Intellectual Property Law Internet Law IT Law Computer Law

Abstract:
Just as states have spent the last several years wrestling with the appropriate legal response to terror, they must now undertake a similar effort to deal with the burgeoning use of information operations (IO). IO involves the use of information technology, such as computer network attacks or psychological operations, to influence, disrupt, corrupt, usurp or defend information systems and the infrastructure they support. More than thirty states have developed IO capacities. But IO is also undoubtedly attractive to non-state actors like Al Qaeda, since the technology is mostly inexpensive, easy-to-use, and capable of deployment from virtually anywhere.

This Article assesses the ways in which international law, specifically the rules regulating the use of force and the law of war, currently applies to IO. Conventional wisdom suggests existing rules can cover IO by analogy. The conventional wisdom is only half-right. This Article explains why the existing rules govern IO, but challenges the unstated assumption that they do so appropriately. Translating existing rules into the IO context produces extensive uncertainty, risking unintentional escalations of conflict where forces have differing interpretations of what is permissible. Alternatively, such uncertainty may discourage the use of IO even if it might produce less harm than traditional means of warfare. Beyond uncertainty, the existing legal framework is insufficient and overly complex. Existing rules have little to say about the non-state actors that will be at the center of future conflicts. And where the laws of war do not apply, even by analogy, an overwhelmingly complex set of other international and foreign law rules purport to govern IO.

To remedy such deficiencies, this Article proposes a new legal framework, an international law for information operations (ILIO). By adopting an ILIO, states could alleviate the uncertainty and complexity of the status quo, reduce transaction costs for states fighting global terror, and lessen the collateral costs of armed conflict itself. This Article concludes with a review of some of the regulatory design questions facing an ILIO, but does not offer any specific rules. Rather, its ultimate aim is to convince states and scholars about the need for an ILIO in the first place.

Hollis, Duncan B., “Why States Need an International Law for Information Operations” . Lewis & Clark Law Review, Vol. 11, No. 4, 2007. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1083889.

Always something new to learn. All the time.

Two Cunts in a Kitchen, or sometimes, less graphically Two Cs in a K, is slang used within the advertising industry for a type of television commercial. Generally, the commercial shows two women in a domestic scene, discussing, using, or otherwise portraying the advertiser’s product in a positive manner. An example of such a style of advertisement is a typical brand-comparison advertisement for a detergent or a household cleaning product.

More about this issue in the entry available at www.wikipedia.org website.

I have a lot of fun with searching for law related jokes in different movies lately. As you can see I do not mean movies with flesh and blood actors and stories related to court rooms cases. Bee Movie is a really good production so I recommend you to go to a cinema. There are such releases as Bee.Movie.REPACK.TS.XviD-PreVail in the Internet of course, but nothing can replace a big screen. My favourite quotes? When Barry B. Benson (the bee on the right) comments on the suit against humans.

When I’m done with the humans they won’t be able to say “Honey I’m home” without paying a royalty

But the most accurate statement regarding the whole “legal issue” was presented by Mooseblood who is his mosquito friend (on the left), when he was asked whether he is a lawyer too.

Ma’am I was already a bloodsucking parasite. All I needed was a briefcase.

I read a judgement in the case Miles v. City Council of Augusta, 551 F. Supp. 349 (D. Ga. 1982) sometime ago. A subject matter of this case and Judge Bowen’s comments in footnote 1 induced me to dedicate this post to a person I know. Jeremy Phillips is a friend, mentor a big authority for me, not to mention that he is also co-author and creator of the famous www.ipkat.com blog.

In ruling on the motions for summary judgment, the Court has considered only the evidence in the file. However, it should be disclosed that I have seen and heard a demonstration of Blackie’s abilities. The point in time of the Court’s view was late summer, 1982, well after the events contended in this lawsuit. One afternoon when crossing Greene Street in an automobile, I spotted in the median a man accompanied by a cat and a woman. The black cat was draped over his left shoulder. Knowing the matter to be in litigation, and suspecting that the cat was Blackie, I thought twice before stopping. Observing, however, that counsel for neither side was present and that any citizen on the street could have happened by chance upon this scene, I spoke, and the man with the cat eagerly responded to my greeting. I asked him if his cat could talk. He said he could, and if I would pull over on the side street he would show me. I did, and he did. The cat was wearing a collar, two harnesses and a leash. Held and stroked by the man Blackie said “I love you” and “I want my Mama.” The man then explained that the cat was the sole source of income for him and his wife and requested a donation which was provided. I felt that my dollar was well spent. The cat was entertaining as was its owner. Some questions occurred to me about the necessity for the multiple means of restraint and the way in which the man held the cat’s paw when the cat was asked to talk. However, these are not matters before the Court and are beyond the purview of a federal judge. I do not know if the man whom I saw with the cat was the plaintiff Mr. Miles.

This sequence has not been considered as evidence or as an uncontroverted fact in the case. It is simply stated for the purpose of a disclosure to the parties of the chance contact.

In 2004 I wrote about the “conflict” between Romania and Chad regarding national flags. I based this post on the article from www.bbc.co.uk website. When I read the atlas couple of days ago I started to wonder what should I think about flags of Indonesia and Monaco. Are there any hints?.

I wasn’t quite sure if I should post it but then I realized that I swear like a trooper and I do not want to pretend to be goody-goody. Well first check www.legalreader.com website with an article about the notice of appeal of an “asshole Ronald B. Leighton’s decision”. Nice. There is also short info about a “Motion to Kiss My Ass”. And last but not least. Fairman, Christopher M., “Fuck” (March 2006). Ohio State Public Law Working Paper No. 59. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=896790. I hope you’ll enjoy those readings as I did.

I will base this post on the right of citation. Kraków’s “City Social Help Center is looking for lawyers suffering mental illness. Two persons have a chance of getting this job. - Their employment is a part of the European Union’s Cogito programme - explain CSHC’s workers”. We were wondering with Wojtek what chances do we have to get this job. If they will not take us (we want to start LLM studies in USA) I can submit some candidates. More details in the article at www.miasta.gazeta.pl website (I am really sorry dear English readers but it is in Polish).