In AT&T Inc. v. FCC & USA, No 08-4024, the Third Circuit ruled that corporations have “personal privacy.”
Here are the facts of the case:
AT&T participated in a federal program administered by the FCC, designed to increase schools’ access to advanced telecommunications technology by providing equipment and services to elementary and secondary schools. AT&T billed the Government for the cost.
In August 2004, AT&T voluntarily reported to the FCC that it might have overcharged the Government for some work done. The FCC conducted an investigation, and ordered AT&T to produce some documents, such as invoices, internal e-mails providing pricing and billing information, names of employees…
In April 2005, CompTel, a trade association representing some of AT&T’s competitors, submitted a FOIA request for “[a]llpleadings and correspondence contained in” the Bureau’s AT&TE-Rate investigation file. AT&T submitted a letter to the Bureau opposing the request, arguing that the FCC collected the documents for law enforcement purposes, and therefore that the FCC regulations implementing FOIA’s exemptions prohibited disclosure.
Indeed, exemption 7(C) of the FOIA shields from mandatory disclosure “records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information . . . could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C).
The FCC rejected AT&T’s argument, and held that the exemption does not apply to corporations because corporations lack “personal privacy” within the meaning of Exemption 7(C). According to the FCC, this interpretation accords with the Exemption’s purpose to protect key investigation players from the “literal embarrassment and danger” that an individual might suffer, rather than from the “more abstract impact” that a corporation might suffer.
AT&T filed a petition for review of the FCC’s order, arguing that the FCC incorrectly interpreted Exemption 7(C).
The Third Circuit interpreted Exemption 7(C)as defining a “person” to include a corporation:
FOIA’s exemptions indicate that Congress knew how to refer solely to human beings (to the exclusion of corporations and other legal entities) when it wanted to. Exemption 7(F), for example, protects information gathered pursuant to a law enforcementinvestigation that, if released, “could reasonably be expected toendanger the life or physical safety of any individual.” 5 U.S.C. §552(b)(7)(F) (emphasis added). Yet, Congress, in Exemption 7(C), did not refer to “the privacy of any individual” or some variant thereof; it used the phrase “personal privacy.”
Showing posts with label Privacy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Privacy. Show all posts
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
Google's Book Settlement and Privacy
Very interesting article by David Bender in the New York Law Journal about the fact that the Google book settlement lacks user data protection.
Mr. Bender notes that the settlement contains nothing explicit regarding such matters as what personal data Google may collect, how it may be used, how it must be secured and to whom and under what conditions it may be disclosed for what purposes.
The article notes that the EFF, the ACLU, and the Berkeley Law Public Policy Clinic have urged Google to include privacy protections in the book settlement.
Mr. Bender notes that the settlement contains nothing explicit regarding such matters as what personal data Google may collect, how it may be used, how it must be secured and to whom and under what conditions it may be disclosed for what purposes.
The article notes that the EFF, the ACLU, and the Berkeley Law Public Policy Clinic have urged Google to include privacy protections in the book settlement.
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Public Access to Legal Documents
The NY Times reported yesterday that the SCOTUS rejected the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport’s request to delay the court-ordered release of thousands of legal documents from lawsuits filed against priests accused of sexually abusing children.
The diocese had argued in its petition that public release of the records would violate the constitutional privacy of defendants named in the suits and would also establish a dangerous precedent regarding the type of court records to which the public should have access.
In Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp. et al. the Supreme Court of Connecticut had discussed at length the issue of public access to court documents:
This [British] tradition of open trials made its way to colonialAmerica and evolved into a presumption of public access to court proceedings and records that remains a fundamental part of our judicial system today. The rationale underlying the presumption is straightforward: Public monitoring of the judicial process through open court proceedings and records enhances confidence in the judicial system by ensuring that justice is administered equitably and in accordance with established procedures.
…
This presumption of public access, however, is not absolute. When the public’s interest in judicial monitoring is outweighed by countervailing considerations, such as certain privacy
concerns, or if access is sought for ‘‘improper purposes’’ court documents or proceedings may be shielded from public view.
