Articles Posted in Constitutional Law

Published on: | by

We’ve discussed how the states have passed privacy laws to protect their residents. We have also referenced the state and federal rules or regulations that are designed to promote transparency, security, accuracy, proper data collection, and accountability.

The Federal Constitution has not expressly mentioned the right to privacy. However, under Article I Section 1, the California Constitution has mentioned the “inalienable right to privacy” that is applicable to the government and private individuals. The courts have confirmed this fundamental right. In White v. Davis (1975) 13 Cal.3d 757, 774, the Supreme Court analyzed the facts and confirmed the right of privacy. In Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 39, the Supreme Court outlined the following framework to decide whether there is a constitutional violation: (1) there must be a legally protected privacy interest; (2) there must a reasonable expectation of privacy; and (3) there must be a serious invasion of privacy interest.

There is also a common law right of privacy. First, there is intrusion into plaintiff’s seclusion. Second, false light as a result of false and negative publicity. Third, public disclosure of private facts. Fourth, there is the commercial appropriation of plaintiff’s name or likeness without consent. The courts have also recognized negligence as a cause of action when the defendant fails or refuses to manage data in a reasonable manner. In other words, the defendant can be sued for failing to comply with the industry data management standards if it causes damages to the plaintiff.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

We have briefly discussed some of the state and federal privacy laws that are applicable to consumers and commercial organizations. It is important to understand how personal information is being obtained and distributed by businesses. Personal information is also being obtained and distributed by bad actors – i.e., criminals who gain access to customer information through clandestine methods and sell the information for profit. This information can be extracted by using cookies which is a software program that records the customer’s activities when visiting the website. Yet, a computer can be configured to not automatically accept cookies. Tracking software is being used to follow and monitor the customer’s online activities. The Federal Trade Commission, which has the authority to bring legal action for unfair or deceptive trade practices affecting commerce, has prosecuted companies for their failure to properly disclose this information.

What are the federal privacy laws?

The Federal Constitution has implicitly granted privacy rights. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. There has been a series of legal cases that have dealt with this provision in order to determine the definition of unreasonable searches and seizures. However, some courts have held website monitoring programs that may reveal Internet Protocol or electronic mail addresses do not implicate the Fourth Amendment. The federal privacy laws that have been promulgate by the federal government include: (1) Driver’s Privacy Protection Act; (2) Electronic Communications Privacy Act; (3) Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act; (4) Fair Credit Reporting Act; (5) Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; (6) Federal Privacy Act; (7) Financial Services Modernization Act a/k/a “Gramm-Leach Bliley Act;” and (8) Video Privacy Protection Act which grants consumers the right to opt-out from disclosure of their personal information and file a legal action if their rights are violated. Also, the Federal Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act prohibits the production and possession of false or unauthorized documents or the usage of another person’s identity.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

The Eliminating Abuse and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technology (“EARN IT”) Act is a proposed bill that is designed to permit government agencies scan online messages and prevent child sexual exploitations. It is meant to force websites remove child abuse images from their platforms. The advocates argue it is necessary to allow the government evaluate online communications for potential violations. They argue that websites should be held accountable for user violations. This law seems to be against encryption which is used to obscure content from the unintended recipient. Encryption technology has been used to protect online privacy by scrambling messages through special algorithms. It can only be deciphered by the intended recipient who has access to the private key. Encryption can be used to securely communicate on the internet but it can also be used for nefarious reasons. That said, the EARN IT Act does not use the term “encryption” in its provisions. The supporting legislators have claimed the proposed statute is not designed to outlaw encryption. Also, it would require websites to adhere to certain best practices that will be implemented by the Attorney General’s Office by selecting a group of law enforcement agents who would impose them.

The EARN IT Act could reduce the protections granted under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”) which provides a certain level of immunity for online service providers. Now, the immunity is not absolute but it is not very far from it. It protects online service providers (a/k/a “interactive computer service providers”) from user violations. For example, if the user engages in conduct that constitutes invasion of privacy of another person, the website would be shielded from legal liability. So, the victim could not file a lawsuit against the website for the user’s violations. However, the following three exceptions apply: (1) federal criminal activity and obscene material; (2) intellectual property violations; and (3) sex trafficking. In fact, 47 U.S.C. § 230(e)(1) prohibits obscene material and sexual exploitation of children. Moreover, 47 U.S.C. § 223 prohibits the transmission of lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent messages to a person under the age of eighteen. The CDA prohibits online service providers from sexual exploitation of minors, sex trafficking, or promotion of prostitution in jurisdictions where it is illegal. In other words, interactive computer service providers cannot facilitate these activities on their platforms. In Reno v. ACLU, the Supreme Court evaluated the CDA and its relevant provisions. It found that the CDA criminalized protected speech – e.g., sexually explicit speech – and unprotected obscenity.

