Cyberlaw: Difficult Issues Winter 2010 - User contributions [en]

Student Responsibilities

2009-12-03T06:44:05Z

140.247.4.212:

''Pre-Course Responsibilities'':

#Submit a fun introductory question you would like your fellow classmates to answer
##Submit to cyberlaw_winter10_admin@eon.law.harvard.edu
##'''Due December 10th by 5pm'''
##Answer the resulting survey compiled from the classâs questions
#Complete one of the following tasks and write a post on the course wiki about your experiences:
##Apply to be a LiveOps representative
##Interact with Twitterhawk or another commercial Twitter application
##Use Mechanical Turk (complete or post a HIT)
##Address / propose possible ideas for the [https://wiki.mozilla.org/Drumbeat/Challenges/Privacy_Icons Drumbeat Privacy Project]
##Participate within an online community or service that touches on one of the cross-cutting themes of the course (due process on the internet, privacy/anonymity, mass collaboration, and motivating good & bad actors). It should be one you havenât tried before. (e.g. Couchsurfing)
##'''Due by January 3rd'''
#Read Professor Zittrain's book [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It]
##Be prepared to be called upon in the first class to discuss the topics and ideas in the book
##Due by January 4th

''Course Responsibilities'':

#Attend all course meetings: be prepared and participate
#After the first introductory session on January 2nd, email the course admin (cyberlaw_winter10_admin@eon.law.harvard.edu) and rank the four main difficult problems in order of preference
##You will be assigned to a group of 5 based on your topic preference
##'''Due 4pm Wednesday, January 6'''
#Contribute to the course wiki on a regular basis
##Contributions may be adding information or readings, or posting questions
##Students should register a user name, should email the user name to the course admin, and then should be sure to log in before contributing
##Contributions count for course credit
#Each student should âsign upâ for a week 2 class (by posting username on wiki under that subject)
##Students should post a hypothesis on the or wiki with their prediction of what the speakersâ biggest problems will be
###Predictions '''due before class'''
##After class, students should compare their predictions to the actual problems posed by speakers and react to the problems raised.
###Comments '''due before the next class meeting'''

''(Optional) Field Trips & Panels'':
Field Trips will be arranged on week days to relevant locations (such as Facebook, eBay, and the Museum of Computer History). Students are encouraged to attend and to discuss their experiences/thoughts on the course wiki. Class time will also be reserved the next day to discuss field trips.

''Group Responsibilities'':

#Groups will be assigned based on topic preferences (see above)
#Groups should prepare for 15 minutes of âquestion timeâ during Week 2, during which students can seek advice & input on their proposed solutions from the class and any other brain trust members who are present that day.
#Presentations: groups will give a 30 minute presentation in Week 3 on their difficult issue and proposed solution. Students will be able to receive feedback from speakers present.
##Groups should also post a detailed summary of their presentation on the wiki
##This does not have to be very long, but should provide a write up of the proposed solution that can be available for critique and comment by other classmates and participants.
#Final Project:
##The final project is '''due Sunday, January 24th'''
##The format of the final project is open-ended with creativity encouraged. The goal is to contribute substantively to the difficult problem being addressed by your group. This could be a written âbriefing paperâ, a Wikipedia strategic proposal, a website designed to solve a problem, or any other appropriate format.

Student Responsibilities

2009-12-03T06:43:30Z

140.247.4.212:

''Pre-Course Responsibilities'':

#Submit a fun introductory question you would like your fellow classmates to answer
##Submit to cyberlaw_winter10_admin@eon.law.harvard.edu
##'''Due December 10th by 5pm'''
##Answer the resulting survey compiled from the classâs questions
#Complete one of the following tasks and write a post on the course wiki about your experiences:
##Apply to be a LiveOps representative
##Interact with Twitterhawk or another commercial Twitter application
##Use Mechanical Turk (complete or post a HIT)
##Address / propose possible ideas for the Drumbeat Project https://wiki.mozilla.org/Drumbeat/Challenges/Privacy_Icons
##Participate within an online community or service that touches on one of the cross-cutting themes of the course (due process on the internet, privacy/anonymity, mass collaboration, and motivating good & bad actors). It should be one you havenât tried before. (e.g. Couchsurfing)
##'''Due by January 3rd'''
#Read Professor Zittrain's book [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It]
##Be prepared to be called upon in the first class to discuss the topics and ideas in the book
##Due by January 4th

''Course Responsibilities'':

#Attend all course meetings: be prepared and participate
#After the first introductory session on January 2nd, email the course admin (cyberlaw_winter10_admin@eon.law.harvard.edu) and rank the four main difficult problems in order of preference
##You will be assigned to a group of 5 based on your topic preference
##'''Due 4pm Wednesday, January 6'''
#Contribute to the course wiki on a regular basis
##Contributions may be adding information or readings, or posting questions
##Students should register a user name, should email the user name to the course admin, and then should be sure to log in before contributing
##Contributions count for course credit
#Each student should âsign upâ for a week 2 class (by posting username on wiki under that subject)
##Students should post a hypothesis on the or wiki with their prediction of what the speakersâ biggest problems will be
###Predictions '''due before class'''
##After class, students should compare their predictions to the actual problems posed by speakers and react to the problems raised.
###Comments '''due before the next class meeting'''

''(Optional) Field Trips & Panels'':
Field Trips will be arranged on week days to relevant locations (such as Facebook, eBay, and the Museum of Computer History). Students are encouraged to attend and to discuss their experiences/thoughts on the course wiki. Class time will also be reserved the next day to discuss field trips.

''Group Responsibilities'':

#Groups will be assigned based on topic preferences (see above)
#Groups should prepare for 15 minutes of âquestion timeâ during Week 2, during which students can seek advice & input on their proposed solutions from the class and any other brain trust members who are present that day.
#Presentations: groups will give a 30 minute presentation in Week 3 on their difficult issue and proposed solution. Students will be able to receive feedback from speakers present.
##Groups should also post a detailed summary of their presentation on the wiki
##This does not have to be very long, but should provide a write up of the proposed solution that can be available for critique and comment by other classmates and participants.
#Final Project:
##The final project is '''due Sunday, January 24th'''
##The format of the final project is open-ended with creativity encouraged. The goal is to contribute substantively to the difficult problem being addressed by your group. This could be a written âbriefing paperâ, a Wikipedia strategic proposal, a website designed to solve a problem, or any other appropriate format.

Student Responsibilities

2009-12-03T06:42:29Z

140.247.4.212: New page: ''Pre-Course Responsibilities'': #Submit a fun introductory question you would like your fellow classmates to answer ##Submit to cyberlaw_winter10_admin@eon.law.harvard.edu ##'''Due Dece...

''Pre-Course Responsibilities'':

#Submit a fun introductory question you would like your fellow classmates to answer
##Submit to cyberlaw_winter10_admin@eon.law.harvard.edu
##'''Due December 10th by 5pm'''
##Answer the resulting survey compiled from the classâs questions
#Complete one of the following tasks and write a post on the course wiki about your experiences:
##Apply to be a LiveOps representative
##Interact with Twitterhawk or another commercial Twitter application
##Use Mechanical Turk (complete or post a HIT)
##Address / propose possible ideas for the Drumbeat Project https://wiki.mozilla.org/Drumbeat/Challenges/Privacy_Icons
##Participate within an online community or service that touches on one of the cross-cutting themes of the course (due process on the internet, privacy/anonymity, mass collaboration, and motivating good & bad actors). It should be one you havenât tried before. (e.g. Couchsurfing)
##'''Due by January 3rd'''
#Read JZâs book Future of the Internet, available online at http://futureoftheinternet.org/download
##Be prepared to be called upon in the first class to discuss the topics and ideas in the book
##Due by January 4th

''Course Responsibilities'':

#Attend all course meetings: be prepared and participate
#After the first introductory session on January 2nd, email the course admin (cyberlaw_winter10_admin@eon.law.harvard.edu) and rank the four main difficult problems in order of preference
##You will be assigned to a group of 5 based on your topic preference
##'''Due 4pm Wednesday, January 6'''
#Contribute to the course wiki on a regular basis
##Contributions may be adding information or readings, or posting questions
##Students should register a user name, should email the user name to the course admin, and then should be sure to log in before contributing
##Contributions count for course credit
#Each student should âsign upâ for a week 2 class (by posting username on wiki under that subject)
##Students should post a hypothesis on the or wiki with their prediction of what the speakersâ biggest problems will be
###Predictions '''due before class'''
##After class, students should compare their predictions to the actual problems posed by speakers and react to the problems raised.
###Comments '''due before the next class meeting'''

''(Optional) Field Trips & Panels'':
Field Trips will be arranged on week days to relevant locations (such as Facebook, eBay, and the Museum of Computer History). Students are encouraged to attend and to discuss their experiences/thoughts on the course wiki. Class time will also be reserved the next day to discuss field trips.

''Group Responsibilities'':

#Groups will be assigned based on topic preferences (see above)
#Groups should prepare for 15 minutes of âquestion timeâ during Week 2, during which students can seek advice & input on their proposed solutions from the class and any other brain trust members who are present that day.
#Presentations: groups will give a 30 minute presentation in Week 3 on their difficult issue and proposed solution. Students will be able to receive feedback from speakers present.
##Groups should also post a detailed summary of their presentation on the wiki
##This does not have to be very long, but should provide a write up of the proposed solution that can be available for critique and comment by other classmates and participants.
#Final Project:
##The final project is '''due Sunday, January 24th'''
##The format of the final project is open-ended with creativity encouraged. The goal is to contribute substantively to the difficult problem being addressed by your group. This could be a written âbriefing paperâ, a Wikipedia strategic proposal, a website designed to solve a problem, or any other appropriate format.

Main Page

2009-12-03T06:38:45Z

140.247.4.212: /* WEEK ONE: DEFINING THE PROBLEMS */

Welcome to Difficult Problems in Cyberlaw, a January course taught by Professor Jonathan Zittrain and co-hosted by Stanford Law School and Harvard Law School.

If you are a student, please see the [[Student Responsibilities]] section and [[Course Logistics]].

The four main difficult problems to be addressed are:
*[[Global Network Initiative]]
*[[Ubiquitous Human Computing]]
*[[Future of Wikipedia]]
*[[Cybersecurity]]

Cross-cutting themes include:
*[[Due Process on the Internet]]
*[[Motivating Good & Bad Actors]]
*[[Collaborating and Relying on Masses]]
*[[Privacy and Anonymity on the Internet]]

==WEEK ONE: DEFINING THE PROBLEMS==

<center> '''Monday, January 4th''' </center>

'''LUNCH''': 12-2pm SLS (location TBA)
:Student introductions

'''CLASS''': 7:20-9:20pm SLS (location TBA)
:A brief overview of the course, it's goals and expectations, including an introduction to the difficult problems and the cross-cutting themes.
:A quiz on Zittrain's book, [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It] will be given.
:Brief introduction to the Global Network Initiative

''Readings'':
*Read [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It]
*Explore the [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/ Global Network Iniative] website
*Read GNI [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/cms/uploads/1/GNI_-_Principles_1_.pdf Guiding Principles]

----

<center> '''Tuesday, January 5th''' </center>

'''PANEL''':

'''CLASS''': 5:15-7:15pm SLS (location TBA)
:Identify the first-order problems regarding corporate responsibility and free expression on the internet. Examine how GNI attempts to address these problems and then evaluate whether GNI is a success and whether better approaches could be taken.
:Introduction to ubiquitous human computing.

