Group presentation and respondent sign-up
From Technologies and Politics of Control
Contents |
April 1
Group presentation
Group 1: Speech and Content Regulation by Rocky Hill and Gabe Moylan.
The Group 1 Presentation has been completed. We have registered the domain name http://www.webfreedom.us and created a flash site as our presentation. There is a 60 second introduction that plays by itself. At the end of the intro, you must navigate the site on your own. Please don't forget to take a peep at the pictures in the gallery and leave your comments in the blog section.
--Rocky W. Hill 21:57, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
Respondents
Group 1 respondents
1.
2.
3.
Group 2 respondents
1.
2.
3.
April 8
Group presentation
Group 1: Internet, Transformational Leadership, and the Long Tail in political campaigns, by Bob Keyes and Owen Jones. A revised chart, with MindMap used as the basis, is shown here. It is subject to further revision. --BobKeyes 12:40, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
Group 2:
Respondents
Group 1 respondents
1.
2.
3.
Group 2 respondents
1.
2.
3.
April 15
Group presentation
Group 1: Labor on the Web. Trent Ostler and Oscar Howell --Oscar 08:28, 13 March 2008 (EDT) Project Page (work in progress)
Group 2: The internet and the 2008 Democratic primaries. Chris, Bill, and Shannon. --Mrshannon 00:12, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
This project evolved in 3 sections. Bill covered the historical lead-in part while Shannon and Chris concentrated on the current situation. Shannon covered Dean's influence and the way the conversation regarding the current campaigns are playing out on the net. Chris tried to assess the effect of the net as it translates to the voting booth in the current cycle. You can see Bill's slide show here. You can see Chris' page here. --Chris L 19:35, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
And here's Shannon's page. --Mrshannon 00:03, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
Respondents
Group 1 respondents
1. Owen Jones --OPJ 12:00, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
2.
3.
Group 2 respondents
1.
2.
3.
April 22
Group presentation
Group 1: Our research topic is Electronic Commerce and Digital Signature. Team members are William Tam, Andre Monteiro and Andrew Zarkowsky. Focus of our presentation is to discuss the development of electronic commerce and digital signature in particular. Through case studies we examine how digital signatures are being implemented in three different countries: Brazil, China and US. Objective of our research is to identify issues as well as challenges going forward from a global perspective. While the project is a team effort, research for the country case studies are conducted by the individuals: Brazil (Andre), China (William) and US (Andrew). Enclosed is the presentation deck: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ptc2008/sites/ptc2008/images/E-Commerce_and_Digital_Signature.pdf
Digital Signature in Brazil: http://www.myjavaserver.com/~drelu/projeto.htm --Andre Monteiro 22:30, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
-- Williamctam 22:19, 9 March 2008 (EDT).
Group 2: Recognizing those who do good versus those who do well- is the Internet "Big" enough to deserve Nobel style awards? Politics, Cultural Commons and Digital Society converge. --Jim
presentation now online at: http://gallery.mac.com/seamuis#100000 --Jim 17:11, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
presentation also now online on YOUTUBE. any bets on how long it lasts? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wlmkoBRrfo --Jim 18:56, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
Respondents
Group 1 respondents
1. Melissa Fregosi --Mfregosi 12:58, 10 March 2008 (EDT) Your idea to have a unified global system for electronic signatures is interesting, and ambitious! During the presentation I kept asking myself how the companies who write the encryption software might be incented to create what you envision, especially as different territorial markets have such different demands and needs for electronic signature; for example, that of China, where such a small percentage (1, 2% maybe?) of the population uses a credit card, and that of the U.S., where making online transactions is a way of life. How would this universal electronic signatures system work from the demand standpoint? --Mfregosi 19:02, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
--Williamctam 13:47, 29 April 2008 (EDT) - Thank you for your feedback. There are different demands for electronic signature in different countries and regions. And for now, the use of electronic signature is not in high demand as it is high cost and is primarily used by those who engaged in e-commerce. Also the use of electronic signature is rather restricted as it is usually recognized by the certifcation authority (CA) within one country. Electronic signature should be like credit card - we can use the same credit card to buy things in different countries rather than just one, that's one reason why credit card is so popular. So why not digital signature? I believe that a digital signature, if accepted universally, will increase electronic commerce hence the demand for electronic signature, many many times.
2. Rocky W. Hill 22:39, 12 March 2008 (EDT) -- It seems that since digital signatures can be backed up by digital certificates issued by agencies registered with Brazil's public key infrastructure manager, then America should be able to have tighter control on fraud, ecommerce, hacking, and internet regulations. The question is, can digital signatures hold up in the court system?
3. Oscar Howell --Oscar 08:29, 13 March 2008 (EDT) -- There is evidently a great deal of advance in many countries toward a system of electronic signatures and the securing of electronically enabled commerce. But there are also pressing problems that prevent a widespread use. The issues are mainly of government regulation rather than technological. In Mexico the law now allows electronic invoices and the legal use of e-signatures. There is an incipient use of both, after nearly 5 years. Mexican regulators created a system of competing CAs that do not work together (there is a CA for fiscal, commerce and banking matters, in addition to a government CA), and results in additional costs. The situation is similar internationally. There is no widespread acceptance of certificates between countries and CAs. The EU is pursuing a project to solve this situation. There are guidelines from UNCITRAL and others. But the lack of an international legal framework makes the acceptance at the national level difficult.
