Traditional, Sovereign, Nation-State Regulation

In order to understand what is wrong with present means of regulating the Internet, its first important to understand what those present means are. Being familiar with the traditional regulatory context is essential to understanding the context in which self-regulation of the Internet is proposed.

I.  National Governments

    A. United States
        1. Federal
            a. United States Constitution
            b. Executive Branch
                i. White House
                ii. Agencies and Agency Regulation
            c. Legislative Branch
                i. Statutes
                      A. CDA
                      B. ECPA
                      C. Continuing Legislative Efforts
            d. Judicial Branch
                i. Common Law
                ii. The Supreme Court
        2. States
            a. Arizona
            b. California
            c. Connecticut
            d. Georgia
            e. Florida
            f.  Minnesota
            g. New Mexico
            h. Nevada
            i.  New York
            j   Oklahoma
            k. South Carolina
            l. Utah
            m.  Virginia
            n.Washington

    B. Foreign Governments

Survey of Sovereign Nation State Internet Regulations

        1. Canada
        2. UK
        3. European Union
            a. EU Durective on Data Privacy
            b. EU Digital Signature Laws
        4. France
        5. Germany
        6. Australia
        7. Switzerland
        8. Malaysia
        9. Taiwan

II. International Regulations

    One response to the global complications of the Internet is to logically declare that a global problem requires a global solution.  There are two basic ways of thinking of a global solution among nation states: either have a series of treaties between them all, or get them to create a global body like the WTO to deal with the Internet.

    A. Supra-National Bodies
        1. Global Forum or Lawmaking Body
        2. Regional, Supranational Bodies, the EU Model
            a. OECD
 
    B. International Law
       1. Multi-lateral Treaty Paradigm

TRADITIONAL, SOVEREIGN, NATION STATE REGULATION

Stephan Wilske & Teresa Schiller, International Jurisdiction In Cyberspace: Which States May Regulate The Internet?, 50 Fed. Comm. L.J. 117, 125 (1997) (showing that States are not impressed by an alleged "independence from geographical constraints" resulting from the "electronic nature of the message transmission" or by a presumed failure of "territorially-based laws" to reach persons "whose geographical jurisdictions span legal jurisdictions," and that there is little hope that States will respect the "independence of cyberspace").

Victoria A. Ramundo, The Convergence of Telecommunications Technology and Providers: the Evolving State Role in Telecommunications Regulation, 6 Alb. L.J. Sci. & Tech. 35 (1996). 

I. National Governments

A. United States

1. Federal

Nicholas W. Allard & David A. Kass, Law and Order in Cyberspace: Washington Report, 19 Hastings Comm/Ent L.J. 563 (1997). 

a. United States Constitution 

Lawrence Lessig, Reading the Constitution in Cyberspace 45 Emory L.J. 869 (1996) ("...we might describe the problem of cyberspace for constitutional law like this: That it leaves us without constraint enough; that we are, vis-a-vis the laws of nature in this new space, gods; and that the problem with being gods is that we must choose. These choices will be choices of great moment; they will raise contested values; they will be of great constitutional significance; but they will be made by an institution that is, as it were, allergic to such choice. They will be made, by a Court, pretending that in making its decisions, it is following the choice of others--of the people, of "we the people," who in truth have not yet confronted the constitutional choices that must be made."); for more on Lessig reading the constitution, see Lawrence, Understanding Changed Readings: Fidelity And Theory, 47 Stan. L. Rev. 395 (1995). 

b. Executive Branch

i. White House>

White House, Framework for Global Electronic Commerce, http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/New/Commerce/ 

U.S. President calls for Ban on New Taxes on the Internet, http://www.isoc.org/internet/news/no-taxes.shtml 

Stuart Elliott, Clinton Adviser Urges Self-Regulation in Cyberspace, New York Times, Cybertimes, November 4, 1997. 

1997 FT Asia Intelligence Wire, US framework for local e-commerce (HL), 1997 COMPUTIMES, The New Straits Times Press (Malaysia) Berhad, June 30, 1997. 

