Cybercrime
JURI 5584 · Spring 2023
Wed/Fri 2:30–3:45 pm · Room K
Office Hours: Wed 10:30–11:30 am
Technological innovation alters the commission, definition, and conception of crime. In some cases, computers, social media, and the internet have made existing criminal activity harder to detect or easier to commit. In other cases, they’ve created new forms of criminal activity that challenge longstanding views about the permissibility and punishment of human behavior. This course will address topics such as digital privacy, free speech, terrorism, cybersecurity, image-based sexual abuse, stalking, harassment, doxing, and identity theft. It will examine questions of constitutional law, federal and state laws regulating online activity, and proposed legislation that would criminalize different forms of digital abuse.
____________________
Your legal education should be as affordable as possible, so I haven’t assigned a physical casebook. Instead, I’ve posted some materials for free below, and the remaining readings are from James Grimmelmann’s Internet Law: Cases & Problems (12th ed.). Although Professor Grimmelmann’s digital materials are accessible for free, he and the publisher suggest that students pay $30 to download the PDF, based on the idea that it’s fair to ask you to pay about $1 per class session for which the materials are used. The money also helps to keep these materials affordable for other students in the future. We’ll be using content from these materials for roughly 25 class hours, so please consider paying at least $25.
Readings from Professor Grimmelmann are marked by the acronym “GIL” and the page range. For online materials (i.e., materials on the internet, not in the casebook), please review the entire piece unless I parenthetically note a specific page range. On certain class days, I’ve offered optional materials. They’re truly optional, but they provide some perspective or background that I find interesting or helpful.
Given that this course focuses extensively on abuse and violence, I caution that some of these materials might disturb at least some of you. Professor Grimmelmann includes warnings before some distressing readings, but this seminar will constantly challenge us to confront painful topics in ways that I can’t always predict in advance. I want you to be in the right headspace when engaging with them. I’d encourage you to take breaks and walks during and after your class prep, and some of you might also wish to take advantage of UGA’s Health & Wellness resources occasionally throughout the semester. Please take care of yourselves and let me know if there’s anything I can ever do to help.
____________________
We won’t meet for our regularly scheduled class sessions on January 18, January 20, February 10, March 1, March 3, March 24, April 12, April 14, and April 21. Instead of those seven sessions, you’ll respond to a series of Cybercrime Scenarios and watch two documentaries and three recorded lectures over the course of the semester.
1. The Internet’s Own Boy
No class. Watch the documentary and review the materials before class on January 11.
Lawrence Lessig, Laws That Choke Creativity, Ted (2007)
Catherine Bracy, The Limits of Aaron’s Law, BraceLand (2013)
2. Situating Cybercrime
January 11
Frank H. Easterbrook, Cyberspace and the Law of the Horse, University of Chicago Legal Forum (1996) (207–08)
Neal Katyal, Criminal Law in Cyberspace, University of Pennsylvania Law Review (2001)
Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0 (2006) (GIL 46–50)
Julie E. Cohen, Law for the Platform Economy, U.C. Davis Law Review (2017) (191–199)
Danielle Keats Citron, Cyber Civil Rights, Boston University Law Review (2009) (62–67)
Optional
Julian Dibbell, A Rape in Cyberspace, The Village Voice (1993)
Jennifer L. Mnookin, Virtual(ly) Law: The Emergence of Law in LambdaMOO, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (1996)
3. Cyberspace as a “Place”
January 13
John Perry Barlow, A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace (1996) (GIL 57–59)
Orin S. Kerr, The Problem of Perspective in Internet Law, Georgetown Law Journal (2003) (GIL 60–62)
David R. Johnson & David Post, Law and Borders: The Rise of Law in Cyberspace, Stanford Law Review (1996) (GIL 62–64)
Mary Anne Franks, Unwilling Avatars: Idealism and Discrimination in Cyberspace, Columbia Journal of Gender & Law (2011) (GIL 65–68)
State v. Decker (Minn. 2018) (GIL 68–70)
Robles v. Domino’s Pizza (9th Cir. 2019) (GIL 71–73)
Optional
Mark A. Lemley, Place and Cyberspace, California Law Review (2003)
Julie E. Cohen, Cyberspace as/and Space, Columbia Law Review (2007)
No class on January 18 or 20
4. Jurisdiction
No class. Review the materials, watch the recorded lecture, and respond to the scenarios before class on January 25.
