Section 3.2.2: COPA finally dies
In January 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider an appeal of
the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals July 2008 ruling that COPA's censorship
provisions are unconstitutional.
This ends ten years of lawsuits and appeals over the law.
(Jan. 26, 2009)
Section 3.2.3
In the first application of the federal CAN SPAM law, in May 2004,
four people were charged with sending
sales pitches for fraudulent weight-loss products
and disguising their identities.
Section 3.2.3
The Supreme Court of Virginia ruled that the state's antispam
law, prohibiting anonymous, unsolicited, bulk e-mail,
violates the First Amendment. The decision reversed the
conviction of Jeremy Jaynes. Jaynes, the first person to be convicted
of a felony for spamming (in 2004), had been sentenced to nine years
in jail. (Sept. 13, 2008)
Section 3.2.4: Selling homes on the Web
In the New Hampshire case mentioned in the last sentence of this section,
a federal court ruled on the side of freedom of speech (and commerce) on
the Web. The court said that Web sites that list houses for sale are similar
to classified ad sections of newspapers and, thus, the Web site operators
are not required to get a real estate license. (March 2008, U.S. District
Court for the District of New Hampshire, Judge James R. Muirhead)
Section 3.2.4: Are computer repairers private
investigators?
Under a recent Texas law, a state board issued rules requiring a private
investigator (PI) license of any computer
repair business that does "investigative services." It gives as an example
"assisting a customer with solving a computer-related crime."
The law defines investigation to include "review and analysis of, and
the investigation into the content of, computer-based data." Obviously,
a lot of
repair work includes "investigation." Computer repairers argue the rule
is too vague and would cover helping a parent determine which child
let a virus onto the family computer. Both the repairer without a PI license
and the customer face jail and fines. A PI license requires
a bachelor's degree in criminal justice or a three-year apprenticeship
as a PI (among other requirements). The state board that issues the
PI licensing rules was asked to exempt computer repairers but declined.
A lawsuit to invalidate this license requirement is underway. (Jan. 2008)
Section 3.2.4: Restricting e-books
In France, there is a 19.6% tax on e-books. The tax on printed books is
5.5%. A law in France prohibits stores from giving big discounts on
printed books. Small book sellers are asking the French government for
similar regulation for e-books. (Sept. 2010)
Section 3.3.3: Extensive Internet monitoring in Iran
During the protests that followed the 2009 elections in Iran, the government
used sophisticated technology (provided by European companies) to modify,
censor, and perhaps modify Internet communications.
The system examines individual packets of email, phone conversations, images,
social-network communications, and so forth. One security expert said Iran's
examination of communications is more extensive that that done by China.
In addition, Reporters Without Borders said that Iran blocked access to more
than five million Web sites in recent years. (June 2009)
Section 3.3.3: China requires Web filtering
software
The Chinese government announced that all PCs sold in China must come with
a specific Web-filtering software program (Green Dam Youth Escort) distributed
by a Chinese company. The claimed purpose is to protect young people from
pornography. Free-speech advocates and many Chinese people objected that
the software could be used to block political sites and collect information on
people's use of the Web. The software, including the list of blocked sites,
would be updated automatically over the Web by the company.
Opposition from PC makers, international advocacy groups, and Chinese people
was so strong that the Chinese government first delayed the deadline for
mandatory
inclusion of the software, and later said that installation of the software
was intended to be voluntary. Several PC companies in China and Taiwan
began including the software with their PCs.
In an odd twist, a California company that makes filtering software (Solid
Oak Software) examined
the Green Dam code and found that it includes sections of the company's
CyberSitter product, in violation of copyright.
Solid Oak planned to get an injunction preventing U.S. companies from shipping
the Green Dam program. (May - Aug., 2009)
Section 3.3.3
In December 2007,
China's government announced a policy that all new video sites must be
owned or controlled by the government. Then they said they might allow
private sites to operate if they comply with the government's content
restrictions. In June 2008, the popular video site 56.com shut down.
Many in China believe the government was responsible for shutting it.
(June 20, 2008)
Section 3.3.4: Google stops censoring in China
Google stopped censoring searches and news in China in March 2010. There are
several reasons for the change of policy, but the main impetus was a highly
sophisticated hack attack in December 2009, originating in China,
on Google and about 30 other companies.
Google co-founder Sergey Brin, who was born in the Soviet Union and experienced
totalitarian government, had been
uneasy with the 2006 censoring decision.
A primary goal of the hack attack appeared to be access to Gmail accounts of
Chinese human rights activists, angering Brin and others at Google.
The hackers stole intellectual property from Google.
Google also cited increased restrictions on free speech on the Web in China.
Security software
company McAfee said the sophistication of
the hacking attack was at a level seen in attacks on defense industry
systems but, not until now, on other commercial systems.
The Chinese government criticized Google's decision to stop censoring.
Section 3.3.4: Skype, China, and monitoring
Skype joins the list of companies whose operations in China raise issues about
privacy and political freedom. A joint venture of Skype and TOM, a Chinese
communications company, monitors text chat and deletes some words and messages
as required by the Chinese government. That was known. In Oct. 2008, a
Canadian group reported that TOM stored the messages that were filtered.
That was apparently not known and threatens the freedom of the senders.
In addition, the security for the database of logged messages was weak, and the
messages could be accessed by anyone.
Section 3.4: Supreme Court rules on
First Amendment and political campaigns
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in Citizens United v. FEC, that parts of
the McCain-Feingold Act
violate the free speech protection of the First Amendment. The court said the
law cannot
prohibit corporations (including non-profits) and unions from paying for ads
that mention political candidates in the final weeks of political campaigns.
This decision removes some of the concerns discussed in Section 3.4 about
how the regulations affect
political information and ads on the Internet. (Jan. 2010)
Section 3.6: Net neutrality challenge
Comcast began slowing some Internet traffic of heavy-bandwidth users so that
service for other users would not deteriorate. In 2008, the FCC ordered
Comcast to stop the practice because it violates the FCC's net-neutality
principles. In 2010, a federal appeals court ruled that the FCC does not
have the authority to tell Comcast how to manage its network.
Section 3.6: Net neutrality views
In Section 3.6, I distinguished between two points of view that are both
described as "net neutrality" (page 187). Controversies in some recent
news stories and blogs about whether prominent companies and people have
changed their views prompt me to emphasize that, when discussing net neutrality,
it is important to make clear exactly what one means.
The two views described in the text are (1) that network companies
should not be permitted to provide better service based on content, the content
provider, or the customer, and (2) that network companies should not be
permitted to provide "tiered" service, i.e., different qualities of service
at different rates.
An article in the Washington Post in 2006,
co-authored by Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig (now
an advisor to President-elect Obama) and Robert McChesney,
says "Net neutrality means simply that all like Internet content must be
treated alike and move at the same speed over the network."
The article objects to
allowing network owners to demand "a toll to guarantee quality delivery."
(See "No
Tolls on the Internet".)
This definition includes both views 1 and 2 above.
More recently, Mr. Lessig seemed to accept or support the idea of tiered
pricing for better services
if the services are available to anyone willing to pay, thus dropping
view 2. Indeed, the 2006 article
particularly objected to allowing the network owners to
determine who gets premium treatment and who doesn't.
Google expresses strong support for "net neutrality" but does not object to
technologies
that provide different qualities (e.g., speed) of service. (See its
blog.)
Thus a clear and useful discussion of net neutrality must make clear
whether one means view 1 or view 2 or both, or some other variation.
Return to A Gift of Fire home page.