The Internet and the State

Part 5: Content/Access Control

1. Introduction to Filtering

    Reading

    1. How Filtering Works
      1. Paul Resnick, Filtering Information on the Internet, Scientific American, March 1997
      2. Paul Resnick, PICS, Censorship, & Intellectual Freedom FAQ
      3. Lawrence Lessig & Paul Resnick, Zoning Speech on the Internet: A Legal and Technical Model, 98 Mich. L. Rev. 395 (1999).
      4. CyberNOT List ; CyberNot List Criteria
      5. Seth Finkelstein, BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE (censorware vs. privacy & anonymity) (Aug. 16, 2001)
    2. Some critiques of Content Filtering
      1. The Internet Filter Assessment Project
      2. GILC, Coalition statement against "stealth blocking" (May 17, 2001)
      3. Paul Festa, New.com, Porn sneaks past search filters (July 2, 2000)
    3. Filtering in Congress
      1. Text of CDA, 47 U.S.C.A. §223
      2. Text of COPA, 47 U.S.C.A. §231
      3. Text of CIPA, 20 U.S.C.A. § 7001 note  (Westlaw version preferable)

    Thinking & Doing

    Optional

    1. Internet Rating and Content Association (ICRA)
    2. ACLU, Fahrenheit 451.2: Is Cyberspace Burning? How Rating and Blocking Proposals May Torch Free Speech on the Internet
    3. Internet Filter Effectiveness: Testing Over and Underinclusive Blocking Decisions of Four Popular Filters
    4. Jonathan Wallace, Why Libraries Shouldn't Buy Censorware
    5. Junichi P. Semitsu, Burning Cyberbooks in Public Libraries: Internet Filtering Software vs. The First Amendment, 52 Stan. L. Rev. 509 (2000).
    6. Miami-Dade Public Library System, Internet Policy

2. Forbidden Filters? Required Filters?

Reading

    1. Forbidden filters?
      1. Mainstream Loudoun v. Board of Trustees of the Loudoun County Library, 24 F.Supp.2d 552 (E.D. Va. 1998)
      2. Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997).
      3. American Civil Liberties Union v. Reno [II], 217 F.3d 162 (3rd Cir. 2000), cert granted sub nom Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 121 S.Ct. 1997 (U.S. May 21, 2001).
    2. Required filters?
      1. Kathleen R. v. City of Livermore, 87 Cal.App.4th 684 (2001).
      1. Complaint of Virgnia Pear against Minneapolis Public Library (May 2, 2000)
      2. Cynthia L. Smith v. Minneapolis Public Library EEOC Determination. Re: Unrestricted Internet Access Policy of Minneapolis Public Library Creates Sexually Hostile Work Environment.(May 23, 2001) [Note-although the names are differnt this EEOC determination responds to several similar complaints including the Pear complaint above]
    3. Permitted filters?
      1. Mark Nadel, Internet Filtering by Public Libraries & the First Amendment (Sept. 1, 2001), pages 1134-1162

    Thinking

    Optional

    1. Lawrence Lessig, What Things Regulate Speech: CDA 2.0 vs. Filtering, 38 Jurimetrics 629 (1998), .pdf
    2. FCC Form 479: Certification by Administrative Authority to Billed Entity of Compliance with the Children's Internet Protection Act; also accompanying instructions for Form 479 ; FCC Specific Guidance for Year 4 'Undertaking Actions' Certification on compliance with CIPA.

3. Spam Control

Reading

  1. State v. Heckel, 143 Wash.2d 824, 24 P.3d 404 (Wash. 2001) Westlaw
  2. California Bus & Prof Code §§ 17538.4 and § 17538.45
  3. Ferguson v. Friendfinder, Cal. Sup. Ct. (S.F.) (June 7, 2000)
  4. Jane Doe One v. Oliver, 755 A.2d 1000 (Sup. Ct. Ct. March 7, 2000)
  5. CompuServe, Inc. v. Cyberpromotions, Inc., 962 F. Supp. 1015 (S.D. Ohio 1997)
  6. Technical Means...
    1. Spam-L FAQ, Tracking Spam & Blocking Spam
    2. Paul Vixie, Realtime Blackhole Rationale
    3. David G. Post, Of Black Holes and Decentralized Law-Making in Cyberspace, Vand. J. Ent. L. & Pract. (2000)
    4. John Lettice, The Standard, Verified: you can get anybody you want kicked off Hotmail (July 2, 2001)
  7. ....and the Ensuing Lawsuits
    1. Harris Interactive Files Suit Against AOL, Microsoft, Qwest and Other ISPs Over Restraint of Trade; Judge Denies TRO in Harris v. Maps Case(Aug. 8, 2000); MAPS, MAPS AIDS HARRIS INTERACTIVE IN MOVE TO 100% CONFIRMED OPT-IN (Aug. 21, 2000)
    2. Patricia Odell, Richard H. Levey, Yesmail Gets Restraining Order Against MAPS Blacklist, DirectNewsline (July 17, 2000); Yesmail and MAPS Agree to Put Litigation on Hold, DirectNewsline (July 26, 2000)
    3. MAPS Settles Experian Litigation; Industry Leading E-mail Standards Remain in Place (Oct. 3, 2001); MAPS, EXACTIS SUIT AGAINST MAPS DISMISSED (Oct. 3, 2001)

Thinking

  • Who had the better case: MAPS or its antagonists?

    • Optional

    1. Optional: Harris's Complaint Against MAPS [.pdf file - scanned so it's enormous and slow]

    4. Infowar - Offensive & Defensive

      Reading

      1. ACLU.org, Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) about Echelon
      2. Steve Kettmann, Wired, Most Hacking Hides Real Threats (July 3, 2001)
      3. George Smith, Issues Online, An Electronic Pearl Harbor? Not Likely (Fall, 1998)
      4. Pages 1-10 of John F. Murphy, Computer Network Attacks By Terrorists: Some Legal Dimensions (note: this link takes you to a page from which you can access the document).
      5. George K. Walker, Information Warfare and Neutrality, 33 Vand. J. Trans. L. 1079 (2000).  On Westlaw. (Highly edited version in your packet.)
      6. U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, Road Map for National Security: Imperative for Change (2001), pp. 2-4, 10-21. (For full text see the huge .pdf or the unofficial HTML version.)

      Thinking

      Optional

      1. Martin Libicki, What is Information Warfare?
      2. Federation of American Scientists, Information Warfare and Information Security on the Web (many great links)
      3. Two views of "Eligible Reciever".  Compare Information Assurance – the Achilles’ Heel of Joint Vision 2010? with The meaning of Eligible Receiver.


    To Part 1   Part 2   Part 3   Part 4   Part 5
    To Syllabus Index
    To Class Policies
     

    Last update Oct. 23, 2001