Articles Posted in Technology

Published on: | by

Facebook is struggling to decide how to handle its pictures. While consumer companies urge Facebook to profit from its face recognition technology, international regulators insist that user identities remain protected. According to a New York Times article entitled, Facebook Can ID Face, But Using Them Grows Tricky, Facebook agreed to delete user identification information, which the site gathers through facial recognition technology. The technology at issue is Facebook’s “tag suggestion” which automatically matches names with faces when a user uploads a photo. Facebook has deactivated this feature to make improvements that international regulators can approve.

Chris Hoofnalge, a professor at the University of California Berkeley, School of Law stated in the article that increasing developments in this field “directly affects civil liberties.” Although, the public is more likely to accept using identifying information from facial recognition technology for security purposes, Wall Street is now pressuring Facebook to utilize its users’ personal data for profit. Legislators, such as Senator Al Franken, have expressed concern over Facebook’s “database of face prints,” which Facebook has gathered “without the explicit consent of its users.” Franken urged Facebook to provide the same right of privacy to its American users as it does its European counterparts.

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has issued a guide, “Facing Facts Best Practices for Common Uses of Facial Recognition Technologies,” aimed at defining facial recognition technology and outlining authorized uses. In addition, earlier this year Google announced a new tool that would allow individuals to blur their faces in YouTube videos. This is one of the first steps to provide “visual anonymity” in cyberspace.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

The content of an online search result for an individual generates a profile of the individual. Such content paints a picture for potential employers and colleagues, and the information may not be ideal. Therefore, in order to protect your online reputation and your overall image, it is important to take certain steps to monitor your online content.

First, signing up for social networks like Facebook and LinkedIn allows you to control the content that a web search will produce. Personalized Facebook and LinkedIn pages show up as the first results of a Google online search. This controls the content that attaches to your online reputation.

Andy Beal, who co-authored Radically Transparent: Monitoring and Managing Reputations Online, suggests that people should monitor their online reputation the same way they monitor their credit. This helps catch defamatory online postings in time to prevent a damaging reputation from solidifying. Beal suggests setting up a news feed that notifies individuals when their name is mentioned in an online posting. Google provides this option through Google Alerts, which will accomplish this for full name searches.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

The technological advancements and the ever-expansive world of cyberspace are in a perpetual state of conflict with individual privacy concerns. For example, a recent research project by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology demonstrates that independent component analysis allows companies to track changes in pulse by the subsequent change in skin color that is readily visible through a video signal. In addition, employers, credit agencies, and health insurance providers can now purchase indexes that contain consumer profiles based on individual consumer’s browsing history, site membership, and online purchases.

The Federal Trade Commission has issued a report that proposes the steps companies can take to ensure optimal protection of consumer privacy. The report, “Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change: Recommendations for Businesses and Policymakers,” urges companies to incorporate privacy protection in every stage of their products, provide a mechanism against online activity tracking, and fully disclose what user information it shares with other entities.

The California legislature has proposed a new bill that would impose new restrictions on social networking sites, which would limit the information available about users. The proposed legislation would allow users to select privacy settings before ever using the site, which limits the sites accessibility. Social Networking sites, such as Facebook, have responded that such legislation would inappropriately burden the sites, in turn devastating cyber-business in California.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) may be preparing to file an antitrust suit against Google for abusing its dominance as an Internet search engine to stifle competition from other search engines and arbitrarily increase advertisement costs.

The Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-7, which governs American antitrust law, makes direct and indirect “restraint of trade or commerce” illegal, both in interstate and foreign markets. The Clayton Antitrust Act, under 15 U.S.C. §§ 12-27, amended the Sherman Act in 1914 to include specific prohibited acts, such as price discrimination and mergers and acquisitions that substantially reduce competition. The Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6a, also limited the Sherman Act’s application to foreign trade only where “such conduct has a direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect” on “trade or commerce” within the United States.

The FTC investigation is rooted in accusations that Google engages in “preferencing,” which means that Google engineers searches to produce results that profit its own secondary services, while limiting search access to competing services. In addition, the investigation concerns whether Google favors advertisements from its own services against competing services.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Since the Internet allows companies to conduct gambling online, albeit illegally, the legal implications of the sport have come into consideration. Federal and State level gambling laws strictly restrict and regulate gambling throughout the country. The opportunity to conduct gambling online allowed site operators to register sites offline, in districts that allowed online gambling, and begin taking bets while circumventing United States law.

However, according to the Wire Act, under 18 U.S.C. § 1084, an operator that utilizes the American telecommunication network to transmit information to place and manage wagers online is subject to prosecution, fines, and possibly imprisonment. In a 2003 civil case involving an Internet financial services company, the United States government prosecuted and settled with the company for $10 million regarding the company’s involvement in online gambling related transactions. Transmitting information in relation to wagers may be exempt from the Wire Act, under 18 U.S.C. § 1084(b), if the information is transmitted from and to a state or country that permits such betting.

