In a very promising development, a Belgian court has ruled that Facebook may no longer collect information about non-users. According to The New York Times, the court ruled that Facebook may no longer collect and store digital information from Belgians who do not have a Facebook account due to a lack of consent.
Facebook will appeal the ruling because it wants the right to track everyone on the Internet for monetary purposes. However, if Facebook loses and fails to abide by the court's decision it may be fined up to $270,000 per day.
I do not trust Facebook with my personal information. Even though I have a personal Facebook account, my profile photo shows my "favorite social media titan," and I have intentionally included incorrect personal information about myself. I do not utilize the platform to share my personal thoughts or activities because the data is sent to data brokers. Furthermore, Facebook is not transparent regarding how personal user information is utilized by its business partners.
Its too early to speculate on whether Facebook will ultimately win the case; however, my hope is that other countries around the world including the U.S. require Facebook, Google, etc... to become more transparent about their data collection and utilization practices. Those who do not use Facebook have an expectation that it will not destroy non-users' privacy. We may soon find out if the Belgian judiciary agrees.
Copyright 2015 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Showing posts with label Social Media Privacy Seminar. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Social Media Privacy Seminar. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
Tuesday, September 22, 2015
Did Volkswagen Violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act?
I was very troubled to learn that Volkswagen has been intentionally misleading consumers, governments, and other industry members about its cars' emissions. This was obviously an attempt engineered to steal market share away from its competitors, harm consumers, and mislead governments about its practices. As a former Volkswagen owner, I am outraged by this behavior.
When I recently took my car to have its bi-annual emissions inspection in Maryland, I wondered if the inspection was still really needed because I was under the impression that all cars today adhere to the EPA's emissions standards. Obviously, Volkswagen's intentionally reckless and illegal behavior will ensure that state emissions testing programs will continue on for years to come.
There are potential FTC Article 5 unfair and deceptive trade practice and state consumer protection violations here. In addition, it wouldn't surprise me if there are multi-billion dollar class action lawsuits filed. However, one legal issue that has been largely overlooked is that it appears Volkswagen hacked its own car software for monetary gain.
Investigative Journalist Bob Sullivan was the first reporter to discuss the hacking issue in the proper context. In a recent article he stated, the "Volkswagen story should be the beginning of some really serious soul searching, perhaps even a turning point for the Internet of Things. It’s inevitable: our light bulbs, toasters, door bells, and our cars will all communicate some day soon. We need a rock-solid ethic — not just laws, but a social morality — that machines should never do things unless people know all about them."
Did Volkswagen violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by intentionally accessing software without car owners' knowledge or consent? Did it also violate multiple state computer access/hacking laws?
While its too soon to speculate on all of the fallout that will occur, I believe this matter will bring more attention to computer/digital crimes, the Internet of Things, and the privacy and cyber security issues inherent. My hope is that federal and state authorities make an example out of Volkswagen so other companies are less inclined to follow the same path.
Copyright 2015 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
When I recently took my car to have its bi-annual emissions inspection in Maryland, I wondered if the inspection was still really needed because I was under the impression that all cars today adhere to the EPA's emissions standards. Obviously, Volkswagen's intentionally reckless and illegal behavior will ensure that state emissions testing programs will continue on for years to come.
There are potential FTC Article 5 unfair and deceptive trade practice and state consumer protection violations here. In addition, it wouldn't surprise me if there are multi-billion dollar class action lawsuits filed. However, one legal issue that has been largely overlooked is that it appears Volkswagen hacked its own car software for monetary gain.
Investigative Journalist Bob Sullivan was the first reporter to discuss the hacking issue in the proper context. In a recent article he stated, the "Volkswagen story should be the beginning of some really serious soul searching, perhaps even a turning point for the Internet of Things. It’s inevitable: our light bulbs, toasters, door bells, and our cars will all communicate some day soon. We need a rock-solid ethic — not just laws, but a social morality — that machines should never do things unless people know all about them."
Did Volkswagen violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by intentionally accessing software without car owners' knowledge or consent? Did it also violate multiple state computer access/hacking laws?
While its too soon to speculate on all of the fallout that will occur, I believe this matter will bring more attention to computer/digital crimes, the Internet of Things, and the privacy and cyber security issues inherent. My hope is that federal and state authorities make an example out of Volkswagen so other companies are less inclined to follow the same path.
Copyright 2015 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Tuesday, September 8, 2015
Back To School Student Privacy Issues
Since its back to school time, I thought it would be productive to discuss some digital privacy issues that parents and students should be thinking about. During this time of the year, student privacy is hot because back to school means filling out Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) forms. I filled one out over the weekend and I thought about what type of information I want to keep private and what was best for the school to share about my child (and our family) with other parents and the public. For each parent or guardian, this is a personal decision and there are no wrong answers. What may work for one family may not work for others.
On another note, be careful about what information you post about your children on various social media platforms. In particular, be mindful that neither Facebook nor Google are "friends" of children's privacy. Last year, it was uncovered in federal court that Google was scanning student emails for advertising purposes and I witnessed both Facebook and Google lobbying against stronger student digital data privacy laws in the state of Maryland. With Facebook's new found interest in the education market, parents should be particularly leery about allowing their children's data to be "friends" with Facebook's data mining machine.
The bottom line is that parents should discuss these and other digital privacy issues with their children as soon as they start utilizing digital devices. Its never too early to educate your kids about the virtual world that will affect their physical world.
Copyright 2015 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
On another note, be careful about what information you post about your children on various social media platforms. In particular, be mindful that neither Facebook nor Google are "friends" of children's privacy. Last year, it was uncovered in federal court that Google was scanning student emails for advertising purposes and I witnessed both Facebook and Google lobbying against stronger student digital data privacy laws in the state of Maryland. With Facebook's new found interest in the education market, parents should be particularly leery about allowing their children's data to be "friends" with Facebook's data mining machine.