Information Infrastructure Task Force (IITF) ("The White House formed the Information Infrastructure Task Force (IITF) to articulate and implement the Administration's vision for the National Information Infrastructure (NII). The task force consists of high-level representatives of the Federal agencies that play a major role in the development and application of information and telecommunications technologies."). http://iitf.doc.gov/

Options for Promoting Privacy on the National Information Infrastructure, Draft for Public Comment, Information Policy Committee National Information Infrastructure Task Force, April 1997 http://www.iitf.nist.gov/ipc/privacy.htm

ii.  Agencies and Agency Regulations

Douglas C. Michael, Federal Agency Use of Audited Self-Regulation As a Regulatory Technique, 47 Admin. L. Rev. 171 (1995).

Department of Commerce

National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)   (" The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, is the Executive Branch's principal voice on domestic and international telecommunications and information technology issues. NTIA works to spur innovation, encourage competition, help create jobs and provide consumers with more choices and better quality telecommunications products and services at lower prices.")

Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Improvement of Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses; Proposed Rule, Federal Register: February 20, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 34) Page 8825-8833, 15 CFR Chapter XXIII.

PRIVACY AND THE NII: Safeguarding Telecommunications Related Personal Information", www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/privwhitepaper.html.

Department of Health and Human Services

FDA

Marc J. Scheineson, Legal Overview of Likely FDA Regulation of Internet Promotion, 51 Food & Drug L.J. 697, 698 (1996).

Independent Agencies

FCC

Henry E. Crawford, Internet Calling: FCC Jurisdiction over Internet Telephony, 5 CommLaw Conspectus 43 (1997).

Dennis W. Moore Jr., Regulation of the Internet and Internet Telephony Through the Imposition of Access Charges, 76 Tex. L. Rev. 183 (1997).

FTC

Examples of how the FTC is regulating Cyberspace and the types of problems they are addressing: 

Federal Trade Commission, FTC Halts Internet Auction House Scam, April 13, 1998 
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/9804/hare.htm

Federal Trade Commission, FTC Halts Internet Business Opportunity Scam Agency Alleges Earnings Claims Are False, April 6, 1998, http://www.ftc.gov/opa/9804/inet.htm

Federal Trade Commission, FTC Sues Spammer: Alleges Business Opportunity Falsely Promoted in Unsolicited Commercial, March 4, 1998  http://www.ftc.gov/opa/9803/ibb.htm

Federal Trade Commission, Online Scams: Road Hazards on the Information Superhighway, found at <http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/online/pothole.htm>.

Federal Trade Commission, Cybershopping: Protecting Yourself When Buying Online, http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/online/cybersho.htm

Federal Trade Commission, Internet Marketers of Credit Repair Program to Pay $17,500 in Redress Under Settlement with FTC, March 20, 1996, http://www.ftc.gov/opa/9603/consum.htm 

Federal Trade Commission, FTC Tackles Fraud on the Information Superhighway, Charges Nine On-Line Scammers, (last modified Mar. 14, 1996) http://www.ftc.gov/opa/9603/netsc.htm

Ira Teinowitz,  FTC Will Survey Marketer Web Sites for Privacy: Agency Will Look at How Self-Regulation is Working, 2/16/98 Advert. Age 30, 1998 WL 6629059, Monday, February 16, 1998.

SEC

Dominic Bencivenga, SEC's Brave New World; Confronting Regulation Issues in the Internet Era,  New York Law Journal March 14, 1996. 

Christina K. McGlosson, Who Needs Wall Street? The Dilemma of Regulating Securities Trading in Cyberspace, 5 CommLaw Conspectus 305 (1997).

Federal Reserve

Catherine Lee Wilson, Banking on the Net: Extending Bank Regulation to Electronic Money and Beyond, 30 Creighton L. Rev. 671 (1997).

c.  Legislative Branch

Wendy R. Leibowitz, Politicians vs. Technology: Why Congress Loves To Hate the 'Net, The National Law Journal, B9 
July 14, 1997.

i. Statutes

A. Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) 18 U.S.C. s 2702
B. Communications Decency Act (CDA)

General Discussion

Akdeniz Y ŒThe Regulation of Pornography and Child Pornography on the Internet‚, 1997 (1) The Journal of Information, Law and Technology (JILT).http://elj.warwick.ac.uk/jilt/internet/97_1akdz/ paragraph 5.4.

