The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Monday to let stand a ruling in an online defamation case will make it more difficult to determine correct legal jurisdictions in other Internet eases, legal experts said.
By opting not to take the case, the high court effectively endorsed a lower court’s decision that a Colorado company that posts ratings of health plans on the Internet could be sued for defamation in a Washington court. The lower court ruling is one of several that makes it easier for plaintiffs to sue Web site operators in their own jurisdictions, rather than where the operators maintain a physical presence.
The case involved a defamation suit filed by Chehalis, Wash.-based Northwest Healthcare Alliance against Lakewood, Colo. -based Healthgrades.com. The Alliance sued in Washington federal court after Healthgrades. com posted a negative ranking of Northwest Healthcare’s home health services on the Internet. Healthgrades. com argued that it should not be subject to the jurisdiction of a court in Washington because its publishing operation is in Colorado.
Observers said the fact that the Supreme Court opted not to hear the case only clouds the legal situation for Web site operators.
Geoff Stewart, a partner at Jones Day in Washington, D. C. , said that the Supreme Court eventually must act on the issue, as Internet sites that rate everything from automobile dealerships to credit offers could scale back their offerings to avoid lawsuits originating numerous jurisdictions.
Online publishers also might have to worry about being dragged into lawsuits in foreign courts, said Dow Lohnes ＆ Albertson attorney Jon Hart, who has represented the Online News Association.
"The much more difficult problems for U. S. media companies arise when claims are brought in foreign countries over content published in the United States," Hart said. Hart cited a recent case in which an Australian court ruled that Dow Jones must appear in a Victoria, Australia court to defend its publication of an article on the U. S. -based Watt Street Journal Web site.
According to Hart, the potential chilling effect of those sorts of jurisdictional decisions is substantial. "I have not yet seen publishers holding back on what they otherwise publish because they’re afraid they’re going to get sued in another country, but that doesn’t mean it Won’t happen if we see a rash of U. S. libel cases against U. S. media companies being brought in foreign countries," he said.
Until the high court decides to weigh in directly on this issue, Web site operators that offer information and services to users located outside of their home states must deal with a thorny legal landscape, said John Morgan, a partner at Perkins Coie LLP and an expert in Internet law.
The author writes this passage mainly to show that

A:uncertainties exist about validity of Web sites. B:solutions to legal problems are far from clear. C:the Supreme Court’s decision is ambiguous. D:Internet legal borders are still left unmarked.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Monday to let stand a ruling in an online defamation case will make it more difficult to determine correct legal jurisdictions in other Internet eases, legal experts said.
By opting not to take the case, the high court effectively endorsed a lower court’s decision that a Colorado company that posts ratings of health plans on the Internet could be sued for defamation in a Washington court. The lower court ruling is one of several that makes it easier for plaintiffs to sue Web site operators in their own jurisdictions, rather than where the operators maintain a physical presence.
The case involved a defamation suit filed by Chehalis, Wash.-based Northwest Healthcare Alliance against Lakewood, Colo. -based Healthgrades.com. The Alliance sued in Washington federal court after Healthgrades. com posted a negative ranking of Northwest Healthcare’s home health services on the Internet. Healthgrades. com argued that it should not be subject to the jurisdiction of a court in Washington because its publishing operation is in Colorado.
Observers said the fact that the Supreme Court opted not to hear the case only clouds the legal situation for Web site operators.
Geoff Stewart, a partner at Jones Day in Washington, D. C. , said that the Supreme Court eventually must act on the issue, as Internet sites that rate everything from automobile dealerships to credit offers could scale back their offerings to avoid lawsuits originating numerous jurisdictions.
Online publishers also might have to worry about being dragged into lawsuits in foreign courts, said Dow Lohnes ＆ Albertson attorney Jon Hart, who has represented the Online News Association.
"The much more difficult problems for U. S. media companies arise when claims are brought in foreign countries over content published in the United States," Hart said. Hart cited a recent case in which an Australian court ruled that Dow Jones must appear in a Victoria, Australia court to defend its publication of an article on the U. S. -based Watt Street Journal Web site.
According to Hart, the potential chilling effect of those sorts of jurisdictional decisions is substantial. "I have not yet seen publishers holding back on what they otherwise publish because they’re afraid they’re going to get sued in another country, but that doesn’t mean it Won’t happen if we see a rash of U. S. libel cases against U. S. media companies being brought in foreign countries," he said.
Until the high court decides to weigh in directly on this issue, Web site operators that offer information and services to users located outside of their home states must deal with a thorny legal landscape, said John Morgan, a partner at Perkins Coie LLP and an expert in Internet law.