U.S. Department of Justice, Prosecuting Computer Crimes (2010) (113–20)
United States v. Auernheimer (3rd Cir. 2014) (GIL 108–13)
United States v. Yücel (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (GIL 113–15)
In re Facebook Biometric Information Privacy Litigation (N.D. Cal. 2016 & 2018) (GIL 115–17) (skim)
Recorded lecture on Jurisdiction
Snapchat Scenario
Sextortion Scenario
5. Digital “Speech”
January 25
U.S. Constitution, First Amendment (GIL 123–24)
Packingham v. North Carolina (2017) (GIL 124–31)
Texas v. Johnson (1989) (GIL 131)
Bland v. Roberts (E.D. Va. 2012) (GIL 131–32)
Bland v. Roberts (4th Cir. 2013) (GIL 133–34)
Elizabeth Kirley & Marilyn McMahon, How the Law Responds When Emoji Are the Weapon of Choice, The Conversation (2017)
Sarah Jeong, The Internet of Garbage (2015) (32–34)
Optional
Robert C. Post, Encryption Source Code and the First Amendment, Berkeley Technology Law Journal (2000)
6. Threats & Extortion
January 27
danah boyd, It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens (2014) (GIL 140–43)
Elonis v. United States (2015) (GIL 144–46)
Erik Nielson & Andrea L. Dennis, Rap on Trial: Race, Lyrics, and Guilt in America (2019) (15–19)
United States v. Hobgood (8th Cir. 2017) (GIL 146–48)
Benjamin Wittes, Cody M. Poplin, Quinta Jurecic & Clara Spera, Sextortion: The Problem and Solutions, Lawfare (2016)
Online Safety Modernization Act (skim Title I)
Optional
United States v. Alkhabaz (6th Cir. 1997)
7. Incitement & Lies
February 1
Commonwealth v. Carter (Mass. 2019) (GIL 148–51)
United States v. Alvarez (2012) (GIL 151–52)
Caroline Sinders, That Time the Internet Sent a SWAT Team to My Mom’s House, Narratively (2014)
Online Safety Modernization Act (skim Title II)
8. Voyeurism & Impersonation
February 3
Restatement (Second) of Torts: Privacy (GIL 260–61)
42 PA Cons. Stat. § 8316 (GIL 261–62)
Bill Rankin, There Ought to Be a Law, but There Isn’t: Upskirting Not a Crime in Ga., Atlanta Journal-Constitution (2018)
People v. Golb (N.Y. 2014) (GIL 262–64)
Golb v. Attorney General of the State of New York (2d. Cir. 2017) (GIL 264–66)
Robert Chesney & Danielle Citron, Deep Fakes: A Looming Crisis for National Security, Democracy and Privacy?, Lawfare (2018)
Dave McNary, SAG-AFTRA Commends Gov. Andrew Cuomo for Signing Law Banning ‘Deep Fake’ Videos, Variety (2020)
Optional
Nick Bilton, Fake News Is About to Get Even Scarier, Vanity Fair (2017)
To Make a Deepfake, Scientific American (2020)
Can You Spot the DeepFake Video?, MIT (2020)
9. Harassment & Stalking
February 8
Snyder v. Phelps (2011) (GIL 154–57) (skim)
Lebo v. State (Tex. Ct. App. 2015) (GIL 157–59)
United States v. Osinger (9th Cir. 2014) (Watford, J., concurring) (23–32)
United States v. Cope (6th Cir. 2001)
Kentucky Approves Bill to Make ‘Doxing’ Illegal After Covington Student’s Online Backlash, NBC News (2019)
Online Safety Modernization Act (skim Title III)
Optional
John Oliver, Online Harassment: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, HBO (2015)
No class on February 10
10. Cybercrime Scenarios #1
No class. Respond to the scenarios before class on February 15.
Ray-Ban Scenario
Metaverse Scenario
MeanBot Scenario
11. Minors & Bullying
February 15
State v. Bishop (N.C. 2016) (GIL 161–66)
Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. (2021) (GIL 166–67)
Reno v. ACLU (1997) (GIL 167–70)
12. Sex & Nudity
February 17
Sexually Explicit Speech (GIL 159–61)
Clare McGlynn & Erika Rackley, Not ‘Revenge Porn,’ but Abuse: Let’s Call It Image-Based Sexual Abuse, Inherently Human (2016)
State v. Austin (GIL 266–75)
Sarah Jeong, Revenge Porn Is Bad. Criminalizing It Is Worse, Wired (2013)
Optional
Nicholas Kristof, The Children of Pornhub, New York Times (2020)
Emily Bazelon, The Price of a Stolen Childhood, New York Times Magazine (2013)
13. Intermediary Liability
February 22
Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230 (GIL 171–73)
Zeran v. America Online (4th Cir. 1997) (GIL 173–79)
Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings (6th Cir. 2014) (GIL 179–89)
Optional
Sue Halpern, How Joe Biden Could Help Internet Companies Moderate Harmful Content, New Yorker (2020)
14. The Cleaners
No class. Watch the documentary and do the PBS quiz before class on February 24.
