RFID - What is it? What Legal Issues might arise?

We've recently been talking about RFID tags in class, and I finally decided to find some information so that I know better how these tags might affect mankind.

What is it?
RFID technology is the next logical step after the Universal Product Code
(UPC) that appears on virtually all consumer products. The UPC can tell the
scanner that an item is a 15-ounce bag of Lay’s Potato Chips and sells for
$2.99. The store’s inventory of chips is then reduced by one. RFID technology
can determine where and when the potato chips were made, which
batch it was from, and when it was shipped. It can then serve as a tracking
method that is much more sophisticated than mere inventory data.


The spread of RFID technology has raised privacy concerns, especially regarding its potential to track the movements of individuals. RFID tags can be included in items without public knowledge, and items with RFIDs can be tracked when they leave the store. Personal information is readily available online or in databases due to public records and other sources.
Consumers have little or no control in suppressing or editing most of it. For example, paying just $26 for each person, the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer
Rights obtained the social security numbers and home addresses of CIA Director George Tenet,
Attorney General John Ashcroft, and Presidential Chief Political Advisor Karl Rove.12 Information about almost anyone can be acquired if data about these high profile figures are so easily accessible.

Legal Regulation of Internet Activity (Canada Laws)

Consumer Protection
Most jurisdictions have laws designed to protect consumers from unethical business
conduct, and these laws can be applicable online. There are numerous regulations
surrounding product design and packaging that vary from one country to another. There
are also regulations dealing with licenses required to sell, certifications needed to
deliver a service, mandatory contractual terms (regardless of what you say in your
website agreement), periods in which a customer can change their mind
without liability, and so on. In addition, there are often voluntary standards that are
ignored only at great risk. Businesses should be familiar with all applicable regulations
and legislative requirements in the jurisdictions where they conduct business, as well as
all applicable voluntary standards.

Fair Competition
In Canada, the most significant legislation in this regard is the Competition Act that
regulates acceptable advertising and promotion. The Competition Act prohibits false or
misleading advertising and this applies to websites as it does to other media.

Contests and Promotions
Contests and giveaways are subject to legal regulation. The Competition Act focuses
on disclosure of such things as the value of prizes, odds of winning and geographic
areas. Prizes must be distributed promptly, and winners must be chosen randomly or
on the basis of skill. The Criminal Code of Canada may require a skill-testing question.
A license from the province in which you are located may also be required.

Google supplemental results

According to Google's FAQ page, supplemental results are part of Google's auxiliary index (main results are drawn from the main index) and pages, which appear on the supplemental listing, have "fewer restrictions" than those that appear on the main results page. They further say that the inclusion of sites on the main or supplemental index is purely automated and does not affect page rank at all.

In truth however, pages that appear on the main index will almost always show up first in a search. Supplemental search results will only show up if there are very few or no results at all in the main index. Plenty of older web sites also tend to populate the supplemental results page. Needless to say the supplemental results page is not where you want your site to end up. Ironically several people have emailed Google asking that their sites be included in the supplemental index!

Legal issues with Blogs

I've always wondered - if one were to make disparaging comments about competitors in a blog, who would be responsible?

Much will depend on whether the company actively encourages its employees to blog (whether for marketing purposes or otherwise). If they do (or are seen to do so), usual tortious principles would seemingly apply and there would be a credible argument to the effect that comments made by an employee on such a blog falls within the scope of his or her employer's authority. Although not directly analogous, it is worth noting (not least given that the application of the law of defamation to modern technology has been steadfastly applied by reference to tradtional principles) that, unlike some American law, there is no fetter under English law in differentiating between slander and libel. As such, employers have been held liable for the rashly uttered words of their employees, notwithstanding that such words were not spoken at the employer's discretion. Thus, employers who encourage 'unsupervised' blogging are effectively leaving matters at the discretion of their employees and could arguably be considered liable for the outcome.

