precis #3 (Cybersquatting)

Cybersquatting is when you control the domain name to something or someone that everyone knows. The example of juliaroberts.com, the person had bought numerous domain names with similar actors and actresses and was auctioning the names. The UDRP (Uniform Domain Name Resolution Policy) and ACPA (Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act) are set up to figure out whether or not the domain owner is in 'bad faith' . They figure out if the domain is identical to that of the actress's name, if that actress had a trademark or trademark rights in her name, whether or not the domain owner had any legitimate rights to the domain name, and whether the use by the domain owner was in bad faith. The administrative panel found that although she had no trademark rights to her name, the public distinguished that her actual name and the name of the actress were indentified. Because of this, and the fact that the person had done this sort of behavior before, they ordered the domain name to go to the real Julia Roberts. Another example of this would be the Falwell domain name case. Falwell is a televangelist who claimed Gary Cohn violated trademarks by using his name to post parodies of the man. Public Citizen is a non-profit group that argued Cohn was only exercising his freedom of speech. He was acquitted and the court found that they had no jurisdiction because he did not live in Virginia, which is where Falwell resides. The argument was that the site was for a national audience. I think what is important with these three correlating articles is how the Internet is becomming a platform for legal battles. With the growing amount of people on the web there is a smaller and smaller window to get your say in. Everyone wants to be recognized for their acheivements, but there is a big difference when you buy the rights to something that isnt yours, then look to sell it for a high price.

Drew Wittig
Assignment #2

Google as Big Brother

This article makes it very clear that Google is a mega-search engine site, that is overwhelmingly huge. It's main competitor Yahoo has recently gotten offers from Microsoft and Google.
Google is considered the top dog, receiving 75% of all searchs. The article is basically saying that we as internet users should be wary about Google's pull. The unique ID number called Cookies, will expire in 2038. This ID number saves as much information as it can, meaning that everything you have searched for is saved. This means that Google knows what you are searching for! There are no laws or policies that keeps this information safe. Why does Google do this? It is clearly because they are trying to establish a Big Brother mentality to the internet users. Googles Cache copy appears to be illegal...It saves and stores automatically, not giving the user a choice. Google is a company that is to be feared. Any company that controlls a monopoly to the public is something to be very wary of. They have the power and they have the control to do almost anything they want to. Controlling 75% of external referrals makes Webmasters have to go with approval from Google. All in all it is very alarming to know this information, It makes me think in the soon future the Internet will experience some sort of coup, or complete breakdown.

assignment #1

Drew Wittig
Précis #1

The article written by Anne Broache on January 7th, 2007 was about a proposal resurfacing in the U.S. Senate. Sen. Olympia Snowe and Sen. Byron Dorgan teamed up to reintroduce their Internet Freedom Preservation Act. Net Neutrality means that big league operators like AT&T and Verizon shouldn’t be allowed to make certain sites more available due to the number of hits. People are concerned and outraged at the idea of these gatekeepers controlling the freedom of the internet. Creators like Vin Cerf had ideals when he created the World Wide Web that it would be neutral. The people who oppose the act are arguing that the new rules would limit the amount of change and improvement. Walter McCormick the president of U.S. Telecom Association expressed his obvious quams, saying that the individual would lose out on customized Internet service. He made reference to losing security on our financial transactions. The bill itself was rejected, 11-11 vote. It would need 60 votes in the senate to pass.
At Savetheinternet.com it is completely dedicated to providing information regarding Net Neutrality and what you as an individual can do to help stop the money hungry big capitalist in their big offices from getting what they want…a regulated Internet in which they get to decide what is accessible. If we lose out on Net Neutrality we would lose our freedom on the internet and not be able to browse as you please.
The article itself was very dense and seemed to run around the bush a bit. I wish that she could have picked a side and made a definitive argument, what she did was appeal to both sides. I think personally that it would be foolish to let corporate America have any more control than they already have. Net Neutrality is something that has been around and should continue to be enforced. It goes against our freedom as citizens .
I also feel as though the internet has become a playing ground for the economy and therefore, the big-league companies are going to try as hard as they can not allow the act to pass.

Drew Wittig

assignment 1

Internet Technologies

blah blah blah