have the most (or, theoretically should have the most) resources to watch and control society.

Chanel

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 13:20, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

----

I’m fascinated by the topics of free speech, dangerous speech, and harassment online, especially as someone who feels passionate about making the Internet a safer place for women. I have always supported the U.S. Constitution’s steadfast devotion to free speech, but some of the vitriol and abuse I have observed against women online has made me question whether free speech above all other values is too simplistic an approach. My doubts particularly grew throughout the Gamergate phenomenon, during which I observed mind-boggling misogyny directed both to the general online world of women, as well as to specific individuals. It was at that point that I realized that I am personally not in favor of free speech at all costs, since online, the speech of some can silence the speech of others through intimidation and fear. I agree with Ethan Zuckerman free speech is a false concept, since lack of censorship will still lead to certain voices getting suppressed.

Because of this, I was particularly intrigued by Susan Benesch’s research and the idea that hate speech and dangerous speech can be combatted through counter speech, rather than censorship or restrictions. I also found it interesting that social media platforms can make subtle changes to their layout or user experience in order to encourage or discourage certain types of speech. It reinforces the idea that engineers working in Silicon Valley wield incredible power with the choices they make in designing social platforms, and it also highlights the importance of diversity in that workforce, based on the social implications of even the most subtle design choices.

The question that still lingers for me is how the tactic of counter speech might work in self-selecting communities, such as a men’s rights forum. In those cases, there most likely won’t be a larger community to temper conversation through counter speech, but the conversation that takes place on those sites could still potentially spur someone to commit violent action. For example, in the case of the Isla Vista shooter, it’s known that he was involved with men’s rights groups online, but it’s less clear how directly members of those groups incited him to action. It seems that the lines defining incitement and threats are growing blurrier as a result of the Internet, which presents problems of its own when that might be the only justification for restricting certain speech on a site, or addressing it from a legal standpoint (I’m also reminded of the Elonis vs. United States case, where the lines have been particularly blurry as well).

Despite the additional questions that crop up, and some nuances that still aren’t clear to me, I find Susan Benesch’s approach intriguing and promising.

[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 21:02, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

----

“In Japan, they have life size silhouettes and pictures of police officers with whistles in their mouths reminding drivers to keep to the speed limit and drive carefully. The result has been that these signs have proven to be effective at preventing traffic infringements on Japanese roadways. “

Great point Chanel, I am in Japan right now and that is what I am seeing all the time when I drive around! They even have fake posters of cop cars with sirens on! Definitely a great chilling effect.

Since the topic is about ISIS, I’d like to share this video that gives a good summary of ISIS. http://youtu.be/AQPlREDW-Ro

“Almost one in five ISIS supporters selected English as their primary language when using Twitter. Three quarters selected Arabic (section 1.5).”

I think this is an important issue because their purpose of using Twitter would likely to spread their beliefs and thoughts. English is a great medium to do things after all.

“A minimum of 1,000 ISIS-supporting accounts were suspended between September and December 2014, and we saw evidence of potentially thousands more. Accounts that tweeted most often and had the most followers were most likely to be suspended (section 2.5.1).”

I wonder where this kicks in in the security vs. free speech debate. My initial thoughts are that it’s such a sensitive topic that something has to be done. ISIS has definitely done a great deal to promote themselves on social media as evident from the high volume and number of active ISIS users. One in five uses English which really questions who these people are? Are they really radicals and extremists? Not to summarize or generalize, but I believe having some exposure to English means that they probably seen the world in more than one perspective before. If so, wouldn’t they become less of an extremist? Now what questions me is that ISIS might have hired people to help them promote themselves on social media. If so, who is willing to help them? For money? Is it moral to help a group like ISIS? Or wait, did they capture people to do it for them forcefully?

By looking at “Top Hashtags” on page 20 from Berger and Morgan, we could see ISIS references far outweigh other topics in the Middle East. It is not only raising awareness for their group, but also creates this “fear” in other users. This is now the hot topic, and I fear that news outlets would just use this as an excuse to create more traffic for their websites. Afterall, most of these websites only focus on the traffic. And as mentioned in my previous post, over time other news outlets would follow along and it gives “legitimacy” to ISIS. Which is exactly what we do not want. It gives recognition to their group.

“Suspensions, of which Twitter made more than a thousand by December, may have unintended consequences, including cutting off ISIS supporters from beneficial social pressures on Twitter.” – Berger and Morgan.

This is great news, but I do not believe there are smart enough algorithms to track this yet. I believe the data is available, but its more about how we extract this out. I found this website and findings very fascinating. It detaches the extremists from the average Twitter user, which means their objective of spreading their beliefs and causing fear in others would fail. The unintended consequences by Twitter has definitely done more good than harm (from the Western anti-ISIS perspective of course).

Yet it does lurk another question. If there’s more interactions between extremists, did we just help ISIS filter out potential members? Did we just help them find more hardcore supporters that would do their deed? Afterall sifting through hundreds of thousands of people on Twitter isn’t easy. By threatening their existence by deleting accounts, we might have made it easier for them to find loyal followers. (literally, not just on Twitter) Of course all of this is unfalsifiable and we could never prove this unless we go back in time.

After reading those two articles, I start to wonder if platforms are just platforms, or are they much more? So I had a thought about this, imagine a huge whiteboard in a public space. The intention is for people to write on it. It is a public good. It just “exists”. It is a platform for drawings and messages. Some people would draw funny stuff, some would write inspirational stuff. Yet I am sure, some would write religious and philosophical beliefs on it too. Or beliefs that say they despise a group of people. I understand that it is offensive to some groups of people, but what if the sole purpose of that whiteboard was to be a public good so people could write “anything” they want? Or is that too farfetched? Too idealistic of a world? In that case we could say that we never really have full freedom of speech. But then ISIS isn’t protected by the First Amendment! But what if some members of ISIS are Americans?

This issue seems to bring up more questions than it answers. Or perhaps I’m just asking too many questions. Not sure if they’re stupid questions, but they’re just taking over my head. Does the First Amendment only protect Americans? So if Americans uses hate-speech on Twitter to express their disliking of a group, is that protected by the First Amendment or not? I hope I am not ignorant here and just writing about something that has already been answered.

References:

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2015/03/isis-twitter-census-berger-morgan/the-isis-twitter-census-defining-and-describing-the-population-of-isis-supporters-on-twitter.pdf

http://youtu.be/AQPlREDW-Ro

http://boingboing.net/2015/03/07/isis-vs-twitter-a-cautionary.html

[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 22:20, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

----

I was most interested this week in thinking about how most people come at free speech and the Internet and what, as Andy points out, is the legal, structural reality. The Berkman Center video quoted Clay Shirky plainly enough: “The Internet is not a public sphere. It is a private sphere that tolerate public speech.” At first pass, our reactions to censorship on the Internet are largely on first-amendment grounds. This is a public forum, my speech is protected! Indeed, as Shirky points out, this is not so. Regardless of whether you’re posting on Facebook, your blog, or the New York Times comment thread, if you’re posting online, you’re almost guaranteed to be posting on a privately-owned website with a content policy you implicitly agreed to by hitting “post.”

As we’ve already mentioned several times in class, many major companies are making a good faith effort to keep their sites as open to speech as possible. As Rob Faris mentioned, speculators after the ECJ case thought Google was going to grant or throw away all requests for removal of information, either to clog the European court system with 250,000 suits or remove so much content that their search engine was half-useless. Instead, they set out to attempt to find the best route for balancing free speech with legitimate claims against speech. We read in Rosen’s article about the effectiveness of Facebook’s policy dividing individual members of a group from institutions—Facebook (and YouTube) lets is users say, “I hate Islam” but not, “I hate Muslims.” This give and take may be the best effort of international corporations to provide as much speech as possible while complying with local laws and social norms. We read a number of other articles this week that complicate this picture.

As emerged first in our conversation about Google: if you’re a European and you request Google to remove content and it refuses, you may bring your case before a court. If your request is granted, there is no higher authority than the company itself, and your information is removed even if it shouldn’t have been. Andy fleshed out the mechanics of this logic in his article with three structural observations: 1) private companies have set the free speech bar beneath first amendment levels of protection, 2) there is no appeal process; the company owns the interaction, it is not public, and 3) company censorship policies can change without warning; these policies are not the product of a legislative process.

The structural fact of the matter is that users are agents agreeing to the platform’s terms of service—not full citizens with rights as strong as they would be while standing on a soapbox. Major online companies (Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc.) have already indicated they are interested in making an effort to balance these concerns. But can we say we have free speech online? Certainly not.

[[User:MattK|MattK]] ([[User talk:MattK|talk]]) 22:53, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Firstly, I would like to problematize the assertion ”…anyone with an Internet connection can speak to a wide audience.” that you can find in the introduction at the top of this page. An Internet connection does of course give you a better opportunity to reach out to a lot of people, but not having an Internet connection is not the only obstacle to reaching out to a great amount of people.

Only because you post something on the Internet, you don´t automatically reach out to the masses, get a great amount of retweets, a lot of readers on your blog, a comment field full of activity, or a lot of likes. There are several possible barriers to reach out such as language, money, contacts and knowledge. For example, if you speak English, you can take part of more material and reach out to more people than you could´ve done if you did not speak English. You also have a great advantage if you have knowledge about how to effectively use the Internet, how to do your research, how you reach out, etc. Money and contacts can also help you in reaching out on the Internet. That makes this subject more complex than if first might seem to be.

Another relevant issue to bring up is the fact that the media landscape has been reshaped and constantly is. This is however not a new phenomena, the debate on ”what will happen with the media” was blooming back when the radio was invented, when the TV came, etc. However, the Internet differs from earlier inventions since it is much more easy for the average Joe to post whatever he or she likes with just a click. With that comes both possibilities and difficulties. For example is credibility something we have to be more observant about than ever. And the fact that everyone creates their own news feed depending on for example who they choose to follow on Twitter, can be a great problem since people get very different news and views of the world presented to them. I would say that this problem has increased since the Internet became such a big part of our lives and of how we read news. What is new is also that it is more difficult to reach out to everyone when we all have our own news feeds, since broadcasting something on the radio or writing in the newspaper no longer is a guarantee for reaching out to the masses.

[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 09:01, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

-----

lots of different, interesting topics. I have a couple of posts, here is the first one.

The internet and the news media. Before I settled on English literature as a focus on my undergraduate studies I declared journalism as a major. One of the best classes I took was analyzing headlines. Back then in the 90’s the internet was still in its infancy and print media was still dominant, and it was possible to analyze headlines as to what parts of the story they highlighted, or what political slant they had. A good example was how two different papers in the same city covered the same news, like in New York City, looking at the way The New York Times and The New York Post covered the same news event. One is held to the highest journalistic standards, the other isn’t.

This analysis can also be made between similarly situated newspapers like the Boston Globe or the San Francisco Chronicle, or the more conservative ones like USA Today or the Wall Street Journal. This constant analysis and sorting of biases in print media served me well over the years and it helped me develop media filters that translate well in web news media. You can filter through biases, misinformation and glaring omissions from news stories between different outlets, for example CNN, Fox News, Politico and the Washington Post, and arrive at a clear picture of the news, not just by what is said and what tone is adopted by the person reporting the news, but also by what they omit from the story.

If I was to give anybody any advice about how to find the real news on line is to do the same scanning for headlines. Some people don’t bother with it and stick to one source of news that feels comfortable, but we all know that this can lead to misinformation, there is no really trustworthy news outlet out there these days, because even the most storied and prestigious news outlets on the web have been victims of biased and outright fraud by some of its staff members. And also reading the 1st paragraph behind several headlines from different news outlets and looking at how each story deals with the who, what and where can tell a lot about biases and misinformation. [[User:Hromero10|Hromero10]] ([[User talk:Hromero10|talk]]) 12:09, 10 March 2015 (EDT)
----

After delving into this week’s readings on the delicate balance between the censorship of unwanted speech on the internet and the protection of U. S. citizens’ first amendment right of freedom of speech, I think the members of, “the delete squad,” highlighted in Jeffery Rosen’s article have had an enormous burden placed on them, because I feel it is nearly impossible to find the perfect balance between these two concepts in such an immense global arena.

Meanwhile, I do strongly believe it is a slippery slope if American based companies give into global demands, which will slowly erode our freedom of speech doctrine, in order to maintain their global business models. In many respects the internet has become the new bastion of protest movements, and if posts on sites such as Facebook and Twitter become increasingly more censored, out of a fear of whether or not they might incite violence, I believe they will inadvertently stifle positive progressive movements.

As a former student of the American Protest Literature scholar, John Stauffer, I have learned that “protest literature functions as a catalyst, guide or mirror of social change” by employing “shock value, empathy, and symbolic action” (xii-xiii). As a result, at the heart of every successful protest document and ensuing movement from the Revolution to the present is an awakening and conversion experience “analogous to a religious revival” (Stauffer, xiii). Since I agree with Stauffer’s take on how and why protest literature plays such an important role in the manner by which our nation has made progress through a succession of political, social, and cultural revolutions, I think it is better to allow room for a little rebellious speech rather than risk the unintended consequences of stifling it.

Consequently, I agree with Susan Benesch’s recommendation that rather than censor “we should approach dangerous speech through counterspeech” (Zuckerman). As history has illustrated, by doing so we can open formerly closed doors and see how people really think and feel, which I truly believe is best for the common good.

Works Cited

Rosen, Jeffery. “The Delete Squad.” ''NewRepublic.com.'' 29 April 2013.

Stauffer, John. “Foreword.” ''American Protest Literature.'' Edited by Trodd, Zoë. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. 2006. pp. xi-xviii.

Zuckerman, Ethan. “Susan Benesch on Dangerous Speech and Counterspeech.” ''EthanZuckerman.com.'' 24 March 2014.

[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 14:20, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Hate Speech on the web. Whether it relates to an offensive message on a website, crafted in private by one or more users then released to the public, or an angry blog post that goes on a tirade against a particular group of people, the boundary lines between private and public platforms have blurred since the coming of age of the internet. Back in the early days of the web, many people recall the experience of writing an e-mail in the heat of the moment, getting carried away with emotions and then firing away the e-mail, only to regret it seconds later after pressing the return button or angrily clicking the mouse. The consequences of those e-mails generally included embarrassment, apologies, never talking to that person again, or simply not sending controversial e-mails right away and moderating oneself the next time.

For some people, those boundaries of private and public platforms are much harder to differentiate. I noticed that younger users are much less aware of these two spheres when facebook was surging in popularity and sexting became a more wide spread problem. Now personally, because those lines between private and public platforms had been reinforced very strongly over the years, I would never in a million years send a naked picture of myself to anyone, not even my wife, and yet teenagers do this very often without thinking of the consequences. Then their mistake is compounded a hundred times when the recipient, another teenager with no sense of boundaries, forwards the pictures to all his friends and the next thing the sender realizes is that the entire school, perhaps even the entire town has seen these inappropriate photos.

The same problem happens on blogs, especially in regards to controversial issues, like the Sandra Fluke story, or the immigrant children crisis at the southern border, or the race riots in Ferguson, Missouri. When it comes to the internet, people in their privacy of their homes, stew and boil over their own opinions and when they blog the most racist condescending and obnoxious statements are thrown scattershot by many, almost like an epidemic. In reference to E Zuckerman’s article, some people allow themselves to say things on line that they would say only in a locker room, except some don’t realize they are blaring it out to the entire world.

Most blogs that I frequent have other people calling out the trolls and publicly object to some opinions, I do this myself from time to time, I even post on the same blog for whoever is watching that the content is offensive and does not enhance the discussion. Sadly this problem happens at an individual level and it is likely to be pervasive on the internet for many years to come. The only answer I have is ‘teach children to know the difference between public and private communications’, and specially how to exercise self-control when writing anything on the web. [[User:Hromero10|Hromero10]] ([[User talk:Hromero10|talk]]) 14:28, 10 March 2015 (EDT)
----

I have a question for class discussion. How does the government draw the line between a website whose purpose and activities are ilegal versus a platform like Craig's List where ilegal activities are procured?
In reference to the letter by the Attorney General's I agree that the loop hole in the CDA needs to be closed to include criminal state law because child abuse is a crime, plain and simple. Any one with an ounce of sense can tell when a crime against a child is being comitted and a web site cannot wash its hands by saying 'we're only the intermediaries".[[User:Hromero10|Hromero10]] ([[User talk:Hromero10|talk]]) 15:44, 10 March 2015 (EDT)
----
The most interesting to me was the discussion about indirect liability for copyright infringement in NoC Intermeiary Liability. Case by case judgments, are a poor substitute for statutory guidance. Intermediaries, users and copyright holders alike have a right to know what is expected. They need to know how to comply with the law and what is a violation. Leaving it to the everchanging opinions of judges in diverse jurisdictions is not the answer. Legislation needs to address this field. [[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 15:58, 10 March 2015 (EDT)
----

Speech, Day 1: Free Expression, Information, and Unwanted Speech

2015-03-10T19:58:06Z

Gary Brown: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''March 10'''

The Internet has the potential to revolutionize public discourse. Instead of large media companies and corporate advertisers controlling the channels of speech, anyone with an Internet connection can speak to a wide audience. With this great potential, however, comes new questions. What happens when anyone can publish to a global audience with virtually no oversight? Is this form of information dissemination a passing fad of enthusiastic amateurs or the beginning of a fundamental restructuring of the way media and news are produced and consumed? Will the current trends lead to more information, better information, and better- informed people or to an infinite stream of unreliable chatter? When different countries take different approaches on speech, whose values should take precedence? This class will explore speech online, the laws and corporations that regulate it, and how the Internet deals with speech that is hateful, hurtful, or otherwise objectionable.

==Assignments==

The second half of Assignment 2 (commenting on at least three [[Assignment_2_Submissions|prospectuses]]) is due before class today.

<onlyinclude>
==Readings==

; Speech Theory

* [https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/collages/32505 ''Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union'', 521 U.S. 844 (1997)]

; Informing the Public in the Internet Age

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

* [http://towcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/LiesDamnLies_Silverman_TowCenter.pdf Craig Silverman, Lies, Damned Lies, and Viral Content: How News Websites Spread (And Debunk) Online Rumors, Unverified Claims, and Misinformation] (read executive summary)

; Private, public, and platforms - control of speech online

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/NOC_United_States_case_study.pdf Adam Holland et al., NoC Intermediary Case Studies: Intermediary Liability of Intermediaries in the United States] (Sections I and II.A. only)

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

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

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

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

; Unwanted and Dangerous Speech

* [http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/01/28/us/politics/ap-us-police-tracking-app.html Sheriffs Expand Concerns About Waze Mobile Traffic App]

* [http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2014/03/25/susan-benesch-on-dangerous-speech-and-counterspeech/ Ethan Zuckerman, Susan Benesch on Dangerous Speech and Counterspeech]

* [https://medium.com/internet-monitor-2014-public-discourse/flower-speech-new-responses-to-hatred-online-d98bf67735b7 Susan Benesch, Flower Speech: New Responses to Hatred Online]

* [http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/233660-gop-lawmaker-isis-shouldnt-have-access-to-twitter Christina Marcos, GOP Lawmaker: ISIS Shouldn't Have Access to Twitter]

== Optional Readings ==

* You may want to revisit EFF's [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/01/facing-challenge-online-harassment Facing the Challenge of Online Harassment], from the second class's readings

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

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

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

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

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

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCk97LyrqYQ Yochai Benkler, Truthiness and the Networked Public Sphere]

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

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

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

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

* [http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2015/02/237610.htm Secretary John Kerry, Outlining an Action Agenda to Counter Violent Extremism]

</onlyinclude>

==Links from Class Discussion==

==Class Discussion==

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

----

I really liked this week’s readings as we start to enter the topics about speech. It certainly is an interesting and back and forth topic as we must consider the implications of allowing speech (first Amendment), or censoring it incase of certain harms. (such as Apple removing the shaking baby and Bush countdown apps) The Innocence of the Muslim is definitely the most controversial of them all. Though I do agree with Facebook’s and YouTube’s decisions to only censor it for countries that it is considered offensive, and keep it up in the United States due to the first Amendment. The Constitution was created hundreds of years ago, and just as Professor Sellars has said, it’s not like its California Constitution that could be given less importance. The First Amendment has great importance and would be extremely hard to undermine or to change. This reflects hugely on laws that govern the United States as well as firms based in the US. (which means a lot of websites)

It is quite shocking to realize that verification is so difficult on the internet. As Professor Sellars has mentioned, credit card verification for age is difficult for non-commercial websites since extra costs would be required that threatens them to close down. Passwords wouldn’t help much either. With it’s enforcement, even the government has doubts of its ability to really identify if a person is under 18 and visiting a pornographic website. This tough verification process isn’t just in explicit websites but very important too in media outlets on the web. The “blurring” between amateurs and professionals and the different forms of media forces companies to adapt. Profitability comes from internet traffic and when that is the main concern, the quality of the news becomes secondary. There is a conflict on interest between internet traffic and quality of news. As long as traffic is high, it justifies the lower quality of news.

As such, the unfortunate feedback loop of how these fake rumor news becomes headlines and makes the news environment highly delusional. Furthermore, when multiple news outlets release the same fake story, it becomes self fulfilling. The belief that “perception is reality” makes people believe in the rumor already even if they know it is fake. They would associate “some truths” to it. But that should be left for another time to discuss. According to Silverman, the trend goes like this: a rumor happens on the internet, then some news outlets report it. It therefore gains traction which makes more news media outlets think it is legitimate and also report it. With so many news websites supporting it, it gains credibility and could no longer trace the source of origin anymore. This is all due to the inability to verify, or the ignorance to verify rumors, especially when these rumor news generate a lot of internet traffic, which translates into advertisement money or click-through-rates, etc.

As mentioned above, the First Amendment is the basic Constitutional law of the United States and would be extremely hard to undermine or ignore. It is in built into the American way of life. This provides the breeding ground of another huge debate between the increasing amount of internet platforms (which are mostly US companies) and the traditional industries that generate content. The former wants “immunity from third party claims” whereas the latter wants laws against copyright infringement. It is hard to satisfy both sides, but both sides do have their points as well. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act criminalizes copyright work. Yet in contrast, radio and television that infringe this law in live broadcasts tend to be given a better treatment than do websites that are live all the time.

Next I’d like to talk about whether hate speech should be censored. There is always the consideration of censoring hate speech to prevent potential harms coming the way of the institutions or countries. Yet is it against the fundamental laws of that country? I think what Facebook and YouTube did on the video “Innocence of the Muslims” reflected their careful thinking in balancing between regulations (and potential consequences) and the belief of maintaining freedom of speech. According to Rosen, Wong and Willner had the conviction to do what they believed in. Willner finalized Facebook’s hate speech policy to “ban attack on groups, but not institutions”. This was a very good framework to start from. It prevents discrimination to groups of people, but allows opinions towards things, like institutions. This actually resonates with the Waze Traffic application. Facebook and Google (YouTube) were smart to make changes dependent on the laws of those countries it affects. The Waze application lets the app users know where police are. I do not see a problem with this as they are on public territory and once again should be protected by the First Amendment. If it protects me to tell my friend that a cop car is in front of me, it should also protect me to tell people using the app that a cop car is in front of me. This action should be exactly the same.

Now I’d like to give some views on this topic. It is a very fine line between allowing speech to be free on the internet, and potential hazards or discriminations that could occur due to that. I really liked the way Facebook (Willner) did it. I too agree that groups of people should not be allowed to be discriminated against, but institutions should be given the freedom to be criticized if necessary. A just way could be achieved from this. If localizing rules and regulations to websites is plausible (as we learned in previous lectures from the Yahoo case with Nazi products in France), then it should also be plausible to filter down to see what sort of speeches would be against local laws in different countries. I do not agree with the way Apple does things; being scared and taking down apps because they were afraid that a backlash would occur. Corporations should take a strong stance on this too. Yet I feel that because the internet has grown so quickly, it is hard to create “norms” for the internet society. Who should regulate them? Ideally I think a government department should be in charge of this; to create laws and regulations as well as guidelines for these potential sensitive issues. Make it universal so corporations like Facebook and Google could follow. If these two giant corporations follow, so would the rest of the internet.

References:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfS_2oXVch0

https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/collages/32505

https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Overview_MR.pdf

http://towcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/LiesDamnLies_Silverman_TowCenter.pdf

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/NOC_United_States_case_study.pdf

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

http://www.dmlp.org/blog/2012/structural-weakness-internet-speech

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113045/free-speech-internet-silicon-valley-making-rules

https://medium.com/internet-monitor-2014-public-discourse/flower-speech-new-responses-to-hatred-online-d98bf67735b7

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfS_2oXVch0

[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 11:33, 7 March 2015 (EST)

----

On the topic of ISIS use of Twitter, you may want to check out the [http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2015/03/isis-twitter-census-berger-morgan/the-isis-twitter-census-defining-and-describing-the-population-of-isis-supporters-on-twitter.pdf brand new study] by the Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings. [http://boingboing.net/2015/03/07/isis-vs-twitter-a-cautionary.html BoingBoing] already pulled some highlights. [[User:Andy|Andy]] ([[User talk:Andy|talk]]) 09:31, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----

'''The Hypocrisy of Watchers: Waze'''

Full concurrence with Caelum; this has been a fascinating week of readings.

I was caught especially by the New York Times article about the Waze mobile traffic app alerting users to locations of police cars in their neighborhoods.

I’ve noted this app before on the app store and I always viewed it as similar to those pseudo-spy/surveillance shops. Surely, some kind of undercover detail was covering these places and keeping a sort of watch and tracking of who was buying super secret surveillance cameras that could be hidden inside bobby pins and fountain pens. Surely, these places are tracked and watched themselves by law enforcement. Moreso if these shops are online and it is easier than ever to not only determine who is buying these on the edge of legality spy gadgets, but where they are and what their other purchasing history might be. I associated apps like Waze to be in a similar category; not illegal but certainly not chummy with law enforcement. And certainly watched.

But this is the conspiracist in me. That enforcement is actually concerned enough about these apps seems to imply that they have no real way to track users.

So why do watchers fear being watched? Are they afraid that they will become targets? Law enforcement? So long as they have police cars and wear uniforms that all of us can actually see, unfortunately, they will always be targets to those who want them to be.

It seems that this is more a protest against loss of speeding ticket revenues using the pretense of safety concerns.

In Japan, they have life size silhouettes and pictures of police officers with whistles in their mouths reminding drivers to keep to the speed limit and drive carefully. The result has been that these signs have proven to be effective at preventing traffic infringements on Japanese roadways. The mere presence and reminder is enough to keep law-abiding citizens on the up and up. Waze has a similar effect. If anything, it reminds drivers that we are being watched. And watchers would much rather see things from the shadows than from the spotlight.

This case of protest from law enforcement is a fascinating miniature study into the broader topic of this week’s readings. Watchers don’t appreciate being watched themselves because it has a chilling effect on society when we know and identify those giant cameras in the room. Interestingly, it is an example where the chilling effect is on behavior and on behavior that is illegal or not appropriate to begin with. A positive chilling effect if ever there was one.

The only major loss I see here is that from a traffic enforcement perspective, speeders are going to slow down and as a result, majorly impede police enforcement’s abilities to bring revenue from speed traps. We cannot punish society from sharing public information. Waze deals with public information about police cars parked or located in full view. It simply propates the information so that we “see” the police car one intersection earlier. If law enforcement were truly fearful of their own safety and fearful of targeting, then they wouldn’t put sirens on their cars or decals on their doors or drive around in a police badge or uniform. If they were truly afraid of the light, they’d hide in the darkness wearing not uniforms but in plainscothes and driving unmarked police cars.

In the broader scope of discussion between the tensions of free speech and public safety – this is a case where I fail to see the public safety argument coming on top. It just doesn’t work when it comes from the mouths of the ones who have the most (or, theoretically should have the most) resources to watch and control society.

Chanel

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 13:20, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

----

I’m fascinated by the topics of free speech, dangerous speech, and harassment online, especially as someone who feels passionate about making the Internet a safer place for women. I have always supported the U.S. Constitution’s steadfast devotion to free speech, but some of the vitriol and abuse I have observed against women online has made me question whether free speech above all other values is too simplistic an approach. My doubts particularly grew throughout the Gamergate phenomenon, during which I observed mind-boggling misogyny directed both to the general online world of women, as well as to specific individuals. It was at that point that I realized that I am personally not in favor of free speech at all costs, since online, the speech of some can silence the speech of others through intimidation and fear. I agree with Ethan Zuckerman free speech is a false concept, since lack of censorship will still lead to certain voices getting suppressed.

Because of this, I was particularly intrigued by Susan Benesch’s research and the idea that hate speech and dangerous speech can be combatted through counter speech, rather than censorship or restrictions. I also found it interesting that social media platforms can make subtle changes to their layout or user experience in order to encourage or discourage certain types of speech. It reinforces the idea that engineers working in Silicon Valley wield incredible power with the choices they make in designing social platforms, and it also highlights the importance of diversity in that workforce, based on the social implications of even the most subtle design choices.

