Technologies and Politics of Control - User contributions [en]

Final Projects

2015-05-12T19:17:09Z

Tasha: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

== Instructions ==

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

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

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

*Name or Pseudonym:
*Title:
*Link:

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

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

==Submissions ==

----

Name: Erika L Rich

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

Link: [[File:LSTU_E120_Erika_Rich_FINAL_PAPER.docx]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Name: Batjarks

Title: Mobile Alliance for Maternal Action

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

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

Name: Hernando Romero & Michelle Byrne

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

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

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

Name: ChanelRion

Title: We The Judges: "SiteJabber"

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

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

----

Name: Kelly Wilson

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

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

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

-----

Name: Becca Lewis

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

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

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

----
Name: Tasha

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

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

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

File:Tasha Final Project.docx

2015-05-12T19:14:55Z

Tasha:

Assignment 4 Submissions

2015-04-30T03:22:16Z

Tasha: /* 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)

----
'''Name''': batjarks

'''Title:''' MAMA - privacy

'''Link:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:BrookeTjarksAssignmentFour.docx
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]])
----

Name: Tasha

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

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Tasha_Assignment_4.docx

[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 23:22, 29 April 2015 (EDT)

File:Tasha Assignment 4.docx

2015-04-30T03:19:57Z

Tasha:

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

2015-04-28T18:08:00Z

Tasha: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 28'''

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

== Assignment 4 ==

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

<onlyinclude>

== Readings/Watchings ==

; The DMCA Notice-And-Takedown Process

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

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

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

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

; Case Studies

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

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

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

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

; The big picture

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

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

== Optional Readings ==

; Case Study - ISP "Six Strikes"

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

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

; Case Study - Operation In Our Sites

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

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

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

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

----

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

Peer Production

2015-04-21T19:47:51Z

Tasha:

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 21'''

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

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

<onlyinclude>

== Assignments ==

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

== Readings ==

; Development from the edges

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

; Development as a crowd

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

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

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

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

; Crowd intelligence

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

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

== Optional Readings ==

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

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

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

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

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

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

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

----

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

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

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

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

Also.

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

Enjoy!

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

-----------

'''Thumbs up for Zittrain Video'''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) Confirming knowledge previously held, but most importantly,

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

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

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

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

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

-------

---------

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

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

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

The best companies often work closely with their customers to uncover needs and wants that can be translated into new or improved product or service offerings. Companies using customer needs and preferences to modify current products into new and improved products and services; and how they are using social media for product innovation. Those using social media for product innovation are gaining business benefits, including more (and better) new product ideas or requirements, faster time to market, faster product adoption, lower product costs, and lower product development costs. According to Kenley and Poston (2015), more than 50% of the companies they surveyed were piloting their social media product innovations to some varying degrees. This has created product improvements, which creates increased market share and product revenue. Here is a link to their article: http://kalypso.com/downloads/insights/Kalypso_Social_Media_and_Product_Innovation_1.pdf.

Reading Von Hippel’s article really illumined the development of products and services over time. Personally, I have seen how many of my peers’ feedback (quite a few engineers) have been incorporated into product development, by merely providing feedback on the product failure and a solution on improving the product. Additionally, it is fascinating how the ability to innovate has become so inexpensive that individuals are filling a product need with very little training. If you look at the current market for phone applications, quite a number are being developed by laypersons. The tools for crafting high-quality developments are now so economical and universally accessible that individuals can innovate for themselves. Here is a great article on how a 12 year old learning to code and developing 5 apps: http://venturebeat.com/2013/08/14/this-12-year-old-kid-learned-to-code-on-codecademy-built-5-apps-and-is-speaking-at-sxsw/

Here is an interesting article writing about Uber and Airbnb as examples peer production (though not technologically) https://theumlaut.com/2014/04/09/how-uber-and-airbnb-resurrect-dead-capital/

[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 15:47, 21 April 2015 (EDT)

Main Page

2015-04-16T17:40:51Z

Tasha: /* 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 -

4:45 -

''Friday, 4/17''

10:00am -

10:15 -

10:30 - Tasha Coppett(Phone)

10:45 -

11:00 -

11:15 -

11:30 -

11:45 -

Internet Governance and Governments

2015-04-14T19:28:02Z

Tasha: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 14'''

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

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

<onlyinclude>

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

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

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

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

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

== Optional Readings ==

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

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-----

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Works Cited

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

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

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

I completely concur with my classmates in the complexity of this week’s readings. I found myself having to do a significant amount of cross-research in order to grasp the background context.

The NETmudial preamble states “stakeholder representatives appointed to multi-stakeholder Internet governance processes should be selected through open, democratic and transparent processes.” More people from developing countries are connecting to the internet, as indicated by this The World Bank map: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IT.NET.USER.P2; therefore when reading the ‘NETmudial Multistakehold Statement’, I began to question the process of how multi-stakeholders from developing countries were engaged in the contribution process. In researching the NETmudial website, there was a transparent process that allowed participants to contribute through online submissions. There were 188 contributions coming from 49 countries with 45% of all the contributions coming from the US, UK Brazil, India and Switzerland. Here you can find a summary of the contributions to NETmudial’s content: http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Content-Contribution-Summary_1703_final.pdf. What was particularly interesting were the NETmudial comments that were contributed by developing countries, which can be found here: http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/NETmundial-Comments.xlsx and here as formalized individual submissions: http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribs.

I would only begin to question the perspective of an ‘open process’. Due to time constraints, NETmudial were only able to take contributions in English. Additionally, they limited participation numbers but ensured that each country had at least one representative. This leaves me to question the validity of their inclusion based on their language barriers and selection of participants.

[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 15:28, 14 April 2015 (EDT)

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

2015-04-07T18:26:56Z

Tasha: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 7'''

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

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

<onlyinclude>

== Readings/Watchings ==

; The mechanics of copyright law

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

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

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

; Digital applications and new challenges

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

; Copyright solutions

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

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

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

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

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

; Case Study

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

; Anti-Circumvention

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

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

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

== Optional Readings ==

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

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

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

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

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== Class Discussion ==

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-----

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 14:23, 7 April 2015 (EDT)
----
Beccalew, when I came across the readings this week, I immediately thought about the new streaming service, Tidal. For those who are not aware, here is an article that give an overview on how this service is different from others: http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/apr/05/tidal-10-things-you-need-to-know-jay-z-madonna-music-streaming

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

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

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

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

Assignment 3 Submissions

2015-03-31T21:06:45Z

Tasha:

{{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:''' Abby McHugh (Amchugh)
'''Title:'''Thinspiration and the Regulation of Unhealthy Online Weight Loss Content
'''Link:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Amchugh_Assignment3.docx

----

'''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:''' 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:Assignment_3_Barstoolsports.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)

----
User: batjarks
Title: Mobile Alliance for Maternal Action: privacy in the context of mobile technology and an internationally accessible reproductive health forum

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:BatjarksAssignment3REAL.pdf
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 16:24, 31 March 2015 (EDT)

----

'''User:''' 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/sites/is2015/images/Caelum_Assignment3.pdf

[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 16:59, 31 March 2015 (EDT)
----
User: Tasha

Title:Exploring the complexity of communication in a bodybuilding forum and the impact on social capital

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Tasha_Internet_and_Technology_Assignment_3.docx

[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 17:06, 31 March 2015 (EDT)

File:Tasha Internet and Technology Assignment 3.docx

2015-03-31T21:04:22Z

Tasha: Tasha uploaded a new version of "File:Tasha Internet and Technology Assignment 3.docx"

File:Tasha Internet and Technology Assignment 3.docx

2015-03-31T21:03:06Z

Tasha:

Cybersecurity and Computer Crimes

2015-03-31T19:13:27Z

Tasha:

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''March 31'''

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

== Assignment 3 ==

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

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==

; Cybersecurity

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

; Computer Crimes

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

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

; Case studies

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

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

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

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

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

== Optional Readings ==

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

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

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

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

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

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

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

-----

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chanel

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

----

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

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

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

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

''“To Members:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reference:

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

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

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

2015-03-24T20:02:52Z

Tasha:

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''March 24'''

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

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

<onlyinclude>

== Readings/Watchings ==

; Framing

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

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

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

; Defining hackers, hacking, and hacktivism

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

; Case Studies

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

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

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

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

== Optional Readings ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

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

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

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

What do you all think?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-----

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

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

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

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

-----

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

----

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

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

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

-----

Hi everyone!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Radio/TV profiles that lead the show.

-Auctions on the internet.

-Telephone calls to raise money.

-Projects that anyone can start to raise money.

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

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

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

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

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

-----

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

-----

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

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

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

----

Hello All!

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

Chanel

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

Hello everyone after the spring break!

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'''Why Accountability Matters'''

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

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

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

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

-----

Welcome back from break everyone!
Three topics struck me as fascinating and relevant this week: social movements gaining support through social media, symbolic versus institutional power, and the role of narratives in the acceptance and change of social norms.

One of the common themes that struck me as I read our literature this week (especially the article by Tufecki) is that of a call for a social movement that breaks us out of an existence dictated by mass media. More specifically, I am fascinated that individuals used social media to communicate their messages and eventually gain support for social movements. In the Coleman video, we saw signs of this in the “Anonymous movement” in which people publicly attacked or poked fun of public individuals or symbols that preserve our somewhat “mundane” existence.

I also really enjoyed the discussion of symbolic power versus institutional power. Again, in the Coleman video, the anonymous movement fought for human rights, for example, and eventually was able to positively change social norms, solely with symbolic power.

A perfect recent example that brings these two themes together, along with Tufecki’s third theme of narratives as a driving force for social norms and social change, is the recent public outcry surrounding the Ferguson shooting. Though racism clearly existed in area for some time, a “hands up don’t shoot” narrative was falsely constructed and then spread throughout mass media, and repeated by individuals and organizations with institutional power. It has been discovered that this was a fabricated narrative. Ferguson was a huge topic on social media, and unfortunately countless individuals were misinformed as they banned together for change. It is unfortunate that institutional powers are not always required to apologize for spreading misinformation to the masses, especially because the narratives they spread are given such weight due to their formal power.

[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 16:00, 24 March 2015 (EDT)
----

Etling et al (2010) stated “The Internet also allows new voices to enter the debate by reducing the influence of gatekeepers and by permitting the rise of citizen journalists to engage in previously expensive journalistic, transparency, or fact-checking endeavors.” Social media has become the main avenue that give people the space to demonstrate how community and global issues still matter and that people are still deeply concerned and want to take an active role in making change. Zuckerman(2013) asked the following question, “So I leave you with a question: Civics is changing. How do we help those inspired by The Hunger Games use digital tools to become participatory, passionate and effective civic actors?”

In a university setting, media tools have allowed for student protests to become larger, more engaged, and effective than they would have been with the ability to access or use social media. While working in higher education institutions, I have seen social media movements reach out beyond the university student body to include parents, university administration, peer institutions and the wider community. Today’ students are very adept at quickly organizing social activism networks through email lists and Facebook; but Twitter feeds are a primary artery for soliciting participation and creating solidarity. Here is an article that speaks about the quick organization of protests and the garnering of social support after the arrest of University of Virginia student, Martese Johnson: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3002398/Bloody-arrest-University-Virginia-student-outside-bar-sparks-massive-protest-governor-s-call-investigation.html. This demonstrates how social media and technology has given the opportunity for students’ voices about community concerns that were confined to their particular geographic areas and given them an international. Another recent incident involving a sexual assault investigation at Brown University caused uproar on the campus when an accuser, the child of a Brown corporation member/donor, was not charged. The Brown community used a blog and the hashtag #MoneyTalksatBrown to organize a protest and garner a social movement. You can read more on the blog to see how the students used social media to support their cause: http://bluestockingsmag.com/2015/03/12/moneytalksatbrown/. So while media activism is being called into question, technology allows for students to continue making their voices heard until they receive the attention of the administration and the community listens.

References:
Etling, B., Faris, R., and Palfrey, J. (2010) Political Change in the Digital Age: The Fragility and Promise of Online Organizing.

Zuckerman, E. (2013) New Media, New Civics. Adapted from "New Media, New Civics?"
[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 16:02, 24 March 2015 (EDT)

Assignment 2 Submissions

2015-03-10T15:57:01Z

Tasha:

{{AssignmentCal}}

===Submission Instructions===

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

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

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

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

In the submissions section below please post the following information:

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

==Comments==

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

Ryan Hurley

Facebook & Big Data vs. Your Privacy

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

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

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

----

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

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

----

Hi Ryan – your topic is a very interesting one, and it’s something that I think about a lot as a Facebook user. It will be specifically interesting to see how this manifests itself on a page like Nike’s, where users are particularly engaged with information around new product releases and ad campaigns. I’m curious to see the difference between the information Facebook is able to glean from users engaging with a brand versus what Nike can glean – my hunch is that Facebook is privy to much more information, but they then use it to inform their advertising decisions, which could then affect Nike. I would be curious to hear for sure, though, as you do more research. One other thing that might be worth exploring is the devil’s advocate perspective – that is, are there any ways that Facebook sharing your information with brands could be helpful? Every so often, I see a Facebook ad targeted to me that actually interests me, and in that case, it has benefited me as a consumer. In that sense, the system is working exactly as it was meant to. What’s the benefit versus the cost? Good luck, and I’m intrigued to hear more as you continue to develop the project.

[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 06:32, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

Ryan- I like your topic of Facebook and privacy as this is something that interests many, if not all of us. Several times I have logged into my Facebook and there are advertisments directly suited for me-- although interesting and something I would normally click on, the idea of privacy does comes up. One thing I recommend is to look into the settings tab as I believe there are different ways to control the information shared with others-- it may not be entirely obvious to control but certain settings allow certain information to be shared (or not shared) so you may want to do some deep research with that. I look forward to reading your research!
-Caroline
[[User:Cbore001|Cbore001]] ([[User talk:Cbore001|talk]]) 09:58, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

----
Olivia Brinich

Intentions and Outcomes of Youtube’s Copyright and Coding Regulations

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

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

Hi Olivia,

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

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

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

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

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

Best,

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

----

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

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

• Erika L Rich

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

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

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

----
Hey Erika,

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

----

Hi Erica,

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

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

This is a very interesting topic. Within your prospectus, you made a statement alluding to the deleting of posts due to cultural divide rather than lack of adhering to community guidelines. I think would be a great area to explore further. Why do moderators remove such post that are not against community guidelines and how does this impact community contributions and censorship?

Tasha [[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 11:16, 10 March 2015 (EDT)
----

• Emily MacIntyre (EmiMac)

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

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

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

-----

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

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

Emily,

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

Good luck on your project!

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

----

RE: Mhoching,

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

Thanks Again,

Emily

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

----
• MattK

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

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

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

Hi Matt,

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

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

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

----

Hi Matt – what a fascinating topic! I have never visited John Scalzi’s blog before, but after reading your prospectus, I immediately went to it and started digging into the posts and comments. I think it will be a great microcosm to explore the effects of censorship from a private party, as well as the effects of a very specific set of content rules. This may be too time consuming, but it would be really cool if you could catch some of the offensive comments before they get deleted, so that you can see specific examples of the types of comments John Scalzi will not tolerate. Is he moderating effectively according to the standards he has defined? Are there any posts that are “on the line” that you might have left up?

This could also be a good opportunity to delve into the ideas of Susan Benesch that we read this past week. For example, do you notice any opportunities where counter speech might be more effective than censorship? Once a post is censored, do any users retaliate in a way that suggests they haven’t learned their lesson? Do any users engage with offensive posts before they get taken down?

Looking forward to seeing where your research leads – good luck!

[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 06:42, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Edwin Duque (Edwinduque)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am very interested in your topic; but unlike Gia, I am concerned with the structure. As currently presented, your prospectus is using two distinctly different communities to research information sharing, which makes it feel a bit disjointed. While your background research will be consistent, the exploration of Facebook and Jury X will present some distinct copyright and privacy issues. This is further supported by the differences of your 'Issue' questions for each community. I think once you delve into the topic further, there will be enough information and case studies to focus on one community. Or you can explore issues that are consistent in both communities, which will allow for continuity in your project.

Tasha [[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 11:41, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

-------
Name: Michelle Byrne (Chelly.Byrne)

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

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

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

----

Hi Michelle,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best,
Chanel Rion

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

Good choice in topic. You’ve identified an online community that has a serious need of privacy but also a potentially revitalizing need for contact with others who have had similar experiences. You have clearly already done some good research on how the website operates. Perhaps a next step that could add another layer would be to see what (if any) legal protections the website needs to comply with. Do crime victims get special protection, or if they surrender their information, is it their own fault? Good luck!
[[User:MattK|MattK]] ([[User talk:MattK|talk]]) 23:34, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Hi Michelle – I’m really interested in this topic and curious to hear where your research leads. I think you have developed a really great framework for researching the challenges the community faces. I’m curious whether AfterSilence itself has explicit privacy policies, and if so, what they outline? Also, does the site do any moderating of posts that perhaps reveal “too much” information? On the other hand, I’m curious whether there are any users who don’t have the expectation of privacy, and who willingly share their identity/personal information? If so, how does that affect the dynamic on the site? Based on our readings and discussion about the “right to be forgotten,” it might also be worth doing some Google searches to see what makes certain posts from the site crop up in results. I would be curious to see how Google’s algorithm handles these searches, and whether it is actually publicizing user information beyond what the women on the site might be comfortable with. Looking forward to seeing your continued work on this!

[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 06:52, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

----
Name: Chanel Rion (ChanelRion)

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

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

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

----
Hi Chanel,

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

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

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

RE: Michelle

Hi Michelle,

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

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

Best,

Chanel

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

This is an awesome topic! I am many people utilize such sites when looking for a restaurant or service. Approximately a year ago, I spoke with someone who worked at Yelp and asked many of the questions you are researching. One area that would be interesting for you to explore is user rating. There are users who have premium status; therefore, they have a higher level of 'credibility' with there reviews. It would be interesting to know if there is a vetting system for high level contributors. Additionally, there are quite a few FTC complaints and lawsuits in regards to Yelp and other feedback review systems. Here is a current case that may assist in your research: http://www.scribd.com/doc/244906228/Kimzey-v-Yelp-Inc-Opening-Brief#scribd
[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 11:57, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Name: Becca Lewis (beccalew)

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

Good luck!
/Josefin

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

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

Good luck!

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

----
Hi Becca,

I echo what the others have said: I like the timing and the specificity of the topic. There are certainly a lot of feminist voices on the Internet, but I don’t hear them coming from Reddit too often. I’m eager to hear your final presentation!

This isn’t so much a suggestion as it is a question I don’t know the answer to: are the feminists in those subreddits the community, or does the community include all folks who post? The answer to that question might make your final analysis a little harder to pin down.
[[User:MattK|MattK]] ([[User talk:MattK|talk]]) 23:34, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----
Name: Gary Brown (Gary Brown)

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

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

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

----
Comments on Gary's Prospectus:

Gary,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I look forward to reading your paper.

Best,

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

----

Name: Meagan HoChing (mhoching)

Title: Online Gaming Harassment: All fun and games?

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

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

Hi Meagan,

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

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

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

Best,
Emily

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

----

Hi Meagan!

What an interesting and relevant subject!

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

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

/Josefin

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

----

Hi Meagan!

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

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

Good Luck!
- Ryan Hurley

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

----

Name: Caroline B

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

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

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

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

Name: Jan.Yburan

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

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

----
Hi Jan,

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

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

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

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

Best,

Emily

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

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

----

----

Name: Eric Yuk Lun Kwong (Caelum)

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

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

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

----

Hi Eric,

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

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

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

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

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

Best of luck!

Chanel Rion

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

----

Name: Alex Samaei (Samaei1)

Prospectus title: The Framework of Projects and Backers on Kickstarter

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

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

Hi Alex!

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

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

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

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

Hi Alex,

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

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

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

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

Best,

Chanel Rion

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

:Dear Alex,

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

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

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

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

Name: Gia

Prospectus title: Chivalry online

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

----

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

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

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

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

Michelle

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

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

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

Name: Mishal R. Kennedy

Prospectus title: Enforcing Guidelines Without Harming User Contributions

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

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

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

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

Name: Richard Markow

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Name AlexanderH

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

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

[[User:AlexanderH|AlexanderH]] ([[User talk:AlexanderH|talk]]) 16:10, 3 March 2015 (EST)
----
Hey Alexander,

Great start here. I think you do an excellent job specifically identifying the different forces that are all at work on the site—it’s a user-driven, social platform, but is a corporation and is responsible to shareholders. Transparency in its operations thus becomes vital. You have a good eye for complexity, so I think you’ll have an interesting analysis. With complexity, however, can come difficulty in precision. You have a good lay of the land, but I think you might need to grapple some with what your conclusion might look like (of course, you may just not know yet, which is fine). For example, what would successful transparency look like? Great start!
[[User:MattK|MattK]] ([[User talk:MattK|talk]]) 23:34, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

----
Name: Meredith Blake

Prospectus Title:Identifying Avenues of Recourse for Businesses on Yelp

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

-----
Hello Meredith!

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

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

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

Michelle

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

Name: Wesley Verge

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

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

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

-----

Hi Wesley!

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

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

Best of luck,
Ryan

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

----

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

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

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

--------

Hi Kelly,

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

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

Good luck!

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

--------

Name: Tasha

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

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

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

--------
Hi Tasha,

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

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

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

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

__________

Name: Josefin Sasse

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

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

----

Hi Josefin!

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

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

--------

----

Hi Josefin,

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

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

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

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

Best,
Emily

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

Name: Brooke Tjarks

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

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

--------
:Dear Brooke

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

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

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

:I vote for IMDb.com

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

Rotten Tomatoes is a movie news aggregator, which uses the reviews of people who are part of a guild or association, and who have garnered sufficient likes form users. Users can write their own reviews, which get rated by other users, so there is the social dimension. Rotten Tomatoes is also tied to Flixster.com, which allows users to stream content through the Ultraviolet app (all three owned by Warner Bros.). But, as you are after a space that the industry is involved in, this may not prove to be what you are after (though of course that could depend on your question). IMDb certainly looks like it has all the elements, as Gary points out. The site is owned by Amazon, which is now a producer of content, which could be an interesting factor in the regulation of the site.

Looks like you’ll need to do some exploring, to help define a question that helps bring the project into focus. There might be something in comparing the different degrees of user input on these sites.

Good luck!

[[User:AlexanderH|AlexanderH]] ([[User talk:AlexanderH|talk]]) 10:56, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

----
Name: Abby McHugh

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

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

--------

Hi Abby!

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

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

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

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

Who is active in this community?

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

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

/Josefin

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think this is really cool.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

- Brooke Tjarks here responding to Caelum -

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

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

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

Note: Good luck everyone!

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

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

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

Assignment 2 Submissions

2015-03-10T15:41:15Z

Tasha:

{{AssignmentCal}}

===Submission Instructions===

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

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

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

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

In the submissions section below please post the following information:

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

==Comments==

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

Ryan Hurley

Facebook & Big Data vs. Your Privacy

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

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

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

----

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

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

----

Hi Ryan – your topic is a very interesting one, and it’s something that I think about a lot as a Facebook user. It will be specifically interesting to see how this manifests itself on a page like Nike’s, where users are particularly engaged with information around new product releases and ad campaigns. I’m curious to see the difference between the information Facebook is able to glean from users engaging with a brand versus what Nike can glean – my hunch is that Facebook is privy to much more information, but they then use it to inform their advertising decisions, which could then affect Nike. I would be curious to hear for sure, though, as you do more research. One other thing that might be worth exploring is the devil’s advocate perspective – that is, are there any ways that Facebook sharing your information with brands could be helpful? Every so often, I see a Facebook ad targeted to me that actually interests me, and in that case, it has benefited me as a consumer. In that sense, the system is working exactly as it was meant to. What’s the benefit versus the cost? Good luck, and I’m intrigued to hear more as you continue to develop the project.

[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 06:32, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

Ryan- I like your topic of Facebook and privacy as this is something that interests many, if not all of us. Several times I have logged into my Facebook and there are advertisments directly suited for me-- although interesting and something I would normally click on, the idea of privacy does comes up. One thing I recommend is to look into the settings tab as I believe there are different ways to control the information shared with others-- it may not be entirely obvious to control but certain settings allow certain information to be shared (or not shared) so you may want to do some deep research with that. I look forward to reading your research!
-Caroline
[[User:Cbore001|Cbore001]] ([[User talk:Cbore001|talk]]) 09:58, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

----
Olivia Brinich

Intentions and Outcomes of Youtube’s Copyright and Coding Regulations

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

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

Hi Olivia,

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

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

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

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

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

Best,

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

----

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

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

• Erika L Rich

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

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

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

----
Hey Erika,

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

----

Hi Erica,

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

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

This is a very interesting topic. Within your prospectus, you made a statement alluding to the deleting of posts due to cultural divide rather than lack of adhering to community guidelines. I think would be a great area to explore further. Why do moderators remove such post that are not against community guidelines and how does this impact community contributions and censorship?

