Group items tagged

An insurance company seeking to challenge the authority of Canada's privacy legislation and the privacy commissioner in an auto injury case will have to go to the Federal Court to make its case, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal has ruled. In State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Privacy Commissioner of Canada and Attorney General Canada, State Farm argued that Canada's privacy regime does not apply to surveillance tapes the insurer commissioned following a motor vehicle accident in 2005. In March 2005, Jennifer Vetter, insured by State Farm, was involved in a motor vehicle collision with Gerald Gaudet. State Farm subsequently hired a lawyer in anticipation of litigation by Gaudet against Vetter. The insurer also hired private investigators that conducted video surveillance on Gaudet. Gaudet filed a request under Canada's privacy legislation, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), that State Farm turn over to him the personal information it had compiled, including copies of the surveillance reports and tapes. State Farm went to the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench asking for "declaratory" relief on several issues. Among other things, the insurer asked for a court order declaring that PIPEDA did not apply to information obtained in a bodily injury damages claim. It also asked the court for an order confirming that the privacy commissioner had no right or authority to compel State Farm to turn over the documents. The privacy commissioner asked for a stay of proceedings in the New Brunswick court, arguing that the authority of the privacy commissioner was a matter for the Federal Court (which has jurisdiction over federal legislation such as the PIPEDA). The New Brunswick Appeal Court noted both the provincial and federal courts have jurisdiction to hear cases about the constitutionality of federal legislation. But only the Federal Court could determine the outcome of a direct challenge to the authority of the p

Veterans suffering anxiety and paranoia following the theft of a government hard drive containing the medical histories and Social Security numbers of 198,000 of their brethren cannot recover financial damages, a federal appeals court says. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in largely dismissing a class-action, ruled Wednesday that the veterans could recoup at least $1,000 under the Privacy Act if they could show financial damages, not mental anguish. What's more, the Atlanta-based court noted that the veterans - some already suffering post-traumatic stress syndrome from their Vietnam War days - likely could recover damages for mental anguish associated with the data breach if the lawsuit was before a different court. That's because the courts of appeal across the nation have issued conflicting interpretations of the Privacy Act of 1974, which allows people to sue the government for privacy breaches and recover "actual damages." Precedent in the 11th Circuit, which includes Alabama, Florida and Georgia, interprets "actual damages" as money losses only. So 198,000 veterans - whose life history was on a hard drive that vanished from a Birmingham, Alabama Veterans Administration hospital - are out of luck, even if their war-time paranoia was exacerbated by the breach. The 11th Circuit noted (.pdf) that the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals "do not restrict 'actual damages' under the Privacy Act to pecuniary losses." And the Supreme Court has refused to resolve the circuit splits.

The U.S. Supreme Court Monday accepted an appeal by several groups that brought a constitutional challenge to the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board created by 2002 changes in federal accounting laws. The free-enterprise groups and a Nevada accounting firm sued to stop the Securities and Exchange Commission from naming members of the accounting board, set up by Congress to oversee public-company accountants. "In creating the board, Congress deliberately sought to test the outer boundaries of its ability to reduce presidential power," the groups said in the appeal. The groups, in their lawsuit, claimed the U.S. Constitution required board members to be appointed by the president or the SEC chairman, rather than the entire commission for the securities agency. The Supreme Court's decision to hear the appeal breathes new life into the case, which didn't get much traction in lower courts. The U.S. Solicitor General's office, in court briefs, had urged the high court to reject the appeal, calling it a "poor vehicle" to resolve the constitutional issues raised by the challengers. "The president's control over the SEC is constitutionally sufficient and the act in turn grants the SEC complete and pervasive control over every aspect of the board's authority," Solicitor General Elena Kagan wrote. A U.S. federal judge dismissed the lawsuit in 2007 and the Washington-based U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals also rejected the challenge in a 2-1 decision last year. The private, nonprofit board is charged with inspecting and disciplining public company accountants. The case is the Free Enterprise Fund vs. the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 08-861. Oral arguments will be held in the fall, and a decision is expected by July 2010.

