Internet Studies

Here is what I submitted for this assignment:

From its inception, the Internet was designed and created as a network that could not be centrally controlled. Since then, its astonishing growth rate made it even harder to control. The Internet cannot be governed from physical, logical and social standpoints.

Firstly, what is Internet governance? Law professor Yochai Benkler (2000) proposed to divide information architecture such as the Internet into three layers: infrastructure, logical and content layers. In other words, the physical, logical and social aspects that should be addressed when governing the Internet.

With regards to the infrastructure layer, the inability to govern the Internet lies in its past and its architecture. The Internet was developed by academics as a network of separate networks in order to withstand a nuclear attack. These scholars developed a decentralised peer-to-peer network with no hierarchy structure. All the network’s nodes are equal to access and contribute to the network without precedence. That is, there is no one single network, but decentralised network of networks with no central server. Thus, there is no one central authority to control and exert its rules over the Internet (Maslen, 1996).

The Internet protocols suite uses a packet based data transfer protocol. This protocol divides the content into individual packets of data and sends them to their destination through the shortest available route without any regards to their actual content. There is no gatekeeper along the way to verify legibility of the content. Therefore, within the infrastructure layer, at the moment, there is no means of exercising control.

Many of the Internet administration duties in the logical layer are currently being overseen by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and do not represent the shift to internationalisation of the Internet. ICANN responsibilities include management of Domain Names registrations, IP address space allocations and management of generic and country code Top-Level Domains to name a few. Even though ICANN roles are mainly technical, they still have political, economic and social ramifications. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers is registered as non-profit public benefit corporation acting under US law and not a global one (King, 2004).

The problem is the difficulty in creating international cooperation and a balanced representation. Even though the Internet is primarily an American invention, it continues to spread world-wide. It is important that all the countries involved receive adequate representation. Many wish that the Internet Governance will be passed to the UN, or any other apolitical body without hidden motives of political or capital gain. Despite this, the reality is that developed countries are represented far more than developing countries and that intergovernmental cooperation may still be a utopian dream (Kapur, 2005).

One of the more comprehensive aspects of the three is the content layer where the actual Internet users interact. This layer involves issues of content access manipulation as well as legislation boundaries and jurisdiction. There are a few suggested models for governance such as the benevolent dictator, centralised democracy, peer production or community node-based user governance (Goldmann, 2006), none of which deals effectively with the most prevalent nature of the Internet; a decentralised network of networks encompassing the globe.

Content regulation and censorship need to be integrated into the Internet infrastructure in order to be utilised. One of the Internet qualities that aided its remarkable growth was its liberating ability to broadcast from every node. Conventional broadcasting mediums must abide by censorship regulations, as opposed to the Internet where every individual user can express their views openly and freely. Various governments would like to exert some level of content regulation and some countries practice it more than others. China’s scheme of Internet censorship and surveillance is the most advanced in the world. The Chinese government built its censorship technology into the Internet infrastructure in order to be able to block user access to politically sensitive and objectionable content (Human Right Watch, 2006). Nevertheless, China is not a democracy and therefore should not be considered as a model for Internet governance. Increased governmental oversight and regulation of content on the web could hinder its openness and endanger its prospect development. However, at the present time—unless the technology has been developed intentionally, as in the case of China—there aren’t any technical mechanisms to practice censorship on the Internet.

Continuing with the content layer, traditional legal doctrines and national jurisdictions cannot be applied to the Internet due to its international nature. The Internet has developed as an open, free, possibly democratic medium but which comes with a price—Internet pollution and Cybercrime. These encompass such troubles as spam emails, spyware, viruses, identity theft and frauds as well as copyright and intellectual property rights infringements. Legal laws are linked to physical locality whereas the Internet is not limited by geographical or physical boundaries. This creates a problem with “off-shore” legislation. When the offender remains out of existing real-life legal boundaries, which local law will be implemented? (Johnson, Crawford & Palfrey, Jr., 2004)

A centralised government is not a possibility because of diversity in values in different countries. Different regulations and legal issues make it impossible to create one set of rules to fit all on a global scale. It also raises questions about what physical powers will this suggested body have to enforce its laws across the cyber space? Or how could it implement its regulations on a local basis? In “The Accountable Internet” (Johnson, Crawford & Palfrey, Jr., 2004), it was suggested that just like our real world, in our virtual world, we should exercise relevant and necessary practices of self-governance. Still, to go beyond this suggestion and assume that one set of laws will fit all is not a reality.

