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 Brett Frischmann • February 6, 2012 at 7:22 am
This is my second post over at Concurring Opinions for the symposium on Marvin Ammori’s Free Speech Architecture article. Read more » about One more principle: Nondiscrimination
By Marvin Ammori • February 5, 2012 at 2:00 pm
Cross posted from Marvin Ammori's post at Concurring Opinions. Read more » about Free Speech Architecture – Baseline Spaces for Speech (#3)
By Marvin Ammori • February 4, 2012 at 5:00 pm
Cross posted from Marvin Ammori's post at Concurring Opinions. Read more » about First Amendment “Exceptions” and What the First Amendment Means (#2)
By Marvin Ammori • February 3, 2012 at 2:00 pm
Cross posted from Marvin Ammori's post at Concurring Opinions. Read more » about Negative Liberty and What the First Amendment Ought to Be
By Brett Frischmann • February 3, 2012 at 11:05 am
This post is cross-posted at Concurring Opinions, which is having a blog symposium on Marvin Ammori's excellent article on First Amendment Architecture. Next week, the Stanford Technology Law Review is holding its “First Amendment Challenges in the Digital Age” conference and one of the panels also will center on the piece. So it is getting a lot of attention!
... Read more » about Thoughts on Ammori's Free Speech Architecture and the Golan decision
By Woodrow Hartzog • February 2, 2012 at 9:59 am
Last week, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in United States v. Jones, in which the Justices held that the government's installation of a GPS device on a target's vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle's movements, constituted a Fourth Amendment search. The decision was surprisingly unanimous on this point, though concurring opinions by Justices Sotomayor and Alito potentially amplify the significance of the opinion by proposing alternate approaches to the larger problem of ubiquitous surveillance technologies and privacy in public. Given the majority opinion's narrow focus on the attachment of the device to the car, the larger issue of privacy in public remains unsettled.
Others have done an exemplary job of commenting on the decision. The dominant themes arising from the decision and analysis of the decision seem to be the (re?)injection of the concept of trespass into Fourth Amendment doctrine, signs of potential withering of the third party doctrine, and recognition that Fourth Amendment and privacy doctrine will soon enough be useless if they do not adequately protect against ever-evolving surveillance methods and technologies.
I'd like to focus on an aspect of the decision that has not shown up much in the analysis of the case, likely because it was never explicitly mentioned in the text. Although the word obscurity does not appear anywhere in United States v. Jones, I think the decision, particularly Justice Sotomayor's concurring opinion, supports the idea that the obscurity of our personal information is worth protecting. Read more » about Three Cheers for Obscurity, an Unspoken Beneficiary of United States v. Jones
By Bryant Walker Smith • January 31, 2012 at 9:12 pm
Nevada. Florida. Hawaii. Arizona. Oklahoma. As legislators move to expressly regulate automated driving, I’ll be tracking state-by-state developments on this wiki and discussing themes on this blog.
I’ll begin that discussion with a basic legal question: Who drives an automated vehicle? The answer might be no one—a truly driverless car in the legal and technical senses. It might be a natural person—the individual owner (if there is one), the occupant (ditto), or the individual who initiates the automated operation (ditto again). It might be a company—the corporate owner, the service provider, or the manufacturer. Depending on the context, it might even be some combination of these possibilities. Read more » about Backseat Driving
By Documentary Film Program • January 31, 2012 at 2:32 pm
“Bringing King to China” is the bittersweet story of Caitrin, a young teacher in Beijing, whose failed protests against the Iraq war inspire her to produce a play in China about Martin Luther King, Jr.
Early in the film she mistakenly learns that her father (the filmmaker) has been killed by a suicide bomber in Iraq. Read more » about Bringing King to China
By Documentary Film Program • January 31, 2012 at 1:02 pm
FOUR SURVIVORS, ONE TRUTH
THIS SHOULD NOT HAPPEN TO ANYONE Read more » about Beneath the Blindfold
By Documentary Film Program • January 31, 2012 at 12:59 pm
In 1991, Cameron Todd Willingham’s three daughters died in a Corsicana, Texas house fire. Tried and convicted for their arson murders, Willingham spent twelve years on death row, and was executed despite overwhelming expert criticism of the prosecution’s arson evidence. Today, Willingham's name has become a call for reform in the field of forensics and a rallying cry for the anti-death penalty movement; yet he remains an indisputable "monster" in the eyes of Texas Governor Rick Perry, who ignored the science that could have saved Willingham’s life. Read more » about INCENDIARY: The Willingham Case
