Group items tagged

Complimentary Webinar: Managing Data Breach Litigation You are cordially invited to attend a complimentary Webinar hosted by Debix Titled: Managing Data Breach Litigation. Proskauer Rose, Partner, Tanya Forsheit, will discuss recent developments in data breach litigation and other privacy class actions. Tanya also will discuss lessons to be learned from recent decisions and what these court opinions mean for companies facing privacy litigation. Kroll Ontrack, Senior Managing Director, Alan Brill, will provide lessons learned from the field on litigation strategies. The presentation will include practical tips on avoid litigation, getting litigation dismissed or in the unfortunate scenario of a lawsuit, winning strategies. Debix, VP of Emerging Technologies, Julie Fergerson has been working with data breached organizations for over 10 years and will moderate the call.

Data classification is a cornerstone of good privacy & security management. If you can measure it, you can manage it, right? First you have to know where it is.

Why classify data? Classifying data can help make data more accessible (or less accessible) to the users in your environment who need it. For example, suppose the Human Resources department created a folder on the file server within their department called Litigation. In this folder they place files that are needed for any litigation the company is associated with. The permissions on the folder are configured so that HR employees can edit the contents of the folder and add documents. Senior management can read the documents in the litigation folder, and the HR manager can remove documents that are no longer needed. The question is, how is it determined that a document is no longer needed and how do we apply these criteria to existing files in such a way that minimizes user interaction with them? The new classification feature in Windows Server 2008 R2 makes it possible to automatically assign classification information to files on file servers and apply policy to them based on that information. Classification in Windows Server 2008 R2 consists of several elements: properties, rules, and a policy segment including reporting and file management. Properties are the fields that you wish to assign a value for, and the rules are the criteria that set these values. There are other methods of classification available as well, including applications and scripts. More detailed examination of the methods of configuring the File Classification Infrastructure will follow in a future post. For the above example, a rule would be used to label a set of files in the Litigation folder. Adding a label such as Litigation-Case Number X (where X is the number of the case) can allow easy organization of files for each litigation case. When the classification rule is run against the specified folder, all files meeting the rule conditions would be classified with an appropriate label. You could use an expiration date here, but doing that might require reclassification of files if the ex

This tip is part of SearchSecurity.com's Data Protection School lesson, E-discovery and security in the enterprise. Visit the E-discovery and security in the enterprise lesson page for additional learning resources. Most information security pros have a handle on the major data types found in their environments, but they also know that there is a whole lot more data lurking around the edges. These unknown data types can include documents used by individuals, or whole applications owned by departments that have quietly become essential to the business. Most of the time, focusing on the squeaky wheels is an acceptable strategy; if there's no "squeak" then there's no need to worry. But when it comes to litigation, and especially managing the electronic discovery process, what you don't know can hurt you. There are four major types of data in use today: paper documents; structured data sets, like databases; semi-structured applications, like email and image stores; and unstructured repositories, like file servers. Comprehending the vast volume of these varied records can be a challenge for everyone involved, which includes information technology, records management, legal staff, and even the data owners themselves. But since almost all business information is stored in digital formats today, electronic storage systems are the most popular target for the discovery motions filed as part of legal proceedings. It is most efficient for a litigator to head straight for your email, spreadsheets and applications, looking for what they term electronically stored information (ESI). Making matters worse for IT administrators, new rules for civil litigation enacted at the end of 2006 (called the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or FRCP) have pushed up the timetable of electronic discovery. What was once a delayed and informal process has become much more structured, with lawyers meeting to discuss available ESI, typically just a few weeks after legal action commences. When l

Enterprise employees frequently use social networking tools, most notably Web-based applications. It's no surprise more organizations are wondering what happens if social networking data becomes relevant to an e-discovery investigation. How does an enterprise go about discovering and assessing Web 2.0 data? How responsible is an organization, legally speaking, for the information that's out there in the Web 2.0 world? What risks arise from e-discovery as it relates to Web 2.0 data, and how can you mitigate them? In this tip, we will look at e-discovery as it relates to Web 2.0 and consider the strongest options for minimizing risks to the organization. E-discovery basics We begin with a quick look at what e-discovery is and how it can create risk. Essentially, e-discovery is the electronic extension of the legal process of discovery, which Wikipedia defines as "the pre-trial phase in a lawsuit in which each party through the law of civil procedure can request documents and other evidence from other parties or can compel the production of evidence by using a subpoena or through other discovery devices, such as requests for production and depositions." If you're an IT person, not a lawyer, it's important to note that the rules governing the discovery process now require plaintiffs to address all electronically stored information or ESI. In other words, if your organization faces litigation, it will have to deal with the issue of e-discovery, which will entail a whole lot more than turning over some old emails. Depending upon your role in the organization, the first you may hear of this is a "notice of litigation" with perhaps a "litigation hold directive" containing a "preservation directive." Here is a generic e-discovery request below. Apart from a few limiting factors, such as subject matter, named persons and a specified time period, the scope of such a notice is likely to be broad; blame standard procedure, not some high-powered attorney pushing his or her lu

