The Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School is a leader in the study of the law and policy around the Internet and other emerging technologies.
By Joan Barata on February 18, 2019 at 12:30 am
The new EU Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) has been officially adopted and published. it is now time for member States to start the process of incorporating its provisions into their respective legal and institutional frameworks.
By Ryan E. Long on February 16, 2019 at 3:38 pm
You are CEO of Google. When you wake up tomorrow morning, your general counsel calls you: "we've been sued in the E.U. for copyright infringement! The claim: our search results for Le Parisien and dozens of other newspapers used more than one word and/or beyond a 'short extract.'" Your response: "is this April Fools’ day?"
By Riana Pfefferkorn on February 14, 2019 at 4:37 pm
On February 11, a federal court in Fresno denied a motion to unseal that I had filed last November along with the ACLU, the ACLU of Northern California, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
By Joan Barata on January 31, 2019 at 12:17 pm
The present submission has the object of providing comments and recommendations regarding a very specific provision included in the document mentioned in the title, that is the specific proposed duty for intermediaries to:
“deploy technology based automated tools or appropriate mechanisms, with appropriate controls, for proactively identifying and removing or disabling public access to unlawful information or content.”
By Riana Pfefferkorn on January 30, 2019 at 2:04 pm
As I mentioned in my previous blog post, 2019 is shaping up to be a big year for increased transparency in our nation's courts. At CIS, we've had a whirlwind month of activity in several different cases:
By Daphne Keller on January 28, 2019 at 9:00 pm
I have a new article coming out, called Who Do You Sue? State and Platform Hybrid Power over Online Speech. It is about free expression rights on platforms like Facebook or Twitter, which the Supreme Court has called “the modern public square.” One section is about speakers suing platforms. It looks at cases – over thirty so far – where users argue that companies like Facebook or Twitter have violated their free expression rights by taking down legal speech that is prohibited under the platforms’ Community Guidelines.
By Albert Gidari on January 26, 2019 at 12:00 am
TechCrunch asked a panel of eight privacy experts: “Has anything fundamentally changed around privacy in tech in 2019? What is the state of privacy and has the outlook changed?” Here's what I said in response.
By Chuck Cosson on January 24, 2019 at 9:25 pm
Tool Without A Handle: “A Mere Gallimaufry”
This blog has spent a good deal of real estate discussing networked information technologies as tools, but has not yet dealt thoroughly with the qualifier in its title: tools “without handles.” The addition of “without a handle” is intended to indicate that my primary metaphor of a tool in the control of a user - and thus my general preferred approach to Internet policy and regulation, favoring individual control and accountability for uses of tools – needs to be leavened a bit.
By Riana Pfefferkorn on December 21, 2018 at 12:27 pm
In September 2016, my colleague Jennifer Granick (now at the ACLU) and I filed a petition in the federal district court for the Northern District of California that sought to unseal years' worth of sealed surveillance matters filed in that court. It is well-established that the public and the press have First Amendment and common-law rights to access court records.
By Brett Frischmann on November 29, 2018 at 1:28 pm
In this essay, we explore how personalization works for and against people. Personalization is just a tool. Society needs to pay attention to what is being personalized and to what and whose ends.
