Technologies and Politics of Control - User contributions [en]

Final Projects

2015-05-15T20:53:14Z

Mhoching: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

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

== Instructions ==

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

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

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

*Name or Pseudonym:
*Title:
*Link:

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

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

==Submissions ==

----

Name: Erika L Rich

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

Link: [[File:LSTU_E120_Erika_Rich_FINAL_PAPER.docx]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Name: Batjarks

Title: Mobile Alliance for Maternal Action

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

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

Name: Hernando Romero & Michelle Byrne

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

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

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

Name: ChanelRion

Title: We The Judges: "SiteJabber"

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

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

----

Name: Kelly Wilson

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

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

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

-----

Name: Becca Lewis

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

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

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

----
Name: Tasha

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

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

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

----
Name: Ryan Hurley

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

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

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

----
Name: Alex Samaei

Title: Influence of Reddit on Kickstarter Campaigns

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

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

----
Name: JosefinS

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

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

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

Name: AlexanderH

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

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

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

----

Name: RMarkow

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

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

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

Name: Caelum

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

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

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

------

Name: Ginka Todorova, Natasha Jalbut and Mishal Kennedy

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

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

----

Name: Meagan HoChing

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

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

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

File:Mhoching Final.pdf

2015-05-15T20:51:27Z

Mhoching:

Extra Credit Submissions

2015-05-05T05:59:59Z

Mhoching: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

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

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

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

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

==Submissions==

Name: JosefinS

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

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

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

Name: ChanelRion

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

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

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

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

----

Name: Mhoching

Type of Presentation: May 13, 2015 in class presentation

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

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

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

Extra Credit Submissions

2015-05-05T05:59:04Z

Mhoching: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

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

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

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

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

==Submissions==

Name: JosefinS

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

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

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

Name: ChanelRion

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

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

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

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

----

Name: Mhoching

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

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

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

Main Page

2015-05-05T04:16:21Z

Mhoching: /* Office Hours */

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

='''Office Hours'''=

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

'''Andy'''

5:00 - Chanel Rion (in person)

5:15 -

5:30

5:45

6:00 - Kelly Wilson (in person)

6:15

6:30

6:45

7:00

7:15

'''David'''

5:30

5:45

6:00

6:15

6:30

6:45

7:00

7:15

'''Ryan'''

5:30 - Alexander Horn (In Person)

5:45 - Meagan HoChing (In Person)

6:00

6:15

6:30

6:45

7:00

7:15

Assignment 4 Submissions

2015-04-29T15:22:35Z

Mhoching: /* 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:''' Erika L Rich

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

'''Link:''' [[Media:LSTU_E120_Erika_Rich_Assignment_4.docx]]

[[User:ErikaLRich|ErikaLRich]] ([[User talk:ErikaLRich|talk]]) 12:08, 28 April 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_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)
----

'''Name''': Samaei1

'''Project title''': Influence of Reddit on Kickstarter Campaigns

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

[[User:Samaei1|Samaei1]] ([[User talk:Samaei1|talk]]) 13:20, 28 April 2015 (EDT)
----

'''Name''': Beccalew

'''Project title''': /r/TwoXChromosomes: The challenges of maintaining a female-centric space on Reddit

'''Link''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Beccalew_Assignment4.docx

[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 14:40, 28 April 2015 (EDT)
----
'''Name:''' Mishal R. Kennedy, Gia, Natasha Jalbut

'''Title:''' "Scam Baiting Within the 419Eater Community: The Challenge of Policing Information Quality & Preventing Abuse."

'''Link:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Assignment_4_%28Internet_Society_-_Technologies_and_Politics_of_Control%29.pdf

[[User:MishalRKennedy|MishalRKennedy]] ([[User talk:MishalRKennedy|talk]]) 4:25, 28 April 2015 (EDT)
----

'''Name''': Ryan Hurley

'''Project 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_Draft.pdf

[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 16:48, 28 April 2015 (EDT)
----

'''Name:''' Richard Markow

'''Title:''' "Comparing and contrasting the ways in which the NYTimes.com, Huffington Post, and FoxNews.com govern their online communities and use technology, rules and the market to deal with unwanted behaviors and help to facilitate social norms that will promote lively debate."

'''Link:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment_4_Draft_of_Final_Project.pdf

[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 16:42, 28 April 2015 (EDT)

-----

'''Name:''' Kelly Wilson

'''Title:''' “Rebels Without A Pause: How Buycott Empowers Political Consumption While Staying Above the Political Fray”

'''Link:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Kelly.WilsonAssignment4.docx

[[User:Kelly.wilson|Kelly.wilson]] ([[User talk:Kelly.wilson|talk]]) 17:03, 28 April 2015 (EDT)

-----

'''Name:''' Eric Kwong

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

'''Link:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Caelum_Assignment4.pdf

[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 17:29, 28 April 2015 (EDT)

----
'''Name''': AlexanderH

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

'''Link:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:AlexanderH_-_Assignment_4.pdf

[[User:AlexanderH|AlexanderH]] ([[User talk:AlexanderH|talk]]) 20:23, 28 April 2015 (EDT)
----

'''Name''': mhoching/Meagan

'''Title:''' "Slacktivism in Review: The case of #Ferguson and Twitter"

'''Link:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Mhoching_Assignment4.pdf
[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 11:22, 29 April 2015 (EDT)

File:Mhoching Assignment4.pdf

2015-04-29T15:20:09Z

Mhoching:

Main Page

2015-04-16T18:55:30Z

Mhoching: /* Office Hours */

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

='''Office Hours'''=

If you need to set up a time to talk, you should always feel free to email us at lstue120 [at] cyber [dot] law [dot] harvard [dot] edu. In addition, all three will be holding open office hours later in the week of April 14th for students who would like to discuss this further. Please sign up at least 12 hours in advance of meeting if possible, and indicate either here or in an email whether you plan to meet in person, on the phone, or via Skype. (All times are EDT.)

'''Andy'''

''Thursday, 4/16''

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

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

3:00 -

3:15 -

3:30 -

3:45 -

4:00 -

4:15 -

4:30 -Kelly Wilson (in person)

4:45 -

''Friday, 4/17''

10:00am -

10:15 -

10:30 -

10:45 -

11:00 -

11:15 -

11:30 -

11:45 -

'''David'''

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

9:00 -

9:30 -

10:00 -

10:30 -

11:00 -

11:30 -

12:00 -

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

12:00 -

12:30 -

1:00 -

1:30 -

2:00 -

2:30 -

3:00 -

5:00 -

5:30 -

6:00 -

6:30 -

7:00 -

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

3:00 -

3:15 -

3:30 -

3:45 -

4:00 -

4:15 -

4:30 - Meagan Moana HoChing (Phone)

4:45 -

''Friday, 4/17''

10:00am -

10:15 -

10:30 - Tasha Coppett(Phone)

10:45 -

11:00 -

11:15 -

11:30 -

11:45 - Alexander Horn (in person)

Assignment 3 Submissions

2015-03-31T19:40:28Z

Mhoching: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Submission Instructions==

You can use the same bullet format if you wish:

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

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

==Submissions==

'''User:''' Erika L. Rich

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

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

----

'''User:''' Chanel Rion

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

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

----

'''User:''' MattK

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

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

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

----

'''Name:''' Emily MacIntyre

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

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

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

----

'''User:''' JosefinS

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'''User:''' Becca Lewis

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

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

'''User:''' Alex Samaei

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

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

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

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

----------
Caroline B

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:The_Study_of_Privacy,_Accuracy_%26_Order_on_InsideNova_Website_and_Moving_%E2%80%98Little_Sites%E2%80%99_Up.docx

The Study of Privacy, Accuracy & Order on InsideNova Website and Moving ‘Little Sites’ Up
[[User:Cbore001|Cbore001]] ([[User talk:Cbore001|talk]]) 14:47, 31 March 2015 (EDT)
--------------------------------------------------

Mhoching

#itooamHarvard: A Case Study of Social Activism through Media Photos

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Mhoching_Assignment3.pdf

[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 15:40, 31 March 2015 (EDT)

File:Mhoching Assignment3.pdf

2015-03-31T19:37:36Z

Mhoching: mhoching #itooamHarvard: A Case Study of Social Activism through Media Photos

mhoching

#itooamHarvard: A Case Study of Social Activism through Media Photos

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

2015-03-24T19:11:59Z

Mhoching: /* 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)

-----

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

-----

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

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

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

----

Hello All!

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

Chanel

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

Hello everyone after the spring break!

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Privacy Part 3: Government Surveillance

2015-03-09T03:46:46Z

Mhoching: /* 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.

'''[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Privacy_3.pdf Download slides from this week's class]'''

==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]

==Links from Class==
MLK Letter: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/16/magazine/what-an-uncensored-letter-to-mlk-reveals.html

2+2=5! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

ECPA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Communications_Privacy_Act

Pen Register: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pen_register

Exclusionary Rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule

Smith v. Maryland: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland

More information on non-standard warrants: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_4.1

States have their own rules: http://mnbenchbar.com/2010/12/telephonic-search-warrants/

USPS Recording Letters: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/us/monitoring-of-snail-mail.html

Police can't put a GPS unit on your car, but they can follow you with officers in a car: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_(2012)

"The Cloud": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing

Warshak: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Warshak

Image of US Court systems: http://wlwatch.westlaw.com/aca/west/images/uscrtsys.gif

NSA Utah Data Center: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center

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

EO 12333: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12333

Signal App: http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/03/now-you-can-easily-send-free-encrypted-messages-between-android-ios/

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

PGP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy

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

MLAT process: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_legal_assistance_treaty

Kyllo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States

Police can now see through walls: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/01/19/police-radar-see-through-walls/22007615/

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

==Class Discussion==

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

----

Kerr's Washington Post article "Apple's Dangerous Game" (and his follow-up post) seems to highlight an overall quandary with cyber and technological surveillance that the other readings point to. The fact that his second post comes from "the strongest counterargument" on his original article about the new Apple software that can thwart lawful search warrants proves the complexity and the seeming inability of tailoring proper security techniques when there is some much that cannot be known or predicted. In the original post, he states, "Incidentally, I have long argued that the Supreme Court should wait until a technology stabilizes before applying the Fourth Amendment to it to avoid the problem of announcing a rule that doesn’t make sense over time." (Here he points to the potential Fourth Amendment arguments as related to the search and seizure of someone's iPhone). At the same time, arguments like this point to the impossible paradox of law both attempting to keep pace with technology when certain forms of technological security cannot be made transparent due to the fear of cyberattacks as well as the issue of creating some sort of precedent without knowing what innovations lie ahead. ([[User:Amchugh|Amchugh]] ([[User talk:Amchugh|talk]]) 15:44, 3 March 2015 (EST))

----

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

Links:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Works Cited

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

----

'''Meta-Monsters'''

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

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

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

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

Few of us can deny this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

I want to start with the quote from Schneier´s text: ”We need to decide whether our data is a shared societal resource, a part of us that is inherently ours by right, or a private good to be bought and sold.” (Schneier, 2013). For me, that is the root to the problem discussed in this week´s class literature, and your personal view on this matter will most likely affect your opinion in government and corporate surveillance.

This week was all about different interests and their rights. The literature discussed privacy vs. protection from terrorism and privacy vs. solving crimes. As President Obama said in the Re/Code interview, there are problems with encoding (which was what they talked about in this particular interview) but also tradeoffs (Swisher, 2015). The problem is to decide which interest is the most important? It is a difficult question to answer and I can´t really decide for myself what I think. At the moment, I would say that privacy is the less important interest when it comes to this issue, but I might say something else later on. And I am not the only one thinking this is a hard nut to crack. If it wasn´t, we wouldn´t even discuss it.

I believe that the really big security threat now and in the future is cyber attacks and cyber terrorism, since we are relying more and more on the Internet and computers. We barely even pay in cash anymore and governments use the Internet all the time. Actually, when I read the newspaper today I saw an article about the increased amount of cyber attacks against both the government and companies here in my country. One example was from February 23rd this year, when 112 (Europe´s version of 911) was affected by a technical breakdown (Törnmalm, Spängs, 2015). That could have had huge consequences. I would say that especially in a country like Sweden, where I am a citizen, cyber attacks feels way more threatening than more traditional threats. Sweden has been a country in peace for more than 200 years, even though you never know what will happen in the future of course.

