Convicted Murderer Demands that Wikipedia Remove His Name from Victim’s Article

On November 11, Wired reported that a convicted murderer in Germany has issued a cease-and-desist letter demanding that Wikipedia remove his name from his victim’s Wikipedia article. Wolfgang Werle murdered Bavarian actor Walter Sadlmayr in 1990, and was released on parole in 2007. The letter demands legal fees and compensation for “emotional suffering” caused by the publication of Werle’s name in connection with the murder since his release. German media have already stopped using Werle’s name. Since Wikipedia is an American organization, the Electronic Frontier Foundation describes the issue as “an apparent conflict between the U.S. First Amendment — which protects truthful speech — and German law — which seeks to protect the name and likenesses of private persons from unwanted publicity.”

Senator Criticizes Verizon’s Increased Cancellation Fees as “Anti-Competitive”

On November 10, Ars Technica reported that United States Senator Amy Klobuchar wrote a letter to Verizon, criticizing the company’s announced increase in early cancellation fees for cell phone contracts. Verizon recently announced that, beginning November 15, the fee for cancelling a subsidized smartphone contract would double from a maximum of $175 to $350. Senator Klobuchar, who is a proponent of the Cell Phone Consumer Empowerment Act, called the increase “anti-consumer and anti-competitive.” Senator Klobuchar also wrote a letter to the FCC, asking for an investigation into the competitive and economic impact of the decision on consumers. Verizon noted that consumers can avoid the early termination fees by purchasing smartphones without Verizon subsidies.

United Kingdom Proposes Mandatory Surveillance of Social Networks, Chat Rooms, and Video Games

On November 9, the BBC reported the United Kingdom government has proposed that communication service providers retain records from a variety of new sources including social networks, chat rooms and online games. The move is designed to monitor the parties to and date of each online communication, but not the “actual contents of what was said.” Specific legislation has not yet been introduced, but the proposal includes compensation for the communications providers that must implement the technically challenging requirements. The government has insisted that most concerns about the proposal have only to do with the “detail of what would be done with the information.”

U.S. v. Cioffi, et al., Case No. 08-CR-415 (FB) (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 2009)
Slip Opinion (hosted by WSJ)

The Eastern District of New York granted defendant Matthew Tannin’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from his personal Gmail account. Ralph Cioffi and Matthew Tannin were charged with conspiracy, securities fraud and wire fraud in connection with their roles as Bear Sterns hedge fund managers. Prosecutors obtained a warrant to search Tannin’s personal Gmail account, but the warrant failed to specify what evidence could be seized or to what crimes the evidence must relate.  After some initial difficulty, Google delivered a copy of the email account to the Government. As the Wall Street Journal reported, one email contained a comment that funds Tannin managed could “blow up.” Tannin moved to suppress this evidence on the ground that it violated the Fourth Amendment.

District Judge Block held that the warrant was facially overbroad and thus violated the Fourth Amendment. The Court reasoned that because the warrant itself was not particular as to either the items to be seized or to a particular crime, and because the affidavit was not attached or incorporated into the warrant, the warrant was unconstitutional. The court also held that the warrant did not merit a “good faith” or “inevitable discovery” exception, largely because the executing officers should have known the warrant was overbroad.

The Wall Street Journal provides a brief overview of the case. The Eric Goldman Blog also provides a summary of the case. Orin Kerr of the Volokh Conspiracy criticizes the ruling, saying that the good faith exception should have been granted since the case law was not firmly established at the time of execution.

In holding that the warrant was overbroad, the court reasoned that the warrant should have included information about the particular items to be seized and what crimes were at issue. Interestingly, the court did not take a firm position on the particularity requirement for computer searches. Instead, the court focused on particularity requirements in general.  Even though the warrant was based on an affidavit containing useful and particular information about the evidence to be siezed and the crime being charged, the warrant was facially overbroad because it did not formally incorporate and attach the affidavit.

