Copyrightings

More Blogging Over at Techdirt

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin) — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 13:30:00 +0000

Although I continue to blog at Blurring Borders, I've also been doing some guest posts at Techdirt. If you don't already read Techdirt, I'd recommend subscribing.

Some recent posts:

Blurring Borders

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin) — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:02:00 +0000

As you can tell, Copyrightings hasn't been receiving much attention recently. Instead, I've migrated to Blurring Borders which allows me to discuss a broader range of topics (though I still touch on Internet law). Head on over to check it out!

Berkman@10 Media

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin) — Sat, 17 May 2008 05:35:00 +0000

As you can imagine, much digital content was created during the Berkman@10 Conference. Some you might want to check out:

Someone piped a bunch of content together into an RSS feed, here.
Tweets from the event, which were great for archival purposes, are aggregated here.
Flickr photos are tagged here.
Blog posts tagged are here.

I'm sure there is plenty I'm missing, but these should be interesting.

Berkman@10 Conference: Day 1

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin) — Thu, 15 May 2008 20:50:00 +0000

Yesterday I attended the 10th anniversary conference of Harvard University's Berkman Center for the Internet and Society. The conference is a two day event bringing together the thought leaders in Internet studies and action. The agenda includes workshops, lectures and panels examining "The Future of the Internet" including the political, organizational, commercial and educational aspects.

Here are some rough observations, thoughts and links:

Session 1 was a speech by Jonathan Zittrain about his new book, The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It (previously covered here). JZ, as he is known, is hilarious and insightful. He sees the rise of 'sterile' devices where users cannot invent new uses, such as the iPhone or TiVo, as dangerous to that which makes the Internet so great. 'Generative' devices, like your PC or the Internet, allow much more creativity and value-addition. JZ points out that there are ways of non-binding social norm enforcement to combat the threats to privacy and security; these are the solutions he hopes to see.

Session 2 was a session led by John Palfrey discussing the implications for politics. Palfrey wonderfully tied together multiple topics in a succinct matter. He highlighted the work of Ethan Zuckerman, Beth Kolko and John Kelly.

I've been a fan of Ethan's work for a long time. In addition to the terrific blog he writes, Ethan co-founded Global Voices which aggregates foreign language blogs to give the world a better view of what is happening around the world. In his words, "blogs are a tool for international understanding." He lamented the lack of readers of foreign voices; that is, people still only pay attention to mainstream media, not the bountiful media coming from the people in the developing world.
Beth Kolko spends a lot of her time in the developing world studying how the people there use ICTs. She does not see them as a panacea, but does think that if we study the developing world's use of technology, we will glimpse the future of our uses. I will have more to say about her work tomorrow when I attend a session led by her.
John Kelly studies how online communities interact. He spoke about mapping the Iranian blogosphere which is shown below. The different colors represent different areas of coverage while the size is indicative of incoming links. I was reminded of Ethan's recent musings on homophily, which is the tendency for people to surround themselves with similar folks. If you believe, like I do, that humans can understand each other, given the opportunity, homophily can be a worrying trend. I was drawn to the outlying dots, those bloggers who, for some reason, are active across areas of coverage.

Session 3 was a conversation between Yochai Benkler and Jimbo Wales about Cooperation. Wales admitted that Wikipedia was the stupidest idea at the time; most people thought it was senseless to think we could cooperate, online of all places, to create a free Wikipedia rivaling the authoritative source of Britannica. However, something worked and the two spent time discussing what that was - neutrality, openness, transparency, share motivation, human agency, among others. The answer to this motivational question is complicated and unclear, but we know it works, so Yochai wants to study it.

The final session was a panel with Berkman Center co-founder Charlie Nesson, Internet visionary Esther Dyson, former FCC chairman Reed Hundt and head counsel of Viacom Michael Frisklas.

Nesson began by equating Universities with Viacom because they are both large holders and creators of content. However, Universities are unable, for the most part, to disseminate their content due to the high transaction costs from copyright. When he asked Frisklas if, were they starting with a blank legal slate with today's technological advancements, would he support the current copyright architecture, the Viacom attorney accepted the many problems with the current regime, but acknowledged the pain of switching (mostly to his business...).

