General Discussion: Difference between revisions

From Cyberlaw: Internet Points of Control NYU Course Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
* [http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/247  Yochai Benkler: Open-source economics] -- Digg'd (Dug?  I dunno, I'm a Redditor) like whoa.  --[[User:Dsiffert|Dsiffert]] 08:27, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
*[http://www.builderau.com.au/news/soa/Europe-should-not-criminalise-file-sharers-/0,339028227,339288152,00.htm?feed=rss Europe 'should not criminalise file-sharers'] who do not profit, according to the European Parliament.  Hey, what a [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ipcnyu/David_Siffert_Thought_Paper_1 great idea]  --[[User:Dsiffert|Dsiffert]] 08:21, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
*Putting up a link to a recent article in an Indian newspaper on how skype is being used by terrorists for planning and distributing documents over the internet. Think it makes interesting reading in light of our argument for free software and how certain types of free software may also be put to improper uses.  http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2924314.cms    --[[User:Aditya Thakkar|aat273]]
*Today the 9th Circuit issued an [http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F71559D8162BA7EE8825741F00771BC1/$file/0456916.pdf?openelement En Banc Opinion] re: an interesting CDA 230 case (Roomates.com). Footnote 15 has a very significant statement regarding the regulation of online activity and the limits of that immunity. --[[User:Elplandehiram|Elplandehiram]] 17:29, 3 April 2008 (EDT)  
*Today the 9th Circuit issued an [http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F71559D8162BA7EE8825741F00771BC1/$file/0456916.pdf?openelement En Banc Opinion] re: an interesting CDA 230 case (Roomates.com). Footnote 15 has a very significant statement regarding the regulation of online activity and the limits of that immunity. --[[User:Elplandehiram|Elplandehiram]] 17:29, 3 April 2008 (EDT)  


*[http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/ietf-ipv6-switchoff.ars The night the IETF turned off IPv4] --[[User:Dsiffert|Dsiffert]] 10:29, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
*[http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/ietf-ipv6-switchoff.ars The night the IETF turned off IPv4] --[[User:Dsiffert|Dsiffert]] 10:29, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
Line 25: Line 30:


*[http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2008/04/riaas-boston-university-subpoena.html RIAA's Boston University Subpoena Quashed in Arista v. Does 1-21...]... at least for now --[[User:Dsiffert|Dsiffert]] 13:05, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
*[http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2008/04/riaas-boston-university-subpoena.html RIAA's Boston University Subpoena Quashed in Arista v. Does 1-21...]... at least for now --[[User:Dsiffert|Dsiffert]] 13:05, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
*[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article3689881.ece The Grid to make The Internet "obsolete"?]--Interesting news story (written by someone with zero technical understanding).  Looked into it and found this moderately useless site on point [http://gridcafe.web.cern.ch/gridcafe/GridatCERN/gridatcern.html Grid@CERN].  Here's what Wiki has to say: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_computing Grid Computing]. --[[User:Dsiffert|Dsiffert]] 13:42, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
*Does MediaSentry require a PI license? [http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080409-defendants-riaas-private-eyes-are-watching-usillegally.html Defendants: RIAA's private eyes are watching us—illegally] --[[User:Dsiffert|Dsiffert]] 23:08, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Latest revision as of 08:27, 17 April 2008

  • Putting up a link to a recent article in an Indian newspaper on how skype is being used by terrorists for planning and distributing documents over the internet. Think it makes interesting reading in light of our argument for free software and how certain types of free software may also be put to improper uses. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2924314.cms --aat273
  • Today the 9th Circuit issued an En Banc Opinion re: an interesting CDA 230 case (Roomates.com). Footnote 15 has a very significant statement regarding the regulation of online activity and the limits of that immunity. --Elplandehiram 17:29, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
  • If you were bitten by the Wikipedia bug after the last assignment, consider updating the Internet Law Treatise. You'll not only help out your fellow cyberlaw students and practicioners, but you'll also make Kurt Opsahl very happy.


    ian: well, it's definitely not "entrapment" as far as the criminal law is concerned
    Anonymous: ian, why do you keep trying to bring "law" into this?
    Mike M.: If you don't like entrapment, how about due process concerns?
    Anonymous: probable cause, etc.
    ian: what's the due process concern?
    Mike M.: If I'm the porno pilferer in an apartment two flights up from the guy who's apartment is getting raided, it seems his rights have been violated when his only crime was to leave his linksys WRT54G router unprotected.
    Mike M.: They don't have probable cause to raid the place when IP addresses can be ghosted, spoofed, or stolen.
    Anonymous: What's the liability for people leaving routers unprotected?
    ian: probable cause doesn't mean "certainty," it means a fair probability. the possibility of IP spoofing doesn't negate p.c.
    Anonymous: We might think that unsecured wifi could be something like a negligent entrustment claim, but you'd have to have some level of knowledge.
  • Liability for leaving a router unprotected (or should we simply say "open" or "free"?) is an interesting question. For most criminal claims, I'd think knowledge of the activity if not intent would be required. So a showing of ignorance might well be sufficient to absolve liability. (Indeed, someone could even tactically use it to raise down about his or her own activity, while pleading the 5th on directly testifying.) For civil claims, perhaps someone with an open router could claim 512(a) immunity for (c) infringement, as if an ISP. (Indeed, perhaps the person is an ISP for these purposes...) -Jz 12:54, 28 March 2008 (EDT)