Internet Law Program 2011 - User contributions [en]

Template:·

2012-04-23T17:05:35Z

David: Created page with " · "

·

Student Projects

2012-03-01T21:31:32Z

David: /* Option D. Written Output: Post-iLaw Reflections */

{{TOCright}}
{{Ilawsidebar}}

All HLS students seeking credit for the iLaw Program must complete a final project. We’d developed four options, which are listed below and include written, oral, participatory, or video projects. All students are encouraged, although not required, to work in teams. Please let us know what assignment you choose via the '''[[Talk:Student_Projects|sign-up page]]''' or by emailing ilaw@cyber.law by '''Friday, September 2nd'''.

Please take care in noting the deadlines or respective timeframes for completing projects.

More information regarding the projects will be made available as we approach September 6th.

==Option A. Session Participation and In the Moment Technologies==

Deep dialogue, hard questions and genuine interactivity are fundamental to the success and mode of the iLaw Program. Participants will be invited to engage with sessions in diverse ways throughout the program—from the wiki to the question tool, open Q&A, structured interposals, open space and invited conversation.

These participants will help us to embed uncertainty and dynamic interplay in the sessions, and help to create genuine opportunities to challenge and test ideas.

They will:
* Choose a '''session of interest''', along with up to 5 other students.
* During the session, you and your team will '''take charge of the question tool, monitor back channels and help identify key questions and priority issues.''' You will help the session leader to integrate them into the Q&A periods and other parts of the discussion. You may also document some questions that might be useful during the final “Future of the Internet” session on '''Friday, September 9th'''.

{|class="wikitable" border=1 style="background-color:#FFFFCC;"
|<big>'''9-3 Update:'''</big> Due to the large amount of interest in this session, we have "closed" certain sessions for Project A Sign-ups. Please see the [[Talk:Student_Projects|Sign-up Page]] to see which sessions are open. Spots in these sessions will be awarded on a first-come first-served basis.
|}
 
{|class="wikitable" border=1 style="background-color:#FFFFCC;"
|<big>'''New responsibility (updated 9-1):'''</big> After the session, please provide a '''2-3 paragraph summary of the key thematic areas, open questions''', etc. This summary should be posted to the relevant Talk Page and shared with ilaw@cyber.law.harvard.edu. It may become a permanent part of wiki or other outputs from iLaw 2011.
|}

[[Talk:Student_Projects|Sign-up Page]]

==Option B. Audio/Video Project==

For students with some knowledge/experience with audio/video production, we would be happy to have you record some portion of the proceedings (including interviews with key commentators, session leads and other contributors) and create a multi-media output. This might be a record of the program overall, a deeper dive into a certain topic, etc. Berkman staff may provide some (modest) production support. '''All final work products are due by the Friday, October 7th'''.

Note from Charlie Nesson: I'm hoping to do some informal video interviews during ilaw and would welcome student help. i need a soundperson, a relief camera person, and help cutting things together. nesson at gmail.com

{|class="wikitable" border=1 style="background-color:#FFFFCC;"
|<big>'''9-2 Update in response to questions:'''</big> For this project, we'd like students to choose a session(s) or topic(s) that they are interested in exploring and write up a project "pitch" for us, explaining their approach to the assignment (what they'd like to cover, identify anyone in particular they might interview, describe how they envision the final product, etc) before next Tuesday. The pitch does not need to be extremely detailed (a few paragraphs will suffice); but, if you choose this project, we'd like to have an idea of what you have in mind. Once we've evaluated and approved the pitch, to the extent that coordination is necessary we can put you in touch with the necessary people to get things moving. If you have any questions about this assignment, please email us: ilaw@cyber.law.harvard.edu.
|}

[[Talk:Student_Projects|Sign-up Page]]

==Option C. Final Presentation: Lightning Talk, Provocation, Response Statement==

The [[Program_Schedule#Student_Presentations.2FReaction_Statements.2FProposals|2:00-3:30 PM session on Friday afternoon]] is allotted for student and participant presentations. Audience members who sign up will have 5-10 minutes to provide substantive reflections on the iLaw sessions and the program overall, or offer central issues for the faculty to answer/consider during the “Future of the Internet” discussion. They might also provide a deeper dive into a particular module or interesting case for further study, etc. The focus here would be on developing a short and creative presentation or statement, to be followed by brief and lightly moderated Q&A with the broader audience.

[[Talk:Student_Projects|Sign-up Page]]

==Option D. Written Output: Post-iLaw Reflections==

In the wake of the program, and in particular, in light of the “Future of the Internet session,” you will provide a reaction statement or op-ed style piece--no longer than 900 words—that examines some of the hard problems at the core of the developing online space. You might choose to reflect on the evolution of traditional concepts such as privacy, security, and liberty, and their evolution in the online space, or to consider emerging issues that may confirm or challenge some of the core themes that were touched on in our discussion. You could also make the case for other themes, issues, or hard questions that require more attention in future iLaws. The best pieces will be posted to the iLaw wiki. '''All final work products are due by Friday, October 7th'''. Please submit your assignment by emailing ilaw@cyber.law, and cc'ing Lisa Carlavati: a2jz@law.harvard.

[[Talk:Student_Projects|Sign-up Page]]

Student Projects

2012-03-01T21:30:55Z

David:

{{TOCright}}
{{Ilawsidebar}}

All HLS students seeking credit for the iLaw Program must complete a final project. We’d developed four options, which are listed below and include written, oral, participatory, or video projects. All students are encouraged, although not required, to work in teams. Please let us know what assignment you choose via the '''[[Talk:Student_Projects|sign-up page]]''' or by emailing ilaw@cyber.law by '''Friday, September 2nd'''.

Please take care in noting the deadlines or respective timeframes for completing projects.

More information regarding the projects will be made available as we approach September 6th.

==Option A. Session Participation and In the Moment Technologies==

Deep dialogue, hard questions and genuine interactivity are fundamental to the success and mode of the iLaw Program. Participants will be invited to engage with sessions in diverse ways throughout the program—from the wiki to the question tool, open Q&A, structured interposals, open space and invited conversation.

These participants will help us to embed uncertainty and dynamic interplay in the sessions, and help to create genuine opportunities to challenge and test ideas.

They will:
* Choose a '''session of interest''', along with up to 5 other students.
* During the session, you and your team will '''take charge of the question tool, monitor back channels and help identify key questions and priority issues.''' You will help the session leader to integrate them into the Q&A periods and other parts of the discussion. You may also document some questions that might be useful during the final “Future of the Internet” session on '''Friday, September 9th'''.

{|class="wikitable" border=1 style="background-color:#FFFFCC;"
|<big>'''9-3 Update:'''</big> Due to the large amount of interest in this session, we have "closed" certain sessions for Project A Sign-ups. Please see the [[Talk:Student_Projects|Sign-up Page]] to see which sessions are open. Spots in these sessions will be awarded on a first-come first-served basis.
|}
 
{|class="wikitable" border=1 style="background-color:#FFFFCC;"
|<big>'''New responsibility (updated 9-1):'''</big> After the session, please provide a '''2-3 paragraph summary of the key thematic areas, open questions''', etc. This summary should be posted to the relevant Talk Page and shared with ilaw@cyber.law.harvard.edu. It may become a permanent part of wiki or other outputs from iLaw 2011.
|}

[[Talk:Student_Projects|Sign-up Page]]

==Option B. Audio/Video Project==

For students with some knowledge/experience with audio/video production, we would be happy to have you record some portion of the proceedings (including interviews with key commentators, session leads and other contributors) and create a multi-media output. This might be a record of the program overall, a deeper dive into a certain topic, etc. Berkman staff may provide some (modest) production support. '''All final work products are due by the Friday, October 7th'''.

Note from Charlie Nesson: I'm hoping to do some informal video interviews during ilaw and would welcome student help. i need a soundperson, a relief camera person, and help cutting things together. nesson at gmail.com

{|class="wikitable" border=1 style="background-color:#FFFFCC;"
|<big>'''9-2 Update in response to questions:'''</big> For this project, we'd like students to choose a session(s) or topic(s) that they are interested in exploring and write up a project "pitch" for us, explaining their approach to the assignment (what they'd like to cover, identify anyone in particular they might interview, describe how they envision the final product, etc) before next Tuesday. The pitch does not need to be extremely detailed (a few paragraphs will suffice); but, if you choose this project, we'd like to have an idea of what you have in mind. Once we've evaluated and approved the pitch, to the extent that coordination is necessary we can put you in touch with the necessary people to get things moving. If you have any questions about this assignment, please email us: ilaw@cyber.law.harvard.edu.
|}

[[Talk:Student_Projects|Sign-up Page]]

==Option C. Final Presentation: Lightning Talk, Provocation, Response Statement==

The [[Program_Schedule#Student_Presentations.2FReaction_Statements.2FProposals|2:00-3:30 PM session on Friday afternoon]] is allotted for student and participant presentations. Audience members who sign up will have 5-10 minutes to provide substantive reflections on the iLaw sessions and the program overall, or offer central issues for the faculty to answer/consider during the “Future of the Internet” discussion. They might also provide a deeper dive into a particular module or interesting case for further study, etc. The focus here would be on developing a short and creative presentation or statement, to be followed by brief and lightly moderated Q&A with the broader audience.

[[Talk:Student_Projects|Sign-up Page]]

==Option D. Written Output: Post-iLaw Reflections==

In the wake of the program, and in particular, in light of the “Future of the Internet session,” you will provide a reaction statement or op-ed style piece--no longer than 900 words—that examines some of the hard problems at the core of the developing online space. You might choose to reflect on the evolution of traditional concepts such as privacy, security, and liberty, and their evolution in the online space, or to consider emerging issues that may confirm or challenge some of the core themes that were touched on in our discussion. You could also make the case for other themes, issues, or hard questions that require more attention in future iLaws. The best pieces will be posted to the iLaw wiki. '''All final work products are due by Friday, October 7th'''. Please submit your assignment by emailing [mailto:ilaw@cyber.law.harvard.edu| ilaw@cyber.law.harvard.edu], and cc'ing Lisa Carlavati: [mailto:Lisa Carlavati| a2jz@law.harvard.edu].

[[Talk:Student_Projects|Sign-up Page]]

Program Logistics

2012-03-01T21:29:45Z

David: /* Contact Information */

{{Ilawsidebar}}

This page will contain information on Program Logistics for iLaw 2011.

==Audio and Video Recording Consents==

Audio and video from the 2011 iLaw Program will be recorded live. Harvard Law School requires us to obtain consent from all students, presenters, and other audience members who may be recorded on video or audio prior to the program. We will require program attendees to sign a consent, or opt-out of video recording, during registration before the first session on Tuesday.

Accommodations will be made for any audience member who does not wish to be recorded on video. If possible, please let us know if you plan to opt-out of recording ahead of the program (by contacting ilaw@cyber.law.harvard.edu) so we can ensure the accommodations will be as comfortable as possible.

If you have any questions about the recording, feel free to ask us as ilaw@cyber.law.harvard.edu as well.

==Contact Information==
Contact Amar Ashar and Caroline Nolan with programmatic or logistical questions about iLaw 2011.

Contact David O'Brien with questions about the wiki, or consult the [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents MediaWiki Handbook].

==Map==

{|class="wikitable" border=3 style="background-color:#FFFFCC;"
|align="center"|<big>'''Important Program Information'''</big>
|-
|style="background-color:#FFFFFF;"|
'''Please note that the iLaw 2011 Program is a Harvard Law School class that is closed to the public. Attendance is restricted to registered students and invited guests.'''
|}

Except for the [[Evening Events]], iLaw 2011 will take place in the "Austin North" room [http://map.harvard.edu/?ctrx=758998.5&ctry=2963240.5&level=9&layers=Campus%20Base%20and%20Buildings,Map%20Text in Austin Hall on the Harvard Law School campus].

[[Image:Austin_Hall_Map.png|border|frame|border|left|Substantive sessions of iLaw will take place in Austin Hall. Please note that the [[Evening Events]] may located elsewhere (see page for details).]]

{{clear}}

==Lodging==
For a list of local hotels and accommodations, see [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/events/wiki/Hotel_Information_and_Directions_to_HLS/Berkman this page].

==Parking==
Parking is not available through Harvard Law School, but there are several parking garages in Harvard Square.

Main Page

2012-03-01T21:26:36Z

David: /* Welcome to the iLaw 2011 Wiki! */

{{TOCright}}
===Welcome to the iLaw 2011 Wiki!===

{|class="wikitable" border=3 style="background-color:#FFFFCC;"
|align="center"|<big>'''Important Program Information'''</big>
|-
|style="background-color:#FFFFFF;"|
The [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu Berkman Center for Internet & Society] is very pleased to offer the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/ilaw iLaw 2011 Program], which will take place '''Tuesday, September 6th - Friday, September 9th'''. This wiki will serve as a repository for information and materials related to iLaw 2011. Here, you will find the [[Program Schedule|iLaw Program Schedule]], information about [[Main Page#Program Materials|individual program sessions]], [[Main Page#Program Materials|required and recommended reading assignments]], [[Final Student Projects|final student projects]], and [[Program Logistics]].

'''iLaw 2011 will be video recorded.''' All audience members, presenters, and other participants are required to sign a consent and release form (per the University's policy) prior to attending iLaw 2011. For more information, please visit [[Program_Logistics#Audio and Video Waivers| Audio and Video Waivers]]. If you do not wish to be recorded please email us at ilaw-[-at-]-cyber.law.harvard.edu.

'''Please note that iLaw 2011 is a Harvard Law School class that is closed to the public.''' We received an enormous amount of interest in this year's program. For this reason, we ask that all registered participants commit to attending all sessions on all days -- the evening events, however, are optional.

Apart from the [[Evening Events]], all program sessions will take place in the "Austin North" room of [[Program_Logistics#Map| Austin Hall]].
|}

==Program Schedule==
''[[Program Schedule|See main page on Program Schedule]]''

{{Ilawsidebar2}}
{{clear|left}}

==Program Materials==
{{Ilawsidebar}}
iLaw 2011 features a mixture of interactive lectures, roundtable-style and moderated discussions led by Harvard Law School faculty members, Berkman Center researchers, fellows, and special guests. Three types of substantive topical areas will be covered: (1) "Thematic Pillars" (the foundational topics and theories of iLaw), (2) "Cross-sectional Themes" (which explore overlapping themes below the foundational surface), and (3) Case Studies (cases and examples of themes in practice). Below are links to pages on this wiki categorized by topical area. These pages contain session overviews and links to the required reading assignments, recommended readings, and related Cross-sectional and Case Study sessions.

'''Note to HLS students:''' We’ve included a rather large number of readings on the wiki for each session. Although some of the session readings are described as “required,” faculty members and session leaders do not wish these assignments to be onerous. To this end, students will not be expected to have ''closely'' read all of the required materials prior to each session; however, students should at least familiarize themselves with the concepts contained therein. Additional “recommended” readings are included for those who wish to do a deeper dive into a particular topic area; we also hope these materials will also be useful for future research and student assignments.

Each day will end with an optional evening event. These events will offer unique opportunities to interact with Berkman Center and Harvard faculty, staff, fellows, and members of the community. Students and audience members are strongly encouraged to attend these events and learn more about the Berkman Center and it's diverse, enthusiastic community.

For more information about the schedule or logistics, please consult the [[Program Schedule]] and [[Program Logistics]] pages.

===Pillar Themes of iLaw===
[[Open Systems/Access]] 
[[Online Liberty and Freedom of Expression]] 
[[The Changing Internet: Cybersecurity]] 
[[Intellectual Property]] 
[[Cooperation]] 
[[Privacy]] 
[[Digital Humanities]] 

===Cross-sectional Themes of iLaw===
[[The History of the Internet]] 
[[The Study of the Internet: New Methods for New Technologies]] 
[[The Global Internet]] 
[[Interoperability]] 
[[The Future of the Internet]]

===Case Studies===

[[Exploring the Arab Spring]] 
[[User Innovation]] 
[[Digital Libraries, Archives, and Rights Registries]] 
[[Mutual Aid]] 
[[Minds for Sale]]

===Audio/Video Recording Consent Forms (Notice)===
''[[Program Logistics#Audio and Video Recording Consent|See page on Audio and Video Recording Consent]]''

We will require program attendees to sign a consent form, or opt-out of video recording, at registration on Tuesday, prior to the first session. Please see the above link for more information.

===Student Projects (Required)===
''[[Student Projects|See main page on Final Student Projects]]''

===How to Participate at iLaw 2011===

''[[How To Participate at iLaw|See main page on iLaw Participation]]''

Audience members are encouraged to participate at iLaw. For more information on how to interact with members during sessions, see the above link.

==[[Evening Events]] (Optional)==
* Monday: [[Evening_Events#Drinks_at_John_Harvard's|Drinks at John Harvard's Brew House]]
* Tuesday: [[Evening_Events#Berkman_Center_Open_House|Berkman Center Open House]]
* Wednesday: [[Evening_Events#metaLAB_.28at.29_Harvard|metaLAB (at) Harvard]]
* Thursday: [[Evening_Events#Thursday_Evening_with_Berkman_Faculty|Potential Thursday Evening Events]]
** [[Talk:Evening_Events|Food for thought Dinners]]

==Videos From Previous iLaw Programs==
''[[iLaw Videos|See main page on iLaw Videos]]''

These are worth checking out.

==Logistics==
''[[Program_Logistics|See main page on Program Logistics]]''
{{clear|right}}

==About the Berkman Center for Internet & Society==
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ Berkman Center Website]
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people Berkman Center Directors, Faculty, Fellows, Staff, and Community]
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic Information about the Berkman Center Cyberlaw Clinic]
* [http://crcs.seas.harvard.edu/ Information about Harvard's Center for Research on Computation and Society (CRCS)]

User:WikiSysop

2012-03-01T21:22:57Z

David:

This account is managed by '''David O'Brien'''

The Future of the Internet

2011-10-09T20:16:13Z

David: /* Background Readings */

{{Ilawsidebar}}

==Overview==
'''Friday, 4:00-5:00pm''' 
''Format'': Roundtable Discussion 
''Lead'': [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jzittrain Jonathan Zittrain] 
''Participants'': [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/ybenkler Yochai Benkler], [http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=964 Herbert Burkert], [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/ugasser Urs Gasser], [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/cnesson Charlie Nesson], [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jpalfrey John Palfrey], [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jschnapp Jeffrey Schnapp]

In a moderated discussion hosted by Jonathan Zittrain, Berkman Directors and Faculty Leads will be invited to reflect on the central themes emerging from the previous days, with a particular focus on the Internet’s future. Participants will engage one another regarding the next “big thing” – anticipated developments, opportunities, emerging issues, and risks within their particular area of research or interest. Foundational to the discussion will be the future of the Internet's generativity, including innovative and creative outputs and participatory input (the opportunity to connect with other people, work with them, and express oneself). Concerns regarding security, invasions of privacy, and other emerging issues may threaten that generative infrastructure; what are the potential costs? What are the visionary solutions?

