Welcome to the Citizen Media Law Brief, a weekly newsletter highlighting recent blog posts, media law news, legal threat entries, and other new content on the Citizen Media Law Project's website. You are receiving this email because you have expressed interest in the CMLP or registered on our site, www.citmedialaw.org. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter, you can unsubscribe by following the link at the bottom of this email or by going to http://www.citmedialaw.org/newsletter/subscriptions.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The latest from the Citizen Media Law Project blog...

Justin Silverman counsels Philadelphia city officials to take a deep breath before lashing out at social media.
Philly, Don't Blame Facebook for Missing the Snowball Fight Invite

Arthur Bright wonders whether "Please Rob Me" might be the next big thing in Section 230 jurisprudence.
Please Sue Me: Is "Please Rob Me" A New Test for Section 230?

Andrew Moshirnia dusts off his Morse code and wrings hands over the future of online anonymity.
The Rhythm Method: Sinking U-boats and Online Anonymity Through Typing Tendencies

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Recent threats added to the CMLP database...

Proman v. Google
Posted Feb. 25, 2010

Shiamili v. The Real Estate Group of New York
Posted Feb. 23, 2010

New York v. The (Chester) Chronicle
Posted Feb. 23, 2010

MagicJack, LP v. Boing Boing
Posted Feb. 23, 2010

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Other citizen media law news...

Microsoft Takes Down Whistleblower Site, Read the Secret Doc Here
Wired/Threat Level - Wed. 02/24/10

Practical Advice for Music Bloggers Worried About DMCA Takedown Censorship
EFF Deep Links - Wed. 02/24/10

Google to appeal Italian court ruling
Telegraph.co.uk - Wed. 02/24/10

Yelp Is Sued After Dispute Over a Review
The New York Times Bits Blog - Wed. 02/24/10

Senate committee debates libel tourism law
RCFP - Tues. 02/23/10

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The full(er) Brief...

"I understand you're upset, Philadelphia. Plans for a 'flash mob' snowball fight last week got out of control. Scores of teenagers stormed a local mall and nearby streets vandalizing stores and beating the hell out of each other. . . . Sure, you arrested 16 of the students responsible, but the damage is done [and someone] needs to pay. . . . [G]iven the ease of coordinating such events through the service, it is likely that word of the recent snowball fight spread through Facebook. I get it. I understand why you want to lash out at Mark Zuckerberg and his ilk. But do you really think Facebook should be responsible for what 150 of your teenage residents did?. . . Members of your City Council do[, and now] these Councilmen are considering a lawsuit not only against Facebook, but against Twitter and MySpace too. You're smarter than that, Philadelphia. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act exists specifically to protect websites like those you're targeting. That law provides immunity to websites against the content third-parties post. Courts have applied this immunity to bar not only defamation and speech-based claims—like the planning of illegal activity—but those of invasion of privacy and misappropriation. . . ."
Justin Silverman, Philly, Don't Blame Facebook for Missing the Snowball Fight Invite

"The premise for [the] website [PleaseRobMe.com (‘PRM')] is brilliant, even if potentially a litigation risk. [PRM] aggregates Twitter posts indicating that the Tweeter in question is not at home. The folks at PRM aren't doing anything sneaky or hacker-like—they're just doing a simple Twitter search of anyone using foursquare.com-a site that lets Tweeters post their locations on a street map. The only thing that PRM is adding to the mix is framing content that snarkily suggests that these Tweeters aren't home, and thus, perhaps, would be good targets for robbery. . . . The fascinating thing for an Internet lawyer, though, is this: what if someone takes PRM up on their ‘offer' and robs one of these people's houses?. . . Could PRM ever be liable, or would it be protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act . . . ? . . .  It's a great question. Under the usual reading of Section 230, which protects websites from liability for defamatory and other tortious content created by their users, PRM ought to be safe. The website plays no role in authoring the content. Heck, it doesn't even prompt others to post this information—the oblivious Tweeters do that themselves! The fact that PRM plays no role in urging creation of its content probably insulates it from one of the tantalizing Section 230 questions that surrounded Juicy Campus. . . ."
Arthur Bright, Please Sue Me: Is "Please Rob Me" A New Test for Section 230?

"Corporations are resurrecting a blast from the past in order to identify online users. And unlike earlier attempts to trace users, this method is behavioral. Get ready to go back to finger-pecking. . . . Until recently, the powers that be have overlooked a way to identify individual users by analyzing the rhythm of their keystrokes. This oversight is all the more surprising when you consider that governments used this very method of identification to great success in World War II. But, according to Ars Technica, corporations are beginning to use this technique to create a sort of hyper-accurate cookie to ensure the visitors on a website are unique users. As I type this blog, I engage in all sorts of typist idiosyncrasies: I strike the keys in a certain rhythm, pausing after specific letter combinations. . . . These typing patterns/habits can be used as a digital fingerprint, provided that there are enough samples to establish your keyboardist tendencies. . . . I think it is fairly obvious that the development of a robust method of typewriting analysis would greatly threaten online anonymity, precisely because there is not an obvious countermeasure. IP tracing can be thwarted in numerous ways (onion routing comes to mind). But you are unlikely to suddenly change the way you type. German radio operators did not want to have a special identifying style, neither do Internet users, but these patterns are just part of our behavior. I doubt that any large number of users could become so paranoid as to engage in manual 'Crazy Ivans' or rapid unpredictable changes in typing habits. . . . "
Andrew Moshirnia, The Rhythm Method: Sinking U-boats and Online Anonymity Through Typing Tendencies

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Join the conversation...

Can't get enough of the Citizen Media Law Project? Join us on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube!