Articles Posted in Government

California’s anti-doxing statute, which is codified under California Civil Code § 53.8, is a law designed to protect individuals from the intentional, malicious publication of their personal identifying information, which is commonly known as “doxing” when done with the intent to cause harm, harassment, or to incite violence.

Assembly Bill 1979

Assembly Bill 1979 entitled as the “Doxing Victims Recourse Act” discusses the relevant rules and regulations. Civil Code Section 1708.89(c) outlines the victim’s rights and states, in part, that: A prevailing plaintiff who suffers harm as a result of being doxed in violation of subdivision (b) may recover any of the following: (1) economic and noneconomic damages proximately caused by being doxed, including, but not limited to, damages for physical harm, emotional distress, or property damage; (2) statutory damages of a sum of not less than one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500) but not more than thirty thousand dollars ($30,000); (3) punitive damages; and (4) upon the court holding a properly noticed hearing, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing plaintiff.

The Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) is a landmark Illinois law that regulates the collection, use, and storage of biometric data. Enacted in 2008, BIPA provides some of the most stringent protections for biometric privacy in the United States. With the increasing use of biometric technology—such as fingerprint scanning, facial recognition, and retina scans—lawsuits under BIPA have surged, leading to significant rulings in both state and federal courts. This article explores the key rules and regulations of BIPA, recent court cases, and the broader implications of biometric data privacy enforcement.

Key Rules and Regulations Under BIPA

1. Scope of the Law

Blockchain and cryptocurrency rules and regulations vary widely across jurisdictions with some countries embracing digital assets and others imposing strict restrictions. The following article includes an overview of the current legal landscape in the United States, European Union, China, and other key jurisdictions.

United States

1. SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) Regulations

On January 2, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit delivered a significant ruling and blocked the Biden administration’s efforts to reinstate net-neutrality regulations. The court determined that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) lacked the legal authority to reclassify broadband services under Title II of the Communications Act, a move essential for enforcing net neutrality rules.

Net Neutrality’s Background

Net neutrality is the principle that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) must treat all data on the internet equally, without favoring or blocking particular products or websites. In 2015, during the Obama administration, the FCC classified broadband internet as a Title II telecommunications service, establishing regulations to enforce net neutrality. These rules were repealed in 2017 under the Trump administration, reclassifying broadband as a Title I information service, which subjected it to less stringent regulation.

Unlawful or illegal cell phone tracking can have serious legal consequences and ramifications. The exact nature of these consequences can vary based on the jurisdiction, the specifics of the tracking, and the laws that were violated. Here are some key points to consider:

1. Violations of Federal Laws

In the United States, several federal laws address the unauthorized tracking of cell phones:

Cell phone tracking has become a powerful tool for law enforcement and private entities alike. However, its use raises significant privacy concerns and legal challenges. Central to these discussions is the Tracking Device Statute under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). This article explores key legal cases involving cell phone tracking and the implications of the Tracking Device Statute.

Understanding the Tracking Device Statute

Enacted as part of the ECPA in 1986, the Tracking Device Statute (18 U.S.C. § 3117) regulates the use of electronic or mechanical devices to monitor individuals’ movements. The statute mandates that law enforcement obtain a warrant based on probable cause before using tracking devices. This requirement ensures judicial oversight and aims to protect individuals’ Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.

In the United States, cell phone tracking of consumers by private entities such as businesses or advertisers without consent is generally illegal and considered a violation of privacy laws. However, there are some exceptions, such as when the tracking is done with explicit consent or when it’s conducted by law enforcement agencies with proper legal authority, such as a warrant.

Consumer tracking is a complex area of law that involves various federal and state regulations, including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) and the Communications Act of 1934. Additionally, individual states may have their own laws regarding privacy and data protection. It’s important for businesses to comply with these laws and regulations to avoid legal repercussions and to respect consumer privacy rights.

In an age where digital technologies permeate every aspect of our lives, concerns over privacy and the protection of personal data have become paramount. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) stands as a cornerstone in the legal framework governing electronic communications and the privacy rights of individuals in the United States. Within the ECPA lies a significant provision known as the Tracking Device Statute, which addresses the use of tracking devices to monitor individuals’ movements.