Podcasts about stanford law school's center

Margaret Hagan joins host Ralph Baxter in this episode of Law Technology Now to talk about what design is doing for the legal industry and what it is like being the lab director at the Stanford's Legal Design Lab. They discuss how Margaret got involved with the Stanford Law School's Center on the Legal Profession, her free online book ‘Law By Design’ and its uses cartoons, and how design can apply to legal professionals. She also talks about Stanford's Legal Design Lab, how it came to be, and the lab's mission. Margaret Hagan is the director of the Legal Design Lab and a lecturer at Stanford Institute of Design (the d.school). Special thanks to our sponsors, Headnote and Logikcull.

Margaret Hagan joins host Ralph Baxter in this episode of Law Technology Now to talk about what design is doing for the legal industry and what it is like being the lab director at the Stanford's Legal Design Lab. They discuss how Margaret got involved with the Stanford Law School's Center on the Legal Profession, her free online book ‘Law By Design’ and its uses cartoons, and how design can apply to legal professionals. She also talks about Stanford's Legal Design Lab, how it came to be, and the lab's mission. Margaret Hagan is the director of the Legal Design Lab and a lecturer at Stanford Institute of Design (the d.school). Special thanks to our sponsors, Headnote and Logikcull.

On March 11-12, 2006, Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society hosted a symposium to explore the development and expansion of the metaphor of "cultural environmentalism" over the course of ten busy years for intellectual property law. We invited four scholars to present original papers on the topic, and a dozen intellectual property experts to comment and expand on their works. "Law makes long spokes of the short stakes of man," William Empson reminded us. This paper will explore the ways in which the law's impulse to generalize complicates the project of cultural environmentalism, which seeks to build a coalition of groups with very different interests and practices. Though cultural environmentalism attempts to provide an overarching metaphor for preserving a cultural commons for future creators and users of various types of information products, including copyrighted works, the move from the general principle to the specific activities to be protected will be difficult at best.

On March 11-12, 2006, Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society hosted a symposium to explore the development and expansion of the metaphor of "cultural environmentalism" over the course of ten busy years for intellectual property law. We invited four scholars to present original papers on the topic, and a dozen intellectual property experts to comment and expand on their works. Environmentalists have a complicated relationship with property rights. Those who worry about the physical environment often decry strong property rights that threaten to derail environmental regulation. But environmentalists have also harnessed property rights to preserve important habitats and open spaces, using voluntary, property-based mechanisms like conservation easements to block land development. Similarly, those concerned with cultivating a cultural environment in which creative works contribute to new generations of creativity often criticize strong intellectual property rights that threaten to impoverish the public domain. But cultural environmentalists have also harnessed intellectual property rights in an attempt to create and preserve a cultural commons, using voluntary, intellectual property-based mechanisms like Free Software and Creative Commons licenses. This paper will explore the advantages and disadvantages of using voluntary manipulation of intellectual property rights as a tool for cultural environmentalism-drawing on the experience of the conservation movement, and on scholarship and case law debating the merits of encumbering assets with idiosyncratic property rights.

On March 11-12, 2006, Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society hosted a symposium to explore the development and expansion of the metaphor of "cultural environmentalism" over the course of ten busy years for intellectual property law. We invited four scholars to present original papers on the topic, and a dozen intellectual property experts to comment and expand on their works. James Boyle's "cultural environmentalism" metaphor laid the foundation for the recognition and protection of traditional knowledge and natural resources found in the developing world. The theory underlying the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was that while traditional communities may not have invented knowledge about the medicinal properties of local plants, they ought to be rewarded nonetheless for their preservation and conservation of biodiversity through limited rights to control and compensation. Taking a cue from the environmental justice movement, which demonstrated the disparate effects of environmental harms on disadvantaged minorities, the cultural environmental movement illustrated how Third World peoples are disproportionately disadvantaged by intellectual property law, which historically has not recognized their cultural contributions as protectable works of authorship. But while this paper credits "cultural environmentalism" with offering theoretical legitimacy for traditional knowledge protection, it further considers whether the metaphor may also disable a more dynamic and modern view of traditional knowledge. In fact, traditional knowledge is far from static and archaic and much more dynamic than the "environmentalism" metaphor acknowledges. The makers of Mysore silk sarees in India respond to new market, technological, and cultural needs, for example, offering waterproof sarees in hi-tech designs to today's global consumers. I consider how the "environmentalism" metaphor may impede an understanding of "poor people's knowledge" (a term I prefer to "traditional knowledge") as creative works of authorship deserving of ex ante intellectual property rights rather than just as rights afforded ex post to reward preservation of ancient traditions or to correct longstanding cultural and distributive injustice.