Tasha [[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 11:16, 10 March 2015 (EDT)
----

• Emily MacIntyre (EmiMac)

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

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

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

-----

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

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

Emily,

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

Good luck on your project!

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

----

RE: Mhoching,

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

Thanks Again,

Emily

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

----
• MattK

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

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

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

Hi Matt,

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

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

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

----

Hi Matt – what a fascinating topic! I have never visited John Scalzi’s blog before, but after reading your prospectus, I immediately went to it and started digging into the posts and comments. I think it will be a great microcosm to explore the effects of censorship from a private party, as well as the effects of a very specific set of content rules. This may be too time consuming, but it would be really cool if you could catch some of the offensive comments before they get deleted, so that you can see specific examples of the types of comments John Scalzi will not tolerate. Is he moderating effectively according to the standards he has defined? Are there any posts that are “on the line” that you might have left up?

This could also be a good opportunity to delve into the ideas of Susan Benesch that we read this past week. For example, do you notice any opportunities where counter speech might be more effective than censorship? Once a post is censored, do any users retaliate in a way that suggests they haven’t learned their lesson? Do any users engage with offensive posts before they get taken down?

Looking forward to seeing where your research leads – good luck!

[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 06:42, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Edwin Duque (Edwinduque)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am very interested in your topic; but unlike Gia, I am concerned with the structure. As currently presented, your prospectus is using two distinctly different communities to research information sharing, which makes it feel a bit disjointed. While your background research will be consistent, the exploration of Facebook and Jury X will present some distinct copyright and privacy issues. This is further supported by the differences of your 'Issue' questions for each community. I think once you delve into the topic further, there will be enough information and case studies to focus on one community. Or you can explore issues that are consistent in both communities, which will allow for continuity in your project.

Tasha [[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 11:41, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

-------
Name: Michelle Byrne (Chelly.Byrne)

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

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

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

----

Hi Michelle,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best,
Chanel Rion

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

Good choice in topic. You’ve identified an online community that has a serious need of privacy but also a potentially revitalizing need for contact with others who have had similar experiences. You have clearly already done some good research on how the website operates. Perhaps a next step that could add another layer would be to see what (if any) legal protections the website needs to comply with. Do crime victims get special protection, or if they surrender their information, is it their own fault? Good luck!
[[User:MattK|MattK]] ([[User talk:MattK|talk]]) 23:34, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Hi Michelle – I’m really interested in this topic and curious to hear where your research leads. I think you have developed a really great framework for researching the challenges the community faces. I’m curious whether AfterSilence itself has explicit privacy policies, and if so, what they outline? Also, does the site do any moderating of posts that perhaps reveal “too much” information? On the other hand, I’m curious whether there are any users who don’t have the expectation of privacy, and who willingly share their identity/personal information? If so, how does that affect the dynamic on the site? Based on our readings and discussion about the “right to be forgotten,” it might also be worth doing some Google searches to see what makes certain posts from the site crop up in results. I would be curious to see how Google’s algorithm handles these searches, and whether it is actually publicizing user information beyond what the women on the site might be comfortable with. Looking forward to seeing your continued work on this!

[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 06:52, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

----
Name: Chanel Rion (ChanelRion)

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

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

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

----
Hi Chanel,

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

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

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

RE: Michelle

Hi Michelle,

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

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

Best,

Chanel

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

----

Name: Becca Lewis (beccalew)

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

Good luck!
/Josefin

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

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

Good luck!

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

----
Hi Becca,

I echo what the others have said: I like the timing and the specificity of the topic. There are certainly a lot of feminist voices on the Internet, but I don’t hear them coming from Reddit too often. I’m eager to hear your final presentation!

This isn’t so much a suggestion as it is a question I don’t know the answer to: are the feminists in those subreddits the community, or does the community include all folks who post? The answer to that question might make your final analysis a little harder to pin down.
[[User:MattK|MattK]] ([[User talk:MattK|talk]]) 23:34, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----
Name: Gary Brown (Gary Brown)

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

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

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

----
Comments on Gary's Prospectus:

Gary,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I look forward to reading your paper.

Best,

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

----

Name: Meagan HoChing (mhoching)

Title: Online Gaming Harassment: All fun and games?

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

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

Hi Meagan,

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

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

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

Best,
Emily

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

----

Hi Meagan!

What an interesting and relevant subject!

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

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

/Josefin

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

----

Hi Meagan!

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

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

Good Luck!
- Ryan Hurley

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

----

Name: Caroline B

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

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

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

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

Name: Jan.Yburan

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

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

----
Hi Jan,

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

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

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

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

Best,

Emily

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

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

----

----

Name: Eric Yuk Lun Kwong (Caelum)

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

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

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

----

Hi Eric,

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

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

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

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

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

Best of luck!

Chanel Rion

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

----

Name: Alex Samaei (Samaei1)

Prospectus title: The Framework of Projects and Backers on Kickstarter

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

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

Hi Alex!

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

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

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

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

Hi Alex,

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

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

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

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

Best,

Chanel Rion

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

:Dear Alex,

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

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

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

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

Name: Gia

Prospectus title: Chivalry online

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

----

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

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

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

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

Michelle

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

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

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

Name: Mishal R. Kennedy

Prospectus title: Enforcing Guidelines Without Harming User Contributions

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

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

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

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

Name: Richard Markow

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Name AlexanderH

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

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

[[User:AlexanderH|AlexanderH]] ([[User talk:AlexanderH|talk]]) 16:10, 3 March 2015 (EST)
----
Hey Alexander,

Great start here. I think you do an excellent job specifically identifying the different forces that are all at work on the site—it’s a user-driven, social platform, but is a corporation and is responsible to shareholders. Transparency in its operations thus becomes vital. You have a good eye for complexity, so I think you’ll have an interesting analysis. With complexity, however, can come difficulty in precision. You have a good lay of the land, but I think you might need to grapple some with what your conclusion might look like (of course, you may just not know yet, which is fine). For example, what would successful transparency look like? Great start!
[[User:MattK|MattK]] ([[User talk:MattK|talk]]) 23:34, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

----
Name: Meredith Blake

Prospectus Title:Identifying Avenues of Recourse for Businesses on Yelp

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

-----
Hello Meredith!

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

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

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

Michelle

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

Name: Wesley Verge

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

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

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

-----

Hi Wesley!

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

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

Best of luck,
Ryan

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

----

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

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

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

--------

Hi Kelly,

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

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

Good luck!

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

--------

Name: Tasha

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

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

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

--------
Hi Tasha,

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

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

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

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

__________

Name: Josefin Sasse

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

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

----

Hi Josefin!

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

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

--------

----

Hi Josefin,

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

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

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

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

Best,
Emily

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

Name: Brooke Tjarks

Prospectus: Art. Business. Fans. (...) How this collaborative space shapes mass visual media production and worldwide distribution

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Prospectus.Brooke.Tjarks.pdf

--------
:Dear Brooke

:'''Creativity-Online''' does not seem to have the social element that I think the class may be looking for. I get your interest in the structural controls, especially if the structure limits the interaction to just comments from readers. Commenting is a form of ad hoc community that could be a subject all its own, but most of the random articles I looked at did not have comments.

:'''RottenTomatoes.com''' is new to me too. It seems like it is mainly aggregating reviews. So, I guess that is a community of professional reviewers. I did find that by joining you can “'''Rate movies & TV''' and see your friends' ratings, '''Get recommendations''' personalized for you, '''Join the discussion''' with other movie buffs.” I don’t know if the pros interact with the civilians here, but I suspect they read each other’s stuff. If I were writing or creating movies, this would be a place I could go to see what the ordinary folks think, right along with the reviewers.

:'''imdb.com''' may be what you’re looking for. Once you’re a member, there are some privileges, and it would appear there are some controls in place that provide fodder for the project. There is a page I ran across that states it is “Community powered support for IMDb.com" See it at <nowiki>https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics</nowiki>

:I vote for IMDb.com

:[[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 21:26, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----
Hello Brooke,

Rotten Tomatoes is a movie news aggregator, which uses the reviews of people who are part of a guild or association, and who have garnered sufficient likes form users. Users can write their own reviews, which get rated by other users, so there is the social dimension. Rotten Tomatoes is also tied to Flixster.com, which allows users to stream content through the Ultraviolet app (all three owned by Warner Bros.). But, as you are after a space that the industry is involved in, this may not prove to be what you are after (though of course that could depend on your question). IMDb certainly looks like it has all the elements, as Gary points out. The site is owned by Amazon, which is now a producer of content, which could be an interesting factor in the regulation of the site.

Looks like you’ll need to do some exploring, to help define a question that helps bring the project into focus. There might be something in comparing the different degrees of user input on these sites.

Good luck!

[[User:AlexanderH|AlexanderH]] ([[User talk:AlexanderH|talk]]) 10:56, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

----
Name: Abby McHugh

Prospectus Title: From #Thinspiration to “Low Carb Friends”: The Regulation of Online Weight Loss Content

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Amchugh_Assignment2.docx

--------

Hi Abby!

Okay, so I really wich I had chosen this issue. It is great that you did!

To facilitate the work, I would recommend that you are more specific in which websites you are going to explore since there is so much #thinspo content out there. But Twitter, Tumbler, Pinterest, and Instagram are great platforms to explore, together with blogs like you said.

'''Other things you might want to discuss are:'''

What makes the most harm: #thinspo/pro-ana blogs and posts or limitations on freedom of speech by regulating such content? (On my part, I am determined in my opinion that #thinspo is devastating and that regulation in this case is a good thing.)

Who is active in this community?

Could pro-ana be illegitimate harassment? Compare it the possibility of a pro-cancer or a pro-aids community (deadly diseases just like anorexia).

What effects could/does the sometimes lack of regulation have on the community online and offline?
Good luck! You´ve chosen a very interesting subject!

/Josefin

[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 11:08, 5 March 2015 (EST)

----

Abby,
I am so impressed and dare I say jealous that you picked such an important subject for your paper. Here are a few things that come to mind as I read your plan. I hope at least one of them is helpful.
- I LOVE that you have already started a list of references. My critique for your references is to add more scholarly sources to substantiate your conclusions. For example, perhaps a database like “Mintel” or “IBISWorld” will have metrics regarding weight loss CONSUMER trends globally or in the United States. From another angle, you could find articles in scholarly psychology journals or *gasp* BOOKS in the library of a graduate psychology program. I am a student at Pepperdine, too, and I love their graduate psychology library and their electronic databases. If you want me to request anything and have it sent to you, do not hesitate to ask. And from yet another angle, perhaps we could find legal cases that relate to your topic, as well. I would be more than happy to work with you to find more sources because I just love your topic so much.
- Carbohydrates are critical for healthy brain function. Perhaps that is important in your paper, as well? Elephant in the room?
- If you decide to mention similar trends or implications of the “thinspo” trend, maybe consider body building inspiration on social media and blogs and why it is both equally obsessive but healthier.
- Another thing that concerns me about your topic is privacy. Not just the privacy of those with eating disorders, but all individuals participating in the online weight loss chatter. And also, the trend to take pictures of one’s body and put those photographs online. What are the implications of this?

[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 18:26, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----

Note: If I’m a little direct in the comments, I really mean the best. Hope it doesn’t offend anyone. 

Ryan Hurley: I think professor said stay away from these huge websites. Perhaps you could discuss with the professors if Facebook is the right website to focus on?

Olivia Brinich: I think you’re asking a lot of questions to be answered here.

“How does it Pind and protect information, how do copyrighters choose to deal with the individual cases of copyright infringement, and what happens when a clip is wrongfully targeted for copyright violation, i.e., the adverse unintended consequences of Content ID?”

Perhaps you should just focus on one main thesis and explore on that. For example, focusing on how copyrighters deal with copyright infringement, and how that eventually influenced youtube to introduce copyright ID system.

One last issue is whether youtube is too big of a website to focus on. Perhaps you could narrow it down to say, copyright issues for music on youtube.

Erika L. Rich: I think it’s a very broad term to discuss the ethical considerations. Perhaps if you narrowed it down to 1 or 2 main issues you find extremely compelling about the website and community? Or maybe I have simply mistaken your train of thought.

Emily MacIntyre: I like how you had such conviction to talk about youtube that despite its size, its still worth researching about. I think you could also talk a little bit about how these game commentators earn their living by commenting on games. PewDiePie is estimated to earn millions every year. It could show a greater perspective on things if we could see their earnings as well. South Park actually has a very funny episode about commentators commenting on commentators commenting on games on youtube.

Matt K: Do you think that changing the title to reflect your research would make it easier for the reader? (Just a thought) I think its interesting how you mentioned “democratic instrument”, bringing politics into the way his blog is ran. According to the quote you took, Scalzi has indeed used some controls over potential commentators. Furthermore, you should consider that if it’s a blog about all sorts of things, with John’s comments on it, he should also be open to listen to commentators reply to this, especially if its about sensitive topics. If he’s going to filter away those he “considers” as offensive, then perhaps he shouldn’t comment on other things either. (unless the comment really does not have a valid point and is not related to the topic)

Edwin Duque: Good to see you in this class too. I think you should just focus on one website. I’d do JuryX instead of Facebook as professor said big websites aren’t good. Also, you’d need a stronger thesis to connect what the real question is. Is it about allowing free sharing? Or is it about limiting what gets shared? I’m a little confused with your thesis.

Chelly Byrne: I think you have a strong thesis here. The contradictions between sharing information on the internet, and the fear of being exposed would be very interesting. I think you can even go into the subscription process. I assume the website allows anyone to join. This means that even predators could read up on what victims write. Unfortunately, they probably get quite the entertainment from reading it, or pretending to ask “leading” questions. As you said, just a tiny bit of excessive information leaked out could result in a victim being violated again. I guess you could talk about that.

Chanel Rion: Since you’re talking about Yelp and reviews, I’d like to share what I learned from another class. Most of these reviews are at the ends of the spectrum. Unless someone is a regular of Yelp and does a review for every restaurant, the rest of them would be people who had great experiences or really bad experiences. They won’t be bothered to write a review about a mediocre or average restaurant. It’s not worth their time. You could also mention that. Also, do you think there are fake reviews too? I’d go for siteJabbar.

Becca Lewis: Firstly its interesting how you’re talking about Reddit because I’m talking about Digg. I think new beliefs takes time to be adapted by the masses. Feminism isn’t very old, and its on going. I think it takes time for people to adapt to it, so for the short term I won’t be surprised if the discussion board sees a lot of anti-feminism people. But also do bare in mind that these are “beliefs”, just like “liberalism” (which is quite similar to feminism, fighting for individual rights, etc). Not everyone believes in these values, so some disagreements should be expected. I guess an interesting way could be to examine if people become more offensive when they are shown as anonymous. My thoughts are that it is. You could look at reddit discussions compared with the core values of Wikipedia, and why it worked for Wikipedia, but a little hard for Reddit.

Gary Brown: Are there any data on the selection process, or ventures that were rejected? It’s hard to associate it with discrimination if there is no evidence. Since you can’t prove or disprove this, it means “site controls” cannot be determined. Therefore you need to make a new thesis that really reflects the paper.

Meagan Moana HoChing: DOTA is a fun game. My initial response is that with huge amounts of ego on the line, that’s how bullying start. Haha. From what I read and know, it is the architecture that is dominantly the issue. This structure allows the audience to exploit it. I think you could also investigate is how is “harassment” identified as? Calling someone a “loser”? Do note that a lot of cyber bullying are to kids that people know in real life. So can we causally say trash talking is the same as harassing? When NBA players trash talk one another, I don’t think they considered it as harassing. So I guess this definition needs to be very clear.

Caroline B: Perhaps you could mention NPOV as one of their values they used in order to keep readers like yourself going to the website.

Jan Yburan: Second Reddit I saw today. Haha. I think you need to be weary of the upvote system. More popular and famous people would get a self –fulfilling upvote treatment, where as more niche people or radical ones would get less. This way of identifying success might be a little questionable.

Alex Samaei: I’d be more interested in how kickstarter protects pledgers from potential false projects. This seems like a very good question for privacy and control.

Gia:
“New scambaiters can request to be assigned a "mentor" to assist them in learning how to bait.”

I think this is really cool.

“. In the past, scammers were tricked into sending money themselves, which was later given to charity.”

That’s crazy. Not sure who the scammer is now. I’d spend more time discussing the aspect about scammers being scammed by scambaiters, and the moral and ethical implications of it.

Mishal R. Kennedy: I think you have a legit question there. Looking at whether deleting an old post or controlling spambots to be more important. You could also consider that perhaps it was the ease of registration that led to the spambots. Deleting the old posts doesn’t actually go to the root of the problem. I guess you could also talk more about the ease of registration.

Richard Markow: I think you should just talk about 1 or 2 points out of the 5. Don’t think you have enough space to write that much.

Alexander H: Do you think you could also go into the ease of account creation? To attain legitimacy, the website would need real personal data to determine that the petition is signed by a real person. If so the privacy concerns would be the biggest. A deeper look at the terms and agreement is a must.

Meredith Blake: That’s an interesting take on Yelp. I do believe that the reviews are either from the ones who enjoyed the restaurant the most, or the ones that hated it. The ones in the middle won’t be bothered to write a review.

Wesley Verge: Personally I think it is an inevitable part of anonymity and high view count. There’s bound to be a few trolls, but that too is what makes youtube entertaining. I think youtube just needs to make a better flagging system.

Kelly Wilson: You could talk about how the internet might influence more people to be whistleblowers, or even anonymous whistleblowers.

Tasha: I think to begin with you need to bare in mind that a lot of fitness people already know the difference between science and bro-science. I further believe that bodybuilding.com would just allow people to say whatever they want knowing full well it is just a forum. As long as they don’t endorse it, they shouldn’t be liable. But as such, you should also talk about the privacy of fitness people on the website. A lot of them post photos up too, and their diet and schedules.

Josefin S: Nice logo. I don’t really like the age range for kidzworld.com. It doesn’t make sense for 9 year olds to interact with 17 year olds. Furthermore, I wouldn’t want my 9 year old kid to socialize with 17 year old kids and being taught 17 year old stuff. So my biggest concern, as you also mentioned, is how do they keep content separate between different ages to prevent the younger kids to learn the wrong stuff? Or do they not do this at all?

Brooke Ashley Tjarks: Yes, I’d agree with you that IMDB is a good balance between the other two websites. I think by becoming a member, the legitimacy of the votes would become higher. There’s bound to be some sort of influence between people regardless of the platform, so I think IMDB is an interesting one to investigate further.

----

- Brooke Tjarks here responding to Caelum -

Thank you so much for the feedback. I am defintely going with IMBD. Another interesting aspect of the platform is the accuracy of content that the website tries to uphold and the methods that they use to ensure this. For example, users with profiles who edit pages must sign legal documents online (such as NDA's) before editing. The more I thought it over the more I realized how different each of the sites I considered truly are, but IMDB has the most to offer for this assignment. Thank you again for your support.

[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 17:53, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----

Amchugh: I think you could go into internet being free also has its consequences. Since the internet could edit and post something online in a matter of seconds, it becomes very vulnerable for unintended things to hit the net. The filtering has to either occurred before the posting, or after it has been up. When it’s up already, it’s hard to say whether the rest of them would oblige, or would they prefer to continue the troll game. You could talk about the reasons for why Twitter would take it down (assuming that it does not violate Twitter’s policies).

Note: Good luck everyone!

[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 13:43, 6 March 2015 (EST)
----
Hi Caelum,

Thanks for your comments. There are a lot of interesting issues, both legal and ethical and the subject is controversial for sure. Good luck with your project as well!

([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))

Assignment 2 Submissions

2015-03-10T15:18:16Z

Tasha:

{{AssignmentCal}}

===Submission Instructions===

''Please note that we have updated the [[Final_Project#Frequently_Asked_Questions|final project page's FAQ section]] based on some student questions that have come to us over the past week.''

This assignment is due on March 3rd. Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (assignments submitted 4 days late or later will have a maximum grade of 1 point).

Please name your file "wikiusername_Assignment2," where "wikiusername" is replaced with your username, to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment or causing errors in the Wiki by including forbidden characters.'' So if your username is "jdoe" and your file is a Word document your file should be named "jdoe_Assignment2.doc."

Upload your rough draft here: [[Special:Upload|Upload file]]. If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [[Special:ImageList|list of uploaded files]].

In the submissions section below please post the following information:

*Name or pseudonym:
*Prospectus title:
*Link to prospectus: (add your link here)

==Comments==

Everyone will receive an additional participation grade for this assignment. You should read through everyone's proposals after they are uploaded and add constructive comments below the proposal on which you're commenting. Comments should be submitted by March 10th so you have time to incorporate them, if applicable, into your project outline. '''Please remember to sign your comments by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post.''' If we don't know who you are we can't give you credit for finishing this assignment!

Ryan Hurley

Facebook & Big Data vs. Your Privacy

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Prospectus_FB_and_privacy_Assignment_2.docx

[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 16:06, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----
Ryan,
Great topic choice. Without fail, every single time I have a class on Big Data I obsessively delete aspects of my online presence, cut up frequent customer member cards, and google myself. It’s a hilarious cycle. I am so excited to read your paper and I appreciate the range of content you have considered for the paper, as well as the range of your references. I have an online text for another IT class that has a chapter devoted to FaceBook and their privacy issues. Please, email me and I can send it to you. Also, make sure to keep in mind that FaceBook’s relationships with advertisers and users are changing constantly. A three year old article might give you more context for your research, but very likely reports on policies that are out of date.
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 18:38, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Ryan, Great work, I think this is a very interesting area, I think that facebook does in a way uses information to target ads, and also the fact that it associates you with people that you may know is a relevant fact. As far as privacy issues, it would be a good idea to study the subscription agreement to see what is is said with reference to the idea of paying with information, or kind of like the purpose at hand of facebook.
Excellent work, I think that you may be benefited from finding a community in which you can show how this problem is handled to contrast, that just an idea.

Edwin ([[User:Edwinduque|Edwinduque]] ([[User talk:Edwinduque|talk]]) 19:56, 9 March 2015 (EDT))

----

Hi Ryan – your topic is a very interesting one, and it’s something that I think about a lot as a Facebook user. It will be specifically interesting to see how this manifests itself on a page like Nike’s, where users are particularly engaged with information around new product releases and ad campaigns. I’m curious to see the difference between the information Facebook is able to glean from users engaging with a brand versus what Nike can glean – my hunch is that Facebook is privy to much more information, but they then use it to inform their advertising decisions, which could then affect Nike. I would be curious to hear for sure, though, as you do more research. One other thing that might be worth exploring is the devil’s advocate perspective – that is, are there any ways that Facebook sharing your information with brands could be helpful? Every so often, I see a Facebook ad targeted to me that actually interests me, and in that case, it has benefited me as a consumer. In that sense, the system is working exactly as it was meant to. What’s the benefit versus the cost? Good luck, and I’m intrigued to hear more as you continue to develop the project.

[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 06:32, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

Ryan- I like your topic of Facebook and privacy as this is something that interests many, if not all of us. Several times I have logged into my Facebook and there are advertisments directly suited for me-- although interesting and something I would normally click on, the idea of privacy does comes up. One thing I recommend is to look into the settings tab as I believe there are different ways to control the information shared with others-- it may not be entirely obvious to control but certain settings allow certain information to be shared (or not shared) so you may want to do some deep research with that. I look forward to reading your research!
-Caroline
[[User:Cbore001|Cbore001]] ([[User talk:Cbore001|talk]]) 09:58, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

----
Olivia Brinich

Intentions and Outcomes of Youtube’s Copyright and Coding Regulations

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Oliviabrinich_prospectus03.03.15.pdf

[[User:Oliviabrinich|Oliviabrinich]] ([[User talk:Oliviabrinich|talk]]) 15:51, 3 March 2015 (EST)
----
Comments on Olivia's Prospectus:

Hi Olivia,

Let me start by saying I think that Youtube is a great source for your project. I’m not saying that just because I am doing my paper on Youtube. I find the creative ways that people are using it fascinating. Much more so than some of the other platforms.

If I may summarize, you plan to discuss how legal pressures forced Youtube to introduce technologies that changed the user experiences, like Copyright ID. You also mentioned some other (possibly voluntary) technologies that are part of the user experience with the intent to discuss how they impact users. I think they are good ideas and good concepts to write about.

As you rightly point the Youtube community is one of the largest communities on the Internet. I wonder if it might not be taking on too much to try to examine Youtube as a whole. I would suggest selecting a small group that is susceptible to the effects of the technologies you are reviewing. Describe who the group is and how certain characteristics of their make-up or user experience make them particularly sensitive to the technologies you will focus on.

For example I will be focusing on hobbyist inventors. Guys that spend their weekends in the garage putting “junk” together and posting videos about their “inventions” on Youtube. Their content is all original so they are not impacted by Copyright ID. There is very little thumbs up/down. They are a much more “expressive” crowd as the comments indicate.

I’m not trying to discourage you. I think if you pick the right group and tell us why you picked them, it can very interesting. I hope that is helpful.

Best,

[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 19:47, 4 March 2015 (EST)

----

I Olivia, I think that this is a very interesting topic, it revolves around the idea of how you tube deals with privacy, and the balance of how it benefits itself vs. the users. I think that one interesting part I read from your prospectus, and you can also incorporate this idea, was how copyright is dealt in you tube, the idea of how deal when someone may alter or damages someone else's work with out permission, those are certainly great areas, so I think the question would be whether you tube creates a risk to the privacy rights of users as well as copy rights risks and how this could be dealt.
Great work.

Edwin (20:02, 9 March 2015 (EDT))
----

• Erika L Rich

• Title: Reputation Management and Ethical Considerations for Members of the Internet Marketing Super Friends (IMSF) Facebook Group

• Link: [[File:LSTU_E120_Erika_Rich_Assignment_2.docx]]

[[User:ErikaLRich|ErikaLRich]] ([[User talk:ErikaLRich|talk]]) 15:22, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----
Hey Erika,

It's great that you chose to focus on on specific Facebook group for your topic. I am still a bit confused about the purpose of the group and the demographics of its members. Who are the members? What do they gain from membership? How many members are active participants that make substansive contributions versus inactive members? Once your audience understands more about the group itself, they will relate to this example and be more invested in your topic. Another suggestion I have is to focus on the effects of the moderators on the content of the group (instead of cyber security for example). You mention culture differences coming in to play and affecting content. Can you explain that further?
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 18:53, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Hi Erica,

I think you did a wonderful job, it is certainly a very interesting topic, my self I am doing research about facebook for my topic, however I had a little bit of trouble flowing with the issue presented as the problem, maybe if you can include examples to illustrate the paper could flow better, I think the basic idea is the way how facebook handles privacy matters for its benefit vs the benefit of the user, you could go on explaining about htis with examples and your paper will be even greater.

Edwin (20:09, 9 March 2015 (EDT))
----
Hi Erika,

This is a very interesting topic. Within your prospectus, you made a statement alluding to the deleting of posts due to cultural divide rather than lack of adhering to community guidelines. I think would be a great area to explore further. Why do moderators remove such post that are not against community guidelines and how does this impact community contributions and censorship?

Tasha [[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 11:16, 10 March 2015 (EDT)
----

• Emily MacIntyre (EmiMac)

• Prospectus title: A Case Study on the Unintended Legal Consequences and Chilling Effects of YouTube’s Content ID Sweep on its Video Game Commentator Community

• Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Emily_MacIntyre_Assignment_2.pdf

[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 09:41, 2 March 2015 (EST)

-----

Hi Emily, This is a great area, you could find some ideas by examining how users can damage or alter someone else's work and privacy issues, I think that you should explain the law of the particular area, and explain how it applies to the group your are presenting, explain to a specific targeted audience, like tennagers, or famous people, etc, and use qualitative and quantitative data to draw conclusions, and inferences, this could help get the point across that you choose. Great work.

Edwin (20:13, 9 March 2015 (EDT))
----

Emily,

Great job on your prospectus! It is very well organized, and your citations sources are well researched. I found your research really enticing because I had never heard of this sweep, and I consider myself an avid youtube visitor. I think you are on to a great research project. Although the topic is remarkably fascinating, I wonder if investigating and juxtaposing the different types of monitoring will be too large or too abstract for the limit of the project. I also read up on the PewDiePie character cited, and I think it is really fascinating to see that he has 35 mil subscribers, yet chose to turn off his commenting feature because of how volatile he claimed the space was becoming. His specific youtube channel then does not have a community to investigate. But it would be interesting to examine someone or a specific youtube channel that has a similar following as the case study to better help zone in on collecting and investigating data. Thank you for this topic, I am currently reading more about the youtube actions in 2008 and 2013 because I had little to no prior knowledge of both events.

Good luck on your project!

[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 00:09, 5 March 2015 (EST)

----

RE: Mhoching,

Thank you for your comment. I very much like your prospectus topic as well as you can see from my comments below. With regards to my final project, I thought I should reiterate and clarify that my community is the YouTube contributors that concentrate on making Let’s Plays and video game reviews. While it is helpful to find a video with an active comment section, where other users further explain how the ID sweep influences their output choices, in the case of PewDiePie, his decision to turn off his comment section does in part illustrate how YouTube has rapidly evolved. Since Google began catering to commercial enterprises over the original volunteer contributors, some of the volunteer contributors have become increasingly more frustrated and they exhibit their frustration in a variety of ways.

Thanks Again,

Emily

[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 09:37, 5 March 2015 (EST)

----
• MattK

• Home of the Mallet of Loving Correction: John Scalzi's Blog, "Whatever"

• http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:MattK_Assignment2.docx

[[User:MattK|MattK]] ([[User talk:MattK|talk]]) 22:01, 2 March 2015 (EST)
----

Hi Matt,

I am particularly interested in your topic because I believe it is a very small example of what the internet could become or arguably is becoming in regards to free speech. I am very intrigued by the notion of "knowledge is power". What I mean relative to your project is that I believe that those who can control what "knowledge" people receive therefore posses great power. In your case, Scalzi's blog is equipped with a comment section where total control is given to Scalzi on what to allow others to see. By censoring whatever Scalzi sees as "offensive" he is limiting a voice, whether good or bad, and therefore limiting knowledge. I would argue that there's no question that the term knowledge here is used very loosely and there are obvious comments on these sorts of forums which provide no overall good at all, but more importantly the question I think of is how dangerous it would be for one person to posses this sort of "editorial power" to simply delete anything they see unfit. What would happen if other sites also used this sort of policy where whatever is subjectively deemed unworthy of being a comment was deleted? Are there infact other online sites and forums that take this approach? What implications does this approach have for the audience of the site? Does it discourage participation as a sort of chilling effect? It is a scary world to imagine where one party possess the power of what information to provide and what to censor. In this specific case what if the comments are simply against Scalzi and are a disagreement with what he writes? What is to stop him from simply deleting something. I'm curious to know what sort of checks and balances or accountability Scarzi's editorial powers has. I think your subject bears the question of where to draw the line between free speech and productive censorship, an enormously tricky and potentially dangerous distinction.

These are just a few thoughts I had, in any case best of luck it's a great topic.

Thanks,
Ryan Hurley
[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 18:55, 8 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Hi Matt – what a fascinating topic! I have never visited John Scalzi’s blog before, but after reading your prospectus, I immediately went to it and started digging into the posts and comments. I think it will be a great microcosm to explore the effects of censorship from a private party, as well as the effects of a very specific set of content rules. This may be too time consuming, but it would be really cool if you could catch some of the offensive comments before they get deleted, so that you can see specific examples of the types of comments John Scalzi will not tolerate. Is he moderating effectively according to the standards he has defined? Are there any posts that are “on the line” that you might have left up?

This could also be a good opportunity to delve into the ideas of Susan Benesch that we read this past week. For example, do you notice any opportunities where counter speech might be more effective than censorship? Once a post is censored, do any users retaliate in a way that suggests they haven’t learned their lesson? Do any users engage with offensive posts before they get taken down?

Looking forward to seeing where your research leads – good luck!

[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 06:42, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Edwin Duque (Edwinduque)

Prospectus Title:The copyright, privacy and organization challenges that online communities such as Facebook and The Jury Deliberation in the cyber space are faced with

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Edwinduque_Assignment_2.doc

([[User:Edwinduque|Edwinduque]] ([[User talk:Edwinduque|talk]]) 22:10, 2 March 2015 (EST))
----
Hi Edwin,

I like the way you structured your idea. I think that the copyright issue is very interesting and it is worthed spending some more time on it. Exploring the nature of a Facebook post – whether it could be consider as an “idea”, in the Copyright Act specifically states that In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, regardless of the form in which it is described. Or it could be considered as an “original works of authorship” fixed by the author in a tangible way, in which case it would be covered by copyrights. The issue of re-posting someone else’s post with commercial purposes could be interesting to mention as well. It is just an idea, but saying some words about the case with the famous Facebook post “In response to the new Facebook guidelines…. “ might be interesting too. I think that you could also easily link your work to the “right to be forgotten” issues we discussed in class.

Here are some links you might find useful. Good luck!

http://www.nyccounsel.com/business-blogs-websites/who-owns-photos-and-videos-posted-on-facebook-or-twitter/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-social-networking/

([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))
-------
Name: Michelle Byrne (Chelly.Byrne)

Prospectus title: Balancing privacy for victims of sexual crimes with
opportunity for support in online forum AfterSilence.org

Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:ChellyByrne_Assignment2.pdf

[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 07:54, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----

Hi Michelle,

You have chosen a terrifically nuanced community. Indeed, the word “balance” and the question of HOW such a community can possibly approach this word is bound to yield more data and conclusions than the page ljmits of our final project – which is only testimony to the strength of your community research choice. I believe yours is the most psychologically-based prospectus that I have read thus far.

By “psychologically-based,” I mean that I sense that you will be making some conclusions about the specialized mindsets and individuals who are drawn to this community; a community that paradoxically, and in waves, seem to wish for both anonymity and at the same time, a very specific and difficult kind of attention. Anonymous attention. A community that has created a safe haven and yet, has some very troubling cracks, as you point out.

Questions:
Are these cracks mostly user generated? As in, the example you found of the poster who revealed configurable data revealing her identity. If they are mostly user-generated, how prevalent of an instance is this? Of the active users who reveal private information, what instances are accidental or ignorant (as in, thinking they’ll be anonymous by revealing age, town, etc) as opposed to intentional?

Is there some kind of warning or clause in the user agreement that attempts to address this issue of accidentally revealing private information or even purposefully revealing it?

If the user agreement and the rules and guidelines for AfterSilence.org do address this issue and users still post personal information, what are the pros and cons of simply warning users about the risks and then letting users do as they please vs. taking pro-active measures?

If there were pro-active measures for a site host like this to take, what would they be? Message board community reminders? Moderators who redact info? Self-regulation and regulation amongst members? What does regulation in this kind of community actually look like and is it sustainable in its current form?

Many more questions and considerations to make. Good topic choice, succinctly proposed. I wish you all the best in this project and I look forward to reading the final project.

Best,
Chanel Rion

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 11:31, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----
Hi Michelle,

Good choice in topic. You’ve identified an online community that has a serious need of privacy but also a potentially revitalizing need for contact with others who have had similar experiences. You have clearly already done some good research on how the website operates. Perhaps a next step that could add another layer would be to see what (if any) legal protections the website needs to comply with. Do crime victims get special protection, or if they surrender their information, is it their own fault? Good luck!
[[User:MattK|MattK]] ([[User talk:MattK|talk]]) 23:34, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Hi Michelle – I’m really interested in this topic and curious to hear where your research leads. I think you have developed a really great framework for researching the challenges the community faces. I’m curious whether AfterSilence itself has explicit privacy policies, and if so, what they outline? Also, does the site do any moderating of posts that perhaps reveal “too much” information? On the other hand, I’m curious whether there are any users who don’t have the expectation of privacy, and who willingly share their identity/personal information? If so, how does that affect the dynamic on the site? Based on our readings and discussion about the “right to be forgotten,” it might also be worth doing some Google searches to see what makes certain posts from the site crop up in results. I would be curious to see how Google’s algorithm handles these searches, and whether it is actually publicizing user information beyond what the women on the site might be comfortable with. Looking forward to seeing your continued work on this!

[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 06:52, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

----
Name: Chanel Rion (ChanelRion)

Prospectus Title: '''''We the Judges: "Sitejabber", "Yelp", and Communities of User-Generated Business Reviews.'''''

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment2_Prospectus_Rion.docx

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 11:21, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----
Hi Chanel,

The subject of customer generated reviews is certainly huge on the internet. It is beneficial for consumers to get an opinion of a product or restaurant from other people over just what the advertising says. But as you point out, there is a lot of opportunity for libel or slander – especially people just having an ax to grind. It would be interesting to see how Yelp or Sitejabber are being responsible and making an effort to regulate content and protect places being reviewed from harassing content. I like how your approach includes researching any legal cases brought against them; it would be interesting to see if any of them prevail. Also, how do they actually calculate the ratings? Is it an average of overall ratings? Or could bad reviews be hidden away if there become lots of positive reviews? Are businesses sandbagging to increase their ratings?

Overall, this is a great community to look into and I wish you success!

Michelle aka (Chelly)
[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 15:43, 7 March 2015 (EST)
----

RE: Michelle

Hi Michelle,

Thank you for your comments and feedback. I too, am especially interested in the legal angles to this community and I am glad to know I'm not the only one. I will certainly be watching and reviewing and seeking the answers to these questions and also to your specific concerns. All intensely pertinent to how businesses and communities are going to manage tensions with each other -- tensions that have always been here, but are now revolutionized in simply the sheer and complete access that the Internet provides to all of us.

Looking forward to starting this seek and find. Thank you for highlighting questions and focuses, they should prove helpful for such a broad category.

Best,

Chanel

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 16:49, 8 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Name: Becca Lewis (beccalew)

Prospectus Title: '''/r/TwoXChromosomes and /r/feminism: The challenges of promoting feminism on Reddit while upholding the values of privacy and free speech'''

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Final_Project_Prospectus_Becca_Lewis.docx

[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 13:15, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----

Hi Becca!
I absolutely love the theme of your project, it is an exceptional live issue since feminism has been discussed much more this past year than it has been for many years. Therefore, it´s really important to examine the forums in which people have the opportunity to discuss the subject. Great!

I also found it cool that you are thinking about recording a podcast for the project. If you do so, you might consider including an interview with someone active in the specific forums, a professor in gender studies or perhaps two people with different views on the issue?

I have a question about the subreddits you talked about though. You wrote about a ”safe space” for women. Are those subreddits only for women or are they open for anyone who want to discuss feminism and gender roles? If it is a women-only forum, you might also discuss the consequences on that. If not, maybe that has consequences as well. Maybe you should discuss self censorship in the feminism subreddits as well (which is very interesting since Reddit-as you said-values free speech above almost all else)?

Good luck!
/Josefin

[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 10:39, 5 March 2015 (EST)
----
Hello Becca,

Your avenue of research should prove quite illuminating for creating feminist spaces, in online fora dominated by men. Interestingly, your topic dovetails with this weeks readings, concerning hate speech and other charged language, which is used far to readily in online fora. It would be interesting to see if the users in the two subreddits. /r/TwoXChromosomes and /r/Feminism, have tried using counterspeech, when confronted with offensive or antagonising posts. Mind, if the moderator of r/Feminism is in fact trying to subvert this positive feminist space, would that violate any of Reddit's policies? If not, are there any policies governing the role of moderator?

Good luck!

[[User:AlexanderH|AlexanderH]] ([[User talk:AlexanderH|talk]]) 19:44, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

----
Hi Becca,

I echo what the others have said: I like the timing and the specificity of the topic. There are certainly a lot of feminist voices on the Internet, but I don’t hear them coming from Reddit too often. I’m eager to hear your final presentation!

This isn’t so much a suggestion as it is a question I don’t know the answer to: are the feminists in those subreddits the community, or does the community include all folks who post? The answer to that question might make your final analysis a little harder to pin down.
[[User:MattK|MattK]] ([[User talk:MattK|talk]]) 23:34, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----
Name: Gary Brown (Gary Brown)

Prospectus Title: The Effects of Site Controls on Community Objectives: communityfunded.com

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Gary_Brown_Assignment2.docx

[[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 13:18, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----
Comments on Gary's Prospectus:

Gary,

Great topic! I hope to be going out to for crowdfunding by the end of the May. So I will follow your Wiki with interest. (In your proposal you link to crowdfunded. I think you meant community funded. You may want to look at that.)

You mentioned the stated purpose of Communityfunded. But you did not mention their reason for existing. In other words, what started crowdfunding and why would individuals seek funds for their projects from the public and not other traditional sources. Why are people like me willing to go online (to communityfunded) to ask for money, as opposed to going to another site or pitching a Venture Capitalist or a bank? Why would people fund a project on line versus invest in the stock market or Bank CDs?

I think that the answer to those questions goes to the heart of crowdfunding. It also is germane to the “troublesome obstacles” you refer to in your prospectus.

When you mention failed projects, I would suggest that not all failures are the same. I might be willing to invest money in a project I consider socially redeeming even if I thought it had very little chance of success. Where as, if I were investing in some Harvard wiz-kids that profess to have the next Facebook, I might have very different feelings if they went belly up. So you may want to include categories of projects, or claims/expectations in your discussions. As well as any risk factor ratings.

You also mentioned building and keeping trust of supporters. One of the areas that interests me is the ways that Fundraisers generate funding support. Do they rely solely on the site? In other words, is there a pool of would be investors just waiting for the right idea to come around so they can invest. Or is a fundraiser expected to go outside the community and raise interest and drive that interest back to the site? How does that impact the “trust” factor? If I am a one-time fundraiser does it matter all that much what people think about me after I’ve got my money?

You discuss how you will break down funded projects, etc. Is there a way to figure out what various fundraiser did to get funded? Marketing may prove to be more of a factor than the project or its worthiness.

It would certainly be worthwhile to compare and contrast crowdfunding before and after changes in regs that made it easier for the public to invest. And how post reg trends may lead to new regs/controls.

I look forward to reading your paper.

Best,

[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 20:45, 4 March 2015 (EST)

----

Name: Meagan HoChing (mhoching)

Title: Online Gaming Harassment: All fun and games?

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Mhoching_Assignment2.docx

[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 13:50, 3 March 2015 (EST)
----

Hi Meagan,

Every aspect of your prospectus is incredibly interesting to me. I am especially intrigued by how well you have matched up the readings to your topic.

After I read your section on Norms I thought about how you point out that “the gaming system is very competitive” and it made me wonder, if Valve placed more restrictions to prevent bullying could it potentially take some of the pleasure of competition out of the mix. If so, then would some users leave the game because they like the hostile environment, which may be why they chose to play in it in the first place. Keeping this line of thought in mind, perhaps you could find another similar community that has more strict modes of control in place to observe the differences between them.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading your prospectus and I look forward to seeing your finished product.

Best,
Emily

[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 09:25, 5 March 2015 (EST)

----

Hi Meagan!

What an interesting and relevant subject!

I think that it was a very good idea of you to use the Dot Model with the components ”Market”, ”Architecture”, ”Norms” and ”Law”, it makes everything much more clear. I agree with Emily that it would be a good idea to compare DOTA 2 with another game, preferably from another website than STEAM and with another system of regulation. I would find it really interesting to see the result of a such a study and if norms, the language, the members of the site, etc. differ between the two games.

I´m looking forward to see the result! Good luck!

/Josefin

[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 10:16, 5 March 2015 (EST)

----

Hi Meagan!

I think this is a very fascinating topic and one I too almost pursued. I am a bit of a gamer myself and although I don't play DOTA, I do regularly play many different sports games which I have found to have similar issues of harassment and "bullying". I hadn't heard of the STEAM website you're focusing on until I read your assignment, but for anyone who has read really a comment section/forum anywhere, one second you're talking about a video game, the next you have gone down a path of hate and overall disgust of anyone different minded not to mention if it is a competitive game which stirrs up some hostile emotions toward an adversary. I find this particularly interesting when it comes to video games because many people who don't play video games believe that "it's just a game" but on the contrary for many gamers, one can find their self emotionally invested into a game you are taking part in. You feel this overwhelming sense of dedication to it and attachment to what happens in it where you can essentially lose yourself in the game. It is because of this hardwired competitive and primitive feeling and this element of motivation that I believe is so deeply rooted in many gamers that it would be near impossible to ever completely outlaw the harassment or trash talk because it will never stop. However perhaps there is some sort of way to outlaw the harassment that crosses a line by creating real consequence while still allowing some competitive jabbing but that I will be curious to see from your project. I will be also curious to hear what your research finds about the website in particular, I would venture to guess that it is probably similar for communities like the PSN and xboxlive.

I might suggest on top of all this to take a look at games which do not have a competitive nature with other users. This may be difficult to find but I'd be curious to see whether it is harassment you find on forums with these sort of games or rather a cooperative dialogue intended to help one another.

Good Luck!
- Ryan Hurley

[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 16:26, 8 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Name: Caroline B

Title: The Study of Privacy, Accuracy & Order on InsideNova Website and Moving ‘Little Sites’ Up

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:1_Caroline_B.docx

[[User:Cbore001|Cbore001]] ([[User talk:Cbore001|talk]]) 14:45, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----
Caroline,
Something to for your paper is the current statistics on accessing news in the United States (online newspaper versus hard copy newspaper for example), and the devices used to access online news (iphone, android, ipad, laptop, desktop computer, etc). IBISWorld and Mintel might offer up to date statistics on news distribution/access. Google analytics offers insight on specific website views. Perhaps take a look at what the demographics of the visitors of this site are and try to find out why this site attracts these viewers. Comparing this site to other more popular news sites (like CNN as you mentioned) is a great idea. Currently, I think your proposal covers too wide a range of topics, so maybe consider focusing on just a few that you mentioned. (For example maybe narrow it to the three subjects max: privacy, journalists’ / contributors’ / editors’ / monitors’ control of content, the ethical policy of the site). If privacy is a big concern to you, I think you could focus your entire paper around it.
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 19:19, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----

Name: Jan.Yburan

Prospectus title: Reddit.com/r/IAmA its Controls on Privacy and Content

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Jan.Yburan.Assignment2.docx

----
Hi Jan,

This is a really interesting community to build your case study around. Prior to today I have only been on the site a few times to look at subreddits that relate to topics that I am interested in, and since I am not a member I have not considered how the site protects the user’s privacy.

Today I decided to look at the IAmA subreddit to get a better handle of the scope of your project. Consequently, I came across and interesting and fairly benign thread started by an employee of a movie theater and it brought to mind, how does the site handle issues of privacy, libel or defamation against a company or a consumer when an employee engages in what appears at first glance as an anonymous tell all blog that highlights how he/she has witnessed vulgar and perhaps even criminal activity.

Considering your topic and direction you want to take, I think you might want to blend together aspects of the readings from our classes on privacy with the readings for next week’s class on free expression, information, and unwanted speech.

I am looking forward to seeing your completed final project. I am sure it will be very informative.

Best,

Emily

P.S. (Here is the link to the AMA I referenced: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2xz6nb/iama_movie_theater_employee_and_ive_seen_the/)

[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 13:04, 5 March 2015 (EST)

----

----

Name: Eric Yuk Lun Kwong (Caelum)

Prospectus title: The vulnerable voting structure of Digg.com and the gradual
collapse of its popularity and voting legitimacy

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Caelum_Assignment2.pdf

[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 15:11, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----

Hi Eric,

Excellent topic. One that possesses, at once, broad-scale relevance and unusual particularities.

Exploring the reasons for Digg’s failure as a site and as a community, I’m drawn to the question regarding the members themselves.

It would be interesting to compare, if applicable, the kinds of users who are drawn to a voting-type participatory community vs. a community that actually interacts via content and contributions. If clear distinctions can be made here, to then find examples of successful communities that are voter-based and to pinpoint key policies or elements that differentiate sustainable models of voter-based communities compared to content-based contribution communities.

Perhaps it is fundamentally an issue of investment; when users and the outside world view a product as having or requiring minimal investment (as in, saying, or rather, clicking “yes” or “no” to something – voting to “dig” or “bury” a story). Are voting based sites destined to suffer from questions of legitimacy by virtue of being online and being so subjective?

That you will be making parallels to Wikipedia’s platform seems to be a good approach here. Wisely done. Thank you also, for your commentaries – I appreciate the thoroughness in which you approach these topics.

Best of luck!

Chanel Rion

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 11:57, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Name: Alex Samaei (Samaei1)

Prospectus title: The Framework of Projects and Backers on Kickstarter

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Samaei1_Assignment2.pdf

[[User:Samaei1|Samaei1]] ([[User talk:Samaei1|talk]]) 15:37, 3 March 2015 (EST)
----

Hi Alex!

I'm so happy you picked this website because I've donated to various projects on this website, but never took into account the structure of the website and complications due to misappropriating of funding. I find it hard to try to quantify what is appropriate to fundraise, because the topic is subjective. Of course I don't think it would be appropriate to fundraise to support hate speech (if that's what someone is fundraising for), yet I don't find it appropriate to fundraise for movies about starving children, when that money can go to feeding starving children. I hope I'm communicating the subjectiveness of trying to find what would be considered appropriate to raise money for and how it varies from person to person.

But speaking in regards to the Lessig's Dot Model I think the website can be broken down into different sections to address some of the issues you raise. For example, how does the structure of kickstarter promote accountability on the artist/person asking for money? On the donation page for example, a vast amount of information about the artist is available, as well as avenues in which you can contact the fundraiser. So if kickstarter has provided this as a requirement for people to submit or provide when asking to be funded, is it then up to the donor to hold that person accountable? I have the tools on that page to ask the fundraiser for that specific information and continue to follow up on that information. I think once you start looking at specific/deliberate aspects of kickstarter, it will start to inform or control behavior.

I hope this helps! Look forward to reading the final project; happy researching and writing!