You may rent the documentary for $2.99 and watch it whenever suits you best, or you may attend a screening of the documentary at 12–1:30pm on February 24 in Room G.
The Cleaners (2018)
Delete or Ignore? Pretend You’re a Facebook Content Moderator, PBS (2018)
15. Platform Rules
February 24
Evelyn Douek, Content Moderation as Systems Thinking, Harvard Law Review (2022) (528–34 & 539–56)
Thomas Kadri, Juridical Discourse for Platforms, Harvard Law Review Forum (2022) (169–85)
Brian Krebs, Deleted Facebook Cybercrime Groups Had 300,000 Members, Krebs on Security (2018)
Martin Evans, Facebook Accused of Introducing Extremists to One Another Through ‘Suggested Friends’ Feature, The Telegraph (2018)
Optional
Matthew Prince, Why We Terminated the Daily Stormer, Cloudflare (2017)
Kendra Albert, Beyond Legal Talismans, Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society (2016)
No class on March 1 or 3
Spring Break
16. Cybercrime Scenarios #2
No class. Respond to the scenarios before class on March 15.
Tattoo Scenario
GroupMe Scenario
17. Platform Design
March 15
Kimsey v. City of Sammamish (W.D. Wash. 2021) (GIL 599–604)
Cyber Promotions v. American Online (E.D. Pa. 1996) (GIL 604–08)
Twitter Scenario
Thomas Kadri, Networks of Empathy, Utah Law Review (2020) (1083–97)
18. Platform Rights
March 17
Zhang v. Baidu.com (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (GIL 608–15)
Marshall’s Locksmith Service v. Google (D.C. Cir. 2019) (GIL 615–18)
Song Fi v. Google (N.D. Cal. 2015) (GIL 618–21)
Song Fi v. Google (N.D. Cal. 2018) (GIL 622–23)
Optional
Daphne Keller, Who Do You Sue?, Hoover Institution (2019)
Wendy Chu, Twitter v. Sessions: Twitter’s First Amendment Lawsuit Against the Government Advances After Three Years in Court, Harvard Journal of Law & Technology: JOLT Digest (2017)
19. Reforming Section 230
March 22
Doe v. MySpace (W.D. Tex. 2007) (GIL 190–92)
Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA) (GIL 193)
People’s Front of Judea Problem (GIL 194)
Section 230 Reform Problem (GIL 623–24)
Optional
Danielle Keats Citron & Mary Anne Franks, The Internet as a Speech Machine and Other Myths Confounding Section 230 Reform, University of Chicago Legal Forum (2020)
Herrick v. Grindr (2d Cir. 2019)
Daphne Keller, Build Your Own Intermediary Liability Law, Balkinization (2019)
20. Hacking
No class. Review the materials and watch the recorded lecture before class on March 29. Please also respond to the scenario by 2:30pm on March 24.
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (GIL 350–52)
Orin S. Kerr, Cybercrime’s Scope: Interpreting “Access” and “Authorization” in Computer Misuse Statutes, NYU Law Review (2003) (GIL 353–54)
United States v. Morris (2d Cir. 1991) (GIL 354–56)
Dumbnet Scenario
Recorded lecture on Hacking
Optional
Tim Wu, Fixing the Worst Law in Technology, New Yorker (2013)
Ellen Nakashima & Greg Bensinger, Former Twitter Employees Charged with Spying for Saudi Arabia by Digging into the Accounts of Kingdom Critics, Washington Post (2019)
