The crux of the proposal addresses the FBI’s fear of “going dark” – a term used in the Bureau for not being able to legally monitor electronic information, which, officials aver, weakens our country’s ability to identify and thwart national security threats. Essentially, the changes sought will give officials “backdoor access” to social networks, VoIP and webmail providers – meaning they would be able to “tap into” a given digital communication platform when investigating.

Granting the Feds special access to electronic communication systems is a scenario most citizens and privacy stalwarts eschew, but are their concerns enough to silence the loud bi-partisan drum — beating for expanded wiretapping abilities –inside the beltway.

The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act

Originally authored by Senator Patrick Leahy, H.R. 4922 (a.k.a. The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act) outlines allowable wiretap procedures. Originally enacted in 1994, the bill was amended once in 2004 to include definitions and requirements for broadband providers.

As its written now, the bill only applies to telecommunications and broadband companies. Politicians and national security officials, however, want all 21^st century communication tools (i.e., social networking websites, voice over IP platforms, web mail service providers, etc.) added to the list.

The Fear of Going Dark Prompts CALEA Amendment Proposal

We like to think of the U.S. intelligence and investigative agencies as powerful forces; we glorify their bad-ass-ness through shows like “24”, “Homeland” and dozens of other procedurals. And while it’s true that we may voice concern over their tactics from time-to-time, it’s fair to argue that the average American has full confidence in the sleuths tasked with keeping us safe.

But those same super-spies say they can’t do their jobs properly without expanding CALEA. The state of “darkness” created due to their inability to access new communication avenues, they say, presents a gravely serious national security problem.

Reports indicate operatives and officials have been worried about “going dark” since 2006. As such, they’ve worked to strengthen the National Electronic Surveillance Strategy. Ostensibly, the addition of provisions that allow for expanded wiretapping capabilities will further their cause and mitigate fears about “going dark.”

Proposed CALEA Wiretapping Amendment Provisions

While the exact language of the proposed amendment has yet to make its way online, chatter suggests changes will focus on the inclusion of all communication technologies — not just phone and broadband. That means technology companies would be required to add a digital “backdoor” to their programs that, in theory, can only be accessed by authorized federal agents, with proper warrants.

The way(s) in which this will actually happen, though, have yet to be laid out for inspection. Those in the know suggest the act will provide a “safe harbor” for communications companies (much like the DMCA does for ISPs in defamation and copyright infringement lawsuits), so long as the attorney general determines the interception techniques used to gather the data to be “good enough.” Others have hinted that the amendment may actually be more of an agreement to share data (which, actually, sounds a lot like CISPA – a bill recently passed in Congress with significant online privacy implications).

If the CALEA proposal does include a technological requirement, the current belief is that the bill will include compliance provisions. (Yep, the government will help companies foot the bill for implementing the new “backdoor” technology – kind of makes you wonder where they’re going to find the budget for this; but that’s another discussion for another day.)

Spokespeople for industry lobbyists have also expressed a desire to see safeguards built into the act that protect against the disclosure of trade secrets in court. In other words, the big-wigs don’t want their R&D (or dirt) inadvertently ending up in a public court filing.

Lastly, it’s widely believed that the requirements will only apply to companies and platforms that surpass a certain user threshold. If true, when you think about the stated purpose of “national security,” this footnote seems astoundingly counterproductive – we’ll get to why in a few.

What The Anti-CALEA Crowd Is Arguing

Anti-CALEA-expansion advocates feel the changes cross privacy lines and an increase the risk for hacking tomfoolery. (Have officials already forgotten the Sony/FBI/Financial Institution privacy debacle of 2011? If last year taught us nothing it’s that more electronic access points in a given platform spell heightened security breech trouble.)

Trade associations and lobbying firms, like TechAmerica, point out that if passed, the CALEA amendment could mark a “sea change in government surveillance law [that would probably result in] significant compliance costs [for tech firms].”

Many are also concerned about how expanding the reach of CALEA will affect open-source projects. Will the cost of developing and maintaining the wiretap technology be too cost prohibitive for smaller start-ups and tech non-profits? Those pushing for the bill insist there will be pecuniary provisions to eliminate unfair barriers to competition and compliance. Moreover, many smaller operations may not even have to comply with the act if their user base doesn’t reach a certain threshold.

