Notes from 11/22 meetinggreenspun.com : LUSENET : 6805-team-6 : One Thread
Here is how the outline stands as of today's meeting. Note that Lauren will be doing Goals and Definitions, Michelle will be doing Metaphors, Lydia and Kristina will be doing Architectures, and Ben and Enoch will be doing Evaluations/Feasibility and Projections (dont' remember which is which).
(1) Should be free exchange of ideas, information, data -- including system weaknesses, collaborative information. (2) Commercial uses should be viable and available (3) Individual users should feel safe and private (4) Easy to use (?)
(1) Everyone should know what the rule is. (2) Private space is allowed and possibly encouraged. * Ownership implies some right to establish privacy / If you own space or elements of space on the internet, you have a right to establish and maintain private space. * Open questions: leasing, workplace, schools, etc. (3) Privacy includes the right of self-determination (4) There should be some publicly-accessible space
Discuss other metaphors
Property -- Street of doors, both public and private, as web page hacking Property -- Evolution of targeted marketing (door-to-door salesmen, telemarketing), as spamming
Metaphors are inadequate; must break down into concepts
Recommendation: Containers as the basis property
Building blocks, legally speaking -- define what property and liability rules are, contract modifications, etc. Building blocks, technologically speaking -- define what P3P is, etc., encryption
Legal: Following are my notes from today's discussion of the specific architectures I suggested in the "Where to begin with architecture" thread. Kristina also had a suggestion that involved an article by Reed, unforunately I do not remember what it was! Could you post it again for us?
Goal: Everyone Should Know What the Rule Is -- The "requiring tagging" regime results in fewer mistakes than in a speed limit regime, which is important because privacy is an important right and we want the regime that will tread upon it the least; it is also a less chilling regime and will make people feel freer about moving around in cyberspace. It will also force users to think carefully about labeling and will extend protection only to those things that are deserving. However, it may result in overprotection. Note also that sometimes there will not be tagging.
Goal: Private Space Is Allowed and Possibly Encouraged -- See my earlier post in the "Where to begin with architecture" thread; please remember to read it and comment as we didn't talk about this today.
Goal: Privacy Includes the Right to Self-Determination -- See my earlier post in the "Where to begin with architecture" thread. Not much discussion; everyone seemed to agree with the contractability of property entitlements.
Goal: There Should Be Some Publicly-Accessible Space -- What exactly is a public space? Any space that benefits the public, whether read, write, or execute. Free browsing, free ability to contribute to bulletin boards (which the market will presumably provide).
Technological: See Lydia's posts in the "Where to begin with Architecture."
Inherent rectriction -- inherently protected because encrypted; protected in a foolproof way; don't need an active agent like a mailman, who can be bribed. This can protect readable stuff.
Explicit control -- trusted agent (mail server, etc.) acts like a guard at the gate and decides whether to let you in. Write permissions must be through trusted agents (Is this true?). Execute permissions must be through trusted agents as well.
EVALUATIONS AND FEASIBILITY
How well do these architectures meet our goals?
How likely are they to be adopted -- what are possible roadblocks and inroads?
Robustness with changing technology
How this affects other areas such as copyright, freedom of speech, sovereignty, etc.
-- Anonymous, November 23, 1998
From Michelle's post: ******************************************************************** Kristina also had a suggestion that involved an article by Reed, unforunately I do not remember what it was! Could you post it again for us? *********************************************************************
In the Harold Reeves' article from the additional readings for the trespass section ("Property in Cyberspace," 63 U. Chi. L. Rev. 761), Reeves points out that while boundary definition is central to defining and protecting property, all cyberspace boundaries should not be set at the system level, the point where the majority of current boundaries are drawn. When interests which need to be protected are best served by setting boundaries at the individual level or by eliminating boundaries and creating an open system, this should be done.
We have already discussed individual level boundaries in the context of privacy and we recommend (I think) that individual's be given the right to determine what is private and what is public.
The idea of an open system was addressed to some extent in our discussion of crackers v. hackers and whether we should permit access by hackers because they point out system flaws, encourage better code or programming and may produce useful information. [I will address my views on hacking in that discussion thread.]
My point is that we should discuss the open system or 'no boundaries' approach in the legal architecture section and (I hope) find a way to incorporate it into our proposal. Open systems conflict with individual rights to determine access, so this is a tricky issue. But I think that there should be situations where individual determinations of who should have access are overridden by more important values. (This happens with crime detection and prevention. I think this should occur with hackers, with appropriate limits.)
I realize that in cyberspace there is no clear boundary between commercial and private space. But just as there is fair use in copyright law, which reflects a determination that society is better off by limiting overprivatization of copyrighted works, I think there is an argument for an open systems approach to cyberspace problems like hacking because such activities may have substantial costs and benefits that go beyond individual users or specific systems.
I need to develop this more, but now you have the basic idea.
-- Anonymous, November 23, 1998