Technologies and Politics of Control - User contributions [en]

Final Projects

2015-05-12T20:21:38Z

JosefinS: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

== Instructions ==

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

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

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

*Name or Pseudonym:
*Title:
*Link:

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

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

==Submissions ==

----

Name: Erika L Rich

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

Link: [[File:LSTU_E120_Erika_Rich_FINAL_PAPER.docx]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Name: Batjarks

Title: Mobile Alliance for Maternal Action

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

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

Name: Hernando Romero & Michelle Byrne

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

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

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

Name: ChanelRion

Title: We The Judges: "SiteJabber"

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

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

----

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)
----

File:JosefinS Kidzworld.pdf

2015-05-12T20:20:00Z

JosefinS:

Extra Credit Submissions

2015-05-03T13:05:25Z

JosefinS: /* 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)
-----

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

2015-04-26T20:58:37Z

JosefinS: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 28'''

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

== Assignment 4 ==

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

<onlyinclude>

== Readings/Watchings ==

; The DMCA Notice-And-Takedown Process

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

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

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

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

; Case Studies

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

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

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

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

; The big picture

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

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

== Optional Readings ==

; Case Study - ISP "Six Strikes"

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

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

; Case Study - Operation In Our Sites

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

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

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

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

----

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

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

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

----

Assignment 4 Submissions

2015-04-26T12:45:43Z

JosefinS: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

'''This assignment is due before class on April 28th.'''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Submissions==

'''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_Assignment4.docx

[[User:MattK|MattK]] ([[User talk:MattK|talk]]) 20:31, 20 April 2015 (EDT)

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

'''Title:''' Assignment 4: Draft- Analyzing the Regulatory Constraints and Chilling Effects of YouTube’s Content ID Sweep through a Representative Survey of the Nintendo Let’s Play Community

'''Link:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Emily_MacIntyre_Assignment_4.pdf

[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 15:19, 21 April 2015 (EDT)
----
'''Name:''' HRomero and ChellyByrne

'''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_Assignment4.pdf

[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 14:31, 22 April 2015 (EDT)
----

'''Name''': JosefinS

'''Project 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:Assignment_4.pdf_Klar.pdf

[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 08:45, 26 April 2015 (EDT)
----

File:Assignment 4.pdf Klar.pdf

2015-04-26T12:42:47Z

JosefinS: JosefinS uploaded a new version of "File:Assignment 4.pdf Klar.pdf"

File:Assignment 4.pdf Klar.pdf

2015-04-26T12:40:11Z

JosefinS:

Internet Governance and Governments

2015-04-14T17:16:59Z

JosefinS: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 14'''

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

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

<onlyinclude>

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

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

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

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

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

== Optional Readings ==

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

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2015-04-07T08:18:23Z

JosefinS: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 7'''

The Internet has enabled individuals to become involved in the production of media and to distribute their contributions widely at a very low cost. The former bastion of the entertainment industry is opening up to what many are calling a democratization of culture. The copyright doctrine of fair use seemingly bolsters the right to recut, reframe, and recycle previous works, but the protection fair use gives to those re-purposing copyrighted material is notoriously uncertain. Over the next two classes, this course will take up the some of the issues related to copyright protection and enforcement online. This class will focus on the legal regime of copyright: what it protects, what it doesn’t protect, and how the doctrine has transformed in light of digital reproduction and distribution. It will also explore a subset of copyright law known as “anti-circumvention,” a very controversial solution to the problem of digital piracy.

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

<onlyinclude>

== Readings/Watchings ==

; The mechanics of copyright law

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

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

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

; Digital applications and new challenges

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

; Copyright solutions

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

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

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

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

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

; Case Study

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

; Anti-Circumvention

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

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

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

== Optional Readings ==

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

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

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

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

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== Class Discussion ==

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-----

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)

Assignment 3 Submissions

2015-03-31T11:18:55Z

JosefinS: /* 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)

----

File:JosefinS Assignment3.pdf

2015-03-31T11:14:28Z

JosefinS:

Cybersecurity and Computer Crimes

2015-03-25T11:51:56Z

JosefinS: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''March 31'''

