|8th Circuit Holds 4th Amendment Does Not Require Presence
of Officer at ISP Searches
|11/18. The U.S.
Court of Appeals (8thCir) issued its
holding that a search of an Internet service provider's electronic mail records,
by the ISP's employees, pursuant to a state subpoena, without the presence of a
law enforcement officer, is not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The
Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's holding that seizure of e-mails
by Yahoo personnel from Yahoo's servers violated
18 U.S.C. § 3105 and Minnesota
statutes, and thus the Fourth Amendment.
Background. This is a criminal case in which Dale Bach was prosecuted
in federal court for violation of various child pormography statutes. However,
the subject of the appeal is the
procedure used for obtaining evidence from an ISP,
The mother of a minor reported to the city police in St. Paul, Minnesota that
an anonymous person had improper communications with her son in a Yahoo chat
room. The city police investigated, and ultimately obtained a warrant issued by
the state of Minnesota for the search of Yahoo e-mail records. Yahoo is located
in the state of California. The warrant, and its method of service (facsimile)
and execution (by Yahoo employees) complied with California law. Yahoo searched
its records, and provided responsive records to the police.
District Court. Later, Bach was indicted by a federal grand jury. The
evidence against him included material obtained from Yahoo. Bach moved to
suppress evidence on the grounds that since a police officer was not present for
the execution of the warrant it violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free
from unreasonable searches and seizures.
The District Court agreed. It held that 18 U.S.C. § 3105 and sections 626.13
and 626A.06 of the Minnesota Statutes, which require officer presenc, codify
the Fourth Amendment. The prosecution appealed.
Appeals Court Holding. The Appeals Court reversed the District Court.
It wrote that "The Fourth Amendment does not explicitly require official presence during a
warrant's execution, therefore it is not an automatic violation if no officer is
present during a search."
The Court continued that the "The Fourth Amendment is governed by a ``reasonableness´´
standard. ... This standard is flexible and should not be read to mandate rigid
rules that ignore countervailing law enforcement interests. ... Official
presence should simply be one of many factors considered in determining the
reasonableness of the execution of a search warrant. ... Other relevant factors
are the scope of the warrant, the behavior of the searching agents, the
conditions where the search was conducted, and the nature of the evidence being
sought." (Citations omitted.)
The Court provided this analysis: "We consider several factors in this case to determine
whether the search and seizure of Bach's e-mail from Yahoo!'s server by Yahoo!
technicians violated Bach's Fourth Amendment rights, including the fact that no
warrant was physically ``served,´´ no persons or premises were searched in the
traditional sense, and there was no confrontation between Yahoo! technicians and
Bach. ... Other factors crucial to our decision include: (1) the actual physical
presence of an officer would not have aided the search (in fact may have
hindered it); (2) the technical expertise of Yahoo!'s technicians far outweighs
that of the officers; (3) the items ``seized´´ were located on Yahoo!'s property;
(4) there was a warrant signed by a judge authorizing the search; and (5) the
officers complied with the provisions of the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701. All of these factors weigh in favor of the government and
we therefore find that the search was constitutional under the Fourth
Amendment's reasonableness standard."
Expectation of Privacy. The Court ducked the issue of whether there is
an expectation of privacy in stored e-mail communications. That is, there can
only be a Fourth Amendment search and seizure violation if there is a
legitimate expectation of privacy. There is an issue here because the e-mails at
issue were not in Bach' possession. Rather, he had entrusted them to a third
party -- Yahoo.
The Court wrote that "we first note that in order to find a violation of the Fourth
Amendment, there must be a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area
searched and the items seized.
Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 740 (1979). If
there is no legitimate expectation of privacy, then there can be no Fourth
Amendment violation. Id. While it is clear to this court that Congress intended
to create a statutory expectation of privacy in e-mail files, it is less clear
that an analogous expectation of privacy derives from the Constitution. Even
though ordinarily we would need to determine whether there is a constitutional
expectation of privacy in e-mail files in order to proceed, we decline to decide
this issue because even if there is such an expectation, we find on other
grounds that this particular search did not violate Bach's Fourth Amendment
Amicus Brief. The Electronic Privacy
Information Center (EPIC) had submitted an
amicus brief [PDF] in
which it argued, unsuccessfully, that "The search warrant at issue in this case
was served without a police officer being present, in direct violation of 18
U.S.C. § 3105, which mandates officer presence at the service of a warrant.