An interesting debate sprung up around Hundt's comment that although the price of hardware has fallen due to Moore's law, software has remained constant in cost for 20 years. The relative affordability of hardware is what makes the Internet (and cloud computing) the viable platform for this field. Hundt claimed that his high software cost kept the developing world offline (and that Linux was a response to this). Dyson disagreed, saying that in her experience poor people can steal software easily; it is the still costly computers which keep them offline.
Importantly, Dyson pointed out the difference between information access and the process of teaching. Open access is not a panacea (but it is a good start, in my opinion).
Finally, a very good question from the audience asked us to listen to the third world as opposed to pontificate on it from our point of view.

The day was full of thought-provocation and today, which I will write up shortly, has been much of the same. Be sure to check out the Berkman Center and its amazing work.

Zittrain Discusses His New Book "The Future of the Internet"

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin) — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 23:18:00 +0000

Jonathan Zittrain is the author of a new book entitled "The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It." In it he discusses the implications of complete openness and why a "generative" Internet must be actively protected from sterile, closed platforms like the iPhone. In this interview, which is remarkably well done by a mainstream reporter, Zittrain explains the book.

I hope to read the work this summer; it looks fascinating.

On a related note, Zittrain co-founded the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School. I'll be attending their 10 year anniversary conference next month and the agenda is great, so I recommend you check it out.

Senate Hearing on Net Neutrality

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin) — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:25:00 +0000

Today the Senate held a hearing on network neutrality attended by, among others, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin and Lawrence Lessig. In general Democrats are recognizing that a set of sound principles is needed to assure a consistent end-to-end network. The Republican, on the other hand, think net neutrality would stifle innovation and investment through burdensome regulation. Ars Technica has good coverage:

Recognizing the unintentional problems that regulation can create, Kerry called for "principles, not nitpicky regulatory structure."
Dorgan, one of the co-sponsors of a network neutrality bill still pending in the Senate, likewise was incredulous that anyone could consider this some kind of intrusive government interference. "Who on earth is standing up for discrimination?" he thundered.

Well, Ted Stevens (R-AK) is, for one. Though he said little at the hearing, the octogenarian did offer his brief take on network neutrality: "extensive regulation of the Internet, that's what net neutrality means to me." Pithy.

73.2% of Linux Edits are Corporate in Origin

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin) — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 05:37:00 +0000

Via Nicholas Carr, a recent survey of the changes to Linux over the past three years shows that 73.2% of the changes to the kernel are from corporations (IBM, Red Hat, Novell, etc.). Carr sees this as the triumph of the market enclosing the free labor of peer production.

The shift in Linux kernel development from unpaid to paid labor, from volunteers to employees, suggests that the Net doesn't necessarily weaken the hand of central management or repeal old truths about business organization.

I think this is a notable occurrence, but not entirely unforeseeable. These corporations have a high incentive to improve Linux due to their reliance on it. However, it is still interesting that these disparate organizations are working together through often informal chains to create something of such value.

Although it dealt with websites, this could also serve to influence the outcome of the Carr-Benkler Wager.

I'll be sure to update this post as others weigh in with more enlightened views.

Quote of the Day

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin) — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 04:13:00 +0000

In reading for my economic development course, I came across the following quote from Joseph Stiglitz, former Chief Economist of the World Bank and Chairman of Clinton's Council of Economic Advisors:

The Uruguay Round TRIPs Agreement, which is Trade-Related Intellectual Property, has nothing to do with trade. They just put "trade-related" because they had to put that in there to have it in a trade agreement. That was the real ingenuity.

There was already an intellectual property organization, called WIPO, the World Intellectual Property Organization. But they wanted the trade ministers to do it because the trade ministers didn't know anything about intellectual property, and that meant they were much more vulnerable to the influences of the special interests.

They put in provisions that were explicitly designed to reduce access to generic medicines. Just to highlight why that's important, a generic AIDS medicine, for instance, costs under $300 for a year's treatment. The brand name is $10,000. If your income is $500 a year or $300 a year, or even $5,000 a year, you can't afford $10,000 a year for the brand name. So when they were signing that agreement in Marrakesh, they were signing the death warrants for thousands of people in sub-Saharan Africa. That was the consequence.

This is a pretty damning indictment of international intellectual property agreements.

Nelson Pavlosky Speaks at Georgetown

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin) — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:19:00 +0000

As a student at Swarthmore, Nelson Pavlosky sued Diebold (the voting machine manufacturer) for abusing copyright. His case set an important precedent for free speech in the digital age. He would go on to form the international Students for Free Culture organization, of which Georgetown's chapter is the newest.

