Post your outlines heregreenspun.com : LUSENET : 6805-team-6 : One Thread
Here is my section of the outline, as of 2 am Monday night/Tuesday morning. Lydia is going to email me her section of the outline, and I will incorporate it into mine and post the resulting joint outline ASAP. Therefore, I plan on changing what is here. I merely wanted to post it so that everybody else could see what I was doing, and also to make sure that I was doing it right.
Please note that I have removed all indentations and other formatting in these outlines.
MICHELLE AND LYDIA'S SECTIONS
I. Traditional Common Law of Trespass
A. Overview of trespass-related actions
1. Trespass a. Definition b. Elements
2. Trespass to Chattel a. Definitions b. Elements
3. Conversion a. Definition b. Examples
4. Continuing Trespass a. Definition b. Examples
5. Nuisance a. Definition b. Examples
II. Traditional Trespass Statutes
A. No federal statute
B. State statutes: Some are complex, some are simple.
III. Traditional Trespass Cases
A. Bradley v. American Smelting and Refining (Wash. 1985) (blowing gases and microscopic particles onto neighbor's land is trespass)
B. Cleveland Park Club v. Perry (D.C. 1960) (placing a tennis ball in a swimming pool drain pipe is trespass [really trespass to chattel])
[Lydia's section goes here]
IV. Cyberspace Trespass -- Case Analysis: The following four cases highlight some of the issues surrounding the four elements of traditional trespass.
A. Intent -- United States v. Morris
1. Legal Analysis: Under traditional trespass law, you need not have intended the damaging consequences of your act. The Morris court extended the metaphor to cyberspace and found that intent only needs to go to the access, and not the damage.
B. Entry -- Thrifty-Tel v. Bezenek
1. Legal Analysis: Modern trespass law recognizes indirect touching or entry, including microscopic particles and sound waves. The Bezenek court extended this metaphor to the electronic impulses created by the defendants and found that they had committed trespass.
C. Property -- American Computer, Washington v. Olson
1. Legal Analysis: a. Most statutes specify the definition of property. b. Where they do not, metaphors are often used. Trotter Hardy and Ethan Katsh argue that trespass law should be extended to cyberspace. c. The American Computer court refused to extend the statute by metaphor; held that a computer did not fit into the terms of the statute. The Olson court also extended the metaphor of trespass to the cyberspace situation and held that databases were protected property.
D. Permission -- CompuServe v. Cyber Promotions
1. Legal Analysis: a. Express vs. Implied b. Implied revocability or condition of limited use. c. The CompuServe court extended the Ohio statute by metaphor and held that certain actions by CompuServe constituted revocation of and conditions on permission.
-- Anonymous, October 27, 1998
Feel free to make suggestions and changes to this section. Also, Kristina's part will fit under section II...
Transition to the Future
I. The Future of Trespass in Cyberspace - Is trespass an appropriate metaphor for unsolicited e-mail and unauthorized computer access? What problems exist in trying to apply trespass to cyberspace? Is there a better way to define, interpret, and remedy these "cyber-crimes," both for computers as we know them today and for the technology that will emerge in the future?
II. Alternate Metaphors - We will apply the traditional legal frameworks of Contract Law and Property, Entitlement, Liability, and Inalienability to the areas of unsolicited e-mail and unauthorized computer access. We will analyze the effectiveness of these metaphors in terms of law, technology, social norms, and markets.
III. Architecture and Law - Why should we constrain ourselves to viewing cyberspace in terms of traditional structures when we have the ability to adapt the architecture to meet the evolving needs of cyberspace? We will consider the possibility that no traditional legal framework provides a comprehensive and suitable way of thinking about these areas of cyberspace and will attempt to develop our own regime.
IV. Recommendations - Finally, we will present our recommendations as to what architecture, or combination of architectures, using technology and law should be implemented to deal with the actions currently viewed as "trespass" in cyberspace.
-- Anonymous, October 27, 1998
Here's my outline.
- Related topics
- Interested parties
- Central concepts
Cryptography, digital identity, content control, privacy and digital rights architectures are implicated by unauthorized access of computers and data stored electronically on computers. Unauthorized access limits the effectiveness of technologies aimed at restricting and controling the flow of data; it foils individual decisions on who should have access to information. There are many different and conflicting interests involved in determining how rights should be assigned and how the law should enforce rights related to unauthorized access. Current law has addressed computer crime by focusing on the concepts of intent, entry, permission and property.
[At the end of Lauren's section]
II. Alternative frameworks for assigning and protecting rights related to unauthorized access
- Contract Law/Property
- Other alternatives
Given the competing interests involved in the unauthorized access debate, society must determine which interests will prevail. 'Winning' interests thereby receive an entitlement or a recognized right. Equally important, society must determine how it will enforce its decision and protect the recognized right of a prevailing party. Property or contract law, liability rules or tort law and inalienability provide approaches to enforcing society's decision. Given society's assignment of an entitlement, architectures can developed to facilitate the enforcement of contract rules, liability rules or the inalienability of certain rights. If the property/liability/inalienability framework does not fit the problems of assigning and protecting rights related to unauthorized access, an alternative framework will be needed.
-- Anonymous, October 27, 1998