Week 6

The rotisserie assignment for today is more or less what you did for last week -- so this is your chance to do a second draft that incorporates the feedback you got. In addition to just writing about the proposed topic, try to articulate the thesis your paper would have.

Your thesis is the idea, claim, or argument that you are putting forward and defending in the paper. Namely, we'd expect that your paper will start out by stating the thesis in the first one or two paragraphs, and that you will proceed to support the thesis in a focused and coherent way. If you are unclear on what we mean by a thesis, have a look at Thesis Writing by Craig Waddell of the RPI Writing Center.

We'll be asking you to refine your thesis over the next couple of weeks, but try to at least get something on paper. That is, don't just say "I want to investiage area so and so" but try to articulate a real thesis.

Also, say what resources you are going to use to do research for your paper. Again, we'll be asking you to be more explicit about this in a couple of weeks, but try to get something abotu this down on paper now.

Monday Class at Harvard: Commercial and Government Surveillance, Part II (Zittrain)

Readings:

• Michael Adler, "Cyberspace, General Searches, and Digital Contraband: The Fourth Amendment and the Net-Wide Search," 105 Yale L.J. 1093 (1996). (Skim until "The Law" section, then read)
• Declan McCullagh, Wired, "TEMPEST Brewing for PC Privacy?"
• Declan McCullagh, Wired, "Terror Act Has Lasting Effects"
• Declan McCullagh, Wired, "Thumbs Down on Net Wiretaps"
• Declan McCullagh, Wired, "How Far Can FBI Spying Go?"
• FBI Congressional Statement on Carnivore
• www.privacy.net (Look at: P3P, Anonymous remailer FAQ, Bake your own cookies)
• www.privacyfoundation.org
• Glance at USA Act: particularly Sections 203, 206, 210, 212, and 217. (Type in bill: HR 3162 and look at the "Enrolled Bill")
• FTC Commissioner Swindle to Discuss The Impact of The Patriot Act on Consumers' Privacy And Corporate Privacy Policies
• Gwendolyn Mariano, CNET, SafeWeb sidelines anonymity for security
• Article on the Chinese government's Internet regulations

Thursday Class at MIT: Background in First Amendment Law (Abelson)

Slides from class (PDF)

Today's class will be a look at the basics of First Amendment jurisprudence. Begin by reading the read the ACLU briefing paper, "Freedom of Expression". Then read the following landmark Supreme Court decisions:

• Schenck v. U.S., 249 U.S. 47 (1919): The opinion here by Justice Holmes affirms that some restrictions on speech are constitutional, and it articulates the "clear and present danger" principle. ("The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.")
• Read Holmes's dissenting opinion in Abrams v. U.S., 250 U.S. 616 (1919) This case, along with Schenk, forms the cornerstone of modern First Amendment jurisprudence. The Court's decision here upheld the Schenk prohibition, but the importance of the opinion is in Justice Holmes's passionate dissenting opinion, which argues that speech can be restricted only if it presents a clear and present danger. ("It is only the present danger of immediate evil or an intent to bring it about that warrants Congress in setting a limit to the expression of opinion where private rights are not concerned.")
• Read Brandeis's concurring opinion in Whitney v. People of State of California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927). In this case, the Supreme Court upheld a conviction for "criminal syndicalism" (effectively, conspiracy). Brandeis's opinion, despite the fact that it concurs in the conviction, has been called "the greatest court opinion on freedom of speech ever written."
• Read Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). This decision overthrew the "clear and present danger" rule, overturning Whitney v. California. The decision spells out the Court's misgivings that the rule had been overly broadly construed over the years and replaced it with a narrower provision. ("Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.")

Read "Prof. Jenkins goes to Washington", May 1999. "This is the story of how a mild-mannered MIT Professor ended up being called before Congress to testify about 'selling violence to our children' and what it is like to testify."