Privacy Rights

The Great Twitter Debate

Posted on November 21, 2008. Filed under: About this Blog, New Media 101, New Resources, Privacy Rights, Uncategorized |

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “The Great Twitter Debate“, posted with vodpod

Legal blogosphere posts discussing Twitter and lawyers:

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )

War on terrorism collides with attorney-client privilege.

Posted on August 12, 2008. Filed under: Privacy Rights, The times they are a'changin', Uncategorized |

This week’s Daily Record column is entitled “War on terrorism collides with attorney-client privilege.”

A pdf of the article can be found here and my past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.


War on terrorism collides with attorney-client privilege

In an effort to combat the somewhat nebulous concept of “terrorism,” laptops and other digital devices are currently subject to warrantless inspections at the border.

On July 16, in response to demands from civil liberties groups, two Department of Homeland Security agencies, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, released policies on border searches of electronic devices, such as laptops and smart phones. The policies obviously are of great interest to any lawyer who travels internationally, in light of ethical obligations and the confidential nature of the information likely stored on such devices.

The polices provide, in relevant part:

[O]fficers may examine … computers, disks, hard drives, and other electronic or digital storage devices…absent individualized suspicion…transported by any individual attempting to enter, reenter, depart, pass through, or reside in the United States. … Officers may detain documents and electronic devices, or copies thereof, for a reasonable period of time to perform a thorough border search. … [I]f after reviewing the information there is not probable cause to seize it, any copies of the information must be destroyed… To assist CBP in determining the meaning of such information, CBP may seek translation and/or decryption assistance from other Federal agencies or entities. Officers may seek such assistance absent individualized suspicion. … [However] [n]othing in this policy limits the authority of an officer to make written notes or reports or to document impressions relating to a border encounter.

Attorney-Client Privileged Material. Occasionally, an individual claims that the attorney-client privilege prevents the search of his or her information at the border. Although legal materials are not necessarily exempt from a border search, they may be subject to special handling procedures. Correspondence, court documents, and other legal documents may be covered by attorney-client privilege. If an officer suspects that the content of such a document may constitute evidence of a crime or otherwise pertain to a determination within the jurisdiction of CBP, the officer must seek advice from the Associate/Assistant Chief Counsel or the appropriate U.S. Attorney’s office before conducting a search of the document.

In other words, U.S. officials virtually have unfettered discretion to conduct warrantless, suspicionless laptop and smart phone searches at the border, a policy that seemingly flies in the face of the Fourth Amendment and causes extreme consternation for privacy and civil rights advocates.

Despite the obvious privacy implications of the border search policies, so far both the Fourth and Ninth U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth and Ninth Circuits have upheld the legality of such searches, likening the search of a computer’s hard drive to the search of the contents of a briefcase.

However, congressional hearings recently were conducted to examine the constitutionality of such searches and Senator Russell Feingold has said he intends to introduce legislation that would require reasonable suspicion as a prerequisite to border searches of electronic devices.

The border searches present a unique set of issues for lawyers who travel internationally. While the policies regarding the searches purport to provide for special procedures in the event attorney-client privilege is asserted, there is ample room for the arbitrary exercise of discretion on the part of border
patrol agents when making the determination as to whether a device is subject to the special handling procedures applicable to attorney-client material.

A foolproof method for protecting confidential information has yet to be agreed upon universally. Some computer experts have suggested lawyers consider encrypting confidential client files, while others recommended using Web hosting services for e-mail and file storage in lieu of storing such information on a device’s hard drive.

Until suspicionless laptop searches are declared unconstitutional or otherwise restricted, lawyers traveling internationally will face an unresolved ethical quandary worthy of inclusion on a bar exam.

–Nicole Black

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

When private concern becomes public domain

Posted on July 15, 2008. Filed under: Privacy Rights | Tags: |

This week’s Daily Record column is entitled “When Private Concern Becomes Public Domain.”

A pdf of the article can be found here and my past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

When private concern becomes public domain

Federal judge Louis L. Stanton caused an uproar among privacy advocates last week when he issued an order in Viacom v. YouTube Inc., 07 Civ. 2103, a closely watched case pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The lawsuit, in which Viacom is seeking $1 billion from YouTube and Google for copyright infringement, is
now in the discovery phase. The order related to Viacom’s demand for, among other things, YouTube’s source code and user records.

Using the data demanded, Viacom seeks to establish that YouTube unlawfully profited from the unauthorized viewing of Viacom’s copyrighted works by reviewing the frequency with which its copyrighted videos were viewed compared to other video content on YouTube.

Judge Stanton denied the request for YouTube’s proprietary source code, but ordered the production of “all data from the logging database concerning each time a YouTube video has been viewed on the YouTube Web site or through embedding on a third-party Web site,” despite the fact Viacom
could just as easily make its case in the absence of specific user data.

In other words, the court required the production of 12 terabytes of data containing, for every video ever watched on YouTube, the unique login ID of the YouTube user, the time the individual began to watch a video, the IP address of the person’s computer and identification of the particular video being viewed.

Judge Stanton rejected YouTube’s privacy concerns, grounded in the protections set forth in the Video Protection Privacy Act (VPPA), stating that “their privacy concerns are speculative.”

The “[d]efendants do not refute that the ‘login ID is an anonymous pseudonym that users create for themselves when they sign up with YouTube’ which without more ‘cannot identify specific individuals’ (Pls.’ Reply 44), and Google has elsewhere stated: ‘We… are strong supporters of the idea that data protection laws should apply to any data that could identify you. The reality is though that in most cases, an IP address without additional information cannot,’” the judge wrote.

In doing so, the court arguably ignored the protections provided by the VPPA, concluding it was inapplicable despite the fact that the Act specifically prevents the production of “personally identifiable information” by providers of “prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audio visual materials.”

Pursuant to the VPPA, “personally identifiable information” includes “information indentif[ying] a person as having requested or obtained specific video material or services.”

The VPPA prevents the disclosure of such information: “[I]n a civil proceeding [except] upon a showing of compelling need for the information that cannot be accommodated by any other means, if —(i) the consumer is given reasonable notice, by the person seeking the disclosure, of the court proceeding relevant to the issuance of the court order; and (ii) the consumer is afforded the opportunity to
appear and contest the claim of the person seeking the disclosure.”

Many legal experts have speculated that by ignoring privacy concerns and the arguably applicable protections of the VPPA and ordering the disclosure of the viewing records of more than 4.1 billion videos, the court effectively set legal precedent allowing access to the vast amounts of data on
user activity contained within the servers of Internet giants such as Google.

This is particularly alarming in light of the extremely personal and private nature of the information people seek online, much of which has little to do with prurient interests and includes issues related to mental health, physical health and substance abuse.

Other revealing information obtained online includes people’s use of online dating, job search or debt relief services. People purchase potentially embarrassing products online, including prescription
medications, personal care items and contraceptives.

Judge Stanton’s order is unnecessarily broad, ignores existing laws enacted with privacy concerns in mind and opens the door to more expansive and invasive discovery requests in future lawsuits.

Internet use continues to increase exponentially and is drastically changing the ways in which the world operates. In light of rapid technological advancements, judges must appreciate the potentially broad effects of their rulings in a single case; their failure to do so will be to the detriment of the millions upon millions of Internet users throughout this nation.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...