*5 students will have 4 minutes each to introduce themselves at the beginning of class

''Guests:''
*Mark Chandler, CISCO

''Readings:''
*Read the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/GNI GNI Wiki Primer]
*Read Rhys Blakely, ''[http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article728898.ece Yahoo in second Chinese blog Row],'' TimesOnline, Feb. 9, 2006.
*Read Colin Maclay, "[http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10/asset/maclay-access-controlled-pdf Protecting Privacy and Expression Online]," ''in'' Access Controlled (Ronald Diebert et al., eds., MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 2010).
*Read Jonathan Zittrain, ''[http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10/asset/ssrn-id1140445-pdf Ubiquitous Human Computing]'', SSRN Paper No 32/2008 (July 2008).

----

<center> '''Wednesday, January 6th''' </center>

'''PANEL''':

'''CLASS''': 6:30-8:30pm SLS (location TBA)
:Examine the nature of ubiquitous human computing and potential future applications of human computing and the dangers.
:Introduction to cybersecurity.

*5 students will have 4 minutes each to introduce themselves at the beginning of class

''Guests'':
*Lukas Biewald, [http://crowdflower.com/ CrowdFlower]
*Bjoern Hartman, see his [http://bjoern.org/projects/catbook/ Mechanical Turk Cats Book]

''Readings'':
*Visit Mechanical Turk, LiveOps, CrowdFlower or other human computing site
*Watch "[http://bigthink.com/jonathanzittrain/the-long-and-silent-subway-ride-of-the-future The Long and Silent Subway Ride of the Future]"
*Read Nancy R. Mansfield, ''[http://www.allbusiness.com/technology/internet-technology/618188-1.html The information revolution and its impact on the employment relationship: an analysis of the cyberspace workplace]'', American Business Law Journal (2003).
*Skim the White House [http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/Cyberspace_Policy_Review_final.pdf Cyberspace Policy Review] (2009); focus on the introduction/overview and the Near & Mid-Term Action Plans.

'''ASSIGNMENT: Due -- Email Admin with Problem Topic Choice'''

----

<center> '''Thursday, January 7th''' </center>

'''CLASS''': 11:10am-1:10pm SLS (location TBA)
:Cybersecurity has been identified as one of the greatest threats facing the United States today, but it is ill-defined and almost impossible to address. How can we frame this problem to better inspire solutions? How should government, military, businesses, and internet/tech approach the problem from different angles and do these different approaches work together?
:Introduction to Future of Wikipedia

*5 students will have 4 minutes each to introduce themselves at the beginning of class

''Guests'':
*

''Readings'':
*Listen to David Clark, [http://www.ischool.berkeley.edu/newsandevents/events/sl20090304 The Internets We Did Not Build].
*Col. Allen & Lt. Col Demchak, ''[http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10 The Palestinian-Israeli Cyberwar]'', Military Review (2003).
*Kim Zetter, ''[http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/08/revealed-the-in/ Revealed: The Internet's Biggest Security Hole]'', Wired (2008).
*Review Zittrain, [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It]; Chapter 3
*''[http://www.resourceshelf.com/2009/11/23/wsj-volunteers-log-off-as-wikipedia-ages/ Wikipedia Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages]'', Wall Street Journal.

----

<center> '''Friday, January 8th''' </center>

'''FIELD TRIP''': eBay office visit (details to follow)

'''CLASS''': 3:00-5:00pm SLS (location TBA) ['''NOTE CLASS TIME''']
:Wikipedia has grown quickly and rapidly to become one of if not the largest online content-generating collaboration. Following the 2009 Wikimania, Wikimedia has undertaken a self-review, looking at strategies for the future of Wikipedia. Is it a sustainable model? and if so, to what other fields is it applicable? How can its reception in academia be improved? and what are its applications for education?
:Brief introduction of next week's cross-cutting themes

*5 students will have 4 minutes each to introduce themselves at the beginning of class

''Guests'':

''Readings'':
*Review Zittrain, [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It]; Chapter 5
*Peruse Wikipedia's [http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Strategy Page]
*Strona, ''[http://prawo.uni.wroc.pl/~kwasnicki/EkonLit6/WikipediaSoul.pdf The Battle for Wikipedia's Soul]'', The Economist, March 6, 2008.
*''[http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/26/wiki A Stand Against Wikipedia?]'', Inside Higher Ed, Jan. 26, 2007.

'''CLASS SOCIAL''': Optional, evening, details TBD

----

<center> '''Saturday, January 9th''' </center>

Tour of San Francisco (Optional); details TBD. To give input and suggestions, visit [[Tour Ideas]].

==WEEK TWO: CROSS-CUTTING THEMES==

<center> '''Monday, January 11th''' </center>

'''CLASS''': 7:20-9:20pm SLS (location TBA)
:One potential way to address some of the problems addressed in this course is through innovations and technological solutions. Several solutions have changed the way our browsers work and thereby changed the way we interact with the internet, making life better. In what other areas could a similar approach be applied?
:Introduction to cross-cutting theme of privacy, anonymity and liability on the internet

''Guests'':
*John M. Agosta, [http://disputefinder.cs.berkeley.edu/ DisputeFinder]
*Tye Rattenbury, DisputeFinder
*Rob Ennals, DisputeFinder
*Tad Hersch, DisputeFinder

''Readings'':
*Visit [http://www.herdict.org/web/ HerdictWeb]
*Zittrain's [http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2009/02/10/berkman-jz-on-herdict/ Comments on Herdict] at a Berkman Center Lunch
*Visit [http://disputefinder.cs.berkeley.edu/ DisputeFinder] (Test it out!)
*Read Introduction to Ann Bartow, ''[http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlg/vol322/383-430.pdf Internet Defamation As Profit Center: The Monetization of Online Harrassment]'', 32 Harvard Journal of Law & Gender 383 (2009).

----

<center> '''Tuesday, January 12th''' </center>

'''WORKSHOP''': 10am-3pm Faculty Lounge, Stanford [http://public.resource.org/law.gov/ law.gov workshop]
Hosted by Carl Malamud

'''CLASS''': 5:15-7:15pm SLS (location TBA)
:Privacy and anonymity can raise significant issues for accountability for online actions. Users often believe they are more anonymous than they truly are online - how can we better educate the public about the reality of privacy online?

''Guests'':
*Mark Chandler, CISCO
*Ryan Calo, SLS Fellow

''Readings'':
*Odia Kagan, ''[http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?s=latestnews&id=1915 Fighting Anonymous Defamation],'' International Business Law Services, November 26, 2007.
*Consider commercial applications; visit [http://www.reputationdefender.com/ ReputationDefender]
*Read through the Facebook or Google terms of service

----

<center> '''Wednesday, January 13th''' </center>

'''CLASS''': 6:30-8:30pm SLS (location TBA)
:

----

<center> '''Thursday, January 14th''' </center>

'''CLASS''': 11:10am-1:10pm SLS (location TBA)

----

<center> '''Friday, January 15th''' </center>

'''CLASS''': 1:00-3:00pm SLS (location TBA)
: Group Presentation of proposed solution

'''CLASS SOCIAL''': Optional, evening, details TBD

==WEEK THREE: SOLUTIONS==

<center> '''Monday, January 18th''' </center>

'''NO CLASS''': [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr._Day Martin Luther King, Jr. Day]

----

<center> '''Tuesday, January 19th''' </center>

'''CLASS''': 5:15-7:15pm SLS (location TBA)
: Group Presentation of proposed solution

----

<center> '''Wednesday, January 20th''' </center>

'''CLASS''': 6:30-8:30pm SLS (location TBA)
: Group Presentation of proposed solution

----

<center> '''Thursday, January 21th''' </center>

CLASS: 11:10am-1:10pm SLS (location TBA)
: Group Presentation of proposed solution

WRAP-UP DINNER: 7:20-9:20pm SLS (location TBA)

----

<center> '''Sunday, January 24th''' </center>

'''FINAL PROJECTS DUE'''

Course Logistics

2009-12-03T06:37:51Z

140.247.4.212:

'''Instructors'''
:Jonathan Zittrain, zittrain@law.harvard.edu
:Elizabeth Stark, emstark@gmail.com

'''Logistics'''
:Contact Stephanie Basso at sbasso@law.harvard.edu

'''Important Info'''
*The course [http://www.drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10 file drop site] contains several class readings
**password is difficultissues
*[mailto:cyberlaw_winter10_admin@eon.law.harvard.edu Admin Mailing List]
*[mailto:cyberlaw_winter10@eon.law.harvard.edu Class Mailing List]
** [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/lists/arc/cyberlaw_winter10_admin/2009-09/ Mailing list archive]

Course Logistics

2009-12-03T06:37:39Z

140.247.4.212: New page: '''Instructors''' Jonathan Zittrain, zittrain@law.harvard.edu Elizabeth Stark, emstark@gmail.com '''Logistics''' Contact Stephanie Basso at sbasso@law.harvard.edu '''Important Info''' *T...

'''Instructors'''
Jonathan Zittrain, zittrain@law.harvard.edu
Elizabeth Stark, emstark@gmail.com

'''Logistics'''
Contact Stephanie Basso at sbasso@law.harvard.edu

'''Important Info'''
*The course [http://www.drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10 file drop site] contains several class readings
**password is difficultissues
*[mailto:cyberlaw_winter10_admin@eon.law.harvard.edu Admin Mailing List]
*[mailto:cyberlaw_winter10@eon.law.harvard.edu Class Mailing List]
** [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/lists/arc/cyberlaw_winter10_admin/2009-09/ Mailing list archive]

Privacy and Anonymity on the Internet

2009-12-03T06:34:50Z

140.247.4.212: New page: On the internet, it can be tempting to view yourself as an anonymous browser, but increasingly the public is becoming aware of just how untrue that is. A study by the [http://epic.org/rep...

On the internet, it can be tempting to view yourself as an anonymous browser, but increasingly the public is becoming aware of just how untrue that is. A study by the [http://epic.org/reports/surfer-beware.html Electronic Privacy Information Center] surveyed the 100 most frequently visited sites on the internet; of those 100 none met the basic privacy standards established by EPIC and only 17 had any privacy terms at all. In a medium with so little protection and so much information available, [http://nymag.com/news/features/27341/ children] are particularly vulnerable.

Consider whether consumers on the internet truly make informed decisions regarding their privacy. The Terms of Use of Facebook for example - have you ever really read them all the way through? What about Harvard Law School's privacy terms for our email or administrative boards? Does the average user read and understand those terms? Some technological projects like the [https://wiki.mozilla.org/Drumbeat/Challenges/Privacy_Icons Drumbeat Privacy Icons] project are working on new ways to inform users about the privacy regulations of the sites they visit. (Drumbeat is looking for proposals on how to develop a system of "privacy icons" that could easily label websites according to the degree of privacy retained by the user.) And there are also technological businesses and solutions such as [http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=reputationdefender&aq=0&aqi=g1g-s4g1g-s1&oq=reputationd&fp=a50ffc77dda4c0bc ReputationDefender], but are these enough to address the issue?

Unlike snail mail, your email can be readily surveilled by government officials without a warrant because courts have held that there is no expectation of privacy on the internet.

Is this true?

Collaborating and Relying on Masses

2009-12-03T06:34:24Z

140.247.4.212: New page: ===Issue Definition=== The development of and increasingly pervasive access to the internet has permitted mass collaboration on a scale not previously possible. Projects such as Wikipedi...

