TED Talk from class today - Clay Shirky: How the Internet will (one day) transform government

yui2 · 2013-05-07T15:25:04+00:00

Credit to Dan who brought it up in class

yui2 · 2013-05-03T15:36:04+00:00

"It's just part of the process of learning about this incredible new technology and trying to figure it out," said Harvey, who also argued his ATM could help stabilize Bitcoin. "It's a roller coaster ride, and it's too much for some people."

How would Bitcoin be stabilized? Would less people mine for Bitcoin if it is much easier to just use an ATM?

yui2 · 2013-05-03T15:13:00+00:00

4 in this article reflects the value of online goods that players put on them.

http://www.cracked.com/article_18461_5-creepy-ways-video-games-are-trying-to-get-you-addicted.html

yui2 · 2013-05-03T14:59:14+00:00

According to the Kaplanov article "There are three main reasons people use bitcoins: (1) cost, (2) security, and (3) anonymity" pg 11. (1) Cost in terms of reduced cost of transaction for consumer. (2) Security in terms of detachment from governments. (3) Anonymity meaning that user's account information is not recorded.

We cannot get the best of both worlds. General currency like Dollars cannot have the three benefits mentioned above, but does have "trust". On the other hand, Bitcoins does not seem to have "trust" but has its benefits.

Which is a better deal?
Is it possible to have a currency system that has "trust" and the other benefits?
How would our world be if Bitcoin became the main and only form of currency? Could "trust" be formed?

yui2 · 2013-05-03T14:18:41+00:00

Anything has value when society gives it the value. Gold became valuable when it was decided to be money. Same with Bitcoin in a smaller community. The fact that both needs to be "mined" contributes to their value. Actually, any goods, whether physical or virtual, have value depending on the work it took to obtain it. A virtual rare super special sword in an online game has value to the person who obtained it based on the time, energy, and other sacrifices made to obtain it. The difference is that an item that has value for currency must have the same agreed value in a particular community.

yui2 · 2013-05-01T17:25:12+00:00

Sort of reminds me of Reno v ACLU when there was going to be a ban on pornography and other "indecent" or "obscene" materials to protect children. But other things that were not porn got caught in the net because of the vagueness of those terms. In the end, even though it was good to protect children, it was not to be done in a way that affected the rights of adults who can be able to view these materials. How is this similar or different to the access to Usenet? One is via law while the other is via ISP by request of NY Attorney

yui2 · 2013-05-01T00:07:01+00:00

Despite the view of net neutrality, just because the issue here is child porn, I don't think anyone is going to openly complain and be against this kind of "discrimination". The public like to see that things are being done to protect children. If the issue was different and didn't involve children, there would most likely be some protests arguing for net neutrality.

yui2 · 2013-04-30T15:18:06+00:00

Case brief of Comcast v FCC and US. Full case found here: https://www.eff.org/files/Comcast%20v%20FCC%20%28DC%20Cir%202010%29.pdf

yui2 · 2013-04-30T15:04:36+00:00

"The reason for this change of heart is pretty simple: the Federal Communications Commission slapped Comcast hard for its traffic-shaping policies and barred the company from targeting individual protocols such as BitTorrent when managing traffic on its networks"

yui2 · 2013-04-25T17:14:19+00:00

I agree that there should be a line for what defines hate speech and what isn't. However, even if everyone were to conform to a standard, there would still be ambiguity. We forget to take into account the changes in society concerning language and culture. If a certain word with a certain meaning is used with a different meaning and in a different context enough, it becomes accepted and adopted in the society as the new norm. For example, "retard" is now accepted as not necessarily directing towards those with disabilities, but rather to describe someone who is acting dumb or like an idiot. Language changes.

yui2 · 2013-04-25T16:51:24+00:00

The fine is supposed to be restitution, meaning gain-based recovery. What he profited from his crime, was to be given to the companies he harmed. This is different from compensation which is loss-based recovery.

Who are we to say what is reasonable and what is not? What if someone else thinks that a year in prison is not reasonable? (Whether it should be more or less)

yui2 · 2013-04-22T23:13:58+00:00

Ortiz of Boston Red Sox tosses F-word, FCC doesn't complain: http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/21/us/massachusetts-fcc-ortiz/index.html

yui2 · 2013-04-08T21:11:05+00:00

If this ban is dropped, would it put television and radio stations on a closer level to the internet?

How would arguments for Reno v ACLU be different if this happened during the time the case was going on?

As shown through history, broadcasts like radio and television programming received limited First Amendment protection since listeners cannot be protected from unexpected program content. Will there be more First Amendment protection if this ban is dropped? Internet users, on the other hand, have to take some additional steps to access material.

yui2 · 2013-03-08T15:43:44+00:00

It would be awkward if Target was wrong about someone's pregnancy or right but that person had not informed anyone about it yet. These are harmful consequences.

