Internet Law Reading Assignments

U. Miami School of Law Fall 1999

Prof. Michael Froomkin
Reading Assignments. Part ONE.  Part TWO is now available.
Unless otherwise marked, all reading assignments will be available from the distribution center. Some, but not all, are also available on line. Unless otherwise noted, I anticipate and intend that each "unit" below (e.g. "Introduction") will take approximately one class. But you never know.

I. What is the Internet?

  1. Introduction
    1. Findings of fact in ACLU v. Reno, 929 F. Supp. 824 (E.D.Pa. 1996).
    2. Michael Froomkin, An Introduction to the "Governance" of the Internet
    3. Read the class policies
    4. Subscribe to the class mailing list
  2. Some technical background
    1. Excerpts from Zen and the Art of Internet
    2. Read a basic guide to HTML coding.   There are many on the Web in Yahoo's collection of guides, or you can read the thorough but superficially intimidating NCSA's Beginner's Guide in the packet.
    3. Things to do:
      1. Figure out how to make your e-mail program automatically attach a "signature block" or ".sig" to each of your messages.  Please ensure that you sign your name to all but intentionally anonymous postings to the class list.
      2. Send me an email in which you tell me about a paragraph's worth about yourself. Please also include your day & evening phone numbers and mailing address for my files. Your email should demonstrate your mastery of the "signature block" above.
  3. "Nettiquette"
    1. RFC 1855: Nettiquette
    2. 1267623 Ontario Inc v. Codes Communications, Inc., [1999] OJ No. 2246 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice, June 14, 1999)
    3. Things to think about:
      1. How would you go about writing an "acceptable use of the Internet" policy for a law school?  For a  client's organization?
      2. What risks would you be most worried about?
      3. What are the interest groups involved?
      4. Optional: create a WWW homepage for yourself.  If you are doing this on the UM system, visit the online helpful hints.  If you do create a page, please send the URL to the class mailing list.
  4. Writing Rules
      1. Compare
        1. UM Law Computer Use Policy  with
        2. (excerpts from) UM university-wide policy and
        3. University Computer and Network Use policy and
        4. UM Personal Web Page Agreement;
      2. MIT's Promoting Network Civility,
      3. a critique of the MIT Stopit Policy
      4. An example of why you might need a harassment policy.
      5. Surf the web and see what you can find.

      6. Be prepared to describe an interesting web site you have found (including its URL!) if called upon in class.

II. Cryptography - A Core Internet Technology

  1. Introduction
    1. Froomkin, The Metaphor is the Key: Cryptography, the Clipper Chip and the Constitution, 143 U. Penn. L. Rev. 709 (1995). You could of course just sit down and read the whole thing, and I have put the full text in your packets.  Otherwise, I suggest you read the following pages:
      1. § I.A, pp 712-735
      2. Technical Appendix, pp. 885-897
      3. § I.C.2, pp 752-764
    2. National Research Council, Cryptography's Role in Securing the Information Society,  pp. 51-65 & Appendix C, pp. 364-395
  2. Potential Consequences of Crypto
    1. Froomkin, The Internet as a Source of Regulatory Arbitrage, (book chapter) in BORDERS IN CYBERSPACE (Brian Kahin and Charles Nesson, eds.)  (MIT Press, 1997)
    2. Sebastiaan von Solms & David Naccache, On Blind Signatures and Perfect Crimes, 11 Computers and Security 6  (1992) [not available on line]
  3. US Government Reaction to those Potential Consequences
    1. Froomkin, Metaphor, § III, pp. 810-843 and § IV, pp. 843-885
    2. Froomkin, It Came From Planet Clipper, 1996 U. Chi. L. Forum 15. I've put the whole article in the packet, but you need only read pp. 18-42, 50-64, 69-75
    3. FBI, Encryption: Impact on Law Enforcement
    4. 1998 Risks of Key Recovery
  4. Crypto in Court
    1. The Bernstein Case
      1. Bernstein v. U.S., 1999 WL 274111 (9th Cir.(Cal.) May 6, 1999)).
      2. Petition for rehearing & rehearing en banc
      3. Optional: Response to Petition
      4. Optional: Government's Reply
    2. The Karn case
      1. Karn v. U.S. Dept. of State, 925 F.Supp. 1 (D.D.C. Mar 22, 1996)
      2. Karn v. U.S. Dept. of State, 107 F.3d 923, 323 U.S.App.D.C. 290 (D.C.Cir. Jan 21, 1997)
    3. Optional:  Lots of interesting relevant material in
      1. the EFF's Bernstein Case Archive and
      2. in Phil Karn's Applied Cryptography Case page