[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 00:35, 5 March 2015 (EST)
----

Hi Alex,

I’m interested that you have chosen a community that, you imply, is being targeted not for its failures, but for its successes. A wildfire that is often so much more visible on the Internet than in any other form in history. Speed, access, and instant publicity -- make "success" in society ever more visible, open to targeting, and prone to hijacking. Indeed. It is a great topic for research in this course in particular.

One aspect that could be revelatory is to seek out the kinds of legal cases that have been brought against kickstarter and what litigation the site has to deal with and what kinds of litigation that users potentially enter into.

There’s also a question about user legitimacy. How easy is it for some startup organization to simply use this community and its platform as an elaborate marketing plan? Can a company, for instance, viel itself to be a small time kickstarter that can feed itself funding and manufacture the appearance of democratic success? It would be especially useful to identify who the moderators are and to what extent they exercise control or regulation if any. Does Kickstarter have even the skeleton of some kind of verification system or is the verification over the legitimacy of a proposal entirely user generated? Is this sustainable or are there signs of trouble ahead? What would be a disastrous scenario for this community? To these questions, I think that many clues may be found in the litigation and whatever bad publicity the community has had encounter.

Great topic, culturally relevant community. Thank you for the topic and best of luck for the final.

Best,

Chanel Rion

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 12:31, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----

:Dear Alex,

:From your opening paragraph, I am wondering if you plan to focus on Kickstarter itself, one or more of the projects seeking support through Kickstarter, or the Reddit.com community. Each would seem to present a different community/sub-community based on the same general subject. Coverying all three could be a little broad for this size project.

:I think the issues you present are one of the more interesting subject areas of crowdfunding sites – who is the gatekeeper and how are projects screened? The authority to control and manner of control by the site owner, community, or government touches on many of our subject areas. It should be fertile ground for your project. I would plan carefully whether to go deeply into limited subject matter, or cover several subjects more broadly in the time and space you have. Either way, you have a site that should meet fit your plan.

:I wish you success, and I look forward to reading your work.

:[[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 19:23, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----

Name: Gia

Prospectus title: Chivalry online

Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Gia_Assignment2.docx
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 15:46, 3 March 2015 (EST))

----

Hi Gia, this is a great topic, I think the importance of this group is very high, it serves greatly to the public to prevent scams, and I wondered if the public service it provides weights in the privacy issue when it comes to the issue of finding out scams and finding information, where are the boundaries, great topic, maybe you can illustrate your topic with examples and explain how the law applies to those various kinds, great work!!!>

Edwin ([[User:Edwinduque|Edwinduque]] ([[User talk:Edwinduque|talk]]) 20:25, 9 March 2015 (EDT))
----
Hi Gia,

This topic is definitely flushing out the seedier side of the internet! I have never heard of this site 419eater, but we all know the dangers of scammers and how they use the internet. How do they find their victims? Some scams are so realistic as to mention names of loved ones in danger and demand money be expedited. The scam baiters you’re talking about here must be trolling similar sites and circles to identify culprits they need want to go after. But in doing so, are they just as much at fault as the original scammers? Is there any regulation of the members? I can definitely see an ethical dilemma, as you point out, of some possibly unscrupulous members. And your question of whether they have extended their existence outside the online world is a very interesting consideration.

You a have a lot of good sources listed regarding scams (white collar crime and Ponzi schemes too!). Good luck, this is an intriguing subject!

Michelle

[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 15:57, 7 March 2015 (EST)
----
Re: Michelle

Thanks for the comments, Michelle. I definitely intend to explore the subject from both sides, because there could be really two, maybe even more , points of view. Regarding the legal regulation, there is a lot to be said – interned jurisdiction. The self-regulation of the web community which is evolving with the time is also a nice starting point.
Thank again for the ideas and good luck to you too with your work!

([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))
----

Name: Mishal R. Kennedy

Prospectus title: Enforcing Guidelines Without Harming User Contributions

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Mishal_R._Kennedy_Assignment2.rtf
([[User:Mishal R. Kennedy|Mishal R. Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Mishal R. Kennedy|talk]]) 15:51, 3 March 2015 (EST))
----
Hi Mishal,

The subject you have chosen is very interesting and gives great opportunities for discussions and analyses. I would directly make a reference to the Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0, which we discussed during “Paradigms for Studying the Internet’ class. You could explore the methods used by the moderators and administrators as a way of self regulation of the community. The question you asked whether these methods are causing more bad than good, is right to the point.
I would suggest you explain in more details the different methods of control used my the moderators and perhaps compare them with the ones used by other communities. You could also take a look if it is explicitly listed in the Terms of Use of the website in which case what measure is taken? Is there a higher authority than the moderator to whom a sanctioned user could complain? Could such a decision “be appealed” or it is final and definitive? Is there at all a hierarchy in the administration of the website?
Here are some sources which might help. Good luck!

https://www.academia.edu/3079184/COAT_Collaborative_Outgoing_Anti-Spam_Technique
http://www.yildiz.edu.tr/~aktas/courses/CE-0114890/g8-p3.pdf
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~kksivara/sfwr4c03/projects/4c03projects/CGLucas-Project.pdf
http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM11/paper/viewFile/2780/3296

([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))
-----

Name: Richard Markow

Prospectus title: The YouTube video-sharing platform & The Community of Alternative Heating Systems and Appliance Inventors

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Rich_Markow_Assignment_2_Prospectus.pdf

[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 16:03, 3 March 2015 (EST)
----
:Dear Richard,

:I am most interested in how you plan to use the YouTube channel with your invention and how you will relate that effort to our project here. Do I understand that you will try to create a community within your channel, and that will be the subject community? Or, is the plan to take one of the five areas you have mentioned and focus on one or more of them? I am having a little difficulty seeing from the prospectus what your focus will be and how your invention channel will relate to the analysis.

:Your third subject sounds like an especially interesting area to me: “legal liability of user generated content related to unproven claims and inventions.” From Mentos in soda, to instructions on building who knows what, who if anyone has liability for misguided attempts to imitate these videos? Is there really anything that YouTube as an intermediary could do?

: Congratulations on your invention. I hope that you will be able to bring it to the market successfully.

:[[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 20:38, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----

Name AlexanderH

Prospectus Title: Managing the Petitions of Change.org: B Corps, Social Enterprise and Transparency

Link:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:AlexanderH_Assignment_2_Prospectus.docx

[[User:AlexanderH|AlexanderH]] ([[User talk:AlexanderH|talk]]) 16:10, 3 March 2015 (EST)
----
Hey Alexander,

Great start here. I think you do an excellent job specifically identifying the different forces that are all at work on the site—it’s a user-driven, social platform, but is a corporation and is responsible to shareholders. Transparency in its operations thus becomes vital. You have a good eye for complexity, so I think you’ll have an interesting analysis. With complexity, however, can come difficulty in precision. You have a good lay of the land, but I think you might need to grapple some with what your conclusion might look like (of course, you may just not know yet, which is fine). For example, what would successful transparency look like? Great start!
[[User:MattK|MattK]] ([[User talk:MattK|talk]]) 23:34, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

----
Name: Meredith Blake

Prospectus Title:Identifying Avenues of Recourse for Businesses on Yelp

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Meredith_Blake._Assignment_2.docx
[[User:Meredithmblake|Meredith]] ([[User talk:Meredithmblake|talk]]) 16:13, 3 March 2015 (EST)

-----
Hello Meredith!

I think this is a great topic and you have a very interesting approach. I haven’t really looked into Yelp and the lawsuit angle, but they certainly have a lot of influence on the internet. Out of curiosity, I just Googled about 10 different restaurants in this area and the results had the Yelp review either as the second or third site listed! So potential customers are seeing the Yelp rating almost before the actual websites in a couple of cases! There is little recourse for them, and as you show by the Sia example, a disgruntled customer can reach out and cause a flood of terrible reviews, from people who weren’t even customers! Caelum makes a good point in the summary at the bottom that reviews are either one end of the spectrum or the other… disgruntled customers wanting to air their displeasure or someone extremely happy who wants to rave about it.

It is good to take a targeted approach to such a large community, and looking into the recourse that businesses may have as well as existing lawsuits sounds like a good approach. If a suit is successful, what are the actual outcomes? Does Yelp take down reviews or adjust the ratings? I think people who expound on sites that give a platform are really missing the spirit of free speech. I don’t think your approach is that unpopular, not that free speech needs to be regulated, but that there should be some modicum of self-restraint and freedom to say anything is not absolutely protected.

Good luck on this, you’ve got some really good ideas!

Michelle

[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 16:14, 7 March 2015 (EST)
-----

Name: Wesley Verge

Prospectus Title : Scrolling into Darkness -- An investigation into the regulatory forces at work in Youtube's comment section

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Wesley_Verge_Prospectus.txt

[[User:WesleyVerge|WesleyVerge]] ([[User talk:WesleyVerge|talk]]) 16:19, 3 March 2015 (EST)

-----

Hi Wesley!

I am very intrigued by the "solutions" there are to change the culture of the comment sections. It is really an intriguing phenomenon that one could be watching a video about puppies and suddenly 4 comments down glance over an argument that Obama was sent by satan himself to destroy the world. I've always been curious as to how this has not been regulated more strictly. I think you raise great points why and the concerns Google is faced with. If I were doing this project I might also attempt to compare this to other sites as well that must face similar challenges. For example you suggest in your assignment that youtube channels direct traffic to sites like Reddit, but is that really an escape for the channel as this implies? Can these "trolls" not go over to reddit to promote their hate just as easily, or do they have different solutions in play that regulate these sorts of issues better? As far as I know both are anonymous to an extent so with this anonymity many of these trolls have "keyboard muscles" as I like to call them. I can understand twitter because many times it is much more personal but even there people can create fake accounts and troll all the same, just see Jimmy Kimmels skit on celebrity reading mean tweets.

I really like your focus on famous YouTubers I just think it may also be beneficial and worth mentioning how other sites with the same prevalent issue have tried to combat trolling. Also from a legal side, are all of these comments protected by the law and free speech? Perhaps because of the enormity of all the comments and comment sections, it is simply impossible to regulate what is said in every section from a legal perspective. Food for thought, but in any case great project idea.

Best of luck,
Ryan

[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 16:56, 8 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Prospectus Title: Knocking the Wind out of Whistleblowers: The US' response to the growing threat from WikiLeaks

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Kelly.WilsonAssignment_2.docx

[[User:Kelly.wilson|Kelly.wilson]] ([[User talk:Kelly.wilson|talk]]) 16:38, 3 March 2015 (EST)

--------

Hi Kelly,

Interesting topic. There are a couple of perspectives you may want to consider about when defining what you mean by Whistleblower and the response in each situation. 1) Exposing illegal acts. 2) Exposing immoral acts. 3) Exposing Acts designed to embarrassed your political opponents or as retribution.

Should they all be treated the same and afforded equal protection?

Good luck!

[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 00:10, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

--------

Name: Tasha

Prospectus Title: Exploring the Complexity of Rapidly Evolving Information in a Bodybuilding Forum and the Challenges of Quality Assurance

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Tasha_Assignment_2_Prospectus.docx

Tasha[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 17:12, 3 March 2015 (EST)

--------
Hi Tasha,

I like a lot your choice of community . It is unusual and at the same time you could find a lot of things to explore-both from legal and ethical stand point.
I would say that your questions and reflections are on the right track. I think that one of the issues you could explore is the fact that they are often used as a platform for unlicensed sell of drugs. If you choose to go for this, you should have to take a good look on the definitions in order to differ “Drugs” for “Nutrition Supplements” because this is the tricky moment. How the website is protecting itself from such kind of activity (by its Terms of use or in other ways) , might be interesting as well.
Above you could find two links that might be of some use. Good luck!

The first is little bit old but interesting:
http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t000525b.html

http://health.wusf.usf.edu/post/unlicensed-pharmacies-selling-compounded-drugs-online

([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))

__________

Name: Josefin Sasse

Prospectus Title: A case study on the children's website Kidzworld and how they deal with threats against being a safe environment for children.

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:JosefinSasse.pdf
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 17:26, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----

Hi Josefin!

I find your topic utterly intriguing. I had no idea such a website existed and it's been quite fascinating just poking around the website a little bit. I think it is a very valid point to raise about "who monitors Kidzworld", because there doesn't seem to be much of a screening process to ensure the user that is signing up for an account is in fact between the ages of 9-17. Also, I see you have cited the Pew Research Center study from the readings, which is a great resource for dissecting the demographics and statistics of harassment, but the study was done on "young adults" ranging from 18-29, and "young women" between the ages of 18-24 years old. Which I hope illuminates, rather than complicates, the issue of doing research on a demographic ranging from 9-17, but more so how do you set up a website that serves a population that would need adult consent to participate in almost everything they do. Along with privacy issues, I think the question of who is responsible for what and for whom is a great aspect you have raised in your paper! I would love to stay in touch and see the developments of your paper if that would be okay. I think this is the perfect website to investigate for this project.

[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 00:10, 5 March 2015 (EST)

--------

----

Hi Josefin,

I think you picked a great online community to explore for your final project, not only because it is a social space for a specific group, but also because there seems to be some fairly strict regulations in place to maintain a safe environment for kids.

It might be interesting if you could find some weakness in its structure. For example can kids go into private chats or are all the chats and comment sections being screened. If they are being screened, is it by a computer generated logarithm or real people?

Another question that you could delve into is, how do the site’s administrators know the users are minors. Do they require parents’ permission? If so how do they prove it is actually a real parent?

I hope these suggestions are helpful. I am looking forward to seeing your finished project.

Best,
Emily

[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 00:13, 5 March 2015 (EST)
----

Name: Brooke Tjarks

Prospectus: Art. Business. Fans. (...) How this collaborative space shapes mass visual media production and worldwide distribution

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Prospectus.Brooke.Tjarks.pdf

--------
:Dear Brooke

:'''Creativity-Online''' does not seem to have the social element that I think the class may be looking for. I get your interest in the structural controls, especially if the structure limits the interaction to just comments from readers. Commenting is a form of ad hoc community that could be a subject all its own, but most of the random articles I looked at did not have comments.

:'''RottenTomatoes.com''' is new to me too. It seems like it is mainly aggregating reviews. So, I guess that is a community of professional reviewers. I did find that by joining you can “'''Rate movies & TV''' and see your friends' ratings, '''Get recommendations''' personalized for you, '''Join the discussion''' with other movie buffs.” I don’t know if the pros interact with the civilians here, but I suspect they read each other’s stuff. If I were writing or creating movies, this would be a place I could go to see what the ordinary folks think, right along with the reviewers.

:'''imdb.com''' may be what you’re looking for. Once you’re a member, there are some privileges, and it would appear there are some controls in place that provide fodder for the project. There is a page I ran across that states it is “Community powered support for IMDb.com" See it at <nowiki>https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics</nowiki>

:I vote for IMDb.com

:[[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 21:26, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----
Hello Brooke,

Rotten Tomatoes is a movie news aggregator, which uses the reviews of people who are part of a guild or association, and who have garnered sufficient likes form users. Users can write their own reviews, which get rated by other users, so there is the social dimension. Rotten Tomatoes is also tied to Flixster.com, which allows users to stream content through the Ultraviolet app (all three owned by Warner Bros.). But, as you are after a space that the industry is involved in, this may not prove to be what you are after (though of course that could depend on your question). IMDb certainly looks like it has all the elements, as Gary points out. The site is owned by Amazon, which is now a producer of content, which could be an interesting factor in the regulation of the site.

Looks like you’ll need to do some exploring, to help define a question that helps bring the project into focus. There might be something in comparing the different degrees of user input on these sites.

Good luck!

[[User:AlexanderH|AlexanderH]] ([[User talk:AlexanderH|talk]]) 10:56, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

----
Name: Abby McHugh

Prospectus Title: From #Thinspiration to “Low Carb Friends”: The Regulation of Online Weight Loss Content

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Amchugh_Assignment2.docx

--------

Hi Abby!

Okay, so I really wich I had chosen this issue. It is great that you did!

To facilitate the work, I would recommend that you are more specific in which websites you are going to explore since there is so much #thinspo content out there. But Twitter, Tumbler, Pinterest, and Instagram are great platforms to explore, together with blogs like you said.

'''Other things you might want to discuss are:'''

What makes the most harm: #thinspo/pro-ana blogs and posts or limitations on freedom of speech by regulating such content? (On my part, I am determined in my opinion that #thinspo is devastating and that regulation in this case is a good thing.)

Who is active in this community?

Could pro-ana be illegitimate harassment? Compare it the possibility of a pro-cancer or a pro-aids community (deadly diseases just like anorexia).

What effects could/does the sometimes lack of regulation have on the community online and offline?
Good luck! You´ve chosen a very interesting subject!

/Josefin

[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 11:08, 5 March 2015 (EST)

----

Abby,
I am so impressed and dare I say jealous that you picked such an important subject for your paper. Here are a few things that come to mind as I read your plan. I hope at least one of them is helpful.
- I LOVE that you have already started a list of references. My critique for your references is to add more scholarly sources to substantiate your conclusions. For example, perhaps a database like “Mintel” or “IBISWorld” will have metrics regarding weight loss CONSUMER trends globally or in the United States. From another angle, you could find articles in scholarly psychology journals or *gasp* BOOKS in the library of a graduate psychology program. I am a student at Pepperdine, too, and I love their graduate psychology library and their electronic databases. If you want me to request anything and have it sent to you, do not hesitate to ask. And from yet another angle, perhaps we could find legal cases that relate to your topic, as well. I would be more than happy to work with you to find more sources because I just love your topic so much.
- Carbohydrates are critical for healthy brain function. Perhaps that is important in your paper, as well? Elephant in the room?
- If you decide to mention similar trends or implications of the “thinspo” trend, maybe consider body building inspiration on social media and blogs and why it is both equally obsessive but healthier.
- Another thing that concerns me about your topic is privacy. Not just the privacy of those with eating disorders, but all individuals participating in the online weight loss chatter. And also, the trend to take pictures of one’s body and put those photographs online. What are the implications of this?

[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 18:26, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----

Note: If I’m a little direct in the comments, I really mean the best. Hope it doesn’t offend anyone. 

Ryan Hurley: I think professor said stay away from these huge websites. Perhaps you could discuss with the professors if Facebook is the right website to focus on?

Olivia Brinich: I think you’re asking a lot of questions to be answered here.

“How does it Pind and protect information, how do copyrighters choose to deal with the individual cases of copyright infringement, and what happens when a clip is wrongfully targeted for copyright violation, i.e., the adverse unintended consequences of Content ID?”

Perhaps you should just focus on one main thesis and explore on that. For example, focusing on how copyrighters deal with copyright infringement, and how that eventually influenced youtube to introduce copyright ID system.

One last issue is whether youtube is too big of a website to focus on. Perhaps you could narrow it down to say, copyright issues for music on youtube.

Erika L. Rich: I think it’s a very broad term to discuss the ethical considerations. Perhaps if you narrowed it down to 1 or 2 main issues you find extremely compelling about the website and community? Or maybe I have simply mistaken your train of thought.

Emily MacIntyre: I like how you had such conviction to talk about youtube that despite its size, its still worth researching about. I think you could also talk a little bit about how these game commentators earn their living by commenting on games. PewDiePie is estimated to earn millions every year. It could show a greater perspective on things if we could see their earnings as well. South Park actually has a very funny episode about commentators commenting on commentators commenting on games on youtube.

Matt K: Do you think that changing the title to reflect your research would make it easier for the reader? (Just a thought) I think its interesting how you mentioned “democratic instrument”, bringing politics into the way his blog is ran. According to the quote you took, Scalzi has indeed used some controls over potential commentators. Furthermore, you should consider that if it’s a blog about all sorts of things, with John’s comments on it, he should also be open to listen to commentators reply to this, especially if its about sensitive topics. If he’s going to filter away those he “considers” as offensive, then perhaps he shouldn’t comment on other things either. (unless the comment really does not have a valid point and is not related to the topic)

Edwin Duque: Good to see you in this class too. I think you should just focus on one website. I’d do JuryX instead of Facebook as professor said big websites aren’t good. Also, you’d need a stronger thesis to connect what the real question is. Is it about allowing free sharing? Or is it about limiting what gets shared? I’m a little confused with your thesis.

Chelly Byrne: I think you have a strong thesis here. The contradictions between sharing information on the internet, and the fear of being exposed would be very interesting. I think you can even go into the subscription process. I assume the website allows anyone to join. This means that even predators could read up on what victims write. Unfortunately, they probably get quite the entertainment from reading it, or pretending to ask “leading” questions. As you said, just a tiny bit of excessive information leaked out could result in a victim being violated again. I guess you could talk about that.

Chanel Rion: Since you’re talking about Yelp and reviews, I’d like to share what I learned from another class. Most of these reviews are at the ends of the spectrum. Unless someone is a regular of Yelp and does a review for every restaurant, the rest of them would be people who had great experiences or really bad experiences. They won’t be bothered to write a review about a mediocre or average restaurant. It’s not worth their time. You could also mention that. Also, do you think there are fake reviews too? I’d go for siteJabbar.

Becca Lewis: Firstly its interesting how you’re talking about Reddit because I’m talking about Digg. I think new beliefs takes time to be adapted by the masses. Feminism isn’t very old, and its on going. I think it takes time for people to adapt to it, so for the short term I won’t be surprised if the discussion board sees a lot of anti-feminism people. But also do bare in mind that these are “beliefs”, just like “liberalism” (which is quite similar to feminism, fighting for individual rights, etc). Not everyone believes in these values, so some disagreements should be expected. I guess an interesting way could be to examine if people become more offensive when they are shown as anonymous. My thoughts are that it is. You could look at reddit discussions compared with the core values of Wikipedia, and why it worked for Wikipedia, but a little hard for Reddit.

Gary Brown: Are there any data on the selection process, or ventures that were rejected? It’s hard to associate it with discrimination if there is no evidence. Since you can’t prove or disprove this, it means “site controls” cannot be determined. Therefore you need to make a new thesis that really reflects the paper.

Meagan Moana HoChing: DOTA is a fun game. My initial response is that with huge amounts of ego on the line, that’s how bullying start. Haha. From what I read and know, it is the architecture that is dominantly the issue. This structure allows the audience to exploit it. I think you could also investigate is how is “harassment” identified as? Calling someone a “loser”? Do note that a lot of cyber bullying are to kids that people know in real life. So can we causally say trash talking is the same as harassing? When NBA players trash talk one another, I don’t think they considered it as harassing. So I guess this definition needs to be very clear.

Caroline B: Perhaps you could mention NPOV as one of their values they used in order to keep readers like yourself going to the website.

Jan Yburan: Second Reddit I saw today. Haha. I think you need to be weary of the upvote system. More popular and famous people would get a self –fulfilling upvote treatment, where as more niche people or radical ones would get less. This way of identifying success might be a little questionable.

Alex Samaei: I’d be more interested in how kickstarter protects pledgers from potential false projects. This seems like a very good question for privacy and control.

Gia:
“New scambaiters can request to be assigned a "mentor" to assist them in learning how to bait.”

I think this is really cool.

“. In the past, scammers were tricked into sending money themselves, which was later given to charity.”

That’s crazy. Not sure who the scammer is now. I’d spend more time discussing the aspect about scammers being scammed by scambaiters, and the moral and ethical implications of it.

Mishal R. Kennedy: I think you have a legit question there. Looking at whether deleting an old post or controlling spambots to be more important. You could also consider that perhaps it was the ease of registration that led to the spambots. Deleting the old posts doesn’t actually go to the root of the problem. I guess you could also talk more about the ease of registration.

Richard Markow: I think you should just talk about 1 or 2 points out of the 5. Don’t think you have enough space to write that much.

Alexander H: Do you think you could also go into the ease of account creation? To attain legitimacy, the website would need real personal data to determine that the petition is signed by a real person. If so the privacy concerns would be the biggest. A deeper look at the terms and agreement is a must.

Meredith Blake: That’s an interesting take on Yelp. I do believe that the reviews are either from the ones who enjoyed the restaurant the most, or the ones that hated it. The ones in the middle won’t be bothered to write a review.

Wesley Verge: Personally I think it is an inevitable part of anonymity and high view count. There’s bound to be a few trolls, but that too is what makes youtube entertaining. I think youtube just needs to make a better flagging system.

Kelly Wilson: You could talk about how the internet might influence more people to be whistleblowers, or even anonymous whistleblowers.

Tasha: I think to begin with you need to bare in mind that a lot of fitness people already know the difference between science and bro-science. I further believe that bodybuilding.com would just allow people to say whatever they want knowing full well it is just a forum. As long as they don’t endorse it, they shouldn’t be liable. But as such, you should also talk about the privacy of fitness people on the website. A lot of them post photos up too, and their diet and schedules.

Josefin S: Nice logo. I don’t really like the age range for kidzworld.com. It doesn’t make sense for 9 year olds to interact with 17 year olds. Furthermore, I wouldn’t want my 9 year old kid to socialize with 17 year old kids and being taught 17 year old stuff. So my biggest concern, as you also mentioned, is how do they keep content separate between different ages to prevent the younger kids to learn the wrong stuff? Or do they not do this at all?

