Press

CIS in the news.

  • In the battle of Internet mobs vs. the law, the Internet mobs have won

    Date published: 
    February 17, 2016

    "“What we’re seeing now is the law’s limits,” Citron said. “Mobs have little fear of the law, and unfortunately, Zoe is the victim of that.”

    “Do we expect Massachusetts police to go after all of them?” asked Citron, the law professor. “At some point, it becomes too much for the system to bear. You can’t nail down criminal liability in a case like Zoe’s, where there’s such a huge number of actors.”"
  • How Apple Will Fight U.S. Demand for Access to Attacker's iPhone

    Date published: 
    February 17, 2016

    "Apple, likely to be joined in its resistance by other tech companies, has a good chance of winning in the end, said Jeffrey Vagle, executive director of the Center for Technology, Innovation and Competition at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

    “What they’re asking for is for Apple to create an update” that would allow the government to disable a password limit, he said. While the law may allow a court to compel compliance with a search warrant, as the Supreme Court previously ruled, it cannot “compel a manufacturer to write new code,” he said."

  • Scalia's privacy and cyber legacy -- and what's next?

    Date published: 
    February 17, 2016

    "Scalia's “sentiment of government surveillance did not necessarily extend to private companies,” Omer Tene, vice president of research and education, International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP), told SCMagazine.com.

    In cases of a locked jury, ruling made by previous courts would be hold. “It's quite possible that the Spokeo might come out 4/4 without Scalia,” said Hayes.

  • Apple headed for showdown over San Bernardino shooter’s phone

    Date published: 
    February 17, 2016

    "The company has a good case, according to Jeffrey Vagle, executive director of the Center for Technology, Innovation and Competition at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

    “This would require a purposeful declawing of the security mechanism that Apple has put in there for a reason, to protect its customers,” he said. “That’s a strong technical argument.”""

  • USC educator: Potential benefits of self-driving cars “tremendous”

    Date published: 
    February 12, 2016

    "Bryant Walker Smith is an assistant professor of law at the University of South Carolina. The university’s website says he is an internationally recognized expert on the law of self-driving vehicles. He previously led the legal aspects of automated driving program at Stanford University, according to USC.

    Smith answered questions from The State about the development of driverless vehicles.

    Q. Why is the world exploring and developing automated, or driver-less cars?

  • School threats cost educational time, taxpayer money

    Date published: 
    February 11, 2016

    "Brian Nussbaum, a former intelligence analyst who now is an assistant professor of public administration at University at Albany in New York, said that because the hoaxes are low-cost and fairly easy to make with advanced phone technology, he expects this is only the start for school administrators.

    “It’s not the case that these technologies are totally foolproof,” Nussbaum said, “but they are much more complicated to monitor and trace back.”

  • Feds Say They’ll Count Computers As Human Drivers

    Date published: 
    February 10, 2016

    "“This letter will one day be in a museum of technology history—or at least legal history,” says Bryant Walker Smith, an assistant professor at the University of South Carolina School of Law and affiliate scholar at the Center for Internet and Society, who studies self-driving vehicles. But “where technology meets law, the devil is in the details.”

  • Verizon’s Zero-Rating for Go90 Likely to Spur FCC Response

    Date published: 
    February 9, 2016

    "Stanford Law professor Barbara van Schewick, focusing on T-Mobile’s BingeOn and Music Freedom programs, concluded that, regardless of its intentions, “T-Mobile prioritizes commercial entertainment video over other types of video as well as other internet use,” making it a violation of the FCC’s general conduct rules and therefore illegal. Extrapolated to Verizon, her argument would make that telco’s actions also illegal."

  • India Just Banned Zero-Rating. Your Move, FCC.

    Date published: 
    February 9, 2016

    "T-Mobile’s "Binge On" plan, which exempts certain video services like Netflix from data caps, has been the subject of especially harsh criticism from open internet advocates, including Stanford law professor Barbara van Schewick, one of the nation’s leading authorities on net neutrality.

  • Facebook’s fall from grace: Arab Spring to Indian winter

    Date published: 
    February 9, 2016

    "Certainty and Equity: Referencing the noted scholar Barbara Van Schewick, TRAI explains that a case-by-case approach based on principles [standards] or rules would “fail to provide much needed certainty to industry participants…..service providers may refrain from deploying network technology” and perversely “lead to further uncertainty as service providers undergoing [the] investigation would logically try to differentiate their case from earlier precedents”.

  • The Surgeon Will Skype You Now

    Date published: 
    February 9, 2016

    "However, remote surgery seems to fall into a legal gray area. The FDA has approved the devices, but many doctors—including several interviewed for this piece—aren't clear on the regulations for the surgical procedures themselves, or the laws surrounding liability should the procedure go wrong. That's because many of those laws don't yet exist, says Bryant Walker Smith, a law and engineering professor at the University of South Carolina.

  • Here’s The Full Text Of Trai’s Prohibition Of Discriminatory Tariffs For Data Services Regulations

    Date published: 
    February 8, 2016

    "27. Intuitively, the case-by-case approach may seem reasonable. However, this approach creates substantial social costs as noted by Barbara Van Schewick in "Network Neutrality and Quality of Service: What a Non-Discrimination Rule Should Look Like," Stanford Law Review, 2015. First, a case-by-case regime will fail to provide much-needed certainty to industry participants. In the absence of a clear rule setting out the permissible and impermissible business practices, service providers may refrain from deploying network technology.

  • Full text: The Prohibition of Discriminatory Tariffs for Data Services Regulations, 2016

    Date published: 
    February 8, 2016

    "27. Intuitively, the case-by-case approach may seem reasonable. However, this approach creates substantial social costs as noted by Barbara Van Schewick in "Network Neutrality and Quality of Service: What a Non-Discrimination Rule Should Look Like," Stanford Law Review, 2015. First, a case-by-case regime will fail to provide much-needed certainty to industry participants. In the absence of a clear rule setting out the permissible and impermissible business practices, service providers may refrain from deploying network technology.

Pages