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.
On Tuesday, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling on the challenge to the FCC’s 2017 net neutrality repeal. The ruling barely upheld the repeal, but sent it back to the FCC for failure to deal with public safety and for deficiencies related to Lifeline subsidies and access to utility poles by broadband-only providers.
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.
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:
"Stanford Law School’s (SLS) Center for Internet and Society Junior Affiliate Scholar and outgoing Lecturer in Law Morgan Weiland has been awarded the 2018 Harry W. Stonecipher Award for Distinguished Research in Media Law and Policy for her 2017 article, “Expanding the Periphery and Threatening the Core: The Ascendant Libertarian Speech Tradition.” The article, published in the Stanford Law Review in May 2017, uncovers a new theory undergirding the First Amendment’s expansion to include commercial and corporate speech.
"“Generally speaking, the bill is great. They are right that it’s the strongest protection in the country … with the three provisions back,” said Ryan Singel, media and strategy fellow at Stanford University’s Center for Internet and Society."
"“There was no discussion of the amendments,” notes net neutrality activist and journalist Ryan Singel, fellow at Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society. “Holding a vote before testimony is incredibly aggressive. That guts the bill and the way it was done was a slap in the face of the democratic process. It's exactly how Pai handled the 2017 net neutrality repeal.”"
"While zero rating often sounds nice on its face, zero rating comes with a lot of problems. [It] gives ISPs incentives to keep data caps low and keep the price of unlimited plans high."
Philip N. Howard is an assistant professor in the Communication Department at the University of Washington. His book New Media Campaigns and the Managed Citizen (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006) is about the role of information technology in campaign strategy and political culture. He has published a co-edited collection entitled Society Online: The Internet In Context (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2003) as well as articles in New Media & Society, the American Behavioral Scientist, and the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.
Stefan Bechtold graduated from the University of Tuebingen Law School, Germany, in 1999. In 1999 and 2000, he was a Visiting Scholar at the University of California at Berkeley School of Law. In 2001, he received a Dr. iur. (legal Ph.D.) from the University of Tuebingen Law School. Supported by a Fulbright scholarship, he received a master's degree (J.S.M.) from Stanford Law School in 2002. Since 2002, he is a non-residential Fellow at the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School.
Harry Surden is a resident fellow at the Stanford Center for Computers and the Law (Codex). He came to Codex following a clerkship at the United States District Court in San Francisco. Harry graduated from Stanford Law School in 2005, and prior to that, he worked as a software engineer for Cisco Systems and Bloomberg Financial Markets. Harry is the Stanford Center for Computers and the Law's inaugural resident fellow.
The U.S. Justice Department has sued California over its net neutrality law.
California Gov. Jerry Brown recently signed the measure, which was in response to the Federal Communications Commission’s decision to repeal net neutrality in 2017, which took effect this past June.
To learn more about this lawsuit, The Show spoke with Barbara van Schewick, a law professor and director of the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School.
We know that smart phones and other information technology are changing the way we live and the way we relate to other people, but could they actually be making us dumber?
Brett Frischmann says they are, and that we should question the use of digital technology and surveillance.
The days are numbered for federal net neutrality regulations. In response, some states are working on their own versions to prevent internet service providers (ISP) from blocking, slowing or charging more for some web traffic. Oregon, Washington and several other states have made new rules, but a bill working its way through the California legislature would go the furthest. Marketplace Tech host Molly Wood spoke with Ryan Singel, a media and strategy fellow at Stanford Law School, about how a state can regulate a business that crosses state lines.
Law School professor Barbara van Schewick discusses net neutrality as the FCC plans to vote on changing those rules.