Articles Posted in Government

Published on: | by

So far, we have discussed what licenses are necessary and how you will be using your drone. Surely, there can’t be more issues.  Well, not quite. Following the issuance of drone licenses, there are restrictions on where and when these drones can fly.  Be it for safety or for general security concerns, drones are not allowed in all national airspace. So, where can you fly? What sort of events and situations would cause the airspace to become restricted? Is there any way to fly without licensing or airspace restrictions?

Where can you fly?

This first aspect is an interesting one. When you fly, you are generally flying in the National Airspace. Be it from a blade of grass to the wild blue sky, that space is regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration.  However, not all of that space is available for drones. First, is the restriction on altitude, ranging your navigation to approximately 400 feet, and restrictions on piloting drones in certain areas, like sporting arenas, restricted airspace (e.g., Disneyland), heavily populated areas and airports. This is mainly due to security concerns, as it is measured by what damage a drone can do in those areas. For example, it is generally prohibited to fly model aircrafts within five miles of an airport without notifying the tower, to prevent any difficulties with takeoffs and landings.  In those cases, where a drone may be piloted, it’s generally with a letter of agreement with the airport, detailing the operator’s authorization.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

So, now you’ve registered and gotten everything you need for your drone. What now? Well, it depends on what you plan on using your drone for.  Maybe it’s a gift for a child or a friend. Maybe you’d just like to use it for fun. However, as we briefly touched upon in our last post, there are requirements and restrictions placed on your drone if those actions are for commercial use.  So, what qualifies as a commercial act? What has to be done regardless of commercial or non-commercial uses? What uses would require a business to register and go through the whole process, and which uses would allow an individual to operate freely?

Non-Commercial Use

Part of the reason there are fewer restrictions on non-commercial use of drones is due to the special rule of model aircraft.  This would have the drone operate under different, less restrictive rules, and while still requiring the drone be registered with the FAA if it is within the weight range of 0.55 LBS to 55 LBS, it is generally exempted from onerous requirements.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

So, now that we know more about preemption in the CAN-SPAM Act, then what more is there to consider?  There is actually quite a lot of other factors, namely standing.  Now that you know how the federal CAN-SPAM Act and state laws may interact, there leaves the question of “standing.”  Standing is essentially a way for individuals to claim that they can sue under the law.  Without standing, a lawsuit cannot occur.  So, can you sue as an individual under the law?  Can you sue as a business?  Who can sue?

Can an individual sue under CAN-SPAM?

In general, individuals likely cannot sue under this federal law.  We can revisit the case of Gordon v. Virtumundo where the plaintiff had setup a business to profit off of violations of anti-spam legislation.  He was a Verizon subscriber for his internet access, and had started his business through GoDaddy.  In the trial, the court revisited the standing provisions of the CAN-SPAM Act and made three determinations.  First, the federal statute was not made to stamp out all spam.  Second, it was not specifically implemented to allow private right of actions.  Third, plaintiff had not suffered adverse effects due to spam.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

As the implementation of the European Union Privacy Shield comes closer, other elements of the shield come into influence and place restrictions on businesses that transfer data between the United States and Europe.  Further adding onto this, is the General Data Protection Regulation.  This can be a major issue in cases where data transfers may occur, but more specifically, it impacts the cloud computing sphere, and services like Dropbox and Google Docs.  So, how do these services work?  What would the General Data Protection Regulation do?  How can they be used with the Privacy Shield in effect?

How do these services work?

Now, these systems work by allocating computing resources to another location.  Usually, this is done through the internet, by transferring data towards other electronic devices or servers.  Effectively, it allows for individuals or businesses to take advantage of greater resources of other entities, like those of Dropbox or Google, by granting use of their services for a fee.  On the flip side, these services could be compromised by hackers, and cause the loss of personal or confidential information.  We have discussed some of the risks associated with cloud computing before and would ultimately encourage our readers to carefully evaluate the risks of submitting any information to the Cloud.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

In recent years, states have continued to collect tax from e-commerce transactions.  Louisiana has recently joined in on the trend and allowed the state to tax businesses without a physical presence there.  This is a trend that we have discussed in the past and we encourage our readers to catch up on previous posts about online taxes in California and the evolving trends.  However, Louisiana’s new regulations has shutdown Amazon’s affiliate program in the state.  So, what is the history of this bill?  Also, aside from retailers like Amazon, who would this legislation impact?