References:

Schneier B, 10/21/2013. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/10/the_trajectorie.html Retrieved 2/27/2015

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

Törnmalm K., Spängs T., 2015. Dagliga attacker mot myndigheter och företag. Dagens Nyheter, 03 March. page. 8-9.
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 14:29, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----

I have come across a few articles this week that deal directly with the issues we have been discussing. Specifically, I was interested in seeing the below post on Jezebel about a man dealing in revenge porn, who now wants his personal information removed from Google searches. The story is extreme and somewhat ridiculous, and Google has disregarded his requests, but I do think it speaks to a truth about the conflicting expectations we have about what information we can control about others and about ourselves.

http://jezebel.com/revenge-porn-dude-wants-his-personal-info-removed-from-1687953903

This actually ties into the other interesting article I saw, which focuses on surveillance and data collection, and what we can about it. The author discusses options for avoiding and blocking it, but it mostly focuses on how to distort surveillance data – that is, to feed it incorrect or random information, thereby blinding the data collectors to any true or valuable information about yourself. I found that idea really fascinating. As an Internet user, I like knowing that that’s a possibility for me. But I can also see how there are certain cases where the government or a company might be interested in finding data about me for reasons that will ultimately benefit me, in which case, feeding them bad data doesn’t help anyone.

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2015/03/data_and_goliath_excerpt_the_best_ways_to_undermine_surveillance.html

This brings me to my main issue with surveillance, which is the lack of transparency around when it’s happening and why. This is true for both corporate and government surveillance and data collection. In his article, Brian Fung argues that government surveillance is worse than corporate surveillance because we don’t have any choices surrounding it. I would argue that the two forms are similarly insidious, however, and both lack transparency, making them equally difficult for me to reconcile.

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

----
As someone who spends a lot of time at the Kennedy School, it’s always been a little scary to hear from practitioners in the national security field about just how easily and how much government and corporate entities can access personal information—both in how comfortably we give it away and how sophisticated tracking software can be. When the Edward Snowden controversy unfolded instead of being surprised at the actions of the NSA, I was actually more surprised by the whirlwind of outrage produced by the media and public. After years of hearing national discourse about the overreaching powers of the Patriot Act, rhetoric about the never-ending war on terror, and debates about privacy on websites like MySpace and Facebook, it seemed glaringly apparent to me that regulation was not on par with how fast technology was growing. It seems only natural that something that went from rare to deeply ubiquitous in such a short period of time would be used and/or abused by those in power.

But, while I think the NSA and other government agencies may have overstepped in certain places, a friend of mine made the apt comparison that government surveillance is like being in Times Square on New Year’s Eve—you know you’re on camera, you know you’re kind of loosely being watched, but as long as you don’t do anything, you’re unlikely to be noticed specifically—you’re just kind of part of the general pack. One of the issues is that of over collection, with algorithms and software at a point where it just isn’t sophisticated enough to allow the government to collect less data and concentrate on what is actually useful. Corporate collection of information however, totally freaks me out because (and perhaps this is hopelessly naïve of me) for the time being unless I’m breaking a law or doing something wrong, my online activity isn’t of huge importance to the government. Organizations like Google and Amazon however, make me feel like they know more about me than me sometimes.

Essentially, an my background in politics is probably influencing my opinion that national security concerns are more important than me preferring that government agents don’t read my emails, but the right to privacy from the government shouldn’t be discounted. I agree with President Obama’s remark Apple and Google are “improperly responding to a market demand” by rolling out encryption software in the wake of public outcry and increased interest in privacy. It does appear that there needs to be a better forum for government agencies and entities like Google and Twitter to work together or even for those entities to inform their users that the government will be provided access to their usage under a specific variety of legal circumstances.
[[User:Meredithmblake|Meredith]] ([[User talk:Meredithmblake|talk]]) 15:03, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----
I am in complete agreement with HRomero’s prospective on ‘perpetual war’ and it being the basis for continued surveillance. NSA’s use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is much more intrusive than it has been in the past. One-way observation is in some ways an expression of control. While Fung (2013) demonstrates the similarity in the ways private and government, there is a significant difference in the action a person is able to respond to a company versus the government. What is evident is the very little recourse a person has against the government’s violation of their rights. Although the Fourth Amendment states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”, there lays the question of the NSA violating the Fourth Amendment by surveying and searching the communications of individuals suspected of no wrongdoing without a warrant. Citizens are not in a position to contest government surveillance laws, which has me to question if the freedom of expression is under threat. Having quite a few friends around the globe who are writers, the potential scrutiny of their communications it has impacted their eagerness to write about provocative subjects. While the data collected should be minimized and anonymized unless it is a crime, Walsh (2014) draws the correlation between the minimization of data and the ability to re-identify people from anonymized records. Here is a link to Section 702 of FISA, http://fas.org/irp/news/2013/06/nsa-sect702.pdf, which speaks about minimizing data collected. The idea of de-anonymizing was discussed in our previous readings of Schneider and demonstrated how easy it was to do with very little information. With all facts considered, I believe the NSA’s use of FISA creates an indirect by-product of censorship with the attempts to minimize of the use of personal identifiable information being questioned.

References:

Fung, B. (2013). ‘Yes, there is actually a huge difference between government and corporate survaillance.’

Schneier B, (2007). ‘Why Sometimes Anonymous Data Isn’t.’

Walsh, K. (2013), ‘The NSA’s Spying Powers: Reading the Statute’.

Tasha[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 15:23, 3 March 2015 (EST)

-----
After taking a look on today’s class reading my overall impression is that we are talking about “cyber wars” and “cyber armies”. All this military allusions are giving me the impression that our governments are preparing for military clashes old style. The problem is who is considered to be the enemy? Historically a war is to be led between two or more different countries but in this case the hostile conflict is not localized. As long as we have military threat certain measures , actions and arms are used which would not be allowed during a homeland issue, if not during a revolution, but if it is consider as such it is another story. So it is not very clear to me why one and the same “weapons” are to be used to fight different groups groups of enemies foreign and domestic? Another question is whether the government is making any difference between “spying” and “surveillance”?

I very much liked the “Kit Walsh, The NSA's Spying Powers: Reading the Statute” , where the analysis shows clearly that the governmental authorities are creating the laws (probably the term “law” is not correctly used, for which I apologize) in order to give themselves the authority and scope of freedom they need. But it is wrong, the government should adjust its actions according to the laws, not the other way round.

My final impression , after watching president’s Obama interview and reading Neil M. Richards’ “ THE DANGERS OF SURVEILLANCE”, is that people are just not well informed of what exactly is going on and what is done here and now in their name.

The second issue about the information collected by private sector and then used by the government, I very much enjoyed reading about this, because it came as a follow up to something I read less then a month ago “The NSA hides surveillance software in hard drives” (http://www.engadget.com/2015/02/16/hard-drive-spyware/) . I think we should not forget the fact that all private individuals, huge companies included, have the right to follow their economical interest and to enter in whatever contractual relation with a third party, including the government, as long as it stays legal. I would say it means that it is up to us, to take better care what information we are giving as users and under what conditions. If we click by default “I agree” and simply do not care that we a putting our biometric date at the disposal of a world corporation (iphone5 http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/12/tech/mobile/iphone-fingerprint-privacy/), we could neither elect, refuse to elect or control in any other way the democracy has given us the right to do with our government, than we should start doing something about this first.
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 15:40, 3 March 2015 (EST))
----
A couple of things jumped out at me in this week’s readings. The first, according to Schneier, is that the Government can analyze not only me, but people “3 hops away.” That could mean that as far as the government is concerned I am related in some abstract way not only to my friends, but also their friends and their friends’ friends. That is a lot of people, most of whom I do not even know. Yet, their data may somehow be linked to me. I shudder a bit at that prospect. It would seem that the “six degrees of separation” in the digital world is smaller than ever. What level of affinity is too thin? I suppose the answer would be no connection is too thin, if we can qualify that it serves a legitimate need of the government.

This brings me to the second thing that jumped out. In looking at the transparency reports and their useless consumption of ink (or pixels), I am reminded that whatever their level of uselessness, the government has no transparency report at all that I can see, with the possible exception of Snowden. That seems like a risky alternative. Something less risky would be more appropriate. [[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 15:46, 3 March 2015 (EST)
----

Thanks for all the great comments and contributions during lecture. I'm interested if anyone knows why exactly the NSA decided to build the storage units for all this data in Utah. I grew up living in Draper, about 20 minutes away from Salt Lake and my entire family lives in Salt Lake, but I had no clue the storage units were being built out there? Also, when I researched the facility and was initially shocked with the amount of money that went in to building it. But after lecture, I guess 1.3 billion is the amount expected on providing adequate protection to such valuable data. But I'm still puzzled at why Utah was chosen as the location to store all this data.

[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 23:31, 4 March 2015 (EST)

----

:Wired broke the story about the Utah facility in a [http://www.wired.com/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/ 2012 article]. I'd start there to answer your question. [[User:Andy|Andy]] ([[User talk:Andy|talk]]) 08:12, 5 March 2015 (EST)

----
Thanks for the link Andy! I also found Governor Herbert's article when the project was in the process of being built in Utah. http://blog.governor.utah.gov/2012/02/2012-energy-summit/

Being from an area just south from there I can attest to the massive amounts of barren land to build out on! Again, thanks for link!
[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 23:46, 8 March 2015 (EDT)

Assignment 2 Submissions

2015-03-05T05:35:48Z

Mhoching: /* 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)
----
• 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)
----
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

2015-03-05T05:10:05Z

Mhoching: /* 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)
----
• 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)
----
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)
----
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)

--------

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

2015-03-05T05:09:23Z

Mhoching: /* 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)
----
• 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)
----
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)
----
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.

--------

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

2015-03-05T04:45:18Z

Mhoching: /* 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)

----
• 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)
----
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)
----
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.

--------

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

--------

Privacy Part 3: Government Surveillance

2015-03-05T04:31:12Z

Mhoching: /* 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.

'''[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Privacy_3.pdf Download slides from this week's class]'''

==Assignment 2==

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

==Readings==

; Government vs. Corporate Surveillance

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

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

; Surveillance Theory and Practice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

; Transparency and Accountability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Class Discussion==

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

----

Kerr's Washington Post article "Apple's Dangerous Game" (and his follow-up post) seems to highlight an overall quandary with cyber and technological surveillance that the other readings point to. The fact that his second post comes from "the strongest counterargument" on his original article about the new Apple software that can thwart lawful search warrants proves the complexity and the seeming inability of tailoring proper security techniques when there is some much that cannot be known or predicted. In the original post, he states, "Incidentally, I have long argued that the Supreme Court should wait until a technology stabilizes before applying the Fourth Amendment to it to avoid the problem of announcing a rule that doesn’t make sense over time." (Here he points to the potential Fourth Amendment arguments as related to the search and seizure of someone's iPhone). At the same time, arguments like this point to the impossible paradox of law both attempting to keep pace with technology when certain forms of technological security cannot be made transparent due to the fear of cyberattacks as well as the issue of creating some sort of precedent without knowing what innovations lie ahead. ([[User:Amchugh|Amchugh]] ([[User talk:Amchugh|talk]]) 15:44, 3 March 2015 (EST))

----

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

Links:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Works Cited

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

----

'''Meta-Monsters'''

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

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

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

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

Few of us can deny this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

I want to start with the quote from Schneier´s text: ”We need to decide whether our data is a shared societal resource, a part of us that is inherently ours by right, or a private good to be bought and sold.” (Schneier, 2013). For me, that is the root to the problem discussed in this week´s class literature, and your personal view on this matter will most likely affect your opinion in government and corporate surveillance.

This week was all about different interests and their rights. The literature discussed privacy vs. protection from terrorism and privacy vs. solving crimes. As President Obama said in the Re/Code interview, there are problems with encoding (which was what they talked about in this particular interview) but also tradeoffs (Swisher, 2015). The problem is to decide which interest is the most important? It is a difficult question to answer and I can´t really decide for myself what I think. At the moment, I would say that privacy is the less important interest when it comes to this issue, but I might say something else later on. And I am not the only one thinking this is a hard nut to crack. If it wasn´t, we wouldn´t even discuss it.

