Friday, March 28, 2014
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
NIST Computer Security Division has announced three upcoming events. Mark your calendars! The NIST Computer Security Division is still planning to host more events and once the information becomes available to the general public, an email will be sent out to this mailing list.
1. Cryptographic Key Management Workshop 2014
March 4-5, 2014
NIST Gaithersburg, Maryland
For more information regarding the Cryptographic Key Management workshop, please visit the workshop’s webpage on the NIST Computer Security Division website:
2. FISSEA 27th Annual Conference
March 18-20, 2014
NIST Gaithersburg, Maryland
For more information regarding the FISSEA Conference, please visit the FISSEA website on the NIST CSRC website at: http://csrc.nist.gov/fissea/
3. Privacy Engineering Workshop
April 9-10, 2014
NIST Gaithersburg, Maryland
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
A by-invitation experts’ workshop Organized by the Institute for Information Policy at Penn State University and co-sponsored by the Federal Communications Commission. To be held at the FCC in Washington, DC, May 28-30, 2014.
The U.S. National Broadband Plan envisions the transition of the U.S. telecommunications infrastructure to a ubiquitous IP-based broadband network. While there is a vibrant discussion of how best to manage the transition, there is only a nascent discussion of what the policy framework should look like after it is completed. What is the long-term outlook (beyond the transition and into the next decade) for the broadband ecosystem, and how will the regulatory system have to adapt to a changed environment?
Advances in infrastructure technology and applications have, and will likely continue to push at the boundaries of current regulatory frameworks for telecommunications, media, and even intellectual property rights The Institute for Information Policy at Penn State (IIP), in collaboration with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), is pleased to announce this call for paper proposals addressing the multiple factors in thinking about regulation for post-transition broadband networks.
Authors of selected papers will be invited to present and discuss them during a 2-day by-invitation-only workshop designed to bring together up to a dozen experts to be held at the Federal Communications Commissions on May 28-30. The Workshop is designed to draw together the latest academic thinking on these questions and to give FCC staff the opportunity to suggest elements of a forward-looking research agenda that would contribute to the policy discourse around them. The workshop is part of a series of events focused on “Making Policy Research Accessible,” organized by the IIP, with the support of the Ford Foundation and the Media Democracy Fund. Presenters at the workshop will be invited to submit their completed papers to the Journal of Information Policy.
All disciplines are welcome. Invited topics of papers may include, but are not limited to:
* Will the dominant model for delivery of broadband services be fixed or mobile? How much competition will there be (especially wireline)? Will there be new technologies or entrants?
* What is the future of “over-the-top” content and CDNs?
* What will be the impact of the “internet of things”? What is its regulatory status?
* How is the “public interest” defined in the broadband ecosystem? What sorts of regulatory safeguards/interventions will be needed to advance the public interest?
* How do the FCC’s broadband promotion programs interact with efforts of other agencies, on both the demand and supply side?
* How should the concept of universal service evolve? What can the designers of universal service policies learn from efforts to stimulate demand for broadband?
* What are the implications for regulatory frameworks of technological and other changes in the broadband ecosystem?
* How should the division of labor between state and federal regulatory authorities change?
* Are there any regulatory challenges on the horizon that are not yet part of the mainstream broadband regulation debate?
Abstracts of up to 500 words and a short bio of the author(s) should be submitted to email@example.com by March 15, 2014. Please write IIPFCCPOST: YOUR NAME in the subject line. Accepted presenters will be notified by March 31, 2014.
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
TATEL, Circuit Judge: For the second time in four years, we are confronted with a Federal Communications Commission effort to compel broadband providers to treat all Internet traffic the same regardless of source — or to require, as 4 it is popularly known, “net neutrality.” In Comcast Corp. v. FCC , 600 F.3d 642 (D.C. Cir. 2010), we held that the Commission had failed to cite any statutory authority that would justify its order compelling a broadband provider to adhere to open network management practices. After Comcast , the Commission issued the order challenged here — In re Preserving the Open Internet , 25 F.C.C.R. 17905 (2010) ( “the Open Internet Order” ) — which imposes disclosure, anti - blocking , and anti - discrimination requirements on broadband providers . As we explain in this opinion, the Commission has established that section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 vests it with affirmative authority to enact measures encouraging the deployment of broadband infrastructure. The Commission, we further hold , has reasonably interpreted section 706 to empower it to promulgate rules governing broadband providers’ treatment of Internet traffic , and its justification for the specific rules at issue here — that they will preserve and facilitate the “virtuous circle” of innovation that has driven the explosive growth of the Internet — is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. That said, even though the Commission has general authority to regulate in this arena, it may not impose requirements that contravene express statutory mandates. Given that the Commission has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers, the Communications Act expressly prohibits the Commission from nonetheless regulating them as such. Because the Commission has failed to establish that the anti - discrimination and anti - blocking rules do not impose per se common carrier obligations, we vacate those portions of the Open Internet Order.