===Issue Definition===

The development of and increasingly pervasive access to the internet has permitted mass collaboration on a scale not previously possible. Projects such as Wikipedia, Couchsurfing, Mechanical Turk, MySpace, Facebook, all rely on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_collaboration mass collaboration] and are therefore frequently called Collaborative Innovation Networks (COINs). The success or failure of such COIN projects depends to great extent on the number of participants. As a result, project coordinators face massive challenges motivating good participants and preventing bad actors (see the cross-cutting theme on motivation).

On a more basic level, COINs are based on a shared premise that mass collaboration results in improved products: the more people involved the better quality the product. Is this a valid premise? Do we believe that using mass collaboration is as good or better than using experts? What knowledge / benefits do we lose by shifting towards mass collaboration? What do we gain?

As a review of [http://andrewkeen.typepad.com/ Andrew Keen]'s book ''The Cult of the Amateur'' states:
<blockquote>Digital utopians have heralded the dawn of an era in which Web 2.0 â distinguished by a new generation of participatory sites like MySpace.com and YouTube.com, which emphasize user-generated content, social networking and interactive sharing â ushers in the democratization of the world: more information, more perspectives, more opinions, more everything, and most of it without filters or fees. Yet as the Silicon Valley entrepreneur Andrew Keen points out in his provocative new book, âThe Cult of the Amateur,â Web 2.0 has a dark side as well.<ref>Michiko Kakutani, Books of the Times: [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/books/29book.html "The Cult of the Amateur"], New York Times, June 29, 2007.</ref></blockquote>

At its most basic level, this theme questions whether we really believe that groups perform better than individuals, whether a group of average individuals is as good or better than an expert.

===Mob Mentality===

Opponents of mass collaboration compare such projects to "[http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-mob-mentality.htm mob mentality]" -- a term used to refer to unique behavioral characteristics which emerge when people are in large groups -- or herd mind, or group think. Andrew Keen states dramatically that mass collaboration is nothing more than "ignorance meets egoism meets bad taste meets mob rule.â<ref>Id.</ref>

Social psychologists have traditionally described mob mentality in terms of its negative attributes, noting the potential for peer pressure and group-think, for stifling creativity, lowering exceptional performers, and division into us v. them approaches to information.

===Sharing Knowledge===

Many developers, educators, and economists argue that mass collaboration is the wave of the future: that it is more efficient, achieves better results, and is more cost-effective than the use of experts. Is this true?

While acknowledging the potential for negative outcomes (peer pressure, group-think and suppression of minority views), some researchers propose that technological solutions can overcome these challenges: e.g. have participants rank the novelty of postings in order to increase the salience of minority views.<ref>Gerry Stahl, "[http://ijcscl.org/_preprints/volume3_issue2/stahl_3_2.pdf The Strength of the Lone Wolf]," 3 International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 1-5 (2008).</ref>

Other researchers are even more optimistic, suggesting that the unique characteristics of COINs make these COINs un-susceptible to the mob mentality weaknesses. As a result, COINs have all the positive outcomes with none of the negative, giving COINs a competitive advantage<ref> Gloor, Peter A, Swarm Creativity: Competitive Advantage Through Collaborative Innovation Networks (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).</ref> and presenting the best (or only) mechanism for addressing major global problems such as sustainability.<ref>Archer, Fei, & Petzel, [http://www.samhÃ¤llsplanering.se/fou/cuppsats.nsf/all/78d3802c456fd1d9c12575dd00472ba4/$file/NetworkedCollaborationFinal%20FINAL.pdf Collaboration for Sustainability in a Networked World], Thesis, Blekinge Institute of Technology (2009).</ref>

In this optimistic camp, Tapscott and Williams argue in their book ''Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration is Changing Everything'' that mass collaboration is the future of business and a (nearly) pre-requisite for economic success in the internet age.<ref>Tapscott & Williams, [http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=DVomiOeBg_YC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=mass+collaboration&ots=45nHzVQdr9&sig=Lz-jNmCVXITWbShGvFqFPFwGooM#v=onepage&q=&f=false ''Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration is Changing Everything''] (2008).</ref>

===Logistical Challenges===

Mass collaboration on the internet presents even more challenges than traditional "mob mentality" simply from the logistics of having a dispersed group of collaborators. Catherine Cramton identifies major challenges facing dispersed collaboration projects:
*Failure to communicate and retain contextual information
*Unevenly distributed information
*Difficulty communicating the salience of information
*Differences in speed of access to information
*Difficulty interpreting the meaning of silence<ref>Catherine Durnell Cramton, "[http://www.jstor.org.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/stable/3086013?&Search=yes&term=Quality&term=Collaboration&term=Research&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DCollaboration%2Band%2Bthe%2BQuality%2Bof%2BResearch%26x%3D0%26y%3D0%26wc%3Don&item=5&ttl=49407&returnArticleService=showArticle The Mutual Knowledge Problem and Its Consequences for Dispersed Collaboration]," 12 Organization Science 346-371(May-June 2001), [Available on JSTOR if link not work].</ref>

How can these problems be addressed on the internet? Cramton notes that dispersed groups, on the basis of physical distance, often break down into "us v. them" mentality - does anonymity address or exacerbate this issue?

===Related Questions===

====Popular v. Right====

Is our information base shifting away from what is correct and towards what is popular? For example, Google has become a popular starting-point for information, but Google lists results in order based not on what is most correct but rather on what is most popular. How does this affect our knowledge base? How do we define "correct" - does it mean widely accepted, proven through scientific inquiry (in which case, Creationists would question what "proven" means) or something else? If "widely accepted", who votes? Only the expert community? Or anyone?

Consider technological solutions that are devloping, like [http://disputefinder.cs.berkeley.edu/ DisputeFinder] that can identify debated issues and present an alternative point of view, so the reader is at least informed on the controversy.

====Raising the Average - Bringing Down the Top?====

Evidence on whether collaboration actually improves performance is mixed, and appears to depend not only on the nature of the work but also on the identity of the participants and size of the group. One major question to consider, though, is whether we are achieving new heights or just raising the average.

Robert Miller conducted a social psychology study on students in his course writing collaborative papers (note: there are significant structure biases inherent in this study) and concluded that on average the collaborative papers were better.<ref>Richard S. Miller, "[http://wac.colostate.edu/journal/vol1/miller.pdf Collaborative Writing in Social Psychology: An Experiment], 1 Writing Across the Curriculum 95-103 (1989).</ref> However, Miller noted himself that he could not determine whether the papers were better because the best student in each group did the majority of the work (and therefore lower grades from the worse students were eliminated) or whether the groups really generated absolutely better quality work.

Does group work achieve new heights (better than the best person in the group could achieve) or does it simply eliminate the worst work? Miller's students reported that they felt the group work stimulated creativity and therefore led to better products.<ref>Id.</ref> However, a study on collaboration and the quality of scientific research found that groups were less likely to produce bad papers, but were not any more likely to produce good papers.<ref>Stanley Presser, "[http://www.jstor.org.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/stable/284727?seq=2&Search=yes&term=Quality&term=presser&term=Collaboration&term=Research&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoAdvancedSearch%3Fq0%3DCollaboration%2Band%2Bthe%2BQuality%2Bof%2BResearch%26f0%3Dti%26c0%3DAND%26q1%3Dpresser%26f1%3Dau%26c1%3DAND%26q2%3D%26f2%3Dall%26c2%3DAND%26q3%3D%26f3%3Dall%26wc%3Don%26Search%3DSearch%26sd%3D%26ed%3D%26la%3D%26jo%3D&item=1&ttl=1&returnArticleService=showArticle&resultsServiceName=doAdvancedResultsFromArticle Collaboration and the Quality of Research]," 10 Social Studies of Science 95-101 (Feb 1980).</ref> This study suggests that collaboration eliminates the worst mistakes but that it does not improve content beyond what an individual could do.

====Size & Make-up of the Group====

As noted above, the size and make-up of the group make a difference in the quality of collaboration. How do these questions come into play when we are dealing with mass collaboration (thousands and thousands of contributors) who are often anonymous so the group make-up isn't even known? At what group size do the complications and problems with collaboration outweigh the benefits?

One social psychology experiment determined that there are benefits to collaborative work, but they failed to show benefits for all-female groups.<ref>Nancy Vanderhey Samah & Richard De Lisi, "[http://www.jstor.org/pss/20152646 Peer Collaboration on a Nonverbal Reasoning Task by Urban, Minority Students]," 69 Journal of Experimental Education 5-21 (2000).</ref> It is not clear, however, whether this depends on the nature of the project worked on (e.g. does this still apply for female collaborations on female-dominated issues?). Also, mass collaboration often assumes that it will be mixed gender, because it is so large, but Wikipedia, for example, is estimated 80-90% male. How does this bias affect the quality and nature of the collaboration?

=====References=====
<references/>

Main Page

2009-12-03T06:34:02Z

140.247.4.212:

Welcome to Difficult Problems in Cyberlaw, a January course taught by Professor Jonathan Zittrain and co-hosted by Stanford Law School and Harvard Law School.

If you are a student, please see the [[Student Responsibilities]] section and [[Course Logistics]].

The four main difficult problems to be addressed are:
*[[Global Network Initiative]]
*[[Ubiquitous Human Computing]]
*[[Future of Wikipedia]]
*[[Cybersecurity]]

Cross-cutting themes include:
*[[Due Process on the Internet]]
*[[Motivating Good & Bad Actors]]
*[[Collaborating and Relying on Masses]]
*[[Privacy and Anonymity on the Internet]]

==WEEK ONE: DEFINING THE PROBLEMS==

<center> '''Monday, January 4th''' </center>

'''LUNCH''': 12-2pm SLS (location TBA)
:Student introductions

'''CLASS''': 7:20-9:20pm SLS (location TBA)
:A brief overview of the course, it's goals and expectations, including an introduction to the difficult problems and the cross-cutting themes.
:A quiz on Zittrain's book, [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It] will be given.
:Brief introduction to the Global Network Initiative

''Readings'':
*Read [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It]
*Explore the [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/ Global Network Iniative] website
*Read GNI [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/cms/uploads/1/GNI_-_Principles_1_.pdf Guiding Principles]

----

<center> '''Tuesday, January 5th''' </center>

'''PANEL''':

'''CLASS''': 5:15-7:15pm SLS (location TBA)
:Identify the first-order problems regarding corporate responsibility and free expression on the internet. Examine how GNI attempts to address these problems and then evaluate whether GNI is a success and whether better approaches could be taken.
:Introduction to ubiquitous human computing.

*5 students will have 4 minutes each to introduce themselves at the beginning of class

''Guests:''
*Mark Chandler, CISCO

''Readings:''
*Read the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/GNI GNI Wiki Primer]
*Read Rhys Blakely, ''[http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article728898.ece Yahoo in second Chinese blog Row],'' TimesOnline, Feb. 9, 2006.
*Read Colin Maclay, "[http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10/asset/maclay-access-controlled-pdf Protecting Privacy and Expression Online]," ''in'' Access Controlled (Ronald Diebert et al., eds., MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 2010).
*Read Jonathan Zittrain, ''[http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10/asset/ssrn-id1140445-pdf Ubiquitous Human Computing]'', SSRN Paper No 32/2008 (July 2008).

----

<center> '''Wednesday, January 6th''' </center>

'''PANEL''':

'''CLASS''': 6:30-8:30pm SLS (location TBA)
:Examine the nature of ubiquitous human computing and potential future applications of human computing and the dangers.
:Introduction to cybersecurity.

