Blog

Law, Borders, and Speech: Data Protection and the Right to Be Forgotten

This panel addressed the right to be forgotten (RTBF) from a global perspective, presenting points of view from relevant stakeholders and academic researchers from different regions. As established in the Court of Justice of the European Union’s 2014 Google Spain case, this is a right under data protection law for individuals to request that search engines de-list specified results appearing in response to a search for the individual’s name.[1] While search engines may decline to de-list results based on public interest considerations, the RTBF is still far broader than de-listing or removal rights in many countries, including the United States. This is especially the case since de-listing can also be requested for information that lawfully published online.

Law, Borders, and Speech: Intellectual Property

The topic of this panel was cross-border issues in the online enforcement of intellectual property rights. The speakers brought a range of perspectives from the movie industry (Ben Sheffner), the public interest sector (Corynne McSherry), academia (Annemarie Bridy), and the tech industry (Alex Feerst).

The panel began with a discussion of Equustek Solutions Inc. v. Jack, a case then pending before the Supreme Court of Canada.[1] In the case, Google challenged a lower court’s injunction requiring it to remove search results not only from its Canadian services, but globally. The sites belonged to the defendants, who were accused of trade secret misappropriation and trademark infringement. The defendants fled Canada during the course of the litigation, which led the court to strike their defenses as a sanction. The trial court ultimately issued an order enjoining the defendants from using Equustek’s trade secrets and from selling infringing inventory. The defendants predictably disregarded the court’s order. They continued to sell products from various websites they controlled from indeterminate locations. Equustek asked Google to globally remove search results for the defendants’ websites, which Google refused to do. Google agreed only to remove infringing URLs from results on its Canadian search service at www.google.ca. Equustek argued before the trial court that Google should be compelled to do more.

Law, Borders, and Speech: The Big Picture

David G. Post, reviewing what the original Law and Borders paper got right (and what it got wrong), noted that the central dilemma it had identified—the conflict between an a-territorial global network and an international legal system with territoriality at its core—had certainly proved to be a profoundly challenging one. He suggested that the failure (thus far) to make much headway on these problems of “governance on the Internet” (in Bertrand de la Chapelle’s phrase) may be pushing these problems “upward,” to the institutions (e.g., ICANN) concerned with “governance of the Internet,” as they face increasing pressure to leverage their control over critical infrastructure to exercise greater control over online content and conduct.

Law, Borders, and Speech: Introducing Our Proceedings Volume

The essay below serves as introduction to the Stanford Center for Internet and Society's Law, Borders, and Speech Conference Proceedings Volume. The conference brought together experts from around the world to discuss conflicting national laws governing online speech -- and how courts, Internet platforms, and public interest advocates should respond to increasing demands for these laws to be enforced on the global Internet.

Tool Without a Handle: Privacy and Moral Hazard

Discussions of privacy tend to focus on the value of privacy. This post agrees that privacy has value in practical terms, as an important moral principle, and for its contribution to human flourishing. At the same time, these observations are incomplete. Privacy, like security and transparency, involves trade-offs. Indeed, it involves trade-offs with precisely those other qualities – security and transparency in particular. Privacy, for example, protects data that would reveal fraud, lies, and other wrongdoing.

New Article in the Connecticut Law Review

My article Everything Radiates: Does the Fourth Amendment Regulate Side-Channel Cryptanalysis?, 49 Conn. L. Rev. 1393 (2017), has recently been published by the Connecticut Law Review. You can download it from SSRN here. I contributed this piece as part of my participation in the law review's 2017 Symposium last January.

Remarks at IGF 2017 Session on Encryption

The following are my opening remarks for the encryption panel during the IGF 2017 main session, "Local interventions, global impacts: How can international, multistakeholder cooperation address Internet disruptions, encryption, and data flows?"

Pages

Subscribe to Stanford CIS Blog