|
|
Digital Privacy: Cell-Phone Privacy Rights |
|
Written by Jennifer Yoon
|
|
If you have a cellular phone with you, the federal government can probably pinpoint your location to within 150 feet. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently heard a case addressing the level of privacy the public can expect in their cellular-phone use, in particular, information regarding when and where cellular phone calls are made and received.
|
|
RIAA - Thomas verdict reduced from damages of $1.92M to $54k |
|
Written by Jeffrey Neu
|
|
Capital Records v. Thomas-Rasset has been a very closely followed lawsuit to say the least. It demonstrated one of the largest verdicts in a copyright infrignement case, and was the most high profile with respect to Peer to Peer file sharing against an individual.
Judge Davis based his decision upon standard principles of "remittitur", Davis indicated that because the jury had determined the damages, his powers and jurisdiction was limited to the maximum amount a jury could reasonably award.
The RIAA has 7 days to decide whether to accept the reduced verdict, or to request a new trial. It will be an interesting decision for the RIAA, as they have the expense of a whole new trial, or accept what could amount to legal precedence for the limit on a reasonable award for copyright infringement for P2P file sharing. |
|
|
EFF DMCA Tadedown Hall of Shame......Hilton, Yahoo, and others |
|
Written by Jeffrey Neu
|
|
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (or EFF for short) is a very serious group, with a serious intent, and yet their humor is sometimes just so inviting. They have added four more groups to their takedown hall of shame (That would be DMCA Takedown)...highlighting gross abuses of DMCA takedown's that were issued clearly without any sense or comprehension of "Free Speech".
You can find it here: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/01/hello-streisand-effect-takedown-hall-shame-grows-f |
|
A Race to Privacy Compliance |
|
Written by Jennifer Yoon
|
|
In 2008, a European Union panel of privacy regulators asked Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo to eliminate all online query data after six months. This data, which is valuable for the companies running search-engines, includes a computer's unique identification number, location, and the search queries. The Article 29 Working Group held a hearing with representatives from the search engine companies in February 2009, and had established a deadline of the end of January 2010 for each company to respond.
With the impending deadline, and in the hopes of averting a possible new European regulation, Microsoft has just agreed to comply with the Article 29 Working Group panel's directive, and discard user's I.P. addresses collected through its Bing search engine after six months. Previously, Bing had been keeping user data for over eighteen months. Although Microsoft has agreed to erase the I.P. addresses, it plans to retain cookies and other session identifiers, which would be untraceable to a specific computer once the I.P. addresses are deleted.
Meanwhile, Yahoo has gone even further, and has agreed to delete I.P. addresses after ninety days. In September 2008, Google promised to anonymize (but not delete) its server logs after nine month, but has yet to comply with the six-month duration request. Previously, Google retained user-data for a period of eighteen to twenty-four months.
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/technology/companies/20search.html
http://www.betanews.com/article/Bing-may-beat-Google-to-compliance-with-EU-anonymization-directive/1263933939 |
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
|
|
Page 9 of 46 |
