To me, here’s the heart of the argument to take a side:

Either you think Net Neutrality should apply no matter how you access the Internet, or you’re Googizon and say wireless networks don’t count. You either expand the open Internet for everyone and continue building an amazing resource for free speech and innovation, or you invest in private toll lanes for the select few. You either believe the FCC should have the power to protect Internet users, or you want a toothless watchdog. You have to choose.

I believe netizens should carefully review all network neutrality proposals and figure out what makes each one different. They should determine which ones they can support and which ones they can’t, and why. They should then make their choices or preferences known, through grass roots efforts if necessary.

I respect that reasonable minds can differ on the questions here, but either way you must choose and make your preference known.

Net Neutrality – Avoiding the “Mushy Middle” is a post from: Cyberlaw Central

©2010 Cyberlaw Central.

Share on Facebook |  Twitter |  Stumbleupon |  Digg |  Reddit |  Email to friend

Fact 1 – it’s a proposal, not a bill actually winding its way through congress.

Fact 2 – it’s a compromise, as Google admits in its recent post discussing the lack of wireless regulation:

MYTH: This proposal would eliminate network neutrality over wireless.

FACT: It’s true that Google previously has advocated for certain openness safeguards to be applied in a similar fashion to what would be applied to wireline services. However, in the spirit of compromise, we have agreed to a proposal that allows this market to remain free from regulation for now, while Congress keeps a watchful eye.

Why? First, the wireless market is more competitive than the wireline market, given that consumers typically have more than just two providers to choose from. Second, because wireless networks employ airwaves, rather than wires, and share constrained capacity among many users, these carriers need to manage their networks more actively. Third, network and device openness is now beginning to take off as a significant business model in this space.

In our proposal, we agreed that the best first step is for wireless providers to be fully transparent with users about how network traffic is managed to avoid congestion, or prioritized for certain applications and content. Our proposal also asks the Federal government to monitor and report regularly on the state of the wireless broadband market. Importantly, Congress would always have the ability to step in and impose new safeguards on wireless broadband providers to protect consumers’ interests.

It’s also important to keep in mind that the future of wireless broadband increasingly will be found in the advanced, 4th generation (4G) networks now being constructed. Verizon will begin rolling out its 4G network this fall under openness license conditions that Google helped persuade the FCC to adopt. Clearwire is already providing 4G service in some markets, operating under a unique wholesale/openness business model. So consumers across the country are beginning to experience open Internet wireless platforms, which we hope will be enhanced and encouraged by our transparency proposal.

Fact 3 – It was announced shortly after the FCC announced that its closed door meetings with stakeholders had ended, which likely means this proposal is one which had been floated, and rejected, in these closed door meetings.

Still, after much ado about nothing, for a careful analysis I can recommend this post by Nilay Patel.

Let’s see where this debate over this proposal leads us, hopefully to a real plan.

Much Ado About Nothing – Google & Verizon’s Network Neutrality Proposal is a post from: Cyberlaw Central

©2010 Cyberlaw Central.

Share on Facebook |  Twitter |  Stumbleupon |  Digg |  Reddit |  Email to friend

Scanning and Paper Reduction in the Law Office 101

The first session, with speakers Nancy Duhon and Michael Morse, was a great introduction to how to implement a paperless system in a real law practice. Michael has a thriving PI practice in Michigan, and his firm does not accept paper copies of accident reports, medical records, etc., if they can help it. Those they have to accept are scanned and shredded, or in certain cases the originals are returned to the client. Lots of good tips and tricks came from this session. You need a good way to get paper into your system, a good backup system, and a good way to get what you need back out of the system.

Document Management Software: The Electronic File Butler

This was the weakest session for me, but not due to the speakers. Steve Best and Richard Serpe did a great job keeping our interest, but I thought the topic could have been condensed down to about 6 minutes. Yes – “DMS software really works to help you search, and you need to force compliance with using it.” Enough said. One great thing about Techshow is the openness of the speakers and the exhibitors – I met the President of Worldox, Ray Zweifelhofer, at a reception and we had a nice chat about his company’s software. I know it’s a popular package, and with good people like that at the helm it’s bound to stay popular.

