2

FBI Virus

fbi1.bmpI just got a humorous virus email. It’s from admin@fbi.gov with this message:

Dear Sir/Madam,

we have logged your IP-address on more than 30 illegal Websites.

Important:

Please answer our questions!

The list of questions are attached.

Yours faithfully,

Steven Allison
Federal Bureau of Investigation -FBI-
935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 3220
Washington, DC 20535
phone: (202) 324-3000

Of course, the list of questions attached is a file containing a virus. I’m dying to see the questions, but alas . . . my email program stripped out the virus-laden file.

3

More on Pseudonymous Litigation

redact1.jpgHoward Bashman offers these further thoughts about the issue of pseudonymous litigation and the sex tape case I blogged about earlier today:

In terms of assessing blame, however, in my view it is the attorney for the pseudonymous party who bears the responsibility to ensure that the appellate briefs posted online — and surely the Seventh Circuit’s practice of posting briefs online comes as a surprise to no one — does not reveal the actual identity of the lawyer’s pseudonymous client. . . .

There is no way that an appellate court’s clerk’s office can review filings for the purpose of making appropriate redactions; that is the job of counsel for the parties.

While I don’t believe that the court should be held blameless, I definitely agree with Bashman that the lawyers are also to blame in this case.

Lawyers often are not devoting adequate attention to the issue of client privacy interests in the course of litigation. One reason why many privacy cases involve the real names of plaintiffs is because many lawyers don’t even think of raising the issue of the plaintiff proceeding pseudonymously. Courts often will deny plaintiffs the right to proceed under a pseudonym, but this doesn’t mean it isn’t worth trying. You rarely get anything without at least asking.

Read More

7

Of Sex Tapes, Pseudonymous Litigation, and Judicial Bungling

videocamera1a.jpgLior Strahilevitz (law, Chicago) has a wonderful post over at the Chicago Law Faculty Blog about a very problematic Seventh Circuit opinion — and blunder. The case, Doe v. Smith, involves a teenage girl whose boyfriend secretly videotaped them having sex and then emailed the video to his friends. The issue is whether the plaintiff could proceed on federal Wiretap Act claims. The court said yes. But then the court stated:

On remand, the district judge must revisit the question whether the plaintiff should be allowed to proceed anonymously. The judge granted her application to do so without discussing this circuit’s decisions, which disfavor anonymous litigation. The public has an interest in knowing what the judicial system is doing, an interest frustrated when any part of litigation is conducted in secret. Plaintiff was a minor when the recording occurred but is an adult today. She has denied Smith the shelter of anonymity – yet it is Smith, and not the plaintiff, who faces disgrace if the complaint’s allegations can be substantiated. And if the complaint’s allegation’s are false, then anonymity provides a shield behind which defamatory charges may be launched without shame or liability.

Lior Strahilevitz persuasively attacks the court’s reasoning:

Read More

0

Swiftly Shrinking? Toward the Lilliputian Law Review Article

book-tiny1.jpgThis law review article submission season, a bunch of law reviews banded together to create a page limit for law review article submissions. According to the policy as announced by the Harvard Law Review and followed at several other law reviews:

In an effort to address the growing length of law review articles, the Harvard Law Review has adopted a new policy limiting the length of articles we will accept or publish.

The Review will give preference to articles under 25,000 words in length — the equivalent of 50 law review pages — including text and footnotes. The Review will not publish articles exceeding 35,000 words — the equivalent of 70-75 law review pages — except in extraordinary circumstances.

Eugene Volokh of the VC has some data on the effectiveness of the policy:

Here’s an early data point: Jean-Gabriel Bankier of Berkeley Electronic Press’s ExpressO submission service . . . reports that, based on “more than 1,000 unique submissions in both 2004 and 2005,” the averages were:

2003-69.1 pages

2004-73.3 pages

2005-64.0 pages

So that’s about 9 pages shorter on average. Thus, in total, this season saw over 9000 fewer pages of law review article text. Where did those 9000 pages go? That’s roughly 2.7 million words . . . vanished. They are lost forever, gone, never to be read and enjoyed. Oh, the verbosity!

2

On Blawg Comments

images.jpeg

Now that this blawg is a little over two months old, we’re starting to get spammed with some frequency in the comments. I take this to be sort of like a toddler learning to crawl. It is chaotic, messy, and time-consuming in the short-term, but signals long-term progress.

However, it got me to thinking about a comment policy. Although we, unlike some, allow comments, we don’t exactly have an easy to find comment (removal) policy. Nor do we have a “diary” system which would permit our visitors to create their own content. With respect to the former non-policy, we’re like ACSBlog, Althouse, Opinio Juris, among others. No blawgs to my knowledge have a diary system.

Before discussing why, it is worth canvassing the field.

Read More

1

Faculty Recruitment Practices

Brian Leiter has this interesting recent post on some high-pressure AALS faculty recruitment practices. Coincidentally, I just received an email from the “AALS Special Committee on Faculty Recruitment Practices,” which states, in relevant part:

The special committee’s specific charge was to determine whether, in light of [certain] complaints, something like a statement of good practices in faculty recruitment was appropriate. Of course, a prerequisite first step in fulfilling that charge is determining what practices are occurring and whether or not they are sufficiently problematic in frequency and type that a statement of good practices is necessary or appropriate. To that end, a survey of current practices seemed appropriate. Hence, this email message, which is being sent to faculty members who participated in the faculty recruitment conference within the past two years and are now full-time faculty members at an ABA approved law school/AALS member law school. We know that you are very busy individuals.

Busy, yes. But not too busy to blog.

My guess, based on anecdotes from the law clerk hiring process and discussions about international norms with colleagues, is to doubt that AALS will succeed at stamping out abuse in the absence of a real enforcement hammer. But you’ve got to give them credit for trying, because the current market is set-up to produce some unhappy marriages between candidates and schools.

0

Searching the Internet: It’s the Hip Thing to Do

google.jpgIt’s news to make Google even happier as it proceeds in its plans to conquer the world. According to a PEW study, more and more people are searching the Internet with a search engine each day:

The most recent findings from Pew Internet & American Life tracking surveys and consumer behavior trends from the comScore Media Metrix consumer panel show that about 60 million American adults are using search engines on a typical day.

These results from September 2005 represent a sharp increase from mid-2004. Pew Internet Project data from June 2004 show that use of search engines on a typical day has risen from 30% of the internet population to 41%. This means that the number of those using search engines on an average day jumped from roughly 38 million in June 2004 to about 59 million in September 2005 – an increase of about 55%.

comScore data show that from September 2004 to September 2005 the average daily use of search engines jumped from 49.3 million users to 60.7 million users – an increase of 23%.

This means that the use of search engines is edging up on email as a primary internet activity on any given day. The Pew Internet Project data show that on a typical day, email use is still the top internet activity. On any given day, about 52% of American internet users are sending and receiving email.

Related Posts:

1. Solove, When Google Is King

Hat tip: beSpacific

10

Going Commercial

fortune500.jpgWe are considering going commercial here at Concurring Opinions. In other words, we’re thinking about having advertisements.

Here are some of the issues we’re facing:

1. When we start using ads, we become a commercial blog. This might give rise to greater risks of defamation and copyright lawsuits. Will we become a larger target? While defamation is not a big concern considering what we post about, copyright could be. Indeed, bloggers often quote liberally and use images from around the Internet. As guest blogger Joe Liu aptly noted: “Fair use is notoriously fuzzy.” The norms of the blogosphere thus far seem to be informal — if people have a problem with a blogger quoting too liberally or with the use of an image, they email the blogger to take it down. When a blog goes commercial, however, will this lead to the use of lawsuits instead?

2. Right now, we’re just a bunch of folks blogging together without much of a formal agreement. If we go commercial, should we form a more formal arrangement? We might form a partnership, LLC, or some other type of corporation. If we do create a more formal arrangement, what’s the best type?

3. Are there other prudential considerations that we need to think about? Starting a blog is so easy and informal, but when it becomes a for-profit enterprise, things could potentially change. Or maybe not. We just don’t know.

These are some of the considerations we’re thinking about. If you have any thoughts on the issue, we’d appreciate your opinion.

UPDATE: Mike at Crime and Federalism has some interesting thoughts about the issue here and here.