Security vs. Privacy: The Great 21st Century Legal Debate

This new CALEA amendment is one of many statutes reviewed over the last decade that grapples with the question of security vs. personal secrecy in the digital age. And like the bills before it, these alleged new CALEA amendments also fall short at striking a happy balance.

Which brings us to the national security point I promised we’d explore a smidge more. Check it: If the FBI and intelligence officials truly believe that these new CALEA provisions are necessary to safeguard our nation (presumably in part against terrorist attacks), is it not silly for them to say, “Yeah, we only want to be able to access the most popular sites, platforms and communication systems. Those smaller ones that hardly anybody uses can do what they want.” Not to be cynical, but won’t would-be evil-doers choose to use little trafficked tools not under the watchful eye of “big brother” FED? Because let’s face it, cyber criminals — with an end-game of violence — may be terrible, but they’re not dumb; as such, the inclusion of the “user threshold limit” seems supremely counterproductive.

Let The CALEA Expansion Lobbying Games Begin!

Apple has already fired up their lobbying engine to attack the topic; Microsoft has made it known that they’re watching the CALEA developments closely; and at the time of this writing, Google, Facebook and Yahoo have yet to comment. (Perhaps because they, too, are eager to loosen online privacy statutes in order to allow for more sharing…which means more advertising revenue).

What can I say, in an age where both privacy and security are equally valued, laws affecting both will continue to remain front and center on the Internet law stage – and you can expect the CALEA amendments will start garnering increasingly more press as the powers that be move forward on the issue.

Michigan's attorney general shuts down Internet cafes for illegal gambling.

You Ain’t No Stinking Internet Café, You’re An Illegal Gambling “Pop Up” Casino

According to authorities, the targeted establishments are not ordinary Internet cafes that only offered basic web surfing. Oh no, the naughty establishments allegedly lured customers with a chance to win cash or a free sweepstakes entry. Michigan’s Attorney General, Bill Schuette, says that the cafes are unregulated “pop-up” casinos. The state’s main issue and legal stance is that these businesses are offering customers a chance to win cash rewards, but they don’t have the requisite gambling licenses.

Tucked in between tanning shops, restaurants and other strip mall staples, these cafes display brightly colored full-length signs that entice customers to surf the web and win cash. One Internet cafe even uses the business name “Monte Carlo.”

Operators Insist Customers Are Only “Buying Internet Time”

Despite state officials’ insistence on the illegal nature of the cafes (which use casino-style gaming software), proponents say customers are only buying Internet time.

Michigan is cracking down on Internet cafes that offer games of chance and gambling.

Illegal Gambling Is Frowned Upon In Michigan But Some Think There Aren’t Actually Any Regulations Against It

Like many states, Michigan has strict illegal gambling laws. In fact, the Michigan Gaming Control Board published an explicit statement regarding Internet sweepstakes cafes. According to the organization, there is no exception in the penal code regulating illegal lotteries and gambling.

Furthermore, criminal misdemeanor punishments for individuals who maintain gaming rooms, casino tables and games of chance or skill include a $1,000 fine or up to two years in prison. While the attorney general found a statewide crackdown to be the most effective way to target these establishments, local officials are less enthusiastic. Davison Police Chief Bill Brandon said that the businesses seemed to conform to commercial zoning regulations, but his organization would assist with any enforcement efforts.

Until recently, even the prosecutor in Genesee County was unaware of the issue or the presence of such establishments. The prosecutor said that these businesses are taking advantage of a legal gray area and engaging in activities that state laws don’t permit but don’t explicitly prohibit.

Currently, business owners have voluntarily ceased operations, and Innovative Entertainment agreed to remotely disable the software. This issue brings up a double legal standard where companies like McDonald’s are permitted to run contests that encourage customers to buy more.

While the Internet cafes are not de facto casinos, state officials may need to enact new laws to combat these increasingly popular businesses.