===Driving Questions from Faculty===

The questions posed below by Berkman Faculty members reflect the fundamental inquiries for participants to consider during the 2011 iLaw Program:

'''Yochai Benkler'''
* How do we systematize cooperative human systems design, now that we all know that online collaboration is a critical component of the networked information economy?
* How do we integrate power into our understanding of networked society? What are the limits of public action, and what are the limits of decentralized action, given power in the market, the state, real-world society and the network?

'''William Fisher'''
* To what extent, if any, is legal protection for creative works necessary either to stimulate creativity or to ensure that creators are treated fairly?

'''Charlie Nesson'''
* Suppose it were to be agreed among us that when the founders wrote the Progress clause of our constitution, the exclusive right they were granting to publishers of creative works was the legal right to stop other publishers from selling copies of their works. Can you tell a coherent legal story about how we got from there to here?
* Viewed from the vantage of equal citizens in a public domain of common (totally usable) knowledge, when did We the People surrender the liberty of privately copying works of any kind? That is to say, when was this liberty taken from us?

'''John Palfrey'''
* What have we learned over the last fifteen years about the opportunities and challenges of studying digital networks and how we mediate our lives through them? What methods are the most fruitful, and which the most fraught?
* How are the dynamics of politics changing as activists and states alike use digital networks as both their tools and their workbenches? What do these changes mean for governing and for campaigning for change?
* Does the arc of the Internet bend toward justice?

'''Jonathan Zittrain'''
* How do we reconcile welcome contributions from all corners with poisoned apples?
* What is the Internet doing to us?

==Your Questions for the Future of the Internet Panel!==

Please visit the [[Talk:The Future of the Internet|Discussion Page]] and add your questions to the panel for discussion during the the Future of the Internet session!

Questions will be added below.

===Questions related to [[Online Liberty and Freedom of Expression]]===
# Palfrey points out that “technical filtering is problematic both for censors, who must choose either overbroad or under-inclusive filtering, and citizens, who face challenges to creativity and innovation and a reduction of free expression and privacy.” How should this balance be struck, and what makes that option better than the alternatives? If a ﬁltering regime cannot be implemented in an accurate manner, should it be undertaken at all?
# Ethan Zuckerman explains that Global Voices has attempted to address the problem of selective global attention by providing an outlet for news stories from underrepresented countries. However, Zuckerman states that they have not been as effective in setting the agenda in such a way that these stories receive widespread readership. Is this sort of “agenda setting” desirable, or does deliberately emphasizing stories that are underrepresented in mainstream media merely exacerbate the problem of the media telling individuals what stories they should care about? How can we determine whether the right amount of audience attention has been achieved?
# If we accept the premise that some government regulation of the content of the internet is necessary (for example, to prevent distribution of child pornography), to what extent should a country’s legal and regulatory restrictions track those that govern similar prohibited offline conduct? Does the global reach of the internet call for stricter regulatory standards than more traditional modes of communication in order to protect the larger population that will be exposed to the information, or do the challenges of enforcing national regulations in the context of a border-transcending medium like the internet imply that governments should only attempt to enforce minimally restrictive requirements?

===Questions related to [[Exploring the Arab Spring]]===
#To what extent can intensely focused people multiply their voices online to actually shift a public agenda? Is involvement by the mainstream media essential, and if so, what role does it play?
#How do you tease apart rebellion rooted in social media from a larger national public movement driven by factors greater than social media?
#Do decentralized networks run the risk of dispersing organizers as opposed to facilitating their collective action?
#Where is the law on the topic of social media and the Arab Spring? Equality sits at the core of social media and the Internet and so why is that the United States, which is founded on this notion of equality, seems to have so little to offer on how to structure democratic government after the rebellion?
#Is a clear distinction between social media like Facebook or Twitter, and private companies naming Vodafone, that can be drawn in the context of political transformations or social movements?
#What are responsibilities/duties in providing the freedom of expression, especially in authoritarian environment?
#Can the extended use of social media during the Arab Spring be seen as providing a sense of security in number,
whether the political change in Arab world encouraged people to use social media or rather to change their use of it into political tool?

===Questions related to [[Privacy]]===
#As the Internet and technologies increasingly blur physical boundaries, how should we address national differences in privacy law?
#For Prof. Burkert: How do economics and concerns about the market inform the conversation about privacy? Do cost-based concerns about data protection regulation get much traction (as they do in the US).
#What (if any) is the relationship between the strong, protection-of-personality privacy law that has arisen in Germany and the more limited use of e-commerce and social media in Germany than in the US? More generally, how and why have attitudes toward privacy developed differently in Germany and the US?
#Given the economic implications of privacy regulation for e-commerce, how should regulators and policymakers be thinking about the policy process around privacy?

===Questions related to [[Digital Libraries, Archives, and Rights Registries]]===
#What roles should government and private organizations play in future innovation projects such as digital humanities registries?
#What is the future of written (paper) materials like books, and what’s the future relationship between public libraries and the Internet?
#How do we balance the interests of copyright protection of creator’s rights against the benefits of more free use, access, and collaboration?

===Questions related to [[The Changing Internet: Cybersecurity]]===

#To what extent are cybersecurity breaches the result of laziness and to what extent would these breaches occur regardless of individuals’ vigilance?
#If the proper response to cybersecurity threats is greater regulation, how should that regulation balance security concerns with preservation of the Internet’s generative power?
#In addition, if regulation is required, who should do the regulating?

===Questions related to [[Cooperation]]===
#What’s the next WikiPedia? And what will the future of WikiPedia look like?
#Why are signallers more productive than non-signallers? How can an organizational infrastructure provide motivation to participants/members when each individual is motivated in different ways by different factors?
#How can the study of online cooperation influence and inform our understanding of human interaction off-line? How can we use what we observe online to provide an alternative to the self-interest model?

===Questions related to [[Digital Humanities]]===
#How do we help citizens become curators of their own cultural history? Is the preserver or archivist an additional model of cultural behavior to Read-Only and Read-Write culture?
#How are those leading the Digital Humanities charge accounting for the technical fragility and legal ambiguity of link-based contributions and information?
#How do experiential, scruffy, and curatorial attitudes of digital humanities reshape the genre of research? Should Digital Humanities projects work to supplement or replace more traditional modes of scholarship? And how does this fit with Zittrain’s concern about scholarship and entrepreneurship in the university?

===Questions related to [[Intellectual Property]]===
* To what extent is it helpful to use concepts like original constitutional meaning or first principles when evaluating current internet regulatory frameworks?
* Are those ideas still relevant in an internet (and international) context or should we start with something new?
* If an overhaul of the copyright system is needed, and if it is unlikely that a new framework will ever be implemented due to the difficulty of reaching consensus, then where does this leave us in terms of finding a solution today?
* How do these questions change as we move to the Cloud? Is there such a thing as IP in the cloud?
* What is the implication of copyright law in user created appropriation works on the internet (YouTube videos, mashup gifs, etc)?
* Is there a difference between public perception of “real” art and “user” art? Are they significant enough for discussion?

==Interesting Unanswered Questions from Twitter, the Question Tool, etc==

* How central is US government policy to the future of the global internet?
* Should law students learn how to program?
* Should academics be more entrepreneurial or practical?
* Was Berkman's release of Facebook data in 2008 worth the potential violation of privacy?
* Should the US move more toward Europe in privacy regulations? Vice versa?

==Questions [[Talk:The Future of the Internet|Discussion Page]] on any topic (including those that weren't covered)==

* What is the next field for explosive growth or progress in the Internet?
* What kind of feasible projects should the Berkman Center, or students, take on next?
* What is the future of relatively closed and tethered platforms such as the iPhone? Could that model ultimately prevail?
* What is the current state of the software patent prosecution and litigation fields now? What do you think needs to change? And, should we be worried about patent claims that cover methods like [http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=OfwkAAAAEBAJ&dq=cat+laser+exercise "exercising a cat"] with a laser pen?
* How do we integrate power into our understanding of networked society? What are the limits of public action, and what are the limits of decentralized action, given power in the market, the state, real-world society and the network?
* Do you think that social networks have reached full growth or do you see an other model emerging in the future?
* What is the approach that developing countries should take to the net neutrality issue: the US' or Chile and Netherland's?
* How important are broadband policies to the commons-based peer-production model that has been discussed during iLaw sessions?
* How can commons-based peer-production systems help shape/influence state internet regulation?

==Recommended Readings==
*[http://futureoftheinternet.org/blog The Future of the Internet Blog]

==Background Readings==
*[http://futureoftheinternet.org/glossary The Future of the Internet Glossary]

==Student Reflections==

The Future of the Internet section brought iLaw 2011 to a close. It was thought that this slot could be used to tie in some of the most popular unanswered questions from the backchannel, with a view to leaving open the variety of issues raised for future thought and discussion. Naturally, and generally, the section became more conclusory and the unanswered questions that were dredged from the depths of the iLaw question tool archive were left for any of those still interacting online.

Much of the real world room conversation lent itself to summing up iLaw as a whole, with thanks being duly accorded to its organizers, speakers, participants, and all concerned. That is not to say that no questions or ideas were posited for future thought. Alongside the general appraisal of the efforts that went into iLaw 2011, and the remarks regarding the other sections of iLaw, two main themes emerged for consideration.

First, we discussed intellectual property and scholarship––particularly with regard to Harvard's own intellectual property and its role in improving open academic discourse. Two projects were brought up as examples: [http://lectureleaks.com/ H2O project] (an “open courseware repository”), and Berkman's [http://h2oproject.law.harvard.edu/ H2O project]. After a brief uneasiness about the prospect of many of their lectures being leaked online, the professors, noting MIT’s ongoing [http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm Open CourseWare] endeavours, moved toward embracing the idea. The remaining reluctance to fully sanction LectureLeaks was due to the potential for conflicts with Harvard’s copyright policies, and more significantly for the professors, the fact that classes are frequently like sanctuaries or fora within which students can develop and sharpen their oration skills without (too much) fear of public attention or oppressive ridicule. Several professors also talked about conflicts between Harvard's open access policy and journals' conflicting requirements.

The second theme concerned iLaw itself. In a somewhat Dickensian manner, the discussion covered the iLaws of past, present and future. It was noted that previous iLaw conferences had a much more limited scope, but as the internet and the conference both developed and issues became broader and more complex, so did the areas under discussion. The iLaw of present was indicative of this growing complexity and demonstrated well the emergence of new issues; Cybersecurity, Privacy, Digital Humanities, Exploring the Arab Spring, and the fascinating and shocking, Minds for Sale; as well as the disappearance of previous issues, such as domain name conflicts, that are now considered solved, or at least less challenging. Professors raised two major ideas for future iLaw conferences: franchise conferences that brought iLaw professors and curricula to other universities and even countries, and longer iLaw courses that might fill up an entire semester or more. It would be hard to say, “Bah, humbug”, to that experimental invocation of the Net’s spirit of global interactivity.

So, with that, the (almost) weeklong iLaw2011 drew to a close and the myriad participants toddled off somewhat confused, perplexed, inspired, tantalized, and probably in need of some sleep. Personally, as a big fan of the multimedia interactivity aspects to the Internet, Patrick was particularly beguiled by some of the activities of those immersed in the digital humanities; but, not nearly as much as he was disconcerted by the potential (mis)uses of the outsourcing possibilities the Internet is beginning to offer through the likes of Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, or the altogether more frightening issues raised by JZ in the Cybersecurity section. Will he ever log on again after that? Maybe, but certainly not without covering up his webcam, changing any and all passwords, and potentially moving to his own island where he can be sure of being free of the real world implications of someone gaining control over any government’s centralized top-secret backup servers, and where he can be sure to avoid having to witness Bruce Willis subsequently, and single-handedly, winning in a fight with an F-35B.

Dan, on the other hand, felt remarkably optimistic about the potential for future innovation in the internet, thinking perhaps that professor Zittrain was too pessimistic about the potential consequences of innovations such as Mechanical Turk. While JZ in this panel moderated his conclusions from The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It, saying that the path to potential internet lockdown would be subtler than he had expected, Dan thinks that the most optimistic panelists this week had it right. The most important innovations in the structure of the internet (such as TCP/IP, WiFi, peer-to-peer) have developed despite being considered impossible or unlikely under existing theory. As JZ mentioned, making predictions in this kind of field is devilishly hard, but most developments have had ultimately positive results. Taking the long view, then, we should expect the resilient internet to survive and thrive despite the challenges to come.

[[Category:Examples and Case Studies]]

Talk:The Future of the Internet

2011-10-09T20:04:22Z

David: /* Student Option A Assigment responses for 'The Future of the Internet' section */

==Student Questions for the Discussion Panel==

Add your questions for the panel here!

* If you could make one specific regulatory change relating to internet policy, what would it be?
* What is the next field for explosive growth or progress in the Internet?
* What kind of feasible projects should the Berkman Center, or students, take on next?
* What is the future of relatively closed and tethered platforms such as the iPhone? Could that model ultimately prevail?
* Do you think that social networks have reached full growth or do you see an other model emerging in the future?
* What is the approach that developing countries should take to the net neutrality issue: the US' or Chile and Netherland's?
* How important are broadband policies to the commons-based peer-production model that has been discussed during iLaw sessions?
* How can commons-based peer-production systems help shape/influence state internet regulation?

. . . to infinity, and beyond!

==Student Option A Assigment responses for 'The Future of the Internet' section==

#iLaw2011 
Option A - Project 
Patrick McKeown

The Future of the Internet section brought iLaw 2011 to a close. It was thought that this slot could be used to tie in some of the most popular unanswered questions from the backchannel, with a view to leaving open the variety of issues raised for future thought and discussion. Naturally, and generally, the section became more conclusory and the unanswered questions that were dredged from the depths of the iLaw question tool archive were left for any of those still interacting online.

Much of the real world room conversation lent itself to summing up iLaw as a whole, with thanks being duly accorded to its organizers, speakers, participants, and all concerned. That is not to say that no questions or ideas were posited for future thought. Alongside the general appraisal of the efforts that went into iLaw 2011, and the remarks regarding the other sections of iLaw, two main themes emerged for consideration.

First, we discussed intellectual property and scholarship––particularly with regard to Harvard's own intellectual property and its role in improving open academic discourse. Two projects were brought up as examples: [http://lectureleaks.com/ H2O project] (an “open courseware repository”), and Berkman's [http://h2oproject.law.harvard.edu/ H2O project]. After a brief uneasiness about the prospect of many of their lectures being leaked online, the professors, noting MIT’s ongoing [http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm Open CourseWare] endeavours, moved toward embracing the idea. The remaining reluctance to fully sanction LectureLeaks was due to the potential for conflicts with Harvard’s copyright policies, and more significantly for the professors, the fact that classes are frequently like sanctuaries or fora within which students can develop and sharpen their oration skills without (too much) fear of public attention or oppressive ridicule. Several professors also talked about conflicts between Harvard's open access policy and journals' conflicting requirements.

The second theme concerned iLaw itself. In a somewhat Dickensian manner, the discussion covered the iLaws of past, present and future. It was noted that previous iLaw conferences had a much more limited scope, but as the internet and the conference both developed and issues became broader and more complex, so did the areas under discussion. The iLaw of present was indicative of this growing complexity and demonstrated well the emergence of new issues; Cybersecurity, Privacy, Digital Humanities, Exploring the Arab Spring, and the fascinating and shocking, Minds for Sale; as well as the disappearance of previous issues, such as domain name conflicts, that are now considered solved, or at least less challenging. Professors raised two major ideas for future iLaw conferences: franchise conferences that brought iLaw professors and curricula to other universities and even countries, and longer iLaw courses that might fill up an entire semester or more. It would be hard to say, “Bah, humbug”, to that experimental invocation of the Net’s spirit of global interactivity.

So, with that, the (almost) weeklong iLaw2011 drew to a close and the myriad participants toddled off somewhat confused, perplexed, inspired, tantalized, and probably in need of some sleep. Personally, as a big fan of the multimedia interactivity aspects to the Internet, Patrick was particularly beguiled by some of the activities of those immersed in the digital humanities; but, not nearly as much as he was disconcerted by the potential (mis)uses of the outsourcing possibilities the Internet is beginning to offer through the likes of Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, or the altogether more frightening issues raised by JZ in the Cybersecurity section. Will he ever log on again after that? Maybe, but certainly not without covering up his webcam, changing any and all passwords, and potentially moving to his own island where he can be sure of being free of the real world implications of someone gaining control over any government’s centralized top-secret backup servers, and where he can be sure to avoid having to witness Bruce Willis subsequently, and single-handedly, winning in a fight with an F-35B.

Dan, on the other hand, felt remarkably optimistic about the potential for future innovation in the internet, thinking perhaps that professor Zittrain was too pessimistic about the potential consequences of innovations such as Mechanical Turk. While JZ in this panel moderated his conclusions from The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It, sayiing that the path to potential internet lockdown would be subtler than he had expected, Dan thinks that the most optimistic panelists this week had it right. The most important innovations in the structure of the internet (such as TCP/IP, WiFi, peer-to-peer) have developed despite being considered impossible or unlikely under existing theory. As JZ mentioned, making predictions in this kind of field is devilishly hard, but most developments have had ultimately positive results. Taking the long view, then, we should expect the resilient internet to survive and thrive despite the challenges to come.

User Innovation

2011-09-29T15:05:25Z

David: /* Related Cases and Examples */

{{Ilawsidebar}}

==Overview==
'''Wednesday, 2:30-3:30pm''' 
''Format'': Introductory Remarks followed by Lecture and Discussion 
''Leads'': [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/evonhippel Eric von Hippel], with [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/tfisher William Fisher] 
''Potential Commentators'': [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/cnesson Charlie Nesson], [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/ybenkler Yochai Benkler], [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/cbavitz Chris Bavitz], and others 

This case study build upon the IP session and will explore the creation of unique works, free and fair use, and other related issues through the prism of user innovation. Eric von Hippel will begin the discussion with an overview of new forms of user creativity and production in the online space, facilitated by the proliferation of freely available information online, the ease with which people can communicate digitally, and advances in innovating technology. This overview will segue into a discussion moderated by William Fisher, which will engage von Hippel and others in exploring models that exemplify the benefits of cheap and easy production while also examining the challenges such as copyright issues surrounding the reappropriation and alteration of original sources that may inhibit users’ capacity to innovate.

==Required Readings==
*Eric Von Hippel, ''[http://mit.edu/evhippel/www/democ1.htm Democratizing Innovation]'', (Cambridge:MIT Press) 2005. ''Please read Chapter 1 for an overview''.

==Recommended Readings==
* William W. Fisher, [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1601484 The Implications for Law of User Innovation] ''Minnesota Law Review'', Vol. 94, No. 5, (May 6, 2010).
* Karim R. Lakhani and Jill A. Panetta, [http://ssrn.com/abstract=1021034 "The Principles of Distributed Innovation"], ''Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization'' Summer, Vol. 2, No. 3, 2007; The Berkman Center for Internet and Society Research Paper No. 2007-7.
* Eric von Hippel, ''[http://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/sources.htm The Sources of Innovation]'', (Oxford: Oxford University Press) 1988.

