|
THE LAW
AND POLITICS OF INTERNET ACTIVISM:
THE YES MEN, PETA, RTMARK,
AND THE PHENOMENON OF PARODY WEBSITES
FindLaw guest columnist and University of
Washington law professor Anita Ramasastry discusses the recent
phenomenon of parody websites and domain names -- some of which so
closely parallel the originals that they can be easily confused with
them. How can one tell a true parody from a copyright and
trademark-infringing site that merely causes confusion? Ramasastry
explains important decisions, one involving a parody by 2 Live Crew
of Roy Orbison's "Oh Pretty Woman," and another involving a claimed
parody PETA website that advocated eating meat and wearing fur.
Wednesday, Jun. 05,
2002
THE
CONSTITUTION AND SPAM:
IS THERE A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO SEND
UNSOLICITED FAXES AND EMAIL?
FindLaw
guest columnist and University of Washington law professor Anita
Ramasastry discusses a recent Missouri federal district court ruling
holding that a federal statute banning unsolicited commercial faxes
violates the First Amendment. Ramasastry also compares and contrasts
the laws applying to, and the social costs and burdens of, unwanted
telemarketing calls, unsolicited commercial faxes, and annoying
"spam" email advertisements.
Thursday, May. 02, 2002
INTERNATIONAL
AND U.S. SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEM OF "CONFLICT DIAMONDS," GEMS WHOSE
MINING AND EXPORT IS TAINTED BY VIOLENCE AND TERRORISM
FindLaw guest columnist and University of
Washington law professor Anita Ramasastry explains how a diamond
ring purchased in the U.S. may be tainted by terrorist origins, and
what the U.N., NGOs, and the U.S. are doing to remedy the situation.
Among other points, Ramasastry comments on bipartisan legislation
currently being considered by the Senate to address the "conflict
diamonds" problem, and the likely results of the recent Kimberley
Agreement on the same topic.
Wednesday, Apr. 03, 2002
THE
CYBER SECURITY ENHANCEMENT ACT'S "GOOD FAITH DISCLOSURE"
EXCEPTION:
A SERIOUS THREAT TO INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY
FindLaw guest columnist and University of
Washington law professor Anita Ramasastry discusses the proposed
Cyber Security Enhancement Act, which is currently being considered
by the House Judiciary Committee. Ramasastry argues that the bill,
which goes further than the prior USA Patriot Act, should be amended
in order to avert what will otherwise be significant privacy
infringements, relating to email and to electronic communications
generally.
Thursday, Mar. 28,
2002
MICHIGAN'S
CYBERCOURT:
WORTHY EXPERIMENT OR VIRTUAL DAYDREAM?
FindLaw guest columnist and University of
Washington law professor Anita Ramasastry discusses Michigan's
cybercourt. The optional cybercourt will allow electronic filing,
"virtual" attorney appearances, and other technological innovations
to be implemented in a class of business and commercial disputes; it
is Michigan's bid to become the first-choice forum for high tech
companies. So far commentators have tended to applaud the futuristic
court, but Ramasastry notes it might have a downside as well.
Wednesday, Feb. 06,
2002
DRAGNET
LAW ENFORCEMENT THAT WON'T WORK:
WHY "VOLUNTARY" POLICE
INTERVIEWS OF MIDDLE-EASTERN VISITORS ARE BOTH WRONGFUL AND
INEFFECTIVE
FindLaw columnist and
University of Washington law professor Anita Ramasastry critiques
legislation proposed by Senator Jesse Helms and supported by the
Bush Administration. The legislation would deny U.S. military
assistance to countries (except for NATO allies) that join the
International Criminal Court. Ramasastry contends that the
legislation will alienate our allies and countries with which we
want to ally, yet will not achieve its goal of protecting American
servicemembers abroad.
Monday,
Dec. 17, 2001
THE
PROBLEM WITH THE AMERICAN SERVICEMEMBERS' PROTECTION ACT:
WHY WE
SHOULD NOT PUNISH COUNTRIES THAT PARTICIPATE IN THE INTERNATIONAL
CRIMINAL COURT
FFindLaw columnist and
University of Washington law professor Anita Ramasastry critiques
legislation proposed by Senator Jesse Helms and supported by the
Bush Administration. The legislation would deny U.S. military
assistance to countries (except for NATO allies) that join the
International Criminal Court. Ramasastry contends that the
legislation will alienate our allies and countries with which we
want to ally, yet will not achieve its goal of protecting American
servicemembers abroad.
Wednesday, Nov. 07, 2001
WE
DON'T NEED A SECRET NEW "CYBER COURT" FOR HACKERS:
WHY THE
GILMORE COMMISSION'S RECENT PROPOSAL SHOULD BE REJECTED
FindLaw guest columnist and University of
Washington law professor Anita Ramasastry critiques the new proposal
from the government's anti-terrorism commission, for the creation of
a secret "cyber court" to address computer crimes. Ramasastry
previews how the court would work assuming that (as seems very
likely) it would resemble the current Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act court, and argues that having a specialized, secret
court to deal with all cyber crime is a bad idea.
Wednesday, Oct. 24, 2001
FOLLOW
THE MONEY, AND FOLLOW IT FAST:
THE NEED FOR AN INTERNATIONAL
FISCAL COALITION TO FIGHT MONEY LAUNDERING
FindLaw guest columnist and University of
Washington law professor Anita Ramasastry urges us quickly to
improve domestic and international policing of money laundering --
the insertion of illegally obtained money into the stream of
commerce, so that "dirty" money appears "clean" -- as a crucial part
of the war on terrorism. Ramasastry surveys current international
and U.S. money laundering solutions, and advises how they should be
improved.
Monday, Oct. 15,
2001
INDEFINITE
DETENTION BASED UPON SUSPICION:
HOW THE PATRIOT ACT WILL DISRUPT
MANY LAWFUL IMMIGRANTS' LIVES
FindLaw
columnist and federal prosecutor Barton Aronson discusses how judges
interpreting the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable
searches and seizures attempt to deal with new technologies -- such
as the thermal imaging device at issue in Kyllo v. United States, a
case in which the Supreme Court recently heard oral argument.
Aronson explains how the "reasonableness" standard that is an
express part of the Fourth Amendment puts judges in a jury-like
position, requiring them to gauge the zeitgeist, and intuit the
feelings of society as a whole on privacy issues.
Friday, Oct. 05, 2001 |
