Web 2.0 Law Blog

VeriSign Appeal Denied; Company Now Faces Lawsuit - FOXBusiness.com

2010-07-11T07:31:00.000-04:00

VeriSign Appeal Denied; Company Now Faces Lawsuit - FOXBusiness.com

Comcast P2P Throttling Settlement Approved: $16 Per User | News & Opinion | PCMag.com

2010-07-11T07:30:00.000-04:00

Comcast P2P Throttling Settlement Approved: $16 Per User | News & Opinion | PCMag.com

Is $2,250 Per Song the New Standard for Online Copyright Infringement? | News & Opinion | PCMag.com

2010-07-11T07:27:00.000-04:00

Is $2,250 Per Song the New Standard for Online Copyright Infringement? | News & Opinion | PCMag.com

Understanding Facebook's privacy aftershocks

2010-05-07T06:14:00.000-04:00

I just read this on CNET.

May 6, 2010 3:51 PM PDT

Understanding Facebook's privacy aftershocks

by Caroline McCarthy

Depending on your preferred geological metaphor, Facebook is either an active volcano, a volatile fault line, or something else with sulfuric acid hissing out of it.

(Credit: CC: Flickr user NZ Dave)

It's been a long time since it got in the way of the World Series, but the threat of seismic tumult still hangs over Silicon Valley. When earthquakes elsewhere in the world dominate the news, people get a little more sensitive to their own vulnerability in the Bay Area. The ground might really have just given a twitch. Is it moving?

Comparing Facebook's latest product modifications to deadly natural disasters is probably a little bit inappropriate, but the psychological reaction doesn't seem all that different. The social network modified its policies for handling user data once again as part of its F8 conference and release of the Open Graph API, and ever since it became clear that more information is being set as public by default and more is being shared with third parties, concerned Facebook users have been on jittery alert, perhaps prone to overreaction, concerned that something even bigger may be about to change.

They might be freaking out a little too much. Still, the lesson to be learned from this bizarre analogy is that dealing with social media is more like disaster preparedness than you would think.

On Wednesday, one small but alarming security hole was found in Facebook; the company attributed it to an engineering bug, and patched it. On Thursday, PC World detailed that Facebook was "secretly adding" third-party applications to user profiles, something that the company once again attributed to a bug and said that it had been fixed. Investor-pundit Paul Kedrosky and fanboy idol Peter Rojas, former editor of Engadget and co-founder of GDGT, both announced on Thursday that they were deactivating their Facebook profiles.

Basically, Facebook is the Pacific Ring of the Web. In its six-year history the company has radically changed its product by implementing one small, step-by-step move after another. Recently published excerpts from David Kirkpatrick's forthcoming book "The Facebook Effect" recall small Facebook features and quirks that were quietly snuffed from the site, like the random placement of the "Wedding Crashers" quote "I don't even know what a quail looks like" under its search query field. Cue a few thousand early Facebook users saying, "Oh, yeah, I remember that!"

How do you bust up a giant landmass into seven pieces without anybody noticing? Slowly. How do you turn an uptight, closed-off Web business built by a few college students into a sprawling creature that seems capable of sharing anything with anyone anywhere? Very, very slowly. But when something big happens, people start to notice the small stuff that they wish they'd seen earlier. Concerned Facebook members are now acting like the social network has grown into something beyond their control, that even lawmakers might not be able to do much good, that the company is acting more like an unpredictable force of nature than a business run by, well, humans. Which is funny, because these days Facebook is playing up its human side, its fallibility.

After Wednesday's privacy glitch caused Facebook to temporarily disable its chat feature while all the bugs were fixed, The New York Times quoted the company's vice president of public policy, Elliot Schrage, as saying, "Are we perfect? Of course not." We should be getting used to the fact that an "iterative" product model, the sort of practice that's become commonplace now that pushing out new features no longer requires waiting for the next release of a shrink-wrapped software package, will mean imperfections. It will mean screw-ups. It will mean bugs that are quickly patched and poorly thought-out features that are pulled in due time, but they were there in the first place, and user data may have been affected in the process. These are Facebook's tectonic plates, and we are just riding around on them.

This is disconcerting, and perhaps unethical. It's provoked concern among lawmakers, anger among activist groups, and fear among Facebook members. But, for better or for worse, this is how Facebook has been working for the past six years, and the Web at large may finally be coming to that sort of understanding.