Friday, January 03, 2014
Partnership for Progress on the Digital Divide (PPDD) Preconference
International Communication Association (ICA) 2014 Conference
Seattle, Washington, USA
Thursday, 22 May 2014
Call for Participation
This interdisciplinary Preconference, sponsored by Partnership for Progress on the Digital Divide (PPDD) explores the nexus of the International Communication Association (ICA) Conference Theme of "The Good Life" and the issues of digital inclusion/exclusion for those who do not share the advantages of continuous connectivity. The PPDD Preconference is co-sponsored by the ICA Communication and Technology Division, the ICA Communication Law and Policy Division, and the ICA Mass Communication Division.
2014 marks the 20th anniversary of the recognition of the digital divide through social scientific research. As the Internet became commonplace in the 1990s, officials in the Clinton Administration wondered if there should be concern about equity of access to computers and the Information Superhighway. As a result, based on the analysis of Census data about computer/modem ownership and usage collected in 1994, the newly created National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) prepared and released in 1995 the landmark report entitled "Falling Through the Net: A Survey of the 'Have Nots' in Rural and Urban America." From there, the discussion of the inequalities of online access as a new aspect of the larger issues of wealth and poverty began and the "Digital Divide" became a major focus in countries around the world.
Recent research from scholars in, for example, the U.S., U.K., and Canada indicates that nearly 20 years later, even in the most highly developed countries around the world, as much as 20% of the population does not benefit from even minimal access to the Internet. And, that lack of consistent, quality access to emergent communication technologies is antithetical to the nature of a "good life" amidst the transformative changes enjoyed by members of the wired population; those who are offline are alienated from the benefits of the "new opportunities to communicate and interact . . . new experiences, behaviors, and habits . . . [and the ability to] engage with others or receive information" suggested by the ICA Conference Theme. Thus, this Preconference responds to ICA's call to consider "what a 'good life' might look like in a contemporary, digital, and networked society, and what new challenges we might face in attaining it" to
include all members of society.
In the search for equity in access to "the good life" in the digital age, scholarly research has played a key role in the public discourse on the issues of the digital divide as well as in the decision-making by policymakers and practitioners as they work to craft solutions to this pressing societal concern. As the digital divide persists past its 20th anniversary, this Preconference provides an extended, in-depth opportunity to consider the current state and future possibilities for research that informs issues related to the digital divide around the world. Further, the Preconference works to identify new areas of necessary, productive research focus to foster greater understanding and enlighten practice and policy going forward so that all global citizens can create their own "good life" in the digital, networked age.
After a brief welcome and summary introduction to the status of the digital divide around the world, the Preconference schedule features three 75-minute breakout time periods with multiple simultaneous sessions focusing on the status of communication, an inclusive "good life", and digital divide research in various regions of the world. Involving scholars at all stages of their careers, these sessions will include research from any discipline and any theoretical and methodological approach that contributes to exploring the issues surrounding the digital divide. In addition, there will be a luncheon keynote.
The final session of the Preconference is a highly interactive, lively brainstorming and collaborative thinking dialogue among all presenters and other attendees to create partnerships and inspire new ideas for the third decade of digital divide research. All participants in the Preconference will have the opportunity to provide in advance position papers that will be made available prior to the Preconference and permanently archived via an e-book on the PPDD website.
Please join us to share your insights and expertise.
How to Participate
*** Submit an Abstract to Present Your Work During the Preconference
Deadline: 20 January 2014
Notification of Acceptance: 1 February 2014
Submissions are welcome from scholars at all stages of their careers, from any theoretical and methodological approach, and across multiple disciplines engaged in research that informs issues related to the digital divide, including, but not limited to:
- gaps in access and connectivity
- digital inclusion
- digital exclusion
- digital (dis)engagement
- challenges and opportunities
- social and cultural aspects of the divide
- the skills and digital/information literacy needed to interpret, understand, and navigate information presented online
- the impact of socioeconomic factors on user behavior
- the role of motivation
- differences in patterns of usage
- characteristics and conceptualizations of non-users
- how people use the Internet to create content
- different forms of capital and power relationships
- the impact of new and evolving technologies
- the mobile divide
- the interplay of influence with mobile technologies
- socioeconomic and cultural effects
- community informatics
- social informatics
- international development
- politics and civic engagement
- telecommunication policy
- the application of research to communities, practice, and public and private sector initiatives
If desired, each author may submit one sole authored work and one or more co-authored works, but each individual can only make one presentation at the Preconference so additional submissions would have to be presented by another member of the co-authorship team.