On Wednesday, April 16th at 7:15 in Healy 103 Nelson will be speaking at Georgetown University. His talk will cover free speech, the DMCA, open source, fair use and the Free Culture movement. See more about him here. Join the Facebook event here.

Again, all are invited and should contact me at georgetownfreeculture (at) gmail.com with any questions.

&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;small&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;a style="color: #0000ff; text-align: left" xhref="http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;t=h&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;msa=0&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;msid=113790525593209553689.00044a032328160d3a9f1&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;ll=38.907173,-77.073555&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;spn=0.00516,0.008261&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;source=embed" mce_href="http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;t=h&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;msa=0&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;msid=113790525593209553689.00044a032328160d3a9f1&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;ll=38.907173,-77.073555&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;spn=0.00516,0.008261&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;source=embed" &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;View Larger Map&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/a&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/small&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;

Georgetown Students for Free Culture

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin) — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 03:05:00 +0000

I am currently a freshman at Georgetown University in Washington, DC and have started the campus chapter of Students for Free Culture.

This Wednesday, April 9th, we are showing the documentary film "Freedom of Expression" in Healy Hall 103 on campus. The film will start at 7:30pm.

Description

In 1998, university professor Kembrew McLeod (Associate Professor of Communication Studies at the University of Iowa) trademarked the phrase “freedom of expression” — a startling comment on the way that intellectual property law restricts creativity and the expression of ideas. This provocative and amusing documentary explores the battles being waged in courts, classrooms, museums, film studios, and the Internet over control of our cultural commons. Based on McLeod's award-winning book of the same title, Freedom of Expression® charts the many successful attempts to push back the assault on free expression by overzealous copyright holders. Freedom of Expression® is an essential tool for educators, activists, filmmakers, students, artists, librarians, and more.

All are welcome, so any DC-area readers who would like to come are more than welcome. The embedded map should help you find the room, but if you have any questions, email me at kevin (at) copyrightings.com

View Larger Map

The Real Danger of Wiretapping

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin) — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:42:00 +0000

Julian Sanchez has an Op-Ed at the LA Times which does a wonderful job reframing the debate over government wiretapping. The majority of the time the debate over government surveillance is considered a trade-off between privacy and security. Julian, however, points to the fact that the weight of history suggests the real value to be lost is political freedom and democracy.

Citing examples throughout the 20th Century, Julian notes that "Without meaningful oversight, presidents and intelligence agencies can -- and repeatedly have -- abused their surveillance authority to spy on political enemies and dissenters."

Have a read.

Chinese Censorship during Tibetan Protests

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin) — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:00:00 +0000

My interest in copyright reform stems from a larger desire to see the possibilities of technology recognized. One such possibility is that of free expression through the internet and other technologies. However, as my recent post on Chinese censorship points out, the decentralization of the internet doesn't mean that control isn't possible.

In recent days the Tibetan minority in China has been the subject of a massive censorship effort by the Chinese authorities. For one, YouTube is blocked. Now, Global Voices co-founder Rebecca MacKinnon is reporting via numerous sources of the common sentiment throughout China that the Tibetans are "ungrateful minorities" who are without legitimate causes for complaints.

The filtered text messages from Tibet, shut down chat rooms and blocked images are all misuses of technologies if you care about access to information, political plurality and freedom of speech. Davesgonechina is calling for those who care about these concepts to engage Chinese citizens via the internet. Perhaps it is the only way we can change China - from within.

Is the DMCA Still Relevant?

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin) — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 21:59:00 +0000

Over at Info/Law Tim Armstrong wonders whether or not the DMCA is still relevant. His key historical analogy is to 1992 Audio Home Recording Act whose provisions drove the DAT format into obscurity. Today, though the AHRA is still a valid law, it holds little power because DAT is dead.

Armstrong thinks that the DMCA may be heading the way of the AHRA because (1) DMCA-related cases are decreasing in frequency, (2) DRM has been (rightly) vilified and (3) DRM is being dropped by a number of industries.

I think he may be right noting that Section 1201 of the DMCA has diminished importance. After all, §1201 what written to stop users from circumventing DRM and as DRM goes to the grave, it will be of little importance.