Formal procedures -- including the requirement of an officer's presence at the
service of a search warrant -- have been in place since the1700s to safeguard
individuals from unwarranted intrusion upon their privacy by government
officials, and to discourage governmental abuse of power by ensuring guarantees
of trustworthiness and accountability."
The EPIC also asserted that ISP's subscribers
have an expectation of privacy in their e-mail transmitted by
Recent Legislation. The Congress has just amended federal statutes regarding
federal procedure for service and execution of search warrants.
The House passed HR 2215,
the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriation Authorization Act, by a
vote of 400-4 on September 26. See,
Roll Call No. 422. The Senate passed this bill on October 3. The President
signed it on November 2. The bill does far more than authorize appropriations
Department of Justice (DOJ). It is also the
vehicle for passage of numerous other tech related items.
Under current law, 18 U.S.C. § 3105 covers persons authorized to serve search
warrants. It specifies "an officer authorized by law". Section 11010 of HR 2215
would add a new subsection to 18 U.S.C. § 2703. This section is a part of Title
121, which pertains to "Stored Wire and Electronic Communications and
Transactional Records Access". This title was revised last year by the USA
The new subsection 2703(g) provides, in full, that "(g) PRESENCE OF OFFICER
NOT REQUIRED. -- Notwithstanding section 3105 of this title, the presence of an
officer shall not be required for service or execution of a search warrant
issued in accordance with this chapter requiring disclosure by a provider of
electronic communications service or remote computing service of the contents of
communications or records or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or
customer of such service."
Thus, federal law enforcement authorities will be able to serve search warrants on
ISPs by fax, without having to travel in person around the country, and then
allow the ISP personnel to perform the searches. Likewise,
ISPs will be more able to keep law enforcement officers off of their premises.
Similar language had also been in HR 3482, the Cyber Security Enhancement
Act, sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith
(R-TX). This bill passed the House last summer.
But then, it did not initially move in the Senate. However,
Sen. Orrin Hatch
(R-UT) was successful in having much of its content inserted into HR 5710, the
bill creating a new Department of Homeland Security, earlier this month.
But, this section of HR 5710 does not include language regarding officer presence at
service and execution of warrants. It did not have to; the provision was already passed in
the DOJ authorization bill.
See, for example,
HR 3482 as adopted by the House
Judiciary Committee on May 8, 2002. It stated that "Section 3105 of title
18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``The presence of an officer is not required
for service or execution of a warrant under section 2703 when the provider of
electronic communications service or remote computing service produces the
information required in the warrant.´´"
|FCC Releases Spectrum Policy Task Force Report
|11/15. The Federal Communications
Commission's (FCC) Spectrum Policy Task Force
(SPTF) released its
[73 pages in PDF]. The FCC announced the completion of this report at its November 7 meeting, but
revealed few details of its contents.
The report is wide ranging, and contains numerous findings and
recommendations. One of its key recommendations is that
"spectrum policy must evolve towards more flexible
and market oriented regulatory models." However, it recommends moving towards a
market system, rather than transforming into a market system.
Nevertheless, this report evidences a quantum leap away from the way the FCC
viewed spectrum management just a few years ago.
Much of the report focuses on the implications
of new technologies. It finds that "Advances in technology
create the potential for systems to use spectrum more
intensively and to be much more tolerant of interference than in
the past." Moreover, "In many bands, spectrum access is a more
significant problem than physical scarcity of spectrum, in large
part due to legacy command and control regulation that limits
the ability of potential spectrum users to obtain such access."
The report labels the FCC's historic control and
planning of spectrum use as the "command and control" model. The
report advocates continuing this model for some spectrum uses,
such as broadcasting and public safety, but also recommends
using two other models. It states that the FCC should also allow
"the granting of exclusive spectrum
usage rights through market based mechanisms" and "spectrum
The "commons" model would allow "unlimited
numbers of unlicensed users to share frequencies, with usage
rights that are governed by technical standards or etiquettes
but with no right to protection from interference." This is the
The report recommends expanding the use of both
the exclusive use model and the commons model.
