Dec 312012
 December 31, 2012  Posted by  Announcements just wanted to take a minute to wish you all a Healthy and Happy New Year and to thank all of you who made one of the most highly regarded  privacy news sites in 2012.

And special thanks to those of you who sent in links to news stories to help me stay on top of the news or who offered thoughtful commentaries on posts. Keeping up with privacy news is more than just one person can handle, and your contributions keep me motivated to keep blogging.


Image credit: Dreamstime

Dec 312012
 December 31, 2012  Posted by  Business, Court, Laws

Wendy Davis reports:

The Internet service provider Embarq has prevailed in a long-running lawsuit accusing it of violating wiretap laws by partnering with the controversial behavioral-targeting company NebuAd.

“Although NebuAd acquired various information about Embarq users during the course of the technology test, Embarq cannot be liable as an aider and abettor,” the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in a decision issued on Friday.

Read more on Media Post.

Dec 312012
 December 31, 2012  Posted by  Non-U.S., Surveillance

Swati Deshpande reports:

This New Year’s eve, partying at clubs and hotels may not be so much fun if the Mumbai Police’s flying squads have their way and zoom in on your Gangnam-style moves.

Allowing police to film parties at hotels and clubs is nothing short of unauthorized violation of privacy of individuals, say legal experts. Former senior IPS officer-turned-lawyer Y P Singh said, “Any use of force by the police has to be sanctioned by law and filming of parties at a club would amount to use of force which has no sanctity of law.” The Bombay Police Act does not permit any such filming, he said.

Read more on Times of India.

Dec 312012
 December 31, 2012  Posted by  Business, Court, Surveillance, U.S.

Venkat Balasubramani and Eric Goldman offer some analysis and comments on a lawsuit  that challenged Google’s consolidation of dozens of privacy policies into one policy:

The court does not get to the merits, and instead rebuffs plaintiffs on the basis that they do not satisfy the requisite (Article III) standards for standing.

The first argument for standing was that the privacy policy changes would force plaintiffs to replace their Android-powered devices. However, no plaintiff actually alleged that he or she actually was “forced” to replace their phone on the basis of the privacy policy changes.

Second, the court also takes issue that the combining of personal information by Google causes any (compensable) harm at all.

Read more on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.