Blog Post W/E 5/13/07

This week I have been preoccupied with the question of a school's ability to regulate a student's usage of the internet. Though there are certain protocols that a student must follow if they are using the school's machines, what about outside of school? If a student is on his or her home computer, using the internet service their guardians pay for and they are discussing things relative to their schooling, can the school discipline them?
I think the answer is no.
As over-litigious as it sounds, if a student is libeling an administrator or teacher, the offended party may have to bring legal action against the student (or guardian). Though this is costly and inefficient and teachers definitely have their privacy rights, we cannot take away rights from the students either.
There may even be, in the future, the necessity of an ADR setup for disputes like this. In the current period, it is much simpler to disseminate discontent with a person and slander and libel them than ever before. This needs to be remedied.

Legal 491S W/E 4/29/07

"Here's the deal: Proposal would allow Internet gambling" - BNA headlines

There is a bill proposed that would remove the restriction on internet gambling. The article mentions the ridiculousness of having real world legalized gambling and its illegality on the internet. It is a ironic example of how we are both behind in our laws with many aspects of the internet and OVER-legislated in others.

Also, since half of the users of internet gambling are Americans, it seems that the government should be protecting those who participate in it. Furthermore, it personally upsets me that AGAIN the government is overstepping its bounds. Some of the supporters of the ban believe the ban is useful in a "protect the youth"-esque way, which reminds me of the justification of censorship. Usually when some moral crusader is against any sort of "racy" material, its banning is ALWAYS to protect the children. That logic is antiquated and has no place in contemporary society, especially the internet.

In a complete different view, arresting CEO's of foreign based gambling corporation just seems ludicrous. It, with other aspects mentioned in the article, shows that the U.S. is both setting bad precedent in foreign relations and ALSO hurts the lifeblood of some small island nations.

Though I do not participate in online gambling, I would like the option to be able to and the ban on it angers me.

Legal 491S W/E 4/22/07

Teen fake polices YouTube clips - from BNA headlines

When I read the blurb of this article on the BNA email, I didn't understand what it was talking about. Once I read the full article, i realized my confusion mostly stemmed from the utter ridiculousness of what occurred. A fake letter sent from a fifteen-year old was sent to Youtube, a billion dollar website, pertaining to the removal of clips owned by the ABC network. Not a single person at Youtube followed up on this. They began to send emails to the posters of things owned by ABC telling them that they had violated copyright laws. Am I the only person that finds this unbelievable? It absolutely blows my mind that no one at Youtube furthered this up with the actual ABC network. I think this is telling in how the feelings about intellectual property are changing. People are running scared. website are nervous about being sued, so they are extremely proactive in preventing this from even occurring. This comes from two separate places. The first is the overly litigious zeitgeist of American society. People find that they can attempt to bring lawsuits over almost anything. The second facet of this is that with the amount of money being made in solely virtual spaces, everyone is both paranoid they are steeping on someone else's proverbial toes and intent on making the most amount of money possible.

In the coming years, or months, the internet is going to be viewed in a vastly different way. It will likely be a cycle. After the dot-com bubble burst, people shied away. However, it is obvious they are coming back, more cautiously, yet just as greedily.

Still, someone should have fact-checked the letter. This could have been an international incident between the U.S. and Australia. Ha!

Legal 491S Blog Post W/E 4/15/07

Senators propose labels for adult Web sites - BNA Headlines

There is a new bill being proposed that would create a new html tag to websites that the government deems "racy" to prevent minors from accessing this content. This is much like the v-chip that TV manufacturers have been offering for the last decade. One of the main issues I have with this bill is that the idea that those who are opposed on grounds that this is an overstepping of bounds by the government will be treated as though they are in favor of children seeing pornography. If you do not support this legislation, you must want children to lose their innocence. However, obviously a much deeper issue comes to play here. This is censorship. Future web browsers used by kids will not be allowed to access sites that have objectionable material. Two questions arise. The first is, what is "racy" and the second is, who judges this. There are already reports of common use computers, such as in a library, blocking sites that are completely informational and not pornographic at all. Since the dissemination of knowledge is extremely important both for educational purposes and because everyone has a right to access information, this is a problem.

A second issue with this bill is that pornographic sites are supposed to enter into a national registry. This simply makes me uncomfortable. It just makes it that much easier to be tracked down on the internet and have things linked to an individual. Yes, I am all for people catching internet predators and other criminals, however, if someone runs a pornographic website in their spare time while having a real 9-5 job, it is likely that this will be found out and that is unfair to the webmaster.

This article just seems to show that the government is trying to legislate the internet but focusing on the wrong things.