Copyright Trolls Shut Down Once Again By Judge In Illegal Downloading Lawsuit

Brown severely limited their discovery requests for detailed personal subscriber identifying information from Internet Service Providers (ISPs). Brown also found the studios had improperly joined defendants in an effort to avoid the costs of filing individual lawsuits. He ordered that all but one John Doe be dismissed from each case. One studio’s entire case was dismissed when it admitted that it did not own a copyright on the downloaded films.

It Started Like Nearly Every Other Copyright Troll Lawsuit

The plaintiffs claimed their copyrights were infringed when the John Does downloaded the studios’ copyrighted films using BitTorrent technology. The studios sought to discover, from the ISPs, the “name, address, telephone number, e-mail address, and Media Access Control (“MAC”) address of the defendant to whom the [provider] issued an IP address.” In the eyes of the studios, the subscriber was the infringer. The theory being: if the subscriber’s information is revealed, his or her name would then be substituted in the lawsuit in place of a John Doe.

Magistrate Brown Compares An IP Address To A Telephone Number & Therefore Is Not Suitable Evidence To Warrant The Disclosure Of PII

In denying the discovery request, Magistrate Brown noted that an IP address only identifies the location where any number of computers may exist. Claiming the subscriber to that address was the one who downloaded the film, according to Brown, was no more likely “[T]han to say an individual who pays the telephone bill made a specific telephone call.”

Brown also noted that one subscriber can have numerous computers used simultaneously by a number of different people. With wire-less connections, unknown people could be using a subscriber’s ISP. A company or business may be an ISP subscriber that allows access to employees, customers, or clients.

Since there is no way to determine the true downloaders identity via ISP records, granting the studios’ discovery request would have created too great a risk for the potential of innocent Internet users being drawn into litigation. Thus, Brown denied the discovery request finding that “the alleged infringer could be the subscriber, a member of his or her family, an employee, invitee, neighbor or interloper.”

Judge In Illegal Downloading Case Realized Plaintiff’s Primary Goal Was To Push For A Settlement

It also appeared, to the judge, that the studios primary reason for wanting the information was to pursue settlement with identified defendants – defendants who would likely not want to go to a public trial for downloading pornography. This type of abuse was verified when one identified John Doe presented uncontroverted evidence that he had offered the studios unfettered access to his computer; he also offered all discovery they might need to prove he was not the infringer. Instead of taking him up on his offer, the studios badgered him repeatedly to settle.

Judge Said Joinder Was Inappropriate In Illegal Downloading Lawsuit

Magistrate Brown found the studios had engaged in other abusive litigation tactics by improperly joining a large number of defendants in one lawsuit. The studios claimed that the joinder was proper because all the defendants were “acting in concert” to violate the copyright and that each case was based on common facts. Brown debunked both of these theories.

First, the dates of the alleged infringements were often weeks or months apart so the “acting in concert” standard was not met. Neither was the standard of “common facts” when it was noted that at least six of the already known defendants had individual defenses and the only way that they could defend themselves was on an individual case by case basis.

Brown noted it was more likely the studios were filing a single case with a large number of defendants in order to avoid a filing fee that would be involved with each individual case. In Brown’s district court that amounted to about $100,000 in filing fees the studios had “evaded.” Thus, Brown found the joinder to be improper and dismissed all but one John Doe from each case. If the studios intend to pursue their litigation, they must file each case individually.

Granted Limited Information For One John Doe In Illegal Downloading Lawsuit

For the one remaining Doe defendant in each case, Brown allowed the studios to obtain only the name and address of that one particular subscriber. No other information, such as email or telephone number, would be provided.

Attorneys for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, was heartened by this ruling. Mitch Stolz, an experienced copyright attorney with the foundation, was quoted as saying, “There absolutely is a trend toward shutting down this sort of abuse of discovery.”

In fact, that trend is supported by Brown’s order where he cited several other district courts that have recently made the same rulings in similar cases. It can certainly be inferred from his order that he hopes other courts continue this trend.

The federal authorities have recently released documents that relate to the government seizure of hip-hop site Dajaz1.com. The documents shed light on the issue and show that the website’s seizure was actually extended for several months because the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) was unable to provide information about the alleged copyright infringements. There have been no charges brought against Dajaz1.com, and the website has just recently been allowed to return to the Internet.

