GreggBadichekSecondEssay 10 - 07 Apr 2017 - Main.GreggBadichek
|
|
> > | Revision 10 is unreadable | |
< < |
META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
Using Environmental Law to Open Proprietary Car Software
-- By GreggBadichek - 13 Jan 2016
The Problem
Proprietary software permitted Volkswagen to deceive its consumers and governmental entities into believing that their “clean diesel” emissions technology had met and surpassed fuel economy standards. Had the software been open, Volkwagen's cheating would have been noticed almost immediately; consumers would have saved billions of dollars, and Volkwagen would have saved its reputation. It is feasible to imagine several ways in which proprietary software harms users' agency beyond GHG emissions specifically, or environmental problems generally.
Demanding open software must be tempered: allowing users to alter their car's software could lead to unexpected safety hazards in a tightly regulated industry. A reasonable middle ground is software that is publicly readable, but can not be edited. This would allow car companies to protect their software's function, yet open it up to the broad scrutiny of countless individual simulations. Readers could even suggest edits to the software to improve its functionality and efficiency.
Importantly, this freedom to read would allow the public to examine software and locate code that compromises privacy, reporting their findings to companies and to everyone else. They could also predict the ways in which car software could evolve to threaten privacy upon the advent of smart-grid technology. Providing this information to other consumers would increase consumer knowledge of a functional utility, in theory making that market more efficient. It may not make users care about their privacy, but it would allow them a means to start making a fuss about it. What legal mechanisms could bring about this change in car software readability?
Solutions from Environmental Law
Financial disclosure protocols and agency regulations are legal tools with which private citizens can force car software to open.
Sue the EPA and DOT
If these agencies are empowered to analyze vehicle emissions in the physical sense, they should be able to do so in the digital sense. Private parties can test GHG emissions, but have tremendous difficulty testing "software emissions." Thus a lawsuit against these agencies on the grounds that their failure to examine software is a failure of their duty outside of discretion may close the gap, and move agencies towards examining software. Citizens are empowered to sue the agency for neglect of duty under the Clean Air Act's citizen suit provision. The EPA must prescribe by regulations "standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in [its] judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." Greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. Another non-discretionary duty in this case is the special emphasis that the EPA shall give "to research and development into new and improved methods, having industry-wide application, for the prevention and control of air pollution resulting from the combustion of fuels."
The EPA may accomplish this more efficiently through litigation than through rulemaking. This approach would substantively resemble the EPA’s regulation by litigation against seven U.S. engine manufacturers producing heavy-duty diesel fuel engines in the 1990s. The EPA had assessed that when these engines were operating under non-Federal Test Procedure (FTP) conditions, particularly highway driving conditions, the engines produced higher emissions levels of NOx than under FTP-conditions. Essentially, the electronic controllers on the engines had been cheating. Rather than engage in years-long litigation, the car company defendants settled in October 1998. The breadth of the suit permitted an industry-altering settlement regime. Numerous resulting consent decrees created a new set of test protocols that addressed the shortcomings of prior regulations. The EPA could have modified the FTP to adopt additional test procedures at any time without suing the engine manufacturers, but would have been required to slog through a longer notice-and-comment procedure that would not so urgently motivate the defendant companies.
Disclosure and Shareholder Lawsuits
Under SEC guidance, Regulation S-K, requiring public agencies to disclose certain information to investors, contains four items through which disclosure of climate change risks and contributions should be made. Two of them are ways to get to a car's code. Item 303 requires the company to disclose management's discussion and analysis of industry trends that are likely to have a material effect on the company's liquidity. Potentially this could include an industry shift towards readable software, particularly if a regulatory regime change arises post-Volkswagen. Item 503 meanwhile requires the company to assess "risk factors," which could include contributions to, or regulations in light of, climate change. Companies may choose to include increased software scrutiny under these items, as post-Volkswagen car company investors will be much more keen to know if the company is complying with all relevant regulatory regimes. Should the company not disclose that information sua sponte, shareholders may demand, or even sue, the company to force them to be more open about their complicated software, its functions, and its potential flaws.
The complication here is that the software in question would be protected as a “trade secret,” and would not need to be disclosed under discovery. Even a meritorious suit with standing established would run into this roadblock, which would persist so long as software remains copyrightable. Thus litigation alone would not suffice—it would need to accompany in industry-wide movement towards an economy where withholding software becomes prohibitively expensive.
Conclusion: Necessary Cooperation
Both legal maneuvers ultimately rely on some voluntary action and cooperation with regulators or shareholders on the part of the regulated car companies. Against an agency suit, the companies would need to recognize the long-term benefits of settlement; the companies would also need to recognize that non-disclosure threatens the value of their machines. Ideally, these companies would recognize that post-Volkswagen, legal pressure would accompany and increase a high cost of proprietary software, and they would move away from it altogether.
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list. |
|
GreggBadichekSecondEssay 9 - 06 Apr 2016 - Main.GreggBadichek
|
|
META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
| |
< < | Closed Software's Danger to Privacy and Climate | > > | Using Environmental Law to Open Proprietary Car Software | | -- By GreggBadichek - 13 Jan 2016 | |
< < | Using Environmental Concerns to Open Software | > > | The Problem | | Proprietary software permitted Volkswagen to deceive its consumers and governmental entities into believing that their “clean diesel” emissions technology had met and surpassed fuel economy standards. Had the software been open, Volkwagen's cheating would have been noticed almost immediately; consumers would have saved billions of dollars, and Volkwagen would have saved its reputation. It is feasible to imagine several ways in which proprietary software harms users' agency beyond GHG emissions specifically, or environmental problems generally.