However, I think he misses two important points: the historical significance of §1201 and the continuing significance of the rest of the DMCA.

For the past decade, content has been sold which is locked into proprietary formats by DRM. Future users will be breaking the law if they have to unlock the content to use in future machines. Just look at HD-DVD and Blu-Ray - consumers stuck with HD-DVDs and players now have soon-to-be useless pieces of plastic because they chose the losing side in the proprietary format war. If, like the AHRA, the DMCA stays on the books, freeing DRM'd material will still be illegal.

Secondly, the DMCA is much more than just §1201. For example, Section 512 forces internet service providers to remove any offending material if they are notified by copyright owners. In the past, this notice and takedown provision has been used to silence critics as reported here and fought by the EFF. Even if portions of the DMCA lapse into obscurity, it remains a potent law with chilling effects.

Clay Shirky on Love and Longevity

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin) — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 20:25:00 +0000

Amazing (short) video by Clay Shirky who has a new book.

The Great Firewall of China

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin) — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 05:23:00 +0000

The Atlantic has a great story clearing up a lot of the misconceptions about the Chinese government's internet censoring efforts. The net has been heralded as a tool for freedom of speech and expression, yet censoring and filtering has been rampant in countries like China, Saudi Arabia and Singapore. The OpenNet Initiative covers many of these efforts.

Anyways, The Atlantic's story says that the Chinese effort is much more complicated and less effective than presumed. In effect, what the authorities have done is introduce a surmountable barrier which serves to focus the Chinese in on themselves:

All the technology employed by the Golden Shield, all the marvelous mirrors that help build the Great Firewall—these and other modern achievements matter mainly for an old-fashioned and pre-technological reason. By making the search for external information a nuisance, they drive Chinese people back to an environment in which familiar tools of social control come into play.

Comcast's Revolting Tactics

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin) — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 21:57:00 +0000

Yesterday a really important meeting was held at Harvard to discuss net neutrality. Among the speakers were FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, US Rep. Markey, Yochai Benkler and David Cohen, EVP of Comcast.

Comcast's throttling of BitTorrent traffic was the impetus for this meeting and they were obviously under fire from a lot of powerful critics. At this open meeting, Comcast did something so despicable that I would cancel any money I pay them, did I actually pay them for anything.

After rumors swirled throughout the meeting that Comcast had paid disinterested people as seat-fillers, they finally came out an confirmed that, in fact, they did. Truly interested individuals were blocked from entering as these paid seat-warmers slept through the important meeting. See here and here.

Head over here to contact Comcast and let them know how ridiculous their tactics are.

Draft Lessig

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin) — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 15:54:00 +0000

Lawrence Lessig is my intellectual hero. His books opened my eyes to this topic of copyright reform and have shaped my interests for the past 4 years. Last year, he announced that he would be shifting his focus of study away from copyright to political corruption. This was a great loss for the community, but terribly important for the country.

Now, following the death of Lessig's Congressman Tom Lantos, a movement has started to "Draft Lessig" into the special election being held April 8th. The Facebook group already has 1,000 members.

In an age when Congress is making wrongheaded decisions involving Constitutional matters, it is of the utmost importance to have someone of Lessig's intellect, honesty and knowledge in Congress. Let's hope he runs.

Meanwhile Across the Pond

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin) — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 02:25:00 +0000

The Guardian reports that in the UK,

"The government has devised an electronic database to track every teenager from the age of 14, recording their personal details, every exam result and exclusions. The database will be accessible to employers, teachers and training agencies, and will include an online CV. The record will be permanent."

Obviously this is contingent to their ability to gather that information. Luckily most of it is already given to the government and that which isn't, I'm sure their US colleagues would love to give it to them.

So much for youthful indiscretion remaining in youth...

The Senate Surrenders Its Duty to America

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin) — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 18:15:00 +0000

I think now, after the Senate has voted to immunize the telecom companies from judiciary oversight, is the time to recall the words of Yale Law Professor Jack Balkin:

"Do not be mistaken: We are not hurtling toward the Gulag or anything that we have seen before. It will be nothing so dramatic as that. Rather, we are slowly inching, through each act of fear mongering and fecklessness, pandering and political compromise, toward a world in which Americans have increasingly little say over how they are actually governed, and increasingly little control over how the government collects information on them to regulate and control them. Slowly, secretly and imperceptibly, the mechanisms of government surveillance are being freed from methods of political control and accountability; and the liberties of ordinary citizens are being surgically removed under a potent anesthesia concocted from propaganda, fear, ignorance and apathy."