Pro

Cathleen A. Cleaver, Cyberchaos v. Ordered Liberty: Protecting Children From Pornography On The Internet, 1 Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. 61 (1997) (argues (before ACLU v. Reno) that the CDA's indecency provisions satisfy the least restrictive means test, are neither vague nor overbroad, and are technologically feasible."). 

C. Pending Legislation

i. Sen. Coats' Net Censorship Bill (introduced 11/97) ftp://ftp.loc.gov/pub/thomas/c105/s1482.is.txt

ii. Sen. McCain's  bill to condition Internet funding for libraries and schools on use of blocking and filtering programs (introduced 2/98) http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:S.1619:

For a continuous update, check the ACLU page at http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/hmcl.html

d. Judicial Branch

i. Common Law

See U.S. Court Cases Related to the Internet: Updated Weekly at http://www.perkinscoie.com/cgi-bin/folioisa.dll/netcase.nfo? (compilation of cases that address specific issues of Internet-related law, or that reach decisions that, although not directly related to the Internet, have significant implications for Internet legal issues, together with a brief synopsis of each.).

Ian C. Ballon,  The Law of the Internet: Developing a Framework for Making New Law, 482 PLI/Pat 9 (1997) (describing and surveying emerging Internet common law).

Jack E. Brown, New Law for the Internet, 28 Ariz. St. L.J. 1243 (1996) (arguing that both calls for a completely new law for the Internet and hasty legislation should be forgone in favor of waiting for common law decisions.)

Lawrence Lessig, The Path of Cyberlaw, 104 Yale L.J. 1743 (1995) (proposing that the common law is the most appropriate way to regulate cyberspace as a mode of gradual change and adaption).

ii. The Supreme Court

Monroe E. Price & John F. Duffy, Technological Change and Doctrinal Persistence: Telecommunications 
Reform in Congress and the Court, 97 Colum. L. Rev. 976 (1997)

2. States

Pamela Mendels,  States Jump Into Internet Legislation, New York Times, Cybertimes, July 19, 1996

For a list of state regulations considered censorship by the ACLU see http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/censor/stbills.html

The Role of State Regulation and Concerns About Federalism in Cyberspace

Victoria A. Ramundo, The Convergence of Telecommunications Technology and Providers: the Evolving State Role in Telecommunications Regulation, 6 Alb. L.J. Sci. & Tech. 35 (1996).

H. Joseph Hameline and William Miles, The Dormant Commerce Clause Meets The Internet, 41-OCT B. B.J. 8 (1997) ("Whether state regulators pass new laws directed at the Internet or decide to enforce existing laws online, they will encounter resistance from the Internet community. As foreshadowed by the New York opinion, [American Library Assoc. v. Pataki, at the ACLU home page] the dormant Commerce Clause may become the weapon of choice to resist both intended and unintended advances by state regulators into the near-borderless Internet community."). 

Dan L. Burk, Federalism In Cyberspace, 28 Conn. L. Rev. 1095, 1134 (1996) (showing that the Due Process Clause and the dormant Commerce Clause function as a significant check to individual states' regulation of Internet activity). 

Arizona 

Digital Signature Law 1996 Arizona Session Laws 213. (sect. 41-121): 
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/legtext/42leg/2r/laws/0213.htm 

California 

Proposed Digital Signature Regulations for California 

California Government Code Section 16.5 (1995) 
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/95-96/bill/asm/ab_1551-1600/ab_1577_bill_951004_chaptered.html 

Commentary on California Digital Signature Act: 
http://www.gcwf.com/articles\cdsa.htm 

Digital Signature Regulations: 
http://www.softwareIndustry.org/coalition/ca-dig-sig-4-22.html 
http://www.softwareIndustry.org/issues/1digsig.html#sl 

Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code S 17538 (granting consumers a variety of protections and rights when buying goods over the Internet.) 

• Timothy Huber, California: Legislature Ponders Consumer Safety Net For 'Net Fraud Victims,  5-24-96 West's Legal News 4781, 1996 WL 282954.

