Home » 2016 » June

Monthly Archives: June 2016

Manipulating Trust on Facebook

Ari Ezra Waldman


Manipulating Trust on Facebook


Facebook is built on gathering massive amounts of information from its users. To maximize the data it collects, Facebook relies on the trust we have in our friends to encourage us to share even more, and it designs its platform to reflect and leverage trust. But this strategy also manipulate us into sharing personal information with websites, advertisers, and third party partners we’ve never met or heard of. When it does this, Facebook crosses a line from social space to manipulative force.


Microsoft to Buy LinkedIn for $26.2 Billion and What it Means for Lawyers

Legal Intelligencer: Microsoft to Buy LinkedIn for $26.2 Billion and What it Means for Lawyers


A Tort Perspective on Cyberbullying

Denis Binder


A Tort Perspective on Cyberbullying


New technology brings advances to society, but also creates new risks. The rise of the internet and social media have created tremendous issues with the right of privacy, cyber security, and cyber stalking. It has also created the new phenomenon of cyberbullying. Unlike prior schoolyard bullying limited in time and place, cyberbulling can exist 24/7 from a remote computer and spread globally. Once harassment and defamation occur on the internet, it is difficult to reclaim one’s privacy and reputation. The law is searching for both civil and criminal remedies for cyberbullying. This article provides an outline of possible Tort theories for cyberbullying.


US Seeks to Join EU Data Privacy Case


US Seeks to Join EU Data Privacy Case

The U.S. has asked the Irish High Court to be added to an ongoing privacy case involving Max Schrems and Facebook.  Schrems is challenging the right of Facebook to transfer data from the EU to the US since such information is likely to be passed on to U.S. government agencies.

This is not Schrems first foray into the arena of privacy litigation. Last year, he led a successful effort to invalidate the Safe Harbour framework, which had governed data transfers from the EU to the US.  In that groundbreaking suit, Schrems claimed that the mass surveillance program by the U.S. violated EU data protection laws.  Since the demise of Safe Harbour, Facebook has moved to a Model Clause framework for data transfers.  However, Schrems claims that this framework is also flawed because it still permits data to be used for surveillance purposes.

To read more about this case go here.

ADR in Cyberspace: The Need to Adopt Global Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms for Addressing the Challenges of Massive Online Micro-Justice

ADR in Cyberspace: The Need to Adopt Global Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms for Addressing the Challenges of Massive Online Micro-Justice

Jacques de Werra


This paper discusses the potential of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms for solving Internet-related disputes and to address the challenges of Massive Online Micro-Justice, i.e. an online justice system that aims at solving a massive amount of micro Internet-related disputes affecting citizens and companies alike around the globe that are presently submitted to online platforms and decided by them. In particular, this paper discusses the challenges faced by online platforms to deal with the myriad of micro cases they are confronted with on a daily basis by reference to the massive (and ever-growing) amount of removal requests which have been submitted to Google following the (highly mediatised) confirmation by the Court of Justice of the European Union of the Right to Be De-indexed (better known under a misnomer, i.e. the Right to Be Forgotten). On this basis, this paper pleads for the development of global policies governing online alternative dispute resolution mechanisms which is critical to avoid fragmentation and which is necessary to maintain equitable access to justice in cyberspace. In this respect, this paper discusses the use of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) as a possible source of guidance for such global dispute resolution mechanism.


Twitter Trouble: The Communications Decency Act in Inaction


Julia Hsia

Twitter Trouble: The Communications Decency Act in Inaction


The Communications Decency Act affords Internet service providers with immunity from liability for defamation, among other crimes, to allow self-policing of websites. However, due to this immunity, websites have no incentive to remove defamatory content, which dodges the entire purpose of the Communications Decency Act. To improve this statute and promote the removal of defamatory content, the United States should follow in the footsteps of countries with more effective Internet laws.

This Note presupposes that a higher percentage of Twitter removal requests in which Twitter has withheld some content indicates a higher efficacy of the Internet laws in those countries. The data published by Twitter shows that France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, and Russia are the top five countries in terms of percentage of removal requests with which Twitter has complied. Four of these five countries have laws similar to the notice and take down provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which requires an Internet service provider to quickly remove content once made aware of its unlawful nature. Therefore, a notice and take down provision with a critical opinion safe harbor should be added to the Communications Decency Act.