Download Legal Issues in Computing - Cornell Computer Science

Survey
yes no Was this document useful for you?
   Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Document related concepts
no text concepts found
Transcript
Staying Out of Prison in the
Information Economy
Lecture Caveats
• I am not a lawyer and do not have any
formal legal training
• This lecture is made up of my observations
of the legal system to make you aware of
important issues concentrating on an
information technology workplace
• Cardinal Rule: Be aware of the law, but
always consult an attorney if/when you
become involved with it.
Law Caveats
• Some people read the text of the law and
think they know it. Things are never so
easy. If you have questions ask a lawyer.
• Others ignore the law relying on corporate
lawyers in case something goes wrong.
This is not a good idea. As in any other
system, catching problems in the design
phase is always better than in the debugging
phase.
Talk Overview
• Life for Lawyers Vs. Life for Engineers
• Patents, copyright, trademarks, trade secrets
reviewed
• Defamation
• ISP Liability
• Privacy
• Jurisdiction Issues
Life for Computer Professionals
• Binary
– Problem solutions either work or not.
Little room for gray areas.
• Physical and mathematical laws ultimate
authority when disputes arise
• Guiding Philosophy - “Tell me what you
need and I will create a system with
appropriate trade-offs at least cost to solve
your problem.”
Life for Lawyers
• Gray
– Effort and intent often matter as much as
results
• Supreme court ultimate authority when
disputes arise
• Guiding Philosophy - “Laws are passed
based on how society should run - even if
enforcement and legal interpretation issues
have yet to be nailed down.”
When Worlds Collide . . .
• Legal community always behind the technology
curve
• Lawyers and politicians typically have poor
technical backgrounds
• As a result, analogies often made between new
technological paradigms and old world systems some more easily defended than others.
• Different interpretations would result in different
laws
Patents
• Embodiment of a specific methodology
• Competing products must use different
method for achieving same task to avoid
payments
• Definite lifespan beyond which patent
information freely available for use by the
public
Copyright
• Specific work
• Automatically held when work is created,
but easier to defend if it is registered
• Definite lifetime beyond which the work is
freely available to the public
Trademark
• Specific name or phrase
• Generic terms cannot be trademarked
• Trademarks can be lost if they are not
defended
– Lost trademarks: aspirin, kleenex
– Held Trademarks: Coke, Pepsi
Trade Secrets
• Does not expire - as long as it is kept secret
• Competitors may not use secrets obtained
through extraordinary means
• Example: Walled chemical plant layout
learned through helicopter use
Defamation
• Publishing damaging statements you cannot
prove about others
• The publisher and author are both liable
• Slander is a less serious, but similar, crime
where damaging statements that cannot be
proven are made in a public arena
Bally Total Fitness Vs. Faber
• A “Bally Sucks” web site was created by
Faber complaining about Bally fitness
centers
• The trademarked Bally seal was placed on
the site overlaid with the words “Sucks”
• Bally sued Faber making claims of
trademark infringement, dilution, and unfair
competition.
Bally Case Decision
• No trademark infringement - little possibility of
confusion
• No dilution - the defendant did not sell a
competing product and did not convey confusion
about the author’s identity
• No dilution (lessening ability of the plaintiff’s
mark to identify its goods and services) since
defendant was not marketing a competing product
• Incidentally - no slander, negative opinions
protected under the first amendment
ISP Liability
• What is an Internet Service Provider Like?
– Phone Company: Route information
flows between individuals
– Newspaper: Package content for
distribution in a public forum
• Answer determines ISP’s legal liability
• The rules have been in a constant state of
flux in recent years
Ancient History (~Decade Ago)
• Defamatory posting on Prodigy (Stratton Oakmont Vs.
Prodigy Services 1995)
– Prodigy a large ISP
– Claimed to be “family friendly”. Prodigy advertised
that internal newsgroups monitored for
bad/inappropriate language
– Role of a publisher - hence, Prodigy like a newspaper
– CompuServe did not monitor users activity - like a
telephone company (Cubby Inc. Vs. CompuServe Inc.
in 1991)
Modern Era
Communications Decency Act
• ISP may monitor user activity (according to
policy)
• If statement to the effect that ISP does not
take responsibility for user traffic in place
then no ISP liability, BUT
– Area for complaints must be available
– Complaint response must happen in a
timely fashion
DMCA
• Digital Millennium Copyright Act
– If a copyright infringement is claimed a web
site must be taken down (however tenuous the
claim may be)
– Web site can only be reinstated after an appeals
process.
Near Future? . . .