Demanding open software must be tempered: allowing users to alter their car's software could lead to unexpected safety hazards in a tightly regulated industry. A reasonable middle ground is software that is publicly readable, but can not be edited. This would allow car companies to protect their software's function, yet open it up to the broad scrutiny of countless individual simulations. Readers could even suggest edits to the software to improve its functionality and efficiency. | | Sue the EPA and DOT | |
< < | If these agencies are empowered to analyze vehicle emissions in the physical sense, there is no reason that they shouldn't be able to do so in the digital sense. Private parties can test GHG emissions, but have tremendous difficulty testing "software emissions." Thus a lawsuit against these agencies on the grounds that their failure to examine software is a failure of their duty outside of discretion may close the gap, and move agencies towards examining software. Citizens are empowered to sue the agency for neglect of duty under the Clean Air Act's citizen suit provision.[4] The EPA must prescribe by regulations "standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in [its] judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare."[5] Greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.[6] Another non-discretionary duty in this case is the special emphasis that the EPA shall give "to research and development into new and improved methods, having industry-wide application, for the prevention and control of air pollution resulting from the combustion of fuels."[7] | > > | If these agencies are empowered to analyze vehicle emissions in the physical sense, they should be able to do so in the digital sense. Private parties can test GHG emissions, but have tremendous difficulty testing "software emissions." Thus a lawsuit against these agencies on the grounds that their failure to examine software is a failure of their duty outside of discretion may close the gap, and move agencies towards examining software. Citizens are empowered to sue the agency for neglect of duty under the Clean Air Act's citizen suit provision. The EPA must prescribe by regulations "standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in [its] judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." Greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. Another non-discretionary duty in this case is the special emphasis that the EPA shall give "to research and development into new and improved methods, having industry-wide application, for the prevention and control of air pollution resulting from the combustion of fuels."
The EPA may accomplish this more efficiently through litigation than through rulemaking. This approach would substantively resemble the EPA’s regulation by litigation against seven U.S. engine manufacturers producing heavy-duty diesel fuel engines in the 1990s. The EPA had assessed that when these engines were operating under non-Federal Test Procedure (FTP) conditions, particularly highway driving conditions, the engines produced higher emissions levels of NOx than under FTP-conditions. Essentially, the electronic controllers on the engines had been cheating. Rather than engage in years-long litigation, the car company defendants settled in October 1998. The breadth of the suit permitted an industry-altering settlement regime. Numerous resulting consent decrees created a new set of test protocols that addressed the shortcomings of prior regulations. The EPA could have modified the FTP to adopt additional test procedures at any time without suing the engine manufacturers, but would have been required to slog through a longer notice-and-comment procedure that would not so urgently motivate the defendant companies. | | Disclosure and Shareholder Lawsuits
Under SEC guidance, Regulation S-K, requiring public agencies to disclose certain information to investors, contains four items through which disclosure of climate change risks and contributions should be made. Two of them are ways to get to a car's code. Item 303 requires the company to disclose management's discussion and analysis of industry trends that are likely to have a material effect on the company's liquidity. Potentially this could include an industry shift towards readable software, particularly if a regulatory regime change arises post-Volkswagen. Item 503 meanwhile requires the company to assess "risk factors," which could include contributions to, or regulations in light of, climate change. Companies may choose to include increased software scrutiny under these items, as post-Volkswagen car company investors will be much more keen to know if the company is complying with all relevant regulatory regimes. Should the company not disclose that information sua sponte, shareholders may demand, or even sue, the company to force them to be more open about their complicated software, its functions, and its potential flaws. | |
< < | References
[1] See David Gelles, Hiroko Tabuchi and Matthew Dolan, Complex Car Software Becomes the Weak Spot Under the Hood, New York Times (Sept. 26, 2015), http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/27/business/complex-car-software-becomes-the-weak-spot-under-the-hood.html.
[2] An explanation of the events can be found here: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34324772.
[3] See, e.g. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/spy-act-car-hackers-senators-security_55ae4e72e4b0a9b94852748b.
[4] 42 U.S. Code § 7604
[5] 42 U.S. Code § 7521
[6] See Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007)
[7] 42 U.S. Code § 7404
1. Why can't the
references be inline links? Why do we need to preserve the
presentation of links as "footnotes" in the Web?
2. I don't quite understand the genre. This isn't newspaper advocacy
for free software, where the improbable idea can be presented that
one source of regulatory failure brought on by software secrecy for
one sort of automobile software is going to, or ever could, result
in a general requirement of "source-available" software throughout
new cars, let alone that such a condition will result in
user-modifiable free software in cars. But this isn't professional
commentary either, in which, for example, speculation about how to
use the Securities and Exchange Act is accompanied by any citation
of authority to suggest that the speculation is legally plausible.
Nor does the civil procedure involved in using shareholder lawsuits
to force disclosure through discovery, where "trade secrets" are
always produced under seal, and no disclosure ever actually results.
3. So I'm left wondering who the real audience of the draft is. The
best way to improvement, it seems to me, is to make a real piece of
legal analysis out of it, about one part of the existing widespread
account, and do that work with precision in the short space
available. | > > | The complication here is that the software in question would be protected as a “trade secret,” and would not need to be disclosed under discovery. Even a meritorious suit with standing established would run into this roadblock, which would persist so long as software remains copyrightable. Thus litigation alone would not suffice—it would need to accompany in industry-wide movement towards an economy where withholding software becomes prohibitively expensive. | | | |
< < | | > > | Conclusion: Necessary Cooperation | | | |
> > | Both legal maneuvers ultimately rely on some voluntary action and cooperation with regulators or shareholders on the part of the regulated car companies. Against an agency suit, the companies would need to recognize the long-term benefits of settlement; the companies would also need to recognize that non-disclosure threatens the value of their machines. Ideally, these companies would recognize that post-Volkswagen, legal pressure would accompany and increase a high cost of proprietary software, and they would move away from it altogether. | |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. |
|
GreggBadichekSecondEssay 8 - 06 Apr 2016 - Main.GreggBadichek
|
|
META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
| | -- By GreggBadichek - 13 Jan 2016 | |
< < | Introduction
Modern cars use software containing millions of lines of code to measure their emissions, regulate their power input in the case of electric vehicles, and to operate their internal systems.[1] Volkswagen in 2015 showed us that proprietary software can mask a profit-enterprise's deception by preventing regulators and the public from discovering manipulation without rigorous testing and some luck.[2] Closed software also greatly endangers user privacy, increasingly so in the world of "smart" cars.[3]
In the near future, cars will run on electricity and integrate advanced computers, frequently with self-driving capability. Their software will then be even more advanced, and if it remains closed, the ways in which the vehicle uses driver data will remain mysterious, thus harming the consumer. Can environmental law force this software to open before "smart cars" replace dumb ones?
