Stanford Center for Internet and Society

A fascinating article from today's New York Times:

A couple of years ago, Michael T. Arnold landed at the Los Angeles International Airport after a 20-hour flight from the Philippines. He had his laptop with him, and a customs officer took a look at what was on his hard drive. Clicking on folders called “Kodak pictures” and “Kodak memories,” the officer found child pornography.

The search was not unusual: the government contends that it is perfectly free to inspect every laptop that enters the country, whether or not there is anything suspicious about the computer or its owner. Rummaging through a computer’s hard drive, the government says, is no different than looking through a suitcase.

Earlier this week, Chief Justice John Roberts, addressed students at the Brigham Young University. According to a press account of the event:

Emerging technologies can create new questions about old laws. For example, imaging technology exists that allows law enforcement officers to see through walls. "Is that an unlimited search and seizure?" Roberts asked.

The Times Online (London) reports:

Islamic militants are suspected of using Second Life, the internet virtual world, to hunt for recruits and mimic real-life terrorism.

Police and the intelligence services are concerned that it may have been infiltrated by extremists to proselytise, communicate and transfer money to one another. Radicals may also be responsible for “virtual” terrorist attacks in which buildings depicted on the website are blown up.

I'm in the process of completing an article that discusses whether and to what extent Muslim-Americans have altered their use of the Internet, after the 9/11 attacks, as a result of a concern that the government is monitoring the online activities of Muslims in the United States. The article, among other things, notes that the Internet has become a vital tool for al-Qaeda and as such is a target of government surveillance measures. This week's issue of the Economist contains an insightful article, entitled "A world wide web of terror," that helps explain why the Internet is al-Qaeda's "best friend." I recommend this article to anyone interested in the intersection of technology and national security.

This fascinating article appears on the front page of today's Washington Post:

As recent advances in Internet technology have spurred millions of users to build and explore new digital worlds, the creations have imported not only their users' dreams but also their vices. These alternative realms are testing the long-held notions of what is criminal and whether law enforcement should patrol the digital frontier....

The Yale Law Journal Pocket Part is soliciting essays and commentaries on the role of law, policy, and extralegal tactics in regulating instances of cyber bullying, including defamatory “Google bombing.” How, if at all, should regulatory schemes address providers of information who make no endorsement of the information’s content?

More information after the jump...

Last night my old constitutional law professor, Jeffrey Rosen, appeared on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, perhaps one of the best comedy programs on television today, to discuss his new book, The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries That Defined America.

This month's Reason contains an excellent article entitled, "The Pinpoint Search: How super-accurate surveillance technology threatens our privacy." The author, Julian Sanchez, notes: "A new wave of advanced surveillance tools is capable of detecting not just drugs but weapons, explosives, and illicit computer files, potentially flying under the Fourth Amendment’s radar all the while."

Yesterday, Circuit Judge Diana Gribbon Motz issued an interesting opinion on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The petitioner challenged the government's search of password-protected files on his hard drive, claiming that he was "the only person who knew the password necessary to view files that he had created" and that his wife, who has limited knowledge of computers, lacked the authority to consent to a search of these files.