  West's Legal News Staff, California: Governor Signs Bill to Regulate Sale of Goods on Internet, 9-30-96 West's Legal News 10295, 1996 WL 548469.

Cal.Educ.Code S 51870.5 (Requires schools to adopt an Internet access policy regarding student access to sites with material that is harmful to minors.) See Cal Penal Code S 313 for definition of harmful material. ( "Harmful matter" means matter, taken as a whole, which to the average person, applying contemporary statewide standards, appeals to the prurient interest, and is matter which, taken as a whole, depicts or describes in a patently offensive way sexual conduct and which, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.... When it appears from the nature of the matter or the circumstances of its dissemination, distribution or exhibition that it is designed for clearly defined deviant sexual groups, the appeal of the matter shall be judged with reference to its intended recipient group.") 

Cal.Educ.Code S 11603.1 (Requires a description of Internet access by pupils in order to get technology grants.) 

Cal.Gov.Code S 8330-31 ("Citizen Complaint Act of 1997,"  requiring all state agencies that have Internet websites to make complaint forms available 

Cal.Penal Code S 288.2 (making criminal the act of knowingly sending harmful matter (as defined in Section 313) to a minor through the Internet, "with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust or passions or sexual desires of that person or of a minor, and with the intent, or for the purpose of seducing a minor..."). 
 
Other CA statutes concerning the Internet generally deal with requiring or allowing certain government information, such as licensing or class action information, to be posted on the Internet. See Cal Bus. & Prof. Code S27 (requiring that licensing informaiton be posted); Cal Bus. & Prof. Code S2027 (posting of medical licenses); Cal.Educ.Code S 35258 (requring that information regarding School Accountability Report Cards be posted); Cal.Educ.Code S 60630 (requiring the Superintendent of School's report to be posted); Cal.Gov.Code S 11018.5 (requiring real estate licenses to be posted); Cal.Gov.Code S 11340.1-44 (requiring state agencies to post a complpete version of the California Code of Regulations); Cal.Gov.Code S 84601-609(requring that disclosure statements and reports required by the Political Reform Act to be filed placed on the Internet); Ann.Cal.Penal Code S 14201.6 (creating a publicly accessible computer internet directory of information relating to persons with outstadning violent felony warrants, missing children, and unsolved homicides); Cal.Un.Ins.Code S 17002 (creating an Internet clearinghouse for information on jobs for California unemplyment recipients); Cal.Vehicle Code S 1656.4 (requiring the posting of certain information to assist consumers who plan to purchase a vehicle or who have purchased a vehicle); Cal.Water Code S 13181 (requiring the posting of information on water quality). 

Pending Bills 

Electronic Filing Disclosure Act: 
1997 California Senate Bill 49 

Campaign and Lobbying Electronic Disclosure Act of 1997: 
1997 California Senate Bill 7 

Connecticut 

Conn. Gen .Stat .S 53a-183 (1995) ("Creates criminal liability for sending an online message "with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person.") 
 
Other CT statutes concerning the Internet generally deal with requiring or allowing certain information to be posted on the Internet. See Conn. Gen .Stat .S  3-37, 3-66a  (requiring posting of the report of the treasurer). 

Florida 

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/ 

William E. Wyrough, Jr. & Ron Klein, The Electronic Signature Act of 1996: Breaking Down Barriers to Widespread Electronic Commerce In Florida, 24 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 407 (1997). 

Fla. Stat. Ann. S 775.21 (requiring law enforcement to notify the public by Internet of sex predators in the neighborhoods). 

Fla. Stat. Ann. S 847.0135 (amends existing child porn law to hold owners or operators of computer online services explicitly liable for permitting subscribers to violate the law). 
 

Georgia 

Ga Code Ann. 7-1-61  (giving the Department of Banking and Finance the power to regulate online banking) 

Ga Code Ann. 10-1-393.5 (regulating telemarketing and commercial internet activities.). 

Ga Code Ann.16-9-93.1 (criminalized the use of pseudonyms on the Net, and prohibits unauthorized links to web site with trade names or  logos. Permanently enjoined in ACLU v. Miller, 977 F.Supp. 1228 (1997). 