Drivers Will Not Care About Their Privacy, But Drivers Will Care About Emissions, Fuel Economy, and Physical Safety
Convenience will overwhelm any concern most drivers feel about their privacy, as is the case with phones. Additionally the eventual proliferation of smart cars capable of driving themselves will give regulators pause when they consider the possibility of opening software: to them, this will pose more danger than benefit, unless by then it's common practice.
Drivers purchase high fuel economy vehicles specifically for their mileage and environmental benefits. Future cars will not significantly emit greenhouse gases. Should software remain closed when this industry shift occurs, the opportunities to use environmental law techniques to expose privacy risks will be greatly diminished. | | Using Environmental Concerns to Open Software
Proprietary software permitted Volkswagen to deceive its consumers and governmental entities into believing that their “clean diesel” emissions technology had met and surpassed fuel economy standards. Had the software been open, Volkwagen's cheating would have been noticed almost immediately; consumers would have saved billions of dollars, and Volkwagen would have saved its reputation. It is feasible to imagine several ways in which proprietary software harms users' agency beyond GHG emissions specifically, or environmental problems generally. | | [7] 42 U.S. Code § 7404 | |
< < | Why can't the | > > |
1. Why can't the | | references be inline links? Why do we need to preserve the
presentation of links as "footnotes" in the Web? | |
< < | I don't quite understand the genre. This isn't newspaper advocacy | > > |
2. I don't quite understand the genre. This isn't newspaper advocacy | | for free software, where the improbable idea can be presented that
one source of regulatory failure brought on by software secrecy for
one sort of automobile software is going to, or ever could, result | | Nor does the civil procedure involved in using shareholder lawsuits
to force disclosure through discovery, where "trade secrets" are
always produced under seal, and no disclosure ever actually results. | |
< < | So I'm left wondering who the real audience of the draft is. The | > > |
3. So I'm left wondering who the real audience of the draft is. The | | best way to improvement, it seems to me, is to make a real piece of
legal analysis out of it, about one part of the existing widespread
account, and do that work with precision in the short space |
|
GreggBadichekSecondEssay 7 - 13 Feb 2016 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
|
META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
| |
< < | It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | Closed Software's Danger to Privacy and Climate | | [7] 42 U.S. Code § 7404 | |
> > | Why can't the
references be inline links? Why do we need to preserve the
presentation of links as "footnotes" in the Web?
I don't quite understand the genre. This isn't newspaper advocacy
for free software, where the improbable idea can be presented that
one source of regulatory failure brought on by software secrecy for
one sort of automobile software is going to, or ever could, result
in a general requirement of "source-available" software throughout
new cars, let alone that such a condition will result in
user-modifiable free software in cars. But this isn't professional
commentary either, in which, for example, speculation about how to
use the Securities and Exchange Act is accompanied by any citation
of authority to suggest that the speculation is legally plausible.
Nor does the civil procedure involved in using shareholder lawsuits
to force disclosure through discovery, where "trade secrets" are
always produced under seal, and no disclosure ever actually results.
So I'm left wondering who the real audience of the draft is. The
best way to improvement, it seems to me, is to make a real piece of
legal analysis out of it, about one part of the existing widespread
account, and do that work with precision in the short space
available.
| |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. |
|
GreggBadichekSecondEssay 6 - 27 Jan 2016 - Main.GreggBadichek
|
|
META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | |
< < | Using Climate Change Law to Combat Closed Software | > > | Closed Software's Danger to Privacy and Climate | | -- By GreggBadichek - 13 Jan 2016
Introduction | |
< < | Car companies increasingly use lower-emissions technology to conform with governmental regulations intended to reduce greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions.[1] Modern cars use software containing millions of lines of code to measure their emissions, regulate their power input in the case of electric vehicles, and to operate their internal systems.[2] Volkswagen in 2015 showed us that proprietary software can mask a profit-enterprise's deception by preventing regulators and the public from discovering manipulation without rigorous testing and some luck.[3] Closed software also greatly endangers user privacy, increasingly so in the world of "smart" cars.[4] | > > | Modern cars use software containing millions of lines of code to measure their emissions, regulate their power input in the case of electric vehicles, and to operate their internal systems.[1] Volkswagen in 2015 showed us that proprietary software can mask a profit-enterprise's deception by preventing regulators and the public from discovering manipulation without rigorous testing and some luck.[2] Closed software also greatly endangers user privacy, increasingly so in the world of "smart" cars.[3]
In the near future, cars will run on electricity and integrate advanced computers, frequently with self-driving capability. Their software will then be even more advanced, and if it remains closed, the ways in which the vehicle uses driver data will remain mysterious, thus harming the consumer. Can environmental law force this software to open before "smart cars" replace dumb ones? | | Drivers Will Not Care About Their Privacy, But Drivers Will Care About Emissions, Fuel Economy, and Physical Safety | |
< < | Just as a modern “smart” phone tracks at least its human's location, data usage, communications and reports this information to its corporate masters, so too does car software track its drivers' movements and vehicle operations. As software sophistication increases, cars will report more information about its occupants. Recipient nodes for car data may exist through cellular towers or wifi stations worldwide; particularly for electric vehicles, nodes will exist on the smart grid, allowing the car to function as an organ in a complicated electrical sensory machine. Convenience will overwhelm any concern most drivers feel about their privacy, as is the case with phones.