The bottom line is that parents should discuss these and other digital privacy issues with their children as soon as they start utilizing digital devices. Its never too early to educate your kids about the virtual world that will affect their physical world.
Copyright 2015 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
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.
Saturday, May 23, 2015
Instagram Photos Show Slip and Fall Lawsuit Against NYC Is Frivolous
Taking photos and sharing them digitally is so easy. However, just because it is, that doesn't mean you should do so. In Silicon Valley, the term "frictionless sharing" was coined to describe the ability to make it as simple as possible to share your personal content with others via the Internet and apps.
Technology companies make billions of dollars per year in advertising revenue due to frictionless sharing. This capability is so important to the monetary viability of many digital companies that some of them recently spent millions of dollars lobbying Congress to weaken the Video Privacy Protection Act to make it easier for consumers to share their video viewing habits with others. While Silicon Valley may promote this change as providing more "consumer choice", others may believe this revision has diminished important privacy protections.
Just because you have the ability to take a photo or a video doesn't mean you should do so and share it digitally. Having the skills to understand when not to share is very important in the Social Media Age. In general, I advise many clients not share their personal content digitally unless it is in furtherance of their professional career.
The latest person who has not mastered the skill of when not to share appears to be Rev. Al Sharpton's daughter Dominique Sharpton. According to The New York Post's analysis of Ms. Sharpton's personal Instagram account she has "a lot of explaining to do." Ms. Sharpton is suing the City of New York for $5 million dollars because she allegedly injured her angle on a Soho sidewalk. I am highly skeptical of this claim because it appears that on her personal Instagram account she has posted photos of herself climbing mountains in the U.S. and overseas.
Ms. Sharpton's Instagram account photos do not appear to demonstrate that she has a $5 million dollar claim against the New York City. According to The New York Post, New York City has ordered Ms. Sharpton to preserve her photos because they appear to contradict the claims in her complaint against the City. If the photos on Ms. Sharpton's Instagram account are authenticated, the City of New York may take legal action against her because it appears that her legal complaint is deficient due to a "failure to state a claim."
The bottom line is be careful what you post because it may create tremendous legal liability for you and/or others.
UPDATE: According to The New York Post, Ms. Sharpton has made her social media accounts "private". In light of all of the media coverage regarding this matter, Ms. Sharpton's latest move further demonstrates her $5 million dollar legal claim against the City of New York appears to be frivolous.
Copyright 2015 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Technology companies make billions of dollars per year in advertising revenue due to frictionless sharing. This capability is so important to the monetary viability of many digital companies that some of them recently spent millions of dollars lobbying Congress to weaken the Video Privacy Protection Act to make it easier for consumers to share their video viewing habits with others. While Silicon Valley may promote this change as providing more "consumer choice", others may believe this revision has diminished important privacy protections.
Just because you have the ability to take a photo or a video doesn't mean you should do so and share it digitally. Having the skills to understand when not to share is very important in the Social Media Age. In general, I advise many clients not share their personal content digitally unless it is in furtherance of their professional career.
The latest person who has not mastered the skill of when not to share appears to be Rev. Al Sharpton's daughter Dominique Sharpton. According to The New York Post's analysis of Ms. Sharpton's personal Instagram account she has "a lot of explaining to do." Ms. Sharpton is suing the City of New York for $5 million dollars because she allegedly injured her angle on a Soho sidewalk. I am highly skeptical of this claim because it appears that on her personal Instagram account she has posted photos of herself climbing mountains in the U.S. and overseas.
Ms. Sharpton's Instagram account photos do not appear to demonstrate that she has a $5 million dollar claim against the New York City. According to The New York Post, New York City has ordered Ms. Sharpton to preserve her photos because they appear to contradict the claims in her complaint against the City. If the photos on Ms. Sharpton's Instagram account are authenticated, the City of New York may take legal action against her because it appears that her legal complaint is deficient due to a "failure to state a claim."
The bottom line is be careful what you post because it may create tremendous legal liability for you and/or others.
UPDATE: According to The New York Post, Ms. Sharpton has made her social media accounts "private". In light of all of the media coverage regarding this matter, Ms. Sharpton's latest move further demonstrates her $5 million dollar legal claim against the City of New York appears to be frivolous.
Copyright 2015 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Wednesday, December 31, 2014
10 Social Media Privacy New Year's Resolutions
I have listed below 10 New Year's resolutions for those who want to better protect their personal privacy in the Social Media Age:
1) Limit social sharing. Privacy is cool and hip and sharing too much is not.
2) Don't take nude selfies.
3) Send fewer emails and make more phone calls and have more face to face meetings.
4) Use disappearing apps cautiously.
5) Keep your smartphone location off unless using it for directions.
6) Don't trust apps or online services that have bad privacy policies/practices.
7) Don't trust Facebook with your personal information because its agreements with data brokers destroy your privacy.
8) Don't trust Google's Gmail, Apps, etc... because its privacy policy allows for unfettered data mining and user profile creation that destroy your privacy.
9) Limit Twitter and other public social media conversations.
10) Advocate for stronger digital privacy laws. Lawmakers and regulators need to hear your voice!
These 10 recommendations are the tip of the ice berg. Data brokers, employers, schools, insurance companies, financial firms, law enforcement, etc... are watching your social media profile so limit your digital footprint. In the Social Media Age, this famous proverb should still be followed: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt."
Wishing you all a happy and healthy 2015 and beyond!
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC All rights reserved.
1) Limit social sharing. Privacy is cool and hip and sharing too much is not.
2) Don't take nude selfies.
3) Send fewer emails and make more phone calls and have more face to face meetings.
4) Use disappearing apps cautiously.
5) Keep your smartphone location off unless using it for directions.
6) Don't trust apps or online services that have bad privacy policies/practices.
7) Don't trust Facebook with your personal information because its agreements with data brokers destroy your privacy.