The author writes this passage mainly to show that（）

A:uncertainties exist about validity of Web sites. B:solutions to legal problems are far from clear. C:the Supreme Court’s decision is ambiguous. D:Internet legal borders are still left unmarked.

The issue of online privacy in the Internet age found new urgency following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, sparking debate over striking the correct balance between protecting civil liberties and attempting to prevent another tragic terrorist act. While preventing terrorism certainly is of paramount importance, privacy rights should not be deemed irrelevant.
In response to the attacks, Congress quickly passed legislation that included provisions expanding rights of investigators to intercept wire, oral and electronic communications of alleged hackers and terrorists. Civil liberties groups expressed concerns over the provisions and urged caution in ensuring that efforts to protect our nation do not result in broad government authority to erode privacy rights of U. S. citizens. Nevertheless, causing further concern to civil liberties groups, the Department of Justice proposed exceptions to the attorney-client privilege. On Oct. 30, Attorney General John Ashcroft approved an interim agency rule that would permit federal prison authorities to monitor wire and electronic communications between lawyers and their clients in federal custody, including those who have been detained but not charged with any crime, whenever surveillance is deemed necessary to prevent violence or terrorism.
In light of this broadening effort to reach into communications that were previously believed to be "off-limits", the issue of online privacy is now an even more pressing concern. Congress has taken some legislative steps toward ensuring online privacy, including the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, and provided privacy protections for certain sectors through legislation such as the Financial Services Modernization Act. The legislation passed to date does not, however, provide a statutory scheme for protecting general online consumer privacy. Lacking definitive federal law, some states passed their own measures. But much of this legislation is incomplete or not enforced. Moreover, it becomes unworkable when states create different privacy standards; the Internet does not know geographic boundaries, and companies and individuals cannot be expected to comply with differing, and at times conflicting, privacy rules.
An analysis earlier this year of 751 U. S. and international Web sites conducted by Consumers International found that most sites collect personal information but fail to tell consumers how that data will be used, how security is maintained and what rights consumers have over their own information.
At a minimum, Congress should pass legislation requiring Web sites to display privacy policies prominently, inform consumers of the methods employed to collect client data, allow customers to opt out Of such data collection, and provide customer access to their own data that has already been collected. Although various Internet privacy bills were introduced in the 107th Congress, the focus shifted to expanding government surveillance in the wake of the terrorist attacks. Plainly, government efforts to prevent terrorism are appropriate. Exactly how these exigent circumstances change the nature of the online privacy debate is still to be seen.
Privacy standards made by individual states are ineffective because ______.

A:the standards of different states contradict each other B:online communication is not restricted to any state C:these standards ignore the federal law on the matter D:these standards are only applicable to regional Web sites

