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.
“Tool Without A Handle”: Tools and the Search for Meaning
In a New York Times review of Edward Tenner’s book The Efficiency Paradox, Gal Beckerman observes that a key point is not simply to watch how much time we spend using technology, but to remember that “the tools we’ve invented to improve our lives are just that, tools, to be picked up and put down. We wield them.”
Which pretty succinctly states the main point of this entire series of blog posts: that human agency matters. Or, perhaps more directly, that while we all know human agency matters, we all too frequently overlook that point. This post (on Labor Day, 2018) thus asks what is the real value of human agency? By identifying value in it, I hope to set the stage for future posts on the urgency of fostering greater awareness of it.
The California Senate's Energy and Utilities Committee published its analysis of Senator Scott Wiener's California net neutrality bill on Monday morning. It’s bad. Here’s a short overview of the suggested amendments and a rebuttal of the key arguments related to interconnection and access charges.
Instead of listening to the thousand of startups and investors who argue that ending net neutrality would damage online innovation, FCC chair Ajit Pai is pushing a vote this Thursday to dismantle two decades of open internet protections in one of the biggest corporate giveaways in history.
Read full Wired article.
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.”"
The Center for Internet and Society (CIS) is a public interest technology law and policy program at Stanford Law School and a part of Law, Science and Technology Program at Stanford Law School. CIS brings together scholars, academics, legislators, students, programmers, security researchers, and scientists to study the interaction of new technologies and the law and to examine how the synergy between the two can either promote or harm public goods like free speech, innovation, privacy, public commons, diversity, and scientific inquiry.
After 20 years of international criminal trials, it is time to reassess the relationship between such trials and transitional justice. Do such trials promote the aims of transitional justice or thwart them? Are there synergies between rule of law initiatives and accountability measures or are they operating at cross-purposes? Our speakers will address these fundamental questions in the context of the latest developments in the field, such as the trial of Hissene Habré.
The University of Washington School of Law is delighted to announce a public workshop on the law and policy of artificial intelligence, co-hosted by the White House and UW’s Tech Policy Lab. The event places leading artificial intelligence experts from academia and industry in conversation with government officials interested in developing a wise and effective policy framework for this increasingly important technology. The event is free and open to the public but requires registration. -
Attorney and scholar Morgan Weiland ’06 will present Carleton College’s weekly convocation on Friday, April 22 from 10:50 to 11:50 a.m. in the Skinner Memorial Chapel. A leader in the study of the law and policy around the internet and other emerging technologies, Weiland has been active in policy debates surrounding telecommunications, mass surveillance, and network neutrality.
Carleton convocations are free and open to the public. They are also recorded and archived for online viewing at go.carleton.edu/convo/.
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.