May 232017

DutchNews.nl reports:

The public prosecution department is preparing a massive dna research project in the hunt for the killer of an 11-year boy almost 20 years ago, officials said on Tuesday. New techniques have allowed scientists to identify dna found on Nicky Verstappen’s body and clothes. This dna is currently being compared with samples held in the national dna bank as well as its equivalent in Belgium and Germany. However, if no match is found, officials plan to launch a mass screening to look for the killer or killer’s relatives.  They expect that 15,000 men, mainly from Limburg, will be asked to take part in the programme on a voluntary basis.

Read more on  DutchNews.nl. I’m having difficulty getting a great translation of the notice, so am left wondering what will happen to all the DNA samples after they are collected and suspects are eliminated. Will they be retained? Can anyone read the notification in Dutch and tell me what protections will be in place?

May 232017
 May 23, 2017  Laws No Responses »

David Bender writes:

Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) has introduced a bill, the “Balancing the Rights of Web Surfers Equally and Responsibly Act of 2017” (“BROWSER Act, ” H.R. 2520) that would  create new online privacy requirements.  The BROWSER Act would require both ISPs and edge providers (essentially any service provided over the Internet) to provide users with notice of their privacy policies, obtain opt-in consent for sensitive data, and opt-out consent for non-sensitive data.  In its current form, the BROWSER Act would define sensitive data more broadly than in existing FTC guidelines—mirroring the since-repealed privacy rules that the FCC adopted last year for ISPs, but applying those standards to ISPs and edge providers alike.

Read more on Covington & Burling Inside Privacy.

May 222017

Cathy Morris reports:

An incident at Norwest Private Hospital in which a nurse took intimate pictures of an unconscious woman on an operating table has contributed to new privacy laws in NSW.

Attorney-General Mark Speakman announced on Sunday that people who recorded or shared intimate images without consent could be jailed for up to three years and fined up to $11,000 under the new laws.

Read more on Daily Telegraph.


May 202017
 May 20, 2017  Court, Surveillance, U.S. No Responses »

Eugene Volokh writes:

From Brennan v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., decided Tuesday by the Ninth Circuit:

When Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officers at Portland International Airport told John Brennan that he needed to undergo additional security screening because he tested positive for explosives, Brennan, in the middle of a TSA checkpoint, stripped naked. When TSA officers told Brennan to get dressed, he refused — three times. After TSA officers had to close down the checkpoint and surround Brennan’s naked body with bins until the police arrived to remove him, the TSA fined Brennan $500 for interfering with screening personnel in the performance of their duties. See 49 C.F.R. § 1540.109 (“No person may interfere with, assault, threaten, or intimidate screening personnel in the performance of their screening duties under this subchapter.”). Brennan petitioned for our review. We have jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C. § 46110, and we deny the petition.

Read more on The Volokh Conspiracy.