Just in case anyone had trouble making the argument that our cell phones are actually personally identifying despite our ability to leave them at home, it looks like we might not have to worry about that much longer. Look, I’m all for pursuing whatever leads show up in science, but is there really no one at Nokia who realizes that this is a terrible idea?
Category: Uncategorized
-
Privacy Rights Groups Fight FAA on Use of Drones in U.S.
Christian Oronsaye
Privacy Rights Groups Fight FAA on Use of Drones in U.S.
Reports have it that some privacy advocacy groups have petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in connection with the increase in the use of aerial drones in the United States. We understand that more than 30 organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, and the Electronic Privacy Information Center — which have also served as key opponents to the Transportation Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security — have demanded that the FAA hold a rulemaking session to consider all the violations to American privacy and safety posed by the proposal.
The ACLU Petition in part states as follows:
Drones greatly increase the capacity for domestic surveillance. Gigapixel cameras used to outfit drones are among the highest definition cameras available, and can “provide real-time video streams at a rate of 10 frames a second.” On some drones, operators can track up to 65 different targets across a distance of 65 square miles. Drones may also carry infrared cameras, heat sensors, GPS, sensors that detect movement, and automated license plate readers. In the near future these cameras may include facial recognition technology that would make it possible to remotely identify individuals in parks, schools, and at political gatherings.
The link to the site is set out below:
-
Supreme Court Justices say GPS tracker violated privacy rights
Christian Oronsaye
Supreme Court Justices say GPS tracker violated privacy rights
The United States Supreme Court on Monday (01/23/2012) unanimously ruled that the police violated the Constitution when they placed a Global Positioning System tracking device on a suspect’s car and tracked its movements for 28 days.
The case concerned Antoine Jones, who was the owner of a Washington nightclub when the police came to suspect him of being part of a cocaine-selling operation. They placed a tracking device on his Jeep Grand Cherokee without a valid warrant, tracked his movement for a month and used the evidence they gathered to convict him of conspiring to sell cocaine. He was sentenced to life in prison.
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned his conviction, saying the sheer amount of information that had been collected violated the Fourth Amendment, which bars unreasonable searches. The court noted that “the government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information. We have no doubt that such a physical intrusion would have been considered a ‘search’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted.”
The Supreme Court affirmed that decision, but on a different ground. “We hold that the government’s installation of a G.P.S. device on a target’s vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a ‘search,’ ” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor joined the majority opinion.
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/opinion/gps-and-the-right-to-privacy.html
-
Private Sector Brushes Up Against EU’s “Right to be Forgotten”
Christopher Poole
Private Sector Brushes Up Against EU’s “Right to be Forgotten”
In January of this year the European Commission unveiled a series of proposed reforms to the 1995 Data Protection Directive. While the reforms are significant in many respects, one key aspect is the Article 17 ‘right to be forgotten.’ In short, the ‘right’ would require that organizations handling personal data online respond to and fulfill requests by persons to delete such data.[1] As Professor Jeffrey Rosen has stated, “If requested to do so companies such as Facebook and Google would have to remove photos that people post about themselves and later regret, even if the photos have been widely distributed already.”[2]
While many have welcomed such a right, some in both academia and the private sector have expressed concern over the far-reaching implications of such a law. Rosen himself has noted that perhaps the most crucial aspect of the proposed regulation may be in that it “treats takedown requests for truthful information posted by others identically to takedown requests for photos” users have posted themselves, raising questions about freedom of speech and the role of online services as censors.
One major player in the privacy game is already finding itself under pressure. Google has publicly expressed concern over what it sees as the broadness of the regulation, arguing that it may not adequately address the “important distinctions that need to be made between services that host content created by people (such as Facebook and YouTube) and services that point people to content that exists elsewhere (for example, search engines such as Google, Bing and Yahoo!).”[3] Facing EU scrutiny over its revamped privacy policy[4], Google is already squaring off against claims of a broad right to be forgotten in the EU. This past week, Spain’s highest court requested the European Court of Justice to decide if Spanish citizens may lawfully require Google to remove data from its search engine and associated services.[5] The formal referral to the ECJ comes after authorities in Madrid have received “over 100” such requests for Google to delete data, including cases such as a “plastic surgeon [who] wants to get rid of archived references to a botched operation.”
Cited:
[1] Commission proposes a comprehensive reform of data protection rules to increase users’ control of their data and to cut costs for businesses, http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/12/46&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en (text of the proposed regulations directly available at Article 17: Right to be forgotten and to erasure, http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/document/review2012/com_2012_11_en.pdf).