I believe that the really big security threat now and in the future is cyber attacks and cyber terrorism, since we are relying more and more on the Internet and computers. We barely even pay in cash anymore and governments use the Internet all the time. Actually, when I read the newspaper today I saw an article about the increased amount of cyber attacks against both the government and companies here in my country. One example was from February 23rd this year, when 112 (Europe´s version of 911) was affected by a technical breakdown (Törnmalm, Spängs, 2015). That could have had huge consequences. I would say that especially in a country like Sweden, where I am a citizen, cyber attacks feels way more threatening than more traditional threats. Sweden has been a country in peace for more than 200 years, even though you never know what will happen in the future of course.

References:

Schneier B, 10/21/2013. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/10/the_trajectorie.html Retrieved 2/27/2015

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

Törnmalm K., Spängs T., 2015. Dagliga attacker mot myndigheter och företag. Dagens Nyheter, 03 March. page. 8-9.
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 14:29, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----

I have come across a few articles this week that deal directly with the issues we have been discussing. Specifically, I was interested in seeing the below post on Jezebel about a man dealing in revenge porn, who now wants his personal information removed from Google searches. The story is extreme and somewhat ridiculous, and Google has disregarded his requests, but I do think it speaks to a truth about the conflicting expectations we have about what information we can control about others and about ourselves.

http://jezebel.com/revenge-porn-dude-wants-his-personal-info-removed-from-1687953903

This actually ties into the other interesting article I saw, which focuses on surveillance and data collection, and what we can about it. The author discusses options for avoiding and blocking it, but it mostly focuses on how to distort surveillance data – that is, to feed it incorrect or random information, thereby blinding the data collectors to any true or valuable information about yourself. I found that idea really fascinating. As an Internet user, I like knowing that that’s a possibility for me. But I can also see how there are certain cases where the government or a company might be interested in finding data about me for reasons that will ultimately benefit me, in which case, feeding them bad data doesn’t help anyone.

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2015/03/data_and_goliath_excerpt_the_best_ways_to_undermine_surveillance.html

This brings me to my main issue with surveillance, which is the lack of transparency around when it’s happening and why. This is true for both corporate and government surveillance and data collection. In his article, Brian Fung argues that government surveillance is worse than corporate surveillance because we don’t have any choices surrounding it. I would argue that the two forms are similarly insidious, however, and both lack transparency, making them equally difficult for me to reconcile.

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

----
As someone who spends a lot of time at the Kennedy School, it’s always been a little scary to hear from practitioners in the national security field about just how easily and how much government and corporate entities can access personal information—both in how comfortably we give it away and how sophisticated tracking software can be. When the Edward Snowden controversy unfolded instead of being surprised at the actions of the NSA, I was actually more surprised by the whirlwind of outrage produced by the media and public. After years of hearing national discourse about the overreaching powers of the Patriot Act, rhetoric about the never-ending war on terror, and debates about privacy on websites like MySpace and Facebook, it seemed glaringly apparent to me that regulation was not on par with how fast technology was growing. It seems only natural that something that went from rare to deeply ubiquitous in such a short period of time would be used and/or abused by those in power.

But, while I think the NSA and other government agencies may have overstepped in certain places, a friend of mine made the apt comparison that government surveillance is like being in Times Square on New Year’s Eve—you know you’re on camera, you know you’re kind of loosely being watched, but as long as you don’t do anything, you’re unlikely to be noticed specifically—you’re just kind of part of the general pack. One of the issues is that of over collection, with algorithms and software at a point where it just isn’t sophisticated enough to allow the government to collect less data and concentrate on what is actually useful. Corporate collection of information however, totally freaks me out because (and perhaps this is hopelessly naïve of me) for the time being unless I’m breaking a law or doing something wrong, my online activity isn’t of huge importance to the government. Organizations like Google and Amazon however, make me feel like they know more about me than me sometimes.

Essentially, an my background in politics is probably influencing my opinion that national security concerns are more important than me preferring that government agents don’t read my emails, but the right to privacy from the government shouldn’t be discounted. I agree with President Obama’s remark Apple and Google are “improperly responding to a market demand” by rolling out encryption software in the wake of public outcry and increased interest in privacy. It does appear that there needs to be a better forum for government agencies and entities like Google and Twitter to work together or even for those entities to inform their users that the government will be provided access to their usage under a specific variety of legal circumstances.
[[User:Meredithmblake|Meredith]] ([[User talk:Meredithmblake|talk]]) 15:03, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----
I am in complete agreement with HRomero’s prospective on ‘perpetual war’ and it being the basis for continued surveillance. NSA’s use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is much more intrusive than it has been in the past. One-way observation is in some ways an expression of control. While Fung (2013) demonstrates the similarity in the ways private and government, there is a significant difference in the action a person is able to respond to a company versus the government. What is evident is the very little recourse a person has against the government’s violation of their rights. Although the Fourth Amendment states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”, there lays the question of the NSA violating the Fourth Amendment by surveying and searching the communications of individuals suspected of no wrongdoing without a warrant. Citizens are not in a position to contest government surveillance laws, which has me to question if the freedom of expression is under threat. Having quite a few friends around the globe who are writers, the potential scrutiny of their communications it has impacted their eagerness to write about provocative subjects. While the data collected should be minimized and anonymized unless it is a crime, Walsh (2014) draws the correlation between the minimization of data and the ability to re-identify people from anonymized records. Here is a link to Section 702 of FISA, http://fas.org/irp/news/2013/06/nsa-sect702.pdf, which speaks about minimizing data collected. The idea of de-anonymizing was discussed in our previous readings of Schneider and demonstrated how easy it was to do with very little information. With all facts considered, I believe the NSA’s use of FISA creates an indirect by-product of censorship with the attempts to minimize of the use of personal identifiable information being questioned.

References:

Fung, B. (2013). ‘Yes, there is actually a huge difference between government and corporate survaillance.’

Schneier B, (2007). ‘Why Sometimes Anonymous Data Isn’t.’

Walsh, K. (2013), ‘The NSA’s Spying Powers: Reading the Statute’.

Tasha[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 15:23, 3 March 2015 (EST)

-----
After taking a look on today’s class reading my overall impression is that we are talking about “cyber wars” and “cyber armies”. All this military allusions are giving me the impression that our governments are preparing for military clashes old style. The problem is who is considered to be the enemy? Historically a war is to be led between two or more different countries but in this case the hostile conflict is not localized. As long as we have military threat certain measures , actions and arms are used which would not be allowed during a homeland issue, if not during a revolution, but if it is consider as such it is another story. So it is not very clear to me why one and the same “weapons” are to be used to fight different groups groups of enemies foreign and domestic? Another question is whether the government is making any difference between “spying” and “surveillance”?

I very much liked the “Kit Walsh, The NSA's Spying Powers: Reading the Statute” , where the analysis shows clearly that the governmental authorities are creating the laws (probably the term “law” is not correctly used, for which I apologize) in order to give themselves the authority and scope of freedom they need. But it is wrong, the government should adjust its actions according to the laws, not the other way round.

My final impression , after watching president’s Obama interview and reading Neil M. Richards’ “ THE DANGERS OF SURVEILLANCE”, is that people are just not well informed of what exactly is going on and what is done here and now in their name.

The second issue about the information collected by private sector and then used by the government, I very much enjoyed reading about this, because it came as a follow up to something I read less then a month ago “The NSA hides surveillance software in hard drives” (http://www.engadget.com/2015/02/16/hard-drive-spyware/) . I think we should not forget the fact that all private individuals, huge companies included, have the right to follow their economical interest and to enter in whatever contractual relation with a third party, including the government, as long as it stays legal. I would say it means that it is up to us, to take better care what information we are giving as users and under what conditions. If we click by default “I agree” and simply do not care that we a putting our biometric date at the disposal of a world corporation (iphone5 http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/12/tech/mobile/iphone-fingerprint-privacy/), we could neither elect, refuse to elect or control in any other way the democracy has given us the right to do with our government, than we should start doing something about this first.
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 15:40, 3 March 2015 (EST))
----
A couple of things jumped out at me in this week’s readings. The first, according to Schneier, is that the Government can analyze not only me, but people “3 hops away.” That could mean that as far as the government is concerned I am related in some abstract way not only to my friends, but also their friends and their friends’ friends. That is a lot of people, most of whom I do not even know. Yet, their data may somehow be linked to me. I shudder a bit at that prospect. It would seem that the “six degrees of separation” in the digital world is smaller than ever. What level of affinity is too thin? I suppose the answer would be no connection is too thin, if we can qualify that it serves a legitimate need of the government.

This brings me to the second thing that jumped out. In looking at the transparency reports and their useless consumption of ink (or pixels), I am reminded that whatever their level of uselessness, the government has no transparency report at all that I can see, with the possible exception of Snowden. That seems like a risky alternative. Something less risky would be more appropriate. [[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 15:46, 3 March 2015 (EST)
----

Thanks for all the great comments and contributions during lecture. I'm interested if anyone knows why exactly the NSA decided to build the storage units for all this data in Utah. I grew up living in Draper, about 20 minutes away from Salt Lake and my entire family lives in Salt Lake, but I had no clue the storage units were being built out there? Also, when I researched the facility and was initially shocked with the amount of money that went in to building it. But after lecture, I guess 1.3 billion is the amount expected on providing adequate protection to such valuable data. But I'm still puzzled at why Utah was chosen as the location to store all this data.

[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 23:31, 4 March 2015 (EST)

Privacy Part 2: The Right to Be Forgotten

2015-03-04T15:46:34Z

Mhoching: /* 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.

'''[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Final_Project_overview.pdf Download slides from this week's class]''' (the slides this week are solely from the first half hour of class, where we talked about the final project)

==Readings==

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

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

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

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

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

==Optional Readings==

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

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

* [http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/2014/wp225_en.pdf EU Data Protection Working Party, Guidelines on the Implementation of the Court of Justice of the European Union Judgment on Google Spain] and accompanying [http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/press-material/press-release/art29_press_material/20141126_wp29_press_release_ecj_de-listing.pdf press release]

==Links from Class==
Online Intermediaries Project: https://publixphere.net/i/noc/category/136

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

Berkman Center's H2O platform: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/research/h2o

EU ECJ: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Justice

Great post on definition of "public figure" in US: http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p117.htm

US Census standards for releasing personal information: http://www.census.gov/topics/population/genealogy.html

Berkman paper on online intermediaries in the US (co-written by Adam Holland, Andy Sellars, Ryan Budish, among others): https://publixphere.net/i/noc/page/OI_Case_Study_Intermediary_Liability_in_the_United_States

Here's the advisory opinion prior to RTBF ruling: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=138782&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=362663

DMLP post summarizing the advisory opinion: http://www.dmlp.org/blog/2013/cjeu-advocate-general-finds-no-right-be-forgotten-search-engines-under-eu-law

List of search engines: http://www.thesearchenginelist.com/

Data on Google's RTBF requests: http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/europeprivacy/

A very, very technical paper about search neutrality: http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/cs286r/courses/fall09/papers/altman_jair.pdf

A very early blog post (way before this case) proposed a few frameworks for the "right to be forgotten": http://peterfleischer.blogspot.com/2011/03/foggy-thinking-about-right-to-oblivion.html

“When something online is free, you’re not the customer, you’re the product”: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/futureoftheinternet/2012/03/21/meme-patrol-when-something-online-is-free-youre-not-the-customer-youre-the-product/

==Class Discussion==

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

----

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

----

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

----

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

'''References:'''

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

----

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

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

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

----

Hello All!

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

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

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

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

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

-Emily MacIntyre

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

----

'''Neuralizers for All'''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chanel Rion

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

----

'The Right to be Forgotten' is one of the first big battles of internet privacy in our modern age. I found it interesting that the European Union took such a drastically different approach than the United States in these first steps. However I would like to start by saying that I believe in time these differences will converge into a larger global format, simply due to the fact that the internet has helped lead to globalization in everything it has touched and this would be difficult to retract.