The report deals with interference at length. It
recommends "a more quantitative approach to interference
management based on the concept of ``interference
interference temperature metric would establish maximum
permissible levels of interference, thus characterizing the
environment in which a receiver would be expected to operate."
The report also
recommends that the FCC "should consider applying receiver
performance requirements for some bands and services, either
through incentives, regulatory mandates, or some combination of
incentives and mandates."
The report also finds that spectrum is under
utilized. "Preliminary data and general observations indicate
that many portions of the radio spectrum are not in use for
significant periods of time, and that spectrum use of these
``white spaces´´ (both temporal and geographic) can be increased
While the report makes numerous recommendations regarding
reducing regulatory constraints, allowing more flexibility of use, and
increasing regulatory certainty, it does not
advocate a system of property ownership in spectrum. Entities that use spectrum
would still be licensees, not owners, and still be subject to FCC regulation,
except in the case of unlicensed users, who would not be owners either.
Indeed, the words "property", "owner", and "ownership" are
barely used in the report, and usually only in the context of making clear that
the report is not recommending a system of property ownership. Also, while the
word "rights" is used frequently throughout the report, it is usually coupled
with words that dilute its meaning. For example, the report
refers to "spectrum users' rights and obligations", "spectrum rights and
obligations", "Spectrum Rights and Responsibilities", and "flexible
rights ... and clarity in the rules".
The report articulates several paragraphs on the meaning of spectrum rights.
It states that "all spectrum users require clear rules governing their
interactions with the Commission and other spectrum users. Regardless of how or to
whom particular rights are assigned, ensuring that all rights are clearly delineated is
important to avoiding disputes, and provides a clear common framework from which
spectrum users can negotiate alternative arrangements."
The report further states that "the Commission must clearly define
the following basic spectrum rights parameters for all licensed and unlicensed
spectrum uses: 1. Designated frequency range and bandwidth; 2. Geographic scope
of right to operate; 3. Maximum RF output, both in-band and out-of-band; and 4.
i.e. the maximum level of noise/interference that the spectrum user must
accept from other RF sources."
It adds that "the rules
should be written to define spectrum rights in terms of spectrum uses that are excluded,
prohibited, or limited. Thus, the Commission’s approach should be that licensees and
unlicensed users are allowed to do anything not explicitly prohibited by the Communications Act,
the Commission's rules, Commission orders, licenses or authorizations, rather
than the presumption being that anything not affirmatively authorized requires a rule
change or waiver before it can be done."
|FCC Releases OPP Paper With Spectrum Reform
|11/15. The Federal Communications
Commission's (FCC) Office of Plans and
Policy (OPP) released the long awaited
Working Paper No. 38 [62 pages in PDF] titled "A Proposal for a Rapid
Transition to Market Allocation of Spectrum." It was written by Evan Kwerel and
John Williams of the OPP.
It proposes that FCC organize "a series of large-scale,
two-sided spectrum auctions in which all spectrum incumbents can voluntarily
offer the spectrum they now control, along with spectrum held by the FCC."
The paper has nothing kind to say about the current system of
government control of spectrum. It states that "The current administrative
allocation of spectrum has led to shortages and waste." It adds that "A
consensus is forming that the current process of allocating radio spectrum by
administrative decision making is in serious need of reform. ... Billions of
dollars of cumulative loss to the U.S. economy have been attributed to
inefficient spectrum allocations under the current system.
The solution, according to most economists, is
to replace the current administrative allocation with a spectrum market."
The report even compares the current
situation to the failed communist systems of the former Soviet Union and eastern
Europe. It states that "Reforming spectrum policy is like reforming
planned economies. The form of the transition from central planning to markets
matters, as we have seen in Eastern Europe and Russia. Markets do not create
themselves. The central planners can't just not show up for work one day and
expect an efficient transition to markets to occur spontaneously."
But then, this paper was written by
economists, not lawyers.
This paper proposes "a means to speed the transition from the
current restricted spectrum allocation to an efficient market allocation."
