{"id":50309,"date":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","date_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/content.findlaw-admin.com\/ability-legal\/supreme\/legal-commentary\/anita-ramasastry-archive-1.html"},"modified":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","modified_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","slug":"anita-ramasastry-archive-1","status":"publish","type":"supreme","link":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-commentary\/anita-ramasastry-archive-1.html","title":{"rendered":"Anita Ramasastry Archive"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n

Legal Commentary: Anita Ramasasty Archive<\/h1>\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n
<\/td>\n

Archive<\/a><\/h4><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\u00a0Columns by Anita Ramasastry – Page 1<\/span><\/td>\n\n\u00a0Most Recent<\/a> | Page 1<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0<\/td>\n\n<\/tr>\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\n\n<\/tr>\n\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\n\t\n\n\t\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

THE LAW AND POLITICS OF INTERNET ACTIVISM:
THE YES MEN, PETA, RTMARK, AND THE PHENOMENON OF PARODY WEBSITES<\/a>\n\n\n\n
\n\nFindLaw guest columnist and University of Washington law professor Anita \n\n\n\nRamasastry discusses the recent phenomenon of parody websites and domain \n\n\n\nnames — some of which so closely parallel the originals that they can be \n\n\n\neasily confused with them. How can one tell a true parody from a copyright \n\n\n\nand trademark-infringing site that merely causes confusion? Ramasastry \n\n\n\nexplains important decisions, one involving a parody by 2 Live Crew of Roy \n\n\n\nOrbison’s “Oh Pretty Woman,” and another involving a claimed parody PETA \n\n\n\nwebsite that advocated eating meat and wearing fur.\n\n\n\n
\n\n<\/span>\n\nWednesday, Jun. 05, 2002<\/span>\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

THE CONSTITUTION AND SPAM:
\n\nIS THERE A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO SEND UNSOLICITED FAXES AND EMAIL?\n\n<\/a>\n\n\n\n
\n\nFindLaw guest columnist and University of Washington law professor Anita \n\nRamasastry discusses a recent Missouri federal district court ruling holding \n\nthat a federal statute banning unsolicited commercial faxes violates the \n\nFirst Amendment. Ramasastry also compares and contrasts the laws applying \n\nto, and the social costs and burdens of, unwanted telemarketing calls, \n\nunsolicited commercial faxes, and annoying “spam” email advertisements. \n\n
\n\n<\/span>\n\nThursday, May. 02, 2002<\/span>\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n

INTERNATIONAL AND U.S. SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEM OF \n\n“CONFLICT DIAMONDS,” GEMS WHOSE MINING AND EXPORT IS \n\nTAINTED BY VIOLENCE AND TERRORISM<\/a>\n\n\n\n
\n\nFindLaw guest columnist and University of Washington law professor Anita \n\nRamasastry explains how a diamond ring purchased in the U.S. may be tainted \n\nby terrorist origins, and what the U.N., NGOs, and the U.S. are doing to \n\nremedy the situation. Among other points, Ramasastry comments on bipartisan \n\nlegislation currently being considered by the Senate to address the “conflict \n\ndiamonds” problem, and the likely results of the recent Kimberley Agreement \n\non the same topic. \n\n
\n\n<\/span>\n\nWednesday, Apr. 03, 2002<\/span>\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n

THE CYBER SECURITY ENHANCEMENT ACT’S “GOOD FAITH DISCLOSURE” EXCEPTION:
\n\nA SERIOUS THREAT TO INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY \n\n<\/a>\n\n\n\n
\n\nFindLaw guest columnist and University of Washington law professor Anita \n\nRamasastry discusses the proposed Cyber Security Enhancement Act, which is \n\ncurrently being considered by the House Judiciary Committee. Ramasastry \n\nargues that the bill, which goes further than the prior USA Patriot Act, \n\nshould be amended in order to avert what will otherwise be significant \n\nprivacy infringements, relating to email and to electronic communications \n\ngenerally. \n\n
\n\n<\/span>\n\nThursday, Mar. 28, 2002<\/span>\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n

MICHIGAN’S CYBERCOURT:
\n\nWORTHY EXPERIMENT OR VIRTUAL DAYDREAM? \n\n<\/a>\n\n\n\n
\n\nFindLaw guest columnist and University of Washington law professor Anita \n\nRamasastry discusses Michigan’s cybercourt. The optional cybercourt will \n\nallow electronic filing, “virtual” attorney appearances, and other \n\ntechnological innovations to be implemented in a class of business and \n\ncommercial disputes; it is Michigan’s bid to become the first-choice forum \n\nfor high tech companies. So far commentators have tended to applaud the \n\nfuturistic court, but Ramasastry notes it might have a downside as well. \n\n \n\n \n\n
\n\n<\/span>\n\nWednesday, Feb. 06, 2002<\/span>\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n

