Articles Posted in Government

Published on: | by

In recent years, social media networks have proven to be an outlet for individuals to share personal views and opinions with the world.  However, Twitter’s new censorship laws could dramatically change whether individuals can actually express their viewpoints over this social media site.  Early in 2012, Twitter announced that it would allow for country-specific censorship laws.  Accordingly, Twitter content would be censored based on the country the individuals are located when reading content.  This will allow Twitter to comply with local government requests to remove or block content based on that country’s laws.   So, what censorship laws apply to the material on the web?  Interestingly, the law of the jurisdiction where material on the web is read, not written, governs the content.  This is the basis of Twitter’s new censorship laws.  They aim to cater to individual countries’ internet laws.

How Will This Affect American Laws and the Freedom of Expression?

The freedom of expression allows for a broad right for individuals to voice ideas and opinions in public without the fear of retaliation from opponents or the government.  Twitter argues that this new standard does not implicate the constitutional right freedom of expression.  Under Twitter’s new system, a tweet that is erased for breaking a law in one country may still be accessible in another country where the same legal standard does not apply.  Nonetheless, commentators point to how helpful Twitter has been during international crises (e.g., civil war in Syria).  Allowing governments to censor these posts may threaten lives.  This controversial policy deals with the conflicts of domestic and international laws.  Indeed, the fear is that the differences in laws will lead to high degrees of censorship in some regions.  Unfortunately, this will result in overall digression in the freedom of expression that societies have worked hard to protect.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

The expansion of social media networks has helped connect people and ideas all over the world. However, it has also raised substantial privacy concerns as more people store personal information on the web. Congress has enacted legislation in an effort to circumvent the dangers associated with online networks–for example, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Child Online Privacy Protection Act, and the Stored Communications Act. States have also passed their own legislation to help protect cyber activity within their jurisdiction. For example, California passed “Do Not Track” legislation in November 2013 requiring websites to disclose their tracking practices. These laws, along with several others, work to protect individuals, entities, and their related private information as they continue to operate and conduct business over the Internet. Recently, a federal court applied the Stored Communications Act and found that it is applicable to a user’s wall posts.

What Are The Provisions of the Stored Communications Act?

In 1986, Congress passed the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”) which is codified under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701 et seq.  The SCA aims to protect privacy interests implicated throughout electronic communications. Various court holdings have interpreted the SCA to apply to non-public electronic communications that take place over electronic communication services in an electronic storage medium. Violations of the SCA may carry potential criminal penalties, including serving time in prison. The penalties and liabilities will generally depend on the circumstances of the violation. The SCA does allow Internet service providers to share “non-content” with another person or entity. This includes log data and recipients’ email addresses. Still, this is a limited exception to the general rules and the SCA is still prohibited with sharing any information with a government entity. The government may compel Internet service providers to provide stored information. For electronically held communications, the government is required to have a probable cause and obtain a search warrant. For communications stored remotely, the government only needs a subpoena or a court order. Hence, remotely stored data enjoys a lower level of protection since it is easier to submit a subpoena rather than to obtain a search warrant.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

In 2013, Edward Snowden, a former CIA employee, and National Security Agency (“NSA”) contractor, leaked top secret documents to the public. These documents detailed the NSA’s controversial electronic surveillance practices and procedures, sparking a debate about wiretapping and privacy laws. Snowden revealed that the government employed questionable electronic surveillance programs. The controversy circles around the potential privacy violations surrounding government agency practices to monitor communications. Since then, the Obama Administration has been under pressure to address individual privacy concerns. Last month, President Obama addressed the nation and introduced proposed changes to current electronic surveillance practices.

What Are the Current Wiretapping Laws, Before President Obama’s Proposed Amendments?

Wiretapping has been possible since the invention of the telephone. The procedure gets its name from earlier methods, which required officials to physically place electrical taps on telephone lines. Wiretapping is a constitutional and legal practice. In most cases, officials must secure a warrant from a judge beforehand. However, federal intelligence agencies can apply to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (“FISA”), under secret proceedings, for court approval. In some circumstances, these agencies can proceed with approval from the United States Attorney General, without court approval. In the event that the agency does need to secure a warrant before wiretapping, courts typically apply a very strict standard of review before granting approval. For instance, the judge will look to ensure there are no other less intrusive methods to gather information. In general, the courts look at wiretapping as a last resort. Alternatively, if a party who is participating in a call, records the call and produces it to a government agency, the agency does not need prior court approval. The agency is then at liberty to use the contents of the recorded phone call for its purposes.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

In general, the federal government enforces privacy rights at the federal level and state governments regulate privacy standards at the state level. Depending on the area of privacy laws at issue, different government agencies have enforcement authority. For example, Office of the Attorney General, Federal Trade Commission, and Department of Health and Human Services have certain enforcement authority.

