Jul 212017
 July 21, 2017  Court, Surveillance, U.S. No Responses »

Adam Klasfeld reports:

With the Supreme Court bracing to decide whether the government needs a warrant to track cellphone location data, a New York federal judge behind one famous case involving mass surveillance answered that question in the negative.

The setback for privacy rights came in the case of Pedro Serrano, a New Yorker charged with hoarding 122 cartridges of ammunition and a bulletproof vest in his apartment in East Harlem.

Read more on Courthouse News.

Jul 202017

Mark Scott reports:

Google won a reprieve Wednesday after one of France’s highest courts asked European judges to decide whether the tech giant should apply a privacy ruling across all of its search requests worldwide.

The decision represents the latest turn in the often-heated debate around the so-called “right to be forgotten,” an earlier privacy ruling from the European Court of Justice that allows people in Europe to demand that search engines remove links to content about themselves, with some limitations, from online search requests.

Read more on Politico.

Jul 202017
 July 20, 2017  Featured News, Govt No Responses »

Anita Kumar reports:

Despite criticism from most states about the Trump administration’s request for voters’ personal information, half have said they will deliver some or all of that data to the White House election commission.

And that number could grow, President Donald Trump said on Wednesday, with more than 30 states turning over some information, including names, addresses and birth dates, to the group being run by Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach.

“If any state does not want to share this information, one has to wonder what they’re worried about,” Trump said, questioning the motives of states that have not complied with requests for information. “ What are they worried about? There’s something. There always is.”

Read more on McClatchyDC.

Jul 202017

Price comparison website Moneysupermarket.com Ltd has been fined £80,000 by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for sending millions of emails to customers who had made it clear they didn’t want to be contacted in that way.

The company sent 7.1 million emails over 10 days updating customers with its Terms and Conditions. But all the recipients had previously opted out of direct marketing.

Moneysupermarket’s email included a section entitled ‘Preference Centre Update’ which read:

“We hold an e-mail address for you which means we could be sending you personalised news, products and promot¡ons. You’ve told us in the past you prefer not to receive these. If you’d like to reconsider, simply click the following link to start receiving our e-mails.”

Asking people to consent to future marketing messages when they have already opted out is against the law.

ICO Head of Enforcement Steve Eckersley said:

“Organisations can’t get around the law by sending direct marketing dressed up as legitimate updates.

“When people opt out of direct marketing, organisations must stop sending it, no questions asked, until such time as the consumer gives their consent. They don’t get a chance to persuade people to change their minds.”

Moneysupermarket sent the messages between 30 November and 10 December 2016. The ICO’s investigation found that 6,788,496 were successfully received.

Mr Eckersley added:

“Emails sent by companies to consumers under the guise of ‘customer service’, checking or seeking their consent, is a circumvention of the rules and is unacceptable. We will continue to take action against companies that choose to ignore the rules.”

Source: Information Commissioner’s Office