Internet Law Commons^™

In Memory Of Professor James E. Bond, Janet Ainsworth

Seattle University Law Review

Janet Ainsworth, Professor of Law at Seattle University School of Law: In Memory of Professor James E. Bond.

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents

The Internet Never Forgets: A Federal Solution To The Dissemination Of Nonconsensual Pornography, Alexis Santiago

Seattle University Law Review

As technology evolves, new outlets for interpersonal conflict and crime evolve with it. The law is notorious for its inability to keep pace with this evolution. This Comment focuses on one area that the law urgently needs to regulate—the dissemination of “revenge porn,” otherwise known as nonconsensual pornography. Currently, no federal law exists in the U.S. that criminalizes the dissemination of nonconsensual pornography. Most U.S. states have criminalized the offense, but with vastly different degrees of severity, resulting in legal inconsistencies and jurisdictional conflicts. This Comment proposes a federal solution to the dissemination of nonconsensual pornography that carefully balances the …

Platforms And The Fall Of The Fourth Estate: Looking Beyond The First Amendment To Protect Watchdog Journalism, Erin C. Carroll

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Protecting Online Privacy In The Digital Age: Carpenter V. United States And The Fourth Amendment’S Third-Party Doctrine, Cristina Del Rosso, Carol M. Bast

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

The goal of this paper is to examine the future of the third-party doctrine with the proliferation of technology and the online data we are surrounded with daily, specifically after the Supreme Court’s decision in Carpenter v. United States. It is imperative that individuals do not forfeit their Constitutional guarantees for the benefit of living in a technologically advanced society. This requires an understanding of the modern-day functional equivalents of “papers” and “effects.”

Looking to the future, this paper contemplates solutions on how to move forward in this technology era by scrutinizing the relevancy of the third-party doctrine due …

Pre-Game Strategy For Long-Term Win: Using Trademark Registration And Right Of Publicity To Protect Esports Gamers, John Bat

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

The soaring popularity of esports across the globe has turned ultra-talented gamers into a blend of athlete and entertainer. The youthful esports ecosystem is exploding in growth, and the world is taking notice. But are the gamers who are eyeing professional play taking basic legal steps to develop and shield their brands, as well as bolster their collective negotiating leverage with teams, leagues, and miscellaneous entities? This note explores what features of an up-and-coming esports gamer might be worth protecting through a trademark and/or personality-rights schema, which in turn, could assist competitive gamers who are interested in developing their careers …

Why The Vppa And Coppa Are Outdated: How Netflix, Youtube, And Disney+ Can Monitor Your Family At No Real Cost, Anna O’Donnell

Georgia Law Review

Video-streaming services like Netflix, YouTube, and Disney+
dominate the current media landscape. This Note explains why
current laws likely cannot effectively prevent these streaming
services from collecting and sharing users’ private information.
The Video Privacy Protection Act (the VPPA) contains language
that has baffled courts when applying its text to streaming
services, resulting in multiple circuit splits. The Children’s
Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) has a clearer
application to streaming services, yet its enforcement has
resulted in small settlements with companies that have been
charged with collecting children’s private information. Both the
VPPA and COPPA need to be updated to …

Separation Of Functions For Ai: Restraining Speech Regulation By Online Platforms, Niva Elkin-Koren, Maayan Perel

Lewis & Clark Law Review

The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution restricts government regulation of private speech. However, it generally does not apply to private management of speech. New forms of speech regulation by online platforms disrupt this constitutional framework. Platforms, such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter, are responsible for mediating much of the public discourse and governing access to speech and speakers around the world. These private businesses match users and content in whatever way best benefits their commercial interests. At the same time, however, they exercise regulatory power when they filter, block, and remove content at the …

Missing In “State Action”: Toward A Pluralist Conception Of The First Amendment, Moran Yemini

Lewis & Clark Law Review

Online speech intermediaries, particularly social platforms, have an enormous impact on internet users’ freedom of expression. They determine the speech rules for most of the content generated and information exchanged today and routinely interfere with users’ speech while enjoying practically unchecked power to block, filter, censor, manipulate, and surveil. Accordingly, our current system of free expression lacks one of the main requirements of a just system—the notion that no form of power is immune from the question of legitimacy. Scholarly responses to this situation tend to assign decreased weight to constitutional norms as means to impose duties on online intermediaries …

Quantum Supremacy, Network Security & The Legal Risk Management Framework: Resiliency For National Security Systems, Salah E. Ali

SMU Science and Technology Law Review

No abstract provided.

