Daphne Keller is the Director of Intermediary Liability at Stanford's Center for Internet and Society. Her work focuses on platform regulation and Internet users' rights.
CIS explores how changes in the architecture of computer networks affect the economic environment for innovation and competition on the Internet, and how the law should react to those changes. This work has lead us to analyze the issue of network neutrality, perhaps the Internet's most debated policy issue, which concerns Internet user's ability to access the content and software of their choice without interference from network providers.
Thomas Lohninger is a digital rights advocate in Europe mainly focused on net neutrality and surveillance. Together with the SaveTheInternet.eu campaign he coordinated the civil society efforts to push pro net neutrality safeguards within the european telecom single market regulation. He is an expert in the field of net neutrality and worked as Policy Analyst for European Digital Rights.
Andrew McLaughlin is a technology law and policy nerd. He is Executive Director of Civic Commons, a new non-profit that help cities and other governments share and implement low-cost technologies to improve public services, management, accountability, transparency, and citizen engagement. He is also a director of Code for America.
Filtering Facebook: Introducing Dolphins in the Net, a New Stanford CIS White Paper
Why Internet Users and EU Policymakers Should Worry about the Advocate General’s Opinion in Glawischnig-Piesczek
White Paper: Dolphins in the Net: Internet Content Filters and the Advocate General’s Glawischnig-Piesczek v. Facebook Ireland Opinion
The people of Baltimore are beginning their fifth week under an electronic siege that has prevented residents from obtaining building permits and business licenses – and even buying or selling homes. A year after hackers disrupted the city’s emergency services dispatch system, city workers throughout the city are unable to, among other things, use their government email accounts or conduct routine city business.
The security of our news and media information systems matters as much as the security of personal and commercial information systems. "Information warfare" shows that harms can arise even when there is no unauthorized access, when tools are used as intended, and when there’s no compromise of user privacy settings. In both cases of cybersecurity and news/media security, the threats are asymmetric, the tools readily available, usable for many purposes, and threats are easily disguised as benign.
Today I join several cybersecurity, civil liberties, civil society organizations and researchers in responding to the United Kingdom's GCHQ recent proposal to silently add 'ghost' users from law enforcement or the security services to online chats and calls, including those conducted via encrypted messaging tools like WhatApp, iMessage, or Signal.
This week, the House will vote on H.R. 1644, introduced by Rep. Mike Doyle, which would reinstate the net neutrality protections of the FCC’s 2015 Open Internet Order as of January 19, 2017. H.R. 1096, a competing measure introduced by Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, purports to restore the Open Internet Order’s rules against blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization, as well as the transparency rule.
Both bills have been touted as means to restore comprehensive net neutrality protections for all Americans.
In the leadup to the FCC's historic vote in December 2017 to repeal all net neutrality protections, 22 million comments were filed to the agency.
But unfortunately, millions of those comments were fake. Some of the fake comment were part of sophisticated campaigns that filed fake comments using the names of real people - including journalists, Senators and dead people.
Comcast Corp. v. FCC is a 2010 United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia case holding that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) does not have ancillary jurisdiction over Comcast’s Internet service under the language of the Communications Act of 1934. In so holding, the Court vacated a 2008 order issued by the FCC that asserted jurisdiction over Comcast’s network management polices and censured Comcast from interfering with its subscribers' use of peer-to-peer software.
In 2005, on the same day the FCC re-classified DSL service and effectively reduced the regulatory obligations of DSL providers, the FCC announced its unanimous view that consumers are entitled to certain rights and expectations with respect to their broadband service, including the right to:
"Wiener's legislation is "the only state-level bill that fully restores all of the 2015 net neutrality protections," Stanford law professor Barbara van Schewick told the committee. "That's why it's widely viewed as a net neutrality model bill, and that's why [former] FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, who literally wrote the 2015 order, supports this bill."
"Stanford Law School professor Barbara van Schewick countered that stance, saying internet providers could simply pay for the infrastructure themselves. Meanwhile, a lack of competition means residents in parts of the state have access to only one internet provider, a situation she says the lack of net neutrality regulations will exacerbate.
"The problem is not that we need to get them more money that they don't already have," she said. "The problem is that we don't have competition.""
"“[The committee’s analysis] recommends removing the bill's protections against using interconnection practices to circumvent the bill's net neutrality protections,” Stanford Law professor and net neutrality expert Barbara van Schewick wrote in a detailed analysis of the recommendations.
""The California rules are quite good," said Ryan Singel, media and strategy fellow at the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School. "They are the most comprehensive state proposal we have seen yet.""
This year marks the fifth anniversary of this event. Presentations will explore the emerging and central role of data in fields as diverse as medicine, education, law and politics. We hope you will join us to help model the future of Data Science at UVA and beyond.
Panels and roundtables will focus on data science research on topic areas such as education, ethics, public health, environment, and public policy.
Interested in presenting your research?
Thomas Lohninger is Executive Director of the digital rights NGO epicenter.works in Vienna, Austria. He is Senior Fellow of the Mozilla Foundation working on Net Neutrality in the European Union. The Center of Internet and Society of the Stanford Law School holds him as a non-residential Fellow. He worked in Brussels on the European Net Neutrality regulation as Policy Advisor for European Digital Rights and is on the board of EDRi since 2019. His background is in IT and Cultural- and Social Anthropology.
In 2017, the FCC voted to abolish net neutrality protections, which ensure that we, not the companies we pay to get online, get to choose what we do online. This event will explore what we lost, why it matters, and what’s happening with efforts to restore those protections in the courts, the states and Washington, D.C.
"The Federal Communications Commission is faced with a crucial decision on open access to the Internet. A survey shows 80 percent of Americans want the FCC to prohibit providers from giving enhanced access to customers that pay more. Now the President agrees. But providers — like Time Warner Cable, Verizon and AT&T — say that will discourage innovations and investments that improve service for everyone. As the pressure rises for FCC action, will there be toll lanes on the information super highway."
Prof. Barbara van Schewick participated in the FCC's Open Internet Roundtable on September 16, 2014.
The internet roundtable series provides an opportunity for the Commission staff and interested parties to further examine the actions the Commission should take for its goal of determining the best approach to protecting and promoting Internet openness. This roundtable focused on Policy Approaches to Ensure an Open Internet, specifically, Tailoring Policy to Harms.
Full video also available on the FCC's YouTube Channel.
""If I'm a church or a university, I can put my content online, when it travels to my users it will get the same treatment that, you know, CNN's content will get or the content of The New York Times," says Barbara van Schewick, the director of the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School."