The ground is moving at Facebook, and it always has been. The social network can credit a big portion of its success to this ability and willingness to keep changing while some of its industry brethren--MySpace, Digg--kept products relatively static and are now suffering the consequences. This doesn't mean that Facebook's unstoppable by any means, though. Maybe the coalition of U.S. senators petitioning the Federal Trade Commission to rein in social networks' handling of user data a bit will be effective, and Facebook will be forced to stabilize the iteration of its service a bit; this, in turn, could mean that its lightning-speed innovation could be curbed as red tape and roadblocks go up, making it more likely that another service could race in and start chewing at its market share.

Or members could, of course, just leave--and Facebook's business model is only as good as the 400 million people who inhabit it. But people choose to live in areas prone to deadly natural disasters, too. Living your life (or a portion of it) on the Web and entrusting personal data to social-media services like Facebook means that you're agreeing to colonize a product that's subject to change and unexpected error. This is true for many services besides Facebook, too. Twitter's shown hints of major expansion plans. Location-based networking start-ups have an appetite for marketing partnership dollars and a whole lot of private data in their coffers. Then there's Blippy, the new, edgy purchase-sharing start-up that accidentally exposed several users' credit card numbers last month.

You could choose to err on the side of paranoia, assume that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is greedily dreaming of how awesome it will be when he sells everyone's data to marketers and uses the profits to buy himself a private island, and delete your Facebook account. Or you could just be aware, be cautious, and figure that maybe your credit card data is something you want to keep off of Facebook for now.

Because while Facebook is the company it is today--subject to constant and frequent volatility, eager to tread into new marketing and networking territory--this is how it's going to be.

Caroline McCarthy, a CNET News staff writer, is a downtown Manhattanite happily addicted to social-media tools and restaurant blogs. Her pre-CNET resume includes interning at an IT security firm and brewing cappuccinos. E-mail Caroline.

Read online

Lior Leser, Attorney at Law

www.web20lawyer.com

Cyber, Tech & Software Law

Leser, Hunter, Taubman & Taubman

New York ▪ Washington, DC ▪ Miami Beach

1000 5th Street, Suite 200

Miami Beach, Florida 33139

T: 888-700-2993 / 305-604-5547

This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and return the

original to the sender without making a copy. Thank you.

FCC plans Net neutrality regulations for broadband

2010-05-06T06:40:00.001-04:00

I just read this on CNET.

May 5, 2010 5:34 PM PDT

FCC plans Net neutrality regulations for broadband

by Steven Musil

Net neutrality regulations are likely to be imposed on broadband providers after all.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski plans to announce details of the plan on Thursday, a senior agency official said. The purpose is to circumvent a recent federal appeals court ruling saying the FCC had no legal authority to punish Comcast for throttling some BitTorrent transfers.

Stung by the recent unanimous ruling, Genachowski will outline a "third way" to implement Net neutrality regulations, the official said in a statement.

"The chairman will seek to restore the status quo as it existed prior to the court decision in order to fulfill the previously stated agenda of extending broadband to all Americans, protecting consumers, ensuring fair competition, and preserving a free and open Internet," the official said.

The confirmation from the FCC comes only hours after two senior Democratic politicians sent a letter to Genachowski saying that imposing Net neutrality regulations on broadband providers such as AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon is "essential." And Free Press, the liberal lobby group that's led the fight to hand the FCC more Internet regulatory authority, hastily convened a conference call to warn that Genachowski would be leaving President Obama's Net neutrality promises unfulfilled.

Free Press President Josh Silver called news of Genachowski's planned announcement "extremely welcome," but said his group would wait to see "whether the FCC has gone far enough to protect consumers with this new proposal."

Earlier in the week, The Washington Post reported that Genachowski "has indicated he wants to keep broadband services deregulated," a position favored by companies that say sweeping new regulations will deter investment and be overly burdensome.

The FCC official said Wednesday that Genachowski hopes to balance "a weak Title I and a needlessly burdensome Title II approach." Title I refers to lightly regulated information services; Title II refers to heavily regulated telecommunications services, such as legacy telephone networks.

The aim is to "apply to broadband transmission service only the small handful of Title II provisions that, prior to the Comcast decision, were widely believed to be within the commission's purview," the official said, adding that the plan would have "meaningful boundaries to guard against regulatory overreach."

Reclassifying broadband services as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act would effectively import some of the rules from the analog telephone era and extend those to the modern Internet. The move could the FCC the authority to regulate prices and competitive access under what's known as common carrier rules on these networks. It also would not require Congress to enact a new law.