The documents regarding the case have just been released. They were held secretly for more than six months, but the documents were released after a number of public interest agencies requested the papers. Several firms requested documents relating to the case in the name of Internet freedom.

Dajaz1.com was shut down by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in 2010. ICE is a division of homeland security. The original shutdown is allegedly related to the posts of four tracks that had not yet been released. The owners of Dajaz1.com and the attorney for the website suggested that the pre-release tracks were given to the site by members of the RIAA.

Both the government’s and the RIAA’s actions in this case are questionable. First there is the government seizure of the website. This seizure was based on information that the RIAA provided government authorities. However, the RIAA failed to follow through with their allegations, and no evidence was supplied to show that Dajaz1.com actually violated any laws. The government proceeded secretly and refused to return the properly of the site’s owners or provide evidence to support their seizure.

In December, 2011, Dajaz1.com was finally given permission to return to the air waves. No one has known until now why the federal government held on to the website for so long. Documents now show that ICE received two secret extensions for their seizure. These extensions were received while the government waited on evidence of wrongdoing from the RIAA and other parties involved in the copyright disputes. The courts have no documents on record that show there was ever any evidence put forth to support the allegations against the pages of Dajaz1.com

This case raises serious concerns and leads many to wonder just how effective the 2008 PRO IP Act is. This act lays the foundation for the federal government to seize any website. They can shut down and seize Internet pages without any evidence of wrongdoing.

As of today, ICE has an ongoing operation that is called Our Sites. This operation has been responsible for the seizure of more than 750 websites. The federal government also maintains that it has the authority to seize and shut down any website that ends in .com, .net or .org. Their stance holds that it does not matter where the site is hosted, and the federal government can seize sites that are hosted from outside of the United States.

There's a vodka defamation lawsuit fermenting.

Our mixed cocktail of defamation woe begins in 2008. Business partners Christine Cooney and Jean-Denis Courtin manufactured and distributed a quinoa-based vodka, selling it as Qino One Vodka. Cooney was a spirits specialist and Courtin was a French restaurateur. A business dispute resulted in Courtin, represented by attorney Kelly Cartwright, filing suit against Cooney and her husband Daniel.
A weekly publication, the Chicago Reader, published an article about the origin of Qino One in January 2009. It titled the article “Seeds of Change” and published it on the Chicago Reader’s website in a section that invites readers’ comments. So far, nothing is out of order.

Open Mouth, Insert Foot

Allegedly, Daniel Cooney, upon seeing the article in February, felt compelled to post a comment claiming his rights to ownership of the Qino One Vodka product. In his comments, he described Cartwright as a young and socially-conscious freelance attorney who had been “conned” into “bleeding his partner” via endless exorbitant legal delays and litigation in Federal Court.

Cartwright subsequently responded in March, accusing Cooney of malicious intent and trying to harm Courtin’s business ventures and reputation. She described Cooney’s actions as an act of desperation in an attempt to sway Courtin into dropping the suit.

Now, here’s where a bit of prudence might have saved Cooney from himself.

Less than a week after Cartwright’s response, Cooney essentially threw caution to the wind. He decided it was OK to add his own brand of sarcasm, thanking Ms. Cartwright for joining the conversation. However, he didn’t stop there. He went on to say that she had played a major part in the advancement of Courtin’s “fraud scheme.”

Sharpening his tongue, he suggested that she might even be considered “metaphorically” a partner in crime! He then surmised that she must be expecting a large reward, at rainbow’s end, should she succeed in neutralizing the Cooneys. One might think Mr. Cooney had said his piece – but they’d be wrong.

He then went on to claim that when he asked Cartwright if her client’s truthfulness bore any relevance to her, she replied that the truth was irrelevant in this instance. Furthermore, he strongly suggested that Cartwright significantly influenced the manipulation and prolonged effects of Courtin’s malicious, fraudulent and destructive behavior.

The lawsuit twixt Cooney and Courtin eventually settled in September. However, Ms. Cartwright’s determination to set other things straight did not, and she subsequently sued Cooney for tortious interference and defamation.

