Legal IIW

From IIW
Revision as of 14:33, 2 February 2011 by WikiSysop (talk | contribs) (Undo revision 3315 by Igiwydijok (Talk))

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

NOTES

1. We need a clear problem statement - what goals are we trying to achieve?

2. We need point people on the tech side and on the legal side to recruit participants.

3. We need a structure which provides legal folks a framework which allows them to attend (e.g. one which gives them continuing education credit).

4. We need both international and multidisciplinary representation from the legal community, as the concerns differ across geographies and specialties.

5. There should be 1 North American and 1 European venue. Top North America candidates are the Bay area, the D.C. area, and the Boston area.

Attendees

  • Peter Nixey, Clickpass,
  • Eli Edwards, SCU School of Law,
  • Lucy Lynch, Internet Society,
  • Kermit Smelson,
  • Gabe Wachob,
  • Hiroki Itoh, NTT,
  • Phil Wolff, dataportability.org,
  • Nika Jones, OUNO,
  • Bob Snodgrass, n2c,
  • Nick Givotovsky, ,
  • Jeff Hodges, Neustar,
  • Judi,
  • Dave Kearns,
  • Mike Macintosh, Xpollen,
  • Dazza Greenwood, Civics.com,
  • Bob Blakley, Burton Group,


CALL PREP/COMMENTS

THURSDAY June 19th at 10AM PDT

  • CALL IN NUMBER: 1 (906) 481-2100
  • access code: 942276


A few of us worked on an draft about an event - we did this in March well before the meeting at IIW - it is just meant to be informational. Legal IIW Early Draft

We hope to move forward on the action items coming out of the meeting in May and define what needs to happen based on the group participating to make it happen.

Call Attendees

  • Patrick Reilly
  • Jeff Hodges
  • Daza
  • Judi
  • Bob Blakley

Call Agenda

  • Attendance (Name, something about where you are coming from)
  • Developing clear problem statement - what goals are we trying to achieve?
  • Is it one event? or some kind of series that builds to achieve goal?
  • We need a structure which provides legal folks a framework which allows them to attend (e.g. one which gives them continuing education credit).
  • What kinds of people do we want to reach (is this all 'one' event or a few different things that build to a collaboration event?)
    • Legal folks working inside tech companies (writing their EULA's etc)
    • Academics publishing about these things
    • Lawyers in private practice tackling these issues
    • Public Interest groups
      • EPIC
      • EFF
      • ACLU
  • We need both international and multidisciplinary representation from the legal community, as the concerns differ across geographies and specialties


  • Institutionally who would be good candidate co-conveners to get the right people there?
  • List of who (specific people) should be there (from papers written etc).?


  • We need point people on the tech side and on the legal side to recruit participants.
  • Who is sending the invitations is important - for different groups and people so we need to develop a strategy


  • Who is willing to do what towards this effort? Both YES's and Maybe's.


  • Next steps for moving things forward
    • Does this group on this call have a name? Do we want to form an IC group get a mailing list.

SUMMARY

Bob - What are we trying to archive?

  • Technical community has created a whole bunch of systems
    • don't match how people do identity in real life
    • don't match how legal world

Mis-matches - expense liability inconvenience in day to day activity

Techies and Lawyers must make this whole environment that normal people can live in - they have not been talking to each other re: the problems let alone working better together to help regular people.

Jeff H - Lack of Cross pollination "THE LAW" needs to needs to evolve Solove's thesis the law needs to carefully evolve to handle notions of reputations and identity that is presently be provided in the


Judi - Notion of Reputation needs to be separated from identity. It depends on who you are working for, who is funding the research and drafting laws that come out of the process - who's work you are doing spins the end results.

If you want a public interest spin on this - you have to be explicit about it.

Bob - multiple interests we could have - human interest is one of them. It is also the case that the interest - the people who want to rely on identity information - Businesses doing transactions - they have an interest

Individuals and Businesses have a joint interest in an identity system that allocates risk and rewards in a socially optimal way.

Daza

  • would be useful to narrow it down a bit.

explicit about the universe of issues - will give us more juice

Why gather people together in early winter this year. Goals as defining.

Daza - Maybe ripe to begin a conversation Federal legislation? Dialogue - what if any scope? rights and responsibility. Time for National Conversation

Really have a conversation

Goals

  • Own and control/seed their own identities
  • a relatively simple way to reclaim their identity when stolen

Articulate the disconnects

Bob -

  • we need to do this collaboratively
  • Technologists take things at face value
    • previous wave of badness (post PKC) digital signature ( wouldn't it be cool if we could use them instead of paper ones)
** never bothered to ask what a 'signature' was from the point of view of the law - shape of the ink on the paper - performance of the act - intention to commit oneself to the contract

What does the law really think 'an identity is' (depends on context: Homeland Security/travel vs financial vs criminal?) and Lawyers understand what the technologists mean when they use these words.

Jeff a technologist who reads.

Daza - THEMES

  • laws not in sync - creating friction (e-signature)
  • Tech comes out disruptive and the law doesn't know how to deal - causing evolution
  • New Laws coming out - creating uncertainty back into technology markets.


One Event? Allow for possibility Yes - multiple events.

Little groups - move towards bigger event.... High risk - nobody


WHO -

  • consumer groups, consumers union, national consumer law center.
  • groups of who might be resistant
    • DHS - some good folks
  • Privacy Coalition people
  • Lawyers and staff for decision makers and the law (in congress, governors and state level), Barak and MaCain staff. Tell us what they are thinking about they. 22y olds - interesting Big learning curve
    • Homeland
    • Itel
    • Commerce Committee
    • NSA (Stewart Baker)
  • Law Professors
    • Michael Froomkin - U Florida
    • Beth Novak
  • Law clinics
  • Strong Economic Interest
    • Direct Marketing Group
  • Private Investigator Lobbying groups
  • CyberLaw Committees of Bar Associations - and chairmen
    • Science and Tech committee (info)
    • Business Law (cyberlaw)
  • Law Enforcement
  • CFP - ACM

Eventually is Quick - in terms of going internationally

International Businesses are already that way.

  • Entities from economic side are already dealing with it.

By Proxy - UN folks from different initiatives, those thinking about the entire world - surrogate.


Institutional Co-Conveners?

  • MIT Media Lab - called for a dialogue about id bill of rights
  • Careful of Gov. conveners - restrictions
  • Common scaffolding - survey type thing - set of protocols. Blind men examining the elephant - handiness
    • Different Languages coming together
    • Framework for them to invite a variety - more useful
  • Berkman
  • UN?
  • OECD - many initiatives going on

ACTION ITEMS

WHO IS DOING WHAT?

  • Judi - setting up two conference calls
    • Discussion on Goals (space to learn and communicate): Tuesday July 1, 10am
    • Discussion on People and Groups: Tuesday July 8, 10am
  • Patrick Reilly - helping out

For Further Reading

Here are some pointers to papers on legal aspects of online identity that =JeffH has collected:

Bibliography: Legal Aspects of Online Identity