Articles Posted in Constitutional Law

Introduction

Punitive damages are an important aspect of the civil justice system in California, aiming to punish and deter defendants who have engaged in egregious misconduct. These damages go beyond compensating plaintiffs for their losses and are intended to send a strong message against reprehensible behavior. California state and federal courts have their distinct guidelines and principles when it comes to awarding punitive damages. In this article, we will delve into the intricate details of punitive damages in California’s state and federal laws, exploring the statutes, legal standards, and factors considered in their assessment.

Understanding Punitive Damages

Patents are a type of intellectual property protection that grants inventors the exclusive right to prevent others from making, using, or selling their invention for a limited period. In the United States, the federal government regulates the patent system, providing inventors with legal protection for their creations. In this article, we will provide an overview of United States patent laws, including their key provisions and the role they play in protecting innovation and creativity.

Types of Patents

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) grants three types of patents:

Cyberstalking takes place when the culprit uses information and communication technologies to initiate the violations. These actions may include harassment, annoyance, attacks, or threats against the victims. The culprits can start the attacks by emails, instant messages, calling, texting, or other communication methods. There have been cases where the culprit has installed a GPS tracking device on the victim’s vehicle or personal belongings. Also, there have been cases where the victim’s computer was hacked with malware so the culprit monitored electronic devices.

We have been able to trace “stalkerware” which is a type of spyware on the victim’s electronic devices. The stalkerware was used to collect and transfer information regarding the victim’s activities. These types of spyware can be used to remotely turn on or off cameras and microphones on the victim’s electronic devices.

Cyberharassment takes place when information and communication technologies are used to intentionally humiliate, annoy, attack, threaten, or abuse the victim for no legitimate purpose. There have been cases where the victim was being targeted by a group of known or unknown individuals on the internet. These so-called “internet trolls” work together to engage in highly offensive and inflammatory comments against their victims. Their systematic actions are designed to provoke the victim to the point where they suffer from severe emotional distress. These actions can be initiated on any website but have become prevalent on Reddit.

Neurolaws and privacy rights are still in the development stages. Neurological advances have allowed scientists to connect electrodes to the brain for analytical procedures. These electrodes can be connected in a non-invasive manner so they can download brain data. Now, this brain data can be analyzed to help patients with brain disorders such as epilepsy, depression, Parkinson’s disease or Alzheimer’s disease. Moreover, a human’s brain data may be analyzed to determine the truth and existence of intent.

Neuroscientists have been able to use advanced non-invasive techniques to observe and analyze cerebral neurochemical changes in the human brain. They have access to several technologies including, PET, SPECT, MRI, fMRI, and EEG. In fact, functional MRI (fMRI) is able to measure the brain’s activities under resting and activated conditions. It can be used to identify, investigate and monitor brain tumors, congenital anatomical abnormalities, trauma, strokes, and chronic nervous system disorders (e.g., multiple sclerosis).

Therefore, there is the potential of abuse when it comes to this new technology and that’s why legal scholars are concerned about privacy rights. Accordingly, needless to say, the right of privacy should be protected according to the state or federal rules, including, but not limited to, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) which was passed to address medical privacy concerns.  Scholars have argued that voluntary informed consent must be granted by the individual to use brain information. In other words, this type of confidential medical information cannot be used without the person’s knowledge and permission. The Bill of Rights has granted the right of privacy to citizens under certain terms and conditions. In fact, the Fourth Amendment protects privacy rights against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Also, every state has promulgated similar privacy laws which can be more strict than their counterpart federal laws. However, the question is whether our thoughts belong to us.

The National Security Agency (“NSA”) along with other government agencies (e.g., FBI, CIA) have expanded their surveillance programs after several terrorist attacks took place on domestic soil. It is a known fact that the federal government is systematically tracking domestic and international calls of its citizens. The surveillance program does not end there but also expands to text messages, internet browsing, and emails.

There is information that indicates the President’s Surveillance Program (“The Program”) was designed to assess, evaluate, gather, and analyze a tremendous amount of information with or without subpoenas or warrants. The Program is intended to disrupt actual or potential terrorist attacks that could be instigated by known or unknown criminals. The government has setup a massive collaboration effort with major telecommunication companies to gather information that would usually not be subject to surveillance. The telecommunication service providers have given access to the NSA to install surveillance equipment (e.g., “fiber-optic splitter”) which makes an exact copy of the data that’s passing through their systems and sends it to the government. Also, other special equipment such as the “Narus Semantic Traffic Analyzer” has been installed on the telecommunication systems to conduct deep packet inspections. These analyzers are capable of assessing and sifting through large data segments (e.g., 10 gigabits) and internet traffic.

These pervasive surveillance programs were authorized by President Bush after September 11, 2001. There is real time access to internet traffic and telephone records that was not previously available for previous surveillance programs. Also, the electronic information is being gathered in real time and stored on secure databases.

