Thomas Martin received his PhD from the Information Security Group and
Royal Holloway, University of London. He then joined the Security
Research Centre at BT, working on various subjects including TPM-enabled
VPNs, Identity Management, Model Driven Security and Bayesian Networks
applied to Risk Analysis. He is currently on sabbatical, lecturing on
Cryptography at the Khalifa University, UAE.

Chi Durbin is an Engineering Doctorate (EngD) student at Loughborough
University working in BT's Mobility Research Lab taking a systems view
of Internet child protection.

Mark Pawlewski is a Principal Researcher working for BT Innovate &
Design. He has worked in various research areas including speech
technology, computer vision and security research. He has several years
experience in core algorithm development for automatic speaker
verification systems and holds several technology patents.

David Parish is Professor of Communication Networks in the Department of
Electronic and Electrical Engineering, Loughborough University and
Associate Dean (Research), Faculty of Engineering. He leads the High
Speed Networks Research Group. Professor Parish has extensive research
experience of communication network performance measurement and
processing, and systems resulting from this research have been used
within commercially operated, national networks. His work includes the
usage of measurement to detect unauthorised activities in communication
networks and involves extensive collaboration with industry.

Abstract

Children are using the internet more and more, and from a younger age. This is despite the commonly known dangers of predators. There is no policing of the internet, nor would it be possible to instigate. Parents are in the difficult position of trying to monitor and control their children’s internet usage, when more often than not the children know the technology better than they do. This can lead to either ineffective measures, or measures that the children will deliberately circumvent for their own privacy. There are also technical issues that are far from trivial. The problem of distinguishing the dialogue of a child from a predator pretending to be a child is extremely difficult. This paper presents a solution which can accurately identify threats, while satisfying the apparently conflicting needs for safety of, and privacy for, the children.

(top of page)

Abstract

This paper presents two possible visions of the future, one where the status quo of consumer Identity Management remains largely unaffected by the emerging technologies, the other where these new technologies gain popularity and wide-spread acceptance. More importantly, we give arguments that support both futures occurring. The object of this exercise is to try to enumerate those obstacles that lie in wait for the mainstream acceptance of any significantly new approach to Identity Management, before we can determine how they are overcome.

(top of page)

Matome Boaz Masuku is a  Lecturer at the  Department of Mercantile Law,UNISA, South Africa.

Abstract

The South African public service broadcaster (SABC) was transformed significantly by the Broadcasting Act 4 of 1999. Since the transformation, there have been many developments that have had an impact on the broadcasting industry, in particular public service broadcasting. The developments in the broadcasting industry left the SABC with serious financial problems. It also had to contend with other problems such as management and the issue of focusing on its mandate. This triggered intervention from the government in an effort to rescue the SABC from the disaster. There is currently a high rate of non-payment of television license fees. Further, the public service broadcaster is competing with commercial broadcasters which make it difficult for the SABC to focus on its mandate. In view of these problems, it is important to explore some of the issues which could resolve some of the problems faced by the public broadcaster. Most recently, the Department of Communications made an announcement about a discussion paper which will focus mainly on reviewing the Broadcasting Act, restructuring and shaping of the SABC.

(top of page)

Arun B. Mattamana is a IInd year, B.A., LL.B(Hons.) student in National Law School of India University (Bangalore) and is a member of the Law and Technology committee of the University.

Anjali Anchayil is a a IInd year, B.A., LL.B(Hons.) student in National Law School of India University and is an editor of the Indian Journal of Law and Technology.

Abstract

With the increasing instances of transmission of child pornography over the internet, internet intermediary liability, i.e., the liability of the host of service providers who facilitate the transmission of the content has become a contentious issue. With varying legal regimes, jurisdictional issues and standards of obscenity applied as well as varying degrees of care to be exercised, this area is a legal quagmire. This Article addresses the question of whether we need an intermediary liability regime or not. The Article holds that intermediary liability does not address the question of preventing transmission of child pornography as the actual culprits remain beyond the reach of law. A scheme of intermediary liability only acts as a disincentive to the intermediary to innovate and hinders growth of internet services. A comparison of three regimes, United States, European Union and India is undertaken to see the legislative measures, developments in case law and analyze their stand towards the intermediary. The Article finally works towards arriving at alternative options so that the autonomy of the intermediary is not compromised through over-regulation and censorship.