8) Don't trust Google's Gmail, Apps, etc... because its privacy policy allows for unfettered data mining and user profile creation that destroy your privacy.
9) Limit Twitter and other public social media conversations.
10) Advocate for stronger digital privacy laws. Lawmakers and regulators need to hear your voice!
These 10 recommendations are the tip of the ice berg. Data brokers, employers, schools, insurance companies, financial firms, law enforcement, etc... are watching your social media profile so limit your digital footprint. In the Social Media Age, this famous proverb should still be followed: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt."
Wishing you all a happy and healthy 2015 and beyond!
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC All rights reserved.
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
California's New Digital "Eraser Button" Law
On January 1, 2015, California's SB 568 Privacy Rights For California's Minors in The Digital World goes into effect. The bill was signed in September 2013 and gave website operators a little more than a year to ensure that they have the ability to comply with the new law.
In general, SB 568, seeks to protect minors by generally prohibiting operators of digital platforms (such as web sites, online services, online applications, mobile apps, etc...) from knowingly marketing and advertising to a minor a broad range of products specified in the law. Some of these products may include alcoholic beverages, firearms, ammunition, tobacco products, fireworks, lottery tickets, tattoos, drug paraphernalia. The new law requires operators of digital platforms to notify minors of their rights to remove content or information they posted and honor their requests to remove such data, subject to specified conditions and exceptions.
At first glance, this new law doesn't appear to have much teeth. For example, the law doesn't appear to have an enforcement mechanism and it is silent about a private right of action against those who may violate the law. Therefore, when this new law is allegedly violated how does one go about rectifying the situation?
While SB 568 may help protect California minors from some digital mistakes that may harm their ability to gain acceptance into the college of their dreams, it should not replace educating our children about the digital issues that they confront every day.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC All rights reserved.
In general, SB 568, seeks to protect minors by generally prohibiting operators of digital platforms (such as web sites, online services, online applications, mobile apps, etc...) from knowingly marketing and advertising to a minor a broad range of products specified in the law. Some of these products may include alcoholic beverages, firearms, ammunition, tobacco products, fireworks, lottery tickets, tattoos, drug paraphernalia. The new law requires operators of digital platforms to notify minors of their rights to remove content or information they posted and honor their requests to remove such data, subject to specified conditions and exceptions.
At first glance, this new law doesn't appear to have much teeth. For example, the law doesn't appear to have an enforcement mechanism and it is silent about a private right of action against those who may violate the law. Therefore, when this new law is allegedly violated how does one go about rectifying the situation?
While SB 568 may help protect California minors from some digital mistakes that may harm their ability to gain acceptance into the college of their dreams, it should not replace educating our children about the digital issues that they confront every day.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC All rights reserved.
Friday, December 26, 2014
Facebook Message Scanning Lawsuit Moves Forward
According to Reuters, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton in Oakland,
California recently ruled that a lawsuit alleging Facebook violates its users privacy by illegally scanning the contents of messages sent on its platform for advertising purposes may move forward. This lawsuit appears to sound similar to a recent lawsuit against Google for scanning users emails for advertising purposes.
It appears that Facebook is claiming that the scanning of emails for advertising purposes is "an ordinary business practice". Only in the world of Facebook and Google is scanning personal messages for advertising purposes an acceptable "ordinary business practice." Is it an ordinary business practice for the U.S. Postal Service, Federal Express, United Parcel Service, etc... to scan the contents of their packages to build user profiles about senders/receivers for advertising and other purposes? Of course not. Therefore, why do some digital based companies believe this practice is ordinary and should be legal?
According to ArsTecnica, the court "read Facebook's entire terms of service. And, in this case, their vague language—typically used to provide broad immunity—became a liability: "[the document] does not establish that users consented to the scanning of their messages for advertising purposes, and in fact, makes no mention of 'messages' whatsoever." Thus, the plaintiffs may have had reason to expect that their messages would remain private. And, although the practice may have been discontinued, the plaintiffs allege that Facebook could start scanning messages again whenever it wanted to."
On Facebook's home page it states, "Connect with friends and the world around you on Facebook". Nowhere does it state that your messages will be scanned for advertising purposes. Should Facebook and other digital properties such as Google that are actually digital advertising platforms that masquerade as other services be required to have clear warnings every time a user sends and/or opens up a message (or uses other services) from their platform? The FDA recently created new calorie labeling rules to better inform Americans about the foods they eat so should the FTC create rules that require digital platforms to be more transparent about their practices to better protect the privacy and safety of its citizens?
The biggest challenge for plaintiffs moving forward may be to identify how Facebook's actions have financially harmed them. Unfortunately, the court system in general has been slow to recognize privacy harms absent a direct monetary loss from a practice. Will the Sony Hack change this mentality? We may find out in the new year.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
It appears that Facebook is claiming that the scanning of emails for advertising purposes is "an ordinary business practice". Only in the world of Facebook and Google is scanning personal messages for advertising purposes an acceptable "ordinary business practice." Is it an ordinary business practice for the U.S. Postal Service, Federal Express, United Parcel Service, etc... to scan the contents of their packages to build user profiles about senders/receivers for advertising and other purposes? Of course not. Therefore, why do some digital based companies believe this practice is ordinary and should be legal?
According to ArsTecnica, the court "read Facebook's entire terms of service. And, in this case, their vague language—typically used to provide broad immunity—became a liability: "[the document] does not establish that users consented to the scanning of their messages for advertising purposes, and in fact, makes no mention of 'messages' whatsoever." Thus, the plaintiffs may have had reason to expect that their messages would remain private. And, although the practice may have been discontinued, the plaintiffs allege that Facebook could start scanning messages again whenever it wanted to."
On Facebook's home page it states, "Connect with friends and the world around you on Facebook". Nowhere does it state that your messages will be scanned for advertising purposes. Should Facebook and other digital properties such as Google that are actually digital advertising platforms that masquerade as other services be required to have clear warnings every time a user sends and/or opens up a message (or uses other services) from their platform? The FDA recently created new calorie labeling rules to better inform Americans about the foods they eat so should the FTC create rules that require digital platforms to be more transparent about their practices to better protect the privacy and safety of its citizens?
The biggest challenge for plaintiffs moving forward may be to identify how Facebook's actions have financially harmed them. Unfortunately, the court system in general has been slow to recognize privacy harms absent a direct monetary loss from a practice. Will the Sony Hack change this mentality? We may find out in the new year.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Iowa Digital License App Has Major 4th Amendment Implications
Wouldn't it be great if we didn't have to carry around a wallet with a driver's license, credit cards, ATM cards, health insurance cards, etc...? As Apple famously trademarked and states in some of its commercials, "There's an app for that". For almost every interaction we have in the real world, software developers are creating apps to allegedly make our lives "easier" and more "frictionless".
In the tech world, "frictionless" may mean making it very easy to "share your personal thoughts, viewing habits, etc...without violating privacy laws", or making it very easy to "make online purchases." This is why so many companies are rushing to create apps for users. Unfortunately, multiple FTC reports have found many apps lack proper disclosures which may in turn lead to data leakage which creates cyber safety challenges for users.
The latest app that aims to make our lives "easier" is an app that may replace a physical Iowa driver's license. At first glance, this sounds great. Since more and more people are using their smartphones to do every day tasks and these mini computers hold so much of our personal information why not utilize an app which would mean one less thing (physical driver's license) to carry around?
There are numerous questions that still need to be answered. If a person who uses the app is questioned by a police officer during a "routine traffic stop" or a "stop and frisk" and asked to show the driver's license app will a police officer be able to access other parts of the phone or will a password be needed? What happens if a text message, email, or phone call comes through at the moment the police officer is reviewing the app license? Will the police officer be able to see the sender of the message, or the contents of the communications, or the phone number of the caller? When downloading the app, will it request access to your contacts or want to see what other apps you have downloaded like Twitter?
According to the recent Supreme Court decision in Hein v. North Carolina, the police may stop a car based on a "reasonable" misunderstanding of the law. What if while reviewing a driver's license app a police officer "misunderstands the law" and searches your smartphone, or makes subtle threats about providing access to your smartphone?
The bottom line is that there are still many questions that need to be answered regarding this new app. As more and more of our lives become digital, it is imperative that app developers work closely with lawyers and regulators to ensure that privacy by design is part and parcel of the process. While we may not know all of the potential consequences of utilizing driver's license apps, it is important that we have a national conversation about these issues to ensure that our 4th amendment rights are properly protected in the Digital Age.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
In the tech world, "frictionless" may mean making it very easy to "share your personal thoughts, viewing habits, etc...without violating privacy laws", or making it very easy to "make online purchases." This is why so many companies are rushing to create apps for users. Unfortunately, multiple FTC reports have found many apps lack proper disclosures which may in turn lead to data leakage which creates cyber safety challenges for users.
The latest app that aims to make our lives "easier" is an app that may replace a physical Iowa driver's license. At first glance, this sounds great. Since more and more people are using their smartphones to do every day tasks and these mini computers hold so much of our personal information why not utilize an app which would mean one less thing (physical driver's license) to carry around?
There are numerous questions that still need to be answered. If a person who uses the app is questioned by a police officer during a "routine traffic stop" or a "stop and frisk" and asked to show the driver's license app will a police officer be able to access other parts of the phone or will a password be needed? What happens if a text message, email, or phone call comes through at the moment the police officer is reviewing the app license? Will the police officer be able to see the sender of the message, or the contents of the communications, or the phone number of the caller? When downloading the app, will it request access to your contacts or want to see what other apps you have downloaded like Twitter?
According to the recent Supreme Court decision in Hein v. North Carolina, the police may stop a car based on a "reasonable" misunderstanding of the law. What if while reviewing a driver's license app a police officer "misunderstands the law" and searches your smartphone, or makes subtle threats about providing access to your smartphone?
The bottom line is that there are still many questions that need to be answered regarding this new app. As more and more of our lives become digital, it is imperative that app developers work closely with lawyers and regulators to ensure that privacy by design is part and parcel of the process. While we may not know all of the potential consequences of utilizing driver's license apps, it is important that we have a national conversation about these issues to ensure that our 4th amendment rights are properly protected in the Digital Age.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
Monday, December 15, 2014
Netherlands May Fine Google Millions of Euros For Privacy Law Violations
According to The Wall Street Journal, Google may soon be fined the equivalent of $19 million dollars by the Netherlands Data Protection Authority for violating privacy laws. The Dutch privacy regulator announced earlier today that Google collects and combines
personal data for advertising purposes without obtaining user consent. The threat of a fine follows a 900,000 euro-penalty from Spain’sdata privacy regulator last year and another 150,000 euro penalty Google received earlier this year.
In 2012, Google consolidated most of its privacy policies into one comprehensive policy that enables it to combine almost all information it gains about its users. This troubling change demonstrated that Google doesn't care about its users privacy. Google's platforms are not built with privacy by design in place. It is an advertising company disguised as a search engine and communications provider. This business model has created the most successful advertising entity in the history of the world.
During the past several years, Google has been fined tens of millions of dollars by the FTC, state attorney generals, and European regulators for violating privacy laws. Regulator fines are designed to stop and deter illegal behavior. Google makes so much money from the data it mines on its users that it may be cheaper for it to continue to pay fines for bad behavior instead of changing its business practices. Until regulators around the world are provided the tools that have the teeth required to deter Google and other companies from harming our privacy this troubling behavior will continue.
Will 2015 be the year that legislators and regulators really clamp down on digital data collection and usage? Time will only tell.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
In 2012, Google consolidated most of its privacy policies into one comprehensive policy that enables it to combine almost all information it gains about its users. This troubling change demonstrated that Google doesn't care about its users privacy. Google's platforms are not built with privacy by design in place. It is an advertising company disguised as a search engine and communications provider. This business model has created the most successful advertising entity in the history of the world.
During the past several years, Google has been fined tens of millions of dollars by the FTC, state attorney generals, and European regulators for violating privacy laws. Regulator fines are designed to stop and deter illegal behavior. Google makes so much money from the data it mines on its users that it may be cheaper for it to continue to pay fines for bad behavior instead of changing its business practices. Until regulators around the world are provided the tools that have the teeth required to deter Google and other companies from harming our privacy this troubling behavior will continue.
Will 2015 be the year that legislators and regulators really clamp down on digital data collection and usage? Time will only tell.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
Sunday, October 5, 2014
PA Attorney General's Office Rocked By Porn Email Scandal
In a very troubling development, prosecutors in the Pennsylvania attorney general's office and employees in other state agencies have been accused of sending porn and other inappropriate content via government email systems. According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection and the department's deputy chief counsel have resigned over the scandal.
NBC News has reported that one political appointee who sits on the state Board of Probation and Parole has refused to step down at this point. The emails involved in the scandal reportedly contained, "still photos of women in pin-up-style poses; mock workplace motivational posters that showed women performing sex acts with male characters who appeared to be their bosses; and video files, bearing winking titles like "NASCAR Victory," or "Delta Faucet commercial" that showed women and men engaged in intercourse and other sexually suggestive acts."
I have talked to some friends of mine who work(ed) in the attorney general's office of other states and none of them send porn via email to their coworkers on work or personal email. Each person I spoke with also stated that if they were involved in this type of behavior they most likely would be fired or forced to resign. Last year, a federal judge in Montana was forced into retirement over allegedly racist emails that he sent.
It is important to be very careful about what one sends via email or other digital platforms. In general, I do not recommend utilizing work email for personal purposes.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC All rights reserved.
NBC News has reported that one political appointee who sits on the state Board of Probation and Parole has refused to step down at this point. The emails involved in the scandal reportedly contained, "still photos of women in pin-up-style poses; mock workplace motivational posters that showed women performing sex acts with male characters who appeared to be their bosses; and video files, bearing winking titles like "NASCAR Victory," or "Delta Faucet commercial" that showed women and men engaged in intercourse and other sexually suggestive acts."
I have talked to some friends of mine who work(ed) in the attorney general's office of other states and none of them send porn via email to their coworkers on work or personal email. Each person I spoke with also stated that if they were involved in this type of behavior they most likely would be fired or forced to resign. Last year, a federal judge in Montana was forced into retirement over allegedly racist emails that he sent.
It is important to be very careful about what one sends via email or other digital platforms. In general, I do not recommend utilizing work email for personal purposes.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC All rights reserved.
Saturday, October 4, 2014
Student Yik Yak Threat at Towson University Leads To Arrest
Be careful what you post online. I discuss this theme constantly with my clients, during seminars, and with the media. Earlier this week, a Towson University student was arrested after posting a threat on the app called Yik Yak.
An 18-year old Towson University student allegedly made an anonymous threat against Towson University utilizing Yik Yak. The alleged threat made a reference to creating a "Virginia Tech Part 2". This troubling alleged reference to the terrible tragedy that occurred at Virginia Tech in 2007 that killed 33 people demonstrates that the student may need the assistance of a mental health professional.
According to the Towson Towerlight, "[a] resident student first reported the threat to her resident assistant Wednesday afternoon. The RA took it to the Department of Housing and Residence Life, according to the Director of University Communications Ray Feldmann, who then took it to University Police. TUPD then alerted Baltimore County Police, Maryland State Police and the FBI."
The student who allegedly threatened Towson was charged with, "threat of massive violence and disturbing operations at a school." According to the Baltimore Sun, the defendant, "told police he had learned he wasn't performing well in the jazz class and was worried his parents would pull him out of school if his GPA dropped too much..."
The bottom line is that no matter how angry one is it is generally not recommended to express your anger on social media or any other digital platform. If someone is thinking about harming others or themselves, they should meet with a mental health professional who may be able to assist them.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC All rights reserved.
An 18-year old Towson University student allegedly made an anonymous threat against Towson University utilizing Yik Yak. The alleged threat made a reference to creating a "Virginia Tech Part 2". This troubling alleged reference to the terrible tragedy that occurred at Virginia Tech in 2007 that killed 33 people demonstrates that the student may need the assistance of a mental health professional.
According to the Towson Towerlight, "[a] resident student first reported the threat to her resident assistant Wednesday afternoon. The RA took it to the Department of Housing and Residence Life, according to the Director of University Communications Ray Feldmann, who then took it to University Police. TUPD then alerted Baltimore County Police, Maryland State Police and the FBI."
The student who allegedly threatened Towson was charged with, "threat of massive violence and disturbing operations at a school." According to the Baltimore Sun, the defendant, "told police he had learned he wasn't performing well in the jazz class and was worried his parents would pull him out of school if his GPA dropped too much..."
The bottom line is that no matter how angry one is it is generally not recommended to express your anger on social media or any other digital platform. If someone is thinking about harming others or themselves, they should meet with a mental health professional who may be able to assist them.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC All rights reserved.
Wednesday, August 6, 2014
Foursquare App Update Harms User Privacy
According to the Wall Street Journal, as of 8/6/2014, "users who download or update the Foursquare app will
automatically let the company track their GPS coordinates any time their
phone is powered on. Foursquare previously required users to give the
app permission to turn on location-tracking.....Foursquare’s app goes beyond location-tracking features offered by
competitors. Social apps like Twitter collect GPS coordinates to give
users the option of sharing their location with friends, but don’t
collect this data when the app is off."
To justify Foursquare's privacy changes, founder Dennis Crowley stated "more users will be willing to share their location because they’re getting a more valuable service in return." Has Mr. Crowley read about the NSA Edward Snowden leaks? According to Wired, "[t]he data you share with Foursquare today could conceivably end up in the hands of the NSA, hackers, or private data brokers tomorrow."
The bottom line is that if you value your personal privacy and safety I would not recommend using the "new and improved" Foursquare. Do you want to share more personal information with data brokers, insurance companies, colleges, landlords, and future employers who may discriminate against you based upon your Foursquare usage? If so, Foursquare may be for you.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC All rights reserved.
To justify Foursquare's privacy changes, founder Dennis Crowley stated "more users will be willing to share their location because they’re getting a more valuable service in return." Has Mr. Crowley read about the NSA Edward Snowden leaks? According to Wired, "[t]he data you share with Foursquare today could conceivably end up in the hands of the NSA, hackers, or private data brokers tomorrow."
The bottom line is that if you value your personal privacy and safety I would not recommend using the "new and improved" Foursquare. Do you want to share more personal information with data brokers, insurance companies, colleges, landlords, and future employers who may discriminate against you based upon your Foursquare usage? If so, Foursquare may be for you.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC All rights reserved.
Wednesday, July 9, 2014
Porky's Fan? VA Prosecutor Requests Warrant To Photo Sexting Teen's Erect Penis
An article in the Washington Post alleges that Manassas City police and Prince William County prosecutors want to take photos of a teenage suspect's erect penis as evidence to prosecute him for sexting with his girlfriend. In order to photograph the suspect's erect penis he may be required to go to a hospital and receive an injection to create an erection.
It appears that the case began when the suspect's (he is 17 years old) 15 year old girlfriend sent photos of herself to the 17 year old, who responded by sending the 15 year old girl allegedly pornographic images of himself. The family of the girl notified authorities about the matter. Interestingly, prosecutors did not file charges against the girl.
This case reminds me of the movie Porky's when physical education teacher Ms. Balbricker asks the high school principal if he would sanction a penis (tallywacker) lineup of several students so she can identify which student stuck his penis through a peep hole in the girl's bathroom. Ms. Balbricker claims she can identify the offending student's penis because it contains a distinctive mole. In the movie, the request for the penis line up was denied.
Was the prosecutor's troubling request inspired by Porky's? As a parent of two young children, I am outraged by the actions of the police and prosecutors in this matter. What happened to educating our kids about the dangers of sexting? Why are prosecutors utilizing public resources to try to photograph a teenager's erect penis?
My hope is that prosecutors and judges across the country realize that this is the wrong way to deal with sexting by teenagers.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
It appears that the case began when the suspect's (he is 17 years old) 15 year old girlfriend sent photos of herself to the 17 year old, who responded by sending the 15 year old girl allegedly pornographic images of himself. The family of the girl notified authorities about the matter. Interestingly, prosecutors did not file charges against the girl.
This case reminds me of the movie Porky's when physical education teacher Ms. Balbricker asks the high school principal if he would sanction a penis (tallywacker) lineup of several students so she can identify which student stuck his penis through a peep hole in the girl's bathroom. Ms. Balbricker claims she can identify the offending student's penis because it contains a distinctive mole. In the movie, the request for the penis line up was denied.
Was the prosecutor's troubling request inspired by Porky's? As a parent of two young children, I am outraged by the actions of the police and prosecutors in this matter. What happened to educating our kids about the dangers of sexting? Why are prosecutors utilizing public resources to try to photograph a teenager's erect penis?
My hope is that prosecutors and judges across the country realize that this is the wrong way to deal with sexting by teenagers.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
Sunday, July 6, 2014
EPIC Files FTC Complaint over Facebook's Emotion Study
The Electronic Information Privacy Center (EPIC), a privacy advocacy group that has been performing great work for 20 years filed a complaint with the FTC alleging that Facebook's emotion study "deceived its users and violated the terms of a 2012 FTC consent decree." The complaint was filed right before the July 4th holiday weekend.
Facebook's refusal to issue an immediate apology regarding this issue demonstrates once again that the company is tone deaf when it comes to user privacy. I have documented Facebook's troubling position regarding digital privacy time and time and time, etc...again.
When I initially stated that Facebook's emotion study may have violated Facebook's FTC consent agreement early in the day on 6/30/14, I didn't see any other published articles mentioning this possibility. Soon after I posted my article, Forbes reported that Facebook changed its terms to allegedly allow user data to be utilized for "research" purposes 4 months after the study was completed.
There are many users, technologists, and members of the media who are drinking the Silicon Valley Cool-Aid and defending Facebook's (and other companies) troubling practices because privacy policies, along with terms of use, and data use policies are written so broadly in the hopes that the language allows for any type of data usage and/or manipulation. Just because one agrees to a troubling privacy policy/terms of use/data use policy clause in an agreement, that doesn't mean a court of law will automatically rule that the policy is legal and enforceable.
The common law blue pencil doctrine is utilized when contract clauses are ruled to be unreasonable and violate public policy. This doctrine enables courts to strike troubling clauses from executed agreements. Is it time for the courts to start "blue penciling" unreasonable privacy policies, terms of use, data use policies, etc...?
If some Silicon Valley companies don't start changing their data collection and usage practices it would not surprise me if the courts start flexing their blue pencil muscles to protect the personal privacy and safety of citizens in the Digital Age.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
Facebook's refusal to issue an immediate apology regarding this issue demonstrates once again that the company is tone deaf when it comes to user privacy. I have documented Facebook's troubling position regarding digital privacy time and time and time, etc...again.
When I initially stated that Facebook's emotion study may have violated Facebook's FTC consent agreement early in the day on 6/30/14, I didn't see any other published articles mentioning this possibility. Soon after I posted my article, Forbes reported that Facebook changed its terms to allegedly allow user data to be utilized for "research" purposes 4 months after the study was completed.
There are many users, technologists, and members of the media who are drinking the Silicon Valley Cool-Aid and defending Facebook's (and other companies) troubling practices because privacy policies, along with terms of use, and data use policies are written so broadly in the hopes that the language allows for any type of data usage and/or manipulation. Just because one agrees to a troubling privacy policy/terms of use/data use policy clause in an agreement, that doesn't mean a court of law will automatically rule that the policy is legal and enforceable.
The common law blue pencil doctrine is utilized when contract clauses are ruled to be unreasonable and violate public policy. This doctrine enables courts to strike troubling clauses from executed agreements. Is it time for the courts to start "blue penciling" unreasonable privacy policies, terms of use, data use policies, etc...?
If some Silicon Valley companies don't start changing their data collection and usage practices it would not surprise me if the courts start flexing their blue pencil muscles to protect the personal privacy and safety of citizens in the Digital Age.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
Saturday, June 28, 2014
Supreme Court: 9-0 We Have The Right To Privacy In The Digital Age
In a 9-0 decision earlier this week in Riley v. California and U.S. v. Wurie, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the police generally need a warrant to search cell phones and personal electronic devices of those who are arrested. I agree wholeheartedly with Adam Liptak's assertion that its "a sweeping victory for privacy rights in the digital age."
This decision appears to have been built upon the U.S. v. Jones decision in 2012 which ruled 9-0 that a warrant is required to place a GPS tracker on a suspect's vehicle. I believe that when reviewed together U.S. v. Jones, Riley v. California, and U.S. v. Wurie, provides strong evidence that the 1979 Smith v. Maryland decision that use of a pen register by law enforcement is not a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment may be jeopardy.
The bottom line is that the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly recognized that we have an expectation of privacy in the digital age. Law enforcement appears now to need a warrant to not only search personal cell phones and digital devices, but also personal digital accounts such as email accounts, social media accounts, cloud computing accounts, app accounts, and other connected devices/accounts that may be referred to the "Internet of Things", etc... of the people whom they arrest.
Does this ruling strengthen the Electronic Communications Privacy Act by now requiring law enforcement to obtain a warrant for all emails regardless of their age during an investigation? While it is still too early to determine all of the ramifications of this decision, it demonstrates that the U.S. Supreme Court believes we still have a right to privacy despite the changing nature and usage of technology.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
This decision appears to have been built upon the U.S. v. Jones decision in 2012 which ruled 9-0 that a warrant is required to place a GPS tracker on a suspect's vehicle. I believe that when reviewed together U.S. v. Jones, Riley v. California, and U.S. v. Wurie, provides strong evidence that the 1979 Smith v. Maryland decision that use of a pen register by law enforcement is not a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment may be jeopardy.
The bottom line is that the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly recognized that we have an expectation of privacy in the digital age. Law enforcement appears now to need a warrant to not only search personal cell phones and digital devices, but also personal digital accounts such as email accounts, social media accounts, cloud computing accounts, app accounts, and other connected devices/accounts that may be referred to the "Internet of Things", etc... of the people whom they arrest.
Does this ruling strengthen the Electronic Communications Privacy Act by now requiring law enforcement to obtain a warrant for all emails regardless of their age during an investigation? While it is still too early to determine all of the ramifications of this decision, it demonstrates that the U.S. Supreme Court believes we still have a right to privacy despite the changing nature and usage of technology.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
Thursday, June 12, 2014
Facebook's Expanded Behavioral Advertising Further Erodes User Privacy
According to the Wall Street Journal, "Facebook will soon begin using data it collects about users’ activities around the Web to better target ads on its service.....[f]or years Facebook has dropped small pieces of code on websites and in
mobile apps, through which it records users’ browsing habits and online
interests. Now it’s going to start using that information to help it
deliver personalized ads on Facebook."
The term "personalized ads" means behavioral advertising. In layman's term, Facebook acts like a private NSA; however, instead of using the digital information it collects about you to protect against terrorist attacks, Facebook uses the data you post and gleaned from your digital activity (posts, messages, and now websites visited, etc...) to make money. The information Facebook collects about you may also assist foreign hostile governments who legally or illegally acquire access to Facebook's systems.
About a year ago, Advertising Age reported that Facebook inked agreements with multiple data brokers to mine the personal digital information of users. These agreements convinced me that posting personal information on Facebook may contribute to consumer discrimination. The World Privacy Forum and The White House published recent reports that discussed how some populations may be vulnerable to discriminatory practices based upon large amounts of personal information being bought and sold by data brokers and data sources such as Facebook.
I don't advise anyone who values their privacy to post personal information to Facebook because it has an abysmal record when it comes to protecting user privacy. For example, in 2012 Facebook settled charges with the FTC that it deceived consumers by telling them they could keep their information on Facebook private, and then repeatedly allowing it to be shared and made public.
The bottom line is that if you value your privacy be careful what and where you post online.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
The term "personalized ads" means behavioral advertising. In layman's term, Facebook acts like a private NSA; however, instead of using the digital information it collects about you to protect against terrorist attacks, Facebook uses the data you post and gleaned from your digital activity (posts, messages, and now websites visited, etc...) to make money. The information Facebook collects about you may also assist foreign hostile governments who legally or illegally acquire access to Facebook's systems.
About a year ago, Advertising Age reported that Facebook inked agreements with multiple data brokers to mine the personal digital information of users. These agreements convinced me that posting personal information on Facebook may contribute to consumer discrimination. The World Privacy Forum and The White House published recent reports that discussed how some populations may be vulnerable to discriminatory practices based upon large amounts of personal information being bought and sold by data brokers and data sources such as Facebook.
I don't advise anyone who values their privacy to post personal information to Facebook because it has an abysmal record when it comes to protecting user privacy. For example, in 2012 Facebook settled charges with the FTC that it deceived consumers by telling them they could keep their information on Facebook private, and then repeatedly allowing it to be shared and made public.
The bottom line is that if you value your privacy be careful what and where you post online.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
Saturday, June 7, 2014
Lawsuit: University of Cincinnatti Medical Center Employee Posted Patient STD Diagnosis on Facebook
While social media may be utilized to connect people all over the world to raise money for charity or to persuade citizens to overthrow dictatorships, it may also be used to spread the most personal information for all to see. Recently, a 20-year old Ohio woman had her sexually transmitted disease diagnosis posted on Facebook by a hospital employee.
The Cincinnati Enquirer reported that an image of the victim's medical record showing her name and syphilis diagnosis was posted on Facebook to a group called "Team No Hoes" in 2013. This posting appears to be a federal HIPAA violation and it may also violate multiple Ohio state laws.
What is the value of the damage to one's reputation if their sexually transmitted disease diagnosis is posted online? The victim is a 20-year old female who may be unable to obtain employment or gain acceptance into college or graduate school because of this disgusting breach of her personal privacy. She may also be fired from her employment and/or discriminated against in other unsubtle and undetectable ways. In addition, the victim may have trouble getting a date and/or finding a mate due to this information being disseminated.
I am surprised that the hospital did not settle this matter out of court before it was filed. The reputational damage to the University of Cincinnati Medical Center may be steep. Will patients go to other service providers due to this incident? Will the hospital reach a settlement with the victim before it goes to trial? Does the hospital want a jury to even hear this case?
While I believe the new European "right to be forgotten" may be abused by child molesters, rapists, murders, politicians, etc...who may want to hide their criminal past, and it may be difficult to implement this new right, should victims of this type breach of their personal medical privacy be afforded the right to be forgotten in the United States?
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
The Cincinnati Enquirer reported that an image of the victim's medical record showing her name and syphilis diagnosis was posted on Facebook to a group called "Team No Hoes" in 2013. This posting appears to be a federal HIPAA violation and it may also violate multiple Ohio state laws.
What is the value of the damage to one's reputation if their sexually transmitted disease diagnosis is posted online? The victim is a 20-year old female who may be unable to obtain employment or gain acceptance into college or graduate school because of this disgusting breach of her personal privacy. She may also be fired from her employment and/or discriminated against in other unsubtle and undetectable ways. In addition, the victim may have trouble getting a date and/or finding a mate due to this information being disseminated.
I am surprised that the hospital did not settle this matter out of court before it was filed. The reputational damage to the University of Cincinnati Medical Center may be steep. Will patients go to other service providers due to this incident? Will the hospital reach a settlement with the victim before it goes to trial? Does the hospital want a jury to even hear this case?
While I believe the new European "right to be forgotten" may be abused by child molesters, rapists, murders, politicians, etc...who may want to hide their criminal past, and it may be difficult to implement this new right, should victims of this type breach of their personal medical privacy be afforded the right to be forgotten in the United States?
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, June 4, 2014
comScore Agrees To $14 Million Settlement For Privacy Violations
According to its website, comScore is,"a leading Internet technology company that measures what people do as they navigate the digital world-and turns that information into insights and actions for our clients to maximize the value of their digital investments." Interestingly, according to a lawsuit comScore has recently settled it may have also put profits ahead of its users' personal privacy.
MediaPost has reported that comScore has agreed to settle a lawsuit that it violated its users' privacy for $14 million dollars. In 2011, several plaintiffs filed a class-action privacy lawsuit alleging they unknowingly installed comScore's software after downloading a free product and that the company was then able to collect data that included usernames, passwords, search queries, credit card numbers, retail transactions, etc...
Companies that put profits ahead of privacy not only risk the safety and security of their users, they may also be slapped with lawsuits and/or regulatory investigations that may lead to multi-million dollar settlements, fines, legal fees, and other expenses. The bottom line is that some members of the digital ecosystem must learn that it pays to protect their users' privacy.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
MediaPost has reported that comScore has agreed to settle a lawsuit that it violated its users' privacy for $14 million dollars. In 2011, several plaintiffs filed a class-action privacy lawsuit alleging they unknowingly installed comScore's software after downloading a free product and that the company was then able to collect data that included usernames, passwords, search queries, credit card numbers, retail transactions, etc...
Companies that put profits ahead of privacy not only risk the safety and security of their users, they may also be slapped with lawsuits and/or regulatory investigations that may lead to multi-million dollar settlements, fines, legal fees, and other expenses. The bottom line is that some members of the digital ecosystem must learn that it pays to protect their users' privacy.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
Court: Facebook Must Comply With German Data Protection Laws
U.S. companies need to realize that they must follow the laws of the countries that they operate in. Facebook, Google, etc... appear not to understand the proverb, "when in Rome do as the Romans do" should mean that when doing business around the world they must abide by the data protection and privacy laws of the countries where they offer their services.
The Higher Court of Berlin recently confirmed a 2012 verdict that found that Facebook’s Friend Finder violated German law because it was unclear to users that they imported their entire address book into the social network when using it. The court further confirmed that Facebook’s privacy policy and terms of service violate German law.
Facebook and Google appear to believe that EU data protection laws should not apply to them. Both of these companies have been sued multiple times and paid fines and/or entered into judicial settlements in the tens of millions of dollars for privacy violations. Unfortunately, these fines are pocket change to them. Should our personal privacy and cyber-safety be protected and valued in the same way as consumer anti-trust protections?
Copyright 2014 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
The Higher Court of Berlin recently confirmed a 2012 verdict that found that Facebook’s Friend Finder violated German law because it was unclear to users that they imported their entire address book into the social network when using it. The court further confirmed that Facebook’s privacy policy and terms of service violate German law.
Facebook and Google appear to believe that EU data protection laws should not apply to them. Both of these companies have been sued multiple times and paid fines and/or entered into judicial settlements in the tens of millions of dollars for privacy violations. Unfortunately, these fines are pocket change to them. Should our personal privacy and cyber-safety be protected and valued in the same way as consumer anti-trust protections?
Copyright 2014 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)