Brooke Ashley Tjarks: Yes, I’d agree with you that IMDB is a good balance between the other two websites. I think by becoming a member, the legitimacy of the votes would become higher. There’s bound to be some sort of influence between people regardless of the platform, so I think IMDB is an interesting one to investigate further.

----

- Brooke Tjarks here responding to Caelum -

Thank you so much for the feedback. I am defintely going with IMBD. Another interesting aspect of the platform is the accuracy of content that the website tries to uphold and the methods that they use to ensure this. For example, users with profiles who edit pages must sign legal documents online (such as NDA's) before editing. The more I thought it over the more I realized how different each of the sites I considered truly are, but IMDB has the most to offer for this assignment. Thank you again for your support.

[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 17:53, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----

Amchugh: I think you could go into internet being free also has its consequences. Since the internet could edit and post something online in a matter of seconds, it becomes very vulnerable for unintended things to hit the net. The filtering has to either occurred before the posting, or after it has been up. When it’s up already, it’s hard to say whether the rest of them would oblige, or would they prefer to continue the troll game. You could talk about the reasons for why Twitter would take it down (assuming that it does not violate Twitter’s policies).

Note: Good luck everyone!

[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 13:43, 6 March 2015 (EST)
----
Hi Caelum,

Thanks for your comments. There are a lot of interesting issues, both legal and ethical and the subject is controversial for sure. Good luck with your project as well!

([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))

Assignment 2 Submissions

2015-03-10T15:16:46Z

Tasha:

{{AssignmentCal}}

===Submission Instructions===

''Please note that we have updated the [[Final_Project#Frequently_Asked_Questions|final project page's FAQ section]] based on some student questions that have come to us over the past week.''

This assignment is due on March 3rd. Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (assignments submitted 4 days late or later will have a maximum grade of 1 point).

Please name your file "wikiusername_Assignment2," where "wikiusername" is replaced with your username, to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment or causing errors in the Wiki by including forbidden characters.'' So if your username is "jdoe" and your file is a Word document your file should be named "jdoe_Assignment2.doc."

Upload your rough draft here: [[Special:Upload|Upload file]]. If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [[Special:ImageList|list of uploaded files]].

In the submissions section below please post the following information:

*Name or pseudonym:
*Prospectus title:
*Link to prospectus: (add your link here)

==Comments==

Everyone will receive an additional participation grade for this assignment. You should read through everyone's proposals after they are uploaded and add constructive comments below the proposal on which you're commenting. Comments should be submitted by March 10th so you have time to incorporate them, if applicable, into your project outline. '''Please remember to sign your comments by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post.''' If we don't know who you are we can't give you credit for finishing this assignment!

Ryan Hurley

Facebook & Big Data vs. Your Privacy

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Prospectus_FB_and_privacy_Assignment_2.docx

[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 16:06, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----
Ryan,
Great topic choice. Without fail, every single time I have a class on Big Data I obsessively delete aspects of my online presence, cut up frequent customer member cards, and google myself. It’s a hilarious cycle. I am so excited to read your paper and I appreciate the range of content you have considered for the paper, as well as the range of your references. I have an online text for another IT class that has a chapter devoted to FaceBook and their privacy issues. Please, email me and I can send it to you. Also, make sure to keep in mind that FaceBook’s relationships with advertisers and users are changing constantly. A three year old article might give you more context for your research, but very likely reports on policies that are out of date.
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 18:38, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Ryan, Great work, I think this is a very interesting area, I think that facebook does in a way uses information to target ads, and also the fact that it associates you with people that you may know is a relevant fact. As far as privacy issues, it would be a good idea to study the subscription agreement to see what is is said with reference to the idea of paying with information, or kind of like the purpose at hand of facebook.
Excellent work, I think that you may be benefited from finding a community in which you can show how this problem is handled to contrast, that just an idea.

Edwin ([[User:Edwinduque|Edwinduque]] ([[User talk:Edwinduque|talk]]) 19:56, 9 March 2015 (EDT))

----

Hi Ryan – your topic is a very interesting one, and it’s something that I think about a lot as a Facebook user. It will be specifically interesting to see how this manifests itself on a page like Nike’s, where users are particularly engaged with information around new product releases and ad campaigns. I’m curious to see the difference between the information Facebook is able to glean from users engaging with a brand versus what Nike can glean – my hunch is that Facebook is privy to much more information, but they then use it to inform their advertising decisions, which could then affect Nike. I would be curious to hear for sure, though, as you do more research. One other thing that might be worth exploring is the devil’s advocate perspective – that is, are there any ways that Facebook sharing your information with brands could be helpful? Every so often, I see a Facebook ad targeted to me that actually interests me, and in that case, it has benefited me as a consumer. In that sense, the system is working exactly as it was meant to. What’s the benefit versus the cost? Good luck, and I’m intrigued to hear more as you continue to develop the project.

[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 06:32, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

Ryan- I like your topic of Facebook and privacy as this is something that interests many, if not all of us. Several times I have logged into my Facebook and there are advertisments directly suited for me-- although interesting and something I would normally click on, the idea of privacy does comes up. One thing I recommend is to look into the settings tab as I believe there are different ways to control the information shared with others-- it may not be entirely obvious to control but certain settings allow certain information to be shared (or not shared) so you may want to do some deep research with that. I look forward to reading your research!
-Caroline
[[User:Cbore001|Cbore001]] ([[User talk:Cbore001|talk]]) 09:58, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

----
Olivia Brinich

Intentions and Outcomes of Youtube’s Copyright and Coding Regulations

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Oliviabrinich_prospectus03.03.15.pdf

[[User:Oliviabrinich|Oliviabrinich]] ([[User talk:Oliviabrinich|talk]]) 15:51, 3 March 2015 (EST)
----
Comments on Olivia's Prospectus:

Hi Olivia,

Let me start by saying I think that Youtube is a great source for your project. I’m not saying that just because I am doing my paper on Youtube. I find the creative ways that people are using it fascinating. Much more so than some of the other platforms.

If I may summarize, you plan to discuss how legal pressures forced Youtube to introduce technologies that changed the user experiences, like Copyright ID. You also mentioned some other (possibly voluntary) technologies that are part of the user experience with the intent to discuss how they impact users. I think they are good ideas and good concepts to write about.

As you rightly point the Youtube community is one of the largest communities on the Internet. I wonder if it might not be taking on too much to try to examine Youtube as a whole. I would suggest selecting a small group that is susceptible to the effects of the technologies you are reviewing. Describe who the group is and how certain characteristics of their make-up or user experience make them particularly sensitive to the technologies you will focus on.

For example I will be focusing on hobbyist inventors. Guys that spend their weekends in the garage putting “junk” together and posting videos about their “inventions” on Youtube. Their content is all original so they are not impacted by Copyright ID. There is very little thumbs up/down. They are a much more “expressive” crowd as the comments indicate.

I’m not trying to discourage you. I think if you pick the right group and tell us why you picked them, it can very interesting. I hope that is helpful.

Best,

[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 19:47, 4 March 2015 (EST)

----

I Olivia, I think that this is a very interesting topic, it revolves around the idea of how you tube deals with privacy, and the balance of how it benefits itself vs. the users. I think that one interesting part I read from your prospectus, and you can also incorporate this idea, was how copyright is dealt in you tube, the idea of how deal when someone may alter or damages someone else's work with out permission, those are certainly great areas, so I think the question would be whether you tube creates a risk to the privacy rights of users as well as copy rights risks and how this could be dealt.
Great work.

Edwin (20:02, 9 March 2015 (EDT))
----

• Erika L Rich

• Title: Reputation Management and Ethical Considerations for Members of the Internet Marketing Super Friends (IMSF) Facebook Group

• Link: [[File:LSTU_E120_Erika_Rich_Assignment_2.docx]]

[[User:ErikaLRich|ErikaLRich]] ([[User talk:ErikaLRich|talk]]) 15:22, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----
Hey Erika,

It's great that you chose to focus on on specific Facebook group for your topic. I am still a bit confused about the purpose of the group and the demographics of its members. Who are the members? What do they gain from membership? How many members are active participants that make substansive contributions versus inactive members? Once your audience understands more about the group itself, they will relate to this example and be more invested in your topic. Another suggestion I have is to focus on the effects of the moderators on the content of the group (instead of cyber security for example). You mention culture differences coming in to play and affecting content. Can you explain that further?
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 18:53, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Hi Erica,

I think you did a wonderful job, it is certainly a very interesting topic, my self I am doing research about facebook for my topic, however I had a little bit of trouble flowing with the issue presented as the problem, maybe if you can include examples to illustrate the paper could flow better, I think the basic idea is the way how facebook handles privacy matters for its benefit vs the benefit of the user, you could go on explaining about htis with examples and your paper will be even greater.

Edwin (20:09, 9 March 2015 (EDT))
----
Hi Erika,

This is a very interesting topic. Within your prospectus, you made a statement alluding to the deleting of posts due to cultural divide rather than lack of adhering to community guidelines. I think would be a great area to explore further. Why do moderators remove such post that are not against community guidelines and how does this impact community contributions?

Tasha [[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 11:16, 10 March 2015 (EDT)
----

• Emily MacIntyre (EmiMac)

• Prospectus title: A Case Study on the Unintended Legal Consequences and Chilling Effects of YouTube’s Content ID Sweep on its Video Game Commentator Community

• Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Emily_MacIntyre_Assignment_2.pdf

[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 09:41, 2 March 2015 (EST)

-----

Hi Emily, This is a great area, you could find some ideas by examining how users can damage or alter someone else's work and privacy issues, I think that you should explain the law of the particular area, and explain how it applies to the group your are presenting, explain to a specific targeted audience, like tennagers, or famous people, etc, and use qualitative and quantitative data to draw conclusions, and inferences, this could help get the point across that you choose. Great work.

Edwin (20:13, 9 March 2015 (EDT))
----

Emily,

Great job on your prospectus! It is very well organized, and your citations sources are well researched. I found your research really enticing because I had never heard of this sweep, and I consider myself an avid youtube visitor. I think you are on to a great research project. Although the topic is remarkably fascinating, I wonder if investigating and juxtaposing the different types of monitoring will be too large or too abstract for the limit of the project. I also read up on the PewDiePie character cited, and I think it is really fascinating to see that he has 35 mil subscribers, yet chose to turn off his commenting feature because of how volatile he claimed the space was becoming. His specific youtube channel then does not have a community to investigate. But it would be interesting to examine someone or a specific youtube channel that has a similar following as the case study to better help zone in on collecting and investigating data. Thank you for this topic, I am currently reading more about the youtube actions in 2008 and 2013 because I had little to no prior knowledge of both events.

Good luck on your project!

[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 00:09, 5 March 2015 (EST)

----

RE: Mhoching,

Thank you for your comment. I very much like your prospectus topic as well as you can see from my comments below. With regards to my final project, I thought I should reiterate and clarify that my community is the YouTube contributors that concentrate on making Let’s Plays and video game reviews. While it is helpful to find a video with an active comment section, where other users further explain how the ID sweep influences their output choices, in the case of PewDiePie, his decision to turn off his comment section does in part illustrate how YouTube has rapidly evolved. Since Google began catering to commercial enterprises over the original volunteer contributors, some of the volunteer contributors have become increasingly more frustrated and they exhibit their frustration in a variety of ways.

Thanks Again,

Emily

[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 09:37, 5 March 2015 (EST)

----
• MattK

• Home of the Mallet of Loving Correction: John Scalzi's Blog, "Whatever"

• http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:MattK_Assignment2.docx

[[User:MattK|MattK]] ([[User talk:MattK|talk]]) 22:01, 2 March 2015 (EST)
----

Hi Matt,

I am particularly interested in your topic because I believe it is a very small example of what the internet could become or arguably is becoming in regards to free speech. I am very intrigued by the notion of "knowledge is power". What I mean relative to your project is that I believe that those who can control what "knowledge" people receive therefore posses great power. In your case, Scalzi's blog is equipped with a comment section where total control is given to Scalzi on what to allow others to see. By censoring whatever Scalzi sees as "offensive" he is limiting a voice, whether good or bad, and therefore limiting knowledge. I would argue that there's no question that the term knowledge here is used very loosely and there are obvious comments on these sorts of forums which provide no overall good at all, but more importantly the question I think of is how dangerous it would be for one person to posses this sort of "editorial power" to simply delete anything they see unfit. What would happen if other sites also used this sort of policy where whatever is subjectively deemed unworthy of being a comment was deleted? Are there infact other online sites and forums that take this approach? What implications does this approach have for the audience of the site? Does it discourage participation as a sort of chilling effect? It is a scary world to imagine where one party possess the power of what information to provide and what to censor. In this specific case what if the comments are simply against Scalzi and are a disagreement with what he writes? What is to stop him from simply deleting something. I'm curious to know what sort of checks and balances or accountability Scarzi's editorial powers has. I think your subject bears the question of where to draw the line between free speech and productive censorship, an enormously tricky and potentially dangerous distinction.

These are just a few thoughts I had, in any case best of luck it's a great topic.

Thanks,
Ryan Hurley
[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 18:55, 8 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Hi Matt – what a fascinating topic! I have never visited John Scalzi’s blog before, but after reading your prospectus, I immediately went to it and started digging into the posts and comments. I think it will be a great microcosm to explore the effects of censorship from a private party, as well as the effects of a very specific set of content rules. This may be too time consuming, but it would be really cool if you could catch some of the offensive comments before they get deleted, so that you can see specific examples of the types of comments John Scalzi will not tolerate. Is he moderating effectively according to the standards he has defined? Are there any posts that are “on the line” that you might have left up?

This could also be a good opportunity to delve into the ideas of Susan Benesch that we read this past week. For example, do you notice any opportunities where counter speech might be more effective than censorship? Once a post is censored, do any users retaliate in a way that suggests they haven’t learned their lesson? Do any users engage with offensive posts before they get taken down?

Looking forward to seeing where your research leads – good luck!

[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 06:42, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Edwin Duque (Edwinduque)

Prospectus Title:The copyright, privacy and organization challenges that online communities such as Facebook and The Jury Deliberation in the cyber space are faced with

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Edwinduque_Assignment_2.doc

([[User:Edwinduque|Edwinduque]] ([[User talk:Edwinduque|talk]]) 22:10, 2 March 2015 (EST))
----
Hi Edwin,

I like the way you structured your idea. I think that the copyright issue is very interesting and it is worthed spending some more time on it. Exploring the nature of a Facebook post – whether it could be consider as an “idea”, in the Copyright Act specifically states that In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, regardless of the form in which it is described. Or it could be considered as an “original works of authorship” fixed by the author in a tangible way, in which case it would be covered by copyrights. The issue of re-posting someone else’s post with commercial purposes could be interesting to mention as well. It is just an idea, but saying some words about the case with the famous Facebook post “In response to the new Facebook guidelines…. “ might be interesting too. I think that you could also easily link your work to the “right to be forgotten” issues we discussed in class.

Here are some links you might find useful. Good luck!

http://www.nyccounsel.com/business-blogs-websites/who-owns-photos-and-videos-posted-on-facebook-or-twitter/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-social-networking/

([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))
-------
Name: Michelle Byrne (Chelly.Byrne)

Prospectus title: Balancing privacy for victims of sexual crimes with
opportunity for support in online forum AfterSilence.org

Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:ChellyByrne_Assignment2.pdf

[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 07:54, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----

Hi Michelle,

You have chosen a terrifically nuanced community. Indeed, the word “balance” and the question of HOW such a community can possibly approach this word is bound to yield more data and conclusions than the page ljmits of our final project – which is only testimony to the strength of your community research choice. I believe yours is the most psychologically-based prospectus that I have read thus far.

By “psychologically-based,” I mean that I sense that you will be making some conclusions about the specialized mindsets and individuals who are drawn to this community; a community that paradoxically, and in waves, seem to wish for both anonymity and at the same time, a very specific and difficult kind of attention. Anonymous attention. A community that has created a safe haven and yet, has some very troubling cracks, as you point out.

Questions:
Are these cracks mostly user generated? As in, the example you found of the poster who revealed configurable data revealing her identity. If they are mostly user-generated, how prevalent of an instance is this? Of the active users who reveal private information, what instances are accidental or ignorant (as in, thinking they’ll be anonymous by revealing age, town, etc) as opposed to intentional?

Is there some kind of warning or clause in the user agreement that attempts to address this issue of accidentally revealing private information or even purposefully revealing it?

If the user agreement and the rules and guidelines for AfterSilence.org do address this issue and users still post personal information, what are the pros and cons of simply warning users about the risks and then letting users do as they please vs. taking pro-active measures?

If there were pro-active measures for a site host like this to take, what would they be? Message board community reminders? Moderators who redact info? Self-regulation and regulation amongst members? What does regulation in this kind of community actually look like and is it sustainable in its current form?

Many more questions and considerations to make. Good topic choice, succinctly proposed. I wish you all the best in this project and I look forward to reading the final project.

Best,
Chanel Rion

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 11:31, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----
Hi Michelle,

Good choice in topic. You’ve identified an online community that has a serious need of privacy but also a potentially revitalizing need for contact with others who have had similar experiences. You have clearly already done some good research on how the website operates. Perhaps a next step that could add another layer would be to see what (if any) legal protections the website needs to comply with. Do crime victims get special protection, or if they surrender their information, is it their own fault? Good luck!
[[User:MattK|MattK]] ([[User talk:MattK|talk]]) 23:34, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Hi Michelle – I’m really interested in this topic and curious to hear where your research leads. I think you have developed a really great framework for researching the challenges the community faces. I’m curious whether AfterSilence itself has explicit privacy policies, and if so, what they outline? Also, does the site do any moderating of posts that perhaps reveal “too much” information? On the other hand, I’m curious whether there are any users who don’t have the expectation of privacy, and who willingly share their identity/personal information? If so, how does that affect the dynamic on the site? Based on our readings and discussion about the “right to be forgotten,” it might also be worth doing some Google searches to see what makes certain posts from the site crop up in results. I would be curious to see how Google’s algorithm handles these searches, and whether it is actually publicizing user information beyond what the women on the site might be comfortable with. Looking forward to seeing your continued work on this!

[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 06:52, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

----
Name: Chanel Rion (ChanelRion)

Prospectus Title: '''''We the Judges: "Sitejabber", "Yelp", and Communities of User-Generated Business Reviews.'''''

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment2_Prospectus_Rion.docx

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 11:21, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----
Hi Chanel,

The subject of customer generated reviews is certainly huge on the internet. It is beneficial for consumers to get an opinion of a product or restaurant from other people over just what the advertising says. But as you point out, there is a lot of opportunity for libel or slander – especially people just having an ax to grind. It would be interesting to see how Yelp or Sitejabber are being responsible and making an effort to regulate content and protect places being reviewed from harassing content. I like how your approach includes researching any legal cases brought against them; it would be interesting to see if any of them prevail. Also, how do they actually calculate the ratings? Is it an average of overall ratings? Or could bad reviews be hidden away if there become lots of positive reviews? Are businesses sandbagging to increase their ratings?

Overall, this is a great community to look into and I wish you success!

Michelle aka (Chelly)
[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 15:43, 7 March 2015 (EST)
----

RE: Michelle

Hi Michelle,

Thank you for your comments and feedback. I too, am especially interested in the legal angles to this community and I am glad to know I'm not the only one. I will certainly be watching and reviewing and seeking the answers to these questions and also to your specific concerns. All intensely pertinent to how businesses and communities are going to manage tensions with each other -- tensions that have always been here, but are now revolutionized in simply the sheer and complete access that the Internet provides to all of us.

Looking forward to starting this seek and find. Thank you for highlighting questions and focuses, they should prove helpful for such a broad category.

Best,

Chanel

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 16:49, 8 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Name: Becca Lewis (beccalew)

Prospectus Title: '''/r/TwoXChromosomes and /r/feminism: The challenges of promoting feminism on Reddit while upholding the values of privacy and free speech'''

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Final_Project_Prospectus_Becca_Lewis.docx

[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 13:15, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----

Hi Becca!
I absolutely love the theme of your project, it is an exceptional live issue since feminism has been discussed much more this past year than it has been for many years. Therefore, it´s really important to examine the forums in which people have the opportunity to discuss the subject. Great!

I also found it cool that you are thinking about recording a podcast for the project. If you do so, you might consider including an interview with someone active in the specific forums, a professor in gender studies or perhaps two people with different views on the issue?

I have a question about the subreddits you talked about though. You wrote about a ”safe space” for women. Are those subreddits only for women or are they open for anyone who want to discuss feminism and gender roles? If it is a women-only forum, you might also discuss the consequences on that. If not, maybe that has consequences as well. Maybe you should discuss self censorship in the feminism subreddits as well (which is very interesting since Reddit-as you said-values free speech above almost all else)?

Good luck!
/Josefin

[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 10:39, 5 March 2015 (EST)
----
Hello Becca,

Your avenue of research should prove quite illuminating for creating feminist spaces, in online fora dominated by men. Interestingly, your topic dovetails with this weeks readings, concerning hate speech and other charged language, which is used far to readily in online fora. It would be interesting to see if the users in the two subreddits. /r/TwoXChromosomes and /r/Feminism, have tried using counterspeech, when confronted with offensive or antagonising posts. Mind, if the moderator of r/Feminism is in fact trying to subvert this positive feminist space, would that violate any of Reddit's policies? If not, are there any policies governing the role of moderator?

Good luck!

[[User:AlexanderH|AlexanderH]] ([[User talk:AlexanderH|talk]]) 19:44, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

----
Hi Becca,

I echo what the others have said: I like the timing and the specificity of the topic. There are certainly a lot of feminist voices on the Internet, but I don’t hear them coming from Reddit too often. I’m eager to hear your final presentation!

This isn’t so much a suggestion as it is a question I don’t know the answer to: are the feminists in those subreddits the community, or does the community include all folks who post? The answer to that question might make your final analysis a little harder to pin down.
[[User:MattK|MattK]] ([[User talk:MattK|talk]]) 23:34, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----
Name: Gary Brown (Gary Brown)

Prospectus Title: The Effects of Site Controls on Community Objectives: communityfunded.com

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Gary_Brown_Assignment2.docx

[[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 13:18, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----
Comments on Gary's Prospectus:

Gary,

Great topic! I hope to be going out to for crowdfunding by the end of the May. So I will follow your Wiki with interest. (In your proposal you link to crowdfunded. I think you meant community funded. You may want to look at that.)

You mentioned the stated purpose of Communityfunded. But you did not mention their reason for existing. In other words, what started crowdfunding and why would individuals seek funds for their projects from the public and not other traditional sources. Why are people like me willing to go online (to communityfunded) to ask for money, as opposed to going to another site or pitching a Venture Capitalist or a bank? Why would people fund a project on line versus invest in the stock market or Bank CDs?

I think that the answer to those questions goes to the heart of crowdfunding. It also is germane to the “troublesome obstacles” you refer to in your prospectus.

When you mention failed projects, I would suggest that not all failures are the same. I might be willing to invest money in a project I consider socially redeeming even if I thought it had very little chance of success. Where as, if I were investing in some Harvard wiz-kids that profess to have the next Facebook, I might have very different feelings if they went belly up. So you may want to include categories of projects, or claims/expectations in your discussions. As well as any risk factor ratings.

You also mentioned building and keeping trust of supporters. One of the areas that interests me is the ways that Fundraisers generate funding support. Do they rely solely on the site? In other words, is there a pool of would be investors just waiting for the right idea to come around so they can invest. Or is a fundraiser expected to go outside the community and raise interest and drive that interest back to the site? How does that impact the “trust” factor? If I am a one-time fundraiser does it matter all that much what people think about me after I’ve got my money?

You discuss how you will break down funded projects, etc. Is there a way to figure out what various fundraiser did to get funded? Marketing may prove to be more of a factor than the project or its worthiness.

It would certainly be worthwhile to compare and contrast crowdfunding before and after changes in regs that made it easier for the public to invest. And how post reg trends may lead to new regs/controls.

I look forward to reading your paper.

Best,

[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 20:45, 4 March 2015 (EST)

----

Name: Meagan HoChing (mhoching)

Title: Online Gaming Harassment: All fun and games?

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Mhoching_Assignment2.docx

[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 13:50, 3 March 2015 (EST)
----

Hi Meagan,

Every aspect of your prospectus is incredibly interesting to me. I am especially intrigued by how well you have matched up the readings to your topic.

After I read your section on Norms I thought about how you point out that “the gaming system is very competitive” and it made me wonder, if Valve placed more restrictions to prevent bullying could it potentially take some of the pleasure of competition out of the mix. If so, then would some users leave the game because they like the hostile environment, which may be why they chose to play in it in the first place. Keeping this line of thought in mind, perhaps you could find another similar community that has more strict modes of control in place to observe the differences between them.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading your prospectus and I look forward to seeing your finished product.

Best,
Emily

[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 09:25, 5 March 2015 (EST)

----

Hi Meagan!

What an interesting and relevant subject!