When we talk about governing the Internet we actually talk about control. Who and how can control the Internet? The medium in itself does not allow for its suppression. A centralised body with complete international cooperation to exert its rules on every country that connects to the network might be a utopian dream. Existing legal regimes are not suitable across the cyberspace. The inevitable answer to this question is the Internet cannot be governed.

References:

Benkler Y. (2000). From Consumers to Users: Shifting the Deeper Structures of Regulation Toward Sustainable Commons and User Access, New York University School of Law. Retrieved March 30, 2007.

Goldmann A. (2006). Community Node-Based User Governance (CNBUG): Applying Craigslist’s Techniques to Decentralized Internet Governance, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. Retrieved March 30, 2007.

Human Right Watch, (2006). “Race to the Bottom” Corporate Complicity in Chinese Internet Censorship. Retrieved March 30, 2007.

Johnson D., Crawford S. & Palfrey, Jr., J. (2004). The Accountable Internet: Peer Production of Internet Governance, Virginia Journal of Law & Technology, University of Virginia, vol. 9, no. 9. Retrieved March 30, 2007 .

King I. (2004). Internet Governance: An Analysis of the Need for Change School of Law, Languages & Social Sciences.

Kapur A.( 2005). Internet Governance - A Primer, United Nations Development Programme–Asia-Pacific Development. Retrieved March 30, 2007.

Maslen P. (1996). Control, Change and the Internet. Retrieved March 30, 2007.

Well, I just submitted my first uni essay for this course. The assignment was to write a 1000 words essay about: The Internet Cannot Be Governed - Discuss. It was a good exercise in writing, grammar and proper referencing. I am actually a bit afraid and hopeful at the same time of the outcome.
Keep my fingers crossed.

Benevolent Dictatorship Model

Centralised non-democratic governance where the users consent to terms and conditions of the service provider/dictator. The perfect example is AOL.com online community.

Democracy Model

The users elect a body of representative that is entrusted to govern the Internet for a limited time. One of the biggest problems with this model is differing global values, customs and attitudes. Also, all the countries need to agree to accept the body’s decision. This can cause a problem with non-democratic countries such as China, Cuba and Iran that currently limit their citizen’s Internet access.
Moreover, it would be unlikely that Internet-based government would have the authority and police power to enforce its rulings.

Peer Production Model

In this model, there isn’t a centralised body but a decentralised and self-governed by the user. As a perfect example, could be eBay or many other communities’ web sites. Problems with this model include difficulties in ability to keep anonymous, misuse of trust and as usual vast geographic boundaries and locations with different laws and regulations.

Community Node-Based User Governance

This is the model that is suggested in this article. This model is decentralised and democratic as well as self-governed. In this model, there are real-life localities named community nodes where each user can help govern the community without the need to rely on a central body. Each community member decides independently what content (and not user) should or should not be removed from the community.

Here are things that came to my mind while reading about proposed model:

1. What if a few users decided together to flag or eliminate postings? They may not be able to remove a member but they might have interior motives to affect their actions and decisions.
   Quote: …angry online mob that could collectively fulfil the flagging threshold requirements of posts they disagreed with… sophisticated technological safeguards that limit the amount individual user can flag in a day… (page 24)
   These actions does not have to happen within a day or be done by one person but it can be done against someone.
2. Quote: Hence, proactive and interested users can reliably act on behalf of and in the best interests of their community. (page 15). Maybe I am biased because I like to decide for myself what is for my best interests but to have others decide that? And in the best interest of whom?
3. This model is better suited for geographically-based communities (physical locality) but one of the best features of the Internet is its universally access to any resource anywhere. I believe this models rellies too heavily on real world communities that cannot be implemented to the web.
4. How would those community nodes get initiated? Also, who will be in charge of removing the bad content? What if one community finds it offensive but another community doesn’t? This model really divides a medium that by definition is open and accessible to all. What if the accused didn’t agree with the flagging and wanted to protect himself? Who will he turn to for arbitration purposes?
5. This model is taken from Craigslist web site, which works well for one site but how can you imply from it to the entire of the Internet a s a global model.
6. The US First Amendment discusses freedom of speech. Even though it is not a universal law, I believe it is a good one to abide by. This model does not support freedom of speech.
7. I also a flagging system that is automated without the need for human interference and review a bit scary especially when involving actual living persons. Also, who will decide the flagging threshold? And will it be decided by click streams? These can be manipulated (as suggested in point 1).
8. Quote: …local representatives elected to oversee a node… (page 23)
   What local representatives? How can you define a local body when many community web sites on the web spread further than geographic locality?

In summary, I think that all the above models have their disadvantages but I strongly believe that the Community Node-Based User Governance is not the solution for governing the Internet.

Link: Alice Goldman, Community Node-Based User Governance (CNBUG): Applying Craigslist’s Techniques to Decentralized Internet Governance, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law (last viewed on March 26, 2007)

No comments

Here is a summary and my thought on Internet Governance - A Primer by Akash Kapur.

What is “Internet Governance”?

There is a conceptual confusion as to what Internet Governance means. Should it be approached in a pure technical way or also include the social, legal and economic consequences. Secondly, how can you have one government to rule the Internet in all the countries in the world? And thirdly, would existing organisations suffice or will we need a new system?

Internet Governance Issues by Layers

The Internet can be broken into three layers with each having different matters that need to be addressed:

• Infrastructure Layer—the technical architecture of the network.
• Logical Layer—administration of IP allocations and the Domain Name System as well as the software programs and protocols.
• Content Layer—what the web suers contribute and on this level, we would like to resolve issues concerning cybercrime. Intellectual properties rights and pollution control (for example spam emails)

The Internet is so difficult to govern due to its infrastructure that there isn’t one central server and that every node has equal rights to be able to contribute to the Internet content.

My thoughts on these issues so far are:
The Internet purpose when it started was to enable information sharing between scholars; which is what I believe is the biggest advantage to its success. When you think of it, it is a contradiction to military concept of control of information and knowledge from the top on a need to know bases. But it didn’t take DARPA long to disconnect their network from the Internet one once it expanded into public domain.

These ideas are important to acknowledge because the internet’s success does, to a significant extent depend on its free and open culture…. (Page 7)

Back to the Primer…

The Infrastructure Layer

In this context we need to look at three levels of Internet access providers: international, national and local (regional) service providers. There are no international regulations and developing countries suffer due to high costs and no financial gain to small business in developing the infrastructure in regional areas. Also, lack of content stored on local servers increases the costs of international connectivity. By having a governing body in place, we can ensure better development of the network infrastructure in undeserved areas to provide universal access to all.

The Logical Layer

Without standards specifications, the Internet can be developed by private organisations using proprietary specifications that will restrict the openness and interoperability of the Internet and its components. A good example is the browser standards wars a few years ago when some web sites worked (and some still are) only on Internet Explorer browser.

Furthermore, the management of the Domain name System is entrusted in the hands of ICANN, which functions under the US government and apparently favours some industries over others. This management should be done by a neutral apolitical organisation.

The Content Layer

Internet pollution is a general term that refers to illegal and harmful actions such as spam emails, viruses, spyware and more. These reduce the level of trust of the average user in the network even more.
Other issues in this layer involve identity theft, cybercrime, financial fraud, security attacks, copyright issues and more. Another issue is the criminal liability of service providers.

Link: Akash Kapur (2005), Internet Governance: A Primer, UNDP-APDIP

We had a couple of friends coming to visit us on the island for the past week. It’s been really fun having them but also very time consuming. Waz and I are having the day off work tomorrow to recuperate but it’s also an excellent chance for me to get into my essay assignment for NET12.

