Ideas for a Better Internet :: The Future of the Internet

Ideas for a Better Internet

January 25th, 2012 | by aliciasn | Published in i4bi

Ideas for a Better Internet, or i4bi, is an interdisciplinary course at Harvard and Stanford that challenges students from law, computer science, and public policy to come up with novel and plausible ways to improve the Internet and its use. i4bi centers on immersing participants in Internet history, technologies, and politics, so that students can come up with ideas that help to build a better Internet — however they define “better.”The most recent cycle of i4bi began in spring 2011, when students solicited ideas from the public in categories such as Content & Creativity, Privacy & Identity, and Social & Democratic Change. By interacting with the broader community, i4bi aimed to make good on the belief that it espoused in its original call for development of ideas that “such a project needs to be connected to the collective intelligence of the whole web community rather than just taking in great ideas from the outside and then processing them solely in the ivory towers of exclusive committees or working groups.” In short, i4bi wanted to be sure that the ideas it would develop would matter and would take place in the context of what is already happening online, not only for students enrolled in the course, but also for the worldwide community of individuals interested in Internet regulation, law, content, and architecture.

Along with conversations with people from civil society, industry, research, and government, these ideas received from the public served as the genesis for the eight project teams across Harvard and Stanford that convened in autumn 2011. Through bi-weekly meetings throughout the fall followed by an intensive three-week design seminar during January 2012 at Stanford, each project team developed a project that it presented at the Ideas for a Better Internet Summit alongside presentations and a panel featuring thought leaders and luminaries from both the public and private sectors.

The public event garnered over 600 registrants in less than 24 hours, a sign of interest in big picture assessments of the Internet and its future. We’re considering expanding i4bi beyond the traditional classroom, perhaps by drawing in members of the public as ongoing in-person participants. As the original i4bi call for ideas stated, the “Internet has succeeded because of its unique openness to innovation, collaboration and the development of ideas and standards that have encouraged this” openness, and the future of i4bi will continue to hone innovative methods that carry forward the very best of its ideas.

2010 Fall Term Cyberlaw Seminar: Cybersecurity and Cyberlaw Projects
Four Quadrants of Cybercrime
The Institutional Structure of Cyberlaw
Internet Freedom and China: A Framework for Analysis

2011 January Term Joint Harvard-Stanford Cyberlaw Seminar: Cybersecurity and Cyberlaw Projects
Pharos
WikiWhistles

2012 January Term Joint Harvard Stanford Ideas for a Better Internet Seminar: Group Projects
Mesh Networking
FOIAbase
StudyWith
Privacy Pledge
Moby Dick Project
DataWatch
Mirror As You Link
Mozilla Collusion

Comments are closed.

Blog

OS X Mountain Lion and Gatekeeper

This week, Apple announced that it was moving to a new, faster OS X operating system development cycle, starting with the release of Mountain Lion next summer. It previewed a number of features for the OS, and released some parts in beta.

Mountain Lion is slated to include a feature called Gatekeeper as part of the security and privacy settings. Gatekeeper allows administrators (those with full privileges on a Mac) to limit the applications that can run on the Mac. They can choose among allowing apps downloaded from the Mac App Store only, or apps from outside the Store so long as they are digitally signed to Apple’s satisfaction by their developers, or apps from anywhere. (The latter has been the way both Mac and Windows PCs have worked, for better or worse, since the introduction of the Apple II in 1977.) Read more »

GPS-based Insurance Rates: The Devil is in the (Data) Details

A British insurance company called Motaquote has teamed up with TomTom, the GPS manufacturer to offer insurance prices based on data gathered by GPS. Fair Pay Insurance, Motaquote’s new program, is an opt-in insurance pricing scheme where drivers will get a free GPS unit in return for potentially lower (but possibly higher) premiums. The GPS unit will provide all the traditional navigational services as well as warn drivers when they corner too sharply or brake too hard. Read more »

Controlling Cyberspace

This semester, we’re starting an exciting new class, aimed not at lawyers, but undergraduate CS students here at Harvard. It’s called CS42: Controlling Cyberspace – and we’re sharing the syllabus online. Anything big we’re missing? Read more »

Computers Going Wild?

Computers Gone Wild: Impact and Implications of Developments in Artificial Intelligence on Society was an informal discussion that took place at Harvard Law School on December 8^th, 2011. Hosted by Jonathan Zittrain, Marin Soljačić and the Berkman Center for Internet & Society, we brought together eighteen mostly local guests to discuss the ways that AI is changing society. Unlike futuristic predictions involving the Singularity or the underlying technology, this workshop explored current technology. Sessions included discussions on warfare, finance, education, and labor. Below is a list of attendees and a summary of the discussion.

Microsoft Echoes Apple App Store Requirements

Here at Future of the Internet, we’ve already talked a little bit about Apple’s content requirements for both the iOS and Mac App Stores in JZ’s The PC is Dead post. As JZ said,

“Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist Mark Fiore found his iPhone app rejected because it contained “content that ridicules public figures.” Fiore was well-known enough that the rejection raised eyebrows, and Apple later reversed its decision. But the fact that apps must routinely face approval masks how extraordinary the situation is: tech companies are in the business of approving, one by one, the text, images, and sounds that we are permitted to find and experience on our most common portals to the networked world. Why would we possibly want this to be how the world of ideas works, and why would we think that merely having competing tech companies—each of which is empowered to censor—solves the problem?”

Apple’s approach is an example of a larger phenomenon. Read more »