Jun 282019
 
 June 28, 2019  Posted by  Business, Featured News, Laws, U.S.

Seen on Covington & Burling’s Inside Privacy:

Earlier this month, Maine’s legislature enacted a new statute granting broad privacy rights to internet users in the state. Hailed as “the strictest consumer privacy protections in the nation,” the statute places among the toughest burdens on regulated entities to protect the data of their consumers.

The statute applies only to broadband internet service providers (ISPs), defined as any “mass-market retail service by wire or radio that provides the capability to transmit data to and receive data from all or substantially all Internet endpoints.” According to the sponsor of the original bill, state Senator Shenna Bellows, the statute is intended to target companies with mass amounts of consumer data, such as Verizon and Xfinity. It excludes large technology companies such as Google and Facebook, which are still avoidable by consumers if they choose to do so.

Read more on Inside Privacy.

Jun 282019
 
 June 28, 2019  Posted by  Court, Non-U.S.

Declan Brennan reports:

A High Court judge has said he will deliver a written judgment when he rules on an application by a rape victim to waive her anonymity.

Last March a jury convicted a 41-year-old Wicklow man of repeated sexual attacks on a neighbouring child when she was aged approximately nine.

Read more on BreakingNews.ie.  This is absolutely not what you might expect this case to be about.  The rape victim’s anonymity is protected by law, but she’s gone to court to get her anonymity WAIVED — and she wants it waived so that her rapist will not have anonymity either and can be named.

So now the attorney for her convicted rapist is fighting her motion, claiming that there is no provision in Irish law that would permit the victim’s anonymity to be waived — which means the rapist’s identity would also remain anonymous.

I’ll be looking for a follow-up or the decision on this one.

Jun 272019
 
 June 27, 2019  Posted by  Court, Featured News, Surveillance, U.S.

Scott Shackford reports:

The Supreme Court ruled today that exigent circumstances allow police to draw blood from an unconscious driver without his permission and without a warrant if the police suspect that the driver is under the influence of alcohol.

Today’s decision in Mitchell v. Wisconsin comes just three years after the Court ruled that police generally do need to get a warrant to perform blood tests if a driver does not voluntarily consent. And the Court’s judgment actually dodged the major question presented by the case: Whether a state can force a citizen to consent in advance to unwarranted blood tests as a condition of driving.

Read more on Reason.

h/t, Joe Cadillic

Jun 272019
 
 June 27, 2019  Posted by  Breaches, Court

Daniel Telvock reports:

A child who was sexually abused last year and her legal guardian are suing Erie County and Sheriff Timothy Howard for breach of privacy.

[…]

The complaint charges that the sheriff’s office provided details in a press release last year that discloses the identity of the abused child, in violation of state civil rights laws.

Read more on WIVB.