<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
	xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
	<channel>
		<title>CircleID: Law</title>
		<link>http://www.circleid.com/</link>
		<description>Latest Law related postings on CircleID</description>
		<dc:language>en</dc:language>
		<dc:rights>Copyright 2008, unless where otherwise noted.</dc:rights>
		<dc:date>2008-08-28T11:45:00-08:00</dc:date>
		
		
		<item>
			<title>Comcast Given 30 Days to Disclose Network Management Practices, Says FCC Order</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/88202_comcast_fcc_throttling_order/</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/88202_comcast_fcc_throttling_order/</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In follow up to <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/fcc_reprimands_comcast_internet_throttling/">August 1st ruling against Comcast</a>, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in a <a href="http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-183A1.pdf">67 page order</a> released today has given Comcast 30 days "to disclose the details of their unreasonable network management practices, submit a compliance plan describing how it intends to stop these unreasonable management practices by the end of the year, and disclose to both the Commission and the public the details of the network management practices that it intends to deploy following termination of its current practices." <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/88202_comcast_fcc_throttling_order/">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-08-20T12:29:00-08:00</dc:date>
			<category>internet</category><category>access_providers</category><category>broadband</category><category>law</category><category>p2p</category><category>policy_regulation</category>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>Thousands of File Sharers Facing Lawsuits in UK</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/file_sharers_facing_lawsuits_in_uk/</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/file_sharers_facing_lawsuits_in_uk/</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Last month <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/six_largest_isps_uk_piracy_warning/">a government-backed deal was struck</a> between Britain's six biggest Internet service providers and the entertainment industry in order to send warning letters to file-sharers. Today it has been reported that thousands of people suspected of sharing music, films and games over the Internet are going to be facing legal action in UK for damages. One law firm, according to Reuters, is going to the High Court to force ISPs to release names and addresses of 7,000 suspected file-sharers and that they have already begun proceedings against several people in Britain. One British woman has been ordered to pay 16,000 pounds for downloading pinball game for free through a file-sharing site. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/file_sharers_facing_lawsuits_in_uk/">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-08-20T11:03:00-08:00</dc:date>
			<category>internet</category><category>law</category><category>p2p</category>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>Dell Loses &quot;Cloud Computing&quot; Trademark Application</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/dell_loses_cloud_computing_trademark/</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/dell_loses_cloud_computing_trademark/</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In follow to an <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/dell_seeking_cloud_computing_trademark/">earlier report this month</a> about Dell seeking a "cloud computing" trademark, latest updates indicate that the company has been denied a trademark because of the generic nature of the term which describes services offered by numerous other companies. In <a href="http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=77139082">an initial ruling</a>, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), included dozens of news stories and other material supporting its contention that cloud computing is a widely-used term of art for the technology industry. Dell is given six months to file a response or the USPTO will abandon the application. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/dell_loses_cloud_computing_trademark/">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-08-18T12:52:00-08:00</dc:date>
			<category>internet</category><category>law</category><category>web_hosting</category>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>Domain Name Lessons From iTunes</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/domain_name_lessons_from_itunes/</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/domain_name_lessons_from_itunes/</link>
			<description><![CDATA[What do <a href="http://itunes.com/">iTunes</a> and a <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/typosquatting_a_solution/">cooperative domain-name Intellectual Property (IP) regime</a> have in common? They are market solutions to illegal activity: free downloading of music and free use of brands in domain names, respectively. The music industry tried to fight the free downloading of copyright-protected music by taking legal action against free downloaders under the pretext that their activity siphons industry revenue... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/domain_name_lessons_from_itunes/">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-08-11T13:32:00-08:00</dc:date>
			<category>internet</category><category>domain_names</category><category>law</category>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>ACLU, Anti&#45;Spam Laws, and the First Amendment</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/aclu_anti_spam_laws_and_the_first_amendment/</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/aclu_anti_spam_laws_and_the_first_amendment/</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In <a href="http://techliberation.com/2008/08/07/anti-spam-laws-and-the-first-amendment/">an article published by the Technology Liberation Front</a>, Cato Institute adjunct scholar Tim Lee dissects a <a href="http://www.acluva.org/docket/jaynes.html">recent argument by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)</a> regarding free speech &amp; anti-spam laws. It's been interesting to watch the ACLU wrestle with anti-spam legislation. Their entire purpose is to work through the legal system to protect our civil rights, as defined in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights" >First Amendment</a> -- which is why I've been a card-carrying member since before I was old enough to vote... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/aclu_anti_spam_laws_and_the_first_amendment/">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-08-08T10:43:00-08:00</dc:date>
