Privacy still matters in the Digital Age. A Florida state jury awarded former professional wrestler Hulk Hogan $115 million dollars in a lawsuit against the online publication Gawker for publishing a video of him taken without his consent of him having sex with his former best friend's wife.
$55 million dollars of the jury's award was for economic harm and $60 million dollars was for emotional distress. Punitive damages may also be awarded next week so its possible the award may substantially increase.
The recent Erin Andrews $55 million dollar Internet naked video award set the bar for privacy violations in the Digital Age and the Hogan case appears to have taken it several steps further. While both of these cases may be appealed and its doubtful that either will ever receive close to the figures that these juries have awarded, these awards demonstrate that the public is ready to punish those who destroy the personal privacy of others on the Internet.
Copyright 2016 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Showing posts with label Internet Privacy Expert. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Internet Privacy Expert. Show all posts
Friday, March 18, 2016
Monday, June 15, 2015
Belgium Sues Facebook Over Its Troubling Privacy Practices
According to The Wall Street Journal, Belgium's Privacy Commission is taking Facebook to court over its very troubling privacy practices. Last month, the Commission publicly chastised Facebook for the way it handles the personal data of Internet users. The Commission has focused on "how Facebook tracks Internet users
on external websites through the use of “like” and “share” buttons".
In general, I avoid using Facebook's "like" or "share" button because for years the company has demonstrated via its privacy policy and agreements with data brokers that it has does not care about the privacy of its users. The New York Times recently shed some light on how Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg is a privacy hypocrite. Mr. Zuckerberg's business practices demonstrate that he doesn't believe his users deserve to have their personal data kept private but he wants those who are working with him personally to sign non-disclosure agreements (NDA) to protect his personal information. This behavior appears to demonstrates that Mr. Zuckerberg believes privacy is only for the super-rich and not the Average Joe or Facebook user.
My hope is that U.S. lawmakers, regulators, and state attorney generals closely watch how the European Union (EU) deals with digital privacy issues. While I don't agree with every public policy decision that the EU makes regarding the digital ecosystem, when it comes to holding companies such as Facebook and Google accountable for the way they handle and utilize the personal information of Internet users', the U.S. should closely explore emulating the EU's thought process on these matters.
Privacy is one of the hallmarks of a democratic society and we must protect it before some members of the technology community permanently destroy it to maximize their corporate profits. While Facebook and Google talk the talk regarding privacy they have failed to walk the walk and refrain from abusing their access to the data they are collecting about all of us.
Copyright 2015 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
In general, I avoid using Facebook's "like" or "share" button because for years the company has demonstrated via its privacy policy and agreements with data brokers that it has does not care about the privacy of its users. The New York Times recently shed some light on how Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg is a privacy hypocrite. Mr. Zuckerberg's business practices demonstrate that he doesn't believe his users deserve to have their personal data kept private but he wants those who are working with him personally to sign non-disclosure agreements (NDA) to protect his personal information. This behavior appears to demonstrates that Mr. Zuckerberg believes privacy is only for the super-rich and not the Average Joe or Facebook user.
My hope is that U.S. lawmakers, regulators, and state attorney generals closely watch how the European Union (EU) deals with digital privacy issues. While I don't agree with every public policy decision that the EU makes regarding the digital ecosystem, when it comes to holding companies such as Facebook and Google accountable for the way they handle and utilize the personal information of Internet users', the U.S. should closely explore emulating the EU's thought process on these matters.
Privacy is one of the hallmarks of a democratic society and we must protect it before some members of the technology community permanently destroy it to maximize their corporate profits. While Facebook and Google talk the talk regarding privacy they have failed to walk the walk and refrain from abusing their access to the data they are collecting about all of us.
Copyright 2015 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Friday, May 1, 2015
Facebook Threatens European Regulators Over Stronger Privacy Laws
In a very troubling development that shows Facebook's true colors, one of its corporate executives stated that if European regulators continue to scrutinize Facebook's data collection and utilization practices its citizens will not be provided certain features in a timely manner. This veiled threat to European regulators demonstrates that the EU is on the right track in questioning the data privacy policies and practices of Facebook and other Internet companies.
Manufacturers of cars and heavy machinery, pharmaceutical companies, banks, chemical companies, etc.. are required to follow appropriate safety regulations in Europe and around the world. Data collection and usage laws are nothing more than safety regulations and it is time for Facebook and the entire digital ecosystem to get on board with regulations that will enhance user trust of their platforms.
An Austrian class action lawsuit about Facebook's data usage practices, the ongoing Netherlands privacy regulator investigation into Facebook's activities, and the possibility that Europe will enact stronger data protection laws that will provide greater regulatory tools to protect citizens from some of Facebook's troubling data collection and usage practices appears to worry the company. These developments demonstrate the importance of baking privacy into your platform's design and the need for Facebook to change its data collection and usage practices and its policies.