The Supreme Court upheld a U.S. government crackdown on profanity on television, a policy that subjects broadcasters to fines for airing a single expletive blurted out on a live show. In its first ruling on broadcast indecency standards in more than 30 years, the high court handed a victory on Tuesday to the Federal Communications Commission, which adopted the crackdown against the one-time use of profanity on live television when children are likely to be watching. The case stemmed from an FCC decision in 2006 that found News Corp's Fox television network violated decency rules when singer Cher blurted out an expletive during the 2002 Billboard Music Awards broadcast and actress Nicole Richie used two expletives during the 2003 awards. No fines were imposed, but Fox challenged the decision. A U.S. appeals court in New York struck down the new policy as "arbitrary and capricious" and sent the case back to the FCC for a more reasoned explanation of its policy.

A coalition of privacy groups today urged the Obama Administration to defend California's landmark financial privacy law against the banking industry's legal efforts to overturn it. The US Supreme Court is currently considering taking up the banks' appeal of a 2008 decision by the 9th Circuit Court upholding almost all provisions of the Financial Information Privacy Act of 2003 (SB 1 - Speier). On March 9th, the Supreme Court invited the Obama Administration to voice its opinion on the California privacy law. The case is American Bankers Association v. Brown, Supreme Court Docket Number 08-730. Letters to President Obama and Solicitor General Elena Kagan were signed by The Consumer Federation of California, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, CALPIRG, Consumers Union, Consumer Action, The Older Women's League, The California Alliance for Retired Americans, and Chris Larsen, Propser Marketplace, and founder of Californians for Privacy Now, the organization that spearheaded a 2003 ballot initiative campaign that turned fierce banking industry opposition into acquiescence with SB 1. "This represents a defining moment for privacy rights" the letter states. We ask you to stand with consumers by telling the Supreme Court to reject the banks' appeal in Brown." Privacy advocates support the State of California's position in this legal matter, which is that there is no merit to the appeal filed by the American Bankers Association. At issue is whether federal laws preempt portions of California law that regulate the sharing of private consumer information within a financial institution's family of affiliates.

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

A court has handed Blockbuster a preliminary defeat in a potential class-action lawsuit filed as a result of its participation in Facebook's ill-fated Beacon ad program, which notified members about their friends' e-commerce activity. U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Lynn in Dallas ruled that the case could proceed in court even though Blockbuster's contract with users calls for any disputes to be heard by an arbitrator rather than in court, and also says that users waive their right to file a class action lawsuit. Lynn determined that Blockbuster's contract with users was "illusory" because the agreement said that movie rental store could change the terms and conditions at any time. A Blockbuster spokesperson declined to comment on the case or state whether the company will appeal. The decision is a blow to Blockbuster because individual consumers would have had a difficult time bringing cases one-by-one against the company. But the decision paves the way for attorneys to argue that all consumers affected by Blockbuster's participation in Beacon should be able to proceed as a class. Internet law expert Venkat Balasubramani said Lynn's decision invalidating Blockbuster's user agreement was potentially far-reaching because many Web companies reserve the right to make changes to their terms of service. "It seems broad and could have impact on the terms of service used by a lot of different companies," he said.

"Big Brother is watching. That is the message corporations routinely send their employees about using email. But recent cases have shown that employees sometimes have more privacy rights than they might expect when it comes to the corporate email server. Legal experts say that courts in some instances are showing more consideration for employees who feel their employer has violated their privacy electronically. Driving the change in how these cases are treated is a growing national concern about privacy issues in the age of the Internet, where acquiring someone else's personal and financial information is easier than ever. "Courts are more inclined to rule based on arguments presented to them that privacy issues need to be carefully considered," said Katharine Parker, a lawyer at Proskauer Rose who specializes in employment issues. In past years, courts showed sympathy for corporations that monitored personal email accounts accessed over corporate computer networks. Generally, judges treated corporate computers, and anything on them, as company property. Now, courts are increasingly taking into account whether employers have explicitly described how email is monitored to their employees."