==Related Cases and Examples==
*[http://www.buglabs.net/modules/bugvonhippel Bug Von Hippel]

==Student Reflections==

''Andrew Pearson'' 
''Lowell Battles'' 
''Pooja Patel'' 

In his session, Professor Eric von Hippel of the MIT Sloan School of Management presented an overview of user creativity and production, and how it has taken new forms in the online space. The traditional producer-centered model of innovation, or the “Linear” Innovation Paradigm, contrasts with a newer user-centric innovation model. While the idea of manufacturers identifying user needs and creating products was always assumed in the field of economics, it was never fully explored. After one of these explorations, a three-tiered model arises wherein i) users would innovate; ii) other users would replicate and improve the product, while once the market signal was fully developed; and iii) producers would finally enter and understand the need for a certain product.

Professor von Hippel notes that Professor Fisher’s earlier welfare argument begins to unravel where innovations actually come from and what the motivations of those innovators are. John Heysham Gibbon -- the inventor of the heart-lung machine -- serves as an example for the fact that the “functional” source of innovation depends upon the functional relationship between innovator and innovation. In other words, when the developer of an innovation expects to benefit by using it rather than selling it, it is a user innovation and not a manufacturer innovation. To manufacturers, these user innovations do not appear to be polished “products” -- manufacturers thus undervalue the role that users play in this process. The users demonstrate that a particular modification or innovation has both value, a use, and a function, where manufacturers enter the market years later to make a polished and sale-ready product.

The data show a high level of consumer and user innovation in the consumer goods arena, which the creator nearly always shared for free and was not motivated by profit from sales. This new model is facilitated by the ease with which people can communicate and share a wealth of available information online, as well as advances in innovating technology. Similar to Professor Benkler’s commons-based peer production, this data shows this new form of sharing user-created innovations. This new model also shows users self-incentivizing – they rely on their private benefit to reward themselves for what they create. In contrast to the traditional model with patents incentivizing the creator of a work, with this new model, new policy tools may be relevant – users may be willing to give away their product for free, but not willing to work hard to induce others to adopt.

While these models can exemplify the many benefits of cheap production, they may also be used to research problems such as copyright issues concerning alteration of original sources that may inhibit the ability of users to innovate. As an example, although the DMCA has been developed to prevent piracy, the problem is that it also catches user innovations in the net – we must develop new models where we can separate out curtailing piracy without stifling a place where new innovations can grow. Finally, this new understanding of the process of innovation can act as a critique of the current apparatus of patent law. Should the problems of the extreme cases of patent law – such as in the pharmaceuticals industry – be incorporated in a revised and more sophisticated model or be a more fundamental critique on the monolithic structure that is the modern patent system?

A few open questions resulting from this discussion remain:
#How can we harness the creative power of users who come up with innovative ideas, yet may lack the technical expertise and/or sufficient resources to execute their ideas?
#How is the SCOTUS's recent Global Tech decision on inducing infringement going to affect user innovation, particularly in the software development realm?
#Could the observation of the phenomenon of user innovation be used to help industrial R&D? (Should industrial R&D focus on basic research because applied will come from users?)
#User innovators' motives are largely for personal need. Do you agree that this is very much the same for large corporations who are part of the open source community? Think of the biggest contributors to the Linux kernel.

[[Category: Cross-Sectional Themes]]

Talk:User Innovation

2011-09-29T15:04:35Z

David: New page: ==Student Reflections on User Innovation== Andrew Pearson Lowell Battles Pooja Patel In his session, Professor Eric von Hippel of the MIT Sloan School of Management presented an overvie...

==Student Reflections on User Innovation==
Andrew Pearson
Lowell Battles
Pooja Patel

In his session, Professor Eric von Hippel of the MIT Sloan School of Management presented an overview of user creativity and production, and how it has taken new forms in the online space. The traditional producer-centered model of innovation, or the “Linear” Innovation Paradigm, contrasts with a newer user-centric innovation model. While the idea of manufacturers identifying user needs and creating products was always assumed in the field of economics, it was never fully explored. After one of these explorations, a three-tiered model arises wherein i) users would innovate; ii) other users would replicate and improve the product, while once the market signal was fully developed; and iii) producers would finally enter and understand the need for a certain product.

Professor von Hippel notes that Professor Fisher’s earlier welfare argument begins to unravel where innovations actually come from and what the motivations of those innovators are. John Heysham Gibbon -- the inventor of the heart-lung machine -- serves as an example for the fact that the “functional” source of innovation depends upon the functional relationship between innovator and innovation. In other words, when the developer of an innovation expects to benefit by using it rather than selling it, it is a user innovation and not a manufacturer innovation. To manufacturers, these user innovations do not appear to be polished “products” -- manufacturers thus undervalue the role that users play in this process. The users demonstrate that a particular modification or innovation has both value, a use, and a function, where manufacturers enter the market years later to make a polished and sale-ready product.

The data show a high level of consumer and user innovation in the consumer goods arena, which the creator nearly always shared for free and was not motivated by profit from sales. This new model is facilitated by the ease with which people can communicate and share a wealth of available information online, as well as advances in innovating technology. Similar to Professor Benkler’s commons-based peer production, this data shows this new form of sharing user-created innovations. This new model also shows users self-incentivizing – they rely on their private benefit to reward themselves for what they create. In contrast to the traditional model with patents incentivizing the creator of a work, with this new model, new policy tools may be relevant – users may be willing to give away their product for free, but not willing to work hard to induce others to adopt.

While these models can exemplify the many benefits of cheap production, they may also be used to research problems such as copyright issues concerning alteration of original sources that may inhibit the ability of users to innovate. As an example, although the DMCA has been developed to prevent piracy, the problem is that it also catches user innovations in the net – we must develop new models where we can separate out curtailing piracy without stifling a place where new innovations can grow. Finally, this new understanding of the process of innovation can act as a critique of the current apparatus of patent law. Should the problems of the extreme cases of patent law – such as in the pharmaceuticals industry – be incorporated in a revised and more sophisticated model or be a more fundamental critique on the monolithic structure that is the modern patent system?

A few open questions resulting from this discussion remain:
#How can we harness the creative power of users who come up with innovative ideas, yet may lack the technical expertise and/or sufficient resources to execute their ideas?
#How is the SCOTUS's recent Global Tech decision on inducing infringement going to affect user innovation, particularly in the software development realm?
#Could the observation of the phenomenon of user innovation be used to help industrial R&D? (Should industrial R&D focus on basic research because applied will come from users?)
#User innovators' motives are largely for personal need. Do you agree that this is very much the same for large corporations who are part of the open source community? Think of the biggest contributors to the Linux kernel.

Mutual Aid

2011-09-12T17:42:30Z

David: /* Student Reflections */

{{Ilawsidebar}}

==Overview==
'''Thursday, 5:00-6:00pm''' 
''Lead: Jonathan Zittrain''

Building upon key themes related to cybersecurity and the role of the private sector in ensuring persistent, secure, and consistently available content on the web, this session will focus on possible responses to the current state of computer and network security. Drawing conceptually from mutual aid treaties among states in the real world, Jonathan Zittrain will outline a defense scheme that would seek to make the current decentralized Web a more robust one. His" mirror as you link" system of assistance reimagines the technological relationships between sites and services on the Web, and envisions a new socially- and technologically-based system of redundancy and security. "Today, if one clicks on a link to an external site and that site is unavailable – perhaps attacked with a classic denial-of-service – there is no alternative to accessing it. Mirror-as-you-link would change that. Participating Web server administrators could make it so that for some or all of the links to external sites that they offer on their pages, the contents of the faraway sites would be saved (“cached”). They would do this only for sites that wish it to be done, and then only for sites that also perform such mirroring themselves. Then, when one site goes down, a Web surfer clicking on a link to get there can return to the referring site and ask for a copy of whatever he or she is missing since the destination site is down."

==Required Readings==
*The Harvard International Law Journal, [http://opiniojuris.org/2011/07/13/hilj-zittrain-responds-to-hollis/ "Jonathan Zittrain responds to Duncan Hollis"], July 2011.
*Jonathan Zittrain, [http://www.techpolicy.com/Blog/January-2010/Consider-This--A-Mutual-Aid-Treaty-for-the-Interne.aspx "Consider This: A Mutual Aid Treaty for the Internet"], January 2010.
*Jonathan Zittrain, [http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol78/iss6/3 "The Fourth Quadrant"], 78 Fordham L. Rev. 2767, January 2010.

==Recommended Readings==
*Jonathan Zittrain, [http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2011/0127_internet_treaty_zittrain.aspx "A Mutual Aid Treaty for the Net"], 8 The Future of the Constitution Series, The Brookings Institution, January 27, 2011. (also available in [http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2011/0127_internet_treaty_zittrain/0127_internet_treaty_zittrain.pdf PDF])

==Student Reflections==
This panel delved deeper into the cost and benefit analysis of solutions to previously mentioned cyber security problems. Such problems include dealing with networks that are difficult to control and resolve. Jonathan Zittrain categorized these problems into a quadrant chart dependant on the level of direct people participation in resolving these cyber security problems.

[[Image:JZ_quadrant.png|border|center]]

In discussing the different types of solutions, Zittrain showed how each solution followed the pattern of a generative dilemma presented by the nature of the internet: openness->abuse->lockdown. He asked whether the real problem is not the solution but rather whether we need to change the inherent nature of the Internet to make it more difficult to attack.

First, Self Help, from Quadrant 4 was discussed, in which each computer user must “stay vigilant” for cyber attacks. However, this solution was limited by the average user’s knowledge and understanding of computer problems. In addition, the computer knowledgeable demographic has limited initiative to help those less informed without an external incentive.

Second, Government Involvement, from Quadrant 1 was discussed. Either a national government or world government organization (ITU) would be responsible for defending against cyber attacks through programs such as Einstein 1,2, or 3, currently used for the military and federal government computers. However, this type of solution highlighted issues such as what level of government should be involved and responsible? The American people have a history of being more comfortable with state government involvement in regulating large aspects of their lives. While a centralized firewall would bring security, it gives the central government more control over an individual’s computer. Also, a combination of government and corporate solutions was discussed, in which the government provides the ultimate firewall but keeps ISPs liable for problems arising on their networks.

Next, the Corporate Solution, in Quadrant 2, was discussed in which Corporations limit the ability of their networks to be attacked by limiting access and modification of their products. Apple Iphones and Android phones were compared to highlight corporate control.

Finally, mutual cooperation with an institution of hierarchy, from Quadrant 3, was discussed. These solutions would rely upon cooperation between the users but have an institution of hierarchy to provide some stability or incentive for participation. Examples would be Wikipedia. However, this solution would also be limited because this solution relies upon the existence motivation.

A final problem was discussed being that there could be cybersecurity issues waiting for us in our hardware. This stuff is made all over the world, often in countries that aren’t friendly to the U.S. How do we stop this?

Possible Questions:
#Do we want to fix these problems or are the solutions too costly to freedom and privacy? (Example PKI- advertisers sign and get an electronic signature…)
#Is there an outside solution or must we change the inherent nature of the internet that must be changed?
#Can mutual aid work or is it too limited by its dependant on incentive and motivation?

[[Category: Cross-Sectional Themes]]

Mutual Aid

2011-09-12T17:42:16Z

David: /* Related Case Examples */

{{Ilawsidebar}}

==Overview==
'''Thursday, 5:00-6:00pm''' 
''Lead: Jonathan Zittrain''

Building upon key themes related to cybersecurity and the role of the private sector in ensuring persistent, secure, and consistently available content on the web, this session will focus on possible responses to the current state of computer and network security. Drawing conceptually from mutual aid treaties among states in the real world, Jonathan Zittrain will outline a defense scheme that would seek to make the current decentralized Web a more robust one. His" mirror as you link" system of assistance reimagines the technological relationships between sites and services on the Web, and envisions a new socially- and technologically-based system of redundancy and security. "Today, if one clicks on a link to an external site and that site is unavailable – perhaps attacked with a classic denial-of-service – there is no alternative to accessing it. Mirror-as-you-link would change that. Participating Web server administrators could make it so that for some or all of the links to external sites that they offer on their pages, the contents of the faraway sites would be saved (“cached”). They would do this only for sites that wish it to be done, and then only for sites that also perform such mirroring themselves. Then, when one site goes down, a Web surfer clicking on a link to get there can return to the referring site and ask for a copy of whatever he or she is missing since the destination site is down."

==Required Readings==
*The Harvard International Law Journal, [http://opiniojuris.org/2011/07/13/hilj-zittrain-responds-to-hollis/ "Jonathan Zittrain responds to Duncan Hollis"], July 2011.
*Jonathan Zittrain, [http://www.techpolicy.com/Blog/January-2010/Consider-This--A-Mutual-Aid-Treaty-for-the-Interne.aspx "Consider This: A Mutual Aid Treaty for the Internet"], January 2010.
*Jonathan Zittrain, [http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol78/iss6/3 "The Fourth Quadrant"], 78 Fordham L. Rev. 2767, January 2010.

==Recommended Readings==
*Jonathan Zittrain, [http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2011/0127_internet_treaty_zittrain.aspx "A Mutual Aid Treaty for the Net"], 8 The Future of the Constitution Series, The Brookings Institution, January 27, 2011. (also available in [http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2011/0127_internet_treaty_zittrain/0127_internet_treaty_zittrain.pdf PDF])

==Student Reflections==
This panel delved deeper into the cost and benefit analysis of solutions to previously mentioned cyber security problems. Such problems include dealing with networks that are difficult to control and resolve. Jonathan Zittrain categorized these problems into a quadrant chart dependant on the level of direct people participation in resolving these cyber security problems.

[[Image:JZ_quadrant.png|border|frame|center]]

In discussing the different types of solutions, Zittrain showed how each solution followed the pattern of a generative dilemma presented by the nature of the internet: openness->abuse->lockdown. He asked whether the real problem is not the solution but rather whether we need to change the inherent nature of the Internet to make it more difficult to attack.

First, Self Help, from Quadrant 4 was discussed, in which each computer user must “stay vigilant” for cyber attacks. However, this solution was limited by the average user’s knowledge and understanding of computer problems. In addition, the computer knowledgeable demographic has limited initiative to help those less informed without an external incentive.

Second, Government Involvement, from Quadrant 1 was discussed. Either a national government or world government organization (ITU) would be responsible for defending against cyber attacks through programs such as Einstein 1,2, or 3, currently used for the military and federal government computers. However, this type of solution highlighted issues such as what level of government should be involved and responsible? The American people have a history of being more comfortable with state government involvement in regulating large aspects of their lives. While a centralized firewall would bring security, it gives the central government more control over an individual’s computer. Also, a combination of government and corporate solutions was discussed, in which the government provides the ultimate firewall but keeps ISPs liable for problems arising on their networks.

Next, the Corporate Solution, in Quadrant 2, was discussed in which Corporations limit the ability of their networks to be attacked by limiting access and modification of their products. Apple Iphones and Android phones were compared to highlight corporate control.

Finally, mutual cooperation with an institution of hierarchy, from Quadrant 3, was discussed. These solutions would rely upon cooperation between the users but have an institution of hierarchy to provide some stability or incentive for participation. Examples would be Wikipedia. However, this solution would also be limited because this solution relies upon the existence motivation.

A final problem was discussed being that there could be cybersecurity issues waiting for us in our hardware. This stuff is made all over the world, often in countries that aren’t friendly to the U.S. How do we stop this?

Possible Questions:
#Do we want to fix these problems or are the solutions too costly to freedom and privacy? (Example PKI- advertisers sign and get an electronic signature…)
#Is there an outside solution or must we change the inherent nature of the internet that must be changed?
#Can mutual aid work or is it too limited by its dependant on incentive and motivation?

[[Category: Cross-Sectional Themes]]

File:JZ quadrant.png

2011-09-12T17:40:36Z

David:

The Study of the Internet: New Methods for New Technologies

2011-09-12T17:12:25Z

David: /* Related Case Examples */

{{Ilawsidebar}}

==Overview==

'''Wednesday, 5:30-6:30pm''' 
''Format'': Roundtable Discussion ''Lead'': [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jpalfrey John Palfrey] 
''Participants'': [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jpalfrey Yochai Benkler], [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/rfaris Rob Faris], [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/EHargittai Eszter Hargittai]

What is the range of tools, disciplines, and research approaches that we can bring to bear on the study of the Internet and the study of the impact of new technologies on social, political, economic, legal, and other processes in both the online and offline spaces? This session will explore methods of studying the Internet’s societal implications, including empirical analysis, legal frameworks, policy perspectives, sociological surveys, and other methodologies. It will also surface and explore some of the challenges faced by researchers working with big data sets, with a particular focus on issues related to privacy, data security, and other considerations.

==Required Readings==
*John Palfrey, [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/methodseminar/Main_Page Graduate Seminars in General Education 211 : Seminar on Research Methods on Internet and Society Wiki], 2009-2010.
*John Palfrey, [http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/palfrey/2009/09/04/graduate-seminar-on-research-methods-on-internet-society/ Graduate Seminar on Research Methods on Internet & Society], September 2009.
*John Palfrey, [http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/palfrey/2009/11/30/research-confidential-and-surveying-bloggers/ Research Confidential and Surveying Bloggers], November 2009.
* Eszter Hargittai, ''[http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=268873 Research Confidential: Solutions to Problems Most Social Scientists Pretend They Never Have]'', 2009.

==Related Case Examples==
*[[Herdict]]
*[[GNI/Role of Intermediaries]]

==A Fellow's Response to Benkler and Zittrain Argument==

''by [[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 21:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)''

There was an interesting conversation at the end of the day on the failings of academe to provide meaningful innovations compared to markets -- especially in the areas of social medias. This turned into a more general conversation about the relationship of science (especially in the academy) and technology (especially in industry).

In my opinion, the core book on this subject is [http://www.amazon.com/Pasteurs-Quadrant-Science-Technological-Innovation/dp/0815781776 Pasteur's Quadrant] by Stokes -- which also refers to a [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Pasteur%27s_Quadrant more widely used metaphor].

More succinctly, Harvey Brooks provides [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(94)01001-3 a great high-level review] to Jonathan's provocation with a summary of the key ways that science facilitates industrial technology. I've written up a a bullet list in [http://acawiki.org/The_relationship_between_science_and_technology an AcaWiki summary of the article].

But even if we just look a the direct relationship, there's still a strong argument for academic science. Edwin Mansfield did a bunch of empirical studies (e.g., [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(97)00043-7], [http://acawiki.org/Academic_research_and_industrial_innovation:_An_update_of_empirical_findings]) on industrial innovation's very direct connections to academic work. His basic conclusion is that a big chunk of innovations (10% at a minimum) could not have been completed without major delay without academic research.