*5 students will have 4 minutes each to introduce themselves at the beginning of class

''Guests'':
*Lukas Biewald, [http://crowdflower.com/ CrowdFlower]
*Bjoern Hartman, see his [http://bjoern.org/projects/catbook/ Mechanical Turk Cats Book]

''Readings'':
*Visit Mechanical Turk, LiveOps, CrowdFlower or other human computing site
*Watch "[http://bigthink.com/jonathanzittrain/the-long-and-silent-subway-ride-of-the-future The Long and Silent Subway Ride of the Future]"
*Read Nancy R. Mansfield, ''[http://www.allbusiness.com/technology/internet-technology/618188-1.html The information revolution and its impact on the employment relationship: an analysis of the cyberspace workplace]'', American Business Law Journal (2003).
*Skim the White House [http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/Cyberspace_Policy_Review_final.pdf Cyberspace Policy Review] (2009); focus on the introduction/overview and the Near & Mid-Term Action Plans.

'''ASSIGNMENT: Due -- Email Admin with Problem Topic Choice'''

----

<center> '''Thursday, January 7th''' </center>

'''CLASS''': 11:10am-1:10pm SLS (location TBA)
:Cybersecurity has been identified as one of the greatest threats facing the United States today, but it is ill-defined and almost impossible to address. How can we frame this problem to better inspire solutions? How should government, military, businesses, and internet/tech approach the problem from different angles and do these different approaches work together?
:Introduction to Future of Wikipedia

*5 students will have 4 minutes each to introduce themselves at the beginning of class

''Guests'':
*

''Readings'':
*Listen to David Clark, [http://www.ischool.berkeley.edu/newsandevents/events/sl20090304 The Internets We Did Not Build].
*Col. Allen & Lt. Col Demchak, ''[http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10 The Palestinian-Israeli Cyberwar]'', Military Review (2003).
*Kim Zetter, ''[http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/08/revealed-the-in/ Revealed: The Internet's Biggest Security Hole]'', Wired (2008).
*Review Zittrain, [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It]; Chapter 3
*''[http://www.resourceshelf.com/2009/11/23/wsj-volunteers-log-off-as-wikipedia-ages/ Wikipedia Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages]'', Wall Street Journal.

----

<center> '''Friday, January 8th''' </center>

'''FIELD TRIP''': eBay office visit (details to follow)

'''CLASS''': 3:00-5:00pm SLS (location TBA) ['''NOTE CLASS TIME''']
:Wikipedia has grown quickly and rapidly to become one of if not the largest online content-generating collaboration. Following the 2009 Wikimania, Wikimedia has undertaken a self-review, looking at strategies for the future of Wikipedia. Is it a sustainable model? and if so, to what other fields is it applicable? How can its reception in academia be improved? and what are its applications for education?
:Brief introduction of next week's cross-cutting themes

*5 students will have 4 minutes each to introduce themselves at the beginning of class

''Guests'':

''Readings'':
*Review Zittrain, [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It]; Chapter 5
*Peruse Wikipedia's [http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Strategy Page]
*Strona, ''[http://prawo.uni.wroc.pl/~kwasnicki/EkonLit6/WikipediaSoul.pdf The Battle for Wikipedia's Soul]'', The Economist, March 6, 2008.
*''[http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/26/wiki A Stand Against Wikipedia?]'', Inside Higher Ed, Jan. 26, 2007.

'''CLASS SOCIAL''': Optional, evening, details TBD

----

<center> '''Saturday, January 9th''' </center>

Tour of San Francisco (Optional); details http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/difficultproblems/edit/SyllabusTBD. To give input and suggestions, visit [[Tour Ideas]].

==WEEK TWO: CROSS-CUTTING THEMES==

<center> '''Monday, January 11th''' </center>

'''CLASS''': 7:20-9:20pm SLS (location TBA)
:One potential way to address some of the problems addressed in this course is through innovations and technological solutions. Several solutions have changed the way our browsers work and thereby changed the way we interact with the internet, making life better. In what other areas could a similar approach be applied?
:Introduction to cross-cutting theme of privacy, anonymity and liability on the internet

''Guests'':
*John M. Agosta, [http://disputefinder.cs.berkeley.edu/ DisputeFinder]
*Tye Rattenbury, DisputeFinder
*Rob Ennals, DisputeFinder
*Tad Hersch, DisputeFinder

''Readings'':
*Visit [http://www.herdict.org/web/ HerdictWeb]
*Zittrain's [http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2009/02/10/berkman-jz-on-herdict/ Comments on Herdict] at a Berkman Center Lunch
*Visit [http://disputefinder.cs.berkeley.edu/ DisputeFinder] (Test it out!)
*Read Introduction to Ann Bartow, ''[http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlg/vol322/383-430.pdf Internet Defamation As Profit Center: The Monetization of Online Harrassment]'', 32 Harvard Journal of Law & Gender 383 (2009).

----

<center> '''Tuesday, January 12th''' </center>

'''WORKSHOP''': 10am-3pm Faculty Lounge, Stanford [http://public.resource.org/law.gov/ law.gov workshop]
Hosted by Carl Malamud

'''CLASS''': 5:15-7:15pm SLS (location TBA)
:Privacy and anonymity can raise significant issues for accountability for online actions. Users often believe they are more anonymous than they truly are online - how can we better educate the public about the reality of privacy online?

''Guests'':
*Mark Chandler, CISCO
*Ryan Calo, SLS Fellow

''Readings'':
*Odia Kagan, ''[http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?s=latestnews&id=1915 Fighting Anonymous Defamation],'' International Business Law Services, November 26, 2007.
*Consider commercial applications; visit [http://www.reputationdefender.com/ ReputationDefender]
*Read through the Facebook or Google terms of service

----

<center> '''Wednesday, January 13th''' </center>

'''CLASS''': 6:30-8:30pm SLS (location TBA)
:

----

<center> '''Thursday, January 14th''' </center>

'''CLASS''': 11:10am-1:10pm SLS (location TBA)

----

<center> '''Friday, January 15th''' </center>

'''CLASS''': 1:00-3:00pm SLS (location TBA)
: Group Presentation of proposed solution

'''CLASS SOCIAL''': Optional, evening, details TBD

==WEEK THREE: SOLUTIONS==

<center> '''Monday, January 18th''' </center>

'''NO CLASS''': [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr._Day Martin Luther King, Jr. Day]

----

<center> '''Tuesday, January 19th''' </center>

'''CLASS''': 5:15-7:15pm SLS (location TBA)
: Group Presentation of proposed solution

----

<center> '''Wednesday, January 20th''' </center>

'''CLASS''': 6:30-8:30pm SLS (location TBA)
: Group Presentation of proposed solution

----

<center> '''Thursday, January 21th''' </center>

CLASS: 11:10am-1:10pm SLS (location TBA)
: Group Presentation of proposed solution

WRAP-UP DINNER: 7:20-9:20pm SLS (location TBA)

----

<center> '''Sunday, January 24th''' </center>

'''FINAL PROJECTS DUE'''

Due Process on the Internet

2009-12-03T06:33:22Z

140.247.4.212: New page: = Issue Definition = Users store valuable content online using services such as GMail and Facebook. What happens if the provider of this service decides to ban or restrict access to "your...

= Issue Definition =

Users store valuable content online using services such as GMail and Facebook. What happens if the provider of this service decides to ban or restrict access to "your" content or account? Is there an appeals process of any notion of due process whatsoever?

Related: Is a website a place of "public accomodation" under the Civil Rights Act and Americans with Disability Act?

== Gmail ==

From GMail's [http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS?hl=en Terms of Service]

4.3 As part of this continuing innovation, you acknowledge and agree that Google may stop (permanently or temporarily) providing the Services (or any features within the Services) to you or to users generally at Googleâs sole discretion, without prior notice to you. You may stop using the Services at any time. You do not need to specifically inform Google when you stop using the Services.

4.4 You acknowledge and agree that if Google disables access to your account, you may be prevented from accessing the Services, your account details or any files or other content which is contained in your account.

...

8.1 You understand that all information (such as data files, written text, computer software, music, audio files or other sounds, photographs, videos or other images) which you may have access to as part of, or through your use of, the Services are the sole responsibility of the person from which such content originated. All such information is referred to below as the âContentâ.

...

8.3 Google reserves the right (but shall have no obligation) to pre-screen, review, flag, filter, modify, refuse or remove any or all Content from any Service...

== Facebook ==

Facebook does not seem to have a formal appeals process for banned accounts [http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/03/facebook_banish.html]

Future of Wikipedia

2009-12-03T06:32:56Z

140.247.4.212: New page: ==BIRTH & GROWTH OF WIKIPEDIA== Wikipedia was formally launched on January 15, 2001, by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger.<ref name="History of Wikipedia">[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...

==BIRTH & GROWTH OF WIKIPEDIA==

Wikipedia was formally launched on January 15, 2001, by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger.<ref name="History of Wikipedia">[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia],History of Wikipedia.</ref> It represented a new development in the collaborative, web-based creation of bodies of knowledge. Initially it was a complement to the expert-written encyclopedia project âNupedia,â<ref name="Nupedia">[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nupedia], Wikipedia Entry on Nupedia.</ref> in order to provide an additional source of articles. Wikipedia soon outpaced Nupedia and grew to be arguably the most successful example of collaborative content creation. Today Wikipedia boasts that it contains several million articles and pages in hundreds of languages worldwide contributed by millions of users.

Wikipedia is arguably the most successful online collaboration but it is not the first. One early predecessor was Interpedia, initiated in 1993,<ref name="Interpedia">[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpedia], Wikipedia Entry on Interpedia</ref> although the project never fully left the planning stages.<ref name="Joseph Reagle Article on Interpedia & Wikipedia Background">[http://reagle.org/joseph/2005/historical/digital-works.html#heading5], Joseph Reagle Article on Interpedia & Wikipedia Background.</ref> Free Software Foundationâs Richard Stallman described the need for a free universal encyclopedia in 1999, although the Free Software Foundation didnât launch its GNUPedia to compete with Nupedia until January 17, 2001, two days after the start of Wikipedia.<ref name="The Free Universal Encyclopedia and Learning Resource">[http://www.gnu.org/encyclopedia/free-encyclopedia.html],The Free Universal Encyclopedia and Learning Resource.</ref> And Wikipedia itself grew out of Nupedia, an online collaborative encyclopedia. On January 10, 2001, Wales and Sanger created the first Nupedia wiki, but reputedly Nupediaâs expert volunteers did not want to participate, so Wikipedia was established as a separate site.<ref name="History of Wikipedia">[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia], History of Wikipedia.</ref> Wikipediaâs vision: ''Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Thatâs our commitment.''<ref name="Wikimedia Foundation">[http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home], Wikimedia Foundation</ref>

====Growth of Wikipedia====

The growth of Wikipedia depended on the contribution of numerous lay users, a departure from the Nupedia tradition of using expert contributors. Nupedia was founded upon the use of highly qualified expert contributors and a multi-step peer review process, but despite its interested editors, the process was slow, and only 12 articles were written in the first year.<ref name="Early History of Nupedia">[http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/18/164213&tid=95&tid=149&tid=9], The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia: A Memoir - Part I" and "Part II", Slashdot, April 2005.</ref> Wikipedia, in contrast, generated over 1,000 articles in its first month of operation and over 20,000 articles in its first yearâa rate of 1,500 articles per month.<ref name="History of Wikipedia">[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia], History of Wikipedia.</ref> In September, 2001, Wikipedia expanded into multilingual sites, beginning the development of Wikipedias for all major languages.