While the E.U. used broad terms that may scare some, personally I agree with the logic of 'staying ahead of the curve.' If we just look at how significantly the internet has changed in the past 10 years with the introduction of smartphones we can only be so accurate in our predictions of what the internet will be like in another 10 or even 20 years. Laws take so long to be drafted, adapted and perfected that any strict policy of this complexity would be out of date soon after it's implementation. That's why I understand the want to use broad terms, but this also leads to the risk of leaving many decisions in the hands of people or groups who maybe shouldn't have that level of control. While Google doesn't want this responsibility of managing screenings, it's business has shifted into one that requires it. If they are not able to properly adapt then they too can be replaced by another company who can. So as a business that wants to be the central information source for it's users, logic says they will adapt.

On the other hand the idea that this specific censorship could be misused to hide information from being easily accessed is a scary thought. One of the reasons the internet is so popular and is quickly changing the way the world thinks and acts is the ease of access to all human knowledge. This may seem extreme but if we put limits on what can be found via the internet we start to change what the internet is, an open network of communication and information exchange.

In the end I believe that neither of these solutions are ideal. What I found the most interesting in these readings was that Google used to allow users to comment on GoogleNews articles about themselves. This seems like a brilliant way to allow any individual to make a sound argument defending themselves or explaining their circumstances. This method wouldn't limit anyone searching the user in question from finding any information. While this may not be an all-encompassing solution I believe it is the closest towards what we can implement quickly and make adaptable for future technologies.

[[User:Samaei1|Samaei1]] ([[User talk:Samaei1|talk]]) 13:18, 24 February 2015 (EST)

----

To say honestly, I have never heard of this rule and I am not one supporting it. I believe the information we find when Googling our name (or the name of another) is valuable information about that person. If a mistake was made early in the 20's for example, having that information available on the Internet is the price one must pay. If every 'bad' or not so good article/photo/event was erased, that is not only taking away freedom of spech as my classmates mentioned above, but it is also hiding information to future bosses, schools, etc. You cannot erase a mistake in your life by simply erasing an article on Google. As a citizen, we all have the ability and right to know about others if we so please. I look forward to discussion tonight as I imagine (from reading comments above) that this is a very topic many agree with but also many disagree with. [[User:Cbore001|Cbore001]] ([[User talk:Cbore001|talk]]) 13:54, 24 February 2015 (EST)

----
Posner (2014) supports the idea that we all have the “right to be forgotten”. Europe is ahead of the United States in this area Posner compared the United States with Europe and indicated that America is rigid and ideological while Europe is pragmatic and flexible. Examples were provided of a man asking Google to remove data about him that linked to another website. It is believed that the old and embarrassing troubles living forever online is one that our laws do not address yet. Old information can be pulled up at any time on anyone via the internet. While I have conflicting viewpoints on “right to be forgotten”, my perspective leans towards the outlook that individuals have the right to request personal data removed from search engines.

As someone highly connected to the fitness industry, many aspiring athletes and models are photographed for promotional purposes or personal gain in attire and positions that usually are regrettable in the future. While an athlete may take a harmless photo in a bikini, it is not unusual for those photographs to copied and used on websites and forums that do not match the moral compass of the athlete. So while, it was their discretion to have their photo taken, the integrity of the person can be compromised as the name and photograph are now searchable and connected to a third-party. I am in agreement with someone’s right to have data removed. According to Zittrain (2014), European court decided Google “must forget”. Google can be demanded to remove certain reputation-harming search results that is accessed by one’s name. Zittrain (2014) continues to report that protecting an individual’s reputation is protected is important and a policy matter that must be legislated by the court which is mismatched to the evolving intricacies of the online world.

As there continues to be ongoing conflict about protection of the freedom of speech and privacy, I read a great article by ENISA, European Union Agency for Network and Information Security Agency, which address concerns about the expectations and practice of the right to be forgotten, which can be found here: http://www.enisa.europa.eu/activities/identity-and-trust/library/deliverables/the-right-to-be-forgotten/at_download/fullReport

References:

Posner, E. (2014). "We All Have the Right to Be Forgotten," Slate.

Zittrain, J. (2014). "Don't Force Google to 'Forget'," New York Times.

Tasha[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 14:55, 24 February 2015 (EST)

----

Hello, everyone.
Looking forward to tonight's class and discussion.
There's a few things I'd like to encourage everyone to think about in the larger context of the ruling and its consequences.
First is the issue of Google (or other search engines) notifying affected sites of the removal of one or more of their links in Search results. I.e. Google tells the Guardian that in response to an RTBF request, Google has removed a Guardian link from certain search results.
How do you feel about this and why?

Second, consider the role of contextualization. This is legal activity being acted on in legal ways, but the result created may be forbidden by law. No one is saying that newspapers cannot publish articles or have archives, and no one is saying that search engines cannot exist or that they cannot aggregate material to present in results. and yet...
We have emergent meaning and cultural/legal significance based solely on contextualization of information. What are the long-term implications of this? To what extent is this a culture clash, and to what extent might it be a new defining feature of he digitization of information? For some reason I am reminded of Greg Egan's 1992 story "Dust".

Finally, regardless of your opinion on the actual RTBF, how do you feel about historical preservation of the affected URLs and the decisions made affecting them? Is it all right to memory-hole those? If we need to preserve the historical record, who should do it, and in what way, and who should be allowed to study the data?
[[User:Aholland|Aholland]] ([[User talk:Aholland|talk]]) 14:58, 24 February 2015 (EST)

----

This week’s readings pose a very true and real threat that we will find ourselves with the explosion and utilization of social media outlets. The reality is that the Internet is not going away, and neither is the majorly popular resources and engines like Google. The “right to be forgotten” seems like an idea that would work in theory, but in practice, has so many faults. With Europe taking the first attempt at this conflict, and somewhat failing, it’s only a matter of time before other bigger superpowers will begin to have to address this. Jeff Rosen writes, “Europeans have a long tradition of declaring abstract privacy rights in theory that they fail to enforce in practice.” And although this may be true, I don’t think any abstract idea of regulating can be properly implemented with ideas such as limiting or regulating the Internet.
I think that the general rules put forth by the E.U. to attempt to regulate such cases is putting the onus on an data driven engine to be accountable for actions by an individual who was neither forced to do those actions or in any other way coerced to take part in the actions. In the example Rosen presented, of a young girl caught in a picture with a beer. The government is holding the website accountable for something the young girl a.) Should not have been doing b.) Been apart of actions that would capture such activieis.
Leaving the Internet the way it is now, free and open, will hold individuals accountable for what they do, especially in domains such as Facebook, Twitter, etc. If the consideration were based off false accounts or information, which was untrue, the case would be a matter of libel or defamation of character. The freedom of the internet holds users accountable and will force them to consider where and what they take part in before the actually commit any actions.
Jonathan Zittrain does a beautiful job of illustrating the answer and ways in which solutions can be explored. In his 2014 article, “Don’t Force Google to ‘Forget’” he claims that the E.U. is not necessarily wrong in their worries, but their approach and implementation is something to be desired. I believe Zittrain is correct and captures it perfectly when he says, “Whatever the solution, the status quo is no longer stable. In the wake of the decision by the European Court of Justice, search engine companies now face a potential avalanche of requests for redaction.”
[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 15:07, 24 February 2015 (EST)

----

I had not heard of the "right to be forgotten" before this class, so I'm a bit amazed that it exists. Before the Internet (and now) there were journals, history books, notes, law cases, family bibles, photos, TV recordings, radio recordings not to mention newspaper stories. Yes, looking people up on all of those materials is somewhat more daunting than a "Google" search, but it can be done, and it is still done by those with a dogged determination to look into people's pasts.

There are no ways to remove oneself from history books. What is a matter of public record is still public record. Why is the internet treated differently from any other form of public dissemination? Private organizations catalog and index public records in their own "search engines" most of which can also be searched online from their websites. You would spend years going after all the various resources that have a copy of that information. Sure, it would take longer as the information may not be there at the flick of a few key strokes, but it's still there.

Bottom line for me, and I embrace the Internet's power wholeheartedly for I am a distance student after all, is that I find it ridiculously naive to think that if you win a case getting Google to remove a link, that now no one can ever find that bad information about you and suddenly you are pure. I also do not like this law as now you can play havoc with History. What we do today reflects on us 100 years from now. Did it happen? Or did it not?

[[User:ErikaLRich|ErikaLRich]] ([[User talk:ErikaLRich|talk]]) 15:12, 24 February 2015 (EST)

In light of European Court of Justice's ruling about "the right to be forgotten", this subject is becoming more and more important in this so-called 'age of data':how do we balance individual privacy rights vs. public right to be informed? I'm looking forward to see how the ECJ ruling affects internet users in Europe.

It's rather unlikely for a similar law to be implemented here in the US, with the First Amendment guaranteeing free speech for everyone. Having a censor-free internet would preserve the free space for people to express their opinion; however, I do like the 'curated page' idea that Jonathan Zittrain discussed on his article, where people can choose what to include on the first page of search results containing their name while providing uncensored results on the next pages. This would preserve free-speech while giving people some degree of control towards what other people see when they are being searched on the internet.

[[User:Rpeisch|Rpeisch]] ([[User talk:Rpeisch|talk]]) 15:19, 24 February 2015 (EST)

----

In reading the Google Spain case (Costeja decision) material, I could not help thinking about the privacy and free speech interests underlying the United States Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). These laws seem to have some of the same interests at stake as the interests in being forgotten represented by Costeha

When evaluating a request to suppress certain search results, Google.es must consider some of the same factors embodied in these two U.S. laws. For example, the privacy of an individual in his or her medical records is clearly being balanced by the HIPAA law with the needs of the care provider to communicate with its professional and business partners. The Health and Human Services website describes the rights simply, “The HIPAA Privacy Rule provides federal protections for individually identifiable health information… At the same time, the Privacy Rule is balanced so that it permits the disclosure of health information needed for patient care and other important purposes.”1 Of course, insurers that cover the costs related to care need the patient information to confirm that the costs are covered despite the privacy interests of the insured individual.

According to the Costeja decision, Google.es now must suppress search results that are “irrelevant, outdated, or otherwise objectionable." According to the Federal Trade Commission website, the FCRA similarly limits the types of credit and payment information that can be published about an individual, the time limits for different types of information, and even who can see those results based on the needs of the parties.2 Old, outdated information must not be published.

While I concede that it would be a formidable project to compare and contrast the FCRA and HIPAA laws with the privacy and free speech interests that are characteristic of the Internet, the comparison on its face is analogous. The analogy of these laws to the privacy and free speech interests connected with Internet search engines is conspicuously absent from the readings this week.

Works Cited
1 HHS.gov. 2015. Understanding Health Information Privacy. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/index.html. [Accessed 24 February 15]
2 FTC.gov. 2015. A Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/pdf-0096-fair-credit-reporting-act.pdf. [Accessed 24 February 15].

[[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 15:43, 24 February 2015 (EST)

----

Hi guys,
Bummed not to be able to make it to class tonight, but I’m over at the Kennedy School doing a Forum with the former President of Finland (who in all honesty would probably have some interesting thoughts on tonight’s topic).

I’m fascinated by Europe’s recent rounds of legislation concerning the right to be forgotten as well as its implications for the United States. While personally, I think it would be great to be able to clear potentially damaging search results, I understand the concern from American counterparts. Like many things in the United States, it feels like European standards would be too open to exploitation by those who can afford to manipulate information about themselves.

I’d be interested though to hear some thoughts in tonight’s class about Zittrain’s suggestions for more creative search engines and the use of apologies for censored information. While in no way perfect, it seems like this may be a constructive way to move forward?
[[User:Meredithmblake|Meredith]] ([[User talk:Meredithmblake|talk]]) 16:01, 24 February 2015 (EST)

----

:If President Halonen would like to come chat about this with us please feel free to invite her! :-) [[User:Andy|Andy]] ([[User talk:Andy|talk]]) 16:55, 24 February 2015 (EST)

----

Hello everyone,

It makes perfect sense in my mind the right to be forgotten, because it deals with the in a way if you will manipulation of private information by another. In the United States we have the fifth amendment that addresses the issue of this spectrum, but in a sense if pictures, dialogues or any other information will be circulating the internet without permission of its owner, then there is an infringement of the law of privacy.

