A thought provoking article by Wendy Seltzer. Well worth the read.
Talk about false and misleading identification information, the recently introduced Fraudulent Online Identity Sanctions Act should really be called the "Slam the First Amendment Act." It bumps the penalties for trademark or copyright infringement to "willful" levels -- that's up to $150,000 in statutory damages per copyright infringement -- for the mere connection of the infringement to a domain name registered with false information. Never mind that using false information in the address or telephone number fields may be the only way for individuals to protect their privacy; or that the First Amendment rights to anononymous speech may depend on the ability to register a name with "false" pseudonymous contacts. Would Publius be slammed as a willful infringer if someone claimed that the Federalist Papers took a few too many quotations from other sources?
The maximum imprisonment other-
wise provided by law for a felony offense shall be increased
by 7 years if, in furtherance of that offense, the defendant
knowingly provided material and misleading false contact
information to a domain name registrar, domain name
registry, or other domain name registration authority in
connection with a domain name registration.
Thomas Roessler blogs the hearing and Susan Crawford goes into more detail on the bill.
[Wendy: The Blog]A federal judge rejects a company's legal attempt to assail BadBusinessBureau.com, which features negative reviews from consumers who claim to have been "ripped off" by retailers. [CNET News.com]
It is nice to know that telling the truth is finally vindicated in this country. But at what cost? An innocent man spent 16 months in prison.
So imagine this: An employee works for a software company. He discovers a problem with the software, tries to warn the company, but it does nothing. He quits, and then sends email to all the customers of the company, informing them of the security problem with the software. The flood of emails brings the email server down for a bit, but that admittedly does not cause significant damage. Nonetheless, the employee is criminally prosecuted for causing an “impairment to the integrity” of a computer system (by revealing its flaws) which resulted in more than $5,000 in damage (because now it was known to be flawed).
The employee is found guilty. He is sentenced and serves (yes, he actually serves) 16 months in a federal prison.
In America, you ask? Well, in fact, yes — justice in the Central District of California. But it gets better.
On appeal, the employee retains Jennifer Granick, executive director of Stanford’s Center for Internet and Society. She argued the obvious point: it can’t be “damage” to tell the truth about some company’s software — however ugly that truth might be.
Today the government agreed. In an extraordinary (and extraordinarily rare move) it confessed error. “On futher review,” the government wrote, “in light of defendent’s arguments on appeal, the government believes it was error to argue that defendant intended an ‘impairment’ to the integrity of [X’s] computer system.” The government asked that the conviction be vacated.
“In light of defendant’s arguments on appeal.”
Indeed, America: Where defendants sometimes get great lawyers, and where governments let justice admit it is wrong.
I am proud, and moved, by both.
[Lessig Blog]It is unfortunate that the predicted assaults on civil liberties and the First Amendment due to the poorly written and overly broad Patriot Act are coming true. The following example of government overstepping its bounds should give pause to anyone who uses the Internet as a forum for communication - ed.
The Subpoenas are Coming!
By Mark Rasch Sep 29 2003 05:00AM PT
Frequent readers of this space know that I am no apologist for hackers like Adrian Lamo, who, in the guise of protection, access others' computer systems without authorization, and then publicize these vulnerabilities.
When Lamo did this to the New York Times, he violated two of my cardinal rules: Don't make enemies with people appointed for life by the President of the United States; and don't make enemies of people who buy their ink by the gallon.
Now, in the scope of prosecuting Lamo, the FBI is doing the hacker one better by violating both of these precepts in one fell swoop.
The Bureau recently sent letters to a handful of reporters who have written stories about the Lamo case -- whether or not they have actually interviewed Lamo. The letters warn them to expect subpoenas for all documents relating to the hacker, including, apparently, their own notes, e-mails, impressions, interviews with third parties, independent investigations, privileged conversations and communications, off the record statements, and expense and travel reports related to stories about Lamo.
In short, everything.
The Pennsylvania Attorney General agreed today to stop issuing secret censorship orders to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in response to a lawsuit filed by the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) challenging the constitutionality of a controversial Pennsylvania child pornography statute. September 9, 2003 [Center for Democracy and Technology]
Electronic Frontier Foundation: Sentence Doesn't Match Crime [EFF: Press]