Author: john

People with WiFi spend more time online

People with WiFi spend more time online (Ars Technica)

A recent Pew report finds that home WiFi users surf the Internet more and also differently. This shouldn’t come as a suprise — especially to any self-reflective Internet user who has gone through the broadband to WiFi progression themselves. The report finds that wireless users check e-mail more (72% vs 63%) and news more (46% vs 38%) than typical broadband users.

This scratches the surface of what I have suspected for some time: as your Internet access capability changes, your whole conception of “being online” changes too. To be specific–I would argue that this goes far beyond just being “online more.” Instead, I would argue that the Internet becomes more tightly integrated with countless aspects of life. The ease in which one can search for information on Wikipedia, find a recipe, or now even watch an interesting video transforms the online experience into something far more intimate than a walk to the computer room to check e-mail and news.

Naturally, these are only my own speculations.  Hopefully future Pew reports will delve deeper into how individuals experience being online. Perhaps getting beyond type and quantity of use is something that’s ill-fit to survey analysis.

Here’s a link to the full report.

Cyberbullying and schools

Cyberbullying and schools: where does a principal’s authority end?

Proposed legislation on cyberbullying might do well at addressing free speech concerns as well as educating students in the public application of media law. Regarding the First Amendment:

This is obviously an extreme example of what can happen, but it’s a reminder of why legislation is even possible. Although most speech is protected by the First Amendment, knee-jerk “You can’t regulate free speech!” reactions aren’t helpful in this case, as free speech protections are a complex field of law. Threats, for instance, aren’t protected. The First Amendment Center, which looked into the issue, says that “true threats are not protected by the First Amendment. Students should be aware that threatening comments in general—on the Internet or not—could subject them not only to school discipline but also to criminal punishment.”

However, instad of running to the courts some states are wisely putting discipline in the hands of the school districts–who might be more familiar with the intricacies of a given problem.

So how is Washington [state] handling the issue? State senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles has introduced SB.5288, a bill that would require school districts to create cyberbullying prevention policies. Her legislation does not lay down many rules, instead directing each school district to amend its current anti-bullying policy (all Washington school districts have had such a policy in place since 2002). Cyberbullying would not become a crime, but simply another issue for local school districts to handle.

While there is a possibility that in public schools, this could become state-sponsored speech supression, in most cases I’m sure it’s best to leave it to the locals. Unfortunately, it may not do much to educate children to be responsible Internet citizens.

DNS “switch” to Inet

I, Cringely . The Pulpit . Just Say No | PBS

This article is touting one man’s plan to change the Internet. Technical, social, and political problems aside, the transition plan sounds like the ill-fated “AB Switch” for switching between a broadcast and cable signal (before cable operators were required to carry broadcast signals).

Inet would operate its own DNS system parallel to the one run by ICANN. That’s not really such a big deal, you know. Certainly a different DNS with different rules would not be hard to build from a technical or even a financial standpoint, and it could exist on the current network right alongside the current DNS system. The big question is why people would use it. They wouldn’t at first, because without traffic and participating servers such a DNS would be useless, and that’s why David proposes an Inet DNS filter as a crossover between the old/evil system the new/good one.

A free browser patch would install a virtual switch. Click on the switch, and you route your calls through the Inet DNS Filter, and if appropriate, Inet’s own DNS system.

From the Turner Broadcasting v. FCC (520 U.S. 180) decision:

The second alternative appellants urge is the use of input selector or “A/B” switches, which, in combination with antennas, would permit viewers to switch between cable and broadcast input, allowing cable subscribers to watch broadcast programs not carried on cable. Congress examined the use of A/B switches as an alternative to must carry and concluded it was “not an enduring or feasible method of distribution and . . . not in the public interest.”

While a browser AB Switch wouldn’t suffer from the same kinds of technical problems, attempting to exert greater control over content on the Internet through naming seems a bit far-fetched.

Zoeller Sues to Find Author of Wikipedia Post

Zoeller Sues to Find Author of Web Post – washingtonpost.com

This may be the first  Internet defamation case of a public figure in what I have been calling the application of media law to the public. Here, a defamatory allegation of drug and family abuse was added to the Wikipedia entry of golfer Fuzzy Zoeller. As a public figure, he’d have to meet the high standard of “actual malice:”

  • Are the allegations true? (who knows)
  • Are they defamatory? (probably yes in this case)
  • Were they published? (While technically anyone on the Internet could have read the Wikipedia article, there is a remote chance that this question could turn on how many people accessed the article while the defamatory words were posted.  If they were deleted by the first person to load the page, there is a possibility it might not be considered “published.”)
  • Was Zoller identified? (clearly)
  • Finally, was it published with “wreckless disregard for the truth?”

This last part is the tricky one. Under the standard of actual malice, reporters and publishers will usually attempt to show that the defamatory words were published after a good-faith effort to verify their truth. However, without the usual forms of editorial review that preceed conventional publication, it might not be so easy to maintain this legal standard. Even if there have been public figure defamation cases involving anonymous speech (I’m not aware of any), there likely has always been a reviewing publisher who could act as the target of the suit.

As media law becomes applied to the publishing public, can these legal rules built under the assumptions of traditional publishing be maintained?