DRAGNET LAW ENFORCEMENT THAT WON’T WORK:
\n\nWHY “VOLUNTARY” POLICE INTERVIEWS OF MIDDLE-EASTERN \n\nVISITORS \n\n ARE BOTH WRONGFUL AND INEFFECTIVE \n\n<\/a>\n\n\n\n
\n\nFindLaw columnist and University of Washington law professor Anita Ramasastry \n\ncritiques legislation proposed by Senator Jesse Helms and supported by the \n\nBush Administration. The legislation would deny U.S. military assistance to \n\ncountries (except for NATO allies) that join the International Criminal \n\nCourt. Ramasastry contends that the legislation will alienate our allies and \n\ncountries with which we want to ally, yet will not achieve its goal of \n\nprotecting American servicemembers abroad. \n\n \n\n
\n\n<\/span>\n\nMonday, Dec. 17, 2001<\/span>\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

THE PROBLEM WITH THE AMERICAN SERVICEMEMBERS’ PROTECTION \n\nACT:
\n\nWHY WE SHOULD NOT PUNISH COUNTRIES THAT PARTICIPATE\n\n IN THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT \n\n<\/a>\n\n\n\n
\n\nFFindLaw columnist and University of Washington law professor Anita Ramasastry \n\ncritiques legislation proposed by Senator Jesse Helms and supported by the \n\nBush Administration. The legislation would deny U.S. military assistance to \n\ncountries (except for NATO allies) that join the International Criminal \n\nCourt. Ramasastry contends that the legislation will alienate our allies and \n\ncountries with which we want to ally, yet will not achieve its goal of \n\nprotecting American servicemembers abroad. \n\n \n\n
\n\n<\/span>\n\nWednesday, Nov. 07, 2001<\/span>\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n

WE DON’T NEED A SECRET NEW “CYBER COURT” FOR HACKERS:
\n\nWHY THE GILMORE COMMISSION’S RECENT PROPOSAL SHOULD BE REJECTED \n\n<\/a>\n\n\n\n
\n\nFindLaw guest columnist and University of Washington law professor Anita \n\nRamasastry critiques the new proposal from the government’s anti-terrorism \n\ncommission, for the creation of a secret “cyber court” to address computer \n\ncrimes. Ramasastry previews how the court would work assuming that (as seems \n\nvery likely) it would resemble the current Foreign Intelligence Surveillance \n\nAct court, and argues that having a specialized, secret court to deal with \n\nall cyber crime is a bad idea. \n\n
\n\n<\/span>\n\nWednesday, Oct. 24, 2001<\/span>\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n

FOLLOW THE MONEY, AND FOLLOW IT FAST:
\n\nTHE NEED FOR AN INTERNATIONAL FISCAL COALITION TO FIGHT MONEY LAUNDERING \n\n<\/a>\n\n\n\n
\n\nFindLaw guest columnist and University of Washington law professor Anita Ramasastry urges us quickly to improve domestic and international policing of money laundering — the insertion of illegally obtained money into the stream of commerce, so that “dirty” money appears “clean” — as a crucial part of the war on terrorism. Ramasastry surveys current international and U.S. money laundering solutions, and advises how they should be improved. \n\n
\n\n<\/span>\n\nMonday, Oct. 15, 2001<\/span>\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

INDEFINITE DETENTION BASED UPON SUSPICION:
HOW THE PATRIOT \n\nACT\n\n WILL DISRUPT MANY LAWFUL IMMIGRANTS’ LIVES<\/a>\n\n
\n\nFriday, Oct. 05, 2001<\/span>\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n
\u00a0Most Recent<\/a> | Page 1<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0<\/td>\n\n\n\n<\/tr>\n\n
—<\/td>\n\n\n\n<\/tr>\n\n\n\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/div><\/div>\n
\n \n Was this helpful?<\/span>\n \n Yes<\/span>\n \n \n \n <\/path>\n <\/g>\n \n \n <\/rect>\n <\/clipPath>\n <\/defs>\n <\/svg>\n <\/i>\n <\/button>\n \n No<\/span>\n \n \n \n \n <\/g>\n \n \n \n <\/clipPath>\n <\/defs>\n <\/svg>\n <\/i>\n <\/button>\n <\/div>\n <\/span>\n