General Discussion

From Cyberlaw: Internet Points of Control NYU Course Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
  • 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)
Retrieved from "http://cyber.harvard.edu/ipcnyu/?title=General_Discussion&oldid=445"