The question that still lingers for me is how the tactic of counter speech might work in self-selecting communities, such as a men’s rights forum. In those cases, there most likely won’t be a larger community to temper conversation through counter speech, but the conversation that takes place on those sites could still potentially spur someone to commit violent action. For example, in the case of the Isla Vista shooter, it’s known that he was involved with men’s rights groups online, but it’s less clear how directly members of those groups incited him to action. It seems that the lines defining incitement and threats are growing blurrier as a result of the Internet, which presents problems of its own when that might be the only justification for restricting certain speech on a site, or addressing it from a legal standpoint (I’m also reminded of the Elonis vs. United States case, where the lines have been particularly blurry as well).

Despite the additional questions that crop up, and some nuances that still aren’t clear to me, I find Susan Benesch’s approach intriguing and promising.

[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 21:02, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

----

“In Japan, they have life size silhouettes and pictures of police officers with whistles in their mouths reminding drivers to keep to the speed limit and drive carefully. The result has been that these signs have proven to be effective at preventing traffic infringements on Japanese roadways. “

Great point Chanel, I am in Japan right now and that is what I am seeing all the time when I drive around! They even have fake posters of cop cars with sirens on! Definitely a great chilling effect.

Since the topic is about ISIS, I’d like to share this video that gives a good summary of ISIS. http://youtu.be/AQPlREDW-Ro

“Almost one in five ISIS supporters selected English as their primary language when using Twitter. Three quarters selected Arabic (section 1.5).”

I think this is an important issue because their purpose of using Twitter would likely to spread their beliefs and thoughts. English is a great medium to do things after all.

“A minimum of 1,000 ISIS-supporting accounts were suspended between September and December 2014, and we saw evidence of potentially thousands more. Accounts that tweeted most often and had the most followers were most likely to be suspended (section 2.5.1).”

I wonder where this kicks in in the security vs. free speech debate. My initial thoughts are that it’s such a sensitive topic that something has to be done. ISIS has definitely done a great deal to promote themselves on social media as evident from the high volume and number of active ISIS users. One in five uses English which really questions who these people are? Are they really radicals and extremists? Not to summarize or generalize, but I believe having some exposure to English means that they probably seen the world in more than one perspective before. If so, wouldn’t they become less of an extremist? Now what questions me is that ISIS might have hired people to help them promote themselves on social media. If so, who is willing to help them? For money? Is it moral to help a group like ISIS? Or wait, did they capture people to do it for them forcefully?

By looking at “Top Hashtags” on page 20 from Berger and Morgan, we could see ISIS references far outweigh other topics in the Middle East. It is not only raising awareness for their group, but also creates this “fear” in other users. This is now the hot topic, and I fear that news outlets would just use this as an excuse to create more traffic for their websites. Afterall, most of these websites only focus on the traffic. And as mentioned in my previous post, over time other news outlets would follow along and it gives “legitimacy” to ISIS. Which is exactly what we do not want. It gives recognition to their group.

“Suspensions, of which Twitter made more than a thousand by December, may have unintended consequences, including cutting off ISIS supporters from beneficial social pressures on Twitter.” – Berger and Morgan.

This is great news, but I do not believe there are smart enough algorithms to track this yet. I believe the data is available, but its more about how we extract this out. I found this website and findings very fascinating. It detaches the extremists from the average Twitter user, which means their objective of spreading their beliefs and causing fear in others would fail. The unintended consequences by Twitter has definitely done more good than harm (from the Western anti-ISIS perspective of course).

Yet it does lurk another question. If there’s more interactions between extremists, did we just help ISIS filter out potential members? Did we just help them find more hardcore supporters that would do their deed? Afterall sifting through hundreds of thousands of people on Twitter isn’t easy. By threatening their existence by deleting accounts, we might have made it easier for them to find loyal followers. (literally, not just on Twitter) Of course all of this is unfalsifiable and we could never prove this unless we go back in time.

After reading those two articles, I start to wonder if platforms are just platforms, or are they much more? So I had a thought about this, imagine a huge whiteboard in a public space. The intention is for people to write on it. It is a public good. It just “exists”. It is a platform for drawings and messages. Some people would draw funny stuff, some would write inspirational stuff. Yet I am sure, some would write religious and philosophical beliefs on it too. Or beliefs that say they despise a group of people. I understand that it is offensive to some groups of people, but what if the sole purpose of that whiteboard was to be a public good so people could write “anything” they want? Or is that too farfetched? Too idealistic of a world? In that case we could say that we never really have full freedom of speech. But then ISIS isn’t protected by the First Amendment! But what if some members of ISIS are Americans?

This issue seems to bring up more questions than it answers. Or perhaps I’m just asking too many questions. Not sure if they’re stupid questions, but they’re just taking over my head. Does the First Amendment only protect Americans? So if Americans uses hate-speech on Twitter to express their disliking of a group, is that protected by the First Amendment or not? I hope I am not ignorant here and just writing about something that has already been answered.

References:

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2015/03/isis-twitter-census-berger-morgan/the-isis-twitter-census-defining-and-describing-the-population-of-isis-supporters-on-twitter.pdf

http://youtu.be/AQPlREDW-Ro

http://boingboing.net/2015/03/07/isis-vs-twitter-a-cautionary.html

[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 22:20, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

----

I was most interested this week in thinking about how most people come at free speech and the Internet and what, as Andy points out, is the legal, structural reality. The Berkman Center video quoted Clay Shirky plainly enough: “The Internet is not a public sphere. It is a private sphere that tolerate public speech.” At first pass, our reactions to censorship on the Internet are largely on first-amendment grounds. This is a public forum, my speech is protected! Indeed, as Shirky points out, this is not so. Regardless of whether you’re posting on Facebook, your blog, or the New York Times comment thread, if you’re posting online, you’re almost guaranteed to be posting on a privately-owned website with a content policy you implicitly agreed to by hitting “post.”

As we’ve already mentioned several times in class, many major companies are making a good faith effort to keep their sites as open to speech as possible. As Rob Faris mentioned, speculators after the ECJ case thought Google was going to grant or throw away all requests for removal of information, either to clog the European court system with 250,000 suits or remove so much content that their search engine was half-useless. Instead, they set out to attempt to find the best route for balancing free speech with legitimate claims against speech. We read in Rosen’s article about the effectiveness of Facebook’s policy dividing individual members of a group from institutions—Facebook (and YouTube) lets is users say, “I hate Islam” but not, “I hate Muslims.” This give and take may be the best effort of international corporations to provide as much speech as possible while complying with local laws and social norms. We read a number of other articles this week that complicate this picture.

As emerged first in our conversation about Google: if you’re a European and you request Google to remove content and it refuses, you may bring your case before a court. If your request is granted, there is no higher authority than the company itself, and your information is removed even if it shouldn’t have been. Andy fleshed out the mechanics of this logic in his article with three structural observations: 1) private companies have set the free speech bar beneath first amendment levels of protection, 2) there is no appeal process; the company owns the interaction, it is not public, and 3) company censorship policies can change without warning; these policies are not the product of a legislative process.

The structural fact of the matter is that users are agents agreeing to the platform’s terms of service—not full citizens with rights as strong as they would be while standing on a soapbox. Major online companies (Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc.) have already indicated they are interested in making an effort to balance these concerns. But can we say we have free speech online? Certainly not.

[[User:MattK|MattK]] ([[User talk:MattK|talk]]) 22:53, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Firstly, I would like to problematize the assertion ”…anyone with an Internet connection can speak to a wide audience.” that you can find in the introduction at the top of this page. An Internet connection does of course give you a better opportunity to reach out to a lot of people, but not having an Internet connection is not the only obstacle to reaching out to a great amount of people.

Only because you post something on the Internet, you don´t automatically reach out to the masses, get a great amount of retweets, a lot of readers on your blog, a comment field full of activity, or a lot of likes. There are several possible barriers to reach out such as language, money, contacts and knowledge. For example, if you speak English, you can take part of more material and reach out to more people than you could´ve done if you did not speak English. You also have a great advantage if you have knowledge about how to effectively use the Internet, how to do your research, how you reach out, etc. Money and contacts can also help you in reaching out on the Internet. That makes this subject more complex than if first might seem to be.

Another relevant issue to bring up is the fact that the media landscape has been reshaped and constantly is. This is however not a new phenomena, the debate on ”what will happen with the media” was blooming back when the radio was invented, when the TV came, etc. However, the Internet differs from earlier inventions since it is much more easy for the average Joe to post whatever he or she likes with just a click. With that comes both possibilities and difficulties. For example is credibility something we have to be more observant about than ever. And the fact that everyone creates their own news feed depending on for example who they choose to follow on Twitter, can be a great problem since people get very different news and views of the world presented to them. I would say that this problem has increased since the Internet became such a big part of our lives and of how we read news. What is new is also that it is more difficult to reach out to everyone when we all have our own news feeds, since broadcasting something on the radio or writing in the newspaper no longer is a guarantee for reaching out to the masses.

[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 09:01, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

-----

lots of different, interesting topics. I have a couple of posts, here is the first one.

The internet and the news media. Before I settled on English literature as a focus on my undergraduate studies I declared journalism as a major. One of the best classes I took was analyzing headlines. Back then in the 90’s the internet was still in its infancy and print media was still dominant, and it was possible to analyze headlines as to what parts of the story they highlighted, or what political slant they had. A good example was how two different papers in the same city covered the same news, like in New York City, looking at the way The New York Times and The New York Post covered the same news event. One is held to the highest journalistic standards, the other isn’t.

This analysis can also be made between similarly situated newspapers like the Boston Globe or the San Francisco Chronicle, or the more conservative ones like USA Today or the Wall Street Journal. This constant analysis and sorting of biases in print media served me well over the years and it helped me develop media filters that translate well in web news media. You can filter through biases, misinformation and glaring omissions from news stories between different outlets, for example CNN, Fox News, Politico and the Washington Post, and arrive at a clear picture of the news, not just by what is said and what tone is adopted by the person reporting the news, but also by what they omit from the story.

If I was to give anybody any advice about how to find the real news on line is to do the same scanning for headlines. Some people don’t bother with it and stick to one source of news that feels comfortable, but we all know that this can lead to misinformation, there is no really trustworthy news outlet out there these days, because even the most storied and prestigious news outlets on the web have been victims of biased and outright fraud by some of its staff members. And also reading the 1st paragraph behind several headlines from different news outlets and looking at how each story deals with the who, what and where can tell a lot about biases and misinformation. [[User:Hromero10|Hromero10]] ([[User talk:Hromero10|talk]]) 12:09, 10 March 2015 (EDT)
----

After delving into this week’s readings on the delicate balance between the censorship of unwanted speech on the internet and the protection of U. S. citizens’ first amendment right of freedom of speech, I think the members of, “the delete squad,” highlighted in Jeffery Rosen’s article have had an enormous burden placed on them, because I feel it is nearly impossible to find the perfect balance between these two concepts in such an immense global arena.

Meanwhile, I do strongly believe it is a slippery slope if American based companies give into global demands, which will slowly erode our freedom of speech doctrine, in order to maintain their global business models. In many respects the internet has become the new bastion of protest movements, and if posts on sites such as Facebook and Twitter become increasingly more censored, out of a fear of whether or not they might incite violence, I believe they will inadvertently stifle positive progressive movements.

As a former student of the American Protest Literature scholar, John Stauffer, I have learned that “protest literature functions as a catalyst, guide or mirror of social change” by employing “shock value, empathy, and symbolic action” (xii-xiii). As a result, at the heart of every successful protest document and ensuing movement from the Revolution to the present is an awakening and conversion experience “analogous to a religious revival” (Stauffer, xiii). Since I agree with Stauffer’s take on how and why protest literature plays such an important role in the manner by which our nation has made progress through a succession of political, social, and cultural revolutions, I think it is better to allow room for a little rebellious speech rather than risk the unintended consequences of stifling it.

Consequently, I agree with Susan Benesch’s recommendation that rather than censor “we should approach dangerous speech through counterspeech” (Zuckerman). As history has illustrated, by doing so we can open formerly closed doors and see how people really think and feel, which I truly believe is best for the common good.

Works Cited

Rosen, Jeffery. “The Delete Squad.” ''NewRepublic.com.'' 29 April 2013.

Stauffer, John. “Foreword.” ''American Protest Literature.'' Edited by Trodd, Zoë. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. 2006. pp. xi-xviii.

Zuckerman, Ethan. “Susan Benesch on Dangerous Speech and Counterspeech.” ''EthanZuckerman.com.'' 24 March 2014.

[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 14:20, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Hate Speech on the web. Whether it relates to an offensive message on a website, crafted in private by one or more users then released to the public, or an angry blog post that goes on a tirade against a particular group of people, the boundary lines between private and public platforms have blurred since the coming of age of the internet. Back in the early days of the web, many people recall the experience of writing an e-mail in the heat of the moment, getting carried away with emotions and then firing away the e-mail, only to regret it seconds later after pressing the return button or angrily clicking the mouse. The consequences of those e-mails generally included embarrassment, apologies, never talking to that person again, or simply not sending controversial e-mails right away and moderating oneself the next time.

For some people, those boundaries of private and public platforms are much harder to differentiate. I noticed that younger users are much less aware of these two spheres when facebook was surging in popularity and sexting became a more wide spread problem. Now personally, because those lines between private and public platforms had been reinforced very strongly over the years, I would never in a million years send a naked picture of myself to anyone, not even my wife, and yet teenagers do this very often without thinking of the consequences. Then their mistake is compounded a hundred times when the recipient, another teenager with no sense of boundaries, forwards the pictures to all his friends and the next thing the sender realizes is that the entire school, perhaps even the entire town has seen these inappropriate photos.

The same problem happens on blogs, especially in regards to controversial issues, like the Sandra Fluke story, or the immigrant children crisis at the southern border, or the race riots in Ferguson, Missouri. When it comes to the internet, people in their privacy of their homes, stew and boil over their own opinions and when they blog the most racist condescending and obnoxious statements are thrown scattershot by many, almost like an epidemic. In reference to E Zuckerman’s article, some people allow themselves to say things on line that they would say only in a locker room, except some don’t realize they are blaring it out to the entire world.

Most blogs that I frequent have other people calling out the trolls and publicly object to some opinions, I do this myself from time to time, I even post on the same blog for whoever is watching that the content is offensive and does not enhance the discussion. Sadly this problem happens at an individual level and it is likely to be pervasive on the internet for many years to come. The only answer I have is ‘teach children to know the difference between public and private communications’, and specially how to exercise self-control when writing anything on the web. [[User:Hromero10|Hromero10]] ([[User talk:Hromero10|talk]]) 14:28, 10 March 2015 (EDT)
----

I have a question for class discussion. How does the government draw the line between a website whose purpose and activities are ilegal versus a platform like Craig's List where ilegal activities are procured?
In reference to the letter by the Attorney General's I agree that the loop hole in the CDA needs to be closed to include criminal state law because child abuse is a crime, plain and simple. Any one with an ounce of sense can tell when a crime against a child is being comitted and a web site cannot wash its hands by saying 'we're only the intermediaries".[[User:Hromero10|Hromero10]] ([[User talk:Hromero10|talk]]) 15:44, 10 March 2015 (EDT)
----
The most interesting to me was the discussion about indirect liability for copyright infringement in NoC Intermeiary Liability. Case by case judgments, is a poor substitute for statutory guidance. Intermediaries, users and copyright holders alike have a right to know what is expected. They need to know how to comply with the law and what is a violation. Leaving it to the everchanging opinions of judges in diverse jurisdictions is not the answer. Legislation needs to address this field. [[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 15:58, 10 March 2015 (EDT)
----

Assignment 2 Submissions

2015-03-10T01:26:51Z

Gary Brown: /* Comments */

{{AssignmentCal}}

===Submission Instructions===

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

This assignment is due on March 3rd. Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (assignments submitted 4 days late or later will have a maximum grade of 1 point).

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

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

In the submissions section below please post the following information:

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

==Comments==

Everyone will receive an additional participation grade for this assignment. You should read through everyone's proposals after they are uploaded and add constructive comments below the proposal on which you're commenting. Comments should be submitted by March 10th so you have time to incorporate them, if applicable, into your project outline. '''Please remember to sign your comments by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post.''' If we don't know who you are we can't give you credit for finishing this assignment!

Ryan Hurley

Facebook & Big Data vs. Your Privacy

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Prospectus_FB_and_privacy_Assignment_2.docx

[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 16:06, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----
Ryan,
Great topic choice. Without fail, every single time I have a class on Big Data I obsessively delete aspects of my online presence, cut up frequent customer member cards, and google myself. It’s a hilarious cycle. I am so excited to read your paper and I appreciate the range of content you have considered for the paper, as well as the range of your references. I have an online text for another IT class that has a chapter devoted to FaceBook and their privacy issues. Please, email me and I can send it to you. Also, make sure to keep in mind that FaceBook’s relationships with advertisers and users are changing constantly. A three year old article might give you more context for your research, but very likely reports on policies that are out of date.
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 18:38, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Ryan, Great work, I think this is a very interesting area, I think that facebook does in a way uses information to target ads, and also the fact that it associates you with people that you may know is a relevant fact. As far as privacy issues, it would be a good idea to study the subscription agreement to see what is is said with reference to the idea of paying with information, or kind of like the purpose at hand of facebook.
Excellent work, I think that you may be benefited from finding a community in which you can show how this problem is handled to contrast, that just an idea.

Edwin ([[User:Edwinduque|Edwinduque]] ([[User talk:Edwinduque|talk]]) 19:56, 9 March 2015 (EDT))

----
Olivia Brinich

Intentions and Outcomes of Youtube’s Copyright and Coding Regulations

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Oliviabrinich_prospectus03.03.15.pdf

[[User:Oliviabrinich|Oliviabrinich]] ([[User talk:Oliviabrinich|talk]]) 15:51, 3 March 2015 (EST)
----
Comments on Olivia's Prospectus:

Hi Olivia,

Let me start by saying I think that Youtube is a great source for your project. I’m not saying that just because I am doing my paper on Youtube. I find the creative ways that people are using it fascinating. Much more so than some of the other platforms.

If I may summarize, you plan to discuss how legal pressures forced Youtube to introduce technologies that changed the user experiences, like Copyright ID. You also mentioned some other (possibly voluntary) technologies that are part of the user experience with the intent to discuss how they impact users. I think they are good ideas and good concepts to write about.

As you rightly point the Youtube community is one of the largest communities on the Internet. I wonder if it might not be taking on too much to try to examine Youtube as a whole. I would suggest selecting a small group that is susceptible to the effects of the technologies you are reviewing. Describe who the group is and how certain characteristics of their make-up or user experience make them particularly sensitive to the technologies you will focus on.

For example I will be focusing on hobbyist inventors. Guys that spend their weekends in the garage putting “junk” together and posting videos about their “inventions” on Youtube. Their content is all original so they are not impacted by Copyright ID. There is very little thumbs up/down. They are a much more “expressive” crowd as the comments indicate.

I’m not trying to discourage you. I think if you pick the right group and tell us why you picked them, it can very interesting. I hope that is helpful.

Best,

[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 19:47, 4 March 2015 (EST)

----

I Olivia, I think that this is a very interesting topic, it revolves around the idea of how you tube deals with privacy, and the balance of how it benefits itself vs. the users. I think that one interesting part I read from your prospectus, and you can also incorporate this idea, was how copyright is dealt in you tube, the idea of how deal when someone may alter or damages someone else's work with out permission, those are certainly great areas, so I think the question would be whether you tube creates a risk to the privacy rights of users as well as copy rights risks and how this could be dealt.
Great work.

Edwin (20:02, 9 March 2015 (EDT))
----

• Erika L Rich

• Title: Reputation Management and Ethical Considerations for Members of the Internet Marketing Super Friends (IMSF) Facebook Group

• Link: [[File:LSTU_E120_Erika_Rich_Assignment_2.docx]]

[[User:ErikaLRich|ErikaLRich]] ([[User talk:ErikaLRich|talk]]) 15:22, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----
Hey Erika,

It's great that you chose to focus on on specific Facebook group for your topic. I am still a bit confused about the purpose of the group and the demographics of its members. Who are the members? What do they gain from membership? How many members are active participants that make substansive contributions versus inactive members? Once your audience understands more about the group itself, they will relate to this example and be more invested in your topic. Another suggestion I have is to focus on the effects of the moderators on the content of the group (instead of cyber security for example). You mention culture differences coming in to play and affecting content. Can you explain that further?
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 18:53, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Hi Erica,

I think you did a wonderful job, it is certainly a very interesting topic, my self I am doing research about facebook for my topic, however I had a little bit of trouble flowing with the issue presented as the problem, maybe if you can include examples to illustrate the paper could flow better, I think the basic idea is the way how facebook handles privacy matters for its benefit vs the benefit of the user, you could go on explaining about htis with examples and your paper will be even greater.

Edwin (20:09, 9 March 2015 (EDT))
----

• Emily MacIntyre (EmiMac)

• Prospectus title: A Case Study on the Unintended Legal Consequences and Chilling Effects of YouTube’s Content ID Sweep on its Video Game Commentator Community

• Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Emily_MacIntyre_Assignment_2.pdf

[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 09:41, 2 March 2015 (EST)

-----

Hi Emily, This is a great area, you could find some ideas by examining how users can damage or alter someone else's work and privacy issues, I think that you should explain the law of the particular area, and explain how it applies to the group your are presenting, explain to a specific targeted audience, like tennagers, or famous people, etc, and use qualitative and quantitative data to draw conclusions, and inferences, this could help get the point across that you choose. Great work.

Edwin (20:13, 9 March 2015 (EDT))
----

Emily,

Great job on your prospectus! It is very well organized, and your citations sources are well researched. I found your research really enticing because I had never heard of this sweep, and I consider myself an avid youtube visitor. I think you are on to a great research project. Although the topic is remarkably fascinating, I wonder if investigating and juxtaposing the different types of monitoring will be too large or too abstract for the limit of the project. I also read up on the PewDiePie character cited, and I think it is really fascinating to see that he has 35 mil subscribers, yet chose to turn off his commenting feature because of how volatile he claimed the space was becoming. His specific youtube channel then does not have a community to investigate. But it would be interesting to examine someone or a specific youtube channel that has a similar following as the case study to better help zone in on collecting and investigating data. Thank you for this topic, I am currently reading more about the youtube actions in 2008 and 2013 because I had little to no prior knowledge of both events.

Good luck on your project!

[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 00:09, 5 March 2015 (EST)

----

RE: Mhoching,

Thank you for your comment. I very much like your prospectus topic as well as you can see from my comments below. With regards to my final project, I thought I should reiterate and clarify that my community is the YouTube contributors that concentrate on making Let’s Plays and video game reviews. While it is helpful to find a video with an active comment section, where other users further explain how the ID sweep influences their output choices, in the case of PewDiePie, his decision to turn off his comment section does in part illustrate how YouTube has rapidly evolved. Since Google began catering to commercial enterprises over the original volunteer contributors, some of the volunteer contributors have become increasingly more frustrated and they exhibit their frustration in a variety of ways.

Thanks Again,

Emily

[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 09:37, 5 March 2015 (EST)

----
• MattK

• Home of the Mallet of Loving Correction: John Scalzi's Blog, "Whatever"

• http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:MattK_Assignment2.docx

[[User:MattK|MattK]] ([[User talk:MattK|talk]]) 22:01, 2 March 2015 (EST)
----

Hi Matt,

I am particularly interested in your topic because I believe it is a very small example of what the internet could become or arguably is becoming in regards to free speech. I am very intrigued by the notion of "knowledge is power". What I mean relative to your project is that I believe that those who can control what "knowledge" people receive therefore posses great power. In your case, Scalzi's blog is equipped with a comment section where total control is given to Scalzi on what to allow others to see. By censoring whatever Scalzi sees as "offensive" he is limiting a voice, whether good or bad, and therefore limiting knowledge. I would argue that there's no question that the term knowledge here is used very loosely and there are obvious comments on these sorts of forums which provide no overall good at all, but more importantly the question I think of is how dangerous it would be for one person to posses this sort of "editorial power" to simply delete anything they see unfit. What would happen if other sites also used this sort of policy where whatever is subjectively deemed unworthy of being a comment was deleted? Are there infact other online sites and forums that take this approach? What implications does this approach have for the audience of the site? Does it discourage participation as a sort of chilling effect? It is a scary world to imagine where one party possess the power of what information to provide and what to censor. In this specific case what if the comments are simply against Scalzi and are a disagreement with what he writes? What is to stop him from simply deleting something. I'm curious to know what sort of checks and balances or accountability Scarzi's editorial powers has. I think your subject bears the question of where to draw the line between free speech and productive censorship, an enormously tricky and potentially dangerous distinction.

These are just a few thoughts I had, in any case best of luck it's a great topic.

Thanks,
Ryan Hurley
[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 18:55, 8 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Edwin Duque (Edwinduque)

Prospectus Title:The copyright, privacy and organization challenges that online communities such as Facebook and The Jury Deliberation in the cyber space are faced with

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Edwinduque_Assignment_2.doc

([[User:Edwinduque|Edwinduque]] ([[User talk:Edwinduque|talk]]) 22:10, 2 March 2015 (EST))
----
Hi Edwin,

I like the way you structured your idea. I think that the copyright issue is very interesting and it is worthed spending some more time on it. Exploring the nature of a Facebook post – whether it could be consider as an “idea”, in the Copyright Act specifically states that In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, regardless of the form in which it is described. Or it could be considered as an “original works of authorship” fixed by the author in a tangible way, in which case it would be covered by copyrights. The issue of re-posting someone else’s post with commercial purposes could be interesting to mention as well. It is just an idea, but saying some words about the case with the famous Facebook post “In response to the new Facebook guidelines…. “ might be interesting too. I think that you could also easily link your work to the “right to be forgotten” issues we discussed in class.

Here are some links you might find useful. Good luck!

http://www.nyccounsel.com/business-blogs-websites/who-owns-photos-and-videos-posted-on-facebook-or-twitter/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-social-networking/

([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))
-------
Name: Michelle Byrne (Chelly.Byrne)

Prospectus title: Balancing privacy for victims of sexual crimes with
opportunity for support in online forum AfterSilence.org

Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:ChellyByrne_Assignment2.pdf

[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 07:54, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----

Hi Michelle,

You have chosen a terrifically nuanced community. Indeed, the word “balance” and the question of HOW such a community can possibly approach this word is bound to yield more data and conclusions than the page ljmits of our final project – which is only testimony to the strength of your community research choice. I believe yours is the most psychologically-based prospectus that I have read thus far.

By “psychologically-based,” I mean that I sense that you will be making some conclusions about the specialized mindsets and individuals who are drawn to this community; a community that paradoxically, and in waves, seem to wish for both anonymity and at the same time, a very specific and difficult kind of attention. Anonymous attention. A community that has created a safe haven and yet, has some very troubling cracks, as you point out.

Questions:
Are these cracks mostly user generated? As in, the example you found of the poster who revealed configurable data revealing her identity. If they are mostly user-generated, how prevalent of an instance is this? Of the active users who reveal private information, what instances are accidental or ignorant (as in, thinking they’ll be anonymous by revealing age, town, etc) as opposed to intentional?

Is there some kind of warning or clause in the user agreement that attempts to address this issue of accidentally revealing private information or even purposefully revealing it?

If the user agreement and the rules and guidelines for AfterSilence.org do address this issue and users still post personal information, what are the pros and cons of simply warning users about the risks and then letting users do as they please vs. taking pro-active measures?

If there were pro-active measures for a site host like this to take, what would they be? Message board community reminders? Moderators who redact info? Self-regulation and regulation amongst members? What does regulation in this kind of community actually look like and is it sustainable in its current form?

Many more questions and considerations to make. Good topic choice, succinctly proposed. I wish you all the best in this project and I look forward to reading the final project.

Best,
Chanel Rion

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 11:31, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----

Name: Chanel Rion (ChanelRion)

Prospectus Title: '''''We the Judges: "Sitejabber", "Yelp", and Communities of User-Generated Business Reviews.'''''

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment2_Prospectus_Rion.docx

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 11:21, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----
Hi Chanel,

The subject of customer generated reviews is certainly huge on the internet. It is beneficial for consumers to get an opinion of a product or restaurant from other people over just what the advertising says. But as you point out, there is a lot of opportunity for libel or slander – especially people just having an ax to grind. It would be interesting to see how Yelp or Sitejabber are being responsible and making an effort to regulate content and protect places being reviewed from harassing content. I like how your approach includes researching any legal cases brought against them; it would be interesting to see if any of them prevail. Also, how do they actually calculate the ratings? Is it an average of overall ratings? Or could bad reviews be hidden away if there become lots of positive reviews? Are businesses sandbagging to increase their ratings?

Overall, this is a great community to look into and I wish you success!

Michelle aka (Chelly)
[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 15:43, 7 March 2015 (EST)
----

RE: Michelle

Hi Michelle,

Thank you for your comments and feedback. I too, am especially interested in the legal angles to this community and I am glad to know I'm not the only one. I will certainly be watching and reviewing and seeking the answers to these questions and also to your specific concerns. All intensely pertinent to how businesses and communities are going to manage tensions with each other -- tensions that have always been here, but are now revolutionized in simply the sheer and complete access that the Internet provides to all of us.

Looking forward to starting this seek and find. Thank you for highlighting questions and focuses, they should prove helpful for such a broad category.

Best,

Chanel

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 16:49, 8 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Name: Becca Lewis (beccalew)

Prospectus Title: '''/r/TwoXChromosomes and /r/feminism: The challenges of promoting feminism on Reddit while upholding the values of privacy and free speech'''

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Final_Project_Prospectus_Becca_Lewis.docx

[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 13:15, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----

Hi Becca!
I absolutely love the theme of your project, it is an exceptional live issue since feminism has been discussed much more this past year than it has been for many years. Therefore, it´s really important to examine the forums in which people have the opportunity to discuss the subject. Great!

I also found it cool that you are thinking about recording a podcast for the project. If you do so, you might consider including an interview with someone active in the specific forums, a professor in gender studies or perhaps two people with different views on the issue?

I have a question about the subreddits you talked about though. You wrote about a ”safe space” for women. Are those subreddits only for women or are they open for anyone who want to discuss feminism and gender roles? If it is a women-only forum, you might also discuss the consequences on that. If not, maybe that has consequences as well. Maybe you should discuss self censorship in the feminism subreddits as well (which is very interesting since Reddit-as you said-values free speech above almost all else)?

Good luck!
/Josefin

[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 10:39, 5 March 2015 (EST)
----
Hello Becca,

Your avenue of research should prove quite illuminating for creating feminist spaces, in online fora dominated by men. Interestingly, your topic dovetails with this weeks readings, concerning hate speech and other charged language, which is used far to readily in online fora. It would be interesting to see if the users in the two subreddits. /r/TwoXChromosomes and /r/Feminism, have tried using counterspeech, when confronted with offensive or antagonising posts. Mind, if the moderator of r/Feminism is in fact trying to subvert this positive feminist space, would that violate any of Reddit's policies? If not, are there any policies governing the role of moderator?

Good luck!

[[User:AlexanderH|AlexanderH]] ([[User talk:AlexanderH|talk]]) 19:44, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

----
Name: Gary Brown (Gary Brown)

Prospectus Title: The Effects of Site Controls on Community Objectives: communityfunded.com

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Gary_Brown_Assignment2.docx

[[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 13:18, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----
Comments on Gary's Prospectus:

Gary,

Great topic! I hope to be going out to for crowdfunding by the end of the May. So I will follow your Wiki with interest. (In your proposal you link to crowdfunded. I think you meant community funded. You may want to look at that.)

You mentioned the stated purpose of Communityfunded. But you did not mention their reason for existing. In other words, what started crowdfunding and why would individuals seek funds for their projects from the public and not other traditional sources. Why are people like me willing to go online (to communityfunded) to ask for money, as opposed to going to another site or pitching a Venture Capitalist or a bank? Why would people fund a project on line versus invest in the stock market or Bank CDs?

I think that the answer to those questions goes to the heart of crowdfunding. It also is germane to the “troublesome obstacles” you refer to in your prospectus.

When you mention failed projects, I would suggest that not all failures are the same. I might be willing to invest money in a project I consider socially redeeming even if I thought it had very little chance of success. Where as, if I were investing in some Harvard wiz-kids that profess to have the next Facebook, I might have very different feelings if they went belly up. So you may want to include categories of projects, or claims/expectations in your discussions. As well as any risk factor ratings.

You also mentioned building and keeping trust of supporters. One of the areas that interests me is the ways that Fundraisers generate funding support. Do they rely solely on the site? In other words, is there a pool of would be investors just waiting for the right idea to come around so they can invest. Or is a fundraiser expected to go outside the community and raise interest and drive that interest back to the site? How does that impact the “trust” factor? If I am a one-time fundraiser does it matter all that much what people think about me after I’ve got my money?

You discuss how you will break down funded projects, etc. Is there a way to figure out what various fundraiser did to get funded? Marketing may prove to be more of a factor than the project or its worthiness.

It would certainly be worthwhile to compare and contrast crowdfunding before and after changes in regs that made it easier for the public to invest. And how post reg trends may lead to new regs/controls.

I look forward to reading your paper.

Best,

[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 20:45, 4 March 2015 (EST)

----

Name: Meagan HoChing (mhoching)

Title: Online Gaming Harassment: All fun and games?

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Mhoching_Assignment2.docx

[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 13:50, 3 March 2015 (EST)
----

Hi Meagan,

Every aspect of your prospectus is incredibly interesting to me. I am especially intrigued by how well you have matched up the readings to your topic.

After I read your section on Norms I thought about how you point out that “the gaming system is very competitive” and it made me wonder, if Valve placed more restrictions to prevent bullying could it potentially take some of the pleasure of competition out of the mix. If so, then would some users leave the game because they like the hostile environment, which may be why they chose to play in it in the first place. Keeping this line of thought in mind, perhaps you could find another similar community that has more strict modes of control in place to observe the differences between them.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading your prospectus and I look forward to seeing your finished product.

Best,
Emily

[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 09:25, 5 March 2015 (EST)

----

Hi Meagan!

What an interesting and relevant subject!

I think that it was a very good idea of you to use the Dot Model with the components ”Market”, ”Architecture”, ”Norms” and ”Law”, it makes everything much more clear. I agree with Emily that it would be a good idea to compare DOTA 2 with another game, preferably from another website than STEAM and with another system of regulation. I would find it really interesting to see the result of a such a study and if norms, the language, the members of the site, etc. differ between the two games.

I´m looking forward to see the result! Good luck!

/Josefin

[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 10:16, 5 March 2015 (EST)

----

Hi Meagan!

I think this is a very fascinating topic and one I too almost pursued. I am a bit of a gamer myself and although I don't play DOTA, I do regularly play many different sports games which I have found to have similar issues of harassment and "bullying". I hadn't heard of the STEAM website you're focusing on until I read your assignment, but for anyone who has read really a comment section/forum anywhere, one second you're talking about a video game, the next you have gone down a path of hate and overall disgust of anyone different minded not to mention if it is a competitive game which stirrs up some hostile emotions toward an adversary. I find this particularly interesting when it comes to video games because many people who don't play video games believe that "it's just a game" but on the contrary for many gamers, one can find their self emotionally invested into a game you are taking part in. You feel this overwhelming sense of dedication to it and attachment to what happens in it where you can essentially lose yourself in the game. It is because of this hardwired competitive and primitive feeling and this element of motivation that I believe is so deeply rooted in many gamers that it would be near impossible to ever completely outlaw the harassment or trash talk because it will never stop. However perhaps there is some sort of way to outlaw the harassment that crosses a line by creating real consequence while still allowing some competitive jabbing but that I will be curious to see from your project. I will be also curious to hear what your research finds about the website in particular, I would venture to guess that it is probably similar for communities like the PSN and xboxlive.

I might suggest on top of all this to take a look at games which do not have a competitive nature with other users. This may be difficult to find but I'd be curious to see whether it is harassment you find on forums with these sort of games or rather a cooperative dialogue intended to help one another.

Good Luck!
- Ryan Hurley

[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 16:26, 8 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Name: Caroline B

Title: The Study of Privacy, Accuracy & Order on InsideNova Website and Moving ‘Little Sites’ Up

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:1_Caroline_B.docx

[[User:Cbore001|Cbore001]] ([[User talk:Cbore001|talk]]) 14:45, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----
Caroline,
Something to for your paper is the current statistics on accessing news in the United States (online newspaper versus hard copy newspaper for example), and the devices used to access online news (iphone, android, ipad, laptop, desktop computer, etc). IBISWorld and Mintel might offer up to date statistics on news distribution/access. Google analytics offers insight on specific website views. Perhaps take a look at what the demographics of the visitors of this site are and try to find out why this site attracts these viewers. Comparing this site to other more popular news sites (like CNN as you mentioned) is a great idea. Currently, I think your proposal covers too wide a range of topics, so maybe consider focusing on just a few that you mentioned. (For example maybe narrow it to the three subjects max: privacy, journalists’ / contributors’ / editors’ / monitors’ control of content, the ethical policy of the site). If privacy is a big concern to you, I think you could focus your entire paper around it.
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 19:19, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----

Name: Jan.Yburan

Prospectus title: Reddit.com/r/IAmA its Controls on Privacy and Content

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Jan.Yburan.Assignment2.docx

----
Hi Jan,

This is a really interesting community to build your case study around. Prior to today I have only been on the site a few times to look at subreddits that relate to topics that I am interested in, and since I am not a member I have not considered how the site protects the user’s privacy.

Today I decided to look at the IAmA subreddit to get a better handle of the scope of your project. Consequently, I came across and interesting and fairly benign thread started by an employee of a movie theater and it brought to mind, how does the site handle issues of privacy, libel or defamation against a company or a consumer when an employee engages in what appears at first glance as an anonymous tell all blog that highlights how he/she has witnessed vulgar and perhaps even criminal activity.

Considering your topic and direction you want to take, I think you might want to blend together aspects of the readings from our classes on privacy with the readings for next week’s class on free expression, information, and unwanted speech.

I am looking forward to seeing your completed final project. I am sure it will be very informative.

Best,

Emily

P.S. (Here is the link to the AMA I referenced: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2xz6nb/iama_movie_theater_employee_and_ive_seen_the/)

[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 13:04, 5 March 2015 (EST)

----

----

Name: Eric Yuk Lun Kwong (Caelum)

Prospectus title: The vulnerable voting structure of Digg.com and the gradual
collapse of its popularity and voting legitimacy

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Caelum_Assignment2.pdf

[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 15:11, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----

Hi Eric,

Excellent topic. One that possesses, at once, broad-scale relevance and unusual particularities.

Exploring the reasons for Digg’s failure as a site and as a community, I’m drawn to the question regarding the members themselves.

It would be interesting to compare, if applicable, the kinds of users who are drawn to a voting-type participatory community vs. a community that actually interacts via content and contributions. If clear distinctions can be made here, to then find examples of successful communities that are voter-based and to pinpoint key policies or elements that differentiate sustainable models of voter-based communities compared to content-based contribution communities.

Perhaps it is fundamentally an issue of investment; when users and the outside world view a product as having or requiring minimal investment (as in, saying, or rather, clicking “yes” or “no” to something – voting to “dig” or “bury” a story). Are voting based sites destined to suffer from questions of legitimacy by virtue of being online and being so subjective?

That you will be making parallels to Wikipedia’s platform seems to be a good approach here. Wisely done. Thank you also, for your commentaries – I appreciate the thoroughness in which you approach these topics.

Best of luck!

Chanel Rion

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 11:57, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Name: Alex Samaei (Samaei1)

Prospectus title: The Framework of Projects and Backers on Kickstarter

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Samaei1_Assignment2.pdf

[[User:Samaei1|Samaei1]] ([[User talk:Samaei1|talk]]) 15:37, 3 March 2015 (EST)
----

Hi Alex!

I'm so happy you picked this website because I've donated to various projects on this website, but never took into account the structure of the website and complications due to misappropriating of funding. I find it hard to try to quantify what is appropriate to fundraise, because the topic is subjective. Of course I don't think it would be appropriate to fundraise to support hate speech (if that's what someone is fundraising for), yet I don't find it appropriate to fundraise for movies about starving children, when that money can go to feeding starving children. I hope I'm communicating the subjectiveness of trying to find what would be considered appropriate to raise money for and how it varies from person to person.

But speaking in regards to the Lessig's Dot Model I think the website can be broken down into different sections to address some of the issues you raise. For example, how does the structure of kickstarter promote accountability on the artist/person asking for money? On the donation page for example, a vast amount of information about the artist is available, as well as avenues in which you can contact the fundraiser. So if kickstarter has provided this as a requirement for people to submit or provide when asking to be funded, is it then up to the donor to hold that person accountable? I have the tools on that page to ask the fundraiser for that specific information and continue to follow up on that information. I think once you start looking at specific/deliberate aspects of kickstarter, it will start to inform or control behavior.

I hope this helps! Look forward to reading the final project; happy researching and writing!

[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 00:35, 5 March 2015 (EST)
----

Hi Alex,

I’m interested that you have chosen a community that, you imply, is being targeted not for its failures, but for its successes. A wildfire that is often so much more visible on the Internet than in any other form in history. Speed, access, and instant publicity -- make "success" in society ever more visible, open to targeting, and prone to hijacking. Indeed. It is a great topic for research in this course in particular.

One aspect that could be revelatory is to seek out the kinds of legal cases that have been brought against kickstarter and what litigation the site has to deal with and what kinds of litigation that users potentially enter into.

There’s also a question about user legitimacy. How easy is it for some startup organization to simply use this community and its platform as an elaborate marketing plan? Can a company, for instance, viel itself to be a small time kickstarter that can feed itself funding and manufacture the appearance of democratic success? It would be especially useful to identify who the moderators are and to what extent they exercise control or regulation if any. Does Kickstarter have even the skeleton of some kind of verification system or is the verification over the legitimacy of a proposal entirely user generated? Is this sustainable or are there signs of trouble ahead? What would be a disastrous scenario for this community? To these questions, I think that many clues may be found in the litigation and whatever bad publicity the community has had encounter.

Great topic, culturally relevant community. Thank you for the topic and best of luck for the final.

Best,

Chanel Rion

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 12:31, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----

:Dear Alex,

:From your opening paragraph, I am wondering if you plan to focus on Kickstarter itself, one or more of the projects seeking support through Kickstarter, or the Reddit.com community. Each would seem to present a different community/sub-community based on the same general subject. Coverying all three could be a little broad for this size project.

:I think the issues you present are one of the more interesting subject areas of crowdfunding sites – who is the gatekeeper and how are projects screened? The authority to control and manner of control by the site owner, community, or government touches on many of our subject areas. It should be fertile ground for your project. I would plan carefully whether to go deeply into limited subject matter, or cover several subjects more broadly in the time and space you have. Either way, you have a site that should meet fit your plan.

:I wish you success, and I look forward to reading your work.

:[[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 19:23, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----

Name: Gia

Prospectus title: Chivalry online

Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Gia_Assignment2.docx
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 15:46, 3 March 2015 (EST))

----

Hi Gia, this is a great topic, I think the importance of this group is very high, it serves greatly to the public to prevent scams, and I wondered if the public service it provides weights in the privacy issue when it comes to the issue of finding out scams and finding information, where are the boundaries, great topic, maybe you can illustrate your topic with examples and explain how the law applies to those various kinds, great work!!!>

Edwin ([[User:Edwinduque|Edwinduque]] ([[User talk:Edwinduque|talk]]) 20:25, 9 March 2015 (EDT))
----
Hi Gia,

This topic is definitely flushing out the seedier side of the internet! I have never heard of this site 419eater, but we all know the dangers of scammers and how they use the internet. How do they find their victims? Some scams are so realistic as to mention names of loved ones in danger and demand money be expedited. The scam baiters you’re talking about here must be trolling similar sites and circles to identify culprits they need want to go after. But in doing so, are they just as much at fault as the original scammers? Is there any regulation of the members? I can definitely see an ethical dilemma, as you point out, of some possibly unscrupulous members. And your question of whether they have extended their existence outside the online world is a very interesting consideration.

You a have a lot of good sources listed regarding scams (white collar crime and Ponzi schemes too!). Good luck, this is an intriguing subject!

Michelle

[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 15:57, 7 March 2015 (EST)
----
Re: Michelle

Thanks for the comments, Michelle. I definitely intend to explore the subject from both sides, because there could be really two, maybe even more , points of view. Regarding the legal regulation, there is a lot to be said – interned jurisdiction. The self-regulation of the web community which is evolving with the time is also a nice starting point.
Thank again for the ideas and good luck to you too with your work!

([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))
----

Name: Mishal R. Kennedy

Prospectus title: Enforcing Guidelines Without Harming User Contributions

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Mishal_R._Kennedy_Assignment2.rtf
([[User:Mishal R. Kennedy|Mishal R. Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Mishal R. Kennedy|talk]]) 15:51, 3 March 2015 (EST))
----
Hi Mishal,

The subject you have chosen is very interesting and gives great opportunities for discussions and analyses. I would directly make a reference to the Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0, which we discussed during “Paradigms for Studying the Internet’ class. You could explore the methods used by the moderators and administrators as a way of self regulation of the community. The question you asked whether these methods are causing more bad than good, is right to the point.
I would suggest you explain in more details the different methods of control used my the moderators and perhaps compare them with the ones used by other communities. You could also take a look if it is explicitly listed in the Terms of Use of the website in which case what measure is taken? Is there a higher authority than the moderator to whom a sanctioned user could complain? Could such a decision “be appealed” or it is final and definitive? Is there at all a hierarchy in the administration of the website?
Here are some sources which might help. Good luck!

https://www.academia.edu/3079184/COAT_Collaborative_Outgoing_Anti-Spam_Technique
http://www.yildiz.edu.tr/~aktas/courses/CE-0114890/g8-p3.pdf
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~kksivara/sfwr4c03/projects/4c03projects/CGLucas-Project.pdf
http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM11/paper/viewFile/2780/3296

([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))
-----

Name: Richard Markow

Prospectus title: The YouTube video-sharing platform & The Community of Alternative Heating Systems and Appliance Inventors

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Rich_Markow_Assignment_2_Prospectus.pdf

[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 16:03, 3 March 2015 (EST)
----
:Dear Richard,

:I am most interested in how you plan to use the YouTube channel with your invention and how you will relate that effort to our project here. Do I understand that you will try to create a community within your channel, and that will be the subject community? Or, is the plan to take one of the five areas you have mentioned and focus on one or more of them? I am having a little difficulty seeing from the prospectus what your focus will be and how your invention channel will relate to the analysis.

:Your third subject sounds like an especially interesting area to me: “legal liability of user generated content related to unproven claims and inventions.” From Mentos in soda, to instructions on building who knows what, who if anyone has liability for misguided attempts to imitate these videos? Is there really anything that YouTube as an intermediary could do?

: Congratulations on your invention. I hope that you will be able to bring it to the market successfully.

:[[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 20:38, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----

Name AlexanderH

Prospectus Title: Managing the Petitions of Change.org: B Corps, Social Enterprise and Transparency

Link:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:AlexanderH_Assignment_2_Prospectus.docx

[[User:AlexanderH|AlexanderH]] ([[User talk:AlexanderH|talk]]) 16:10, 3 March 2015 (EST)
----
----
Name: Meredith Blake

Prospectus Title:Identifying Avenues of Recourse for Businesses on Yelp

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Meredith_Blake._Assignment_2.docx
[[User:Meredithmblake|Meredith]] ([[User talk:Meredithmblake|talk]]) 16:13, 3 March 2015 (EST)

-----
Hello Meredith!

I think this is a great topic and you have a very interesting approach. I haven’t really looked into Yelp and the lawsuit angle, but they certainly have a lot of influence on the internet. Out of curiosity, I just Googled about 10 different restaurants in this area and the results had the Yelp review either as the second or third site listed! So potential customers are seeing the Yelp rating almost before the actual websites in a couple of cases! There is little recourse for them, and as you show by the Sia example, a disgruntled customer can reach out and cause a flood of terrible reviews, from people who weren’t even customers! Caelum makes a good point in the summary at the bottom that reviews are either one end of the spectrum or the other… disgruntled customers wanting to air their displeasure or someone extremely happy who wants to rave about it.

It is good to take a targeted approach to such a large community, and looking into the recourse that businesses may have as well as existing lawsuits sounds like a good approach. If a suit is successful, what are the actual outcomes? Does Yelp take down reviews or adjust the ratings? I think people who expound on sites that give a platform are really missing the spirit of free speech. I don’t think your approach is that unpopular, not that free speech needs to be regulated, but that there should be some modicum of self-restraint and freedom to say anything is not absolutely protected.

Good luck on this, you’ve got some really good ideas!

Michelle

[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 16:14, 7 March 2015 (EST)
-----

Name: Wesley Verge

Prospectus Title : Scrolling into Darkness -- An investigation into the regulatory forces at work in Youtube's comment section

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Wesley_Verge_Prospectus.txt

[[User:WesleyVerge|WesleyVerge]] ([[User talk:WesleyVerge|talk]]) 16:19, 3 March 2015 (EST)

-----

Hi Wesley!

I am very intrigued by the "solutions" there are to change the culture of the comment sections. It is really an intriguing phenomenon that one could be watching a video about puppies and suddenly 4 comments down glance over an argument that Obama was sent by satan himself to destroy the world. I've always been curious as to how this has not been regulated more strictly. I think you raise great points why and the concerns Google is faced with. If I were doing this project I might also attempt to compare this to other sites as well that must face similar challenges. For example you suggest in your assignment that youtube channels direct traffic to sites like Reddit, but is that really an escape for the channel as this implies? Can these "trolls" not go over to reddit to promote their hate just as easily, or do they have different solutions in play that regulate these sorts of issues better? As far as I know both are anonymous to an extent so with this anonymity many of these trolls have "keyboard muscles" as I like to call them. I can understand twitter because many times it is much more personal but even there people can create fake accounts and troll all the same, just see Jimmy Kimmels skit on celebrity reading mean tweets.

I really like your focus on famous YouTubers I just think it may also be beneficial and worth mentioning how other sites with the same prevalent issue have tried to combat trolling. Also from a legal side, are all of these comments protected by the law and free speech? Perhaps because of the enormity of all the comments and comment sections, it is simply impossible to regulate what is said in every section from a legal perspective. Food for thought, but in any case great project idea.

Best of luck,
Ryan

[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 16:56, 8 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Prospectus Title: Knocking the Wind out of Whistleblowers: The US' response to the growing threat from WikiLeaks

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Kelly.WilsonAssignment_2.docx

[[User:Kelly.wilson|Kelly.wilson]] ([[User talk:Kelly.wilson|talk]]) 16:38, 3 March 2015 (EST)

--------

Hi Kelly,

Interesting topic. There are a couple of perspectives you may want to consider about when defining what you mean by Whistleblower and the response in each situation. 1) Exposing illegal acts. 2) Exposing immoral acts. 3) Exposing Acts designed to embarrassed your political opponents or as retribution.

Should they all be treated the same and afforded equal protection?

Good luck!

[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 00:10, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

--------

Name: Tasha

Prospectus Title: Exploring the Complexity of Rapidly Evolving Information in a Bodybuilding Forum and the Challenges of Quality Assurance

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Tasha_Assignment_2_Prospectus.docx

Tasha[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 17:12, 3 March 2015 (EST)

--------
Hi Tasha,

I like a lot your choice of community . It is unusual and at the same time you could find a lot of things to explore-both from legal and ethical stand point.
I would say that your questions and reflections are on the right track. I think that one of the issues you could explore is the fact that they are often used as a platform for unlicensed sell of drugs. If you choose to go for this, you should have to take a good look on the definitions in order to differ “Drugs” for “Nutrition Supplements” because this is the tricky moment. How the website is protecting itself from such kind of activity (by its Terms of use or in other ways) , might be interesting as well.
Above you could find two links that might be of some use. Good luck!

The first is little bit old but interesting:
http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t000525b.html

http://health.wusf.usf.edu/post/unlicensed-pharmacies-selling-compounded-drugs-online

([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))

__________

Name: Josefin Sasse

Prospectus Title: A case study on the children's website Kidzworld and how they deal with threats against being a safe environment for children.

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:JosefinSasse.pdf
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 17:26, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----

Hi Josefin!

I find your topic utterly intriguing. I had no idea such a website existed and it's been quite fascinating just poking around the website a little bit. I think it is a very valid point to raise about "who monitors Kidzworld", because there doesn't seem to be much of a screening process to ensure the user that is signing up for an account is in fact between the ages of 9-17. Also, I see you have cited the Pew Research Center study from the readings, which is a great resource for dissecting the demographics and statistics of harassment, but the study was done on "young adults" ranging from 18-29, and "young women" between the ages of 18-24 years old. Which I hope illuminates, rather than complicates, the issue of doing research on a demographic ranging from 9-17, but more so how do you set up a website that serves a population that would need adult consent to participate in almost everything they do. Along with privacy issues, I think the question of who is responsible for what and for whom is a great aspect you have raised in your paper! I would love to stay in touch and see the developments of your paper if that would be okay. I think this is the perfect website to investigate for this project.

[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 00:10, 5 March 2015 (EST)

--------

----

Hi Josefin,

I think you picked a great online community to explore for your final project, not only because it is a social space for a specific group, but also because there seems to be some fairly strict regulations in place to maintain a safe environment for kids.

It might be interesting if you could find some weakness in its structure. For example can kids go into private chats or are all the chats and comment sections being screened. If they are being screened, is it by a computer generated logarithm or real people?

Another question that you could delve into is, how do the site’s administrators know the users are minors. Do they require parents’ permission? If so how do they prove it is actually a real parent?

I hope these suggestions are helpful. I am looking forward to seeing your finished project.

Best,
Emily

[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 00:13, 5 March 2015 (EST)
----

Name: Brooke Tjarks

Prospectus: Art. Business. Fans. (...) How this collaborative space shapes mass visual media production and worldwide distribution

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Prospectus.Brooke.Tjarks.pdf

--------
:Dear Brooke

:'''Creativity-Online''' does not seem to have the social element that I think the class may be looking for. I get your interest in the structural controls, especially if the structure limits the interaction to just comments from readers. Commenting is a form of ad hoc community that could be a subject all its own, but most of the random articles I looked at did not have comments.

:'''RottenTomatoes.com''' is new to me too. It seems like it is mainly aggregating reviews. So, I guess that is a community of professional reviewers. I did find that by joining you can “'''Rate movies & TV''' and see your friends' ratings, '''Get recommendations''' personalized for you, '''Join the discussion''' with other movie buffs.” I don’t know if the pros interact with the civilians here, but I suspect they read each other’s stuff. If I were writing or creating movies, this would be a place I could go to see what the ordinary folks think, right along with the reviewers.

:'''imdb.com''' may be what you’re looking for. Once you’re a member, there are some privileges, and it would appear there are some controls in place that provide fodder for the project. There is a page I ran across that states it is “Community powered support for IMDb.com" See it at <nowiki>https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics</nowiki>

:I vote for IMDb.com

:[[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 21:26, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----

Name: Abby McHugh

Prospectus Title: From #Thinspiration to “Low Carb Friends”: The Regulation of Online Weight Loss Content

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Amchugh_Assignment2.docx

--------

Hi Abby!

Okay, so I really wich I had chosen this issue. It is great that you did!

To facilitate the work, I would recommend that you are more specific in which websites you are going to explore since there is so much #thinspo content out there. But Twitter, Tumbler, Pinterest, and Instagram are great platforms to explore, together with blogs like you said.

'''Other things you might want to discuss are:'''

What makes the most harm: #thinspo/pro-ana blogs and posts or limitations on freedom of speech by regulating such content? (On my part, I am determined in my opinion that #thinspo is devastating and that regulation in this case is a good thing.)

Who is active in this community?

Could pro-ana be illegitimate harassment? Compare it the possibility of a pro-cancer or a pro-aids community (deadly diseases just like anorexia).

What effects could/does the sometimes lack of regulation have on the community online and offline?
Good luck! You´ve chosen a very interesting subject!

/Josefin

[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 11:08, 5 March 2015 (EST)

----

Abby,
I am so impressed and dare I say jealous that you picked such an important subject for your paper. Here are a few things that come to mind as I read your plan. I hope at least one of them is helpful.
- I LOVE that you have already started a list of references. My critique for your references is to add more scholarly sources to substantiate your conclusions. For example, perhaps a database like “Mintel” or “IBISWorld” will have metrics regarding weight loss CONSUMER trends globally or in the United States. From another angle, you could find articles in scholarly psychology journals or *gasp* BOOKS in the library of a graduate psychology program. I am a student at Pepperdine, too, and I love their graduate psychology library and their electronic databases. If you want me to request anything and have it sent to you, do not hesitate to ask. And from yet another angle, perhaps we could find legal cases that relate to your topic, as well. I would be more than happy to work with you to find more sources because I just love your topic so much.
- Carbohydrates are critical for healthy brain function. Perhaps that is important in your paper, as well? Elephant in the room?
- If you decide to mention similar trends or implications of the “thinspo” trend, maybe consider body building inspiration on social media and blogs and why it is both equally obsessive but healthier.
- Another thing that concerns me about your topic is privacy. Not just the privacy of those with eating disorders, but all individuals participating in the online weight loss chatter. And also, the trend to take pictures of one’s body and put those photographs online. What are the implications of this?

[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 18:26, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----

Note: If I’m a little direct in the comments, I really mean the best. Hope it doesn’t offend anyone. 

Ryan Hurley: I think professor said stay away from these huge websites. Perhaps you could discuss with the professors if Facebook is the right website to focus on?

Olivia Brinich: I think you’re asking a lot of questions to be answered here.

“How does it Pind and protect information, how do copyrighters choose to deal with the individual cases of copyright infringement, and what happens when a clip is wrongfully targeted for copyright violation, i.e., the adverse unintended consequences of Content ID?”

Perhaps you should just focus on one main thesis and explore on that. For example, focusing on how copyrighters deal with copyright infringement, and how that eventually influenced youtube to introduce copyright ID system.

One last issue is whether youtube is too big of a website to focus on. Perhaps you could narrow it down to say, copyright issues for music on youtube.

Erika L. Rich: I think it’s a very broad term to discuss the ethical considerations. Perhaps if you narrowed it down to 1 or 2 main issues you find extremely compelling about the website and community? Or maybe I have simply mistaken your train of thought.

Emily MacIntyre: I like how you had such conviction to talk about youtube that despite its size, its still worth researching about. I think you could also talk a little bit about how these game commentators earn their living by commenting on games. PewDiePie is estimated to earn millions every year. It could show a greater perspective on things if we could see their earnings as well. South Park actually has a very funny episode about commentators commenting on commentators commenting on games on youtube.