Reclassification, however, is bitterly opposed by telecommunications companies, who predict it will harm consumers, hinder investment, and cost jobs. Net neutrality laws could endanger 65,000 jobs by 2011, with the total economy-wide impact growing to 1.5 million jobs affected by 2020 because of reduced revenue growth in the broadband sector, according to a recent report (PDF) sponsored by Mobile Future, which counts AT&T as a member. AT&T has lobbied against Net neutrality laws.

Also on Wednesday, FCC commissioner Robert McDowell, a Republican appointee, sent Congress a four-page letter summarizing the history of the FCC's Internet regulation. McDowell cited, for instance, a Clinton administration-era FCC decision concluding that regulating Internet access providers would lead to "negative policy consequences."

CNET's Declan McCullagh and Marguerite Reardon contributed to this report.

Steven Musil is the night news editor at CNET News. Before joining CNET News in 2000, Steven spent 10 years at various Bay Area newspapers. E-mail Steven.

Read online

Lior Leser, Attorney at Law

www.web20lawyer.com

Cyber, Tech & Software Law

Leser, Hunter, Taubman & Taubman

New York ▪ Washington, DC ▪ Miami Beach

1000 5th Street, Suite 200

Miami Beach, Florida 33139

T: 888-700-2993 / 305-604-5547

original to the sender without making a copy. Thank you.

House privacy bill draws fire from all sides

2010-05-05T06:36:00.001-04:00

I just read this on CNET.

May 5, 2010 12:00 AM PDT

House privacy bill draws fire from all sides

by Declan McCullagh

Rep. Rick Boucher, a Democrat from rural Virginia, has been unsuccessfully pushing for Internet privacy legislation for a very long time. In 1999, he proposed a bill that would give regulators more power over commercial Web sites, and he cosponsored the Consumer Privacy Protection Act in 2005.

That history probably didn't prepare Boucher for the almost uniformly hostile reception his latest legislative effort, a still-unnamed discussion draft (PDF) regulating data collection efforts, received on Tuesday.

Liberal special interest groups announced they were "disappointed" that Boucher didn't slap even more regulations on Internet businesses. Free-market think tanks panned it for going too far. And industry groups like the Interactive Advertising Bureau said it was far too broad as currently drafted.

"This bill is not the answer," said Michelle De Mooy, a senior associate at the pro-regulation group Consumer Action. "We don't think it effectively protects consumer information online."

Adam Thierer, president of the free-market Progress and Freedom Foundation, was equally skeptical--albeit for an entirely different reason. "By mandating a hodge-podge of restrictive regulatory defaults, policymakers could unintentionally devastate the 'free' Internet as we know it," he said.

The 27-page discussion draft co-sponsored by Republican Cliff Stearns would erect a new set of regulations that Internet companies must follow, along with many non-Internet companies as well (which has already led to fears that direct marketers would be swept in).

Any company or nonprofit organization that collects personal information from at least 5,000 people, including names, e-mail addresses, or U.S. mailing addresses, would not be allowed to "use" or "disclose" the data without consent. Providing a "clear statement" about how the information is used would, however, qualify as consent in many cases.

That was enough to irk groups that lobby for more regulations targeting technology companies. So were the sections of the Boucher-Stearns bill that would prevent individuals from filing lawsuits and would preempt stricter state laws.

"We're very disappointed with the legislation, which relies on notice and opt out, which has proven to be so ineffective," said Susan Grant from the Consumer Federation of America. "It carves out a huge loophole for behavioral advertising. It prevents states from enacting and enforcing stronger privacy protection."

For their part, the politicians behind the draft bill are painting the draft legislation as a work in progress. "I have been working for years to enact meaningful privacy protection legislation and this draft is advancing the process," Stearns said in a statement. "While I may not support everything in the current draft bill, it is important to get the input of stakeholders."

Lending your name to legislation you don't actually support is an unusual move even in Washington, D.C., and Silicon Valley firms were left scrambling on Tuesday to digest the proposal. One big unanswered question: How would it affect behavioral advertising, which accounts for a growing percentage of revenue at companies such as Google and Yahoo?

"The amazing thing about the Boucher legislation is its ability to transport us across time," said Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the Cato Institute, which supports limited government. "Ten years ago, Congress and regulators thought they knew how to deliver privacy better than markets. We know they don't, but they still think they do."

Declan McCullagh has covered the intersection of politics and technology for over a decade. E-mail Declan.