The U.S. Department of Justice maintained that all gambling within America was illegal under the Wire Act. However, in a 2002 case, the Fifth Circuit held in In re Mastercard International, Inc. that Congress intended the Wire Act to apply exclusively to sport-related online wagers. In 2006, Congress passed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which made it illegal to accept payments in relation to online gambling. Interestingly, this Act does not make it illegal to conduct online gambling.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

The legal implications of electronic signatures have drawn public and legal attention as more parties contract over the Internet, agreeing to terms with the single click of a mouse.

In 2000 Congress passed the Electronic Signatures in Global and International Commerce Act (ESGICA), under Title 15 U.S.C. Chapter 96 (sections 7001-7031), which made electronic signatures as binding as traditional signatures. By making “e-signatures” legally equivalent to paper signatures, ESGICA introduced a new mode of conducting business – the “e-contract.” California, along with 46 other states, has adopted the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, under California Civil Code §§ 1633.11-1633.17, which governs state law surrounding electronic contracts.

An electronic contract, often called an “e-contract,” exists entirely in electronic form. Parties create and sign the agreement online, without the need to produce hard copies. For example, two parties may correspond over email to create the terms of an agreement and sign the contract after finalization.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

The expansion of the Internet is leading towards an increase in suits for defamation, as more people are able to freely publish their opinions on the Internet and reach a worldwide audience.

A claim for defamation involves an untrue statement that damages a person’s reputation. Defamation in written or printed form is categorized as libel, while defamation involving oral statements is categorized as slander.

The elements required for a defamation claim come under question in light of the expansion of the Internet because the Internet gives the average consumer broad freedom to post opinions regarding, among others, people, corporations, events, and politics. Furthermore, the nature of the Internet allows worldwide exposure of a common consumer’s opinion, and such a posting may remain on the Internet almost endlessly. Furthermore, since most controversial cyber-postings are anonymous, parties wishing to pursue an Internet defamation claim face the unique obstacle of identifying the party that caused the harm.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

According to Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, Congress has the power to protect the exclusive rights of “authors and inventors” in order to support scientific and artistic innovation. As such, Congress enacted the Copyright Act under Title 17 of the United States Code outlining the legal framework of copyrights in order to provide legal protection for authors and inventors.

Section 101 of the Copyright Act defines the various terms associated with copyright law. For example, for purposes of the Copyright Act, a “work” constitutes a tangible product when it is initially “fixed in a copy.” Section 102 lists the types of works that the Copyright Act applies to, which include, among others, written, musical, and photographic works. A copyright owner has certain exclusive rights in relation to his or her creation. Under Section 106 of the Copyright Act, copyright owners have the right to reproduce, distribute, perform, and display their works. This implies that non-owners do not have these same rights towards copyrighted material, which generates issues of copyright infringement and unauthorized use of copyrighted material.

Copyright infringement is the violation of a copyright owner’s exclusive rights under the Copyright Act. Sections 501-513 of the Copyright Act outline penalties for copyright infringement, which may include payment for damages, a court order to stop the unauthorized use of copyrighted material (i.e., injunction), and jail time.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

With a growing concern for national security and expanding information sharing networks, the government is making efforts to establish legislation protecting the American cyber community.

Most recently, in February 2012 Congress considered the Cybersecurity Act (“Act”) as a means to provide for information sharing across different industries to establish cybersecurity. The Act also places the burden of monitoring sites and infrastructures on the owners of the sites, rather than any managers hired to maintain the sites.

Congress ultimately has not passed the Act because there is such a divide among politicians regarding the most effective means to establish protection for the American cyber community. See http://articles.cnn.com/2012-08-02/politics/politics_cybersecurity-act_1_cybersecurity-bill-homeland-security-cyberattacks for more information.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

The lawsuit between Apple, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd. over issues of patent infringement finally came to a close with a judgment in Apple’s favor.

The judgment found Samsung guilty of infringing six Apple patents, including the quick search box, structure detection feature, slide-to-unlock, and auto-correct feature. The jury also found that Samsung willfully infringed on several Apple software and hardware patents. This will allow presiding Judge Lucy H. Koh to triple the award of damages if she finds it appropriate. Apple received an award of over $1 billion. Although this falls short of Apple’s $2.5 billion request, it still qualifies as one of the largest awards in an intellectual property case.

Samsung is anticipated to file an appeal. Samsung representatives explain that the verdict threatens to limit consumer options in the market and therefore the verdict should be overturned. Samsung intends to file post-verdict motions to overturn the ruling and seek relief from the judgment.

Continue Reading ›