Now what I did not understand complexly is how this is a issue of freedom of speech, well certainly it is not heated speech, but it is the manipulation of some private property without consent.

I understand how this would be an issue of the first amendment if the property would not be private, and just by putting it online does it make it public, even though it stills has characteristics of private property because the scope of interests, or information is not necessarily public unless it is. I mean pictures of someone that do not affect public policy or public interests should not be considered public.

Furthermore, I think then the disjunctive is that one should have to objectively establish a standard or threshold of private or public property, and from there it would be a matter of first or fifth amendment.

Nonetheless, this is a latent problem and needs proper resolution, for this reason, I think that the right to be forgotten is and will be very important in our lives as technology evolves, we cannot let technology run our privacy matters but automation, but we need to be active participants of our evolving future.

(16:18, 24 February 2015 (EST)16:18, 24 February 2015 (EST)~) Edwin Duque

----

I remember reading about the "right to forget" last year and being completely stunned by the European Court’s ruling and I put myself squarely in the anti-right-to-forget camp. But after these readings I’m not so sure. I now see the need for a right like this to exist but I still wholeheartedly disagree with the quasi-judicial power the ruling grants Google.

On an individual level, forgetting – to some extent – is part of being a healthy human being; it’s part of learning to cope with life and survive; it even allows us to make room for new information. I wonder if on a societal level, some amount of forgetting is healthy as well. Not the big things like the Holocaust of course, but all the minutia – like an 18-year old getting caught with a gram or the gruesome death of a child.

The internet makes forgetting very difficult. It makes second chances hard to come across. And that’s upsetting but, for me at least, it’s not as upsetting as a businessman getting Google to erase links to evidence of him being a tax avoider. Because we’re dealing with facts. And there’s just no clear test to decide what facts belongs in the private sphere and what facts deserves to be in the public sphere. The court certainly didn’t give helpful guidance and Google is in no position to be the decider.

If the “right to forget” ever became an issue in the US and Google was deemed the appropriate fielder, I might argue that Google is a legal person with first amendment rights and that Google’s unique form of expression is posting search results and so requiring Google to alter search results is a violation of the speech clause of the first amendment.

But here’s a crazy thought, what happens if Google stops being the premier search engine? When it loses its supremacy? Then the European Court’s decision to outsource the problem to Google seems short-sighted. Ultimately it seems like need to keep refining its wisdom on this topic, taking it case by case, until a more lasting and reliable precedent emerges.

This topic makes my head spin a little. Excited to talk about it more with y’all!

[[User:Kelly.wilson|Kelly.wilson]] ([[User talk:Kelly.wilson|talk]]) 16:42, 24 February 2015 (EST)

----

A great piece done by NPR on the "right ot be forgotten" and the recent fad of memes. It's interesting how these keep popping up on my feed. http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2015/03/03/390463119/internet-memes-and-the-right-to-be-forgotten?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20150303

[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 10:46, 4 March 2015 (EST)

Assignment 2 Submissions

2015-03-03T18:50:52Z

Mhoching: /* Comments */

File:Mhoching Assignment2.docx

2015-03-03T18:49:17Z

Mhoching:

Privacy Part 2: The Right to Be Forgotten

2015-02-24T20:07:29Z

Mhoching: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 24'''

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

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

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

==Readings==

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

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

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

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

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

==Optional Readings==

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

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

* [http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/2014/wp225_en.pdf EU Data Protection Working Party, Guidelines on the Implementation of the Court of Justice of the European Union Judgment on Google Spain] and accompanying [http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/press-material/press-release/art29_press_material/20141126_wp29_press_release_ecj_de-listing.pdf press release]

==Class Discussion==

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

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

----

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

----

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

'''References:'''

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

----

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

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

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

----

Hello All!

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

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

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

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

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

-Emily MacIntyre

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

----

'''Neuralizers for All'''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chanel Rion

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

----

'The Right to be Forgotten' is one of the first big battles of internet privacy in our modern age. I found it interesting that the European Union took such a drastically different approach than the United States in these first steps. However I would like to start by saying that I believe in time these differences will converge into a larger global format, simply due to the fact that the internet has helped lead to globalization in everything it has touched and this would be difficult to retract.

While the E.U. used broad terms that may scare some, personally I agree with the logic of 'staying ahead of the curve.' If we just look at how significantly the internet has changed in the past 10 years with the introduction of smartphones we can only be so accurate in our predictions of what the internet will be like in another 10 or even 20 years. Laws take so long to be drafted, adapted and perfected that any strict policy of this complexity would be out of date soon after it's implementation. That's why I understand the want to use broad terms, but this also leads to the risk of leaving many decisions in the hands of people or groups who maybe shouldn't have that level of control. While Google doesn't want this responsibility of managing screenings, it's business has shifted into one that requires it. If they are not able to properly adapt then they too can be replaced by another company who can. So as a business that wants to be the central information source for it's users, logic says they will adapt.

On the other hand the idea that this specific censorship could be misused to hide information from being easily accessed is a scary thought. One of the reasons the internet is so popular and is quickly changing the way the world thinks and acts is the ease of access to all human knowledge. This may seem extreme but if we put limits on what can be found via the internet we start to change what the internet is, an open network of communication and information exchange.

In the end I believe that neither of these solutions are ideal. What I found the most interesting in these readings was that Google used to allow users to comment on GoogleNews articles about themselves. This seems like a brilliant way to allow any individual to make a sound argument defending themselves or explaining their circumstances. This method wouldn't limit anyone searching the user in question from finding any information. While this may not be an all-encompassing solution I believe it is the closest towards what we can implement quickly and make adaptable for future technologies.

[[User:Samaei1|Samaei1]] ([[User talk:Samaei1|talk]]) 13:18, 24 February 2015 (EST)

----

To say honestly, I have never heard of this rule and I am not one supporting it. I believe the information we find when Googling our name (or the name of another) is valuable information about that person. If a mistake was made early in the 20's for example, having that information available on the Internet is the price one must pay. If every 'bad' or not so good article/photo/event was erased, that is not only taking away freedom of spech as my classmates mentioned above, but it is also hiding information to future bosses, schools, etc. You cannot erase a mistake in your life by simply erasing an article on Google. As a citizen, we all have the ability and right to know about others if we so please. I look forward to discussion tonight as I imagine (from reading comments above) that this is a very topic many agree with but also many disagree with. [[User:Cbore001|Cbore001]] ([[User talk:Cbore001|talk]]) 13:54, 24 February 2015 (EST)

----
Posner (2014) supports the idea that we all have the “right to be forgotten”. Europe is ahead of the United States in this area Posner compared the United States with Europe and indicated that America is rigid and ideological while Europe is pragmatic and flexible. Examples were provided of a man asking Google to remove data about him that linked to another website. It is believed that the old and embarrassing troubles living forever online is one that our laws do not address yet. Old information can be pulled up at any time on anyone via the internet. While I have conflicting viewpoints on “right to be forgotten”, my perspective leans towards the outlook that individuals have the right to request personal data removed from search engines.

As someone highly connected to the fitness industry, many aspiring athletes and models are photographed for promotional purposes or personal gain in attire and positions that usually are regrettable in the future. While an athlete may take a harmless photo in a bikini, it is not unusual for those photographs to copied and used on websites and forums that do not match the moral compass of the athlete. So while, it was their discretion to have their photo taken, the integrity of the person can be compromised as the name and photograph are now searchable and connected to a third-party. I am in agreement with someone’s right to have data removed. According to Zittrain (2014), European court decided Google “must forget”. Google can be demanded to remove certain reputation-harming search results that is accessed by one’s name. Zittrain (2014) continues to report that protecting an individual’s reputation is protected is important and a policy matter that must be legislated by the court which is mismatched to the evolving intricacies of the online world.

As there continues to be ongoing conflict about protection of the freedom of speech and privacy, I read a great article by ENISA, European Union Agency for Network and Information Security Agency, which address concerns about the expectations and practice of the right to be forgotten, which can be found here: http://www.enisa.europa.eu/activities/identity-and-trust/library/deliverables/the-right-to-be-forgotten/at_download/fullReport

References:

Posner, E. (2014). "We All Have the Right to Be Forgotten," Slate.

Zittrain, J. (2014). "Don't Force Google to 'Forget'," New York Times.

Tasha[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 14:55, 24 February 2015 (EST)

----

Hello, everyone.
Looking forward to tonight's class and discussion.
There's a few things I'd like to encourage everyone to think about in the larger context of the ruling and its consequences.
First is the issue of Google (or other search engines) notifying affected sites of the removal of one or more of their links in Search results. I.e. Google tells the Guardian that in response to an RTBF request, Google has removed a Guardian link from certain search results.
How do you feel about this and why?

Second, consider the role of contextualization. This is legal activity being acted on in legal ways, but the result created may be forbidden by law. No one is saying that newspapers cannot publish articles or have archives, and no one is saying that search engines cannot exist or that they cannot aggregate material to present in results. and yet...
We have emergent meaning and cultural/legal significance based solely on contextualization of information. What are the long-term implications of this? To what extent is this a culture clash, and to what extent might it be a new defining feature of he digitization of information? For some reason I am reminded of Greg Egan's 1992 story "Dust".

Finally, regardless of your opinion on the actual RTBF, how do you feel about historical preservation of the affected URLs and the decisions made affecting them? Is it all right to memory-hole those? If we need to preserve the historical record, who should do it, and in what way, and who should be allowed to study the data?
[[User:Aholland|Aholland]] ([[User talk:Aholland|talk]]) 14:58, 24 February 2015 (EST)

----
This week’s readings pose a very true and real threat that we will find ourselves with the explosion and utilization of social media outlets. The reality is that the Internet is not going away, and neither is the majorly popular resources and engines like Google. The “right to be forgotten” seems like an idea that would work in theory, but in practice, has so many faults. With Europe taking the first attempt at this conflict, and somewhat failing, it’s only a matter of time before other bigger superpowers will begin to have to address this. Jeff Rosen writes, “Europeans have a long tradition of declaring abstract privacy rights in theory that they fail to enforce in practice.” And although this may be true, I don’t think any abstract idea of regulating can be properly implemented with ideas such as limiting or regulating the Internet.
I think that the general rules put forth by the E.U. to attempt to regulate such cases is putting the onus on an data driven engine to be accountable for actions by an individual who was neither forced to do those actions or in any other way coerced to take part in the actions. In the example Rosen presented, of a young girl caught in a picture with a beer. The government is holding the website accountable for something the young girl a.) Should not have been doing b.) Been apart of actions that would capture such activieis.
Leaving the Internet the way it is now, free and open, will hold individuals accountable for what they do, especially in domains such as Facebook, Twitter, etc. If the consideration were based off false accounts or information, which was untrue, the case would be a matter of libel or defamation of character. The freedom of the internet holds users accountable and will force them to consider where and what they take part in before the actually commit any actions.
Jonathan Zittrain does a beautiful job of illustrating the answer and ways in which solutions can be explored. In his 2014 article, “Don’t Force Google to ‘Forget’” he claims that the E.U. is not necessarily wrong in their worries, but their approach and implementation is something to be desired. I believe Zittrain is correct and captures it perfectly when he says, “Whatever the solution, the status quo is no longer stable. In the wake of the decision by the European Court of Justice, search engine companies now face a potential avalanche of requests for redaction.”
[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 15:07, 24 February 2015 (EST)

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

2015-02-18T03:46:46Z

Mhoching: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 10'''

''This class was held on February 13th due to an storm on the 10th.''

'''[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Privacy_Day_1_Slides.pdf Download slides from this weeks class.]'''

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]].

