Privacy Law and Criminal Law

Whoever still believes that privacy laws are touchy-feely should read about this case.

Four Google executives are on trial in Italy: they are accused of having allowed a video of a teenager being bullied by students in front of others students to be shown on Google Video.

The video, taken using a cell phone, was later posted on Google video. It was taken down less than 24 hours after the family of the victim made the request, two months after the video was put online.

It is probably the first case where a privacy executive is tried in a criminal court for his company’s actions. The charges are defamation and failure to exercice control over personal data. The accused are facing up to three years in jail…

Once again, the question of the responsability of content-hosting sites arises. A Google spokeswoman wrote earlier this year that "Seeking to hold neutral platforms liable for content posted on them is a direct attack on a free, open Internet."

Last week, Jeremy Doig, an American engineer, testified that Google video is controlled from the United States, raising thus the question of court jurisdiction. Which state should have jurisdiction over the case? The U.S. because Google Video servers are in the United States? Italy because, following the « effects test » set by the SCOTUS in Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984): when a party causes result to occur in another state, may that party be subject to the laws and jurisdiction of that state? The Calder test has been applied by an American court in a defamation case.

Do we need an Internet ius gentium ?

Cyber-Extorsion

Section 6 of Senate bill S. 2168, the Identity Theft Enforcement and Restitution Act of 2007, would create the crime of Cyber-Extorsion:

Section 1030(a)(7) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
`(7) with intent to extort from any person any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any--
`(A) threat to cause damage to a protected computer;
`(B) threat to obtain information from a protected computer without authorization or in excess of authorization or to impair the confidentiality of information obtained from a protected computer without authorization or by exceeding authorized access; or
`(C) demand or request for money or other thing of value in relation to damage to a protected computer, where such damage was caused to facilitate the extortion;'.

Don't forget to vote on the issue on Fantasy Congress....

Cookie Crumble Contest

Information about theCookies Crumble Contest, organised by stopbadware.org & the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School can be found here.

Jurisdiction & the Internet, once again

What is the geographic location of Second Life? It is a virtual world, accessible all around the world through Internet. No passport, but one password.

However, its servers are located in the U.S., and Linden Research Inc is located in San Francisco.

Several French non-profit organizations have recently asked a French Court to issue an injunction, seeking to bar minors access to Second Life. The Court found that the evidence presented by the plaintiffs were not probative enough, and refused to issue the injunction.

Comment on the decision on the official Second Life blog here.

On the issue of jurisdiction of the French court over Second Life, Linden Research had argued thatFrench law is not applicable to Second Life, because“ the content of the site www.secondlife.com is entirely written in English, as are the majority of “islands” created by users, among which only a few (…) are targeting the French public.”

The A.F.A., representing French Internet providers, argued that “the unlawfulness of a web site can be appreciated by the French law only if the site is targeting the French public” and concluded that second life is only a “passive “site.

The court held that even though English is the prevalent language spoken on Second Life’s islands, Second Life cannot deny that it is targeting an international audience. The court also refered to the fact that several French politicians, business person and artists are using second life.

Since the damage is felt in France, the Court concluded that it has jurisdiction over the case according to the article 46 of the French Civil Procedure Code. It is the same article that was used by the French Court in the now uber-famous LICRA v.Yahoo case.

Article 46 of the NCPC: (via Legifrance, French Codes in English)

The claimant may seize at his choice, in addition to the court in whose province the defendant has established his dwelling;

- in contractual matters, the court in whose province actual delivery of the personalty or in whose province the performance of the agreed service has been contemplated;

- in delictual matters, the court in whose province the wrongful act was occasioned or the one in whose province the damage was suffered;

- in mixed matters, the court in whose province the immovable is situated;

- in matters of spousal maintenance or contribution to the expenses of marriage, the court in whose province the creditor has established his dwelling