Source: https://www.rctlj.org/page/9/
Timestamp: 2017-03-26 03:22:54
Document Index: 399407861

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 9', '§ 5361', '§ 5361', '§ 5362', '§ 981', '§ 2323', '§ 2323', '§ 2323']

Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal – Page 9 – Website under construction
Author Kenneth LouisPosted on November 26, 2012Categories CommentsTags Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, Fourth Amendment, GPS, originalism, smartphones, surveillance, warrantLeave a comment on United States v. Jones and the Shortcomings of Originalist Interpretations of the Fourth Amendment	Should Computers Replace Humans In The Judicial Process?	U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck is helping to pave the way by supporting the use of “predictive coding”, a method in which technology is used to assist in document review during the discovery process.[1] Predictive coding reduces the need for lawyer review by “digitally sorting through a sample of documents, then refining the search algorithms to make sure the relevant documents in the sample are selected.”[2] Although this method does not completely eliminate the need for human review, it ultimately reduces the burden on lawyers to painstakingly review hundreds, if not, thousands of documents before determining which are relevant and ultimately presented to the opposing party.[3]
Author David LeePosted on October 28, 2012Categories CommentsTags automation, discovery, document review, electronic discovery, predictive codingLeave a comment on Should Computers Replace Humans In The Judicial Process?	Social Media and Law Enforcement: Friend or Foe	The vital role that the social media plays in our society is far from reaching its pinnacle. In result, with the potential for exponential gain within the social media, comes the act of balancing privacy and profitability. This struggle emerges in instances where law enforcement needs the assistance of social media companies, in order to facilitate their investigation.
Author Fabrice CharlesPosted on October 25, 2012November 7, 2012Categories CommentsTags law enforcement, social media, SOPALeave a comment on Social Media and Law Enforcement: Friend or Foe	Anti-Cyberstalking Laws: Misuse and The First Amendment Right To Free Speech	Cyberstalking, the use of the Internet or electronic communication to stalk or harass a person, is a serious and growing issue in the United States.[1] The proliferation of the Internet has brought about an abundance of means by which cyberstalkers can prey upon their victims.[2] Moreover, the effects of cyberstalking on victims are devastating, including invasion of privacy, mental and emotional anguish, physical violence and suicide.[3] State legislators have rightfully responded by crafting criminal anti-cyberstalking laws or amending traditional anti-stalking laws to account for technological advances in the Internet and electronic communications.[4] Legislators have recognized the need for anti-cyberstalking laws to encompass the many and constantly evolving ways that cyberstalkers can utilize the Internet.[5] However, anytime speech is regulated, there exists the possibility that the law may infringe on the First Amendment right to free speech. Expressive speech on the Internet is generally afforded robust First Amendment protection, similar to that of books, newspapers, and magazines.[6] Therefore, an anti-cyberstalking law that does not exclude constitutionally protected speech is vulnerable to misuse in ways that may trample upon the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment.
One such misuse of an anti-cyberstalking law recently occurred in the city of Renton, Washington. An anonymous individual posted on the Internet several videos of a cartoon parody mocking officers and employees of the Renton Police Department. The police department sought and obtained the approval of a judge for a search warrant to launch a criminal investigation to discover the identity of the individual who posted the videos. The police department alleged that the individual who posted the videos online had violated Washington’s anti-cyberstalking law.[7] Washington’s anti-cyberstalking law criminalizes the use of the Internet to make an electronic communication to a person or third party “with intent to harass, intimidate, torment, or embarrass” using any “lewd, lascivious, indecent, or obscene words, images, or language, or suggesting the commission of any lewd or lascivious act.”[8]
The cartoon parody video, while likely embarrassing to the officers and employees of police department, is constitutionally protected free speech.[9] The First Amendment, made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment,[10] prohibits states from enacting laws that infringe upon an individual’s freedom of speech.[11] This constitutional protection extends to expressive speech on the Internet.[12] Moreover, the First Amendment generally protects parody regarding public officials, even when offensive or embarrassing, absent an additional showing that the speech is false and made with actual malice.[13] Thus, Washington’s anti-cyberstalking law was misused to criminalize constitutionally protected free speech.