A South Korean court acquitted a blogger on Monday of spreading false information, in a case that triggered debate about freedom of speech in cyberspace and critics said was only launched because his economic doom postings angered authorities. Defendant Park Dae-sung, who went by the pseudonym "Minerva" after the Greek goddess of wisdom became a household name last year for his predictions of sharp falls in the won and the local stock market and the collapse of U.S. investment bank Lehman Brothers. "He's been found not guilty," a court official said by telephone. The court threw out charges that he purposely harmed market sentiment by posting false information on his blog. Prosecutors said a posting Park made in December led to volatility in the local currency and caused financial authorities to inject billions of dollars to stabilize the Korean won. "Even if there was recognition that it was false information, he cannot be seen as having acted on purpose to harm public interest considering the situation at the time including the special nature of the foreign exchange market," the court said. As the markets tumbled last year, the main financial regulator warned it would crack down on what it considered malicious rumors. Some economic analysts said they had come under pressure from authorities not to voice negative views on the economy.

In a 4-to-3 ruling, the New York State Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday that the State Police violated a criminal suspect's rights under the State Constitution when it placed a GPS tracking device inside the bumper of his van without obtaining a warrant. The police had used the device to monitor the movements of the suspect, Scott C. Weaver, for more than two months. But the court ordered the evidence gathered from the device suppressed and ordered a new trial for Mr. Weaver. In three written opinions, the judges on the court debated the constitutional issues raised by the growing use of global positioning system technology as a tool of surveillance. The case could set an important precedent for state and local police agencies.

The European Commission started legal action against Britain on Tuesday for what the EU executive called a failure to keep people's online details confidential. EU Telecoms Commissioner Viviane Reding said the action related to how Internet service providers used Phorm (PHOR.L) technology to send subscribers tailor-made advertisements based on websites visited. Reding said Internet users in Britain had complained about the way the UK applied EU rules on privacy and electronic communications that were meant to prohibit interception and surveillance without the user's consent. "Technologies like Internet behavioural advertising can be useful for businesses and consumers but they must be used in a way that complies with EU rules," Reding said in a statement. "We have been following the Phorm case for some time and have concluded that there are problems in the way the UK has implemented parts of the EU rules on the confidentiality of communications," Reding said. She called on Britain to change its national laws to ensure there were proper sanctions to enforce EU confidentiality rules. Unless Britain complies, Reding has the power to issue a final warning before taking the country to the 27-nation EU's top court, the European Court of Justice. If it rules in favour of the European Commission, the court can force Britain to change its laws. (Reporting by Huw Jones, editing by Dale Hudson)

making best indexing in goggle and bing. RADJASEOTEA is a master of backlinks. You want indexing in goggle and bing. LOOK THIS www.fiverr.com/radjaseotea/making-best-super-backlink-143445

A National Security Agency eavesdropping program exceeded legal limits intended to safeguard privacy, and officials have taken steps to bring the intercepts program into compliance, the Justice Department said Wednesday. The department, in a statement, said problems with the NSA program were uncovered as the Justice Department and National Security Agency were conducting routine oversight of intelligence activities to ensure compliance with laws and court orders. Attorney General Eric Holder has sought court approval to renew the NSA program after instituting new safeguards. The House intelligence committee was informed of the compliance issues and is conducting an inquiry, a House congressional official said. The New York Times on Wednesday reported on its Web site that the program intercepted private email messages and phone calls of Americans. However, intelligence officials have described the program as primarily searching for information based on data about communications, such as email addresses, subject headers and the time a message or phone call was placed. The Justice Department said officials notified the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of the problems with the NSA program and took "comprehensive steps" to correct the matter. "The Justice Department takes its national security oversight responsibilities seriously and works diligently to ensure that surveillance under established legal authorities complies with the nation's laws, regulations and policies, including those designed to protect privacy interests and civil liberties," the department said.