What is the bill’s history?

The bill fundamentally has its basis in something we’ve covered before where we discussed Quill Corporation v. North Dakota.  This case effectively ruled that without a sufficient connection, i.e., nexus, to the state, that state cannot tax it.  This has been interpreted that to tax the entity, the entity usually must have a physical presence in that state.  This would mean “brick-and-mortar” retailers would be taxable, while an entity like Amazon, which may not have any warehouses or physical presence in the state, would be “immune” to taxation.  In response, some states have taken action in legislating a “lowering” of the nexus standard.  For example, Act No. 22, also under HB-30, in the State of Louisiana was authored by Representatives Leger, Carpenter, and White, and enacted into law by the Governor on March 15, 2016.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

This one isn’t an April Fools’ prank.  On April 1, 2016, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) announced its proposed rulemaking to create regulation that would bind Broadband Internet Access Service (“BIAS”) providers in the interest of enhancing privacy towards consumers.  This proposal has raised objections from AT&T, Comcast, USTelecom, and the Application Developer’s Alliance, claiming that the ensuing regulations would create a morass of regulation in the privacy sphere.  Yet, the FCC’s regulations are to prohibit the monetization of the information that these providers would have due to the use of their services.  So, what is a BIAS and how could these rules possibly protect privacy?

What is a BIAS provider?

The BIAS providers provide internet service through wire or radio.  The FCC even expands this to any functional equivalents to BIAS providers. Of some note is which entities are not BIAS entities.  For example, companies like Facebook, Apple, and to some extent, Google, would not be bound by the terms here and could use the information that is collected through their services.  This is because none of them actually provide the internet service that their consumers use.  There is some room for Google to be prohibited as it provides internet service in some locations through Google Fiber, but the regulations would only prohibit the information that was gained through the use of its internet services, but not services that it provides towards online consumers.  Thus, Google’s Fiber service would likely be prohibited from using consumer’s personal information, while Google’s YouTube service would not.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

In recent years, the internet has connected the general public across continents.  Notably, it can be expected that data can easily travel across countries in a blink of an eye, without any delay and on a daily basis.  The transfer of data is an important part in business as well.  With any multinational entity, personal data crossing countries is inevitable.  However, each country may have different guidelines that a business must ensure compliance.

Recently, the European Union announced a new change to its privacy laws.  Formerly, it would allow American, and other businesses, to obtain a “pass” for its privacy laws by certifying themselves as compatible for its safe harbors scheme.  This safe harbor scheme requires a business to meet standards for privacy protection.  However, on October 6, 2015, the European Court of Justice ruled that the previous system for allowing corporations to obtain accreditation, and shifting data between the United States and Europe, was improper due to the current intelligence methods in the United States.  This oversight ended the safe harbor provision.

The new rules establish a Privacy Shield register and a free alternative dispute resolution system.  The organizations will have to self certify annually, with verification by the Department of Commerce, and comply with the Privacy Shield framework.  As part of compliance, organizations must provide a response within 45 days and create a no-cost independent recourse system where complaints and disputes will be resolved in a timely manner.  In addition, the European residents will be able to pursue legal action for claims such as, misrepresentation, and the participants must commit to binding arbitration at the European citizen’s request.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

On October 30, 2015, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted rules allowing the use of crowdfunding by companies to offer and sell securities. Crowdfunding is the raising of money in cyberspace through portals, i.e., specialized websites like Gofundme, Indiegogo, Kickstarter. By using these portals, individuals or businesses can engage in fundraising in order to promote ideas to a large group of potential investors.  Crowdfunding has become a handy tool in new projects since it is another method for a small business to raise capital.  The SEC is seeking to regulate these practices and to protect investors since startups and entrepreneurs can raise capital through this revolutionary method.

