Short Video on Private Servers and the 4th Amendment in the Information Age featuring Amy Peikoff Amy Peikoff February 10, 2016
Southwestern Law School’s Visiting Associate Professor Amy Peikoff explains the Third Party Doctrine of the Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment Doctrine. Under the Third Party Doctrine, the government does not need a warrant in order to obtain information entrusted to a third party, such as a bank, cell phone company, or email server. Thus, individuals who utilize their personal server for email may effectively keep their emails private while those using a commercial email server such as gmail do not have the same privacy. International & National Security Law Practice Group Podcast
In October of 2015, the European Court of Justice invalidated the EU-U.S. Safe Harbor agreement that allows for the transfer of personal data by U.S. companies that comply with a set of primary principles. Based in part on the Edward Snowden disclosures, the Court reasoned that U.S. law fails to provide adequate protection for such data. Now, businesses are implementing remediation plans to maintain legal compliance, and EU and U.S. negotiators are negotiating Safe Harbor 2.0. As a condition to a new agreement, some European policymakers are demanding that the U.S. reform its electronic surveillance programs. Our panel discussed these intersecting issues.
18th Annual Faculty Conference
- Stewart A. Baker,Partner, Steptoe & Johnson LLP
- Susan L. Foster, Member, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky, and Popeo, P.C.
- Moderator: Matthew R.A. Heiman, Vice President, Chief Compliance & Audit Officer, Tyco International
The FCC derives its legal authority almost entirely from statutes that predate the Internet--primarily from the 1934 Communications Act, which was designed for the regulation of a national telephone monopolist, and the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which was designed to incrementally deregulate the communications industry as the vestiges of that national monopoly gave way to competition. Over the past 20 years, the Internet has become the foundation of the communications industry, playing a role similar to that of the monopoly-provided telecommunications services that the FCC has traditionally regulated. There is unquestionably more competition today than there was in 1934, but perhaps not as much as was hoped in 1996. The FCC’s Open Internet Order, in which the FCC brought Internet Service Providers within the regulatory framework initially created in 1934, presents a compelling example of an agency struggling to find a new role in a changed industry – struggling to imbue old statutes with broad grants of power to govern what the FCC, but perhaps not Congress, believes are issues properly within its ambit. In doing so, the Order thrusts the FCC into current debates about the scope of the administrative state, the potential revival of the major questions doctrine, and the potential demise of Chevron. Framed by these issues, this debate will consider whether the FCC’s Open Internet Order fits within the agency’s statutory authority.
This debate took place during the 18th Annual Faculty Conference at the Sheraton New York Times Square Hotel in New York, NY on January 8, 2016.
Luncheon Debate: Resolved: The FCC does not have the legal authority to implement net neutrality
12:00 pm - 2:00 pm
- Prof. Adam Candeub, Michigan State University School of Law
- Prof. Justin (Gus) Hurwitz, Nebraska College of Law
- Mr. Geoffrey Manne, International Center for Law and Economics
- Prof. James Speta, Northwestern University School of Law
- Moderator: Prof. Daniel Lyons, Boston College Law School
Sheraton New York Times Square Hotel Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group Podcast
New York, NY
Net Neutrality has been the subject of intense policy discussion in recent years, but the dramatic international implications of a shift in internet regulation remain unappreciated. To date, U.S. regulators have utilized a light-touch form of regulation. Much has been said about the Federal Communication Commission’s new regulatory approach, but left largely undiscussed is how it will affect the global internet, American competitiveness, and more. Our panelists provided an in-depth discussion of the global ripples the FCC’s Open Internet Order may create.
Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group Podcast
- Paul Brigner, Director, North America Regional Bureau, Internet Society
- Roslyn Layton, Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
- Hon. Robert M. McDowell, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP
- David Redl, Chief Counsel for Communications and Technology, Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives
- Moderator: Patricia J. Paoletta, Partner, Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP
On Friday, the D.C. Court of Appeals heard U.S. Telecomm Association v. FCC, a challenge to the FCC's much-discussed net neutrality rules. Proponents of the rule assert that it is needed to ensure that all internet traffic is treated equally, to ensure fair access to the internet and all it offers, access that is currently controlled by internet service providers. Critics of the rule claim that the FCC lacks authority to regulate the internet, that the rule violates the plain wording of the Telecommunications Act, that the White House intervention in calling for the rule violated both basic separation of powers and notice and comment requirements, and that the rule implicates free speech. Which side has the better argument?
- Brantley Webb, Associate, Mayer Brown LLP
- Adam J. White, Visiting Fellow, The Hoover Institution