Jul 082020
 July 8, 2020  Posted by  Business, Court, Featured News, Online

Jon Brodkin reports:

The broadband industry has lost a key initial ruling in its bid to kill a privacy law imposed by the state of Maine.

The top lobby groups representing cable companies, mobile carriers, and telecoms sued Maine in February, claiming the privacy law violates their First Amendment protections on free speech and that the state law is preempted by deregulatory actions taken by Congress and the Federal Communications Commission. Maine’s Web-browsing privacy law is similar to the one killed by Congress and President Donald Trump in 2017, as it prohibits ISPs from using, disclosing, or selling browsing history and other personal information without customers’ opt-in consent. The law took effect on July 1, 2020.

Read more on Ars Technica.

Jul 082020
 July 8, 2020  Posted by  Laws, Non-U.S.

Joke Bodewits and Benjamino Blok of Hogan Lovells write:

The Dutch Data Protection Authority (DPA) issued a EUR 830,000 (approximately USD 937,000) fine against the Dutch Credit Registration Bureau (BKR) for violating data subject rights. The fine stems from BKR’s practice of charging fees and discouraging individuals who wanted to access their personal data.

Read more on Chronicle of Data Protection.

Jul 082020
 July 8, 2020  Posted by  Court, Laws, U.S.

If there’s anyone’s amicus brief on the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) I’d want to read, it would be Orin Kerr’s.  Today, he is submitting an amicus brief to the Supreme Court on a big CFAA case:  Nathan Van Buren v. United States of America.

From his brief, the “INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE” section:

Orin S. Kerr is a Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law. He has written extensively about 18 U.S.C. § 1030, known as the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). His experience includes working as a lawyer in CFAA cases fromthe prosecution side, criminal defense side, and civil defense side; testifying about the law before congressional committees; and helping to draft amendments to it. The interest of amicus is the sound development of the law.

Here’s just one paragraph to hopefully encourage you all to read the whole brief:

This case asks the Court to settle what makes access unauthorized—in the words of the statute, either an access “without authorization” or an act that “exceeds authorized access.” 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2). The question is hard because two different theories of authorization exist. The first theory, based on technology, is universally accepted. The second theory, based on words, is deeply controversial. This case asks whether CFAA liability is limited to the first theory or if it also extends to the second theory.

You can read his brief here.


Jul 072020
 July 7, 2020  Posted by  Business, Featured News, Non-U.S., Surveillance

Canadian Press reports:

The federal privacy commissioner says U.S. firm Clearview AI will stop offering its facial-recognition services in Canada in response to an investigation by the commissioner and three provincial counterparts.

The office of privacy watchdog Daniel Therrien says the move includes the indefinite suspension of Clearview AI’s contract with the RCMP, its last remaining client in Canada.

Read more on CTV.