[[Category:Cross-Sectional Themes]]

Cooperation

2011-09-12T17:11:34Z

David: /* Overview */

{{Ilawsidebar}}

==Overview==

'''Thursday, 3:30-4:30pm''' 
''Format'': Introductory Lecture and Moderated Discussion 
''Lead'': [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/ybenkler Yochai Benkler] 
''Participants'': [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/ashaw Aaron Shaw], [http://civic.mit.edu/team/benjamin-mako-hill Benjamin Mako Hill], [http://eui.academia.edu/MayoFusterMorell Mayo Fuster Morell]

This session will center on the ways in which new technologies harness and fuel new forms of cooperation by lowering costs and enabling collaboration that can be transformative for business, government, and society at large. Yochai Benkler will lead a discussion on emerging cooperative models and their impact on business processes, smarter technology, economic reform, volunteer contributions to research, and other benefits. This session will engage several Berkman Fellows who are conducting observational and experimental research on the underlying social, psychological, and evolutionary mechanisms that affect cooperation, collaboration, dispute resolution, trust, and social and economic exchange. Wikipedia will provide an example through which to gain a deeper sense of the breadth and depth of the phenomenon of online cooperation, as well as illuminating the offline cooperation which forms the foundation of our societies.

==Food for Thought Dinner==

Signup to join the Cooperation-themed [[Talk:Evening_Events#Peer_Production_and_Online_Cooperation_Research_.28Aaron_Shaw_and_many_others.29.2C_Cambridge_Common.2C_1667_Massachusetts_Avenue.2C_7p.m.|food for thought dinner!]]

==Driving Questions==
* How do we systematize cooperative human systems design, now that we all know that online collaboration is a critical component of the networked information economy?
* How do we integrate power into our understanding of networked society? What are the limits of public action, and what are the limits of decentralized action, given power in the market, the state, real-world society and the network?

==Required Readings==
*Yochai Benkler, [http://hbr.org/2011/07/the-unselfish-gene/ib "The Unselfish Gene"], ''Harvard Business Review," July 2011.
*[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/research/cooperation Cooperation at the Berkman Center]

==Recommended Readings==
*''[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/wealth_of_networks/Main_Page More information on '''The Wealth of Networks''']''
*''[http://www.amazon.com/Penguin-Leviathan-Cooperation-Triumphs-Self-Interest/dp/0385525761 The Penguin and the Leviathan: How Cooperation Triumphs Over Self-Interest]'', (Crown Business) August, 2011.

==Student Reflections==
We’ve recently seen a shift in social production in the commons, where people act alone and in collaboration with others to create new things, from web servers to Wikipedia. The question is no longer: is peer production real? Ten years ago, people would have laughed if you said that Wikipedia could be as good as Britannica (as Nature recently stated). The question is now: How do we build a new effective, collaborative system that harnesses peoples’ multiple motivations to contribute? In this session, we talked about factors that encourage on-line collaboration. Mayo Fuster Morell talked about how organizational infrastructure can affect the success of collaboration, while Aaron Shaw and Benjamin Mako Hill reviewed three studies in which personal incentives encourage collaboration (and sometimes don’t!).

Mayo Fuster Morell talked about how infrastructure governance shapes participation and complexity of collaboration in on-line organizations. Through statistical analysis and case studies, she graphed organizational infrastructures along two axes: open-closed systems versus autonomous-dependent systems. She found that open and autonomous organizations tend to promote better collaboration, while organizations that don’t differentiate between content providers and infrastructure editors tend not to do as well. She tied these effects in with a struggle between Corporate Logic and Commons logic, which is increasingly acquiring a political aspect, as in the Free Culture movement in Spain.

Aaron Shaw and Benjamin Mako Hill looked at personal incentives that promote people to collaborate. In experiments on communities like Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, Scratch, and Wikipedia, they found that peer-based incentives (based on how well you predict others will do, for example) by and large improved peoples’ collaborations. For social signallers on Wikipedia, for example, peer-conferred “Barnstars” increased editors’ editing productivity shortly after they received them. But the interventions to promote creativity also had unexpected consequences based on individuals’ motivations and community norms. On the social programming site called Scratch, when editors posted examples of programs to be remixed, users indeed increased re-mixing -- but the programs generated were less complex.

So what is the bigger meaning of these studies on incentives and infrastructures that promote collaboration? Participants on the on-line question tool debated what would be the next Wikipedia. Yochai Benkler suggested that societal freedom is at stake -- we can reproduce the modes or power and control that characterized the 20th century, or we use the net to create new ways of cooperating. And once we see our better cooperative selfs reflected back to us not the net, there remains an open question: can we migrate these structures to the off-line world?

'''3-4 key questions'''

#What’s the next WikiPedia? And what will the future of WikiPedia look like?
#Why are signallers more productive than non-signallers? How can an organizational infrastructure provide motivation to participants/members when each individual is motivated in different ways by different factors?
#How can the study of online cooperation influence and inform our understanding of human interaction off-line? How can we use what we observe online to provide an alternative to the self-interest model?

Minds for Sale

2011-09-12T17:08:56Z

David: /* Related Case Examples */

{{Ilawsidebar}}
==Overview==
'''Friday, 10:00-11:00am''' 
''Lead'': [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jzittrain Jonathan Zittrain]

In this presentation, Jonathan Zittrain will outline his current work on the concepts of ubiquitous human computing and distributed work. Encompassing phenomena from gamification, CAPTCHAs and Mechanical Turk to the X Prize, he will examine the consequences of crowdsourcing, economically, legally and socially, review the development and present state of the practice, and invite the audience to think ahead to its possible futures.

==Relevant Models==
*http://www.worth1000.com
*[https://www.mturk.com/ Amazon's Mechanical Turk]
*http://www.innocentive.com/
*http://www.liveops.com/
*[http://www.gwap.com/gwap/about/ Gwap.com: Home of the ESP Game and Tag That Tune]
*[http://interneteyes.co.uk/ Internet Eyes]
*http://www.smartdrive.net/

==Recommended Readings==
*[http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/focusareas/technology/zittrain.html Minds for Sale: Ubiquitous Human Computing and the Future of the Internet]
*[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/events/luncheon/2010/04/vonahn Luis von Ahn's Berkman Luncheon on Human Computation] (video)
*Aaron Shaw, John Horton, Daniel Chen [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2011/Designing_Incentives_Inexpert_Human_Raters "Designing Incentives for Inexpert Human Raters"], March 20, 2011.
*Don Tapscott, Anthony D. Williams, ''Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything,'' (New York: Penguin Group) 2006
*Charles Leadbeater, [http://www.charlesleadbeater.net/cms/xstandard/ChapterThree.pdf "Chapter Three: How We Think works (and not)"], ''We-think: Mass Innovation, Not Mass Production'', (London: Profile Books LTD) 2008
**[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiP79vYsfbo We Think Video Summary]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdENg20PJH8 Jonathan Zittrain of Harvard: Ubiquitous human computing will transcend geography] (video)

==Related Case Examples==
*[[Herdict]]

==Student Reflections==

''By Steven and Yael''

Professor Jonathan Zittrain began the Minds for Sale session describing an experiment by an NYU researcher, which showed that strangers may be willing to help out with a task even if they’re not paid for it. (Specifically, strangers helped the experimenter’s robots reach point B, from point A, in New York City.) Zittrain described a pyramid of tasks, whereby, for very difficult tasks (at the top of they pyramid), one would need to put up a large amount of money to elicit a stranger to complete the task. For very simple tasks, a large number of people would be willing to perform the tasks for very little money. An example of an emerging platform toward the top end of the pyramid is X PRIZE Foundation, which offers prize money for teams who complete projects for the benefit of humanity. Further down the pyramid is Innocentive- where firms can solicit workers to perform complicated engineering tasks for prize money. Further still, is Liveops, where firms can solicit “contractors” to perform tasks from home, via the phone- like taking drive through orders for fast food restaurants, potentially thousands of mile away. Zittrain described Amazon’s Mechanical Turk as a forum toward the bottom of the pyramid. During the session, students posted an MTurk request for Turkers to post questions or answers on a question tool board. ILaw participants were able to watch Turkers complete the task, entering questions and answers to the question forum, in real time.

One underlying concern that Professor Zittrain expressed is that MTurk and similar sites could be used to solicit questionably ethical tasks. For example, companies can pay for Turkers to post positive reviews about a particular product, pretending that they actually own the product. A separate concern was exemplified by an organization that paid individuals to write letters to their senators, opposing certain legislation. Zittrain suggested that we might lose our ability to accurately gage public sentiment on political or social issues, when companies or organizations can pay individuals to attend town hall meetings or write letters in support or opposition of certain legislation, for example. Moreover, a concern might arise even if Turkers are paid to do kind acts for others. If such MTurk requests became widespread, we might be left wondering every time somebody was kind to us whether they were doing it because they were paid.

Another potentially worrisome issue that Zittrain noted is that children can be solicited to “work” when they think they are “playing” games on the computer. Even if the work they are doing is not morally questionable, many iLaw participants expressed concern that children can be exploited to perform work. There seemed to be a spectrum of viewpoints on this issue, but the class on a whole was even more greatly opposed to children doing work via games, when the work was morally questionable. The class began to discuss, but did not resolve, the factors that make it more or less acceptable or reprehensible for children to perform work via games. A final concern that Zittrain expressed was that with the proliferation of easy “tasks” that people can perform, for money (or points) from their homes, people will lose their leisure time.

[[Category:Case Studies]]

The Global Internet

2011-09-10T13:44:51Z

David: /* Related Case Examples */

{{Ilawsidebar}}
==Overview==
'''Thursday, 2:30-3:30pm''' 
''Format'': Lecture, featuring guest respondents 
''Leads'': [http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=964 Herbert Burkert] and [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/ugasser Urs Gasser] 
''Participants'': [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/cmaracke Catharina Maracke], [http://www.cardozo.yu.edu/MemberContentDisplay.aspx?ccmd=ContentDisplay&ucmd=UserDisplay&userid=228 Susan Crawford], others ''TBD''

In the global online space, traditional legal frameworks, such as public international law and international private law, come together with new developments, such as evolving Internet law (focused on new regulations addressing international Internet issues), to create different models for, and forms of, digital governance. Processes and structures, such as online dispute resolution systems, Terms of Use policies, and other mechanisms also shape user activity and permissible behavior. Actions and interventions by private actors, NGOs, and international organizations, also exert control, by defining use and activity, permitting or denying access, and facilitating policy making–all with varying degrees of harmonization, conflict, and evolution. Through a series of case studies, the attributes, influence, and evolution of these mechanisms will be explored in the context of e-commerce, media and free expression, technical and organizational infrastructure, and other values.

==Required Readings==

===Governance===

* Jonathan Zittrain, [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=395300 "Be Careful What You Ask For: Reconciling A Global Internet And Local Law,"] Cato Institute (2003).
* Daniel Rosenthal, [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1735479 "Assessing Digital Preemption (and the Future of Law Enforcement?,"] New Criminal Law Review (Fall 2011).
* Susan P. Crawford, [http://scrawford.net/display/Crawford2.pdf "The ICANN Experiment,"] 12 Cardozo Journal of International Comparative Law 409 (Fall 2004).
** Note: access to this file has been somewhat flaky, it is also available on Westlaw (cite: 12 CDZJICL 409). If you do not have Westlaw access and need access to file, email ilaw@cyber.law.harvard.edu.

===Law and Global Commerce===

* Rachel Donadio, [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/technology/companies/25google.html “Larger Threat Is Seen in Google Case,"] New York Times, February 24, 2010.
* James Vicini, [http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AS3YJ20101129 “Supreme Court rejects Tiffany trademark appeal vs Ebay,”] Reuters, November 29, 2010.
* Mark Sweney, [http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/mar/23/google-louis-vuitton-search-ads “Google wins Louis Vuitton trademark case,"] The Guardian (UK), March 23, 2010.
* OUT-LAW.COM, [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/27/ebay_loreal/ “eBay not obliged to protect trade marks, says High Court,"] May 27, 2009.
* Gabriele Accardo, [http://ttlfnews.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/advocate-general-advises-ecj-that-ebay-should-not-be-held-liable-for-users%E2%80%99-breach-of-trademark/ “Advocate General advises ECJ that eBay should not be held liable for users’ breach of trademark,"] TTLF Technology Law & Policy News Blog, January 10, 2011.
* Grant Gross, [http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9145198/RIAA_tells_FCC_ISPs_need_to_be_copyright_cops?taxonomyId=13&pageNumber=1 “RIAA tells FCC: ISPs need to be copyright cops,"] Computer World, January 15, 2010.
* Michael Geist, [http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/3660/125/ “Putting Together the ACTA Puzzle: Privacy, P2P Major Targets,”] Blog, February 3, 2009.

===Competition===
* Urs Gasser, [http://www.yjolt.org/files/gasser-8-YJOLT-201.pdf "Regulating Search Engines: Taking Stock and Looking Ahead,"] 9 Yale Journal of Law & Technology 124, Spring, 2006.
* [http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/1624 “Antitrust: Commission probes allegations of antitrust violations by Google,”] November, 2010.
* Court of Justice of the European Union Press Release: [http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2010-03/cp100032en.pdf “Google has not infringed trade mark law by allowing advertisers to purchase keywords corresponding to their competitors’ trade marks,”] March, 2010.

==Recommended Readings==
===Berkman Center's Independent Review of Accountability and Transparency at ICANN===
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/pubrelease/icann/ Independent Review]

===The State of Online Business===
* Dion Hinchcliffe, [http://blogs.zdnet.com/Hinchcliffe/?p=1172 "The app store: The new ‘must-have’ digital business model,"] January, 2010.
* Donnie Dong, [http://english.blawgdog.com/2010/01/ten-websites-leads-you-understanding.html “Ten Websites Lead You Understanding the Features of Cinternet,”] January, 2010.
* Andrew Keen, [http://nextdigitaldecade.com/ndd_book.pdf#page=52 "Why We Must Resist the Temptation of Web 2.0,"] ''The Next Digital Decade'', Berin Szoka and Adam Marcus (Eds.), (Washington, DC: TechFreedom), 2010.

==Related Case Examples==

* [[GNI/Role of Intermediaries]]

==Student Reflections==

''By Karissa Fleming and Amanda Vaughn''

Globalization is the process of change that cuts through geographical layers. In this session, Professors Gasser and Burkert presented an overview of the problem of reconciling a global Internet with local norms and values, suggesting that governance of the Internet has progressed in three phases: the inter-local, the harmonization of the inter-local in an attempt to ease the tension between local laws and the global medium and, finally, the quest for global order.

In the inter-local phase, the Internet, as a disruptive technology, challenged incumbent players and business models, creating a “crisis” of the copyright industry. Incumbents eventually responded by activating the legal system, attempting to apply old, existing laws to the new phenomenon of the Internet. National courts produced numerous cases in their attempt to capture the Internet using existing legal norms. In addition, as cross-border transactions became available over the Internet, new jurisdictional questions arose concerning personal jurisdiction, choice of law and enforcement as courts continued to apply national norms to global issues. Catherina Maracke shared her experiences as international director of Creative Commons, in which the organization has attempted to reconcile these problems by providing licenses that are accepted and recognized in many different jurisdictions. She left us with the question of whether or not we need more regulation or less to solve the problem.

In the harmonization phase, there are multiple approaches to easing the tension between local laws and the global nature of the Internet: top-down, centralized; top-down decentralized; bottom-up, centralized; or bottom-up, decentralized. Governments can attempt to implement a truly global internet law. For example, the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy. There might also be attempts to harmonize on a more regional level. Floriana Fossato presented the Russian experience as an example of this attempt at harmonization. After entering a bilateral agreement with the US to reduce pirating, it had effects throughout the country, shutting down the pirating industry and thus reducing competition and raising prices. Fossato called for more cooperation and the formation of new spaces and interaction between citizens that will shape harmonization in a way that works for everyone.

Finally, in the global order phase, Susan Crawford discussed the battle over the Internet that is currently being waged between two visions – one in which governments are the only actors involved in governing the internet, the other a multi-stakeholder approach. She called for us to work for a multi-stakeholder approach and to encourage better funding and better tools for civil society actors attempting to be a part of the conversation. Harris Chen, a prosecutor in Taiwain, shared his opinion that the Internet existed as a very powerful tool for criminal investigation to be harnessed by governments

Questions we were left with afterward:

#Do we need more or less regulation to solve the problems of a global internet?
#How strong a rationale is crime prevention for restricting the internet, especially when considering that the point of the criminal law is arguably to enhance freedom?
#What is the best way to ensure that interested parties are at the table to decide how the internet should be governed? What groups should and should not be included?

[[Category:Cross-Sectional Themes]]

The Future of the Internet

2011-09-09T20:43:36Z

David: /* Questions related to Exploring the Arab Spring */

The Future of the Internet

2011-09-09T20:37:05Z

David: /* Questions Discussion Page on any topic (including those that weren't covered) */

The Future of the Internet

2011-09-09T20:36:46Z

David: /* =Questions related to Intellectual Property */

Intellectual Property

2011-09-09T20:13:30Z

David: /* Student Reflections */

{{Ilawsidebar}}
==Overview==
'''Wednesday, 12:00-1:30pm''' 
''Format'': Lecture, featuring guest respondents 
''Lead'': [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/tfisher William Fisher], featuring [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/cnesson Charlie Nesson] and [http://www.cio.gov/Vivek-Kundra/ Vivek Kundra] ''TBC'' as a respondent

Led by William Fisher, this pillar will begin with a brief history of key theories and issues related copyright in the Internet space. By examining some of the hard problems and cases that have defined this field over the last decade, this session will explore some of the central questions that characterize current debates, including the wide spectrum of licensing options, the uncertainty about permissible uses associated with creative works, and the implications of cloud computing. Charlie Nesson will highlight questions regarding the public domain, free and fair use, and the need for digital copyright and public domain registries. This foundational pillar will lay the groundwork for two relevant use cases on User Innovation and Digital Libraries, Archives, and Rights Registries (which will take place on Thursday morning).

==Driving Questions==

* William Fisher: To what extent, if any, is legal protection for creative works necessary either to stimulate creativity or to ensure that creators are treated fairly?