====Wikimedia====

Initially, Wikipedia was managed by Bomis, an organization headed by Jimmy Wales. In March 2002, during the dot-com bust, Bomis withdrew funding for Wikipedia.<ref name="Schiff, Stacy">[http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060731fa_fact].(July 31, 2006). Schiff, Stacy. "Know It All". The New Yorker.</ref> At that time, Larry Sanger left both Nupedia and Wikipedia. He returned briefly to academia, then joined the Digital Universe Foundation and founded Citizendium, an alternative open encyclopedia that uses real names for contributors to discourage vandalism and expert guidance to ensure accuracy of information.<ref name="Anderson, Nate">[http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/citizendium.ars], Anderson, Nate (February 25, 2007). "Citizendium: building a better Wikipedia". Ars Technica.</ref>

Meanwhile, Jimmy Wales created the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit charitable organization head-quartered in San Francisco, CA.<ref name="Wikimedia Foundation">[http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home], Wikimedia Foundation.</ref> Wikimedia was announced on June 20, 2003. Wikimedia serves as an umbrella body that includes several other types of wiki collaborative information sharing sites:

*Wikipedia
*[http://www.wiktionary.org/ Wiktionary]
*[http://www.wikiquote.org/ Wikiquote]
*[http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Main_Page Wikibooks] (including [http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikijunior Wikijunior])
*[http://wikisource.org/wiki/Main_Page Wikisource]
*[http://commons.wikimedia.org/ Wikimedia Commons]
*[http://species.wikimedia.org/ Wikispecies]
*[http://en.wikinews.org/ Wikinews]
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/ Wikiversity]
*[http://incubator.wikimedia.org/ Wikimedia Incubator]
*[http://meta.wikimedia.org/ Meta-Wiki]

The foundation's by-laws declare a statement of purpose of collecting and developing educational content and to disseminate it effectively and globally.<ref name="Wikimedia Foundation bylaws">[http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws&oldid=20641#ARTICLE_II_-_STATEMENT_OF_PURPOSE], Wikimedia Foundation bylaws. Archived from the original on 2007-04-20.</ref> Wikimedia is managed by a Board of Trustees. The Foundationâs board also organizes [http://wikimania2009.wikimedia.org/wiki/Portal Wikimania] every year, a conference for users of the Wikimedia Foundation projects.

==ACADEMIC STUDIES OF WIKIPEDIA==

Academic studies of Wikipedia have mainly used Wikipedia as a tool to analyze other phenomenon. The users on Wikipedia provide a large database of subjects which the researchers use to test their hypotheses or as a social network which can be manipulated and observed. The majority of studies focus on either semantic relatedness<ref>M Strube et al,[http://www.aaai.org/Papers/AAAI/2006/AAAI06-223.pdf WikiRelate!], Computer Semantic Relatedness Using Wikipedia, Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2006)</ref><ref>E Gabrilovich et al, [http://www.aaai.org/Papers/IJCAI/2007/IJCAI07-259.pdf Computing Semantic Relatedness Using Wikipedia-Based Explicit Semantic Analysis](2007)</ref><ref>Zesch et al, Analyzing and Accessing WIkipedia as a Lexical Semantic Resource, Data Structures for Linguistic Resources (2007).</ref>or online coordination and conflict resolution techniques.<ref name="Coordination">Viegas et al, [[http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.84.6907&rep=rep1&type=pdf Talk Before You Type: Coordination in Wikipedia], Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2007)</ref><ref name ="Kittur">Kittur et al, [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1240624.1240698 He Says, She Says; Conflict and Coordination in Wikipedia], Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Computing (2007)</ref><ref name="Wilkonson">D Wilkonson & B Huberman, [http://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0702140 Assessing the Value of Cooperation in Wikipedia, Computers and Society], arXiv:cs/0702140v1 [cs.DL] (2007).</ref>

==DIFFICULT PROBLEMS==

Following Wikimania 2009, the Wikimedia Foundation created a [http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page strategy page] that identifies major concerns for the future of Wikimedia and permits users to contribute and comment on proposed solutions. The problems presented below have been highlighted as the most significant and challenging problems facing Wikimedia.

===Identity & Growth of the Contributing Community===

There are three main concerns relating to the contributing community that sustains Wikipedia:
# Size of the contributing community â is it sustainable and is it sufficient?
# Identity of the contributing community â does population bias create content bias?
# Inequality within contributing community â does Wikipedia really represent contributions of the many, or is it moving towards an elite system?

====Size:====
Several studies and articles have suggested that Wikipedia's contributing community has slowed growth, stopped growing, or is even declining (see [http://prawo.uni.wroc.pl/~kwasnicki/EkonLit6/WikipediaSoul.pdf Battle for Wikipedia's Soul]"; "[http://asc-parc.blogspot.com/2009/07/part-1-slowing-growth-of-wikipedia-some.html Slowing Growth of Wikipedia]"; or "[http://www.resourceshelf.com/2009/11/23/wsj-volunteers-log-off-as-wikipedia-ages/ Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages]" for a sample). Others, such as Oded Nov, have looked at [http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10 "What Motivates Wikipedians"] and concluded that the majority are motivated by fun. But is Wikipedia "fun" enough to maintain it's contributing community? A [http://asc-parc.blogspot.com/2009/07/part-1-slowing-growth-of-wikipedia-some.html study] by the Palo Alto Research Centre found that the number of new articles added per month flatlined at 60,000 in 2006 and has since declined by a third. Wikimedia Australia's Vice-President, Liam Wyatt explains this: "Because the project is much more filled out and more complete, it's increasingly harder for new users to be able to add something without some level of expertise."

====Identity & Bias:====
Studies on Wikipedia's contributing population determine that the majority are white males (Oded Nov says 92.7% male, another [http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/08/31/only-13-of-wikipedia-contributors-are-women-study-says/ 87%]). If this is the case, does Wikipedia truly represent an unbiased cross-section of global (or even American) knowledge? How does the identity of the contributing community bias Wikipedia regarding politics? Consider claims that Wikipedia needs to be further censored or is being [http://state-ethics.blogspot.com/2009/07/censoring-wikipedia-2.html manipulated by Nazis] seeking to control the flow of information in Germany.

====Inequality:====
Within the Wikipedia contributing community, there has been a rapid divide between "contributors" and "editors", with editors determining much of the style, tone and occasionally content of articles. One study found that âelite usersâ were pushing out new contributors, with 25% of occasional wiki editorsâ changes being erased or reverted by established editors. This was up from 10% in 2003.<ref>[http://www2.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/HICSS.2008.333 Editors as Elite Users]</ref>.

===Quality Control - Perceived and Actual===

It is important to distinguish between concerns about the actual quality of Wikipedia articles and concerns about the perceived quality of the articles. The one should be approached as a contributor and technical problem and the other should be addressed as a publicity problem. Also, the concept of quality is intentionally broad and includes everything from accuracy of information to degree of citation provided to the quality of images and prose.

====Actual Quality of Wikipedia====

On October 24, 2005, ''The Guardian'' published an article entitled "Can you trust Wikipedia?" where a panel of experts were asked to critically review seven entries related to their fields.<ref name="Guardian">[http://technology.guardian.co.uk/opinion/story/0,16541,1599325,00.html], Can you trust Wikipedia?, ''The Guardian'', 2008.</ref> One article was deemed to have made "every value judgement... wrong", the others receiving marks from 5 to 8 out of a notional ten. Of the other six articles reviewed and critiqued, the most common criticisms were:
# Poor prose, or ease-of-reading issues (3 mentions)
# Omissions or inaccuracies, often small but including key omissions in some articles (3 mentions)
# Poor balance, with less important areas being given more attention and vice versa (1 mention)
The most common praises were:
# Factually sound and correct, no glaring inaccuracies (4 mentions)
# Much useful information, including well selected links, making it possible to "access much information quickly" (3 mentions)

''Nature'' reported in 2005 that science articles in Wikipedia were comparable in accuracy to those on ''Encyclopedia Britannica'''s web site. Out of 42 articles, only 4 serious errors were found in Wikipedia, and 4 in ''Encyclopedia Britannica'', although more than a hundred lesser errors and omissions were found in each and Wikipedia's articles were often "poorly structured."<ref>P.D. Magnus, [http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/36449903/On-Trusting-WIKIPEDIA On Trusting Wikipedia], Britannica.</ref>

On March 24, 2006, ''Britannica'' provided a rebuttal of this article, labeling it "fatally flawed",<ref name="Nature Flawed BE">[http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Journal_Nature_study_%27fatally_flawed%27%2C_says_Britannica], Journal Nature study "fatally flawed" says Britannica, March 24, 2006, Wikinews. </ref> to which ''Nature'' responded.<ref name="Nature Responds">[http://www.nature.com/press_releases/Britannica_response.pdf], Encyclopedia Britannica and Nature: A Response, March 23, 2006.</ref>

Among Britannica's criticisms were that excerpts rather than the full texts of some of their articles were used, that Nature composited parts of different Britannica texts to make a text for review in one case, that Nature did not check the factual assertions of its reviewers, and that many points which the reviewers labeled as errors were differences of editorial opinion. Nature responded that any errors on the part of its reviewers were not biased in favor of either encyclopedia, that in some cases it used excerpts of articles from both encyclopedias, and that Britannica did not share particular concerns with Nature before publishing its "open letter" rebuttal.

Three subsequent studies--a 2006 web-based survey,<ref>[http://bpastudio.csudh.edu/fac/lpress/wikieval], Larry Press, Survey of Wikipedia accuracy and completeness, Professor of Computer Information Systems, California State University (2006)</ref> a 2004 comparison of ''Brockhaus Multimedial, ''Microsoft Encarta'', and the German Wikipedia, <ref>Michael Kurzidim: Wissenswettstreit. Die kostenlose Wikipedia tritt gegen die MarktfÃ¼hrer Encarta und Brockhaus an, in: ''c't'' 21/2004, October 4, 2004, S. 132-139.</ref> (repeated in 2007 <ref>Dorothee Wiegand: "Entdeckungsreise. Digitale EnzyklopÃ¤dien erklÃ¤ren die Welt." c't 6/2007, March 5, 2007, p. 136-145.</ref>), and a 2007 review by Australian magazine ''PC Authority''<ref>[http://www.pcauthority.com.au/Feature/93908,wikipedia-uncovered.aspx/1], PC Authority:'Wikipedia Uncovered'.</ref>--concluded that Wikipedia was generally as reliable as other traditional Encyclopedias.

However, Wikipedia may not be as reliable in technical or specialized fields. A peer-reviewed 2008 study<ref>[http://www.theannals.com/cgi/reprint/aph.1L474v1.pdf] KA Clauson et al., Scope, completeness, and accuracy of drug Iinformation in Wikipedia, 42 Annals Pharmacotheraphy 1814 (2008).</ref>examined 80 Wikipedia drug entries. The research team found few factual errors but determined that these articles were often missing important information, like contraindications and drug interactions. One of the researchers noted that "If people went and used this as a sole or authoritative source without contacting a health professional...those are the types of negative impacts that can occur." The researchers also compared Wikipedia to Medscape Drug Reference (MDR), by looking for answers to 80 different questions covering eight categories of drug information, including adverse drug events, dosages, and mechanism of action. They have determined that MDR provided answers to 82.5 percent of the questions, while Wikipedia could only answer 40 percent, and that answers were less likely to be complete for Wikipedia as well. None of the answers from Wikipedia were determined factually inaccurate, while they found four inaccurate answers in MDR. But the researchers found 48 errors of omission in the Wikipedia entries, compared to 14 for MDR. The lead investigator concluded: "I think that these errors of omission can be just as dangerous [as inaccuracies]", and he pointed out that drug company representatives have been caught deleting information from Wikipedia entries that make their drugs look unsafe.

