Plesser Fellowship
Here's an announcement from CDT. This is a wonderful opportunity that has been established in honor of Ron Plesser, someone who befriended many many people over the years and was a joy to be with:
RON PLESSER PUBLIC INTEREST FELLOWSHIP IN PRIVACY LAW AND INTERNET POLICY
The law firm of DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary has established a public interest fellowship at the Center for Democracy and Technology (“CDT”) in honor of Ron Plesser, a senior partner at the firm who died suddenly last fall. Ron was a leader in the fields of e-commerce, freedom of information, and privacy law who began his career as a public interest lawyer. Over the course of his legal career, Ron helped frame the still-evolving legal standards for information policy in the digital era. In order to encourage new lawyers to follow in his path, the first fellowship will be awarded in 2006 to a recent law school graduate to practice in the areas of privacy law and Internet policy at CDT for two years under the direction of the organization’s senior attorneys.
CDT works to promote democratic values and constitutional liberties in the digital age. With expertise in law, technology, and policy, CDT engages in a variety of strategies to enhance free expression and privacy, including advocacy, public education and research.. CDT works on legislation, participates, participates in agency rulemakings, engages in litigation, and fosters consensus building among public interest and private sector stakeholders. www.cdt.org
Ron Plesser worked closely with CDT from its founding a decade ago. The fellowship will honor his memory by identifying and nurturing the careers of young lawyers interested in learning the consensus building approach to policymaking that Ron’s career exemplified. The Plesser fellow will work on projects offering an opportunity to exercise leadership, and will broadly participate in the organization’s legal and public policy activities, in order to provide the fellow with a strong foundation upon which to pursue a public interest legal career in the privacy and Internet policy field. www.ronplesserfellowship.org
How to Apply: Third year law students and recent law graduates with exemplary academic records, an interest in privacy, information policy, civil liberties and technology policy, and a demonstrated commitment to public interest law are encouraged to submit applications to dani at cdt.org by January 31, 2005. Individuals completing other fellowships are welcome to apply. Applicants should include a cover letter explaining their interest in the field of privacy and Internet policy and two writing samples. Two letters of recommendation will be required of leading candidates, but may optionally be submitted with the application. CDT is an equal opportunity employer, and women and minorities are particularly encouraged to apply.
Important Deadlines:
January 31, 2005- All applications must be submitted
February – March- Semifinalists selected and interviewed
Late March- Plesser Fellowship Committee reviews one or more finalists, selects Fellow and extends offer
June- September 2006- Fellow commences work at CDT, on a date to be agreed between CDT and the Fellow
Fellowship Candidate Evaluation Criteria:
• The candidate’s demonstrated or stated commitment to public interest generally and specifically to the area of privacy and civil liberties;
• The candidate’s academic record, professional/ volunteer activities, subject matter expertise indicating that s/he possesses the relevant skills, initiative to make the Fellowship a success;
• The candidate’s legal writing and research skills;
• The candidates commitment and ability to fulfill the two-year term required by the program; careers of public interest careers;
Terms of Fellowship:
The Plesser Fellowship requires a two-year commitment from the Fellow. The fellowship will pay a salary of $50,000 plus health care and other benefits.
CALEA creep
Sometimes the Commission can be a little flip, a little offhand. This happened in the CALEA order [pdf] that was released in late September. After saying that educational networks like those operated by universities and research libraries (including Internet2) probably wouldn't be subject to CALEA, the Commission stated:
To the extent, however, that these private networks are interconnected with a public network, either the PSTN or the Internet, providers of the facilities that support the connection of the private network to a public network are subject to CALEA [because they are substantial replacements for local telephone service].
There's a lot in the text of this footnote snippet. (It's note 100, for those of you who like footnotes.)
First of all, defining the PSTN and the internet as [roughly equivalent] ”public networks” is a big rhetorical step. It seems as if the internet is being reframed as another flavor of telephone network. Rhetoric matters. That's why they called it the “broadcast flag” — who could possibly be against a patriotic flag waving in a friendly way to protect beloved broadcast programs? As it turned out, of course, the broadcast flag was a massive cost-shifting and innovation-squelching effort of which the flag (the marking scheme) was the smallest and most inoffensive part. Names set the initial terms of debate, and there is reason to worry about setting up the traditional telephone network and the internet as peers — both “public networks” that need to be protected and regulated like public libraries and public highways.
Beyond the naming scheme, it's quite a step to say that any private network (say, any enterprise VPN) that is capable of connecting to the internet must be CALEA-compliant — if that's what the footnote is saying. If it's not saying that, what is it saying? What entities “support the connection of [a] private network to a public network”? Arguably all actors involved in making it possible for one network to connect to another — all device manufacturers, all access providers, anyone who leases a line that connects to an ISP, all technicians.
An enormous consortium of associations calling itself the Higher Education Coalition recently filed comments in the CALEA proceeding. The Higher Education Coalition points out that private networks are exempted from CALEA, and that CALEA's coverage is specifically limited to common carriers.
But beyond the legal-beagle analysis, the Coalition's points on burden are very strong: since 2004, only one higher education institution has received a wiretap request, and it was complied with very swiftly — within 24 hours. So what's the problem? Why would law enforcement need this subset of private networks to change all of their systems in advance so as to make them easily tappable? And here's what the vendors say (remember the new form of regulatory capture): “if the Commission or DOJ adopted an expansive reading of the [CALEA] Order, higher education and research institutions would have to replace much–if not all–of their network equipment.” Even doing this with software would be “costly,” according to these vendors.
This could cost billions of dollars — just for the universities.
Now, the most important point of all is that the FCC hasn't yet said what anyone subject to its expansive reading of CALEA will have to do. All it has done is announce who may be covered by CALEA, and that these entities (any business with a private network that is capable of connecting to the internet? any free VoIP application that can interconnect?) will have just 18 months to comply. The clock is already running on an entirely uncertain, and hugely expensive, mandate.