The new year has come and gone on the Gregorian calendar. But the new year for legal technology is still in progress at LegalTech New York, where vendors are unveiling their new products and services and attendees are helping them celebrate. LegalTech attendees should revel in the number of vendor initiatives aimed at reducing e-discovery costs from acquisition to review and production. And, like last year, EDD vendors continue to design and manufacture their products for international litigation. But LegalTech is not all about e-discovery. There were still plenty of vendors with products outside the Electronic Data Reference Model. EDD PARTIES Readers should be aware that Index Engines can access and extract data from tape and tape libraries -- and can do so really fast. But now they can also extract data from network storage systems, file shares, forensic images and hard drives and still provide users a single point of access to it -- via a Web browser. Index Engines first indexes data on disparate resources. Once the index is compiled, data can be deduped, searched, reviewed and extracted on demand. Also note that Index Engines can now filter unwanted file types such as EXE, DLL, etc., during the indexing process to reduce the time it takes to review the data. Read LegalTech New York 2009 Coverage on Legal Blog Watch In preparation for the new year, Kazeon Systems introduced new pay-as-you-go pricing models that augment their current standard software licensing option and focus on case matters. Kazeon hopes the new pricing models allow customers to implement an e-discovery solution that does not require a major financial investment or lengthy rollout. Vendors are starting to "go left" of the EDRM to provide organizations a better view of the end of litigation via early case assessment tools. In fact, KPMG promoted the concept with a T-shirt emblazoned with "go left." Toward that end, Daticon EED announced the availability of its Early Case Assessment servic

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

A recurring problem in modern litigation is the inadvertent disclosure of materials subject to the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product protection. New Federal Rule of Evidence 502 changes the rules concerning waiver of privilege in all Federal and many State court cases, thereby reducing the risk that inadvertent disclosures will constitute a wavier of attorney client privilege or work product protection. But the new rule requires careful application. Important risks remain. Inadvertent disclosure of privileged or protected information too easily occurs when massive numbers of documents or files make it impractical or prohibitively expensive to review every item individually. The proverbial privileged document needle gets lost in the e-discovery haystack and is overlooked. Later, when opposing counsel recognizes that she has a potentially privileged document and brings this to the attention of disclosing counsel, there may be a fight as to whether the document will be returned, or whether the disclosure constitutes a wavier of any privilege related to the information. Under existing State and Federal law, release of privileged or protected information to an adversary, even if inadvertent, may constitute a waiver of the privilege or protection with regard to the information or document disclosed or, worse, to all documents and other information related to the same topic. Invoking the "claw" Amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b), adopted in December 2006, were aimed at reducing the risks of waiver from inadvertent disclosures. Rule 26(b) provides that if privileged information is produced, the party making the claim of privilege may notify any party that received the information of the privilege claim and the basis for it. After being notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified information and any copies it has, must not use or disclose the information until the privilege claim is resolved; must t

Legal woes may be next for Heartland Payment Systems, a payment processor that reported a major security breach this week. Depending on the results of the ongoing investigation, Heartland is likely to face the threat of litigation from issuing banks, merchants and consumers, says Scott Vernick, an attorney with Fox Rothschild LLP in Philadelphia, who specializes in data theft cases. "The businesses that use Heartland as a credit card processor, as well as thousands of consumers, will be anxiously watching for any negative impact, including harm to their business reputations, and the real possibility of identity theft or fraud," says Vernick. The fact that Heartland's systems were certified as being fully in compliance with data handling rules, called the PCI standards, raises questions about the efficacy of such standards. Hannaford Brothers grocery chain was likewise fully PCI compliant when it had 300 stores hacked and 4.3 million record swiped..... "This latest incident shows how, despite companies being compliant with regulations such as PCI, they are still a long way from being secure," says Mike Rothman, senior vice president of strategy at elQnetworks.