While an anti-cyberstalking law should be flexible enough to account for technological advances in the use of the Internet, it should also be carefully crafted to ensure consistency with the free speech protections of the First Amendment. To help achieve this balance, an anti-cyberstalking law can include a provision that expressly excludes speech protected by the First Amendment.[14] Many states already include such provisions in their traditional anti-stalking laws.[15] The Renton case illustrates the misuse of an anti-cyberstalking law that can occur when the law has not been tempered by the constitutional protections afforded free speech on the Internet.
[1] U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 1999 Report on Cyberstalking: A New Challenge for Law Enforcement and Industry, http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/cyberstalking.htm (last updated Feb. 7, 2003) [hereinafter 1999 Report on Cyberstalking].
[2] Sarah Jameson, Cyberharassment: Striking a Balance Between Free Speech and Privacy, 17 COMMLAW CONSPECTUS 231, 235 (2008); see also Joshua N. Azriel, Social Networking as a Communications Weapon to Harm Victims: Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter Demonstrate a Need to Amend Section 230 of The Communications Decency Act, 26 J. MARSHALL J. COMPUTER & INFO. L. 415, 415-19 (2009).
[3] See Ashley N. B. Beagle, Modern Stalking Laws: A Survey of State Anti-Stalking Statutes Considering Modern Mediums and Constitutional Challenges, 14 CHAP. L. REV. 457, 465-66 (2011) (discussing the general effects of stalking on victims); see also Parents: Cyber Bullying Led to Teen’s Suicide, ABCNEWS.COM, (Nov. 19, 2007), http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Story?id=3882520&page=1.
[4] Beagle, supra note 3, at 471-77 (surveying state anti-stalking statutes covering the Internet and electronic communication).
[5] 1999 Report on Cyberstalking, supra note 1.
[6] See Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 870 (1997).
[7] Cartoonist Targeted With Criminal Probe For Mocking Police, KIROTV.COM, (Aug. 3, 2011), http://www.kirotv.com/news/28758502/detail.html. On August 9, 2011, the judge issued a stay of the search warrant and ordered a full hearing on the matter. Judge Halts Renton Police Cartoon Search Warrant, KIROTV.COM, (Aug. 9, 2011), http://www.kirotv.com/news/28815941/detail.html.
[8] WASH. REV. CODE § 9.61.260 (2004).
[9] While certain speech on the Internet may give rise to civil actions, such as defamation, this comment concerns criminal liability under anti-cyberstalking laws.
[10] Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925).
[12] See Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 870 (1997).
[13] Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 55-56 (1988); New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 283 (1964).
[14] See Naomi Harlin Goodno, Cyberstalking, a New Crime: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Current State and Federal Laws, 72 MO. L. REV. 125, 155 (2007) (arguing that anti-cyberstalking laws must specifically exclude constitutionally protected speech in order to pass constitutional muster and citing many state anti-stalking laws as examples).
[15] Id. at 155 n.185.
Author Brian ScottPosted on October 22, 2012Categories CommentsTags constitution, cyberstalking, first amendment, free speech, internet, parody, public officials, videosLeave a comment on Anti-Cyberstalking Laws: Misuse and The First Amendment Right To Free Speech	Electronic Discovery Changing the Judicial Landscape for Assessing a Parent’s Obligation to Contribute Towards their Child’s College Costs	Under New Jersey law, the court considers an extensive list of factors prior to determining whether continued financial support or contribution from a non-custodial parent for the costs associated with their child attending college is appropriate. (Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J. 529, 1982). For example, New Jersey courts take into account whether the non-custodial parent, if still living with the child, would have contributed towards the costs of the requested higher education. Also, courts consider the effect of the background, values and goals of the parent on the reasonableness of the expectation of the child for higher education. Furthermore, courts look at the parent’s ability to pay, the requested amount of contribution sought by the child, the commitment to and aptitude of the child for the requested education, and even the financial resources of that child. Similarly, the court considers the child’s relationship to the paying parent, including mutual affection and shared goals as well as responsiveness to parental advice and guidance. Finally, the court considers the relationship of the education requested to any prior training and to the overall long-range goals of the child. Each of these aforementioned factors impacts the court’s decision in regards to a parent’s obligation to contribute for their child’s higher education costs.
The availability and ease of acquiring personal, relevant information pertaining to their case via such social media outlets has drastically expanded, providing the involved parties with better opportunities to prove their case. Although social media itself is not quite a novel legal issue, the manner in which social media ties into the courts particular determinations about the above-mentioned factors provides an interesting basis for discussion.