III. Jurisdiction

  1. Introduction
    1. Review the materials in Section I on how packet-switching works.
    2. Dan L. Burk, Federalism in Cyberspace, 28 Conn. L. Rev. 1095 (1996).
    3. U.S. vs. Thomas, 74 F.3d 701 (CA 6, 1996).
    4. Playboy Enterprises v. Chuckleberry Publishing, Inc., 939 F. Supp. 1032 (S.D.N.Y.  1996).
    5. Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc. , 952 F.Supp. 1119 (W.D.Pa. 1997)
    6. Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414, (9th Cir. 1997)
  2. Example: Regulating Gambling
    1. Choose a couple of links from
      1. the large list of online betting opportunities or
      2. the Euro Nambling list of Internet Gambling in Europe.
    2. Think about
      1. Why might a player care about location?
      2. Why might a regulator care?
      3. Can you tell if the sites are honest? Is there any way to tell short of placing a winning bet?
    3. The Florida Attorney General's Opinion on Internet Gambling (October 18, 1995).
    4. Minnesota Attorney General's Office, Memorandum on Internet Jurisdiction (July 1995). Here's another copy.
    5. The decision of the Minnesota court of appeal in the Granite Gate case, 568 N.W.2d 715, affirmed by an equally divided court, 576 N.W.2d 747 (Minn. 1998)
    6. Feds' Internet Bet Case Avoids 'Cyber' Issues
    7. Article: "Despite tough talk from prosecutors, and despite indictments of those charged with Internet gambling, no court has held that U.S. law prohibits such betting."
    8. Chapter Five: Internet Gambling from the National Gambling Impact Study Commission Final Report


IV. E-Commerce Basics

  1. Digital Signatures [2 classes?]
    1. David L. Gripman, Electronic Document Authentication, 17 John Marshall J. Computer & Info. Law 769 (1999).
    2. Excerpts from Froomkin, Essential Role of Trusted Third Parties in Electronic Commerce.
    3. C. Bradford Biddle, Ten Public Policy Questions. Please be prepared to discuss whether you agree with this critique.
    4. Jane Kaufman Winn, Couriers Without Luggage: Negotiable Instruments and Digital Signature, 49 S. Cal. L. Rev. 739 (1998).
    5. Illinois Electronic Commerce Security Act
    6. UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce
    7. Stephen G. Meyers, Potential Liability Under the Illinois Electronic Commerce Security Act: Is It A Risk Worth Taking?, 17 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 909 (1999).
    8. [Possible addition if federal digital signature law passes - watch online syllabus for details]
    9. Optional: Thomas J. Smeddingoff & Ruth Hill Bro, Moving With Change: Electronic Signature Legislation as a Vehicle for Advancing E-Commerce, 17 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 723 (1999).
  2. Online Finance & E-cash
    1. Froomkin, Flood Control on the Information Ocean  § III.
    2. Daniel M. Gallagher, Move Over Tickertape, here Comes the Cyber-Exchange: The Rise of Interent-Based Securities Trading Systems, 47 Catholic U. L. Rev. 1009 (1998).
    3. Excerpt from Rajeev Saxena, Cyberlaundering: The Next Step for Money Launders? 10 St. Thomas L. Rev. 685 (1998)


V. Speech, Reading, & Privacy

  1. Speech and its regulation
    1. Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. -- (1997).
    2. Australian Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999
    3. NEWThe text of the COPA statute.
    4. NEWACLU v. Reno (II), 31 F.Supp.2d 473 (E.D. Pa. 1999) (requires westlaw); alternate source...not as pretty, but it's free.
  2. Content Filtering [two classes]
    1. The Learning Company, Cyber Patrol Fact Sheet ; The CyberNOT Block List; The CyberNOT Block List Criteria; The CyberYES List Criteria; Statement on Filtering the Starr Report;
    2. Lawrence Lessig & Paul Resnick, The Architectures of Mandated Access Controls
    3. Paul Resnick, Filtering Information on the Internet, Scientific American, March 1997
    4. Paul Resnick, PICS, Censorship, & Intellectual Freedom FAQ
    5. Lawrence Lessig, Tyranny in the Infrastructure
    6. The Internet Filter Assessment Project
    7. ACLU, Fahrenheit 451.2: Is Cyberspace Burning? How Rating and Blocking Proposals May Torch Free Speech on the Internet
    8. Lawrence Lessig, What Things Regulate Speech: CDA 2.0 vs. Filtering, 38 Jurimetrics 629 (1998)
    9. Excerpts from Jonathan Wallace, Why Libraries Shouldn't Buy Censorware
    10. Mainstream Loudoun v. Board of Trustees of the Loudoun County Library, 24 F.Supp.2d 552 (E.D. Va. 1998)
  3. Anonymous Speech
    1. McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 115 S.Ct. 1511 (1995).
    2. Parts I & II of Froomkin, Flood Control on the Information Ocean  ,
    3. American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia v. Miller, 977 F.Supp. 1228, (N.D.Ga. 1997)
  4. Anonymous Reading
    1. Julie E. Cohen,  A Right to Read Anonymously: A Closer look at "Copyright Management" in Cyberspace, 28 Conn. L. Rev. 981 (1996). Note: this link takes you to page with an abstract from which you can download the paper. You will need Adobe Acrobat to read this paper (the link takes you to a page that will allow you to download it).
    2. American Library Association v. Pataki. 969 F.Supp. 160 (SDNY 1997)
    3. Froomkin, Flood Control, Part IV.
  5. Anonymous Transactions
    1. Roger Clarke, Introduction to Dataveillance and Information Privacy, and Definition of Terms
    2. Roger Clarke, Identification, Anonymity and Pseudonymity in Consumer Transactions: A Vital Systems Design and Public Policy Issue
    3. Roger Clarke, Human Identification in Information Systems: Management Challenges and Public Policy Issues
  6. European Approaches to Data Privacy
    1. Treaty on the European Union, Title I - Common Provisions - Article F
    2. European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 8
    3. Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data [Note: this is different from the earlier version - that link died...]
    4. Excerpts from Peter P. Swire, Of Elephants, Mice, and Privacy: International Choice of Law and the Internet, 32Int'l Law. 991 (1998).