The report summarized its proposal as follows: "A
key aspect of the proposal is the use of a two-sided auction in which the FCC
would offer unassigned spectrum in a band (sometimes referred to as ``overlay
licenses´´ or ``white space´´) simultaneously with encumbered spectrum offered
by existing licensees. The simultaneous auction of encumbered and unencumbered
spectrum in a band would allow bidders to acquire highly complementary spectrum
assets quickly in a single event rather than through the current sequential
process consisting of an FCC auction followed by post-auction negotiations with
incumbents. Ideally, all technically fungible
everything from 300 to 3000 MHz, would be included in a single auction. This
ideal scenario would also include spectrum now reserved for government use6 and
bands that might be used for the
relocation of incumbents. However, practical considerations that we will discuss
below constrain us to propose something more limited as an initial
implementation. The nature of current use also suggests that certain bands will
be more suitable for this approach than others. Taking these factors into
account we propose an initial implementation that we believe is practical yet
large enough to provide significant benefits. If implemented, it could make
available in as little as two to five years 438 MHz of very desirable spectrum
for such potentially high value uses as next generation mobile services.
Assuming satisfactory results from the initial
application of this approach, we propose that it be extended more broadly across
a wide range of spectrum to bring about a permanent, systemic solution to the
spectrum allocation problem." (Footnotes omitted.)
The report adds that "For our proposal to work, incumbents must participate in the
auction. To encourage such participation, we propose that incumbents be allowed
to keep all proceeds from the sale of encumbered spectrum. To further encourage
participation, we propose that the spectrum encumbered by an incumbent who does
not participate in the auction be frozen in its current allocation for five
years. Participation would thus become a
quid pro quo for incumbents' receiving flexibility of use, and what
could be a substantial windfall from transfer of their spectrum to a higher
valued use. We propose to further protect incumbents by allowing them to bid on
their own licenses in the auction. This would ensure an incumbent's spectrum is
not sold for less than its value to the incumbent. Since the cost to participate
in the auction should be small relative to potential gains from flexibility of
use, a high level of participation is likely."
Spectrum Policy Task Force (SPTF) report
(see accompanying story),
which was released on the same day, offers the following
legislative recommendation: "Consider amending Section 309(j) of the
Communications Act to provide the Commission authority to conduct two-sided
auctions and simultaneous spectrum exchanges."
The proposal contained in this report goes further than the
proposals contained in the SPTF report in creating a spectrum market. It states
that "removing barriers to flexible use isn't enough to achieve a rapid transition to
the market allocation of spectrum for several reasons. It doesn't make spectrum
held by FCC (and NTIA) available for flexible use. It doesn't reconfigure
existing spectrum rights into tradable, flexible rights. It doesn't solve the
coordination problem of ensuring that all interdependent spectrum is up for sale
at the same time. And, it doesn't solve the incentive problems that may prevent
efficiency enhancing trades." It adds that "all restrictions unrelated to
interference would be removed."
Both authors, Kwerel and Williams, are also members of the FCC's
SPTF. Evan Kwerel
is a Senior Economist in the FCC's OPP. He can be reached at 202 418-2045
or firstname.lastname@example.org. John Williams can be
reached at 202 418-2050 or email@example.com.
|FISA Appeals Court Reverses FISA Lower Court
|11/18. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (no website)
opinion [56 pages in PDF, redacted] in the proceeding titled "In
re: Sealed Case No. 02-001 Consolidated with 02-002" reversing the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court ruling of May 17 imposing restrictions upon the
federal government's FISA surveillance.
This case involves the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA) and the specialized courts that it created, the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) and the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court of Review (FISCOR). The case is the first ever for the FISCOR.
The FISA is codified at 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1862. It sets out
rules for the collection of information categorized as foreign intelligence
surveillance. It is a regime distinct from the "Title III" regime for the
issuance of warrants in criminal proceedings.
The FISA was enacted in 1978, and has been amended several times
since, most recently by the USA PATRIOT Act passed in late 2001.
Pursuant to the FISA, the government applied to the FISC for a
surveillance order for a United States person who the government contends is
aiding, abetting, or conspiring with others in international terrorism. The FISC
granted the order on May 17, but also imposed restrictions upon the government,
which are the subject of the present appeal. See,
Memorandum Opinion of May 17 of the FISC.
