Author Archives: Michael Froomkin

Toledo Cybersecurities Conference

The University of Toldeo College of Law is sponsoring what sounds like it will be a great conference on Cybersecurities regulation. I wish I could go. But as the first presenter on the first panel is my wife, someone has to stay home.

The Tenth Anniversary of Cybersecurities Law

Friday, April 8, 2005
9:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
University of Toledo College of Law

Co-sponsored by the Cybersecurities Law Institute, the Stranahan National Issues Forum, and the University of Toledo Law Review

Keynote speaker:

John Reed Stark, Chief of Office of Internet Enforcement and Counselor to Director of Enforcement, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Recent Developments in Cybersecurities Fraud Enforcement

Moderator: Prof. Howard M. Friedman, Director, Cybersecurities Law Institute, University of Toledo

Presenters:

Panel I: The Challenge of Technology

Prof. Caroline M. Bradley, University of Miami School of Law
Information Society Challenges to Financial Regulation

Prof. Olufunmilayo Arewa , Case Western Reserve University School of Law: Securities Law and Technology: Translation and Accommodation in Cyberspace

Panel II: The SEC's New Securities Offering Rules (Proposals)

Broc Romanek, Esq., Editor, TheCorporateCounsel.net
David C. Lee, Esq., Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Washington, D.C.
E-Communications by Public Companies: Inside and Outside the Offering Context

Panel III: Innovative Uses of Cyberspace

Prof. Christine Hurt, Marquette University Law School
What Google Can't Tell Us About IPO Auctions (And What It Can)

Dr. Dirk Zetzsch, Heinrich Heine University (Dusseldorf)
Corporate Governance in Cyberspace-The Impact of Virtual Shareholder Meetings

Panel IV: The Internet and International Securities Issues
Dr. Paul U. Ali, University of New South Wales
Cyberderivatives-Online Retail Markets in International Equity Betting

Prof. Dimity Kingsford-Smith, University of New South Wales
Follow My Leader? Similarities and Differences in Australian and US Online Investing Regulation

Posted in Law: Internet Law | Comments Off on Toledo Cybersecurities Conference

Understatement Dept.

TPM tries on understatement for size.

Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall: Is it troubling at all that this paragraph, the third in a piece tomorrow's Post, appears to be the White House's own description of how they'll sell their Social Security phase-out plan?

The campaign will use Bush's campaign-honed techniques of mass repetition, never deviating from the script and using the politics of fear to build support — contending that a Social Security financial crisis is imminent when even Republican figures show it is decades away.

Hmmm.

Even if you can't fool all of the people all of the time, can you sucker a majority?

Posted in Econ: Social Security | 1 Comment

We’re Just Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading

Marty Lederman has another in his series of extraoridanry posts on the legal regulation of US torture and torture-like activiites. Here's one of the key legal points:

The problem, which I've tried to explain in somewhat soporific detail in posts here, here, here, here, here and here, is that Congress (at the urging of Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush) has defined the term “torture” exceedingly narrowly—so narrowly, in fact, that OLC has concluded it does not cover techniques such as waterboarding, threats of live burial, and threats of rendition to nations that do torture. Those forms of highly coercive interrogation, going just up to the line of “torture” without going over, are generally unlawful, not

because they are “torture,” but because they fall within the category of conduct denominated “cruel, inhuman and degrading (“CID”) treatment,” i.e., conduct that “shocks the conscience” and hence would violate due process if it occurred within the U.S. Such CID treatment is categorically off limits to the military by virtue of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the President's directive that the military treat all detainees “humanely.” Such CID treatment is also categorically prohibited — even for the CIA — with respect to detainees protected by the Geneva Conventions; and such CID treatment would (by definition) be unconstitutional — even for the CIA and even as applied to Al Qaeda detainees — here in the U.S.

But the Administration has concluded the CID treatment is not unlawful when the CIA interrogates Al Qaeda suspects outside U.S. jurisdiction.

Posted in Iraq Atrocities | 2 Comments

David Neiwert Turns Over Rocks

David Neiwert, aka Orcinus has been turning over rocks and finding ugly things crawl out. The latest example in a depressingly long series of posts is hinterlands of Idaho and Montana, where it seems “eliminationist” rhetoric is getting a strong foothold.

I've been talking for some time about the course that eliminationist rhetoric on the right would eventually take by the force of its own nature: pretty soon we'd go from talking about liberals as traitors to overtly wishing for violence to be visited upon them and discussing locking them up, followed in due course by such violence and incarceration becoming a reality.

