Technologies and Politics of Control - User contributions [en]

Final Projects

2015-05-15T22:07:27Z

Gia:

{{AssignmentCal}}

<big><big><big><big>[http://www.extension.harvard.edu/course-evaluations HES course evaluations are now live. Please go here to fill it out.]</big></big></big></big>

== Instructions ==

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

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

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

*Name or Pseudonym:
*Title:
*Link:

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

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

==Submissions ==

----

Name: Erika L Rich

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

Link: [[File:LSTU_E120_Erika_Rich_FINAL_PAPER.docx]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Name: Batjarks

Title: Mobile Alliance for Maternal Action

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

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

Name: Hernando Romero & Michelle Byrne

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

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

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

Name: ChanelRion

Title: We The Judges: "SiteJabber"

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

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

----

Name: Kelly Wilson

Title: Buycott: Empowering Political Consumption Under A Veil of Political Neutrality

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

[[User:Kelly.wilson|Kelly.wilson]] ([[User talk:Kelly.wilson|talk]]) 13:50, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

-----

Name: Becca Lewis

Title: /r/TwoXChromosomes: The challenges of maintaining a female-centric space on Reddit

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Beccalew_assignment5.docx

[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 14:33, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

----
Name: Tasha

Title: Exploring The Complexity of Rapidly Evolving Information in a bodybuilding, the Challenges of Quality Assurance

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

[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 15:17, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

----
Name: Ryan Hurley

Title: BarstoolSports.com’s Civil War: An Evaluation of the “Success” of the Comment Section regulations

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

[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 15:32, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

----
Name: Alex Samaei

Title: Influence of Reddit on Kickstarter Campaigns

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Samaei1_Final.pdf

[[User:Samaei1|Samaei1]] ([[User talk:Samaei1|talk]]) 16:18, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

----
Name: JosefinS

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

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

[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 16:21, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
----

Name: AlexanderH

Title: How Do You Regulate User Content?: Instagram and the 4th Trimester Bodies Project

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:AlexanderH_-_Final_Project.pdf

[[User:AlexanderH|AlexanderH]] ([[User talk:AlexanderH|talk]]) 17:13, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

----

Name: RMarkow

Title: Analyzing three news sites with very different controls, on the same day as each of their respective communities engage in heated political debate on the same topic.

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

[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 20:19, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
----

Name: Caelum

Title:
Reddit’s Constant Conflict between Freedom of Speech and their Censorship of Hate Speech and Personal Attacks in it’s Conspiracy Sub-category

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

[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 23:35, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

------

Name: Ginka Todorova, Natasha Jalbut and Mishal Kennedy

Title:
Scam Baiting Within the 419Eater Community: 
The Challenge of controlling racist speech and behavior

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Ginka-Natasha-Mishal_Final.pdf

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

----

Name: Meagan HoChing

Title: The Wealth of Crowdfunding: A case analysis of the GoFundMe.com campaign “Homes for Earthquake Victims”

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

[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 16:53, 15 May 2015 (EDT)

Final Projects

2015-05-15T19:23:58Z

Gia:

File:Ginka-Natasha-Mishal Final.pdf

2015-05-15T19:21:17Z

Gia:

Extra Credit Submissions

2015-05-05T16:19:37Z

Gia: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

'''This assignment is due on May 5th.''' Students who submit extra credit projects will receive a one-point increase in their final project grade. If you are presenting in class on the 13th, but do not have material to upload, please indicate so on the section below.

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

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

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

==Submissions==

Name: JosefinS

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

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

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

Name: ChanelRion

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

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

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

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

----

Name: Mhoching

Type of Presentation: May 13, 2015 in class presentation

Description: My final project investigated social movements online with a focus on a particular hashtag on Twitter. The in class presentation will utilize a Twitter account to show findings of the final project while communicated in a powerpoint format. The presentation will be of an account formed on Twitter to deliver the findings, surveys, and progression of the project while simultaneously showing how the Twitter platform operates.