Ian Peter is trying to find an answer to who really invented the Internet but all he does is prove that the US didn’t invent the Internet. I think that he might have had a problem with his definition of what he was looking for; was it concepts and ideas of an Internet, the actual transmission of the first packets, the protocols that control the transmission, the hardware and infrastructure or the GUI applications?

One of the arguments in the article I truly agree with is its ending paragraph:

Multiple events, multiple players, and multiple points of origin need to be mentioned in any sensible understanding of the emergence of the Internet. Any claim by a nation, project, person, or team of individuals, or participants in any single event to “the beginnings of the Internet” is rubbish. Further, any claim that the validity or legitimacy of any structure or arrangement can be justified as Internet governance purely because it arose from one of these events is false.

How could we really define the start of the Internet? It is a process that multiple events contributed to its creation. Another example could be the creation of the first form of colour photographic reproduction. The Lumiere brothers developed the first properly viable colour photographic process in 1907 and it used on ideas a James Clark Maxwell had demonstrated more than 40 years earlier (1). Besides how does anything start? If you ask me it starts with an idea but an idea is not enough to turn into a reality.

Further more, the decision on what events were the most significant can be a relative opinion. One of the exercises in NET11 is to select what are the five most important steps in the history of the Internet. There was not one student that selected the same five events.

Another thing that seems sounds like sour grapes is the position taken against the US:
Quoting Kim Veltman (emphaisis is mine):

It seems false to claim that America invented the Internet and is simply misleading to argue that because America invented the Internet, it is their right to control its governance through organizations such as the Internet Assigned Names Authority (IANA) and more recently the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).

I am not trying to argue against this claim but the reality is that the Internet has developed firstly in the USA before spreading to the rest of the world. How else will you explain the concentration of services available in the states? Or how come the international TLD, which every new business desires is the .com and not .com.us? On the other, why isn’t the governance authorities located in Switzerland, home of CERN?

In the end, though, it was another way to learn about the history of the Internet, by sharing some of the gossip with us, the readers.

1. Tom Fraser and Adam Banks, 2004, Designer’s Color Manual, Part 2 Chapter 4 Page 84

Link: Peter Ian (May 2005), So, who really did invent the Internet?
and a summary at Circle ID

Module 1—Internet and Protocols

Indiana University Technology Information Services, Knowledgebase, What is the Internet?

Coyle K, (1998), A Primer on Internet Privacy

HTML Source, The History of the Net

Clark D., (1998), The Design Philosophy of the DARPA Internet Protocols

Module 2—Net Communications

IT Security Staff, (November 2006), Hacking Email: 99 Email Security and Productivity Tips on IT Security, (Accessed on March 06, 2007)

Office of Privacy Commissioner,(March 2003), Guidelines on Workplace E-mail, Web Browsing and Privacy, (Accessed on March 15, 2007)

Module 3—e-Writing

Rutter R., (2005), The Elements of Typographic Style Applied to the Web
A practical guide to web typography

A List Apart, 16 Articles on the topic of Writing for the Web
How to write good. Writing to communicate. Writing and editing for the web. Copy as user interface.

How to write for the Web, USC Annenberg Online Journalism Review, University of Southern California’s Annenberg School for Communication

Module 4—Web Search and Evaluation

Barker J., (March, 2007), Finding Information on the Internet - A Tutorial, UC Berkeley - Teaching Library Internet Workshops, (Accessed March 15, 2007)

Smith C., (December, 2006), Searching and Evaluating Web Resources, Warwick- Centre for Academic and Professional Development, (Accessed March 15, 2007)

Missing Subjects

Blogs and RSS Feeds

Time Atlas, RSS Tutorial-How to Add RSS Feeds to FeedDemon, (Accessed on March 06, 2007)

Nottingham M., (2005), RSS Tutorial for Content Publishers and Webmasters, (Accessed on March 06, 2007)

Free RSS Reader

Microformats

Costello R., (2007), Tutorials on Microformats, (Accessed on March 06, 2007)

De Bruin R., (2006), Tails Export Extension for FireFox, (Accessed on March 06, 2007)

Social Bookmarking

del.icio.us
ma.gnolia.com

Any feedback??