What are federal privacy rights?

The federal Privacy Act of 1974 applies privacy standards for the information that federal executives and agencies can access and disclose. However, these requirements apply only to information about U.S. citizens and legal alien residents. They do not apply to illegal immigrants or corporations.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

According to changes to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), which went into effect on October 16, 2013, telemarketers must now obtain prior express consent before contacting a consumer’s wireless or landline telephone numbers using automated telephone dialing systems. Do you list your wireless telephone number for your contact information with credit card companies, banks, or utility providers? Do you receive unsolicited phone calls on your wireless telephone number regarding promotions or billing information? Are you concerned with protecting your identity and privacy? Are you a company that uses telemarketing calls to solicit customers and increase your business? If you answered “yes” to any of these questions, the latest changes to the TCPA may affect you. Please contact us today to speak with an attorney who can explain how these new amendments will alter your telephone communication privacy settings and responsibilities.

What are the New Requirements Under the Amendments to the TCPA?

Pursuant to the provisions of the new amendments, to obtain prior express consent, telemarketers must have consent in writing. Under the federal Electronic Signatures In Global and National Commerce Act (“ESIGN”), digital signatures that comply with the standards of the act will count as sufficient consent in writing. Next, the consent must specifically refer to the telephone number that the consumer authorizes as a point of contact for future telemarketing calls. Additionally, the written consent must clearly state that the consumer authorizes telemarketers to use prerecorded messages and automated telephone dialing systems in future communications. Finally, if a consumer is required to provide this consent in order to purchase any goods or services, then the consent is not valid. All four factors must be satisfied in order to have valid consent under the TCPA.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Online sales markets are in a state of expansion as more consumers continue to conduct their purchases online. Indeed, the topic of an Internet sales tax has been in debate in the California Legislature for some time. And now, with the possibility that the federal government may pass the Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013, online sales taxes could change across the country. If you are a consumer who makes purchase online, or a business that conducts sales online, the California Internet sales tax provisions apply to you. Please contact us today to speak with an attorney who can help explain how changing tax requirements could affect your online transactions.

What Is California’s Online Sales Tax Now?

Currently, the standard tax rule in California, and across America, is that online retailers must collect sales tax from customers who are located in states where the online retailer maintains a “physical presence.” Online retailers maintain a physical presence in states where they have a warehouse, a store, a corporate office, or a sales representative. In states where online retailers do not collect an online sales tax, customers nonetheless have a duty to report and pay a sales tax on online purchases. In this case, the tax is a “use tax,” not a “sales tax.” However, these standards differ between each state and for federal taxes. The federal government has also been considering the Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013, which would allow businesses to collect taxes on sales in individual states, regardless of where the seller is located. However, any businesses that are not physically located in a state and make less than $1 million a year would not be required to follow this tax schedule. This law would also require states to reform their current sales tax laws to make online sales tax collection simpler. For California, this new law will not make a substantial difference because the largest online sellers, such as Amazon, already maintain a physical presence in California. Therefore, California online shoppers already pay an online sales tax for most of their online purchases.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

In the aftermath of the Snowden scandal, and an on-going concern for cyber-surveillance practices, the United States Congress and the American people are increasingly concerned that their online privacy is at risk. The government continues to wrestle with the possibility of including mandatory data retention standards for Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”). While this poses a serious threat to individual privacy, supporters of data retention argue that these standards are essential to national and personal safety.

What Is Data Retention?