Link to assignment: https://twitter.com/LSTU15_mhoching

[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 01:59, 5 May 2015 (EDT)

----
Name: HRomero and Chelly.Byrne

Description: This is a PowerPoint presentation of our paper, Privacy in Online Forum AfterSilence.org. It is best viewed as SlideShow (from beginning) with speakers on - and it will run through automatically. Good luck everyone!

Link to Assignment: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Privacy_in_Online_Forum_AfterSilence_-_FINAL.pptx#file

[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 11:27, 5 May 2015 (EDT)
----

Name: Gia

Description: This is a quick summary (PPTX) of the self regulation and internal control methods employed by 419Eater.com community.

Link to Assignment: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Gia_extracredit.pptx

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

______

File:Gia extracredit.pptx

2015-05-05T16:01:07Z

Gia: This is a quick summary (PPTX) of the self regulation and internal control methods employed by 419Eater.com community.

This is a quick summary (PPTX) of the self regulation and internal control methods employed by 419Eater.com community.

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

2015-04-28T18:49:13Z

Gia:

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 28'''

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

== Assignment 4 ==

[[Assignments#Assignment_4:_Rough_Draft|Assignment 4]] is due before class today. You can submit your assignment [[Assignment_4_Submissions|here]].

<onlyinclude>

== Readings/Watchings ==

; The DMCA Notice-And-Takedown Process

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

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

* Chilling Effects, [https://www.chillingeffects.org/pages/about About].

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

; Case Studies

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

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

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

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

; The big picture

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

* [https://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120405/11221818390/perspective-complexities-copyright-creativity-victim-infringement.shtml Erin McKeown, A Perspective On the Complexities of Copyright and Creativity from a Victim of Infringement]

== Optional Readings ==

; Case Study - ISP "Six Strikes"

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

* [http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2013/02/25/the-6-likely-impact-of-six-strikes/ Jonathan Bailey, Plagiarism Today, The 6 Likely Impact of Six Strikes]

; Case Study - Operation In Our Sites

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

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

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

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

----

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

---------

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

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

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

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

Peer Production

2015-04-21T19:42:23Z

Gia:

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 21'''

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

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

<onlyinclude>

== Assignments ==

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

== Readings ==

; Development from the edges

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

; Development as a crowd

* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/events/luncheon/2013/12/hergueux Jerome Hergeaux, Cooperation in a Peer Production Economy: Experimental Evidence from Wikipedia] (video, watch from beginning to 47:50)

* [http://video.mit.edu/watch/news-information-and-the-wealth-of-networks-9187/ Yochai Benkler, News, Information and the Wealth of Networks] (video, watch from 8:32 to 26:07)

:* if you’re not familiar, you may want to spend a little time looking at Wikipedia’s entry on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seti@home Seti@home].

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

; Crowd intelligence

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

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

== Optional Readings ==

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

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

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

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

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

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

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

----

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

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

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

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

Also.

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

Enjoy!

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

-----------

'''Thumbs up for Zittrain Video'''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) Confirming knowledge previously held, but most importantly,

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

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

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

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

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

-------

---------

The questions raised by Jonathan Zittrain in iLaw 2011: “Minds For Sale” and in in their lectures, like who is standing behind a common achievement, the copyright issues, are particularly interesting especially when adding up Internet. As the digital world is giving almost unlimited possibilities for anonymity a group work done online is making us ask ourselves to whom the achievements should be attributed but also who should be blamed in case of liability engaged?

James Surowiecki tell us about experiments leading to the conclusion that crowd’s results in completing a task are undeniably better than the results of the cleverest individuals, meaning that the majority is always right. The philosophy of this postulate has been largely discussed both defended and denied during the years and it is out of the scope of today’s reading to discuss it but what is important is to make a difference between “crowd” and “team”. In the case of the DARPA project balloons challenge, the quest was done by team of people having similar way of thinking, coming from the same educational background , trained to think and seek solutions using similar methods and technics. When we talk about randomly assembled individuals acting without having the same training to deal with certain situation we could easily come across well-intentioned but chaotic results. Wikipedia project which has been mentioned several times is a great example of group work but also shows that such kind of activity inevitably need to be organised if not centralised and all those efforts should be supervised. In the article about Wikipedia’s reliability the authors have quoted the result of an IBM research in 2003 which found that ''"vandalism is usually repaired extremely quickly—so quickly that most users will never see its effects" and concluded that Wikipedia had "surprisingly effective self-healing capabilities".''