(top of page)

Dr. Gregory C. Mosier is Dean of the College of Business Administration at the University of Nevada, Reno. His research interests include technology and law and international business. Prior to his current position he served as Regents Service and Puterbaugh Professor of Legal Studies in Business in the Williams S. Spears School of Business at Oklahoma State University. Mosier is the author or co-author of numerous academic and commercial publications and a recipient of the OSU Regents Distinguished Teaching Award in 2003. He has been honored with the School's Outstanding Teaching Award and the University Extension Faculty Excellence Award. The MBA Student Association named him Professor of the Year in 2003, and he was recognized as the Outstanding MBA Faculty member for 1999. Mosier served as president of the Rocky Mountain Academy of Legal Studies in Business from 2002-03 and was president of the Southern Academy of Legal Studies in Business from 1993-94. Mosier also served in various administrative capacities while at OSU. He was administrative committee chair for the Master of Science in Telecommunication Management Program. From 1997 -2004, Mosier was academic program chair for the MBA program offered by National Technological University. Mosier received a bachelor of science in 1978 from OSU, a juris doctorate from the University of Kansas in 1981 and an Ed.D. in higher education administration from OSU in 1986. Prior to joining the OSU faculty, he was a corporate attorney in Odessa and Houston, Texas with Parker Drilling Company. Mosier is a member of the State Bars of Kansas, Texas and Oklahoma.

Abstract

The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act was passed by the United States Congress in 1999. Its purpose is to provide civil remedies to individuals and organizations when someone registers a domain name that is a trademark, or an individual's name, for the purpose of demanding compensation from the legitimate owner seeking to retain that name or trademark on the web. The Act provides opportunities to litigate the ownership of the name or trademark by establishing either in personam or, if that fails, in rem jurisdiction. When in rem jurisdiction is sought, the owner of the trademark or name can seek a remedy in the United States judicial district where the registry for the domain name in dispute resides. A review of case law, where in rem jurisdiction has been used as a basis for the court's authority to decide the case, provides insight into how courts still grapple with issues of jurisdiction in cyberspace.

(top of page)

Lateef Mtima is a Professor of Law and the Founder and Director of the Institute for Intellectual Property and Social Justice at the Howard University School of Law. After graduating with honors from Amherst College in 1982, Prof. Mtima received his J.D. degree from Harvard Law School in 1985, where he was the co-founder and editor-in-chief of the Harvard BlackLetter Journal. Admitted to the New York and Pennsylvania bars, Prof. Mtima practiced with Coudert Brothers until 1996, and was later Of Counsel to the Philadelphia firm of Klehr, Harrison. He is the current President of the Giles S. Rich Inn of Court for the Federal Circuit, and also serves as a member of the ALI-ABA CPE Board of Directors Advisor on Intellectual Property, the ABA Landslide Editorial Board, The Practical Lawyer Editorial Board, and the Advisory Board for the BNA Patent, Trademark, and Copyright Journal.

Abstract

The problem of illegal file-sharing and related acts of Internet infringement is one of the most important copyright challenges of the day. Not only does such activity threaten the property interests of copyright owners, but given the attendant prospect of vicarious copyright infringement liability that confronts Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”), this conduct also threatens the vitality of the Internet as a whole.  In 1998, Congress undertook to address this issue by passing the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, Title II of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The principal purpose of the Liability Limitation Act is to remove ISPs from the copyright infringement litigation battles which inexorably arise between copyright owners and unauthorized file-sharers of their works. Under the Liability Limitation Act, so long as an ISP conducts its service in accordance with the Act’s requirements, which include removing infringing material from the Internet and disclosing the identities of suspected unauthorized file-sharers and other infringers, the ISP is essentially immune from vicarious liability claims. Some recent court decisions interpreting the Liability Limitation Act, however, threaten this pragmatic balance of the pertinent Internet constituent interests. At least two federal circuits have construed a purported ambiguity in the language of the Act, so as to hold that certain kinds of ISPs are not required to disclose the identities of suspected infringers, in response to subpoenas issued under the Act. Under these holdings, copyright holders are instead required to involve ISPs in copyright litigation and discovery, solely to obtain the identities of suspected infringers. This article proposes that these court decisions misconstrue the terms of the Liability Limitation Act, and contravene the express objectives of the statute. This misconstruction of the Act needlessly entangles ISPs in infringement disputes in which they have no immediate stake, and further, does little to enhance legitimate Internet user privacy interests, because it affords ISP subscribers no greater legal protection than already provided under the law. Moreover, by impeding infringer identity disclosure, this judicial course not only increases the costs involved in the inevitable disclosure of infringer “cyber-pseudonym” identities, it also facilitates socially undesirable and morally debilitating conduct, ultimately burdening the Internet community as a whole. Accordingly, future courts should reject these rulings, and construe the Liability Limitation Act to require all ISPs to disclose subscriber identities in response to subpoenas issued there under. This would preserve the proper balance between copyright holder property rights and Internet user privacy interests, and further, impose the responsibility for preventing or redressing Internet infringement where Congress intended: on copyright holders and infringing Internet users, and not on ISPs and the overall Internet community.  