I’ve tranferred all my attention to NET12 in the last few days and I’m a bit behind on my reading. Geez, there is a lot of required readings in that course. But I’ve decided that today I will review my selected resources for NET11 Resources Project and find my last few ones. Also I will start on my Design Document for NED11.

I tried to look for demographics inofrmation on photographers last night and either found none that are applicable or current or ones that cost a lot of money to get a hold off. So, I guess I will be using my own experience to decide what the target ausidence will be.

Any advice, anyone?

Many think of Photoshop as a very complicated application that is hard to learn how to use. Photoshop does have many advanced features but for simple operations, it can be quite intuitive. In this tutorial we will cover the following:

1. Introduction to Raster Images and Resolutions
2. Toolbox
3. Zoom and Marquee Tools
4. Deselect and Tab Key
5. Options Bar
6. Layers Palette
7. Image Size
8. Undo Command and the History Palette
9. Filters

Introduction to Raster Images and Resolutions

A raster (or bitmap) image is made out of pixels—small rectangular units that are set in a grid. Each pixel has one colour. The image resolution is set by the number of pixels there are per square inch. The more pixels there are the better the image quality but also the bigger the file size. A file size is a combination of its height, width and resolution. When we prepare images for the web, we do not need to save the image in a resolution higher than the screen resolution, meaning 72 pixels/inch, but it is better to have your work files in a higher resolution to have more subtle effects.

When you work with a raster image, you select a group of pixels to manipulate. For example, if you work on a person’s photo, you can’t just select his eye, but you can select the pixels that make his eye. I will get back to this concept in a minute. Let’s start by opening Photoshop and having a look at our Toolbox.

Toolbox

In the image below, I specified the different groups of tools you have in your toolbox.

If you hover your mouse over each tool, a popup tip will come up with the tool’s name and its keyboard shortcut. Tools that have a small arrow at the bottom right corner have more tools hiding underneath them. If you click on the tool and hold down the mouse, a menu will come up with the other tools that are available. The tools I use the most are: all your selection tools, the crop tool, healing tool, stamp tool, all the drawing and type tools, the hand tool and the zoom tool. We will be using a few for this tutorial. Next, open any photo.

Zoom and Marquee Selection Tools

Select the zoom tool and click anywhere in your photo. If you look at the bottom left corner of your image, you will notice that every time you click the magnify glass in the image, the zoom percentages increase. You can also click in that box to specify your desired zoom. Let’s type in 1600%—the biggest available zoom. You can see all the individual pixels that make your image. Now double click on the Hand tool to fit the image on your screen.

Next, select the marquee tool (top left tool in the toolbox).Click, hold down and drag it a cross your image. When you let go, you will have a rectangle that looks like it is made out of moving ants. This shows your selection. Whatever action you will do next will only get applied to these selected pixels. You can zoom in again (try a keyboard shortcut Spacebar + CTRL on Windows or Spacebar + CMD on a Mac to bring up the zoom tool) to see the edge of your selection. If you wish to zoom out, hold down the Alt key (OPN key on a Mac) as you click.

Deselect and Tab Key

To get rid of your selection, the easiest way is to use a keyboard shortcut CTRL + D (CMD + D on a Mac). Some might be used to using other vector programs that allow you to deselect an object by pressing Tab. If you press Tab in Photoshop, it will hide all your palettes. Press it again to get all your palettes back.

Options Bar

Every time you select a different tool in your toolbox, the Options bar (at the top below the menus) will change to reflect different options that are available for that particular tool. For example, with your marquee tool selected, you can see a drop-down menu that I use a lot. In it, you get a choice between normal selection, fixed aspect ratio (for example 3:2 like your usual printed photos) and fixed size (where you define the size of your selection box).