The court went on to deny admission under either the “good faith” or  “inevitable discovery” exceptions. In denying the first exception, the court held that the good faith exception does not apply to cases with facially invalid warrants that executing officers could not reasonably presume to be valid. The court reasoned that this was such a case  because of the lack of particularity in the warrant. In denying the inevitable discovery exception, the court relied on United States v. Eng., and held that the analysis must focus on “what would have happened had the unlawful search never occurred.” 997 F.2d 987, 990 (2d Cir. 1993). The court reasoned that the government relied on the invalidation of the warrant to show that discovery was inevitable. Thus, the government essentially focused on what would have happened given, rather than without, the unlawful search. The court, therefore, granted the motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the government’s warrant.

This case is significant for two main reasons. First, it deals a major blow to the prosecution’s case against the two former hedge fund managers. The emails seemed to contain powerful evidence of knowledge of the funds’ instability, evidence that is now inadmissible. Second, it helps affirm the Second Circuit’s position that an affidavit must be attached and incorporated into the warrant in order for it to “cure” the warrant’s lack of particularity. To do so, it interprets a less than explicit section of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (2004). It thus adds weight to this distinct interpretation of Groh. Perhaps future Supreme Court jurisprudence will clarify and solidify the issue.

EU Court Advisor Supports Google Keyword Searches in Trademark Suit

On September 22, Reuters reported that an advocate general to the European Court of Justice, the EU’s highest court, stated that Google did not infringe trademark rights of luxury goods maker Louis Vuitton (LVMH). Google sells keywords that use the company’s trademarks, but Advocate General Poiares Maduro concluded that trademark protections do not extend to search advertising keywords because they are not considered a product sold to the public. ZDNet’s Richard Koman argues that this decision does not account for brand confusion arising from keyword searches, and demonstrates the court’s “misunderstanding of the Web as something tangential to ‘real’ commerce.” Although the Luxembourg-based court follows the opinions of its advocates general in most cases, the judges will give their final judgment at a later date.

Facebook Shuts Down Beacon Ad Software as Part of Lawsuit Settlement

Ars Technica reports that on September 18, Facebook announced it will shut down its controversial Beacon ad software as part of a settlement for a class-action privacy suit. The Beacon software, launched in November 2007, allowed off-Facebook activities to be published in users’ news feeds without their explicit consent. After over a year of legal disputes regarding the software, Facebook decided to settle with complaining users, agreeing to discontinue Beacon and offering $9.5 million to create a foundation that would “fund projects and initiatives that promote the cause of online privacy, safety, and security.” Facebook’s director of policy communications said that the company has “learned a great deal from the experience.” The settlement proposal still awaits a district court judge’s approval.

FCC Proposes Net Neutrality Rules for Internet Service Providers

The New York Times reports that on September 12, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission proposed new regulations regarding net neutrality for Internet service providers. The proposal would bar providers from blocking or slowing Internet traffic on the basis of content. Consumer advocates of the policy say networks should not be able to deter users from accessing lawful Internet content or applications by restricting bandwidth. Wired’s Dylan Tweeny warns that the proposed rules may be difficult to enforce, stifle overall service due to capacity limitations, and decrease innovation in a market that has flourished without government intervention. The rules will formally be proposed in an open FCC meeting in October.

ISPs Found Liable for Websites’ Trademark and Copyright Infringement

Computerworld and Ars Technica report that on August 28, a federal jury handed down a $32.4 million judgment against two ISPs that hosted websites selling counterfeit Louis Vuitton products. Louis Vuitton successfully argued on a theory of contributory infringement, overcoming the ISPs’ claims of immunity under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s “safe harbor” provisions. Evidence that the ISPs had received and failed to respond to notices of the illegal activity from Louis Vuitton was key to the case.

EU to Investigate Oracle/Sun Deal

On September 3, the European Union’s antitrust regulators announced plans for a formal investigation of Oracle’s planned buyout of Sun Microsystems, The Washington Post reports. The investigation will center on the competitive consequences of “the world’s biggest proprietary database company . . . tak[ing] over the world’s leading open-source database company.” The European Commission will come to a ruling on the deal by January 19; the U.S. Department of Justice has already approved it.

