Center for Citizen Media

Citizen Media Law Project: Judge in Wikileaks Case Reverses Course, Wikileaks.org is Back Online.

I have a column running on the Guardian’s website today. It’s entitled “Freedom of information” — and is reprinted below:

What does a Swiss bank that does business in the Cayman Islands have in common with a Hong Kong actor who jets around the globe? They are object lessons this month in a reality that anyone handling information needs to understand. Like toothpaste squeezed from a tube, information, once out in the wild, is all but uncontainable.

The Julius Baer Bank is a protagonist in the now-famous Wikileaks case. The bank’s lawyers managed to persuade a US federal judge, Jeffrey White, that the first amendment of the US Constitution had no meaning, obtaining an injunction and follow-up order that, among other things, required blocking the visibility of the domain wikileaks.org in the internet’s Domain Name System (DNS). A former bank employee had posted documents on the anonymous whistle-blowing website, allegedly describing shady dealings – hmmm, Cayman Islands, Swiss banks – on behalf of clients.

“The orders don’t just direct the take down of existing content, they also enjoin any future publication of the material,” says David Ardia, director of the Citizen Media Law Project at Harvard University Law School’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society (of which I’m a co-founder). “Even more significantly, the second order requires anyone who receives notice of the order to refrain from publishing, distributing or linking to the documents.”

In a blog post on the project’s site, Ardia called the judge’s action “unthinkable”:

“He issued an order that is so broad I haven’t been able to find a single example in the US that comes close: he ordered the complete shutdown of the Wikileaks website. He did this not by ordering that the parties shut off access to the offending documents (that came in a second order), but by ordering that [Wikileaks’s domain registrar] erase the ‘navigation information’ that directs people to the site … . That is like telling a newspaper it can continue to print its paper, but the delivery drivers all have to go home.”

The judge blatantly abused his power. Luckily, due to the nature of the internet and the anger of the online community, it had precisely the opposite effect of what was intended.

First, Wikileaks’s proprietors are not stupid. They have several “mirror” sites with other domain names (such as wikileaks.be) where the bank documents, among 1.2 million other documents contributed by whistle-blowers around the world, can also be found. Meanwhile, people sympathetic to Wikileaks immediately began putting up their own mirrors and distributing the documents in question. And due to the judge’s (and bank’s) utter cluelessness about how the internet actually works, the injunction (essentially a rubber-stamp of something the bank’s lawyers wrote) didn’t prevent the Wikileaks site from being visible via its more direct URL – http://88.80.13.160/ – which the DNS translates into words we recognise.

If I were a customer of that bank, I’d quickly withdraw my business on several grounds, not least the institution’s inability to keep records secure in the first instance but also the way it flailed about once the records were public. (If I were a member of the US Congress I’d be launching an official inquiry into judge White’s fitness for office as well, though Congress is not noted these days for its understanding of, much less appreciation for, the Constitution.)

But the bank’s dilemma does elicit some sympathy, and suggests a larger issue that proponents of whistle-blowing and transparency – count me loudly among them – should acknowledge. The dissemination of information may be all but unstoppable, barring an absolute crackdown on and censorship of all online data (which could never be fully effective in any event). But there are troubling implications.

Consider, in that context, the sad case of Edison Chen, a Vancouver-born actor who now makes his base in Hong Kong. He famously took photographs of himself and at least five women (sequentially, not all together) in sexual situations and stored them on his laptop computer. After he took the machine for repairs, the photos made their way to the internet, apparently copied by a technician at the shop and then put online. It is trivially easy to find the images online now.

This was not about blowing whistles on possible corruption. Chen doesn’t deserve this, however foolish he was to leave the pictures, unencrypted, on a disk that he put in someone else’s hands. The women especially don’t deserve it, however foolish they were to participate in the photo sessions. These pictures were never meant to be public, and the people who participated in their distribution – including, in my view, anyone who continues to send them around – are morally and legally wrong. (Disclosure: I did obtain them to verify how easily this could be done, and then immediately deleted them from my computer.)

Chen, the women and the authorities can and probably should pursue various legal remedies to punish whoever put the photos on the internet. Apart from asking the rest of us to be decent and honourable, however, they have few further options.