Matt K: Do you think that changing the title to reflect your research would make it easier for the reader? (Just a thought) I think its interesting how you mentioned “democratic instrument”, bringing politics into the way his blog is ran. According to the quote you took, Scalzi has indeed used some controls over potential commentators. Furthermore, you should consider that if it’s a blog about all sorts of things, with John’s comments on it, he should also be open to listen to commentators reply to this, especially if its about sensitive topics. If he’s going to filter away those he “considers” as offensive, then perhaps he shouldn’t comment on other things either. (unless the comment really does not have a valid point and is not related to the topic)

Edwin Duque: Good to see you in this class too. I think you should just focus on one website. I’d do JuryX instead of Facebook as professor said big websites aren’t good. Also, you’d need a stronger thesis to connect what the real question is. Is it about allowing free sharing? Or is it about limiting what gets shared? I’m a little confused with your thesis.

Chelly Byrne: I think you have a strong thesis here. The contradictions between sharing information on the internet, and the fear of being exposed would be very interesting. I think you can even go into the subscription process. I assume the website allows anyone to join. This means that even predators could read up on what victims write. Unfortunately, they probably get quite the entertainment from reading it, or pretending to ask “leading” questions. As you said, just a tiny bit of excessive information leaked out could result in a victim being violated again. I guess you could talk about that.

Chanel Rion: Since you’re talking about Yelp and reviews, I’d like to share what I learned from another class. Most of these reviews are at the ends of the spectrum. Unless someone is a regular of Yelp and does a review for every restaurant, the rest of them would be people who had great experiences or really bad experiences. They won’t be bothered to write a review about a mediocre or average restaurant. It’s not worth their time. You could also mention that. Also, do you think there are fake reviews too? I’d go for siteJabbar.

Becca Lewis: Firstly its interesting how you’re talking about Reddit because I’m talking about Digg. I think new beliefs takes time to be adapted by the masses. Feminism isn’t very old, and its on going. I think it takes time for people to adapt to it, so for the short term I won’t be surprised if the discussion board sees a lot of anti-feminism people. But also do bare in mind that these are “beliefs”, just like “liberalism” (which is quite similar to feminism, fighting for individual rights, etc). Not everyone believes in these values, so some disagreements should be expected. I guess an interesting way could be to examine if people become more offensive when they are shown as anonymous. My thoughts are that it is. You could look at reddit discussions compared with the core values of Wikipedia, and why it worked for Wikipedia, but a little hard for Reddit.

Gary Brown: Are there any data on the selection process, or ventures that were rejected? It’s hard to associate it with discrimination if there is no evidence. Since you can’t prove or disprove this, it means “site controls” cannot be determined. Therefore you need to make a new thesis that really reflects the paper.

Meagan Moana HoChing: DOTA is a fun game. My initial response is that with huge amounts of ego on the line, that’s how bullying start. Haha. From what I read and know, it is the architecture that is dominantly the issue. This structure allows the audience to exploit it. I think you could also investigate is how is “harassment” identified as? Calling someone a “loser”? Do note that a lot of cyber bullying are to kids that people know in real life. So can we causally say trash talking is the same as harassing? When NBA players trash talk one another, I don’t think they considered it as harassing. So I guess this definition needs to be very clear.

Caroline B: Perhaps you could mention NPOV as one of their values they used in order to keep readers like yourself going to the website.

Jan Yburan: Second Reddit I saw today. Haha. I think you need to be weary of the upvote system. More popular and famous people would get a self –fulfilling upvote treatment, where as more niche people or radical ones would get less. This way of identifying success might be a little questionable.

Alex Samaei: I’d be more interested in how kickstarter protects pledgers from potential false projects. This seems like a very good question for privacy and control.

Gia:
“New scambaiters can request to be assigned a "mentor" to assist them in learning how to bait.”

I think this is really cool.

“. In the past, scammers were tricked into sending money themselves, which was later given to charity.”

That’s crazy. Not sure who the scammer is now. I’d spend more time discussing the aspect about scammers being scammed by scambaiters, and the moral and ethical implications of it.

Mishal R. Kennedy: I think you have a legit question there. Looking at whether deleting an old post or controlling spambots to be more important. You could also consider that perhaps it was the ease of registration that led to the spambots. Deleting the old posts doesn’t actually go to the root of the problem. I guess you could also talk more about the ease of registration.

Richard Markow: I think you should just talk about 1 or 2 points out of the 5. Don’t think you have enough space to write that much.

Alexander H: Do you think you could also go into the ease of account creation? To attain legitimacy, the website would need real personal data to determine that the petition is signed by a real person. If so the privacy concerns would be the biggest. A deeper look at the terms and agreement is a must.

Meredith Blake: That’s an interesting take on Yelp. I do believe that the reviews are either from the ones who enjoyed the restaurant the most, or the ones that hated it. The ones in the middle won’t be bothered to write a review.

Wesley Verge: Personally I think it is an inevitable part of anonymity and high view count. There’s bound to be a few trolls, but that too is what makes youtube entertaining. I think youtube just needs to make a better flagging system.

Kelly Wilson: You could talk about how the internet might influence more people to be whistleblowers, or even anonymous whistleblowers.

Tasha: I think to begin with you need to bare in mind that a lot of fitness people already know the difference between science and bro-science. I further believe that bodybuilding.com would just allow people to say whatever they want knowing full well it is just a forum. As long as they don’t endorse it, they shouldn’t be liable. But as such, you should also talk about the privacy of fitness people on the website. A lot of them post photos up too, and their diet and schedules.

Josefin S: Nice logo. I don’t really like the age range for kidzworld.com. It doesn’t make sense for 9 year olds to interact with 17 year olds. Furthermore, I wouldn’t want my 9 year old kid to socialize with 17 year old kids and being taught 17 year old stuff. So my biggest concern, as you also mentioned, is how do they keep content separate between different ages to prevent the younger kids to learn the wrong stuff? Or do they not do this at all?

Brooke Ashley Tjarks: Yes, I’d agree with you that IMDB is a good balance between the other two websites. I think by becoming a member, the legitimacy of the votes would become higher. There’s bound to be some sort of influence between people regardless of the platform, so I think IMDB is an interesting one to investigate further.

----

- Brooke Tjarks here responding to Caelum -

Thank you so much for the feedback. I am defintely going with IMBD. Another interesting aspect of the platform is the accuracy of content that the website tries to uphold and the methods that they use to ensure this. For example, users with profiles who edit pages must sign legal documents online (such as NDA's) before editing. The more I thought it over the more I realized how different each of the sites I considered truly are, but IMDB has the most to offer for this assignment. Thank you again for your support.

[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 17:53, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----

Amchugh: I think you could go into internet being free also has its consequences. Since the internet could edit and post something online in a matter of seconds, it becomes very vulnerable for unintended things to hit the net. The filtering has to either occurred before the posting, or after it has been up. When it’s up already, it’s hard to say whether the rest of them would oblige, or would they prefer to continue the troll game. You could talk about the reasons for why Twitter would take it down (assuming that it does not violate Twitter’s policies).

Note: Good luck everyone!

[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 13:43, 6 March 2015 (EST)
----
Hi Caelum,

Thanks for your comments. There are a lot of interesting issues, both legal and ethical and the subject is controversial for sure. Good luck with your project as well!

([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))

Assignment 2 Submissions

2015-03-10T00:38:50Z

Gary Brown: /* Comments */

{{AssignmentCal}}

===Submission Instructions===

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

This assignment is due on March 3rd. Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (assignments submitted 4 days late or later will have a maximum grade of 1 point).

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

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

In the submissions section below please post the following information:

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

==Comments==

Everyone will receive an additional participation grade for this assignment. You should read through everyone's proposals after they are uploaded and add constructive comments below the proposal on which you're commenting. Comments should be submitted by March 10th so you have time to incorporate them, if applicable, into your project outline. '''Please remember to sign your comments by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post.''' If we don't know who you are we can't give you credit for finishing this assignment!

Ryan Hurley

Facebook & Big Data vs. Your Privacy

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Prospectus_FB_and_privacy_Assignment_2.docx

[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 16:06, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----
Ryan,
Great topic choice. Without fail, every single time I have a class on Big Data I obsessively delete aspects of my online presence, cut up frequent customer member cards, and google myself. It’s a hilarious cycle. I am so excited to read your paper and I appreciate the range of content you have considered for the paper, as well as the range of your references. I have an online text for another IT class that has a chapter devoted to FaceBook and their privacy issues. Please, email me and I can send it to you. Also, make sure to keep in mind that FaceBook’s relationships with advertisers and users are changing constantly. A three year old article might give you more context for your research, but very likely reports on policies that are out of date.
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 18:38, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Ryan, Great work, I think this is a very interesting area, I think that facebook does in a way uses information to target ads, and also the fact that it associates you with people that you may know is a relevant fact. As far as privacy issues, it would be a good idea to study the subscription agreement to see what is is said with reference to the idea of paying with information, or kind of like the purpose at hand of facebook.
Excellent work, I think that you may be benefited from finding a community in which you can show how this problem is handled to contrast, that just an idea.

Edwin ([[User:Edwinduque|Edwinduque]] ([[User talk:Edwinduque|talk]]) 19:56, 9 March 2015 (EDT))

----
Olivia Brinich

Intentions and Outcomes of Youtube’s Copyright and Coding Regulations

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Oliviabrinich_prospectus03.03.15.pdf

[[User:Oliviabrinich|Oliviabrinich]] ([[User talk:Oliviabrinich|talk]]) 15:51, 3 March 2015 (EST)
----
Comments on Olivia's Prospectus:

Hi Olivia,

Let me start by saying I think that Youtube is a great source for your project. I’m not saying that just because I am doing my paper on Youtube. I find the creative ways that people are using it fascinating. Much more so than some of the other platforms.

If I may summarize, you plan to discuss how legal pressures forced Youtube to introduce technologies that changed the user experiences, like Copyright ID. You also mentioned some other (possibly voluntary) technologies that are part of the user experience with the intent to discuss how they impact users. I think they are good ideas and good concepts to write about.

As you rightly point the Youtube community is one of the largest communities on the Internet. I wonder if it might not be taking on too much to try to examine Youtube as a whole. I would suggest selecting a small group that is susceptible to the effects of the technologies you are reviewing. Describe who the group is and how certain characteristics of their make-up or user experience make them particularly sensitive to the technologies you will focus on.

For example I will be focusing on hobbyist inventors. Guys that spend their weekends in the garage putting “junk” together and posting videos about their “inventions” on Youtube. Their content is all original so they are not impacted by Copyright ID. There is very little thumbs up/down. They are a much more “expressive” crowd as the comments indicate.

I’m not trying to discourage you. I think if you pick the right group and tell us why you picked them, it can very interesting. I hope that is helpful.

Best,

[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 19:47, 4 March 2015 (EST)

----

I Olivia, I think that this is a very interesting topic, it revolves around the idea of how you tube deals with privacy, and the balance of how it benefits itself vs. the users. I think that one interesting part I read from your prospectus, and you can also incorporate this idea, was how copyright is dealt in you tube, the idea of how deal when someone may alter or damages someone else's work with out permission, those are certainly great areas, so I think the question would be whether you tube creates a risk to the privacy rights of users as well as copy rights risks and how this could be dealt.
Great work.

Edwin (20:02, 9 March 2015 (EDT))
----

• Erika L Rich

• Title: Reputation Management and Ethical Considerations for Members of the Internet Marketing Super Friends (IMSF) Facebook Group

• Link: [[File:LSTU_E120_Erika_Rich_Assignment_2.docx]]

[[User:ErikaLRich|ErikaLRich]] ([[User talk:ErikaLRich|talk]]) 15:22, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----
Hey Erika,

It's great that you chose to focus on on specific Facebook group for your topic. I am still a bit confused about the purpose of the group and the demographics of its members. Who are the members? What do they gain from membership? How many members are active participants that make substansive contributions versus inactive members? Once your audience understands more about the group itself, they will relate to this example and be more invested in your topic. Another suggestion I have is to focus on the effects of the moderators on the content of the group (instead of cyber security for example). You mention culture differences coming in to play and affecting content. Can you explain that further?
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 18:53, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Hi Erica,

I think you did a wonderful job, it is certainly a very interesting topic, my self I am doing research about facebook for my topic, however I had a little bit of trouble flowing with the issue presented as the problem, maybe if you can include examples to illustrate the paper could flow better, I think the basic idea is the way how facebook handles privacy matters for its benefit vs the benefit of the user, you could go on explaining about htis with examples and your paper will be even greater.

Edwin (20:09, 9 March 2015 (EDT))
----

• Emily MacIntyre (EmiMac)

• Prospectus title: A Case Study on the Unintended Legal Consequences and Chilling Effects of YouTube’s Content ID Sweep on its Video Game Commentator Community

• Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Emily_MacIntyre_Assignment_2.pdf

[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 09:41, 2 March 2015 (EST)

-----

Hi Emily, This is a great area, you could find some ideas by examining how users can damage or alter someone else's work and privacy issues, I think that you should explain the law of the particular area, and explain how it applies to the group your are presenting, explain to a specific targeted audience, like tennagers, or famous people, etc, and use qualitative and quantitative data to draw conclusions, and inferences, this could help get the point across that you choose. Great work.

Edwin (20:13, 9 March 2015 (EDT))
----

Emily,

Great job on your prospectus! It is very well organized, and your citations sources are well researched. I found your research really enticing because I had never heard of this sweep, and I consider myself an avid youtube visitor. I think you are on to a great research project. Although the topic is remarkably fascinating, I wonder if investigating and juxtaposing the different types of monitoring will be too large or too abstract for the limit of the project. I also read up on the PewDiePie character cited, and I think it is really fascinating to see that he has 35 mil subscribers, yet chose to turn off his commenting feature because of how volatile he claimed the space was becoming. His specific youtube channel then does not have a community to investigate. But it would be interesting to examine someone or a specific youtube channel that has a similar following as the case study to better help zone in on collecting and investigating data. Thank you for this topic, I am currently reading more about the youtube actions in 2008 and 2013 because I had little to no prior knowledge of both events.

Good luck on your project!

[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 00:09, 5 March 2015 (EST)

----

RE: Mhoching,

Thank you for your comment. I very much like your prospectus topic as well as you can see from my comments below. With regards to my final project, I thought I should reiterate and clarify that my community is the YouTube contributors that concentrate on making Let’s Plays and video game reviews. While it is helpful to find a video with an active comment section, where other users further explain how the ID sweep influences their output choices, in the case of PewDiePie, his decision to turn off his comment section does in part illustrate how YouTube has rapidly evolved. Since Google began catering to commercial enterprises over the original volunteer contributors, some of the volunteer contributors have become increasingly more frustrated and they exhibit their frustration in a variety of ways.

Thanks Again,

Emily

[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 09:37, 5 March 2015 (EST)

----
• MattK

• Home of the Mallet of Loving Correction: John Scalzi's Blog, "Whatever"

• http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:MattK_Assignment2.docx

[[User:MattK|MattK]] ([[User talk:MattK|talk]]) 22:01, 2 March 2015 (EST)
----

Hi Matt,

I am particularly interested in your topic because I believe it is a very small example of what the internet could become or arguably is becoming in regards to free speech. I am very intrigued by the notion of "knowledge is power". What I mean relative to your project is that I believe that those who can control what "knowledge" people receive therefore posses great power. In your case, Scalzi's blog is equipped with a comment section where total control is given to Scalzi on what to allow others to see. By censoring whatever Scalzi sees as "offensive" he is limiting a voice, whether good or bad, and therefore limiting knowledge. I would argue that there's no question that the term knowledge here is used very loosely and there are obvious comments on these sorts of forums which provide no overall good at all, but more importantly the question I think of is how dangerous it would be for one person to posses this sort of "editorial power" to simply delete anything they see unfit. What would happen if other sites also used this sort of policy where whatever is subjectively deemed unworthy of being a comment was deleted? Are there infact other online sites and forums that take this approach? What implications does this approach have for the audience of the site? Does it discourage participation as a sort of chilling effect? It is a scary world to imagine where one party possess the power of what information to provide and what to censor. In this specific case what if the comments are simply against Scalzi and are a disagreement with what he writes? What is to stop him from simply deleting something. I'm curious to know what sort of checks and balances or accountability Scarzi's editorial powers has. I think your subject bears the question of where to draw the line between free speech and productive censorship, an enormously tricky and potentially dangerous distinction.

These are just a few thoughts I had, in any case best of luck it's a great topic.

Thanks,
Ryan Hurley
[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 18:55, 8 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Edwin Duque (Edwinduque)

Prospectus Title:The copyright, privacy and organization challenges that online communities such as Facebook and The Jury Deliberation in the cyber space are faced with

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Edwinduque_Assignment_2.doc

([[User:Edwinduque|Edwinduque]] ([[User talk:Edwinduque|talk]]) 22:10, 2 March 2015 (EST))
----
Hi Edwin,

I like the way you structured your idea. I think that the copyright issue is very interesting and it is worthed spending some more time on it. Exploring the nature of a Facebook post – whether it could be consider as an “idea”, in the Copyright Act specifically states that In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, regardless of the form in which it is described. Or it could be considered as an “original works of authorship” fixed by the author in a tangible way, in which case it would be covered by copyrights. The issue of re-posting someone else’s post with commercial purposes could be interesting to mention as well. It is just an idea, but saying some words about the case with the famous Facebook post “In response to the new Facebook guidelines…. “ might be interesting too. I think that you could also easily link your work to the “right to be forgotten” issues we discussed in class.

Here are some links you might find useful. Good luck!

http://www.nyccounsel.com/business-blogs-websites/who-owns-photos-and-videos-posted-on-facebook-or-twitter/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-social-networking/

([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))
-------
Name: Michelle Byrne (Chelly.Byrne)

Prospectus title: Balancing privacy for victims of sexual crimes with
opportunity for support in online forum AfterSilence.org

Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:ChellyByrne_Assignment2.pdf

[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 07:54, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----

Hi Michelle,

You have chosen a terrifically nuanced community. Indeed, the word “balance” and the question of HOW such a community can possibly approach this word is bound to yield more data and conclusions than the page ljmits of our final project – which is only testimony to the strength of your community research choice. I believe yours is the most psychologically-based prospectus that I have read thus far.

By “psychologically-based,” I mean that I sense that you will be making some conclusions about the specialized mindsets and individuals who are drawn to this community; a community that paradoxically, and in waves, seem to wish for both anonymity and at the same time, a very specific and difficult kind of attention. Anonymous attention. A community that has created a safe haven and yet, has some very troubling cracks, as you point out.

Questions:
Are these cracks mostly user generated? As in, the example you found of the poster who revealed configurable data revealing her identity. If they are mostly user-generated, how prevalent of an instance is this? Of the active users who reveal private information, what instances are accidental or ignorant (as in, thinking they’ll be anonymous by revealing age, town, etc) as opposed to intentional?

Is there some kind of warning or clause in the user agreement that attempts to address this issue of accidentally revealing private information or even purposefully revealing it?

If the user agreement and the rules and guidelines for AfterSilence.org do address this issue and users still post personal information, what are the pros and cons of simply warning users about the risks and then letting users do as they please vs. taking pro-active measures?

If there were pro-active measures for a site host like this to take, what would they be? Message board community reminders? Moderators who redact info? Self-regulation and regulation amongst members? What does regulation in this kind of community actually look like and is it sustainable in its current form?

Many more questions and considerations to make. Good topic choice, succinctly proposed. I wish you all the best in this project and I look forward to reading the final project.

Best,
Chanel Rion

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 11:31, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----

Name: Chanel Rion (ChanelRion)

Prospectus Title: '''''We the Judges: "Sitejabber", "Yelp", and Communities of User-Generated Business Reviews.'''''

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment2_Prospectus_Rion.docx

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 11:21, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----
Hi Chanel,

The subject of customer generated reviews is certainly huge on the internet. It is beneficial for consumers to get an opinion of a product or restaurant from other people over just what the advertising says. But as you point out, there is a lot of opportunity for libel or slander – especially people just having an ax to grind. It would be interesting to see how Yelp or Sitejabber are being responsible and making an effort to regulate content and protect places being reviewed from harassing content. I like how your approach includes researching any legal cases brought against them; it would be interesting to see if any of them prevail. Also, how do they actually calculate the ratings? Is it an average of overall ratings? Or could bad reviews be hidden away if there become lots of positive reviews? Are businesses sandbagging to increase their ratings?

Overall, this is a great community to look into and I wish you success!

Michelle aka (Chelly)
[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 15:43, 7 March 2015 (EST)
----

RE: Michelle

Hi Michelle,

Thank you for your comments and feedback. I too, am especially interested in the legal angles to this community and I am glad to know I'm not the only one. I will certainly be watching and reviewing and seeking the answers to these questions and also to your specific concerns. All intensely pertinent to how businesses and communities are going to manage tensions with each other -- tensions that have always been here, but are now revolutionized in simply the sheer and complete access that the Internet provides to all of us.

Looking forward to starting this seek and find. Thank you for highlighting questions and focuses, they should prove helpful for such a broad category.

Best,

Chanel

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 16:49, 8 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Name: Becca Lewis (beccalew)

Prospectus Title: '''/r/TwoXChromosomes and /r/feminism: The challenges of promoting feminism on Reddit while upholding the values of privacy and free speech'''

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Final_Project_Prospectus_Becca_Lewis.docx

[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 13:15, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----

Hi Becca!
I absolutely love the theme of your project, it is an exceptional live issue since feminism has been discussed much more this past year than it has been for many years. Therefore, it´s really important to examine the forums in which people have the opportunity to discuss the subject. Great!

I also found it cool that you are thinking about recording a podcast for the project. If you do so, you might consider including an interview with someone active in the specific forums, a professor in gender studies or perhaps two people with different views on the issue?

I have a question about the subreddits you talked about though. You wrote about a ”safe space” for women. Are those subreddits only for women or are they open for anyone who want to discuss feminism and gender roles? If it is a women-only forum, you might also discuss the consequences on that. If not, maybe that has consequences as well. Maybe you should discuss self censorship in the feminism subreddits as well (which is very interesting since Reddit-as you said-values free speech above almost all else)?

Good luck!
/Josefin

[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 10:39, 5 March 2015 (EST)
----
Hello Becca,

Your avenue of research should prove quite illuminating for creating feminist spaces, in online fora dominated by men. Interestingly, your topic dovetails with this weeks readings, concerning hate speech and other charged language, which is used far to readily in online fora. It would be interesting to see if the users in the two subreddits. /r/TwoXChromosomes and /r/Feminism, have tried using counterspeech, when confronted with offensive or antagonising posts. Mind, if the moderator of r/Feminism is in fact trying to subvert this positive feminist space, would that violate any of Reddit's policies? If not, are there any policies governing the role of moderator?

Good luck!

[[User:AlexanderH|AlexanderH]] ([[User talk:AlexanderH|talk]]) 19:44, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

----
Name: Gary Brown (Gary Brown)

Prospectus Title: The Effects of Site Controls on Community Objectives: communityfunded.com

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Gary_Brown_Assignment2.docx

[[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 13:18, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----
Comments on Gary's Prospectus:

Gary,

Great topic! I hope to be going out to for crowdfunding by the end of the May. So I will follow your Wiki with interest. (In your proposal you link to crowdfunded. I think you meant community funded. You may want to look at that.)

You mentioned the stated purpose of Communityfunded. But you did not mention their reason for existing. In other words, what started crowdfunding and why would individuals seek funds for their projects from the public and not other traditional sources. Why are people like me willing to go online (to communityfunded) to ask for money, as opposed to going to another site or pitching a Venture Capitalist or a bank? Why would people fund a project on line versus invest in the stock market or Bank CDs?

I think that the answer to those questions goes to the heart of crowdfunding. It also is germane to the “troublesome obstacles” you refer to in your prospectus.

When you mention failed projects, I would suggest that not all failures are the same. I might be willing to invest money in a project I consider socially redeeming even if I thought it had very little chance of success. Where as, if I were investing in some Harvard wiz-kids that profess to have the next Facebook, I might have very different feelings if they went belly up. So you may want to include categories of projects, or claims/expectations in your discussions. As well as any risk factor ratings.

You also mentioned building and keeping trust of supporters. One of the areas that interests me is the ways that Fundraisers generate funding support. Do they rely solely on the site? In other words, is there a pool of would be investors just waiting for the right idea to come around so they can invest. Or is a fundraiser expected to go outside the community and raise interest and drive that interest back to the site? How does that impact the “trust” factor? If I am a one-time fundraiser does it matter all that much what people think about me after I’ve got my money?

You discuss how you will break down funded projects, etc. Is there a way to figure out what various fundraiser did to get funded? Marketing may prove to be more of a factor than the project or its worthiness.

It would certainly be worthwhile to compare and contrast crowdfunding before and after changes in regs that made it easier for the public to invest. And how post reg trends may lead to new regs/controls.

I look forward to reading your paper.

Best,

[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 20:45, 4 March 2015 (EST)

----

Name: Meagan HoChing (mhoching)

Title: Online Gaming Harassment: All fun and games?

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Mhoching_Assignment2.docx

[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 13:50, 3 March 2015 (EST)
----

Hi Meagan,

Every aspect of your prospectus is incredibly interesting to me. I am especially intrigued by how well you have matched up the readings to your topic.

After I read your section on Norms I thought about how you point out that “the gaming system is very competitive” and it made me wonder, if Valve placed more restrictions to prevent bullying could it potentially take some of the pleasure of competition out of the mix. If so, then would some users leave the game because they like the hostile environment, which may be why they chose to play in it in the first place. Keeping this line of thought in mind, perhaps you could find another similar community that has more strict modes of control in place to observe the differences between them.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading your prospectus and I look forward to seeing your finished product.

Best,
Emily

[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 09:25, 5 March 2015 (EST)

----

Hi Meagan!

What an interesting and relevant subject!

I think that it was a very good idea of you to use the Dot Model with the components ”Market”, ”Architecture”, ”Norms” and ”Law”, it makes everything much more clear. I agree with Emily that it would be a good idea to compare DOTA 2 with another game, preferably from another website than STEAM and with another system of regulation. I would find it really interesting to see the result of a such a study and if norms, the language, the members of the site, etc. differ between the two games.

I´m looking forward to see the result! Good luck!

/Josefin

[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 10:16, 5 March 2015 (EST)

----

Hi Meagan!

I think this is a very fascinating topic and one I too almost pursued. I am a bit of a gamer myself and although I don't play DOTA, I do regularly play many different sports games which I have found to have similar issues of harassment and "bullying". I hadn't heard of the STEAM website you're focusing on until I read your assignment, but for anyone who has read really a comment section/forum anywhere, one second you're talking about a video game, the next you have gone down a path of hate and overall disgust of anyone different minded not to mention if it is a competitive game which stirrs up some hostile emotions toward an adversary. I find this particularly interesting when it comes to video games because many people who don't play video games believe that "it's just a game" but on the contrary for many gamers, one can find their self emotionally invested into a game you are taking part in. You feel this overwhelming sense of dedication to it and attachment to what happens in it where you can essentially lose yourself in the game. It is because of this hardwired competitive and primitive feeling and this element of motivation that I believe is so deeply rooted in many gamers that it would be near impossible to ever completely outlaw the harassment or trash talk because it will never stop. However perhaps there is some sort of way to outlaw the harassment that crosses a line by creating real consequence while still allowing some competitive jabbing but that I will be curious to see from your project. I will be also curious to hear what your research finds about the website in particular, I would venture to guess that it is probably similar for communities like the PSN and xboxlive.

I might suggest on top of all this to take a look at games which do not have a competitive nature with other users. This may be difficult to find but I'd be curious to see whether it is harassment you find on forums with these sort of games or rather a cooperative dialogue intended to help one another.

Good Luck!
- Ryan Hurley

[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 16:26, 8 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Name: Caroline B

Title: The Study of Privacy, Accuracy & Order on InsideNova Website and Moving ‘Little Sites’ Up

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:1_Caroline_B.docx

[[User:Cbore001|Cbore001]] ([[User talk:Cbore001|talk]]) 14:45, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----
Caroline,
Something to for your paper is the current statistics on accessing news in the United States (online newspaper versus hard copy newspaper for example), and the devices used to access online news (iphone, android, ipad, laptop, desktop computer, etc). IBISWorld and Mintel might offer up to date statistics on news distribution/access. Google analytics offers insight on specific website views. Perhaps take a look at what the demographics of the visitors of this site are and try to find out why this site attracts these viewers. Comparing this site to other more popular news sites (like CNN as you mentioned) is a great idea. Currently, I think your proposal covers too wide a range of topics, so maybe consider focusing on just a few that you mentioned. (For example maybe narrow it to the three subjects max: privacy, journalists’ / contributors’ / editors’ / monitors’ control of content, the ethical policy of the site). If privacy is a big concern to you, I think you could focus your entire paper around it.
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 19:19, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----

Name: Jan.Yburan

Prospectus title: Reddit.com/r/IAmA its Controls on Privacy and Content

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Jan.Yburan.Assignment2.docx

----
Hi Jan,

This is a really interesting community to build your case study around. Prior to today I have only been on the site a few times to look at subreddits that relate to topics that I am interested in, and since I am not a member I have not considered how the site protects the user’s privacy.