==Required Readings==
===Overview / Introduction===
* Lawrence Lessig, Ch. 1, [http://www.bloomsburyacademic.com/view/Remix_9781849662505/chapter-ba-9781849662505-chapter-0001.xml;jsessionid=FF7F25C75D42F66DA23F17F809558987 “Introduction,”] Remix, (Bloombsbury Academic) 2008.
* [http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/copyright-criminals/classroom.html “Copyright Criminals,”] Independent Lens (PBS), watch PBS “Community Classroom” Video Module 1: “Hip-Hop and the Birth of Sampling.”
* [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000102----000-.html Subject Matter of copyright: In general, 17 U.S.C. § 102]
* [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000106----000-.html Exclusive rights of copyrighted works, 17 U.S.C. § 106]

===Infringement and Damages===
* [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000501----000-.html Infringement of Copyright, 17 U.S.C. § 501]
* [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000412----000-.html Registration as prerequisite to certain remedies for infringement of works, 17 U.S.C. § 412]
* [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000504----000-.html Remedies for Infringement of Copyright, 17 U.S.C. § 504]
* Pamela Samuelson and Ben Sheffner, Debate, [http://www.pennumbra.com/debates/pdfs/CopyrightDamages.pdf “Unconstitutionally Excessive Statutory Damage Awards in Copyright Cases,”] 158 U.PA. L. Rev. Pennumbra 53 (2009), read Samuelson opening statement (pp. 54-57) and Sheffner Rebuttal (pp. 58-61); skim remaining pages

===Intermediary Liability===
* [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000512----000-.html 17 U.S.C. § 512], read §§ 512(c), (d), (f), and (g)
* Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc. , (S.D.N.Y.), Civil Nos. 07-CV-2103 (LLS), 07-CV-3582 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2010), [http://h2odev.law.harvard.edu/collages/371 read excerpts]

===Circumvention and Anti-Circumvention Provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)===
* [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1201.html 17 U.S.C. § 1201], skim all
* [http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/20/37507.htm "Photog Can Fight Use of Nude Shock Jock Pic,"] Courthouse News Service (June 20, 2011), read all

===Fair Use===
* [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use, 17 U.S.C. § 107]
* American University Center for Social Media, [http://centerforsocialmedia.org/sites/default/files/fair_use_final.pdf “Documentary Filmmakers’ Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use”] (Issued November 18, 2005), read all
* Campbell v. Acuff Rose, 510 U.S. 569 (1994), [http://h2odev.law.harvard.edu/collages/285 read excerpts]

===Intellectual Property Theory===
* Justin Hughes, [http://www.justinhughes.net/docs/a-ip01.pdf "The Philosophy of Intellectual Property,"] 77 Georgetown L.J. 287 (1988), read Part II, read pages 296-314

==Recommended Readings==
* U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 1, [http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf “Copyright Basics,”].
* Peter B. Hirtle, [http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm “Copyright Term and Public Domain in the United States,] 1 January 2011,” Cornell University Copyright Information Center (CC BY 3.0), skim all.
* Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003), [http://h2odev.law.harvard.edu/collages/269 read excerpts].
* Steve Greenlee, [http://www.boston.com/ae/specials/culturedesk/2010/11/cooks_source_probably_shutting.html "Cooks Source probably shutting down,"] Boston Globe CultureDesk, November 17, 2010.
* William Fisher, [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/IP/Fisher%20IP%20Theory.pdf "Theories of Intellectual Property"] in Stephen Munzer, ed., New Essays in the Legal and Political Theory of Property (Cambridge University Press, 2001), read Section III.A

'''Copyright Course Materials.''' Since Fall 2010, the syllabus and materials for Professor William Fisher’s Harvard Law School “Copyright” course have been made available to the public. In addition to online resources, the syllabus links to “maps” which contain Professor Fisher’s lecture notes for all of his courses on intellectual property law. The four maps and collateral slide presentations contain overviews of the principal fields of intellectual property law, including copyright, patent, and trademark law, and intellectual property theory; June Casey of the Harvard Law School Library staff was enormously helpful in annotating them.
* William Fisher's [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/Copyright%20Syllabus%20Fall%202010.htm Copyright syllabus], Fall 2010
* William Fisher's [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/IP/IP%20Maps.htm Visual Maps of Intellectual Property], 2011

==Related Case Examples==
[[Digital Libraries, Archives, and Rights Registries]] 
[[User Innovation]] 
[[Cloud Computing]]

[[Category:Pillars of iLaw]]

==Related Videos==
<videoflash>CoDux5qAW7Q</videoflash>
*William Fisher discusses pre-digital copyright law and the Fair Use doctrine. 
 
 

==Student Reflections==

Professor Fisher’s presentation on Intellectual Property began with a history of copyright law, followed by prevailing theories behind the regime and the law’s application in the real world.

History of Copyright Law: Copyright Law in the United State originated as a 1790s. Empowered by the Constitutional grant to protect innovations in the arts and sciences, the writers of that first statute developed a limited regime that covered books, maps, and charts. The Copyright Law expanded in the subsequent 200 years, and now, the copyright protection reaches to objects and software (see full list HERE ). While the original statutes provided for a finite duration for protection, the changed and updated Copyright statute now protects covered items indefinitely. Equally important, the Copyright statute expanded the protected rights to the right to reproduce, right to make derivative works, right to distribute, the right to perform and to display.

Theories of Copyright Law: There are three plausible theories underlying the development of Copyright Law: fairness, welfare, and personhood. Fairness is based on Locke’s idea in his Second Treatise Chapter 5 that when a person labors upon a resource held in common and create something, he acquires natural right to the crops and the field itself if he abides by some provisos. In contrast, the welfare theory centers on the idea any action should further the public good. Under the welfare copyright regime, the government is encouraged to intervene to avoid the hazards of underproduction. Finally, the personhood theory is based on Kant and Hegel’s proposition that intellectual products are extension of one’s personhood.

Application of Copyright Law: This part of the presentation focused mainly on the application of copyright law on appropriation art. Professor Fisher provided justifications, and the limitation of those justifications, of each theory when dealing with appropriation art, i.e. Warhol, Koons, Shepard Fairey, and Mr. Brainwash. Many of these examples provoked law suits, and many have settled. Further, there is no overwhelming trend when the suits go to judgment. These examples show that the law is too uncertain and therefore defective. While the US does protect appropriate artists through the Scenes-a-faire and fair use doctrine, these protections are not enough to reduce the uncertainty of the law.

===Summary of Key Questions===

1) What would it take to “fix” the copyright system? We had questions about whether focused modifications and expansions would suffice or if a complete overhaul was necessary. Some pointed out that the current focus is on compensation and profit in monetary terms, but that given the changing landscape of the internet perhaps this emphasis is misplaced. One person pointed out: “It seems that a key question is whether we're compensating for production of ideas or ownership of ideas; the latter leads to mere Rentier capitalism.” Prof. Fisher argues that focused reform is needed and comprehensive reform is unlikely to happen because of the impossibility of the various interest groups to reach consensus.

2) What is the source of authority to make copyright law? Prof. Nesson launched this by asking what power was granted to Congress to grant a right and the extent of the right they were permitted to give. While the basis Constitutional, the text does not give a lot of guidance. Nesson argued that the framers may have been imagining commercial publishers copying in a way that took away commercial benefit from the first publisher. Fisher argued that the framers wanted Congress to be able to enlarge rights to keep pace with evolution of technology and business (progress in the useful science and arts). Therefore, Fisher argues Congress is free to conclude that banning file-sharing is necessary to promote the music industry. This prompted an interesting interjection from Prof. Zittrain asking: at what point does the First Amendment kick in?

3) Does the Internet undermine the moral rights/personality rationale for strong copyright protection? This conversation took place mostly online and involved questions around how people express their personalities in the digital age. Do many people “express their personalities through their unique remixing of preexisting material”? Rocky said, “Depends whose moral rights they want to protect - the integrity of the original work or the ability of downstream creators to use it as source material for their own creative expression.” Another wrinkle on the discussion was about the distinction between production and consumption when art is being used to define and express oneself -- who is the artist and who is the user? Maybe all are collaborators.

4) What happens when strong versions of personhood theory are applied? It is possible that in France and Germany, the strong view might lead to a complete exclusive right preventing application art. But Prof. Fisher thinks this is myopic view: A more egalitarian spirit would recognize the need to afford both first and second generation artists to engage in useful art. For some participants this is like the difference between RT and MT on Twitter.

5) A meta-question from Prof. Nesson: have we left out the public domain from this discussion? In some ways this tied back to an earlier debate between Prof. Zittrain and Prof. Benkler about who should read the treatise. So, is there room for a debate here among “elites” or should we make sure the public is involved? Prof. Fisher argued that this debate is no longer relegated to the elite because 25% of digital natives engage in these types of behavior on a regular basis. It just only gets litigated by elites since they have money. There may be some connections here to Prof. von Hipel’s work showing the democratization of the phenomenon.

6) Finally there were some questions on definitions and boundaries to frame future thinking. How do we define and differentiate “new” vs. “modified” vs. “copied”? Who is an author and who is a user/the public? If everyone in the public is a potential author does it change our answer? What is the public/private boundary, if there is one, or is it a continuum?

===Questions for the Future of Cyberlaw===

To what extent is it helpful to use concepts like original constitutional meaning or first principles when evaluating current internet regulatory frameworks? Are those ideas still relevant in an internet (and international) context or should we start with something new?
If an overhaul of the copyright system is needed, and if it is unlikely that a new framework will ever be implemented due to the difficulty of reaching consensus, then where does this leave us in terms of finding a solution today?
How do these questions change as we move to the Cloud? Is there such a thing as IP in the cloud?
What is the implication of copyright law in user created appropriation works on the internet (YouTube videos, mashup gifs, etc)? Is there a difference between public perception of “real” art and “user” art? Are they significant enough for discussion?

===Helpful Links===

Rentier Capitalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rentier_capitalism

Preliminary Thoughts on Copyright Reform, by Pamela Samuelson: http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~pam/papers/Preliminary%20Thoughts%20utah.pdf

Best documentation of legislative history for copyright clause in Constitution is Dotan Oliar: http://www.law.virginia.edu/lawweb/faculty.nsf/FHPbI/1196152

US constitution. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause

Intellectual Property

2011-09-09T20:13:09Z

David: /* Related Videos */

The Future of the Internet

2011-09-09T20:09:57Z

David: /* Questions related to Digital Humanities */

The Future of the Internet

2011-09-09T19:51:49Z

David: /* Overview */

Interoperability

2011-09-09T19:48:17Z

David: /* Required Readings */

{{Ilawsidebar}}
==Overview==
'''Friday, 11:30am-1:00pm''' 
Format: Lecture with audience participation 
''Leads'': [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/ugasser Urs Gasser] with [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jpalfrey John Palfrey] 

This synthesizing session will examine interoperability and its role in driving innovation in the ICT environment. Urs Gasser and John Palfrey--who recently completed a book on the topic (slated for release in February 2012)--will outline a conceptual framework for thinking about interoperability, its driving forces and inhibitors, how it can best be achieved, and why. They will touch on a number of current usecases where interoperability plays a decisive role, including, cloud computing, the Smart Grid, and electronic health records. John and Urs will also consider a number of questions: What is interoperability? What do consumers, companies, and governments stand to gain (or lose) from interoperability or lack thereof? How do concerns related to lack of diversity, or diminished privacy and security interact with interoperability? How are optimal levels of interoperability achieved through law, policy, technology, and innovations in the marketplace?

==Required Readings==
* Urs Gasser and John Palfrey, [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/interop/ Breaking Down Digital Barriers]; ''please select and read one of the featured case studies.''
* Urs Gasser and John Palfrey, [http://ssrn.com/abstract=1033226 “Breaking Down Digital Barriers: When and How ICT Interoperability Drives Innovation,”] Berkman Center Research Publication No. 2007-8 (2007).

==Student Reflections==

Urs Gasser and John Palfrey led a discussion of interoperability focused around 10 core “strong statements” about interoperability, illuminated by historic, current, and prospective case studies. John Palfrey introduced the session by remarking, “Interoperability is like apple pie.” More interoperability, he noted, is generally thought to be better. Once we pass this generalization, however, the picture becomes more complicated. Crafting a working definition of “interoperability” is challenging in itself. What do we mean when we say we want interoperability in the technologies of the future? As Urs Gasser observed, interoperability is closely tied to iLaw’s core themes: What is the role of governments in enabling innovation? What are the downsides of increased interconnectedness? Our challenge is to be precise about how much openness and what sort of safeguards need to be in place in order to be responsive to challenges and responsible as we move forward.

'''10 Strong Statements about Interoperability'''

1. ''Interoperability is generally desirable, especially in fields related to information, because it can lead to innovation, consumer choice, competition, and systemic efficiencies.'' Case studies that illustrate this statement include the development of online music systems and the mass use of barcodes.

* Question for Further Discussion: Although we can conclude that interoperability is beneficial based on these case studies, it is difficult to find large-scale empirical evidence. How broadly can we generalize from the volumes of anecdotal evidence demonstrating a positive relationship between interoperability and innovation?

2. ''Interoperability comes in different degrees and occurs at multiple layers – not only the technology and the data layers, but also at the human and institutional layers.'' Case studies that illustrate this statement include the railway system, email, and the simplified form of English used by air traffic controllers and pilots.

* Questions for Further Discussion: How can interoperability principles be applied to transcend different institutional cultures? How do translation and interoperability relate to one another?

3. ''Interoperability is not an unalloyed good, because it can exacerbate problems such as concerns over privacy, security and reliability.'' Case studies that illustrate privacy concerns include GoogleBuzz and the smart grid. From a security standpoint, compatibility across systems may mean that the same weaknesses or vulnerabilities can be exploited across platforms. Notably, however, interoperability does not necessarily have to take the form of standardization. Consider the example of currency: the Swiss franc coexists with the Euro.

* Questions for Further Discussion: How do we arrive at the optimal level of interoperability, even if it is not the maximal level of interoperability? At what level do we, or should we, impose constraints on data flows?

4. ''There is no one single way to accomplish an optimal level of interoperability. It can be achieved through a broad range of means, involving both public and private actors.''

* Question for Further Discussion: A conceptual interoperability framework spans unilateral approaches to collaborative approaches, and non-regulatory approaches (private actors) and regulatory approaches (state actors). How do we balance and integrate the roles of the state and private firms in creating a productive trajectory?

5. ''Some of the means of accomplishing interoperability, such as open standards processes, are better than other in certain circumstances, especially in terms of ensuring interoperability over time.''

* Question for Further Discussion: How do we harness interoperability to preserve knowledge on day one, and over time?

6. ''While most interoperability is achieved through private sector cooperation, the state may have a role to play in achieving interoperability.'' Our puzzle is figuring out how to match our challenges with our available tools. Case studies suggest that interoperability may be best achieved through efforts led by private sectors and corporations. Market forces play a powerful role in finding the right balance but this does not necessarily mean, however, that government does not play an important role, particularly ex ante.

* Questions for Further Discussion: Which sectors or actors should lead us? Should the approach be laissez-faire or highly structural?

7. ''Law should be used to foster development of interoperability systems and to address problems that can arise from highly interoperable systems.''

8. ''The state can use its convening power, its purchasing power, and the power to force disclosure of adoption of a standard ex ante, as well as the blunt instrument of ex post competition and antitrust laws, to adjust the playing field in favor of certain degrees of interoperability.'' Threatened regulation may, in some instances, be quite effective. The best course may be to create positive opportunities and up-front incentives to spur interoperability efforts early in a technology’s lifecycle.

* Questions for Further Discussion: Is there an ideal mix of ex ante and ex post regulation? How do we time our efforts to accommodate network effects in markets? What does the example of Apple – who maintains that its products have been able to succeed in part because they are not interoperable – teach us?

9. ''There is a bidirectional relationship between interoperability and the law.'' Legal systems can help to establish or maintain interoperability over time, and legal systems themselves sometimes need to be rendered interoperable. China’s WTO accession offers one important case study.

10. ''How we accomplish interoperability matters greatly in the context of information and communications technologies, but it’s relevant to any complex system, including global financial system, the SG, loT, cloud computing, and many other emerging architectures of the future.'' These systems present us with a series of moments where interoperability by design will matter a great deal, both to thinking about how different actors work together and to minimizing opportunities for lock-in over time to non-interoperable systems.

[[Category:Cross-Sectional Themes]]

The Future of the Internet

2011-09-09T19:24:43Z

David: /* Interesting Unanswered Questions from Twitter, the Question Tool, etc */

Talk:The Future of the Internet

2011-09-09T15:29:17Z

David: /* Student Questions for the Discussion Panel */

==Student Questions for the Discussion Panel==

Add your questions for the panel here!

* What is the next field for explosive growth or progress in the Internet?
* What kind of feasible projects should the Berkman Center, or students, take on next?
* What is the future of relatively closed and tethered platforms such as the iPhone? Could that model ultimately prevail?
* Do you think that social networks have reached full growth or do you see an other model emerging in the future?
* What is the approach that developing countries should take to the net neutrality issue: the US' or Chile and Netherland's?
* How important are broadband policies to the commons-based peer-production model that has been discussed during iLaw sessions?
* How can commons-based peer-production systems help shape/influence state internet regulation?

. . . to infinity, and beyond!

Digital Humanities

2011-09-09T15:24:00Z

David: /* Other Centers */

{{Ilawsidebar}}
==Overview==
'''Thursday, 10:20am-12:00pm''' 
''Format'': Introductory Lecture, Lightning Presentations and Moderated Discussion 
''Leads'': [http://jeffreyschnapp.com/bio/ Jeffrey Schnapp] and [http://jesseshapins.net/ Jesse Shapins], featuring [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/ugasser Urs Gasser] 
''Participants'': [http://metalab.harvard.edu/people/ Joseph Bergen], [http://metalab.harvard.edu/people/#james James Burns], Zamyla Chan, [http://ek.klingt.org/ Ernst Karel], Jake Levine, [http://www.karaoehler.com/ Kara Oehler], [http://metalab.harvard.edu/people/ Kyle Parry], [http://metalab.harvard.edu/people/#bobby Robert Gerard Pietrusko], [http://metalab.harvard.edu/people/ Joana Pimenta], [http://metalab.harvard.edu/people/ Julia Yezbick]

This pillar session will address the current state of digital humanities, an umbrella term for new modes of scholarship and public knowledge practice that emphasize collaborative, transdisciplinary and digitally-engaged research, teaching, and dissemination. Digital Humanities is less a unified field than an array of convergent practices that explore a universe in which print is no longer the normative medium, and digital tools, techniques, and media have expanded traditional concepts of knowledge in the arts, human and social sciences. The session will address fundamental questions such as: How can traditional humanities skills be reshaped in multimedia terms? How and by whom will the contours of cultural and historical memory be defined in the digital era? How might practices of digital storytelling coincide or diverge from oral or print-based storytelling? What is the place of humanitas in a networked world?

