Dissent

Sep 242016
 
 September 24, 2016  Business, Court, U.S. No Responses »

I don’t think that basically saying, “Gosh, Your Honor, we had no idea spyware was on the systems we sold” will inspire confidence in potential consumers, but in the meantime, there’s that pesky Article III standing issue Lenovo can use. Matthew Renda reports:

Computer manufacturer Lenovo insisted it did not know malware was installed on computers it sold to consumers, and that no one was harmed by the presence of the malicious software during a hearing in federal court Friday.

Daniel Stephenson, attorney for Lenovo, asked U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Whyte to refrain from certifying a class in the case, arguing none of the four people who bought Lenovo computers infected with faulty software was harmed and therefore lack sufficient reason to sue.

Read more on Courthouse News.

Sep 232016
 
 September 23, 2016  Court, Featured News No Responses »

Paul Alan Levy writes:

In Doe v. Coleman, a decision issued yesterday, the Kentucky Supreme Court overruled a decision of the state court of appeals which, considering the validity of a subpoena to identify defendants who had been sued for defamation based on comments about a local official, had held that the plaintiff officials’ conclusory affidavits attesting to the falsity of the anonymous comments were sufficient to meet the standards for enforcing such subpoenas set by Doe v. Cahill, the Delaware Supreme Court decision that the Court of Appeals had endorsed in a 2014 decision in the same case.  Instead, the Supreme Court held that Kentucky courts are to follow the full standard adopted by the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division in Dendrite International v. Doe, which includes a balancing stage that weighs the relative interests of the plaintiff in securing redress and of the defendant in retaining his or her First Amendment right of speaking anonymously, given such considerations as the nature of the speech at issue and any special dangers to the defendant from being identified.

Read more on Public Citizen.

Sep 232016
 

Wow.

Aneesha Mathur reports:

In a significant ruling related to privacy on social media, the Delhi High Court today directed Internet messaging service WhatsApp to delete all data and information of all users from its servers up until September 25 when its new privacy policy comes into effect.

A bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal observed that it was “always open to the existing users of WhatsApp who do not want their information to be shared with Facebook to opt for deletion of their accounts,” and has directed WhatsApp to delete all data/information/details on their servers of all users until September 25, for both the users who choose to delete the application as well as those who retain the application on their mobile phones.

Read more on Indian Express. See also Economic Times.

Sep 222016
 
 September 22, 2016  Court No Responses »

If information on your sexual history would have been sealed during court proceedings under a rape shield law, should that same information remain sealed if you are murdered and the murderer appeals the conviction? Does the presumption of open court trump the privacy wishes of a murder victim’s family?

Doug Alden reports:

The New Hampshire Supreme Court is considering whether sealed records concerning the sexual past of a former University of New Hampshire student should remain private during the appeal of the man convicted of killing her.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments from three parties Wednesday, including an attorney representing the family of Elizabeth “Lizzi” Marriott as it fights to maintain her privacy nearly four years after she was killed.

Read more about the issue and arguments on NewHampshire.com and CBS.