Read online

Lior Leser, Attorney at Law

www.web20lawyer.com

Cyber, Tech & Software Law

Leser, Hunter, Taubman & Taubman

New York ▪ Washington, DC ▪ Miami Beach

1000 5th Street, Suite 200

Miami Beach, Florida 33139

T: 888-700-2993 / 305-604-5547

original to the sender without making a copy. Thank you.

Invisible Interface Solution Patented By Apple

2010-05-04T16:51:00.001-04:00

Invisible Interface Solution Patented By Apple - http://www.maclife.com/article/news/invisible_interface_solution_patented_apple

Shared from MacLife, an iPhone app made with www.AppMakr.com

Lior Leser, Attorney at Law

www.web20lawyer.com

Cyber, Tech & Software Law

Leser, Hunter, Taubman & Taubman

New York ▪ Washington, DC ▪ Miami Beach

1000 5th Street, Suite 200

Miami Beach, Florida 33139

T: 888-700-2993 / 305-604-5547

original to the sender without making a copy. Thank you.

Get Your Multitouch On – Apple Wins Huge Patent Library

2010-05-04T16:50:00.001-04:00

Get Your Multitouch On – Apple Wins Huge Patent Library - http://www.maclife.com/article/news/get_your_multitouch_%E2%80%93_apple_wins_huge_patent_library

Shared from MacLife, an iPhone app made with www.AppMakr.com

Lior Leser, Attorney at Law

www.web20lawyer.com

Cyber, Tech & Software Law

Leser, Hunter, Taubman & Taubman

New York ▪ Washington, DC ▪ Miami Beach

1000 5th Street, Suite 200

Miami Beach, Florida 33139

T: 888-700-2993 / 305-604-5547

original to the sender without making a copy. Thank you.

Apple Granted iPhone 3G, 3GS Design Patent

2010-05-04T16:48:00.002-04:00

I thought you would find this interesting:

Apple Granted iPhone 3G, 3GS Design Patent - http://www.maclife.com/article/news/apple_granted_iphone_3g_3gs_design_patent

Shared from MacLife, an iPhone app made with www.AppMakr.com

Lior Leser, Attorney at Law

www.web20lawyer.com

Cyber, Tech & Software Law

Leser, Hunter, Taubman & Taubman

New York ▪ Washington, DC ▪ Miami Beach

1000 5th Street, Suite 200

Miami Beach, Florida 33139

T: 888-700-2993 / 305-604-5547

original to the sender without making a copy. Thank you.

WSJ Claims Federal Antitrust Probe Also Focused on iAd

2010-05-04T16:48:00.001-04:00

WSJ Claims Federal Antitrust Probe Also Focused on iAd - http://www.maclife.com/article/news/wsj_claims_federal_antitrust_probe_also_focused_iad

Shared from MacLife, an iPhone app made with www.AppMakr.com

Lior Leser, Attorney at Law

www.web20lawyer.com

Cyber, Tech & Software Law

Leser, Hunter, Taubman & Taubman

New York ▪ Washington, DC ▪ Miami Beach

1000 5th Street, Suite 200

Miami Beach, Florida 33139

T: 888-700-2993 / 305-604-5547

original to the sender without making a copy. Thank you.

Pirate Bay sees 'Iron Man 2' ahead of U.S. debut

2010-05-03T15:12:00.001-04:00

I just read this on CNET.

May 2, 2010 8:58 PM PDT

Pirate Bay sees 'Iron Man 2' ahead of U.S. debut

by Greg Sandoval

With the North American debut of "Iron Man 2" still five days away, scores of pirated copies of the comic-flick began popping up online this weekend.

(Credit: Paramount Pictures)

The film, starring actor Robert Downey Jr., generated a whopping $100 million in ticket sales this weekend in its overseas debut, according to Reuters. Apparently, among the millions of International moviegoers to see the film were some hiding handheld cameras.

At The Pirate Bay on Sunday evening, there were dozens of copies of the Paramount Pictures' film available for download. According to comments by users, the copies available were recorded by people sitting in the theater who videotaped the movie off the screen using handheld cameras. This kind of pirated film often offers mediocre viewing quality: unsteady picture, blocked views, and poor sound.

But at least one copy of the movie at The Pirate Bay received kudos for being a "decent copy."

"Props for getting your hands on this so early," wrote one Pirate Bay user. "You guys rock, thanks so much."

"This sort of theft is intensely disrespectful and damaging to those who pour their creativity and capital into movies and television," said a spokesman for Viacom, parent company of Paramount Pictures. "It is time responsible governments put an end to it."

Hollywood has seen this kind of pre-release leak before.