• Pamela Mendels,  ACLU Fights Georgia Internet Fraud Law,  New York Times Cybertimes, July 19, 1996

  Andrews Publication, Judges in NY, GA Striek Down State Internet Regulations, 1997 Andrews Computer & Online Indus. Litig. Rep. 24417.

b. Minnesota 

Minn. Stat. S243.055. (enabling prison commissioner to restrict parolee's Internet access or computer use). 

New Mexico 

Senate Bill 127, enacted 3/98. Criminalizes the transmission of communications that depict "nudity, sexual intercourse or any other sexual conduct." The ACLU has vowed to file a legal challenge to the law before it  becomes effective on 7/1/98. 

Nevada 

Senate Bill 13, enacted 7/97. Creates an action for civil damages against persons who transmit unsolicited 
advertising over the Internet.New York 

New York 

N. Y. Penal Law S 235.21(3) (criminalizing the transmission of "indecent" materials to minors). Overturned, in ALA v. Pataki, 969 F.Supp. 160 (1997). 

Oklahoma 

Okla.Stat. tit 17 S 139.108 (Oklahoma Telecommunications Act of 1997, regulating Internet service providers from anticompetitive pricing and unfair commercialpractices). 

South Carolina 

Christy Tinnes, Digital Signatures Come to South Carolina: The Proposed Digital Signature Act of 1997, 
48 S.C. L. Rev. 427 (1997). 

Utah

C. Bradford Biddle, Misplaced Priorities: The Utah Digital Signature Act and Liability Allocation in a Public Key Infrastructure, 33 San Diego L. Rev. 1143 (1996).

Virginia 

Va.Code S 2.1-804 (prohibiting any government employee from using state-owned computer systems to send or access sexually explicit material). Overturned, in Urofsky v. Allen,1998 WL 86587 (E.D.Va.) 

•  Andrews Computer & Online Industry Litigation Reporter,  Proffesors Say VA Law is Unconstitutional Prior Restraint,  July 1, 1997 Andrews Computer & Online Indus. Litig. Rep. 24418.

Washington

Mike Rodin, Digital Signatures - Get Ready ŒCause Here They Come

434-200 WAC, Proposed Rules for Implementation of the Washington Electronic Authentication Act As filed with the Office of the Code Reviseron October 1, 1997.

B. Foreign Governments

Survey of Sovereign Nation State Internet Regulations

Amy Knoll, Any Which way but Loose: Nations Regulate the Internet, 4 Tul. J. Int‚l & Comp. L. 275, Summer 1996, 4 Tul. J. Int‚l & Comp. L. 275.

Human Rights Watch Report (1996) "Silencing The Net: The Threat to Freedom of Expression On-line" [1996] Monitors: A Journal of Human Rights and Technology 8 (2), at <http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~monitors/> 

John T. Delacourt, The International Impact of Internet Regulation, 38 Harv. Int'l L.J. 207 (1997) (surveying Internet regulation approaches in the US, Germany, and China, which he describes as "emerging, overly restrictive regimes."). 

1. Canada 

Information Highway Advisory Council, Preparing Canada for a Digital World, Final Report of The Information 
Highway Advisory Council at http://www.cbsc.org/ontario/bis/1393.html, 

Internet Content-Related Liability Study, http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/it03117e.html#TOC 

The Canadian Standards Association (CSA) -- A non-profit organization that represents Canada in the ISO on behalf of the Standards Council of Canada. 

Industry Canada:   Industry Canada is a  government intiative designed to support Canadian industry in entering the knowledge-based global economy.(self description)  It is an example of goverment supporting the market and the private sector.  Although they provide programs and services to both businesses and consumers, do they regulate anything? 
    One example of how Industry Canada regulates Canadian involvement on the Internet is the Privacy "Team," part of the Industry Canada Task Force on Electronic Commerce. The Task Force was created to both study the implications of electronic business practice and to create policy for the Information Highway. As part of the Task Force, the Privacy Team's  primary mandate on privacy is to develop an effective national policy to protect the personal information of Canadians.  While these efforts do not directly regulate either the Internet, or people on the Internet, until they have been passed as law or adopted as actual, enforceable practice, these types of government, policy/ research organizations are definitely  part of the regulatory landscape. 
    But government and research organizations like Industry Canada are not themselves regulatory mechanism; they are not a means by which the Internet is regulated.  They are more like mechanisms for created policy or laws, which then inform regulatory mechanisms; they are mechanisms for sources of law.  (For an explanation of the source of law/regulatory mechanism framework, see Central Theme.) 