Please include the following information in your submission:
- Title of presentation
- Name(s), affiliation(s), and email address(es) of author(s)
- On co-authored submissions, the name, affiliation, and email address of the author who will be presenting the work at the Preconference
- A 1 page (250 words excluding notes and references) abstract in 12 pt. Times New Roman in Word doc/docx format
- For each author, a 100-word-maximum description of the author's area(s) of research interest related to the digital divide in 12 pt. Times New Roman in a separate Word doc/docx format file
Please email your submission to the appropriate Sessions Organizer below based on where your research was conducted:
Eastern and Western Europe
Sessions Organizer: Ellen Helsper, London School of Economics and Political Science
e.j.helsper (at) lse (dot) ac (dot) uk
Asia, Oceania, the Middle East, and Africa
Sessions Organizer: Gerard Goggin, University of Sydney
gerard.goggin (at) Sydney (dot) edu (dot) au
Sessions Organizer: Catherine Middleton, Ryerson University
catherine.middleton (at) Ryerson (dot) ca
Sessions Organizer: Susan B. Kretchmer, Johns Hopkins University and Partnership for Progress on the Digital Divide
susankretchmer (at) yahoo (dot) com
Central and South America
Sessions Organizer: Laura Robinson, Santa Clara University
laura (at) laurarobinson (dot) org
*** If Not Submitting Work for Presentation, Chair a Session During the Preconference
Deadline: 20 January 2014
Notification of Acceptance: 1 February 2014
If you are not submitting your work for presentation but would like to Chair a session, please email your request to the Sessions Organizer for the region of major interest to you from the list above. Please include your name, affiliation, and email address as well as a 100-word-maximum description of your area(s) of research interest related to the digital divide in 12 pt. Times New Roman in a Word doc/docx format file.
*** Submit a Position Paper for Inclusion in the Preconference E-Book
Deadline: 15 March 2014
Presenters, session Chairs, and all others who will be attending the Preconference are invited to submit to firstname.lastname@example.org a 3-5 page (750-1250 words excluding notes and references) position paper, in 12 pt. Times New Roman in Word doc/docx format, discussing:
- Your vision for the future of digital divide research;
- Your thoughts on what questions need to be asked and what research methods and critical perspectives should be used to answer them; and
- How that research can impact policymaking, practice, and the attainment of a "good life" going forward in your unique region of the world as well as globally.
If you will not be presenting your work or Chairing a session but will be attending the Preconference and submitting a position paper by the March 15 deadline, please email the Preconference Organizer, Susan Kretchmer (susankretchmer (at) yahoo (dot) com), by 20 January to indicate your intention so that we can anticipate your position paper and include you in all emailings of Preconference announcements. In that email, please include your name, affiliation, and email address as well as a 100-word-maximum description of your area(s) of research interest related to the digital divide in 12 pt. Times New Roman in a Word doc/docx format file.
*** Join in the Dialogue at the Preconference Without Presenting, Chairing, or Submitting a Position Paper
If you would like to just attend the Preconference to join in the dialogue without any other involvement, please email the Preconference Organizer, Susan Kretchmer (susankretchmer (at) yahoo (dot) com), to indicate your intention so that we can include you in all emailings of Preconference announcements.
Please contact Susan (susankretchmer (at) yahoo (dot) com) for any other questions or further information.
About Partnership for Progress on the Digital Divide (PPDD) --
Continuing the work and collaborations that began under the auspices of the National Communication Association Task Force on the Digital Divide, and with former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Commerce Larry Irving as Honorary Director, PPDD is a not-for-profit organization that engages a broad diversity of individuals and organizations to spearhead a multi-associational, multi-disciplinary partnership between scholars, practitioners, and policymakers to make significant contributions in closing the digital divide and addressing the many other challenges and opportunities presented by the digital age. PPDD reaches out beyond the communication discipline and academia to various other disciplines and groups in the U.S. and abroad who share interests, methods, and goals and want to work with PPDD to build on that common ground to find solutions to these pressing societal concerns. For example, PPDD has been actively involved with government, policymakers, and
practitioners across a broad range, including submitting a "friend-of-the-court" brief to the U.S. Supreme Court to counsel on a recent case of major import for Americans' access to the Internet in public libraries and advising the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) as it developed and now implements the National Broadband Plan mandated by Congress.
