Business Law -- Chapter 9 -- Cyberlaw and Privacy-- Mind Tap

When Jason delivered flowers for FloralSend, Jason was using a(n) _______ truck and a(n) _______ cellphone. When FloralSend checked Jason's cell phone to monitor his whereabouts, Jason's employer had a _________ reason to do so. Jason ______ have an actual, subjective expectation of privacy on his work-provided phone. A judge would likely conclude that, if Jason claimed an expectation of privacy on his work-provided phone, society would consider that expectation as ________ . As a result, Jason would probably ______ a tort of intrusion claim against FloralSend for monitoring his work phone.

- employer - owned - employer - owned - justified - did not - did not - lose

In order to prove the tort of intrusion, a plaintiff must first show that a defendant ________ intruded on the solitude or _______ affairs of another person. This invasion of privacy must be done in a fashion that is _______ to a reasonable person. In the employment context, courts have ruled that employees _______ possess a reasonable expectation of privacy _________ . This is particularly true when hardware is supplied by the ________ .

- intentionally - private - Offensive - do not - in the workplace - employer

When FloralSend's manager demanded access to Jason's Twitter account, that account was available ___________ . The manager _________ intruded on Jason's private affairs. A manager reading Jason's _______ Twitter account could be considered _______ to a reasonable person. Jason had a(n) ________ expectation of privacy in his private Twitter account. As a result, Jason would probably ______ a tort of intrusion claim against FloralSend for demanding that Jason show his private Twitter account to his manager.

- privately to friends only - intentionally - private - offensive - reasonable - win

What if Jason's Twitter account was publicly viewable? In this case, Jason's Twitter account is part of his ______ affairs. Jason _______ have a reasonable expectation of privacy in this account. A manager demanding to see Jason's twitter account would be considered have a reasonable expectation of privacy in this account. A manager demanding to see Jason's twitter account would be considered _______ to a reasonable person. As a result, Jason would probably ______ a tort of intrusion claim against FloralSend for reading his public Twitter account.

- public - does not - not offensive - lose

Under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, courts recognize a ________ right to privacy. In order to show this right to privacy, a person must demonstrate that he possessed a(n) ________ and ________ expectation of privacy. A person must also demonstrate that _________ accepts the person's privacy expectation as reasonable. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution _____ apply to private businesses. However, judges use the __________ concept in many areas of privacy law.

- reasonable - actual - subjective - the lawyer (?) - does not - reasonable expectations of privacy

Hallie has worked at Blue Stone Insurance Company for twelve years. Hallie has never had a discipline problem and has always excelled in her job as a human resources specialist. Yesterday, Hallie's supervisor Kimberly contacted her and told Hallie that she was being let go because of some controversial Facebook posts that Hallie had made that violated Blue Stone's media policy. Hallie had posted on Facebook pictures of herself smoking marijuana and made statements that Blue Stone's random drug testing policy was unfair. Hallie also listed the names of Blue Stone employees who were scheduled to be drug tested in the next week. Hallie wants to sue the company for unlawful firing; she believes that her First Amendment rights have been violated because Blue Stone accessed her Facebook account and fired her based on her posts. Does Hallie have a valid claim for wrongful termination? - No, Hallie does not have a valid claim for wrongful termination because her posts violated the company's social media policy. - No, Hallie does not have a valid claim for wrongful termination because the First Amendment does not cover posts on social media. - Yes, Hallie has a valid claim for wrongful termination because courts have held that an employer cannot terminate a person based on that person's violation of the company's social media policy. - Yes, Hallie has a valid claim for wrongful termination because an employer censoring an employee's social media posts is a violation of the First Amendment.

No, Hallie does not have a valid claim for wrongful termination because her posts violated the company's social media policy.

Evelyn is looking for a baby gift for her friend, so she visits an online social media site, Bundle of Joy, to get some ideas. Bundle of Joy is a social media site where expectant and recent mothers can visit and exchange ideas and concerns. It has a huge presence on the internet, almost as big as Facebook. Evelyn is always concerned about her privacy online, so she carefully reviews the company's privacy policy before she uses the website. The privacy policy clearly states that the site uses cookies to gather information from the user, but the information will be used only by Bundle of Joy to help the user connect with other users who share common interests. A week later, Evelyn begins receiving offers for baby items from multiple online retailers, each beginning with the words: "Because you visited Bundle of Joy....." Evelyn is enraged and complains to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Is there anything the FTC can do on Evelyn's behalf? - No, the FTC has no power to investigate social media websites. - No, the FTC only regulates enforcement of civil U.S. antitrust law and the promotion of consumer protection, not privacy interests. - Yes, the FTC can investigate and sue any company that has an online presence. - Yes, the FTC can sue Bundle of Joy if it has an agreement with Bundle of Joy that allows the FTC the power to review Bundle of Joy's privacy and data practices and it violates its own policies.

Yes, the FTC can sue Bundle of Joy if it has an agreement with Bundle of Joy that allows the FTC the power to review Bundle of Joy's privacy and data practices and it violates its own policies.

Josef grew tired of making minimum wage at a local fast-food restaurant, so he decided to pursue a more lucrative venture. Josef started selling marijuana and meth, and soon built up a substantial business. Josef then posts about his success on Facebook, displaying a picture of himself surrounded by his "product" and fanning out a big stack of cash. After local law enforcement learn of the post, an officer friends Josef online to learn more about his contacts, so they can find out who his customers and suppliers are. Any information obtained through this online "sting": - cannot be legally used. - can be legally used. - can be legally used against Josef's Facebook friends, but not against Josef. - can be legally used against Josef, but not any of this Facebook friends.

can be legally used.

Beatrice runs a boutique clothing store called Jewel's Place. Beatrice's biggest local competitor is Andrea, who owns a similar shop called Rags to Riches. Beatrice makes several social media posts stating that Andrea purchases the clothing in her store from an overseas sweat shop that hires underage children and pays them only fifty cents per day. Beatrice's online posts: - do not constitute defamation because the statements were not published. - do not constitute defamation whether or not the statements are true. - do not constitute defamation because the statements were not published to a particular person. - constitute defamation if the statements are not true.

constitute defamation if the statements are not true.

Oscar runs an internet site that creates and licenses access to computer-generated cartoons. Lately Oscar's customers have been asking for material that contains sexual content, particularly sexual content involving children. Oscar develops a cartoon of computer-generated characters that appear to be children engaging in sexual activity. Oscar loads the cartoon onto his website and makes it available for download. The cartoon looks quite realistic and contains no notice that the images are computer-generated and not actual people. The government prosecutes Oscar under a statute that makes it a crime to intentionally distribute virtual child pornography without indicating that it is computer-generated. Oscar defends on the basis that no actual children were involved in the cartoon, and the statute unconstitutionally infringes on his First Amendment right to free speech. The court is likely to hold that: - the statute is valid because child pornography is protected speech under the First Amendment, and therefore computer-generated child pornography would be protected at well. - the statute is not valid because it infringes on the First Amendment right to free speech. - the statute is valid because it does not prohibit a substantial amount of protected speech. - the statute is not valid because it is unconstitutionally vague.

the statute is valid because it does not prohibit a substantial amount of protected speech.