[2] The Right to be Forgotten, http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/privacy-paradox/right-to-be-forgotten .
[3] Our thoughts on the right to be forgotten, http://googlepolicyeurope.blogspot.com/2012/02/our-thoughts-on-right-to-be-forgotten.html .
[4] EU agencies say Google breaking law: commissioner, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/01/us-google-privacy-eu-idUSTRE82011K20120301 .
[5] Spain refers Google privacy complaints to EU’s top court, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/02/us-eu-google-idUSTRE8211DP20120302 .
For more information:
Data protection reform: Frequently asked questions,
Google picks holes in EU’s ‘right to be forgotten’, http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/regulation/2012/02/17/google-picks-holes-in-eus-right-to-be-forgotten-40095071/
EU agencies say Google breaking law: commissioner,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/01/us-google-privacy-eu-idUSTRE82011K20120301 .
-
7th Circuit OKs Limited Warrantless Cell Phone Search
The 7th Circuit ruled that police can search your cell phone for your phone number without a warrant. Judge Posner justified this by saying that it wasn’t that big an intrusion.
“On an iPhone without password protection two steps are required to get the number: touching the “settings” icon and then the “phone” icon. On a Blackberry only one step is required: touching the “phone” icon.”
Also, the cop could have just gotten the number from the phone company…
As far as other things the police might see while looking for the phone number?
“It’s not even clear that we need a rule of law specific to cell phones or other computers. If police are entitled to open a pocket diary to copy the owner’s address, they should be entitled to turn on a cell phone to learn its number. If allowed to leaf through a pocket address book, as they are, United States v. Rodriguez, 995 F.2d 776, 778 (7th Cir. 1993), they should be entitled to read the address book in a cell phone. If forbidden to peruse love letters recognized as such found wedged between the pages of the address book, they should be forbidden to read love letters in the files of a cell phone.”
Oddly enough, there’s no real discussion of what happens when the things police find are in fact not love letters, but potential evidence of some crime. Weird!
At no point does Posner even discuss tradeoffs. It’s just “oh, this isn’t that bad.” When he assumes “that justification is required,” he talks about how it’s possible to remotely wipe the phone. Almost as if the Fourth Amendment is designed to ensure the police have access to evidence, rather than to protect citizens. Sigh.
Opinion here.
-
Class Action Over Facebook Sponsored Stories Proceeds
Khan Shing
Class Action Over Facebook Sponsored Stories Proceeds
Late last year, Facebook rolled out its “Sponsored Story” ad program. Among the online marketing community, this was probably the most anticipated Facebook product release of the past year. The gist of it is that anytime you post something about, or Like, a product, brand, event, etc. of a an advertiser, that post might get redisplayed on your outgoing feed as a Sponsored Story, with the advertiser’s brand prominently displayed. COO Sheryl Sandberg has described this as an important innovation in display ads, since people are far more likely to buy products from brands their friends recommend. Insiders at Facebook, as well as many outside analysts, also think this will be a critical part of the company’s efforts at increasing its share of the online display ad market.
However, Sponsored Stories also led to class action lawsuits being filed on behalf of Facebook users, alleging various privacy, misappropriation, and unfair business practices claims. As discussed here, http://goo.gl/hWUJR, a district court in California allowed one of these cases to move forward. In previous cases, Facebook has made arguments that they have commercial free speech rights in their targeted ad programs and they will likely make similar arguments here. While Sponsored Stories is certainly a clever way for Facebook to profit from the massive, and to this point largely free, marketing campaigns being waged all over the social network, it is equally clear the ad program has great potential to cause mischief. Since Facebook does not allow users to opt out of the program, anyone can accidentally become a virtual pitchman for a product based on a post that is taken out of context or, as is often the case, made ironically. Case in point: http://goo.gl/1qjDL
-
California Agreement with Amazon
Felicity Kohn
California has reached an agreement designed to protect the privacy of mobile app users with Amazon.com, Apple, Google, HP, Microsoft, and a company called Research in Motion. The agreement was sparked by the fact that smartphone apps routinely transmit users’ contacts and other personal data, including location, identity, messages, and photos, without their knowledge. Both Apple and Google already require app developers to ask users for permission to obtain personal data. However, users are rarely told which data is being collected or how it will be stored or used. Moreover, some developers – even makers of very popular apps – have collected and transmitted users’ contact lists without their consent.
California’s agreement requires developers of apps for mobile phones to post clearly marked privacy policies explaining what personal information they will collect and how they will use it. According to the California attorney general’s office, only 5% of mobile apps currently have a privacy policy in place. In addition to requiring app developers to post privacy policies, California’s agreement also requires app store providers like Apple and Google to provide ways for users to report apps that don’t comply. In an interesting connection to our conversation about FTC enforcement powers, the California attorney general’s office said that developers who violated their own privacy policies could be prosecuted under California’s Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law.
California’s agreement also relates to our conversation about the White House’s suggestion for multistakeholder meetings to develop enforceable codes of conduct, in that the statement by California attorney general suggests that this agreement was born of just such a process: “[T]hese companies have to be commended for accepting the invitation to meet around our table, act on it and sign the agreement…” Perhaps this agreement indicates the willingness of tech companies to engage in that kind of a process.
Finally, it’s interesting – and perhaps telling – that California brokered the deal with these major tech companies since it is the state that was on the forefront of requiring notices to consumers regarding breaches of their data, and the casebook notes that most states then followed suit (p. 881-82). Thus, state regulation may provide yet a third means (other than Congressional action and White House policy) of advancing the cause of consumer privacy.
The link to the article is here: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/california-attorney-general-reaches-deal-on-app-privacy/?scp=6&sq=privacy&st=cse
-
Rear-view cameras to be required by 2014
Roger Ford
Federal regulators are expected to announce this week that by 2014 all passenger cars will be required to come with rear-view cameras to help passengers see what’s behind them while they back up. While this will accelerate the trend of cameras becoming widespread in public places, the privacy implications seem minor compared with the safety gains. It’s nonetheless kind of interesting how the Times story, at least, does not mention the privacy implications.
-
Obama’s effort to enforce clear rules on privacy
Bruna Izydorczyk
Obama’s effort to enforce clear rules on privacyPresident Obama took the initiative to convoke major technology companies – of course Facebook and Google are involved – to craft voluntary codes of conduct for handling consumer data based on a bill of rights for Web users. Among other reasons, this initiative represents a Congress answer to the existence of modern foreign rules on the subject – the European Directive on privacy – and also, an attempt to avoid cross-border issues on privacy/data control.
The development of such policies/rules will take place through meetings among the Commerce Department, companies and consumer groups. The Federal Trade Commission, which has the authority to act when companies engage in unfair and deceptive trade practices, would have the challenging mission to implement and enforce the standards approved.
However, the effort to create clear policies on privacy seems to be interesting for the companies, whom are interested in obtaining competitive advantages in well serving their consumers. As we all know, consumer’s trust is essential for the success of any business. Let’s hope that the future of privacy in US relies also in the collective importance of the matter, and not only in the economic analysis of this issue.
For more information, please see:
http://news.businessweek.com/article.asp?documentKey=1377-a5jAQ79TwrjI-2MRQR870NSTPL8TGO31UVR346I
-
Netflix Advocates for Amendment to VPPA
Brian Smith
Netflix Advocates for Amendment to VPPA
Netflix, the popular DVD rental and video streaming service, is currently supporting an amendment to the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) (18 U.S.C. 2710). The proposed amendment would allow video tape service providers (which includes Netflix) to disclose a consumer’s video rental history if that consumer has given written consent prior to the disclosure. Under current law, a company must seek consent “at the time the disclosure is sought.” Netflix claims that this reform is necessary before a proposed integration of Netflix and Facebook can be achieved, which will allow users to share the titles of the movies they watch with their Facebook friends.
Privacy advocacy organization EPIC claims that this reform would shift the control over a user’s rental history form the consumer to the company, allowing companies like Netflix to broadcast a user’s rental and viewing history automatically after a one-time consent. The amendment has already passed the House, and the Senate’s Privacy Subcommittee held hearings on the subject in January.
By liberalizing when and how video rental services may share a user’s rental history, this proposed amendment is poised to substantially weaken the VPPA. This legislation was originally passed in response to the disclosure of Robert Bork’s video rental history to the public, and integrating Facebook with Netflix could lead to similar inadvertent disclosures of video viewing history. Hopefully, future Supreme Court nominees will have the foresight not to include any journalists among their Facebook “friends.”
For more information, please see:
Washington Post’s Post Tech Blog: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/netflix-discusses-video-privacy-act-along-with-earnings/2012/01/26/gIQAQFk3SQ_blog.html
EPIC’s Description of the VPPA: http://epic.org/privacy/vppa/#2011%20Netflix-Backed%20Amendment