Today I decided to look at the IAmA subreddit to get a better handle of the scope of your project. Consequently, I came across and interesting and fairly benign thread started by an employee of a movie theater and it brought to mind, how does the site handle issues of privacy, libel or defamation against a company or a consumer when an employee engages in what appears at first glance as an anonymous tell all blog that highlights how he/she has witnessed vulgar and perhaps even criminal activity.

Considering your topic and direction you want to take, I think you might want to blend together aspects of the readings from our classes on privacy with the readings for next week’s class on free expression, information, and unwanted speech.

I am looking forward to seeing your completed final project. I am sure it will be very informative.

Best,

Emily

P.S. (Here is the link to the AMA I referenced: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2xz6nb/iama_movie_theater_employee_and_ive_seen_the/)

[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 13:04, 5 March 2015 (EST)

----

----

Name: Eric Yuk Lun Kwong (Caelum)

Prospectus title: The vulnerable voting structure of Digg.com and the gradual
collapse of its popularity and voting legitimacy

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Caelum_Assignment2.pdf

[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 15:11, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----

Hi Eric,

Excellent topic. One that possesses, at once, broad-scale relevance and unusual particularities.

Exploring the reasons for Digg’s failure as a site and as a community, I’m drawn to the question regarding the members themselves.

It would be interesting to compare, if applicable, the kinds of users who are drawn to a voting-type participatory community vs. a community that actually interacts via content and contributions. If clear distinctions can be made here, to then find examples of successful communities that are voter-based and to pinpoint key policies or elements that differentiate sustainable models of voter-based communities compared to content-based contribution communities.

Perhaps it is fundamentally an issue of investment; when users and the outside world view a product as having or requiring minimal investment (as in, saying, or rather, clicking “yes” or “no” to something – voting to “dig” or “bury” a story). Are voting based sites destined to suffer from questions of legitimacy by virtue of being online and being so subjective?

That you will be making parallels to Wikipedia’s platform seems to be a good approach here. Wisely done. Thank you also, for your commentaries – I appreciate the thoroughness in which you approach these topics.

Best of luck!

Chanel Rion

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 11:57, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Name: Alex Samaei (Samaei1)

Prospectus title: The Framework of Projects and Backers on Kickstarter

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Samaei1_Assignment2.pdf

[[User:Samaei1|Samaei1]] ([[User talk:Samaei1|talk]]) 15:37, 3 March 2015 (EST)
----

Hi Alex!

I'm so happy you picked this website because I've donated to various projects on this website, but never took into account the structure of the website and complications due to misappropriating of funding. I find it hard to try to quantify what is appropriate to fundraise, because the topic is subjective. Of course I don't think it would be appropriate to fundraise to support hate speech (if that's what someone is fundraising for), yet I don't find it appropriate to fundraise for movies about starving children, when that money can go to feeding starving children. I hope I'm communicating the subjectiveness of trying to find what would be considered appropriate to raise money for and how it varies from person to person.

But speaking in regards to the Lessig's Dot Model I think the website can be broken down into different sections to address some of the issues you raise. For example, how does the structure of kickstarter promote accountability on the artist/person asking for money? On the donation page for example, a vast amount of information about the artist is available, as well as avenues in which you can contact the fundraiser. So if kickstarter has provided this as a requirement for people to submit or provide when asking to be funded, is it then up to the donor to hold that person accountable? I have the tools on that page to ask the fundraiser for that specific information and continue to follow up on that information. I think once you start looking at specific/deliberate aspects of kickstarter, it will start to inform or control behavior.

I hope this helps! Look forward to reading the final project; happy researching and writing!

[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 00:35, 5 March 2015 (EST)
----

Hi Alex,

I’m interested that you have chosen a community that, you imply, is being targeted not for its failures, but for its successes. A wildfire that is often so much more visible on the Internet than in any other form in history. Speed, access, and instant publicity -- make "success" in society ever more visible, open to targeting, and prone to hijacking. Indeed. It is a great topic for research in this course in particular.

One aspect that could be revelatory is to seek out the kinds of legal cases that have been brought against kickstarter and what litigation the site has to deal with and what kinds of litigation that users potentially enter into.

There’s also a question about user legitimacy. How easy is it for some startup organization to simply use this community and its platform as an elaborate marketing plan? Can a company, for instance, viel itself to be a small time kickstarter that can feed itself funding and manufacture the appearance of democratic success? It would be especially useful to identify who the moderators are and to what extent they exercise control or regulation if any. Does Kickstarter have even the skeleton of some kind of verification system or is the verification over the legitimacy of a proposal entirely user generated? Is this sustainable or are there signs of trouble ahead? What would be a disastrous scenario for this community? To these questions, I think that many clues may be found in the litigation and whatever bad publicity the community has had encounter.

Great topic, culturally relevant community. Thank you for the topic and best of luck for the final.

Best,

Chanel Rion

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 12:31, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----

:Dear Alex,

:From your opening paragraph, I am wondering if you plan to focus on Kickstarter itself, one or more of the projects seeking support through Kickstarter, or the Reddit.com community. Each would seem to present a different community/sub-community based on the same general subject. Coverying all three could be a little broad for this size project.

:I think the issues you present are one of the more interesting subject areas of crowdfunding sites – who is the gatekeeper and how are projects screened? The authority to control and manner of control by the site owner, community, or government touches on many of our subject areas. It should be fertile ground for your project. I would plan carefully whether to go deeply into limited subject matter, or cover several subjects more broadly in the time and space you have. Either way, you have a site that should meet fit your plan.

:I wish you success, and I look forward to reading your work.

:[[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 19:23, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----

Name: Gia

Prospectus title: Chivalry online

Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Gia_Assignment2.docx
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 15:46, 3 March 2015 (EST))

----

Hi Gia, this is a great topic, I think the importance of this group is very high, it serves greatly to the public to prevent scams, and I wondered if the public service it provides weights in the privacy issue when it comes to the issue of finding out scams and finding information, where are the boundaries, great topic, maybe you can illustrate your topic with examples and explain how the law applies to those various kinds, great work!!!>

Edwin ([[User:Edwinduque|Edwinduque]] ([[User talk:Edwinduque|talk]]) 20:25, 9 March 2015 (EDT))
----
Hi Gia,

This topic is definitely flushing out the seedier side of the internet! I have never heard of this site 419eater, but we all know the dangers of scammers and how they use the internet. How do they find their victims? Some scams are so realistic as to mention names of loved ones in danger and demand money be expedited. The scam baiters you’re talking about here must be trolling similar sites and circles to identify culprits they need want to go after. But in doing so, are they just as much at fault as the original scammers? Is there any regulation of the members? I can definitely see an ethical dilemma, as you point out, of some possibly unscrupulous members. And your question of whether they have extended their existence outside the online world is a very interesting consideration.

You a have a lot of good sources listed regarding scams (white collar crime and Ponzi schemes too!). Good luck, this is an intriguing subject!

Michelle

[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 15:57, 7 March 2015 (EST)
----
Re: Michelle

Thanks for the comments, Michelle. I definitely intend to explore the subject from both sides, because there could be really two, maybe even more , points of view. Regarding the legal regulation, there is a lot to be said – interned jurisdiction. The self-regulation of the web community which is evolving with the time is also a nice starting point.
Thank again for the ideas and good luck to you too with your work!

([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))
----

Name: Mishal R. Kennedy

Prospectus title: Enforcing Guidelines Without Harming User Contributions

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Mishal_R._Kennedy_Assignment2.rtf
([[User:Mishal R. Kennedy|Mishal R. Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Mishal R. Kennedy|talk]]) 15:51, 3 March 2015 (EST))
----
Hi Mishal,

The subject you have chosen is very interesting and gives great opportunities for discussions and analyses. I would directly make a reference to the Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0, which we discussed during “Paradigms for Studying the Internet’ class. You could explore the methods used by the moderators and administrators as a way of self regulation of the community. The question you asked whether these methods are causing more bad than good, is right to the point.
I would suggest you explain in more details the different methods of control used my the moderators and perhaps compare them with the ones used by other communities. You could also take a look if it is explicitly listed in the Terms of Use of the website in which case what measure is taken? Is there a higher authority than the moderator to whom a sanctioned user could complain? Could such a decision “be appealed” or it is final and definitive? Is there at all a hierarchy in the administration of the website?
Here are some sources which might help. Good luck!

https://www.academia.edu/3079184/COAT_Collaborative_Outgoing_Anti-Spam_Technique
http://www.yildiz.edu.tr/~aktas/courses/CE-0114890/g8-p3.pdf
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~kksivara/sfwr4c03/projects/4c03projects/CGLucas-Project.pdf
http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM11/paper/viewFile/2780/3296

([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))
-----

Name: Richard Markow

Prospectus title: The YouTube video-sharing platform & The Community of Alternative Heating Systems and Appliance Inventors

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Rich_Markow_Assignment_2_Prospectus.pdf

[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 16:03, 3 March 2015 (EST)
----
:Dear Richard,

:I am most interested in how you plan to use the YouTube channel with your invention and how you will relate that effort to our project here. Do I understand that you will try to create a community within your channel, and that will be the subject community? Or, is the plan to take one of the five areas you have mentioned and focus on one or more of them? I am having a little difficulty seeing from the prospectus what your focus will be and how your invention channel will relate to the analysis.

:Your third subject sounds like an especially interesting area to me: “legal liability of user generated content related to unproven claims and inventions.” From Mentos in soda, to instructions on building who knows what, who if anyone has liability for misguided attempts to imitate these videos? Is there really anything that YouTube as an intermediary could do?

: Congratulations on your invention. I hope that you will be able to bring it to the market successfully.

:[[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 20:38, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----

Name AlexanderH

Prospectus Title: Managing the Petitions of Change.org: B Corps, Social Enterprise and Transparency

Link:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:AlexanderH_Assignment_2_Prospectus.docx

[[User:AlexanderH|AlexanderH]] ([[User talk:AlexanderH|talk]]) 16:10, 3 March 2015 (EST)
----
----
Name: Meredith Blake

Prospectus Title:Identifying Avenues of Recourse for Businesses on Yelp

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Meredith_Blake._Assignment_2.docx
[[User:Meredithmblake|Meredith]] ([[User talk:Meredithmblake|talk]]) 16:13, 3 March 2015 (EST)

-----
Hello Meredith!

I think this is a great topic and you have a very interesting approach. I haven’t really looked into Yelp and the lawsuit angle, but they certainly have a lot of influence on the internet. Out of curiosity, I just Googled about 10 different restaurants in this area and the results had the Yelp review either as the second or third site listed! So potential customers are seeing the Yelp rating almost before the actual websites in a couple of cases! There is little recourse for them, and as you show by the Sia example, a disgruntled customer can reach out and cause a flood of terrible reviews, from people who weren’t even customers! Caelum makes a good point in the summary at the bottom that reviews are either one end of the spectrum or the other… disgruntled customers wanting to air their displeasure or someone extremely happy who wants to rave about it.

It is good to take a targeted approach to such a large community, and looking into the recourse that businesses may have as well as existing lawsuits sounds like a good approach. If a suit is successful, what are the actual outcomes? Does Yelp take down reviews or adjust the ratings? I think people who expound on sites that give a platform are really missing the spirit of free speech. I don’t think your approach is that unpopular, not that free speech needs to be regulated, but that there should be some modicum of self-restraint and freedom to say anything is not absolutely protected.

Good luck on this, you’ve got some really good ideas!

Michelle

[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 16:14, 7 March 2015 (EST)
-----

Name: Wesley Verge

Prospectus Title : Scrolling into Darkness -- An investigation into the regulatory forces at work in Youtube's comment section

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Wesley_Verge_Prospectus.txt

[[User:WesleyVerge|WesleyVerge]] ([[User talk:WesleyVerge|talk]]) 16:19, 3 March 2015 (EST)

-----

Hi Wesley!

I am very intrigued by the "solutions" there are to change the culture of the comment sections. It is really an intriguing phenomenon that one could be watching a video about puppies and suddenly 4 comments down glance over an argument that Obama was sent by satan himself to destroy the world. I've always been curious as to how this has not been regulated more strictly. I think you raise great points why and the concerns Google is faced with. If I were doing this project I might also attempt to compare this to other sites as well that must face similar challenges. For example you suggest in your assignment that youtube channels direct traffic to sites like Reddit, but is that really an escape for the channel as this implies? Can these "trolls" not go over to reddit to promote their hate just as easily, or do they have different solutions in play that regulate these sorts of issues better? As far as I know both are anonymous to an extent so with this anonymity many of these trolls have "keyboard muscles" as I like to call them. I can understand twitter because many times it is much more personal but even there people can create fake accounts and troll all the same, just see Jimmy Kimmels skit on celebrity reading mean tweets.

I really like your focus on famous YouTubers I just think it may also be beneficial and worth mentioning how other sites with the same prevalent issue have tried to combat trolling. Also from a legal side, are all of these comments protected by the law and free speech? Perhaps because of the enormity of all the comments and comment sections, it is simply impossible to regulate what is said in every section from a legal perspective. Food for thought, but in any case great project idea.

Best of luck,
Ryan

[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 16:56, 8 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Prospectus Title: Knocking the Wind out of Whistleblowers: The US' response to the growing threat from WikiLeaks

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Kelly.WilsonAssignment_2.docx

[[User:Kelly.wilson|Kelly.wilson]] ([[User talk:Kelly.wilson|talk]]) 16:38, 3 March 2015 (EST)

--------

Hi Kelly,

Interesting topic. There are a couple of perspectives you may want to consider about when defining what you mean by Whistleblower and the response in each situation. 1) Exposing illegal acts. 2) Exposing immoral acts. 3) Exposing Acts designed to embarrassed your political opponents or as retribution.

Should they all be treated the same and afforded equal protection?

Good luck!

[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 00:10, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

--------

Name: Tasha

Prospectus Title: Exploring the Complexity of Rapidly Evolving Information in a Bodybuilding Forum and the Challenges of Quality Assurance

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Tasha_Assignment_2_Prospectus.docx

Tasha[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 17:12, 3 March 2015 (EST)

--------
Hi Tasha,

I like a lot your choice of community . It is unusual and at the same time you could find a lot of things to explore-both from legal and ethical stand point.
I would say that your questions and reflections are on the right track. I think that one of the issues you could explore is the fact that they are often used as a platform for unlicensed sell of drugs. If you choose to go for this, you should have to take a good look on the definitions in order to differ “Drugs” for “Nutrition Supplements” because this is the tricky moment. How the website is protecting itself from such kind of activity (by its Terms of use or in other ways) , might be interesting as well.
Above you could find two links that might be of some use. Good luck!

The first is little bit old but interesting:
http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t000525b.html

http://health.wusf.usf.edu/post/unlicensed-pharmacies-selling-compounded-drugs-online

([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))

__________

Name: Josefin Sasse

Prospectus Title: A case study on the children's website Kidzworld and how they deal with threats against being a safe environment for children.

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:JosefinSasse.pdf
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 17:26, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----

Hi Josefin!

I find your topic utterly intriguing. I had no idea such a website existed and it's been quite fascinating just poking around the website a little bit. I think it is a very valid point to raise about "who monitors Kidzworld", because there doesn't seem to be much of a screening process to ensure the user that is signing up for an account is in fact between the ages of 9-17. Also, I see you have cited the Pew Research Center study from the readings, which is a great resource for dissecting the demographics and statistics of harassment, but the study was done on "young adults" ranging from 18-29, and "young women" between the ages of 18-24 years old. Which I hope illuminates, rather than complicates, the issue of doing research on a demographic ranging from 9-17, but more so how do you set up a website that serves a population that would need adult consent to participate in almost everything they do. Along with privacy issues, I think the question of who is responsible for what and for whom is a great aspect you have raised in your paper! I would love to stay in touch and see the developments of your paper if that would be okay. I think this is the perfect website to investigate for this project.

[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 00:10, 5 March 2015 (EST)

--------

----

Hi Josefin,

I think you picked a great online community to explore for your final project, not only because it is a social space for a specific group, but also because there seems to be some fairly strict regulations in place to maintain a safe environment for kids.

It might be interesting if you could find some weakness in its structure. For example can kids go into private chats or are all the chats and comment sections being screened. If they are being screened, is it by a computer generated logarithm or real people?

Another question that you could delve into is, how do the site’s administrators know the users are minors. Do they require parents’ permission? If so how do they prove it is actually a real parent?

I hope these suggestions are helpful. I am looking forward to seeing your finished project.

Best,
Emily

[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 00:13, 5 March 2015 (EST)
----

Name: Brooke Tjarks

Prospectus: Art. Business. Fans. (...) How this collaborative space shapes mass visual media production and worldwide distribution

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Prospectus.Brooke.Tjarks.pdf

--------

Name: Abby McHugh

Prospectus Title: From #Thinspiration to “Low Carb Friends”: The Regulation of Online Weight Loss Content

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Amchugh_Assignment2.docx

--------

Hi Abby!

Okay, so I really wich I had chosen this issue. It is great that you did!

To facilitate the work, I would recommend that you are more specific in which websites you are going to explore since there is so much #thinspo content out there. But Twitter, Tumbler, Pinterest, and Instagram are great platforms to explore, together with blogs like you said.

'''Other things you might want to discuss are:'''

What makes the most harm: #thinspo/pro-ana blogs and posts or limitations on freedom of speech by regulating such content? (On my part, I am determined in my opinion that #thinspo is devastating and that regulation in this case is a good thing.)

Who is active in this community?

Could pro-ana be illegitimate harassment? Compare it the possibility of a pro-cancer or a pro-aids community (deadly diseases just like anorexia).

What effects could/does the sometimes lack of regulation have on the community online and offline?
Good luck! You´ve chosen a very interesting subject!

/Josefin

[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 11:08, 5 March 2015 (EST)

----

Abby,
I am so impressed and dare I say jealous that you picked such an important subject for your paper. Here are a few things that come to mind as I read your plan. I hope at least one of them is helpful.
- I LOVE that you have already started a list of references. My critique for your references is to add more scholarly sources to substantiate your conclusions. For example, perhaps a database like “Mintel” or “IBISWorld” will have metrics regarding weight loss CONSUMER trends globally or in the United States. From another angle, you could find articles in scholarly psychology journals or *gasp* BOOKS in the library of a graduate psychology program. I am a student at Pepperdine, too, and I love their graduate psychology library and their electronic databases. If you want me to request anything and have it sent to you, do not hesitate to ask. And from yet another angle, perhaps we could find legal cases that relate to your topic, as well. I would be more than happy to work with you to find more sources because I just love your topic so much.
- Carbohydrates are critical for healthy brain function. Perhaps that is important in your paper, as well? Elephant in the room?
- If you decide to mention similar trends or implications of the “thinspo” trend, maybe consider body building inspiration on social media and blogs and why it is both equally obsessive but healthier.
- Another thing that concerns me about your topic is privacy. Not just the privacy of those with eating disorders, but all individuals participating in the online weight loss chatter. And also, the trend to take pictures of one’s body and put those photographs online. What are the implications of this?

[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 18:26, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----

Note: If I’m a little direct in the comments, I really mean the best. Hope it doesn’t offend anyone. 

Ryan Hurley: I think professor said stay away from these huge websites. Perhaps you could discuss with the professors if Facebook is the right website to focus on?

Olivia Brinich: I think you’re asking a lot of questions to be answered here.

“How does it Pind and protect information, how do copyrighters choose to deal with the individual cases of copyright infringement, and what happens when a clip is wrongfully targeted for copyright violation, i.e., the adverse unintended consequences of Content ID?”

Perhaps you should just focus on one main thesis and explore on that. For example, focusing on how copyrighters deal with copyright infringement, and how that eventually influenced youtube to introduce copyright ID system.

One last issue is whether youtube is too big of a website to focus on. Perhaps you could narrow it down to say, copyright issues for music on youtube.

Erika L. Rich: I think it’s a very broad term to discuss the ethical considerations. Perhaps if you narrowed it down to 1 or 2 main issues you find extremely compelling about the website and community? Or maybe I have simply mistaken your train of thought.

Emily MacIntyre: I like how you had such conviction to talk about youtube that despite its size, its still worth researching about. I think you could also talk a little bit about how these game commentators earn their living by commenting on games. PewDiePie is estimated to earn millions every year. It could show a greater perspective on things if we could see their earnings as well. South Park actually has a very funny episode about commentators commenting on commentators commenting on games on youtube.

Matt K: Do you think that changing the title to reflect your research would make it easier for the reader? (Just a thought) I think its interesting how you mentioned “democratic instrument”, bringing politics into the way his blog is ran. According to the quote you took, Scalzi has indeed used some controls over potential commentators. Furthermore, you should consider that if it’s a blog about all sorts of things, with John’s comments on it, he should also be open to listen to commentators reply to this, especially if its about sensitive topics. If he’s going to filter away those he “considers” as offensive, then perhaps he shouldn’t comment on other things either. (unless the comment really does not have a valid point and is not related to the topic)

Edwin Duque: Good to see you in this class too. I think you should just focus on one website. I’d do JuryX instead of Facebook as professor said big websites aren’t good. Also, you’d need a stronger thesis to connect what the real question is. Is it about allowing free sharing? Or is it about limiting what gets shared? I’m a little confused with your thesis.

Chelly Byrne: I think you have a strong thesis here. The contradictions between sharing information on the internet, and the fear of being exposed would be very interesting. I think you can even go into the subscription process. I assume the website allows anyone to join. This means that even predators could read up on what victims write. Unfortunately, they probably get quite the entertainment from reading it, or pretending to ask “leading” questions. As you said, just a tiny bit of excessive information leaked out could result in a victim being violated again. I guess you could talk about that.

Chanel Rion: Since you’re talking about Yelp and reviews, I’d like to share what I learned from another class. Most of these reviews are at the ends of the spectrum. Unless someone is a regular of Yelp and does a review for every restaurant, the rest of them would be people who had great experiences or really bad experiences. They won’t be bothered to write a review about a mediocre or average restaurant. It’s not worth their time. You could also mention that. Also, do you think there are fake reviews too? I’d go for siteJabbar.

Becca Lewis: Firstly its interesting how you’re talking about Reddit because I’m talking about Digg. I think new beliefs takes time to be adapted by the masses. Feminism isn’t very old, and its on going. I think it takes time for people to adapt to it, so for the short term I won’t be surprised if the discussion board sees a lot of anti-feminism people. But also do bare in mind that these are “beliefs”, just like “liberalism” (which is quite similar to feminism, fighting for individual rights, etc). Not everyone believes in these values, so some disagreements should be expected. I guess an interesting way could be to examine if people become more offensive when they are shown as anonymous. My thoughts are that it is. You could look at reddit discussions compared with the core values of Wikipedia, and why it worked for Wikipedia, but a little hard for Reddit.

Gary Brown: Are there any data on the selection process, or ventures that were rejected? It’s hard to associate it with discrimination if there is no evidence. Since you can’t prove or disprove this, it means “site controls” cannot be determined. Therefore you need to make a new thesis that really reflects the paper.

Meagan Moana HoChing: DOTA is a fun game. My initial response is that with huge amounts of ego on the line, that’s how bullying start. Haha. From what I read and know, it is the architecture that is dominantly the issue. This structure allows the audience to exploit it. I think you could also investigate is how is “harassment” identified as? Calling someone a “loser”? Do note that a lot of cyber bullying are to kids that people know in real life. So can we causally say trash talking is the same as harassing? When NBA players trash talk one another, I don’t think they considered it as harassing. So I guess this definition needs to be very clear.

Caroline B: Perhaps you could mention NPOV as one of their values they used in order to keep readers like yourself going to the website.

Jan Yburan: Second Reddit I saw today. Haha. I think you need to be weary of the upvote system. More popular and famous people would get a self –fulfilling upvote treatment, where as more niche people or radical ones would get less. This way of identifying success might be a little questionable.

Alex Samaei: I’d be more interested in how kickstarter protects pledgers from potential false projects. This seems like a very good question for privacy and control.

Gia:
“New scambaiters can request to be assigned a "mentor" to assist them in learning how to bait.”

I think this is really cool.

“. In the past, scammers were tricked into sending money themselves, which was later given to charity.”

That’s crazy. Not sure who the scammer is now. I’d spend more time discussing the aspect about scammers being scammed by scambaiters, and the moral and ethical implications of it.

Mishal R. Kennedy: I think you have a legit question there. Looking at whether deleting an old post or controlling spambots to be more important. You could also consider that perhaps it was the ease of registration that led to the spambots. Deleting the old posts doesn’t actually go to the root of the problem. I guess you could also talk more about the ease of registration.

Richard Markow: I think you should just talk about 1 or 2 points out of the 5. Don’t think you have enough space to write that much.

Alexander H: Do you think you could also go into the ease of account creation? To attain legitimacy, the website would need real personal data to determine that the petition is signed by a real person. If so the privacy concerns would be the biggest. A deeper look at the terms and agreement is a must.

Meredith Blake: That’s an interesting take on Yelp. I do believe that the reviews are either from the ones who enjoyed the restaurant the most, or the ones that hated it. The ones in the middle won’t be bothered to write a review.

Wesley Verge: Personally I think it is an inevitable part of anonymity and high view count. There’s bound to be a few trolls, but that too is what makes youtube entertaining. I think youtube just needs to make a better flagging system.

Kelly Wilson: You could talk about how the internet might influence more people to be whistleblowers, or even anonymous whistleblowers.

Tasha: I think to begin with you need to bare in mind that a lot of fitness people already know the difference between science and bro-science. I further believe that bodybuilding.com would just allow people to say whatever they want knowing full well it is just a forum. As long as they don’t endorse it, they shouldn’t be liable. But as such, you should also talk about the privacy of fitness people on the website. A lot of them post photos up too, and their diet and schedules.

Josefin S: Nice logo. I don’t really like the age range for kidzworld.com. It doesn’t make sense for 9 year olds to interact with 17 year olds. Furthermore, I wouldn’t want my 9 year old kid to socialize with 17 year old kids and being taught 17 year old stuff. So my biggest concern, as you also mentioned, is how do they keep content separate between different ages to prevent the younger kids to learn the wrong stuff? Or do they not do this at all?

Brooke Ashley Tjarks: Yes, I’d agree with you that IMDB is a good balance between the other two websites. I think by becoming a member, the legitimacy of the votes would become higher. There’s bound to be some sort of influence between people regardless of the platform, so I think IMDB is an interesting one to investigate further.

----

- Brooke Tjarks here responding to Caelum -

Thank you so much for the feedback. I am defintely going with IMBD. Another interesting aspect of the platform is the accuracy of content that the website tries to uphold and the methods that they use to ensure this. For example, users with profiles who edit pages must sign legal documents online (such as NDA's) before editing. The more I thought it over the more I realized how different each of the sites I considered truly are, but IMDB has the most to offer for this assignment. Thank you again for your support.

[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 17:53, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----

Amchugh: I think you could go into internet being free also has its consequences. Since the internet could edit and post something online in a matter of seconds, it becomes very vulnerable for unintended things to hit the net. The filtering has to either occurred before the posting, or after it has been up. When it’s up already, it’s hard to say whether the rest of them would oblige, or would they prefer to continue the troll game. You could talk about the reasons for why Twitter would take it down (assuming that it does not violate Twitter’s policies).

Note: Good luck everyone!

[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 13:43, 6 March 2015 (EST)
----
Hi Caelum,

Thanks for your comments. There are a lot of interesting issues, both legal and ethical and the subject is controversial for sure. Good luck with your project as well!

([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))

Assignment 2 Submissions

2015-03-09T23:23:04Z

Gary Brown: /* Comments */

{{AssignmentCal}}

===Submission Instructions===

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

This assignment is due on March 3rd. Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (assignments submitted 4 days late or later will have a maximum grade of 1 point).

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

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

In the submissions section below please post the following information:

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

==Comments==

Everyone will receive an additional participation grade for this assignment. You should read through everyone's proposals after they are uploaded and add constructive comments below the proposal on which you're commenting. Comments should be submitted by March 10th so you have time to incorporate them, if applicable, into your project outline. '''Please remember to sign your comments by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post.''' If we don't know who you are we can't give you credit for finishing this assignment!

Ryan Hurley

Facebook & Big Data vs. Your Privacy

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Prospectus_FB_and_privacy_Assignment_2.docx

[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 16:06, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----
Ryan,
Great topic choice. Without fail, every single time I have a class on Big Data I obsessively delete aspects of my online presence, cut up frequent customer member cards, and google myself. It’s a hilarious cycle. I am so excited to read your paper and I appreciate the range of content you have considered for the paper, as well as the range of your references. I have an online text for another IT class that has a chapter devoted to FaceBook and their privacy issues. Please, email me and I can send it to you. Also, make sure to keep in mind that FaceBook’s relationships with advertisers and users are changing constantly. A three year old article might give you more context for your research, but very likely reports on policies that are out of date.
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 18:38, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

----
Olivia Brinich

Intentions and Outcomes of Youtube’s Copyright and Coding Regulations

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Oliviabrinich_prospectus03.03.15.pdf

[[User:Oliviabrinich|Oliviabrinich]] ([[User talk:Oliviabrinich|talk]]) 15:51, 3 March 2015 (EST)
----
Comments on Olivia's Prospectus:

Hi Olivia,

Let me start by saying I think that Youtube is a great source for your project. I’m not saying that just because I am doing my paper on Youtube. I find the creative ways that people are using it fascinating. Much more so than some of the other platforms.