Adding Defamation Injury to Insult

Cooney complained to the Illinois Registration and Disciplinary Committee about Cartwright’s alleged behavior. In addition, he also sent a memo to U.S. District Judge Elaine Bucklo wherein he accused Cartwright of “making misrepresentations” amid the settlement negotiations. He also claimed Ms. Cartwright lied to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in the process of acquiring a patent for the Qino One Vodka formula.

During the defamation lawsuit trial, Defendant Cooney argued that his statements to Judge Bucklo and the ARDC were political expression and protected by the ICPA, the Illinois Citizen Participation Act. He argued he only made those comments to government officials in an attempt to receive favorable government actions.

Online Defamation Check Please

However, it was determined by the presiding District Court that whereas Cooney’s comments may have been protected, his defamation of Ms. Cartwright wasn’t. That, coupled with his intent to inflict emotional distress to Cartwright, were the real issues at hand. Since  defamation and intent were the questions at hand, the judge disallowed Cooney’s defense of mere political expression.

So, what have we learned here? Perhaps Mom said it best, “If you can’t say something nice about somebody, you had better keep your mouth full of pie.”

Federal Trade Commission Expected To Levy Huge Fine Against Google

Recently, a Stanford student, Jonathan Mayer, uncovered a snafu in the way Google handles cookies in Safari – and the disclosure could cost the search engine corporation a pretty penny. You see, Google told Safari users they were protected and didn’t need to opt-out of Google’s cookies. What Google forgot to mention, however, is a little-known loophole used to track users’ data and web surfing habits.

How The Cookie Loophole Bypasses Online Privacy Protections

Google Adwords operates a service called Double Click. In theory, only users who click on the advertisement and interact with it can be tracked by cookies. To get around this requirement, Double Click sent out invisible forms that made Safari believe the user was interacting with the ad. As a result, the user’s computer allowed cookies to track their data. When users asked if they could opt out, Google advised it wasn’t necessary since Safari protected against any advertisement misuse.

Will Google Have To Pay Up For Safari Online Privacy Breach

Always eager to levy fines, the Federal Trade Commission is expected to force Google to cough up a few million as punishment for the security breach.

Since Mayer noticed, and pointed out, that the cookies placed in his browser were specifically created to avoid the protections Safari had in place, the FTC will most likely use this as an example-making incident.

In other words, the commission has grown a reputation for being, as an anonymous source in Bloomberg news called it, “all bark and no bite” – and a substantial fine would signal that the FTC does, actually, mean business when it comes to online consumer privacy and protection.

The Future of Online Privacy In The United States

Google said that none of the cookies were intended to collect any personal information about the consumer. After careful review, the Federal Trade Commission is now faced with a difficult decision. If they choose to find the company guilty, Google could be forced to pay fines that total more than $10 million.

In the past, the FTC has tried a more diplomatic approach to e-privacy compliance. However, online privacy has become a popular topic; citizens are starting to voice their displeasure with the lack of online privacy laws; so in response, the FTC has vowed to start getting serious about online consumer privacy.

And so, the online privacy battle rages on. The question still remains, though, if we will ever see a universal online privacy policy passed in the United States.

For the most part, successful Internet-based companies don’t want to see a universal privacy policy, since not having one means more opportunity for high-revenue, targeted marketing. The average Jane or John, however, isn’t too pleased with the lack of online privacy. Yet, according to a report last year in USA Today, John and Jane also want online services to remain free. In other words, it could be quite a while before there’s a resolution to the complex problem of online privacy.

Why?

Well, it looks like the FTC is to be awarded $450 million dollars after finding the named “get rich quick” websites and infomercials to be misleading and in violation of both the FTC Act and the telemarketing sales rules.

FTC Investigation Against Get Rich Quick Scams

After receiving many complaints against the get rich quick defendants, the FTC began an investigation into the business procedures and marketing campaigns of some of the most successful “get rich quick” networks around.

According to reports, the businesses engaged approximately 1 million private citizens with their programs. Consumers paid $39.95 to purchase a program that teaches one how to “get rich quick” via various real estate and Internet businesses. Now, that would have been fine if a respectable percentage of the participants made money, but according to reports, less than 1% of those who gave it a shot made a profit.

