Blog

European Public Libraries Have the Right to Digitize Works in their Collections with Some Limitations

On September 11, 2014, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) decided Technische Universität Darmstadt v Eugen Ulmer KG stating that European libraries may digitize books in their collection without permission from the rightholders. The decision confirmed a previous opinion of the ECJ's Advocate General, as reported here. Read more » about European Public Libraries Have the Right to Digitize Works in their Collections with Some Limitations

Tool Without a Handle: "Justified Regulation"

This blog post picks up (finally) on the topic of regulation – in particular to discuss cases where the issue is universally understood as worthy of regulation, so much so that variation in regulatory approaches is less desirable. One example of tool use that is worthy of sanction is the non-consensual public distribution of private, sexually explicit images, particularly of children. Questions remain, though, as to whether regulation should apply to direct actors or also to intermediaries, and what specific requirements should apply.

In this post, I suggest some core criteria that should be present whenever any regulation of tool providers is considered: 1) strong social consensus there are concrete and significant harms to be addressed; 2) strong consensus that obligations should apply equally across all intermediaries and online providers; 3) strong consensus the regulation is appropriately tailored and enforceable as a technical and practical matter. Read more » about Tool Without a Handle: "Justified Regulation"

FISC OKs Section 215 Investigations of Americans, Despite First Amendment

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court declassified an opinion today which, although highly redacted, illuminates the way at least one Judge is interpreting his mandate to protect the First Amendment activities of Americans who the FBI seeks to investigate under USA PATRIOT Act Section 215, codified at 50 USC 1861.
 

FISC OKs Section 215 Investigations of Americans, Despite First Amendment

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court declassified an opinion today which, although highly redacted, illuminates the way at least one Judge is interpreting his mandate to protect the First Amendment activities of Americans who the FBI seeks to investigate under USA PATRIOT Act Section 215, codified at 50 USC 1861.
 

Professors’ Letter in Opposition to the “Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2014” (S. 2267) and the “Trade Secrets Protection Act of 2014” (H.R. 5233)

Sharon Sandeen at Hamline Law and I have authored the attached letter dated August 26, 2014 and signed by 31 United States legal academics to the Congressional sponsors of the "Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2014" ("DTSA") and the "Trade Secrets Protection Act of 2014" ("TSPA") (collectively, "the Acts.") Read more » about Professors’ Letter in Opposition to the “Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2014” (S. 2267) and the “Trade Secrets Protection Act of 2014” (H.R. 5233)

Does the NSA minimize Americans metadata?

Today’s reporting by the Intercept calls into question whether the NSA minimizes so-called metadata relating to Americans’ digital communications and telephone calls. This is one of the questions I implored the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) to get to the bottom of. It is a question that PCLOB Chairman David Medine thought the Board had a definitive—affirmative--answer to. But today’s story shows doubt still plagues our understanding of how the NSA’s information collection affects American privacy.  Read more » about Does the NSA minimize Americans metadata?

Pages

Subscribe to Stanford CIS Blog