• European Computer Crime Treaty may be
created by the end of this year
• ISP’s may be required to monitor user
traffic with a 40 day data-log.
• ISP’s not explicitly exempt from liability
• Hacker/Security Tools Illegal
• Citizens must provide passwords for data
seized by police
Privacy in the Workplace
• Test for employers/employees - “Do you
have a reasonable expectation of privacy?”
• A case can be made that private e-mail on
business machines still private, but this is
not the law
• Work-related material on business machines
is definitely not private
Privacy in E-mail
• Legally, e-mail is like a postal letter
– Expectation of privacy in transit
– Mail loses its special protected status once it
leaves the letter carrier's grasp
• For e-mail,
– Expectation of privacy while signal travels over
Internet
– E-mail loses its protected status at the mail
server whether you have read it or not
Spam and Address Spoofing
• Matthew Seidl v. Greentree Mortgage Co. (1998)
• Greentree hired third party to send mass e-mail to
potential customers (spam)
• Return address spoofed to read
[email protected] (an actual address)
• Over 7,000 complaints sent to nobody resulting in
denial of service for 3 days
• Libel case dismissed since third party was a
contractor. Likely that third party would, in fact,
be vulnerable to a lawsuit.
Business E-mail
• Electronic Communications Privacy Act
(1986) says all business communication
belongs to that business
• Deleting e-mail can be ruled spoliation
(intentionally destroying company records)
• Archive worthless if it cannot be indexed
effectively (in effect, saving everything can
be equivalent to saving nothing)
What about Privacy at Home?
• A lot of public information is considered
private.
• An increasing amount of public information
available on the Internet
–
–
–
–
Reverse phone lookups
Campaign Contributions
Housing prices
(Thwarted) Driver’s license information and
photographs
Data Collection
• Data collection has few boundaries in U.S.
• Check privacy policy (can change!!)
• EU Safe Harbor agreement may change
things in the future (TRUSTe web site
privacy seal program)
Jurisdiction
• “The Internet has no boundaries”
• Is that really true?
• If you break a law in Finland, but you were
on the Internet in the United States, what
happens to you?
• What if you are in California and you break
a law in Minnesota?
E-Commerce Big Questions
• Did you sell an illegal item to a resident of
community X?
• Did you try to stop the flow of illegal sales
into X?
• An easy example of where this might come
up is found in the on-line pornography
boom.
Obscene or Offensive?
• Indecent speech and offensive speech
protected under the 1st Amendment
• Obscene speech is not
• But what is obscene speech?
Miller Test for Obscenity
(1) Whether “the average person applying
contemporary community standards”, would find
that the work, taken as a whole, appeals primarily
to prurient interest.
(2) Whether the work depicts or describes, in a
patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically
defined by applicable state law.
(3) Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks
serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific
value.
Federal Court System
• 94 US District Courts (89 in the 50 states)
• 13 Judicial Circuits, each with a court of
appeals
• Supreme Court ultimate appellate court
• Jurisdiction can be a determining factor in
case outcomes
US V. Thomas (1994)
• Mr. And Mrs. Thomas ran a pornographic
BBS in California
• State officer paid a membership fee and
downloaded pornography in Tennessee
• Couple tried in Federal court in Tennessee
and lost their case
International Jurisdiction
• Extradition over civil suits unlikely
• Big Question #1: Do you have assets in the
country in question?
• Big Question #2: Will you ever try to enter
country X?
Godfrey Vs. Dolenga
• Dolenga was a Cornell Biochemistry Master’s
student from British Columbia
• Godfrey, a nuclear physicist from London, made
anti-Canadian remarks in a newsgroup
• Dolenga responded by flaming Godfrey
• Godfrey notified Cornell of the offensive remarks,
but they were not removed (First Amendment)
• Godfrey filed defamation suits against Dolenga
and Cornell in Britain (one of at least seven such
cases)
Dolenga Did Not Defend Himself . . .
• Dolenga was found guilty by default in
English court
• BUT - Dolenga does not have assets in
England and it is unlikely that American
courts will enforce the British judgement.
Cornell Did Defend Itself
• Cornell has assets in England (the Cornell
abroad program)
• The suit was for roughly 80,000 pounds.
The University could have settled, but chose
to take the case to court
• The suit was brought to a successful
conclusion (for Cornell)
• Lessons to be taken away from this . . .
Conclusions . . .
• The law is constantly changing and never as
simple as it seems
• You should try to be familiar with the law to
protect yourself (corporate lawyers are like
a fire department, not like a seeing eye dog)
• Even so, you DO need the help of someone
with formal training when dealing with
legal issues