The week that was...
Concerned about data security? You should be
If you’re not really, really worried about data security by now, you might want to start. There are three areas you need to be concerned with, according to technology lawyer Robert Brownstone of Fenwick & West:
Delta’s probably not flying high today
After sending out warning letters in late October to 100 companies and mobile app developers, telling them to make their privacy policies conform to the California Online Privacy Protection Act, the state’s attorney general made good on her pledge to prosecute business that fail to comply. Earlier this week, AG Kamala Harris sued Delta Airlines for violating the law. From law firm Ifrah Law:
“Keep climbing”? Keep your head down is more likely… (Ifrah Law)
Something smells funny when I visit these websites
It’s the first time the FTC has taken action against an online company over a “browser sniffing” practice. Clearly Epic put its nose where it didn’t belong (Davis Wright Tremaine)
“Innocence of Muslims” video stays up
The film may be highly offensive, sparking violent – and deadly – protests around the world, but online video provider YouTube did not violate actress Cindy Lee Garcia’s purported copyright on her “audio-visual dramatic performance” in the anti-Islamic film “Innocence of Muslims” when it hosted the film on its website. Garcia sought an injunction to force YouTube to take down the film, but her request was denied by a federal judge, writes Jenevieve Maerker of law firm Foley Hoag:
“The Court pointed out that ‘the nature of [Garcia’s asserted] copyright interest is unclear,’ given that the film is a ‘unitary whole’ and she did not claim to have joint authorship or joint copyright ownership of the film. Nevertheless, the Court ultimately sidestepped the issue of copyrightability and determined that ‘[e]ven if this copyright interest were cognizable and proven, by operation of law Garcia necessarily (if impliedly) would have granted the Film’s author a license to distribute her performance as a contribution incorporated into the indivisible whole of the Film.’”
In plain English: Garcia probably didn’t have any copyright over the film, and even if she did, she’d essentially given the film’s author the right to use it as he saw fit. Either way, YouTube is off the hook, and the film stays up. (Foley Hoag)
Facebook and the First Amendment: a work in progress?
Does deleting Facebook comments violate the First Amendment right to free speech? What if the comments are on the page of a public entity? It’s not a rhetorical question: while monitoring an Illinois town’s Facebook page, a village trustee deleted some items and comments from the page. A community member brought an action under the state’s Open Meetings Act, seeking remedies for the village’s “action of censorship on a ‘supposed’ public site.” The state’s attorney general found that the village did not violate the Act, but left an important question unresolved, writes Jackie Wernz of law firm Franczek Radelet:
“The community member also argued that the village’s actions violated his First Amendment free speech rights. But the Illinois Attorney General does not have jurisdiction over First Amendment claims, and so quickly disposed of the claim because it did not address the OMA. The Attorney General thus did not address the merits of the First Amendment claim, so the question remains whether deleting comments is a constitutional violation.”
Stay tuned - this probably isn't that last we've heard of this issue. (Franczek Radelet)