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

== Assignment 3 ==

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

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==

; Cybersecurity

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

; Computer Crimes

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

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

; Case studies

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

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

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

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

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

== Optional Readings ==

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

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

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

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

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

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

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

-----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-----

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

2015-03-23T15:52:29Z

JosefinS: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''March 24'''

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

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

<onlyinclude>

== Readings/Watchings ==

; Framing

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

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

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

; Defining hackers, hacking, and hacktivism

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

; Case Studies

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

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

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

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

== Optional Readings ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

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

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

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

What do you all think?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-----

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

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

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

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

-----

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)

-----

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

2015-03-23T11:46:38Z

JosefinS: /* Class Discussion */

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

2015-03-10T13:01:40Z

JosefinS: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''March 10'''

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

==Assignments==

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

<onlyinclude>
==Readings==

; Speech Theory

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

; Informing the Public in the Internet Age

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

; Unwanted and Dangerous Speech

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

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

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

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

== Optional Readings ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

</onlyinclude>

==Links from Class Discussion==

==Class Discussion==

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chanel

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

http://youtu.be/AQPlREDW-Ro

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

Assignment 2 Submissions

2015-03-05T16:09:16Z

JosefinS: /* Comments */

{{AssignmentCal}}

===Submission Instructions===

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

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

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

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

In the submissions section below please post the following information:

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

==Comments==

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

Ryan Hurley

Facebook & Big Data vs. Your Privacy

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

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

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))
----
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)

----

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)

----

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

----

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))
----
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))
----

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)

-----
-----

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)

-----

Name: Kelly Wilson

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)

--------

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)

Assignment 2 Submissions

2015-03-05T16:08:29Z

JosefinS: /* Comments */

{{AssignmentCal}}

===Submission Instructions===

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

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

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

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

In the submissions section below please post the following information:

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

==Comments==

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

Ryan Hurley

Facebook & Big Data vs. Your Privacy

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

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

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))
----
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)

----

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)

----

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

----

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))
----
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))
----

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)

-----
-----

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)

-----

Name: Kelly Wilson

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)

--------

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)

Assignment 2 Submissions

2015-03-05T15:39:57Z

JosefinS: /* Comments */

Assignment 2 Submissions

2015-03-05T15:16:37Z

JosefinS: /* Comments */

{{AssignmentCal}}

===Submission Instructions===

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

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

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

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

In the submissions section below please post the following information:

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

==Comments==

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

Ryan Hurley

Facebook & Big Data vs. Your Privacy

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

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

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))
----
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)

----

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)

----

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)

----

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

----

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))
----
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))
----

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)

-----
-----

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)

-----

Name: Kelly Wilson

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)

--------

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

--------

Assignment 2 Submissions

2015-03-03T22:26:54Z

JosefinS: /* Comments */

File:JosefinSasse.pdf

2015-03-03T22:24:40Z

JosefinS:

Privacy Part 3: Government Surveillance

2015-03-03T19:29:10Z

JosefinS: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''March 3'''

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

==Assignment 2==

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

==Readings==

; Government vs. Corporate Surveillance

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

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

; Surveillance Theory and Practice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

; Transparency and Accountability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Class Discussion==

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

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

Links:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Works Cited

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

----

'''Meta-Monsters'''

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

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

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

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

Few of us can deny this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

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)

Privacy Part 2: The Right to Be Forgotten

2015-02-22T19:12:54Z

JosefinS: /* 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)

Privacy Part 2: The Right to Be Forgotten

2015-02-19T11:38:02Z

JosefinS: /* Class Discussion */

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

2015-02-17T20:41:52Z

JosefinS: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 17'''

The late Senator Ted Stevens famously said in a 2006 committee meeting that the “Internet is not something that you just dump something on; it’s not a big truck. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f99PcP0aFNE It’s a series of tubes].” While he was ridiculed widely at the time, Senator Stevens’s remarks actually reveal an interesting hortatory description of what the Internet should be (though given the rest of his comments, apparently not one that he intended). What Stevens’s metaphor suggests is that the physical conduits of the Internet should act like nothing more than non-judgmental conduits of the rest of the world’s traffic. We will see this week, however, that this is not a true reflection of how the tubes work, and we have strong debates as to what the government's role should be in ensuring that large enough "tubes" reach all those who would like to be online. The big questions for this week: What are the “tubes” of the Internet? Should the tubes have a role in controlling the throughput content? What is the role of government when it comes to developing and regulating our Internet conduits?