It would therefore be advisable that any company promoting blogging has a comprehensive policy governing use and content. Even then, however, a general prohibition on the publication of defamatory material is unlikely to suffice to exclude liability. Indeed, established case law would suggest that an employer can be liable for even unauthorised publication of allegations by an employee when that publication occurred incidentally to the performance of an authorised act. In such circumstances, the fact that the employee chose an improper method of performing his 'duty' is nothing to the point. It is not hard to see such logic applied to blogs where the employer has encouraged legitimate discussion of rival businesses.

Conflicts in Cyber Space

Disputes occur - whether in real life, or in the online "virtual" world. The question arises - What court or other tribunal may and should resolve a particular controversy?

First, the plaintiff and the defendant in a cyberspace dispute often reside in different countries. Indeed, the defendant's only contact with the jurisdiction in which the plaintiff is inclined to bring suit is likely to consist of having made his or her website available to computer users there. Second, speed is often especially important in resolving Internet-related controversies. The slow pace of most court proceedings is ill suited to such controversies -- creating unusually strong incentives for the identification or creation of alternative fora. Third, many cyberspace disputes raise novel issues of substantive law and of technology -- issues that frequently perplex courts of general jurisdiction. Thus, the pressure for finding some alternative (more specialized or more flexible) forum for resolving such disputes increases.

The term, "Alternative Dispute Resolution" (ADR), refers to a miscellaneous collection of techniques -- most notably, arbitration, mediation, and negotiation -- that in some contexts have proven to be more efficient and arguably more fair in resolving controversies than traditional forms of litigation and adjudication. A rapidly growing group of organizations are now employing the Internet to offer ADR services -- both for "real-space" disputes and for Internet-related disputes.

• http://www.clicknsettle.com/,
• http://www.cybersettle.com/,
• http://www.disputes.org/,
• http://www.eresolution.ca/,
• http://www.i-courthouse.com/,

Once a tribunal has been selected, the next question is: what body of substantive law should be use to resolve the controversy. As previous modules have shown, the laws in force in different countries pertaining to the Internet vary considerably. Thus, the choice of law often matters. In the United States, the meta-doctrine that determines which substantive law should be applied in known as conflict of laws. In other countries it is more likely to be called "private international law". This is a notoriously unstable, shifting field of doctrine, characterized by warring principles or tests. Some of the major contending principles include the ‘the most significant relationship’ test, the ‘center of gravity’ approach, and the ‘interest’ approach.

Electronic Signature Law

Digital contracts came into being on October 1, 2000. Before this day, transactions on the internet were supposedly not legally protected in the way they are these days.

The new law made online contracts for a variety of business transactions, such as purchasing a car, buying an insurance policy, or closing a mortgage, more clearly enforceable. At the same time, it also allowed businesses to satisfy their obligation to provide legally required notices to customers by sending those notices electronically, once the consumer provides consent for such online communication. If a consumer wanted to revert to paper notices, the law permitted the business to charge a fee, as long as the fee was disclosed when the consumer first consented to electronic notice.

The law broadly authorizes electronic records and electronic signatures as legally effective. But it does not identify the technology that must be used for an electronic signature. Instead, it defines an electronic signature as an electronic "sound, symbol, or process" attached to a contract or other record which was "executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the record."

The E-Sign law contained some special consumer protections before businesses can send notices required by law to customers by email in place of paper notices. First, the consumer must consent or confirm a prior written consent electronically. The manner of consenting electronically must demonstrate that the consumer will be able to access the future information in the form in which it will be sent. Second, companies that send electronic notices must tell the consumer what hardware and software is needed to read them. Finally, under the federal law, businesses must continue to send paper notices for urgent matters such as utility shut-off, foreclosure, eviction, some loan default notices, and product recalls. This rule is designed to ensure that consumers do not miss critical notices because a computer problem prevented the consumer from receiving or opening the notice.

