Articles Posted in Internet Law

Published on: | by

The New York State Court of Appeals recently upheld a lower court’s verdict against Facebook’s claim that it had legal standing to challenge search warrants on behalf of its members. Facebook claimed that it had the ability to challenge search warrants that it saw as illegal before the warrants were executed. This verdict is considered a major setback for companies that seek to increase internet privacy.

What were the claims?

Facebook claims that, as an online entity which stores customer information, it had standing to contest search warrants brought to obtain information about its users, including, private personal messages and photographs. The company made the argument that search warrants for electronic information are different from a physical search of someone’s home. Someone else at a company has to do the searching, not the police, and more private information is accessible than would be found through a search of a defendant’s home. Therefore, Facebook claimed that the warrants served on social media companies are more like civil subpoenas for records and should be able to be challenged in court. Facebook also claimed its right to contest the warrants under the federal Stored Communications Act, but the court held that it had misinterpreted the law, which only applied to subpoenas and court orders. Although, the five-judge panel expressed concern over the scope of the search warrants and the large amounts of warrants executed, versus the small amount of those charged with a crime, however, it held that federal and state laws specify that the only person who can challenge a search warrant is the defendant.  In general, the challenge takes place at a hearing before the trial court.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

In recent years, with lawyers and their clients calling for alternate methods of dispute resolution, the discovery of electronic documents has become more difficult to manage.  In fact, this dilemma is due to the expansive nature of technology and related software and hardware platforms.  As such, it has increased the costs and burdens of litigation.

What is Arbitration?

Arbitration came about as an alternative method to resolve litigation. It exists as a way to provide a way for the parties to resolve their disputes before trial. An arbitrator is granted the authority to ask for electronic data to be presented in a case. Although, arbitration is cost effective, however, flaws exist regarding the scope of electronically-stored information that may be discovered during litigation. Due to the large amount of electronically stored information, arbitral institutions like the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (“IICPR”) have proposed guidelines for discovery.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

In recent times, the concern over the distribution of, and access to, users’ data on the web continues due to rising cyber activity. This has lead to an increase in Internet-related class action lawsuits.

What are the different types of class action categories?

One category of class actions relates to the use of internet cookies, which are utilized by websites and applications to obtain information about users’ activities.  These files are saved on a user’s hard drive, so the host server gains access to certain information (e.g., user’s identity and recent transactions). “Zombie cookies” have become a concern leading to class action lawsuits, as they cannot be deleted and lead to online surveillance of users.  Online advertising has also become a source of class action lawsuits, as third-party advertisers have teamed up with websites to use cookies without consent.  As a result, online behavioral advertising is created based on a user’s browsing history in order to create relevant advertisements, which may violate privacy policies.  Another category of class action is brought when a company website violates its own terms of service or privacy policies, sometimes leading to breached databases. The last category has to do with information contained on social media platforms.  As a general matter, user profiles on social media platforms (e.g., LinkedIn, Facebook) yield a large quantity of information.  These social media platforms create user profiles that are shared with third parties such as advertising firms.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

In general, harassing phone calls are distinguished from unwanted phone calls based on obscene or threatening language used to intimidate or scare the recipient. A phone call must hold malicious intentions in order to be classified as harassment punishable under California state laws.

What makes telephone calls a crime in California?

Under California Penal Code 653m, certain elements of a telephone call can lead to liability for criminal activity. The first element is the act of making a telephone call or electronic communication. This can be done via telephone, smartphone, computer, pager, or recorder, among other communication devices. This means that forms of electronic harassment could include text messages, phone calls, emails, faxes, picture messages, video messages, or voice recordings. A defendant can be accused of violating Penal Code 653m even if he/she was not the one to initiate the call. A violation may exist if he/she requested the electronic communication. The next element is the use of obscene language that is meant to threaten or injure the recipient, his/her family and/or property. This includes repeated calls or communication attempts, regardless of the content. The last element is the intent to harass or annoy a victim. There is no violation if the communication is made with the intention of legitimate business purposes, even though certain business calls might seem as nuisance.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

In general, computer crime is a term that covers a variety of crimes involving internet or computer use that may be prosecuted under state or federal laws. Because of the rise in computer crimes, California state laws include provisions that prohibit these violations. In addition, other states have passed computer crime statutes in order to address this problem.

What is a computer crime?

An individual who accesses a computer, computer system or computer network and alters, destroys, or disrupts any of its parts is considered a perpetrator of computer crime. The charge is selected based upon the intention of unlawful access. Hacking is the breaking into a computer, computer system, or computer network with the purpose of modifying the existing settings under malicious intentions. Unlawful or unauthorized access means that there is trespassing, storing, retrieving, changing, or intercepting computer resources without consent. Viruses, or other contaminants, include, computer code that modify, damage, or destruct electronic information without the owner’s permission. This often disrupts the operations of a computer, computer system, or network. As such, Congress enacted the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in order to regulate computer fraud and to expand laws against it. This federal statute provides that “whoever knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period” shall be punished accordingly.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

On June 1, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of Anthony Elonis in Elonis v. United States, regarding free speech limitations as implemented via social media platforms. This ruling was the first time the Supreme Court raised implications of free speech related to social media.