What The FTC Deemed Misleading About These Get Rich Quick Companies

The point the FTC lawyers found most corrupt was the use of a “continuity program.” Apparently, the defendants dinged users’ credit cards an additional $39.95 per month to stay “enrolled” in the program. The problem is they didn’t make this fact clear in their marketing material and website disclaimers. Moreover, a “personal coaching program” was made available to consumers for the price of $14,995, but nearly everyone who took advantage of the advanced option lost money.

The FTC put out a statement in which they said this judgment against get rich quick operations was one of the largest the commission has ever won. They also vowed to continue their fight against misleading and false advertising.

If you dabble in affiliate marketing or run an get rich quick program, it’s a good idea to retain the counsel of an affiliate marketing lawyer. Make sure that your operation is on the right side of the law, so that you, too, don’t have the FTC beating down your door.

The UK High Court Has Said That Broadband Companies Must Block The Pirate Bay. Will It Work In Stopping Online Piracy?

Officials in the United Kingdom have made a bold move in the Internet copyright infringement and online piracy battle; they’ve ordered broadband providers to block infamous torrent search engine, The Pirate Bay.

But many feel the High Court’s decision will do little, if anything, to thwart pirates’ online piracy plans.

What Is The Pirate Bay? Why Do Officials Consider It Such An Online Piracy Threat

Nearly every article about online copyright infringement law mentions ubiquitous torrent site, The Pirate Bay.  One of the most well-trafficked websites in the world, The Pirate Bay consistently ranks in Alexa’s top 100 worldwide.

Now you may be wondering, “well, if it’s a known site for online piracy, why can’t governments shut them down easily?” The legal crux is in the nature of the website itself. You see, The Pirate Bay does not host any illegal torrents on its servers; it simply acts as a search engine for said torrents. And since many countries legally prescribe to the precedent that linking to material alleged to be in violation of intellectual property statutes is not illegal, it’s tough to find a way to shut down these sites without walking dangerously close to the censorship line.

High Court’s Online Piracy Decision

Despite the fact that The Pirate Bay only acts as a search engine, and does not host the actual infringing content, Justice Arnold of the England and Wales High Court decried that the website “actively encourages copyright infringement” on a “grand scale.” The judge also chastised the site’s operators, saying that they treat “any attempts to prevent [copyright infringement] with contempt.” He also opined that The Pirate Bay was undermining new British musical talent.

And then Judge Arnold dropped the bomb and passed an edict that broadband companies must block The Pirate Bay.

TalkTalk, O2, Virgin Media, Everything Everywhere and Sky have all announced their plans to comply. BT is still reviewing the proposal, but are expected to fall in line as well.

According to various reports, the broadband companies will be using technology similar to pornography blocking software.

Will The UK High Court’s Ruling Effectively Combat Online Piracy?

The question is, though, will the UK High Court’s decision actually succeed in combating online copyright infringement? Most tech-savvy people are saying, “probably not.”

After all, those who actively use torrent sites also know how to block their IP address and other handy illegal downloading tricks of the trade. In fact, TorrentFreak.com has already published an article explaining how users can take advantage of programs like i2p TOR, and other VPN options; they also advocate switching to an open DNS. The UK pirate party has also announced plans to operate a “proxy workaround.”

Moreover, analysts point out that by taking such an extreme action against online piracy, the court has inadvertently made the pirates Robin Hood-esque heroes. Not to mention that this ruling puts the cost onus on the ISPs, not the infringers.

And as they say, there’s no such thing as bad publicity. Since the news broke about shutting down The Pirate Bay in the UK, operators of the site say they have seen 12 million new visitors to the site.

Bottom line: blocking access to torrent sites is going to do very little to stop online piracy. And we can chase the problem with laws all we want to no avail. The truth is that some of these media distributors should probably start looking for more innovative ways to deliver content to the masses more quickly. After all, it’s the Internet-age, and I bet the movie studio or record label that first figures out a way to satiate our instant gratification needs, at a “new economy” price-point, will reap significant financial rewards and turn a large portion of the online pirates into paying customers.

Jones subsequently resigned her position at the school but is still officially the captain of the cheerleading squad. A spokesperson for the Bengals said the team would not take any action until further information was available.