As if you needed another sign that times are tough, here's a fairly reliable measure: The number of cases handled by the advertising industry's best-kept secret -- self-regulation -- are on the rise. Last year the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus handled 214 cases, up 22% from 2007. And in 2008 ad challenges, in which one advertiser challenges a competitor's claim, rose 31% to 81 cases. Why the increased activity? It's a deadly fight for share of market out there, and in down times advertisers tend to revert to hard-hitting comparative advertising. NAD's purpose is to substantiate these kinds of attack ads, and it can do it faster and cheaper than litigation can. The Federal Trade Commission seems to like the idea of letting advertisers settle their own disputes. When the National Advertising Review Council, the body that sets the policies and procedures for the NAD to enforce, started 38 years ago, then-FTC Chairman Bob Pitofsky wasn't an early convert. "If the truth be known," he said 10 years ago, "there was some skepticism about how the whole thing would work. The FTC had been burned time and time again by unkept promises of self-regulation by other industries. But this group has proved the skeptics wrong. Today, advertising has the best self-regulatory system of any industry in the country." The outgoing chairman of the FTC, William Kovacic, is also a fan. But the current crop of FTC commissioners don't seem as convinced, although they seem somewhat willing to give self-regulation a chance. In issuing guidelines for online behavioral advertising, FTC Commissioner Jon Leibowitz said the industry needs to do a better job of "meaningful, rigorous self-regulation, or it will certainly invite legislation by Congress and a more regulatory approach by our commission."A joint industry task force quickly seized on that statement as an endorsement for self-regulation, and said it supported FTC's goal of a "comprehensive and eff

Big Brother may be at it again. Behavioral advertising - the tracking of consumer's Internet surfing activity to create tailored ads - has triggered an intense legal controversy that has law firms scrambling to stay on top of a burgeoning practice. Attorneys say that behavioral advertising is raising privacy, litigation and regulation fears among consumer advocates, the electronic commerce and advertising industries and legislators. Law firms are busy helping companies come up with a transparent way of letting consumers know that their online activities are being tracked and possibly shared. "Lawmakers and companies are having a tough time keeping up with this new frontier of Internet privacy issues, and there is growing consumer unrest about behavioral advertising, leading in some cases to consumer rebellion," said Lisa Sotto, a partner and head of the privacy and security data group in the New York office of Richmond, Va.-based Hunton & Williams. "Consumers find this type of tracking intrusive, and businesses are starting to take the consumer reaction seriously," she said. The buzz over behavioral advertising has been building since congressional hearings that were held last year, during which Congress called on Internet service providers (ISPs) to testify about a highly controversial advertising practice known as "deep-packet inspection." The practice gives companies the ability to track every Web site consumers visit and provides a detailed look at everything they're doing, such as where they're going on vacation, who is going, how much they spent on the trip and what credit card was used. But then came the first class action targeting behavioral advertising, filed against Foster City, Calif.-based NebuAd Inc., an online advertising company accused of spying on consumers from several states and allegedly violating their privacy and computer security rights. The lawsuit specifically alleges that NebuAd engaged in deep-packet inspection. Valentine v. Ne

Richard Acton-Maher of San Francisco was in nearby Berkeley last month and wanted to meet friends for lunch. Instead of making calls to see who was around, he looked at a digital map on his iPhone that plotted their locations. "One of my friends was also there," said Acton-Maher, 24, who used a service from a startup company called Loopt Inc. "I gave him a call and met him for lunch. It just enhances the communications tools that I already have." Google Inc., encouraged by people's willingness to share their personal lives on sites like Facebook, is betting more people like Acton-Maher will post their whereabouts online. The owner of the most popular search engine started a program this month called Latitude, seeking to compete with mobile networking services such as Loopt, Match2Blue, Whrrl and Limbo. Besides competition, Google's effort to turn mobile phones into tracking devices faces criticism from privacy advocates. Useful for friends and family, location data would also be valuable to the government, said Kevin Bankston, an attorney with the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation, a not-for-profit organization focused on civil-liberties. "This is certainly valuable information to investigators and potentially to civil litigants," Bankston said. "This type of location information presents a very new sensitive data flow." Google says its privacy settings address such concerns. People using Google's mobile maps can opt not to use Latitude and choose whom they share their information with. The program also only stores the user's last known location, not a full history of their travels, said Steve Lee, a Google product manager. 'Ephemeral Data' While Google doesn't plan to store the data, the government could still go to court to ask for the company's help in tracking someone during an investigation, Bankston said.