If I may summarize, you plan to discuss how legal pressures forced Youtube to introduce technologies that changed the user experiences, like Copyright ID. You also mentioned some other (possibly voluntary) technologies that are part of the user experience with the intent to discuss how they impact users. I think they are good ideas and good concepts to write about.

As you rightly point the Youtube community is one of the largest communities on the Internet. I wonder if it might not be taking on too much to try to examine Youtube as a whole. I would suggest selecting a small group that is susceptible to the effects of the technologies you are reviewing. Describe who the group is and how certain characteristics of their make-up or user experience make them particularly sensitive to the technologies you will focus on.

For example I will be focusing on hobbyist inventors. Guys that spend their weekends in the garage putting “junk” together and posting videos about their “inventions” on Youtube. Their content is all original so they are not impacted by Copyright ID. There is very little thumbs up/down. They are a much more “expressive” crowd as the comments indicate.

I’m not trying to discourage you. I think if you pick the right group and tell us why you picked them, it can very interesting. I hope that is helpful.

Best,

[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 19:47, 4 March 2015 (EST)

----

• Erika L Rich

• Title: Reputation Management and Ethical Considerations for Members of the Internet Marketing Super Friends (IMSF) Facebook Group

• Link: [[File:LSTU_E120_Erika_Rich_Assignment_2.docx]]

[[User:ErikaLRich|ErikaLRich]] ([[User talk:ErikaLRich|talk]]) 15:22, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----
Hey Erika,

It's great that you chose to focus on on specific Facebook group for your topic. I am still a bit confused about the purpose of the group and the demographics of its members. Who are the members? What do they gain from membership? How many members are active participants that make substansive contributions versus inactive members? Once your audience understands more about the group itself, they will relate to this example and be more invested in your topic. Another suggestion I have is to focus on the effects of the moderators on the content of the group (instead of cyber security for example). You mention culture differences coming in to play and affecting content. Can you explain that further?
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 18:53, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

----

• Emily MacIntyre (EmiMac)

• Prospectus title: A Case Study on the Unintended Legal Consequences and Chilling Effects of YouTube’s Content ID Sweep on its Video Game Commentator Community

• Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Emily_MacIntyre_Assignment_2.pdf

[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 09:41, 2 March 2015 (EST)

----

Emily,

Great job on your prospectus! It is very well organized, and your citations sources are well researched. I found your research really enticing because I had never heard of this sweep, and I consider myself an avid youtube visitor. I think you are on to a great research project. Although the topic is remarkably fascinating, I wonder if investigating and juxtaposing the different types of monitoring will be too large or too abstract for the limit of the project. I also read up on the PewDiePie character cited, and I think it is really fascinating to see that he has 35 mil subscribers, yet chose to turn off his commenting feature because of how volatile he claimed the space was becoming. His specific youtube channel then does not have a community to investigate. But it would be interesting to examine someone or a specific youtube channel that has a similar following as the case study to better help zone in on collecting and investigating data. Thank you for this topic, I am currently reading more about the youtube actions in 2008 and 2013 because I had little to no prior knowledge of both events.

Good luck on your project!

[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 00:09, 5 March 2015 (EST)

----

RE: Mhoching,

Thank you for your comment. I very much like your prospectus topic as well as you can see from my comments below. With regards to my final project, I thought I should reiterate and clarify that my community is the YouTube contributors that concentrate on making Let’s Plays and video game reviews. While it is helpful to find a video with an active comment section, where other users further explain how the ID sweep influences their output choices, in the case of PewDiePie, his decision to turn off his comment section does in part illustrate how YouTube has rapidly evolved. Since Google began catering to commercial enterprises over the original volunteer contributors, some of the volunteer contributors have become increasingly more frustrated and they exhibit their frustration in a variety of ways.

Thanks Again,

Emily

[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 09:37, 5 March 2015 (EST)

----
• MattK

• Home of the Mallet of Loving Correction: John Scalzi's Blog, "Whatever"

• http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:MattK_Assignment2.docx

[[User:MattK|MattK]] ([[User talk:MattK|talk]]) 22:01, 2 March 2015 (EST)
----

Hi Matt,

I am particularly interested in your topic because I believe it is a very small example of what the internet could become or arguably is becoming in regards to free speech. I am very intrigued by the notion of "knowledge is power". What I mean relative to your project is that I believe that those who can control what "knowledge" people receive therefore posses great power. In your case, Scalzi's blog is equipped with a comment section where total control is given to Scalzi on what to allow others to see. By censoring whatever Scalzi sees as "offensive" he is limiting a voice, whether good or bad, and therefore limiting knowledge. I would argue that there's no question that the term knowledge here is used very loosely and there are obvious comments on these sorts of forums which provide no overall good at all, but more importantly the question I think of is how dangerous it would be for one person to posses this sort of "editorial power" to simply delete anything they see unfit. What would happen if other sites also used this sort of policy where whatever is subjectively deemed unworthy of being a comment was deleted? Are there infact other online sites and forums that take this approach? What implications does this approach have for the audience of the site? Does it discourage participation as a sort of chilling effect? It is a scary world to imagine where one party possess the power of what information to provide and what to censor. In this specific case what if the comments are simply against Scalzi and are a disagreement with what he writes? What is to stop him from simply deleting something. I'm curious to know what sort of checks and balances or accountability Scarzi's editorial powers has. I think your subject bears the question of where to draw the line between free speech and productive censorship, an enormously tricky and potentially dangerous distinction.

These are just a few thoughts I had, in any case best of luck it's a great topic.

Thanks,
Ryan Hurley
[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 18:55, 8 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Edwin Duque (Edwinduque)

Prospectus Title:The copyright, privacy and organization challenges that online communities such as Facebook and The Jury Deliberation in the cyber space are faced with

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Edwinduque_Assignment_2.doc

([[User:Edwinduque|Edwinduque]] ([[User talk:Edwinduque|talk]]) 22:10, 2 March 2015 (EST))
----
Hi Edwin,

I like the way you structured your idea. I think that the copyright issue is very interesting and it is worthed spending some more time on it. Exploring the nature of a Facebook post – whether it could be consider as an “idea”, in the Copyright Act specifically states that In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, regardless of the form in which it is described. Or it could be considered as an “original works of authorship” fixed by the author in a tangible way, in which case it would be covered by copyrights. The issue of re-posting someone else’s post with commercial purposes could be interesting to mention as well. It is just an idea, but saying some words about the case with the famous Facebook post “In response to the new Facebook guidelines…. “ might be interesting too. I think that you could also easily link your work to the “right to be forgotten” issues we discussed in class.

Here are some links you might find useful. Good luck!

http://www.nyccounsel.com/business-blogs-websites/who-owns-photos-and-videos-posted-on-facebook-or-twitter/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-social-networking/

([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))
-------
Name: Michelle Byrne (Chelly.Byrne)

Prospectus title: Balancing privacy for victims of sexual crimes with
opportunity for support in online forum AfterSilence.org

Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:ChellyByrne_Assignment2.pdf

[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 07:54, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----

Hi Michelle,

You have chosen a terrifically nuanced community. Indeed, the word “balance” and the question of HOW such a community can possibly approach this word is bound to yield more data and conclusions than the page ljmits of our final project – which is only testimony to the strength of your community research choice. I believe yours is the most psychologically-based prospectus that I have read thus far.

By “psychologically-based,” I mean that I sense that you will be making some conclusions about the specialized mindsets and individuals who are drawn to this community; a community that paradoxically, and in waves, seem to wish for both anonymity and at the same time, a very specific and difficult kind of attention. Anonymous attention. A community that has created a safe haven and yet, has some very troubling cracks, as you point out.

Questions:
Are these cracks mostly user generated? As in, the example you found of the poster who revealed configurable data revealing her identity. If they are mostly user-generated, how prevalent of an instance is this? Of the active users who reveal private information, what instances are accidental or ignorant (as in, thinking they’ll be anonymous by revealing age, town, etc) as opposed to intentional?

Is there some kind of warning or clause in the user agreement that attempts to address this issue of accidentally revealing private information or even purposefully revealing it?

If the user agreement and the rules and guidelines for AfterSilence.org do address this issue and users still post personal information, what are the pros and cons of simply warning users about the risks and then letting users do as they please vs. taking pro-active measures?

If there were pro-active measures for a site host like this to take, what would they be? Message board community reminders? Moderators who redact info? Self-regulation and regulation amongst members? What does regulation in this kind of community actually look like and is it sustainable in its current form?

Many more questions and considerations to make. Good topic choice, succinctly proposed. I wish you all the best in this project and I look forward to reading the final project.

Best,
Chanel Rion

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 11:31, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----

Name: Chanel Rion (ChanelRion)

Prospectus Title: '''''We the Judges: "Sitejabber", "Yelp", and Communities of User-Generated Business Reviews.'''''

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment2_Prospectus_Rion.docx

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 11:21, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----
Hi Chanel,

The subject of customer generated reviews is certainly huge on the internet. It is beneficial for consumers to get an opinion of a product or restaurant from other people over just what the advertising says. But as you point out, there is a lot of opportunity for libel or slander – especially people just having an ax to grind. It would be interesting to see how Yelp or Sitejabber are being responsible and making an effort to regulate content and protect places being reviewed from harassing content. I like how your approach includes researching any legal cases brought against them; it would be interesting to see if any of them prevail. Also, how do they actually calculate the ratings? Is it an average of overall ratings? Or could bad reviews be hidden away if there become lots of positive reviews? Are businesses sandbagging to increase their ratings?

Overall, this is a great community to look into and I wish you success!

Michelle aka (Chelly)
[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 15:43, 7 March 2015 (EST)
----

RE: Michelle

Hi Michelle,

Thank you for your comments and feedback. I too, am especially interested in the legal angles to this community and I am glad to know I'm not the only one. I will certainly be watching and reviewing and seeking the answers to these questions and also to your specific concerns. All intensely pertinent to how businesses and communities are going to manage tensions with each other -- tensions that have always been here, but are now revolutionized in simply the sheer and complete access that the Internet provides to all of us.

Looking forward to starting this seek and find. Thank you for highlighting questions and focuses, they should prove helpful for such a broad category.

Best,

Chanel

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 16:49, 8 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Name: Becca Lewis (beccalew)

Prospectus Title: '''/r/TwoXChromosomes and /r/feminism: The challenges of promoting feminism on Reddit while upholding the values of privacy and free speech'''

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Final_Project_Prospectus_Becca_Lewis.docx

[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 13:15, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----

Hi Becca!
I absolutely love the theme of your project, it is an exceptional live issue since feminism has been discussed much more this past year than it has been for many years. Therefore, it´s really important to examine the forums in which people have the opportunity to discuss the subject. Great!

I also found it cool that you are thinking about recording a podcast for the project. If you do so, you might consider including an interview with someone active in the specific forums, a professor in gender studies or perhaps two people with different views on the issue?

I have a question about the subreddits you talked about though. You wrote about a ”safe space” for women. Are those subreddits only for women or are they open for anyone who want to discuss feminism and gender roles? If it is a women-only forum, you might also discuss the consequences on that. If not, maybe that has consequences as well. Maybe you should discuss self censorship in the feminism subreddits as well (which is very interesting since Reddit-as you said-values free speech above almost all else)?

Good luck!
/Josefin

[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 10:39, 5 March 2015 (EST)
----

Name: Gary Brown (Gary Brown)

Prospectus Title: The Effects of Site Controls on Community Objectives: communityfunded.com

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Gary_Brown_Assignment2.docx

[[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 13:18, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----
Comments on Gary's Prospectus:

Gary,

Great topic! I hope to be going out to for crowdfunding by the end of the May. So I will follow your Wiki with interest. (In your proposal you link to crowdfunded. I think you meant community funded. You may want to look at that.)

You mentioned the stated purpose of Communityfunded. But you did not mention their reason for existing. In other words, what started crowdfunding and why would individuals seek funds for their projects from the public and not other traditional sources. Why are people like me willing to go online (to communityfunded) to ask for money, as opposed to going to another site or pitching a Venture Capitalist or a bank? Why would people fund a project on line versus invest in the stock market or Bank CDs?

I think that the answer to those questions goes to the heart of crowdfunding. It also is germane to the “troublesome obstacles” you refer to in your prospectus.

When you mention failed projects, I would suggest that not all failures are the same. I might be willing to invest money in a project I consider socially redeeming even if I thought it had very little chance of success. Where as, if I were investing in some Harvard wiz-kids that profess to have the next Facebook, I might have very different feelings if they went belly up. So you may want to include categories of projects, or claims/expectations in your discussions. As well as any risk factor ratings.

You also mentioned building and keeping trust of supporters. One of the areas that interests me is the ways that Fundraisers generate funding support. Do they rely solely on the site? In other words, is there a pool of would be investors just waiting for the right idea to come around so they can invest. Or is a fundraiser expected to go outside the community and raise interest and drive that interest back to the site? How does that impact the “trust” factor? If I am a one-time fundraiser does it matter all that much what people think about me after I’ve got my money?

You discuss how you will break down funded projects, etc. Is there a way to figure out what various fundraiser did to get funded? Marketing may prove to be more of a factor than the project or its worthiness.

It would certainly be worthwhile to compare and contrast crowdfunding before and after changes in regs that made it easier for the public to invest. And how post reg trends may lead to new regs/controls.

I look forward to reading your paper.

Best,

[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 20:45, 4 March 2015 (EST)

----

Name: Meagan HoChing (mhoching)

Title: Online Gaming Harassment: All fun and games?

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Mhoching_Assignment2.docx

[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 13:50, 3 March 2015 (EST)
----

Hi Meagan,

Every aspect of your prospectus is incredibly interesting to me. I am especially intrigued by how well you have matched up the readings to your topic.

After I read your section on Norms I thought about how you point out that “the gaming system is very competitive” and it made me wonder, if Valve placed more restrictions to prevent bullying could it potentially take some of the pleasure of competition out of the mix. If so, then would some users leave the game because they like the hostile environment, which may be why they chose to play in it in the first place. Keeping this line of thought in mind, perhaps you could find another similar community that has more strict modes of control in place to observe the differences between them.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading your prospectus and I look forward to seeing your finished product.

Best,
Emily

[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 09:25, 5 March 2015 (EST)

----

Hi Meagan!

What an interesting and relevant subject!

I think that it was a very good idea of you to use the Dot Model with the components ”Market”, ”Architecture”, ”Norms” and ”Law”, it makes everything much more clear. I agree with Emily that it would be a good idea to compare DOTA 2 with another game, preferably from another website than STEAM and with another system of regulation. I would find it really interesting to see the result of a such a study and if norms, the language, the members of the site, etc. differ between the two games.

I´m looking forward to see the result! Good luck!

/Josefin

[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 10:16, 5 March 2015 (EST)

----

Hi Meagan!

I think this is a very fascinating topic and one I too almost pursued. I am a bit of a gamer myself and although I don't play DOTA, I do regularly play many different sports games which I have found to have similar issues of harassment and "bullying". I hadn't heard of the STEAM website you're focusing on until I read your assignment, but for anyone who has read really a comment section/forum anywhere, one second you're talking about a video game, the next you have gone down a path of hate and overall disgust of anyone different minded not to mention if it is a competitive game which stirrs up some hostile emotions toward an adversary. I find this particularly interesting when it comes to video games because many people who don't play video games believe that "it's just a game" but on the contrary for many gamers, one can find their self emotionally invested into a game you are taking part in. You feel this overwhelming sense of dedication to it and attachment to what happens in it where you can essentially lose yourself in the game. It is because of this hardwired competitive and primitive feeling and this element of motivation that I believe is so deeply rooted in many gamers that it would be near impossible to ever completely outlaw the harassment or trash talk because it will never stop. However perhaps there is some sort of way to outlaw the harassment that crosses a line by creating real consequence while still allowing some competitive jabbing but that I will be curious to see from your project. I will be also curious to hear what your research finds about the website in particular, I would venture to guess that it is probably similar for communities like the PSN and xboxlive.

I might suggest on top of all this to take a look at games which do not have a competitive nature with other users. This may be difficult to find but I'd be curious to see whether it is harassment you find on forums with these sort of games or rather a cooperative dialogue intended to help one another.

Good Luck!
- Ryan Hurley

[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 16:26, 8 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Name: Caroline B

Title: The Study of Privacy, Accuracy & Order on InsideNova Website and Moving ‘Little Sites’ Up

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:1_Caroline_B.docx

[[User:Cbore001|Cbore001]] ([[User talk:Cbore001|talk]]) 14:45, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----
Caroline,
Something to for your paper is the current statistics on accessing news in the United States (online newspaper versus hard copy newspaper for example), and the devices used to access online news (iphone, android, ipad, laptop, desktop computer, etc). IBISWorld and Mintel might offer up to date statistics on news distribution/access. Google analytics offers insight on specific website views. Perhaps take a look at what the demographics of the visitors of this site are and try to find out why this site attracts these viewers. Comparing this site to other more popular news sites (like CNN as you mentioned) is a great idea. Currently, I think your proposal covers too wide a range of topics, so maybe consider focusing on just a few that you mentioned. (For example maybe narrow it to the three subjects max: privacy, journalists’ / contributors’ / editors’ / monitors’ control of content, the ethical policy of the site). If privacy is a big concern to you, I think you could focus your entire paper around it.
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 19:19, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----

Name: Jan.Yburan

Prospectus title: Reddit.com/r/IAmA its Controls on Privacy and Content

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Jan.Yburan.Assignment2.docx

----
Hi Jan,

This is a really interesting community to build your case study around. Prior to today I have only been on the site a few times to look at subreddits that relate to topics that I am interested in, and since I am not a member I have not considered how the site protects the user’s privacy.

Today I decided to look at the IAmA subreddit to get a better handle of the scope of your project. Consequently, I came across and interesting and fairly benign thread started by an employee of a movie theater and it brought to mind, how does the site handle issues of privacy, libel or defamation against a company or a consumer when an employee engages in what appears at first glance as an anonymous tell all blog that highlights how he/she has witnessed vulgar and perhaps even criminal activity.

Considering your topic and direction you want to take, I think you might want to blend together aspects of the readings from our classes on privacy with the readings for next week’s class on free expression, information, and unwanted speech.

I am looking forward to seeing your completed final project. I am sure it will be very informative.

Best,

Emily

P.S. (Here is the link to the AMA I referenced: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2xz6nb/iama_movie_theater_employee_and_ive_seen_the/)

[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 13:04, 5 March 2015 (EST)

----

----

Name: Eric Yuk Lun Kwong (Caelum)

Prospectus title: The vulnerable voting structure of Digg.com and the gradual
collapse of its popularity and voting legitimacy

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Caelum_Assignment2.pdf

[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 15:11, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----

Hi Eric,

Excellent topic. One that possesses, at once, broad-scale relevance and unusual particularities.

Exploring the reasons for Digg’s failure as a site and as a community, I’m drawn to the question regarding the members themselves.

It would be interesting to compare, if applicable, the kinds of users who are drawn to a voting-type participatory community vs. a community that actually interacts via content and contributions. If clear distinctions can be made here, to then find examples of successful communities that are voter-based and to pinpoint key policies or elements that differentiate sustainable models of voter-based communities compared to content-based contribution communities.

Perhaps it is fundamentally an issue of investment; when users and the outside world view a product as having or requiring minimal investment (as in, saying, or rather, clicking “yes” or “no” to something – voting to “dig” or “bury” a story). Are voting based sites destined to suffer from questions of legitimacy by virtue of being online and being so subjective?

That you will be making parallels to Wikipedia’s platform seems to be a good approach here. Wisely done. Thank you also, for your commentaries – I appreciate the thoroughness in which you approach these topics.

Best of luck!

Chanel Rion

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 11:57, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Name: Alex Samaei (Samaei1)

Prospectus title: The Framework of Projects and Backers on Kickstarter

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Samaei1_Assignment2.pdf

[[User:Samaei1|Samaei1]] ([[User talk:Samaei1|talk]]) 15:37, 3 March 2015 (EST)
----

Hi Alex!

I'm so happy you picked this website because I've donated to various projects on this website, but never took into account the structure of the website and complications due to misappropriating of funding. I find it hard to try to quantify what is appropriate to fundraise, because the topic is subjective. Of course I don't think it would be appropriate to fundraise to support hate speech (if that's what someone is fundraising for), yet I don't find it appropriate to fundraise for movies about starving children, when that money can go to feeding starving children. I hope I'm communicating the subjectiveness of trying to find what would be considered appropriate to raise money for and how it varies from person to person.

But speaking in regards to the Lessig's Dot Model I think the website can be broken down into different sections to address some of the issues you raise. For example, how does the structure of kickstarter promote accountability on the artist/person asking for money? On the donation page for example, a vast amount of information about the artist is available, as well as avenues in which you can contact the fundraiser. So if kickstarter has provided this as a requirement for people to submit or provide when asking to be funded, is it then up to the donor to hold that person accountable? I have the tools on that page to ask the fundraiser for that specific information and continue to follow up on that information. I think once you start looking at specific/deliberate aspects of kickstarter, it will start to inform or control behavior.

I hope this helps! Look forward to reading the final project; happy researching and writing!

[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 00:35, 5 March 2015 (EST)
----

Hi Alex,

I’m interested that you have chosen a community that, you imply, is being targeted not for its failures, but for its successes. A wildfire that is often so much more visible on the Internet than in any other form in history. Speed, access, and instant publicity -- make "success" in society ever more visible, open to targeting, and prone to hijacking. Indeed. It is a great topic for research in this course in particular.

One aspect that could be revelatory is to seek out the kinds of legal cases that have been brought against kickstarter and what litigation the site has to deal with and what kinds of litigation that users potentially enter into.

There’s also a question about user legitimacy. How easy is it for some startup organization to simply use this community and its platform as an elaborate marketing plan? Can a company, for instance, viel itself to be a small time kickstarter that can feed itself funding and manufacture the appearance of democratic success? It would be especially useful to identify who the moderators are and to what extent they exercise control or regulation if any. Does Kickstarter have even the skeleton of some kind of verification system or is the verification over the legitimacy of a proposal entirely user generated? Is this sustainable or are there signs of trouble ahead? What would be a disastrous scenario for this community? To these questions, I think that many clues may be found in the litigation and whatever bad publicity the community has had encounter.

Great topic, culturally relevant community. Thank you for the topic and best of luck for the final.

Best,

Chanel Rion

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 12:31, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----

:Dear Alex,

:From your opening paragraph, I am wondering if you plan to focus on Kickstarter itself, one or more of the projects seeking support through Kickstarter, or the Reddit.com community. Each would seem to present a different community/sub-community based on the same general subject. Coverying all three could be a little broad for this size project.

:I think the issues you present are one of the more interesting subject areas of crowdfunding sites – who is the gatekeeper and how are projects screened? The authority to control and manner of control by the site owner, community, or government touches on many of our subject areas. It should be fertile ground for your project. I would plan carefully whether to go deeply into limited subject matter, or cover several subjects more broadly in the time and space you have. Either way, you have a site that should meet fit your plan.

:I wish you success, and I look forward to reading your work.

:[[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 19:23, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----

Name: Gia

Prospectus title: Chivalry online

Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Gia_Assignment2.docx
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 15:46, 3 March 2015 (EST))
----
Hi Gia,

This topic is definitely flushing out the seedier side of the internet! I have never heard of this site 419eater, but we all know the dangers of scammers and how they use the internet. How do they find their victims? Some scams are so realistic as to mention names of loved ones in danger and demand money be expedited. The scam baiters you’re talking about here must be trolling similar sites and circles to identify culprits they need want to go after. But in doing so, are they just as much at fault as the original scammers? Is there any regulation of the members? I can definitely see an ethical dilemma, as you point out, of some possibly unscrupulous members. And your question of whether they have extended their existence outside the online world is a very interesting consideration.

You a have a lot of good sources listed regarding scams (white collar crime and Ponzi schemes too!). Good luck, this is an intriguing subject!

Michelle

[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 15:57, 7 March 2015 (EST)
----
Re: Michelle

Thanks for the comments, Michelle. I definitely intend to explore the subject from both sides, because there could be really two, maybe even more , points of view. Regarding the legal regulation, there is a lot to be said – interned jurisdiction. The self-regulation of the web community which is evolving with the time is also a nice starting point.
Thank again for the ideas and good luck to you too with your work!

([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))
----

Name: Mishal R. Kennedy

Prospectus title: Enforcing Guidelines Without Harming User Contributions

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Mishal_R._Kennedy_Assignment2.rtf
([[User:Mishal R. Kennedy|Mishal R. Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Mishal R. Kennedy|talk]]) 15:51, 3 March 2015 (EST))
----
Hi Mishal,

The subject you have chosen is very interesting and gives great opportunities for discussions and analyses. I would directly make a reference to the Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0, which we discussed during “Paradigms for Studying the Internet’ class. You could explore the methods used by the moderators and administrators as a way of self regulation of the community. The question you asked whether these methods are causing more bad than good, is right to the point.
I would suggest you explain in more details the different methods of control used my the moderators and perhaps compare them with the ones used by other communities. You could also take a look if it is explicitly listed in the Terms of Use of the website in which case what measure is taken? Is there a higher authority than the moderator to whom a sanctioned user could complain? Could such a decision “be appealed” or it is final and definitive? Is there at all a hierarchy in the administration of the website?
Here are some sources which might help. Good luck!

https://www.academia.edu/3079184/COAT_Collaborative_Outgoing_Anti-Spam_Technique
http://www.yildiz.edu.tr/~aktas/courses/CE-0114890/g8-p3.pdf
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~kksivara/sfwr4c03/projects/4c03projects/CGLucas-Project.pdf
http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM11/paper/viewFile/2780/3296

([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))
-----

Name: Richard Markow

Prospectus title: The YouTube video-sharing platform & The Community of Alternative Heating Systems and Appliance Inventors

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Rich_Markow_Assignment_2_Prospectus.pdf

[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 16:03, 3 March 2015 (EST)
----

Name AlexanderH

Prospectus Title: Managing the Petitions of Change.org: B Corps, Social Enterprise and Transparency

Link:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:AlexanderH_Assignment_2_Prospectus.docx

[[User:AlexanderH|AlexanderH]] ([[User talk:AlexanderH|talk]]) 16:10, 3 March 2015 (EST)
----
----
Name: Meredith Blake

Prospectus Title:Identifying Avenues of Recourse for Businesses on Yelp

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Meredith_Blake._Assignment_2.docx
[[User:Meredithmblake|Meredith]] ([[User talk:Meredithmblake|talk]]) 16:13, 3 March 2015 (EST)

-----
Hello Meredith!

I think this is a great topic and you have a very interesting approach. I haven’t really looked into Yelp and the lawsuit angle, but they certainly have a lot of influence on the internet. Out of curiosity, I just Googled about 10 different restaurants in this area and the results had the Yelp review either as the second or third site listed! So potential customers are seeing the Yelp rating almost before the actual websites in a couple of cases! There is little recourse for them, and as you show by the Sia example, a disgruntled customer can reach out and cause a flood of terrible reviews, from people who weren’t even customers! Caelum makes a good point in the summary at the bottom that reviews are either one end of the spectrum or the other… disgruntled customers wanting to air their displeasure or someone extremely happy who wants to rave about it.

It is good to take a targeted approach to such a large community, and looking into the recourse that businesses may have as well as existing lawsuits sounds like a good approach. If a suit is successful, what are the actual outcomes? Does Yelp take down reviews or adjust the ratings? I think people who expound on sites that give a platform are really missing the spirit of free speech. I don’t think your approach is that unpopular, not that free speech needs to be regulated, but that there should be some modicum of self-restraint and freedom to say anything is not absolutely protected.

Good luck on this, you’ve got some really good ideas!

Michelle

[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 16:14, 7 March 2015 (EST)
-----

Name: Wesley Verge

Prospectus Title : Scrolling into Darkness -- An investigation into the regulatory forces at work in Youtube's comment section

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Wesley_Verge_Prospectus.txt

[[User:WesleyVerge|WesleyVerge]] ([[User talk:WesleyVerge|talk]]) 16:19, 3 March 2015 (EST)

-----

Hi Wesley!

I am very intrigued by the "solutions" there are to change the culture of the comment sections. It is really an intriguing phenomenon that one could be watching a video about puppies and suddenly 4 comments down glance over an argument that Obama was sent by satan himself to destroy the world. I've always been curious as to how this has not been regulated more strictly. I think you raise great points why and the concerns Google is faced with. If I were doing this project I might also attempt to compare this to other sites as well that must face similar challenges. For example you suggest in your assignment that youtube channels direct traffic to sites like Reddit, but is that really an escape for the channel as this implies? Can these "trolls" not go over to reddit to promote their hate just as easily, or do they have different solutions in play that regulate these sorts of issues better? As far as I know both are anonymous to an extent so with this anonymity many of these trolls have "keyboard muscles" as I like to call them. I can understand twitter because many times it is much more personal but even there people can create fake accounts and troll all the same, just see Jimmy Kimmels skit on celebrity reading mean tweets.