==Links From Class==
"An Englishman's home is his castle": http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/an-englishmans-home-is-his-castle.html

"The Right of Privacy" by Samuel Warren and (later Supreme Court Justice) Louis Brandeis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Right_to_Privacy_%28article%29

"Yellow Journalism": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

The elite in Boston in the 1890s were known as the "Boston Brahmin": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Brahmin

Google Books Ngram viewer: https://books.google.com/ngrams

William Prosser - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Prosser

The RAND Corporation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAND_Corporation

Griswold - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut, Roe v. Wade - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade, Whalen v. Roe - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whalen_v._Roe

Olmstead v. United States - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olmstead_v._United_States

William Howard Taft - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Howard_Taft

Katz overruled Olmstead - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States

Church Committee: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee

The old HEW agency - https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Health,_Education,_and_Welfare

The Privacy Act - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_Act_of_1974

FERPA - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Educational_Rights_and_Privacy_Act

The FIPPs system is now largely enforced by the FTC - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTC_Fair_Information_Practice

EPIC - the Electronic Privacy Information Center - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Privacy_Information_Center

Robert Bork - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork

XKCD: https://xkcd.com/

You can also follow http://explainxkcd.com/

Universal Declaration of Human Rights: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Not just rivals the Apollo program; it vastly exceeded it - http://insidesearch.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-power-of-apollo-missions-in-single.html

Moore's Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law

Amazon Web Services: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Web_Services

"Lead generation" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_generation

Target Identification Of Pregnant Woman: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/

Acxiom - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acxiom

Roku - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roku

EFF's Privacy Badger - https://www.eff.org/privacybadger

==Class Discussion==

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

----

Hello All!

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

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

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

Thanks,
Emily M.

Works Cited

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

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

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

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

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

----

The assignment to update a wikipedia page has been challenging! It took me a few days to come across a page that needed updating and one which I could make a contribution. I have spent all day verifying sources and editing the page, and I feel like I haven't made much headway! I'll keep at this tonight and all day tomorrow. How is everyone else doing? [[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 17:45, 7 February 2015 (EST)

----

::Hello, Chelly! I had the same feelings in regards to the assignment. I recommend that you find an article that goes over a topic that you know a lot about (in my case, it was military history in regards to armored fighting vehicles.) If you have books on the topic, they will definitely prove helpful! I had plenty of books that went over the rifles used by Finnish troops during the Winter War! (NOTE: Will be creating a second post that goes over the lesson material!) [[User:Mishal R. Kennedy|Mishal R. Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Mishal R. Kennedy|talk]]) 1:35PM, 8 February 2015 (EST)

----

::Thank you Mishal! It sounds like you found a really good page to update for yourself! I came across a “stub” page for a music band started by one of my school mates, so I researched more about their discography and band members. He was delighted that I was helping with their Wikipedia page. I will complete the assignment and then do more research in the future to help him out some more! Good luck on the rest of the work. I have finished most of this week’s readings and will also post additionally. [[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 16:28, 8 February 2015 (EST)

----

::Fantastic work, Chelly! I've almost gotten done with my page, but have yet to read the lesson material (have a class on Monday, and have to stay up until 2:30 in the morning to attend this, and my class on expository writing [mandatory!]) Good luck on your assignment, and I can't wait to see you in the classroom! (If you attend the lectures online!) [[User:Mishal R. Kennedy|Mishal R. Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Mishal R. Kennedy|talk]]) 1:35PM, 8 February 2015 (EST)

----

Hi everyone!
First I want to say that it was nice seeing you guys in class last tuesday. I participated asynchronously but I am hoping to be able to participate online synchronously next time :)

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

Solove condenses this feeling so well:

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

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

'''KING MILINDA AND THE CHARIOT'''

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

The sage replies:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- - - - - - - -

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

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

----

I personally think that the three most interesting articles in today's course readings were the articles by David Veldt, by Jeremy Singer (author of the article titled: How Dataium Watches You) and by Robert Faris and David R. O'Brien. Special software programs, like Dataium, track even the smallest little things that we click on. Online social media services, like Facebook and LinkedIn, can make extremely intrusive (and shockingly accurate, as Mr. Veldt found out...) guesses about who we know, and who we are connected with.

I believe that now is the time to act if we as individuals want to live in a world where our right to privacy is honored. If we do not act, it is believe that it is very likely that our children will unfortunately inherit a world where privacy was a luxury from the past.

[[User:Mishal R. Kennedy|Mishal R. Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Mishal R. Kennedy|talk]]) 1:35PM, 8 February 2015 (EST)

----

As consumers share more and more information through online purchasing, social media and email, companies are collecting information without any explanation on what will be done with it. What Scheiner and Sweeney reiterate is that with certain datasets it is very simple to de-anonymize users. It is very apparent that consumers are becoming very weary of the intrusion of data monitoring and fear has been elevated by numerous data breaches, including Target, Sony Playstation, Chick-Fla and Turbo Tax to name a few. As a consumer that just purchased a Samsung SMART TV, it was very disturbing to find out that third parties have the ability to screen and send conversations through the voice activated TV controls, which was disclosed in their privacy agreement. Samsung responded by stating, consumers’ conversations are only screenable while the control is activated and Wi-Fi is connected. It is fair to say that Samsung’s minimal disclosure of personal data usage creates a level of distrust among consumers. Veldt’s research into LinkedIn’s practices and data generation peaked my interest, as I too wondered how I received requests and recommendations from individuals without any obvious professional nor personal connections. After reading his article, the privacy settings of my account were promptly adjusted. The constant ‘Big Brother’ consumer monitoring has caused me to become very weary. Tasha[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 18:05, 10 February 2015 (EST)

----

This weeks reading has been very interesting, defining data, privacy, and their interrelation with one another. The past, present and future have been compared with respect to this topic, to give an idea of the involution of privacy and how it is very ambiguous the way how it is dealt now at days.
The fourth amendment, first amendment, and fourteenth amendment deal with privacy to the extend of the physical world in which names, property, and activities have privacy rules that protect them and cannot allow to disclose them, search them or act unreasonably invading or breaking these laws.

However the question presented in our time is whether the law of the fourth amendment, first amendment, and fourteenth amendment, or our current laws are equipped enough to deal with our current problems involving privacy, particularly speaking of the cyber world? This question is difficult to answer because of two reasons, first privacy in the cyber world, the world of the internet is an ambiguous concept, it is is difficult to be defined. The second reason is Data, the way how data is handled makes a difficult to enforce and protect privacy issues.

The rule in this case comes from the understanding, that data and privacy work by first data is presented in the internet without deep analysis, with correlation and not causation, what can be found in one website and it is linked to other peace of information it is not analyzed but linked by correlation. Google operates this way. Therefore data is pilled in the web on thousands of ways which makes difficult to track it, and understand it sometimes, but it works towards finding similar things that if do not come from one another's understanding, they do have something to do with each other.

Now privacy in this context cannot be defined, because how can thousands of links and posts can have privacy when they intervene with one another, piling data.
Therefore how can one unreasonably search the web, is there a limit, and that limit is within some scope, and that scope has some rationality. Therefore the general rule is that in the internet privacy is ambiguous and data is humongous to trace.

Therefore it can be concluded that our past laws cannot keep up with the cyber world and if data is enormous, and privacy ambiguous in the web, then there has to be another way to regulate this, how people research of a subject, topic, person, property, etc. How data is reveled, linking property, people, etc without analysis. This is what needs to be solved for a future that entails uncertainty, but promises great communication, knowledge, and relations if this problem is solved.

(Edwin Duque)

----

When the “Founding Fathers” framed the Bill of Rights, the concept of the internet and shape it would take in regards to mass media, content and privacy would have been unimaginable.
The First Amendment applies protecting of one’s information and possessions and the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable search-the framework of protecting privacy

However, the concept and defining of privacy itself is always an ongoing debate and seems to allow the practice of one’s data or actions on the internet to be available, monitored etc. to any other person, company or government organization as the definition of privacy itself is not clearly outlined and based more on theory.

Individuals for example may give a mobile app access to one’s microphone or location service thinking it is for the purpose of utilizing the app. Meanwhile, the app company may be using this data for other purposes and in turn the government may request this information from companies-in a sense could be argued as unreasonable search and seizure.

Until privacy and uniformed regulation can be established in regards to collection of data and use, one’s privacy will intrinsically be public. In essence the only protection of privacy is for one not to provide the data they do not want to be public or collected. [[User:Andrew C.|Andrew C.]] ([[User talk:Andrew C.|talk]]) 17:54, 12 February 2015 (EST)

----

I really enjoyed the article focusing on LinkedIn. I sometimes wonder how sites match "people you may know" and it was a very interesting take from the author of a thought many of us have-- how LinkedIn/Facebook/etc match us with people we actually do know. In regards to that thought, the Internet tracks us in our daily searches. Especially around the Holidays, there were several times my Internet began advertising gifts I had bought online at Target/etc. Although many people like how that is generated, I find it not likeable and confirming that there truly is no privacy.

The first article had a very interesting quote: "privacy has proven to be a powerful rhetorical battle cry...privacy means so many different things to so many different people that it has lost any precise legal connotation that it might once have had..." It would be a neat assignment to figure out what "privacy" means to each of us-- especially as we grew up in a world focused on computers and technology and, obviously, have different views from our parents and children of what "privacy" means. It is really such an easy term yet something so hard to explain-- also brining in the idea of "if you don't want everyone (or anyone) to see, don't put it on the internet becasue then it is not private"

I read more about Privacy and came across an interesting article some of you may want to glance at:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielnewman/2014/08/20/there-is-no-privacy-on-the-internet-of-things/

About half way down, the article begins speaking on the Privacy Statements online and how many people, including myself, skim over and accept without really reading. [[User:Cbore001|Cbore001]] ([[User talk:Cbore001|talk]]) 19:11, 12 February 2015 (EST)

----

I found the discussions in the readings on Internet privacy (or the lack thereof) quite daunting. It seems like each attempt to protect privacy is countered with a problem or another breach in that "security". I was also intrigued by the argument on how everyone talks about Internet privacy and how important it is to them, but their behavior doesn't reflect those same concerns. Though this seems like a contradiction, I believe it's more of a lapse in our understanding of what it means to share on the Internet. The Internet being a relatively new resource, we are accustomed to a certain level of choice involved with the sharing of our information and we aren't yet fully aware of how the Internet removes that element of choice. Unfortunately, a lot of people are learning that lesson the hard way. The Internet and the elusive definition of "Privacy" is something many people have had to deal with in retrospect. Furthermore, we cannot make progress with what it means to protect privacy if we find it impossible to even define what privacy is. Many people opt to refrain from sharing on the internet at all and, while that seems like a solution, it seems wrong that a person should lack some of the benefits the Internet has to offer simply because of a fear of intrusion. Unfortunately, that is the reality that we deal with today, and one wonders if there is even a solution. [[User:Oliviabrinich|Oliviabrinich]] ([[User talk:Oliviabrinich|talk]]) 13:39, 13 February 2015 (EST)

----

::Great comment, Olivia - especially your observation about "a lapse in our understanding of what it means to share on the internet." I hope we will find a moment to touch on this today.

::[[User:David|David]] ([[User talk:David|talk]]) 16:20, 13 February 2015 (EST)

----

Hi all!

Not sure if i will be able to make class today so I'm posting just in case!

As soon as I read the topic for class I immediately cringed. I have read about our privacy and lack thereof online before and with each new bit of information I sort of shutter thinking about my confident adolescent self on infamous sites like myspace and even high school me on Facebook, where privacy was the least of my concerns and I was happy to show the world every minute of my life. Today the relevance of Facebook in this privacy realm should certainly make people think did I really need to share that one picture or post that one status because truthfully we have this false sense of security with what we share thinking that they are to be seen by our friends but as many of the readings have pointed out and as we have clearly seen in current events, this is most certainly not the case. I really loved how Farris and O'brien put it about our privacy concerns, that essentially we all have a very fuzzy understanding of what privacy even means and although we all express our displeasure with intrusion of our privacy, we seem more than happy to share that video of ourselves on top of the bar singing piano man completely out of key at 3am. They go on to say we "quasi-agree" to sharing this information and forgoing our privacy concerns by accepting the all mighty "terms of agreement/conditions" box which is like a 100 page essay that no one ever reads (Cue the academic icon of South park..trust me when I say click for a good laugh.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAdu6GHV3tQ )

Farris and O'brein further paint our over sharing of data in a scary light:
"Those with the best access to data are the companies with which we have shared this data in a quasi-consensual manner, and the third parties with which they subsequently share the data, and the governments that are able to persuade or coerce the companies to turn over this data to them, and the domestic and foreign governments that are able to monitor communications and hack into computers, and the perpetrators and beneficiaries of successful cyberattacks that precipitate massive data leaks."