Layers Palette

The layers palette will be a good one to get to know. It will help you tremendously when you create a web page mock-up. If it is not already open, you can find it under the Window menu (or press F7). As you can see in the image below, I like to keep my Layers, Channels and Paths palettes grouped together. You can separate palette to float independently by clicking on the palette’s name tab, holding down and dragging it out. You can also group a few palettes together by dragging a palette into another till you see a black border.

Also, in the image, you can see that my layer is called Background and has a lock next to it. Most images that you will open for the first time in Photoshop will have only one Background layer. This means, there isn’t any layer below it. An image can have only one background. You cannot change the stacking order of a background, its blending mode, or its opacity. You cannot apply transparency to the Background layer. However, you can convert a background to a regular layer by double clicking on it. A window will open up asking you to give the layer a name (default name is Layer 0).

Layers allow you to stack groups of pixels on top of each other. Great when you are creating compositions. I will not cover how to use layers in this tutorial. Just wanted to mention them so, you are aware that you should use them.

Image Size

Go to the Image menu > select Image Size. In this window you can view your image dimensions in pixels and in other measurements units as well as its resolution. You can also change them. A couple of notes to remember: you can make an image smaller, but you can’t really make it bigger. When you make the image bigger, Photoshop will add pixels to your image that are not there and the image’s quality will decrease. Secondly, unless intentionally, you should always keep the Constrain Proportions checked.

Undo Command and the History Palette

Photoshop only has one Undo. Yes only one. To undo an operation, press CTRL + Z (CMD + Z on Mac). If you press it again, Photoshop will redo your last operation. Sounds scary, right? Good news is, you can use the History Palette to return a few commands back.

Filters

Photoshop offers many filters that create many effects. Go ahead and test them. You can undo/redo to see how a certain filter affected your image. Just remember to select No to saving changes when you close the image.

This was a very quick overview of some of the basic function in Photoshop that will help you start exploring it further. Hope you found it helpful.

In his article “Do Artifacts Have Politics?” Langdon Winner discusses a claim that technical things have political qualities. Winner starts by stating an obvious belief that people and nots things have politics but also says that technological advances have been described as democratising, liberating forces. These are political terms.

Winner illustrates two ways in which things may contain political properties:

1. Arrangement of a technological system can be a convenient means of establishing patterns of power and authority.
2. Certain technologies are inherently political and require certain types of political relationship.

Here are a few selected excerpts from the article:

What matters is not technology itself, but the social or economic system in which it is embedded.

Robert Moses’ bridges, after all were used to carry automobiles from one point to another; McCormick’s machines were used to make metal castings; both technologies, however, encompasses purposed beyond their immediate use…

This concept as been discussed in the course before: you review the Internet without considering its social, political and economical perspectives.

What we have here instead of an ongoing social processes in which scientific knowledge, technological invention, and corporate profit reinforce each other in deeply entrenched patterns, patterns that bear the unmistakeable stamp of political and economic power.

To see the matter solely in terms of cost cutting, efficiency, or the modernization of equipment is to miss a decisive element in the story… The things we call “Technologies” are ways of building order in our world… In the processes by which structuring decisions are made, different people are situated differently and possess unequal degrees of power as well as unequal levels of awareness.

That “democracy stops at the factory gate” was taken as a fact of life that had nothing to do with the practice of political freedom. But can the internal politics of technology and the politics of the whole community be so separated?

But as society adapts to the more dangerous and apparently indelible features of nuclear power, what will be the long-range toll in human freedom?

This is a good question. Winner says that company’s structure cannot be a democratic one if it aims to profit. I can give an example to support that from the opposite direction. In Israel, the kibbutz’s structure was built on a concept of equality. All for one and one for all. One of the reasons that structure has failed was because the kibbutzes were not profitable and many bankrupted and had to be dismantled to become private properties.

One of the last points Winner raises in the article is the prospect of sacrificing civil liberties. This point can be easily transferred to the Internet medium. Governments use “Protecting us, our freedom and our way of life” as a reason to monitor our activities on the web.

Reference: Langdon Winner, “Do Artifacts Have Politics?” The Whale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology. (Chicago: The University of Chicago, 1986) pp. 19-39