B. Spyware Privacy Bills in Works

The bill recently introduced in the Senate aims to protect individuals from unknowingly downloading spyware and requires that consumers be given a "clear and conspicuous notice" prior to downloading any software. The bill would also require that third parties disclose their identity to the consumer along with their street address and a valid return e-mail address as well as specifically revealing their intent to collect and use the consumer's information.

"Spyware is a technological disease that is proliferating each day. It threatens the efficiency of our computers and Internet services as well as the security of our personal information and private transactions," the author of the bill said. "Software should never, I repeat never be used to spy on computer users."

Even when consumers delete the unwanted downloaded file, spyware often remains and continues to monitor the user's browsing habits. According to a report released last year by the Center for Democracy and Technology, spyware creates privacy problems, opens security holes and can hurt the performance and stability of consumer computer systems.

The state of Utah has already passed an anti-spyware law while other states are considering legislation that bars the practice. A similar groundswell of consumer complaints and state action prompted Congress to pass the country's first federal anti-spam law last year.

"Why not work with this committee to come up legislation to make it perfectly clear that [spyware] is illegal," Rep. Barton asked the FTC officials during Thursday's hearing.

"Then, if somebody wants that crap on their computer, they can opt to let it be," he continued. "I really don't understand why we are having a semantical debate about something everybody I talk to is totally outraged about. I'm moderate on this issue, by the way."

2. Act out an interview with a senator speaking about spyware laws. Use the material of the text.

VI. 1. Define the word “libel”. What is the correlation between the terms “libel”, “defamation” and “slander”? Have you ever heard of any libel cases?

2. Read the text writing down the key-words for each paragraph.

Internet Libel Law Shake-up Urged.

An urgent shake-up of British libel law is needed to protect free speech on the internet, according to a new report.Businesses are increasingly using legal threats against Internet Service Providers (ISP) to close down websites set up by angry customers or protest groups, the Law Commission found. The situation is in danger of stifling free speech as many of the sites may contain allegations which are true, it said.

The internet is subject to the same libel laws as broadcast and printed media. But there is no legal immunity for authors of defamatory statements on bulletin boards and chat rooms. And complications can arise when material published in one country is read in another, with tougher libel laws. The Commission stressed that although it was legitimate for the law to protect the reputation of others, it was important to investigate other means of achieving this.

Solutions.

One solution, it said, is to follow the US example and exempt ISPs from legal liability for material published.

Another suggestion is to allow the defence of "innocent dissemination", where service providers claim they are unaware of the libelous nature of the material on their servers, to be extended.

Difficulties.

When a website carries material to which someone objects - rightly or wrongly - it is often easier to complain to the ISP than to the author. The problem is that the law puts ISPs under pressure to remove sites as soon as they are told that the material on them may be defamatory. There is a possible conflict between the pressure to remove material, even if true, and the emphasis placed on freedom of expression by the European Convention of Human Rights.

Giving UK-based ISPs immunity under British law would not prevent legal action against them in foreign courts, the Commission found. An international treaty would be needed to solve the problem of "unlimited global risks", says the report of the Commission.

It also suggests a change in the law to cover newspapers' online archives. Libel actions can currently be brought years after a story is placed in an archive, as publication is considered to be continuous. Adopting the US "single publication" rule, where the article is considered to have been published after it is first posted in an online archive, would solve this problem, the Commission said.

'Untenable'

Despite having no editorial control over material hosted on their servers, ISPs are currently being held legally responsible for defamatory, copyright-infringing and other types of content. This puts ISPs in the untenable position of acting as judge and jury in cases where complaints have been made, having to balance the rights of the complainant with those of their customer and the risk to their business.

In order to ensure that the internet remains a forum where everyone is entitled to freedom of expression it is essential that these issues are tackled. The law should recognize that it is the author of the material, not its distributor, who is responsible for ensuring the legality of information online.

3. Find the words and word combinations that denote the following. Translate them into Russian.

1) a statement that someone has done something illegal;

2) allowed by the law;

4) breaking a law, rule or agreement;

5) an opportunity to express one’s own opinion;

6) impossible to defend as fair or suitable;

7) to allow someone to ignore the law ;

8) legal responsibility;

9) unintended spread of information;

10) offensive remarks about someone.