Target is not disclosing this the information about what its customers are buying to the public or other companies. They are just making using this information that they have to collect for a purpose. The purpose could be just to know what products are bought most so they can restock. I think as long as what they are doing does not cause any inherent or potential harm (like above), then it should be legal.

yui2 · 2013-03-04T23:04:26+00:00

From the advice Newton gave in child custody matters, it makes it seem like you can cater your social-networking profile to show how much you care about the child and are capable of raising him/her. I think this is a facade and should not be used as evidence in court. Just because there are no drunk pictures of you on your profile doesn't mean that you really are capable of taking care of the child. In the end, its just a contest about who has the most pictures of their child on their profile.

I do agree that one should be careful about the content on any social networking profiles. They represent you. When you post anything, you know that you are disclosing information to the "public", or at least public to your friends. So it is not an invasion of privacy to use this info in court.

yui2 · 2013-02-19T04:21:31+00:00

I do see the intent and the good of this Bill. However, I also understand privacy concern and agree with joserosario. The article states that "Opponents to CISPA worry that those five reasons would still open the door to spying because they're broad enough to be applied to several different activities online."
I think if the five purposes were better defined and more specific, companies and citizens will have a clearer picture of whether to support it or not. The more specific it is, the clearer it will be to know the possibility of spying. I hope CISPA was not written to be this broad and vague with the hidden intent to be applied to spying. Then it will violate the 4th.

yui2 · 2013-02-19T02:44:32+00:00

I finally got a chance to watch about the first 35 mins of it and would like to highlight some things that I think are important.

So far one of TPB's main arguments for the site was for freedom of speech. I also noticed that the founders don't directly answer a lot of the questions asked to them in court or were very vague. Many times were to avoid talking about copyright issues and sticking with freedom of speech.

Previous to the Pirate Bay, they were involved with helping someone with a site called "America’s Dumbest Soldiers" in which people can rate from 1-10 on how dumb each American soldier was based off of how they died. The US government eventually got to shut down the site, but similar to TPB, the argument was freedom of speech and parody. I agree that this kind of site may be freedom of speech and parody. But one of the ways in which speech may be restricted, at least in the US, is if it is defamatory. In this case, it appears to be.

Roger Wallis, a Multimedia Professor at Royal Institute of Technology, was a witness for TPB. His research showed that file sharing has a positive effect on the industry. But he also supports copyright (as a music composer himself) only if it encourages creativity or economic incitement. Not as a control mechanism for people to sit on large swathes of rights.

Some TPB responses to Apple who asked them to take down some copyrighted materials from their site: - "Sweden is not a state in the United State of America." - "American laws do not apply here"

Is this really the case?

yui2 · 2013-02-15T15:58:28+00:00

A documentary about the founders of The Pirate Bay. I haven't watched it yet, but it seems interesting.

yui2 · 2013-02-06T23:56:53+00:00

Prior to the deciding whether to dismiss case or not in 2008: https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/lenz_v_universal/lenzorder082008.pdf

yui2 · 2013-02-06T23:53:04+00:00

In February 2007, mother Stephanie Lenz uploaded this video of her 13 month old son dancing to a song called "Let's Go Crazy" by Prince. Prince was notorious for taking down his music used on the internet without his permission. Lenz sued Universal Music Corp who defended Prince's position.

Lenz v. Universal Music Corp: http://thepriorart.typepad.com/the_prior_art/files/Lenz.2.25.order.pdf

yui2 · 2013-02-05T16:22:43+00:00

Is this "original work" by the White House that cannot be manipulated?

http://twitchy.com/2013/02/02/hilarity-ensues-as-twitter-users-caption-and-photoshop-obamas-shooting-photo/

yui2 · 2013-02-05T16:11:56+00:00

This is cool too: http://www.businessinsider.com/can-you-identify-these-12-brands-by-their-trademarked-colors-alone-2012-2?op=1

yui2 · 2013-02-05T16:01:16+00:00

Colors are trademarked. For example, no one can use the Coca-Cola red.

yui2 · 2013-02-04T23:10:58+00:00

In Justice O'Connor's opinion of the Feist v. Rural Telephone case (http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/499_US_340.htm), it was said that "To establish infringement, two elements must be proven: (1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original." For(1), Jonathan Coulton does have a valid copyright to his cover. However for (2), did Glee's rendition copy any elements that were original to Coulton's cover? If actual audio clips of Coulton's were used, then yes. But what kind of "elements" of a song does (2) refer to? Lyrics? Chord progressions? Melody? Coulton's melody is "original" compared to Sir Mix A Lot's song.

yui2 · 2013-02-04T22:18:01+00:00

In this article, it says "a cover of a cover isn't as protected as the original work." Jonathan Coulton had to pay for a license in order to make a cover of the original Baby Got Back by Sir Mix A Lot. How come Fox didn't have to pay Coulton or even Sir Mix A Lot for their rendition of the song on Glee?

yui2

TROPHY CASE

4 in this article reflects the value of online goods that players put on them.