Category: Mass Communication Law

Declaration of Internet Freedom, from…

Earlier today, “the internet” posed a Declaration of Internet Freedom.

Readers of this blog would probably guess that these are principles I would stand behind.

What is perhaps interesting about the declaration is what is left out: who or what are we as the Internet declaring freedom from?

It is pretty clear that this statement is targeted at:

  1. States that wish to regulate the Internet, and
  2. (Largely) corporate interests who act as internet service providers and own the wires that make up the ‘net.

Perhaps unlike other declarations, Internet Freedom is completely dependent on both states and providers going along with the principles. This does not defeat the proposition, however. States and corporations are made up of people, who decide to put pressure in the right places to ensure that the declaration is upheld in practice.

The flip side of “freedom from ___” is “freedom to ___.” The 5 propositions set a great baseline for the Internet to enable a lot more freedom of doing.

Make your voice heard.

Crowdsourcing tech law

The Internet BlueprintA few days ago, the tech advocacy group Public Knowledge unveiled a website (The Internet Blueprint) where the public can propose bills, vote on other users’ submissions, and where groups and congresspeople/senators can get behind the proposal. It’s actually pretty close to the model that I suggested for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, some time back. The site gets right to the heart of the matter that geeks have quite a bit to offer, in terms of how to structure our “east coast code” to jibe well with computer (“west coast”) code.

The one thing it slightly lacks is a community element. While there’s voting, and the ability to get behind a proposal, I think the tools to generate a real online community around an initiative could really 1) show where the momentum is, and 2) craft the greatest solutions from many/great minds. I’m thinking of a “My Barack Obama” like website for tech law. Both are/were built in Drupal, so the possibility is most definitely there!

 

FERPA Nuts

A short while ago, Georgia Tech announced that a 14 year long site hosting course wikis was being closed over FERPA concerns (this post on the story has a good quick overview of the law). The site had been around longer than Wikipedia. That’s what I call educational innovation!

A GT professor notes all of the great learning activities the wikis enabled, and ties it squarely to the idea of constructionism. As a space where knowledge is collectively built and refined, wikis are a natural fit for this teaching style. It’s an approach that I’m personally invested in supporting (I’m helping to build a tool here at UW to do it).

The point that interests me most is the tie between law and constructionism. While some might say that the shutdown happened because “it’s the law,” I would argue that this is oversimplifying complicated legislation. In fact, I would argue that unclear cases like this are really one institution’s interpretation of the law.

What’s the connection to constructionism? While the legal system is designed to work out ambiguity, it can’t scale to answer every single question under its domain. Its cases like this were we collectively determine the boundaries of the law based on our decisions. GT has made its choice in how to construct FERPA, but its far from decided law. I would argue there is space for balancing the intent of the law with what it is designed to protect — learners (who need to do their learning in a variety of ways).

More reading:

The EFF needs to adopt an open source model

Lessig’s analogy between legal and computer code is one that we should explore a little more deeply. We are caught in a seemingly intractable pull between digital modes of expression that push the boundaries of copyright, and a content industry (with government support) that pushes for even stronger copyright protection. If copyright were a computer program, we might call this a “bug.”

Other than the American Library Association, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has perhaps done the most to give “the public” a seat at the copyright law negotiating table (as the 1976 Copyright Act is continually being revised through legislation and Executive action). From the outside, however, the organization appears to be a bit “old school.” The model of donating money to fund lawyers to mount defenses and to argue at the copyright table, in my opinion has a limited value.  Additionally, the number of issues that the EFF involves themselves in (the list of their causes is here, on the right) perhaps waters down their ability to fight specific fights on the intellectual property front.

There are, however, a large number of people, lawyers, and scholars who are interested in each of these issues.  In many cases, their interest extends to expertise and perhaps passion about these issues. I see this as a great, untapped resource.

In my work with open source communities (most specifically, Drupal), I have seen how a hive mind can attack extremely complex and systemic problems. Often, only one or two people have a grasp on a full project. Yet, a large community is available to identify existing bugs, suggest (and debate!) how to fix them, and to actually do the work of making changes.

Copyright (in addition to all of the other issues the EFF is involved in) is a similarly complex problem, but perhaps one where more coordinated action might have more success in bringing true change to the law. To use another analogy, the “linux approach” to organizing multiple communities of interest to work together on individual issues might work better than the “microsoft approach” of unilaterally attempting to speak for the public interest.

As Litman said some years ago, “our copyright policy is becoming our information policy.” Something as important and complex as an information policy is worth distributing the workload on — and I think the EFF is a group with enough clout to make it happen. Funding lawyers for legal defenses is absolutely necessary, but the need for that defense will decrease if a coordinated public outcry succeeds in changing the law.