One story that comes straight to mind is the Target case study involving Andrew pole and a man and his teenage daughter in Minneapolis. To be brief, essentially what happened is the young daughter had used her target customer Id to purchase various items online on the Target store. A man by the name of Andrew Pole was a master statistician and had developed an algorithm to predict, based on what people bought at Target, where they were at in their life and thus what sort of coupons/deals, etc target should send to them to encourage them to come shop at their store. Well long story longer, Target used this algorithm and determined that based on the daughters purchases over the span of about a week, the algorithm said there was an 87% chance the teen was pregnant. Since she was still very young and living at home, her father would receive the mail and couldn't help but notice all of these coupons geared toward a pregnant mother coming to his house for strollers, cribs, formula etc. The father confronted the manager at a local target irate exclaiming that his wife was certainly not pregnant. Well it turned out that based on the daughter's purchase history and sharing of this information online, Target had known that this high school girl '''was in fact pregnant''' and she was still figuring out a way to tell her father.Unfortunately Target beat her to the punch.

Thanks guys,
Ryan H (rhurls)

[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 12:37, 13 February 2015 (EST)

----

My post seemed to be in a weird format when I reloaded it so here it is again (sorry for the double-post)

After reading the discussion post beginning with the “self” I began reflecting on the period following the 1965 Supreme Court case Griswold v CT when ideas about a more defined sense of legal privacy came to the forefront. Arguments around that time articulated privacy more as it relates to the physical body. Though opinions on reproductive independence are still quite divergent, I believe that Americans on both sides of that argument still hold bodily autonomy and privacy in some form (if not in the form discussed in Griswold) as sacred.

I can’t remember which author mentions this point (Solove perhaps) but one of the articles briefly describes “thermal imaging” in order to catch drug-related criminals as tantamount to searching a home without a warrant. I think this kind of example is sort of a middle ground in examining bodily privacy to more abstract ideas about privacy in a technological world.

As we move into looking at strictly online privacy, people willingly give out all kinds of personal information and their views of privacy diverge from their actions (Goldman says an iteration of this in the Solove reading). If many people think of privacy as “the right to be left alone” what can that mean online? It is easier to conceive of bodily privacy but I sometimes think the way we still think about privacy rights come from before the inception of the internet. ([[User:Amchugh|Amchugh]] ([[User talk:Amchugh|talk]]) 08:34, 13 February 2015 (EST))

----

I am becoming more intrigued with how much net neutrality is becoming more of a headline subject within the news, or it could be that net neutrality has always been in the news and I'm just now paying attention. I think it is a natural to be more sensitive to subjects you are becoming aware of, but it was very serendipitous that while reflecting on net neutrality and all the issues that have come out of the subject matter, CNBC had an interview with AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson in which he cautions the Obama administration about attempting to regulate the internet.

Leading up the FCC's decision at the end of this month, I think it will be very exciting to continue to follow the story. The issue of regulating the internet is such a complex and permanent action. As we have discussed in class, and the readings have pointed out, the idea of the internet is to have and fully accessible resource. The implications of FCC and some recent events with administration somewhat threaten this idea if they are going to attempt to regulate it. So many more questions will be born with implementation and follow through with decision of regulations.

Here's a small portion of the interview for anyone who is interested. http://www.cnbc.com/id/102424165#.

[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 15:28, 13 February 2015 (EST)

----

Two aspects of this week’s readings were particularly interesting to me. Both come from “The Rise of Big Data” and what they term “datafication.” Speaking of Google’s analysis of search terms and the resulting correlation with flu outbreaks, the article observes such correlations are predictive and not always correct; unrelated outside factors might influence the prediction (4). The article stops short of what seems to me an obvious next step to observe that such outside influences may be either coincidental or intentional. This point has profound implications when we consider the uses to which big data predictions are being put. The intentional interference with such predictions seems ripe for discussion. How it might take place and the complications of both trying to affect results and countermeasures against it raise many questions in my mind.

Also, as noted later in the article, big data predictions may be used, for example by government, to make decisions without a full appreciation for or an understanding of the implications on society (7). This “misplaced” reliance on big data predictions could similarly be affected by the gaming or mischievous interference with the data process.[[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 15:58, 13 February 2015 (EST)

----

Chris Anderson’s “The End of Theory”, argues for the great potential of using big data, to explore the many facets of our world. Indeed, the thought of being able to sequence an entire ecosystem is quite amazing. Discovering new species using statistics, rather than direct observation, is an ingenious use of computing power. Yet, when this massive amount of data is derived from people’s internet behaviour, the prospects become murkier. True internet privacy, seems more like a holy grail, than a possible reality, given all of the necessary steps to attain it. David O’Brien and Robert Farris’s article “Data and Privacy” makes the important link between privacy and data security. It is interesting how many businesses have been slow to focus on data security, when data has become an important source of revenue. The prevalence of cyber attacks, on health insurers like Anthem Blue Cross, or retailers like Target, has created some public awareness, but not sufficiently.

Farris and O’Brien, also raise the issue of the role that laws and regulations should take. The European model is for greater regulations on privacy. The European Court of Justice in May 2014 ruled against Google in a case involving the right to be forgotten. This means that search engines must provide a method for people to remove their data from search results.
Yet, as a legal concept, privacy is hard to pin down, particularly in this digital age. As many of the articles point out, a solution will likely be a hybrid, involving some sort of compromise. An important first step will be insuring that everyone is aware of the data that they create, and how it is being used. [[User:AlexanderH|AlexanderH]] ([[User talk:AlexanderH|talk]]) 16:00, 13 February 2015 (EST)

----

So after reading all the information on data collection, the dimensions of privacy and how easy it is to de-anonymize data I wonder how it all applies to me. Is someone or something out there collecting info on me and creating a giant datastore that uniquely defines me and sets me apart from everyone else on the globe? Cause I didn't get that from anyone of the articles. Instead it would appear that all these different sources capture trace amount of data representing some specific characteristics about my behavior at a given time and place and use that to try to push info out to me. Not sure how that translates to what I have always thought of as "my privacy". Interested to hear what others think about that? [[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 17:21, 13 February 2015 (EST)

----

Hey everyone,
I wasn't sure where to share this, but just an FYI, the slides to LECTURE 2 SLIDES are not synced with the LECTURE 2 VIDEO, it is the powerpoint from LECTURE 1. The slides discussed during LECTURE 2 can be found here: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Privacy_Day_1_Slides.pdf. Just in case anyone has trouble finding them.
Cheers,
[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 22:46, 17 February 2015 (EST)

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

2015-02-17T20:43:19Z

Mhoching: /* 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)

----
This week’s readings opened my eyes to the very complicated, and multi-leveled role government plays in the development and regulation of Internet channels. It seems that America faces the two problems in unison as we approach the FCC decision and the ongoing and heated debate of governmental reach for enforcing Title 2. While watching Susan Crawford’s speech, she declared, “Internet access is like oxygen – it’s necessary for life”. I found this to be a very profound statement, and she almost alluded that Internet should be viewed as a right or primary concern the government should be investing in for the American people. The How Do We Connect to The Internet?, showed the advancement of developing easy and faster access to Internet shapes our economy for better results.

Furthermore, it seems to me, that the regulating of the Internet must be done by governmental entities to keep the Internet “free and open”. It is evident from the readings that the role of government must be implemented on all levels of government for any kind of initiatives to be successful. In the White House Report, it states, “these federal and state initiatives are only part of the solution. Local governments also have a critical role to play. In markets where private competition is anemic, whether because of regulatory barriers to entry or the high fixed costs of infrastructure investment, town and cities can build their own middle-mile networks and offer competitive access to the private sector” (p13)

The new clear and enforceable rules proposed by FCC Chairman Wheeler seem very promising, but I am very interested with what will develop leading up to February 26th as some of the rules are viewed as “not strong enough” by millions of people in the public. I think it is the government’s role to enforce harder rules to ensure that the Internet stays principally an open entity that supports innovation and free exchange of ideas.
[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 15:43, 17 February 2015 (EST)

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

2015-02-13T20:28:45Z

Mhoching: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 10'''

'''''Note: Harvard Extension has cancelled classes on February 10th due to snow. A makeup is now scheduled for February 13th, same time, same place.'''''

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

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

==Readings==

; Conceptualizing privacy

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

; Privacy and data

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

; Corporate data practices

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

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

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

==Optional Readings==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Assignment 1 ==

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

==Class Discussion==

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

----

I found the discussions in the readings on Internet privacy (or the lack thereof) quite daunting. It seems like each attempt to protect privacy is countered with a problem or another breach in that "security". I was also intrigued by the argument on how everyone talks about Internet privacy and how important it is to them, but their behavior doesn't reflect those same concerns. Though this seems like a contradiction, I believe it's more of a lapse in our understanding of what it means to share on the Internet. The Internet being a relatively new resource, we are accustomed to a certain level of choice involved with the sharing of our information and we aren't yet fully aware of how the Internet removes that element of choice. Unfortunately, a lot of people are learning that lesson the hard way. The Internet and the elusive definition of "Privacy" is something many people have had to deal with in retrospect. Furthermore, we cannot make progress with what it means to protect privacy if we find it impossible to even define what privacy is. Many people opt to refrain from sharing on the internet at all and, while that seems like a solution, it seems wrong that a person should lack some of the benefits the Internet has to offer simply because of a fear of intrusion. Unfortunately, that is the reality that we deal with today, and one wonders if there is even a solution. [[User:Oliviabrinich|Oliviabrinich]] ([[User talk:Oliviabrinich|talk]]) 13:39, 13 February 2015 (EST)

----
Hi all!

Not sure if i will be able to make class today so I'm posting just in case!

As soon as I read the topic for class I immediately cringed. I have read about our privacy and lack thereof online before and with each new bit of information I sort of shutter thinking about my confident adolescent self on infamous sites like myspace and even high school me on Facebook, where privacy was the least of my concerns and I was happy to show the world every minute of my life. Today the relevance of Facebook in this privacy realm should certainly make people think did I really need to share that one picture or post that one status because truthfully we have this false sense of security with what we share thinking that they are to be seen by our friends but as many of the readings have pointed out and as we have clearly seen in current events, this is most certainly not the case. I really loved how Farris and O'brien put it about our privacy concerns, that essentially we all have a very fuzzy understanding of what privacy even means and although we all express our displeasure with intrusion of our privacy, we seem more than happy to share that video of ourselves on top of the bar singing piano man completely out of key at 3am. They go on to say we "quasi-agree" to sharing this information and forgoing our privacy concerns by accepting the all mighty "terms of agreement/conditions" box which is like a 100 page essay that no one ever reads (Cue the academic icon of South park..trust me when I say click for a good laugh.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAdu6GHV3tQ )

Farris and O'brein further paint our over sharing of data in a scary light:
"Those with the best access to data are the companies with which we have shared this data in a quasi-consensual manner, and the third parties with which they subsequently share the data, and the governments that are able to persuade or coerce the companies to turn over this data to them, and the domestic and foreign governments that are able to monitor communications and hack into computers, and the perpetrators and beneficiaries of successful cyberattacks that precipitate massive data leaks."

One story that comes straight to mind is the Target case study involving Andrew pole and a man and his teenage daughter in Minneapolis. To be brief, essentially what happened is the young daughter had used her target customer Id to purchase various items online on the Target store. A man by the name of Andrew Pole was a master statistician and had developed an algorithm to predict, based on what people bought at Target, where they were at in their life and thus what sort of coupons/deals, etc target should send to them to encourage them to come shop at their store. Well long story longer, Target used this algorithm and determined that based on the daughters purchases over the span of about a week, the algorithm said there was an 87% chance the teen was pregnant. Since she was still very young and living at home, her father would receive the mail and couldn't help but notice all of these coupons geared toward a pregnant mother coming to his house for strollers, cribs, formula etc. The father confronted the manager at a local target irate exclaiming that his wife was certainly not pregnant. Well it turned out that based on the daughter's purchase history and sharing of this information online, Target had known that this high school girl '''was in fact pregnant''' and she was still figuring out a way to tell her father.Unfortunately Target beat her to the punch.

