U.S. Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts’ positions on digital issues are as inscrutable as his positions on other issues, says this Wired News article. (Why do I have the impression the administration prefers it this way?) “He was willing to represent the states in their antitrust case against Microsoft, so he is not a shill for corporate interests,” said one law professor.
Attorneys at the Electronic Frontier Foundation are holding their breath along with everyone else, calling Roberts’ record “both sparse and mixed.” While he sided with Verizon against the Recording Industry Association of America when the music trade group sought the identities of suspected illegal file traders, he also tends to bow to government authority, as he did in a case that let regulators take some items out of the public domain.
So even the EFF attorneys are waiting to see what information Roberts’ confirmation hearings offer. Is this really the way to go about appointing someone to the country’s highest court?