Legal 491S Blog Post W/E 4/8/07

"Microsoft sues retailers for peddling student-only software" - BNA article headline

This article jumped out at me. It pertains to smaller companies who were selling Microsoft software that was solely allowed for use by students. I found this article interesting mostly because I did not realize until I took this class that even though I bought Microsoft Office when I entered college, it is not mine. Microsoft is "leasing" it to me, in a way. This idea intrigues me because I am also taking the Second Life class and there are issues with intellectual property that arise in these virtual worlds. Linden Labs, the owner of SL, in its EULA both gives and does not give its users control over the things they create. The writing is very ambiguous. As I read articles like this and see how things are progressing in virtual worlds, it is amazing to me how very soon things will reach boiling point. There are so many internet related law issues that need to be cleared up and it needs to happen now.

A second thing that I was intrigued by in this article was that the way that this "fraud" was purported was that the software that the company had was intended to be bought by universities to offer to its students at a cheap price. However, the company that was supposed to do this, instead sold to retailers in the United States. This brings up the idea of jurisdiction. Should the cases be heard in the courts in the United States or in Jordan, the country where the company was based. Considering the tenuous relationship between the two countries, this could present a problem if the Jordanian company just ignores Microsoft's lawsuit. It seems more and more that there needs to be a sole internet jurisdiction in which ALL LAWS are followed by every single internet entity. Obviously, there is an issue with the pragmatism of this idea. Who decides these laws? Will under-developed for countries, for example, have no say? Should it be based on countries with the most users? Does this unfairly bias the system against highly-technologized countries with small populations i.e. Sweden et al.
These things must be resolved.

Blog Post W/E 3/18/07

I was extremely interested in the reading by Julian Dibbell entitled "A Rape in Cyberspace". I had first encountered the case of Mr. Bungle in another reading "Napster's Second Life" which dealt with the issues of regulation virtual worlds. The author's hypothesized that unless regulation was the same across the board then the virtual worlds may devolve into a series of peer-2-peer worlds that governmental bodies are not able to regulate because there would be too many servers and people would be fully in control. The relationship between this idea and the Mr. Bungle incident is that I feel that were there to be a peer-2-peer setup, occurrences might not occur. The reason for this is that many virtual worlds could be invite only and hopefully this would keep out unwanted people. Though it would be extremely naive to believe that there would be no disputes, the actions of Mr. Bungle were disgusting. The disputes would be more pragmatic, quotidian concerns.

The second thing that interested me about the Mr. Bungle incident was how violated people felt by it. Though I do not expect that users will not find issue with another user forcing them to do inappropriate things with kitchen utensils, the level of connection between people and their virtual selves is paramount to understanding how to mediate all disputes in the virtual world. There are many cases, especially among users who spend vast amounts of time in their virtual worlds, where they do not even see the line anymore between their virtual and real world selves. I notice this even in my life. I do not spend an exorbitant amount of time on my virtual world, yet I do feel a small connection to my avatar. However, as I discussed virtual worlds with another professor from the Legal Studies department, I was saying that many people use their avatar to represent themselves in the virtual world in the way they feel they cannot in the real world. This is not something I can empathize with. My avatar does not represent for me and hidden desires about aesthetics or anything else for that matter. I do not feel the need to skulk into any of the sex simulations in the virtual world. That's something that I could do in the real world if I wanted too.

This idea brings me to the character of Anshe Chung. She started out her empire by being a prostitute in the virtual world. This is not something that she would do in the real world. This is an example of more of a disassociation from one's virtual character. Even in the interview that was interrupted, it seemed that she was angrier that it wasn't about her, not that her avatar had been disrespected per se.

In seeing the need to regulate virtual worlds and the disputes that occur there needs to be a better understanding about the relationship between people and their online selves.

491S Blog Post W/E 3/11/07

Sweden eyes monitoring e-mail, cellphone calls

- from BNA email

This article was of interest to me because I see it as a somewhat followup to last weeks blog post regarding the United States DOJ intending to pass a law that mandates that image-sharing sites to have user data. Though this article pertains to Sweden and not the United States, I think it shows the current trend at governments attempting to better regulate the internet. However, this better regulation comes at the price of privacy of many internet users. The Swedish government contends that it will only monitor international emails and cellphone calls and thus only a tiny amount of communications will be monitored. However, this is not acceptable. I have friends in Sweden and I absolutely do not want the Swedish government reading the emails I send them.
The article also references the U.S. government's attempt do the same thing in 2001. This act was challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of journalists and others who felt that this "would put many of their overseas contact under such surveillance".
This act still must be passed by Swedish Parliament. If passed, the Swedish government could use data-mining software to check for key words that occur in transmissions that occur over national borders. Other countries have similar laws, however they are not as invasive. For example, in Britain "emails can only be intercepted with a warrant signed by Secretary of State". Furthermore, these intercepted emails are inadmissible in court. This law is so overarching that even the Swedish security police criticize it. The law will come up in the Parliament later this year.
It is no secret that there is a problem in the world with terrorism, whether it be in the United States or Europe, however, the time is coming when people have to evaluate how much they are willing to give up to be "protected". Living in a world of no privacy can very likely make life not worth living.