			<category>internet</category><category>law</category><category>policy_regulation</category><category>spam</category>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>If Thou Be&apos;st as Poor for a Subject as He&apos;s for a King&#8230;</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/88711_spam_kings/</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/88711_spam_kings/</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Way back in 1995, Wired reporter Simson Garfinkel <a href="http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.02/spam.king_pr.html">gave Jeff Slaton</a> the name "Spam King." Less than a year later, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanford_Wallace">Sanford Wallace</a> earned the title -- and soon had to share it (and his upstream provider) with Walt Rines. Others have come and gone; Sanford and Walt reappear every few years, together or separately, only to be <a href="http://boxofmeat.net/post/34718471/chicago-tribune-myspace-tells-ap-it-has-won-234m-spam">sued away again</a>... it seems as if any spammer noticed by law enforcement is immediately crowned "the Spam King," even when there are multiple such crownings happening at the same time. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/88711_spam_kings/">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-08-07T11:42:00-08:00</dc:date>
			<category>internet</category><category>law</category><category>spam</category>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>Email Portability, DKIM, and Socio&#45;Political Implications on Tech Development</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/88661_email_portability_dkim_socio_political_implications/</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/88661_email_portability_dkim_socio_political_implications/</link>
			<description><![CDATA[A few years ago, cell phone portability was introduced in the United States which caused a major shift in the market. The same thing happened this past year in Israel, following a major battle involving the cell carriers, consumer groups and the Israeli parliament (The Knesset). What if the same happened with email addresses? Ridiculous, you say? May be so, but there is chatter here in Israel to create a law which forces the local service providers hands to do just that. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/88661_email_portability_dkim_socio_political_implications/">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-08-06T18:11:00-08:00</dc:date>
			<category>internet</category><category>law</category><category>policy_regulation</category>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>Fury Over Dell Seeking &quot;Cloud Computing&quot; Trademark</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/dell_seeking_cloud_computing_trademark/</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/dell_seeking_cloud_computing_trademark/</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Like the term Web 2.0, "cloud computing" is quickly becoming a meme without borders. And like the old one, the new phrase with the fuzzy definition has someone making a claim on its trademark, as Dell filed for a trademark on the term last year. The trademark application was recently noted by cloud computing consultant Sam Johnston, <a href="http://groups.google.com/group/cloud-computing/browse_thread/thread/1e14463d678a38f5">posting on a Google Groups cloud computing forum</a>. Dell has also snatched up the Web sites <em>cloudcomputing.com</em>, <em>cloud-computing.com</em>, and <em>cloud-computing.net</em> as well as <em>cloudcomputers.com</em>. Cloudcomputing.com re-routes visitors to Dell's Cloud Computing Solutions Web site. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/dell_seeking_cloud_computing_trademark/">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-08-05T15:31:00-08:00</dc:date>
			<category>internet</category><category>law</category><category>web_hosting</category>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>June Court Decision Detrimental to Domaining Practices</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/88214_court_decision_detrimental_to_domaining/</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/88214_court_decision_detrimental_to_domaining/</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In a June court ruling, domainer Navigation Catalyst and registrar Basic Fusion lost a cybersquatting lawsuit to Verizon... This is an extremely interesting and potentially precedent-setting case regarding domaining and domain name tasting. The court condemns both practices, leading to a preliminary injunction against the domainer and its registrar based on the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA). As far as I can recall, this is the first time that a domainer has lost an ACPA lawsuit in court, and it provides an important data point confirming that domaining can be cybersquatting (a previously unresolved issue)... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/88214_court_decision_detrimental_to_domaining/">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-08-02T15:27:00-08:00</dc:date>
			<category>internet</category><category>cybersquatting</category><category>domain_names</category><category>law</category>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>FCC&apos;s Comcast Ruling Inconsistent and Incoherent</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/88103_fcc_comcast_ruling_inconsistent_incoherent/</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/88103_fcc_comcast_ruling_inconsistent_incoherent/</link>
			<description><![CDATA[After voting on the Comcast order today, Kevin Martin and his Democratic Party colleagues issued press releases telling us how they saved the Internet from Comcast's discriminatory practices, but they've failed to release the actual order they adopted and subsequently re-wrote. Commissioner McDowell wasn't allowed to see the revised order until 7:00 PM the night before the meeting. Rumor has it that high-level spin doctors are still trying to remove all the rough edges, inconsistencies, and factual errors. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/88103_fcc_comcast_ruling_inconsistent_incoherent/">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-08-01T15:43:00-08:00</dc:date>