"This sort of theft is intensely disrespectful and damaging to those who pour their creativity and capital into movies and television."

--a Viacom spokesman

A year ago, an unfinished copy of another comic-inspired film, "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" appeared on the Web. In that case, the FBI arrested Gilberto Sanchez in December and charged him violating copyright law. The case is pending.

Kerry Gonzalez, the New Jersey man who uploaded the superhero film "Hulk" to the Web weeks before its 2003 theatrical release, pleaded guilty to felony copyright infringement and was sentenced to six months house arrest and ordered to pay a $7,000 fine.

Law enforcement authorities have traced the video-cam recording and bootlegging of movies to organized crime.

When it comes to the distribution of pirated works online, it's unclear how much they actually harm ticket sales. Some people argue that when pirated copies circulate prior to a release they can ignite favorable word-of-mouth publicity--provided the film is any good.

The Motion Picture Association of America has said piracy is one of the main causes for shrinking DVD sales.

"Iron Man 2" is scheduled to debut in North America on Friday.

Thanks to Byron Ng for the tip.

Greg Sandoval covers media and digital entertainment for CNET News. He is a former reporter for The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. E-mail Greg, or follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/sandoCNET.

Read online

Lior Leser, Attorney at Law

www.web20lawyer.com

Cyber, Tech & Software Law

Leser, Hunter, Taubman & Taubman

New York ▪ Washington, DC ▪ Miami Beach

1000 5th Street, Suite 200

Miami Beach, Florida 33139

T: 888-700-2993 / 305-604-5547

original to the sender without making a copy. Thank you.

Class action lawsuit targets Second Life

2010-05-03T15:08:00.001-04:00

May 3, 2010 11:49 AM PDTHandi-Craft Company

Class action lawsuit targets Second Life

by Caroline McCarthy

A number of paying users (or "residents") of virtual world Second Life have filed a class-action lawsuit against the company and its founder, Philip Rosedale. Their complaint: The terms of virtual property ownership have changed, and residents were forced to agree to a new terms of service that eroded their ownership rights to virtual property and goods. In fact, the suit filed on April 15 claims, the promises of "ownership" were empty in the first place.

Through extensive marketing, Second Life parent company Linden Lab, with Rosedale as its spokesman, "lured consumers across the United States to invest real money into (Second Life) by promising those users that they would own the virtual land and property they purchased as well as the content they created," the terms of the suit allege.

"Then unilaterally, without the consumer owner's consent, knowledge, or permission, changed the terms of the service agreement to state that these land and property owners did not own what they had created, bought and paid for, and that these consumers had no choice but to click on a new terms of service agreement or they could not have access to their property," the terms of the suit continue.

The plaintiffs also bring up a 2007 lawsuit that was originally filed in a Pennsylvania small claims court on behalf of Marc Bragg, a Second Life resident who requested the return of the dollar value ($8,000) that he'd invested in virtual goods and property after his account was frozen. Bragg's suit settled and his account was reinstated; the April class action suit is highlighting this as a precedent for the legal nature of ownership in Second Life.

Second Life representatives were not immediately available for comment.

Rosedale stepped down from his post as CEO of Linden Lab two years ago, but remains chairman of the board. The current CEO is Mark Kingdon, who previously helmed digital agency Organic.

A few years ago, Second Life's 3D virtual environment was hyped as the next phase of the Internet and the next big craze in brand marketing, and the media rushed in to establish a presence. But though Second Life failed to break into the mainstream and is now remembered by many as one of Web 2.0's great tales of overhype, the company has actually maintained a steady niche user base and is profitable.

The company recently announced that the first quarter of 2010 was the best in the history of the Second Life "economy," with $160 million in user-to-user transactions and over 500,000 users actively involved in the virtual market.

But there have been some significant stumbles in Second Life's attempts to develop a thriving online economy. A rash of banking scandals early in 2008, for example, caused Second Life to bar residents from creating in-world financial institutions.

Read online

Lior Leser, Attorney at Law

www.web20lawyer.com

Cyber, Tech & Software Law

Leser, Hunter, Taubman & Taubman

New York ▪ Washington, DC ▪ Miami Beach

1000 5th Street, Suite 200

Miami Beach, Florida 33139

T: 888-700-2993 / 305-604-5547

original to the sender without making a copy. Thank you.

Google execs convicted in YouTube Italy case

2010-02-24T06:17:00.000-05:00

I just read this on CNET.