Like this http://www.hdfilmsaati.net Film,dvd,download,free download,product... ppc,adword,adsense,amazon,clickbank,osell,bookmark,dofollow,edu,gov,ads,linkwell,traffic,scor,serp,goggle,bing,yahoo.ads,ads network,ads goggle,bing,quality links,link best,ptr,cpa,bpa. www.killdo.de.gg

Two Philadelphia law firms have filed class action suits on behalf of all cardholders in the U.S. who had their credit or debit card data stolen in the Heartland Payment System (HPY) data breach. This brings to three the total number of class action lawsuits filed against the Princeton, NJ-based payments processor. The law firm of Berger & Montague filed a class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging Heartland's failure to safeguard cardholder data when the company's computer systems were hacked and cardholder data was stolen. Heartland says last year it processed 100 million card transactions per month, but an unknown number of cards were impacted by the breach. The law firm says fraudulent activity has occurred on some of those cards. The law firm alleges that Heartland's security measures and intrusion detection systems were inadequate. "Because of Heartland's inadequate data security, cardholders have had their card information compromised, have been exposed to the risk of fraud, have spent and will spend time to monitor their accounts and dispute fraudulent charges, and have suffered other economic damages," the law firm says in its statement regarding the suit. Berger & Montague were also co-lead counsel in the consumer class action suit brought against TJX Companies, which resulted in a $200 million settlement. The third class action lawsuit filed in February against Heartland comes from Sheller P.C. of Philadelphia, PA. Sheller's suit against Heartland has similar charges against the payment processor. Sheller P.C. also filed its class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Sheller P.C. has also filed a consumer class action suit against RBS WorldPay for its security breach that was made public on Dec. 23, 2008. Previously, Chimicles & Tilellis LLP of Haverford, PA filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of Woodbury, MN resident Alicia Co

A former IT analyst at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and his brother were arrested Friday on charges that they took out loans using stolen information, including sensitive information belonging to federal employees at the bank. Prosecutors allege that Curtis Wiltshire, 34, took out student loans totalling US$73,000 using the stolen information. His brother, Kenneth Wiltshire, 40, is charged with using the identities of two federal employees to try and obtain a loan for a 2006 Sea Ray 340 Sundancer speedboat. The charges (pdf) come two months after federal investigators found two 2006 student loan applications on a thumb drive attached to the work computer of Curtis Wiltshire, who had worked at the Reserve Bank for nearly eight years as an information and technical analyst. According to court documents, that investigation was unrelated to the fraud charges. Wiltshire was dismissed soon after the drive was found on around Feb. 15, prosecutors said. The charges were filed in the federal court in Manhattan. The two men could not be reached for comment Friday and the names of their lawyers were not included in the court documents. Curtis Wiltshire had "access to computer files containing information about employees of the [federal bank], including their names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and photographs," U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Cordel James said in an affidavit filed in the case. Curtis Wiltshire was charged with bank fraud and identity theft and faces more than 30 years in prison if convicted. His brother was charged with mail fraud and identity theft and faces a maximum of 22 years in prison.

The state's highest court told Bergen County yesterday to release 8 million pages of real estate documents -- including mortgage information -- to fulfill a request filed under the state's public records law, but that Social Security numbers included in them must be kept private. The justices also said the company requesting the information should pay the $460,000 it will cost the county to remove the Social Security numbers from records spanning more than two decades. The court unanimously agreed that the documents, requested by a business that wants to sell electronic access to this information, are public records under the state's Open Public Records Act. But it stressed some of the personal information, if released, would hurt residents. "The request was made on behalf of a commercial business planning to catalogue and sell the information by way of an easy-to-search computerized database. Were that to occur, an untold number of citizens would face an increased risk of identity theft," Chief Justice Stuart Rabner wrote for the court. Bergen County officials called the decision a victory for all New Jersey residents concerned about identity theft.