I really like your focus on famous YouTubers I just think it may also be beneficial and worth mentioning how other sites with the same prevalent issue have tried to combat trolling. Also from a legal side, are all of these comments protected by the law and free speech? Perhaps because of the enormity of all the comments and comment sections, it is simply impossible to regulate what is said in every section from a legal perspective. Food for thought, but in any case great project idea.

Best of luck,
Ryan

[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 16:56, 8 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Prospectus Title: Knocking the Wind out of Whistleblowers: The US' response to the growing threat from WikiLeaks

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Kelly.WilsonAssignment_2.docx

[[User:Kelly.wilson|Kelly.wilson]] ([[User talk:Kelly.wilson|talk]]) 16:38, 3 March 2015 (EST)

--------

Hi Kelly,

Interesting topic. There are a couple of perspectives you may want to consider about when defining what you mean by Whistleblower and the response in each situation. 1) Exposing illegal acts. 2) Exposing immoral acts. 3) Exposing Acts designed to embarrassed your political opponents or as retribution.

Should they all be treated the same and afforded equal protection?

Good luck!

[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 00:10, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

--------

Name: Tasha

Prospectus Title: Exploring the Complexity of Rapidly Evolving Information in a Bodybuilding Forum and the Challenges of Quality Assurance

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Tasha_Assignment_2_Prospectus.docx

Tasha[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 17:12, 3 March 2015 (EST)

--------
Hi Tasha,

I like a lot your choice of community . It is unusual and at the same time you could find a lot of things to explore-both from legal and ethical stand point.
I would say that your questions and reflections are on the right track. I think that one of the issues you could explore is the fact that they are often used as a platform for unlicensed sell of drugs. If you choose to go for this, you should have to take a good look on the definitions in order to differ “Drugs” for “Nutrition Supplements” because this is the tricky moment. How the website is protecting itself from such kind of activity (by its Terms of use or in other ways) , might be interesting as well.
Above you could find two links that might be of some use. Good luck!

The first is little bit old but interesting:
http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t000525b.html

http://health.wusf.usf.edu/post/unlicensed-pharmacies-selling-compounded-drugs-online

([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))

__________

Name: Josefin Sasse

Prospectus Title: A case study on the children's website Kidzworld and how they deal with threats against being a safe environment for children.

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:JosefinSasse.pdf
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 17:26, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----

Hi Josefin!

I find your topic utterly intriguing. I had no idea such a website existed and it's been quite fascinating just poking around the website a little bit. I think it is a very valid point to raise about "who monitors Kidzworld", because there doesn't seem to be much of a screening process to ensure the user that is signing up for an account is in fact between the ages of 9-17. Also, I see you have cited the Pew Research Center study from the readings, which is a great resource for dissecting the demographics and statistics of harassment, but the study was done on "young adults" ranging from 18-29, and "young women" between the ages of 18-24 years old. Which I hope illuminates, rather than complicates, the issue of doing research on a demographic ranging from 9-17, but more so how do you set up a website that serves a population that would need adult consent to participate in almost everything they do. Along with privacy issues, I think the question of who is responsible for what and for whom is a great aspect you have raised in your paper! I would love to stay in touch and see the developments of your paper if that would be okay. I think this is the perfect website to investigate for this project.

[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 00:10, 5 March 2015 (EST)

--------

----

Hi Josefin,

I think you picked a great online community to explore for your final project, not only because it is a social space for a specific group, but also because there seems to be some fairly strict regulations in place to maintain a safe environment for kids.

It might be interesting if you could find some weakness in its structure. For example can kids go into private chats or are all the chats and comment sections being screened. If they are being screened, is it by a computer generated logarithm or real people?

Another question that you could delve into is, how do the site’s administrators know the users are minors. Do they require parents’ permission? If so how do they prove it is actually a real parent?

I hope these suggestions are helpful. I am looking forward to seeing your finished project.

Best,
Emily

[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 00:13, 5 March 2015 (EST)
----

Name: Brooke Tjarks

Prospectus: Art. Business. Fans. (...) How this collaborative space shapes mass visual media production and worldwide distribution

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Prospectus.Brooke.Tjarks.pdf

--------

Name: Abby McHugh

Prospectus Title: From #Thinspiration to “Low Carb Friends”: The Regulation of Online Weight Loss Content

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Amchugh_Assignment2.docx

--------

Hi Abby!

Okay, so I really wich I had chosen this issue. It is great that you did!

To facilitate the work, I would recommend that you are more specific in which websites you are going to explore since there is so much #thinspo content out there. But Twitter, Tumbler, Pinterest, and Instagram are great platforms to explore, together with blogs like you said.

'''Other things you might want to discuss are:'''

What makes the most harm: #thinspo/pro-ana blogs and posts or limitations on freedom of speech by regulating such content? (On my part, I am determined in my opinion that #thinspo is devastating and that regulation in this case is a good thing.)

Who is active in this community?

Could pro-ana be illegitimate harassment? Compare it the possibility of a pro-cancer or a pro-aids community (deadly diseases just like anorexia).

What effects could/does the sometimes lack of regulation have on the community online and offline?
Good luck! You´ve chosen a very interesting subject!

/Josefin

[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 11:08, 5 March 2015 (EST)

----

Abby,
I am so impressed and dare I say jealous that you picked such an important subject for your paper. Here are a few things that come to mind as I read your plan. I hope at least one of them is helpful.
- I LOVE that you have already started a list of references. My critique for your references is to add more scholarly sources to substantiate your conclusions. For example, perhaps a database like “Mintel” or “IBISWorld” will have metrics regarding weight loss CONSUMER trends globally or in the United States. From another angle, you could find articles in scholarly psychology journals or *gasp* BOOKS in the library of a graduate psychology program. I am a student at Pepperdine, too, and I love their graduate psychology library and their electronic databases. If you want me to request anything and have it sent to you, do not hesitate to ask. And from yet another angle, perhaps we could find legal cases that relate to your topic, as well. I would be more than happy to work with you to find more sources because I just love your topic so much.
- Carbohydrates are critical for healthy brain function. Perhaps that is important in your paper, as well? Elephant in the room?
- If you decide to mention similar trends or implications of the “thinspo” trend, maybe consider body building inspiration on social media and blogs and why it is both equally obsessive but healthier.
- Another thing that concerns me about your topic is privacy. Not just the privacy of those with eating disorders, but all individuals participating in the online weight loss chatter. And also, the trend to take pictures of one’s body and put those photographs online. What are the implications of this?

[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 18:26, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----

Note: If I’m a little direct in the comments, I really mean the best. Hope it doesn’t offend anyone. 

Ryan Hurley: I think professor said stay away from these huge websites. Perhaps you could discuss with the professors if Facebook is the right website to focus on?

Olivia Brinich: I think you’re asking a lot of questions to be answered here.

“How does it Pind and protect information, how do copyrighters choose to deal with the individual cases of copyright infringement, and what happens when a clip is wrongfully targeted for copyright violation, i.e., the adverse unintended consequences of Content ID?”

Perhaps you should just focus on one main thesis and explore on that. For example, focusing on how copyrighters deal with copyright infringement, and how that eventually influenced youtube to introduce copyright ID system.

One last issue is whether youtube is too big of a website to focus on. Perhaps you could narrow it down to say, copyright issues for music on youtube.

Erika L. Rich: I think it’s a very broad term to discuss the ethical considerations. Perhaps if you narrowed it down to 1 or 2 main issues you find extremely compelling about the website and community? Or maybe I have simply mistaken your train of thought.

Emily MacIntyre: I like how you had such conviction to talk about youtube that despite its size, its still worth researching about. I think you could also talk a little bit about how these game commentators earn their living by commenting on games. PewDiePie is estimated to earn millions every year. It could show a greater perspective on things if we could see their earnings as well. South Park actually has a very funny episode about commentators commenting on commentators commenting on games on youtube.

Matt K: Do you think that changing the title to reflect your research would make it easier for the reader? (Just a thought) I think its interesting how you mentioned “democratic instrument”, bringing politics into the way his blog is ran. According to the quote you took, Scalzi has indeed used some controls over potential commentators. Furthermore, you should consider that if it’s a blog about all sorts of things, with John’s comments on it, he should also be open to listen to commentators reply to this, especially if its about sensitive topics. If he’s going to filter away those he “considers” as offensive, then perhaps he shouldn’t comment on other things either. (unless the comment really does not have a valid point and is not related to the topic)

Edwin Duque: Good to see you in this class too. I think you should just focus on one website. I’d do JuryX instead of Facebook as professor said big websites aren’t good. Also, you’d need a stronger thesis to connect what the real question is. Is it about allowing free sharing? Or is it about limiting what gets shared? I’m a little confused with your thesis.

Chelly Byrne: I think you have a strong thesis here. The contradictions between sharing information on the internet, and the fear of being exposed would be very interesting. I think you can even go into the subscription process. I assume the website allows anyone to join. This means that even predators could read up on what victims write. Unfortunately, they probably get quite the entertainment from reading it, or pretending to ask “leading” questions. As you said, just a tiny bit of excessive information leaked out could result in a victim being violated again. I guess you could talk about that.

Chanel Rion: Since you’re talking about Yelp and reviews, I’d like to share what I learned from another class. Most of these reviews are at the ends of the spectrum. Unless someone is a regular of Yelp and does a review for every restaurant, the rest of them would be people who had great experiences or really bad experiences. They won’t be bothered to write a review about a mediocre or average restaurant. It’s not worth their time. You could also mention that. Also, do you think there are fake reviews too? I’d go for siteJabbar.

Becca Lewis: Firstly its interesting how you’re talking about Reddit because I’m talking about Digg. I think new beliefs takes time to be adapted by the masses. Feminism isn’t very old, and its on going. I think it takes time for people to adapt to it, so for the short term I won’t be surprised if the discussion board sees a lot of anti-feminism people. But also do bare in mind that these are “beliefs”, just like “liberalism” (which is quite similar to feminism, fighting for individual rights, etc). Not everyone believes in these values, so some disagreements should be expected. I guess an interesting way could be to examine if people become more offensive when they are shown as anonymous. My thoughts are that it is. You could look at reddit discussions compared with the core values of Wikipedia, and why it worked for Wikipedia, but a little hard for Reddit.

Gary Brown: Are there any data on the selection process, or ventures that were rejected? It’s hard to associate it with discrimination if there is no evidence. Since you can’t prove or disprove this, it means “site controls” cannot be determined. Therefore you need to make a new thesis that really reflects the paper.

Meagan Moana HoChing: DOTA is a fun game. My initial response is that with huge amounts of ego on the line, that’s how bullying start. Haha. From what I read and know, it is the architecture that is dominantly the issue. This structure allows the audience to exploit it. I think you could also investigate is how is “harassment” identified as? Calling someone a “loser”? Do note that a lot of cyber bullying are to kids that people know in real life. So can we causally say trash talking is the same as harassing? When NBA players trash talk one another, I don’t think they considered it as harassing. So I guess this definition needs to be very clear.

Caroline B: Perhaps you could mention NPOV as one of their values they used in order to keep readers like yourself going to the website.

Jan Yburan: Second Reddit I saw today. Haha. I think you need to be weary of the upvote system. More popular and famous people would get a self –fulfilling upvote treatment, where as more niche people or radical ones would get less. This way of identifying success might be a little questionable.

Alex Samaei: I’d be more interested in how kickstarter protects pledgers from potential false projects. This seems like a very good question for privacy and control.

Gia:
“New scambaiters can request to be assigned a "mentor" to assist them in learning how to bait.”

I think this is really cool.

“. In the past, scammers were tricked into sending money themselves, which was later given to charity.”

That’s crazy. Not sure who the scammer is now. I’d spend more time discussing the aspect about scammers being scammed by scambaiters, and the moral and ethical implications of it.

Mishal R. Kennedy: I think you have a legit question there. Looking at whether deleting an old post or controlling spambots to be more important. You could also consider that perhaps it was the ease of registration that led to the spambots. Deleting the old posts doesn’t actually go to the root of the problem. I guess you could also talk more about the ease of registration.

Richard Markow: I think you should just talk about 1 or 2 points out of the 5. Don’t think you have enough space to write that much.

Alexander H: Do you think you could also go into the ease of account creation? To attain legitimacy, the website would need real personal data to determine that the petition is signed by a real person. If so the privacy concerns would be the biggest. A deeper look at the terms and agreement is a must.

Meredith Blake: That’s an interesting take on Yelp. I do believe that the reviews are either from the ones who enjoyed the restaurant the most, or the ones that hated it. The ones in the middle won’t be bothered to write a review.

Wesley Verge: Personally I think it is an inevitable part of anonymity and high view count. There’s bound to be a few trolls, but that too is what makes youtube entertaining. I think youtube just needs to make a better flagging system.

Kelly Wilson: You could talk about how the internet might influence more people to be whistleblowers, or even anonymous whistleblowers.

Tasha: I think to begin with you need to bare in mind that a lot of fitness people already know the difference between science and bro-science. I further believe that bodybuilding.com would just allow people to say whatever they want knowing full well it is just a forum. As long as they don’t endorse it, they shouldn’t be liable. But as such, you should also talk about the privacy of fitness people on the website. A lot of them post photos up too, and their diet and schedules.

Josefin S: Nice logo. I don’t really like the age range for kidzworld.com. It doesn’t make sense for 9 year olds to interact with 17 year olds. Furthermore, I wouldn’t want my 9 year old kid to socialize with 17 year old kids and being taught 17 year old stuff. So my biggest concern, as you also mentioned, is how do they keep content separate between different ages to prevent the younger kids to learn the wrong stuff? Or do they not do this at all?

Brooke Ashley Tjarks: Yes, I’d agree with you that IMDB is a good balance between the other two websites. I think by becoming a member, the legitimacy of the votes would become higher. There’s bound to be some sort of influence between people regardless of the platform, so I think IMDB is an interesting one to investigate further.

----

- Brooke Tjarks here responding to Caelum -

Thank you so much for the feedback. I am defintely going with IMBD. Another interesting aspect of the platform is the accuracy of content that the website tries to uphold and the methods that they use to ensure this. For example, users with profiles who edit pages must sign legal documents online (such as NDA's) before editing. The more I thought it over the more I realized how different each of the sites I considered truly are, but IMDB has the most to offer for this assignment. Thank you again for your support.

[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 17:53, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----

Amchugh: I think you could go into internet being free also has its consequences. Since the internet could edit and post something online in a matter of seconds, it becomes very vulnerable for unintended things to hit the net. The filtering has to either occurred before the posting, or after it has been up. When it’s up already, it’s hard to say whether the rest of them would oblige, or would they prefer to continue the troll game. You could talk about the reasons for why Twitter would take it down (assuming that it does not violate Twitter’s policies).

Note: Good luck everyone!

[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 13:43, 6 March 2015 (EST)
----
Hi Caelum,

Thanks for your comments. There are a lot of interesting issues, both legal and ethical and the subject is controversial for sure. Good luck with your project as well!

([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))

Privacy Part 3: Government Surveillance

2015-03-03T20:46:03Z

Gary Brown: /* 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>

----

Kerr's Washington Post article "Apple's Dangerous Game" (and his follow-up post) seems to highlight an overall quandary with cyber and technological surveillance that the other readings point to. The fact that his second post comes from "the strongest counterargument" on his original article about the new Apple software that can thwart lawful search warrants proves the complexity and the seeming inability of tailoring proper security techniques when there is some much that cannot be known or predicted. In the original post, he states, "Incidentally, I have long argued that the Supreme Court should wait until a technology stabilizes before applying the Fourth Amendment to it to avoid the problem of announcing a rule that doesn’t make sense over time." (Here he points to the potential Fourth Amendment arguments as related to the search and seizure of someone's iPhone). At the same time, arguments like this point to the impossible paradox of law both attempting to keep pace with technology when certain forms of technological security cannot be made transparent due to the fear of cyberattacks as well as the issue of creating some sort of precedent without knowing what innovations lie ahead. ([[User:Amchugh|Amchugh]] ([[User talk:Amchugh|talk]]) 15:44, 3 March 2015 (EST))

----

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)

----

I want to start with the quote from Schneier´s text: ”We need to decide whether our data is a shared societal resource, a part of us that is inherently ours by right, or a private good to be bought and sold.” (Schneier, 2013). For me, that is the root to the problem discussed in this week´s class literature, and your personal view on this matter will most likely affect your opinion in government and corporate surveillance.

This week was all about different interests and their rights. The literature discussed privacy vs. protection from terrorism and privacy vs. solving crimes. As President Obama said in the Re/Code interview, there are problems with encoding (which was what they talked about in this particular interview) but also tradeoffs (Swisher, 2015). The problem is to decide which interest is the most important? It is a difficult question to answer and I can´t really decide for myself what I think. At the moment, I would say that privacy is the less important interest when it comes to this issue, but I might say something else later on. And I am not the only one thinking this is a hard nut to crack. If it wasn´t, we wouldn´t even discuss it.

I believe that the really big security threat now and in the future is cyber attacks and cyber terrorism, since we are relying more and more on the Internet and computers. We barely even pay in cash anymore and governments use the Internet all the time. Actually, when I read the newspaper today I saw an article about the increased amount of cyber attacks against both the government and companies here in my country. One example was from February 23rd this year, when 112 (Europe´s version of 911) was affected by a technical breakdown (Törnmalm, Spängs, 2015). That could have had huge consequences. I would say that especially in a country like Sweden, where I am a citizen, cyber attacks feels way more threatening than more traditional threats. Sweden has been a country in peace for more than 200 years, even though you never know what will happen in the future of course.

References:

Schneier B, 10/21/2013. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/10/the_trajectorie.html Retrieved 2/27/2015

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

Törnmalm K., Spängs T., 2015. Dagliga attacker mot myndigheter och företag. Dagens Nyheter, 03 March. page. 8-9.
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 14:29, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----

I have come across a few articles this week that deal directly with the issues we have been discussing. Specifically, I was interested in seeing the below post on Jezebel about a man dealing in revenge porn, who now wants his personal information removed from Google searches. The story is extreme and somewhat ridiculous, and Google has disregarded his requests, but I do think it speaks to a truth about the conflicting expectations we have about what information we can control about others and about ourselves.

http://jezebel.com/revenge-porn-dude-wants-his-personal-info-removed-from-1687953903

This actually ties into the other interesting article I saw, which focuses on surveillance and data collection, and what we can about it. The author discusses options for avoiding and blocking it, but it mostly focuses on how to distort surveillance data – that is, to feed it incorrect or random information, thereby blinding the data collectors to any true or valuable information about yourself. I found that idea really fascinating. As an Internet user, I like knowing that that’s a possibility for me. But I can also see how there are certain cases where the government or a company might be interested in finding data about me for reasons that will ultimately benefit me, in which case, feeding them bad data doesn’t help anyone.

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2015/03/data_and_goliath_excerpt_the_best_ways_to_undermine_surveillance.html

This brings me to my main issue with surveillance, which is the lack of transparency around when it’s happening and why. This is true for both corporate and government surveillance and data collection. In his article, Brian Fung argues that government surveillance is worse than corporate surveillance because we don’t have any choices surrounding it. I would argue that the two forms are similarly insidious, however, and both lack transparency, making them equally difficult for me to reconcile.

[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 14:45, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----
As someone who spends a lot of time at the Kennedy School, it’s always been a little scary to hear from practitioners in the national security field about just how easily and how much government and corporate entities can access personal information—both in how comfortably we give it away and how sophisticated tracking software can be. When the Edward Snowden controversy unfolded instead of being surprised at the actions of the NSA, I was actually more surprised by the whirlwind of outrage produced by the media and public. After years of hearing national discourse about the overreaching powers of the Patriot Act, rhetoric about the never-ending war on terror, and debates about privacy on websites like MySpace and Facebook, it seemed glaringly apparent to me that regulation was not on par with how fast technology was growing. It seems only natural that something that went from rare to deeply ubiquitous in such a short period of time would be used and/or abused by those in power.

But, while I think the NSA and other government agencies may have overstepped in certain places, a friend of mine made the apt comparison that government surveillance is like being in Times Square on New Year’s Eve—you know you’re on camera, you know you’re kind of loosely being watched, but as long as you don’t do anything, you’re unlikely to be noticed specifically—you’re just kind of part of the general pack. One of the issues is that of over collection, with algorithms and software at a point where it just isn’t sophisticated enough to allow the government to collect less data and concentrate on what is actually useful. Corporate collection of information however, totally freaks me out because (and perhaps this is hopelessly naïve of me) for the time being unless I’m breaking a law or doing something wrong, my online activity isn’t of huge importance to the government. Organizations like Google and Amazon however, make me feel like they know more about me than me sometimes.

Essentially, an my background in politics is probably influencing my opinion that national security concerns are more important than me preferring that government agents don’t read my emails, but the right to privacy from the government shouldn’t be discounted. I agree with President Obama’s remark Apple and Google are “improperly responding to a market demand” by rolling out encryption software in the wake of public outcry and increased interest in privacy. It does appear that there needs to be a better forum for government agencies and entities like Google and Twitter to work together or even for those entities to inform their users that the government will be provided access to their usage under a specific variety of legal circumstances.
[[User:Meredithmblake|Meredith]] ([[User talk:Meredithmblake|talk]]) 15:03, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----
I am in complete agreement with HRomero’s prospective on ‘perpetual war’ and it being the basis for continued surveillance. NSA’s use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is much more intrusive than it has been in the past. One-way observation is in some ways an expression of control. While Fung (2013) demonstrates the similarity in the ways private and government, there is a significant difference in the action a person is able to respond to a company versus the government. What is evident is the very little recourse a person has against the government’s violation of their rights. Although the Fourth Amendment states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”, there lays the question of the NSA violating the Fourth Amendment by surveying and searching the communications of individuals suspected of no wrongdoing without a warrant. Citizens are not in a position to contest government surveillance laws, which has me to question if the freedom of expression is under threat. Having quite a few friends around the globe who are writers, the potential scrutiny of their communications it has impacted their eagerness to write about provocative subjects. While the data collected should be minimized and anonymized unless it is a crime, Walsh (2014) draws the correlation between the minimization of data and the ability to re-identify people from anonymized records. Here is a link to Section 702 of FISA, http://fas.org/irp/news/2013/06/nsa-sect702.pdf, which speaks about minimizing data collected. The idea of de-anonymizing was discussed in our previous readings of Schneider and demonstrated how easy it was to do with very little information. With all facts considered, I believe the NSA’s use of FISA creates an indirect by-product of censorship with the attempts to minimize of the use of personal identifiable information being questioned.

References:

Fung, B. (2013). ‘Yes, there is actually a huge difference between government and corporate survaillance.’

Schneier B, (2007). ‘Why Sometimes Anonymous Data Isn’t.’

Walsh, K. (2013), ‘The NSA’s Spying Powers: Reading the Statute’.

Tasha[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 15:23, 3 March 2015 (EST)

-----
After taking a look on today’s class reading my overall impression is that we are talking about “cyber wars” and “cyber armies”. All this military allusions are giving me the impression that our governments are preparing for military clashes old style. The problem is who is considered to be the enemy? Historically a war is to be led between two or more different countries but in this case the hostile conflict is not localized. As long as we have military threat certain measures , actions and arms are used which would not be allowed during a homeland issue, if not during a revolution, but if it is consider as such it is another story. So it is not very clear to me why one and the same “weapons” are to be used to fight different groups groups of enemies foreign and domestic? Another question is whether the government is making any difference between “spying” and “surveillance”?

I very much liked the “Kit Walsh, The NSA's Spying Powers: Reading the Statute” , where the analysis shows clearly that the governmental authorities are creating the laws (probably the term “law” is not correctly used, for which I apologize) in order to give themselves the authority and scope of freedom they need. But it is wrong, the government should adjust its actions according to the laws, not the other way round.

My final impression , after watching president’s Obama interview and reading Neil M. Richards’ “ THE DANGERS OF SURVEILLANCE”, is that people are just not well informed of what exactly is going on and what is done here and now in their name.

The second issue about the information collected by private sector and then used by the government, I very much enjoyed reading about this, because it came as a follow up to something I read less then a month ago “The NSA hides surveillance software in hard drives” (http://www.engadget.com/2015/02/16/hard-drive-spyware/) . I think we should not forget the fact that all private individuals, huge companies included, have the right to follow their economical interest and to enter in whatever contractual relation with a third party, including the government, as long as it stays legal. I would say it means that it is up to us, to take better care what information we are giving as users and under what conditions. If we click by default “I agree” and simply do not care that we a putting our biometric date at the disposal of a world corporation (iphone5 http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/12/tech/mobile/iphone-fingerprint-privacy/), we could neither elect, refuse to elect or control in any other way the democracy has given us the right to do with our government, than we should start doing something about this first.
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 15:40, 3 March 2015 (EST))
----
A couple of things jumped out at me in this week’s readings. The first, according to Schneier, is that the Government can analyze not only me, but people “3 hops away.” That could mean that as far as the government is concerned I am related in some abstract way not only to my friends, but also their friends and their friends’ friends. That is a lot of people, most of whom I do not even know. Yet, their data may somehow be linked to me. I shudder a bit at that prospect. It would seem that the “six degrees of separation” in the digital world is smaller than ever. What level of affinity is too thin? I suppose the answer would be no connection is too thin, if we can qualify that it serves a legitimate need of the government.

This brings me to the second thing that jumped out. In looking at the transparency reports and their useless consumption of ink (or pixels), I am reminded that whatever their level of uselessness, the government has no transparency report at all that I can see, with the possible exception of Snowden. That seems like a risky alternative. Something less risky would be more appropriate. [[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 15:46, 3 March 2015 (EST)
----

User:Gary Brown

2015-03-03T18:47:46Z

Gary Brown: Created page with "'''Gary Brown''' :Student in Internet & Society LSTU E-120 Spring 2015"

'''Gary Brown'''

:Student in Internet & Society LSTU E-120 Spring 2015

User talk:Gary Brown

2015-03-03T18:45:56Z

Gary Brown: Open Talk Page

Please feel free to comment or communicate with me here.
[[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 13:45, 3 March 2015 (EST)

Assignment 2 Submissions

2015-03-03T18:18:28Z

Gary Brown: /* Comments */

File:Gary Brown Assignment2.docx

2015-03-03T18:15:25Z

Gary Brown:

Privacy Part 2: The Right to Be Forgotten

2015-02-24T20:43:47Z

Gary Brown: /* 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])

* [http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/2014/wp225_en.pdf EU Data Protection Working Party, Guidelines on the Implementation of the Court of Justice of the European Union Judgment on Google Spain] and accompanying [http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/press-material/press-release/art29_press_material/20141126_wp29_press_release_ecj_de-listing.pdf press release]

==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 had not heard of the "right to be forgotten" before this class, so I'm a bit amazed that it exists. Before the Internet (and now) there were journals, history books, notes, law cases, family bibles, photos, TV recordings, radio recordings not to mention newspaper stories. Yes, looking people up on all of those materials is somewhat more daunting than a "Google" search, but it can be done, and it is still done by those with a dogged determination to look into people's pasts.

There are no ways to remove oneself from history books. What is a matter of public record is still public record. Why is the internet treated differently from any other form of public dissemination? Private organizations catalog and index public records in their own "search engines" most of which can also be searched online from their websites. You would spend years going after all the various resources that have a copy of that information. Sure, it would take longer as the information may not be there at the flick of a few key strokes, but it's still there.

Bottom line for me, and I embrace the Internet's power wholeheartedly for I am a distance student after all, is that I find it ridiculously naive to think that if you win a case getting Google to remove a link, that now no one can ever find that bad information about you and suddenly you are pure. I also do not like this law as now you can play havoc with History. What we do today reflects on us 100 years from now. Did it happen? Or did it not?

[[User:ErikaLRich|ErikaLRich]] ([[User talk:ErikaLRich|talk]]) 15:12, 24 February 2015 (EST)

----

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)

----

'The Right to be Forgotten' is one of the first big battles of internet privacy in our modern age. I found it interesting that the European Union took such a drastically different approach than the United States in these first steps. However I would like to start by saying that I believe in time these differences will converge into a larger global format, simply due to the fact that the internet has helped lead to globalization in everything it has touched and this would be difficult to retract.

While the E.U. used broad terms that may scare some, personally I agree with the logic of 'staying ahead of the curve.' If we just look at how significantly the internet has changed in the past 10 years with the introduction of smartphones we can only be so accurate in our predictions of what the internet will be like in another 10 or even 20 years. Laws take so long to be drafted, adapted and perfected that any strict policy of this complexity would be out of date soon after it's implementation. That's why I understand the want to use broad terms, but this also leads to the risk of leaving many decisions in the hands of people or groups who maybe shouldn't have that level of control. While Google doesn't want this responsibility of managing screenings, it's business has shifted into one that requires it. If they are not able to properly adapt then they too can be replaced by another company who can. So as a business that wants to be the central information source for it's users, logic says they will adapt.

On the other hand the idea that this specific censorship could be misused to hide information from being easily accessed is a scary thought. One of the reasons the internet is so popular and is quickly changing the way the world thinks and acts is the ease of access to all human knowledge. This may seem extreme but if we put limits on what can be found via the internet we start to change what the internet is, an open network of communication and information exchange.