The EARN IT Act has been compared to the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (“FOSTA”) and Stop Enabling Sex Trafficking Act (“SESTA”) which were passed to fight against online sex trafficking by making websites criminally liable for user content. These federal statutes caused several websites, including, but not limited to, Craigslist and Backpage to remove pages or be completely shut down. So naturally, critics have argued that they promoted online speech censorship and prevented people who engaged in consensual sex work. Yet, if the proposed bill passes legislation, it could open the floodgates for lawsuits against technology companies.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Free speech and censorship laws have clashed for a very long time in this country. On one hand, we have the constitutional right to free speech. On the other hand, there are limitations that can be applied on a case-by-case basis. In short, speech can be censored if it includes obscenity, child pornography, or the incitement of imminent lawless action. The Supreme Court has faced a multitude of cases in these contexts. For example, in Schenck v. United States, the court ruled that freedom of speech does not include the right to incite actions that would harm others. In Roth v. United States, it held that it is unlawful to make or distribute obscene materials. In United States v. O’Brien, it held that it is unlawful to burn draft cards as an anti-war protest. In Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, it ruled that it is unlawful to permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration. In Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, the court held that it is illegal for students to make obscene speech at a school-sponsored event. Furthermore, in Morse v. Frederick, it held that students cannot advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event. The point is that even though there are a vast amount of constitutionally-protected rights, yet there are certain limitations.

How does the First Amendment apply to private social media platforms?

The First Amendment is designed to limit government agencies from encroaching upon its citizen’s rights. In recent years, private social media platforms – e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Instagram – have had discretion to limit, control, or censor online speech of their users. It is certainly arguable that the state and federal constitutions should also apply to private social media platforms because truth and falsity have always clashed with each other during the course of history. There are several schools of thought that analyze free speech rights based on the freedom of expression. First, one idea is that government should not change or alter the marketplace of ideas with censorship. Second, the other idea is that people should have the liberty to express themselves in society without reservation. So, if the social media platforms are granted censorship rights, then it would prevent liberty and growth. Now, more recently, in Packingham v. North Carolina, the Supreme Court acknowledged the fact that speech is taking place on social media platforms more than anywhere else. As such, the State Action Doctrine’s application should be reevaluated by the legislators.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

On April 10, 2018, Mark Zuckerberg, founder and chief executive of Facebook, took a chair beneath an array of Senators to answer for the uneasiness his company’s behavior had been giving the public.  The testimony comprised a broad variety of concerns – from user privacy to election meddling, to misinformation and an alleged bias in combatting it. The latter concern has fascinating legal implications we will discuss today.

More pointedly speaking, allegations that the large social media companies’ community guidelines have been enforced selectively have sparked a public controversy.  The accounts of some particularly controversial speakers, for better or worse, have been shut down, and others report that the volume of exposure their content gets has suddenly dwindled.  Pundits, for the most part on the right wing, have strongly condemned the companies, and ensuing arguments tend to hit all the philosophical tenets of the classical debate over free speech.

The First Amendment does not ensure anyone’s place on a private platform; it only restricts the government from discriminating with regard to speech, including, but not limited to, hate speech.  For the most part, it is left to market pressures to correct any perceived bias or wrongdoing on the part of the social media companies.  There are other areas of the law, however, that social media companies have some potential to run afoul of.  Critics and commentators have brought up both antitrust law and publishing law issues.  Although, there is debate over the likelihood that companies like Facebook infract upon either, yet the potential does exist.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

In a current dispute between Google and a Canadian company over de-indexing a competitor, Google is doing everything in its power to avoid the court order. Not necessarily because it believes in the innocence of Datalink, but because to de-index would be removing an important immunity under current U.S. laws. One may be wondering, what was the immunity that prompted Google’s move? Why could it just pick up and go somewhere else? Should other businesses be concerned for this possible loss of immunity, and why might a business support Google here?

Case History

Equustek Solutions, Inc., a Canadian company, engaged in litigation with Datalink due to illicit activities on Datalink’s part (e.g., misappropriation of trade secrets) and using those trade secrets to confuse consumers in the market. Due to the similarities resulting from the alleged misappropriation, Datalink led consumers to believe that they were purchasing Equustek’s products. Equustek then sued in Canadian courts, resulting in various court orders against Datalink. However, Datalink managed to evade enforcement by fleeing the country and setting up shop somewhere else.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

The Supreme Court recently reviewed Matal, Interim Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office v. Tam (Matal v. Tam), which deals with trademark laws and what can be trademarked.  In fact, before the case reached the Supreme Court, we have previously discussed how much is unsettled in this area of trademark law. With this new decision, much of the law should be clearer with regards to what can be officially trademarked.

What are the case facts?

A rock group chose the band name “The Slants” because they wanted to “dilute the term’s denigrating force as a derogatory term for Asians.” When the band tried to trademark this name with the United States Patent and Trademark Office the application for registration was denied. The government agency denied the application because it was against 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), also known as the Lanham Act, which prohibits the registration of any trademark that may disparage or bring into contempt any persons living or dead. The lead singer of the rock group, Simon Tam, challenged this denial initially through the administrative appeal process, which did not bring him any result. Then, Simon Tang brought his case to federal court. The federal court decided that the disparagement clause in the Lanham Act was unconstitutional because it violated the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. This decision was then appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

The United States Supreme Court has accepted a new case that implicates cell-phone location privacy. The case of Carpenter v. United States was decided by the Sixth Circuit and now the Supreme Court will issue a decision in the future as to whether the lower court’s decision was correct. The main issue in this case is that the court will be deciding whether or not the warrantless search and seizure of historical cell phone records revealing the location and movements of a cell phone user over the course of a 127-day period is permitted by the Fourth Amendment.  In general, the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. It also implicates the laws regarding search warrants, wiretaps, other forms of surveillance and is central to privacy laws.

What are the case facts?

In 2011, four men were arrested because they were suspected of committing a string of armed robberies at T-Mobile and Radio Shack in the Detroit area. One of the four men confessed to the crimes and told the police that a shifting group of 15 other men served as getaway drivers and lookouts. The one man who confessed gave his phone number along with the phone numbers of some of the other participants to the FBI. The FBI then reviewed the call records of the man who confessed and were able to identify the phone numbers of others that he had called around the time of the robberies.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Following from libel proof individuals to the realm of Twitter, and the “Wild-West” approach towards online statements, comes an interesting idea.  It is given that most people will communicate anonymously on the web.  So, if a person is a victim of libel, then how can he/she recover? The online service provider technically didn’t publish it, but only acted as the forum. The person who published the statement cannot be easily found because the statement was posted under a pseudonym.  So, what if the online service provider could be forced to give up identifying information (e.g., name, address, telephone, email, IP address) of the commenting individual? How much is that anonymity worth? Is there a way to actually engage in defamation and get away with it?

How does anonymity make things harder?

Naturally, an unknown person is difficult to sue in court.  The amount of damages he or she could pay is difficult to ascertain. While there are rules allowing a lawsuit without knowing the individual’s identity­­ (which is common in some cases), however, it adds the difficulty in discovering the identity of the “Doe Defendants.”

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

On the Internet, individuals can go out and make attempts to rib each other, or to mock certain celebrities or infamous individuals. This opens the realm of libel and slander laws to expand towards online activities. Yet, depending on the person’s history, defamation may be borderline impossible.  If defamation is harm to one’s reputation, then theoretically it should be impossible to harm an irredeemable reputation.  This idea is a concept known as being libel proof — i.e., a person who cannot be defamed any longer.  So, can a completely libel-proof person exist? How could someone argue the individual is libel proof? How might this affect online communications?

What is libel proof?

Libel proof means, quite simply, that a person cannot be defamed any further.  Generally, to even satisfy libel, it would have to be an unprivileged false written statement that was published towards third parties (compared to slander, which is an unprivileged false oral statement that was published towards third parties).  Even then, defamatory statements are judged differently to protect free speech interests.

Continue Reading ›