Well, it is now becoming a commonly spoken sentiment on the right to wish for violence against liberals and to simultaneously suggest they and all “traitors” (including Muslim Americans) should be locked away. We're firmly into Phase II now.

I would like to assure you — and myself — that Mr. Neiwert is some sort of alarmist crank, and that the attitudes he describes cannot spread.

But I can't do that.

Posted in Politics: US | Comments Off on David Neiwert Turns Over Rocks

The Inauguration

Lots of people I know are forwarding me emails about various forms of protest centering on the high cost of the planned Bush inauguration.

I think these complaints, while very well-meaning, and fairly well-taken, are not going to have much traction.

There's no doubt that the inauguration preparations are over the top. The idea of closing off a huge part of downtown DC, not to mention the idea of trying first to stick one of the poorest cities in the US with the bill, then deciding to raid the Homeland Security piggyback to pay so-called security costs (which include building bleachers), is ugly.

But the fact is that the country likes a party. Carter didn't win many points for turning down the heat and wearing a sweater. Reagan won points for reigning regally. Bush isn't regal, but unless it's true that 9/11 changed more than the way in which we justify pointless wars and blank checks to federal contractors, I expect relatively few people will get on board this bandwagon…and those cheering the party will see it largely as sour grapes.

So, sorry friends, good luck, and thanks for thinking of me, but I'm going to keep worrying about casualties in Iraq (soldiers, civilians, our money, their infrastructure, our claims to decency, and counting), the fight over social security, and the environment — which has me increasingly worried about both pollution and systemic, tragedy of the commons, issues such as overfishing and global warming. Oh, and nuclear proliferation. And gerrymandering. And election mismanagement and irregularities. And protecting anonymity and free speech. And, sigh, about twenty other things.

Posted in Politics: US | 2 Comments

Bush Team Fights To Protect CIA Right to Torture

Waterboarding is torture. And the Administration wants to ensure that the CIA can keep doing it and its ilk.

White House Fought New Curbs on Interrogations, Officials Say: At the urging of the White House, Congressional leaders scrapped a legislative measure last month that would have imposed new restrictions on the use of extreme interrogation measures by American intelligence officers, Congressional officials say.

The defeat of the proposal affects one of the most obscure arenas of the war on terrorism, involving the Central Intelligence Agency's secret detention and interrogation of top terror leaders like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, and about three dozen other senior members of Al Qaeda and its offshoots.

The Senate had approved the new restrictions, by a 96-to-2 vote, as part of the intelligence reform legislation. They would have explicitly extended to intelligence officers a prohibition against torture or inhumane treatment, and would have required the C.I.A. as well as the Pentagon to report to Congress about the methods they were using.

But in intense closed-door negotiations, Congressional officials said, four senior members from the House and Senate deleted the restrictions from the final bill after the White House expressed opposition.

I suppose this answers the question 'Why isn't Congress doing something about the torture issue?' — the answer is 'Because Bush & Co are working hard to prevent it.'

Is there no one who will filibuster Gonzales — as a fundamental moral issue — by reading all the Pentagon (and FBI) reports on torture into the record? And the photos. And the secret photos and movies, which could be placed on the public record under Congressional privilege . (The latter may be asking too much; although Senators are Constitutionally protected from prosecution from declassifying material when they speak on the floor of the Senate, the consequence would be to lose the clearance that allows them future access to such materials. It might still be worth it.)

Update: Marty Lederman's reaction to this NYT article makes a number of important points including:

  • The story confirms the hypothesis that he and I have both been pushing, that one of the engines driving the torture memos was a need to either legitimate, or at least fail to repudiate, ongoing CIA practices
  • Once you allow waterboarding by the CIA against foreign persons held secretly abroad, it's not going to be limited to 'top terrorist leaders' but rather, “It's somewhat unrealistic to hope that the policy will not as a practical matter have ramifications far beyond the class of persons for whom the policy was designed.”
  • This Administration has talked a great deal about how it is committed to treating detainees “humanely,” but all the while it has fought tooth and nail to be able to treat detainees inhumanely, i.e., in a manner that would be unconstitutional if done in the U.S.
  • We'd all be better off if these issues were debated openly rather than having these fundamental moral choices — with, one may add, significant anti-US propaganda implications — made in the dark.
Posted in National Security | 6 Comments