I have a comment on the NYT Room to Debate forum Google or China: Who Has More to Lose? praising Google's decision not to censor search results on .cn but recognizing that it was the alleged Chinese government's hacking that broke the camel's back as opposed to general disgust with the regime's Internet Freedom policy (I also wrote about this at the time of the initial announcement in January). I do think it shows that while doing business with China could be justified by a goal of fostering engagement, collaborating with the regime cannot. Read more about Google No Longer Will Collaborate With China
Lauren Gelman's blog
What is so amazing about the news that Google will stop censoring search results in China and may pull out altogether, is that the impetus for this has nothing to do with search. Gmail accounts were hacked. IP may have been stolen. The China/Google arrangement on search results appears unaffected by the recent events.
What happened today is that Google declared China is no longer fit to be their partner. Five years ago the argument Google made was that it was appropriate for companies to respect the local laws in jurisdictions they operated in, and while China’s were distasteful, the benefits of engagement and increased information flow made the censorship requirement worth it. At the time I thought this was a really hard question and I still think it is: Where is the line between engagement and appeasement? Could complying with a requirement of censorship ever be appropriate?
Today, Google gave us one vision of how to draw the line. By (allegedly) hacking human rights activists’ email and stealing private assets, in cyberspace the Chinese government has shown themselves to be more closely akin to a criminal enterprise than a legitimate government partner. And so a compromise between speech restrictions and increased information flow that was reasonable with a legitimate partner is no longer legitimate, even though nothing about the terms of the original compromise on search has changed.
Google says “trust us” a lot and it usually drives me crazy. For today they’ve won my trust. This decision is a game changer. It will be interesting to see what happens next. Read more about Google's Stunning Indictment of the Chinese Government
While searching online for information about a new grocery store opening in my neighborhood, I came across a wonderful blog dedicated to all things Noe Valley. But what totally blew my mind is this feature where the blogger reports the inspection scores for restaurants that leave food delivery menus on neighborhood doorsteps. This information is available online but I never thought to search for it. Thank you NoeValleySF! Read more about Citizen Journalism at its Best
Author: José Mauro Decoussau Machado
Sam's Wines & Liquors, Inc. (Sam’s Wines) sued Sean Hartig (Hartig), a former employee, and Plinio Group, LLC (Plinio), Hartig’s new employer, claiming that Hartig stole Sam’s Wines’ confidential customer list from its computers prior to Hartig’s resignation. The list was password-protected and Hartig had signed an acknowledgement declaring that the information would not be disclosed. Hartig took the confidential customer list to Plinio and used it to solicit customers. Read more about Copying Customer List Does Not Necessarily Imply "Damages" Under Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
Join us as we Celebrate the Release of
Professor Larry Lessig's new Book!
Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy
purchase at amazon
October 29 2008
181 Third Street, San Francisco
7 PM Program
Free and open to the public! Read more about Lessig Book Party: SF 10/29
CIS Faculty co-directors Larry Lessig and Barbara van Schewick (with Yale's Jack Balkin) separately sent letters to the FCC to commend the Commissioners on the Comcast ruling released today.
Both praised the order as furthering the FCC's policy that the Internet should function as an open platform for innovation. Read more about CIS Faculty Directors Lessig and van Schewick congratulate FCC on Comcast Ruling
The Center for Internet and Society is now accepting applications for the 2008-2009 Non- Residential Fellowship Program.
CIS Non-Residential Fellows work independently and with CIS staff and faculty on projects related to CIS' mission. These non-supported fellowships allow practitioners to benefit from synergies with Stanford Law School in their scholarly research. Non-Residential Fellows are encouraged to make their work available through CIS and to present their work at the CIS Speaker Series.
This fellowship is particularly appropriate for individuals who are interested in studying a cyberlaw issue or working on a cyberlaw project that is outside the scope of their usual work and who would benefit from the affiliation with and support of Stanford CIS. Applicants must submit a specific research proposal which they plan to accomplish during the one- year fellowship. While fellowships are generally for one year, they may be renewed if the collaboration proves productive and would benefit from additional time.
Applications will be accepted until August 15th and are *only* accepted through the CIS website. Read more about Apply to Be a CIS Non-Resident Fellow 2008-2009 Academic Year