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

<onlyinclude>
==Readings==

; Connectivity

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

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

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

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

; Network Neutrality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Optional Readings ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== Class Discussion ==

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

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

----

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

----

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

----

Hello All!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, Emily M.

Works Cited

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

Tasha

References:

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

----

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

Greetings Everyone,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

Hi everyone!

This week´s readings is a lot about the free market vs. the government. In the texts about connectivity, the different authors discuss whether the government should interfere with the market concerning improving access to high speed internet, or if that is up to the market to handle. Like Oliviabrinich said very well here in the class discussion; ”What this comes down to is that the Internet is not just a marketplace matter. The Internet is not just another consumer good that people can take or leave, it’s something they must have access to or they will be left behind in education, status, and income.”, the Internet is not just something that is fun to be connected to but is instead an important part of today´s infrastructure. And in my opinion is the government responsible for supplying the country and it´s citizens with important infrastructure, that means Internet as well as roads and railroads.

I was also very surprised that so few had access to Internet in America, and after I´ve been reading the other comments here in the class discussion, I realize that I´m not the only one who reacted when I read that. What is sad is that there was such a strong correlation between a low income and not having access to the Internet. Since the Internet plays such a huge part in both the private and the commercial communication today, not having access to it is a great handicap.

When it comes to network neutrality, I found the video by the President very interesting. He said that the Internet is a great part of our lives and how we communicate today, and that made me think about not having net neutrality as comparable with not being able to access information and places in the world outside of the Internet. I believe it is just as bad to say ”no you can´t enter this Apple store because you have made a purchase at a Microsoft store and they don´t want you to access Apple´s products”, as for Verizon to limit my access to for example AT&T´s website.

I have a question about Ammori´s article though. I don´t fully understand why the FCC lost the case with network neutrality. He mentioned something about lobbyists in the end of the article, is that the answer to why they lost the case? This might be a silly question, perhaps I missed the answer in the article, but English is not my first language so I thought I´d better ask.

Another question I have is about net neutrality in other countries than the United States. Is this an ongoing debate in many countries? And where in the world (or perhaps more specifically ”in which democracies”) is there net neutrality and where isn´t it? [[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 15:41, 17 February 2015 (EST)

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

2015-02-10T13:21:22Z

JosefinS: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 10'''

A persistent fear throughout all of the Internet’s operation is the Internet’s treatment of a person’s privacy. We have a hard time defining the term, much less determining what role it should play in deciding the whos, whats, and hows of Internet control. Nevertheless, the Internet’s present evolution indicates that unless we spend time contemplating the reinforcing privacy online, our interests may fall to the interests of profitability, online behavior regulation, and cybersecurity. Over the next few weeks we'll look at privacy, beginning with general concepts of privacy, how data is measured and gathered on the web, and some specific legal responses to privacy concerns raised by corporations gathering data on people online and what happens when highly private information about a person finds its way online.

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

==Readings==

; Conceptualizing privacy

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

; Privacy and data

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

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

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

* [http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2007/12/securitymatters_1213 Bruce Schneier, Why Anonymous Data Sometimes Isn't]

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

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

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

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

; Corporate data practices

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

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

* [http://blogs.wsj.com/wtk/ play around with the WSJ's interactive graphics])

==Optional Readings==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Assignment 1 ==

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

==Class Discussion==

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

----
Hello All!

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

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

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

Thanks,
Emily M.

Works Cited

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assignment 1 Submissions

2015-02-10T13:04:15Z

JosefinS: /* 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:

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

File:JosefinS Assignment1.pdf

2015-02-10T12:58:31Z

JosefinS:

Paradigms for Studying the Internet

2015-02-03T17:19:04Z

JosefinS: /* 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)

Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction

2015-01-26T08:40:48Z

JosefinS: /* 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)