The bottom line is that data privacy is a safety issue. My hope is that U.S. lawmakers and regulators soon follow Europe's lead in understanding that unfettered data collection and usage is a clear and present danger to its citizens and that more robust privacy laws are a must in the Big Data Age.
Copyright 2015 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Manufacturers of cars and heavy machinery, pharmaceutical companies, banks, chemical companies, etc.. are required to follow appropriate safety regulations in Europe and around the world. Data collection and usage laws are nothing more than safety regulations and it is time for Facebook and the entire digital ecosystem to get on board with regulations that will enhance user trust of their platforms.
An Austrian class action lawsuit about Facebook's data usage practices, the ongoing Netherlands privacy regulator investigation into Facebook's activities, and the possibility that Europe will enact stronger data protection laws that will provide greater regulatory tools to protect citizens from some of Facebook's troubling data collection and usage practices appears to worry the company. These developments demonstrate the importance of baking privacy into your platform's design and the need for Facebook to change its data collection and usage practices and its policies.
The bottom line is that data privacy is a safety issue. My hope is that U.S. lawmakers and regulators soon follow Europe's lead in understanding that unfettered data collection and usage is a clear and present danger to its citizens and that more robust privacy laws are a must in the Big Data Age.
Copyright 2015 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Monday, April 27, 2015
Supreme Court to Hear Major Data Privacy and Digital Reputation Case
According to the Associated Press, the Supreme Court announced today that it will decide whether digital platforms "that collect personal data can be sued for publishing inaccurate
information even if the mistakes don’t cause any actual harm." A Virginia resident sued Spokeo.com (an Internet company that compiles alleged publicly available data on people and lets
subscribers view the information, including address, age, marital status, economic health, etc...) because it listed inaccurate information about him and he claims it damaged his job prospects. The plaintiff lost in federal district court; however the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and found that Spokeo had violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
This is a very interesting case because of the importance of one's digital reputation. Should companies such as Spokeo and others that acquire and re-purpose information about people be required to authenticate the accuracy of the data they publish? If so, how should authentication occur?
In the Digital Age, what does actual harm mean? How does one know if actual harm has occurred? Do prospective employers, colleges, financial firms, insurance companies, etc.. always tell applicants they were denied an offer because of data found online at Spokeo or another digital platform?
Should companies that compile data on users/consumers and provide this information to others for a fee be regulated as a consumer reporting agency under FCRA? Recently, a judge in California found that LinkedIn was not a consumer reporting agency under the definition of FRCA. Despite this one court's ruling, are companies such as Spokeo, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, etc... avoiding being regulated under FCRA because of an outdated definition of a consumer reporting agency?
Facebook has agreements in place that enable it to send all your personal information (i.e. personal feelings indicated, posts, photos, friend connections, likes, etc...) to data brokers and this information may be utilized against you when applying for a job, insurance, etc... Google scans your emails, calendars, cloud drive, etc... for behavioral advertising and who knows what other purposes. Does some of Facebook's and Google's activities fall under FCRA and if not should they?
The bottom line is that due to the importance of digital reputation stronger regulations are needed to protect our privacy. Spokeo advertises itself as the "leading people search platform using proprietary technology to organize information into comprehensive yet easy-to-understand online profiles;" Google states its "mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful;" and Forbes has stated Facebook "moves to become the world's most powerful data broker."
If these companies acts like data brokers should they also be regulated as them as well? We may soon find out how the Supreme Court views data privacy and digital reputation in the Digital Age.
Copyright 2015 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
This is a very interesting case because of the importance of one's digital reputation. Should companies such as Spokeo and others that acquire and re-purpose information about people be required to authenticate the accuracy of the data they publish? If so, how should authentication occur?
In the Digital Age, what does actual harm mean? How does one know if actual harm has occurred? Do prospective employers, colleges, financial firms, insurance companies, etc.. always tell applicants they were denied an offer because of data found online at Spokeo or another digital platform?
Should companies that compile data on users/consumers and provide this information to others for a fee be regulated as a consumer reporting agency under FCRA? Recently, a judge in California found that LinkedIn was not a consumer reporting agency under the definition of FRCA. Despite this one court's ruling, are companies such as Spokeo, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, etc... avoiding being regulated under FCRA because of an outdated definition of a consumer reporting agency?
Facebook has agreements in place that enable it to send all your personal information (i.e. personal feelings indicated, posts, photos, friend connections, likes, etc...) to data brokers and this information may be utilized against you when applying for a job, insurance, etc... Google scans your emails, calendars, cloud drive, etc... for behavioral advertising and who knows what other purposes. Does some of Facebook's and Google's activities fall under FCRA and if not should they?
The bottom line is that due to the importance of digital reputation stronger regulations are needed to protect our privacy. Spokeo advertises itself as the "leading people search platform using proprietary technology to organize information into comprehensive yet easy-to-understand online profiles;" Google states its "mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful;" and Forbes has stated Facebook "moves to become the world's most powerful data broker."