Drivers purchase high fuel economy vehicles specifically for their mileage and environmental benefits. Consumers who purchase such vehicles pay higher prices to obtain a car that will save money on gas purchases, and because they feel that their expenditure is benefiting a cause. GHG emissions is an issue under close scrutiny by the federal government, whereas potential privacy implications of “smart” vehicles clearly does not garner such attention. Vehicle safety has long been an area of public concern. The argument that complex, opaque software endangers passengers more so than software open to public scrutiny is not new. | | | |
< < | Why this matters
Allowing software transmitting highly personal information—geolocation—to go unmonitored in a necessary market normalizes and under-emphasizes regular privacy violations. Additionally electric cars will gradually replace their carbon-fuelled counterparts. At that time, car software will not control emissions, but will become increasingly complex in response to increasing car "intelligence." Should software remain closed when this industry shift occurs, the opportunities to use environmental law techniques to expose privacy risks will be greatly diminished. | > > | Convenience will overwhelm any concern most drivers feel about their privacy, as is the case with phones. Additionally the eventual proliferation of smart cars capable of driving themselves will give regulators pause when they consider the possibility of opening software: to them, this will pose more danger than benefit, unless by then it's common practice.
Drivers purchase high fuel economy vehicles specifically for their mileage and environmental benefits. Future cars will not significantly emit greenhouse gases. Should software remain closed when this industry shift occurs, the opportunities to use environmental law techniques to expose privacy risks will be greatly diminished. | | | |
< < | Using Environmental Concerns to Expose Privacy Violations | > > | Using Environmental Concerns to Open Software | | Proprietary software permitted Volkswagen to deceive its consumers and governmental entities into believing that their “clean diesel” emissions technology had met and surpassed fuel economy standards. Had the software been open, Volkwagen's cheating would have been noticed almost immediately; consumers would have saved billions of dollars, and Volkwagen would have saved its reputation. It is feasible to imagine several ways in which proprietary software harms users' agency beyond GHG emissions specifically, or environmental problems generally.
Demanding open software must be tempered: allowing users to alter their car's software could lead to unexpected safety hazards in a tightly regulated industry. A reasonable middle ground is software that is publicly readable, but can not be edited. This would allow car companies to protect their software's function, yet open it up to the broad scrutiny of countless individual simulations. Readers could even suggest edits to the software to improve its functionality and efficiency. | | Solutions from Environmental Law | |
< < | Financial disclosure protocols and agency regulations can force car software to open. | > > | Financial disclosure protocols and agency regulations are legal tools with which private citizens can force car software to open. | | | |
< < | Disclosure and Shareholder Lawsuits | > > | Sue the EPA and DOT | | | |
< < | Under SEC guidance, Regulation S-K, requiring public agencies to disclose certain information to investors, contains four items through which disclosure of climate change risks and contributions should be made. Two of them are ways to get to a car's code. Item 303 requires the company to disclose management's discussion and analysis of industry trends that are likely to have a material effect on the company's liquidity. Potentially this could include an industry shift towards readable software, particularly if a regulatory regime change arises post-Volkswagen. Item 503 meanwhile requires the company to assess "risk factors," which could include contributions to, or regulations in light of, climate change. Companies may choose to include increased software scrutiny under these items, as post-Volkswagen car company investors will be much more keen to know if the company is complying with all relevant regulatory regimes. Should the company not disclose that information sua sponte, shareholders may demand, or even sue, the company to force them to be more open about their complicated software, its functions, and its potential flaws. | > > | If these agencies are empowered to analyze vehicle emissions in the physical sense, there is no reason that they shouldn't be able to do so in the digital sense. Private parties can test GHG emissions, but have tremendous difficulty testing "software emissions." Thus a lawsuit against these agencies on the grounds that their failure to examine software is a failure of their duty outside of discretion may close the gap, and move agencies towards examining software. Citizens are empowered to sue the agency for neglect of duty under the Clean Air Act's citizen suit provision.[4] The EPA must prescribe by regulations "standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in [its] judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare."[5] Greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.[6] Another non-discretionary duty in this case is the special emphasis that the EPA shall give "to research and development into new and improved methods, having industry-wide application, for the prevention and control of air pollution resulting from the combustion of fuels."[7] | | | |
< < | Petition for Rulemaking before the EPA and DOT | > > | Disclosure and Shareholder Lawsuits | | | |
< < | If these agencies are empowered to analyze vehicle emissions in the physical sense, there is no reason that they shouldn't be able to do so in the digital sense. Private parties can test GHG emissions, but have tremendous difficulty testing "software emissions." Thus a lawsuit against these agencies on the grounds that their failure to examine software is a failure of their duty outside of discretion may close the gap, and move agencies towards examining software. | > > | Under SEC guidance, Regulation S-K, requiring public agencies to disclose certain information to investors, contains four items through which disclosure of climate change risks and contributions should be made. Two of them are ways to get to a car's code. Item 303 requires the company to disclose management's discussion and analysis of industry trends that are likely to have a material effect on the company's liquidity. Potentially this could include an industry shift towards readable software, particularly if a regulatory regime change arises post-Volkswagen. Item 503 meanwhile requires the company to assess "risk factors," which could include contributions to, or regulations in light of, climate change. Companies may choose to include increased software scrutiny under these items, as post-Volkswagen car company investors will be much more keen to know if the company is complying with all relevant regulatory regimes. Should the company not disclose that information sua sponte, shareholders may demand, or even sue, the company to force them to be more open about their complicated software, its functions, and its potential flaws. | | References | |
< < | [1] The Obama administration has been active in promoting high fuel economy standards as a means of mitigating GHG emissions. http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations.htm | | | |
< < | [2] See David Gelles, Hiroko Tabuchi and Matthew Dolan, Complex Car Software Becomes the Weak Spot Under the Hood, New York Times (Sept. 26, 2015), http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/27/business/complex-car-software-becomes-the-weak-spot-under-the-hood.html. | > > | [1] See David Gelles, Hiroko Tabuchi and Matthew Dolan, Complex Car Software Becomes the Weak Spot Under the Hood, New York Times (Sept. 26, 2015), http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/27/business/complex-car-software-becomes-the-weak-spot-under-the-hood.html.