I think that it was a very good idea of you to use the Dot Model with the components ”Market”, ”Architecture”, ”Norms” and ”Law”, it makes everything much more clear. I agree with Emily that it would be a good idea to compare DOTA 2 with another game, preferably from another website than STEAM and with another system of regulation. I would find it really interesting to see the result of a such a study and if norms, the language, the members of the site, etc. differ between the two games.

I´m looking forward to see the result! Good luck!

/Josefin

[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 10:16, 5 March 2015 (EST)

----

Hi Meagan!

I think this is a very fascinating topic and one I too almost pursued. I am a bit of a gamer myself and although I don't play DOTA, I do regularly play many different sports games which I have found to have similar issues of harassment and "bullying". I hadn't heard of the STEAM website you're focusing on until I read your assignment, but for anyone who has read really a comment section/forum anywhere, one second you're talking about a video game, the next you have gone down a path of hate and overall disgust of anyone different minded not to mention if it is a competitive game which stirrs up some hostile emotions toward an adversary. I find this particularly interesting when it comes to video games because many people who don't play video games believe that "it's just a game" but on the contrary for many gamers, one can find their self emotionally invested into a game you are taking part in. You feel this overwhelming sense of dedication to it and attachment to what happens in it where you can essentially lose yourself in the game. It is because of this hardwired competitive and primitive feeling and this element of motivation that I believe is so deeply rooted in many gamers that it would be near impossible to ever completely outlaw the harassment or trash talk because it will never stop. However perhaps there is some sort of way to outlaw the harassment that crosses a line by creating real consequence while still allowing some competitive jabbing but that I will be curious to see from your project. I will be also curious to hear what your research finds about the website in particular, I would venture to guess that it is probably similar for communities like the PSN and xboxlive.

I might suggest on top of all this to take a look at games which do not have a competitive nature with other users. This may be difficult to find but I'd be curious to see whether it is harassment you find on forums with these sort of games or rather a cooperative dialogue intended to help one another.

Good Luck!
- Ryan Hurley

[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 16:26, 8 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Name: Caroline B

Title: The Study of Privacy, Accuracy & Order on InsideNova Website and Moving ‘Little Sites’ Up

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:1_Caroline_B.docx

[[User:Cbore001|Cbore001]] ([[User talk:Cbore001|talk]]) 14:45, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----
Caroline,
Something to for your paper is the current statistics on accessing news in the United States (online newspaper versus hard copy newspaper for example), and the devices used to access online news (iphone, android, ipad, laptop, desktop computer, etc). IBISWorld and Mintel might offer up to date statistics on news distribution/access. Google analytics offers insight on specific website views. Perhaps take a look at what the demographics of the visitors of this site are and try to find out why this site attracts these viewers. Comparing this site to other more popular news sites (like CNN as you mentioned) is a great idea. Currently, I think your proposal covers too wide a range of topics, so maybe consider focusing on just a few that you mentioned. (For example maybe narrow it to the three subjects max: privacy, journalists’ / contributors’ / editors’ / monitors’ control of content, the ethical policy of the site). If privacy is a big concern to you, I think you could focus your entire paper around it.
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 19:19, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----

Name: Jan.Yburan

Prospectus title: Reddit.com/r/IAmA its Controls on Privacy and Content

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Jan.Yburan.Assignment2.docx

----
Hi Jan,

This is a really interesting community to build your case study around. Prior to today I have only been on the site a few times to look at subreddits that relate to topics that I am interested in, and since I am not a member I have not considered how the site protects the user’s privacy.

Today I decided to look at the IAmA subreddit to get a better handle of the scope of your project. Consequently, I came across and interesting and fairly benign thread started by an employee of a movie theater and it brought to mind, how does the site handle issues of privacy, libel or defamation against a company or a consumer when an employee engages in what appears at first glance as an anonymous tell all blog that highlights how he/she has witnessed vulgar and perhaps even criminal activity.

Considering your topic and direction you want to take, I think you might want to blend together aspects of the readings from our classes on privacy with the readings for next week’s class on free expression, information, and unwanted speech.

I am looking forward to seeing your completed final project. I am sure it will be very informative.

Best,

Emily

P.S. (Here is the link to the AMA I referenced: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2xz6nb/iama_movie_theater_employee_and_ive_seen_the/)

[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 13:04, 5 March 2015 (EST)

----

----

Name: Eric Yuk Lun Kwong (Caelum)

Prospectus title: The vulnerable voting structure of Digg.com and the gradual
collapse of its popularity and voting legitimacy

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Caelum_Assignment2.pdf

[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 15:11, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----

Hi Eric,

Excellent topic. One that possesses, at once, broad-scale relevance and unusual particularities.

Exploring the reasons for Digg’s failure as a site and as a community, I’m drawn to the question regarding the members themselves.

It would be interesting to compare, if applicable, the kinds of users who are drawn to a voting-type participatory community vs. a community that actually interacts via content and contributions. If clear distinctions can be made here, to then find examples of successful communities that are voter-based and to pinpoint key policies or elements that differentiate sustainable models of voter-based communities compared to content-based contribution communities.

Perhaps it is fundamentally an issue of investment; when users and the outside world view a product as having or requiring minimal investment (as in, saying, or rather, clicking “yes” or “no” to something – voting to “dig” or “bury” a story). Are voting based sites destined to suffer from questions of legitimacy by virtue of being online and being so subjective?

That you will be making parallels to Wikipedia’s platform seems to be a good approach here. Wisely done. Thank you also, for your commentaries – I appreciate the thoroughness in which you approach these topics.

Best of luck!

Chanel Rion

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 11:57, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Name: Alex Samaei (Samaei1)

Prospectus title: The Framework of Projects and Backers on Kickstarter

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Samaei1_Assignment2.pdf

[[User:Samaei1|Samaei1]] ([[User talk:Samaei1|talk]]) 15:37, 3 March 2015 (EST)
----

Hi Alex!

I'm so happy you picked this website because I've donated to various projects on this website, but never took into account the structure of the website and complications due to misappropriating of funding. I find it hard to try to quantify what is appropriate to fundraise, because the topic is subjective. Of course I don't think it would be appropriate to fundraise to support hate speech (if that's what someone is fundraising for), yet I don't find it appropriate to fundraise for movies about starving children, when that money can go to feeding starving children. I hope I'm communicating the subjectiveness of trying to find what would be considered appropriate to raise money for and how it varies from person to person.

But speaking in regards to the Lessig's Dot Model I think the website can be broken down into different sections to address some of the issues you raise. For example, how does the structure of kickstarter promote accountability on the artist/person asking for money? On the donation page for example, a vast amount of information about the artist is available, as well as avenues in which you can contact the fundraiser. So if kickstarter has provided this as a requirement for people to submit or provide when asking to be funded, is it then up to the donor to hold that person accountable? I have the tools on that page to ask the fundraiser for that specific information and continue to follow up on that information. I think once you start looking at specific/deliberate aspects of kickstarter, it will start to inform or control behavior.

I hope this helps! Look forward to reading the final project; happy researching and writing!

[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 00:35, 5 March 2015 (EST)
----

Hi Alex,

I’m interested that you have chosen a community that, you imply, is being targeted not for its failures, but for its successes. A wildfire that is often so much more visible on the Internet than in any other form in history. Speed, access, and instant publicity -- make "success" in society ever more visible, open to targeting, and prone to hijacking. Indeed. It is a great topic for research in this course in particular.

One aspect that could be revelatory is to seek out the kinds of legal cases that have been brought against kickstarter and what litigation the site has to deal with and what kinds of litigation that users potentially enter into.

There’s also a question about user legitimacy. How easy is it for some startup organization to simply use this community and its platform as an elaborate marketing plan? Can a company, for instance, viel itself to be a small time kickstarter that can feed itself funding and manufacture the appearance of democratic success? It would be especially useful to identify who the moderators are and to what extent they exercise control or regulation if any. Does Kickstarter have even the skeleton of some kind of verification system or is the verification over the legitimacy of a proposal entirely user generated? Is this sustainable or are there signs of trouble ahead? What would be a disastrous scenario for this community? To these questions, I think that many clues may be found in the litigation and whatever bad publicity the community has had encounter.

Great topic, culturally relevant community. Thank you for the topic and best of luck for the final.

Best,

Chanel Rion

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 12:31, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----

:Dear Alex,

:From your opening paragraph, I am wondering if you plan to focus on Kickstarter itself, one or more of the projects seeking support through Kickstarter, or the Reddit.com community. Each would seem to present a different community/sub-community based on the same general subject. Coverying all three could be a little broad for this size project.

:I think the issues you present are one of the more interesting subject areas of crowdfunding sites – who is the gatekeeper and how are projects screened? The authority to control and manner of control by the site owner, community, or government touches on many of our subject areas. It should be fertile ground for your project. I would plan carefully whether to go deeply into limited subject matter, or cover several subjects more broadly in the time and space you have. Either way, you have a site that should meet fit your plan.

:I wish you success, and I look forward to reading your work.

:[[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 19:23, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----

Name: Gia

Prospectus title: Chivalry online

Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Gia_Assignment2.docx
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 15:46, 3 March 2015 (EST))

----

Hi Gia, this is a great topic, I think the importance of this group is very high, it serves greatly to the public to prevent scams, and I wondered if the public service it provides weights in the privacy issue when it comes to the issue of finding out scams and finding information, where are the boundaries, great topic, maybe you can illustrate your topic with examples and explain how the law applies to those various kinds, great work!!!>

Edwin ([[User:Edwinduque|Edwinduque]] ([[User talk:Edwinduque|talk]]) 20:25, 9 March 2015 (EDT))
----
Hi Gia,

This topic is definitely flushing out the seedier side of the internet! I have never heard of this site 419eater, but we all know the dangers of scammers and how they use the internet. How do they find their victims? Some scams are so realistic as to mention names of loved ones in danger and demand money be expedited. The scam baiters you’re talking about here must be trolling similar sites and circles to identify culprits they need want to go after. But in doing so, are they just as much at fault as the original scammers? Is there any regulation of the members? I can definitely see an ethical dilemma, as you point out, of some possibly unscrupulous members. And your question of whether they have extended their existence outside the online world is a very interesting consideration.

You a have a lot of good sources listed regarding scams (white collar crime and Ponzi schemes too!). Good luck, this is an intriguing subject!

Michelle

[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 15:57, 7 March 2015 (EST)
----
Re: Michelle

Thanks for the comments, Michelle. I definitely intend to explore the subject from both sides, because there could be really two, maybe even more , points of view. Regarding the legal regulation, there is a lot to be said – interned jurisdiction. The self-regulation of the web community which is evolving with the time is also a nice starting point.
Thank again for the ideas and good luck to you too with your work!

([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))
----

Name: Mishal R. Kennedy

Prospectus title: Enforcing Guidelines Without Harming User Contributions

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Mishal_R._Kennedy_Assignment2.rtf
([[User:Mishal R. Kennedy|Mishal R. Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Mishal R. Kennedy|talk]]) 15:51, 3 March 2015 (EST))
----
Hi Mishal,

The subject you have chosen is very interesting and gives great opportunities for discussions and analyses. I would directly make a reference to the Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0, which we discussed during “Paradigms for Studying the Internet’ class. You could explore the methods used by the moderators and administrators as a way of self regulation of the community. The question you asked whether these methods are causing more bad than good, is right to the point.
I would suggest you explain in more details the different methods of control used my the moderators and perhaps compare them with the ones used by other communities. You could also take a look if it is explicitly listed in the Terms of Use of the website in which case what measure is taken? Is there a higher authority than the moderator to whom a sanctioned user could complain? Could such a decision “be appealed” or it is final and definitive? Is there at all a hierarchy in the administration of the website?
Here are some sources which might help. Good luck!

https://www.academia.edu/3079184/COAT_Collaborative_Outgoing_Anti-Spam_Technique
http://www.yildiz.edu.tr/~aktas/courses/CE-0114890/g8-p3.pdf
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~kksivara/sfwr4c03/projects/4c03projects/CGLucas-Project.pdf
http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM11/paper/viewFile/2780/3296

([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))
-----

Name: Richard Markow

Prospectus title: The YouTube video-sharing platform & The Community of Alternative Heating Systems and Appliance Inventors

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Rich_Markow_Assignment_2_Prospectus.pdf

[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 16:03, 3 March 2015 (EST)
----
:Dear Richard,

:I am most interested in how you plan to use the YouTube channel with your invention and how you will relate that effort to our project here. Do I understand that you will try to create a community within your channel, and that will be the subject community? Or, is the plan to take one of the five areas you have mentioned and focus on one or more of them? I am having a little difficulty seeing from the prospectus what your focus will be and how your invention channel will relate to the analysis.

:Your third subject sounds like an especially interesting area to me: “legal liability of user generated content related to unproven claims and inventions.” From Mentos in soda, to instructions on building who knows what, who if anyone has liability for misguided attempts to imitate these videos? Is there really anything that YouTube as an intermediary could do?

: Congratulations on your invention. I hope that you will be able to bring it to the market successfully.

:[[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 20:38, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----

Name AlexanderH

Prospectus Title: Managing the Petitions of Change.org: B Corps, Social Enterprise and Transparency

Link:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:AlexanderH_Assignment_2_Prospectus.docx

[[User:AlexanderH|AlexanderH]] ([[User talk:AlexanderH|talk]]) 16:10, 3 March 2015 (EST)
----
Hey Alexander,

Great start here. I think you do an excellent job specifically identifying the different forces that are all at work on the site—it’s a user-driven, social platform, but is a corporation and is responsible to shareholders. Transparency in its operations thus becomes vital. You have a good eye for complexity, so I think you’ll have an interesting analysis. With complexity, however, can come difficulty in precision. You have a good lay of the land, but I think you might need to grapple some with what your conclusion might look like (of course, you may just not know yet, which is fine). For example, what would successful transparency look like? Great start!
[[User:MattK|MattK]] ([[User talk:MattK|talk]]) 23:34, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

----
Name: Meredith Blake

Prospectus Title:Identifying Avenues of Recourse for Businesses on Yelp

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Meredith_Blake._Assignment_2.docx
[[User:Meredithmblake|Meredith]] ([[User talk:Meredithmblake|talk]]) 16:13, 3 March 2015 (EST)

-----
Hello Meredith!

I think this is a great topic and you have a very interesting approach. I haven’t really looked into Yelp and the lawsuit angle, but they certainly have a lot of influence on the internet. Out of curiosity, I just Googled about 10 different restaurants in this area and the results had the Yelp review either as the second or third site listed! So potential customers are seeing the Yelp rating almost before the actual websites in a couple of cases! There is little recourse for them, and as you show by the Sia example, a disgruntled customer can reach out and cause a flood of terrible reviews, from people who weren’t even customers! Caelum makes a good point in the summary at the bottom that reviews are either one end of the spectrum or the other… disgruntled customers wanting to air their displeasure or someone extremely happy who wants to rave about it.

It is good to take a targeted approach to such a large community, and looking into the recourse that businesses may have as well as existing lawsuits sounds like a good approach. If a suit is successful, what are the actual outcomes? Does Yelp take down reviews or adjust the ratings? I think people who expound on sites that give a platform are really missing the spirit of free speech. I don’t think your approach is that unpopular, not that free speech needs to be regulated, but that there should be some modicum of self-restraint and freedom to say anything is not absolutely protected.

Good luck on this, you’ve got some really good ideas!

Michelle

[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 16:14, 7 March 2015 (EST)
-----

Name: Wesley Verge

Prospectus Title : Scrolling into Darkness -- An investigation into the regulatory forces at work in Youtube's comment section

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Wesley_Verge_Prospectus.txt

[[User:WesleyVerge|WesleyVerge]] ([[User talk:WesleyVerge|talk]]) 16:19, 3 March 2015 (EST)

-----

Hi Wesley!

I am very intrigued by the "solutions" there are to change the culture of the comment sections. It is really an intriguing phenomenon that one could be watching a video about puppies and suddenly 4 comments down glance over an argument that Obama was sent by satan himself to destroy the world. I've always been curious as to how this has not been regulated more strictly. I think you raise great points why and the concerns Google is faced with. If I were doing this project I might also attempt to compare this to other sites as well that must face similar challenges. For example you suggest in your assignment that youtube channels direct traffic to sites like Reddit, but is that really an escape for the channel as this implies? Can these "trolls" not go over to reddit to promote their hate just as easily, or do they have different solutions in play that regulate these sorts of issues better? As far as I know both are anonymous to an extent so with this anonymity many of these trolls have "keyboard muscles" as I like to call them. I can understand twitter because many times it is much more personal but even there people can create fake accounts and troll all the same, just see Jimmy Kimmels skit on celebrity reading mean tweets.

I really like your focus on famous YouTubers I just think it may also be beneficial and worth mentioning how other sites with the same prevalent issue have tried to combat trolling. Also from a legal side, are all of these comments protected by the law and free speech? Perhaps because of the enormity of all the comments and comment sections, it is simply impossible to regulate what is said in every section from a legal perspective. Food for thought, but in any case great project idea.

Best of luck,
Ryan

[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 16:56, 8 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Prospectus Title: Knocking the Wind out of Whistleblowers: The US' response to the growing threat from WikiLeaks

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Kelly.WilsonAssignment_2.docx

[[User:Kelly.wilson|Kelly.wilson]] ([[User talk:Kelly.wilson|talk]]) 16:38, 3 March 2015 (EST)

--------

Hi Kelly,

Interesting topic. There are a couple of perspectives you may want to consider about when defining what you mean by Whistleblower and the response in each situation. 1) Exposing illegal acts. 2) Exposing immoral acts. 3) Exposing Acts designed to embarrassed your political opponents or as retribution.

Should they all be treated the same and afforded equal protection?

Good luck!

[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 00:10, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

--------

Name: Tasha

Prospectus Title: Exploring the Complexity of Rapidly Evolving Information in a Bodybuilding Forum and the Challenges of Quality Assurance

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Tasha_Assignment_2_Prospectus.docx

Tasha[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 17:12, 3 March 2015 (EST)

--------
Hi Tasha,

I like a lot your choice of community . It is unusual and at the same time you could find a lot of things to explore-both from legal and ethical stand point.
I would say that your questions and reflections are on the right track. I think that one of the issues you could explore is the fact that they are often used as a platform for unlicensed sell of drugs. If you choose to go for this, you should have to take a good look on the definitions in order to differ “Drugs” for “Nutrition Supplements” because this is the tricky moment. How the website is protecting itself from such kind of activity (by its Terms of use or in other ways) , might be interesting as well.
Above you could find two links that might be of some use. Good luck!

The first is little bit old but interesting:
http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t000525b.html

http://health.wusf.usf.edu/post/unlicensed-pharmacies-selling-compounded-drugs-online

([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))

__________

Name: Josefin Sasse

Prospectus Title: A case study on the children's website Kidzworld and how they deal with threats against being a safe environment for children.

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:JosefinSasse.pdf
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 17:26, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----

Hi Josefin!

I find your topic utterly intriguing. I had no idea such a website existed and it's been quite fascinating just poking around the website a little bit. I think it is a very valid point to raise about "who monitors Kidzworld", because there doesn't seem to be much of a screening process to ensure the user that is signing up for an account is in fact between the ages of 9-17. Also, I see you have cited the Pew Research Center study from the readings, which is a great resource for dissecting the demographics and statistics of harassment, but the study was done on "young adults" ranging from 18-29, and "young women" between the ages of 18-24 years old. Which I hope illuminates, rather than complicates, the issue of doing research on a demographic ranging from 9-17, but more so how do you set up a website that serves a population that would need adult consent to participate in almost everything they do. Along with privacy issues, I think the question of who is responsible for what and for whom is a great aspect you have raised in your paper! I would love to stay in touch and see the developments of your paper if that would be okay. I think this is the perfect website to investigate for this project.

[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 00:10, 5 March 2015 (EST)

--------

----

Hi Josefin,

I think you picked a great online community to explore for your final project, not only because it is a social space for a specific group, but also because there seems to be some fairly strict regulations in place to maintain a safe environment for kids.

It might be interesting if you could find some weakness in its structure. For example can kids go into private chats or are all the chats and comment sections being screened. If they are being screened, is it by a computer generated logarithm or real people?

Another question that you could delve into is, how do the site’s administrators know the users are minors. Do they require parents’ permission? If so how do they prove it is actually a real parent?

I hope these suggestions are helpful. I am looking forward to seeing your finished project.

Best,
Emily

[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 00:13, 5 March 2015 (EST)
----

Name: Brooke Tjarks

Prospectus: Art. Business. Fans. (...) How this collaborative space shapes mass visual media production and worldwide distribution

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Prospectus.Brooke.Tjarks.pdf

--------
:Dear Brooke

:'''Creativity-Online''' does not seem to have the social element that I think the class may be looking for. I get your interest in the structural controls, especially if the structure limits the interaction to just comments from readers. Commenting is a form of ad hoc community that could be a subject all its own, but most of the random articles I looked at did not have comments.

:'''RottenTomatoes.com''' is new to me too. It seems like it is mainly aggregating reviews. So, I guess that is a community of professional reviewers. I did find that by joining you can “'''Rate movies & TV''' and see your friends' ratings, '''Get recommendations''' personalized for you, '''Join the discussion''' with other movie buffs.” I don’t know if the pros interact with the civilians here, but I suspect they read each other’s stuff. If I were writing or creating movies, this would be a place I could go to see what the ordinary folks think, right along with the reviewers.

:'''imdb.com''' may be what you’re looking for. Once you’re a member, there are some privileges, and it would appear there are some controls in place that provide fodder for the project. There is a page I ran across that states it is “Community powered support for IMDb.com" See it at <nowiki>https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics</nowiki>

:I vote for IMDb.com

:[[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 21:26, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----
Hello Brooke,

Rotten Tomatoes is a movie news aggregator, which uses the reviews of people who are part of a guild or association, and who have garnered sufficient likes form users. Users can write their own reviews, which get rated by other users, so there is the social dimension. Rotten Tomatoes is also tied to Flixster.com, which allows users to stream content through the Ultraviolet app (all three owned by Warner Bros.). But, as you are after a space that the industry is involved in, this may not prove to be what you are after (though of course that could depend on your question). IMDb certainly looks like it has all the elements, as Gary points out. The site is owned by Amazon, which is now a producer of content, which could be an interesting factor in the regulation of the site.

Looks like you’ll need to do some exploring, to help define a question that helps bring the project into focus. There might be something in comparing the different degrees of user input on these sites.

Good luck!

[[User:AlexanderH|AlexanderH]] ([[User talk:AlexanderH|talk]]) 10:56, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

----
Name: Abby McHugh

Prospectus Title: From #Thinspiration to “Low Carb Friends”: The Regulation of Online Weight Loss Content

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Amchugh_Assignment2.docx

--------

Hi Abby!

Okay, so I really wich I had chosen this issue. It is great that you did!

To facilitate the work, I would recommend that you are more specific in which websites you are going to explore since there is so much #thinspo content out there. But Twitter, Tumbler, Pinterest, and Instagram are great platforms to explore, together with blogs like you said.

'''Other things you might want to discuss are:'''

What makes the most harm: #thinspo/pro-ana blogs and posts or limitations on freedom of speech by regulating such content? (On my part, I am determined in my opinion that #thinspo is devastating and that regulation in this case is a good thing.)

Who is active in this community?

Could pro-ana be illegitimate harassment? Compare it the possibility of a pro-cancer or a pro-aids community (deadly diseases just like anorexia).

What effects could/does the sometimes lack of regulation have on the community online and offline?
Good luck! You´ve chosen a very interesting subject!

/Josefin

[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 11:08, 5 March 2015 (EST)

----

Abby,
I am so impressed and dare I say jealous that you picked such an important subject for your paper. Here are a few things that come to mind as I read your plan. I hope at least one of them is helpful.
- I LOVE that you have already started a list of references. My critique for your references is to add more scholarly sources to substantiate your conclusions. For example, perhaps a database like “Mintel” or “IBISWorld” will have metrics regarding weight loss CONSUMER trends globally or in the United States. From another angle, you could find articles in scholarly psychology journals or *gasp* BOOKS in the library of a graduate psychology program. I am a student at Pepperdine, too, and I love their graduate psychology library and their electronic databases. If you want me to request anything and have it sent to you, do not hesitate to ask. And from yet another angle, perhaps we could find legal cases that relate to your topic, as well. I would be more than happy to work with you to find more sources because I just love your topic so much.
- Carbohydrates are critical for healthy brain function. Perhaps that is important in your paper, as well? Elephant in the room?
- If you decide to mention similar trends or implications of the “thinspo” trend, maybe consider body building inspiration on social media and blogs and why it is both equally obsessive but healthier.
- Another thing that concerns me about your topic is privacy. Not just the privacy of those with eating disorders, but all individuals participating in the online weight loss chatter. And also, the trend to take pictures of one’s body and put those photographs online. What are the implications of this?

[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 18:26, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----

Note: If I’m a little direct in the comments, I really mean the best. Hope it doesn’t offend anyone. 

Ryan Hurley: I think professor said stay away from these huge websites. Perhaps you could discuss with the professors if Facebook is the right website to focus on?

