Blawg IT-Internet Patent, Trademark and Copyright Issues with Attorney Brett Trout

Iowa's First Law Blog - Since 2003

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Who Surfs This Much Porn?


Last week, the District of Columbia fired nine government employees for clicking the mouse over 2,000 times apiece on internet porn. Not content with merely firing their staff, the district is set to discipline an additional 32 employees for surfing porn on the taxpayer's dime. According to examiner.com, the worst offender, took an eyeful an average of every 2.5 minutes.

The district uncovered the activity using porn-tracking software in combinatioin with a little hard drive forensics. The district plans to give itself a helping hand in the future by purchasing another 20,000 WebSense licenses at a cost of over $140,000.

With systemic in-house porn surfing, it is best to work things out in advance. Have your information technology guru adjust his or her antenna to periodically look for any such activity. Then you may nip the bud before things get out of hand. It is important to apply the handbrake before a problem arises by incorporating unequivocal policies against such activity into your employee handbook

In the event you discover any such handiwork, immediately implement the procedures outlined in your employee handbook. You may actually be giving your employees a helping hand if your handbook educates employees before a problem arises, rather than forcing you to discipline your staff down the road.

Brett Trout

Labels: , , ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Friday, March 23, 2007

COPA R.I.P.

The District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania yesterday held the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) 47 U. S. C. §231 unconstitutional. COPA addresses preventing children's access to online pornography. COPA, passed into law in 1998, is not to be confused with the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501-6508 covering the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information from children.

In 1999, the Third Circuit struck COPA down as being too broad. In 2002, the Supreme Court held the Third Circuit's rationale insufficient and sent the case back down for further review. In 2003, the Third Circuit struck COPA down again, holding that it hindered free speech. In 2004 the Supreme Court upheld the Third Circuit's injunction, but sent the case down for determination of COPA's constitutionality.

The case then hit the headlines when Google refused to comply with a subpoena demanding information about what searches people had conducted. According to the Internet Cases blog, Judge Lowell Reed of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, ruled yesterday that COPA violates both the First (free speech) and Fifth (due process) Amendments to the United States Constitution and enjoined Attorney General Gonzales from enforcing or prosecuting matters premised upon COPA.

Brett Trout

Labels: , , , ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Iowa Supreme Court Rules on Internet Child Pornography Case

Lawyer, radio personality and law blogger George Davison has an interesting post on how the Iowa Supreme Court recently interpreted Iowa's laws relating to sexual exploitation of a minor.

The case involves a Marshall County man, Randall Muhlenbruch, whose wife turned him into authorities after discovering child pornography on his computer. Prosecutors found 348 images of child pornography on Muhlenbruch's computer and charged him with 10 counts of sexual exploitation of a minor. Iowa Code section 728.12(3) states, in part:
3. It shall be unlawful to knowingly purchase or possess a
negative, slide, book, magazine, computer, computer disk, or other
print or visual medium, or an electronic, magnetic, or optical
storage system, or any other type of storage system which depicts a
minor engaging in a prohibited sexual act or the simulation of a
prohibited sexual act.
Despite Murdoch having 348 images on his computer, the district court held, and the Iowa Supreme Court upheld, the dismissal of nine of the ten counts. The Supreme Court held that as long as the images were only on a single computer, there could only be one violation of Section 728.12(3). Check out George's post for more analysis of this ruling.

Brett Trout

Labels: , ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button