Groups

Group 1, OS Maker Industry Association

1. Jason Liss
2. Nevin Kamath
3. Chris Johnson
4. brando
5. Ed Roggenkamp
6. Harry Lewis
7. Tyler Tassin
8. Matan Shacham

Our recommendations can be summarized as the following:

1. Keep federal involvement to a minimum, except where it helps us! - grants for security development - recommendations on developing secure software - farming out the security testing apparatus (saves us money) - would be against federal purchasing requirements

2. We are against piracy - Would like greater enforcement/resources against cybercrimes involving piracy because it can dilute the security value of the platform, among other things - Pro-DRM?

3. Would have positions on a variety of legal mechanisms: - Give us no OS liability, or at least a strong voice in such a debate - Greater support for venue selection (dont' want to be sued everywhere) - Support efforts to contract around liability (EULA's) - Sheild OS manufacturers from class actions, give us a monetary cap

4. In the heterogeneity debate, it depends on who we are - If we are MS, then no way! - If we are Ubuntu Linux, then yes please.

Group 2, Software/Applications Industry Association

1. Lindsay Kitzinger
2. Bradley Hamburger
3. Nika Engberg
4. Anna Volftsun
5. Dara Glasser
6. Tom Seivert
7. Samantha Lipton

Group 3, Internet Service Provider Industry Association

1. Arjun Mehra
2. Savith
3. Jen
4. Renat
5. Deepa
6. James

Group 4, Consumer Interest Group (Ralph Nader)

1. Eryck Kratville
2. LT Ciaccio
3. Vanessa Hettinger
4. Alexis Caloza
5. Kelly Hoffman
6. Kevin Parker

Group 5, Plaintiff-side Lawyer in Texas

1. Josh Feasel
2. Kim Everitt
3. Dan Kahn
4. Ken Grose
5. Nate bryant
6. Kerry Lee
7. Mai

Thoughts:

• Our main interest is having someone to sue (and being able to win). This has several dimensions:
  1. Standard of liability
     • We'd certainly prefer strict liability, as a negligence standard will be hard to prove.
  2. 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).
  3. Most of these suggestions would work against generativity.
  4. Our considerations will change somewhat based on the claim at issue (IP, fraud, privacy, etc.)

Group 6, Ombudsman

1. Meika Vogel
2. Doug
3. Will Adams
4. Christina Seif
5. Will M
6. Xixi
7. Kira Stanfield

Other Potential Stakeholders:

1. Hardware Makers: PC makers, backbone. Backbone – 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 – services, Nigeria – spam, China – 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).