Machines Finding Injustice, Hannah S. Laquer, Ryan W. Copus

SMU Science and Technology Law Review

With rising caseloads, review systems are increasingly taxed, stymieing traditional methods of case screening. We propose an automated solution: predictive models of legal decisions can be used to identify and focus review resources on outlier decisions—those decisions that are most likely the product of biases, ideological extremism, unusual moods, and carelessness and thus most at odds with a court’s considered, collective judgment. By using algorithms to find and focus human attention on likely injustices, adjudication systems can largely sidestep the most serious objections to the use of algorithms in the law: that algorithms can embed racial biases, deprive parties of …

Notice And Choice Must Go: The Collective Control Alternative, Richard Warner

SMU Science and Technology Law Review

Over twenty years of criticism conclusively confirm that Notice and Choice results in, as the law professor Fred Cate puts it, “the worst of all worlds: privacy protection is not enhanced, individuals and businesses pay the cost of bureaucratic laws.” So why is it still the dominant legislative and regulatory approach to ensuring adequate informational privacy online? Recent implementations of Notice and Choice include the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation, and California’s Consumer Protection Privacy Act. There is a well-known alternative (advanced by Helen Nissenbaum and others) that sees informational privacy as arising from social norms that require conformity …

An Old Technology Solves An Old Problem: Rethinking The “World’S Water Battery”, Will Farmer

SMU Science and Technology Law Review

No abstract provided.

The California Consumer Privacy Act’S Potential Incompatibility With The United States’ Legal And Economic Landscape, Alexandra Henry

SMU Science and Technology Law Review

No abstract provided.

When Miracle Cures Go Bad: Regulators’ Responses To Unproven Direct-To-Consumer Stem Cell Therapies, Sydney Hope

SMU Science and Technology Law Review

No abstract provided.

Front Matter

SMU Science and Technology Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Coffee Break For Bitcoin, Margaret Ryznar

Indiana Law Journal

For many, the appeal of bitcoin is in its detachment from government regulation. However, the Coffee bonding theory, which initially arose in the context of foreign stocks, suggests certain benefits of regulation for bitcoin, including increased legitimacy. By invoking the Coffee bonding theory, this Article offers another perspective on the regulation of bitcoin.

Upskirting, Bitcoin, And Crime, Oh My: Judicial Resistance To Applying Old Laws To New Crimes – What Is A Legislature To Do?, Michael Whiteman

Indiana Law Journal

As technology continues to advance at a break-neck speed, legislatures often find themselves scrambling to write laws to keep up with these advances. Prosecutors are frequently faced with the prospect of charging a defendant with a crime based on an existing law that does not quite fit the circumstances of the defendant’s actions. Judges, cognizant of the fact that legislatures, and not the judiciary, have the primary responsibility for creating crimes, have pushed back. Judges routinely refuse to convict a defendant if the statute does not fairly criminalize the defendant’s actions. To determine if a defendant’s actions fit within a …

Losing The Freedom To Be Human, Evelyn Aswad

Faculty Articles

In 2019, Apple’s CEO warned that contemporary business models, which are based on harvesting our personal data and monetizing everything we do online, violate our privacy and will eventually cause us “to lose the freedom to be human.” Others have taken this privacy concern a step further by questioning whether these business models undermine mental autonomy, i.e., the ability to think and form opinions. The burgeoning chorus of concerns has triggered a variety of high-profile calls to explore whether international human rights law protects against intrusions on the inner sanctum of one’s mind, particularly with respect to the business models …

Examining The Anomalies, Explaining The Value: Should The Usa Freedom Act’S Metadata Program Be Extended?, Susan Landau, Asaf Lubin

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Edward Snowden’s disclosure of National Security Agency (“NSA”) bulk collection of communications metadata was a highly disturbing shock to the American public. The intelligence community was surprised by the response, as it had largely not anticipated a strong negative public reaction to this surveillance program. Controversy over the bulk metadata collection led to the 2015 passage of the USA FREEDOM Act. The law mandated that the intelligence community would collect the Call Detail Records (“CDR”) from telephone service providers in strictly limited ways, not in bulk, and only under order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The new program initially …