Authors Voice Privacy Concerns in Objection to Google Settlement

A group of authors and publishers filed an objection to the proposed settlement between The Authors’ Guild and Google Book Search (GBS), the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) reported on September 8. A fairness hearing regarding the settlement is set for next month. In the objection, prepared by EFF, the ACLU, and the Samuelson Clinic at UC Berkeley School of Law, the authors assert that GBS’s collection of personally identifiable information regarding users’ habits will having a chilling effect on readership. Limited information retention and strict disclosure standards are among the authors’ specific demands.

Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association Inc. v. Attorney General of the United States, No. 08-1981 (3d Cir. Sept. 1, 2009)
Opinion (Hosted by wired.com)

On September 1, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey decision, which upheld the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006.

Wired.com provides an overview of the case. The Wall Street Journal features an analysis of the decision and its potential effects on online gambling. Additional analysis can be found on ZDnet and Law.com.

The appellate court held that the Act, which bans credit card companies or other institutions from processing payments for unlawful online betting, was not impermissibly vague and did not violate an individual’s privacy rights, the two primary arguments raised by Interactive.

With regard to Interactive’s vagueness argument, the court stated that the law “clearly provides a person of ordinary intelligence with adequate notice of the conduct that it prohibits.” The court also noted that “the Act itself does not make any gambling activity illegal.” Rather, the underlying state law governing gambling determines whether a particular bet is illegal. Accordingly, any vagueness problem is not with the Act, but with the state law governing the application of the Act.

Additionally, the court noted that Interactive’s privacy argument cited Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and Reliable Consultants, Inc. v. Earle, 517 F.3d 738 (5th Cir. 2008), both of which prohibited forms of sexual conduct between consenting adults in the privacy of their homes. The court found that gambling “simply does not involve any individual interests of the same constitutional magnitude,” so Interactive’s reliance on Lawrence and Earle was misplaced.

The Act and this decision upholding it are undoubtedly blows to Internet gambling sites, which will not be able to receive payment via credit cards.  Nevertheless, many gambling sites already are able to collect payments through other methods.  Additionally, the Wall Street Journal reports that Joe Brennan Jr., chairman of Interactive Media, is hopeful that “language in the decision appearing to place the issue under state jurisdiction” could be “a silver lining,” as it opens the door for state regulation of online gambling.

Paris Hilton Obtains Small Victory in Ninth Circuit

WSJ Blogs reports that the Ninth Circuit gave Paris Hilton the green light on August 31 to proceed in her lawsuit against Hallmark for its use of her image and the phrase “That’s Hot” in a birthday greeting card. The court made note of the similarities between the card and Hilton’s appearance on the television show “The Simple Life.” In support of Hilton, the court stated that she “has at least some probability of prevailing on the merits before a trier of fact.” The case name is Hilton v. Hallmark Cards.

Cable Companies No Longer Capped at 30% Market Share

The Washington Post reports that on August 28, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Comcast v. FCC invalidated an FCC rule that capped the market share of cable companies at 30%. The FCC supported the rule because it believed that cable companies with market share larger than 30% would harm consumers. The court rejected the FCC’s rule in part because it failed to show how consumers would be harmed by the large cable companies in the current market, given the competition between cable, satellite, and fiber optic providers.

Texas Links DNA to Criminal Records

WSJ Blogs reports that on September 1, a new law took effect in Texas will link DNA evidence to sexual assault suspects’ criminal records. The link will be maintained regardless of whether the statute of limitations has passed or the suspect has been tried. The law’s supporters want to ensure harsher penalties to these suspects should they face legal troubles in the future, as the record would be available to parole boards and prosecutors. Critics of the law, including the ACLU, fear the potential abuse of due process rights.

Florida Bar Wants Access to Certain Applicant Facebook Profiles

The Florida Board of Bar Examiners will now be requesting access to the Facebook profiles of certain applicants on a case-by-case basis. The Board has identified a number of categories of applicants that it will require access from, including persons with a history of certain types of legal experience or substance abuse. The Citizen Media Law Project notes many of the privacy concerns related to the Bar’s decision.

Marine Corps Bans Social Networking Sites

In a directive issued Monday, the U.S. Marine Corps banned the use of social networking sites on its Marine Corps Enterprise Network, Wired and InformationWeek report. Characterizing these sites — including Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter — as “a proven haven for malicious actors and content,” the Corps hopes the ban will protect the network from cyberattacks and keep adversaries from acquiring user-generated information leaks. The directive does not limit Marines’ access to social networking sites on non-military networks, and a follow-up press statement encouraged the use of social media by Marines on their own ISPs.