There are areas like education and information, in which the more we get the better and even in case of misleading information, sources could be cross checked and conclusions could be grounded differently. On the other hand there are fields in which using the potential of the crowdsourcing to solve a problem could bring more problems than solutions and than the main issue of the anonymity in such will be standing again.
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]))

Internet Governance and Governments

2015-04-14T17:30:16Z

Gia:

{{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]]))

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

2015-04-07T19:41:17Z

Gia:

{{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]]))

Cybersecurity and Computer Crimes

2015-03-31T19:45:54Z

Gia:

{{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]]))
------

Assignment 3 Submissions

2015-03-31T17:42:01Z

Gia: /* 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

Assignment 3 Submissions

2015-03-31T12:16:15Z

Gia:

{{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]]))

File:Natasha Mishal Gia Assignment3.pdf

2015-03-31T12:11:30Z

Gia:

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

2015-03-24T09:16:11Z

Gia:

{{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)

-----

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]]))

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

2015-03-10T20:42:22Z

Gia:

{{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)
----
This week’s readings were particularly interesting to me as I tend to regard the idea of “censorship” as something that happens in dictatorial countries with strong, centralized governments. I had studied the impact of China’s social media laws and crackdowns against dissidents including their extremely strict anti-defamation laws which could equate 500 retweets of anti-government speech to three years in prison (http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/9/4710222/china-passes-anti-defamation-laws-three-year-sentence-social-media-crackdown), but had never thought very hard about the fact that the Internet isn’t technically a haven for free speech—no matter where you live.

It’s easy to see all the internet trolls and feel like the average person doesn’t have the capacity to control speech on the Internet, and that all the promises of Barlow’s Declaration— that it is a place where “no one can arrest our thoughts” — are mostly true. But I was struck by Shirky’s premise that the internet is a private sphere that merely “tolerates free speech” as opposed to being built as a forum for it. Upon further thought this appears to be the basis for most of the problems concerning censorship, but a seemingly impossible one to remedy. Public utilities are subject to even more government oversight and potential heavy handedness.

The other difficulty here lies in the algorithms themselves, when what people search for on a regular basis begins to dictate the kind of content they see. So not only do we have an information flow problem, we struggle to even identify what we’re missing. As Berkman’s 2008 News and Information as Digital Media Come of Age noted, in an era where web-native sources outnumber traditional news media, reporting gaps are left wide open and there are no incentives to fill them—especially because many of us may not even realize they’re there.

But even in the midst of government and corporate censorship, there lies another debate altogether and one that is supremely unique to this age: should extremist groups like ISIS have access to conventional platforms like Twitter when traditionally they’ve been relegated to less sophisticated sites/the Deep Web. Personally, I feel like it’s a very difficult balance to strike: ISIS has utilized Twitter and Instagram to both showcase their crimes and as a recruitment tool. However, for the purposes of the US government, the effect that such a ubiquitous and widely viewed platform can have on affecting national sentiment is deeply relevant. It is hard to imagine the American public, as desensitized and war-weary as they are, would have as strong support for US missions against ISIS without being able to view their activities through a relatively unfiltered lens.

Overall, it seems like censorship is yet another developing issue that has implications our legislative and corporate extensions have not had enough time to adequately parse out.
[[User:Meredithmblake|Meredith]] ([[User talk:Meredithmblake|talk]]) 16:01, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

---
To say the internet is a new phenomenon given that gives individuals to reach out to a wide audience is not necessarily entirely true in itself. Pamphlets, publications etc. have achieved this throughout history and faced similar controversy over free speech, regulation and censorship issues. Near v. Minnesota, New York Times v. US. and Schenk v. US faced these issues of delivering opinion, information, personal opinion and beliefs in delivering such in various media forms. The internet being another form of popular media gives much easier access for anyone to share such content.