With respect to documents, the presumption of public access never has extended to every document generated in the course of litigation.
…
Parties are obligated to disclose a wide range of information in the course of discovery to support the disposition of their underlying claims.
But not all documents in the court’s possession are presumptively open. The presumption of public access applies only to ‘‘judicial’’ documents and records. … Therefore, when determining whether a document should be open to the public, the threshold
question under the common law is whether the document constitutes a ‘‘ ‘judicial document.’ ’’.
…
Courts have employed three general approaches to determine what constitutes a judicial document. The first approach construes judicial documents narrowly,limited to those documents relied upon to determine a litigant’s ‘‘substantive rights.’’
…
A second approach construes judicial documents more broadly. Under this approach, documents that are filed with the court that reasonably may be relied uponin support of any part of the court’s adjudicatory functionare judicial documents.
…
In what arguably could be deemed a third approach, courts have provided the definition of judicial documents in the broadest possible language, stating that the act of filing a document with the court in connection with a pending matter renders it a judicial document.
…
Regardless of approach, however, it is clear that the common-law presumption of public access to documents in the court’s possession is grounded in the public’s interest in monitoring the judicial process. Such access enhances public confidence that the judicial system is operating fairly, impartially and in accordance with established norms. This presumption is not absolute and applies only to ‘‘judicial documents’’ because
such documents serve as a proxy for public monitoring of court proceedings when the public cannot be present.
As to the issue of what documents are judicial documents, we agree generally that the mere filing of a paper or document with the court is insufficient to render that paper a
judicial document subject to the right of public access. . . . [T]he item filed must be relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process in order for it to be designated a judicial document.
…
The question remains what constitutes a judicial document. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that Connecticut follows the broader approach under which any document filed that a court reasonably may rely on in support of its adjudicatory function is a judicial document.
….
We recognize that this broad definition of judicial documents creates the potential for parties to harass others by attaching private material with little to no relevance to the issues to underlying motions, thus rendering that material public. But we do not presume bad faith on the part of litigants or their attorneys.
The diocese had argued in its petition that public release of the records would violate the constitutional privacy of defendants named in the suits and would also establish a dangerous precedent regarding the type of court records to which the public should have access.
In Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp. et al. the Supreme Court of Connecticut had discussed at length the issue of public access to court documents:
This [British] tradition of open trials made its way to colonialAmerica and evolved into a presumption of public access to court proceedings and records that remains a fundamental part of our judicial system today. The rationale underlying the presumption is straightforward: Public monitoring of the judicial process through open court proceedings and records enhances confidence in the judicial system by ensuring that justice is administered equitably and in accordance with established procedures.
…
This presumption of public access, however, is not absolute. When the public’s interest in judicial monitoring is outweighed by countervailing considerations, such as certain privacy
concerns, or if access is sought for ‘‘improper purposes’’ court documents or proceedings may be shielded from public view.
With respect to documents, the presumption of public access never has extended to every document generated in the course of litigation.
…
Parties are obligated to disclose a wide range of information in the course of discovery to support the disposition of their underlying claims.
But not all documents in the court’s possession are presumptively open. The presumption of public access applies only to ‘‘judicial’’ documents and records. … Therefore, when determining whether a document should be open to the public, the threshold
question under the common law is whether the document constitutes a ‘‘ ‘judicial document.’ ’’.
…
Courts have employed three general approaches to determine what constitutes a judicial document. The first approach construes judicial documents narrowly,limited to those documents relied upon to determine a litigant’s ‘‘substantive rights.’’
…
A second approach construes judicial documents more broadly. Under this approach, documents that are filed with the court that reasonably may be relied uponin support of any part of the court’s adjudicatory functionare judicial documents.
…
In what arguably could be deemed a third approach, courts have provided the definition of judicial documents in the broadest possible language, stating that the act of filing a document with the court in connection with a pending matter renders it a judicial document.