Applying this principle to these previously discussed factors, it becomes evident that electronic discovery provides parties with multiple avenues to substantiate their claims. For example, a child’s transcriptions on ‘facebook’ may serve as a valuable indication of his or her “commitment to and aptitude of the child for the requested education.” Similarly, a child’s statements made on ‘twitter,’ or perhaps their photos, could demonstrate “the financial resources of the child.” This is merely a brief overview of the many possible ways in which social media outlets have expanded parties’ opportunities to impact the court’s analysis of each of these factors used to determine the appropriateness of ordering non-custodial parents to contribute to their child’s higher education costs.
Author Daniel BurnsPosted on October 17, 2012Categories CommentsTags children, electronic discovery, NJ, social media1 Comment on Electronic Discovery Changing the Judicial Landscape for Assessing a Parent’s Obligation to Contribute Towards their Child’s College Costs	Perhaps Slow And Steady Does Win The Race: The Unforeseen Consequences Of MERS	In light of the economic collapse beginning in 2006, thousands of Americans continue to default on residential mortgages, falling prey to mortgage foreclosure actions. A plaintiff in a foreclosure action has standing “where it is both the holder or assignee of the subject mortgage and the holder or assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced.”[1] Following the traditional mortgage-recording route, a lender-mortgagee maintains ownership of both the promissory note and the mortgage by having the mortgage recorded within the county registry and keeping the note.[2] Thereafter, any transfer of the property’s title allows the lender to sell both the mortgage and the note, which serves as the underlying security interest in the property.[3]
[2] See id. [3] Id.
Author Rachel SigmundPosted on October 15, 2012Categories CommentsTags foreclosure, MERS, mortgage, mortgage electronic recording system, promissory noteLeave a comment on Perhaps Slow And Steady Does Win The Race: The Unforeseen Consequences Of MERS	The Confrontation Clause in Video Conferencing	As criminal court systems across the country attempt to alleviate costs, some states have started using video conferencing in place of live testimony. Pennsylvania, for example, uses the technology primarily for preliminary arraignments.[1] Courts find video conferencing enticing for the money it saves in transportation and security costs.[2] Pennsylvania claims that over 15,700 court actions happen by video conferencing every month; doing these proceedings through video conferencing rather than live, saves the state over one million dollars a month and nearly twenty-one million dollars a year.[3]
Though cost savings may be high, the detriment to defendants and their right to the Confrontation Clause may be at issue. Among other things the Sixth Amendment promises that a defendant “be confronted with the witnesses against him. . . .”[4] In Maryland v. Craig the Supreme Court held that the Confrontation Clause is not violated by closed circuit video testimony from minors in abuse cases; and that depending on the case, “face to face” confrontation is not always necessary.[5] The Court resisted a literal reading of the Confrontation Clause to avoid eliminating all the hearsay exceptions the Court had previously deemed satisfactory.[6] At the same time the Court acknowledged the value and importance placed on “face to face” confrontation in “Anglo-American court proceedings.”[7]
More recently the issue of two way video conferencing was examined by the District Court for the Middle District of Alabama in United States v. Yates.[8] The government claimed it needed the testimony of two witnesses who were in Australia; the witnesses refused to travel and the government’s use of two way video conferencing was granted.[9] Using a test established in Maryland v. Craig which requires a hearing and an important public policy to be served[10], the court determined that no hearing was held and the government’s public policy reason of fact finding was not sufficient to deprive the defendants of confrontation.[11] The court stated “[t] he simple truth is that confrontation through a video monitor is not the same as physical face-to-face confrontation.”[12]
While court systems have an interest in keeping their costs at bay, they also have an interest in protecting the rights of defendants. It is essential for fact finders to observe witnesses’ entire demeanor including non verbal cues such as “the manner in which they enter the courtroom, their willingness to make eye contact with trial participants, and their ability to control nervous gestures as they deliver their testimony.”[13] In the future, because of video testimony, defendants may be put in a position where they have to fight for their Confrontation Clause right.
[1] Ben Present, Judges Applaud Videoconferencing, Defense Lawyers Cautious, Law Technology News (June 16, 2011), http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202497388660&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1.
[2] More Criminal Courts Turning to Videoconferencing, Experienced Criminal Lawyers (Nov. 30, 2011), http://www.experiencedcriminallawyers.com/criminal-courts-videoconferencing/.