In the end I believe that neither of these solutions are ideal. What I found the most interesting in these readings was that Google used to allow users to comment on GoogleNews articles about themselves. This seems like a brilliant way to allow any individual to make a sound argument defending themselves or explaining their circumstances. This method wouldn't limit anyone searching the user in question from finding any information. While this may not be an all-encompassing solution I believe it is the closest towards what we can implement quickly and make adaptable for future technologies.

[[User:Samaei1|Samaei1]] ([[User talk:Samaei1|talk]]) 13:18, 24 February 2015 (EST)

----

To say honestly, I have never heard of this rule and I am not one supporting it. I believe the information we find when Googling our name (or the name of another) is valuable information about that person. If a mistake was made early in the 20's for example, having that information available on the Internet is the price one must pay. If every 'bad' or not so good article/photo/event was erased, that is not only taking away freedom of spech as my classmates mentioned above, but it is also hiding information to future bosses, schools, etc. You cannot erase a mistake in your life by simply erasing an article on Google. As a citizen, we all have the ability and right to know about others if we so please. I look forward to discussion tonight as I imagine (from reading comments above) that this is a very topic many agree with but also many disagree with. [[User:Cbore001|Cbore001]] ([[User talk:Cbore001|talk]]) 13:54, 24 February 2015 (EST)

----
Posner (2014) supports the idea that we all have the “right to be forgotten”. Europe is ahead of the United States in this area Posner compared the United States with Europe and indicated that America is rigid and ideological while Europe is pragmatic and flexible. Examples were provided of a man asking Google to remove data about him that linked to another website. It is believed that the old and embarrassing troubles living forever online is one that our laws do not address yet. Old information can be pulled up at any time on anyone via the internet. While I have conflicting viewpoints on “right to be forgotten”, my perspective leans towards the outlook that individuals have the right to request personal data removed from search engines.

As someone highly connected to the fitness industry, many aspiring athletes and models are photographed for promotional purposes or personal gain in attire and positions that usually are regrettable in the future. While an athlete may take a harmless photo in a bikini, it is not unusual for those photographs to copied and used on websites and forums that do not match the moral compass of the athlete. So while, it was their discretion to have their photo taken, the integrity of the person can be compromised as the name and photograph are now searchable and connected to a third-party. I am in agreement with someone’s right to have data removed. According to Zittrain (2014), European court decided Google “must forget”. Google can be demanded to remove certain reputation-harming search results that is accessed by one’s name. Zittrain (2014) continues to report that protecting an individual’s reputation is protected is important and a policy matter that must be legislated by the court which is mismatched to the evolving intricacies of the online world.

As there continues to be ongoing conflict about protection of the freedom of speech and privacy, I read a great article by ENISA, European Union Agency for Network and Information Security Agency, which address concerns about the expectations and practice of the right to be forgotten, which can be found here: http://www.enisa.europa.eu/activities/identity-and-trust/library/deliverables/the-right-to-be-forgotten/at_download/fullReport

References:

Posner, E. (2014). "We All Have the Right to Be Forgotten," Slate.

Zittrain, J. (2014). "Don't Force Google to 'Forget'," New York Times.

Tasha[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 14:55, 24 February 2015 (EST)

----

Hello, everyone.
Looking forward to tonight's class and discussion.
There's a few things I'd like to encourage everyone to think about in the larger context of the ruling and its consequences.
First is the issue of Google (or other search engines) notifying affected sites of the removal of one or more of their links in Search results. I.e. Google tells the Guardian that in response to an RTBF request, Google has removed a Guardian link from certain search results.
How do you feel about this and why?

Second, consider the role of contextualization. This is legal activity being acted on in legal ways, but the result created may be forbidden by law. No one is saying that newspapers cannot publish articles or have archives, and no one is saying that search engines cannot exist or that they cannot aggregate material to present in results. and yet...
We have emergent meaning and cultural/legal significance based solely on contextualization of information. What are the long-term implications of this? To what extent is this a culture clash, and to what extent might it be a new defining feature of he digitization of information? For some reason I am reminded of Greg Egan's 1992 story "Dust".

Finally, regardless of your opinion on the actual RTBF, how do you feel about historical preservation of the affected URLs and the decisions made affecting them? Is it all right to memory-hole those? If we need to preserve the historical record, who should do it, and in what way, and who should be allowed to study the data?
[[User:Aholland|Aholland]] ([[User talk:Aholland|talk]]) 14:58, 24 February 2015 (EST)

----
This week’s readings pose a very true and real threat that we will find ourselves with the explosion and utilization of social media outlets. The reality is that the Internet is not going away, and neither is the majorly popular resources and engines like Google. The “right to be forgotten” seems like an idea that would work in theory, but in practice, has so many faults. With Europe taking the first attempt at this conflict, and somewhat failing, it’s only a matter of time before other bigger superpowers will begin to have to address this. Jeff Rosen writes, “Europeans have a long tradition of declaring abstract privacy rights in theory that they fail to enforce in practice.” And although this may be true, I don’t think any abstract idea of regulating can be properly implemented with ideas such as limiting or regulating the Internet.
I think that the general rules put forth by the E.U. to attempt to regulate such cases is putting the onus on an data driven engine to be accountable for actions by an individual who was neither forced to do those actions or in any other way coerced to take part in the actions. In the example Rosen presented, of a young girl caught in a picture with a beer. The government is holding the website accountable for something the young girl a.) Should not have been doing b.) Been apart of actions that would capture such activieis.
Leaving the Internet the way it is now, free and open, will hold individuals accountable for what they do, especially in domains such as Facebook, Twitter, etc. If the consideration were based off false accounts or information, which was untrue, the case would be a matter of libel or defamation of character. The freedom of the internet holds users accountable and will force them to consider where and what they take part in before the actually commit any actions.
Jonathan Zittrain does a beautiful job of illustrating the answer and ways in which solutions can be explored. In his 2014 article, “Don’t Force Google to ‘Forget’” he claims that the E.U. is not necessarily wrong in their worries, but their approach and implementation is something to be desired. I believe Zittrain is correct and captures it perfectly when he says, “Whatever the solution, the status quo is no longer stable. In the wake of the decision by the European Court of Justice, search engine companies now face a potential avalanche of requests for redaction.”
[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 15:07, 24 February 2015 (EST)

----
In light of European Court of Justice's ruling about "the right to be forgotten", this subject is becoming more and more important in this so-called 'age of data':how do we balance individual privacy rights vs. public right to be informed? I'm looking forward to see how the ECJ ruling affects internet users in Europe.

It's rather unlikely for a similar law to be implemented here in the US, with the First Amendment guaranteeing free speech for everyone. Having a censor-free internet would preserve the free space for people to express their opinion; however, I do like the 'curated page' idea that Jonathan Zittrain discussed on his article, where people can choose what to include on the first page of search results containing their name while providing uncensored results on the next pages. This would preserve free-speech while giving people some degree of control towards what other people see when they are being searched on the internet.

[[User:Rpeisch|Rpeisch]] ([[User talk:Rpeisch|talk]]) 15:19, 24 February 2015 (EST)
----
In reading the Google Spain case (Costeja decision) material, I could not help thinking about the privacy and free speech interests underlying the United States Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). These laws seem to have some of the same interests at stake as the interests in being forgotten represented by Costeha

When evaluating a request to suppress certain search results, Google.es must consider some of the same factors embodied in these two U.S. laws. For example, the privacy of an individual in his or her medical records is clearly being balanced by the HIPAA law with the needs of the care provider to communicate with its professional and business partners. The Health and Human Services website describes the rights simply, “The HIPAA Privacy Rule provides federal protections for individually identifiable health information… At the same time, the Privacy Rule is balanced so that it permits the disclosure of health information needed for patient care and other important purposes.”1 Of course, insurers that cover the costs related to care need the patient information to confirm that the costs are covered despite the privacy interests of the insured individual.

According to the Costeja decision, Google.es now must suppress search results that are “irrelevant, outdated, or otherwise objectionable." According to the Federal Trade Commission website, the FCRA similarly limits the types of credit and payment information that can be published about an individual, the time limits for different types of information, and even who can see those results based on the needs of the parties.2 Old, outdated information must not be published.

While I concede that it would be a formidable project to compare and contrast the FCRA and HIPAA laws with the privacy and free speech interests that are characteristic of the Internet, the comparison on its face is analogous. The analogy of these laws to the privacy and free speech interests connected with Internet search engines is conspicuously absent from the readings this week.

Works Cited
1 HHS.gov. 2015. Understanding Health Information Privacy. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/index.html. [Accessed 24 February 15]
2 FTC.gov. 2015. A Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/pdf-0096-fair-credit-reporting-act.pdf. [Accessed 24 February 15].

[[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 15:43, 24 February 2015 (EST)
----

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

2015-02-17T20:48:33Z

Gary Brown: /* 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)

----

Hi everyone!

This week´s readings is a lot about the free market vs. the government. In the texts about connectivity, the different authors discuss whether the government should interfere with the market concerning improving access to high speed internet, or if that is up to the market to handle. Like Oliviabrinich said very well here in the class discussion; ”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.”, the Internet is not just something that is fun to be connected to but is instead an important part of today´s infrastructure. And in my opinion is the government responsible for supplying the country and it´s citizens with important infrastructure, that means Internet as well as roads and railroads.

I was also very surprised that so few had access to Internet in America, and after I´ve been reading the other comments here in the class discussion, I realize that I´m not the only one who reacted when I read that. What is sad is that there was such a strong correlation between a low income and not having access to the Internet. Since the Internet plays such a huge part in both the private and the commercial communication today, not having access to it is a great handicap.

When it comes to network neutrality, I found the video by the President very interesting. He said that the Internet is a great part of our lives and how we communicate today, and that made me think about not having net neutrality as comparable with not being able to access information and places in the world outside of the Internet. I believe it is just as bad to say ”no you can´t enter this Apple store because you have made a purchase at a Microsoft store and they don´t want you to access Apple´s products”, as for Verizon to limit my access to for example AT&T´s website.

I have a question about Ammori´s article though. I don´t fully understand why the FCC lost the case with network neutrality. He mentioned something about lobbyists in the end of the article, is that the answer to why they lost the case? This might be a silly question, perhaps I missed the answer in the article, but English is not my first language so I thought I´d better ask.

Another question I have is about net neutrality in other countries than the United States. Is this an ongoing debate in many countries? And where in the world (or perhaps more specifically ”in which democracies”) is there net neutrality and where isn´t it? [[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 15:41, 17 February 2015 (EST)

----

:Josefin, to the very specific question about what the FCC "lost," Ammori's article was written after [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._FCC_%282014%29 this case] that struck the FCC's rulings in place at the time. The past year has been a debate to see what will fill in those shoes. [[User:Andy|Andy]] ([[User talk:Andy|talk]]) 15:44, 17 February 2015 (EST)

----

This week’s readings opened my eyes to the very complicated, and multi-leveled role government plays in the development and regulation of Internet channels. It seems that America faces the two problems in unison as we approach the FCC decision and the ongoing and heated debate of governmental reach for enforcing Title 2. While watching Susan Crawford’s speech, she declared, “Internet access is like oxygen – it’s necessary for life”. I found this to be a very profound statement, and she almost alluded that Internet should be viewed as a right or primary concern the government should be investing in for the American people. The How Do We Connect to The Internet?, showed the advancement of developing easy and faster access to Internet shapes our economy for better results.

Furthermore, it seems to me, that the regulating of the Internet must be done by governmental entities to keep the Internet “free and open”. It is evident from the readings that the role of government must be implemented on all levels of government for any kind of initiatives to be successful. In the White House Report, it states, “these federal and state initiatives are only part of the solution. Local governments also have a critical role to play. In markets where private competition is anemic, whether because of regulatory barriers to entry or the high fixed costs of infrastructure investment, town and cities can build their own middle-mile networks and offer competitive access to the private sector” (p13)

The new clear and enforceable rules proposed by FCC Chairman Wheeler seem very promising, but I am very interested with what will develop leading up to February 26th as some of the rules are viewed as “not strong enough” by millions of people in the public. I think it is the government’s role to enforce harder rules to ensure that the Internet stays principally an open entity that supports innovation and free exchange of ideas.
[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 15:43, 17 February 2015 (EST)
----
This week’s readings were very stimulating. Susan Crawford’s remarks to the National Conference for Media Reform raise some great points. Actually, I look forward to class helping to rein in and focus my somewhat runaway reflections on these issues. At the time of this presentation, Professor Crawford was mentioned as a possible appointee to Chair of the FCC. Understandably, this political opportunity shaped the form of her remarks. Still, I found the fundamental ideas underlying here call to action to be clear and well formulated, although I would contend that she might have stepped over the logical line arguing that government intervention is what makes free speech possible.

Professor Crawford opines that with respect to high speed Internet connectivity the United States has no plan for the future, no competition, and no oversight. She observes that the cable industry has won the connectivity market by building the physical networks that allow individuals and businesses to connect to the Internet. With a third of the U.S. unable to affordably access high speed Internet, and millions unable to access it at any price, she points out that the cable companies have achieved a monopolistic “quiet life,” presumably meaning without government intervention.

For me, the professor’s argument was won with these facts. In my view, the lack of competition and the existence of unregulated private monopolies are more than sufficient reasons to consider some form of government action. But, she goes on to add a point that opens the door to criticism of her reasoning. Professor Crawford contends that “we need to recapture the regulatory ideal. That ideal is that regulation of infrastructure, government intervention, makes free markets and free speech possible.” Here, I part company with her. Not that she is incorrect that there can be a connection between regulation and the quality of infrastructure. Positive, professional, uniform regulation may bring better connectivity, perhaps net neutrality, and this will assist in our having the ability to speak without great barriers. But, it is the Internet itself, not the regulation of the companies providing it, that makes global speech and global markets possible. It is free Americans and our counterparts around the globe doing business with each other and communicating with each other that makes markets and free speech. It is not regulation per se, government intervention, that makes these freedoms possible.

While I quibble with this single point in Professor Crawford’s remarks, I take from her argument that the anti-competitive efforts of connectivity goliaths at the local and state levels of government suggest a national solution. I am persuaded that the best way to meet the many fronts of local regulatory disruption by the cable industry is with federal preemption. This is a strategically sound plan to control abuses of the free market, but it is not what makes free markets possible.
[[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 15:48, 17 February 2015 (EST)

External link to Susan Crawford's remarks at the 2013 National Conference for Media Reform:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MD9Ss3SI2v8

External link to transcript of Crawford’s video remarks:

http://conference.freepress.net/ncmr-resource/susan-crawfords-remarks-national-conference-media-reform

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

2015-02-13T20:58:45Z

Gary Brown: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 10'''

'''''Note: Harvard Extension has cancelled classes on February 10th due to snow. A makeup is now scheduled for February 13th, same time, same place.'''''

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>

----

I found the discussions in the readings on Internet privacy (or the lack thereof) quite daunting. It seems like each attempt to protect privacy is countered with a problem or another breach in that "security". I was also intrigued by the argument on how everyone talks about Internet privacy and how important it is to them, but their behavior doesn't reflect those same concerns. Though this seems like a contradiction, I believe it's more of a lapse in our understanding of what it means to share on the Internet. The Internet being a relatively new resource, we are accustomed to a certain level of choice involved with the sharing of our information and we aren't yet fully aware of how the Internet removes that element of choice. Unfortunately, a lot of people are learning that lesson the hard way. The Internet and the elusive definition of "Privacy" is something many people have had to deal with in retrospect. Furthermore, we cannot make progress with what it means to protect privacy if we find it impossible to even define what privacy is. Many people opt to refrain from sharing on the internet at all and, while that seems like a solution, it seems wrong that a person should lack some of the benefits the Internet has to offer simply because of a fear of intrusion. Unfortunately, that is the reality that we deal with today, and one wonders if there is even a solution. [[User:Oliviabrinich|Oliviabrinich]] ([[User talk:Oliviabrinich|talk]]) 13:39, 13 February 2015 (EST)

----
Hi all!

Not sure if i will be able to make class today so I'm posting just in case!

As soon as I read the topic for class I immediately cringed. I have read about our privacy and lack thereof online before and with each new bit of information I sort of shutter thinking about my confident adolescent self on infamous sites like myspace and even high school me on Facebook, where privacy was the least of my concerns and I was happy to show the world every minute of my life. Today the relevance of Facebook in this privacy realm should certainly make people think did I really need to share that one picture or post that one status because truthfully we have this false sense of security with what we share thinking that they are to be seen by our friends but as many of the readings have pointed out and as we have clearly seen in current events, this is most certainly not the case. I really loved how Farris and O'brien put it about our privacy concerns, that essentially we all have a very fuzzy understanding of what privacy even means and although we all express our displeasure with intrusion of our privacy, we seem more than happy to share that video of ourselves on top of the bar singing piano man completely out of key at 3am. They go on to say we "quasi-agree" to sharing this information and forgoing our privacy concerns by accepting the all mighty "terms of agreement/conditions" box which is like a 100 page essay that no one ever reads (Cue the academic icon of South park..trust me when I say click for a good laugh.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAdu6GHV3tQ )

Farris and O'brein further paint our over sharing of data in a scary light:
"Those with the best access to data are the companies with which we have shared this data in a quasi-consensual manner, and the third parties with which they subsequently share the data, and the governments that are able to persuade or coerce the companies to turn over this data to them, and the domestic and foreign governments that are able to monitor communications and hack into computers, and the perpetrators and beneficiaries of successful cyberattacks that precipitate massive data leaks."

One story that comes straight to mind is the Target case study involving Andrew pole and a man and his teenage daughter in Minneapolis. To be brief, essentially what happened is the young daughter had used her target customer Id to purchase various items online on the Target store. A man by the name of Andrew Pole was a master statistician and had developed an algorithm to predict, based on what people bought at Target, where they were at in their life and thus what sort of coupons/deals, etc target should send to them to encourage them to come shop at their store. Well long story longer, Target used this algorithm and determined that based on the daughters purchases over the span of about a week, the algorithm said there was an 87% chance the teen was pregnant. Since she was still very young and living at home, her father would receive the mail and couldn't help but notice all of these coupons geared toward a pregnant mother coming to his house for strollers, cribs, formula etc. The father confronted the manager at a local target irate exclaiming that his wife was certainly not pregnant. Well it turned out that based on the daughter's purchase history and sharing of this information online, Target had known that this high school girl '''was in fact pregnant''' and she was still figuring out a way to tell her father.Unfortunately Target beat her to the punch.

Thanks guys,
Ryan H (rhurls)

[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 12:37, 13 February 2015 (EST)

----
My post seemed to be in a weird format when I reloaded it so here it is again (sorry for the double-post):

After reading the discussion post beginning with the “self” I began reflecting on the period following the 1965 Supreme Court case Griswold v CT when ideas about a more defined sense of legal privacy came to the forefront. Arguments around that time articulated privacy more as it relates to the physical body. Though opinions on reproductive independence are still quite divergent, I believe that Americans on both sides of that argument still hold bodily autonomy and privacy in some form (if not in the form discussed in Griswold) as sacred.

I can’t remember which author mentions this point (Solove perhaps) but one of the articles briefly describes “thermal imaging” in order to catch drug-related criminals as tantamount to searching a home without a warrant. I think this kind of example is sort of a middle ground in examining bodily privacy to more abstract ideas about privacy in a technological world.

As we move into looking at strictly online privacy, people willingly give out all kinds of personal information and their views of privacy diverge from their actions (Goldman says an iteration of this in the Solove reading). If many people think of privacy as “the right to be left alone” what can that mean online? It is easier to conceive of bodily privacy but I sometimes think the way we still think about privacy rights come from before the inception of the internet. ([[User:Amchugh|Amchugh]] ([[User talk:Amchugh|talk]]) 08:34, 13 February 2015 (EST))

----
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)

----

I personally think that the three most interesting articles in today's course readings were the articles by David Veldt, by Jeremy Singer (author of the article titled: How Dataium Watches You) and by Robert Faris and David R. O'Brien. Special software programs, like Dataium, track even the smallest little things that we click on. Online social media services, like Facebook and LinkedIn, can make extremely intrusive (and shockingly accurate, as Mr. Veldt found out...) guesses about who we know, and who we are connected with.

I believe that now is the time to act if we as individuals want to live in a world where our right to privacy is honored. If we do not act, it is believe that it is very likely that our children will unfortunately inherit a world where privacy was a luxury from the past.

[[User:Mishal R. Kennedy|Mishal R. Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Mishal R. Kennedy|talk]]) 1:35PM, 8 February 2015 (EST)

As consumers share more and more information through online purchasing, social media and email, companies are collecting information without any explanation on what will be done with it. What Scheiner and Sweeney reiterate is that with certain datasets it is very simple to de-anonymize users. It is very apparent that consumers are becoming very weary of the intrusion of data monitoring and fear has been elevated by numerous data breaches, including Target, Sony Playstation, Chick-Fla and Turbo Tax to name a few. As a consumer that just purchased a Samsung SMART TV, it was very disturbing to find out that third parties have the ability to screen and send conversations through the voice activated TV controls, which was disclosed in their privacy agreement. Samsung responded by stating, consumers’ conversations are only screenable while the control is activated and Wi-Fi is connected. It is fair to say that Samsung’s minimal disclosure of personal data usage creates a level of distrust among consumers. Veldt’s research into LinkedIn’s practices and data generation peaked my interest, as I too wondered how I received requests and recommendations from individuals without any obvious professional nor personal connections. After reading his article, the privacy settings of my account were promptly adjusted. The constant ‘Big Brother’ consumer monitoring has caused me to become very weary. Tasha[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 18:05, 10 February 2015 (EST)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Privacy

This weeks reading has been very interesting, defining data, privacy, and their interrelation with one another. The past, present and future have been compared with respect to this topic, to give an idea of the involution of privacy and how it is very ambiguous the way how it is dealt now at days.
The fourth amendment, first amendment, and fourteenth amendment deal with privacy to the extend of the physical world in which names, property, and activities have privacy rules that protect them and cannot allow to disclose them, search them or act unreasonably invading or breaking these laws.

However the question presented in our time is whether the law of the fourth amendment, first amendment, and fourteenth amendment, or our current laws are equipped enough to deal with our current problems involving privacy, particularly speaking of the cyber world? This question is difficult to answer because of two reasons, first privacy in the cyber world, the world of the internet is an ambiguous concept, it is is difficult to be defined. The second reason is Data, the way how data is handled makes a difficult to enforce and protect privacy issues.

The rule in this case comes from the understanding, that data and privacy work by first data is presented in the internet without deep analysis, with correlation and not causation, what can be found in one website and it is linked to other peace of information it is not analyzed but linked by correlation. Google operates this way. Therefore data is pilled in the web on thousands of ways which makes difficult to track it, and understand it sometimes, but it works towards finding similar things that if do not come from one another's understanding, they do have something to do with each other.

Now privacy in this context cannot be defined, because how can thousands of links and posts can have privacy when they intervene with one another, piling data.
Therefore how can one unreasonably search the web, is there a limit, and that limit is within some scope, and that scope has some rationality. Therefore the general rule is that in the internet privacy is ambiguous and data is humongous to trace.

Therefore it can be concluded that our past laws cannot keep up with the cyber world and if data is enormous, and privacy ambiguous in the web, then there has to be another way to regulate this, how people research of a subject, topic, person, property, etc. How data is reveled, linking property, people, etc without analysis. This is what needs to be solved for a future that entails uncertainty, but promises great communication, knowledge, and relations if this problem is solved.

(--Edwin Duque--)

When the “Founding Fathers” framed the Bill of Rights, the concept of the internet and shape it would take in regards to mass media, content and privacy would have been unimaginable.
The First Amendment applies protecting of one’s information and possessions and the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable search-the framework of protecting privacy

However, the concept and defining of privacy itself is always an ongoing debate and seems to allow the practice of one’s data or actions on the internet to be available, monitored etc. to any other person, company or government organization as the definition of privacy itself is not clearly outlined and based more on theory.

Individuals for example may give a mobile app access to one’s microphone or location service thinking it is for the purpose of utilizing the app. Meanwhile, the app company may be using this data for other purposes and in turn the government may request this information from companies-in a sense could be argued as unreasonable search and seizure.

Until privacy and uniformed regulation can be established in regards to collection of data and use, one’s privacy will intrinsically be public. In essence the only protection of privacy is for one not to provide the data they do not want to be public or collected. [[User:Andrew C.|Andrew C.]] ([[User talk:Andrew C.|talk]]) 17:54, 12 February 2015 (EST)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I really enjoyed the article focusing on LinkedIn. I sometimes wonder how sites match "people you may know" and it was a very interesting take from the author of a thought many of us have-- how LinkedIn/Facebook/etc match us with people we actually do know. In regards to that thought, the Internet tracks us in our daily searches. Especially around the Holidays, there were several times my Internet began advertising gifts I had bought online at Target/etc. Although many people like how that is generated, I find it not likeable and confirming that there truly is no privacy.

The first article had a very interesting quote: "privacy has proven to be a powerful rhetorical battle cry...privacy means so many different things to so many different people that it has lost any precise legal connotation that it might once have had..." It would be a neat assignment to figure out what "privacy" means to each of us-- especially as we grew up in a world focused on computers and technology and, obviously, have different views from our parents and children of what "privacy" means. It is really such an easy term yet something so hard to explain-- also brining in the idea of "if you don't want everyone (or anyone) to see, don't put it on the internet becasue then it is not private"

I read more about Privacy and came across an interesting article some of you may want to glance at:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielnewman/2014/08/20/there-is-no-privacy-on-the-internet-of-things/

About half way down, the article begins speaking on the Privacy Statements online and how many people, including myself, skim over and accept without really reading. [[User:Cbore001|Cbore001]] ([[User talk:Cbore001|talk]]) 19:11, 12 February 2015 (EST)

----

I am becoming more intrigued with how much net neutrality is becoming more of a headline subject within the news, or it could be that net neutrality has always been in the news and I'm just now paying attention. I think it is a natural to be more sensitive to subjects you are becoming aware of, but it was very serendipitous that while reflecting on net neutrality and all the issues that have come out of the subject matter, CNBC had an interview with AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson in which he cautions the Obama administration about attempting to regulate the internet.

Leading up the FCC's decision at the end of this month, I think it will be very exciting to continue to follow the story. The issue of regulating the internet is such a complex and permanent action. As we have discussed in class, and the readings have pointed out, the idea of the internet is to have and fully accessible resource. The implications of FCC and some recent events with administration somewhat threaten this idea if they are going to attempt to regulate it. So many more questions will be born with implementation and follow through with decision of regulations.

Here's a small portion of the interview for anyone who is interested. http://www.cnbc.com/id/102424165#.

[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 15:28, 13 February 2015 (EST)
----
Two aspects of this week’s readings were particularly interesting to me. Both come from “The Rise of Big Data” and what they term “datafication.” Speaking of Google’s analysis of search terms and the resulting correlation with flu outbreaks, the article observes such correlations are predictive and not always correct; unrelated outside factors might influence the prediction (4). The article stops short of what seems to me an obvious next step to observe that such outside influences may be either coincidental or intentional. This point has profound implications when we consider the uses to which big data predictions are being put. The intentional interference with such predictions seems ripe for discussion. How it might take place and the complications of both trying to affect results and countermeasures against it raise many questions in my mind.

Also, as noted later in the article, big data predictions may be used, for example by government, to make decisions without a full appreciation for or an understanding of the implications on society (7). This “misplaced” reliance on big data predictions could similarly be affected by the gaming or mischievous interference with the data process.[[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 15:58, 13 February 2015 (EST)
----

Assignment 1 Submissions

2015-02-10T20:19:25Z

Gary Brown: /* 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:

ErikaLRich

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

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blairsville,_Georgia

Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/LSTU_E120_Erika_Rich_Assignment_1.docx

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

JosefinS

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

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_High_School_(Hillsboro,_Oregon)

Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:JosefinS_Assignment1.pdf

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

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

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caroline Borek

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

Article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property

Report:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment_1_Borek.docx

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

Edwin Duque Edwinduque Elduquews

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

Article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_law

Report:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment_1.doc

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

• Emily MacIntyre

• Link to rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

• Link to article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meetinghouse_Common_District

• Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/MacIntyre_Emily_Assignment_1.pdf

---------
Samaei1

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

Article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Justice#In_other_media

Report:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment_1_Samaei1.pdf

-----
Mhoching

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

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mt._Baker_Sesh_Up

Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment_1.docx
-----
MeredithB

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

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_for_an_Open_Europe

Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Meredith_Blake._Assignment_1.rtf
-----
Mishal R. Kennedy:

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

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M15/42_tank

Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Essay_(Internet_and_Politics,_Assignment_1)_Mishal_Kennedy.rtf
-----

Jan.Yburan

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

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swimming_(sport)#Collegiate_Swimming

Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Jan_Yburan.Assingment1.docx

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

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymity

Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Wikipedia_Assignment_1.docx
----
Gary Brown (Intor1 on Wikipedia)

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

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_aspects_of_computing#Internet_Law

Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Gary_Brown_Assignment1.docx
----

File:Gary Brown Assignment1.docx

2015-02-10T20:09:34Z

Gary Brown: Gary Brown's Assignment 1 file. Gary Brown is user intor1 on Wikipedia

Gary Brown's Assignment 1 file. Gary Brown is user intor1 on Wikipedia

Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction

2015-02-03T20:51:11Z

Gary Brown: /* 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.

== 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>

----
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.

----

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)

----

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)