The Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School is a leader in the study of the law and policy around the Internet and other emerging technologies.
CIS in the news.
"For years, Automattic’s strident response to copyright abuse earned praise from digital rights advocates. Now, this approach has effectively lumped in Mr. Pozner with the abusers. “Strictly from a copyright perspective, WordPress.com’s response is outside the norm,” said Tom Rubin, a lecturer at Stanford Law School who oversaw Microsoft’s copyright group and takedown process for 15 years.
"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.
"Part of the problem is the way the laws are written. The federal government and most states have enacted anti-cyberstalking statutes that bar repeated use of electronic communications to frighten others. But during an online hate storm, individual members of the mob might send only one or two threatening messages each—not enough to constitute a pattern, as the laws require, says Danielle Citron, a University of Maryland law professor and the author of Hate Crimes in Cyberspace.
"If Apple wants to truly be an advocate for consumer privacy, it could take the lead in building a better system—one that lets its customers more directly control who has their data. Companies don’t go out of their way to give users deeper control over their contact lists because it’s not beneficial to the bottom line, says Jennifer King, director of consumer privacy at Stanford’s Center for Internet and Society. “Nobody has really reimagined the address book since we made them electronic in the ’90s,” she says.
"A nonprofit advocacy organization, EFF often files amicus briefs in cases involving tech companies. The Federal Circuit discourages amicus briefs that duplicate arguments made by the main parties, but the court’s policy of withholding access to briefs made it hard to read other case filings before the deadline to submit amicus briefs, said Daniel Nazer, the EFF attorney who asked the court to amend its policy.
""We're seeing growing interest in applying computing things like machine learning, deep learning, artificial intelligence, etc. (think of IBM Watson stuff) to cybersecurity issues both in 'real time' and on a more strategic basis to try and identify trends and vulnerabilities before they become actual incidents," Richard Forno, assistant director of the Center for Cybersecurity and the director of the Cybersecurity Graduate Program at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, tells CNBC Make It."
"This is where the context of the internet starts to matter. The law assumes a narrow notion of fame—not a world where a YouTube channel’s following can rival a media company’s and the parents of a slain child can instantly become household names. “The First Amendment is a legal tool … crafted in a particular time to deal with particular media environments,” says Neil Richards, a First Amendment expert at the University of Washington Law School. “Our libel model is one that envisions establishment media and a bunch of people gossiping. It doesn’t envision social media.”"
"Giving police more flexibility to respond to allegations of threats will likely raise concerns over First Amendment rights, said Danielle Citron, a law professor at the University of Maryland who specializes in cyberstalking.
Citron notes Maryland already has laws prohibiting the cyberbullying of minors and said those laws sparked a debate over First Amendment rights. Attempts to expand that law failed earlier this year over concerns the changes were overly broad.
"“To my mind, if Facebook really wants to earn back trust, that is the big step that it needs to take,” said Marshall Erwin, Mozilla’s director of trust and security."
"In the last week, Facebook disclosed a campaign by foreign interests – likely from Russia -- to disrupt the 2018 midterm elections and announced dramatic spending increases on improvements to data privacy and security.
"Privacy advocates are excited about the bill’s expansiveness. Aleecia McDonald, an assistant professor at Carnegie Mellon University’s Information Networking Institute based in Silicon Valley, says consumers are beginning to understand “there’s a whole lot of data that is being collected about them that they have no idea about.” But critics contend that it’s the scope of the law that makes it problematic."
"Annemarie Bridy, an affiliate scholar at the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford University echoed that, telling the Daily Dot that “the First Amendment limits only the government’s ability to restrict freedom of speech. It doesn’t limit what corporations that own social media platforms can do.”
Bridy also brings up a second important point: that social media users agree to abide by the terms of service of the site they’re posting on.
"Axon’s widespread reach in police tech means that if the company decides to implement face recognition, it could have sweeping, rapid effects. “If and when they want to do it, that could happen quite fast,” cautions Harlan Yu, executive director of Upturn. “It would really be a software update away to add that capability.”"
"Overall, Uber's news is more of a reflection on the company itself than on the self-driving truck industry, said Bryant Walker Smith, a University of South Carolina law professor who studies autonomous vehicles.
"Jennifer King, director of consumer privacy at Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society, said false identification is among her biggest concerns. She likened it to the use of license plate readers that aim to catch people breaking traffic laws but also identify the wrong cars ─ and make it difficult for the innocent to appeal.
"This was where the privacy push really got derailed, Jonathan Mayer, a technologist who was involved in the negotiations, told HuffPost.
"Scott Shackelford is chair of Indiana University’s Cybersecurity Program. He says the conversation about election security has to go beyond equipment.
“If you really wanted to attack Indiana’s voting integrity, you wouldn’t have to just go after the voting machines,” he says. “You could go after the websites where people go to figure out where polling places are, you could snarl traffic, you could shut down the power grid in worst case scenario.”"
"“The ACLU’s test demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt what many of us already know – that Amazon’s facial recognition tool is discriminatory ... and therefore dangerous to democracy,” said Malkia Cyril, executive director of the Center for Media Justice. “They need to roll it back immediately.”"
"Perhaps, or perhaps not, said Woodrow Hartzog, who teaches law and computer science at Northeastern University. "The idea that this is simply neutral technology that can be used for good or evil and Amazon shouldn't be responsible, I think is purely wrong," he said.
"It's not unreasonable to say if you build a product that is capable of harm than you should be responsible for the design choices you make for enabling the harm," he said, "and when you release it out into the world, you're doing so in a safe and sustainable way.""
"“It’s not just about the one time you park, it’s about every time you park,” said Jen King, the Director of Consumer Privacy at Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society. “It enables the abilities for the company -- and potentially law enforcement if they request it through the company -- to build a dossier on every place that you park. Some people won’t care about that. Other people will find that extremely sensitive.”