--Williamctam 13:09, 29 April 2008 (EDT) - Thank you for your feedback. The concern I tried to point out in our presentation is "the lack of an international policy framework, both legal and technical, to facilitate international electronic commerce." The inability to accept universal digital signature by certification authorities in different countries is a case in point. This will no doubt prevent the wide acceptance of e-commerce and hinder international trade from a global perspective. The Mexico example quoted by Oscar is a good example. This problem can only be resolved on a national policy level advocated by the UN (UNCITRAL guidelines is a good start) or by countries interested to promote e-commerce as a strategic initiative.
Group 2 respondents
1. Andrew Zarkowsky --Zark 17:21, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
Your presentation was very moving and I think it could be entertaining if it came to light. It is always a good thing to recognize the good doers. However, outside of the Internet I am not sure how well received this will be. There is no ‘best processes in banking’ award or ‘best retail salesperson’ award. There are a few types of awards, the best banker / salesperson gets more money. The best actor gets a statue, because the general public cares about seeing these actors and there are noble prize type awards. I think your award fits into the last category; however given people’s stereotype of the internet I am not sure they will view it with as much importance. In the end, I say go for it, it is a great idea. Who knows, maybe in 50 years it will scale with a noble peace prize. Until then, like most things on the internet, I think it will need to stay on the internet for a while before anyone notices.
2. Sara Russo --Srusso 08:57, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
Great presentation, Jim. I am in agreement with you that an award like this would be a great thing. I would only hope that it would honor people like our presenter of a few weeks ago that are "doing good" with the internet, and not end up going to the bigger guys of corporations. With an eye to education, there's a lot of room to improve upon education on the internet. Virtual High School is one that seems to be a great idea. While i haven't done my homework here as to whether this is a "big corporation" that shouldn't be eligible, the idea is that it makes advanced classes available to those who attend small schools or schools that just can't afford to teach specialized courses. It's been growing quite a bit recently, and has such potential to make high quality education available to a very large audience. The internet is such a great tool - it would be great to put the challenge out there for people to do great things with it and reward them for their efforts.
3. Shannon Halbrook --Mrshannon 00:13, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
Good job, Jim. Your presentation was impressive and polished, and the clips you chose were relevant and funny. I liked the lightly ironic tone throughout and I thought your idea would be a good way to bring internet achievement even further into the mainstream. It would also encourage further achievement in areas that are socially beneficial and not necessarily lucrative. But I was left wondering what people or organizations you might give the award to, today, if you had a chunk of money and final say. (During class you mentioned Maidan, that's a great example.) And I'd like to see you develop your ideas a little further about what would make an award-worthy achievement -- who would benefit from the person's work? how much impact would their work have to have in the offline world? The Nobel prizes are categorized; would your award be categorized as well? What might the categories look like? What are your criteria for quantifying or identifying an online achievement with significant enough impact (on- or offline) to merit an award? Coming up with specific answers to these questions, I think, would solidify your proposal and also make the project more attractive to an organization or foundation able to put up the money. Great work!
April 29
Group presentation
Group 1: Google in China: Melissa Fregosi & Luke Gaudreau
View the slideshow from the presentation
update for whoever asked about Google's advertising market share, I found a report from ChinaIntelliconsulting. It reports Baidu at 62% and Google at 22.7%.--Luke 18:12, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
--Mfregosi 20:31, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
Group 2: Teaching Media Literacy: What Are Teachers Doing Today and What Does The Future Hold? Sara Russo --Srusso 11:11, 8 March 2008 (EST)
Respondents
Group 1 respondents
1. William Tam. --Williamctam 21:21, 6 April 2008 (EDT) - Thank you for doing the presentation and I really enjoyed it. The material was very well organized and comprehensive. Censorship is a very sensitive issue and has a very long history in China. Google being a foreign company operating in China will certainly have to follow the Chinese censorshp guideline. It can't ignore the local censorship requirements otherwise it might risk to be told to leave the country. For the Chinese, easing censorhip will be a lengthy process and I don't think Google can fight this on its own. I agree what you said that Google's presence in the Chinese market is desirable despite its compliance with local censorship laws. Good job!
2. Andre Monteiro --Andre Monteiro 21:33, 6 April 2008 (EDT) Great presentation! It sounded very clear and objective. The statistics and charts are backing up what you say very well. As I mentioned earlier, on the "International Censorship and Filtering" class discussion page, I do agree that Google’s restricted presence in China is desirable. Further studies could help show ways to how big companies could bargain to gain more freedom of information in the country.
3.
Group 2 respondents
1. Sarah, I appreciated your presentation. As resident library nerd, I've been keeping a watchful eye on the development of media literacy in education as well. I took a class as an undergrad that was about using technology in the classroom. All of the other students were practicing teachers taking the class as professional development. I found that much of the focus was on getting these teachers up to speed on using specific technology. Very little attention was given to the impact that appropriate use of technology can have in the classroom. As you and others mentioned, continued training of teachers is currently a neglected aspect of teaching media literacy. I feel like there's a bit of a chicken/egg problem here: until media literacy is taught properly to teachers, they will not be able to incorporate it properly into their curriculum. As you noted, no one is entirely sure how to teach it...I think a multidisciplinary approach would be best...team taught classes. Profs with backgrounds in education, journalism, information science, computer science, law, and psychology could all be meaningful contributors to this discipline. I think there's a real opportunity for Harvard GSE to be a pioneer in this endeavor. I can't recall the names of the two distinct groups you mentioned, but the dichotomy between giving students '21st century skills' in terms of skills needed for work, and the loftier goal of skills required to be an engaged citizen, making meaningful contributions, is one that always crops up. Personally, I think the goals of the 2nd group (supporting the more esoteric learning goals) will in fact in the long run contribute more to 'job skills' than would the group focused more directly on job skills.
--Luke 17:33, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
2.
3.
May 3
Group presentation
Group 1: Chris Crosby - Politics and Money -] [1]