[2] An explanation of the events can be found here: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34324772.
[3] See, e.g. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/spy-act-car-hackers-senators-security_55ae4e72e4b0a9b94852748b. | | | |
< < | [3] An explanation of the events can be found here: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34324772. | > > | [4] 42 U.S. Code § 7604 | | | |
< < | [4] See, e.g. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/spy-act-car-hackers-senators-security_55ae4e72e4b0a9b94852748b. | > > | [5] 42 U.S. Code § 7521
[6] See Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007)
[7] 42 U.S. Code § 7404 | |
|
|
GreggBadichekSecondEssay 5 - 14 Jan 2016 - Main.GreggBadichek
|
|
META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | -- By GreggBadichek - 13 Jan 2016
Introduction | |
< < | Car companies increasingly use lower-emissions technology to conform with governmental regulations intended to reduce greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions. Modern cars use software containing millions of lines of code to measure their emissions, regulate their power input in the case of electric vehicles, and to operate their internal systems. Volkswagen in 2015 showed us that proprietary software can mask a profit-enterprise's deception by preventing regulators and the public from discovering manipulation without rigorous testing and some luck. Closed software also greatly endangers user privacy, increasingly so in the world of "smart" cars that interact with "smart" grids. | > > | Car companies increasingly use lower-emissions technology to conform with governmental regulations intended to reduce greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions.[1] Modern cars use software containing millions of lines of code to measure their emissions, regulate their power input in the case of electric vehicles, and to operate their internal systems.[2] Volkswagen in 2015 showed us that proprietary software can mask a profit-enterprise's deception by preventing regulators and the public from discovering manipulation without rigorous testing and some luck.[3] Closed software also greatly endangers user privacy, increasingly so in the world of "smart" cars.[4] | | | |
< < | Drivers Will Not Care About Their Privacy | > > | Drivers Will Not Care About Their Privacy, But Drivers Will Care About Emissions, Fuel Economy, and Physical Safety | | Just as a modern “smart” phone tracks at least its human's location, data usage, communications and reports this information to its corporate masters, so too does car software track its drivers' movements and vehicle operations. As software sophistication increases, cars will report more information about its occupants. Recipient nodes for car data may exist through cellular towers or wifi stations worldwide; particularly for electric vehicles, nodes will exist on the smart grid, allowing the car to function as an organ in a complicated electrical sensory machine. Convenience will overwhelm any concern most drivers feel about their privacy, as is the case with phones. | |
< < | But Drivers Will Care About Emissions, Fuel Economy, and Physical Safety
Drivers purchase high fuel economy vehicles specifically for their mileage and environmental benefits. Consumers who purchase such vehicles pay higher prices to obtain a car that will save money on gas purchases, and because they feel that their expenditure is benefitting a cause. GHG emissions is an issue under close scrutiny by the federal government, whereas potential privacy implications of “smart” vehicles clearly does not garner such attention. Vehicle safety has long been an area of public concern. The argument that complex, opaque software endangers passengers more so than software open to public scrutiny is not new. | > > | Drivers purchase high fuel economy vehicles specifically for their mileage and environmental benefits. Consumers who purchase such vehicles pay higher prices to obtain a car that will save money on gas purchases, and because they feel that their expenditure is benefiting a cause. GHG emissions is an issue under close scrutiny by the federal government, whereas potential privacy implications of “smart” vehicles clearly does not garner such attention. Vehicle safety has long been an area of public concern. The argument that complex, opaque software endangers passengers more so than software open to public scrutiny is not new. | | Why this matters | |
< < | Electric cars will gradually replace their carbon-fuelled counterparts. At that time, car software will not control emissions, but will become increasingly complex in response to increasing car "intelligence." Should software remain closed when this industry shift occurs, the opportunities to use environmental law techniques to expose privacy risks will be greatly diminished. | > > | Allowing software transmitting highly personal information—geolocation—to go unmonitored in a necessary market normalizes and under-emphasizes regular privacy violations. Additionally electric cars will gradually replace their carbon-fuelled counterparts. At that time, car software will not control emissions, but will become increasingly complex in response to increasing car "intelligence." Should software remain closed when this industry shift occurs, the opportunities to use environmental law techniques to expose privacy risks will be greatly diminished. | | Using Environmental Concerns to Expose Privacy Violations | | Petition for Rulemaking before the EPA and DOT | |
< < | If these agencies are empowered to analyze vehicle emissions in the physical sense, there is no reason that they shouldn't be able to do so in the digital sense. Thus a lawsuit against these agencies on the grounds that their failure to examine software is a failure of their duty outside of discretion may close the gap, and move agencies towards examining software. | > > | If these agencies are empowered to analyze vehicle emissions in the physical sense, there is no reason that they shouldn't be able to do so in the digital sense. Private parties can test GHG emissions, but have tremendous difficulty testing "software emissions." Thus a lawsuit against these agencies on the grounds that their failure to examine software is a failure of their duty outside of discretion may close the gap, and move agencies towards examining software.