Senate Hears Debate on Radio Performance Rights

The Senate Judiciary Committee heard debate Tuesday on the proposed Performance Rights Act, which would compel terrestrial radio stations to pay royalties recording artists, Ars Technica reports. Under current copyright law, webcasters and satellite radio stations pay royalties to both a song’s writer and its performer, while terrestrial stations are only obliged to pay songwriters. The debate pits two powerful interest groups, among others, against each other: the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) staunchly opposes the bill, while the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has voiced its strong support.

FTC Takes New View of Online Privacy

The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times report new FTC consumer protection head David Vladeck plans to shift the agency’s approach to online privacy protection. In a New York Times interview, Vladeck states he hopes to address the “notice and consent” framework that he considers “no longer sufficient” online, as it has resulted in privacy disclosures that are rarely read or understood. He also plans to consider not only economic harm, but also the “dignity interest” that arises in online information collection. Though no new rulemaking is yet planned, updated FTC privacy guidelines are expected next summer.

Cyberattack on U.S. and South Korean Governments Stymies Investigators

Law enforcement officials are still investigating the cyberattacks that hobbled some U.S. and South Korean government websites for five days beginning July 4, the New York Times reports. The distributed denial of service attack caused 50,000 to 65,000 infected computers to jam websites of government agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission and the Secret Service with an extraordinary amount of traffic. Although independent and government investigations have led to computers in Miami, Florida, and the U.K., some experts think finding the ultimate source of the “amateurish” attack may prove to be impossible.

Microsoft Convinces Court IP Addresses Are Not Personally Identifiable Information

MediaPost News reports that in a recent class action case against Microsoft, a federal district court in Seattle held that IP addresses do not count as “personally identifiable information” (PII), a term regularly used in user agreements and online privacy policies. The June 23 opinion granted Microsoft’s motion for summary judgment on charges that it had violated its user agreement by collecting IP addresses during automatic software updates. Judge Richard Jones held that in order to be PII, a piece of data must directly identify “a person,” rather than “a computer,” as an IP address does. The decision is in tension with recent E.U. regulatory findings and a 2008 opinion from the New Jersey Supreme Court, according to MediaPost.

New Zealand Takes Second Swing at “Three Strikes”

On July 14, New Zealand’s Ministry of Economic Development introduced a revised version of its “three strikes” copyright provision aimed at curbing online infringement, Ars Technica and Billboard report. The original bill, which provided for the termination of internet service provider subscribers’ accounts as a penalty for repeat copyright infringement, was scrapped in March after public outcry and industry disagreement. The new version addresses due process concerns by allowing alleged infringers to respond to notices of infringement and to have their cases mediated before trial. Termination of infringers’ internet accounts remains a possible penalty under the revised law.

Law Enforcement Using Cell Phone Data During Investigations, Privacy Laws Yet to Catch Up

On July 5, The New York Times posted an analysis of the use of cell phone forensics by law enforcement. According to the article, major cell phone service providers receive hundreds of requests each month from law enforcement agencies for data that can be used to track a user’s cell phone. Many of these requests are not backed by search warrants that require a showing of probable cause that a crime has been committed. The article reported that since September 12, 2001, federal prosecutors in New Jersey alone have used cell phone data without search warrants in 98 investigations, resulting in 83 prosecutions. The article also reports that civil liberties groups such as the ACLU are concerned about the loss of privacy caused by modern cell phone technology in combination with the failure of federal privacy law to properly catch up and regulate cell phone tracking.

RIAA Seeks Order Requiring Harvard Professor to Remove “Unauthorized and Illegal” Recordings From Website

On July 6, Wired.com reported that the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is seeking a court order requiring Harvard Law School Professor Charles Nesson to remove recordings of depositions and telephone conversations regarding an ongoing music piracy lawsuit from his blog. The RIAA argues that the recordings are “unauthorized and illegal,” but Professor Nesson insists that the privacy laws that allegedly prevent him from posting the recordings are “outrageously unconstitutional.” Professor Nesson had previously failed to obtain permission to broadcast a live webcast of the trial.