			<category>internet</category><category>broadband</category><category>internet_governance</category><category>law</category><category>net_neutrality</category><category>p2p</category><category>policy_regulation</category><category>voip</category>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>U.S. Lawmakers Demand Telcos and Internet Companies to Disclose Web Tracking Practices</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/lawmakers_demand_disclose_web_tracking/</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/lawmakers_demand_disclose_web_tracking/</link>
			<description><![CDATA[U.S. lawmakers have broadened their investigation of Internet advertising, asking nation's largest telecommunications and Internet companies whether they target ads based on consumers' Web surfing habits. Companies receiving the letter include Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, AT&T, Verizon, Qwest and AOL among others. According to Joelle Tessler of the Associated Press, the "letters seek details on how many consumers have been tracked, whether those people have been notified and whether they were given the option to 'opt out' of it. The committee also wants to know how the collected information is used and how it is gathered -- for example, whether the companies aggregate data from different online applications." <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/lawmakers_demand_disclose_web_tracking/">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-08-01T13:59:00-08:00</dc:date>
			<category>internet</category><category>access_providers</category><category>law</category><category>privacy</category><category>web</category>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>Comcast and the Internet</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/88110_comcast_and_the_internet/</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/88110_comcast_and_the_internet/</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Today the FCC is condemning Comcast's practices with respect to P2P transmissions.I'm happy for FreePress and Public Knowledge today, and I know they have achieved a substantial change in the wind. The basic idea that it's not okay for network access providers to discriminate unreasonably against particular applications is now part of the mainstream communications discourse. That has to be good news. I'm concerned on a couple of fronts. The FCC has taken the view that it can adjudicate, on a case-by-case basis, issues that have to do with "Federal Internet Policy." They used that phrase several times... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/88110_comcast_and_the_internet/">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-08-01T10:18:00-08:00</dc:date>
			<category>internet</category><category>access_providers</category><category>broadband</category><category>law</category><category>net_neutrality</category><category>policy_regulation</category>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>U.S. Senate Modernizes Cyber&#45;Crime Laws</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/senate_modernizes_cyber_crime_laws/</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/senate_modernizes_cyber_crime_laws/</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The U.S. Senate has passed legislation to modernize the nation's computer crime laws and give prosecutors more leeway in pursuing cyber crooks, reports Brian Krebs of The Washington Post. "Under current federal cyber-crime laws prosecutors must show that the illegal activity caused at least $5,000 in damages before they can bring charges for unauthorized access to a computer. Under the bill approved today, that threshold would be eliminated." <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/senate_modernizes_cyber_crime_laws/">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-07-31T14:13:00-08:00</dc:date>
			<category>internet</category><category>cyberattack</category><category>law</category><category>security</category>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>Click Fraud, Botnets and Parked Domains &#45; All Inclusive</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/87281_click_fraud_botnets_parked_domains/</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/87281_click_fraud_botnets_parked_domains/</link>
			<description><![CDATA[It gets very ugly when someone owns both, the botnet, and the portfolio of parked domains actively participating in pay per click (PPC) advertising programs, where the junk content, or the typosquatted domain names are aiming to attract high value and expensive keywords in order for the scammer to earn higher on per click percentage. This is among the very latest tactics applied by those engaged in click fraud activites. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/87281_click_fraud_botnets_parked_domains/">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-07-28T10:30:00-08:00</dc:date>
			<category>internet</category><category>cybersquatting</category><category>domain_names</category><category>law</category><category>security</category>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>British Hacker Faces 60 Years in US Prison for Accessing Top&#45;Secret Documents</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/british_hacker_faces_60_years_in_prison/</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/british_hacker_faces_60_years_in_prison/</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Gary McKinnon, 42, from Enfield in north London, is accused by American prosecutors for illegally accessing top-secret US military and NASA computer systems -- called "the biggest military computer hack of all time" by prosecutors. Although the Crown Prosecution Service had decided not to prosecute, two years later, after crime unit officials visited Washington, apparently taking McKinnon's hard drive, the US government began extradition proceedings. "Now I'm facing 60 years in prison," McKinnon said. "I believe my case is being treated so seriously because they're scared of what I've seen. I'm living in a surreal, nutter's film." Updated 7/31/2008 <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/british_hacker_faces_60_years_in_prison/">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-07-26T21:17:00-08:00</dc:date>
			<category>internet</category><category>law</category><category>security</category>
		</item>
		
	</channel>
</rss>