By Steven J. Porizo
The Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) is a high-tech communication signals intelligence program that we still know little about since it remains highly classified to this day. However, we do know that the TSP, by using classified and extremely cutting edge technology, “intercepts without benefit of warrant or other judicial approval, prior or subsequent, the international telephone and internet communications of numerous persons and organizations within this country.” The government on several occasions indicated that the TSP has been in place from at least 2002.
Legal analysis related to the validity of the TSP is an important and contemporary issue. A case that directly challenged the legality of the TSP was decided against the government in a federal District Court and was subsequently appealed to a U.S. Circuit Court. This is an issue that should concern all Americans as it directly impacts the government’s ability to protect its citizens home and abroad, yet also raises privacy concerns that all individuals cherish. Understanding the legal contours of the TSP requires finding a very delicate balance between these two paramount and fundamental objectives. In this case, it appears that the government’s need for intelligence to protect the U.S. and its citizens against future terrorist attacks takes precedence over individual’s privacy interests.
[view abstract] | [download PDF]
By Bert Kaufman
In order to compete in a satellite and cable television marketplace, Verizon Internet Services has one new product to the mix of services consumers can use to get hundreds of channels into their homes. In 2005, the telecommunications giant began launching its “Verizon Fiber Optic Service” (FiOS) in select markets throughout the United States. The service, which would allow municipalities to receive pay television and other services, such as high-speed internet and telephone, over its fiber optic, internet service network, marks the entry of Verizon into the highly competitive content-delivery marketplace.
[view abstract] | [download PDF]
By Catrina Sveum
This book provides an overview of how advances in technology are eroding individual privacy. It explores the tension between individual civil liberties and national security. In addition to describing new threats to privacy, the book focuses on the inability of the law to protect individual privacy in the face of rapidly advancing technology.
[view abstract] |[download PDF]
By Robert Sanfilippo
Virtually Obscene is divided into seven chapters. Chapter 1 provides an overview of what the Internet is, describing its origin, structure, and various attempts to regulate it. Chapter 2 provides an overview of the current obscenity standards in the United States and discusses the problems therein, while providing the author’s proposals and alternatives to the current standard. Chapter 3 discusses the First Amendment, particularly the freedom of speech clause and the arguments surrounding it, as well as the author’s reasons why freedom of speech does not protect Internet obscenity. Chapters 4, 5, and 6, introduce and analyze the arguments of Internet obscenity and its harm to children, women and the moral environment, respectively. Chapter 7 concludes with a discussion of why Internet obscenity regulation is “a bad idea.”
[view abstract ] |[download PDF]
By Robert Sanfilippo
This book is divided into an introduction and three main parts. The Introduction discusses the popular search engine Yahoo!, and its battles with the French Government regarding Nazi memorabilia posted on its auction website. Part 1 discusses the origin of the Internet, what the Internet entails and the major players involved in the belief that it should transcend territorial law. Part 2 describes government efforts to control and regulate the Internet. Part 3 provides a balance between the benefits and disadvantages of government control of the Internet and what is in store for future regulation.
[view abstract] |[download PDF]
By Reece Roman
Try to imagine life without the Internet. Over the last half century, the dramatic growth of the Internet has fundamentally changed the way humans shop, communicate, and entertain themselves. The Internet’s one billion users make nearly six billion searches a year. The growth of the Internet has been dramatic, with usage increasing 200 percent since 2000. According to the Department of Commerce (DoC), e-commerce now accounts for over fifty-six billion dollars in retail sales annually in the United States (U.S.) alone.
As the Internet has grown, challenging technological issues associated with the Internet’s administration have arisen. What began as a simple communication between two Massachusetts and California computers has become a complex network of hardware and data. To manage this infrastructure, some administrative body is required. The Internet’s administrative body has taken a number of forms over the years. Initially, the U.S. government managed the Internet in partnership with various research institutions. However, the rapidly advancing needs of the market outpaced government competency and it became clear U.S. government administration was inadequate. The U.S. government then experimented with several administrative bodies whose task was to implement the domain name system (DNS) and technically manage the growth of the Internet. As the Internet’s popularity boomed, these bodies were overwhelmed by the technical demands and complex legal issues associated with administering the DNS. Criticism mounted, both domestically and internationally. In response to these criticisms the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) emerged as the recognized authority charged with DNS governance. Although ICANN is purportedly an independent non-profit organization, the U.S. government retains ultimate control of the DNS through unique contractual arrangements between ICANN and the DoC.
[view abstract] | [download PDF]
Please join us on Saturday, March 22nd for Syracuse University’s first annual Communications Law & Policy Spring Symposium, sponsored by the Communications Law and Policy Society. Leading representatives of the communications industry, law, and government will discuss the changing face of communications, with featured speakers from:
- AT&T, Verizon, Charter Communications, Lenovo
- NY Public Service Commission, Cable Telecommunications Association of New York, State Assemblyman Richard Brodsky’s Office
- Indiana University, Syracuse University College of Law, Syracuse University School of Information Studies, Syracuse University S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications
- Fletcher Heald & Hildreth, Herzog Engstrom Koplovitz P.C., Wiley Rein Fielding, LLP
For details and registration, please visit the Symposium website at http://law.syr.edu/students/organizations/clps/.
by Zachary M. Mattison
This Note evaluates the practicality of the United States Supreme Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence in light of the crisis of the internet being used as a safe haven for terrorist communication, training, and planning. The author criticizes the modern Clear and Present Danger test and discusses the tension between the First Amendment’s significance to American society and national security concerns involving internet communication.
[view abstract] | [download PDF]
By Steven C. Judge
The fast-emerging technology of Voice-over-Internet-protocol (VoIP) has incited a debate over whether it should be regulated and who should be assigned the task. VoIP technology involves a blend of two industries: telephone, which has regularly been the subject of regulation, and the Internet, which has normally been left alone. The concern involved is that however the regulatory scheme is set up, it will have untold, and probably far reaching, impacts on the Internet.
Too much regulation could restrict the developing technology and adversely affect the impact on the Internet, but too little could have the same adverse effect on the telephone. It is important that when determining how to regulate VoIP, that the regulatory bodies, both state and federal, look to the past mistakes made in the regulatory schemes for the telephone.
[view abstract] | [download PDF]