What might be an unpopular topic, libel or offensive to one person does not make itself necessarily unwanted speech and thus begins the slippery slope of defining boundaries over what is acceptable for use of the internet. As the New Republic article Free Speech on the Internet pointed out "Facebook’s new policy was dramatically tested last September, when the company refused to remove Innocence of the Muslims, the anti-Muhammad video that was initially blamed for causing the Benghazi riots that led to the death of the American ambassador to Libya" even though many Muslims were offended by the video. Nonetheless, did this video constitute the Benghazi riots and killings of others? No, it was an one's expression whether we choose to agree or disagree with it does not constitute senseless acts of crime nor is any viewer forced to watch it anymore as one may find it offensive to have a print subscription to Playboy.

We are all entitled to opinions/speech and the form to express it. The internet being another form of mass communication does not dissolve the means of recklessness or inciting harm. In approach to regulation it is going to continue differ as societies differ in beliefs, religion and government among different countries.
[[User:Andrew C.|Andrew C.]] ([[User talk:Andrew C.|talk]]) 16:02, 10 March 2015 (EDT)
------

I really like the starting phrase of “How Internet Censorship Works” – "The Internet is not a public sphere . It is a private sphere that tolerates public speech." We are so used to finding everything we are looking for online and till recently most of the people believed it is also for free. We should remember that everything is coming at a certain price at the end of the day and very often the price in Internet is either the poor quality of the product (if not a nasty virus). More and more often we are coming across ‘misinformation, and other forms of inaccurate content that flow constantly over digital platforms” as Craig Silverman is calling it. The creation of a online news website/platform for the only purpose to promote and advertise certain business is not an exception. In such cases we could definitely not expect the content there to be neutral and objective.

Silverman is saying also that “the bar for what is worth giving attention seems to be much lower” but I am not sure if we should only blame the general public for asking more gossips then news. Although it is the "demand which driving the market", being floоded with low-quality news information sometimes just does not give us the chance to know that something better exists. And because even on Internet (or especially there) the economy regulations apply, I would refer to the law of demand which says that he higher the price, the lower the quantity demanded, because consumers’ opportunity cost to acquire that good or service increases. This is exactly the case with the

The most interesting for me from today’s reading was Adam Holland' s NoC Intermediary Case Studies. It is covering a lot of issues regarding the intermediary's liability but I am not sure I found an example of how it is treated in case in which the intermediary not only has facilitated the process of making the untrue information public, but also has earned money from it? Allow me to illustrate my question by a recent example. A client came to me claiming that his personal name was used in a blog post, where he was called "proven criminal" and many other things. My client was certainly not convicted for any crimes, having a clean criminal record so the statements in the blog were easily going to be proven wrong and a potential defamation case against the blogger would not be a hard one to win. Here comes the interesting part. The blogger was obviously so angry after my client that he paid a Google add for his blog, putting with my client’s name plus “criminal” as key words. Because of this, my clients desire was to start a case against the Google as well as against the blogger, but this time not for defamation but a civil case for financial losses. He was claiming that if Google is earning money by selling ads, it is supposed to be checking the reliability of the information advertised.
I find this case is a good example of a possible extension of the intermediary’s liability or just another r point of view at it.

Thanks to today's reading I had the chance to learn who are "the Deciders". For me personally, this is one of the less-wanted jobs ever. Although giving a huge power to the one doing this job, making him "more power than any politician or bureaucrat—more power, in fact, than any president or judge. " , this post is even a bigger responsibility. For a single person it is impossible to be hundred person neutral when taking a decision. What is more our decisions regarding what is right or wrong are pretty much predestined by our cultural identity. And those decisions,even motivated and right for us, often happen to be at the same time equally motivated and unacceptable for people with a different cultural identity. The opportunity to shape the whole Internet according to your personal moral code sounds majestically but also scary to me.
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 16:42, 10 March 2015 (EDT))

Assignment 2 Submissions

2015-03-09T00:54:33Z

Gia:

{{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)

----
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)

----

• 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)

----

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)

----
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)

----
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)
----
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)

--------
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)

----

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.