On March 11-12, 2006, Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society hosted a symposium to explore the development and expansion of the metaphor of "cultural environmentalism" over the course of ten busy years for intellectual property law. We invited four scholars to present original papers on the topic, and a dozen intellectual property experts to comment and expand on their works. In current debates about a "two-tiered internet," the romantic figure of the "network builder" is being used to end the arguments about desirable social policy that otherwise should occur. If only we had a more natural name for this network of networks than the internet; if only more people understood it to be a deeply human endeavor whose value comes from all of us; if only it were more visible as a social, self-reflected, self-entailed world that happens to be connected by machines. The internet needs a lobbyist. More importantly, however, it needs a new social theory. The theory that will see us through focuses on the meaning and liveliness of "the network" (the name for all the layers of the internet above the transport layer). This network is a commons, like the ocean. The vast majority of its value emphatically does not come from the access providers who now claim to "own" it. Instead, its value comes from the gifts and interactions and attention of the people who use it and whose minds it reflects. The central paradox of networks generally is that they are more than the sum of their parts; this network, the internet, is exponentially more than the sum of access plus computers because it allows and generates unpredictable interactions among groups. Once we reframe our theoretical approach to this network, we can move on to assert that access to it, like access to the oceans of this Earth, is essential to human flourishing. And our government has a duty to protect this access. What the telcos/cablecos have is beachfront property, over which access to the sea - the internet - will be required by the public at whatever speed is widely commercially available. Such access will make it possible for humans to use and contribute to this resource into the future, always in unpredictable ways. If the telcos/cablecos degrade internet communications by slowing the rate at which humans can add to the value of this resource (the rate at which we can upload, rather than passively download) and degrading our access to the contributions of others and the global mind that the internet represents, we may have to assert that there is a public interest in access that is greater than protecting these companies' property rights.

cross the world law enforcement, enterprises and national security apparatus utilize a small but important set of software tools to perform data recovery and investigations. These tools are expected to perform a large range of dangerous functions, such as parsing dozens of different file systems, email databases and dense binary file formats. Although the software we tested is considered a critical part of the investigatory cycle in the criminal and civil legal worlds, our testing demonstrated important security flaws within only minutes of fault injection. In this talk, we will present our findings from applying several software exploitation techniques to leading commercial and open-source forensics packages. We will release several new file and file system fuzzing tools that were created in support of this research, as well as demonstrate how to use the tools to create your own malicious hard drives and files. This talk will make the following arguments: 1. Forensic software vendors are not paranoid enough. Vendors must operate under the assumption that their software is under concerted attack. 2. Vendors do not take advantage of the protections for native code that platforms provide, such as stack overflow protection, memory page protection), safe exception handling, etc. 3. Forensic software customers use insufficient acceptance criteria when evaluating software packages. Criteria typically address only functional correctness during evidence acquisition when no attacker is present, yet forensic investigations are adversarial. 4. Methods for testing the quality of forensic software are not meaningful, public, or generally adopted. Our intention is to expose the security community to the techniques and importance of testing forensics software, and to push for a greater cooperation between the customers of forensics software to raise the security standard to which such software is held. Chris Palmer is a security consultant with iSEC Partners, performing application penetration tests, code reviews, and security research. Tim Newsham is a security consultant with iSEC Partners. He has over a decade of experience in computer security research, development and testing. Alex Stamos is the co-founder and VP of Professional Services at iSEC Partners, a leading provider of application security services. Alex is an experienced security engineer and consultant specializing in application security and securing large infrastructures, and has taught multiple classes in network and application security. He is a well-known researcher in the field of software security and has been a featured speaker at top industry conferences such as BlackHat, CanSecWest, DefCon, Toorcon, SyScan, Microsoft BlueHat, the Web 2.0 Expo, InfraGuard, ISACA and OWASP. He holds a BS in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science from the University of California, Berkeley. Chris K. Ridder is a Residential Fellow at Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society (CIS). His research interests include the full range of issues that arise at the intersection of technology and the law, including the application of intellectual property law to software and the Internet, and the impact of technological change on privacy and civil liberties. Prior to joining CIS, Chris was an associate at Fish & Richardson P.C. and subsequently Simpson Thacher and Barltett LLP, where he litigated a broad range of patent, intellectual property and complex commercial cases. From 2001-2002, he was a law clerk for the Honorable Mariana R. Pfaelzer of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Chris received his J.D. from the University of California at Berkeley (Boalt Hall) in 2001. Before he went to law school, Chris was a newspaper editor and publisher where he served, among other positions, as Editor-in-Chief of the Anchorage Press, the largest weekly newspaper in Anchorage, Alaska.