Jones first attracted national attention when she filed a defamation lawsuit against Nik Richie, founder of TheDirty.com. Richie posted a picture of Jones on his website, accompanied by a caption that claimed Jones had had sex with numerous members of the Bengals. Richie also claimed that Jones had a sexually transmitted disease, an important piece of evidence in a defamation case. Plaintiffs are usually required to prove that they suffered actual injury and that the defamatory statement caused their damages. Accusing someone of being infected with a loathsome and communicable disease, however, is subject to the doctrine of defamation per se. When a statement is found to be defamatory, courts do not require the plaintiff to prove damages.

Jones claimed that the pictures ruined her reputation and damaged her career. Jones attempted to take pre-emptive action, informing her students of the accusations and assuring them that the statements were false. To help her students understand, Jones compared her situation to being bullied on the Internet by a classmate. Jones’ efforts were only partially successful, however; in an interview with the news program “20/20,” she reported that a female student told her she refused to “learn from a slut like me.” According to Jones, she struggled throughout her life to earn and maintain a good reputation, a reputation Richie destroyed with a single online post.

After Richie refused two requests to remove the pictures, Jones filed a defamation suit in federal court. When Richie did not appear to defend the claims, the court granted a default judgment in Jones’ favor. Riche has appealed the judgment, and the case is scheduled for a hearing in June.

If passed by the Senate and signed into law by the President, CISPA would make it legal for companies like Facebook to give information about you to the government; it would also make it possible for government agencies to share classified information with networks in an effort to thwart various electronic national security threats.

What IS CISPA, Who Supports It And Why?

An amendment to the National Security Act of 1947, CISPA’s primary purpose is to allow and encourage information sharing between private entities (read: social networking platforms and Internet service providers) and Federal security and intelligence agencies.

CISPA defines a cyber-threat as any “vulnerability of, or threat to, a system or network of a government or private entity, including information pertaining to the protection of a system or network from either efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network.” It also asserts that a “threat” could be the “theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property or personally identifiable information (PII).” Supporters of CISPA, though, insist the bill’s mention of intellectual property has nothing to do with downloading Mp3s and movies, but instead only refers to “research and development” data (i.e., corporate and government secrets).

Also unlike SOPA and PIPA, CISPA is backed by many of the power-house tech and communication companies like Facebook, Microsoft, IBM, Intel and Verizon – most of which who were vehemently opposed to SOPA and PIPA. The US Chamber of Commerce and the majority of Republican representatives in Congress also support the Act. All have different reasons for backing CISPA; perhaps some of the IT companies fancy having access to classified information; maybe those who support CISPA truly believe it’s the best bill to combat cyber terrorism and attacks.

Father of the Internet, Tim Berners Lee, Representative Ron Paul, the White House and The Constitution Project are amongst the opponents of CISPA, as all believe the bill threatens personal privacy rights.

Will CISPA Be Used To Prosecute Pirates?

According to CISPA advocates, the law will not be used to go after illegal downloaders, but is that really the case?

Bill backers insist they’re only concerned with material or information related to cyber criminality and espionage, yet they fail to define exactly what constitutes such acts. As a result, it’s in the range of possibility that the government will declare that some element of a given bittorrent file has to do with an electronic threat, and bingo, information about the “seeds” could be handed over under the auspices of CISPA.

Of course they say they won’t do that, but we’ll just have to wait and see.

Since there is a provision in CISPA that allows citizens to sue the Federal government for misusing any data obtained through CISPA, it will be interesting to see, if it’s passed, whether or not they try to use the bill to thwart online piracy, and if in doing so end up getting sued by a citizen because of it.

Will CISPA Make It To The Law Books?

CISPA got Congress’ stamp of approval yesterday, but will it actually make it into law?

The White House has already said they will veto the bill in its current state; moreover, the Senate is quite the cyber-security kill joy – as it’s become known as the place where cybercrime bills go to die. If the trend continues, CISPA may have seen its hay-day yesterday and will soon join the thousands of other acts never codified.

Still, civil liberty watchdog groups are sounding the CISPA warning bell in the hopes of garnering public outrage against the law, like they did for SOPA and PIPA.

To keep update on the latest CISPA news, sign up for our newsletter.