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Monday to let stand a ruling in an online defamation case will make it more difficult to determine correct legal jurisdictions in other Internet cases, legal experts said.
By opting not to take the case, the high court effectively endorsed a lower court’s decision that a Colorado company that posts ratings of health plans on the Internet could be sued for defamation in a Washington court. The lower court ruling is one of several that makes it easier for plaintiffs to sue Web site operators in their own jurisdictions, rather than where the operators maintain a physical presence.
The case involved a defamation suit filed by Chehalis, Wash.-based Northwest Healthcare Alliance against Lakewood, Colo.-based Healthgrades. com The Alliance sued in Washington federal court after Healthgrades. com posted a negative ranking of Northwest Healthcare’s home health services on the Internet. Healthgrades. com argued that it should not be subject to the jurisdiction of a court in Washington because its publishing operation is in Colorado.
Observers said the fact that the Supreme Court opted not to hear the case only clouds the legal situation for Web site operators.
Geoff Stewart, a partner at Jones Day in Washington, D. C. , said that the Supreme Court eventually must act on the issue, as Internet sites that rate everything from automobile dealerships to credit offers could scale back their offerings to avoid lawsuits originating numerous jurisdictions.
Online publishers also might have to worry about being dragged into lawsuits in foreign courts, said Dow Lohnes & Albertson attorney Jon Hart, who has represented the Online News Association.
"The much more difficult problems for U. S. media companies arise when claims are brought in foreign countries over content published in the United States," Hart said. Hart cited a recent case in which an Australian court ruled that Dow Jones must appear in a Victoria, Australia court to defend its publication of an article on the U. S.--based Walt Street Journal Web site.
According to Hart, the potential chilling effect of those sorts of jurisdictional decisions is substantial. "I have not yet seen publishers holding back on what they otherwise publish because they’re afraid they’re going to get sued in another country, but that doesn’t mean it won’t happen if we see a rash of U. S. libel cases against U. S. media companies being brought in foreign countries," he said.
Until the high court decides to weigh in directly on this issue, Web site operators that offer information and services to users located outside of their home states must deal with a thorny legal landscape, said John Morgan, a partner at Perkins Coie LLP and an expert in Internet law.

The author writes this passage mainly to show that（）

A:uncertainties exist about validity of Web sites. B:solutions to legal problems are far from clear. C:the Supreme Court’s decision is ambiguous. D:Internet legal borders are still left unmarked.

Passage Three
This week some big Internet sites were so busy that they stopped working. Hackers or people who break into other people’s computers did it. Experts think programs called Tribal Village or Trinoo were used.
The programs worked like time bombs. The hackers put software on other people’s computers. The people do not even know. The software just sits and waits until the hacker starts it. When the hacker wants, all the computers call the same web site. This week Yahoo, eBay, Amazon, CNN, Buy, eTrade and zNet were called.
The costs are growing. These web sites make money from advertising. People go to the web sites for information and news. If the web site is not working, they will go to other sites.
Yahoo got many calls. It was like 104-million people dialing in at once.
The website AntiOnline put the software on its site. They hope someone will make a fix.
The only way to stop the hackers is to stop them from getting into computers. Now it is easy to get into many computers.
Webmasters are in a tough spot. The goal is to have a site open and easy to reach. This also makes them open to hackers.
Why do hackers to this Probably because other hackers will praise them. The hackers could also be sick and tired of the commercialization of the Internet. So far all of the targets have been very large, and very commercial.

Yahoo, eBay, Amazon, CNN, Buy, eTrade and zNet are （）

A:stores on the web B:large commercial web sites C:small commercial web sites D:public government web sites

Passage Three This week some big Internet sites were so busy that they stopped working. Hackers or people who break into other people’s computers did it. Experts think programs called Tribal Village or Trinoo were used. The programs worked like time bombs. The hackers put software on other people’s computers. The people do not even know. The software just sits and waits until the hacker starts it. When the hacker wants, all the computers call the same web site. This week Yahoo, eBay, Amazon, CNN, Buy, eTrade and zNet were called. The costs are growing. These web sites make money from advertising. People go to the web sites for information and news. If the web site is not working, they will go to other sites. Yahoo got many calls. It was like 104-million people dialing in at once. The website AntiOnline put the software on its site. They hope someone will make a fix. The only way to stop the hackers is to stop them from getting into computers. Now it is easy to get into many computers. Webmasters are in a tough spot. The goal is to have a site open and easy to reach. This also makes them open to hackers. Why do hackers to this Probably because other hackers will praise them. The hackers could also be sick and tired of the commercialization of the Internet. So far all of the targets have been very large, and very commercial.

Yahoo, eBay, Amazon, CNN, Buy, eTrade and zNet are （）

A:stores on the web B:large commercial web sites C:small commercial web sites D:public government web sites

______ are web sites that search the web for occurrences of a specified word or phrase.

A:Search engines B:WWW C:Internet D:Java

（）are web sites that search the web for occurrences of a specified word or phrase.

A:Search engines B:WWW C:Internet D:Java