Network Management Company Tells Canadian Agency Net Neutrality Doesn’t Exist; Regulations Inevitable

On July 6, the CBC reported that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission held hearings during which representatives from industry and consumer advocacy groups offered their views on the proper way to regulate how internet service providers (ISPs) can manage network traffic. Sandvine, a company that sells traffic management technology to ISPs, said that network congestion disproportionately affects certain types of internet services, and that traffic management could potentially alleviate the inequality. Sandvine argued that net neutrality does not exist because of these inequalities in network traffic, and that network traffic should be managed by ISPs to prioritize certain types of packets. The Public Interest Advocacy Centre stated that packet inspection of the type made possible by Sandvine raises privacy concerns because it allows ISPs to identify the type of applications used by their customers in addition to other personal information. The group warned “there will be abuse” if such prioritization is allowed.

By Tyler Lacey – Edited by Anthony Kammer
Federal Trade Commission v. Accusearch Inc., June 29, 2009, No. 08-8003
Slip Opinion

On June 29, 2009, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the Wyoming District Court, holding that Accursearch’s sale of private telephone records on its Abika.com website constituted an unfair practice in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA) and granted summary judgment for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

Dan Gooden of The Register provides an overview of the opinion. Eric Goldman criticizes the court’s opinion on his Technology & Marketing Law blog. Although Goldman doubts that “the literal holding of this case is all that troubling to most folks” he believes that the court “muddles the discussion” of each of the CDA immunity prongs.  In particular, Goldman believes that the court erred when it decided that “develop” was essentially synonymous with “publish” for the purposes of analyzing CDA immunity. Goldman describes the opinion as a “major carveback of [the CDA]’s coverage” and predicts problems for online retailers that republish third-party content.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that Accusearch’s business could be considered “unfair” under § 5(a) of the FTCA, even if its behavior was not otherwise unlawful or contemplated by a specific law.  The court also held that Accusearch’s claimed defense under § 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) is not valid because Accusearch acted as an “information content provider” in selling the telephone records and is therefore not entitled to immunity under the CDA.

The Court ordered Accusearch to immediately cease selling telephone records and to disgorge nearly $200,000 in profits that it had gained by selling the records.  In holding that Accusearch’s CDA defense was invalid, the Court analyzed three limitations of CDA immunity: the immunized party must be (1) “a provider or user of an interactive computer service”; (2) acting as a “publisher or speaker”; and (3) providing information from “another information content provider.”  The court chose not to resolve the immunity question on either of the first two prongs, but instead employed a broad definition of the word “develop” to dissolve immunity using the third prong, holding that Accusearch was an “information content provider” because “confidential telephone information was exposed to public view through Abika.com.”

Accusearch ran the website Abika.com, which advertised that it could acquire “details of incoming or outgoing calls from any phone number, prepaid calling card or Internet Phone … for every country of the world.”  Accusearch stressed that its website merely provided “neutral tools” and that the data it sold was primarily provided by third-party researchers that were required by Accusearch to provide assurances that they would perform their work in accordance with applicable law.  In holding that Accusearch’s reliance on third-parties to acquire the data that it sold did not serve to limit its liability, the court found Accusearch’s “good faith” reliance on their supplier’s commitment to following the law remarkable.

Judge Tymkovich wrote a concurrence that disagreed with the majority’s “unnecessary extension of the CDA’s terms ‘responsible’ and ‘development.’”  The concurrence agreed that Accusearch should indeed have been held liable for violations of the FTCA, but argued that this liability should be based on Accusearch’s “unfair” conduct, rather the content that it published.  The concurrence sought to avoid the majority’s “amorphous” analysis of the three CDA immunity prongs altogether because liability could be found on grounds that did not involve the CDA.

This case develops new and broad interpretations of the factors that limit CDA immunity, potentially imposing liability on Internet publishers who may have previously believed that they were immune from FTCA liability by virtue of the CDA.  The holding calls into question whether providers of online bulletin boards, which the Court admits are the “prototypical service qualifying for this statutory immunity,” will continue to receive CDA immunity.