Cyberlaw Central

ICANN has today approved an expansion of the top level Internet domains from the familiar ones (.com, .net, .org, etc) to an unlimited array of choices. All that will be required is a showing of technical ability to manage the requested domains. Details are currently sketchy regarding the application process, it appears that ICANN has yet to approve the final implementation steps. For more, including a limited FAQ, here’s a link to ICANN’s press release.

The results of the FCC’s wireless spectrum auction are of particular interest to more than just people in the telecom industry, as it will significantly impact how people access the Internet for years to come.

It’s no big surprise that Verizon is the big winner, but I especially enjoyed reading Susan Crawford’s analysis of the issue of what Verizon will do with it entitled “Why Block C Matters.” Susan is an ICANN board member, as well as a law professor at Cardozo Law School. I agree with her that it confirms the existing business model of handheld devices being used to access the Internet.

It also means that we’re going to have to deal with Verizon’s dominance in this segment of the market.

It also means that we’re going to have less options for wireless access than we otherwise would have had if others would’ve won the bidding.

It also means that we’re going to have a company who can bring market pressures to bear to discriminate against other carriers, all while promising in public to have an “open” network.

I wonder if we will someday look back on this day as the day in which the wireless Internet changed.

Here’s a link to the last post, written before his death, that blogger Andrew Olmstead wanted published in the event he died while serving in Iraq. He posted at the site Obsidian Wings as G’Kar, a character from Babylon 5. His choice of that character resonates with me as a fan of the show. The post is interspersed with some great quotes spoken through the series by that character as well as a few others, if you’re not already a fan of the show I can’t recommend it highly enough. And, it’s all available on DVD for you newbies.

What makes this particularly worthy of posting here are Andrew’s comments on the ephemeral nature of the web, that his last words will last only so long as someone continues to pay the hosting bill.

Ryan Blitstein asks this question in a great article at the Mercury News, here is the link.

To summarize, the difficulties include legislators who don’t understand the technology, as well as companies that fight good laws because the proposed law hurts their bottom line. Special interests, as usual, appear to have more sway than implementing good laws to fight spyware or phishing attacks.

To further understand why stronger laws are needed, he’s also written a three-part series on cybercrime. Here are links to Part I, Part II, and Part III. (Hat tip to Bruce Schneier for linking to Part III today.)

These laws are needed, and are needed soon.

The first of the IPLAC High Tech Committee’s lunchtime discussions will be held on November 16, 2007 at John Marshall Law School from 12-1:30. As the chair, I can say that I am really excited to have this come together.

If you can join us, please do! The details on how to register are in the flyer.

—
Please join the IPLAC High Tech Committee on November 16, 2007 from 12:00-1:30 PM at John Marshall Law School for a presentation by Christopher J. McGeehan entitled “Secondary Trademark Infringement Liability on the Internet: A Comparison of American and International Approaches.” This is the first presentation of our Lunchtime Discussion series. The members of the High Tech Committee will lead a discussion of this topic after the presentation. The registration fee of $15.00 covers the cost of a box lunch and a beverage.

Here are a few short items of interest I’d like to pass along:

1) Conrad Jacoby has a great article on the electronic discovery of employee-owned computer equipment that was published at llrx. Here is a link.

2) If you’ve not already seen Michael Wesch’s video called Information R/evolution, check it out now. It only takes a few minutes, but is well worth it.

The Bill of Rights Defense Committee has put together a 26-minute video entitled “FBI Unbound: How National Security Letters Violate Our Privacy”, which can be viewed online or ordered on DVD.  It features interviews with Lisa Graves, Bruce Fein, and George Christian, who actually received one of these letters and can talk about it.

Hat tips to EFF and BeSpacific for the link.

Cyberlaw Central Commentary:

National Security Letters are the hidden, secret ways that ISP’s can be ordered to turn over customer information without judicial oversight.  Authorized by the Patriot Act, these are intended for anti-terrorism activities, but are capable of significant abuse.  This video does a good job explaining what they are, I highly recommend watching.

In preparation for the November 7, 2006 elections, check out the Technology Voter Guide prepared by CNET News.com.  The link leads to the analysis page, from which you can click on the map to see how your representatives in your state voted on technology issues. Then, you can click on each person’s name to see their votes on particular bills.  What a wonderful resource, I’ll be sure to study it further before voting. 

Here are the slides for my talk on October 24, 2006 to the Chicago Bar Association’s Computer Law Committee on the subject of Network Neutrality.  My thanks again for being asked to speak, it was fun to prepare.

I’ve been following the debate over Net Neutrality rather closely. Since more and more of our economy depends on the Internet for basic functionality, like the reliable functioning of email, VOIP, and telecommuting applications, this debate concerns *everyone.* Higher costs for Internet traffic will be passed along to the economy and end users ultimately. Further, more and more big lobbying interests like the financial industry are starting to realize what this means to their bottom line. They are starting to counter-lobby against the pro-telco forces that are currently at play.

What many people do not seem to understand is that all users of the Internet pay for their traffic. End users pay for access and content providers pay for the bandwidth used to distribute their data. Trust me, you do *not* want to be personally liable for Google’s bandwidth bill. If the telcos do not make enough, perhaps the solution is to charge higher bandwith rates, not discriminate against different types of traffic. Higher rates, though, would be passed along as a business expense to everyone down the line, so it’s not a perfect solution either way.