The FISC wrote in May that "law enforcement officials shall not make
recommendations to intelligence officials concerning the initiation, operation,
continuation or expansion of FISA searches or surveillances. Additionally, the
FBI and the Criminal Division [of the Department of Justice] shall ensure that
law enforcement officials do not direct or control the use of the FISA
procedures to enhance criminal prosecution, and that advice intended to preserve
the option of a criminal prosecution does not inadvertently result in the
Criminal Division’s directing or controlling the investigation using FISA
searches and surveillances toward law enforcement objectives."
The FISCOR's opinion of November 18 further characterizes the
FISC's May ruling: "To ensure the Justice Department followed these strictures
the court also fashioned what the government refers to as a ``chaperone
requirement´´; that a unit of the Justice Department, the Office of Intelligence
Policy and Review (OIPR) (composed of 31 lawyers and 25 support staff), ``be
invited´´ to all meetings between the FBI and the Criminal Division involving
consultations for the purpose of coordinating efforts ``to investigate or protect
against foreign attack or other grave hostile acts, sabotage, international
terrorism, or clandestine intelligence activities by foreign powers or their
agents.´´ If representatives of OIPR are unable to attend such meetings, ``OIPR
shall be apprized of the substance of the meetings forthwith in writing so that
the Court may be notified at the earliest opportunity.´´"
The FISCOR wrote that the FISC "apparently believes it can
approve applications for electronic surveillance only if the government’s
objective is not primarily directed toward criminal prosecution of the
foreign agents for their foreign intelligence activity. But the court neither
refers to any FISA language supporting that view, nor does it reference the
Patriot Act amendments, which the government contends specifically altered FISA
to make clear that an application could be obtained even if criminal prosecution
is the primary counter mechanism."
The FISCOR reversed the FISC's orders to the extent that they
imposed conditions upon the government, and remanded the matter to the FISC.
Attorney General John
Ashcroft gave a
speech in which he praised the FISCOR opinion. He stated that "the court
issued an opinion that affirmed President Bush's and Congress's call for greater
cooperation and coordination in the war on terror. In intelligence, in counter
intelligence, and counter terrorism investigations, the court's ruling confirmed
the Department of Justice's legal authority to integrate fully the functions of
law enforcement and intelligence."
He added that it "revolutionizes our ability to investigate terrorists and
prosecute terrorist acts. The decision allows the Department of Justice to free
immediately our agents and prosecutors in the field to work together more
closely and cooperatively in achieving our core mission, the mission of
preventing terrorist attacks."
Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), a
senior member of the Senate
Judiciary Committee, stated in a release that "This ruling should untie the
government's hands and help prevent terrorist attacks. The outdated rules on
information sharing hurt our counter terrorism efforts, and now we can move
forward to protect national security while respecting rights and abiding by
built-in safeguards. Congress should continue close oversight of the FISA
process and the Patriot Act."
This was not an adversarial proceeding. The target of the
surveillance was not a party to the proceeding. Moreover, since the government,
which is the only party, prevailed before the FISCOR, the prospects for an
appeal to the Supreme Court are slim.
The FISCOR did, however, receive and reference two amicus curiae
briefs that urged affirmance of the FISC. See,
amicus brief [PDF] of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and
other groups, and
brief [PDF] of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL).
The FISC is comprised of seven District Court judges appointed by the Chief
Justice of the United States. The FISCOR was comprised of three Appeals Court
judges on senior status, Ralph Guy (6thCir),
Silberman (DCCir), and Edward Leavy (9thCir).
|Tuesday, November 19
|The Senate will continue its consideration of the nomination
of Dennis Shedd to be a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the 4th Circuit, and its consideration of the bill to create a new Department of Homeland
9:30 AM - 12:00 PM. The Department of
State's (DOS) Office of the Coordinator for International Communications
and Information Policy will host a public meeting to receive comments
regarding the role of International Mobile Satellite Organization (IMSO) with
respect to the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS),
aeronautical safety services, and service to rural and remote areas of
developing countries, including
the principle and the legal methodology of a possible extension or expansion
of IMSO's mandate. See,
notice in the Federal Register . For more information, contact Brian Hunt
at 202 647-5832 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Location: DOS, 2201 C Street NW.