Under what circumstances was Elonis indicted?

Anthony Elonis was convicted on four separate counts for postings on social media, specifically Facebook. The federal statute he was convicted under, 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), states as follows: “Whoever transmits…any communication containing…any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.” Elonis sparked concern after posting graphic threats involving the rape and murder of his ex-wife, detonation of bombs in the presence of law enforcement, and shooting up an elementary school, all under an alias. Elonis did not dispute that the statements were posted, but declared that they were merely expressions of his frustration. He claimed that the trial court incorrectly instructed the jury on the standard of a “true threat” in which the expressions were interpreted as more serious under the context.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

The modern day business model is shifting towards cloud computing and Software-as-a-Service (“SaaS”) agreements. This new trend allows customers to treat licensing costs as expenses that can be paid over time. SaaS also provides a solution to bug fixes, glitches, and the updating of licenses simultaneously. With the shift to cloud computing, developers are no longer required to provide a platform on which their own application runs.  However, confusion exists about the differences between software licensing and SaaS agreements.

What is the difference between software licensing and SaaS?

A software-licensing model involves the software company to offer a software program in the form of an electronic download or CD-Rom. This software then must be downloaded, installed, run, and operated on hardware before being used by one or more users. This software may be installed on hardware.  It often offers services like training, maintenance, and technical support. On the contrary, in the SaaS model, the company does not make a physical product. It only makes the product accessible through “the cloud” which acts as a hosting platform. One or more users can still access the product, but it must be done through cloud computing services.  As such, external services are not provided because they are expected to be included as part of the hosting platform’s service and support experience. As a result, SaaS acts as a service subscription model and not a physical product.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Since October of 2013, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has made a transition towards the expansion of top-level names. This action has sparked concern in Internet stakeholders in regards to security concerns. ICANN was previously responsible for managing 22 domain names, including, “.com,” “.gov,” and others. With plans to rapidly rollout more names, government entities, businesses, consumers, and internet users have recognized a number of the associated security concerns. Today, there are 322 new top-level domains (TLDs) that have been granted by ICANN.

What are the resulting security threats?

Phishers and scammers have grown in number since the growth of TLDs, hijacking domains shortly after registration. There have also been instances of malware and phishing pages registered under specific and popular TLDs, transferring risks to users. The lack of preparation and security that exists in the Internet ecosystem is a perfect environment for criminals to display malicious activity. Domain name collisions are occurring due to TLDs colliding with old and unresolved names that have been embedded in the global root. The result of such collisions is server delay, outages, and data theft that leave consumer information exposed. Malware and cybersquatting have also been exhibited in the top 35 most trafficked new TLD sites. TLDs continue to cause confusion and lack of security, with 36 being permitted to have singular and plural versions [e.g., .car(s), .work(s)], and 44 possessing close alternatives, such as .finance/.financial and .engineer(ing).

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

In the past few months, more domestic and foreign regulations of digital currencies are being proposed. However, New York is at the forefront of establishing new Bitcoin regulations, and California not far behind. By the end of May, it is likely that the updated BitLicense bill regulatory framework will be released and used as an example for other states.

What are the New York and California Proposed Regulations?

Benjamin Lawsky, New York’s first Superintendent of Financial Services, announced the parameters of the bill this year. The BitLicense bill will stipulate that businesses will need a license if they handle (i.e., store, transfer) Bitcoin for customers, cover or issue digital currency, exchange Bitcoin for other currency, or buy and sell digital currency to or from a customer. Merchants that only accept digital currency for purchases will not need a license. Any licensed company will have to maintain a certain amount of capital, which will be assessed using an assortment of factors. State officials say that feedback is still welcome and that the bill is a work in progress. The goal in the end, however, is that the new regulations would protect consumers who use digital currency by establishing rules and guidelines.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

In recent times, the non-consensual publishing of private images online has been a topic of debate among lawmakers. Since our last article discussing revenge porn, there have been new laws passed and proposed that show state governments’ increasing pushback against posters of revenge porn and their facilitators. More and more states are passing laws that address cyberstalking, cyberharassment, and similar offenses leading to a wide array of people prosecuted for revenge porn.

What is the new California law?

On October 1, 2013, Senate Bill 255 (“SB 255”) took effect and was codified in California Penal Code § 647(j)(4). On January 1, 2015, a new amendment to this section went into effect specifying that a defendant is liable if he/she should have known that the subject of the photo did not consent to having his/her picture published online. An amendment to California Civil Code § 1708.85, also came into effect recently in order to allow victims of revenge porn to sue for civil damages. Now, revenge porn posters and hosts may be held liable, both criminally and civilly, in California. In fact, a recent California case caused quite a stir when the operator of a website, who allowed third-party posting of revenge porn, was sentenced to 18 years in prison for identity theft and extortion. So, with the new civil code amendment, this form of prosecution should be more available to victims.

Continue Reading ›