If these companies acts like data brokers should they also be regulated as them as well? We may soon find out how the Supreme Court views data privacy and digital reputation in the Digital Age.
Copyright 2015 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
Radio Shack's Proposed Sale Of Customer Data Violates Its Privacy Policy
Radio Shack is on life support and will soon no longer exist in its current format. Its unfortunate that a store I grew up going to with my grandfather will soon be out of business. Its last great hurrah was its awesome Super Bowl ad that brought back its glory days from the 1980's.
Radio Shack is losing so much money that it has resorted to selling one of its most prized assets. Its customers' personal information. What is most disturbing is that despite its long stated privacy promise that "[w]e will not sell or rent your personally identifiable information to anyone at any time," this promise may be ignored in bankruptcy court.
Last year, an educational technology company ConnnectEDU tried to sell the millions of records it had accumulated on young children and the FTC stepped in and fought to require it to honor its privacy promises. My hope is that the FTC joins Texas regulators in fighting to protect Radio Shack's customers' personal information. Personally Identifiable Information is extremely valuable and its a very positive step that regulators are beginning to understand the importance of requiring companies to honor their privacy commitments to its customers or users.
I don't want data brokers to learn about all of the cool things I use to make with my late grandfather. Its none of their damn business!
Copyright 2015 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Radio Shack is losing so much money that it has resorted to selling one of its most prized assets. Its customers' personal information. What is most disturbing is that despite its long stated privacy promise that "[w]e will not sell or rent your personally identifiable information to anyone at any time," this promise may be ignored in bankruptcy court.
Last year, an educational technology company ConnnectEDU tried to sell the millions of records it had accumulated on young children and the FTC stepped in and fought to require it to honor its privacy promises. My hope is that the FTC joins Texas regulators in fighting to protect Radio Shack's customers' personal information. Personally Identifiable Information is extremely valuable and its a very positive step that regulators are beginning to understand the importance of requiring companies to honor their privacy commitments to its customers or users.
I don't want data brokers to learn about all of the cool things I use to make with my late grandfather. Its none of their damn business!
Copyright 2015 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
A Sony Hack Lesson: Digital Privacy and Cyber Security Go Hand and Hand
The Sony hack has taught us many lessons about digital privacy and cyber security. One of the biggest lessons is to be careful about what you put in an email. Another is to ensure that proper email retention policies are in place. A third lesson is that employees need to be better trained about these issues. As privacy law expert Prof. Dan Solove recently stated, there are real harms when one's privacy is breached.
According to multiple published reports, the FBI has named North Korea as the prime suspect in the hacking attack. If North Korea directed or encouraged those responsible for the hack because it wasn't happy with the theme of the movie The Interview it opens up a new front on what companies will have to prepare for when a business decision may not be popular with a foreign government or a well funded adversary.
If a nation state such as North Korea or a well funded organization is determined to hack into a corporate computer system it will do so. Companies can take steps to reduce the risk by creating new digital policies, training their employees, installing new cyber security systems, taking certain systems offline, etc...
The Sony hack has exposed most if not all of its secrets for all to see. From the troubling gender pay gap to the leak of social security numbers, personal health care records, corporate budgets, etc...the hack has greatly damaged Sony's reputation. While Sony may eventually be able to recover from this very troubling matter, it wouldn't surprise me if multiple executives leave the company in the near future due to what is contained in their emails.
The bottom line is that the most state of the art cyber security system may not protect against human error or stupidity. Therefore, it is imperative to constantly train and educate employees about digital privacy and cyber security matters. Privacy is something we take for granted until it has been lost. With the right education and mindset, privacy and cyber security doesn't have to be a luxury.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
According to multiple published reports, the FBI has named North Korea as the prime suspect in the hacking attack. If North Korea directed or encouraged those responsible for the hack because it wasn't happy with the theme of the movie The Interview it opens up a new front on what companies will have to prepare for when a business decision may not be popular with a foreign government or a well funded adversary.
If a nation state such as North Korea or a well funded organization is determined to hack into a corporate computer system it will do so. Companies can take steps to reduce the risk by creating new digital policies, training their employees, installing new cyber security systems, taking certain systems offline, etc...
The Sony hack has exposed most if not all of its secrets for all to see. From the troubling gender pay gap to the leak of social security numbers, personal health care records, corporate budgets, etc...the hack has greatly damaged Sony's reputation. While Sony may eventually be able to recover from this very troubling matter, it wouldn't surprise me if multiple executives leave the company in the near future due to what is contained in their emails.
The bottom line is that the most state of the art cyber security system may not protect against human error or stupidity. Therefore, it is imperative to constantly train and educate employees about digital privacy and cyber security matters. Privacy is something we take for granted until it has been lost. With the right education and mindset, privacy and cyber security doesn't have to be a luxury.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)