[3] Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, PA Courts Expand Use of Video Conferencing, Saving $21 Million Annually in Defendant Transportation Costs, PA. Courts (June 7, 2011), http://www.courts.state.pa.us/NR/rdonlyres/36906F45-C993-4844-A3E1-CC3A68B4300B/0/VideoConfExpdsPACts_060711.pdf.
[5] Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836, 857-58 (1990).
[6] Id. at 848-49.
[7] Id. at 846.
[8] United States v. Yates, 438 F.3d 1307 (M.D. Ala. 2006).
[9] Id. at 1310.
[10] See Craig, 497 U.S. at 850, 855.
[11] Yates, 483 F.3d at 1316.
[12] Id. at 1315.
[13] James W. Kraus, Virtual Testimony and Its Impact on the Confrontation Clause, Champion Magazine (May, 2010), http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/01c1e7698280d20385256d0b00789923/f07d58a1b25bfece8525776e005e64e6?OpenDocument.
Author Valerie WersePosted on October 11, 2012Categories CommentsTags confrontation clause, courts, Sixth Amendment, testimony, video conferencing1 Comment on The Confrontation Clause in Video Conferencing	According to the Video Privacy and Protection Act, Netflix and Facebook Cannot be “Friends”	In the latest edition of pre-Internet era laws constricting the natural growth and flow of online enterprise, Facebook and Netflix have found their unavoidable partnership thwarted by a little known video privacy law.[1] In late July, Netflix told its shareholders that the Netflix’s “integration” [2] with Facebook would be delayed in the United States due to the Video Privacy and Protection Act (“VPPA”).[3]
Author Kersten RoehslerPosted on September 24, 2012Categories CommentsTags Facebook, internet, Netflix, privacy, VPPALeave a comment on According to the Video Privacy and Protection Act, Netflix and Facebook Cannot be “Friends”	The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006	Internet gambling has been the subject of much discussion over the past several years. The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) was passed in 2006.[1] A congressional study found that Internet gambling has been a source of personal indebtedness and that existing law enforcement means of regulating the growing industry has been inadequate.[2] Online poker companies have come under fire from the Department of Justice under this Act and its associated predicate acts.[3] These types of cases have dealt with companies that are not located within the United States.[4] While these companies are at risk, the UIGEA seems to carve out an exception for gambling practices held exclusively within a State.[5] Moving along these lines, the District of Columbia has been the first to legalize virtual gambling.[6] With many state budgets facing crises, gambling has been looked upon to increase state revenues.[7] While many states have been slightly reluctant to explore this area, the Great Recession has put the states in a position to seriously consider the possibility of adding revenue through Internet gambling.[8] Many precautions may be put into place to keep states within the bounds of the UIGEA, but the legislative history of the act may put states into a gray area.[9] While the UIGEA seems to carve out an exception for purely intrastate activities, the UIGEA does not seek to amend existing law on these types of activities.[10] Without clear guidance, states may run afoul with the Department of Justice and their presumable stance on prohibiting “’all forms’ of online gambling.”[11] State officials should be cautious of the lack of clarity on this issue as well as balancing the needs of a budget crisis with the potential of putting their citizens at risk of personal indebtedness.
[1] 31 U.S.C. §§ 5361-5367 (2006)
[2] 31 U.S.C. § 5361
[3] See United States v. Scheinberg, 10 Cr. 336 (2011)
[5] 31 U.S.C. § 5362
[6] See Matt Richtel, Starved Budgets Inspire New Look at Web Gambling, N.Y. Times, Aug. 14, 2011, at A1.
Author Daniel ParkPosted on September 4, 2012Categories CommentsTags Department of Justice, gambling, internetLeave a comment on The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006	An International Twist on Domain Name Seizure	In February of 2011, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) seized the rojadirecta.org domain name[1], by authority of a seizure warrant issued pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981, 2323[2]. Rojadirecta’s principal function is to provide links to other sites where recordings of live sporting events may be downloaded in violation of copyright law[3]. ICE seized only the domain name and did not attempt to reach the servers that host Rojadirecta’s content[4].