cross the world law enforcement, enterprises and national security apparatus utilize a small but important set of software tools to perform data recovery and investigations. These tools are expected to perform a large range of dangerous functions, such as parsing dozens of different file systems, email databases and dense binary file formats. Although the software we tested is considered a critical part of the investigatory cycle in the criminal and civil legal worlds, our testing demonstrated important security flaws within only minutes of fault injection. In this talk, we will present our findings from applying several software exploitation techniques to leading commercial and open-source forensics packages. We will release several new file and file system fuzzing tools that were created in support of this research, as well as demonstrate how to use the tools to create your own malicious hard drives and files. This talk will make the following arguments: 1. Forensic software vendors are not paranoid enough. Vendors must operate under the assumption that their software is under concerted attack. 2. Vendors do not take advantage of the protections for native code that platforms provide, such as stack overflow protection, memory page protection), safe exception handling, etc. 3. Forensic software customers use insufficient acceptance criteria when evaluating software packages. Criteria typically address only functional correctness during evidence acquisition when no attacker is present, yet forensic investigations are adversarial. 4. Methods for testing the quality of forensic software are not meaningful, public, or generally adopted. Our intention is to expose the security community to the techniques and importance of testing forensics software, and to push for a greater cooperation between the customers of forensics software to raise the security standard to which such software is held. Chris Palmer is a security consultant with iSEC Partners, performing application penetration tests, code reviews, and security research. Tim Newsham is a security consultant with iSEC Partners. He has over a decade of experience in computer security research, development and testing. Alex Stamos is the co-founder and VP of Professional Services at iSEC Partners, a leading provider of application security services. Alex is an experienced security engineer and consultant specializing in application security and securing large infrastructures, and has taught multiple classes in network and application security. He is a well-known researcher in the field of software security and has been a featured speaker at top industry conferences such as BlackHat, CanSecWest, DefCon, Toorcon, SyScan, Microsoft BlueHat, the Web 2.0 Expo, InfraGuard, ISACA and OWASP. He holds a BS in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science from the University of California, Berkeley. Chris K. Ridder is a Residential Fellow at Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society (CIS). His research interests include the full range of issues that arise at the intersection of technology and the law, including the application of intellectual property law to software and the Internet, and the impact of technological change on privacy and civil liberties. Prior to joining CIS, Chris was an associate at Fish & Richardson P.C. and subsequently Simpson Thacher and Barltett LLP, where he litigated a broad range of patent, intellectual property and complex commercial cases. From 2001-2002, he was a law clerk for the Honorable Mariana R. Pfaelzer of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Chris received his J.D. from the University of California at Berkeley (Boalt Hall) in 2001. Before he went to law school, Chris was a newspaper editor and publisher where he served, among other positions, as Editor-in-Chief of the Anchorage Press, the largest weekly newspaper in Anchorage, Alaska.