I Have a Dream

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin) — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 21:00:00 +0000

I am a constitutionalist. Specifically, I think the American Constitution is an awe-inspiring document of magisterial purpose and effect. More generally, I think thoughtful political and philosophical understanding can lead to foundations for governance which will lead to more just and peaceful societies.

In the American Constitution, as many know, resides the cornerstone of intellectual property law. Article I, Section 8 includes the uniquely specific clause allowing Congress to "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and i nventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

Though statutory updates have diluted the purpose, it remains clear: copyrights and patents exist to provide incentives for creators.

Today, while watching Lewis Hyde's presentation on the cultural commons, I learned that Martin Luther King, Jr.'s creative works are under copyright. While this isn't surprising in itself, apparently the King family aggressively protects the copyrights to such works as the Reverend's famed "I Have a Dream" speech. In fact, it has gone so far in the past as to sue USA Today for reproducing the speech.

This isn't because they don't want people to hear the content or the important message, it is because they want to monetize it. This older Washington Post article covers the past uses of MLK, Jr.'s work for enrichment of the family. In 1997, they raised the ire of a number of people when they struck a multi-million dollar deal with Time Warner to sell audio tapes and books of his work.

Insofar as the family is acting within the law, I have no problem. However, the law which allows them to do so is at serious odds with the Constitution and common sense. For one, they claim that deals such as the Time Warner one "would... bring King's message to a wider audience." This is dishonest and wrong. MLK needs no distribution that the Internet cannot provide. Making his work commercial does nothing more than raise the cost of accessing his historic work and thus disenfranchising those who want to learn about the struggle to which he devoted his life.

Secondly, this serves to show how overtly at-odds with the Constitution our current copyright regime is. Martin Luther King, Jr. did not need a monetary incentive to write his speeches. Like all humans, he was diversely motivated. The inequity of America and his desire to change it, his dream, as it were, was motivation enough. The fact that his heirs, who did not create the work, are able to limit access is infuriating.

The "I Have a Dream" speech and other creative, political expressions of MLK, Jr. are indisputably the "useful arts" that the Framers wanted to encourage. Yet it is the tragedy of our day that those same Framers who wanted limited intellectual monopoly rights have seen their dream turn into today's copyright nightmare.

Ben Franklin on Intellectual Property

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin) — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 20:40:00 +0000

In his Autobiography, Ben Franklin writes,

"As we enjoy great Advantages from the Invention of Others, we should be glad of an Opportunity to serve others by any Invention of ours, and this we should do freely and generously."

It doesn't get more clear than that.

Privacy vs. Security

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin) — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 20:24:00 +0000

Are privacy and security at odds as this cartoon depicts? Security guru Bruce Schneier doesn't think so.

EFF Profile

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin) — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 17:44:00 +0000

I can think of no organization for which I have more respect than the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Since its inception 18 years ago, the EFF has protected the rights of Americans in the digital age. Their expertise and foresight allows them to take cases that will have radical implications in the future. I highly recommend becoming a member to support their efforts.

In recent months, the EFF has risen to national prominence as they sue ATT for collaborating in the illegal warrantless wiretapping of American citizens. This is a topic I've discussed before, but now California Lawyer has a profile of both the case and the EFF as an organization. It is well worth a read.

Keith Olbermann on Telecom Immunity

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin) — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 01:56:00 +0000

Privacy in the Digital Age

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin) — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 04:11:00 +0000

Jim Dempsey of the Center for Democracy and Technology gave a lecture at Google about the ramifications for privacy in an increasingly digital world. What I found most interesting was the different levels of protection for different content.

For example, a variety of Supreme Court cases have established that "communication on the wire" is protected by the 4th Amendment but that "data at rest" has a much lower level of protection. That is, an email in transit is Constitutionally protected, but when archived on a third-party service, it is not. Statutory protections, like those for medical, financial or education records may, however, exist.

Another interesting dichotomy is that between "content" and "signaling or routing data." The first is more heavily protected than the second. So, the To: field and IP address can be harvested while the message in an email may require a warrant.

There are a lot more good points and the speech is embedded below: