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

Recently in Internet & Online Privacy Category

The "Stingray" is a neat little device that fools a cell phone into connecting to it as though it were a cellular phone tower. Once connected, the Stingray can record the device's unique ID, monitor the device's traffic, and even triangulate the cell phone's position.

It's also questionably legal. In June, unsealed documents revealed that Florida police were caught lying about using information from a Stingray to obtain warrants. As Ars Technica reports, officers were instructed to "refer to the assistance as 'received information from a confidential source regarding the location of the suspect.'" They were also told never to refer to the Stingray in police documents and to re-submit warrant affidavits that referred to them, according to the ACLU.

Lies notwithstanding, we still don't know any more about Stingrays, and now the FCC wants to get involved.

It's FindLaw's "Legal Shark Week" which means, like it or not, you're going to see a lot of shark-themed posts. If you were traumatized as a kid by the movie "Jaws," we apologize in advance.

Today's topic? Three ways you can be a tech-savvy shark, starting with social media, and continuing with metadata and e-discovery. And as you'll see, these tips aren't just for the fiercest predators -- some of them are actually necessary to be a competent guppy:

The Edward Snowden fallout continues. In June, we posted about Reset the Net, a campaign to increase privacy to "stop mass surveillance, by building proven security into the everyday Internet."

Last week we saw Black Hat and DEF CON wrap up and with it, two very important announcements regarding encryption and spy-free email. Privacy, it seems, may not be a longshot after all.

Most people don't like child pornography, but they do like privacy. The arrest of a 41-year-old Houston man last week created just such a conundrum after it was revealed Google found pornographic photos in Gmail attachments and alerted police, apparently all on its own.

How did the company do it? No one is quite sure, but at least one person -- Houston police Det. David Nettles -- just doesn't care. "I really don't know how they do their job," Nettles told KHOU-TV. "But I'm just glad they do it."

A lovely sentiment, Detective Nettles, but some of us -- especially lawyers worried about privileges -- really would like to know "how they do their job."

There is not a single reputable business or government agency in existence that will ask for your Social Security number and other private identifying information over email. And if there is, the people running that agency are really, really stupid.

Newsflash folks: That email that appears to have come from your local United States District Court? The one notifying you that you've been selected for jury duty and asking you to send a whole bunch of private information or face fines and jail time? It's fake. Tell your friends, clients, and relatives, just in case.

A United States court issues an order to Microsoft, requiring them to turn over data from a suspected drug dealer. No big deal, right? What if that data is stored in the cloud, technically on a server in Dublin, Ireland? Can that court order reach into the ephemeral cloud, and across political borders into a physical server in a foreign country?

That's the issue being debated in this landmark case, creatively captioned In the Matter of a Warrant to Search a Certain E-Mail Account Controlled and Maintained By Microsoft Corporation. (We'll stick with In re: MS Email.) Here are the five biggest things at stake in the case:

For some, Google+ Authorship in search results was a magic elixir: your photo and name next to your posts in search results would spike traffic and maybe even help with ranking. Some claimed that adding Authorship bumped up their traffic as much as 150 percent. In one of my favorite experiments, Cyrus Shepard at Moz optimized his "ugly" profile picture using a dating site, which led to a 35 percent bump in traffic.

Crazy, right? Well, at least now, with the removal of Google+ profile pictures and circle counts, us unfortunate-looking folks have a fighting chance. And speaking of Google+, another interesting tweak went through this week: fake names are now allowed. Add in April's decision to gut Google+'s staff, and this is looking more and more like G+ is inching closer and closer to obscurity.

The ABA's Section of Intellectual Property Law just released an interesting white paper, one that every Internet Law geek should read: "A Call For Action in Online Piracy and Counterfeiting Legislation." It's an exhaustive 133-page PDF file that delves into everything from taking action against individuals and predatory foreign websites, to legislation meant to aid in the defense of intellectual property against online piracy. Personally, I'm especially curious about what the ABA has to say about controversial legislative proposals, such as the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), which was protested against by pretty much the entire Internet.

But for now, here's a little tidbit of advice from the paper that is obvious to anyone who has followed the waves of filing file-sharing lawsuits against individuals over the past couple of decades: it isn't worth it. (H/T to Ars Technica.)

How important is a domain name? Very important.

Consider this: what's easier to remember or put on a business card: or With .com becoming increasingly crowded, short names are hard to find. That's why we're excited about the new Top Level Domains (TLDs).

Earlier this year, we reported that a Google shell company had registered a ton of these new TLDs, including .esq. Now, the company's plan is coming to life: a domain registration service, like GoDaddy, that will provide access to the company's newly acquired 101 TLDs.

Some would call it fictional Monopoly money. Others, like the IRS, consider it to be property. A federal court in Texas recognized the cryptocurrency as "money." California? It just (arguably) made Bitcoin legal tender, along with other coupons and online credits (such as Amazon coins).

What does this mean? In simplest terms, before Gov. Jerry Brown signed AB 129, it was illegal to do what many were already doing: engaging in commerce with "anything but the lawful money of the United States." Now, corporations won't be violating the law by handing out their own promotional funny money. Bitcoin, meanwhile, escapes another government's scrutiny.