Why Freedom of Thought Requires Free Media

(And Why Free Media Require Free Software)

In this talk, I tried to explain the relationship between developments in media and the privacy issues we have been discussing. Media that watch you watching "content" are unlike the broadcast media of the 20th century. My analysis is partial, of course. Many important points are undiscussed. I leave them to you here.

I was just wondering if you could expand on what "Pretty Good Privacy" did? I am especially interested in the circumstances/reasons that the US government threatened to prosecute Mr. Zimmerman for his actions.

Thank you - Matt Cashia

-- MatthewGriffinCashia - 26 Nov 2012

1. I was wondering why the extension of the data storage period (to five years) regarding persons who are not suspected of any crime has not yet been challenged in a court (I guess for violation of the due process clause). Do you think the extension (as long as it is not based on a formal statute) might be upheld by any court of law in the United States?

2. The intended criminalization of visiting djihadist websites in France would not be the first occurrence of restricting the freedom to read (or to think) in post-World War II Western Europe. In certain European countries, owning a copy of certain specific types of files on one’s computer constitutes in itself a felony, apparently intended to destroy the market for these items – e.g. pictures representing pedophile acts or images glorifying the violent killing of persons. Do you think these statutes should be repealed altogether (as they are inconsistent with freedom of opinion) or do you thinks some limits are acceptable to freedom of opinion, but they should not be extended to the mere visiting of websites?

-- PeterLing - 27 Nov 2012

It was very depressing to hear that the 'media that watches you' can even delete books from your Kindle device. That was sad news for me.In addition:

1. I am also interested in Peter's question, above.

2. In the context of listening to this speech, and our other class discussions, it has been interesting to observe peoples' reactions to Facebook's proposed new data use policy which they circulated to all Facebook users in the past few weeks. There has been a general sense of unease and discomfit (resulting in odd FB posts where people employ fake legalese in an effort to protect their 'rights'.) However, once again, it is unclear whether this will be translated to people leaving Facebook or changing their behavior in any way. I have read through the proposed new data use policy and it is worth noting that their policy in respect to capturing information about you when you visit other websites does not appear to 'change' at all under the proposed guidelines (as referred to in Professor Moglen's speech). In both the current and proposed versions, it is clear that Facebook will collect this information: the devil you know (or sort of know), is the same as the proposed devil! For those interested, the proposed version reads: "We receive data whenever you visit a game, application, or website that uses Facebook Platform or visit a site with a Facebook feature (such as a social plugin), sometimes through cookies. This may include the date and time you visit the site; the web address, or URL, you're on; technical information about the IP address, browser and the operating system you use; and, if you are logged in to Facebook, your User ID. Sometimes we get data from our affiliates or our advertising partners, customers and other third parties that helps us (or them) deliver ads, understand online activity, and generally make Facebook better. For example, an advertiser may tell us information about you (like how you responded to an ad on Facebook or on another site) in order to measure the effectiveness of - and improve the quality of - ads.

-- GillianWhite - 29 Nov 2012