Lessig, Lawrence. Code 2.0:Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. Available online at http://codev2.cc/download+remix/Lessig-Codev2.pdf
Maurer, H., Tilo Balke, and Narayanan Kulathuramaiyer. "Report on Dangers and Opportunities Posed by Large Search Engines, Particularly Google." Print.
Maurer et al. argue that Google is a dominating search engine that is dangerous because it has the potential to invade privacy. This danger is motivated by the argument that Google knows more about any person and any corporation than anyone else in history. Furthermore, they question the legitimacy of Google’s Page Rank algorithm, which influences economies. They argue that because, Google is a for-profit company, its obligations to its stockholders might be a conflict of interest in moral dilemmas.
Okoniewski, Elissa A. "Yahoo!, Inc. v. LICRA: The French Challenge to Free Expression on the Internet." American University International Law Review, 2002.
Okoniewski describes an international legal conflict centered on Yahoo!, Inc. in France. In contrast to U.S. laws which protect the sale of Nazi paraphernalia by Freedom of Speech, laws in France allow for prosecution of individuals caught selling such items. Because Yahoo!, Inc.’s Internet auction system made Nazi paraphernalia available to French citizens, it was found in violation of French law. In her conclusion, Okoniewski suggests similar legal resolutions as Lessig, but she does not incorporate technology into her solutions or advocate a best solution as Lessig does in his book.
Post, David G. What Larry Doesn't Get: Code, Law, and Liberty in Cyberspace Symposium: Cyberspace and Privacy: A New Legal Paradigm.
Lessig writes, “there will be a push toward convergence on a uniform set of rules to govern network transactions […] enforced by a single committee”. Post agrees with Lessig’s argument that the “invisible hand” of commerce will move towards uniformity but argues that consumers are given a choice of which internet structure best suits their needs. The structure of control that survives consumer selection will be the one that provides what we need and want. While any structure of control restricts us or is lacking in some way, other structures will be developed which better suit the needs of the public. We will choose structures that are best tailored to our needs and rights.
Schwartz’s paper critiques Lessig’s concept of individual rights to Internet privacy as well as his suggestion to use Internet protocols to automate one’s privacy preferences when accessing the Internet. Rather than give individuals more control of their information, Schwartz suggests a mixed regime (comprising market as well as legal mechanisms) where individual privacy is considered a constitutive right and can be protected as such by the law. Schwartz finally suggests a mixture of property and liability rules to protect individual privacy and data on the Internet.