("The department's mission is to foster a growing competitive, knowledge-based Canadian economy. The department works with Canadians throughout the economy and in all parts of the country to improve conditions for investment, improve Canada's innovation performance, increase Canada's share of global trade and build a fair, efficient and competitive marketplace. Program areas include developing industry and technology capability, fostering scientific research, setting telecommunications policy, promoting investment and trade, promoting tourism and small business development, and setting rules and services that support the effective operation of the marketplace.") 

2. UK 

Akdeniz Y ŒThe Regulation of Pornography and Child Pornography on the Internet‚, 1997 (1) The Journal of Information, Law and Technology (JILT). 

http://elj.warwick.ac.uk/jilt/internet/97_1akdz/ paragraph 5.2. 

House of Lords, Select Committee on Science and Technology (1996) "Information Society: Agenda for Action in the UK", Session 1995-96, 5th Report, London: HMSO, 23 July 1996, available at <http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199596/ldselect/inforsoc/inforsoc.htm>. 

  
European Union -- EU page:  http://europa.eu.int/index-en.htm  

Akdeniz Y ŒThe Regulation of Pornography and Child Pornography on the Internet‚, 1997 (1) The Journal of Information, Law and Technology (JILT). http://elj.warwick.ac.uk/jilt/internet/97_1akdz/ paragraph 5.3. 

European Commission (Communication) (1996) Communication to the European Parliament, The Council, The Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Illegal and Harmful Content on the Internet, Com (96) 487, Brussels, 16 October 1996. An on-line copy is available at <http://www2.echo.lu/legal/en/internet/content/content.html> 

European Commission (Green Paper) (1996) Green Paper on the Protection of Minors and Human Dignity in Audovisual and Information Services, Brussels, 16 October 1996. An on-line copy is available at <http://www2.echo.lu/legal/en/internet/content/content.html> 

European Commission Working Party Report (1996) 'Illegal and Harmful Content on the Internet' at <http://www2.echo.lu/legal/en/internet/content/wpen.html> 

http://www2.echo.lu/best_use/best_use.html 

Europe's Digital Signature Laws 

Andrea Servida, ed., Digital Signature, Inventory of international regulatory, standardisation and commercial activities http://www.ispo.cec.be/Ecommerce/digisign.htm 

European Directive on Data Privacy 

Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, http://www2.echo.lu/legal/en/dataprot/directiv/directiv.html 

Computergram International, US Firms Should be Worried About EU Data Protection Laws, 2/9/98 Computergram Int'l (Pg. Unavail. Online), 1998 WL 7308943 

Rosario Imperiali d'Afflitto, Symposium: Recent Development: European Union Directive on Personal Privacy Rights and Computerized Information, 41 Vill. L. Rev. 305 (1996).  http://vls.law.vill.edu/academic/jd/journals/law-review/Volume 41/ 

European Commission Legal Advisory Board, Data Protection (Privacy) page (Great overview of Privacy intitatives and legislation in EU member countries)  ,http://www2.echo.lu/legal/en/dataprot/dataprot.html    

The Journal of Information, Law and Technology (JILT), Special Feature on the European Data Protection Directive.  (articles on perspectives from different members countries, description of the Directive itself, etc.) http://elj.warwick.ac.uk/elj/jilt/dp/  

Joel R. Reidenberg, Symposium: Data Protection Law And The Europe Union's Directive: The Challenge For The United States Setting Standards for Fair Information Practice in the U.S. Private Sector, 80 Iowa L. Rev. 497 (1995). 
 

