Jurisdiction in the Global Internet Age
E-Jurisdiction (or the lack thereof)… At the beginning of a new century, the Internet Revolution is upon us. At the turn of the last century, when the Revolution was Industrial instead of Virtual, the courts and legislatures struggled to enact policies to keep pace with the changing times and technologies. Laws governing labor practices, trade practices, anti-trust regulations, and even intellectual property all developed in reaction to the surges of the new industrialized world. So too, in this new E-world, lawmakers are now attempting to quell the erosion wrought by the powerful Digital wave on our existing legal systems. Whether by adapting old mores to fit new paradigms, or by creating new standards with which to judge novel issues, lawmakers of the new millennium face overwhelming challenges in confronting the growing expanse of cyberspace. One such challenge is how to address the issue of Jurisdiction over disputes in a new global marketplace where the only boundaries are bandwidth. This paper will discuss some of the problems of E-Jurisdiction and present some possible solutions. "The unique nature of the Internet highlights the likelihood that a single actor might be subject to haphazard, uncoordinated, and even outright inconsistent regulation by states that the actor never intended to reach and possibly was unaware were being accessed. Typically, states' jurisdictional limits are related to geography; geography, however, is a virtually meaningless construct on the Internet." American Library Association v. Pataki, 969 F. Supp 160 (SDNY 1997). I. Problems with traditional jurisdiction analyses Traditionally, U.S. Courts have exercised jurisdiction only over those who h...
... middle of paper ...
.... Associated Press, May 28, 1998. 2. Id. 3. http://www.lectlaw.com/files/bul12.htm, excerpted from 9/93 U.S. Commerce Department material. 4. Id. 5. Id. 6. Jeffrey D. Kovar, Commentary: Perspectives on the Hague Draft Convention, International Intellectual Property Law and Policy, Vol. 6, 29-1. 7. See Hague Conference On Private International Law, Preliminary Draft Convention On Jurisdiction And Foreign Judgments In Civil And Commercial Matters adopted by the Special Commission on 30 October 1999. 8. See Martin Adelman, Commentary: The Hague Draft Convention on Jurisdiction: An Introduction to the Intellectual Property Issues, International Intellectual Property Law and Policy, Vol. 6, 28-1. 9. Jeffrey D. Kovar, Commentary, 29-3. 10. See Gail Evans, Commentary: Proposed Hague Convention, International Intellectual Property Law and Policy, Vol. 6, 32-1, at 32-3.
Drumbl, M. B. (2007). International Decisions. American Society of International Law , 101 (4), 841-848.
Schmidt, E. E., & Cohen, J. (2014, March 11). The Future of Internet Freedom. Retrieved September 26, 2017, from
Little noticed in the decision is the significance of the ontological assumptions of the justices in their first visit to cyberspace. I will analyze their apparent awareness of ontological issues and problems with their approaches. I also will argue that their current ontological assumptions might have left open the door to future suppression of free speech as the technology progresses.
There are many laws in place by the United States government to protect consumers. This term paper will examine one law in particular, The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986. “The ECPA applies to both government and private entities, but appears to be more restrictive concerning government interception and access.” [1] The ECPA was put in place to protect individual’s electronic communication rights from being violated. Without a law of this type, our on-line world would be a welcome mat for anyone who wanted to invade our lives.
Foster, Sharon E. "Prelude to Compatibility between Human Rights and Intellectual Property." Chicago Journal of International Law 9.1 (2008): 171-211. ProQuest.Web. 30 Oct. 2013.
In relation to issues of privacy, the boundless nature of the internet has posed problems for lawmakers in exercising enforcement outside of its jurisdiction, resulting in a loss of individual rights. The growth in usage of online chat rooms and social networking sites such as Facebook have promoted ‘private’ online communication. However, chat room information and message logs cannot be completely deleted from cyberspace and can still be accessed and collected illicitly by cyber criminals and businesses. The development of online data collection software has surpassed the law’s ability to enforce privacy laws, enabling private information to be used unlawfully and in breach of individual rights. The United States 2012 federal court matter in Soble v. Google Inc. exemplifies the issue of enforceability of privacy laws, whereby the US legal system could only successfully exercise its jurisdiction if the matter was within its geogra...
3. Dijck P. van, and Faber, G. (eds.), Challenges to the new World Trade Organization, 299-306 1996 Kluwer Law International
Kerr, O. S. (2010). Applying The Fourth Amendment To The Internet: A General Approach. Stanford Law Review, 62(4), 1005-1049. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.snhu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/224083788?accountid=3783
On July 7th 2011, Verisign issued a statement declaring that all .com, .net, .org and many other domain names would become under United States (US) jurisdiction. Websites containing these domain names, which were registered outside of US, have encountered various implications for multiple reasons. Firstly, although these websites are registered in a country other than the US, they are subjected to US law despite the fact that the registrar might be living in a country with differentiating laws. The Bodog.com case is a clear example of this. Secondly, the US now has authority to actually seize a website and hold the website’s registrar accountable if their website is deemed to be illegal under US laws. Lastly, this is a clear case of the US abusing its power and acting as a sovereign nation over other countries. The citizens of a particular country have the right to follow and abide by their country’s own rules and in no way should be subjugated to the laws if another country. Domain names, such as .com and .org, are widely used across the world and US jurisdiction is causing non-US users to face several repercussions.
