Stanford Center for Internet and Society

Lisa A. Gok, Assistant Regional Director for Enforcement in the Pacific Regional Office of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and Roberto Tercero, Senior Counsel in the Commission's Internet Enforcement Branch in Los AngelesNovember 4, 2002
Time and Room TBD
Stanford Law School

All are welcome.

How is the Internet used to violate the federal securities laws? How does the SEC respond? The presentation covers "pump and dump" stock manipulations, offering fraud and hoax press releases. We also discuss investigative issues that arise as a result of the Electronic Communications Act, the Cable Communications Policy Act and the recently enacted USA PATRIOT Act.

Catholic University in Washington DC held a symposium on "The Rule of Law and The Information Age: Reconciling Private Rights and Public Interest." Stanford Professors Larry Lessig and Margaret Jane Radin will participate in the event. Professor Lessig, Executive Director of CIS, will present a paper on "The Tragedy of the Innovation Commons?: Reconciling Private Claims with Public Interest." Professor Radin, Director of the Stanford Program on Law, Science and Technology, will present her paper titled, "Reconsidering the Rule of Law: Commodification in the Information Age." Watch the archived videos.

Meiring de Villiers, Assistant Professor, Management Science & Engineering, Stanford UniversityMonday, April 29, 2002
12:30-1:30 p.m.
Room 80 (Moot Courtroom)
Stanford Law School

All are welcome. Lunch will be served.

A victim of computer virus infection may bring legal action under a negligence theory against entities such as web site operators and other providers and distributors of infected software. Proof of specific negligence is simple in cases involving a familiar virus strain that could have been prevented cost-effectively. In cases involving complex and novel strains, and where lapses in compliance with the non-durable component of anti-viral precautions leave no evidentiary trace, such direct proof may be impossible. This article develops a theory of circumstantial evidence, based on the doctrine res ipsa loquitur, aimed at alleviating a virus victim's burden of proof. Res ipsa oquitur allows an inference of negligence based on the mere occurrence of an accident and the circumstances surrounding it, and does not require proof of

John Podesta is the former Chief of Staff for the Clinton Administration.Tuesday, April 16, 2002
12:30-1:30 p.m.
Room 80 (Moot Courtroom)
Stanford Law School

All are welcome. Lunch will be served.

John Podesta is the former Chief of Staff to the President. He served in the first Clinton administration as an assistant to the President and staff secretary at the White House, where he managed the paper flow to and from the President, including coordination of White House Senior Staff advice on Presidential decision memoranda and approval on all Presidential documents.

Panelists:
Stefan Bechtold – "Regulation of Namespaces"
Yuko Noguchi – "Private Copyright Management by Contracts – Comparative Study of US and Japan"
Carola Vasquez – "Regulation of Domain Names: Using Market Forces to Govern a Flawed System"Monday, April 8, 2002
12:30-2:00 p.m.
Room 80 (Moot Courtroom)
Stanford Law School

Stephan Bechtold graduated from the University of Tübingen School of Law, Germany, in 1999. Since 1997, he has been working as a research assistant to Prof. Dr. Wernhard Möschel at the University of Tübingen. In summer 2001, he finished his doctoral dissertation on the implications of digital rights management which was published recently as a book. In 1999 and 2000, Stefan was a Visiting Scholar at the University of California at Berkeley School of Law for five months in total. Supported by a Fulbright scholarship, he is a SPILS (Stanford Program in International Legal Studies) fellow at Stanford Law School since August 2001. Stefan is author of numerous publications in the area of Internet and intellectual property law as well as of the “Link Controversy Page,” a web page on legal questions of hyperlinks, frames and inline images. Additionally, he has composed numerous orchestra and chamber music works which have been awarded several composition prizes and have been repeatedly performed and broadcast.

"Freedom to Tinker" is the freedom to understand, repair, and improve the technological devices you own. This freedom, which has been eroded by recent changes in markets and the law, is the organizing principle behind an increasing political and legal awareness among technologists. In this talk, Professor Felten will outline the ideas behind the freedom to tinker movement, using examples drawn from the current battles over copy protection.

Missed the talk? Listen in RealAudio format.Tuesday, April 2, 2002
12:30-1:30 p.m.
Room 80 (Moot Courtroom)
Stanford Law School

All welcome. Lunch will be provided.

Edward Felten is on sabbatical leave from Princeton University, where he is an Associate Professor of Computer Science and Director of the Secure Internet Programming Laboratory. Professor Felten challenged the constitutionality of provisions of the DMCA that would prevent him from publishing his research. Professor Felten was the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit asking for First Amendment protection for an academic paper he wrote on research into SDMI, a technological copyright protection scheme contemplated by the Recording Industry Association of America, and shielded under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. For more informatin, please visit the EFF's page. Felten?s presence at CIS promoted the interdisciplinary study of the DMCA?s effect on computer science research and scientific inquiry.

Should a publicly-traded company be required to have a chief compliance officer in the post-Enron environment? Henry Carter will also discuss issues related to ethics in the corporate environment with a focus on marketing.Tuesday, March 19, 2002
12:30 - 1:30 p.m.
Room 80 (Moot Courtroom)
Stanford Law School

All welcome. Lunch will be provided.

Henry W. Carter was the former Chief Compliance Officer for E*TRADE Securities, Inc., one of the fastest-growing internet broker-dealers in the world. First as outside counsel, then as chief compliance officer and finally as assistant general counsel for the parent company, Mr. Carter witnessed the rapid expansion of account growth in the domestic and international markets, reviewed all communications with the public, participated in ground-breaking legal developments with lawmakers and regulators including online suitability and electronic signatures, and was the chief ethics officer for a company that was on the cutting edge in the financial services industry.

Join opposing counsel Michael Jacobs from Morrison & Foerster, Ann Brick from the ACLU, and Bill McSwain from the Dechert Philadelphia office, for a candid discussion about Intel v. Hamidi. Come hear about this seminal case from those who know it best.

Currently on appeal to the California Supreme Court, Intel v. Hamidi exemplifies the clash between traditional legal doctrine and emerging technologies. Implicating First Amendment protections and the legitimate interests of private property owners, this landmark case challenges the way we conceptualize free speech in virtual spaces.

How are global trade negotiations dealing with Internet Jurisdiction?

Missed the talk? Listen in RealAudio format.Monday, February 11, 2002
12:30 - 2:00 p.m.
Room 80, Moot Courtroom
Stanford Law School

Lunch will be served.

James Love has worked for the Center for Study of Responsive Law since 1990, and since 1995 is the Director of the Consumer Project on Technology.

Mr. Love is the co-chair of the Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) special group on Intellectual Property, the former co-chair of the TACD working group on E-Commerce, a member of the MSF Working Group on Intellectual Property and the MSF Working Group on Drugs for Neglected Diseases, and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development Working Group on Access to Human Genetic Resources.

In the wake of September 11, there is a yearning for technological solutions to our new security challenges. The federal government is enthusiastically supporting the creation of technologies to authenticate the identities of citizens and aliens, classify them according to their past behavior, and assess their future risk. Many of these technologies were developed in the corporate sector for business intelligence and are now being deployed for national intelligence. Can these technologies be designed in ways that protect liberty and security at the same time? Or are some so potentially invasive of privacy and liberty that they should be regulated strictly or resisted entirely?