February 24, 2010 2:01 AM PST

Google execs convicted in YouTube Italy case

by Stephen Shankland

In the second hit of a one-two punch in Europe, an Italian court handed out guilty verdicts on Wednesday for three of four Google executives charged a case concerning a YouTube video posted of a boy with Down's Syndrome.

The judge in the case, Oscar Magi, gave three current and former Google executives suspended six-month jail sentences and a fourth was found not guilty, according to The Associated Press. The three sentences were for violation of privacy, but the judge found the three not guilty of defamation charges.

The findings come just one day after the European Union opened an antitrust investigation concerning Google search. There was a day when Google was an exciting newcomer to the technology landscape, but the company now is clearly a powerful force has governments as well as competitors concerned.

Google didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on the YouTube case. In the past, it's held the case up as important because it could affect the extent to which Internet intermediaries are responsible for content published by third parties on their sites, calling it a direct attack on a free, open Internet" in one statement and adding that it's "akin to prosecuting mail service employees for hate speech letters sent in the post" in another statement.

Concerning the antitrust investigation, Google said on Tuesday, "We are confident that our business operates in the interests of users and partners, as well as in line with European competition law."

The Italian case was filed in 2008 after the 2006 publication on YouTube of a cell phone video of students taunting a teenager with Down's Syndrome. Google removed the video and cooperated with authorities on investigating the video.

Charged in the case are David Drummond, Google's chief legal officer; Peter Fleischer, Google's chief privacy counsel; George Reyes, Google's former chief financial officer; and a Google employee that the search giant declined to identify. It wasn't immediately clear who was found guilty of the privacy invasion.

Stephen Shankland writes about a wide range of technology and products, but has a particular focus on browsers and digital photography. He joined CNET News in 1998 and since then also has covered Google, Yahoo, servers, supercomputing, Linux and open-source software, and science. E-mail Stephen, or follow him on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/stshank.

Read online

Online Sweepstakes Lawyer

2010-02-01T08:38:00.001-05:00

With scams like this, no wander sweepstakes are so heavily regulated.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/01/27/24077.htm

Officials: Suicidal teen was cyberbullied

2010-01-27T18:55:00.001-05:00

I just read this on CNET.

January 27, 2010 3:05 PM PST

Officials: Suicidal teen was cyberbullied

by CBS Interactive staff

(Credit: CBS News)

Officials in Massachusetts believe there's been another deadly case of cyberbullying in the apparent suicide of 15-year-old Phoebe Prince of South Hadley, Mass.

Prince moved last year to the area from Ireland. While making the transition to a new town and a new country, Prince, officials believe, became the target of intense cyber-bullying, which may have contributed to her apparent suicide.

Prince was found dead in her South Hadley home on January 14, just days before a big school dance.

Read more of "Officials: Suicidal teen was cyberbullied" at CBSNews.com.

Read online

Lior Leser, Attorney at Law

www.web20lawyer.com

Cyber, Tech & Software Law

Leser, Hunter, Taubman & Taubman

New York ▪ Washington, DC ▪ Miami Beach

1000 5th Street, Suite 200

Miami Beach, Florida 33139

T: 305-604-5547

original to the sender without making a copy. Thank you.

A Little i to Teach About Online_Privacy

2010-01-27T08:21:00.003-05:00

ADVERTISING: A Little 'i' to Teach About Online Privacy
Trying to ward off regulators, the ad industry has agreed on a
standard icon to tell consumers what is happening.
http://s.nyt.com/u/tnS

Italy trying to clamp down on Internet videos

2010-01-24T07:46:00.002-05:00

Italy trying to clamp down on Internet videos

by Natalie Weinstein

An Italian decree that would require the vetting of videos with sexual or violent content could take effect as soon as February 4, according to reports.

The government decree, which affects sites such as Google's YouTube, would also require sites that regularly upload videos to obtain a license to operate in Italy, the Associated Press reported Friday.
Companies and organizations, including Google, telecommunications providers, and press watchdog groups, are seeking changes in the proposed decree. They assert that it would hurt freedom of expression and be extremely difficult to enforce and monitor.

The draft decree "poses yet another threat to freedom of expression in Italy," Reporters Without Borders said in a statement this week.

Marco Pancini, European senior policy counsel of Google Italia who testified this week before an Italian parliamentary committee, said Friday that he expects that the proposal will undergo changes and be delayed.

"We are concerned over the fact that [companies], like YouTube, that simply make content available to the general public, are being bundled together with traditional television networks that actually manage content," Pancini told the newspaper La Stampa, according to Time. "It amounts to destroying the entire Internet system."