A former Goldman Sachs computer programer accused of stealing secret trading codes from the investment bank was being held in federal custody on Monday, pending the posting of $750,000 bail. Sergey Aleynikov, 39, was ordered by U.S. Magistrate Kevin Nathaniel Fox in Manhattan on Saturday to post a $750,000 personal recognizance bond to be secured by three financially responsible people, according to court documents. The bond also was to include $75,000 in cash, and Aleynikov was ordered to surrender his passport and not to access the computer data at issue in the case. A preliminary hearing in his case was scheduled for August 3. Aleynikov, a Russian immigrant living in New Jersey, was arrested on Friday night by FBI agents as he got off a flight at Newark Liberty International Airport, according to court documents. He is accused of "theft of trade secrets" related to computer codes used for sophisticated automated stock and commodities trading at an unspecified, New York-based financial institution, according to the court affidavit filed by FBI special agent Michael McSwain. Sources familiar with the situation have told Reuters columnist Matthew Goldstein that the financial institution is Goldman Sachs. A Goldman representative declined to comment on Monday. A lawyer for Aleynikov, Sabrina Shroff, also declined to comment.

The man accused of masterminding the largest identity theft in U.S. history agreed to plead guilty to related charges, according to court papers filed in Boston federal court on Friday. Albert Gonzalez is accused of helping to steal millions of credit card and debit card numbers from major U.S. retail chains, leading to tens of millions of dollars in fraudulent transactions. A former government informant who is already in jail, Gonzalez, 28, agreed to plead guilty to 19 counts in Massachusetts by September 11. The agreement also resolves charges pending in federal court in New York.

A new privacy law in Maine is facing a court challenge from media organizations as well as a coalition of online companies including AOL, News Corp. and Yahoo. The new law, officially titled "An Act To Prevent Predatory Marketing Practices against Minors," prohibits companies from knowingly collecting personal information or health-related information from minors under 18 without their parents' consent. The measure also bans companies from selling or transferring health information about minors that identifies them, regardless of how the data was collected. Wednesday, opponents asked the federal district court in Maine to issue an injunction against the measure, slated to take effect Sept. 12. In its court papers, the groups opposing the law say it has consequences far beyond limiting the marketing of health-care information. They contend the measure would "prevent common marketing practices used to serve teens information on colleges, test prep services, class rings, etc." The groups who are suing include the Maine Independent Colleges Association, Maine Press Association, Reed Elsevier and NetChoice -- a coalition of Web companies like AOL, eBay, Yahoo, IAC, News Corp. and Overstock.com.

A U.S. appeals court on Friday denied a bid by the cable industry to overrule privacy rules that make it more difficult for them to share subscribers' personal information with other parties. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied a petition by the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, which argued that federal rules on telecom carriers' use of customer data violated free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution, federal law or both. At issue are rules set by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission that mandate telecommunications carriers must get an "opt-in" before disclosing customers' information to a carrier's joint venture business partner or an independent contractor.

"In a case that could prove to be one of the most important privacy rights battles of the modern era, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear argument this week on the proper legal standard to apply when prosecutors demand cell phone location data. The data, which are recorded about once every seven seconds whenever a cell phone is turned on, effectively track the whereabouts and the comings and goings of every cell phone user. Justice Department lawyers argue that, by statute, they need only show "reasonable grounds" to believe that such records are "relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation." But a federal magistrate judge in Pittsburgh strongly disagreed in February 2008, issuing a 52-page opinion that said the prosecutors must meet the "probable cause" standard. "This court believes that citizens continue to hold a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information the government seeks regarding their physical movements/locations -- even now that such information is routinely produced by their cell phones -- and that, therefore, the government's investigatory search of such information continues to be protected by the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement," U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan wrote."

Turn the cell phone off and put on your tin foil hat so the government and aliens can't track you!