References
[1] The Obama administration has been active in promoting high fuel economy standards as a means of mitigating GHG emissions. http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations.htm
[2] See David Gelles, Hiroko Tabuchi and Matthew Dolan, Complex Car Software Becomes the Weak Spot Under the Hood, New York Times (Sept. 26, 2015), http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/27/business/complex-car-software-becomes-the-weak-spot-under-the-hood.html.
[3] An explanation of the events can be found here: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34324772.
[4] See, e.g. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/spy-act-car-hackers-senators-security_55ae4e72e4b0a9b94852748b. | |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. |
|
GreggBadichekSecondEssay 4 - 14 Jan 2016 - Main.GreggBadichek
|
|
META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | |
< < | Paper Title | > > | Using Climate Change Law to Combat Closed Software | | -- By GreggBadichek - 13 Jan 2016 | | Car companies increasingly use lower-emissions technology to conform with governmental regulations intended to reduce greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions. Modern cars use software containing millions of lines of code to measure their emissions, regulate their power input in the case of electric vehicles, and to operate their internal systems. Volkswagen in 2015 showed us that proprietary software can mask a profit-enterprise's deception by preventing regulators and the public from discovering manipulation without rigorous testing and some luck. Closed software also greatly endangers user privacy, increasingly so in the world of "smart" cars that interact with "smart" grids.
Drivers Will Not Care About Their Privacy | |
< < | Just as a modern “smart” phone tracks at least its human's location, data usage, communications and reports this information to its corporate masters, so too does car software track its drivers' movements and vehicle operations. As software sophistication increases, cars will report more information about its occupants. Recipient nodes for car data may exist through cellular towers or wifi stations worldwide; particularly for electric vehicles, nodes will exist on the smart grid, allowing the car to function as an organ in a complicated electrical sensory machine.
I see no indication that drivers will care about their privacy, or the fact that their vehicles will transmit more information about their habits and whereabouts to private and public entities. Convenience will overwhelm any concern most drivers feel about their privacy, as is the case with phones. | > > | Just as a modern “smart” phone tracks at least its human's location, data usage, communications and reports this information to its corporate masters, so too does car software track its drivers' movements and vehicle operations. As software sophistication increases, cars will report more information about its occupants. Recipient nodes for car data may exist through cellular towers or wifi stations worldwide; particularly for electric vehicles, nodes will exist on the smart grid, allowing the car to function as an organ in a complicated electrical sensory machine. Convenience will overwhelm any concern most drivers feel about their privacy, as is the case with phones. | | But Drivers Will Care About Emissions, Fuel Economy, and Physical Safety | |
< < | | | Drivers purchase high fuel economy vehicles specifically for their mileage and environmental benefits. Consumers who purchase such vehicles pay higher prices to obtain a car that will save money on gas purchases, and because they feel that their expenditure is benefitting a cause. GHG emissions is an issue under close scrutiny by the federal government, whereas potential privacy implications of “smart” vehicles clearly does not garner such attention. Vehicle safety has long been an area of public concern. The argument that complex, opaque software endangers passengers more so than software open to public scrutiny is not new. | |
> > | Why this matters
Electric cars will gradually replace their carbon-fuelled counterparts. At that time, car software will not control emissions, but will become increasingly complex in response to increasing car "intelligence." Should software remain closed when this industry shift occurs, the opportunities to use environmental law techniques to expose privacy risks will be greatly diminished. | | Using Environmental Concerns to Expose Privacy Violations
Proprietary software permitted Volkswagen to deceive its consumers and governmental entities into believing that their “clean diesel” emissions technology had met and surpassed fuel economy standards. Had the software been open, Volkwagen's cheating would have been noticed almost immediately; consumers would have saved billions of dollars, and Volkwagen would have saved its reputation. It is feasible to imagine several ways in which proprietary software harms users' agency beyond GHG emissions specifically, or environmental problems generally. | |
< < | Demanding open software must be tempered: allowing users to alter their car's software could lead to unexpected safety hazards in a tightly regulated industry. A reasonable middle ground is software that is publicly readable, but can not be edited. This would allow car companies to protect their software's function, yet open it up to the broad scrutiny of countless individual simulations. Readers could even suggest edits to the software to improve its functionality and efficiency.
Importantly, this freedom to read would allow the public to examine software and locate code that compromises privacy, reporting their findings to companies and to everyone else. They could also predict the ways in which car software could evolve to threaten privacy upon the advent of smart-grid technology. Providing this information to other consumers would increase consumer knowledge of a functional utility, in theory making that market more efficient. It may not make users care about their privacy, but it would allow them a means to start making a fuss about it. What legal mechanisms could bring about this change in car software readability? | > > | Demanding open software must be tempered: allowing users to alter their car's software could lead to unexpected safety hazards in a tightly regulated industry. A reasonable middle ground is software that is publicly readable, but can not be edited. This would allow car companies to protect their software's function, yet open it up to the broad scrutiny of countless individual simulations. Readers could even suggest edits to the software to improve its functionality and efficiency.
Importantly, this freedom to read would allow the public to examine software and locate code that compromises privacy, reporting their findings to companies and to everyone else. They could also predict the ways in which car software could evolve to threaten privacy upon the advent of smart-grid technology. Providing this information to other consumers would increase consumer knowledge of a functional utility, in theory making that market more efficient. It may not make users care about their privacy, but it would allow them a means to start making a fuss about it. What legal mechanisms could bring about this change in car software readability? | | Solutions from Environmental Law | | Disclosure and Shareholder Lawsuits | |
< < | Under SEC guidance, Regulation S-K, requiring public agencies to disclose certain information to investors, contains four items through which disclosure of climate change risks and contributions should be made. Two of them are ways to get to a car's code.