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

2015-03-03T20:47:51Z

Gia: /* Comments */

Assignment 2 Submissions

2015-03-03T20:46:58Z

Gia: /* Comments */

Privacy Part 3: Government Surveillance

2015-03-03T20:40:18Z

Gia:

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''March 3'''

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

==Assignment 2==

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

==Readings==

; Government vs. Corporate Surveillance

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

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

; Surveillance Theory and Practice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

; Transparency and Accountability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Class Discussion==

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

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

Links:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Works Cited

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

----

'''Meta-Monsters'''

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

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

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

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

Few of us can deny this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

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))

File:Gia Assignment2.docx

2015-03-03T19:25:20Z

Gia:

Privacy Part 2: The Right to Be Forgotten

2015-02-24T11:01:32Z

Gia: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 24'''

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

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

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

==Readings==

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

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

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

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

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

==Optional Readings==

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

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

==Class Discussion==

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

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

----

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

----

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

'''References:'''

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

----

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

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

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

----
Hello All!

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

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

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

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

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

-Emily MacIntyre

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assignment 1 Submissions

2015-02-10T20:16:50Z

Gia: /* 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

File:Wikipedia Assignment 1.docx

2015-02-10T20:14:37Z

Gia:

Paradigms for Studying the Internet

2015-02-03T19:23:03Z

Gia: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 3'''

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

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==

; Mechanisms of control

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

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

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

; The effects of control

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

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

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

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

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

== Optional Readings ==

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

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

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

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

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

</onlyinclude>

== Assignment 1 ==

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

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== Class Discussion ==

<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">'''Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:Andy|Andy]] ([[User talk:Andy|talk]]) 10:17, 21 January 2015 (EST)</div>

----

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

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

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

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

----

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

One thing that is very interesting is that there is not one person or one government that rule over the Internet. The Internet is shaped by its users, people that build the softwares and other infrastructure, private corporations, and of course by governments. Internet security/Internet terrorism and online harassment are two issues that concerns all of these groups in one way or another. What is also interesting is that even though we all are part of shaping the Internet, we do have different interests in doing so. Individuals use the internet for their own purpose, for example for amusement and to gather information. Those who build the infrastructure might do so because they want to improve the Internet or because out of curiosity. Private corporations want to do business, while governments are interested in protecting individuals and the country from threats.

Even though the Internet is the source of a lot of good, there are like I mentioned also a lot of bad consequences to deal with. Issues like what to do about online harassment and online privacy problems are two of multiple hard nuts to crack. Laws are often important but not always the best and only solutions. Kayyali and O’Brien advocate in ''Facing the challenge of online harassment'' a more representative pool of toolmakers, to empower the users and to embrace counter-speak, etc., as part of a solution to the problems of harassment. I believe that it will take some time before we see a solution since there are so many players in this game called the Internet. The market, laws, norms and the Internet´s architecture all regulate the Internet in one way or another, even if they don´t mean to, and that is both a strength and a weakness. [[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 12:19, 3 February 2015 (EST)
----
From today's class reading I was mostly impressed by the Online Harassment article, by Mave Duggan and more precisely by the survey on how people response to online harassment . Only 5 % among those who have experienced online harassment reported the problem to law enforcement, it says. It means Internet users do not seek help from the offline authorities for violation of of their rights committed online. Considering this, I asked myself the question, is it so because the online community has already elaborated it's own methods of enforcement and response to online violence or is it just because people believe traditional, meaning offline measures, would not be sufficiently applicable and efficient regarding Internet cases? Another question I asked myself is whether people react the same way to one and the same aggression online and offline. For example our job performance being criticized in Facebook (Online Harassment, Part 4:The Aftermath of Online Harassment), would it hurt more or less than being criticized in a face to face conversation? ([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 14:23, 3 February 2015 (EST))
----

Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction

2015-02-02T16:31:40Z

Gia: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}
'''January 28'''

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

'''There is a small assignment to do before class. See [[#Preparation (Assignment "Zero")|Assignment Zero]] below.