Thanks guys,
Ryan H (rhurls)

[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 12:37, 13 February 2015 (EST)

----
My post seemed to be in a weird format when I reloaded it so here it is again (sorry for the double-post):

After reading the discussion post beginning with the “self” I began reflecting on the period following the 1965 Supreme Court case Griswold v CT when ideas about a more defined sense of legal privacy came to the forefront. Arguments around that time articulated privacy more as it relates to the physical body. Though opinions on reproductive independence are still quite divergent, I believe that Americans on both sides of that argument still hold bodily autonomy and privacy in some form (if not in the form discussed in Griswold) as sacred.

I can’t remember which author mentions this point (Solove perhaps) but one of the articles briefly describes “thermal imaging” in order to catch drug-related criminals as tantamount to searching a home without a warrant. I think this kind of example is sort of a middle ground in examining bodily privacy to more abstract ideas about privacy in a technological world.

As we move into looking at strictly online privacy, people willingly give out all kinds of personal information and their views of privacy diverge from their actions (Goldman says an iteration of this in the Solove reading). If many people think of privacy as “the right to be left alone” what can that mean online? It is easier to conceive of bodily privacy but I sometimes think the way we still think about privacy rights come from before the inception of the internet. ([[User:Amchugh|Amchugh]] ([[User talk:Amchugh|talk]]) 08:34, 13 February 2015 (EST))

----
Hello All!

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

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

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

Thanks,
Emily M.

Works Cited

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

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

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

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

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

----

The assignment to update a wikipedia page has been challenging! It took me a few days to come across a page that needed updating and one which I could make a contribution. I have spent all day verifying sources and editing the page, and I feel like I haven't made much headway! I'll keep at this tonight and all day tomorrow. How is everyone else doing? [[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 17:45, 7 February 2015 (EST)

----

::Hello, Chelly! I had the same feelings in regards to the assignment. I recommend that you find an article that goes over a topic that you know a lot about (in my case, it was military history in regards to armored fighting vehicles.) If you have books on the topic, they will definitely prove helpful! I had plenty of books that went over the rifles used by Finnish troops during the Winter War! (NOTE: Will be creating a second post that goes over the lesson material!) [[User:Mishal R. Kennedy|Mishal R. Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Mishal R. Kennedy|talk]]) 1:35PM, 8 February 2015 (EST)

----

::Thank you Mishal! It sounds like you found a really good page to update for yourself! I came across a “stub” page for a music band started by one of my school mates, so I researched more about their discography and band members. He was delighted that I was helping with their Wikipedia page. I will complete the assignment and then do more research in the future to help him out some more! Good luck on the rest of the work. I have finished most of this week’s readings and will also post additionally. [[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 16:28, 8 February 2015 (EST)

----

::Fantastic work, Chelly! I've almost gotten done with my page, but have yet to read the lesson material (have a class on Monday, and have to stay up until 2:30 in the morning to attend this, and my class on expository writing [mandatory!]) Good luck on your assignment, and I can't wait to see you in the classroom! (If you attend the lectures online!) [[User:Mishal R. Kennedy|Mishal R. Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Mishal R. Kennedy|talk]]) 1:35PM, 8 February 2015 (EST)

----

Hi everyone!
First I want to say that it was nice seeing you guys in class last tuesday. I participated asynchronously but I am hoping to be able to participate online synchronously next time :)

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

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

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

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

----

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 12:19, 10 February 2015 (EST)
'''The Self is an Illusion: Chariots of the Internet Gods'''

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

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

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

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

Solove condenses this feeling so well:

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

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

'''KING MILINDA AND THE CHARIOT'''

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

The sage replies:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- - - - - - - -

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

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

----

I personally think that the three most interesting articles in today's course readings were the articles by David Veldt, by Jeremy Singer (author of the article titled: How Dataium Watches You) and by Robert Faris and David R. O'Brien. Special software programs, like Dataium, track even the smallest little things that we click on. Online social media services, like Facebook and LinkedIn, can make extremely intrusive (and shockingly accurate, as Mr. Veldt found out...) guesses about who we know, and who we are connected with.

I believe that now is the time to act if we as individuals want to live in a world where our right to privacy is honored. If we do not act, it is believe that it is very likely that our children will unfortunately inherit a world where privacy was a luxury from the past.

[[User:Mishal R. Kennedy|Mishal R. Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Mishal R. Kennedy|talk]]) 1:35PM, 8 February 2015 (EST)

As consumers share more and more information through online purchasing, social media and email, companies are collecting information without any explanation on what will be done with it. What Scheiner and Sweeney reiterate is that with certain datasets it is very simple to de-anonymize users. It is very apparent that consumers are becoming very weary of the intrusion of data monitoring and fear has been elevated by numerous data breaches, including Target, Sony Playstation, Chick-Fla and Turbo Tax to name a few. As a consumer that just purchased a Samsung SMART TV, it was very disturbing to find out that third parties have the ability to screen and send conversations through the voice activated TV controls, which was disclosed in their privacy agreement. Samsung responded by stating, consumers’ conversations are only screenable while the control is activated and Wi-Fi is connected. It is fair to say that Samsung’s minimal disclosure of personal data usage creates a level of distrust among consumers. Veldt’s research into LinkedIn’s practices and data generation peaked my interest, as I too wondered how I received requests and recommendations from individuals without any obvious professional nor personal connections. After reading his article, the privacy settings of my account were promptly adjusted. The constant ‘Big Brother’ consumer monitoring has caused me to become very weary. Tasha[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 18:05, 10 February 2015 (EST)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Privacy

This weeks reading has been very interesting, defining data, privacy, and their interrelation with one another. The past, present and future have been compared with respect to this topic, to give an idea of the involution of privacy and how it is very ambiguous the way how it is dealt now at days.
The fourth amendment, first amendment, and fourteenth amendment deal with privacy to the extend of the physical world in which names, property, and activities have privacy rules that protect them and cannot allow to disclose them, search them or act unreasonably invading or breaking these laws.

However the question presented in our time is whether the law of the fourth amendment, first amendment, and fourteenth amendment, or our current laws are equipped enough to deal with our current problems involving privacy, particularly speaking of the cyber world? This question is difficult to answer because of two reasons, first privacy in the cyber world, the world of the internet is an ambiguous concept, it is is difficult to be defined. The second reason is Data, the way how data is handled makes a difficult to enforce and protect privacy issues.

The rule in this case comes from the understanding, that data and privacy work by first data is presented in the internet without deep analysis, with correlation and not causation, what can be found in one website and it is linked to other peace of information it is not analyzed but linked by correlation. Google operates this way. Therefore data is pilled in the web on thousands of ways which makes difficult to track it, and understand it sometimes, but it works towards finding similar things that if do not come from one another's understanding, they do have something to do with each other.

Now privacy in this context cannot be defined, because how can thousands of links and posts can have privacy when they intervene with one another, piling data.
Therefore how can one unreasonably search the web, is there a limit, and that limit is within some scope, and that scope has some rationality. Therefore the general rule is that in the internet privacy is ambiguous and data is humongous to trace.

Therefore it can be concluded that our past laws cannot keep up with the cyber world and if data is enormous, and privacy ambiguous in the web, then there has to be another way to regulate this, how people research of a subject, topic, person, property, etc. How data is reveled, linking property, people, etc without analysis. This is what needs to be solved for a future that entails uncertainty, but promises great communication, knowledge, and relations if this problem is solved.

(--Edwin Duque--)

When the “Founding Fathers” framed the Bill of Rights, the concept of the internet and shape it would take in regards to mass media, content and privacy would have been unimaginable.
The First Amendment applies protecting of one’s information and possessions and the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable search-the framework of protecting privacy

However, the concept and defining of privacy itself is always an ongoing debate and seems to allow the practice of one’s data or actions on the internet to be available, monitored etc. to any other person, company or government organization as the definition of privacy itself is not clearly outlined and based more on theory.

Individuals for example may give a mobile app access to one’s microphone or location service thinking it is for the purpose of utilizing the app. Meanwhile, the app company may be using this data for other purposes and in turn the government may request this information from companies-in a sense could be argued as unreasonable search and seizure.

Until privacy and uniformed regulation can be established in regards to collection of data and use, one’s privacy will intrinsically be public. In essence the only protection of privacy is for one not to provide the data they do not want to be public or collected. [[User:Andrew C.|Andrew C.]] ([[User talk:Andrew C.|talk]]) 17:54, 12 February 2015 (EST)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I really enjoyed the article focusing on LinkedIn. I sometimes wonder how sites match "people you may know" and it was a very interesting take from the author of a thought many of us have-- how LinkedIn/Facebook/etc match us with people we actually do know. In regards to that thought, the Internet tracks us in our daily searches. Especially around the Holidays, there were several times my Internet began advertising gifts I had bought online at Target/etc. Although many people like how that is generated, I find it not likeable and confirming that there truly is no privacy.

The first article had a very interesting quote: "privacy has proven to be a powerful rhetorical battle cry...privacy means so many different things to so many different people that it has lost any precise legal connotation that it might once have had..." It would be a neat assignment to figure out what "privacy" means to each of us-- especially as we grew up in a world focused on computers and technology and, obviously, have different views from our parents and children of what "privacy" means. It is really such an easy term yet something so hard to explain-- also brining in the idea of "if you don't want everyone (or anyone) to see, don't put it on the internet becasue then it is not private"

I read more about Privacy and came across an interesting article some of you may want to glance at:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielnewman/2014/08/20/there-is-no-privacy-on-the-internet-of-things/

About half way down, the article begins speaking on the Privacy Statements online and how many people, including myself, skim over and accept without really reading. [[User:Cbore001|Cbore001]] ([[User talk:Cbore001|talk]]) 19:11, 12 February 2015 (EST)

----

I am becoming more intrigued with how much net neutrality is becoming more of a headline subject within the news, or it could be that net neutrality has always been in the news and I'm just now paying attention. I think it is a natural to be more sensitive to subjects you are becoming aware of, but it was very serendipitous that while reflecting on net neutrality and all the issues that have come out of the subject matter, CNBC had an interview with AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson in which he cautions the Obama administration about attempting to regulate the internet.

Leading up the FCC's decision at the end of this month, I think it will be very exciting to continue to follow the story. The issue of regulating the internet is such a complex and permanent action. As we have discussed in class, and the readings have pointed out, the idea of the internet is to have and fully accessible resource. The implications of FCC and some recent events with administration somewhat threaten this idea if they are going to attempt to regulate it. So many more questions will be born with implementation and follow through with decision of regulations.

Here's a small portion of the interview for anyone who is interested. http://www.cnbc.com/id/102424165#.

[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 15:28, 13 February 2015 (EST)

Assignment 1 Submissions

2015-02-10T13:13:51Z

Mhoching: /* 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

-----
Mhoching

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

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mt._Baker_Sesh_Up

Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment_1.docx

File:Assignment 1.docx

2015-02-10T13:10:32Z

Mhoching: Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mt._Baker_Sesh_Up

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

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mt._Baker_Sesh_Up

Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction

2015-01-28T12:35:44Z

Mhoching: /* Class Discussion */

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

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

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

== Preparation ("Assignment Zero") ==

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

<onlyinclude>

== Readings/Watchings ==

'''What is the Internet?'''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'''Who governs the Internet?'''

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Optional Readings ==

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

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

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

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

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links From Adobe Connect Session ==

== Class Discussion ==

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

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

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

----

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

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

----

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

----

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction

2015-01-28T12:35:15Z

Mhoching: /* Class Discussion */

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

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

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

== Preparation ("Assignment Zero") ==

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

<onlyinclude>

== Readings/Watchings ==

'''What is the Internet?'''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'''Who governs the Internet?'''

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Optional Readings ==

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

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

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

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

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links From Adobe Connect Session ==

== Class Discussion ==

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

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

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

----

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

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

----

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

----

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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