Groups: Difference between revisions
JoshuaFeasel (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
*# Who is liable? | *# Who is liable? | ||
*#*Holding only the bad actors liable is unsatisfactory: they can hide their identities and they don't have much money. | *#*Holding only the bad actors liable is unsatisfactory: they can hide their identities and they don't have much money. | ||
*#* | *#*Holding software makers liable may dry up the market somewhat. | ||
*#*OS makers have deeper pockets and won't easily be deterred. | *#*OS makers have deeper pockets and won't easily be deterred. | ||
*#*But ISPs are probably the best target. They have deeper pockets, aren't easily deterred, and have a significant ability to control activity on their service (in theory, at least). | *#*But ISPs are probably the best target. They have deeper pockets, aren't easily deterred, and have a significant ability to control activity on their service (in theory, at least). |
Revision as of 17:16, 3 January 2008
Group 1, OS Maker Industry Association
- Jason Liss
- Nevin Kamath
- Chris Johnson
- brando
- Ed Roggenkamp
- Harry Lewis
- Tyler Tassin
- Matan Shacham
Group 2, Software/Applications Industry Association
- Lindsay Kitzinger
- Bradley Hamburger
- Nika Engberg
- Anna Volftsun
- Dara Glasser
- Tom Seivert
- Samantha Lipton
Group 3, Internet Service Provider Industry Association
- Arjun Mehra
- Savith
- Jen
- Renat
- Deepa
- James
Group 4, Consumer Interest Group (Ralph Nader)
- Eryck Kratville
- LT Ciaccio
- Vanessa Hettinger
- Alexis Caloza
- Kelly Hoffman
- Kevin Parker
Group 5, Plaintiff-side Lawyer in Texas
- Josh Feasel
- Kim Everitt
- Dan Kahn
- Ken Grose
- Nate bryant
- Kerry Lee
- Mai
Thoughts:
- Our main interest is having someone to sue (and being able to win). This has several dimensions:
- Standard of liability
- We'd certainly prefer strict liability, as a negligence standard will be hard to prove.
- Who is liable?
- Holding only the bad actors liable is unsatisfactory: they can hide their identities and they don't have much money.
- Holding software makers liable may dry up the market somewhat.
- OS makers have deeper pockets and won't easily be deterred.
- But ISPs are probably the best target. They have deeper pockets, aren't easily deterred, and have a significant ability to control activity on their service (in theory, at least).
- Most of these suggestions would work against generativity.
- Our considerations will change somewhat based on the claim at issue (IP, fraud, privacy, etc.)
- Standard of liability
Group 6, Ombudsman
- Meika Vogel
- Doug
- Will Adams
- Christina Seif
- Will M
- Xixi
- Kira Stanfield
Other Potential Stakeholders:
1. Hardware Makers: PC makers, backbone. Backbone â financial stake because of overload in traffic. Hardware: pressure on reconfiguring; potential liability for security features; also, the more data that flows, the more they sell. Appliance Makers (cell phones).
2. Professors: Books to sell, classes to teach.
3. Countries / Government: Different countries have different needs / desires based on what services they provide (India â services, Nigeria â spam, China â free speech issues). National Security/Terrorism concerns.
4. Law Enforcement: specificity v. broad language in the law; workload.
5. Corporations: as users; IT Departments at corporations; retailers (like Norton, other corporations that depend on secure transactions like Amazon); software makers; corporations that have intellectual property at stake (whether they have a competing technology or they have copyrighted material that might be stolen).
6. Benevolent Hackers: hacking your iPhone for useful purposes, counting the number of computers on the Internet.
7. Insurance industry: because they may incur liability either through contract or extra-contractual or implied contractual liability by the courts).