Group items tagged

Hosted by the Sydney Law School, is a seminar to discuss the very modern challenges of private international law jurisdiction in cyberspace. Very apt for this week's topic of Borders. When: 6pm-7.30pm, Tuesday 4 May 2010 (registration and refreshments from 5.30pm) Where: Sydney Law School, New Law School Building, Eastern Avenue, Camperdown Campus Registration: $77 incl GST (full-time student concession $44 incl GST)

Law School talk on legal challenges of the interwebs tomorrow: The Sydney Law School will tomorrow host a seminar to discuss the very modern challenges of private international law jurisdiction in cyberspace. "Trade and commerce have become increasingly international - we no longer live in a world where merchants typically do business with others located in the same country. Businesses are just as likely to look to potential partners overseas, and will frequently conclude their transaction over the internet… without ever meeting or speaking to each other," says Associate Professor Chester Brown.

In the US a coalition consisting of Google, Microsoft, Ebay, AT&T, and Intel is fighting for a change of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) that was enacted in 1986. The coalition stresses the fact that the Internet has changed tremendously since then and the law therefore needs to be adapted. It protects files in the homes of people but law enforcement entities do not need judicial warrant to view files stored with ISPs, in the cloud or get GPS data from mobile phones.\nDefinitely a case worth fighting for - and an opportunity for Google & Co. to get good press. What about the law that allows checking and copying peoples' computer harddrives at airports though?

This article discusses the rhetorical question of how the Internet culture of youths, does not have laws that adequately serve or protect. Some laws are too concrete, while others are non existent. Laws need to be redefined, as the Internet culture does not necessarily dictate the same types of culture and attitudes we experience in person. The laws at present, provide loopholes, that either are not justified persecutions, or are simply to harsh, and or simply allow the offender to walk away.

Article about a family from L.A. whose 18-year old daughter had a car accident. Pictures of her dead body were leaked by the California Highway Patrol and soon spread on the Internet. The family went to court to claim privacy. The article describes how the trial "reshaped the boundaries of privacy law in the Internet age".

The conversation first looked at internet censorship from an international perspective covering issues of internet governance from and internet freedom. Unfortunately one or two members of the panel were prone to regurgitating policy rather than engaging in an actual debate. Towards the end inevitably the discussion was drawn to the proposed filtering laws within Australia. The general consensus from the panel members was that education had to be an essential part of policy when addressing online safety. Interestingly the government representative, the Minister for Home Affairs, was a keen supporter of this policy stance.

Watch the live debate from Intelligence squared -Governments should not Censor the Internet? Intelligence Squared uniquely provides a forum for debate on crucial issues within Australia. On the Affirmative Antony Loewnstein- freelance journalist, author and blogger Ross LaJeunesse-head of Public Policy and Government Affairs for Google David Marr- reporter for Fairfax, broadcaster ABC On the Negative ELizabeth Handsley- specialist in media law as it affects children Kaiser Kuo- Beijing-based columnist and commentator on tech and politics. Alastair MacGibbon- founder of the Internet Safety Institute and Manageing Partner of internet consultancy the Surete Group.

This article eloquently discusses the importance of the internet in our lives and addresses issues of the digital divide. Internet use has become so woven into everyday life that some technology experts say online access should be legally protected, even to the point of considering it a human right. ''It's a social inclusion question,'' said Cyberspace Law and Policy Centre executive director David Vaile

Following on from the BBC's survey of 27,000 people in 26 countries which resulted in 79% of adults regarding internet access as a human right, David Vaile from the Cyberspace Law and Policy Centre and Brett Solomons, formerly of GetUp and now AccessNow.org, have both put their weight behind this approach. Some countries already include internet access as a consumer legal right and other countries regard it as a human right.

Here is the wikipedia synthesis about the French law Hadopi. After a lot of reboudings and disagreements, the law which tends to bring a better control and regulation on the Internet has been adopted last october. If you are interesting, you can also find some further information on this blog: http://connectedresearch.wordpress.com/2009/10/26/france-approves-hadopi-2-law-on-illegal-downloading/

And as you can see, the effects expected are not immediate... http://connectedresearch.wordpress.com/2010/03/29/hadopi-leads-to-increased-illegal-downloading/

In the words of one infamous US President, Australia - "you are either with us or against us". Australia's proposed mandatory filtering laws runs contrary to stated US foreign policy championing an open internet. Read US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton's remarks on internet freedom.

Online censorship is growing in scale, scope, and sophistication around the world," said John Palfrey, Executive Director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society and Clinical Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. South Korea's filtering efforts are very narrow in scope, but heavily censor one topic, North Korea;

This is 5 years of global survey on political, social and national security filtering conducted May 18, 2007

The University of California published a report about Internet privacy. 1.000 Americans were interviewed last summer. The result: 55% are more concerned about privacy issues then they were five years ago - mainly because they know more about the subject now. But still only 14% read privacy policies on websites. Besides that younger Internet users belief that their privacy is protected by the law.

The University of Sydney's IT Alumni Association will next week bring together IT experts in networking, industry, law, child welfare and ethics to discuss the Federal Government's plans to introduce compulsory internet filtering by Internet Service Providers. Forum details When 6.30pm for a 7pm start, Wednesday 28 April 2010 Where Boardroom (Room 124), School of IT Building, 1 Cleveland Street, The University of Sydney How Entry is free and open to the public but online registration by 23 April is essential. For more information http://www.it.usyd.edu.au/alumni/discussion_forum.shtml

It gives you information on government policy and laws regarding Internet censorship in various countries around the world including South Korea and Australia. It is a bit old version, but we can get some ideas how various countires have changed internet censorhip historically.

An article about Internet Censorship Policy.

This is a report, summarizing the main policies and laws about internet censorship of several countries around the world. Including Australia, China, USA, UK, France, etc.

The rise of the internet economy has occurred at a time when the gender gap is increasing in IT and ICT areas. A deeper look at the nature of internet architecture and whether "code is law" might help answer 'which came first? the gender or the tech?'.

Australian defamation law and how it applies to the Internet

Rudd's internet filtering proposal is legally flawed. William's outlines simply how our existing classification system has its own problems and is unsuitable to classify internet content .

It's great to see that there is a legal argument against the filter, but it isn't something that Government is likely to take into consideration as they can easily get around it by defining the legalities surrounding the internet to be different to what we have currently. It proves their hypocrisy, but I doubt that concerns them...

The use of technology as a form of communication has brought about social and ethical issues around bullying and harassment. In the US many states are starting to instigate laws to deal with cases of bullying (eg Megans Law)  There needs to be more education around the etiquette of digital communication and the repercussions when abuse is transmitted.

The UK Government are proposing to introduce a Digital Economy Bill.  The owners of copyright material will be able to pursue individuals who are sharing their content and take legal recourse.  Persistent offenders can eventually be blocked by their ISP. "Persistent" offenders will have received 50 notices before the Government can request that the ISP block their access to the internet. Sites that host material / content that breaches the bill will be issued with a series of take down notices. This impacts all sites - not just those whose servers are based in the UK.  If the site does not comply with the take down notice it will be possible for the site to be blocked within the UK. 

Police crowdsource to find perpetrators of the Oakleigh riot, asking the public to send in mobile phone footage, and also sourcing from internet, cctv, and news crews. Changing nature of public surveillance and law enforcement.

The elderly in an effort to uphold their right to freedom of information are undertaking workshops which teach them how to circumvent the internet filters so that they can still access information regarding euthanasia which would otherwise be fettered with the proposed ISP filtering law …..how effective are these filters going to actually be?