The situations of Julius Baer Bank, Edison Chen and a host of others are fodder for the control freaks of our age. Governments and big business fear their power will dissolve. Moral crusaders fear almost everything. They all quake at the consequences of what they consider liberty run amuck.

So there are powerful forces at work to clamp down on this infinitely valuable medium. It can never be a 100% solution, of course, because digital information can be encrypted, disguised and otherwise manipulated to make porous even the most seemingly impenetrable barriers. But the rich and powerful interests that want to control our lives can make it vastly more difficult to have any measure of free speech.

I tend toward the absolutist side of the argument. Yes, there are negative consequences to freedom. Liberty brings risk. We take those risks because they are essential to progress, and to fundamental human rights. Abuses by the wielders of great power are much more dangerous than those by the rest of us.

But that doesn’t absolve us from doing the right thing. Let’s keep the control freaks at bay, but exercise some self-control, too.

Hilariously, but unintentionally so as always, an editorial in today’s Wall Street Journal entitled “Lawsuit Inc.” wails over connections between trial lawyers and state politicians:

Should state Attorneys General be able to outsource their legal work to for-profit tort lawyers, who then funnel a share of their winnings back to the AGs? That’s become a sleazy practice in many states, and it is finally coming under scrutiny — notably in Mississippi, home of Dickie Scruggs, Attorney General Jim Hood, and other legal pillars.

You will look in vain, of course, for Journal editorials complaining about the fact that Big Business practically owns the regulatory agencies in Washington, or that business interests have pretty much been the deciding factor in just about every environmental, labor and social-welfare decision from the Bush administration. Whoops, move along, nothing to see there!

(This is the ninth in a series of postings about citizen media business issues. See the introduction here. All of these entries are considered to be in “beta” and will be revised and refined as they find a home on a more permanent area of the Center for Citizen Media web site. To that end, your comments, additional examples, and criticisms are welcome and will be invaluable contributions to this process.)

Over the past few months, the Citizen Media Business Issues series of posts have taken a look at several possible business models/sources of revenue that a citizen media outfit may want to explore. Hopefully they were informative. I should reaffirm that all of these entries are still, as the top of each states, in “beta.” If you have noticed any errors, omissions, or if you have anything at all to add, please leave a comment or send an email to me.

Those models that have been explored here—affiliate programs, memberships/subscriptions, branding/promotion/support, merchandising, donations, and ad space—represent what appear to be the best options for citizen journalists at the moment. It is not an exhaustive list. For example, pay-to-blog services such as Pay-Per-Post were intentionally omitted. These companies will compensate bloggers for writing favorable reviews about particular products or services. While this is a way to make a few bucks and “monetize” your blog, it certainly is not journalism, and it raises far too many serious ethical concerns to merit a recommendation.

Chances are good that you already have an idea how each of these would play out on your site, but if one doesn’t jump out at you, how do you decide what the right first step is?

The elements of creativity and customizability are substantial enough in each to limit how accurate general recommendations can be. By and large, finding the best fit will require a little experimentation. Playing with different approaches and tweaking their presentation can be very beneficial and you may notice that small changes can make big differences. A caveat: good experimentation does not include signing up for and implementing every single source of revenue at once or overloading a page with ads to see where they are most profitable. Also, it’s probably a good idea to let your readers know what you’re doing and why you’re doing it. A simple heads up that you’re selling ad space or introducing a paid ad-free subscription plan to recoup your losses in time or money can go a long way in gaining their understanding (not to mention feedback).

There are, however, a few generalizations we can make based on your personal technical savvy and available time as well as your site’s content and number of readers. [Note: If you don’t know how many readers you have, Google Analytics provides a free, easy-to-implement statistical system that should give you all the information you need (more on these in the upcoming post on search engine optimization)].

AFFILIATE PROGRAMS

These are especially useful if you sometimes discuss products or services that people might like to buy (have you ever a received a query to the tune of “where can I get…?”) Affiliate links don’t take up space on your page unless you use them like advertisements, so are not intrusive to your site’s visitors. In fact, you can format the links like any other such that some readers may not even realize they’re there unless they click to find out more information on whatever it is you’re discussing. These programs require very little technical know-how to set up or maintain, only requiring a special URL. Also, they can be effective for any traffic level.

