Internet & Online Privacy - Legal Technology - Technologist
Technologist - The FindLaw Legal Technology Blog

Recently in Internet & Online Privacy Category

That annoying comment might be more than spam telling visitors how to solve their intimacy issues, or how to make easy money at home. Instead, it may be malicious code that could hijack your site, lock you out completely, and even take over your server as a whole -- a nightmare for larger companies that store more than a simple webpage on their servers.

Fortunately, the bug, discovered by Finnish IT security company Klikki Oy, was reported to WordPress months before being made public, and security patches are already being automatically (no pun intended) deployed. The bug affects an estimated 86 percent of WordPress sites (those running any unpatched version of WordPress 3 -- version 4.0, which was released in September, are not affected). The exploit uses text input fields, such as the enabled-by-default blog comments feature, to deploy malicious code.

On Monday, we learned that Emil Michael, senior vice president of business at Uber, said at a dinner party that he planned to spend "a million dollars" to hire researchers to investigate and harass reporters who wrote stories critical of Uber.

The tone of Michael's statements, as reported by BuzzFeed's Ben Smith, is pretty clear: "They'd look into 'your personal lives, your families,'" he said, implying Uber would spend money to embarrass and expose journalists for the crime of doing their jobs.

Now comes a bizarre twist.

At an unknown time in probably Q1 next year, at an unknown price, the Apple Watch is coming. The Apple Watch promises, among other things, a centralized way to track all your health statistics. That's got some ears perking up, from e-discovery experts to, now, the FTC.

Citing two anonymous sources, Reuters reported yesterday that Apple and the FTC were in talks over the privacy of all that juicy health data the Apple Watch will undoubtedly collect. In closed-door meetings, the FTC has allegedly asked for assurances that third parties or marketers won't be able to access a user's health data.

Officially, Apple has strong privacy protections in place. Its App Store submission guidelines for apps using the HealthKit API don't allow apps to store health information in iCloud or use health information for advertising purposes.

In case you missed it, President Barack Obama has issued a statement (and accompanying video!) outlining his hope for an "open Internet" and actually using the words "net neutrality" several times.

The statement is notable in that there's no hedging and no weasel language: It's a hortatory policy statement calling on the FCC not only to implement the "net neutrality" that its advocates -- and not its opponents -- have sought, but to go further and "reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act." (There should be a [sic] after this; he really means the Communications Act of 1934.)

It's no secret that the FBI doesn't much like your encryption. Its director, James Comey, has said as much. It's lobbied Congress to force device manufacturers to put "backdoors" into technology so the FBI can get inside. (Although, if you're Comey, you'd call that a "front door.")

In its unparalleled quest to know what you ate for breakfast without checking your Instagram profile, the FBI wants to be able to hack any computer, anytime, anywhere.

I have to admit: The idea of fingerprint unlocking is pretty damn appealing. Passcodes? Too much work. Like, four digits worth of work. And those little swipey gesture things you can do on Android? They work, I suppose, but it's so hard to get those correct without looking when driving.

Plus, you can't crack a fingerprint. You can crack a passcode.

However, a judge in Virginia just complicated the equation a bit with a simple reminder of legal precedent: A fingerprint isn't constitutionally protected, but a passcode is. This means that police need a warrant to search your phone (thanks, SCOTUS) but even if they get one, they may not be able to get past the lock screen.

It used to be that, on the Internet, no one knew you were a dog. Now, though, the feds know that you're not a real person. See what a difference surveillance makes?

The Federal Trade Commission proposed fining JDI Dating, operator of several different dating websites, $616,000 for sending fake messages to members, ostensibly from people who wanted to meet them. But really, no one wanted to meet them. (Well, maybe someone did, but not the fake people who messaged them.)

Think Verizon and the NSA shouldn't be in the same category as Wolfman and Frankenstein? Think again: Behind you! It's ... it's ... packet shaping!

So maybe James Clapper isn't as scary-looking as Lon Cheney in "Phantom of the Opera," but the implications of warrantless surveillance are terrifying. For Halloween, make sure you have the lights on as you read about these 13 (arguably) "frightening" legal issues facing technology today:

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has sent quite a letter to the superintendent of schools in Williamson County, Tennessee, calling out the district's Bring Your Own Technology (BYOT) policy for its restrictions on student speech online.

BYOT policies are becoming increasingly popular as schools realize it's in everyone's best interest to let kids bring their own electronic devices from home. But Williamson County's policies appear to be a little on the fatally overbroad side.

In an age where it seems like surveillance just keeps getting more surveill-ey, the Florida Supreme Court has hit the brakes on the common police practice of using live cell phone location data to track a person's movements in real time.

Police had obtained a both a pen register and a trap-and-trace order to track the numbers Shawn Tracey was calling on his cell phone. A month later, the order had expired, but nevertheless, police accessed the real-time cell site location information of Tracey's cell phone without a valid order.