…
Regardless of approach, however, it is clear that the common-law presumption of public access to documents in the court’s possession is grounded in the public’s interest in monitoring the judicial process. Such access enhances public confidence that the judicial system is operating fairly, impartially and in accordance with established norms. This presumption is not absolute and applies only to ‘‘judicial documents’’ because
such documents serve as a proxy for public monitoring of court proceedings when the public cannot be present.
As to the issue of what documents are judicial documents, we agree generally that the mere filing of a paper or document with the court is insufficient to render that paper a
judicial document subject to the right of public access. . . . [T]he item filed must be relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process in order for it to be designated a judicial document.
…
The question remains what constitutes a judicial document. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that Connecticut follows the broader approach under which any document filed that a court reasonably may rely on in support of its adjudicatory function is a judicial document.
….
We recognize that this broad definition of judicial documents creates the potential for parties to harass others by attaching private material with little to no relevance to the issues to underlying motions, thus rendering that material public. But we do not presume bad faith on the part of litigants or their attorneys.
Thursday, October 01, 2009
FTC's Invitation to Comment on Privacy Challenges
From the FTC's site:
The Federal Trade Commission will host a series of day-long public roundtable discussions to explore the privacy challenges posed by the vast array of 21st century technology and business practices that collect and use consumer data. Such practices include social networking, cloud computing, online behavioral advertising, mobile marketing, and the collection and use of information by retailers, data brokers, third-party applications, and other diverse businesses. The Commission invites interested parties to submit written comments or original research. A list of specific questions to inform the first roundtable discussions may be found at: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/privacyroundtables. The goal of the roundtables is to determine how best to protect consumer privacy while supporting beneficial uses of the information and technological innovation. The Commission will post additional questions to inform the subsequent roundtable discussions at a later date.
The Federal Trade Commission will host a series of day-long public roundtable discussions to explore the privacy challenges posed by the vast array of 21st century technology and business practices that collect and use consumer data. Such practices include social networking, cloud computing, online behavioral advertising, mobile marketing, and the collection and use of information by retailers, data brokers, third-party applications, and other diverse businesses. The Commission invites interested parties to submit written comments or original research. A list of specific questions to inform the first roundtable discussions may be found at: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/privacyroundtables. The goal of the roundtables is to determine how best to protect consumer privacy while supporting beneficial uses of the information and technological innovation. The Commission will post additional questions to inform the subsequent roundtable discussions at a later date.
Sunday, April 05, 2009
Writing from 48° 51’ 44’’ North 2° 21’ 3’’ East
Twitter is the latest piece in one's digital identity. Where I am, what am I doing, at this micro moment, is for me to advertise, to make public. What's public is no longer private (duh), and thus, is up for grabs for everybody.
As Justice Harlan wrote more than forty years ago, "(...) a man's home, is, for most purposes, a place where he expects privacy, but objects, activities, or staements that he exposes to the "plain view" of outsiders are not 'protected" because no intention to keep them to himself has been exhibited. On the other hand, conversations in the open would not be protected agaisnt being overheard, for the expectation of privacy under the circumstances would be unreasonable."
Twitter users may save lives, but more often than not, Twitter does not serve as as back up 911 number. It is a way to keep in touch it is a way to be tracked down. The line is, indeed, fine. As always in digital privacy issues, it is the aggregation of data that is the threat. Now that Google may buy Twitter, there is a real possibilities that our sweets little tweets may be exactly located on Earth, courtesy of Google's Latitude.
As Justice Harlan wrote more than forty years ago, "(...) a man's home, is, for most purposes, a place where he expects privacy, but objects, activities, or staements that he exposes to the "plain view" of outsiders are not 'protected" because no intention to keep them to himself has been exhibited. On the other hand, conversations in the open would not be protected agaisnt being overheard, for the expectation of privacy under the circumstances would be unreasonable."
Twitter users may save lives, but more often than not, Twitter does not serve as as back up 911 number. It is a way to keep in touch it is a way to be tracked down. The line is, indeed, fine. As always in digital privacy issues, it is the aggregation of data that is the threat. Now that Google may buy Twitter, there is a real possibilities that our sweets little tweets may be exactly located on Earth, courtesy of Google's Latitude.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Do I Belong?
As a teenager, I developed some interests (AC DC) in order to belong, and some others, (Desmond Morris works) in order to look original, and, therefore, to increase even more my chances to belong. Thanks to Google Zeitgeist, I can now always check my ability to gain friends, and have a fun dinner party.
As of today, December 10, I am indeed concerned, like my fellow Americans, about the chances of the Yankees to gain CC Sabathia in the next season (# 28 on the list as of now.) I happen to know by chance the meaning of the # 1 on the list right now, eclampsia, because some characters of novels I read over the years, which titles are long forgotten, have suffered from that medical issue, and I send my warmest wishes to the women concerned about it. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which 60th birthday we are celebrating), is two places above the NJ lottery, # 81 and # 83 respectively. May winning the lottery become a right, and may some of the money won in lotteries this year be directed to organisations fighting for the preservation of these precious rights (first in mind, the Southern Poverty Law Center)
It is probably for the best that I am moving out of New York City this month. According to this New York Times article, Google queries reflect my fellow New Yorkers' interest in the Proton Collider and Walter Gropius. While I admire the Bauhaus greatly, I confess that I have never looked up information about it. Even more embarrassing, I was not concerned at all this year about the possibility of being engulfed for eternity in a black hole created by the hubris of proton scientists, somewhere in Switzerland. Switzerland still calls to my mind images of the Berne bears, and of the Milka cow.
But my concerns about not belonging are not important. I am more concerned about the possible chilling effect on Google queries that this monitoring could have. Would I feel 100% free to query Milka cow + Proton Collider+ how to make a bomb? Probably not.
As of today, December 10, I am indeed concerned, like my fellow Americans, about the chances of the Yankees to gain CC Sabathia in the next season (# 28 on the list as of now.) I happen to know by chance the meaning of the # 1 on the list right now, eclampsia, because some characters of novels I read over the years, which titles are long forgotten, have suffered from that medical issue, and I send my warmest wishes to the women concerned about it. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which 60th birthday we are celebrating), is two places above the NJ lottery, # 81 and # 83 respectively. May winning the lottery become a right, and may some of the money won in lotteries this year be directed to organisations fighting for the preservation of these precious rights (first in mind, the Southern Poverty Law Center)
It is probably for the best that I am moving out of New York City this month. According to this New York Times article, Google queries reflect my fellow New Yorkers' interest in the Proton Collider and Walter Gropius. While I admire the Bauhaus greatly, I confess that I have never looked up information about it. Even more embarrassing, I was not concerned at all this year about the possibility of being engulfed for eternity in a black hole created by the hubris of proton scientists, somewhere in Switzerland. Switzerland still calls to my mind images of the Berne bears, and of the Milka cow.
But my concerns about not belonging are not important. I am more concerned about the possible chilling effect on Google queries that this monitoring could have. Would I feel 100% free to query Milka cow + Proton Collider+ how to make a bomb? Probably not.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Flash Cookies
Via Slashdot, a post about flash cookies, warning us that they are silent privacy killers. The author found out that the Adobe Flash Player maintains proprietary cookies called Local Shared Objects, and that they have the capacity of storing 100KB of data. Further, these cookies are quite cumbersome to remove, although I'm a Super gives some instructions as how to do it. Adobe also provides us with a way to remove them on the Adobe site.
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Medical Privacy of Celebrities
The Los Angeles Times reports that the privacy of (yet more) several famous patients has been breached at the UCLA Medical Center. The West Coast newspaper had reported last April that the medical records of Farah Fawcett, Maria Schriver, and other celebrities had been accessed without authorization. The Los Angeles Times posted a copy of the report filed by the California Department of Health Services.
A famous patient, D., checked into the UCLA Medical Center in October 2004, under a pseudonym. In spite of taking the care of using a false name, information about his medical condition somehow leaked, and was reported by a national newspaper. An inquiry led to the dismissal of an employee last month, because he accessed the D’s records for job-related reason, and thus violated the protected health information of the patient.
In Michigan, some employees of the Sparrow Hospital in Lansing were fired or disciplined for having attempted to access the medical records of Governor Granholm.
Even the mundane act of buying medication is published for all fans to know.
A famous patient, D., checked into the UCLA Medical Center in October 2004, under a pseudonym. In spite of taking the care of using a false name, information about his medical condition somehow leaked, and was reported by a national newspaper. An inquiry led to the dismissal of an employee last month, because he accessed the D’s records for job-related reason, and thus violated the protected health information of the patient.
In Michigan, some employees of the Sparrow Hospital in Lansing were fired or disciplined for having attempted to access the medical records of Governor Granholm.
Even the mundane act of buying medication is published for all fans to know.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Ground Breaking New Jersey Decision : Expectation of Privacy in IP address
In a case where a disgruntled employee changed the password and shipping address of her employer, a New Jersey court ruled in New Jersey v. Reid, that, under the New Jersey Constitution, one has an expectation of privacy in our Internet identities, our IP address and screen names. The defendant had changed the password and shipping address of her employer, using his password.
This is a very interesting decision, as American courts do not recognize an expectation of privacy in information held by a third party, and our IP address, screen nameswords.... are known by our Internet providers, and even by the sites we visit.
In Smith v. Maryland, the Supreme Court had held in 1979 that one does not have have expectation of privacy in our bank accounts, as they are held by a third party. However, New Jersey recognizes" a right to what has been called"informational privacy,"" which had been defined as "shorthand for the ability to control the acquisition or release of information about oneself".
But the New Jersey Court held that “citizens have a reasonable expectation of privacy, protected by Article I, Paragraph 7, of the New Jersey Constitution, in the subscriber information they provide to Internet service providers – just as New Jersey citizens have a privacy interest in their bank records stored by banks and telephone billing records kept by phone companies.”
It will be an interesting to see if this case will be the first of many more. EPIC's amicus brief here.
This is a very interesting decision, as American courts do not recognize an expectation of privacy in information held by a third party, and our IP address, screen nameswords.... are known by our Internet providers, and even by the sites we visit.
In Smith v. Maryland, the Supreme Court had held in 1979 that one does not have have expectation of privacy in our bank accounts, as they are held by a third party. However, New Jersey recognizes" a right to what has been called"informational privacy,"" which had been defined as "shorthand for the ability to control the acquisition or release of information about oneself".
But the New Jersey Court held that “citizens have a reasonable expectation of privacy, protected by Article I, Paragraph 7, of the New Jersey Constitution, in the subscriber information they provide to Internet service providers – just as New Jersey citizens have a privacy interest in their bank records stored by banks and telephone billing records kept by phone companies.”
It will be an interesting to see if this case will be the first of many more. EPIC's amicus brief here.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Data Privacy Day is January 28
Here are some info about the upcoming Data Privacy Day, January 28...
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Do Not Track List
The FTC Town Hall examines privacy issues and behavioral advertising. The webcast is here.
A coalition of privacy and consumer advocates petitioned the FTC, asking the agency to create a Do Not Track List. They claim that the self-regulatory Network Advertising Initiative has failed to protect the privacy of consumers shopping in a digital environment.
The petition boldly states that "a consumer's computer belongs to him or her." Is our information our property, and are we the only ones having rights over them? Wait a minute, is information property? Pamela Samuelson doubted in 2000, in her Privacy as Intellectual Property article, that "a property rights approach to protecting personal data would actually achieve the desired effect of achieving more information privacy."
The petition also urges Congres to establish a national Online Consumer Protection Advisory Commitee, in charge of evaluating changes in the advertising industry, and how these changes impact consumers.
A coalition of privacy and consumer advocates petitioned the FTC, asking the agency to create a Do Not Track List. They claim that the self-regulatory Network Advertising Initiative has failed to protect the privacy of consumers shopping in a digital environment.
The petition boldly states that "a consumer's computer belongs to him or her." Is our information our property, and are we the only ones having rights over them? Wait a minute, is information property? Pamela Samuelson doubted in 2000, in her Privacy as Intellectual Property article, that "a property rights approach to protecting personal data would actually achieve the desired effect of achieving more information privacy."
The petition also urges Congres to establish a national Online Consumer Protection Advisory Commitee, in charge of evaluating changes in the advertising industry, and how these changes impact consumers.
Friday, October 19, 2007
It's Uncanny How Your Parents Know Everything About You
American Family Insurance has a program, Teen Safe Driver, allowing parents of teenage drivers to sign up for the program, and monitor the behaviour of their children behind the wheel.
A DriveCam camera, fixed in front of the car, facing the driver, will monitor the teenage driver.
According to the program's web site and the video, not data is saved, unless the 10 seconds before, and 10 seconds after an "erratic vehicle movement" such as hard breaking , or quick acceleration. These images are transmitted wirelessly to an "analysis center" for review, and the parents receive a report card and a risk score.
I am an advocate of safe driving, and I am often appalled by the dangerous way some people drive, teenagers and grown-ups, yet this program makes me shiver. It comes down to this general question: is accepting more surveillance the only way to achieve a sense of security? In order to get this elusive sense of security, do we need to feel we are under the constant watch of benevolent parents, our own parents when teenagers, then benevolent corporations monitoring our daily lives, and grading them according to their own scale?
The way we eat has a great incidence on our health, and the disease we may develop in the future. Should we then install a camera in the refrigerator and the pantry, and the data be transmiited to tour health insurer? And should my Sonicare transmit my brushing (and flossing, mind you) to my dentist?
A DriveCam camera, fixed in front of the car, facing the driver, will monitor the teenage driver.
According to the program's web site and the video, not data is saved, unless the 10 seconds before, and 10 seconds after an "erratic vehicle movement" such as hard breaking , or quick acceleration. These images are transmitted wirelessly to an "analysis center" for review, and the parents receive a report card and a risk score.
I am an advocate of safe driving, and I am often appalled by the dangerous way some people drive, teenagers and grown-ups, yet this program makes me shiver. It comes down to this general question: is accepting more surveillance the only way to achieve a sense of security? In order to get this elusive sense of security, do we need to feel we are under the constant watch of benevolent parents, our own parents when teenagers, then benevolent corporations monitoring our daily lives, and grading them according to their own scale?
The way we eat has a great incidence on our health, and the disease we may develop in the future. Should we then install a camera in the refrigerator and the pantry, and the data be transmiited to tour health insurer? And should my Sonicare transmit my brushing (and flossing, mind you) to my dentist?
Monday, October 15, 2007
FaceBook as Discovery Tool?
Finding Treasures for Cases on Facebook, an article by Vesna Jaksic from The National Law Journal on law.com. Ms. Jaksic points out that MySpace or FaceBook can be very helpful for lawyers researching information for their cases. Somebody late in alimony payment should think twice before bragging about a new sports car on his social networking web page...
Friday, October 12, 2007
"Borat" and Privacy, Again
Ellen Johnston was portrayed in last year Borat movie when she participated in a religious camp. She knew that she would be filmed. but believed that it was a “religious documentary.”. She genuinely believed that the character Borat, played by Sasha Baron Cohen was real, and that he truly experienced a religious conversion. The reaction of the plaintiff witnessing this “conversion” can be seen in the movie.
She is now suing the producers of the movie for invasion of privacy and for having been portrayed in a false light. See here, on Justia.com, and here, on On pointnews.com
This month, in the order granting in part and denying in part the Motion to Alter Judgment. the Northern District of Mississippi agrees with the plaintiff that whether an invasion of privacy/misappropriation claim is limited to commercial advertising context is still “an open question” in Mississippi. The Court notes that neither section 652C of the Restatement (Second) of Torts and its the four comments of do not confine a misappropriation to commercial advertising, but suggests that the Fifth Circuit should certify this question.