Music Industry Counts the Cost of Piracy

2010-01-22T08:56:00.002-05:00

Music Industry Counts the Cost of Piracy
Sales of digital music rose 12 percent worldwide last year, but that
growth was insufficient to compensate for plunging revenue from
compact discs.
http://s.nyt.com/u/rcl

Clinton Urges Global Response to Internet Attacks

2010-01-22T08:50:00.002-05:00

Clinton Urges Global Response to Internet Attacks
The secretary of state said on Thursday that there should be
consequences for nations that engage in cyberattacks.
http://s.nyt.com/u/rc8

Clinton: All deserve Internet freedom

2010-01-21T15:37:00.002-05:00

Clinton: All deserve Internet freedom http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/01/21/clinton.internet/index.html?iphoneemail

FCC wades through Net neutrality comments

2010-01-18T20:12:00.003-05:00

FCC wades through Net neutrality comments

by Marguerite Reardon

The Federal Communications Commission was flooded Thursday at midnight with filings from technology and communications companies, industry lobbying groups, and consumer advocates putting in their two cents on upcoming Open Internet rules being created by the agency.

Thursday's deadline created a sea of paperwork for FCC officials who are already scrambling to complete a massive report detailing plans for a national broadband policy due to Congress in March. (The deadline has been pushed back from mid-February.)

Justice Dept. dismisses text-messaging probe

2010-01-18T20:12:00.001-05:00

Justice Dept. dismisses text-messaging probe
by Marguerite Reardon

The U.S. Department of Justice has closed its investigation of cell phone text message pricing without any action taken against wireless operators, The Wall Street Journal reported Friday.
The Justice Department launched its investigation into text message pricing in September 2008, after Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.) asked the agency to look into why wireless operators had doubled text-messaging rates from 10 cents per message to 20 cents per message sent and received. Kohl said he was concerned that the industry had colluded to increase rates at roughly the same time.

Wireless companies denied that they had colluded to set rates. And industry executives pointed out that consumers were actually paying less per text message because of plans that offered bundled packages or packages wit unlimited text messages.
But consumer groups such as Consumers Union say these plans, which cost anywhere from $5 to $20 a month, force customers to subscribe to more expensive plans. Consumer groups also argue that the cost charged for texting far outstrips the cost to network operators.
Even though the Justice Department has closed the books on this investigation, other government agencies are still investigating the wireless industry over other potential competitive issues. For example, the Federal Communications Commission is looking at competition in the wireless market, including exclusive handset deals and early-termination fees.
Marguerite Reardon has been a CNET News reporter since 2004, covering cell phone services, broadband, citywide Wi-Fi, the Net neutrality debate, as well as the ongoing consolidation of the phone companies. E-mail Maggie.

Does the Fourth Amendment cover 'the cloud'?

2010-01-18T20:10:00.001-05:00

I just read this on CNET.

January 17, 2010 6:00 AM PST

Does the Fourth Amendment cover 'the cloud'?

by James Urquhart

One of the biggest issues facing individuals and corporations choosing to adopt public cloud computing (or any Internet service, for that matter) is the relative lack of clarity with respect to legal rights over data stored online. I've reported on this early legal landscape a couple of times, looking at decisions to relax expectations of privacy for e-mail stored online and the decision to allow the FBI to confiscate servers belonging to dozens of companies from a co-location facility whose owners were suspected of fraud.

However, while I've argued before that the government has yet to apply the right metaphor to the modern world of networked applications and data, there has been little literature that has actually dissected the problem in detail. Even worse, I've seen almost no analysis of how the United States Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, applies to Internet-housed data.

(Credit: Flickr/Thorne Enterprises)

However, I just had the pleasure of reading an extremely well-written note in the June 2009 edition of the Minnesota Law Review titled "Defogging the Cloud: Applying Fourth Amendment Principles to Evolving Privacy Expectations in Cloud Computing (PDF)." Written by David A. Couillard, a student at the University of Minnesota Law School expected to graduate this year, the paper is a concise but thorough outline of where we stand with respect to the application of Fourth Amendment law to Internet computing. It finishes by introducing a highly logical framework for evaluating the application of the Fourth Amendment to cases involving cloud-based data.

According to Coulliard, we aren't very far along at all today:

Under a rubric of "reasonable expectations of privacy," the Court has since defined the contours of the Fourth Amendment's application in varying circumstances. But technology and society's expectations are evolving faster than the law. Although statutory schemes exist, some argue that these laws are outdated. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has not even addressed the Fourth Amendment's application to e-mail, let alone the expanding uses of cloud-computing platforms. Thus, Fourth Amendment law needs a framework that will adapt more quickly in order to keep pace with evolving technology.