Olivia Brinich: I think you’re asking a lot of questions to be answered here.

“How does it Pind and protect information, how do copyrighters choose to deal with the individual cases of copyright infringement, and what happens when a clip is wrongfully targeted for copyright violation, i.e., the adverse unintended consequences of Content ID?”

Perhaps you should just focus on one main thesis and explore on that. For example, focusing on how copyrighters deal with copyright infringement, and how that eventually influenced youtube to introduce copyright ID system.

One last issue is whether youtube is too big of a website to focus on. Perhaps you could narrow it down to say, copyright issues for music on youtube.

Erika L. Rich: I think it’s a very broad term to discuss the ethical considerations. Perhaps if you narrowed it down to 1 or 2 main issues you find extremely compelling about the website and community? Or maybe I have simply mistaken your train of thought.

Emily MacIntyre: I like how you had such conviction to talk about youtube that despite its size, its still worth researching about. I think you could also talk a little bit about how these game commentators earn their living by commenting on games. PewDiePie is estimated to earn millions every year. It could show a greater perspective on things if we could see their earnings as well. South Park actually has a very funny episode about commentators commenting on commentators commenting on games on youtube.

Matt K: Do you think that changing the title to reflect your research would make it easier for the reader? (Just a thought) I think its interesting how you mentioned “democratic instrument”, bringing politics into the way his blog is ran. According to the quote you took, Scalzi has indeed used some controls over potential commentators. Furthermore, you should consider that if it’s a blog about all sorts of things, with John’s comments on it, he should also be open to listen to commentators reply to this, especially if its about sensitive topics. If he’s going to filter away those he “considers” as offensive, then perhaps he shouldn’t comment on other things either. (unless the comment really does not have a valid point and is not related to the topic)

Edwin Duque: Good to see you in this class too. I think you should just focus on one website. I’d do JuryX instead of Facebook as professor said big websites aren’t good. Also, you’d need a stronger thesis to connect what the real question is. Is it about allowing free sharing? Or is it about limiting what gets shared? I’m a little confused with your thesis.

Chelly Byrne: I think you have a strong thesis here. The contradictions between sharing information on the internet, and the fear of being exposed would be very interesting. I think you can even go into the subscription process. I assume the website allows anyone to join. This means that even predators could read up on what victims write. Unfortunately, they probably get quite the entertainment from reading it, or pretending to ask “leading” questions. As you said, just a tiny bit of excessive information leaked out could result in a victim being violated again. I guess you could talk about that.

Chanel Rion: Since you’re talking about Yelp and reviews, I’d like to share what I learned from another class. Most of these reviews are at the ends of the spectrum. Unless someone is a regular of Yelp and does a review for every restaurant, the rest of them would be people who had great experiences or really bad experiences. They won’t be bothered to write a review about a mediocre or average restaurant. It’s not worth their time. You could also mention that. Also, do you think there are fake reviews too? I’d go for siteJabbar.

Becca Lewis: Firstly its interesting how you’re talking about Reddit because I’m talking about Digg. I think new beliefs takes time to be adapted by the masses. Feminism isn’t very old, and its on going. I think it takes time for people to adapt to it, so for the short term I won’t be surprised if the discussion board sees a lot of anti-feminism people. But also do bare in mind that these are “beliefs”, just like “liberalism” (which is quite similar to feminism, fighting for individual rights, etc). Not everyone believes in these values, so some disagreements should be expected. I guess an interesting way could be to examine if people become more offensive when they are shown as anonymous. My thoughts are that it is. You could look at reddit discussions compared with the core values of Wikipedia, and why it worked for Wikipedia, but a little hard for Reddit.

Gary Brown: Are there any data on the selection process, or ventures that were rejected? It’s hard to associate it with discrimination if there is no evidence. Since you can’t prove or disprove this, it means “site controls” cannot be determined. Therefore you need to make a new thesis that really reflects the paper.

Meagan Moana HoChing: DOTA is a fun game. My initial response is that with huge amounts of ego on the line, that’s how bullying start. Haha. From what I read and know, it is the architecture that is dominantly the issue. This structure allows the audience to exploit it. I think you could also investigate is how is “harassment” identified as? Calling someone a “loser”? Do note that a lot of cyber bullying are to kids that people know in real life. So can we causally say trash talking is the same as harassing? When NBA players trash talk one another, I don’t think they considered it as harassing. So I guess this definition needs to be very clear.

Caroline B: Perhaps you could mention NPOV as one of their values they used in order to keep readers like yourself going to the website.

Jan Yburan: Second Reddit I saw today. Haha. I think you need to be weary of the upvote system. More popular and famous people would get a self –fulfilling upvote treatment, where as more niche people or radical ones would get less. This way of identifying success might be a little questionable.

Alex Samaei: I’d be more interested in how kickstarter protects pledgers from potential false projects. This seems like a very good question for privacy and control.

Gia:
“New scambaiters can request to be assigned a "mentor" to assist them in learning how to bait.”

I think this is really cool.

“. In the past, scammers were tricked into sending money themselves, which was later given to charity.”

That’s crazy. Not sure who the scammer is now. I’d spend more time discussing the aspect about scammers being scammed by scambaiters, and the moral and ethical implications of it.

Mishal R. Kennedy: I think you have a legit question there. Looking at whether deleting an old post or controlling spambots to be more important. You could also consider that perhaps it was the ease of registration that led to the spambots. Deleting the old posts doesn’t actually go to the root of the problem. I guess you could also talk more about the ease of registration.

Richard Markow: I think you should just talk about 1 or 2 points out of the 5. Don’t think you have enough space to write that much.

Alexander H: Do you think you could also go into the ease of account creation? To attain legitimacy, the website would need real personal data to determine that the petition is signed by a real person. If so the privacy concerns would be the biggest. A deeper look at the terms and agreement is a must.

Meredith Blake: That’s an interesting take on Yelp. I do believe that the reviews are either from the ones who enjoyed the restaurant the most, or the ones that hated it. The ones in the middle won’t be bothered to write a review.

Wesley Verge: Personally I think it is an inevitable part of anonymity and high view count. There’s bound to be a few trolls, but that too is what makes youtube entertaining. I think youtube just needs to make a better flagging system.

Kelly Wilson: You could talk about how the internet might influence more people to be whistleblowers, or even anonymous whistleblowers.

Tasha: I think to begin with you need to bare in mind that a lot of fitness people already know the difference between science and bro-science. I further believe that bodybuilding.com would just allow people to say whatever they want knowing full well it is just a forum. As long as they don’t endorse it, they shouldn’t be liable. But as such, you should also talk about the privacy of fitness people on the website. A lot of them post photos up too, and their diet and schedules.

Josefin S: Nice logo. I don’t really like the age range for kidzworld.com. It doesn’t make sense for 9 year olds to interact with 17 year olds. Furthermore, I wouldn’t want my 9 year old kid to socialize with 17 year old kids and being taught 17 year old stuff. So my biggest concern, as you also mentioned, is how do they keep content separate between different ages to prevent the younger kids to learn the wrong stuff? Or do they not do this at all?

Brooke Ashley Tjarks: Yes, I’d agree with you that IMDB is a good balance between the other two websites. I think by becoming a member, the legitimacy of the votes would become higher. There’s bound to be some sort of influence between people regardless of the platform, so I think IMDB is an interesting one to investigate further.

----

- Brooke Tjarks here responding to Caelum -

Thank you so much for the feedback. I am defintely going with IMBD. Another interesting aspect of the platform is the accuracy of content that the website tries to uphold and the methods that they use to ensure this. For example, users with profiles who edit pages must sign legal documents online (such as NDA's) before editing. The more I thought it over the more I realized how different each of the sites I considered truly are, but IMDB has the most to offer for this assignment. Thank you again for your support.

[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 17:53, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----

Amchugh: I think you could go into internet being free also has its consequences. Since the internet could edit and post something online in a matter of seconds, it becomes very vulnerable for unintended things to hit the net. The filtering has to either occurred before the posting, or after it has been up. When it’s up already, it’s hard to say whether the rest of them would oblige, or would they prefer to continue the troll game. You could talk about the reasons for why Twitter would take it down (assuming that it does not violate Twitter’s policies).

Note: Good luck everyone!

[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 13:43, 6 March 2015 (EST)
----
Hi Caelum,

Thanks for your comments. There are a lot of interesting issues, both legal and ethical and the subject is controversial for sure. Good luck with your project as well!

([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))

Assignment 2 Submissions

2015-03-03T22:12:06Z

Tasha: /* Comments */

File:Tasha Assignment 2 Prospectus.docx

2015-03-03T22:08:15Z

Tasha:

Privacy Part 3: Government Surveillance

2015-03-03T20:23:28Z

Tasha: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''March 3'''

Over the past two weeks we’ve looked at big-picture concepts of privacy and how the Internet reflects these issues in the context of corporations and people. This week, we dive into the specific question of surveillance by governments: how the Internet allows governments to observe their (and other governments') citizens, how these issues are different than from the corporate context, and what government surveillance does to us and the Internet as a system. We'll also look at how companies are working to inform citizens about surveillance, and the issues they encounter.

==Assignment 2==

Your [[Assignments#Assignment_2:_Prospectus|final project prospectus]] is due today before class. Please upload your prospectus [[Assignment_2_Submissions|here]].

==Readings==

; Government vs. Corporate Surveillance

* [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/11/04/yes-there-actually-is-a-huge-difference-between-government-and-corporate-surveillance/ Brian Fung, Yes, There Is Actually a Huge Difference Between Government and Corporate Surveillance]

* [https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/10/the_trajectorie.html Bruce Schneier, The Trajectories of Government and Corporate Surveillance]

; Surveillance Theory and Practice

* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2239412 Neil Richards, The Dangers of Surveillance] (pages 1934-96; 1942-45; and 1952-58)

* [http://www.dmlp.org/blog/2013/nsas-spying-powers-reading-statute Kit Walsh, The NSA's Spying Powers: Reading the Statute]

* [http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115002/invasive-nsa-will-protect-us-cyber-attacks Jack Goldsmith, We Need an Invasive NSA]

* [http://justsecurity.org/2013/10/23/laura-donohues-comprehensive-case-bulk-metadata-collection/ Steve Vladeck, Laura Donohue's Comprehensive Case Against Bulk Metadata Collection]

:* If you're interested, the Donohue article can be found [http://justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Just-Security-Donohue-PDF.pdf here].

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaylQmnXztU Re/Code, An Interview with President Obama] (10:50-15:25 only)

* [http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/09/19/apples-dangerous-game/ Orin Kerr, Apple's Dangerous Game] and [http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/09/22/apples-dangerous-game-part-2-the-strongest-counterargument/ Apple's Dangerous Game, Part 2: The Strongest Counterargument]

; Transparency and Accountability

* [http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/12/what-transparency-reports-dont-tell-us/282529/ Ryan Budish, What Transparency Reports Don't Tell Us]

* [https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/timeline Electronic Frontier Foundation, Timeline of NSA Domestic Spying] (skim)

* [http://icontherecord.tumblr.com/ IC on the Record] (skim)

* [https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/US/ Google Transparency Report: United States] (skim)

* [https://transparency.twitter.com/ Twitter Transparency Report] (skim)

==Optional Readings==
* The Jennifer Granick / Orin Kerr debates on metadata and the Fourth Amendment

:* [http://justsecurity.org/2013/09/23/metadata-fourth-amendment/ Granick's opening]
:* [http://justsecurity.org/2013/09/23/debate-metadata-fourth-amendment-reply-jennifer-granick/ Kerr's response]
:* [http://justsecurity.org/2013/09/27/metadata-4a-round2-jg/ Granick's reply]
:* [http://justsecurity.org/2013/09/27/debate-round-2-metadata-fourth-amendment-response/ Kerr's sur-reply]

* [http://towcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Letter-Effect-of-mass-surveillance-on-journalism.pdf Emily Bell et al., Comment to Review Group on Intelligence and Communication Technologies Regarding the Effects of Mass Surveillance on the Practice of Journalism] (pages 9-12 ("Mass surveillance raises issues beyond individual surveillance," "Secret and confusing law," and "Chilling Effects") only)

* [http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/nov/01/snowden-nsa-files-surveillance-revelations-decoded#section/1 The Guardian, NSA Surveillance Revelations Decoded] (skim)

* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/09/meet-the-machines-that-steal-your-phones-data/ Ryan Gallagher, Meet the Machines That Steal Your Phone's Data]

==Class Discussion==

<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:Andy|Andy]] 15:12, 7 November 2013 (EST)</div>

Hello everyone, just wanted to start off the discussions with net neutrality. Regardless of which camp you're on, it seems like it has taken a huge step towards one direction.

Links:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-26/fcc-adopts-net-neutrality-rule-backed-by-obama-for-open-internet

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/technology/net-neutrality-fcc-vote-internet-utility.html?_r=0

http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/26/technology/comcast-net-neutrality/

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/republicans-gop-split-on-net-neutrality-115564.html (government split on net neutrality)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/26/net-neutrality-fcc-vote_n_6761702.html

http://www.vox.com/2015/2/26/8117905/new-net-neutrality-rules-explained

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/26/net-neutrality-activists-landmark-victory-fcc (Net Neutrality activists)

[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 11:45, 27 February 2015 (EST)

----

:We'll talk more about Net Neutrality in a future class, after we get the written rules from the FCC. Thanks for sharing! [[User:Andy|Andy]] ([[User talk:Andy|talk]]) 11:57, 27 February 2015 (EST)

----

thanks Caelum. It seems net neutrality is another one of those issues of balancing the govmt's ability to function v. individual's rights. [[User:Hromero10|Hromero10]] ([[User talk:Hromero10|talk]]) 13:16, 2 March 2015 (EST)

----
Re: Government Surveillance. When the revelations of the NSA surveillance program first came to the surface my first reaction was, who the hell these CEO's think they are to just open the doors for the feds to come in and take whatever they want without even challenging their authority to do this? The answer quickly became clear - like everything else related to National Security - intimidation. Intimidation by the government against private companies for the consequences of refusing to cooperate which could cause them to be responsible for allowing the next 9-11 to happen. The scepter of a similar terrorist attack has been the cudgel the government has wielded over every questionable piece of legislation to come from the Patriot Act, like the approval of 'enhanced interrogations' to holding enemy combatants without charges, to the assassination of U.S. Citizens abroad without due process.

As expected, most companies folded promptly like a deck of cards, and only a few courageos souls had the conviction to challenge the government's authority and methods. Its important to note that many of those executives who opened the door for the feds to come in had already been helped handsomely by the government in previous years in their transition from phone providers to internet service providers like Verizon and Comcast, so they were not in a strong position to tell the government to take a hike - the feds practically owned them. So with the doors wide open - one stream of information went to the phone and internet companies, the other went straight to the government's servers - the feds have been collecting massive amounts of personal information on private citizens without a search warrant for years.

Because of the inaction of some spineless executives and CEOs, some of them simply beholden to the government's wishes, there is very little that can be done to stop the government's constant intrusion and gathering of relevant and irrelevant information about millions of citizens without a warrant. Court litigation and lobbying in congress will help some, but what citizens can do is hold these web service and phone companies' feet to the fire. Consumers should demand that our privacy be respected and guarded, not sold to the highest bidder, or third or fourth parties. On that, we are only in the begining stages - the public is only becoming more aware of the depth of the surveilance and the possible consequences in future years.

A very important question was raised in passing during RE/Code's interview with President Obama in which he asks: "Who owns your data? Your health records,your financial information, your e-mail?" He didn't elaborate much on the issue but it is a hugely important question. If the answer is data belongs to the individual that generates it, then we have a big problem because we know corporations are gonna find a way to own it and charge people to release it or erase it if they want, getting back tangentially to the issue of the right to be forgotten. But the bottom line is that all data about a person should belong to the individual. As it stands today, no one is really sure, but one thing is for certain, no one has any control of their own data today. No one can control what government does with it or what a company does with it, much less what any hacker can do with your personal information. The only thing I've seen on the web out there is a handful of websites that show people how to prevent advertisers and third parties from following your clicks on line and purchases for marketing purposes. In conclusion, the internet is a long way, hundreds of thousands of miles, perhaps even light years away from anything resembling privacy. [[User:Hromero10|Hromero10]] ([[User talk:Hromero10|talk]]) 13:16, 2 March 2015 (EST)

----

I enjoyed this week’s readings as it goes into the reasonings from the government’s perspectives. I also liked the video interview with Obama in it. Perhaps that is what I shall be talking first. Perhaps the main aspect I could draw out from the video is that US has no cyber army, and if so, these armies are not just for defense, but also offense. Furthermore, I liked how he explains that there are many non-state actors that are “hard to pinpoint”. Yet the greatest state actors would be China, Russia and Iran. The highlight would bring it to when Obama said it is hard to get information from companies as a warrant is required, and subsequently encryptions makes their job even harder. (ref 1)

I do share the same vision as Obama for teaching kids to code. For one, I too felt extremely dated for not being exposed to coding at an early age. Therefore I am now learning to code. Teaching code to kids earlier, or the concepts of it during “abc’s” would ensure more knowledge about computers and coding. The other issue deals with gender equality, and a bigger influence and encouragement of women into sciences and technology subjects. I started off by mentioning this video is because it summarizes the views of US about cyber security and surveillance right now. It came from the man himself. (ref 1)

The next point to emphasize is that the difference between a company and a government doing the surveillance means a whole big deal. The key here according to Fung is that us individual citizens could boycott a company if necessary, but we cannot do so for a government. The government has the power to imprison us, and from one of his responses it says, “I am a strong believer in the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th amendments”, which meant that individual privacy should be respected. (ref 2) Just as Obama said it was hard to get data about your online communications, Fung also mentioned the same thing that it is hard for NSA to crack the encryption (as of now). Yet as the price of technology goes down, it directly benefits the surveillance from companies and governments. The government’s use of the “three hops”, which meant that three connections away from a suspicious individual, meant that they could pretty much surveillance quite a number of people! (ref 3) Also the four hurdles is almost child’s play with the ways the government overcomes them. The NSA actually have a lot of spying power. (ref 4)

So now with relatively low levels of threat, it seems like net neutrality and low government surveillance seems like the right thing to do. But as Goldsmith points out, “If a “catastrophic cyber-attack occurs,” the Timesconcluded, “Americans will be justified in asking why their lawmakers ... failed to protect them.”. What do we do when something really does happen? Will it be too late then? As it continues, since anyone anywhere can do a cyber attack, it makes it very easy and vulnerable to do so. (ref 5)

With all that in place, I do see the value of having some balances in check. The NSA does have its powers, but it is limited when it requires to extract data from companies. You could also see a whole bunch of transparency reports. Yet it is also questionable whether such transparency reports tells us enough of what is going on. If the warrant leads to the search of a suspected individual’s messages which stops some sort of crime, it should be applauded. Yet it does seem that we have this rigid stance against government surveillance right now. I remember seeing a comic about two individuals on a phone conversation while Obama was listening in to their conversation. (I tried looking for it, but I can’t find it) Surveillance seems necessary but also unnecessary at the same time. I agree it is very contradictory, but perhaps a new type of “system” could be created to ensure more security and still allow people to obtain and maintain some of their liberties. (Ref 6, 7, 8)

Lastly, I really liked the NSA spying timeline. (ref 9) I believe that government surveillance would not lower. It would only increase, as the potential for a huge cyberattack is much more dangerous than for everyone to keep their liberties. Since if a cyberattack occurs, the US would be devastated, and whatever liberties doesn’t matter at that point. US’s online presence is too huge, and people would complain if that happens anyways.

References:

Ref 1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaylQmnXztU

Ref 2 - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/11/04/yes-there-actually-is-a-huge-difference-between-government-and-corporate-surveillance/

Ref 3 - https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/10/the_trajectorie.html

Ref 4 - http://www.dmlp.org/blog/2013/nsas-spying-powers-reading-statute

Ref 5 - http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115002/invasive-nsa-will-protect-us-cyber-attacks

Ref 6 - https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/US/

Ref 7 - https://transparency.twitter.com/

Ref 8 - http://icontherecord.tumblr.com/

[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 17:35, 2 March 2015 (EST)

----
As I contemplate this week’s readings on the concerns raised about whether or not government surveillance, through the collection of digital metadata, is unconstitutional, I find I must consider it against the intrusiveness of commercial entities that have been allowed to follow our moves as we seek information on the internet. I believe both of these instances pose a substantial risk with regards to invading our privacy. While I can see that in good measure both are becoming somewhat necessary and tolerable, I can also see that it would be quite easy for this information to be abused and I believe preventing these potential abuses should be a core focus of this debate.

After I watched Kara Swisher’s Re/Code interview with President Obama I became more sympathetic to the cause of the NSA, and the government surveillance camp, as I now realize we will need to accept some version of this intrusiveness as a way of life. One of the aspects of the interview that I found most interesting was when the President discussed the pros and cons between air tight encryption verses seeking protection from terrorist plots. Consequently I think we need to contemplate creating a new set of laws and/or protocols that outline how this data can be handled and used, after it's collected and stored, so that this information cannot be used to confine our civil liberties.

As Laura K. Donohue points out in her paper, “Bulk Metadata Collection: Statutory and Constitutional Considerations,” during the Nixon Administration the CIA collected more than 10,000 intelligence files on Americans in an effort to thwart “the antiwar movement and other dissident groups in the United States,” and they did so “under the auspices of foreign intelligence gathering”(7). Clearly, as we move forward we need to engage in the creation of restrictions that would prevent this type of exploitation and manipulation of the metadata that is being collected.

Works Cited

Swisher, Kara. “President Obama: The Re/code Interview.” YouTube.com. 13 February 2015.

Donohue, Laura K. “Bulk Metadata Collection: Statutory and Constitutional Considerations.” forthcoming in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. 2014.

[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 09:33, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----

EmiMac. I don't believe the public should let down their guard in terms of government surveillance, there have been many instances in which the U.S. government has taken expansive powers and not used them wisely, e.g. asset forfeiture laws, immigration enforcement, amongst others.

As to the question of how to reign in the government's surveillance powers and its abuses, one of the first things that needs to happen is for the FISA courts to be reformed. They need to stop being a rubber stamp agency made up of five judges meeting ex parte, or in secrecy, with requests being made by the NSA, the FBI or the Dept of Justice, going virtually uncontested.

The FISA court needs to be, as Laura Donahue suggested in one of the readings for this class (Comprehensive Case Against Metadata Collection), an adversarial proceeding in which one of the parties argues for the interest of the public or the individual. As it stands right now, the FISA courts is heavily weighed by considerations of national security and it rarely, if ever grants an appeal to a decision (.03 % of all applications) or a rejects a request, this has been done only four times since 2002.

Again, the establishment of these laws owe a lot to intimidation by the government and conservative proponents of more expansive and permissive rules regarding government surveillance in the aftermath of 9-11, at the expense of individual's civil rights and fourth amendment protection for illegal searches. This is one reason to reject the doctrine of 'perpetual war' because all these intrusions by the government are done in the name of the 'war against terror'. If the country is never at peace, the government has no reason to stop surveillance without warrants on its own citizens. Jack Goldsmith argues persuasively for government surveillance, but no one has been blasted by conservatives more than he has been, and I believe he still shell shocked from his dealings with the Bush administration. [[User:Hromero10|Hromero10]] ([[User talk:Hromero10|talk]]) 12:32, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----

'''Meta-Monsters'''

''[As] Flying Dragons rushing through the air counting time and space as nothing…. Producing companionship among communities in distant points, increasing intelligent intercourse, union, and productive wealth… these iron monsters have made their path… it has no passions and no motives… guided by its directors…it may be applied to so many uses, and expanded to any strength. We believe that it is to be the great moral agent in bringing the world into neighborhood.''

This passage, written anonymously, was written 175 years ago. The “Iron monster” was the steam engine. In time, the line between who the monster really was blurred as these engines carried men with undiscerning guns westward, decimating flora and fauna to an unprecedented degree. Man made a machine that enabled him to do as many great things as evil. With great systems and inventions come the inherent risks that their awesome power can bring as much good to the world as it can bring bad. The question is, in who’s hands do we put this huge and immeasurable Iron Monster. The Internet is today’s Iron Monster, but it is harmless without directive; whoever directs this has the immense ease and temptation of becoming the true Iron Monster. The question after this week’s readings is. Who is it? The Public or the Private sectors? Most of us err on one side or the other reluctantly, but it’s a question with no one answer.

Bruce Schneier’s article succinctly discusses the two “Hands” –the public and private sectors -- that wield the Internet in order to gather our “private data”; neither of whom are comforting rulers. Especially frightening is the seepage, this “merge” Schneier discusses between the two kinds of databases; as companies gather increasingly more information about customers, it becomes more tempting for the government to transition from “asking” for information from the corporate databases to “demanding” information.

And the chilling thought is the most simple one; Schneier’s argument that with the creation of data, surveillance is simply inevitable – that we have created a world of “ubiquitous surveillance.”

Few of us can deny this.