Secondlife.com - Government Regulation

For now, the rules of "Second Life" are laid out by Linden Lab and, in particular, its creator, Philip Rosedale. Punishments for everything from violence and lewd behavior to hacking and fraud include suspension, banishment, and "the cornfield," in which players must pilot a virtual tractor and watch an educational video. Like automobile drivers, players earn points for bad behavior, and the more points the more severe the punishment. But Linden Lab is a company, not a government. While it is in the interest of Linden Lab to grow the game's economy, ultimately the company is beholden to its real-world investors, many of whom have little experience or interest in the game's daily goings-on. How long will players--especially players with an economic stake in the game--allow Linden Lab to dictate what constitutes punishable activity, and what constitutes an appropriate punishment?

For now, of course, thinking about the real-world implications of "Second Life" and other games is mostly a futurists' exercise. And there's no guarantee that such games will, in fact, become the next iteration of the Web. But relative popularity doesn't moot questions of where to draw the line between game and reality. What constitutes property rights? In a game like "World of Warcraft," where the economy is closed, the answer is simple: there are no property rights. But what if someone pays real money for land, and plans to turn a real profit? Can Linden Lab summarily shut down their development? That question may soon be answered in a Pennsylvania court, where a player, Marc Bragg, is suing Linden Lab for seizing land on which he was building a virtual nightclub, putting him out $2000. Linden claims that Bragg cheated to get the land on the cheap, while Bragg claims that the punishment was overly severe and violated his property rights. If the court rules in his favor, it could set a powerful precedent for future claims against the company--and a powerful justification for an expansion of the legal system over its operations.

Whether such an extension could actually work is a different question. Graf lives in Germany, owns "property" housed on servers in California, and works with clients from around the world. Who has jurisdiction over her business? Some observers speculate that a legal doctrine that treats virtual space as real space, analogous to the way corporations are considered "persons," will eventually emerge. Such a doctrine would mean giving games like "Second Life" quasi-sovereign status, perhaps as a national or international protectorate.

Virtual Worlds - Should they be regulared by the government?

Secondlife.com has over 1.4 million players and is becoming one of the most hottest places online. Not only does its population spend the bulk of their free time logged onto it, but a large subset even turns a sizeable profit (in some cases enough to live on!). We have recently heard of people who buy/sell land "real estate" online, and are able to rake in more than $150,o00 a year!

As all this advancement progresses online, real-world companies have decided to be more involved - for a price, these "avatars" can buy american clothing, buy Toyota Scions, and wear Reebok shoes.

Each month players get a stipend in Linden dollars, the currency of the realm and the basis of "Second Life"'s economy. They can also earn money by working, either as freelancers or as employees, at a virtual company. But, unlike many other so-called massive multiplayer universes, Linden dollars are fully exchangeable into real dollars, approximately 250 to one. And, because players get the intellectual property rights to their creations--design a building in "Second Life," and you own it in real life--wealth creation, and thus economic growth, within the game is every bit as real as it is in "first life."

The question now arises - as "second life" grows in popularity, and as links between our first life and "second life" strengthen and become an extension of the real world - should they be subject to real world government intervention?

Is Linking Always Legal?

Jean-Pierre Bazinet, a 20-year-old film buff and financial consultant in Ottawa, would seem to be a movie studio's best friend. He runs a Web site called Movie-List that is a collection of links to over 900 movie trailers scattered across the Internet, making it easier to find what are essentially commercials for films.

But late last month, Bazinet removed the links to all trailers for movies from Universal Pictures. Lawyers from the studio had sent letters and e-mail objecting to his linking to Universal trailers without permission.

"I don't feel like taking them to court over it," Bazinet said. "I don't have the money or the power. A big movie studio is a little threatening."

Unfortunately for Bazinet, the legal status of hyperlinking on the World Wide Web is unsettled, say some cyberspace law experts. Especially controversial is the use of so-called "deep" links, which point directly to Web pages or other content within another site, possibly bypassing advertising-rich home pages or other identifying pages.

Until the courts provide clear guidelines, the experts say, powerful intellectual property owners like movie studios will fill the legal vacuum with their untested assumption that deep linking is illegal.

Linking may be the Web's most distinguishing feature, but the law on linking "is up in the air," said Jeffrey R. Kuester, a lawyer who handles many Internet-related cases at Thomas, Kayden, Horstemeyer & Risley, an Atlanta law firm.

There are no court opinions in the United States that directly address the subject, he said, and even the legal tea leaves are confusing.

Copyright and 'Caching'

Consider the act of 'browsing' on the Internet. Typically, when looking for information in cyberspace, a user browses many sites, perusing their contents in order to find the information sought. Ironically, under the current copyright regime, this act is, itself, a copyright infringement.

This is a result of the implementation of the technology itself. When a user wants to view a particular web page, the browser sends a request out over the Internet to the appropriate web server for a file called an HTML file. The web server sends a copy of the file back to the browser. The browser interprets and displays on screen the text and graphics of the web document, according to the instructions contained in the HTML file. The HTML file itself contains the text for the document, but the graphics files, being much larger, are kept as separate files on the server, and are called up individually by the browser. The end result produced on the user's screen by the browser software, combining text, layout, and images, constitutes a web page.

In order to expedite this process, the technology implements certain short cuts known as 'caching'. The cache in a browser has important copyright implications. The browser caches (stores) copies of the text and images of visited web pages. These are stored on the local server as well as on the hard drive of the user's computer. The purpose of caching is to improve access to web pages.

The time it takes for an entire web page to reach the user depends on the information-carrying capacity (the "bandwidth") of the Internet connection between the web server and the user's computer. The vast amount of information being transmitted can create bottlenecks that will impede the progress of this information. Caching the graphics from previous transmissions, however, speeds up this process tremendously, thereby alleviating much of the congestion at bottlenecks.

Caching, however, has serious legal implications. This process means that viewing a web page necessarily involves making a copy of it in the memory of the client computer. At the very minimum, there must be a copy of the information in the computer's Random Access Memory (RAM), otherwise the client software would be unable to interpret and display the web page.

Ethical Dilemma of Online Gambling

1) Online Gambling Further Confuses the Issue of Legality - Online gambling blurs the line even further between legal and illegal gambling. Confusion reigns from state to state when it comes to gambling. 48 states have some form of legalized gambling—including lotteries, race tracks and casino games, but little consistency exists in gambling laws.

Consider that North Carolina has no legal state lottery, but each year thousands of North Carolinians cross the state line to Virginia to wager on Powerball. Consider that many states (such as North Carolina and Connecticut) have outlawed casino gambling, but then have made them legal on reservations. In fact, Foxwoods—the largest casino in the world—was built on the reservation of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation. Additionally, consider the inconsistency of gambling laws in New York where betting with a bookie is not illegal, but bookmaking itself is.

2) Online Gambling Breeds Addiction - Online gambling opens a giant can of worms, in that it gives gambling access to millions of people who otherwise would not have access. One of the logical conclusions of having more gamblers is having more gambling addicts.

3) Online Gambling Promotes Fraud and Cheating - Critics claim that online gambling sites have already become a haven for hackers and con men. Most internet gamblers purchase credit online through the use of their credit cards. Skilled hackers would have mountains of credit card numbers to illegally charge to.

Another dilemma to online gambling is that it makes cheating easier. While cheating obviously constitutes a breach in ethics, it also can cost casinos millions. Casinos have thousands of cameras to monitor cheating onsite, however it is almost impossible to monitor a player as he bets out of his home.

Online Gambling

A woman who gambled away more than $70,000 on the Net and then sued major credit card firms for allowing the transactions soon will get her day in court.

Cynthia Haines admits that she bet the large stake and lost it to more than 50 cybercasinos, which she accessed from her home in California--a state where those types of wagers are illegal.

But after her credit issuer, Providian National Bank, took her to court over unpaid bills, Haines filed a countersuit against the bank and Visa and MasterCard, as first reported by CNET News.com.

As early as today, the state Superior Court in Marin County, California, could set a trial date for the case. If the judge ultimately finds in favor of Haines, the outcome carries wide implications for the burgeoning Net gambling sector.

