Law chapter 10

What are websites liable for?

1. crimes or infringe intellectual property rights - liable if they participate din the design, building, marketing, 2. liable for their broken contracts and promises - yahoo promises to take a profile down but doesn't

social media passwords

1. many states ban employers from requesting job candidates or employee's social media passwords

were trump's words hate speech?

1. mens rea = accused had to intend the conduct 2. not about the reaction of the

*defamation*

1. opinions are not defamatory 2. statement must be verifiably false - if you can't prove it's false, it will be assumed true 3. *anonymity: 1st amendment protects anonymous speech*

privacy torts

1. public disclosure of privacy facts 2. intrusion (two way mirror in store dressing rooms)

user-generated content

1. social media posts, blogs, comments, customer reviews, wikis, images, and videos 2. does not inherently make people do good or bad things

online privacy policies

1. some require any website that collects personal information to post a privacy policy

reader privacy

1. some states prohibit libraries from sharing their patron's reading habits 2. some prohibit online booksellers from sharing the list of books browsed, read, or purchased

employee monitoring

1. some states require employers to notify their workers before monitoring emails or internet usage

when can employer monitor the employee's electronic communications?

1. the employee consents 2. the monitoring occurs in the ordinary course of business 3. for email, the employer provides the computer system 4. thus, employer can monitor electronic communication even if it doesn't relate to work activities 5. employers can't access an employee's social media by trickery or coercion

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

1. to spy on people n the US communicating abroad, the government doesn't need a warrant but does need permission from a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Must show that the surveillance... - targets persons reasonably believed to be located outside the US - seeks foreign intelligence information 2. government must delete irrelevant and personally identifying data before providing it to other agencies 3. government must notify defendants if the evidence used against them was gathered by FISA surveillance

revenge porn

1. unauthorized posting of sexually explicit photos of someone else 2. state laws

*intrusion*

plaintiff must show that the defendant... 1. intentionally intruded, physically or otherwise 2. upon the solitude or seclusion of another or on his private affairs or concerns 3. in a manner highly offensive to a reasonable person Ex. peeping through windows

*chaney v. fayette county public school district*

1. district's tech director made a slideshow showing the permanent nature of social media posts 2. Chaney was on one the the slides in a bikini with her full name 3. the director distributed the slides to hundreds in attendance 4. chaney's page was semi private for friends and friends of friends ISSUE: did chaney have a reasonable expectation of privacy in her bikini facebook picture? 5. District court: against Chaney because no violation of 4th amendment because she voluntarily posted that photo and there is no expectation that friends of friends are supposed to keep that private

electronic communications privacy act of 1986

1. federal statute that prohibits unauthorized interception of wire and electronic communications 2. Wiretap Act - interception of conversations 2. stored communications act - access to communications that have been stored such as email and voicemail

online speech

1. first amendment protects free speech 2. does not protect defamation and violence

wiretap act

1. illegal to intercept or record face to face communications and phone calls during their transmission 2. prohibits disclosing the contents of an illegal recording 3. police need a warrant to listen to or monitor a person's phone calls 4. Conversations not protected... - one party must consent = legal under federal law; many states both parties have to consent - businesses can monitor as long as they give notice - only protects those with a reasonable expectation of privacy in the convo (2 step test for 4th amendment)

Fair Information Practices

1. notice/awareness - notice should be given before any personal information is collected 2. choice/consent - people should. be able to control the use and destination of their information 3. access/participation - people should have the ability to view, correct, or amend any personally identifiable record about them 4. integrity/security - information collectors must take reasonable precautions to ensure that the data they collect are accurate and secure

strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP)

1. powerful plaintiff abuse the legal system by suing anyone who criticizes them, not to win on legal merits, but to intimidate and silence critics 2. states have anti-SLAPP laws to stop this which force plaintiffs to prove upfront that their defamation lawsuit is likely to succeed at trial - if they can't do this, the plaintiff must pay the other side's legal fees

Child Online Privacy Protection Act

1. prohibits internet operators from collecting information form children under 13 without parental permission 2. requires sites to disclose how they will use any info they get

Stored communications act

1. prohibits unauthorized access to or disclosure of stored wire and electronic communications (email, voicemail, social media) 2. not violated if it is unintentional or one party consents 3. any intended recipient of an electronic communication has the right to share it 4. internet service providers are generally prohibited from disclosing electronic messages to anyone other than the addressee (unless necessary for the performance of service or for the protection of their own rights or property)

Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act

1. prohibits unfair and deceptive acts or practices 2. regulates advertising and endorsements - anyone who endorses a product must disclose all compensation they receive for product reviews

*4th amendment*

1. prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures by the government (words right to privacy don't appear anywhere, but it is interpreted) 2. reasonable expectation of privacy requirements: - the person had an actual, subjective expectation of privacy - society accepts the person's expectation of privacy as reasonable 3. Olmstead v. US - did not require the government to obtain a warrant before listening to, or recording, private phone conversations

Securities and Exchange Commission cybersecurity

1. requires financial institutions to adopt written policies, procedures, and training programs to protect customer records and info

disclosure of personally identifying information

1. some states require ISPs to obtain their customers' consent before sharing any of their information including surfing habits and sites visited

spam

1. unsolicited commercial email

Cybersecurity

1. almost every state has data breach laws = require businesses to notify individuals affected by a security breach 2. some states have data disposal laws = businesses must destroy customer data and maintain reasonable security procedures to guard against theft

*Communications Decency Act of 1996*

1. anyone who simply provides a neutral forum for information (ISPs and website hosts) are not liable for content provided by someone else 2. only content providers are liable 3. section 230 protection for internet platform providers

*4th amendment at the workplace*

1. courts have generally held that employees do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the workplace especially if using hardware provided by the employer or if they handbook says they may be monitored

how we lose our privacy in the digital world

1. data breaches 2. surveillance and discrimination (illegal discrimination - employer sees the person is religious so doesn't hire them) 3. Big data (gathering info behavioral marketing) 4. the internet of things - internet-connected everyday devices, vehichles and buildings

violence

1. 1st amendment does not protect threats of violence against individuals

Ehling v. Monmouth-Ocean Hosp. Serv. Corp

1. Ehling was a paramedic who had facebook privacy settings on "just friends" 2. hospital supervisor called one of Ehling's friends to show her the Ehling's account 3. supervisor sent a post to the boards because one of her posts suggested disregard for patients' safety 4. She filed for tort of intrusion 5. hospital filed motion to dismiss arguing she didn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy ISSUE: did Ehling have a reasonable expectation of privacy in her Facebook comment? 6. district court: for Ehling - she tried to protect her privacy

Elonis v. US

1. Elonis's wife left him so he started posting rap lyrics with violent language as an art form 2. posted a picture holding a toy knife to a coworker's neck 3. boss fired him and alerted the FBI 4. Elonis posted instructions for his exwife on how to make a getaway, so she got a restraining order 5. Elonis then said he would be a school shooter which then resulted in FBI agents visiting him 6. He said he would leave the female FBI agent bleeding 7. arrested for the federal crime of transmitting a threat across state lines 8. Trial Judge: threat is whether a reasonable person would consider it threatening 9. Elonis appealed and was affirmed: threat should include the speaker's intent to threaten not the listener's perception 10. SC: for Elonis because criminal conduct must have awareness of some wrongdoing; mens rea ISSUE: should a threat be defined by the speaker's intent or by the listener's reasonable perception?

Jones v Dirty World Entertainment Recordings

1. Jones HS teacher was the subject of posts saying she was with the football players and had a sexually transmitted disease 2. Jones sent emails asking him to remove the posts but he refused 3. jury: for Jones for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress 4. Dirty appealed arguing the Communications Decency Act made it immune from liability because it did not create or develop defamatory content ISSUE: Is the Dirty immune from liability under the Communications Decency act? 5. Appeals Court: against Jones - the defendants are internet service providers - the content was provided by another information content provider - Jone's claim seeks to treat the defendant as a publisher or speaker of those statements

net neutrality

1. all information on the internet must receive equal treatment regardless of source 2. FCC prohibits ISPs from blocking lawful content or giving preferential treatment to some internet content `

Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing (CAN-SPAM) Act

federal statute that regulates spam but does not prohibit it Commercial email.... 1. may not have deceptive headings (to, from) 2. must offer an opt-out system permitting the recipient to unsubscribe (must honor those requests promptly) 3. must clearly indicate that the email is an advertisement 4. must provide a valid physical return address 5. must clearly indicate the nature of pornographic messages A company can avoid these requirements by getting advance permission from recipients

*public disclosure of private facts*

prohibits the unjustifiable revelation of truthful, but secret, info Plaintiff must show... 1. the defendant made public disclosure (said the secret to more than 1 person) 2. the disclose facts had been private 3. the facts were not of legitimate concern to the public (public was not entitled to know - unlike details of a crime which the public should know) 4. the disclosure is highly offensive to a reasonable person

EU General Data Protection Regulation

protects data of all europeans 1. applies to any business that processes Europeans' data including companies outside of Europe 2. defines "data" as any information that can be used, directly or indirectly, to identify someone, including a name, picture, or geolocation 3. defines "processing" to mean anything that is done with a person's data including collecting and storing it 4. allows people to stop companies from processing their personal data 5. grants individuals broad rights to their data, including the right to know how it is used, the chance to edit or delete inaccuracies, and the right to have it erased from the internet if it is no longer relevant or of public concern 6. requires data processors to notify the authorities and individuals of any data breach 7. provides significant penalties for sites that mishandle customer's information (fine up to 4% of their annual worldwide revenue)

*plaintiffs harmed anonymously, they must persuade the court to force the web host or ISP to unmask the speaker*

to make the decision to or not, the court must 1. assess whether there is compelling evidence of wrongful conduct 2. balance the need for disclosure against 1st Amendment concerns (sometimes protecting anonymous speech is more important than minimal reputation harm)