Other Countries Reactions to the EU Privacy Directive 

France

Code de l'Internet 

French initiative in OECD 

Décisions du Conseil Constitutionnel concernant la loi relative à l'entreprise nationale France Télécom et la loi de réglementation des télécommunications 

Mission interministerielle sur l'Internet présidée par Madame Isabelle Falque-Pierrotin 
Synthèse | Rapport intégral (sauf annexes) 

Pour une intégration sereine et un développement harmonieux d'Internet dans la société française 

Rapport de l'AUI 

Diffusion illicite sur internet Alain Bensoussan 

Germany

Informations- und Kommunikationsdienste-Gesetz - Teledienstegesetz Referentenentwurf - civil service draft bill 

Radikal case Internet Content Task Force (ICTF) Press Release- Michael Schneider, eco e.V. 

 Background behind Internet Media Council and Internet Content Task Force, http://www.anwalt.de/ictf/e_intro1.htm 

Australia

On-Line Services - Report to the Minister for Communications and the Arts 

Electronic Frontier Australia ('EFA') (1997) "Media Release: Internet Labelling System Condemned", 1997, 9 February, at <http://www.efa.org.au/Publish/PR970209.html> 

Switzerland

Internet und Recht Herbert Burkert 

INTERNET - A new medium: new legal issues Recommendations for Access Providers FR DE Report (two annexes exist only in DE) FR DE Report of a Swiss Federal Government Working Party on legal issues and the Internet 

Malaysia

1997 New Straits Times Press (Malaysia) Berhad, Bill to prevent misuse of multimedia services,  New Straits Times, May 29, 1997. 

Taiwan

George C.C. Chen,  Electronic Commerce On The Internet: Legal Developments In Taiwan, 16 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 77 (1997). 

II. International Regulations

Robyn Forman Pollack, Creating the Standards of a Global Community: Regulating Pornography on the Internet--An International Concern, 10 Temp. Int'l & Comp. L.J. 467 1(1996)

Sean Selin,  Governing Cyberspace: The Need for an International Solution, 32 Gonz. L. Rev. 365 (1996) ("A possible solution to some of the problems resulting from Internet use would be the creation of an international convention governing this new medium of communication.  This paper discusses some of the problems inherent to the Internet, analyzes current international legal norms that could be applied, and concludes with a call for an international agreement to deal with the legal problems of the Internet."). 
 

A. Supra-National Bodies

1. Global Forum or Lawmaking Body

Henry H. Perritt, Jr., Jurisdiction In Cyberspace, 41 Vill. L. Rev. 1, 100-01(1996) (discussing the idea of a "United States District Court for the District of Cyberspace," which would have jurisdiction for all claims arising in cyberspace 
over anyone entering cyberspace.).

Barbara Cohen, A Proposed Regime for Copyright Protection on the Internet,  22 Brook. J. Int'l L. 401 (1996) (advocating the creation of International Copyright Collection Agencies to handle global licensing issues). 

2. Regional, Supranational Bodies, the EU Model 

Patrick G. Crago, Fundamental Rights on the Infobahn: Regulating the Delivery of Internet Related Services Within the European Union, 20 Hastings Int‚l & Comp. L. Rev. 467, 471 (1997) (proposing that supranational solutions, using the EU as a model, are the most appropriate responses to the problems surrounding regulation of the Internet). 

OECD

The OECD is an "intergovernmental organisation whose purpose is to provide its 29 Member countries with a forum in which governments can compare their experiences, discuss the problems they share and seek solutions which can then be applied within their own national contexts." 

http://www.oecd.org/dsti/sti/it/index.htm 

Proposition française présentée à l'OCDE pour une Charte de coopération internationale sur INTERNET 23 octobre 1996 

B. International Law

Carol Coulter, International 'cyberlaw' needed, says Rabbitte, The Irish Times, City Edition, September 4, 1996. 

1. Multi-lateral Treaty Paradigm

Jonathan I. Edelstein, Anonymity And International Law Enforcement In Cyberspace, 7 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 231, 242 (1996) (concluding that "an international convention concerning law enforcementon the Internet is necessary, and that national governments can strengthen their legal positions in the interim by establishing mutual legal assistance treaties ("MLATs")with nations which pose problems to law enforcement in cyberspace.‰).