Online gambling has been a contentious issue in the United States, where some want to ban it, while others say it should be regulated as it is in parts of Australia. The federal Wire Act clearly prohibits sending wagers over phone lines, but each state is placing different odds on the legality of online gambling. New York and Missouri have gone after online wager houses based outside their territories, while others have yet to step into these murky legal waters. Although Haines's lawyers said she doesn't admit to breaking the law, their argument is this: Credit card companies are engaging in unfair business practices and aiding and abetting a crime by giving online wager houses merchant accounts to process bets for customers who live where the activity is outlawed.

Not only could Haines be excused from her debt, but the lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction to prohibit credit card firms from serving Net gambling houses. Credit firms typically get a 2- to 5-percent cut from purchases made using their cards.

"Visa and MasterCard know that their credit cards are being used for illegal online gambling, are making money off of it, and have done nothing to stop it," said Ira Rothken, Haines's lead attorney.

His rationale is that "they can't sue someone else for an unlawful act if they also committed unlawful act."

MasterCard declined to comment, and a Visa spokesperson wasn't immediately available. But in January, Judge William McGivern rejected the firms' motion to dismiss the case, stating that: "If the court were to dismiss this action…it would deprive the public a means of addressing alleged violations of the law and fundamental policy."

In about a month, sources say Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Arizona) will revive his Internet Gambling Prohibition Act, which aims to eliminate most online gambling by hitting Net users with a $500 fine and three months in prison each time they rolled the dice online. Cybercasino operators would face up to $20,000 in fines and up to four years in prison. However, some legal experts say Net gambling will thrive despite the Haines case and U.S. lawmakers' attempts to eliminate it.

"Her case does hit a real pressure point with credit card companies. If she wins, the boys at CyberCash are going to be very happy, because people will just migrate from credit cards to using 'e-cash,' which is untraceable," said Philip McGuigan, an attorney at Gordon & Glickson who specializes in Net gambling.

"But is this case going to stop Internet gambling? No," he added. "Nothing will." In Haines's case, the court may simply find that she has to bear the brunt for her bills, McGuigan noted.

Her attorney would rather see Visa, MasterCard, and Providian National Bank eat the debt. "My client has some responsibility," Rothken said. "But this case is about Visa and MasterCard encouraging illegal activity in California and profiting from it."

Cybersecurity

This blog entry relates to Cybersecurity, including cyber forensics, with a closer look into how these are applicable in India.

The Information Technology is double-edged sword, which may be used for destructive as well as constructive work. Thus, the fate of many ventures depends upon the benign or vice intentions, as the case may be, of the person dealing with and using technology. The use of techniques used for hacking, data theft, virus attack, etc can bring only destructive results unless and until these methods have been used for checking the authenticity, safety, and security of the technological device which has been primarily relied upon and trusted for providing the security to a particular organization.

Cyber Forensics

The concept of cyber security and cyber forensics are not only interrelated but also indespensably required for the success of each other. The former secures the ICT (Information and Communication Technology) and e-governance base whereas the latter indicated the loopholes and limitations of the adopted measures to secure the base. The latter also becomes essential to punish the deviants so that a deterrent example can be set. There is, however, a problem regarding acquiring expertise in the latter aspect. This is so because though a computer can be secured even by a person with simple technical knowledge the ascertainment and preservation of the evidence is a tough task. For instance, one can install an anti-virus software, firewall, adjust security settings of the browser, etc but the same cannot be said about making a mirror copy of hard disk, extracting deleted files and documents, preserving logs of activities over internet, etc. Further one can understand the difficulty involved in the prosecution and presentation of a case before a court of law because it is very difficult to explain the evidence acquired to a not so techno savvy judge. The problem becomes more complicated in the absence of sufficient numbers of trained lawyers in this crucial field.


The Cyber Forensics has given new dimensions to the Criminal laws, especially the Evidence law. Electronic evidence and their collection and presentation have posed a challenge to the investigation agencies, prosecution agencies and judiciary. The scope of Cyber Forensics is no more confined to the investigation regime only but is expanding to other segments of justice administration system as well. The justice delivery system cannot afford to take the IT revolution lightly. The significance of cyber forensics emanates from this interface of justice delivery system with the Information Technology.

