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.
In its Equustek ruling in June, the Canadian Supreme Court held that Google must delete search results for users everywhere in the world, based on Canadian law. Google has now filed suit in the US, asking the court to confirm that the order can’t be enforced here. Here’s my take on that claim.
The Canadian Supreme Court this morning issued its long-awaited ruling in Equustek. The court upheld an order compelling Google to remove search results for specified websites, not just in Canada, but everywhere in the world.
Thomas Wright is the director of the Brookings Institution’s Center on the United States and Europe, and a senior fellow at Brookings. His new book, “All Measures Short of War: The Contest For the 21st Century and the Future of American Power,” looks at the prospects for the United States in a world where other countries are increasingly disaffected from the global order that America built. I interviewed him about his book by email.
My first known ancestor in the Americas was an Ashanti woman called “the African.” We don’t know her name, but through records kept by slaveholders, we know she existed.
We know she was transported to Jamaica, where my known lineage began. These records of property bought and sold were a form of surveillance at the time.
From Tuesday on, passengers traveling to the U.S. from 10 airports in eight Muslim-majority countries will not be allowed to have iPads, laptops or any communications device larger than a smartphone in the cabin of the plane.
Over the past two months, millions of people have taken to the streets to challenge our nation’s authoritarian new president.
From the women’s marches that took place across the country and around the world to the mass protests against the Muslim ban and immigration raids, people are resisting the neo-fascist agenda President Trump is unleashing on our nation.
A primary reason why millions have been able to mobilize so quickly is because they have the ability to use the open internet to communicate to the masses and organize a resistance.
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:
"Ryan Singel, a fellow at the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford, said he is not sure when these arguments and the mountain of litigation ahead for states will be resolved, but he believes “We will get net neutrality rules somehow, someday.”
“It’s just a question of when, and how.”"
"Enforcement of SB 822 has been on hold as court cases were resolved. If there are no appeals to the most recent ruling, then California will likely begin enforcement. Other states are also free to forge ahead. More legal battles await, says Ryan Singel, a research fellow at Stanford University Law School’s Center for Internet Society. The Department of Justice had given every indication it will go after these laws, he says, but now its case “is much, much harder than it was before.”"
""The pathway has been cleared," said Ryan Singel, a fellow at the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School. "They can still be challenged, but that challenge just became easier for them to win."
"Barbara van Schewick, director of Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society, said in a statement Tuesday that “today’s decision that the FCC can’t stop states from protecting their citizens online is a historic win for California and all Internet users.”"
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.
On Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is expected to approve new net neutrality regulations. If the new rules are adopted, internet service will be regulated like a public utility, a move that will prevent companies from manipulating internet traffic.
It will be a major victory both for President Obama and for a swarm of internet companies that vocally supported net neutrality—everything from Netflix to Twitter, to Mozilla, Tumblr, and Etsy.
Professor Barbara van Schewick explains why meaningful network neutrality rules are critical to the future of the U.S. economy.
Learn more about Barbara and her scholarship at: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/about/people/barbara-van-schewick
You can follow her on Twitter at @vanschewick.
*Originally recorded in December 2014
Full video also available on YouTube.
The phrase “net neutrality” couldn’t sound more boring.
But almost 4 million people wrote to a US federal agency this year, demanding it. That agency has never received even a third as many comments. And samples show that a full 99 percent supported net neutrality.
What exactly can be so popular?
The short answer is: the Internet. The Internet is awesome and it’s awesome because of net neutrality.
The director of civil liberties for the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School discusses net neutrality, privacy and the NSA.