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

Recently in Internet & Online Privacy Category

Not a week after Apple announced that it couldn't break the new default encryption in iOS 8 even if it had to, FBI Director James Comey fired the first of the government's PR shots at Apple and Google, chiding them for having the audacity to prevent the government from snooping on people's phones at its pleasure.

In Comeyland -- which is a lot like Disneyland, but with more armed guards -- the government always holds the spare key to your diary and if you don't let the government snoop on you, children could die.

Way back in August, the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) folks over at the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts announced that a selection of dated federal appeals court files, and one California-based bankruptcy court's inactive files would be pulled from the system, as they were incompatible with an ongoing upgrade.

Many people were upset about the deletion of important court records, including Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Leahy wrote a stern letter to the Administrative Office, which responded this week with some welcome information: The "deleted" records were only taken down temporarily and will be restored by the end of October, reports The Wall Street Journal.

Last month, we brought you news out of Delaware, the first state to pass into law the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA), which allows estate administrators access to testators' email, social media accounts, and the like. The problem this law resolved was social media companies' refusal to grant anyone access to a dead person's accounts unless they got served with a court order.

Last week, Yahoo came out on its Global Public Policy Tumblr against the law. In arguing against the Digital Assets Act, does Yahoo mischaracterize the law? (Was that a leading question?)

Does a company have a First Amendment right to spam the crap out of you on behalf of your friends who (via a browsewrap license terms-of-service agreement that they never read) said that they wanted to contact you (only once)?

Whew, that's a mouthful, but that's pretty much what LinkedIn is arguing to Judge Lucy Koh, who's presiding over yet another tech trial in Silicon Valley. Judge Koh previously ruled that users had consented to an initial email invitation to friends, but not necessarily to the multiple follow-ups.

Now, LinkedIn is arguing that it has a free-speech right to "facilitate associations among people and therefore concern matters of public interest," reports MediaPost.

Back in 2013, CNET learned that Apple had the ability to break the encryption on locked iPhones if it so desired. This led to a long waiting list of decryption requests by police eager to get at the juicy probative evidence inside (or failing that, a bunch of photos of the suspect's brunch).

Apparently fed up with this, Apple announced yesterday that a new encryption method employed iOS 8 means that it can't decrypt a locked iPhone running iOS 8 even it wanted to -- or was ordered to. Google quickly followed suit, saying the next version of Android will come with encryption turned on by default and the encryption "keys are not stored off of the device, so they cannot be shared with law enforcement," reported The Washington Post.

We've written before about the importance of net neutrality when it comes to the Internet, but with mobile devices being what they are, there are two Internets. One is the one in your house that comes through the cable or phone line. The other is the one that comes to your smart phone via your cell phone company.

The FCC held a roundtable discussion Tuesday about whether net neutrality should apply to "mobile broadband," the Internet connection available over cell phones. There's less need now than ever to treat the two technologies differently. According to The New York Times, there's been a 600-fold increase in mobile broadband usage since 2010, when the FCC promulgated its net neutrality regulations.

Today is Constitution Day, and even though the Bill of Rights isn't technically part of the original Constitution, the two have become inseparable.

Earlier this week, the FindLaw blog team discussed our favorite amendments, and I mentioned that the Fourth was mine. Of course, since the Bill of Rights was passed in 1791, technological advances have changed how the Fourth Amendment has been interpreted and what the bounds of "reasonableness" are.

With that in mind, here's a look at the Fourth Amendment's past, and where it may be headed in the future:

On Thursday, Yahoo announced it would disclose more than 1,500 pages of documents relating to 2007-08 litigation surrounding government attempts to access Yahoo user accounts without a warrant.

Yahoo said on its Global Public Policy Tumblr (yes, Yahoo uses a Tumblr to disseminate global public policy information) that it will take time to disseminate so much material, but other news outlets have apparently gotten access to some of the documents and reported on them. So, here's what happened:

Back in February, the D.C. Circuit Court struck down the FCC's net neutrality rules, necessitating new regulations.

Earlier this year, the FCC opened its proposed regulations for public comment. The comment period was set to close on Wednesday, September 10, but has been extended to September 15.

To honor the end of the comment period, the activist group Battle for the Net announced that September 10 will be "Internet Slowdown Day." To show your support for net neutrality, go to the website, then use whatever method you'd like to change your website or Twitter avatar to a spinning gear icon, which represents the slowdown that would result if net neutrality were abolished. (Of course, websites won't actually be slowing down.)

In the wake of the celebrity-actress-nude-selfie-hack scandal, should anyone store private things in places like iCloud and Dropbox, that are susceptible to hacking?

Absolutely. Internet commenters -- including Ricky Gervais -- blamed the actresses themselves for putting such private photos online. But "online" is a big place. Certainly they wouldn't have published them to Facebook or Instagram, which are, by now, public places by definition. These objectors seem to be saying that any location accessible via the Internet is necessarily a public place because it can be hacked.

But such a broad definition not only encompasses literally everything accessible through the Internet (as any security system can be hacked), it also doesn't make sense in terms of our expectations of privacy.