21. Hacking?
March 29
United States v. Van Buren (2021) (GIL 356–61)
hiQ Labs v. LinkedIn (9th Cir. 2019) (GIL 361–65)
Sarah Jeong, The Curious Case of the Fortnite Cheater, The Verge (2018)
Jeff Horwitz, Facebook Seeks Shutdown of NYU Research Project Into Political Ad Targeting, Wall Street Journal (2020)
Thomas E. Kadri, Platforms as Blackacres, UCLA Law Review (2022) (1218–22)
Thomas E. Kadri, Digital Gatekeepers, Texas Law Review (2021) (970–85) (skim)
Kendra Albert, Not A Crime: the CFAA and Respectability Politics, Tech Policy Press (2022)
Optional
Taylor Lorenz, Kellen Browning & Sheera Frenkel, TikTok Teens and K-Pop Stans Say They Sank Trump Rally, New York Times (2020)
James Risen, Reporters Face New Threats From the Governments They Cover, New York Times (2020)
22. Corporate Espionage
March 31
Thyroff v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. (N.Y. 2007)
United States v. Aleynikov (GIL 691–94)
People v. Aleynikov (GIL 694–97)
Melissa Eddy & Nicole Perlroth, Cyber Attack Suspected in German Woman’s Death, New York Times (2020)
Ransomware Scenario
23. Device Searches
April 5
U.S. Constitution, Fourth & Fifth Amendments (GIL 195–98)
Riley v. California (2014) (GIL 199–208)
United States v. Spencer (N.D. Cal. 2018) (GIL 208–11)
Carrie DeCell, Warrantless Border Searches: The Officer ‘Searched Through Every Email and Intimate Photos of My Wife,’ Just Security (2017)
Jacob Gershman, Judge Limits Phone Searches at U.S. Borders, Wall Street Journal (2019)
Optional
David D. Kirkpatrick & Azam Ahmed, Hacking a Prince, an Emir and a Journalist to Impress a Client, New York Times (2018)
24. Remote Searches
April 7
Rachel Levinson-Waldman, How the NYPD Became George Orwell’s Worst Nightmare, Salon (2015)
Desmond Upton Patton et al., Stop and Frisk Online: Theorizing Everyday Racism in Digital Policing in the Use of Social Media for Identification of Criminal Conduct and Associations, Social Media + Society (2017) (1–5)
United States v. Warshak (6th Cir. 2010) (GIL 211–16)
Carpenter v. United States (2018) (GIL 216–25)
Kate Knibbs, The Race to Preserve the DC Mob’s Digital Traces, Wired (2021)
Optional
John Bowers, Elaine Sedenberg & Jonathan Zittrain, Platform Accountability Through Digital “Poison” Cabinets (2021)
No class on April 12 or 14
25. Cybercrime Scenarios #3
No class. Respond to the scenarios before class on April 19.
FishLines Scenario
Nasal Scenario
Scraping Scenario
26. Cybercrime Scenarios #4
No class. Respond to the scenarios before class on April 19.
Filter Scenario
Polecam Scenario
Bank Robbery Problem (GIL 224–25)
27. Electronic Communications
April 19
Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 et seq. (GIL 225–29)
O’Brien v. O’Brien (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th 2005) (GIL 229–31)
Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701 et seq. (GIL 231–35)
Ehling v. Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corp. (D.N.J. 2012) (GIL 235–39)
Optional
Facebook Inc. v. Superior Court (Cal. 2020) (Cuéllar, J., concurring (66–68) & Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., concurring (45–65))
Taylor Hatmaker, Microsoft Heads to Court to Fight Justice Department Gag Orders, TechCruch (2017)
Kristin Houser, Everything You Need to Know About the CLOUD Act, Futurism (2018)
28. Anonymity & Encryption
No class. Review the materials and watch the recorded lecture.
Eva Galperin, Internet Expert Debunks Cybersecurity Myths, Wired (2020)
Doe I v. Individuals, Whose True Names are Unknown (D. Conn. 2008) (GIL 243–51)
John Doe 21 Letter (2008) (skim)
Recorded lecture on Anonymity & Encryption
Optional
Michael H. Keller & Gabriel J.X. Dance, The Internet Is Overrun With Images of Child Sexual Abuse. What Went Wrong?, New York Times (2019)
Amelia Nierenberg, Signal Downloads Are Way Up Since the Protests Began, New York Times (2020)
Alaa Elassar, The ACLU Created an App to Help People Record Police Misconduct, CNN (2020)
Sam Biddle, Police Surveilled George Floyd Protests With Help From Twitter-Affiliated Startup Dataminr, Intercept (2020)
Kashmir Hill, The Secretive Company That Might End Privacy as We Know It, New York Times (2020)
Joseph Cox, How to Protest Without Sacrificing Your Digital Privacy, Vice (2020)
Jesse Marx, Police Used Smart Streetlight Footage to Investigate Protesters, Voice of San Diego (2020)
For syllabus inspiration, I’d like to thank Kendra Albert, Hannah Bloch-Wehba, Evelyn Douek, Mary Anne Franks, James Grimmelmann, Orin Kerr, Ido Kilovaty, and Martha Minow, all of whose curricula helped me when shaping my own.