== Preparation ("Assignment Zero") ==

Reflect on what you believe are the most significant social, cultural, political or economic changes associated with the spread of the Internet and digital technologies. In a few sentences, please offer 2-3 examples in the [[#Class Discussion|Class Discussion]] section below and be prepared to discuss them during class.

<onlyinclude>

== Readings/Watchings ==

'''What is the Internet?'''

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2QdEj8UjBc Ethan Zuckerman, History of the Internet] (approx. 7 mins., watch all)

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whmMNRHktX8 Jonathan Zittrain, How the Internet Works] (approx. 4 mins., watch all)

'''How does the Internet change governance?'''

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

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

* [http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/January-February-2006/feature_goldsmith_janfeb06.msp Jack Goldsmith & Tim Wu, Digital Borders (Legal Affairs)]

* [http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2009/03/the_third_wave.htm Eric Goldman, The Third Wave of Internet Exceptionalism]

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

* [http://www.ted.com/talks/rebecca_mackinnon_let_s_take_back_the_internet.html Rebecca MacKinnon, Let’s Take Back the Internet! (TED.com)] (approx. 15 mins., watch all)

'''Who governs the Internet?'''

* [http://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/assets/governance-2500x1664-13jan14-en.png ICANN, Who Runs the Internet?] (infographic)

* [http://ubiquity.acm.org/article.cfm?id=1071915 Alex Simonelis, A Concise Guide to the Major Internet Bodies] (skim, but focus on ICANN, IETF, IANA, and W3C)

'''Who is the Internet? Who is it not? What can we do about it?'''

* [http://www.webuse.org/pdf/Hargittai-DigitalDivideWhatToDo2007.pdf Eszter Hargittai, The Digital Divide and What to Do About It (New Economy Handbook)] (focus on Sections I-III)

:* Hargittai’s data is from 2003. For more recent data, see [http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2013/PIP_Offline%20adults_092513_PDF.pdf Pew Internet & American Life Project, Who's Not Online and Why] (read the summary, skim the sections).

* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNHkG7w2IA8 Ethan Zuckerman, Why Our Webs Are Rarely Worldwide, And What We Can Do About It] (approx. 14 mins., watch all)

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/2013/12/04/video-who-controls-the-internet/ Ellery Biddle, Who Controls the Internet? (''Global Voices'')] (video in Spanish with English subtitles, 10 mins., watch all)

* [http://www.cluetrain.com Chris Locke, Doc Searls & David Weinberger, Cluetrain Manifesto] (just the manifesto)

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

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

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links From Adobe Connect Session ==

== Class Discussion ==

<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">Welcome to Internet and Society: Technologies and Politics of Control! This is the section of the page where you should add your comments to complete "assignment zero." Once you have registered an account, just click the "[edit]" button at the upper right hand corner of this section to add text! You can add a divider between comments by typing four hyphens (<nowiki>----</nowiki>) in an empty line between comments. '''Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:Andy|Andy]] ([[User talk:Andy|talk]]) 09:50, 21 January 2015 (EST)</div>

----

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

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

----

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

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

----

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

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

----

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

----

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

----

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

----

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

Talking about the economy, if only we take a look at the numbers Forbes has forecasted saying that "'''By 2017 eMarketer estimates that there will be $440 billion in sales for a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 13.8% (...)'"'' (Chuck Jones, Forbes,10/02/2013) , we would easily understand why expressions like "Cyber Monday”, were forged, referring to the online sales following the Black Friday sales. There are many other examples of how Internet has become a factor in the economy like the stock exchange market, which would not be the same as we know it without the net, the Bitcoin, the payment processing business and many others. ([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 11:31, 2 February 2015 (EST))
-----