In addition to these potential omissions (or purposeful deletions), the structure of Wikipedia lends itself to several [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia#cite_note-50 potential vulnerabilities]:

#Information citation loops
#Vandalism
#Anonymity of authors lending to false information (see e.g. the [http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/1062 Essjay controversy]

====Perceived Quality of Wikipedia====

Whether or not Wikipedia actually is accurate, its reception as a trusted source has been plagued by doubts regarding the trustworthiness of its content as the product of mass collaboration by anonymous authors.

The perception of Wikipedia in the average population is relatively high. In a web-based survey conducted in spring 2006, fifty participants rated Wikipedia articles: 76% agreed that the article was accurate, and 46% agreed it was complete. The same survey compared Wikipedia to Encyclopedia Britannica: of 18 responses, 6 favored Britannica, 7 favored Wikipedia, and 11 found Wikipedia more complete.<ref>Larry Press, "[http://bpastudio.csudh.edu/fac/lpress/wikieval/ Survey of Wikipedia accuracy and completeness]," Professor of Computer Information Systems, California State University (2006).</ref>

However, Wikipedia's '''reception by academia''' has been less than stellar.

Even if Wikipedia itself doesnât intend to be used as a course for academic works, it is often used by students and researchers as a starting point. However, the open-source collaborative and anonymous efforts that produce Wikipedia have led to wide-spread skepticism of its accuracy. Most of the angry responses targeted at Wikipedia have been aimed at its claim to be an encyclopedia. Such claims are thought to establish greater expectations of accuracy than are or possibly can be achieved by non-expert collaboration. Academics have also criticized Wikipedia for its perceived failure as a reliable source, and because Wikipedia editors may not have degrees or other credentials generally recognized in academia.

Robert McHenry, a former editor-in-chief for the Encyclopedia Britannica, describes Wikipedia as the âFaith-Based Encyclopedia.â He describes the âcrucial and entirely faith-based stepâ in the Wikipedia process: âSome unspecified quasi-Darwinian process will assure that those writings and editings by contributors of greatest expertise will survive; articles will eventually reach a steady state that corresponds to the highest degree of accuracy.â This step, he argues, is a completely unwarranted leap of faith. Rather, âContrary to the faith, the article has, in fact, been edited into mediocrity.â<ref name=McHenry>[http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=111504A], Robert McHenry, The Faith-Based Encyclopedia Blinks, Dec 14, 2005 (2008).</ref>

Andrew Orlowski accuses Wikipedia of being a âvanity exerciseâ for calling itself an encyclopedia, and writes that the use of the term "encyclopedia" to describe Wikipedia may lead users into believing it is more reliable than it may be. He points out (describing a libel case against Wikipedia) that âIf what we today know as "Wikipedia" had started life as something called, let's say - "Jimbo's Big Bag O'Trivia" - we doubt if it would be the problem it has become.â The public begins to expect trustworthy information from Wikipedia and instead gets a âking-sized cocktailâ of bureaucracy and âspontaneous graffiti.â <ref>[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/12/wikipedia_no_responsibility/page2.html], Andrew Orlowski, "Who's responsible for Wikipedia?" The Register, Dec 12, 2005.</ref>

Middlebury College went so far as to [http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jah/93.1/rosenzweig.html?pr=jah931 ban the citation of Wikipedia] in papers in its history department. On this note, however, consider the fact that Wikipedia itself states in its guidelines that Wikipedia is not suitable for academic citation because Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, is a tertiary source. The use of Wikipedia is not accepted in many schools and universities in writing a formal paper, and some educational institutions have banned it as a primary source while others have limited its use to only a pointer to external sources.<ref name=Duke>[http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2007/03/28/News/Several.Colleges.Push.To.Ban.Wikipedia.As.Resource-2809247.shtml], Lysa Chen, "Several colleges push to ban Wikipedia as resource," Duke Chronicle, March 28, 2007</ref><ref>"[http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/26/wiki A Stand Against Wikipedia]", ''Inside Higher Ed'' (January 26, 2007). Retrieved on January 27, 2007.</ref><ref name=McHenry>

Some academic journals do refer to Wikipedia articles, but do not elevate it to the same level as traditional references. For instance, Wikipedia articles have been referenced as "enhanced perspectives" provided on-line in the journal Science. The publisher of Science states that these enhanced perspectives "include hypernotes - which link directly to websites of other relevant information available online - beyond the standard bibliographic references."<ref>[http://www.aaas.org/publications/books_reports/CCLI/PDFs/01_D_Perspectives.pdf], Yolanda S. George & Shirley S.Malcolm, "Perspectives from AAAS|publisher=American Association for the Advancement of Science."</ref>

====Improving Wikipedia's Perceived Accuracy====
One study presented at the 2008 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Work explored whether a visualizations system could improve readersâ perceptions of trustworthiness in a wiki by exposing hidden article information.<ref>
Kittur, Suh & Chi, Can You Ever Trust a Wiki?: Impacting Perceived Trustworthiness in Wikipedia, in PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACM 2008 CONFERENCE ON COMPUTER SUPPORTED COOPERATIVE WORK (2008) 477-480. [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1460639&dl=GUIDE&coll=GUIDE&CFID=56978117&CFTOKEN=87505552Abstract].</ref> The results suggest that surfacing information that is relevant to the stability of the article and patterns of editor behavior can have a significant impact on usersâ trust. This should be considered in conjunction for proposals on color-coding articles by age, editing contribution etc that are being considered to improve article accuracy.

Other suggestions include:

*Reputation-based text coloring. Each article could display a button labeled "check text reputation": upon clicking the button, a user would be led to a copy of the page, where the text background color reflects the reputation of the author of each portion of text, as well as the reputation of authors who vetted the text, editing the page while leaving the text in place. The appeal of this method is that reputation is displayed in an anonymous way, associated to the article text. This avoids placing blame or praise directly on the authors: the impersonal character of this feedback could be well-suited to a collaborative forum such as the Wikipedia.<ref>T. Cross. Puppy smoothies: Improving the reliability of open, collaborative wikis. First Monday, 11(9), September 2006.</ref>
*Restricting edits. Highly controversial articles could be protected, so that only authors with sufficiently high reputation are able to edit them. This is currently employed by Wikipedia as part of its [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_policy Protection Policy] but it could be expanded.
*Reputation-based alert system. Wikipedia Editors keep a watchful eye on most controversial articles, and in fact, on a large portion of the Wikipedia, improving content and undoing poor-quality revisions. A reputation system could be used to alert them whenever a crucial or controversial article is modified by a low-reputation author. A reputation system provides an incentive for high-quality contributions. A reputation system could provide an additional incentive for authors to provide high quality contributions to the Wikipedia.<ref>P. Resnick, R. Zeckhauser, E. Friedman, and K. Kiwabara. Reputation systems. Comm. ACM, 43(12):45{48, 2000. C. Dellarocas. The digitization of word-ofmouth: Promises and challenges of online reputation systems. Management Science, October 2003.</ref>
*Content-Driven Reputation system. Study by Adler & de Alfaro proposes a content-driven reputation system for Wikipedia to allow readers to determine reliability of an article based on the reputation of the contributors and editors. The reputation of authors would be based on how their contribution to Wikipedia fares: the longer an article or edit remains un-edited or un-altered, the better the authorâs reputation. This can be, however, much less accurate than a user-driven reputation system. Author contributions can be deleted for a variety of reasons, including reorganizations and thorough rewrites of the articles. Alder & Alfaro address these issues in that the reputation of authors whose edits are reverted to the original text suffers; reputation of authors whose edits are further refined later on do not suffer.<ref>B. Thomas Adler & Luca de Alfaro, [http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=luca_de_alfaro A Content-Driven Reputation System for the Wikipedia].</ref>
*Zeng et al. also propose a mechanism wherein the revision history of the Wikipedia article is used to compute a trust value for the article.<ref>H. Zeng, M.A. Alhoussaini, L. Ding, R. Fikes, and D.L. McGuinness. Computing trust from revision history. In Intl. Conf. on Privacy, Security and Trust, 2006.</ref>
*It could also prove interesting to explore combinations of user and content reputation devices.

===Sustainability of Wikimedia Model===

The strategy discussions at Wikimania 2009 raised the question of whether Wikimedia, as it stands today, is sustainable: both from a technological and organizational standpoint.

*Is a platform that both supports numerous users and serves less tech savvy contributors possible?
*How can Wikimedia ensure its financial stability?
*How can Wikimedia re-structure its institutional organization to allow oversight without creating too many levels of hierarchy such that the bureaucracy becomes ungainly?

Emerging Strategic Priorities in this area include:
**Optimize Wikimediaâs operations
**Identify roles volunteers are best suited to perform and what are the most effective uses of paid staff
**Create alliances and partnerships with other institutions and organizations to advance the mission: also, what are the necessary preconditions to such alliances? How support similar projects?

===Expansion & Questions of Scope===
Since the founding of Wikipedia in 2001, there has been substantial growth in user-generated online content.<ref>Geist, M. Mapping the digital future. OECD: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development 254 (2006), 36â37.</ref><ref>Dunn, J., Byrd, D., Notess, M., Riley, J., and Scherle, R. Variations2: Retrieving and using music in an academic setting. Commun. ACM 49, 8 (Aug. 2006) 53â58.</ref> According to one Nielsen rating, user-generated content drives 50% of the top fastest growing internet brands.<ref>Nielsen NetRating. [www.nielsen-netratings.com/pr/PR_060810.PDF User-generated content drives half of U.S. top 10 fastest growing Web brands], (Aug. 10, 2006).</ref> Consider just the popularity of collaborative site such as YouTube, Flickr, or Slashdot.org. Traditional media outlets such as BBC News.com have also added areas for collaboration.<ref>Eltringham, M. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4900000/newsid_4900400/4900444.stm Citizen journalists challenge BBC], BBC NewsWatch (2006).</ref> User-generated content appears to be the way forward â but is Wikipedia a good model upon which to base that progress? Can the system used for Wikipedia be applied other scenarios?

==References==
<references/>

Ubiquitous Human Computing

2009-12-03T06:32:27Z

140.247.4.212: New page: = What is Ubiquitous Human Computing? = Professor Zittrain provides an excellent overview of the emerging field of "Ubiquitous Human Computing" in a recent [http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter...

= What is Ubiquitous Human Computing? =

Professor Zittrain provides an excellent overview of the emerging field of "Ubiquitous Human Computing" in a recent [http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10/asset/ssrn-id1140445-pdf paper]. For the purposes of this course, focus on the paper's discussion of "fungible networked brainpower" as exemplified by Amazon Mechanical Turk, LiveOps and InnoCentive. Alternatively, these core ideas are expressed in video form [http://bigthink.com/jonathanzittrain/the-long-and-silent-subway-ride-of-the-future here].

