Articles Posted in Government

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 ›

Published on: | by

According to its website, the Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. LifeLock has used the massive security breaches of companies like Anthem and Target to increase its membership. On July 21, 2015, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) claimed that LifeLock—an identity theft protection company—has violated a 2010 Settlement it had made with the agency and thirty-five state attorneys general. This assertion was made due to LifeLock’s alleged misrepresentation of its security capabilities and failing to take steps to protect consumers’ information.

What is the Federal Trade Commission’s responsibility?

The FTC was created to prevent anti-competition business practices and protect consumers against deceptive or unfair business dealings. The Federal Trade Commission Act (which incorporates the U.S. Safe Web Act amendments of 2006) sets the parameters for how the agency can prosecute companies, which it believes are misleading consumers through false or deceptive advertising.  In fact, sections 45 and 52 of the statute indicate that, when a company commits an unfair act or deceptive practice, “and if it shall appear to the Commission that a proceeding … would be to the interest of the public, it shall issue and serve … a complaint stating its charges …”   In addition, section 52 addresses the illegality of false advertisements, which would be likely to induce consumers to purchase a product.  Although, LifeLock was not advertising a product, it was falsely advertising services, so consumers were induced to buying memberships.  Therefore, the FTC is utilizing its ability to prosecute companies for violating the law.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Security issues related to cloud computing must be dealt with carefully because of the legal uncertainties that surround its regulation.  At this time, the European Union and the United States deal differently with cloud computing and its security.

What methods are used to deal with cloud computing security issues?

Security issues can be dealt with by breaking them down, which is how the United States approaches them. The European Union, on the other hand, prefers to directly control cloud-computing issues. In the case of the European Union, all states must be in agreement about regulations in order for them to become rules. However, when specifically evaluating the United States, the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”) proves to be an issue. Because the SCA is a subpart of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (“ECPA”), certain transactions within cloud computing fall separately under the statutes.  This is significant because only certain classifications of stored data are protected by the SCA. Thus, different data transmission processes have varying levels of protection. Because the ECPA was drafted in 1986, it is outdated, and brings concerns about data security. Additionally, security concerns exist when it comes to the power of the federal government in regards to data, especially in the hands of the Department of Justice or National Security Agency.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

The New York State Court of Appeals recently upheld a lower court’s verdict against Facebook’s claim that it had legal standing to challenge search warrants on behalf of its members. Facebook claimed that it had the ability to challenge search warrants that it saw as illegal before the warrants were executed. This verdict is considered a major setback for companies that seek to increase internet privacy.

What were the claims?

Facebook claims that, as an online entity which stores customer information, it had standing to contest search warrants brought to obtain information about its users, including, private personal messages and photographs. The company made the argument that search warrants for electronic information are different from a physical search of someone’s home. Someone else at a company has to do the searching, not the police, and more private information is accessible than would be found through a search of a defendant’s home. Therefore, Facebook claimed that the warrants served on social media companies are more like civil subpoenas for records and should be able to be challenged in court. Facebook also claimed its right to contest the warrants under the federal Stored Communications Act, but the court held that it had misinterpreted the law, which only applied to subpoenas and court orders. Although, the five-judge panel expressed concern over the scope of the search warrants and the large amounts of warrants executed, versus the small amount of those charged with a crime, however, it held that federal and state laws specify that the only person who can challenge a search warrant is the defendant.  In general, the challenge takes place at a hearing before the trial court.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

During the course of history, the United States Constitution has been amended in order to achieve the best interests of the nation and citizens. However, technological advancements have posed as obstacles to the changes as internet and human rights have recently become issues.

What is the relation between the Internet and Human Rights?

As of now, approximately 40% of the world’s population has access to the Internet. Because of its extensive reach, the Internet has become a basic component of human life. It encompasses an individual’s freedom of expression, freedom of association, privacy, and other fundamental factors. Civil liberty and human right groups have expressed their concerns regarding the increase in government’s control and power. For example, on April 21, 2015, Senate Bill 1035 was introduced, which seeks to reauthorize Section 215 of the Patriot Act for five additional years. This means that there would be continued data collection and surveillance programs. As such, groups like Human Rights Watch have expressed their concern towards NSA’s violation of privacy rights.

Continue Reading ›