The governments of many countries have initiated surveillance programs to protect national security. These programs were allegedly designed and instigated to fight against terrorism and other criminal activities. For example, the British Government has setup a similar program to the United States government’s PRISM  program which is called TEMPORA. The GCHQ, which stands for Government Communications Headquarters, is the British government’s spy agency that operates similar to the United States National Security Agency (“NSA”). There is information that confirms the GCHQ has placed data interceptors on fiber optic cables to analyze internet communications. There is also information that confirms approximately 10 gigabits of data per second (or 21 petabytes of data per day) is being reviewed per day by this spy agency. Its agents are charged with the task of storing all sorts of information – e.g., electronic information with correlating metadata – on computer servers for as long as thirty days. This spy agency uses a technique called Massive Volume Reduction (“MVR”) to conduct its analysis.

Government spy agencies share their intelligence with other nation’s agencies as part of a partnership program. In fact, several years ago, The Guardian publicized this massive information gathering after it was reported by Edward Snowden. It seems the GCHQ is operating under two principles: (1) Mastering the Internet; and (2) Global Telecoms Exploitation. These surveillance programs are meant to gather as much information as possible for evaluation and assessment. However, it seems these principles have not been opened up for public debate and are being carried out without warrants.

The government spy agencies are gathering phone records, email message content, social media communications, and other types of information in an effort to curtail criminal violations. Their targets may include the unsuspecting innocent and suspicious or guilty individuals. Therefore, there are two schools of thought here. First, the spy agencies should carry out their intelligence gathering to prevent another international tragedy such as 9/11. Second, the spy agencies should be subject to certain limitations and should be forced to obtain lawful warrants before conducting surveillance. On the other side, the government officials argue that this type of unprecedented wiretapping is necessary to properly safeguard the country from terrorists.

The United States government has implemented surveillance programs to promote national security. These programs are designed to gather and process electronic information that could arguably assist government agencies in their efforts to enhance national security. However, there is an argument being made that the federal government is using the resources of major communication service providers to obtain records of citizens without legal justification. In other words, the government is engaging in unlawful surveillance programs without probable cause.

What kind of programs have been implemented?

The National Security Agency (“NSA”) has been intercepting internet communications for several years without fully disclosing the nature and extent of its surveillance programs to the general public. It’s also collecting other types of communication records such as phone records and related electronic information. There is evidence that proves AT&T is cooperating with government surveillance programs. The evidence seems to indicate the telecommunication giant has installed fiberoptic splitters to copy and send information to the government. Experts have argued this kind of activity is beyond “wiretapping” since it’s surveilling the entire communication channels without a warrant. So, in essence, the government is engaging in the mass collection of telephone metadata of all domestic customers. The government officials have argued that this type of broad surveillance is justified under the USA Patriot Act which is meant to deter and punish terrorism and enhance law enforcement investigations for the following reasons:

There is a general presumption that workplace privacy does not exist under any circumstances. However, that is not always the case. The state Constitution grants privacy rights and a private right of action to file a lawsuit against employers who violate those rights. It states in relevant part that: “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.”

The courts have decided that the main issue is whether the employee has a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” So, for example, employers are allowed to monitor internet usage or business email communications. Nevertheless, employers are not permitted to conduct surveillance in bathrooms or locker rooms. An employer may be held liable for disclosing the employee’s termination reasons, arrests, convictions, credit reports, misconduct reports, medical information, or confidential communications.

Employers are usually interested in social media activities of their actual or potential employees. They may review their social media accounts to make hiring decisions. However, California Labor Code § 980 prohibits employers from requesting disclosure of usernames or passwords of social media accounts. It also prohibits employers to require the employees to access personal social media accounts in their presence. California Labor Code § 980 states in relevant part that an employer shall not require or request an employee or applicant for employment to do any of the following:

Workplace privacy rights and legal restrictions on workplace monitoring are important issues. Many employers monitor employee activities to increase productivity and avoid workplace violations. They may use special software to monitor the network activities which can include email, telephone, and internet activities. However, they should also consider the employee’s reasonable expectation of privacy.

An employer, that has a legitimate interest in monitoring its employees, should be allowed to monitor business-related communications without problems. A legitimate interest can be established when there is proof that surveillance was conducted to promote efficiency and productivity. Employers usually inform their employees that they are being monitored to avoid violating their privacy rights. In other words, once the employee knows that he or she is being monitored, then he or she does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, any kind of workplace monitoring should be narrowly tailored in time, place, and manner.

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (codified under 18 U.S.C. 2511, et seq.) is a federal statute that is designed to control the workplace monitoring of electronic communications. It generally prohibits employers from intercepting electronic communications of their employees. Nevertheless, there are the following exceptions: (1) business purpose exception; and (2) consent exception. The “business purpose exception” applies when the employer is able to show surveillance was being conducted for a legitimate business purpose. The “consent exception” applies when the employer is able to show surveillance was being conducted with the employee’s knowledge and consent.

Electronic data exists on multitude devices for everyone. In other words, electronic information such as letters, emails, pictures, or videos are being stored on your electronic devices on a regular basis. Now, we should be cognizant of this process and take steps to protect the electronic information and promote privacy rights.

The Fourth Amendment was enacted to promote an individual’s right to privacy and states as follows:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”