(top of page)

Ms. N. S. Nappinai is a legal professional with about 19 years of litigation and transactional expertise. She joined the law firm Amarchand Mangaldas, where she specialized in IP / Technology Laws (“IT Laws”), Corporate Finance and Cross Border Commercial Transaction commenced practise at the Madras Bar in 1991 after her graduation from Government Law College, Madras (now Chennai). Ms. Nappinai also pursued her Masters in Law from the University of Pune and completed it in 2004. Ms. Nappinai specialized in Litigation with a focus on Criminal Law; IPR; & Corporate & Commercial law from 1991 to 2000. Apart from her professional career, Ms. Nappinai has pursued several academic initiatives, including as guest lecturer for the University Grants Commission program for continuing education (on IPR & WTO), Mumbai University (IPR) and in various leading colleges and institutes and writing for leading publications (ADR, IPR & IT). Ms. Nappinai is currently editing a major publication for a leading publisher on the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.Ms. Nappinai is also a founder member of Technology Law Forum (“TLF”), a not for profit organization involved in research & education in Technology Laws. Ms. Nappinai has spearheaded and driven several initiatives of TLF with various organizations including NASSCOM, FICCI, IMC etc., as also conducting several workshops and training sessions including for the Mumbai Police, Public Prosecutors & Industry verticals in Cyber Laws. Ms. Nappinai is also a member and trainer of the Licensing Executives Society of India.Ms. Nappinai was selected as a Delegate for the International Visitor Leadership Program 2005, USA, on IPR, which was hosted and conducted by the Department of State, USA. After completion of the program Ms. Nappinai addressed the St. Louis, Missouri Bar Association on Indian Laws pertinent to Outsourcing to India.Apart from her professional involvement in ADR, Ms. Nappinai is also involved in teaching and training initiatives. She is a trained Mediator and a member of the first panel of Mediators of the High Court at Bombay. She has also completed her Advanced Mediation certification program at World Intellectual Property Rights Organization (“WIPO”), Geneva.

Abstract

India owes a lot to the exponential growth of the Information Technology service Industry over the last 15 years. Though India got its first codified Act in the Information Technology Act (“IT Act), in the year 2000, the IT Industry and in fact all businesses with cross-border obligations have been left crying themselves hoarse for more! The Indian Legislature has now passed a mish – mash legislation in December 2008, which clearly demonstrates the appeasement policy adapted to meet the various and in some instances divergent interests of the Industry and the Government. The scope of this paper is to highlight some important provisions of the cyber criminal laws in India relating to data protection, privacy, encryption and other cyber crimes and the extent to which the said provisions arm the enforcement authorities to combat not just existing but emerging trends in Cyber Crime.

(top of page)

Lonias Ndlovu (Diploma in secondary education ,University of Zimbabwe; Cert in International Human rights , University of Cape Town; LLB, LLM , University of Fort Hare) is currently a senior lecturer and acting Vice Dean in the Faculty of Commerce, Administration and Law at the University of Zululand, KwaDlangezwa South Africa. He has spent the last five years in the legal academia and has presented and published scholarly papers on a number of issues ranging from international trade law to law and pedagogy. His current passion is international trade law and access to medicines, a subject he is currently pursuing for an LLD study.

Abstract

This paper argues that while South Africa’s International Trade Amendment Bill and the attendant proposed regulations may generally be regarded as a positive legislative intervention, to a large extent, the new regulatory regime goes against the spirit, object and purport of the WTO anti-dumping agreement and is even in conflict with South Africa’s international Trade Administration Act itself. In order to substantiate the above reservations, this paper first outlines the basics of WTO dumping and anti-dumping law before proceeding to point out aspects of South Africa’s anti-dumping law and practice which incorporate WTO tenets. With the aid of selected WTO Jurisprudence and examples from comparative WTO member states, this paper also comments on selected impugned changes likely to be introduced by the bill and the new regulations and concludes that the proposed new law is unlikely to be WTO compliant.

(top of page)