Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Evolution of US Approaches to Internet Regulation


Published on

Presentation at InterNews conference on effect of New Media and Internet Policies and an Emerging China.

Published in: Technology, News & Politics
  • Be the first to comment

Evolution of US Approaches to Internet Regulation

  1. 1. Regulation of the the InternetThe Evolution of the United States’Approach to the Newest Frontier Your Logo
  2. 2. Barry James, The International Herald Tribune, August 5, 1996.Frontier Population: 36 Million (1996)
  3. 3. .
  4. 4. The New Frontier
  6. 6. IDENTITY THEFT: Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act . 18 U.S.C. § 1028 (1998); California Anti-1 Phishing Act of 2005, California Business & Professions Code §229482 VIRUSES & MALWARE: Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. §1030 (1986) .3 IP INFRINGEMENT: Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), 17 U.S.C. §512(1998); Anti-cyber- squatting Consumer Protection Act. 15 U.S.C. §1125(d) )(1999). PRIVACY & SPYWARE: Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, 18 U.S.C.§2510; California4 Consumer Protection Against Computer Spyware Act, Business & Professions Code § 22947 (2004) SPAM: Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography And Marketing (“CAN-SPAM”) Act of 2003, 155 U.S.C. § 7701.6 CHILDREN: Childrens Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (COPPA) 15 U.S.C.§6501.
  7. 7. Example: Spam solution. Technology – partial solution2000-2000-2003 Spamgrows as a threat eco-to eco-system self- No meaningful self-regulation. Congress: spam is Constitutionally protected commercial speech – regulate it, do not ban it.
  8. 8. Rob McKenna Attorney General - State of Washington (2008)Frontier Population: 1,463,632,361 (June 2008) 2 Billion (2010)
  9. 9. VICTIMS 1.2 MM (2006) PERPETRATOR 72.5% women 63.3% men44% 18-30 yrs old (where known) Half have no prior relationship with victimDURATIONAvg. – 2 Years
  10. 10. Violence Against Women Act Amendments (18 USC § 2261A )State Cyber Stalking-Harassment/-Bullying LawsState Defamation StatutesState Cyber Stalking-Harassment-Bullying LawsComputer Fraud and Abuse ActTrespass, Fraud, Defamation. Invasion of Privacy and Infliction ofEmotional Distress
  11. 11. Criminal DefamationState level Red – States with criminal defamation laws and prosecutions Yellow – States with law on books but no recent prosecutions
  12. 12. Notes from Meeting with my Lawyer People we People we CANT sue CAN sueThe website Loon.ey@tick.comThe ISP (whoever that is)Mean people How much am I paying this guy?
  13. 13. The Models Strike Back In that the Internet provides a virtually unlimited, inexpensive, and almost immediate means of communication with tens, if not hundreds, of millions of people, the dangers of its misuse cannot be ignored. . . . Those who suffer damages as a result of tortious or other actionable communications on the Internet should be able to seek appropriate redress by preventing the wrongdoers from hiding behind an illusory shield of purported First Amendment rights.
  14. 14. Standard for Unmasking Bloggers
  15. 15. Two Things You Need to Know
  17. 17. By placing an order . . . . Should We wish to exercise thisoption, you agree to surrender your immortalsoul, and any claim you may have on it,within 5 (five) working days of receivingwritten notification from orone of its duly authorised minions.
  18. 18. Prediction: APRIL 1, 2011 Prediction: APRIL 1, 2012Las Vegas, Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada
  19. 19. Bennet KelleyInternet Law Center100 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 950Santa Monica, CA 90401bkelley@internetlawcenter.netwww.internetlawcenter.nett