==Lightning Projects/Speakers==
*[http://extramuros.zeega.org/demo extraMUROS]
extraMUROS creates a multimedia-library-without-walls through an open source, HTML5 platform built on public APIs. The project aims to fundamentally change the way people discover, curate and share digital collections.
*[http://jdarchive.org/?la=en Digital Archive of Japan's 2011 Disasters]
The Digital Archive of Japan's 2011 Disasters aims to collect, preserve, and make accessible as much of the digital record of the disasters as possible, to enable scholars and a wide public audience in the disaster area, in Japan, and around the world to understand these events and their effect. In the digital age, archives are no longer simply storage facilities for future generations, but are ''active public spaces'' immediately upon creation. Fundamental to this new paradigm is the reconfiguration of the archive as a living and dynamic place, where archives can be called into existence shortly following major events, the corpus is consistently expanding and the access to historical artifacts is contextualized through metadata derived from the public’s interaction with the archive itself.
*[http://zeega.org/ Zeega]
Zeega is an open-source HTML5 platform for creating interactive documentaries and inventing new forms of storytelling. Zeega will make it easy to collaboratively produce, curate and publish participatory multimedia projects online, on mobile devices and in physical spaces.
*[http://sensatejournal.com/ Sensate, a journal for experiments in critical media practice]
''Sensate'' is an online, media-based journal for the creation, presentation, and critique of innovative projects in the arts, humanities, and sciences. Our aim is to build on the current groundswell of pioneering activities in the digital humanities, scholarly publishing, and innovative media practice to integrate new modes of scholarship into the cognitive life of the academy and beyond.
*Society for Receipt Printer Reincarnation
*[http://metalab.harvard.edu/projects/#augmented-harvard Augmented Harvard]
Augmented Harvard is a multi-year, University-wide installation that is composed of a network of physical artifacts that unlock site-specific experiences. These artifacts, or hubs, consist of such devices as thermal receipt printers, hacked Kinects, speakers or programmable LEDs. Augmented Harvard allows faculty, students, curators and the public to link Harvard exhibitions to other spaces and objects across the University, and to see otherwise invisible features of the campus landscape such as long-ago demolished structures, alternative architectural plans, and inaccessible archives as they rove the campus core.
*[http://metalab.harvard.edu/projects/#known-unknown Known Unknown]
Known Unknown is a new experiment in audio and interactive documentary that immerses audiences in the particularity of places, while interweaving the ambiguities and surprising pathways that emerge during the documentary process. Known Unknown uses Zeega as its foundation, and combines aesthetic experimentation with ethnographic approaches to engage major news topics through the everyday, creating a new space for artistic invention in public media. The project is currently in early-stage development, with the long-term aim of modeling a new form of radio show that is developed from the beginning across broadcast, online and physical media.
* [https://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_190624207645934 Harvard Law Documentary Studio]
The Harvard Law Documentary Studio (HLDOCS) aims to produce original documentaries that explore
social and policy issues. HLDOCS will offer technical, artistic, and financial support for student-led
projects.
* [http://cmp.gsas.harvard.edu Critical Media Practice]
The Graduate School in Arts and Sciences offers a Secondary Field degree in Critical Media Practice (CMP) for PhD students at Harvard who wish to integrate media production into their academic work. The CMP Secondary Field reflects changing patterns of knowledge production, and in particular that knowledge is increasingly incorporated into novel multi-media configurations in which written language plays only a part. Audiovisual media have a different relationship to, and reveal different dimensions of, the world from exclusively verbal sign systems.

==Recommended Readings==
*[http://manifesto.humanities.ucla.edu/2009/05/29/the-digital-humanities-manifesto-20/ Digital Humanities 2.0 Manifesto]
*[http://cnx.org/content/m34246/latest/ Digital Humanities 2.0: A Report on Knowledge]

==Relevant Models==
*[http://extramuros.zeega.org/demo/ extraMUROS]
*[http://www.sensatejournal.com/ Sensate]
*[http://www.zeega.org/ Zeega]
*[http://mediaarchaeologyofplace.org Media Archaeology of Place ]
*[http://mixedrealitycity.org The Mixed-Reality City]

==Related Harvard Projects/Initiatives==
*[http://cmp.gsas.harvard.edu Critical Media Practice]
*[http://sel.fas.harvard.eduSensory Ethnography Lab]
*[http://filmstudycenter.org Film Study Center]
*[http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hsdept/chsi.html Collection of Historic Scientific Instruments]
*[http://hcl.harvard.edu/libraries/houghton/collections/poetry_room.cfm Woodberry Poetry Room]
*[http://mahindrahumanities.fas.harvard.edu/ Mahindra Humanities Center]
*[http://www.gis.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do Center for Geographic Analysis]
*[http://thelaboratory.harvard.edu/ The Laboratory at Harvard]

==Other Projects==
*[http://hypercities.com/ Todd Presner :: Hypercities]
*[http://www.classics.ucla.edu/people/faculty/johanson/ Chris Johanson :: Experiential Classics]
*[http://www.jhfc.duke.edu/jenkins/mousesite/ Timothy Lenoir :: Mouse Site]
*[http://www.vectorsjournal.org/ Tara McPherson :: Vectors Journal]
*[http://www.stanford.edu/group/spatialhistory/cgi-bin/site/ Richard White and John Christensen :: The Spatial History Project ]
*[http://www.blasttheory.co.uk/bt/index.php Blast Theory]
*[http://www.stanford.edu/group/shl/cgi-bin/drupal/?q=node/31 Stanford Humanities Lab :: Life Squared]
*[https://republicofletters.stanford.edu/ Dan Edelstein :: Mapping the Republic of Letters]
*[http://paj.muohio.edu/paj/index.php/paj/article/viewArticle/4 Johanna Drucker :: Graphesis]
*[http://dornsife.usc.edu/labyrinth/ Marsha Kinder :: The Labyrinth Project]
*[http://www.nines.org/ Jerome McGann :: Making NINES]
*[http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=208 Bruce Sterling :: Dead Media Project]
*[http://dlib.etc.ucla.edu/projects/Forum Diane Favro :: Digital Roman Forum]

==Other Centers==
*[http://www.cdh.ucla.edu/ Center for Digital Humanities at UCLA]
*[http://chnm.gmu.edu/ Center for History and New Media at George Mason]
*[http://www.artcenter.edu/mdp/ Media Design Program at Art Center College of Design]
*[http://dma.ucla.edu/ Design | Media | Arts at UCLA]

==Student Reflections==
Representing Harvard’s metaLAB, Jeffrey Schnapp and Jesse Shapins introduced the concept of Digital Humanities to the iLaw audience, and facilitated a lightening round highlighting specific Digital Humanities projects. Digital Humanities was described as a choral voice from a distributed network, a voice meant to produce knowledge in, for, and about the language of the world wide web (our new public domain). This new scholarship is not solely about the digital medium, but rather the opportunities and challenges that arise from the conjunction of the term ‘digital’ with the term ‘humanities’. Taking advantage of these opportunities will result in new modes of scholarship and institutional units of collaborative study, increasing the visibility of humanistic research.

After Jeffrey and Jesse’s introduction to metaLAB and Digital Humanities a number of groups (whose descriptions are given above) explained how they are addressing the opportunities that come from the conjunction of ‘digital’ and ‘humanities’, and how individuals can get involved.

Questions for Further Discussion
#How do we help citizens become curators of their own cultural history? Is the preserver or archivist an additional model of cultural behavior to Read-Only and Read-Write culture?
#How are those leading the Digital Humanities charge accounting for the technical fragility and legal ambiguity of link-based contributions and information?
#How do experiential, scruffy, and curatorial attitudes of digital humanities reshape the genre of research? Should Digital Humanities projects work to supplement or replace more traditional modes of scholarship? And how does this fit with Zittrain’s concern about scholarship and entrepreneurship in the university?

[[Category:Pillars of iLaw]]

The Future of the Internet

2011-09-09T14:46:21Z

David: /* =Questions related to Cooperation */

The Future of the Internet

2011-09-09T14:44:52Z

David: /* Questions related to The Changing Internet: Cybersecurity */

Cooperation

2011-09-09T14:44:13Z

David: /* Recommended Readings */

The Study of the Internet: New Methods for New Technologies

2011-09-09T13:45:04Z

David: /* Related Case Examples */

The Future of the Internet

2011-09-09T13:41:24Z

David: /* Your Questions for the Future of the Internet Panel! */

The Changing Internet: Cybersecurity

2011-09-09T13:40:40Z

David: /* Related Videos */

{{Ilawsidebar}}

==Overview==
'''Wednesday, 10:00-11:30am''' 
''Format'': Lecture, featuring guest respondents 
''Lead'': [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jzittrain Jonathan Zittrain] 

This module will draw on central themes from the previous day regarding the unique qualities of the Internet, and the culture and architecture of openness – of protocols, interfaces, and values – that make it a generative space. What are the threats to this generativity? How do forces like consumerism, corporate interest, government and other controls, and cybersecurity put the open Net at risk? Concepts such as cyberwar will be surfaced via case examples, including phenomena such as Stuxnet and Ghostnet; the role of hackers such as AntiSec, LulzSec, and Anonymous will also be considered. This session will conclude with Q&A with the audience.

==Required Readings==

===Stuxnet===
*Kim Zetter, [http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/how-digital-detectives-deciphered-stuxnet/all/1 How Digital Detectives Deciphered Stuxnet, the Most Menacing Malware in History,] July, 2011.
*Michael Gross, [http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2011/04/stuxnet-201104 “A Declaration of Cyber-War,"] April, 2011.

===Anonymous===

*The Telegraph, [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8674755/LulzSec-hacking-a-timeline.html "LulzSec hacking: a timeline,"] August, 2011.
*Mohammed Haddad, [http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/interactive/2011/05/2011519182744550587.html "Interactive timeline: Anonymous,"] May, 2011.

===Cybersecurity and the Generative Dilemma===
* [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/11 Chapter 3], ''The Future of the Internet'' (also available in [http://futureoftheinternet.org/static/ZittrainTheFutureoftheInternet.pdf#page=48 PDF])

===Freedom and Anonymity===
* Jonathan Zittrain, [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=freedom-and-anonymity "Freedom and Anonymity: Keeping the Internet Open,"] Scientific American, February 24, 2011.

==Recommended Readings==

===Stuxnet===
*John Markoff, [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/technology/29spy.html “Vast Spy System Loots Computers in 103 Countries,”] March, 2009.
*Jeremy Kirk, [http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/166901/ghostnet_cyber_espionage_probe_still_has_loose_ends.html “GhostNet Cyber Espionage Probe Still Has Loose Ends,”] June, 2009.

===Ghostnet===
*William Broad and David Sanger, [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/19/world/middleeast/19stuxnet.html “Worm Was Perfect for Sabotaging Centrifuges,”] November, 2010.
*William Broad et al, [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/world/middleeast/16stuxnet.html “Israeli Test on Worm Called Crucial in Iran Nuclear Delay,”] January, 2011.
*Mike Lennon, [http://www.securityweek.com/massive-series-cyber-attacks-targeting-70-global-organizations-uncovered "Massive Series of Cyber Attacks Targeting 70+ Global Organizations Uncovered"], August, 2011.
*Information Warfare Monitor, [http://www.nartv.org/mirror/ghostnet.pdf “Tracking GhostNet: Investigating a Cyber Espionage Network,”] Report JR02-2009, March, 2009 (note: this document is particularly technical).

===Anonymous===
*ABC 360 Documentary, [http://www.abc.net.au/rn/360/stories/2011/3275935.htm Anonymous: Just for the lulz?,] July, 2011.
*Peter Bright, [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/02/anonymous-speaks-the-inside-story-of-the-hbgary-hack.ars “Anonymous speaks: the inside story of the HBGary hack,”] February, 2011.
==Related Videos==
<videoflash>Jru96K-pYHI</videoflash>
* Professor Zittrain anticipates changes to the Internet regarding quality of service, accounting & traffic management, encryption & security, and authentication in 2004.
 
 
<videoflash>iI5HzUX6xkk</videoflash>
*Professor Zittrain describes the need for new security measures and potential effects on Internet neutrality.
 
 
<videoflash>QMxFKmGe46g</videoflash>
*Professor Zittrain discusses potential changes in hardware and how they will affect control of content.
 
 

==Student Reflections==

''Student Response Michael Adelman, Ona Balkus, Justin Tresnowksi, and Michael Redding''

The session on cybersecurity led by Professor Zittrain of Harvard Law School was held on Wednesday, September 7, 2011 at 10:30am. After a brief preamble reviewing the online commenting tools available to iLaw participants, Professor Zittrain delievered his “primarily expository” talk on the state of cybersecurity. Professor Zittrain began by delineating two categories of discussion within the realm of cybersecurity. He described the first as the “Important but Uninteresting”. This category encompasses the type of catastrophic cyberattack dramatized in movies such as Live Free or Die Hard whereby a cyberattack causes both physical structural damage (i.e. by taking down automobile traffic management networks) and financial / personal damage (i.e. deletion of credit card records). These attacks would by typified by an attack on SCADA (Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition) systems which control our power plants, water treatment, oil and gas pipelines, etc. But other than the Stuxnet virus (further described below) there have been few such attacks and the “in-a-bubble” nature of most of these SCADA networks makes it difficult to execute such attacks. And those vulnerable are already taking some actions to enhance their security i.e. military installations putting rubber cement in the USB ports of their computers.

There have also been turf wars over who will be the cyberwarriors responsible for cybersecurity. Professor Zittrain recounted the US Airforce’s push to become the defenders of Cyberspace with the Air Force Cyber Command. But even after years of effort and funding, the Air Force was limited to creating a reduced Cyber Command, which is currently far from dominant in the field. Professor Zittrain then moved on to the cybersecurity issues which he described as not quite important, but more intellectually engaging. In essence, regular computer users today are vulnerable to the “Princess and the Pea” problem. Like the fairy tale, where only the princess can discern the pea buried under layers of mattresses, only the rare power-user can discern malicious code running on their computer among the many processes running in the background with names like “SystemUIServer”.

Further anecdotes included the example of the url shortening service bit.ly, which until recently routed traffic through Libya’s top-level domain. Another example was a letter Professor Zittrain’s received from American Express, which alerted him that his credit card information may have been compromised, but provided no further detail or instructions other than to “remain vigilant” for 12-24 months.

Nor are the experts ever free to consider themselves secure and protected. A comical yet chilling example is provided by HBGary, a computer security firm that attempted to boost its profile by outing members of the hacking collective Anonymous. Anonymous’s response overwhelmed HBGary’s security, and resulted in the publication of HBGary’s corporate email archives and the takeover of HBGary’s website, among other embarrassing humiliations. But then, even the highly skilled members of Anonymous had their own IRC channel and other means of communication compromised. Professor Zittrain then reduced these notable incidents into an overarching conundrum: The Internet’s openness and generativity are also the source of all its security concerns. How to resolve this conundrum was left for another session. Complementing the class discussion, Kim Zetter’s article “How Digital Detectives Deciphered Stuxnet, the Most Menacing Malware in History” and Michael Gross’ “A Declaration of Cyber-War” tell the suspenseful story of how computer programmers and anti-hacking experts around the world discovered and broke through the complex coding of malware that was successfully hindering the Iranian uranium enrichment program. Stuxnet was unique in a few notable ways in terms of its design and impact.

First, Stuxnet could be transferred into a computer system through one USB stick, that transferred the encrypted code into a computer, which then transferred the virus to other computers that shared printers, planners, and other internal communication tools. While most malware is designed to spread through the internet, Stuxnet was designed to infect a specific community of linked computers, such as within an organization or factory.

The investigators soon discovered that Stuxnet was also unique in its disproportional effect on computers in Iran and little impact in the United States and South Korea, countries normally affected by malware. The isolated impact of this complex and neatly designed virus suggested that Stuxnet was created by a well-funded organization or government agency specifically interested in damaging computer programming in Iran.

Lastly, Stuxnet is unique in that it was the first instance where anti-hacking experts saw malware used for physical sabotage: “physically destroy something in the real world.” Stuxnet was a type of malware that affected programs that drive motors, valves and switches, and in this instance sped the rate at which centrifuges installed at Natanz, a nuclear enrichment plant in Iran, operated and therefore had to be replaced.

While the investigators eventually went public with their findings and Stuxnet ceased its operations, Stuxnet remains a central example of the potential for malware to hinder or break down the central operations of a country’s infrastructure. Similar malware could be used to obstruct energy production, clean water production, traffic lights, and other essential services. This highlights the importance of government investment in cybersecurity efforts as an integral part of national defense and discussions addressing cybersecurity on the international stage in negotiations and collaboration.

An additional article, “Anonymous speaks: the inside story of the HBGary attack,” documented how the hacker group infiltrated the security firm HBGary counterpart HBGary Federal. In response to a claim by HBGary’s CEO Aaron Barr that he could and would unmask a particular Anonymous member, the collective fought back tooth and nail. Breaking into HBGary’s servers, Anonymous created a searchable database of the entire company’s emails. Further, the website was shut down completely and their data was destroyed.

First, Anonymous determined the number of characters in certain passwords, which were recorded as hashes instead of characters. Then, using a combination of rainbow tables and “salting,” techniques that have been developed by hackers over the last decade to create databases of likely passwords based on the number of characters, Anonymous was able to work backward from the hashes to determine the actual password characters. Making the process easier, two senior officials - CEO Aaron Barr and COO Ted Vera - used very simple passwords: six lowercase letters with two numbers. Not only that, they used these passwords for a number of different systems - email, twitter, etc. - compromising much of their personal data and leaving it susceptible to Anonymous.

Once into Barr’s email - an administrator account - it was only a matter of time and email trickery before Anonymous could take down the entire HBGary system. The amazing thing about the infiltration was the carelessness of HBGary, a purported security firm. Their officials used very simple passwords, used the same password in multiple places, and their security officials emailed out passwords and usernames. Anonymous’s attack was not complex - they merely exploiting the human vulnerabilities of HBGary, albeit efficiently and cleverly.

The discussion provoked a number of questions, such as:

#To what extent are cybersecurity breaches the result of laziness and to what extent would these breaches occur regardless of individuals’ vigilance?
#If the proper response to cybersecurity threats is greater regulation, how should that regulation balance security concerns with preservation of the Internet’s generative power?
#In addition, if regulation is required, who should do the regulating?

[[Category:Pillars of iLaw]]

The Future of the Internet

2011-09-09T13:39:18Z

David: /* Questions related to Privacy */

Digital Libraries, Archives, and Rights Registries

2011-09-09T13:38:31Z

David: /* Recommended Readings and Videos */

{{Ilawsidebar}}

==Overview==
'''Thursday, 12:30-1:30pm''' 
''Format'': Roundtable Discussion 
''Lead'': [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/cnesson Charlie Nesson] 
''Participants'': [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/tfisher William Fisher], [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jpalfrey John Palfrey], [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jschnapp Jeffrey Schnapp]

A discussion moderated by Charlie Nesson will focus on opportunities and challenges regarding the creation and use of digital registries, archives, and libraries. Practical use cases such as the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/research/dpla Digital Public Library of America (DPLA)] in addition to other efforts to create registries for public domain works will be discussed, building upon and further illustrating previous thematic areas and pillar sessions, including copyright, user innovation, and free and fair use. Central considerations regarding underlying technical architecture, legal challenges, legal support, and liability will inform the conversation.

==Driving Questions==
* '''Charlie Nesson''': Suppose it were to be agreed among us that when the founders wrote the Progress clause of our constitution, the exclusive right they were granting to publishers of creative works was the legal right to stop other publishers from selling copies of their works. Can you tell a coherent legal story about how we got from there to here?

* '''Charlie Nesson''': Viewed from the vantage of equal citizens in a public domain of common (totally usable) knowledge, when did We the People surrender the liberty of privately copying works of any kind? That is to say, when was this liberty taken from us?

