Group items tagged

In court papers filed Wednesday, former federal prosecutor Richard Convertino called reporter David Ashenfelter's invocation of the Fifth Amendment, in an attempt to keep from having to reveal his confidential sources, both "speculative" and "unreasonable." Convertino urged the federal district court in Michigan to sanction Ashenfelter and to require him to present further evidence as to why he should not be held in contempt for his refusal at a December deposition to reveal the confidential sources. For the past two years, Convertino has been seeking Ashenfelter's testimony in hopes of boosting his Privacy Act lawsuit against the Department of Justice. Convertino claims DOJ violated the law by leaking to the press details of an investigation into Convertino's conduct during a terrorism trial. At a deposition in December, after Judge Robert Cleland in the Eastern District of Michigan ruled twice that Ashenfelter is not protected by a First Amendment reporter's privilege, the reporter invoked the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Two companies that collect, analyze and sell prescription information are mounting a Supreme Court challenge to New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation law making doctors' prescription writing habits confidential. In an appeal filed March 27, IMS Health Inc. of Norwalk, Conn., and Verispan LLC of Yardley, Pa., tell the high court that the law violates their First Amendment right to free speech in pursuit of their business. The law, aimed at thwarting hard-sell tactics by drug companies to doctors, makes it a crime for pharmacies and others to transfer information disclosing a doctor's prescribing history if the information could be used for marketing of prescription drugs in New Hampshire. Patients' names are not included in the data. The companies say that the ruling by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston that upheld the law's constitutionality could be broadly applied to newspaper publication of stock market information and many other services that gather large amounts of information. The money made by selling the information to drug makers, the companies say, allows them to provide the same material to researchers and humanitarian organizations at little or no cost. The law first took effect in 2006. The following year, U.S. District Judge Paul Barbadoro in Concord ruled in the companies' favor and said the law violated the First Amendment. Another federal judge subsequently ruled against a similar law in Maine, relying heavily on the New Hampshire decision. But the 1st Circuit overruled Barbadoro, calling the law a valid step to promote the delivery of cost-effective health care. "Even if the Prescription Information Law amounts to a regulation of protected speech - a proposition with which we disagree - it passes constitutional muster," the court said. "In combating this novel threat to cost-effective delivery of health care, New Hampshire has acted with as much forethought and precision as the circumstances permit and the

New rules will protect consumers, harmonize regulation, and enshrine net neutrality. But a late amendment left the legislation in limbo The European Parliament has voted through a massive tranche of reforms for the European telecommunications sector, including a significant net-neutrality amendment. The 'Telecoms Package' of laws was voted into force on Wednesday with a large majority, and must now be ratified by the Council of Telecoms Ministers. The vote marks the first time that internet access has been recognised in European law as a fundamental right on a par with freedom of expression. The legislation also compels European telecoms and internet service providers (ISPs) to notify their customers of any personal data breaches, the first time they have been required to do so.

By now, many employees are uncomfortably aware that their every keystroke at work, from email on office computers to text messages on company phones, can be monitored legally by their employers. What employees typically don't expect is for the company to spy on them while on password-protected sites using nonwork computers. But even that privacy could be in jeopardy. A case brewing in federal court in New Jersey pits bosses against two employees who were complaining about their workplace on an invite-only discussion group on MySpace.com, a social-networking site owned by News Corp., publisher of The Wall Street Journal. The case tests whether a supervisor who managed to log into the forum -- and then fired employees who badmouthed supervisors and customers there -- had the right to do so. The case has some legal and privacy experts concerned that companies are intruding into areas that their employees had considered off limits. "The question is whether employees have a right to privacy in their non-work-created communications with each other. And I would think the answer is that they do," said Floyd Abrams, a First Amendment expert and partner at Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP in New York. The legal landscape is murky. For the most part, employers don't need a reason to fire nonunion workers. But state laws in California, New York and Connecticut protect employees who engage in lawful, off-duty activities from being fired or disciplined, according to a report prepared by attorneys at the firm Proskauer Rose LLP. While private conversations might be covered under those laws, none of the statutes specifically addresses social networking or blogging. Thus, privacy advocates expect to see more of these legal challenges. In February, three police officers in Harrison, N.Y., were suspended after they allegedly made lewd remarks about the town mayor on a Facebook account. The officers mistakenly thought the remarks were protected with a password, but city officials view

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme court announced its refusal to hear appeals against the banning of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), effectively killing the bill. The American Civil Liberties Union called it "a clear victory for free speech," having fought the bill for ten years claiming it infringed on a website's freedom of speech. I've always advocated that it is the responsibility of parents to monitor their children's online activity. There are a ton of Web filtering and parental control applications available, many for free such as Blue Coat's K9 Web Protection. Especially with the country in the shape it's in now, my personal opinion is that the government has more pressing issues to attend to than babysitting children online. COPA was first passed in 1998, and made it illegal to display any pornographic material on a Web site without an access code or proof of age message. However, state courts began challenging the bill immediately, claiming it was unconstitutional and violated the First Amendment. Instead, it was ruled that parental controls should be used by individual families to block unwanted content, rather than the government determining what can and cannot be seen by all. (COPA was killed, not COPPA - Children's Online Privacy Protection Act)

As if banks didn't have enough on their plates with compliance and regulation on the federal front, come May 1, they will have to be mindful of strict new rules coming from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts around data security. The Massachusetts Data Security Regulations are perhaps like no other in terms of their depth and scope. During a teleconference, attorneys from the privacy and data security practice of the law firm Goodwin Procter (Boston) described this very detailed, all-encompassing set of rules designed to keep consumers' personal data safe. They go beyond the rules of other states and the federal government that simply require companies to notify their customers of theft of their personal information. "Personal information," for the purposes of the regulation, is described as someone's first and last name or first initial and last name, in combination with Social Security Number, driver's license number or financial account number. At its core, the regulation states that companies, including banks, that handle the personal data of a Massachusetts resident must show they have in place a comprehensive, written information security program with heightened security procedures around how this information is handled. The rules also extend to entities' service providers and the degree to which they too much show they comply with the Massachusetts rules of handling data on residents. Companies have until May 1 to amend their vendor contracts to reflect this and until Jan. 1, 2010 to certify their vendors comply. Furthermore, companies must comply with these rules even if they do not have a single office in the Bay State or if they are in an already heavily regulated industry, like financial services. As long as customers in businesses' databases reside in Massachusetts, those companies are affected by the rules. According to partner Deborah Birnbach, this is some of the most intrusive legislation as it relates to the operation of businesses. "It requires

Two high school girls are suing their local District Attorney after he threatened to file child sex abuse charges against them over a cellphone photo of themselves in their bras. Marissa Miller and Grace Kelly, both now 15, were 13 when the picture was taken at a slumber party. It is believed to show the two friends from the waist up, both wearing bras. Several of their classmates had a copy of the photo stored on their cellphone, thanks to a craze called 'Sexting', where provocative cellphone images are exchanged between young people. The girls both attend Tunkhannock Area High School, Pa. The image in question found its way to District Attorney George P. Skumanick of Wyoming County after it was discovered on one student's confiscated cellphone. Skumanick was indignant enough to threaten all of those involved - either because they were found to be in possession of the image or because they were identified from the photo - with child sex abuse charges if they did not attend a ten hour class on pornography and sexual violence. Such charges, if filed, could lead to jail time as well as potentially having to register as a sex offender for anyone convicted. Seventeen other students accepted the 'deal' and agreed to go on the course. The parents of Marissa, Grace, and one other girl, however, felt that the threat from the DA was over-zealous and are fighting back. With the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, they have filed suit against Skumanick in federal court in Scranton, Pa. The lawsuit asks the court to prevent Skumanick from filing charges against them, arguing that they had a right under the first and fourth amendments to refuse his deal and contending that his threat of sexual abuse charges was retaliatory in nature.

Stay Online on the world wide web online roulette from Contemporary sydney, Fun and Free! Now you is capable of doing Actual "www.funlivecasino.com.au" Stay Online on the world wide web online roulette for Fun in Contemporary sydney on a product new web page, FunLiveCasino.com.au. Using the newest on the world wide web operating technology, Fun Stay Gambling house allows you be a part of a genuine action occurring on a genuine desk in a genuine betting house, all approved on Live! You can see other real gamers in the betting house betting on the same outcomes you do providing you greatest believe in in the outcomes as they are not designed 'just for you a, like other action experiencing items such as 'live studios' or pc designed actions. Its awesome to think next time your really in the betting house that you might be on digicam, and individuals on the world wide web might be watching! The long run is scary! Believe one day soon this will be the only way individuals would bet on the world wide web because the worldwide web is complete of fraudsters, you have to be extremely cautious, and why would you perform Online Online on the world wide web online roulette any other way except from a Actual Gambling house you can check out, see, pay attention to and trust! Amazingly this site is absolutely 100 % 100 % 100 % free and has no determining upon up process, no junk, no pc rabbit mouse mouse clicks and no pressure. Just Immediate Fun "www.funlivecasino.com.au" 100 % 100 % 100 % free Stay Roulette! Give it a try, its value verifying out! "www.funlivecasino.com.au"Australia's Online Fun Stay Casino! Backlinks designed from http://fiverr.com/radjaseotea/making-best-156654-backlink-high-pr

It's often the security issue that dogs Google, Microsoft and other purveyors of personal health records (PHR): How will so much personal medical data be kept safe? A tangential question for Google, however -- one that has dogged the search giant since its Google Health offering was first made available in May 2008 -- is whether Google's search-based advertising platform creates a conflict with storing personal health data. Speaking at the Mastermind Session at Everything Channel's Healthcare Summit in San Diego in November,Google Vice President of Research and Special Initiatives Alfred Spector told health care CIOs, solution providers and other attendees that Google intended Google Health as an extension of the Google brand, and it was and would continue to be entirely separate from Google's main advertising platform. Watchdog organizations have taken Google to task over that claim, however, with one, Consumer Watchdog, even accusing Google of trying to lobby Congress to allow it to sell medical records by loosening regulatory language in the stimulus bill. "The medical technology portion of the economic stimulus bill does not sufficiently protect patient privacy, and recent amendments have made this situation worse," wrote Jerry Flanagan of Consumer Watchdog in a Jan. 27 open letter to Congress. "Medical privacy must be strengthened before the measure's final passage, rather than allowing corporate interests to take advantage of the larger bill's urgency." Flanagan in the letter states that, "Google is said to be lobbying hard ... to weaken the ban currently in the draft measure on the sale of our private medical records." While Consumer Watchdog did not cite specific evidence of Google pushing for softer restrictions, Google responded to the group's claims on its Public Policy Blog last week. "The claim -- based on no evidence whatsoever -- is 100 percent false and unfounded," wrote Pablo Chavez, Google's Senior Policy Counsel. "Google does not sell health