Even more suffocating is the increasing truth found in the Faris and O’Brien article on Privacy and Data from class 3; that “Currently, the only surefire way to protect one’s digital privacy is to opt out entirely.” An incredibly difficult proposition in today’s world seeing that we’re not only barraged from all sides for our data, the private and public sector, but that our notions of what Richard in his “The Dangers of Surveillance” article labels, “Intellectual Privacy” become so eroded or at least de-valued for that trade-off of using services or simply being a citizen, of essentially, living in a civilized world apart from Emerson’s desolate cabin in the woods.

We will never revolt against these essential ways of living; we return to Schneier’s argument that simply living provides enough of a digital footprint that surveillance is indeed inevitable.
Outstanding articles this week. Especially Neil Richards’ Dangers of Surveillance article in combination with Bruce Schneier’s thoughts.

In Richards’ words: “Our society lacks an understanding of why (and when) government surveillance is harmful.”

In Bruce Schneier’s words: “data equals surveillance.”

And in Robert Faris and David O’Brien’s words: “We constantly contradict ourselves: we want to protect “privacy” but constantly give it away.”

Mostly because, in Solove’s words: “Everybody is talking about [privacy] but no one knows what they are talking about…”

With this inevitable crawl towards surveillance and this weak and vague push against it because he have no idea what exactly we are defending – even with ideas as clear as Richards’ four principles – we are all riding this “Iron Monster” that is at once our own creation but the controlled monster of even greater monsters – also of our own collective creations. It is the inevitable crawl not to a doomed world but one that is not something we will accept – but we cannot stop it and surveillance will be an inevitable part of the next generations’ futures. They won’t stop it because they won’t likely care.

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 14:11, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----

I want to start with the quote from Schneier´s text: ”We need to decide whether our data is a shared societal resource, a part of us that is inherently ours by right, or a private good to be bought and sold.” (Schneier, 2013). For me, that is the root to the problem discussed in this week´s class literature, and your personal view on this matter will most likely affect your opinion in government and corporate surveillance.

This week was all about different interests and their rights. The literature discussed privacy vs. protection from terrorism and privacy vs. solving crimes. As President Obama said in the Re/Code interview, there are problems with encoding (which was what they talked about in this particular interview) but also tradeoffs (Swisher, 2015). The problem is to decide which interest is the most important? It is a difficult question to answer and I can´t really decide for myself what I think. At the moment, I would say that privacy is the less important interest when it comes to this issue, but I might say something else later on. And I am not the only one thinking this is a hard nut to crack. If it wasn´t, we wouldn´t even discuss it.

I believe that the really big security threat now and in the future is cyber attacks and cyber terrorism, since we are relying more and more on the Internet and computers. We barely even pay in cash anymore and governments use the Internet all the time. Actually, when I read the newspaper today I saw an article about the increased amount of cyber attacks against both the government and companies here in my country. One example was from February 23rd this year, when 112 (Europe´s version of 911) was affected by a technical breakdown (Törnmalm, Spängs, 2015). That could have had huge consequences. I would say that especially in a country like Sweden, where I am a citizen, cyber attacks feels way more threatening than more traditional threats. Sweden has been a country in peace for more than 200 years, even though you never know what will happen in the future of course.

References:

Schneier B, 10/21/2013. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/10/the_trajectorie.html Retrieved 2/27/2015

Swisher K. “President Obama: The Re/code Interview.” YouTube.com. 13 February 2015.

Törnmalm K., Spängs T., 2015. Dagliga attacker mot myndigheter och företag. Dagens Nyheter, 03 March. page. 8-9.
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 14:29, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----

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)

Privacy Part 2: The Right to Be Forgotten

2015-02-24T19:55:18Z

Tasha: /* 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)

A Series of Tubes: The Internet's Backbone and Network Neutrality

2015-02-17T02:28:49Z

Tasha: /* 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://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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality Wikipedia, Net Neutrality]

* [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)]

== 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>

----

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)

----
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)

Privacy Part 1: Corporate Data Gathering and Intrusions by the Public

2015-02-10T23:05:16Z

Tasha: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 10'''

'''''Note: Harvard Extension has cancelled classes today due to snow. [[Assignment 1 Details and Reporting|Assignment 1]] is still due today. Please stay tuned for an update on when we'll reschedule this 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]].

==Class Discussion==

<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:Andy|Andy]] 15:12, 7 November 2013 (EST)</div>

----
Hello All!

Delving into this week’s readings has definitely opened my eyes to the seemingly limitless complexities of defining privacy boundaries in an effort to create adequate laws and policy to address privacy issues in what Chris Anderson calls the “Petabyte Age”.

In our first reading from ''Understanding Privacy,'' Daniel Solove illustrates how difficult it has become for every tier of society “to adequately conceptualize the problems that privacy law is asked to redress” (2). In an effort to offer a solution to this dilemma, Solove proposes a new theory of privacy as a means to “aid the creation of law and policy to address privacy issues” (11). By conceptualizing privacy as pluralistic and contextual Solove creates a “taxonomy of privacy,” which focuses on “the specific activities that pose privacy problems” that bombard us with ever increasing frequency including: information collection, information processing, information dissemination and invasion (10-11).

The ease at which this data can be invasively collected and disseminated was clearly illustrated to me when I plugged my birthdate and zipcode into Latanya Sweeny’s ''Data Privacy Lab'' search tool. With two simple key strokes I was shown that I am uniquely identifiable. Add this to the “Click-tracking” and “CSS history sniffing” used by companies such as Dataium LLC as discussed in Jeremy Singer-Vine’s article on “How Dataium Watches You,” it is easy to become paranoid. Nonetheless, I am trying to remain as optimistic as possible. In some ways I like it when ads are generated on the internet, geared towards my personal interests. Still I think it should be feasible for consumers to have a choice as to what data is being collected on their habits and how it is being shared. Perhaps there should be an app for that. If there already is one, please let me know where I can get it.

Thanks,
Emily M.

Works Cited

Anderson, Chris. “The End of Theory: The Data Deluge Makes the Scientific Method Obsolete.” ''Wired Magazine.'' 23 June 2008.

Singer-Vine, Jeremy. “How Dataium Watches You” ''Wall Street Journal.com'' 12 Dec. 2012.

Solove, Daniel. ''Understanding Privacy.'' Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 2008.

Sweeney, Latanya. “How Unique are You?.” ''Data Privacy Lab.'' Harvard University: Institute for Quantitative Social Science. 2013.

[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 12:22, 6 February 2015 (EST)

----

The assignment to update a wikipedia page has been challenging! It took me a few days to come across a page that needed updating and one which I could make a contribution. I have spent all day verifying sources and editing the page, and I feel like I haven't made much headway! I'll keep at this tonight and all day tomorrow. How is everyone else doing? [[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 17:45, 7 February 2015 (EST)

----

::Hello, Chelly! I had the same feelings in regards to the assignment. I recommend that you find an article that goes over a topic that you know a lot about (in my case, it was military history in regards to armored fighting vehicles.) If you have books on the topic, they will definitely prove helpful! I had plenty of books that went over the rifles used by Finnish troops during the Winter War! (NOTE: Will be creating a second post that goes over the lesson material!) [[User:Mishal R. Kennedy|Mishal R. Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Mishal R. Kennedy|talk]]) 1:35PM, 8 February 2015 (EST)

----

::Thank you Mishal! It sounds like you found a really good page to update for yourself! I came across a “stub” page for a music band started by one of my school mates, so I researched more about their discography and band members. He was delighted that I was helping with their Wikipedia page. I will complete the assignment and then do more research in the future to help him out some more! Good luck on the rest of the work. I have finished most of this week’s readings and will also post additionally. [[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 16:28, 8 February 2015 (EST)

----

::Fantastic work, Chelly! I've almost gotten done with my page, but have yet to read the lesson material (have a class on Monday, and have to stay up until 2:30 in the morning to attend this, and my class on expository writing [mandatory!]) Good luck on your assignment, and I can't wait to see you in the classroom! (If you attend the lectures online!) [[User:Mishal R. Kennedy|Mishal R. Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Mishal R. Kennedy|talk]]) 1:35PM, 8 February 2015 (EST)

----

Hi everyone!
First I want to say that it was nice seeing you guys in class last tuesday. I participated asynchronously but I am hoping to be able to participate online synchronously next time :)

I have always been one of those who really aren´t participating in or are interested in the debate about privacy on the internet. Mostly because I know so little about it, but also because I haven´t considered it being something particularly serious. Or perhaps it´s because it is an issue too wide and complex to dig in to, it is almost like thinking about the universe. Whatever the reason for my previous lack of interest is, this week´s literature made me more curious about the subject.

Privacy on the Internet has been very discussed in society, but my own experience tell me that it isn´t as much anymore. As I’ve mentioned I live in Europe, and during the campaigns for the elections to the European Parliament in 2009, this was an issue several parties focused on throughout the debate. For example, there was one party (Piratpartiet) from my country that had Internet privacy as their only political issue. Pretty much their entire political program was about privacy on the Internet and they ended up getting two seats in the parliament in Brussels. Last year, there was a new election to the European Parliament. This time, Internet privacy was not as discussed in the media nor in society as in 2009, and the party I mentioned above lost both of their seats.

Faris and O´Brien write in ”Data and privacy” that ”…our actions contradict our stated preferences on privacy; when asked in surveys, Internet users express growing concerns over online privacy, yet they continue to share a stunning amount of sensitive information online.”. This is a statement that correspond with my picture of how most people think about privacy on the Internet. Our will to reach access to certain websites is stronger than our fear of an intruded privacy and we are therefore willing to submit private information to those websites we want to access.

The discussion about what privacy actually is was also interesting. We talk and discuss about something that we can´t even define properly. It is also important to discuss when privacy is good and when it is bad. I take a class at another university and we read classics right now. I read Walter Lippman´s ”Public Opinion” and he says ”Privacy is insisted upon at all kinds of places in the area of what is called public affairs.”. That is something that I would say still is up-to-date, but we can today also say the opposite, that parts of what used to be private now is public. [[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 08:21, 10 February 2015 (EST)

----

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 12:19, 10 February 2015 (EST)
'''The Self is an Illusion: Chariots of the Internet Gods'''

The question of privacy raised in this week’s readings, to me, raised some active discourse regarding what exactly is the Self. Privacy implies that something is guarded. Before we even understand what the act of privacy even looks like, we must first visualize what it is this guard is protecting.

There is a marvelous parable told in Buddhism about how the self exists and yet it doesn’t… It is a paradox in and of itself and to think otherwise is to blind oneself to the Self. To truly understand something so un-understandable, one must look at all the elements in a very certain way.

Solove’s (and history’s) understandable fumbling with the term, the word, the meaning of “Privacy” was, to me, a revelatory mirror to the parable of the Chariot.

In thinking about this parable in conjunction with some of our readings on what Privacy is, I can but clumsily conclude that one reason privacy is so difficult to define is because it is a shield, a forcefield, a protector of something even more undefineable – or at least debatable and that is, the self. For something so metamorphic, so subjective to each individual it is understandable, if not expected that “privacy” will always be a term never quite captured. We will forever hunt it. It will change with the ebb and flow of the zeitgeist, of the individual, and now, of the technology.

Solove condenses this feeling so well:

''Other commentators have lamented that privacy is “protean” and suffers from “an embarrassment of meanings. “Perhaps the most striking thing about the right to privacy,” philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson has observed, “is that nobody seems to have any clear idea what it is.” (7)''

The following dialogue between King Milinda and the Buddhist sage Nagasena examines this concept of the indescribable describable in a way that was revealing to me in conceptualizing “Privacy” and how we might universalize its meaning for more than just one individual in today’s world:

'''KING MILINDA AND THE CHARIOT'''

King Milinda asks the sage how he might address him by name, how he is “to be known.“

The sage replies:

"As Nagasena I am known, O Great King, and as Nagasena do my fellow religious habitually address me. But although parents give names such as Nagasena, or Surasena, or Virasena, or Sihasena, nevertheless, this word ‘Nagasena’ is just a denomination, a designation, a conceptual term, a current appellation, a mere name. For no real person can here be apprehended."

The King scoffs the sage, asking how he can possibly agree that Nagasena is not actually a person. Nagasena responds by asking if the King has a chariot and the King responds that he has.

“What is the chariot?” asks Nagasena. Was it the wheels? The King responds “No.” Was the chariot the spokes, the axle, the seat, the frame, the yoke, the wood? To all of these, the King answers “No” because none of these could be singled out and called a “chariot” individually.

Then is it the collection of these elements? The answer again, is “no” because if they were simply put together in large pile, a chariot the pile does not make. So the chariot cannot be found within this collection of elements – so too, it cannot be found outside this collection of elements. So where and what is the chariot?

'''Nagasena:''' “Then, ask as I may, I can discover no chariot at all. Just a mere sound is this ‘chariot’. But what is the real chariot? Your Majesty has told a lie, has spoken a falsehood! There really is no chariot…”

'''Milinda:''' “I have not, Nagasena, spoken a falsehood. For it is in dependence on the pole, the axle, the wheels, the framework, the flag-staff, etc., that there takes place this denomination ‘chariot,’ this designation, this conceptual term, a current appellation, and a mere name.”

'''Nagasena:''' “Your Majesty has spoken well about the chariot. It is just so with me. In dependence on the thirty-two parts of the body and the five Skandhas there takes place this denomination ‘Nagasena,’ this designation, this conceptual term, a current appellation, and a mere name. In ultimate reality, however, this person cannot be apprehended.”

- - - - - - - -

For it is in dependence on all the other elements that constitute Privacy that we are to even begin to conceptualize it. Privacy as the shield of the self – and the self is constantly changing, it is never a constant idea and so, in turn, privacy is constantly changing, our ideas about it, as Solove seems to suggest through history, will never unite to mean any one thing.

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 12:19, 10 February 2015 (EST)

----

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)

Assignment 1 Submissions

2015-02-10T20:54:48Z

Tasha: /* 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:

---------------------------------------------------------
Beccalew (Becca Lewis)

Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimson_Hexagon

Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Becca_Lewis_Assignment_1.docx

---------------------------------------------------------

Rhurls (Ryan H.)

Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources

Article:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_law#Academic_Aspects_of_Sports_Law

Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment_1_internet_law.docx

---------------------------------------------------------
ErikaLRich

Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blairsville,_Georgia

Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/LSTU_E120_Erika_Rich_Assignment_1.docx

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JosefinS

Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_High_School_(Hillsboro,_Oregon)

Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:JosefinS_Assignment1.pdf

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ChanelRion

Rule:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Notability

Article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Stratemeyer#Death

Rion Report:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:WikipediaReport_Assignment_1_RION.docx

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caroline Borek

Rule:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

Article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property

Report:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment_1_Borek.docx

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edwin Duque Edwinduque Elduquews

Rule:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

Article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_law

Report:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment_1.doc

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Emily MacIntyre

• Link to rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

• Link to article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meetinghouse_Common_District

• Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/MacIntyre_Emily_Assignment_1.pdf

---------
Samaei1

Rule:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source

Article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Justice#In_other_media

Report:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment_1_Samaei1.pdf

-----
Mhoching

Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mt._Baker_Sesh_Up

Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment_1.docx
-----
MeredithB

Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_for_an_Open_Europe

Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Meredith_Blake._Assignment_1.rtf
-----
Mishal R. Kennedy:

Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M15/42_tank

Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Essay_(Internet_and_Politics,_Assignment_1)_Mishal_Kennedy.rtf
-----

Jan.Yburan

Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swimming_(sport)#Collegiate_Swimming

Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Jan_Yburan.Assingment1.docx

----
Gia
Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymity

Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Wikipedia_Assignment_1.docx
----
Gary Brown (Intor1 on Wikipedia)

Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_aspects_of_computing#Internet_Law

Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Gary_Brown_Assignment1.docx
----
Michelle Byrne (Chelly.Byrne)

Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bim_Skala_Bim

Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:ChellyByrne_Assignment1.pdf
----
MattK

Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

Articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_resilience
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness_%28race%29_in_the_United_States

Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:MattK_WikiEdits_LSTU120.docx
----
Tasha

Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinder_(application)

Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment_1_NPOV_Tasha.docx

File:Assignment 1 NPOV Tasha.docx

2015-02-10T20:51:05Z

Tasha: Assignment 1 Submission reviewing Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View Policy.

Assignment 1 Submission reviewing Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View Policy.

Paradigms for Studying the Internet

2015-02-03T20:44:35Z

Tasha:

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 3'''

Before we can even begin exploring the who's, what's, and why's – we need to answer the critical question of how. Indeed, the phrase "studying the web" could embrace a staggering world of possible routes to explore, even before beginning to examine its relationship with society and culture. We need something to guide us through this massive field of (very interesting!) foxholes, and link the ideas we encounter into a consistent piece. We need some kind of structure to allow us to understand what we are looking at, the same way a chemist thinks of things in terms of atoms and molecules, or a philosopher can think about things in terms of schools of thought. This class will explore different frameworks for studying the web, which will structure both the discussion and topic matter covered in the course, as well as the methodology that you should apply to your assignments.

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==

; Mechanisms of control

* [https://www.socialtext.net/codev2/what_things_regulate Lawrence Lessig, ''Code 2.0,'' Chapter 7] (read intro, "A Dot's Life," and "On Governments and Ways to Regulate")

* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2353457 Rob Faris and Rebekah Heacock, Measuring Internet Activity: a (Selective) Review of Methods and Metrics] (read 1-3 and 9-22)

* [http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/ Maeve Duggan, Online Harassment: Summary of Findings] (from the [http://www.pewinternet.org/ PewResearch Internet Project])

; The effects of control

* [http://arstechnica.com/features/2008/06/book-review-2008-06-2-admin/ Nate Anderson, Book Review: Jonathan Zittrain's "The Future of the Internet And How to Stop It" (from ''Ars Technica'')]

* [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ Jonathan Zittrain, The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It] (Chapter 1, "The Battle of the Boxes," and Chapter 4, "The Generative Pattern," only)

* [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks_Chapter_11.pdf Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks] (pp. 379-396 only; stop at "The Physical Layer")

* [http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/08/advertising-is-the-internets-original-sin/376041/ Ethan Zuckerman, The Internet's Original Sin]

* [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/01/facing-challenge-online-harassment Nadiya Kayyali and Danny O'Brien, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Facing the Challenge of Online Harassment]

== Optional Readings ==

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbYQ0AVVBGU Jeffrey Lin, Play Nice: the Science and Behavior of Online Games] (Focus on 0:00-27:17. It's a long video, but an interesting exploration of how one company uses game design to regulate griefing and other online bad behavior. Some of the discussed language is NSFW.)

* [http://www.danah.org/papers/2011/WhiteFlight.pdf danah boyd, White Flight in Networked Publics? How Race and Class Shaped American Teen Engagement with MySpace and Facebook] (read 1-11, skim 12-18, read 19-end)

* [http://www.niemanlab.org/2011/10/the-contribution-conundrum-why-did-wikipedia-succeed-while-other-encyclopedias-failed/ Megan Garber, The contribution conundrum: Why did Wikipedia succeed while other encyclopedias failed?, Nieman Journalism Lab]

* [http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/28/7927425/wikipedia-bans-gamergate-editors-violating-policies Adi Robertson, Wikipedia Denies 'Purging' Feminist Editors over Gamergate Debate]

* [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=310020 Orin Kerr, The Problem of Perspective in Internet Law] (Focus on sections I and II)

</onlyinclude>

== Assignment 1 ==

Assignment 1 is due before next week's class (February 11th). Details of the assignment will be discussed in today's class; see [[Assignment 1 Details and Reporting|this page]] for further information. You can submit the assignment [[Assignment 1 Submissions|here]].

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== Class Discussion ==

<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">'''Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:Andy|Andy]] ([[User talk:Andy|talk]]) 10:17, 21 January 2015 (EST)</div>

----

The Internet is the next frontier - not space. Grappling with the issues of how best to improve the logical layer of the Internet (with generativity or without), how to protect the harassed while protecting free speech, and how to protect copyrighted content are the big questions of our era. Many solutions are proffered in the readings in this section, some more reasonable than others, but we will only know how these will play out once they are put into practice. That’s why it’s a frontier, because we don’t know what’s out there or what will happen as a result of our actions until we do it.

Scammers didn’t appear out of nowhere with the popularization of the internet, nor did bullies or content thieves, but the Internet has acted as an enabling force for these kinds of people. Yet, almost every attempt to head off these “wrongdoers” (depending on whom you ask) is met with a catch 22. On the Internet everyone is equal, everyone is an IP address. Thus, those that gain greater skill in the use of the Internet can cause great harm to people in the real world whom they would never have a chance against in real life. It’s created a whole new playing field where the bullied are turning into the bullies, and the bullies are able to be better bullies.

Obviously, the Internet offers many positives as well, but we aren’t worried about those. Those are just there and we like them, but what we really need to deal with are the bad things. This opens us up to a whole new world of morality where relativism holds a lot of sway. We’re in an era where Redbox is going out of business because people either watch movies online or download them illegally. Some might say this is “bad” while others might view it from more of a Robinhoodesque perspective - take from the corporations and allow the little guys to benefit. We’re finding people staying out of trouble by using the “how” of things, for example, peer to peer sharing, which makes the waters even murkier.

Many governments have found ways of controlling internet access and use in their countries. Will the whole world move more in this direction, or will we find ourselves more and more in a cyberpirate world were anything goes and anything can be done? This seems to depend on who develops what first and how well they do it. [[User:Oliviabrinich|Oliviabrinich]] ([[User talk:Oliviabrinich|talk]]) 21:37, 1 February 2015 (EST)

----

Quite often, the Internet´s impact on society and on individuals is discussed in the media. However, the subjects discussed do almost solely concern the social effects or the long-term effects on sitting in front of a screen too much. What we should start focusing on is instead (or also) who and what it is that decide what we see and do on the Internet, because that can affect both our individual privacy and our view on the world.

One thing that is very interesting is that there is not one person or one government that rule over the Internet. The Internet is shaped by its users, people that build the softwares and other infrastructure, private corporations, and of course by governments. Internet security/Internet terrorism and online harassment are two issues that concerns all of these groups in one way or another. What is also interesting is that even though we all are part of shaping the Internet, we do have different interests in doing so. Individuals use the internet for their own purpose, for example for amusement and to gather information. Those who build the infrastructure might do so because they want to improve the Internet or because out of curiosity. Private corporations want to do business, while governments are interested in protecting individuals and the country from threats.

Even though the Internet is the source of a lot of good, there are like I mentioned also a lot of bad consequences to deal with. Issues like what to do about online harassment and online privacy problems are two of multiple hard nuts to crack. Laws are often important but not always the best and only solutions. Kayyali and O’Brien advocate in ''Facing the challenge of online harassment'' a more representative pool of toolmakers, to empower the users and to embrace counter-speak, etc., as part of a solution to the problems of harassment. I believe that it will take some time before we see a solution since there are so many players in this game called the Internet. The market, laws, norms and the Internet´s architecture all regulate the Internet in one way or another, even if they don´t mean to, and that is both a strength and a weakness. [[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 12:19, 3 February 2015 (EST)
----
From today's class reading I was mostly impressed by the Online Harassment article, by Mave Duggan and more precisely by the survey on how people response to online harassment . Only 5 % among those who have experienced online harassment reported the problem to law enforcement, it says. It means Internet users do not seek help from the offline authorities for violation of of their rights committed online. Considering this, I asked myself the question, is it so because the online community has already elaborated it's own methods of enforcement and response to online violence or is it just because people believe traditional, meaning offline measures, would not be sufficiently applicable and efficient regarding Internet cases? Another question I asked myself is whether people react the same way to one and the same aggression online and offline. For example our job performance being criticized in Facebook (Online Harassment, Part 4:The Aftermath of Online Harassment), would it hurt more or less than being criticized in a face to face conversation? ([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 14:23, 3 February 2015 (EST))
----
I too was very drawn to the articles about online harassment. As student affairs professional that has worked in higher education institutions for over 10 years, it has been very profound how the perception of internet bullying and the governance of such behavior has changed radically. Approximately a decade ago, there was a large amount of discussion about institution jurisdiction and the ability to adjudicate students and hold them accountable for actions occurring via the internet; but little was being done. As social media and technology became the forefront of communication for millennial students, institutions and practitioners had to reevaluate institution policies. As specific examples, I have served on committees that redefined internet harassment and code of conduct policies that no longer allowed for ‘remote’ behaviors to go unpunished. In a number of colleges and universities, harassment that takes places through a university’s technology network is subject to disciplinary and potential criminal action. Some institutions have gone so far as to create a code of conduct that governs student behavior and bullying/harassment off-campus, which is subject to institution discipline and potentially criminal action. In my previous institution, we saw approximately a 30% increase in judicial cases that included internet harassment from the preceding year. What is interesting is the increase of reporting in a university setting while reporting incidents to law enforcement by the general public may not occur frequently. I would assume, with increased legislation about universities’ reporting criminal behaviors, there has been additional scrutiny about institutions demonstrating proactive comportments in protecting our students holistically. Tasha[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 15:44, 3 February 2015 (EST)

Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction

2015-01-27T23:57:33Z

Tasha: /* 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)