Digital Workflow – Developing the Paperless Habit

This was easily the best session of the track. Nerino Petro and Ernie Svenson (Ernie the Attorney) did a fantastic job expanding on the insights from the first session with more practical tips and real-life examples. I forgot which one of them said it, but I still remember the line “Friends don’t let friends print emails.” If it’s digital, keep it digital. If it’s not digital, get it digital and get rid of the paper. I’ve gotten to know Nerino over the years attending Techshow, and his sessions are always interesting and informative. Ernie is also quite down to earth and a very good speaker. If you don’t already follow his separate “PDF For Lawyers” blog, I strongly suggest you subscribe.

Paperless Law Office Library: Research and Forms

Donna Neff and Paul Unger finished the day with another strong session. Good tips on creating and storing usable forms and research libraries were shared. Donna has developed a system for the storage of electronic files without the use of a document management software package that was introduced in this session but expanded on in another session on Friday. With a good system in place to scan incoming paper, and a way to get what you need out of the system again, a lawyer has little need to keep lots of paper.

I always enjoy Techshow, which is why I’ve gone more years than not since 2006. I think last year (2009) was the only year since then I haven’t gone through the CLE sessions. I am looking forward to Techshow 2011!

ABA Techshow 2010 – Roundup of Paperless Office Sessions is a post from: Cyberlaw Central

©2010 Cyberlaw Central.

Share on Facebook |  Twitter |  Stumbleupon |  Digg |  Reddit |  Email to friend

- New WPA encryption hack – To be secure, wifi users should switch to WPA-2 or WPA-AES standards. http://is.gd/2C7FL
- RT @CanadianPI: The security risks of “Free Public WiFi” http://bit.ly/9INRj
- More SCO lawsuit news coming, thanks to the 10th Cir. overturning the 2007 decision re: ownership of UNIX – http://is.gd/2xY4C
- RT @HostExploit: The US-CCU issues a report on a one year old cyberwar because? http://bit.ly/j7wkH
- RT @windycitizen: 7 crimes you can commit that cost less than downloading music. http://windycitizen.com/wdzF
- Wow, predictive blacklisting could block internet attacks before they happen – http://is.gd/2oAkL
- Interesting study of the M. Jackson death coverage on Twitter – “Detecting Sadness in 140 Characters.” http://is.gd/2osvD
- Reading about the latest Facebook privacy lawsuit, it’s a laugher. http://is.gd/2mPbG
- Reading how yesterday’s Twitter and Facebook outages were DDOS attacks against one user in the Republic of Georgia – http://is.gd/26O8b
- From NetworkWorld, a Latvian ISP was cut off by its upstream provider due to ties to cybercrime. http://is.gd/24Tmq
- The acting Cybersecurity Czar has stepped down. http://is.gd/22a0V

Enjoy,
Kevin

Recent @cyberlaw posts on Twitter is a post from: Cyberlaw Central

©2010 Cyberlaw Central.

Share on Facebook |  Twitter |  Stumbleupon |  Digg |  Reddit |  Email to friend

The most interesting link to share recently is for the final report of the Commission on Cybersecurity for the 44th Presidency. The conclusions seem rather predictable at first glance, but there are some good nuggets in the report itself. In particular, in the “Regulating for Cybersecurity” section which begins on Page 49 (Page 55 in the downloadable PDF from the above link), there are recommendations for increasing the use of secure protocols by mandating that the government only contract with entities that use secure protocols themselves.

Another item I’ve been remiss in doing is posting my recommendations for Blawg Review of the Year in 2008. As a past host in 2008, I am eligible to post my favorite reviews. The winner will then be tabulated and announced later. My list, in no particular order other than numerical, are as follows:
- Blawg Review 148, hosted by Brett Trout. I gotta love Internet memes, even Rickrolling.
- Blawg Review 182, hosted by newly minted lawyer Dave! Gulbransen. Go ahead, take Dave’s test.
- Blawg Review 189, hosted by Colin Samuels. What can I say except that Colin does fabulous work.

