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.
In my previous blog on propaganda, I noted private information, when stolen and published, can prove useful for propaganda efforts. This post develops that concept in more detail, with an emphasis on privacy considerations.
I agree with interpretations of the First Amendment finding important protections for publication of private information without consent. And I concur that, as a matter of principle, the public interest can justify such publication. But too often the “public interest” defense is rather often a post hoc rationalization rather than a reasoned justification.
Contemporary analyses give insufficient weight to privacy and information security interests. Such interests often outweigh the public interest value of making private information public without the consent of the owner or data subject, but that weight may not be recognized. Some reasons for this potentially include media business models that reward clicks and attention, increased partisan polarity (and the utility of such disclosures for propaganda), mistrust of government, and insufficient enforcement of laws on cybercrime.
Late last month, I posted to SSRN a draft of my forthcoming article, “Notice and Takedown in the Domain Name System: ICANN’s Ambivalent Drift into Online Content Regulation.” The article takes a close look at ICANN’s role in facilitating a new program of extrajudicial notice and takedown in the DNS for domain names associated with accused “pirate sites.” The program is a cooperative, private venture between Donuts, the registry operator for hundreds of new gTLDs in the DNS, and the Motion Picture
No one wants to live in a “dumb” city. But I question whether anyone ought to want to live in a really smart city either. I’d prefer to just live in a smarter city -- one that puts my privacy and security first before rolling out ubiquitous sensors and broad-scale data collection in the name of some larger public good.
How Governments Can Promote Automated Driving recommended that governments conduct "legal audits" to "identify and analyze every statute and regulation that could apply adversely or ambiguously to automated driving." Automated Vehicles Are Probably Legal in the United States attempted this nationwide, and now the authors of Georgia's HB 248 have produced a bill that (while not perfect) reflects a tho
The January 2017 edition of Retrospect is now available.
I have been writing for some time about the huge discrepancy between the number of wiretaps reported annually by the Administrative Office (AO) of the US Courts and the numbers reported by phone companies and online service providers in their transparency reports. It never occurred to me that the AO might be at fault for some of the apparent under-reporting of wiretaps.
As a new presidential administration takes over, it will need to pay significant attention to cybersecurity. Indeed, we’ve already been told to expect “a comprehensive plan” for cybersecurity in the first few months of the new administration.
My Twitter feed tells me that today is the fifth anniversary of the day the Internet “went dark” in protest of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA). For anyone who needs a reminder, SOPA and PIPA were pieces of copyright legislation touted by their proponents as necessary to prevent online piracy and to protect U.S. jobs in the film, television, and music industries.
The Internet is full of trolls. So it’s no surprise that notice and takedown systems for online speech attract their fair share of them – people insisting that criticism of their scientific research, videos of police brutality, and other legitimate online speech should be removed from Internet platforms.