She is now suing the producers of the movie for invasion of privacy and for having been portrayed in a false light. See here, on Justia.com, and here, on On pointnews.com
This month, in the order granting in part and denying in part the Motion to Alter Judgment. the Northern District of Mississippi agrees with the plaintiff that whether an invasion of privacy/misappropriation claim is limited to commercial advertising context is still “an open question” in Mississippi. The Court notes that neither section 652C of the Restatement (Second) of Torts and its the four comments of do not confine a misappropriation to commercial advertising, but suggests that the Fifth Circuit should certify this question.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Illinois Right of Privacy in the Workplace Act
The U.S. filed a lawsuit on September 24 against the State of Illinois, seeking to invalidate Illinois Public Act 095-0138, The Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act.
The Illinois law, which will be effective on January 1st, 2008, prohibits employers to enrol in an Employment Eligibility Verification System, i.e. , a database allowing them to check the immigration status of new hires, as they are authorized to do so by federal law, 8 U.S.C. 1324(a). Such verification system includes E-Verify, an online database system operated by the Department of Homeland Security.
Illinois legislators were concerned that the systems currently available to employers are not accurate enough. The law would remain in effect until the Social Security Administration (SSA) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) databases can determine that their databases are 99% accurate.
The law also requires that employers must safeguard the information provided by the workers, by using passwords and "other privacy protections", to prevent its use by unauthorized person, and to protect their confidentiality. This law may thus prevent, incidentally, the use of such information by unscrupulous employees, allowing them to steal the identities of the candidates. Once again, it shows that all compagnies have a responsability in establishing, and enforcing, clear privacy procedures. Whether it should be a legal obligation, or only a choice, is a question that is still open. As an European, I favor the legal solution, and approve the Illinois legislature. However, the law does not make any provisions for fining the companies that would not put such a policy in place.
The Illinois law, which will be effective on January 1st, 2008, prohibits employers to enrol in an Employment Eligibility Verification System, i.e. , a database allowing them to check the immigration status of new hires, as they are authorized to do so by federal law, 8 U.S.C. 1324(a). Such verification system includes E-Verify, an online database system operated by the Department of Homeland Security.
Illinois legislators were concerned that the systems currently available to employers are not accurate enough. The law would remain in effect until the Social Security Administration (SSA) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) databases can determine that their databases are 99% accurate.
The law also requires that employers must safeguard the information provided by the workers, by using passwords and "other privacy protections", to prevent its use by unauthorized person, and to protect their confidentiality. This law may thus prevent, incidentally, the use of such information by unscrupulous employees, allowing them to steal the identities of the candidates. Once again, it shows that all compagnies have a responsability in establishing, and enforcing, clear privacy procedures. Whether it should be a legal obligation, or only a choice, is a question that is still open. As an European, I favor the legal solution, and approve the Illinois legislature. However, the law does not make any provisions for fining the companies that would not put such a policy in place.
Friday, September 07, 2007
"National Security Letters" Are Unconstitutional
A Federal court ruled that the Patriot Act's National Security Letter (NSL) provision, 18 U.S.C. § 2709 is unconstitutional. § 2709 authorizes the FBI to issue NSLs to request information about an Electronic Communications Service Provider's client (ECSP). The ECSP "shall comply" with such request, and is required to provide records such as "subscriber information" or "electronic communication transactional records."The Federal court noted that there were approximately 39,000 NSL demands made by the FBI in 2003, 56,000 in 2004, and 47,000 in 2005.
The Court used the strict scrutiny standard to review the statute, as it is prior restraint and content-based restriction.
The Federal Court rules that § 2709 (c) is unconstitutional:
No wire or electronic communication service provider, or officer, employee, or agent thereof, shall disclose to any person that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained access to information or records under this section.
Because this provision cannot be severed from the statute, section 2709 as a whole was declared unconstitutional.