About the International Communication Association (ICA) --
ICA is an academic association for scholars interested in the study, teaching, and application of all aspects of human and mediated communication and is a truly international association with more than 4,800 members in 77 countries. Since 2003, ICA has been officially associated with the United Nations as a non-governmental association (NGO).
Further information about ICA is available at http://www.icahdq.org/ and complete details about ICA's 64th Annual Conference in Seattle, 22-26 May 2014, are available at http://www.icahdq.org/conf/index.asp.
The ICA Communication and Technology Division (http://cat.icahdq.org/ohana/website/index.cfm?p=8354660), the ICA Communication Law and Policy Division (http://clap.icahdq.org/ohana/website/index.cfm?p=72631611), and the ICA Mass Communication Division (http://mass.icahdq.org/ohana/website/index.cfm?p=89243202) have joined with PPDD to be co-sponsors of the Preconference.
Thursday, November 21, 2013
ISSUE: Is state cause of action for SPAM preempted by the Can Spam Act?
RULE: State SPAM laws are preempted by Can Spam Act, except when they address fraud or misrepresentation.
HELD: State cause of action preempted by Can Spam Act where misrepresentation was not material.
"First, the parties dispute the scope of the exception to CAN-SPAM preemption. Plaintiffs argue that Riley must allege a claim for fraud in order to avoid preemption, while Riley argues that the "falsity or deception" language used in the statute creates a broader exception, encompassing more than just claims for fraud. As an example, Riley points to Cal. Civ. Code § 1710, which defines the tort of "deceit," and which does not require the elements of common-law fraud, including reliance. While the relevant Ninth Circuit authority on this issue (Gordon v. Virtumundo, 575 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2009)) does use the word "fraud" when discussing the preemption exception, the court agrees with Riley that Gordon does not necessarily limit the exception to fraud claims. And while Gordon did not answer the question of whether a party must plead reliance and damages in order to avoid CAN-SPAM preemption, the court agrees with and adopts the reasoning set forth in two post-Gordon district court cases, both of which held that "reliance and damages need not be demonstrated to save a lawsuit from preemption." Asis Internet Services v. Member Source Media, LLC, 2010 WL 1610066, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2010); see also Asis Internet Services v. Subscriberbase Inc., 2010 WL 1267763 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2010). Riley need not establish reliance and damages in order to avoid preemption; instead, as long as she can establish that plaintiffs "were responsible for making knowing and material misrepresentations," her counter-claim "will sound in `falsity or deception' and will not be preempted by the CAN-SPAM Act." See Subscriberbase, 2010 WL 1267763 at *13. Specifically, if Riley can establish that the presence of her own name in the "from" line of the seven emails at issue was materially false or deceptive, her counter-claims will avoid preemption.
"Applying that standard, the court finds that while the use of Riley's name in the "from" line was indeed false, the fact that Riley would have immediately recognized the use of her own name puts her counter-claims in the same category as the "non-deceptive statements" that were rejected by the Gordon court. Upon receiving the emails, Riley would have instantly known that she did not send those emails to herself, and thus, the emails could not have been deceptive in any meaningful way. Thus, any falsity or deception was not sufficiently "material" to avoid preemption. The court recognizes that the factual circumstances of this case are unique, and that a misrepresentation as to the identity of the sender of emails will indeed be material in many cases. For instance, if Riley had received emails from plaintiffs with the name of one of Riley's personal contacts in the "from" line, those emails might well give rise to a non-preempted claim. However, as to the seven emails at issue, the court fails to see how Riley could have been deceived into believing that she sent herself these emails, and fails to see how any reasonable person could be deceived by an email bearing his or her own name in the "from" line. Accordingly, the court finds that Riley's counter-claims are preempted by CAN-SPAM, and hereby GRANTS summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs on the preemption issue. As discussed above, and for the reasons stated in the court's September 13, 2013 order (Dkt. 212), in which the court declined to exercise jurisdiction over claims relating to 108 of the emails, the court similarly declines to exercise declaratory judgment jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims relating to these seven emails."