Good job, all. I host again on May 25th…

That’s enough ramblings for one day, more regular posts will (hopefully) follow.

Bits and Bytes is a post from: Cyberlaw Central

©2010 Cyberlaw Central.

Share on Facebook |  Twitter |  Stumbleupon |  Digg |  Reddit |  Email to friend

The article is worth reading as it discusses the recent cases involving searches of electronic items at the border (based upon a “reasonable suspicion” test), and contrasts that to searches the police can do when you are stopped for another reason. The latter doctrine is called “search incident to arrest” and is meant to allow the police to search the person’s immediate possessions, or “containers,” to search for items that are dangerous, like a gun, or from concealing or destroying evidence. The question is whether the same doctrine will allow the police to search your cell phone, iPod, or laptop.

It’s an untested area of the law, and one which can be debated. Certainly, it is easy to imagine a scenario where a person is able to quickly wipe the memory on the laptop, etc. before a regular warrant could be obtained. The flip side would be that the officer could detain the item for a short period of time until a warrant could be obtained.

Any thoughts? Let me know in the comments.

What does “search incident to arrest” mean today? is a post from: Cyberlaw Central

©2010 Cyberlaw Central.

Share on Facebook |  Twitter |  Stumbleupon |  Digg |  Reddit |  Email to friend

Posting here on the blog has been rather lax lately, I’ve apologized directly to those who have inquired. I’ve been busy with work, as well as some speaking. For example, I did a repeat of my copyright presentation to the Chicago Bar Association’s seminar on IP law for non-IP attorneys on October 1st.

Interested people can also follow me on Twitter, my profile is at http://www.twitter.com/cyberlaw. The discussions there are limited due to the 140 character limit per post, or “tweet”, but I believe it is a worthwhile forum. Topics are wide ranging and are usually non-legal, so caveat emptor.

In the meantime, enjoy the above-linked article.

Professor Lessig on copyright reform is a post from: Cyberlaw Central

©2010 Cyberlaw Central.

Share on Facebook |  Twitter |  Stumbleupon |  Digg |  Reddit |  Email to friend

Please feel free to leave comments on the podcast here.

Here is a link to the show page, where you can download the show or listen online. You can also use the links on the left side of the page to subscribe to the show in Itunes.

Guest on Lawyer 2 Lawyer Podcast: “Privacy and Piracy: Viacom v. YouTube” is a post from: Cyberlaw Central

©2010 Cyberlaw Central.

Share on Facebook |  Twitter |  Stumbleupon |  Digg |  Reddit |  Email to friend

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.

Is this the day the world changed? is a post from: Cyberlaw Central

©2010 Cyberlaw Central.

Share on Facebook |  Twitter |  Stumbleupon |  Digg |  Reddit |  Email to friend

It’s of particular interest to me because I often counsel people on their creative endeavors who do not know what regime under the umbrella of “intellectual property” their particular endeavor is best, whether it be trademark, copyright, patent, or trade secrets. It’s also interesting because people often think of “cyberlaw” as being the intersection of intellectual property and the Internet, but it really is much more than just that. It’s the application of both new and existing legal principles, whether they be IP or other regulations, to the Internet and other avenues of electronic communications. As more and more businesses go online, it’s rarer that people won’t have some issue that intersects with cyberlaw at one point or another.

Turning back to the article, to me the most important rationale for copyright and patent protection is the protecting the right of the creator to control the use, distribution, or exploitation for their ideas for a limited period of time. Trademark is a slightly different rationale, in that trademarks are tied into a consumer protection rationale and the right to identify the source of particular goods or services to avoid consumer confusion.

So, what rationale do you think is best to apply? Also, what term would you use other than “intellectual property” if you had a choice to do so? Those are certainly interesting questions posed by the article. Food for thought, as they say.

Article on just what is “Intellectual Property” is a post from: Cyberlaw Central

©2010 Cyberlaw Central.

Share on Facebook |  Twitter |  Stumbleupon |  Digg |  Reddit |  Email to friend