I stated essentially the same thing in my Cloud Computing Bill of Rights back in 2008:

In order for enough trust to be built into the online cloud economy, however, governments should endeavor to build a legal framework that respects corporate and individual privacy, and overall data security. While national security is important, governments must be careful not to create an atmosphere in which the customers and vendors of the cloud distrust their ability to securely conduct business within the jurisdiction, either directly or indirectly.

Coulliard starts his analysis with how legal precedent for telephonic communications may or may not apply to the cloud. He notes that all such law is evaluated under a "reasonable expectation of privacy" test:

The reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test arose out of Katz v. United States, where Justice Harlan, concurring, outlined a two-part requirement: (1) that the person demonstrated a subjective expectation of privacy over the object and (2) that the expectation was reasonable. This test can be applied to both tangible and intangible objects. However, when the object of a search--tangible or not--is voluntarily turned over to a third party, the Supreme Court has held that a person loses their reasonable expectation of privacy in that object.

Much of the legal confusion in cases involving any form of data or transaction on the Internet since has revolved around considering whether storing your data in a third-party data center is in fact subject to the so-called "third-party doctrine." This includes cases like Smith v. Maryland, in which the courts argued that people generally gave up an expectation of privacy with regard to their phone records simply through the act of dialing their phone--as the phone company receives and processes the phone numbers, thereby becoming a party in the transaction.

Coulliard argues, however, that while Smith v. Maryland applies to the phone numbers dialed, it does not apply to the contents of the conversation, as noted in Katz v. United States. Thus, the courts should adopt a framework in which the third-party doctrine is applied much more narrowly to online content (including cloud-based data), according to Coulliard.

Coulliard goes on to discuss legal analogies of virtual containers, encryption and password protection to briefcases, locks, and keys. The argument is complex, but it turns out that in the physical world, the combination of security and opacity of a container used to store an object both affect the "reasonable expectation of privacy" test:

Hypothetically, if a briefcase is locked with a combination lock, the government could attempt to guess the combination until the briefcase unlocked; but because the briefcase is opaque, there is still a reasonable expectation of privacy in the unlocked container. In the context of virtual containers in the cloud...encryption is not simply a virtual lock and key; it is virtual opacity.

So, if the courts were to interpret digital assets in the same way Coulliard does, you could virtually (no pun intended) assure your Fourth Amendment protections, even in the cloud, if you simply encrypted your data. Cloud vendors, are you listening?

Coulliard wraps up with a suggested framework for applying the Fourth Amendment to "the cloud" that is very much in line with my own thinking. Treat digital assets on third-party sites not as transactions (like phone numbers dialed), but in the same way you would treat physical assets kept in an apartment or storage locker:

[T]he service provider has a copy of the keys to a user's cloud "storage unit," much like a landlord or storage locker owner has keys to a tenant's space, a bank has the keys to a safe deposit box, and a postal carrier has the keys to a mailbox. Yet that does not give law enforcement the authority to use those third parties as a means to enter a private space.

The same rationale should apply to the cloud. In some circumstances, such as search engine queries, the third party is clearly an interested party to the communication. But when content data, passwords, or URLs are maintained by a service provider in a relationship more akin to that of landlord-tenant, such as private Google accounts, any such data that the provider is not directly interested in should not be understood to be open to search via consent or a waiver of Fourth Amendment protection.

Amen, Mr. Coulliard. Personally, I hope the courts note this framework, and begin applying it to Fourth Amendment cases arising from Internet-based computing immediately. Furthermore, I call for Congress to explicitly codify a similar framework with laws that clearly and unequivocally state the rights of users with respect to their data in the cloud.

Then again, given the track record of our state and federal legislative bodies with respect to technology law, maybe not...

James Urquhart is a seasoned field technologist with almost 20 years of experience in distributed systems development and deployment, focusing on service-oriented architectures, cloud computing, and virtualization. James is currently market manager for the Data Center 3.0 strategy at Cisco Systems, though the opinions expressed here are strictly his own. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET.

Read online

Lior Leser, Attorney at Law

www.web20lawyer.com

Cyber, Tech & Software Law

Leser, Hunter, Taubman & Taubman

New York ▪ Washington, DC ▪ Miami Beach

1000 5th Street, Suite 200

Miami Beach, Florida 33139

T: 305-604-5547

original to the sender without making a copy. Thank you.