For example, Title III of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (“JOBS”) Act created an exemption in the securities laws to allow crowdfunding to be used for offering and selling securities. The exemption called for the final rules, Regulation Crowdfunding, to administer such offerings and sales. The rules allow for crowdfunding securities transactions within certain limits. The limits include the amount that could be raised through crowdfunding, requirement of disclosure of certain information to investors, and creation of a regulatory framework for the funding portals, which facilitate the transactions.

In essence, some of the rules are:

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Trade secrets are important assets for a business and derive their value due to their secrecy.  Trade secrets constitute confidential business information that give a competitive edge to their owner.  They include industrial, manufacturing, or commercial secrets.  Any unauthorized usage of a trade secret is a violation.  With secrecy, a business can develop an advantage over its competition. By placing the value in its secrecy, the information is subject to outside forces attempting to steal the valuable information. By placing the information on a network server accessible through the Internet, a business organization’s vulnerability increases. Rather than simply risking disclosure by a disgruntled employee or being a victim of corporate espionage, businesses can now find themselves at risk of unauthorized access, i.e., hacking. The Internet allows information to be quickly and easily disseminated all around the world. Information can be accessed by anyone who has access to a computer and the Internet. With the borderless nature of the web, it would be difficult to subject users to the laws and regulations protecting trade secrets. As a result, the United Nations created the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) in order to address issues regarding intellectual property, which includes, but is not limited to, trade secrets.

The purpose of WIPO is to create a worldwide intellectual property system that fosters creativity and innovation. Currently, there are 188 members, including, the United States and United Kingdom. WIPO’s services include dispute resolution to intellectual property-related cases such as arbitration and mediation. It provides an annual forum for governments, intergovernmental organizations, and industry groups to meet and discuss issues.

International standards for trade secret protection are similar to the formula adopted by over 100 members of the World Trade Organization. The standard is published as a part of the TRIPS Agreement.  For example, Article 39 states that members must protect undisclosed information (e.g., trade secrets) from unauthorized use that is contrary to honest commercial practices. Also, the information must be secret in nature and there must be reasonable steps to protect the secrecy. Also, Articles 42-49 call for civil proceedings to enforce the standards.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

It is common knowledge that travelers have to take their laptop out of their suitcase upon arrival at airports.  However, not all people know the extent to which electronic devices can be confiscated and searched at the borders whether the traveler is a United States citizen or not.

Why and when can customs officials search your electronic device?

Once electronic devices enter the United States, the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.  However, there is an exception to the Fourth Amendment protection at the borders.  In United States v. Ickles, the court confirmed that customs officials are allowed to search any cargo at the borders. In this case, a search of a vehicle’s cargo revealed a videotape focusing excessively on a young ball boy at a tennis match. A more thorough search uncovered drug paraphernalia, pornographic photographs, computer, and computer discs. The computer was confiscated after the defendant was arrested and searched, revealing child pornography. The defendant requested that the electronic evidence be suppressed claiming that the warrantless search of his electronic devices was protected by his First and Fourth Amendment rights. The court ruled that the search was justified because the border search doctrine indicates that reasonable suspicion and probable cause can be justification for searches without a warrant in order to protect against criminal activity. The First Amendment claim was ruled to be invalid as well because the content of a computer may be searched regardless of how expressive the discovered material may be in order to protect national interests.  The most recent case on this topic was United States v. Kim, which was heard and decided this year. This case was about a foreign national leaving the United States whose electronic devices were searched at the border. The search of his computer was found unlawful because although he may have committed a crime in the past, however, the crime had already occurred, and there was no reasonable suspicion or probable cause to search for imminent criminal activity.

Continue Reading ›