Monday, December 08, 2014

Vacancy Announcement - Attorney Advisor (Technology Programs Law Division) - Closes: Thursday, 12/25/14

https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/388510500

Job Title:Attorney Advisor

Department:Department Of Homeland Security

Agency:DHS Headquarters

Job Announcement Number:DHSHQ15-1261359-OGC

SALARY RANGE:

$106,263.00 to $138,136.00 / Per Year

OPEN PERIOD:

Friday, December 5, 2014 to Thursday, December 25, 2014

SERIES & GRADE:

GS-0905-14

POSITION INFORMATION:

Full Time - Excepted Service Permanent

PROMOTION POTENTIAL:

15

DUTY LOCATIONS:

1 vacancy in the following location:
Washington DC, DC View Map

WHO MAY APPLY:

United States Citizens

SECURITY CLEARANCE:

Secret

SUPERVISORY STATUS:

No

JOB SUMMARY:

Do you desire to protect American interests and secure our Nation while building a meaningful and rewarding career? If so, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is calling. DHS components work collectively to prevent terrorism, secure borders, enforce and administer immigration laws, safeguard cyberspace and ensure resilience to disasters. The vitality and magnitude of this mission is achieved by a diverse workforce spanning hundreds of occupations. Make an impact; join DHS. 

The primary purpose of this position is to serve the Office of the General Counsel as a legal advisor. The individual selected for this position will be responsible for providing legal advice for government contracts, inter-agency agreements, licensing agreements, and international agreements entered into by DHS's Science and Technology Directorate ("S&T") in the areas of research, development, test, and evaluation.  S&T's contracts are issued in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation ("FAR") or DHS's Other Transaction Agreement authority and relate to a broad portfolio of S&T programs, including cyber security and biosecurity.  The individual selected for this position will also be responsible for providing legal advice for intellectual property issues related to S&T's programs, including intellectual property issues in government contracts, international agreements, and licenses.

S&T is the primary research, development, test, and evaluation component of the Department. The work carried out in S&T, in partnership with the private sector, national laboratories, universities, international partners, and other government agencies, helps push the innovation envelope and drives development and use of high technology in support of the Department's operational units. 

This position is located in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Office of the General Counsel (OGC), Technology Programs Law Division.

 

This is a permanent appointment in the excepted service and will be filled on a full-time permanent basis.  Employees hired under an Excepted Service appointment are required to serve a two (2) year trial period.  Upon successful completion of the required trial period, this position will be permanent.

TRAVEL REQUIRED

  • Not Required

RELOCATION AUTHORIZED

  • No

KEY REQUIREMENTS

  • You must be a U.S. citizen to apply for this position.
  • You must be able to obtain/maintain a Secret security clearance.

DUTIES:

Back to top

As an Attorney Advisor you will:

  • Provide legal advice to contracting officers, program managers, and senior officials concerning the laws applicable to all phases of the research and development contracting process, including solicitation and award, contract administration, and the resolution of disputes.
  • Provide legal advice for the full range of issues arising in the fields of research and development contracting, acquisition, and procurement, including intellectual property, technical data, claims, disputes, fiscal law, information security, protection of governmental rights and property, privacy, and other related areas which arise in furtherance of and in connection with the mission of S&T.
  • Research, render, and generate authoritative written and oral legal opinions; opinions involve complex and difficult legal problems resulting from the formation and management of government contracts, including related intellectual property law issues.
  • Research, render and generate authoritative written and oral legal opinions with respect to S&T's cybersecurity research and development portfolio.
  • Provide legal advice for intellectual property and technology transfer issues related to S&T's programs and laboratories, including: advising and assisting S&T and contractor employees on rights in inventions, technical data and computer software; and negotiating and preparing licenses, assignments, cooperative research and development agreements, commercial test agreements, nondisclosure agreements and other instrument for the transfer of S&T technology.

 


QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED:

Back to top

The Office of the General Counsel (OGC) will evaluate eligible candidates based on the following criteria:

OGC will rate qualified applicants by comparing each candidate's qualifications to those pertinent to the position. OGC will consider relevant skills and experience, education and training, performance, and awards. The skills and experience listed immediately below are of particular importance to the position, and applicants should provide specific detailed information in these areas, where applicable, as part of their application.

For this position, specialized experience is providing legal advice and support on matters related to government contracts and intellectual property law issues in the Federal Government.  
At least three years of experience as a practicing attorney is desired.  
Applicants with less than five years of practice experience must submit a law school transcript and grade point average or class ranking with the application materials.
Please visit OPM's web site at https://www.opm.gov/qualifications/SEC-II/s2-e4.htm#e4a for additional information on this topic.

Application of Veterans' Preference: There is no formal rating system for applying veterans' preference to attorney appointments in the excepted service; however, the Department of Homeland Security considers veterans' preference eligibility as a positive factor in attorney hiring. Applicants eligible for veterans' preference are encouraged to include that information in their cover letter or resume and attach supporting documentation (e.g., DD form 214 or other substantiating documents) to their submissions.

Saturday, December 06, 2014

Freedom on the Net 2014 (Video)




Freedom on the Net is Freedom House’s annual assessment of internet access, censorship, and internet user rights in 65 countries around the world. This year’s event will highlight the advances and setbacks in internet freedom over the past year, emerging threats to digital media, and the challenges these trends pose to U.S. foreign policy.

Thursday, November 13, 2014

Internet 2025: Can we keep it open and evolving? ISOC Video

Panelists:
Vinton Cerf, Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist, Google, Marconi Fellow (1998);
Robert Kahn, Founder and CEO, Corporation for National Research Initiatives (CNRI), Marconi Fellow (1994);
Joseph Kakande, Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs, Marconi Society Paul Baran Young Scholar (2011);
Leonard Kleinrock, Distinguished Professor, UCLA, Marconi Fellow (1986);
Dan Kaufman, Director, Information Innovation Office, DARPA. Moderator: Ali Velshi, Host, Al Jazeera America


d

Is a ccTLD Property? Not in the District of Columbia


This decision comes from an ongoing litigation where plaintiffs, in order to satisfy  a debt, sought to attach as property the ccTLDs for Iran, Korea, and Syria.  ICANN moved to quash, and the court agreed, holding that ccTLDs are not property subject to attachment.  The court wrote
There is little authority on the question of whether Internet domain names may be attached in satisfaction of a judgment. Indeed, no reported decision of any American court appears to have decided the specific issue of whether a ccTLD may be attached. The Virginia Supreme Court's discussion of these issues in Network Solutions Inc. v. Umbro Int'l, Inc., 529 SE2d 80 (VA. 2000) is helpful in illuminating the questions presented.  There, the court held that a domain name could not be garnished by a judgment creditor under the relevant Virginia statute because it was "inextricably bound" to the domain name services provided by the registry operator. Id. At 86. The court elaborated: "[W]hatever contractual rights the judgment debtor has in the domain names at issue in this appeal, those rights do not exist separate and apart from [the registry] services that make the domain names operational Internet addresses."  Id. The court further observed that allowing garnishment of a registry's services as part of garnishing a right to a domain name would mean that "practically any service would be garnishable." Id. At 86-87.

The Court finds this reasoning persuasive as applied to District of Columbia [where this suit was filed] attachment law as well.  The ccTLDs exist only as they are made operational by the ccTLD managers that administer the registries of second level domain names within them and by the parties that cause the ccTLDs to be listed on the root zone file.  A ccTLD, like a domain name, cannot be conceptualized apart from the services provided by these parties.  The Court cannot order plaintiffs' insertion into this arrangement.  Cf. United States ex rel. Global Bldg. Supply, Inc. v. Harkins Builders, Inc., 45 F.3d 830, 833 (4th Cir. 1995) (holding that "where the property is in the form of a contract right, the judgment creditor does not 'step into the shoes' of the judgment debtor and become a party to the contract, but merely has the right to hold the garnishee liable for the value of that contract right").

While interpretations of the DC Code are sparse, they tend to support this understanding of ccTLDs.  The District of Columbia Court of Appeals has held that "money payable upon a contingency or condition is not subject to garnishment until the contingency has happened or the condition has been fulfilled." Cummings Gen. Tire Co. v. Volpe Constr. Co., 230 A.2d 712, 713 (DC 1967).  Thus, payments under a contract that are conditioned upon completion of the work contracted for are not subject to garnishment because the "existence and amount" of the debt is "contingent and uncertain." Id. While this suit does not squarely fit within the rule articulated by the court in Cummings General Tire, that rule does illuminate the fact that courts may not, through garnishment proceedings, insert a judgment creditor into an ongoing contractual arrangement that necessarily requires continued work or service to have value.  Here, the ccTLDs only have value because they are operated by ccTLD managers and because they are connected to computers around the world through the root zone. DC law does not allow their attachment.
 Stern v. The Islamic Republic of Iran, Civil No. 00-2602 (DCDC Nov. 10, 2014).  See also ICANN's legal filings.

Tuesday, November 11, 2014

Internet Regulation in 2020

The Duke Law Center for Innovation Policy (CIP) sponsored a conference on October 17, 2014 to discuss the future of internet regulation.

Vint Cerf Key Note

Paul de Sa, Sharon Gillett & William Lehr

Tim Berners-Lee, kc claffy, Henning Schulzrinne & Daniel Weitzner

Jonathan Sallet

Sunday, November 02, 2014

1998, Nov. 2: Morris Worm Unleashed on Internet

"In the fall of 1988, Morris was a first-year graduate student in Cornell University's computer science Ph.D. program. Through undergraduate work at Harvard and in various jobs he had acquired significant computer experience and expertise. When Morris entered Cornell, he was given an account on the computer at the Computer Science Division. This account gave him explicit authorization to use computers at Cornell. Morris engaged in various discussions with fellow graduate students about the security of computer networks and his ability to penetrate it.



Morris Internet Worm Source Code by Go Boston Card
"In October 1988, Morris began work on a computer program, later known as the Internet "worm" or "virus." The goal of this program was to demonstrate the inadequacies of current security measures on computer networks by exploiting the security defects that Morris had discovered. The tactic he selected was release of a worm into network computers. Morris designed the program to spread across a national network of computers after being inserted at one computer location connected to the network. Morris released the worm into Internet, which is a group of national networks that connect university, governmental, and military computers around the country. The network permits communication and transfer of information between computers on the network.

"Morris sought to program the Internet worm to spread widely without drawing attention to itself. The worm was supposed to occupy little computer operation time, and thus not interfere with normal use of the computers. Morris programmed the worm to make it difficult to detect and read, so that other programmers would not be able to "kill" the worm easily. Morris also wanted to ensure that the worm did not copy itself onto a computer that already had a copy. Multiple copies of the worm on a computer would make the worm easier to detect and would bog down the system and ultimately cause the computer to crash. Therefore, Morris designed the worm to "ask" each computer whether it already had a copy of the worm. If it responded "no," then the worm would copy onto the computer; if it responded "yes," the worm would not duplicate. However, Morris was concerned that other programmers could kill the worm by programming their own computers to falsely respond "yes" to the question. To circumvent this protection, Morris programmed the worm to duplicate itself every seventh time it received a "yes" response. As it turned out, Morris underestimated the number of times a computer would be asked the question, and his one-out-of-seven ratio resulted in far more copying than he had anticipated. The worm was also designed so that it would be killed when a computer was shut down, an event that typically occurs once every week or two. This would have prevented the worm from accumulating on one computer, had Morris correctly estimated the likely rate of reinfection.

"Morris identified four ways in which the worm could break into computers on the network: (1) through a "hole" or "bug" (an error) in SEND MAIL, a computer program that transfers and receives electronic mail on a computer; (2) through a bug in the "finger demon" program, a program that permits a person to obtain limited information about the users of another computer; (3) through the "trusted hosts" feature, which permits a user with certain privileges on one computer to have equivalent privileges on another computer without using a password; and (4) through a program of password guessing, whereby various combinations of letters are tried out in rapid sequence in the hope that one will be an authorized user's password, which is entered to permit whatever level of activity that user is authorized to perform.

"On November 2, 1988, Morris released the worm from a computer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. MIT was selected to disguise the fact that the worm came from Morris at Cornell. Morris soon discovered that the worm was replicating and reinfecting machines at a much faster rate than he had anticipated. Ultimately, many machines at locations around the country either crashed or became "catatonic." When Morris realized what was happening, he contacted a friend at Harvard to discuss a solution. Eventually, they sent an anonymous message from Harvard over the network, instructing programmers how to kill the worm and prevent reinfection. However, because the network route was clogged, this message did not get through until it was too late. Computers were affected at numerous installations, including leading universities, military sites, and medical research facilities. The estimated cost of dealing with the worm at each installation ranged from $200 to more than $53,000.

"Morris was found guilty, following a jury trial, of violating 18 U.S.C. Section 1030(a)(5)(A). He was sentenced to three years of probation, 400 hours of community service, a fine of $10,050, and the costs of his supervision."
- U.S. v. Morris, 928 F.2d 504 (2nd Cir. 1991)

See more at Cybertelecom :: Morris Worm