12:15 PM. The
FCBA's Common Carrier Committee will host a brown bag lunch. The speakers
will be the FCC Commissioners' wireline competition advisors. Location:
Willkie Farr & Gallagher, 1875 K Street,
2nd Floor, NY Conference Room.
12:30 PM. Pam Olson, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Tax
Policy, will deliver a luncheon speech to the National Foreign Trade Council.
Location: St. Regis Hotel, 923 16th Street, NW.
5:30 - 6:45 PM.
Richard Posner, Judge of the
U.S. Court of Appeals (7thCir), will give a lecture titled "The Political
Economy of Intellectual Property Law" at an
AEI-Brookings Joint Center event. A
wine and cheese reception will follow at 6:45 PM. See,
online registration page.
Location: AEI, Wohlstetter Conference Center, 12th Floor, 1150 17th Street,
6:00 - 8:00 PM. The
FCBA will host a CLE seminar titled "The FCC’s Triennial Review of
Unbundled Network Elements: How Significant are UNE-P and other UNEs to Local
Competition?" Registrations and cancellations due by 5:00 PM on November 15.
Location: Dow Lohnes & Albertson, Suite 800, 1200 New Hampshire Avenue, NW.
Deadline to submit reply comments to the FCC
regarding its request to refresh its record regarding customer proprietary
network information (CPNI) implications when a carrier goes out of
business, sells all or part of its customer base, or seeks bankruptcy
protection. This is the FCC's Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in
CC Docket Nos. 96-115, 96-149 and 00-257. See,
notice in the Federal Register.
Deadline to submit applications for planning and construction grants to the
NTIA for public television facilities under the Public Telecommunications
Facilities Program (PTFP). See,
notice in the Federal Register.
|Wednesday, November 20
|8:30 AM - 4:30 PM. The Commerce Department's
Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)
will host a one seminar titled "Essentials of Export Controls". It will cover
compliance with the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). The price to
attend is $150. See,
notice. For more information, contact Yvette Springer at 202 482-6031.
Location: Grand Hyatt Washington, 1000 H. Street, NW.
10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The House
Science Committee will meet to mark up several bills that are not related
to information technology. It will then proceed with a hearing titled "The
2001 Presidential Awardees for Excellence in Mathematics and Science
Teaching: Views from the Blackboard". Webcast. Location: Room 2318,
12:00 NOON. The
FCBA's Transactional Practice Committee will host a brown bag lunch on the
Sarbannes Oxley Act. RSVP to Donna Farber at
Latham & Watkins, Lincoln Square Bldg., Suite
1000, 555 Eleventh St., NW.
12:30 PM. The
FCBA will host a luncheon. The speaker will be NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue. The price is $45 for members,
$35 for government & law student members, and $55 for non-members.
Registrations and cancellations are due by 5:00 PM on November 15. For
more information, call 202 293-4000. Location: JW Marriott Hotel, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.
|Thursday, November 21
|8:30 AM - 4:30 PM. The Commerce Department's
Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)
will host a seminar titled "Technology Export Controls". It will cover
compliance with the U.S. export and reexport controls relating to technology,
software and encryption. The price to attend is $150. See,
notice. For more information, contact Yvette Springer at 202 482-6031.
Location: Grand Hyatt Washington, 1000 H. Street, NW.
12:15 PM. The
FCBA's Global Telecommunications Development Committee and International
Practice Committee will host a brown bag lunch. The topic will be "Financing
Telecom Projects in Developing Countries: The Role of OPIC, Export Import
Bank, and the International Finance Corporation (IFC)". The speakers will be
Roger Cohen (Export Import Bank), Brian Christaldi (OPIC), and Jean-Francois
Dupuy (IFC). For more information, contact Janet Hernandez at 202 736-1814.
RSVP to Julie Ilett at email@example.com
or 202 736-1819. Location: Coudert Brothers, 1627 Eye St., NW, 11th floor.
12:15 PM. The
FCBA's Cable Practice Committee will host a brown bag lunch. The speakers
will be John Wong and Michael Lance (Division Chief and Deputy Division Chief
of the FCC Media Bureau's Engineering Division). For more information call
Lisa Cordell at 202 939-7934. RSVP to Wendy Parish at
wendy @fcba.org. Location: NCTA, 1724
Massachusetts Ave., NW.
