Andy Sellars here, the 2010-11 President of the Cyberlaw Students Association. We’re doing a reading discussion this afternoon, 5PM in Lisner 102, looking at the Google/Verizon network neutrality proposal from August. Here are some articles that we thought might be helpful to frame the discussion:

• The initial New York Times article that started the discussion.
• Google’s initial announcement, and followup post.
• The Google / Verizon legislative framework proposal in PDF form.
• Engadget gives a plain-English description of the proposal.
• CNET’s initial reaction to the proposal.
• Digital Trends asks What does this mean to you?
• Prof. Jonathan Zittrain’s framing of this history and initial reaction.
• Telecom Law Monitor’s overlooked elements of the proposal.
• EFF’s point-by-point critique of the proposal.
• Wired’s Tale of Two Internets.
• Newsweek trying to calm the frenzied masses.
• The Economist questions the need for regulation, drawing reference to the Brand X case.
• A letter from four members of the House Energy and Commerce committee to FCC Chairman Genachowski regarding the proposal.
• Ars Technica drives tanks through the loopholes in the proposal.
• For a great in-depth discussion of this case, see the New York Times Room for Debate Blog (read all of the posts on the left side).

Also, it’s worth noting that Rep. Waxman shelved proposed network neutrality legislation last week, noting a lack of support.

We welcome additional reading materials in the comments.

Hope to see you this afternoon!

Schneiers point is that to the old guard, privacy equals secrecy, but to young people privacy means control. This explains why Facebook’s privacy changes and Google Buzz created such a backlash despite claims that young people don’t care about privacy. Well worth the read.

This decision does not remove all methods of justifying ancillary authority, only the Title I authority the FCC had relied on.

So where does the FCC go from here? Search for another source of ancillary authority? Try and categorize broadband providers as Title II common carriers? Head to the Hill to get statutory authority to regulate the Internet?

The FCC has released a statement on the decision, which certainly indicates their commitment to continuing on a course of involvement in the Internet and their open access initiatives.

• President
• Vice President
• Secretary
• Treasurer

• Positions of Interest
• Graduation Year
• Short statement of interest (why you are interested and any ideas you have for the position)

“Online Privacy: Where are Law and Technology Headed?”

A moderated discussion
with guest speakers
Alessandro Acquisti, Carnegie Mellon University
Ellen Blackler, AT&T
Ryan Calo, Stanford Center for Internet & Society

Tuesday, April 13, 2010
8:00 am – 10:30 am

A recent article in the New York Times entitled “Redrawing the Route to Online Privacy” (February 27, 2010)observed: “On the Internet, things get old fast. One prime candidate for the digital dustbin, it seems, is the current approach to protecting privacy on the Internet.” The article went on to catalog the criticisms of “notice and choice” and concluded: “Whatever the future of regulation, better digital tools are needed.” At this program, which is part of the collaboration between the Future of Privacy Forum and the George Washington University Law School, panelists Alessandro Acquisti will discuss “privacy nudges,” Ryan Calo will discuss the development of technologies that deliver “visceral notice”; and Ellen Blackler will demonstrate how one telecommunications company has provided “layered notices” to achieve transparency. The discussion of new approaches to transparency will be set against the backdrop of a discussion of emerging US and EU law on consumer control.

A light breakfast and coffee will be served.

Faculty Conference Center (Room B 505)
Burns Building, Fifth Floor
2000 H Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20052

Please RSVP to info@futureofprivacy.org

Next week is shaping up to be a great week in telecom law at GW! There will be a panel hosted by the FCBA on careers in Communications law – see below for details.

Careers in Communications Law

Interested in Communications Law? Don’t miss this panel discussion hosted by the Federal Communications Bar Association! Panelists will speak about the nature of the job, skills necessary to be successful in the field and personal advice on how to break into the field.

Wednesday, March 31st
12:30pm – 1:30pm
STU 201

Panelists:

Ann Bobeck, Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, National Association of Broadcasters
Michelle Persaud, Corporate Counsel, T-Mobile
Natalie Roisman, Partner, Wilkinson Barker Knauer
Anjali Singh, Acting Assistant Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission

Lunch will be provided.

Please RSVP to ipla@law.gwu.edu

Cybersecurity and Privacy in the FCC’s National Broadband Plan
April 1st, 5pm
George Washington University Law School
Faculty Conference Center (Burns 505)

Panelists:
Dan Caprio, McKenna Long
Jeffrey Goldthorp, FCC
Jim Harper, Cato Institute
Robert Mayer, US Telecom Association
Moderated by Orin Kerr, GW Law School

For more information email Andy Blair (ablair@law.gwu.edu) or Ari Moskowitz (azmoskowitz@law.gwu.edu).

RealNetworks argued that RealDVD did not remove the CSS encryption – it copied the DVD, encryption and all, to the computer while limiting playback to the computer on which the digital copy was originally ripped. Therefore the copies would not contribute to piracy and would not end up on file sharing networks. The movie studios disagreed and argued that the software bypassed encryption in violation of the DMCA. The preliminary injunction was on appeal, but it appears that the battle will come to an end with Real admitting paying $4.5 million to the studios as well as refunding sales of RealDVD made prior to the injunction.

It will be interesting to see if this case results in the death of movie management or copying systems, especially after Kaleidescape lost on appeal after beating an infringement suit at the trial level.

This is interesting given the recent trend at the FCC to move away from common carrier-type regulation of telecommunications providers. The data services are indistinguishable from those of the cable TV companies, so it seems sort of silly to only require phone companies and not cable providers to share their lines. Cable and telcos are subject to separate regulation regimes because of their differing history and technological evolution, but both are becoming just data service providers with different legacy expertise. Hopefully the FCC starts to regulate them more consistently.

Allowing other companies access to the physical lines is a good idea. Telcos and cable companies insist that they will not have incentives to invest in the lines if they have to share. There is not a lot of evidence either way, but a system where consumers have one or at most two or three choices between effectively identical companies is not competition and is not good for consumers.

Will there be any legal backlash against Google for exposing information that was not intended to be shared? There are situations that there might be cognizable claims – see the first link above, essentially a lot of supposedly private information was exposed to a woman’s abusive ex-husband without any warning or clear way to turn it off. Imagine the information exposed was something the ex-husband didn’t know that set him off. Could Google be liable if he attacked or killed her? Google would probably claim that there should have been no expectation of privacy, but users have such an expectation whether it is well-founded or not.

The problem with the Google Buzz rollout is the combination of 1) no notice of what exactly it was and what information it would share with whom, 2) sharing everything with everyone by default rather than a more limited opt-in approach, and 3) difficult and intricate process for opting out/turning it off.

It seems that every few months someone (Facebook more often than not) makes some change that has widespread privacy implications for users of a major social networking or communications service. Despite warnings from journalists, career counselors, lawyers, and about anyone else who has said something on the matter, users don’t seem to get that anything and everything they say will be recorded, stored, and sold.

Thoughts? My prediction is that there will be at least one class-action attempt from the Google Buzz release. Never underestimate pissed-off users + greedy lawyers.

Update: Didn’t take long to make changes. The big disconnect seems to be for people that already had Google profiles when they turned on Buzz – there was never any checkbox for those people (like me) telling them that the follower lists would be public.

Update2: Right on time. Class-action suit v. Google because of Buzz.