= The Current Services =

== Amazon Mechanical Turk ==

Amazon's Mechanical Turk (AMT) [http://www.mturk.com/mturk/welcome product] is the simplest ubiquitous human computing model currently available. It provides a marketplace for "Human Intelligence Tasks" (HITs), which are typically large collections of simple and repetitive tasks that nonetheless require a human mind to complete. The HITs are necessarily limited in scope because their maximum price is $10.

== LiveOps ==

LiveOps's [http://www.liveops.com marketplace] is a step up from AMT because it carefully selects those that can perform tasks. Out of 3500 candidates to become a LiveOps worker each week, LiveOps only selects 50-75 after a test and an interview.

Patrick McKenna, founder of LiveOps but no longer with the company, has outlined what he believes draws each party to LiveOps. Workers desire (1) access to work, (2) control over their own work schedules, and (3) independance. McKenna believes that the most important factor to workers in their schedule flexibility. Also very important to the worker is the lack of setup and takedown time - there is no LiveOps equivalent to the unpaid commute to and from work. There is also no LiveOps equivalent to the real-world workplace expenses of gas, work clothes and workplace eating. McKenna believes that the average LiveOps worker make $9 an hour, but that this amount is equivalent to earning $16/hour in a job involving the aforementioned expenses.

McKenna believes that work providers are drawn to LiveOps primarily because of its flexibility and capacity to maximize productivity from their workers. Work providers are also able to avoid costs associated with the real-world workplace - office space, setup and takedown time, etc. - LiveOps employers only pay for work when it is actually being done. The flexibility offered by LiveOps allows for work providers to quickly vary the size of their workforce - they do not need to keep a "reserve" of employees that are paid with no work to do in order to handle spikes in workforce needs.

== InnoCentive ==

InnoCentive's [http://www.innocentive.com/ marketplace] is again a step up from LiveOps in terms of complexity of its tasks and skills needed to complete them. InnoCentive's asks its workers to solve minor scientific problems posed by its work suppliers. InnoCentive offers its workers large awards, including awards of $1,000,000 for some solutions. InnoCentive refers to its work providers and workers as "seekers" and "solvers", respectively.

= The Difficult Issues =

== Present Day Doctrinal Problem Areas ==

*American Business Law Journal: The Information Revolution and its Impact on the Employment Relationship: An Analysis of the Cyberspace Workplace
**This is a fantastic survey paper on the many issues raised with employment law in combination with cyber-workers.
**This article seems to assume that cyberworkers will still be working in the United States, but this seems like an unrealistic assumption
**Written in 2003, around the time LiveOps launched (2000)
**Citation: 40 AMBLJ 301
**Section II of this article examines how working over the internet blurs/challenges current law about the employee/contractor distinction.
***"Under the right-of-control test, an employee is not an independent contractor if the employer has the ability to control the time, method, and manner of employment"
**Section IV of this article examines how cyber-working affects non-compete agreements and copyright considerations (such as works-for-hire)
***"The Internet exacerbates this tension by raising previously unheard of issues in drafting and enforcing non-compete agreements."
***Work-for-hire: How does UbiComp affect the work-for-hire test established by Creative Non-Violence v. Reid? ( 490 U.S. 730 (1989) )
**Section V - Employment Regulation
***A: The Burlington/Faragher sexual harassment standard is not clear when applied to cyber-workers
****"The Ninth Circuit held that remoteness will not dilute an employee's obligation to report sexual harassment."
***C: Family Medical Leave Act - depends on employee/independent contractor distinction
***D: Workers Compensation
***E: Fair Labor Standards Act
***F: The National Labor Relations Act
***G: The Occupational Safety & Health Act
**Conclusions
***For employee/contractor distinction, "courts must use the existing and long-standing right-of-control test, but apply it with sensitivity to the unique characteristics of Internet-enabled workplaces."
***As courts evolve toward the Zippo sliding scale, they must set some standard of how much contact remote employment creates between the employee's forum state and the employer.
***Agencies need to adopt specific regulation to deal with cyberworkers
***"When regulatory guidance is insufficient, the legislature must act"
****Congress must clarify how unions can organize and communicate in cyberspace in order to protect labor and management rights.

*Case study: Amazon's Mechanical Turk may violate employment/tax laws because the employee-employer relationship is between the requester and the worker [http://behind-the-enemy-lines.blogspot.com/2009/07/is-amazon-mechanical-turk-black-market.html]

== Potential Difficult Problems in the Future ==

* What if UbiComp is used for political lobbying?
** In general, any mass movement could be created using UbiComp
* Could employees "outsource" their own work using UbiComp? [http://webchicanery.com/2009/06/20/4-minute-work-week/]

Global Network Initiative

2009-12-03T06:32:03Z

140.247.4.212: New page: = Background on the Global Network Initiative = The Global Network Initiative (GNI) was formally launched in December 2008. The GNI is a multi-stakeholder initiative designed to address i...

= Background on the Global Network Initiative =

The Global Network Initiative (GNI) was formally launched in December 2008. The GNI is a multi-stakeholder initiative designed to address issues of privacy and freedom of expression on the internet, and more broadly in "information and communications technologies." The constituent stakeholder groups are companies (Google, Microsoft and Yahoo so far), academics (including the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School), socially-responsible investors and human rights groups (including the EFF). Although initial membership features many prominent players in the field, not all of them signed on without concern about GNI's future. For example, in its [http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/gni/signon_letter.txt signon letter], the EFF expressed concern about serious omissions from the GNI's founding documents.

The GNI's framework is laid out in its three founding documents: (1) The Core Principles, (2) The Implementation Guidelines, and (3) The Governance, Accountability and Learning Framework. The GNI's objectives are to have information & communication (ICT) companies enroll in the initiative by paying dues and then upholding the GNI's principles according to its implementation guidelines.

According to Caroline Nolan, who played a key role in the development of the GNI, it takes its inspiration from other MSIs and corporate codes of conduct, including the Sullivan principles. Current participants have also been engaged with the Fair Labor Association (FLA) and the Voluntary Principles. The GNI has attempted to learn lessons from those initiatives, in particular lessons that could improve the GNI's accountability and reporting framework.

One of the GNI's main challenges is identifying the circumstances under which participating companies should stand up to government demands that infringe on their users' freedom of expression and privacy. It is also very challenging for companies to operate with typically very broad government regulations that affect freedom of expression and privacy. Another serious problem is identifying violations of the GNI's principles be identified when those principles are also very broad. Caroline gave an example of child labor violations, which are comparatively easier to identify.

Colin Maclay of the Berkman Center provides an excellent introduction to the GNI and the context surrounding its development in a [http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10/asset/maclay-access-controlled-pdf chapter] from his book, "Access Controlled".

== The Core Principles ==

The GNI is primarily designed to protect Freedom of Expression and Privacy on the internet. According to the GNI, these principles are derived from standard international doctrines including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The posture of the principles is for the participating companies to uphold international standards of freedom of expression and privacy in the face of pressure from local laws in the jurisdictions in which they operate.

The [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/principles/index.php principles] attempt to take into account the realities of business by requiring that "company Board, senior officers and others responsible for key decisions that impact freedom of expression and privacy" are fully briefed on the principles and that companies take responsibilities for their own actions and for those of their partners and supply chain on a "best effort" basis.

== The Implementation Guidelines ==

This [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/implementationguidelines/index.php document] is designed to give companies that enroll in the GNI a framework for ensuring that their obligation to uphold the GNI's principles that they agreed to uphold is met to a standard that is acceptable to the GNI.

== The Governance Framework ==

This [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/governanceframework/index.php framework] describes the structure of the GNI, including its timeline for growth.

= Legislative Alternatives to the GNI =

As Maclay explained in his "Access Controlled" chapter, Yahoo's provision of information leading to the arrest of Chinese journalist Shi Tao was a driving example of the need for stronger protection of human rights by ICT companies. Congressman Lantos's [http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/lantos110607.htm admonishment] of Yahoo provides an example of Congressional disapproval of Yahoo's disregard of human rights principles, and in part explains the motivation for the introduction of legislation to address the problem. At this time, Yahoo was asked to endorse the Global Online Freedom Act (GOFA).

GOFA is an attempt to foster the same ideals espoused by the GNI, but through regulation rather than multi-stakeholder collaboration. Nolan cited concern that given the complexities of the regulatory environment, GOFA, would be unable to cope with the dynamic nature of the ICT sector or address and anticipate the complex global problems involving online filtering, censorship and surveillance practices. John Palfrey, also of the Berkman Center, agreed in his Congressional [http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/palfrey/2008/05/20/testimony-on-internet-filtering-and-surveillance/ testimony] that the GOFA is too "blunt" to properly address the issues. The Center for Democracy & Technology, while agreeing with the goals of the GOFA, has [http://www.cdt.org/international/censorship/20080505gofa.pdf published] disagreement with some of its implementation.

John Ruggie, a political scientist formerly associated with the UN, provides an excellent [http://www.reports-and-materials.org/Ruggie-report-7-Apr-2008.pdf analysis] of the way that government and corporate responsibilities to protect human rights overlap and are related. While his paper is not specifically on the topic of the GNI or the GOFA, it provides excellent context for how legislation and initiatives like the GNI can be structured.

Is legislation a feasible alternative to the GNI, or can it be used to supplement and foster initiatives like the GNI?

= The Difficult Issues =

== Growing GNI ==

Currently, GNI has three participating, due-paying member companies: Google, Microsoft and Yahoo. All of these companies were founded in the United States and have headquarters in the United States. All of these companies offer similar internet services and serve similar customer needs. The GNI will be unable to have a lasting role in improving freedom of expression and privacy in "information and communications technologies" or live up to its "Global" title unless it can expand its membership geographically and service-wise.

One issue facing the GNI's future growth is that the people developing the GNI worked together for years. These people persevered throughout a difficult process, and were able to reach compromise because they were on the verge of achieving their goal of starting the GNI. Newcomers will not have been through this process, but will need to feel equally important. How can the trust built between the initial stakeholders scale to newcomers?

Another issue is that no telecommunications companies are enrolled in the GNI, although several participated in the development of the GNI and dropped out before it launched. Nolan cited concerns about the structure of the GNI, budget and the potentially onerous accountability process as possible reasons why these telecommunications companies failed to join the GNI upon launch.

Senators Durbin and Coburn sent a [http://durbin.senate.gov/showRelease.cfm?releaseId=316922 letter] to 26 software companies urging them to sign up for the GNI. In this letter, the senators imply that the GNI will not be able to advance human rights unless more companies enroll. Nolan believes that the GNI can only truly affect governments in a positive manner if its membership increases. The Senators reference the recent use of the internet by Iranian protesters as an example of the expressive power of the internet.

What can incentivise companies to join the GNI or similar initiatives and uphold its principles?

== Metrics/Accountability ==

How can the impact of the GNI be measured? It is easy to make a checklist to ensure that companies are meeting the explicit requirements of GI membership. However, the introduction of external auditors to ensure more substantive compliance is present is a hugely contentious issue. The GNI's governance framework requires that, by 2012, external auditors play a role in evaluating compliance with the GNI's principles. Human rights group form one of the GNI's four constituent groups, and need to feel like they have an actual sense of what companies are doing. Nolan emphasizes that this process must not be a "gotcha" process, but rather a process that is informed by evolution and learning.

The new governance charter has sparked a huge debate about reporting, auditing, who picks the auditors, who pays for the auditors and how much power they should have.

How should this accountability framework function? How can input on the users of participating companies' users be measured?