Item 303 requires the company to disclose management's discussion and analysis of industry trends that are likely to have a material effect on the company's liquidity. Potentially this could include an industry shift towards readable software, particularly if a regulatory regime change arises post-Volkswagen. Item 503 meanwhile requires the company to assess "risk factors," which could include contributions to, or regulations in light of, climate change. Companies may choose to include increased software scrutiny under these items, as post-Volkswagen car company investors will be much more keen to know if the company is complying with all relevant regulatory regimes. Should the company not disclose that information sua sponte, shareholders may demand, or even sue, the company to force them to be more open about their complicated software, its functions, and its potential flaws.
[writing] | > > | Under SEC guidance, Regulation S-K, requiring public agencies to disclose certain information to investors, contains four items through which disclosure of climate change risks and contributions should be made. Two of them are ways to get to a car's code. Item 303 requires the company to disclose management's discussion and analysis of industry trends that are likely to have a material effect on the company's liquidity. Potentially this could include an industry shift towards readable software, particularly if a regulatory regime change arises post-Volkswagen. Item 503 meanwhile requires the company to assess "risk factors," which could include contributions to, or regulations in light of, climate change. Companies may choose to include increased software scrutiny under these items, as post-Volkswagen car company investors will be much more keen to know if the company is complying with all relevant regulatory regimes. Should the company not disclose that information sua sponte, shareholders may demand, or even sue, the company to force them to be more open about their complicated software, its functions, and its potential flaws. | | | |
< < | Electric Cars | > > | Petition for Rulemaking before the EPA and DOT | | | |
< < | [writing] | > > | If these agencies are empowered to analyze vehicle emissions in the physical sense, there is no reason that they shouldn't be able to do so in the digital sense. Thus a lawsuit against these agencies on the grounds that their failure to examine software is a failure of their duty outside of discretion may close the gap, and move agencies towards examining software. | |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. |
|
GreggBadichekSecondEssay 3 - 14 Jan 2016 - Main.GreggBadichek
|
|
META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | -- By GreggBadichek - 13 Jan 2016
Introduction | |
< < | Car companies increasingly use lower-emissions technology to conform with governmental regulations intended to reduce greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions. Modern cars use software to measure their emissions, regulate their power input in the case of electric vehicles, and to operate their internal systems.
Just as cars nominally benefit the public yet endanger public welfare by serving as weapons under bad circumstances and pollution devices under operative circumstances, car software endangers the public through emissions fakery and privacy risks. Volkswagen in 2015 showed us that proprietary software can mask a profit-enterprise's deception by preventing regulators and the public from discovering manipulation without rigorous testing and some luck. What tools exist to combat these dangers, in light of increasingly complicated car software? | > > | Car companies increasingly use lower-emissions technology to conform with governmental regulations intended to reduce greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions. Modern cars use software containing millions of lines of code to measure their emissions, regulate their power input in the case of electric vehicles, and to operate their internal systems. Volkswagen in 2015 showed us that proprietary software can mask a profit-enterprise's deception by preventing regulators and the public from discovering manipulation without rigorous testing and some luck. Closed software also greatly endangers user privacy, increasingly so in the world of "smart" cars that interact with "smart" grids. | | Drivers Will Not Care About Their Privacy
Just as a modern “smart” phone tracks at least its human's location, data usage, communications and reports this information to its corporate masters, so too does car software track its drivers' movements and vehicle operations. As software sophistication increases, cars will report more information about its occupants. Recipient nodes for car data may exist through cellular towers or wifi stations worldwide; particularly for electric vehicles, nodes will exist on the smart grid, allowing the car to function as an organ in a complicated electrical sensory machine.
I see no indication that drivers will care about their privacy, or the fact that their vehicles will transmit more information about their habits and whereabouts to private and public entities. Convenience will overwhelm any concern most drivers feel about their privacy, as is the case with phones. | |
< < | But Drivers Will Care About Emissions and Fuel Economy | > > | But Drivers Will Care About Emissions, Fuel Economy, and Physical Safety | | | |
< < | Drivers purchase high fuel economy vehicles specifically for their mileage and environmental benefits. Consumers who purchase such vehicles pay higher prices to obtain a car that will save money on gas purchases, and because they feel that their expenditure is benefitting a cause. GHG emissions is an issue under close scrutiny by the federal government, whereas potential privacy implications of “smart” vehicles clearly does not garner such attention. | > > | Drivers purchase high fuel economy vehicles specifically for their mileage and environmental benefits. Consumers who purchase such vehicles pay higher prices to obtain a car that will save money on gas purchases, and because they feel that their expenditure is benefitting a cause. GHG emissions is an issue under close scrutiny by the federal government, whereas potential privacy implications of “smart” vehicles clearly does not garner such attention. Vehicle safety has long been an area of public concern. The argument that complex, opaque software endangers passengers more so than software open to public scrutiny is not new. | | | |
< < | Using Environmental Concern to Expose Privacy Violations | > > | Using Environmental Concerns to Expose Privacy Violations | | Proprietary software permitted Volkswagen to deceive its consumers and governmental entities into believing that their “clean diesel” emissions technology had met and surpassed fuel economy standards. Had the software been open, Volkwagen's cheating would have been noticed almost immediately; consumers would have saved billions of dollars, and Volkwagen would have saved its reputation. It is feasible to imagine several ways in which proprietary software harms users' agency beyond GHG emissions specifically, or environmental problems generally.
Demanding open software must be tempered: allowing users to alter their car's software could lead to unexpected safety hazards in a tightly regulated industry. A reasonable middle ground is software that is publicly readable, but can not be edited. This would allow car companies to protect their software's function, yet open it up to the broad scrutiny of countless individual simulations. Readers could even suggest edits to the software to improve its functionality and efficiency.
