You are viewing a read-only archive of the Blogs.Harvard network. Learn more.

Stored Communications Act

I’m sensing favoritism here. According to this website story about an 11th Circuit decision. A grass roots activist with website called Stop Corporate Extortion made part of the sites EULA affirm that the user was not associated with DirectTV, inc. It would appear that DirectTV agents ignored that warning and accessed the site anyway. This is “bullshit” in modern non legal parlance. If the shoe were on the other foot I think the tables would be turned. If Micheael Snow had registered for a ‘client’ access only portion of DirectTV’s network he would be totally violating the SCA act. (stored communications act).
So 11 th district court judge, “What’s with the double standards?” If I’m interpreting this incorrectly please resond in kind.

update: Perhaps this is why I need legal training. If an agent of DirectTV registers for a login he clicks through a contract (EULA) and in this case is stipulating that s/he is not affiliated with DirecTV. That person is then violating the contract? Is that a valid contract?

Net Neutrality

I can see both sides of this issue. I won’t comment publicly but will paste this interesting tidbit from

Congress is pushing a law that would abandon the Internet’s First Amendment — a principle called Network Neutrality that prevents companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from deciding which Web sites work best for you — based on what site pays them the most. If the public doesn’t speak up now, our elected officials will cave to a multi-million dollar lobbying campaign.

For the record I wasn’t aware the internet had a first amendment (nor any amendments… or a constitution with which to amend) so seriously read up on this issue before forming an opinion. Both sides are obviously putting a little spin on things.

More interesting things from the FAQ.