The need of Cyber Forensics

The growing use of IT has posed certain challenges before the justice delivery system that have to be met keeping in mind the contemporary IT revolution. The contemporary need of Cyber Forensics is essential for the following reasons:


The traditional methods are inadequate: The law may be categorised as substantive and procedural. The substantive law fixes the liability whereas the procedural law provides the means and methods by which the substantive liability has to contended, analysed and proved. The procedural aspects providing for the guilt establishment provisions were always there but their interface with the IT has almost created a deadlock in investigative and adjudicative mechanisms. The challenges posed by IT are peculiar to contemporary society and so must be their solution. The traditional procedural mechanisms, including forensic science methods, are neither applicable nor appropriate for this situation. Thus, “cyber forensics” is the need of the hour. India is the 12th country in the world that has its own “Cyber law” (IT Act, 2000). However, most of the people of India, including lawyers, judges, professors, etc, are not aware about its existence and use. The traditional forensic methods like finger impressions, DNA testing, blood and other tests, etc play a limited role in this arena.


The changing face of crimes and criminals: The use of Internet has changed the entire platform of crime, criminal and their prosecution. This process involves crimes like hacking, pornography, privacy violations, spamming, phishing, pharming, identity theft, cyber terrorisms, etc. The modus operendi is different that makes it very difficult to trace the culprits. This is because of the anonymous nature of Internet. Besides, certain sites are available that provides sufficient technological measures to maintain secrecy. Similarly, various sites openly provide hacking and other tools to assist commission of various cyber crimes. The Internet is boundary less and that makes the investigation and punishment very difficult. These objects of criminal law will become a distant reality till we have cyber forensics to tackle them.


The need of comparison: There is a dire need to compare the traditional crimes and criminals with the crimes and criminal in the IT environment. More specifically, the following must be the parameters of this comparison:

Freedom of Exrpession on the Internet

As part of my first blog entry, I want to concentrate on why exactly Freedom of Speech and/or Expression is such a big deal where the Internet is concerned. Let's face it - The Internet is by far the easiest form of communication for people of all ages and all geographical locations. In essence, its a large common area where anything that anyone wants to say can be heard by anyone else on the Internet. Over the last few years there have been many debates regarding the extent to which people should be allowed their right to freedom of expression on the Internet. In my opinion, although the net provides an average person with the power to speak his/her mind out to over a million people worldwide, no country should have the right to censor the contents posted by another user, unless it causes a direct physical threat to some other user.

This very principle of freedom of expression is the most important value that a society can uphold, if we are to believe that progress of human civilization depends on individual expression of new ideas, especially unpopular ones. People who have used the Internet realize the value of this freedom, as they have been benefited by its ease of access. Examples exist such as the Tiananmen Square rebellion in China in 1990, where the Internet kept Chinese communities around the world, especially in universities, in touch with the current events through email and the newsgroups, bypassing all government censorship. If believed that there is an inherent value in truth, and that the average human being has the right to know this truth, especially that regarding his community, then the ability of the Internet to promote freedom of expression is very important. Although attempts have been made, and have been somewhat successful, in censoring or regulating the content provided to users in many countries, there is often a price that must be paid for this regulation, which may be quite high in the long run.

On a social level, one may argue that if all the potentially dangerous or offensive material were to be removed from the net, it would be reduced to a “child’s reading room”³. Citizens of a country should be allowed to view information that is true and precise, rather than being fed a sugar-coated version. Secondly, the very fact that censorship of the Internet attacks the underlying First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution should be enough to outlaw such censorship. Thirdly, an open marketplace of ideas provides a populace with the best means of making an informed decision, and lastly, it would be impractical to censor all content on the Internet. If one country were to ban the viewing of some website, the content could easily be transferred to an offshore location and be viewed just as easily as before.