Data retention is the practice of ISPs monitoring and storing information tied to an IP address, including, but not limited to, browsing history. ISPs that also provide email services may store email logs, but not the content of those emails. ISPs also have the capacity to identify which third-party email service providers are tied to an IP address. Law enforcement agencies could require ISPs to turn over this information in the course of a criminal investigation. PRISM, the National Security Agency’s avenue of access to online data, is similar to traditional data retention practices, except that PRISM targets cloud-based services. Currently, there are no mandatory data retention policies in America. However, governmental pressures and international influences may be pushing America to join Europe in its data retention practices. In March 2013, James Sensenbrenner, Republican House representative from Wisconsin and the author of the Patriot Act, argued that America should adopt ISP data retention laws similar to those in Europe. Indeed, the Justice Department has fully supported data retention policies. The Justice Department argues that the lack of data retention policies dramatically hinders law enforcement efforts. However, regardless of whether the government implements policies requiring ISPs to store personal data, ISPs currently maintain the freedom to monitor and track online activity. Indeed, Time Warner currently retains user data for six months, and Verizon retains data for eighteen months. Then, under the Stored Communications Act, which is codified under 18 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq., the government may access this data.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

In January 2012, the European Union (“EU”) introduced a draft regulation that would make it more difficult for companies within the EU to gather personal data from consumers. In the wake of recent developments that the National Security Agency has been involved in questionable surveillance practices in the United States, the European Union is certainly taking steps to provide greater individual privacy protections.

What Are the Terms of the New EU Personal Data Directive?

The right to privacy is an important component of the European Convention on Human Rights, a highly developed area of law in Europe. According to the new regulation, institutions may only access personal data if the purpose for gathering the personal data falls within three categories. First, a company or agency may collect and process personal data if the individual is first informed. For example, among other preliminary requirements, the individual must initially be aware of the purpose for gathering personal data. Germany’s chancellor, Angela Merkel, has urged the EU to adopt additional restrictions to require internet companies to reveal details about the companies they will be sharing personal data with. Next, a company or agency may collect personal data if the data is “adequate, relevant and not excessive” in relation to the purpose for the collection. Additional restrictions may apply if the data is more personal, such as when the data goes to religious beliefs, political affiliations, sexual orientation, or racial association. Finally, personal data may be gathered and processed for a “legitimate purpose.” However, this is a very narrow category and the reasoning behind the data collection must be very specific. As an added safeguard, any data collected within the EU may only be transferred to countries outside the EU if those countries provide substantial levels of personal privacy protection as well. This requirement would pose an obstacle for social media websites, such as Facebook, that exist across the world and gather information from users to share with companies that operate under different privacy-protection standards.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

In recent times, the threat of privacy invasions has spread far beyond domestic governmental agencies, but to also include foreign and international governments. Do you travel outside of the United States? Do you travel with electronic devices, such as a cellphone or laptop? Do these devices hold any sensitive information, such as passwords or confidential communications? If yes, then your electronic privacy may be compromised when you travel abroad.

What Is the Threat to Privacy Abroad?

The simple truth is that border patrol agents in countries around the world take data from cellphones, laptops, and other electronic devices as tourists cross their borders. This data can include, but is certainly not limited to, passwords, files, and emails. Although, this is a common practice around the world, most tourists have no idea that their personal information becomes increasingly more vulnerable to invasions of privacy when they leave the United States. Indeed, the threat extends to hotels that may extract information from electronic devices through their free wireless systems.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

The Federal Trade Commission proposed a revision to the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”), which became effective as of July 1, 2013. As the FTC and state attorneys become increasingly stricter with online child protection standards, this rule will mean that online activity will be monitored more closely for inappropriate material. Indeed, this new rule has expanded what inappropriate material entails. Do you have a child with access to the internet? Are you a business entity that collects user information over the internet for marketing purposes? In both cases, this new rule may apply to your activities.

What Does the New Rule Add to COPPA?

First, the new rule substantially expands the meaning of “personal information.” Prior to this revision, personal information applied to an online user’s name, physical address, email address, telephone number, and social security number. However, the revision expands this category to include significantly more information. Online contact information will now include identifiers for instant messaging, Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), and video chat users. Additionally, online screen names will now be considered “contact information” because such information may be used to locate minors on the web. To this same effect, any online information that can help locate the physical address of a minor will constitute “personal information.” This information will include photographs, videos, and audio files that contain a child’s picture or voice. It will also include information such as an Internet Protocol address (“IP address”) or mobile device identification names, since they can help locate users as well. Indeed, any information that configures with geographic locations, such as street names and cities, will constitute “personal information.” The rule also limits the extent to which companies that gather “personal information” from minors can share this information with third parties.

Continue Reading ›