Miller, Roger LeRoy., and Gaylord A. Jentz. "Chapter 2." Business Law Today: The Essentials : Text & Summarized Cases : E-commerce, Legal, Ethical, and International Environment. 9th ed. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning, 2011. 43-55. Print.
The internet has been one of the most influential technological advancements of the twenty-first century. It is in millions of homes, schools, and workplaces. The internet offers not only a way of communicating with people around the world, but also a link to information, shopping, chatting, searching, and maps. This freedom to be anyone and to "go" anywhere right from the comfort of home has become a cherished item. However, there is always a down side to every up. Because of the freedom to post anything and access anything on the internet, the issue of regulation has arisen; for example, what should and should not be allowed on the internet? Who has the right to regulate this space that we cherish for its freedom?
As the Internet has become more widely recognized and used by people all over the world, it has brought a new medium in which information can very easily be broadcast to everyone with access to it. In 1995 there was a projected 26 million Internet users, which has grown to almost 300 million today. One major problem with this is that everyone represents different countries and provinces which have different outtakes on certain types of freedom of speech as well as different laws about it. This proposes a new type of law that would need to be written in order to determine whether or not something is illegal on the Internet. A person in one country can express what they want to, but that expression may be illegal in another country and in this situation whose laws are to be followed? What I propose to do accomplish in this paper is to discuss the freedom of speech laws of the United States of America and those of France, China, and Canada. I will examine what about them is similar and what about them is different. The bringing of the Internet has brought many new types of businesses as well as ways in order to communicate with the world, but as with each new endeavor or invention, there needs to be a way in order to govern its use and policies. There must also be ways in order to punish those not following the new laws and policies of use, since that the country that the person is in may allow what they did, but it may not be allowed on the Internet or in a different country. In other words, there is the need for international laws governing the Internet.
One of the most recent examples of ethics and technology conflicts in the United States are privacy issues and how we cite, distribute and publish intellectual property on the internet. For instance, many corporations and people take advantage of the open access of the internet and the lack of legislation governing the right to post and upload information to the internet. Today, nearly every household in the United States has a computer with int...
Cyber Space Law Right now there is a very interesting war being waged in the court rooms across America. It is a battle for the rights of citizens on the Internet. The Internet is a fairly new medium gaining wide popularity in 1994. Because of its incredible growth in popularity in a very short amount of time it has been hard to regulate. The first act to come out regarding the Internet and Freedom of Speech was PL 99-508 the Electronic Communications and Privacy Act of 1986 . This act consisted of two parts, title I and title II. Title I - Interception of Communications and Related Matters. Basically takes the existing laws and updates them to include computers. Where before it was illegal to intercept private telephone calls, it now says it is illegal to intercept private computer transmissions. It also includes a provision to make it legal to intercept public radio transmissions like it is with public radio programs. It also allows Internet Service Providers to keep a log of who called and their activity on-line to protect themselves. Title II - Stored Wire and Electronic Communications and Transactional Records Access. This provision adds sections to Title 18 of the United States Code (USC). In section 2701 - Unlawful Access to Stored Communications; it makes it a federal offense to hack into a computer system. Actually what it says is that it is not illegal to gain access but once you do gain access, by mistake or intention, it is illegal to continue to access the computer system. This crime is punishable by $5000 or up to six months in jail. Section 2703 of USC Title 18 is the section that instructs Internet Service Providers to keep a back-up record of your activities on-line with a court order from a government entity. Then after the government notifies the individual in question, the material is either used by the agency or is destroyed. Probably the biggest battle yet over the first amendment rights so far has been the Communications Decency Act or CDA. In March 1995 Senator Jim Exon introduces legislation to criminalize online publication of any material deemed "obscene, lascivious, filthy or indecent." This legislation was attached to a larger and popular Telecommunications Reform Bill. The Senate and the House voted to approve the Telecommunications Reform Bill in February 1996.
When a society acquire a technology, the society measures then weighs the benefits it could gain from the technology with the cost from possible misuse of the technology. As such, as useful as internet is, it could bring much harm when used for exploitation. In that regard, the problems of internet exploitation or cybercrime are causing significant damage especially in the international world. Within a nation, the government as an executive branch enforces the laws created by the judicial branch. However in the global society where there is no government or a recognized body of power that can enforce such international laws, the nations must rely on each other’s honesty and selflessness for the laws to be upheld. Nevertheless the political interests of each country often interfere with international law and portray the spirit of the law obscure.