According to the Court, the "government's use of non disclosure orders must be narrowly-tailored on a case-by-case basis. That is, a nondisclosure order may not be broader in either scope or duration than the degree of secrecy required to serve the government's interest in protecting national security." Also, "the nondisclosure orders must be subject to meaningful judicial review." The Court was also troubled by the fact that the standard of review the courts must apply when a nondisclosure order is challenged offends the principles of checks and balances and separation of powers.
The Court used the strict scrutiny standard to review the statute, as it is prior restraint and content-based restriction.
The Federal Court rules that § 2709 (c) is unconstitutional:
No wire or electronic communication service provider, or officer, employee, or agent thereof, shall disclose to any person that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained access to information or records under this section.
Because this provision cannot be severed from the statute, section 2709 as a whole was declared unconstitutional.
According to the Court, the "government's use of non disclosure orders must be narrowly-tailored on a case-by-case basis. That is, a nondisclosure order may not be broader in either scope or duration than the degree of secrecy required to serve the government's interest in protecting national security." Also, "the nondisclosure orders must be subject to meaningful judicial review." The Court was also troubled by the fact that the standard of review the courts must apply when a nondisclosure order is challenged offends the principles of checks and balances and separation of powers.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Unwanted Celebrity: Mr. Jewell Dies
Richard Jewell died on Wednesday. Mr. Jewell helped prevent a bomb attack at the Atlanta Olympics in 1996, but became later a suspect in the same bombing, before being cleared of this suspicion. His New York Times obituary notes that he was commanded last year by the Georgia governor for helping saving lives that day.
Mr. Jewell became unwillingly famous after that episode, and his life was turned upside down by that unwanted celebrity. He sued for defamation the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, that had reported that he may have planted the bomb himself. In Atlanta Journal-Constitution v. Jewell, 555 S.E.2d 175 (Ga. Ct.App. 2001 ) the court held that Mr. Jewell was indeed a "voluntary limited-purpose public figure", and is thus a public figure, and the actual malice rule(NY Times v. Sullivan ) was applicable in his case.
Mr. Jewell became unwillingly famous after that episode, and his life was turned upside down by that unwanted celebrity. He sued for defamation the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, that had reported that he may have planted the bomb himself. In Atlanta Journal-Constitution v. Jewell, 555 S.E.2d 175 (Ga. Ct.App. 2001 ) the court held that Mr. Jewell was indeed a "voluntary limited-purpose public figure", and is thus a public figure, and the actual malice rule(NY Times v. Sullivan ) was applicable in his case.
Monday, October 23, 2006
The Numa Numa syndrome
Is Aleksey Vayner the new Numa Numa kid? Not quite. Mr. Brolsma put the video on line himself, and was overwhelmed by its success. Mr. Vayner sent a job application to UBS, and the video may have been leaked to the Internet. Let's leave the comments about the video apart. There is not much difference between a video C.V. and an electronic one, plainly written using Word, and sent by email in response to an ad. The UBS site is down, and I was not able to check their privacy policy.
No right to die off cameras?
The Bridge, a documentary directed by Eric Steel, opened this week end in New York. The film shows several successful suicides from the Golden Gate Bridge. The author had installed cameras on the bridge, filming 24/7. I have not seen the film, and do not intend to see it.
I find very disturbing that somebody's last moments would be captured on cameras, unbeknownst to the person. Just before these persons took their own lives, they were denied the right to be left alone, and to oppose the use of their images on screen. I could walk a few blocks from my apartment today, hand over some money, and sit in the dark watching them jump to their death.
I have not found any California laws that could protect them except for the article 1, section 1 of the California Constitution: All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. It is poignant to read the words "happiness" and "privacy" so close in this context.
I find very disturbing that somebody's last moments would be captured on cameras, unbeknownst to the person. Just before these persons took their own lives, they were denied the right to be left alone, and to oppose the use of their images on screen. I could walk a few blocks from my apartment today, hand over some money, and sit in the dark watching them jump to their death.
I have not found any California laws that could protect them except for the article 1, section 1 of the California Constitution: All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. It is poignant to read the words "happiness" and "privacy" so close in this context.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