Avoid this technique if you want to preserve a solid sense of perceivable objectivity. You are, after all, getting a cut if someone buys the product you discuss. Also avoid if you think you may be tempted to write about things just so you can throw in an affiliate link.

Disclosure is essential in any case: Make sure people know you will be getting a cut of the sales price.

FULL MEMBERSHIPS AND PARTIAL-ACCESS SUBSCRIPTIONS

This is only for sites with very unique content that people would be willing to pay for. Subscription models can be lucrative in the rare instances they work, and while larger reader bases can better withstand the blow to reader numbers such a system inevitably brings, extraordinary content may enable such systems to work with small numbers.

In general, it may be best to avoid this. A transition from open content to a full or partial-access structure rarely works, though adding paid areas for highly valuable content is less intrusive than going all-pay. People are used to being able to find the information they want on the web without subscription fees, so there has to be a compelling reason for them to pay. Starting a site with a subscription model is also difficult because it’s hard to get enough people interested and because the word-of-mouth marketing that the web generally relies on never has a chance to occur. Also avoid if you don’t have significant web programming expertise or resources to hire someone who does.

EARLY EDITION AND AD-FREE SUBSCRIPTIONS

Ad-Free versions recommended for high-traffic sites with users who read often or extensively. Early edition recommended for sites with unique, anticipated content. These are typically used in combination with some other revenue stream. While still occasionally utilized successfully, these were more popular a few years ago. Since then, people have grown adept at simply tuning out ads and—again—finding the content they want for free when they want it.

Avoid if, similar to the other subscription models, you don’t have significant web programming experience. These systems require a lot of time and work, which may cancel out whatever reward they carry. Also avoid if you plan to increase advertising to steer people towards an ad-free version.

BRANDING, PROMOTION, AND SUPPORT

This is recommended if your career could benefit from having other people see your writings in ways that enhance your stature. Academics, lawyers, and scientists all utilize this approach to promote themselves in a manner similar to the way they would when publishing a journal article. Blogging can be a natural, even fun, extension of your professional career. You don’t need a great number of readers to make it worthwhile. Exposure to just a couple potential clients and increased Googleability can go a long way.

Not all publicity is good publicity. Making yourself look bad either through your writing or through a poorly-designed web site (such as one that’s chock full of intrusive ads) can be equally detrimental to your career. Avoid if you don’t think you really have the time to commit to doing it right.

DONATIONS

Recommended for non-profit organizations or sites where hard work is clearly demonstrated. Donation buttons often make a great supplement to other sources of revenue, but are perhaps most powerful when they are used pointedly instead of ads. These can be successful with any amount of traffic, but probably most effective on sites with devoted, regular readers. Donation buttons are extremely easy to set up, requiring as little as a PayPal account.

Avoid if you already have a lot of advertising on your site—you run the risk of looking greedy. Also avoid soliciting donations to the point of panhandling or pestering readers.

MERCHANDISE

Recommended to those with loyal reader bases, arts-oriented content, or clever ideas for branding or products. Plain white CafePress items with your site’s name on them don’t hurt, but they probably won’t do much for you. Merchandising, even through a service like CafePress, does require a modicum of technical savvy—enough to make your design look good, anyway. However, once established, such shops require little time to maintain. One of the greatest benefits of merchandising is its tendency not to be intrusive. Branded products sold on the site they’re promoting look less like advertisements and more like content—they can even give one a sense of being “in on” something people get excited about (excited enough to buy a t-shirt). If your products or brand is strong, merchandising can be successful with any size readership.

While offering a t-shirt or bumper sticker is a pretty innocuous, avoid the temptation inherent in automated shops like CafePress and Zazzle to put your site’s name or a basic logo on every one of the hundreds of products available.