Importantly, this freedom to read would allow the public to examine software and locate code that compromises privacy, reporting their findings to companies and to everyone else. They could also predict the ways in which car software could evolve to threaten privacy upon the advent of smart-grid technology. Providing this information to other consumers would increase consumer knowledge of a functional utility, in theory making that market more efficient. It may not make users care about their privacy, but it would allow them a means to start making a fuss about it. What legal mechanisms could bring about this change in car software readability? | |
< < | Legal Solutions | > > | Solutions from Environmental Law | | | |
< < | [writing] | > > | Financial disclosure protocols and agency regulations can force car software to open. | | Disclosure and Shareholder Lawsuits | |
> > | Under SEC guidance, Regulation S-K, requiring public agencies to disclose certain information to investors, contains four items through which disclosure of climate change risks and contributions should be made. Two of them are ways to get to a car's code.
Item 303 requires the company to disclose management's discussion and analysis of industry trends that are likely to have a material effect on the company's liquidity. Potentially this could include an industry shift towards readable software, particularly if a regulatory regime change arises post-Volkswagen. Item 503 meanwhile requires the company to assess "risk factors," which could include contributions to, or regulations in light of, climate change. Companies may choose to include increased software scrutiny under these items, as post-Volkswagen car company investors will be much more keen to know if the company is complying with all relevant regulatory regimes. Should the company not disclose that information sua sponte, shareholders may demand, or even sue, the company to force them to be more open about their complicated software, its functions, and its potential flaws. | | [writing] | |
< < | Subsection B | > > | Electric Cars | | [writing] |
|
GreggBadichekSecondEssay 2 - 14 Jan 2016 - Main.GreggBadichek
|
|
META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
| |
< < | | | It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | Just as a modern “smart” phone tracks at least its human's location, data usage, communications and reports this information to its corporate masters, so too does car software track its drivers' movements and vehicle operations. As software sophistication increases, cars will report more information about its occupants. Recipient nodes for car data may exist through cellular towers or wifi stations worldwide; particularly for electric vehicles, nodes will exist on the smart grid, allowing the car to function as an organ in a complicated electrical sensory machine.
I see no indication that drivers will care about their privacy, or the fact that their vehicles will transmit more information about their habits and whereabouts to private and public entities. Convenience will overwhelm any concern most drivers feel about their privacy, as is the case with phones. | |
< < | [to be continued]
Subsub 1
Drivers Will Care About Emissions
Subsub 1 | > > | But Drivers Will Care About Emissions and Fuel Economy | | | |
< < | Subsub 2 | > > | Drivers purchase high fuel economy vehicles specifically for their mileage and environmental benefits. Consumers who purchase such vehicles pay higher prices to obtain a car that will save money on gas purchases, and because they feel that their expenditure is benefitting a cause. GHG emissions is an issue under close scrutiny by the federal government, whereas potential privacy implications of “smart” vehicles clearly does not garner such attention. | | | |
> > | Using Environmental Concern to Expose Privacy Violations | | | |
> > | Proprietary software permitted Volkswagen to deceive its consumers and governmental entities into believing that their “clean diesel” emissions technology had met and surpassed fuel economy standards. Had the software been open, Volkwagen's cheating would have been noticed almost immediately; consumers would have saved billions of dollars, and Volkwagen would have saved its reputation. It is feasible to imagine several ways in which proprietary software harms users' agency beyond GHG emissions specifically, or environmental problems generally.
Demanding open software must be tempered: allowing users to alter their car's software could lead to unexpected safety hazards in a tightly regulated industry. A reasonable middle ground is software that is publicly readable, but can not be edited. This would allow car companies to protect their software's function, yet open it up to the broad scrutiny of countless individual simulations. Readers could even suggest edits to the software to improve its functionality and efficiency.
Importantly, this freedom to read would allow the public to examine software and locate code that compromises privacy, reporting their findings to companies and to everyone else. They could also predict the ways in which car software could evolve to threaten privacy upon the advent of smart-grid technology. Providing this information to other consumers would increase consumer knowledge of a functional utility, in theory making that market more efficient. It may not make users care about their privacy, but it would allow them a means to start making a fuss about it. What legal mechanisms could bring about this change in car software readability? | | | |
< < | Section II | > > | Legal Solutions | | | |
> > | [writing] | | | |
> > | Disclosure and Shareholder Lawsuits | | | |
< < | Subsection A | > > | [writing] | | Subsection B | |
> > | [writing] | |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. |
|
GreggBadichekSecondEssay 1 - 13 Jan 2016 - Main.GreggBadichek
|
|
> > |
META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.
Paper Title
-- By GreggBadichek - 13 Jan 2016
Introduction
Car companies increasingly use lower-emissions technology to conform with governmental regulations intended to reduce greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions. Modern cars use software to measure their emissions, regulate their power input in the case of electric vehicles, and to operate their internal systems.
Just as cars nominally benefit the public yet endanger public welfare by serving as weapons under bad circumstances and pollution devices under operative circumstances, car software endangers the public through emissions fakery and privacy risks. Volkswagen in 2015 showed us that proprietary software can mask a profit-enterprise's deception by preventing regulators and the public from discovering manipulation without rigorous testing and some luck. What tools exist to combat these dangers, in light of increasingly complicated car software?
Drivers Will Not Care About Their Privacy
Just as a modern “smart” phone tracks at least its human's location, data usage, communications and reports this information to its corporate masters, so too does car software track its drivers' movements and vehicle operations. As software sophistication increases, cars will report more information about its occupants. Recipient nodes for car data may exist through cellular towers or wifi stations worldwide; particularly for electric vehicles, nodes will exist on the smart grid, allowing the car to function as an organ in a complicated electrical sensory machine.
I see no indication that drivers will care about their privacy, or the fact that their vehicles will transmit more information about their habits and whereabouts to private and public entities. Convenience will overwhelm any concern most drivers feel about their privacy, as is the case with phones.
[to be continued]
Subsub 1
Drivers Will Care About Emissions
Subsub 1
Subsub 2
Section II
Subsection A
Subsection B
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list. |
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors. All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|