Eric Goldman and Michael O'Hear, Assistant Professors of Law at Marquette University Law School, have also filed comments with the U.S. Sentencing Commission expressing concern about the proposal for sentencing violations of the CAN SPAM act. To read these comments, click here. You can also visit Goldman's website.
Stanford Center for Internet and Society
In the heart of the Silicon Valley, legal doctrine is emerging that will determine the course of civil rights and technological innovation for decades to come. The Center for Internet and Society (CIS), housed at Stanford Law School and a part of the Law, Science and Technology Program, is at the apex of this evolving area of law.
U.S. Sentencing Commission Comments - CAN SPAM
The United States Sentencing Commission requested public comment on implementation of section 4(b) of the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 (the “CAN-SPAM Act of 2003”), which directs the Commission to review and amend, if appropriate, the sentencing guidelines and policy statements to establish appropriate penalties for persons convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. €1037. The Stanford Cyberlaw Clinic worked to file comments with the Commission on behalf of the National Association for Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).
Many Commentators Have Concerns about CAN SPAM Proposal
by Jennifer Granick, posted on March 16, 2004 - 5:31pm
Clinic Files Comments with the USSC
by Jennifer Granick, posted on March 3, 2004 - 10:18am
The Clinic filed comments on behalf of the NACDL and the EFF on the CAN-SPAM Act on March 1. The comments argue that the Commission’s proposed guidelines and sentencing enhancements would disproportionately punish CAN-SPAM violators through overly severe and, at times, duplicative application of the federal sentencing guidelines. In the view of the commentators, the key infirmity of the Commission’s proposal lies in its referencing CAN-SPAM violations to the same guidelines used to punish conventional computer crime, trespass, fraud, and privacy violations. Unlike these violations, spamming activities do not involve non-routine intrusions into physical space, property damage, or misuse of the victim’s data.
Our Issues
cybercrime
Fair Use Project
free speech
infrastructure
intellectual property
privacy
anti-circumvention copyright copyright copyright law Creative Commons defamation DMCA drm economics Fair Use first amendment Fourth Amendment Future of Ideas Google Hearsay Culture internet libel IP reform journalism libel patent Privacy surveillance tcblog Testimony trademarks
anti-circumvention copyright copyright copyright law Creative Commons defamation DMCA drm economics Fair Use first amendment Fourth Amendment Future of Ideas Google Hearsay Culture internet libel IP reform journalism libel patent Privacy surveillance tcblog Testimony trademarks