Berkman in the News
Bruce Schneier, fellow at Harvard Law School’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society and author of “Data and Goliath: The Hidden Battles to Collect Your Data and Control Your World” I think it’s posturing. It’s basically the same thing that the U.S. says, and the U.S. hacks foreign government and corporate networks all the time. The problem is that there aren’t any laws that protect foreign networks, and there aren’t any relevant international treaties that limit commercial espionage. So I wouldn’t expect China to be any less aggressive on the Internet than the U.S. is.
Zittrain’s digital street cred is as powerful as his law school position: He is also a professor of computer science at Harvard and a co-founder and director of the university’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society. Zittrain’s paper proposed the implementation of Perma.cc, a service that allows authors to submit their links to the service for archiving.
“One of the crucial insights from the research is that toxic behavior doesn’t necessarily come from terrible people; it comes from regular people having a bad day,” says Justin Reich, a research scientist from Harvard’s Berkman Center, who has been studying Riot’s work. “That means that our strategies to address toxic behavior online can’t be targeted just at hardened trolls; they need to account for our collective human tendency to allow the worst of ourselves to emerge under the anonymity of the Internet.”
Marvin Ammori, Susan Crawford, Tim Wu Legal scholars, Stanford, Harvard, Columbia universities The open-Internet brigade.
Susan Benesch is the Faculty Associate of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School and Director of the Dangerous Speech Project, where she has a built a framework to identify dangerous speech and diminish its violent effects, while upholding freedom of expression. In India for a public lecture and to begin work on a three-year study, she spoke to Rukmini S. about the Internet as a means to disseminate dangerous speech content. Excerpts:
Security experts, however, believe this could cause trouble. There are a lot of unanswered questions around these “always listening” devices that have yet to be answered, such as how they can use the data, who they can share it with, and whether or not they’re using the data for alternative purposes.”[The license agreements] have an extraordinarily wide latitude,” Bruce Schneier, a fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law, said to Business Insider. “And that’s a huge worry.”
Bruce Schneier is a well known cybersecurity author and fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School. He agrees with the premise that the government is well positioned to spur cybersecurity innovations and believes it should. “There’s a lot of room for governments to step in and solve problems the markets can’t,” he said.
Josephine Wolff, an assistant professor of public policy and computing security at Rochester Institute of Technology and a faculty associate at Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society, suggests that the FTC should develop a “very detailed, specific, rigorous list of the most effective data security practices for companies.” She suggested that “anyone who failed to meet those standards could be held responsible.”
This is “watered-down legalese that means nothing,” said Andy Sellars, a fellow at Harvard Law School’s Cyberlaw Clinic, calling it a free speech issue. Defamation — which comprises a false statement of fact, made knowingly, that can be proven to cause harm — is already a civil wrong, thus rendering the clause in Grill 225’s policy unnecessary and “profoundly stupid,” he said.“If I said the service was terrible — ‘terrible’ is an opinion, you can’t sue someone for that,” he said, noting that a quick scan of Grill 225’s Yelp reviews show them to be quite opinion-laden. “Very few reviews would actually be defamation.”