== Institutional Issues ==

Members of GNI's board are drawn from each of the GNI's four constituencies. In the most current revised governance charter, the board is to be composed of eight representatives from participating companies, four representatives from participating NGOs, two representatives from participating investor organizations, two representatives from participating academic organizations and an independent chair. At least one member from each constituency must be present to reach a quorum.

The charter also mandates that no more than one representative from a single company, NGO, investor or academic institution be on the board at any one time. Additionally, for issues requiring a "supermajority" of the board, 50% of each constituency group's board members must approve. "Supermajority" issues include altering or creating exceptions to the GNI's core documents, determining the compliance of a GNI participant or selecting an executive director.

Are the weightings given to each constituency group appropriate?

In the same charter, board member terms are to be two years in length and renewable for one term only. An exception to this rule is that founding company members shall serve three terms of two years.

What are the optimal board term limits?

== Complaint Mechanism ==

How can a system be designed under which individuals whose human rights are being infringed can report these violations? This system would need to be enormously scalable, accessible, usable and be able to determine the validity of complaints. The accessibility of this system will be especially crucial countries where internet access may be limited, because those will be the most likely countries from which complaints will arrive.

Nolan believes that a good input/complaint process must be a core feature of GNI for its own good governance. How can this system be developed?

== Human Rights Impact Assessment Tool ==

The GNI is attempting to develop a human rights impact assessment tool for use by members and others. This tool would help companies evaluate potential impact of human rights when they are deciding to enter a new market. This tool would be used to inform business decisions by helping to assess risks and opportunities. This tool would be a way to leverage the pool of experts that are associated with the GNI.

One difficult issue is the group of users that the GNI would make the tool available to. Would it be released to members only to incentivize membership? Or would this tool be available to any company will to make use of it with the goal of generally fostering human rights advancements?

How should this tool function?

Main Page

2009-12-03T06:31:23Z

140.247.4.212:

Welcome to Difficult Problems in Cyberlaw, a January course taught by Professor Jonathan Zittrain and co-hosted by Stanford Law School and Harvard Law School.

If you are a student, please see the [[Student Responsibilities]] section and [[Course Logistics]].

The four main difficult problems to be addressed are:
*[[Global Network Initiative]]
*[[Ubiquitous Human Computing]]
*[[Future of Wikipedia]]
*[[Cybersecurity]]

Cross-cutting themes include:
*[[Due Process on the Internet]]
*[[Motivating Good & Bad Actors]]
*[[Mass Collaboration]]
*[[Privacy and Anonymity on the Internet]]

==WEEK ONE: DEFINING THE PROBLEMS==

<center> '''Monday, January 4th''' </center>

'''LUNCH''': 12-2pm SLS (location TBA)
:Student introductions

'''CLASS''': 7:20-9:20pm SLS (location TBA)
:A brief overview of the course, it's goals and expectations, including an introduction to the difficult problems and the cross-cutting themes.
:A quiz on Zittrain's book, [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It] will be given.
:Brief introduction to the Global Network Initiative

''Readings'':
*Read [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It]
*Explore the [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/ Global Network Iniative] website
*Read GNI [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/cms/uploads/1/GNI_-_Principles_1_.pdf Guiding Principles]

----

<center> '''Tuesday, January 5th''' </center>

'''PANEL''':

'''CLASS''': 5:15-7:15pm SLS (location TBA)
:Identify the first-order problems regarding corporate responsibility and free expression on the internet. Examine how GNI attempts to address these problems and then evaluate whether GNI is a success and whether better approaches could be taken.
:Introduction to ubiquitous human computing.

*5 students will have 4 minutes each to introduce themselves at the beginning of class

''Guests:''
*Mark Chandler, CISCO

''Readings:''
*Read the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/GNI GNI Wiki Primer]
*Read Rhys Blakely, ''[http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article728898.ece Yahoo in second Chinese blog Row],'' TimesOnline, Feb. 9, 2006.
*Read Colin Maclay, "[http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10/asset/maclay-access-controlled-pdf Protecting Privacy and Expression Online]," ''in'' Access Controlled (Ronald Diebert et al., eds., MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 2010).
*Read Jonathan Zittrain, ''[http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10/asset/ssrn-id1140445-pdf Ubiquitous Human Computing]'', SSRN Paper No 32/2008 (July 2008).

----

<center> '''Wednesday, January 6th''' </center>

'''PANEL''':

'''CLASS''': 6:30-8:30pm SLS (location TBA)
:Examine the nature of ubiquitous human computing and potential future applications of human computing and the dangers.
:Introduction to cybersecurity.

*5 students will have 4 minutes each to introduce themselves at the beginning of class

''Guests'':
*Lukas Biewald, [http://crowdflower.com/ CrowdFlower]
*Bjoern Hartman, see his [http://bjoern.org/projects/catbook/ Mechanical Turk Cats Book]

''Readings'':
*Visit Mechanical Turk, LiveOps, CrowdFlower or other human computing site
*Watch "[http://bigthink.com/jonathanzittrain/the-long-and-silent-subway-ride-of-the-future The Long and Silent Subway Ride of the Future]"
*Read Nancy R. Mansfield, ''[http://www.allbusiness.com/technology/internet-technology/618188-1.html The information revolution and its impact on the employment relationship: an analysis of the cyberspace workplace]'', American Business Law Journal (2003).
*Skim the White House [http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/Cyberspace_Policy_Review_final.pdf Cyberspace Policy Review] (2009); focus on the introduction/overview and the Near & Mid-Term Action Plans.

'''ASSIGNMENT: Due -- Email Admin with Problem Topic Choice'''

----

<center> '''Thursday, January 7th''' </center>

'''CLASS''': 11:10am-1:10pm SLS (location TBA)
:Cybersecurity has been identified as one of the greatest threats facing the United States today, but it is ill-defined and almost impossible to address. How can we frame this problem to better inspire solutions? How should government, military, businesses, and internet/tech approach the problem from different angles and do these different approaches work together?
:Introduction to Future of Wikipedia

*5 students will have 4 minutes each to introduce themselves at the beginning of class

''Guests'':
*

''Readings'':
*Listen to David Clark, [http://www.ischool.berkeley.edu/newsandevents/events/sl20090304 The Internets We Did Not Build].
*Col. Allen & Lt. Col Demchak, ''[http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10 The Palestinian-Israeli Cyberwar]'', Military Review (2003).
*Kim Zetter, ''[http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/08/revealed-the-in/ Revealed: The Internet's Biggest Security Hole]'', Wired (2008).
*Review Zittrain, [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It]; Chapter 3
*''[http://www.resourceshelf.com/2009/11/23/wsj-volunteers-log-off-as-wikipedia-ages/ Wikipedia Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages]'', Wall Street Journal.

----

<center> '''Friday, January 8th''' </center>

'''FIELD TRIP''': eBay office visit (details to follow)

'''CLASS''': 3:00-5:00pm SLS (location TBA) ['''NOTE CLASS TIME''']
:Wikipedia has grown quickly and rapidly to become one of if not the largest online content-generating collaboration. Following the 2009 Wikimania, Wikimedia has undertaken a self-review, looking at strategies for the future of Wikipedia. Is it a sustainable model? and if so, to what other fields is it applicable? How can its reception in academia be improved? and what are its applications for education?
:Brief introduction of next week's cross-cutting themes

*5 students will have 4 minutes each to introduce themselves at the beginning of class

''Guests'':

''Readings'':
*Review Zittrain, [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It]; Chapter 5
*Peruse Wikipedia's [http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Strategy Page]
*Strona, ''[http://prawo.uni.wroc.pl/~kwasnicki/EkonLit6/WikipediaSoul.pdf The Battle for Wikipedia's Soul]'', The Economist, March 6, 2008.
*''[http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/26/wiki A Stand Against Wikipedia?]'', Inside Higher Ed, Jan. 26, 2007.

'''CLASS SOCIAL''': Optional, evening, details TBD

----

<center> '''Saturday, January 9th''' </center>

Tour of San Francisco (Optional); details http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/difficultproblems/edit/SyllabusTBD. To give input and suggestions, visit [[Tour Ideas]].

==WEEK TWO: CROSS-CUTTING THEMES==

<center> '''Monday, January 11th''' </center>

'''CLASS''': 7:20-9:20pm SLS (location TBA)
:One potential way to address some of the problems addressed in this course is through innovations and technological solutions. Several solutions have changed the way our browsers work and thereby changed the way we interact with the internet, making life better. In what other areas could a similar approach be applied?
:Introduction to cross-cutting theme of privacy, anonymity and liability on the internet

''Guests'':
*John M. Agosta, [http://disputefinder.cs.berkeley.edu/ DisputeFinder]
*Tye Rattenbury, DisputeFinder
*Rob Ennals, DisputeFinder
*Tad Hersch, DisputeFinder

''Readings'':
*Visit [http://www.herdict.org/web/ HerdictWeb]
*Zittrain's [http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2009/02/10/berkman-jz-on-herdict/ Comments on Herdict] at a Berkman Center Lunch
*Visit [http://disputefinder.cs.berkeley.edu/ DisputeFinder] (Test it out!)
*Read Introduction to Ann Bartow, ''[http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlg/vol322/383-430.pdf Internet Defamation As Profit Center: The Monetization of Online Harrassment]'', 32 Harvard Journal of Law & Gender 383 (2009).

----

<center> '''Tuesday, January 12th''' </center>

'''WORKSHOP''': 10am-3pm Faculty Lounge, Stanford [http://public.resource.org/law.gov/ law.gov workshop]
Hosted by Carl Malamud

'''CLASS''': 5:15-7:15pm SLS (location TBA)
:Privacy and anonymity can raise significant issues for accountability for online actions. Users often believe they are more anonymous than they truly are online - how can we better educate the public about the reality of privacy online?

''Guests'':
*Mark Chandler, CISCO
*Ryan Calo, SLS Fellow

''Readings'':
*Odia Kagan, ''[http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?s=latestnews&id=1915 Fighting Anonymous Defamation],'' International Business Law Services, November 26, 2007.
*Consider commercial applications; visit [http://www.reputationdefender.com/ ReputationDefender]
*Read through the Facebook or Google terms of service

----

<center> '''Wednesday, January 13th''' </center>

'''CLASS''': 6:30-8:30pm SLS (location TBA)
:

----

<center> '''Thursday, January 14th''' </center>

'''CLASS''': 11:10am-1:10pm SLS (location TBA)

----

<center> '''Friday, January 15th''' </center>

'''CLASS''': 1:00-3:00pm SLS (location TBA)
: Group Presentation of proposed solution

'''CLASS SOCIAL''': Optional, evening, details TBD

==WEEK THREE: SOLUTIONS==

<center> '''Monday, January 18th''' </center>

'''NO CLASS''': [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr._Day Martin Luther King, Jr. Day]

----

<center> '''Tuesday, January 19th''' </center>

'''CLASS''': 5:15-7:15pm SLS (location TBA)
: Group Presentation of proposed solution

----

<center> '''Wednesday, January 20th''' </center>

'''CLASS''': 6:30-8:30pm SLS (location TBA)
: Group Presentation of proposed solution

----

<center> '''Thursday, January 21th''' </center>

CLASS: 11:10am-1:10pm SLS (location TBA)
: Group Presentation of proposed solution

WRAP-UP DINNER: 7:20-9:20pm SLS (location TBA)

----

<center> '''Sunday, January 24th''' </center>

'''FINAL PROJECTS DUE'''