==Required Readings==
===Library and Archive Models===
*[http://www.europeana.eu/portal/ Europeana]
*[http://www.archive.org/ The Internet Archive]
*[http://www.hathitrust.org/ Hathi Trust]
*[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/research/dpla# Digital Public Library of America]

===Rights Registries===
* [http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/nesson/files/2011/09/Digital-Registry-memo-DRAFT-8-30-11_2.pdf Background and Philosophy of the Rights Registry], August 4, 2011.
*[http://imslp.org/wiki/ IMSLP -- Petrucci Music Library]
* James Grimmelmann, [http://laboratorium.net/archive/2011/03/22/inside_judge_chins_opinion "Inside Judge Chin's Opinion,"] ''The Laboratorium'', March 22, 2011, skim all (focus on Section 4, “Copyright”)

===Golan v. Holder===
* U.S. Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000104---A000-.html 104A], [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000109----000-.html 109(a)] (codifying § 514 of Uruguay Round Agreements Act)
* [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1636353906906143958&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr Golan v. Holder, 609 F.3d 1076 (10th Cir. Jun. 21, 2010)], 131 S.Ct. 1600 (March 7, 2011) (granting cert.)
* See generally, [http://www.americanbar.org/publications/preview_home/10-545.html Golan v. Holder, U.S. Supreme Court Docket No. 10-545]
** Read all: [http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-545_petitioner.pdf Petitioner's Brief]
** [http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-545_respondent.authcheckdam.pdf Respondent's Brief]
** Read all: [http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/10-545_tsac_Project_Petrucci.pdf Amicus Brief for Project Petrucci in Support of Petitioner]

==Recommended Readings and Videos==
* Citizen Media Law Project, [http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/copyright "Copyright"]

<videoflash>PWrgjRYwTsk</videoflash>
* June update from John Palfrey on The Digital Public Library of America

==Student Reflections==

''By: Jason Gross, Brian Wood, and Elizabeth Bailey''

This session featured Charles Nesson leading a panel discussion featuring William Fisher, John Palfrey, and Jeffrey Schnapp. Professor Nesson opened by breaking down the materials on the Internet, which he called “bits,” into four categories. The first was those bits that are clearly parts of the public domain; everyone is free to use them. The second was the opposite extreme, those that are clearly copyrighted; you would need express permission to use them legally. In between these two extremes lie the final two categories: the orphan works and the Creative Commons bits. The orphan works are copyrighted, but one would have serious difficulty obtaining permission for their use because of the inaccessibility of the copyright holder. In contrast, the Creative Commons bits are ostensibly free for anyone to use without obtaining permission, yet it is often unclear if the claims that these bits are not copyrighted are true.

It is the unclear legal status of these bits and their outright exclusion from viewing or use, rather than limitations in the extent of our current collections, that limits people’s ability to take advantage of information and media. These issues weigh heavily on efforts around the world to establish digital libraries archives. Professor Nesson explains that there is a need for the lawyers and policymakers to clarify legal distinctions in copyright and sharing paradigms for engineers and coders working on digital humanities archives, and that, perhaps more importantly, can be relied on by users of content to a certainty.

Open questions remain as to how the legal distinctions may be clarified and by whom. Professor Nesson suggested a general call to the power brokers of the legal profession, law firms and influential attorneys, to take up the challenge - but this was questioned by a number of conference participants who voiced skepticism as to the extent of pro bono man-power available and the limits of pro bono legal services (especially when dealing with interest groups and other political actors outside of direct litigation). Professor Palfrey suggested a strategy to try and reshape the boundaries of copyright law, by activist lawyers bringing pointed lawsuits.

In opposition, the notion of “don’t ask, do” seemed to run though the discussion. As Professor Benkler pointed out during the session, Napster was only possible because it was illegal. This idea, which seems to capture the Zeitgeist of online innovation, may lead to a different approach altogether, which exists outside of the traditional methods of legal or political advocacy. Forging ahead with attempts to digitize, collect, and categorize information, attempting to navigate copyright law where possible and proceeding with contract and insurance on an ad hoc basis, may lend more short- term progress and generate more momentum than pursuing slower, ex ante legal resolutions.

Future of the Internet session questions:

#What roles should government and private organizations play in future innovation projects such as digital humanities registries?
#What is the future of written (paper) materials like books, and what’s the future relationship between public libraries and the Internet?
#How do we balance the interests of copyright protection of creator’s rights against the benefits of more free use, access, and collaboration?

[[Category:Case Studies]]

Exploring the Arab Spring

2011-09-09T13:37:07Z

David: /* Student Responses */

{{Ilawsidebar}}

==Overview==

'''Tuesday, 3:45-4:45pm''' 
''Format'': Roundtable Discussion 
''Lead'': [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jpalfrey John Palfrey] 
''Participants'': [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/ybenkler Yochai Benkler], [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/betling Bruce Etling], [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/cnesson Charlie Nesson], [http://www1.aucegypt.edu/faculty/naglarzk/ Nagla Rizk], and [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/ezuckerman Ethan Zuckerman] ''TBC''

What has become known as the “Arab Spring” will serve as a synthesizing case study that will help to weave together the core themes outlined in both the Open Systems/Access and the Online Liberty and Freedom of Expression sessions, with a particular focus on the use of social media and the rise of information control and counter-control activities during recent protests and uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa. In this highly interactive sessions commentators will not only analyze the role of social media, but also consider the different roles and actors that influenced the events, including governments, activists, citizens, and companies.

==Required Readings==
*Dubai School of Government, [http://www.dsg.ae/social.aspx?u=-1&l=e&f=http://www.dsg.ae/portals/0/ASMR2.pdf "Civil Movements: The Impact of Facebook and Twitter"] ''Arab Social Media Report'', May, 2011.
* Masashi Crete-Nishihata and Jillian York, [http://opennet.net/blog/2011/01/egypt%E2%80%99s-internet-blackout-extreme-example-just-time-blocking “Egypt’s Internet Blackout: Extreme Example of Just-in-Time Blocking,”] ONI Blog, January 28, 2011.
*James Cowie, [http://www.renesys.com/blog/2011/01/egypt-leaves-the-internet.shtml “Egypt Leaves the Internet,”] Renesys, January 27, 2011.
* Yochai Benker, [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks_Chapter_1.pdf "Chapter 1: Introduction: A Moment of Opportunity and Challenge,"] in ''Wealth of Networks: How Social production Transforms Markets and Freedom'' (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006). '''Update: read all Chapter 1'''.
* Yochai Benkler, [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks_Chapter_7.pdf "Chapter 7: Political Freedom Part 2: Emergence of the Networked Public Sphere,"] in ''The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom'' (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006). '''Update: read first 22 pages of Chapter 7'''.

==Recommended Readings==
*[http://opennet.net/mena-net-watch MENA Net Watch], Open Net Initiative
*[http://opennet.net/mena-net-watch ONI's Middle East and North Africa Profiles and News]
[[Category: Case Studies]]

=="Hard Questions" from John Palfrey==

* John Palfrey, [http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/palfrey/2011/09/06/hard-questions-for-ilaw2011s-freedom-of-informationarab-spring-sessions/ Hard Questions for iLaw2011's Freedom of Information/Arab Spring Sessions], blog post, September 6, 2011.

==Student Reflections==

''Summary by student volunteers''

The session on the Arab Spring held on Tuesday, September 6, 2011, kicked off with brief remarks on the recent political transformations in Egypt by Nagla Rizk, a professor at The American University of Cairo, and Lina Attalah, a journalist and a scholar. These introductory comments stressed that observers of the Arab Spring often overlook the fact that the Egyptian government made investment in information and communication technology infrastructure a priority for economic growth prior to the revolution and that it was this infrastructure that ultimately fueled the public uprisings. These investments are evidence of the deep divide that existed – and continues to exist – between economic and political measures of freedom. As a result, one of the great challenges Egypt now faces is helping to ensure that political freedom and economic growth mutually reinforce one another.
The speakers described the intense public protests against the government at the end of 2010 and into early 2011. They noted that the messages being traded among protestors and activists were not driven by Wikileaks, but were organic in nature. They also emphasized that the government’s pro-business orientation meant it was unwilling to develop extensive filtering tools and instead resorted to more extreme measures of shutting down modes of communication altogether in a desperate attempt to hold on to power. Nagla and Lina described the turn of events that led up to the government’s January 27th order to shut down access to the Internet and the legal arguments the government used to justify taking such extraordinary measures. While officials believed these actions would squelch public protests, they actually fueled a desire for more information that brought Egyptians out into the streets. The speakers identified this as one of the great lessons of the revolution: “you can shut the pipe, but not the people.”

Both speakers noted that in the post-revolution period, the concept of “openness” is entrenched in public consciousness. This is evidenced by efforts to draft a freedom of information act and the mainstreaming (which may be for better or for worse) of social media contributors. Yet, challenges remain, including a deep fragmentation and political polarization among online activists. There are questions as to whether laws prohibiting discussion of the military will remain in effect given that the military is now providing political leadership for the country and there is fear that a draft law regulating online publishing will create new obstacles to free political expression.

Ethan Zuckerman contributed a description of the role that social media played in the fall of the Ben Ali government in Tunisia. He stressed that it is dangerous to talk of the Arab Spring as a whole and that it must instead be understood through individual case studies. He pointed to two key takeaways of the Tunisian uprisings: first, we often think about social media as “one to many” and it is instead much more limited in scope and should be characterized as “one to some;” and second, online social media may not be the best means for organizing a revolution. In fact, for contributions in the online sphere to really take hold, amplification through mainstream media may be required – and the mainstream media was arguably essential to the transformation in Tunisia. He illustrated this point by noting that while online activism in Tunisia was stifled initially because there was great public fear about posting messages on Facebook and within other online forums known to be monitored by the government, Al Jazeera, which depends on social media feeds for its reporting in Tunisia, was able to disseminate the activists’ messages widely to the Tunisian public through its news broadcasts.

The discussion raised several key questions:

#To what extent can intensely focused people multiply their voices online to actually shift a public agenda? Is involvement by the mainstream media essential, and if so, what role does it play?
#How do you tease apart rebellion rooted in social media from a larger national public movement driven by factors greater than social media?
#Do decentralized networks run the risk of dispersing organizers as opposed to facilitating their collective action?
#Where is the law on the topic of social media and the Arab Spring? Equality sits at the core of social media and the Internet and so why is that the United States, which is founded on this notion of equality, seems to have so little to offer on how to structure democratic government after the rebellion?

Privacy

2011-09-09T13:36:43Z

David: /* Student Responses */

{{Ilawsidebar}}

==Overview==

'''Wednesday, 4:00-5:30pm''' 
''Format'': Lecture, featuring guest respondents 
''Leads'': [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/pmalone Phil Malone], with [http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=964 Herbert Burkert] and [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jpalfrey John Palfrey] 
''Participants'': [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/ugasser Urs Gasser], [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/cnesson Charlie Nesson], and others

This pillar topic, led by Phil Malone and featuring Herbert Burkert and John Palfrey, will cover a mixture of privacy history, theory, black letter law, regulatory developments and current controversies. Herbert Burkert will offer a multinational perspective of privacy law and policy, outlining the emergence of data protection law in Europe. Against this backdrop, recent global privacy developments, comparative EU vs. US approaches and current online controversies – including behavioral targeting, persistent cookies and Do Not Track legislation; the right to be forgotten/ le droit à l’oubli; location privacy; facial recognition; contextual privacy; Google’s Street View service, and Google’s Buzz rollout – will be explored to gain a deeper understanding of the current the state of privacy law and norms and possible ways forward. Participants Urs Gasser, and Charlie Nesson will add their perspectives on these issues throughout this session.

==Required Readings==

===Overview===
* Hyperpublic Symposium 2011: [http://www.hyperpublic.org/2011/06/10/urs-gassers-opening-remarks/ Urs Gasser’s Opening Remarks], June 10, 2011.

* [http://www.economist.com/node/16377097 "Legal Confusion on Internet Privacy: The Clash of Data Civilisations,"] The Economist, June 17, 2010.

* Peter Fleischer, [http://peterfleischer.blogspot.com/2010/09/10-paths-and-theyre-all-hard.html “10 Paths and They’re All Hard,]” September 5, 2010.

* Thierer, “[http://www.forbes.com/2011/04/02/privacy-tax-social-networking-advertising-opinions-contributors-adam-thierer_print.html Birth of the Privacy Tax,]” April 2, 2011.

===Behavioral Targeting/Do Not Track===
* [http://m.wired.com/epicenter/2011/07/undeletable-cookie/ “Researchers Expose Cunning Online Tracking Service That Can’t Be Dodged,]” Wired epicenter blog, July 29, 2011.

* Julia Angwin, [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703940904575395073512989404.html “The Web’s New Gold Mine: Your Secrets,”] Wall Street Journal Onlike (part of the “What They Know” series), July 30, 2010.

* FTC Commissioner, Thomas Rosch, [http://www.ftc.gov/speeches/rosch/110822aspeninfospeech.pdf “Information and Privacy: in search of a data-driven policy,”] August 22, 2011.

* Kim Hyung-eun, [http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2931289 "Facebook agrees to increase privacy protection"] Korea JoongAng Daily, January 21, 2011.

* Eric Mack, [http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20094866-93/facebooks-like-button-illegal-in-german-state/ "Facebook's 'Like' button illegal in German state,"] CNET News, August 19, 2011.

===Facial Recognition===

* David Thompson, [http://volokh.com/2010/06/11/the-future-of-privacy-facial-recognition-public-facts-and-300-million-little-brothers/ "The Future of Privacy: Facial Recognition, Public Facts, and 300 Million Little Brothers,"] Volokh Conspiracy blog, June 11, 2010.

* Dominic Basulto, [http://bigthink.com/ideas/39603 “Does Facial Recognition Technology Mean the End of Privacy,”] big think blog, August 5, 2011.

* Helen Pidd, [http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/aug/03/facebook-facial-recognition-privacy-germany “Facebook facial recognition software violates privacy laws, says Germany,”] guardian.co.uk, August 3, 2011.

===Right to Be Forgotten===
* Suzanne Daley, [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/10/world/europe/10spain.html?_r=2&hp=&pagewanted=all# “On Its Own, Europe Backs Web Privacy Fights,”] New York Times, August 8, 2011.

* Peter Fleischer, [http://peterfleischer.blogspot.com/2011/03/foggy-thinking-about-right-to-oblivion.html “Foggy Thinking About the Right to Oblivion,”] Peter Fleischer: Privacy? Blog, March 9, 2011.

* Adam Thierer, [http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamthierer/2011/04/17/erasing-our-past-on-the-internet/ “Erasing Our Past on the Internet,”] Forbes, April 17, 2011.

* Natasha Singer, [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/business/in-personal-data-a-fight-for-the-right-to-be-forgotten.html "Just Give Me the Right to Be Forgotten,"] New York Times, August 20, 2011.

===Location Privacy===
* Jacqui Cheng, [http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/06/franken-location-loopholes/ “Franken’s Location-Privacy Bill Would Close Mobile-Tracking ‘Loopholes’,”] Wired epicenter blog, June 17, 2011.

* [http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-08-17/apple-sued-by-south-korean-iphone-users-over-location-data.html "Apple Sued by South Korean iPhone Users Over Location Data"], Business Week, August 17, 2011.

* European Commission, [http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/2011/wp185_en.pdf "Opinion 13/2011 on Geolocation services on smart mobile devices,"] May 16, 2011.

===Google Street View===
* Prasad Krishna, [http://www.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/privacy/street-view-of-private-and-public "A Street View of Private and the Public,"] Centre for Internet & Society India blog, June 4, 2011.

* Matt McGee, [http://searchengineland.com/google-street-view-germany-blurry-houses-included-54632 “Google Street View Debuts In Germany, Blurry Houses Included,”] Search Engine Land blog, November 1, 2010.

* Matt McGee, [http://searchengineland.com/google-has-stopped-street-view-photography-germany-72368 “Google Has Stopped Street View Photography In Germany,”] Search Engine Land blog, April 10, 2011.

===Google Buzz===
* Miguel Helft, [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/technology/internet/13google.html "Critics Say Google Invades Privacy With New Service,"] New York Times, February 12, 2010.

* Sarah Kessler, [http://mashable.com/2011/03/30/google-buzz-ftc-settlement/ "Google Settles With FTC Over Buzz Privacy Issues,"] Mashable, March 30, 2011.

==Recommended Readings==

===Privacy and Technological Points of Control===
* John Borland, [http://news.cnet.com/Supreme-Court-rules-against-file-swapping/2100-1030_3-5764135.html “Supreme Court rules against file swapping”], CNET, June 2005
* Dan Goodin [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/07/internet_explorer_do_not_track/ “Microsoft unveils 'do not track' option for IE9”], theregister.co.uk, December 7 2010

===Privacy and Reputation===
* Craig Newmark, [http://www.cnewmark.com/2010/04/trust-and-reputation-systems-redistributing-power-and-influence.html "Trust and reputation systems: redistributing power and influence"], craigconnects blog, April 6, 2010
* Evlyn Rusli, [http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/19/unvarnished-honestly-kazanjy-funding/ "Unvarnished Becomes Honestly.com, Raises $1.2 Million And Opens The Floodgates"], TechCrunch, October 19, 2010
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy Wikipedia Entry on the Seigenthaler Incident]

==Related Case Examples==
*[[Google Buzz]]
*[[Facebook Beacon]]

==Student Reflections==
'''Summary and Key Thematic Areas'''

During this session Professor (Doktor) Burkert first provided a history of data protection, an idea which the Germans “stole” from the U.S. and codified in the 1970 Hesse Data Protection Act. It was a recognition that, somehow, data handling by machines makes people uncomfortable. This led to furious debate on the question tool -- do different contexts/entities handling the data (through machines) lead to different levels of user comfort? This debate turned to a comparison between the different perceptions and motivations of public and private parties in data collection and processing. Are governments more likely to use data for control, compared to a user experience motivation in the private sector? Or are the dangers of the private sector’s handling of such data equally problematic? This recalls JZ’s refrain that users are willingly marching toward a non-generative/controlled environment for the sake of convenience and enhanced user experience. One other interesting concept from Burkert’s presentation was the European Info Act’s emphasis on proportionality in evaluating whether or not data should be released: the need has to justify release of personal information.

Then Professor Malone provided an overview of the US approach to privacy, based on a notice and consent regime (aside from specific sectoral laws like HIPAA and FERPA) that is “transactional” and less nuanced than the European approach. He noted that the American approach, while effective in other areas, has serious deficiencies when it comes to adequately protecting or informing users of data-reliant services. He noted that terms of service very rarely draw scrutiny from the FTC, except when services fail to live up to their stated privacy policy (as with Google Buzz). Debate then ensued on the question tool about what kind of “notice and consent” regime would satisfy both consumer need for privacy and desire for a smooth interaction with a website interface. For example, how would consumers respond to piecemeal, instantaneous privacy notices (as opposed to a page wall of info), where the user would have to opt in each time information is collected. Would it disrupt the interaction too much to be viable? Professor Malone then also contrasted the reluctance of Europeans (in particular, Germans) to accept invasions on privacy with the American (more) liberal attitude toward it. For example, many people in Germany had chosen to opt out for having their homes displayed on Google’s street view, choosing instead to have them blurred. Professor Malone also proposed for us to look at public to private as a “continuum” rather than as binary modes. Lastly he provided a different kind of framework for looking at privacy: as contextual (which is how youngsters today view it) rather than absolute.

One poignant tweet interestingly weaved between Prof. Dr. Burkert’s lecture and Professor Malone’s, from KendraSerra, “Conflict between "right to be forgotten" and "right to speak" evident in European/American privacy views. #ilaw2011”, foreshadowing the many divergent views on privacy and Internet that cross geographic boundaries will surely encounter as it continues to evolve.