4. Present the text using your key-words.

5. Role-play: get acquainted with the following Internet libel cases and act out the trials.

1)Friends Reunited User Pays Damages

A former teacher has won a pay-out over libelous remarks made in a "virtual conversation". Jim Murray, 68, successfully sued a former pupil for libel over comments made on the internet. He began court action against Jonathan Spencer, who has been ordered to pay ₤1,250 damages and ₤150 costs, after reading insults about himself on the Friends Reunited website.

The popular but controversial site aims to bring former classmates back together and give them a worldwide forum to discuss their school days.

Mr Spencer had posted messages claiming Mr Murray had been sacked after "making rude remarks about girls" and "strangling" a pupil.

Friends Reunited removed the comments after Mr Murray revealed he had retired from his job and the claims were untrue.

Mr Murray described the award as "peanuts". The former languages teacher said: "The issue is the evil of this website. "They are effectively putting a dagger in people's hands. "When challenged they simply say they have removed the dagger - the wound is still there. "This has been a fight for my good name against a giant like Friends Reunited. "If the judge had awarded me Ј5,000 the judiciary would have thought that was opening the floodgates to this sort of case. "So instead I was given derisory damages and that way people will be put off by the cost and trouble they have to go to to clear their name. "Mr Spencer has opened a can of worms. "He has brought disgrace on himself, his family and his school. "I am pressing his education authority to do something about him."

Mr Murray represented himself in the libel action at Lincoln County Court. He had already rejected cash offers of Ј400 and later Ј1,000, and a written apology from Mr Spencer. Mr Murray, who taught at Ridgewood Comprehensive, Doncaster, South Yorkshire, until 1983, had learned about his ex-pupil's comments from friends.

Mr Spencer - now himself a teacher at a school in Gateshead, Tyne and Wear - admitted the insults were libelous but claimed damages should be nominal. He said Friends Reunited had only carried them for a day and they would have been seen by very few people.

But District Judge Andrew Maw said Mr Murray had a right to feel aggrieved. The judge said the proceedings were "difficult and novel" and that no-one had been able to find any relevant cases preceding it.

2) Demon Case

The libel case of Godfrey v Demon Internet Limited was the first defamation action involving the internet in this jurisdiction. The case brought by Dr. Laurence Godfrey against Demon Internet Limited was settled, a famous Internet service provider Demon paying a substantial sum to Dr. Godfrey.

Demon placed on its site and refused to remove postings about physicist Dr Laurence Godfrey, described by Godfrey's lawyers as "squalid, obscene and defamatory". It purported to come from Dr. Godfrey and invited replies by giving Dr. Godfrey’s e-mail address. The posting was not removed until the time it had expired, despite Dr. Godfrey having faxed the defendants’ Managing Director informing him that it was a forgery, he was not responsible for it and requesting the defendants to remove it.

The case, settled just four days before a jury trial was due to begin, hinged on whether this ISP could be treated as publisher of material on a newsgroup.

Demon argued at the time it had neither the resources nor expertise to monitor the content of hundreds of thousands of messages posted each day.

3)First Irish Internet Libel Case

An Irish man is charged in country's first internet libel case. A business man convicted of defaming a woman business competitor by advertising her has agreed to pay substantial compensation to his victim.

Mr Francis Kenny from the Irish Republic was convicted at a County Mayor court of malicious publication of a defamatory libel. Mr Kenny had advertised Maureen Walker, a mother of three on an internet porn site and Ms Walker told the court she had undergone a "woman's worst nightmare" when over two days she received calls from more than 100 men. Like Mr Kenny, Ms Walker, ran a sandwich business in Castlerea.

Mr Kenny, 40, from Ballyhaunis, a married man with two children, was convicted at Castlebar Circuit Court sitting in Westport some weeks ago.

The court heard on Friday that Mr Kenny had agreed to pay compensation in excess of the IR ₤10,000 he had offered Ms Walker at a previous hearing. Speaking outside the court, Ms Walker's solicitor Kevin Kilraine, said: "Until such time as the case is finalised it would be inappropriate for us to make any comment." But he added: "Maureen was delighted that the nightmare which she has lived since this matter first broke is now coming to an end. She looks forward to the matter being finalised this day week."

Mr Kenny, who said he no longer has a business in Castlerea, declined to comment.

Date: 2016-04-22; view: 842