3:00 PM. Uma
Suthersanen will speak on "Copyright and Human Rights in Europe". She
is a Senior Research Fellow at the Queen
Mary Intellectual Property Research Institute in London. For more
information, contact Robert Brauneis at
firstname.lastname@example.org or 202
994-6138. Location: Faculty Conference Center, 5th Floor of Burns, George
Washington University Law School, 2000 H Street, NW.
6:30 - 10:00 PM. The
FCBA will host a charity auction. For more information, contact Heidi
Kurtz (FCBA) at 202 293-4000. Admission is free, and it is open to the public.
The event features a live auction, silent auctions, raffles, hours d’oeuvres
and a cash bar. Location: Capitol
Hilton Hotel, 16th and K Streets, NW.
|Friday, November 22
|Deadline to submit comments to the
ultrawideband report [110 pages in PDF] titled "Measured Emissions Data For Use In
Evaluating The Ultra-Wideband (UWB) Emissions Limits in the Frequency Bands
Used By The Global Positioning System". See also, FCC
public notice [3 pages in PDF]. The report was prepared by Stephen Jones
of the FCC's Office of Engineering and
Technology. He can be contacted at 301 362-2054 or
SKJones@fcc.gov. This is ET Docket No.
Deadline to submit comments to the The
in response to its requests for comments regarding whether to revise, clarify
or adopt any additional rules in order to more effectively carry out
Congress's directives in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA).
notice in the Federal Register, October 8, 2002, Vol. 67, No. 195, at
Pages 62667 - 62681.
Deadline to submit a request to participate in roundtable meetings hosted
by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
regarding small business views on foreign patent challenges. The USPTO
is seeking comments, and holding roundtable meetings, pursuant to a
recommendation contained in a General Accounting
Office (GAO) report
[PDF] titled "Federal Action Needed to Help Small Businesses Address Foreign
Patent Challenges". This report was released on August 22, 2002. See also,
story titled "GAO Reports Foreign Patent Challenges Facing Small Businesses"
in TLJ Daily
E-Mail Alert No. 497, August 23, 2002. See,
notice in the Federal Register, October 28, 2002, Vol. 67, No.208, at
Pages 65786 - 65787.
|Monday, November 25
|Deadline to submit comments to the The
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
regarding the product recall notices exception to the Electronic Signatures in
Global and National Commerce (E-SIGN) Act. The Act provides, at §101, for the
acceptance of electronic signatures in interstate commerce, with certain
enumerated exceptions. §103 of the Act provides that "The provisions of
section 101 shall not apply to ... (2) any notice of ... (D) recall of a
product, or material failure of a product, that risks endangering health or
safety". The Act also requires the NTIA to review, evaluate and report to
Congress on each of the exceptions. See,
notice in the Federal Register.
|11/18. A collection of groups wrote a
letter to Congressional leaders urging that the Congress "adopt an amendment
to the pending Homeland Security Act that would stop further development of a
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) system called ``Total
Information Awareness´´ (TIA)." The letter was signed by representatives of the
Information Center (EPIC), Free Congress Foundation,
Association (ALA), People For the American Way
(PFAW), Competitive Enterprise Institute,
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and other groups.
11/18. The U.S.
Court of Appeals (7thCir) issued its
opinion [PDF] in
General Corporation v. Daimler Chrysler, a trademark infringement and dilution
case involving the front grilles on SUVs.
11/15. Bruce Mehlman, Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy at the
Department of Commerce, gave a
speech titled "Technology Led Economic Development in the Post Bubble,
Post 9/11, Post Enron America". He spoke in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
|About Tech Law Journal
|Tech Law Journal publishes a free access web site and
subscription e-mail alert. The basic rate for a subscription
to the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert is $250 per year. However, there
are discounts for entities with multiple subscribers. Free one
month trial subscriptions are available. Also, free
subscriptions are available for law students, journalists,
elected officials, and employees of the Congress, courts, and
executive branch, and state officials. The TLJ web site is
free access. However, copies of the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert and
news items are not published in the web site until one month
after writing. See, subscription
Contact: 202-364-8882; E-mail.
P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.
Copyright 1998 - 2002 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All