'''Key Areas of Debate'''

* Zittrain: Who are “European countries kidding” -- are hyper-strict privacy regimes are unrealistic?

* Why are people more comfortable with private companies like Google handling data than government? Possible theories are: differing levels of visibility in privacy encroachment (high for government, low for private companies), social adjustment, perception that private companies can enhance user experience with more data whereas government has malicious intent, levels of (potential) harm

* Conflicting privacy regimes tending to reinforce existing values

* Why Germany (or the EU generally) and the US have diverged in acceptance of levels of data privacy

'''Further Questions (for Future of Internet Discussion)'''

#As the Internet and technologies increasingly blur physical boundaries, how should we address national differences in privacy law?
#For Prof. Burkert: How do economics and concerns about the market inform the conversation about privacy? Do cost-based concerns about data protection regulation get much traction (as they do in the US).
#What (if any) is the relationship between the strong, protection-of-personality privacy law that has arisen in Germany and the more limited use of e-commerce and social media in Germany than in the US? More generally, how and why have attitudes toward privacy developed differently in Germany and the US?
#Given the economic implications of privacy regulation for e-commerce, how should regulators and policymakers be thinking about the policy process around privacy?

[[Category:Pillars of iLaw]]

The Future of the Internet

2011-09-09T13:35:43Z

David: /* Questions Discussion Page on any topic (including those that weren't covered) */

The Future of the Internet

2011-09-09T13:35:17Z

David: /* Questions Discussion Page on any topic (including those that weren't covered) */

The Future of the Internet

2011-09-09T13:33:49Z

David: /* Questions related to Exploring the Arab Spring */

Privacy

2011-09-09T13:32:57Z

David: /* Related Case Examples */

{{Ilawsidebar}}

==Overview==

'''Wednesday, 4:00-5:30pm''' 
''Format'': Lecture, featuring guest respondents 
''Leads'': [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/pmalone Phil Malone], with [http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=964 Herbert Burkert] and [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jpalfrey John Palfrey] 
''Participants'': [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/ugasser Urs Gasser], [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/cnesson Charlie Nesson], and others

This pillar topic, led by Phil Malone and featuring Herbert Burkert and John Palfrey, will cover a mixture of privacy history, theory, black letter law, regulatory developments and current controversies. Herbert Burkert will offer a multinational perspective of privacy law and policy, outlining the emergence of data protection law in Europe. Against this backdrop, recent global privacy developments, comparative EU vs. US approaches and current online controversies – including behavioral targeting, persistent cookies and Do Not Track legislation; the right to be forgotten/ le droit à l’oubli; location privacy; facial recognition; contextual privacy; Google’s Street View service, and Google’s Buzz rollout – will be explored to gain a deeper understanding of the current the state of privacy law and norms and possible ways forward. Participants Urs Gasser, and Charlie Nesson will add their perspectives on these issues throughout this session.

==Required Readings==

===Overview===
* Hyperpublic Symposium 2011: [http://www.hyperpublic.org/2011/06/10/urs-gassers-opening-remarks/ Urs Gasser’s Opening Remarks], June 10, 2011.

* [http://www.economist.com/node/16377097 "Legal Confusion on Internet Privacy: The Clash of Data Civilisations,"] The Economist, June 17, 2010.

* Peter Fleischer, [http://peterfleischer.blogspot.com/2010/09/10-paths-and-theyre-all-hard.html “10 Paths and They’re All Hard,]” September 5, 2010.

* Thierer, “[http://www.forbes.com/2011/04/02/privacy-tax-social-networking-advertising-opinions-contributors-adam-thierer_print.html Birth of the Privacy Tax,]” April 2, 2011.

===Behavioral Targeting/Do Not Track===
* [http://m.wired.com/epicenter/2011/07/undeletable-cookie/ “Researchers Expose Cunning Online Tracking Service That Can’t Be Dodged,]” Wired epicenter blog, July 29, 2011.

* Julia Angwin, [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703940904575395073512989404.html “The Web’s New Gold Mine: Your Secrets,”] Wall Street Journal Onlike (part of the “What They Know” series), July 30, 2010.

* FTC Commissioner, Thomas Rosch, [http://www.ftc.gov/speeches/rosch/110822aspeninfospeech.pdf “Information and Privacy: in search of a data-driven policy,”] August 22, 2011.

* Kim Hyung-eun, [http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2931289 "Facebook agrees to increase privacy protection"] Korea JoongAng Daily, January 21, 2011.

* Eric Mack, [http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20094866-93/facebooks-like-button-illegal-in-german-state/ "Facebook's 'Like' button illegal in German state,"] CNET News, August 19, 2011.

===Facial Recognition===

* David Thompson, [http://volokh.com/2010/06/11/the-future-of-privacy-facial-recognition-public-facts-and-300-million-little-brothers/ "The Future of Privacy: Facial Recognition, Public Facts, and 300 Million Little Brothers,"] Volokh Conspiracy blog, June 11, 2010.

* Dominic Basulto, [http://bigthink.com/ideas/39603 “Does Facial Recognition Technology Mean the End of Privacy,”] big think blog, August 5, 2011.

* Helen Pidd, [http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/aug/03/facebook-facial-recognition-privacy-germany “Facebook facial recognition software violates privacy laws, says Germany,”] guardian.co.uk, August 3, 2011.

===Right to Be Forgotten===
* Suzanne Daley, [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/10/world/europe/10spain.html?_r=2&hp=&pagewanted=all# “On Its Own, Europe Backs Web Privacy Fights,”] New York Times, August 8, 2011.

* Peter Fleischer, [http://peterfleischer.blogspot.com/2011/03/foggy-thinking-about-right-to-oblivion.html “Foggy Thinking About the Right to Oblivion,”] Peter Fleischer: Privacy? Blog, March 9, 2011.

* Adam Thierer, [http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamthierer/2011/04/17/erasing-our-past-on-the-internet/ “Erasing Our Past on the Internet,”] Forbes, April 17, 2011.

* Natasha Singer, [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/business/in-personal-data-a-fight-for-the-right-to-be-forgotten.html "Just Give Me the Right to Be Forgotten,"] New York Times, August 20, 2011.

===Location Privacy===
* Jacqui Cheng, [http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/06/franken-location-loopholes/ “Franken’s Location-Privacy Bill Would Close Mobile-Tracking ‘Loopholes’,”] Wired epicenter blog, June 17, 2011.

* [http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-08-17/apple-sued-by-south-korean-iphone-users-over-location-data.html "Apple Sued by South Korean iPhone Users Over Location Data"], Business Week, August 17, 2011.

* European Commission, [http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/2011/wp185_en.pdf "Opinion 13/2011 on Geolocation services on smart mobile devices,"] May 16, 2011.

===Google Street View===
* Prasad Krishna, [http://www.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/privacy/street-view-of-private-and-public "A Street View of Private and the Public,"] Centre for Internet & Society India blog, June 4, 2011.

* Matt McGee, [http://searchengineland.com/google-street-view-germany-blurry-houses-included-54632 “Google Street View Debuts In Germany, Blurry Houses Included,”] Search Engine Land blog, November 1, 2010.

* Matt McGee, [http://searchengineland.com/google-has-stopped-street-view-photography-germany-72368 “Google Has Stopped Street View Photography In Germany,”] Search Engine Land blog, April 10, 2011.

===Google Buzz===
* Miguel Helft, [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/technology/internet/13google.html "Critics Say Google Invades Privacy With New Service,"] New York Times, February 12, 2010.

* Sarah Kessler, [http://mashable.com/2011/03/30/google-buzz-ftc-settlement/ "Google Settles With FTC Over Buzz Privacy Issues,"] Mashable, March 30, 2011.

==Recommended Readings==

===Privacy and Technological Points of Control===
* John Borland, [http://news.cnet.com/Supreme-Court-rules-against-file-swapping/2100-1030_3-5764135.html “Supreme Court rules against file swapping”], CNET, June 2005
* Dan Goodin [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/07/internet_explorer_do_not_track/ “Microsoft unveils 'do not track' option for IE9”], theregister.co.uk, December 7 2010

===Privacy and Reputation===
* Craig Newmark, [http://www.cnewmark.com/2010/04/trust-and-reputation-systems-redistributing-power-and-influence.html "Trust and reputation systems: redistributing power and influence"], craigconnects blog, April 6, 2010
* Evlyn Rusli, [http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/19/unvarnished-honestly-kazanjy-funding/ "Unvarnished Becomes Honestly.com, Raises $1.2 Million And Opens The Floodgates"], TechCrunch, October 19, 2010
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy Wikipedia Entry on the Seigenthaler Incident]

==Related Case Examples==
*[[Google Buzz]]
*[[Facebook Beacon]]

==Student Responses==
'''Summary and Key Thematic Areas'''

During this session Professor (Doktor) Burkert first provided a history of data protection, an idea which the Germans “stole” from the U.S. and codified in the 1970 Hesse Data Protection Act. It was a recognition that, somehow, data handling by machines makes people uncomfortable. This led to furious debate on the question tool -- do different contexts/entities handling the data (through machines) lead to different levels of user comfort? This debate turned to a comparison between the different perceptions and motivations of public and private parties in data collection and processing. Are governments more likely to use data for control, compared to a user experience motivation in the private sector? Or are the dangers of the private sector’s handling of such data equally problematic? This recalls JZ’s refrain that users are willingly marching toward a non-generative/controlled environment for the sake of convenience and enhanced user experience. One other interesting concept from Burkert’s presentation was the European Info Act’s emphasis on proportionality in evaluating whether or not data should be released: the need has to justify release of personal information.

Then Professor Malone provided an overview of the US approach to privacy, based on a notice and consent regime (aside from specific sectoral laws like HIPAA and FERPA) that is “transactional” and less nuanced than the European approach. He noted that the American approach, while effective in other areas, has serious deficiencies when it comes to adequately protecting or informing users of data-reliant services. He noted that terms of service very rarely draw scrutiny from the FTC, except when services fail to live up to their stated privacy policy (as with Google Buzz). Debate then ensued on the question tool about what kind of “notice and consent” regime would satisfy both consumer need for privacy and desire for a smooth interaction with a website interface. For example, how would consumers respond to piecemeal, instantaneous privacy notices (as opposed to a page wall of info), where the user would have to opt in each time information is collected. Would it disrupt the interaction too much to be viable? Professor Malone then also contrasted the reluctance of Europeans (in particular, Germans) to accept invasions on privacy with the American (more) liberal attitude toward it. For example, many people in Germany had chosen to opt out for having their homes displayed on Google’s street view, choosing instead to have them blurred. Professor Malone also proposed for us to look at public to private as a “continuum” rather than as binary modes. Lastly he provided a different kind of framework for looking at privacy: as contextual (which is how youngsters today view it) rather than absolute.

One poignant tweet interestingly weaved between Prof. Dr. Burkert’s lecture and Professor Malone’s, from KendraSerra, “Conflict between "right to be forgotten" and "right to speak" evident in European/American privacy views. #ilaw2011”, foreshadowing the many divergent views on privacy and Internet that cross geographic boundaries will surely encounter as it continues to evolve.

'''Key Areas of Debate'''

* Zittrain: Who are “European countries kidding” -- are hyper-strict privacy regimes are unrealistic?

* Why are people more comfortable with private companies like Google handling data than government? Possible theories are: differing levels of visibility in privacy encroachment (high for government, low for private companies), social adjustment, perception that private companies can enhance user experience with more data whereas government has malicious intent, levels of (potential) harm

* Conflicting privacy regimes tending to reinforce existing values

* Why Germany (or the EU generally) and the US have diverged in acceptance of levels of data privacy

'''Further Questions (for Future of Internet Discussion)'''

#As the Internet and technologies increasingly blur physical boundaries, how should we address national differences in privacy law?
#For Prof. Burkert: How do economics and concerns about the market inform the conversation about privacy? Do cost-based concerns about data protection regulation get much traction (as they do in the US).
#What (if any) is the relationship between the strong, protection-of-personality privacy law that has arisen in Germany and the more limited use of e-commerce and social media in Germany than in the US? More generally, how and why have attitudes toward privacy developed differently in Germany and the US?
#Given the economic implications of privacy regulation for e-commerce, how should regulators and policymakers be thinking about the policy process around privacy?

[[Category:Pillars of iLaw]]

Talk:Evening Events

2011-09-08T22:55:56Z

David: /* metaLAB (at) Harvard Temple Bar [1688 Mass Ave] 7:30p.m.- Digital Humanities */

==Sign-up for Poker with Charlie Nesson - 7p.m.==

* Pizza and soda will be available! Please join us at the Berkman Center - 23 Everett Street, Second Floor - for this session.
Space is unlimited! Add name and email address below to sign-up.

# Amrit (adhir(at)jd13.law.harvard.edu)
# Mayo Fuster Morell (mayo.fuster(at)eui.eu) > don't have a clue about poker, but curious
# Breanne (bgilpatrick@jd12.law.harvard.edu)
# Amanda Vaughn, avaughn@jd13.law.harvard.edu
# Matthias Glatthaar (mglatthaar@llm12.law.harvard.edu)
# Patrick McKeown (pmckeown@llm12.law.harvard.edu)
# Matt Vitins (mvitins@llm12.law.harvard.edu)
# Ethan Craig (ecraig@jd12.law.harvard.edu)
# Elettra Bietti (ebietti@llm12.law.harvard.edu)
# Jake Levine (jlevine@jd13.law.harvard.edu) [can i come a little late? have a meeting that goes till 8:00 or so...]
# Charlie Allen (callen@jd13.law.harvard.edu)
# David Ashaolu (dashaolu@llm12.law.harvard.edu)
#
#
#
#

==Ideas for Food For Thought Dinners==
Add your ideas here!

==Food For Thought Dinner Sign-ups==

These dinners allow conference attendees to engage in self-organized informal, themed conversation with other conference participants. Since these dinners are self-organized, there is no limit to the number of dinners that can occur on Thursday evening. We have not yet made reservations for dinners at restaurants; so if any conference attendees are looking to initiate/host a dinner, you are responsible for organizing and making reservations and communications. Also, please note that dinner attendees are expected to pay their own dinner costs.

You may organize and sign-up for Food For Thought dinners below. All iLaw attendees are welcome to add their ideas for interesting topics or propose dinner locations.

Food For Thought dinners tend to work best when the group size is small enough to be intimate (around 8 people or so). For restaurants in Harvard Square, expect approximately a 10-minute walk from Austin. For restaurants in Porter Square, expect approximately a 15 to 20-minute walk from Austin.

===[http://www.citmedialaw.org/ Citizen Media Law Project], Temple Bar, [http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&q=temple+bar&near=Cambridge,+MA&fb=1&cid=0,0,13500899818381353596&sa=X&oi=local_result&resnum=1&ct=image 1688 Massachusetts Ave], 7p.m. - Mobile media and citizen journalism===

The CMLP will host a dinner at Temple Bar (1688 Massachusetts Ave.) on mobile media and citizen journalism, discussing recent events such as the BART phone blackout, arrests of citizens recording video in public (including the recent First Circuit decision in ''Glik v. Cunniffe''), and libel-by-tweet.

''Sign-up List'':

1. [http://www.cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/asellars Andy Sellars, Berkman Fellow]

2. [http://www.cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jhermes Jeff Hermes, Berkman Fellow]

3. Arthur Bright, CMLP Research Attorney

4. Gita Srivastava

5. Lauren Henry

6. Josh Freiman

7.

8.

=== [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/psuber Peter Suber], [http://www.casablanca-restaurant.com/ Casablanca], [http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Casablanca,+40+Brattle+Street,+Cambridge,+MA+02138&aq=0&sll=42.373676,-71.121272&sspn=0.010431,0.016007&vpsrc=0&g=40+brattle+street+cambridge,+ma+02138&ie=UTF8&hq=Casablanca,&hnear=40+Brattle+St,+Cambridge,+Massachusetts+02138&ll=42.373589,-71.12139&spn=0.010431,0.016007&z=16 40 Brattle Street], 7p.m. - Open Access to Research ===

''Sign-up List'':

1. [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/psuber Peter Suber, Berkman Fellow]

2. [http://derechosdigitales.org Claudio Ruiz, ONG Derechos Digitales (Chile)]

3. Scott Bradner, Harvard CTO's Office

4.

5.

6.

7.

===Peer Production and Online Cooperation Research (Aaron Shaw and many others), Cambridge Common, 1667 Massachusetts Avenue, 7p.m.===

Come join a group of Berkman Fellows and friends engaged in research into various aspects of peer production and online cooperation. Among those planning to attend are [http://mako.cc Mako Hill], [http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/degrees/gradprogram/sjd/sjd-current-students/jennifer-shkabatur.html Jennifer Shkabatur], [http://www.mit.edu/~amonroy/ Andres Monroy], [http://aaronshaw.org Aaron Shaw] and [http://www.onlinecreation.info Mayo Fuster Morell].

''Sign-up List'':

1. Mayo Fuster Morell

2. [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jhergueux Jerome Hergueux]

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

===Mike King, Russell House Tavern (14 JFK Street, Harvard Square/next to Citizens Bank) @ 7 pm, Technical Discussion for non-Techies===

For those without technical background, here's a chance to get some insight on "how the Internet works," in a conversational, non-"geek speak" manner. Topics could include how DNS works, how a web browser fetches and renders a page, how email is transmitted and why spam developed into the problem it is, and so forth. Bring your questions and ideas for discussion.

''Sign-up List'':

1. Rocky Acosta, HLS

2. Ben Gaucherin, HLS CIO/CTO

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

===Jordan Gimbel, [http://www.graftonstreetcambridge.com/ Grafton Street], [http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF-8&q=grafton+street&near=Cambridge,+MA&oi=local_result MAP: 1230 Massachusetts Ave]- Evolution of your impact in the ilaw space ===
Hoping to ignite a discussion on the application of your ilaw knowledge within the community; whether in private practice as in-house counsel or otherwise.

''Sign-up List'':

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

===[http://metalab.harvard.edu metaLAB (at) Harvard] Digital Humanities===

This event has been canceled.

===[Organizer 7] [Restaurant/Location/7p.m.]- [Topic of Conversation]===

''Sign-up List'':

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

The Future of the Internet

2011-09-08T21:55:24Z

David: /* Questions Discussion Page on any topic (including those that weren't covered) */

The Future of the Internet

2011-09-08T20:24:40Z

David: /* Your Questions for the Future of the Internet Panel! */

The Future of the Internet

2011-09-08T20:24:30Z

David: /* Questions Discussion Page on any topic (including those that weren't covered) */

The Future of the Internet

2011-09-08T20:22:44Z

David: /* Software Patents */

The Future of the Internet

2011-09-08T20:22:33Z

David: /* Miscellaneous Questions on any topic (including those that weren't covered) */

The Future of the Internet

2011-09-08T20:21:41Z

David: /* Questions added to the Discussion Page */

The Future of the Internet

2011-09-08T20:21:29Z

David: /* Interesting Unanswered Question from Twitter, the Question Tool, etc */