This seizure raises several questions. First, is a domain name property within a government’s jurisdiction simply because it is maintained by a registrar based within that jurisdiction? The government argues it has jurisdiction to seize any domain name under management of a domain registrar based within the United States[5]. An analogy could be drawn to a proper exercise of traditional in rem jurisdiction, e.g. control over a foreign citizen’s assets deposited into a bank located within the United States. Although there is no authoritative consensus holding that the United States absolutely exercises jurisdiction over any domains held in a US-based registrar, extant case law supports this line of reasoning in the context of a trademark-infringing domain name[6]. Given both analogies, a court would most likely accept this rationale and find jurisdiction.
Second, to what extent should international comity limit the execution of a forfeiture? In the instant case, a Spanish trial court and appellate court had already found that Rojadirecta’s operation was operating legally, prevailing in a lawsuit brought by Spanish rights-holders[7]. The US government proceeds only on a belief that the operation violates US copyright law; its Affidavit in Support of Application for Seizure Warrant cites 18 U.S.C. §§ 2323(a)(1)(A)-(B), claiming that domain itself was “used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part to commit or facilitate the commission” of a copyright infringement[8]. The domain name itself is already twice removed from any infringement: first the domain only points to Rojadirecta’s servers, then the servers only provide links to other servers wherein infringing materials are hosted[9]. No US court has yet to decide on the matter, but it seems as though this attenuated chain may be enough to satisfy 18 U.S.C. § 2323(a)(1)(B). It is clear, however, that the attenuation is not enough to satisfy a claim for copyright infringement within the Spanish jurisdictions that tried the other two lawsuits[10].
Since the initial seizure, Rojadirecta sought to have the domain name returned, claiming the substantial hardship requirement is satisfied in showing a loss of internet traffic and First Amendment infringement[11]. Those arguments were rejected[12]. Rojadirecta continues legal action, but in the interim has registered rojadirecta.es[13]. .ES is the top level domain for Spain and remains wholly outside of the US’s jurisdiction. If the government’s objective was to stop copyright infringement, it is safe to say this seizure failed to do so.
[1] See Jonathan Stempel, U.S. seizes sports piracy websites before Super Bowl, Reuters (Feb. 2, 2011, 2:47 PM), http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/02/us-website-seizures-sports-idUSTRE71188X20110202.
[2] See the notice posted on Rojadirecta’s seized URL at http://rojadirecta.org.
[3] See Bianca Bosker, Rojadirecta.org One Of Several Sites SEIZED By U.S. Authorities, Huffington Post (Feb. 2, 2011, 11:13 AM), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/02/rojadirecta-org-seized_n_817458.html.
[4] See Nate Anderson, US Customs begins pre-Super Bowl online mole-whack, Ars Technica (Feb. 1, 2011, 10:13 PM), http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/02/us-customs-begins-pre-super-bowl-mole-whacking.ars.
[5] See, e.g. David Kravets, Feds Seize 18 More Domains in Piracy Crackdown, Wired (Feb. 14, 2011, 6:08 PM), http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/02/eighteen-domains-seized/.
[6] See, e.g. Mattel, Inc. v. Barbie-Club.com, 310 F.3d 293, 306 (2d Cir. 2002).
[7] See Ernesto, Sports Streaming/Torrent Links Site Victorious in Court, TorrentFreak (May 10, 2010), http://torrentfreak.com/sports-streaming-torrent-links-site-victorious-in-court-100510/.
[8] Aff. in Support of Application for Seizure Warrant Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 2323(a)(1)(A)-(B), 981(b) at 3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. THE FOLLOWING DOMAIN NAMES: Hq-Streams.com, Hq-Streams.net, Atdhe.net, Firstrow.net, Channelsurfing.net, Ilemi.com, Iilemi.com, Iilemii.com, Rojadirecta.org, and Rojadirecta.com, Defendants in rem., 2011 WL 320195 (S.D.N.Y.).
[9] Bosker, supra note 3.
[10] Ernesto, supra note 7.
[11] Timothy B. Lee, Judge says domain name loss is not a “substantial hardship”, Ars Technica (Aug. 5, 2011, 10:45 AM), http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/08/judge-says-domain-name-loss-is-not-a-substantial-hardship.ars.
[13] Nate Anderson, Do domain seizures keep streaming sites down?, Ars Technica (Apr. 17, 2011, 8:00 PM), http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/04/do-domain-seizures-keep-streaming-sites-down.ars.
Author Raymond ChowPosted on August 5, 2012Categories CommentsTags domain name, homeland security, jurisdiction, seizureLeave a comment on An International Twist on Domain Name Seizure	Posts navigation