AD SPACE

Recommended to those who have a little technical knowledge to make ads look neat. Advertising is the most intrusive of all those business models discussed here, but also often the most effective. The level of intrusion increases as you move from text ads to image to video to Flash to anything with sound. Similarly, the intrusion varies with the size of the ads and their placement. While it’s hard to say which of these business models would be the most profitable for you, advertising will usually be the only surefire means to generate some income—even if it’s pennies—regardless of readership. Financial success will, however, be directly variable with traffic.

Avoid anything that pops up, over, or under. Everybody hates them. Avoid random ad placements—think about how the site will look. Content readability/enjoyability should be your focus. Every ad takes something away from your image.

Summary:

(Ryan McGrady is a new media graduate student at Emerson College where he is studying knowledge, identity, and ideas in the information age.)

UPDATED

The Dallas Morning News implores its readers, “Help us examine the lost JFK files.” Why?

Given the volume, we haven’t been able to review most of the files. That’s why were calling on you. Here’s your chance to review never-seen-before materials related to the JFK assassination.

This is a breakthrough in the traditional media — though as Jon Garfunkel notes in his comments below, the implementation leaves a huge amount to be desired.

Some organizations, notably several Gannett papers, have asked for audience help in looking into issues. But as far as I know this is the first time one of them has asked the readers to help analyze a pile of documents.

Nothing new elsewhere, of course; Talking Points Memo has done it many times, to good effect. To see a Big Media company wise up to the audience’s potential, however, is excellent.

Should the DMN pay people who come up with the best material? Yes, as they’d pay freelancers. Complicated, but the right thing to do.

Whether they do or not, this is still a great move.

Will Bunch takes note of “A landmark day for bloggers — and the future of journalism“:

But I want to highlight one Polk Award that shows there are emerging models for using the very tool at the root of the turmoil of the news business — the Internet — as a newfangled way to re-invent investigative reporting — by using new techniques that emphasize collaboration over competition and by working with readers and through collective weight of many news sources to expose government misconduct.

It would have seemed incredible a couple of years ago, but a George Polk Award was given this morning to a blogger.

Not just any blogger, of course. Josh Marshall … of Talking Points Memo may have started back in 2000 as a kind of blogging stereotype, posting late at night from his small D.C. apartment and from the corner Starbucks and — in just two years — shining a light on the remarks that cost Sen. Trent Lott his GOP Senate leadership post, but he’s turned his operation into much, much more.

Since 2002 Marshall has moved to New York and — thanks to increasing ad revenue — made Talking Points Memo into a new kind of journalistic enterprise for the 21st Century, hiring a staff of a half dozen talented young journalists and rewriting the rules with a mix of commentary and original muckraking while highlighting the work of other to focus like a laser on the big political questions.

Christopher Hitchens: Who needs a state censor when the press bites its own tongue so effectively? Do you ever wonder what is the greatest enemy of the free press? One might mention a few conspicuous foes, such as the state censor, the monopolistic proprietor, the advertiser who wants either favorable coverage or at least an absence of unfavorable coverage, and so forth. But the most insidious enemy is the cowardly journalist and editor who doesn’t need to be told what to do, because he or she has already internalized the need to please—or at least not to offend—the worst tyranny of all, which is the safety-first version of public opinion.

Been socked with the flu, and only now starting to feel human again. Postings will resume but not right away.

Washington Post: Comcast Defends Role As Internet Traffic Cop. Comcast said yesterday that it purposely slows down some traffic on its network, including some music and movie downloads, an admission that sparked more controversy in the debate over how much control network operators should have over the Internet.

The admission, after lying to the public about the practice, is useful in that it frames a debate we need to have right away. If the phone-cable duopoly can get away with this — deciding what bits get delivered, at what speed and in what order — they will have control of the Internet in ways that will make current “media consolidation” seem tame.

Meanwhile, rather than investing in new infrastructure to make these control-freak practices moot, Comcast is paying shareholders a new dividend and buying back $7 billion of its stock. This speaks volumes about a company that enjoys its oligopolist status and sees no serious need to invest for the future.

I’ll be visiting the Twin Cities for an event called New Media, New Standards: Ethics in Online Journalism, co-sponsored by the Society of Professional Journalists and Minnesota Public Radio. Hope to see some of you there…