Until now, lawsuits seeking to recover significant damages based on the loss of, or unauthorized access to, sensitive personal information have not been especially successful for plaintiffs. Most companies suffering data breaches have escaped by offering affected consumers inexpensive credit monitoring services. But two recent cases show plaintiffs a way to expose many previously safe companies to substantial claims for damages. Any company that thinks there are no risks in employing less than best practices for data privacy and security needs a wake up call. The headlines are all too familiar. Some well known consumer services company (or less known wholesale data processor) announces that millions of individual records containing names, Social Security numbers, account numbers and other sensitive information were left in a dumpster, saved to a stolen, unencrypted laptop, or stored on a misplaced USB drive or backup tape. The press is terrible, the company's stock takes a temporary plunge, and sometimes the Federal Trade Commission enters into a consent decree where the company promises to never do it again. But when affected individuals or groups of consumers tried to sue for damages, they seldom recover significant amounts. These cases have not often succeeded because the plaintiffs have been unable to prove actual pecuniary losses resulting from the security breach. Sure, if identify theft occurs the affected individuals can suffer significant emotional trauma, loss of time, etc. But Courts have been unwilling to award damages for anxiety, fear, and other emotional harm that can result from a data breach, for the risk of future identify theft, or for actual identity theft when the plaintiff could not prove that the theft occurred as a direct result of a data breach at a particular source. Most companies facing claims based on data breaches have been able to settle cheaply by offering to provide credit monitoring services, which most consumers do not use, resu

Payment processor Heartland Payment Systems has been sued over a data breach it disclosed publicly on Inauguration Day last week. The lawsuit, filed on Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Trenton, N.J., alleges that Heartland failed to adequately safeguard the compromised consumer data, did not notify consumers about the breach in a timely manner as required by law, and has not offered to compensate consumers for costs they may incur in protecting themselves from identity fraud. In a statement that coincided with President Barack Obama's inauguration events, Heartland said the breach occurred last year but that it found evidence of the intrusion only in the previous week and immediately notified law enforcement and credit card companies. Heartland was alerted in late October to suspicious activity surrounding processed card transactions by Visa and MasterCard and hired forensic auditors who uncovered malicious software that compromised data in the company's network, said Robert H.B. Baldwin Jr., chief financial officer of Heartland, last week. The lawsuit seeks damages and relief for the "inexplicable delay, questionable timing, and inaccuracies concerning the disclosures" with regard to the data breach, which is believed to be the largest in U.S. history. Heartland executives have declined to specify how many consumers or accounts were affected. The company handles 100 million transactions per month for more than 250,000 merchants. The lawsuit, first reported by SearchSecurity news site, also accuses Heartland of negligence in taking more than two months to determine the existence and scope of the breach and criticizes the company for failing to identify which merchants were affected by the breach. The suit was filed on behalf of Woodbury, Minn., resident Alicia Cooper, who was notified last week by her credit union that a card associated with her account was included in the breach. It seeks class action status. A Heartland spokesman said the company could no

Changes relating to different aspects of data management have been highlighted as key trends in the IT industry for 2009 in a report by consultancy Deloitte. The falling price of digital storage has caused an irresponsible approach to file management and IT leaders will need to give an increased focus to these issues, says Deloitte, along with finding ways around the rise in physical storage costs. "There are ways to control the escalation of storage costs, such as de-duplication tools that can free up space by reducing duplicate files," says the report. "Companies can assess the impact of individual applications, especially email - which is estimated to take up 25 per cent of enterprise storage capacity," it says. According to Deloitte's research, businesses will become increasingly aggressive when pursuing disputes related to copyright infringement and digital ownership rights. "If undertaking a swift launch of a product or digital application, companies should ensure that no element could lead to litigation," says the report. Despite pointing out that 2009 will be the break-out year for social networks in the business, Deloitte says that such networks will need to be developed with caution to encourage more productivity and balance control with employees' desire for privacy.

Big Brother may be at it again. Behavioral advertising -- the tracking of consumer's Internet surfing activity to create tailored ads -- has triggered an intense legal controversy that has law firms scrambling to stay on top of a burgeoning practice. Attorneys say that behavioral advertising is raising privacy, litigation and regulation fears among consumer advocates, the electronic commerce and advertising industries and legislators. Law firms are busy helping companies come up with a transparent way of letting consumers know that their online activities are being tracked and possibly shared. "Lawmakers and companies are having a tough time keeping up with this new frontier of Internet privacy issues, and there is growing consumer unrest about behavioral advertising, leading in some cases to consumer rebellion," said Lisa Sotto, a partner and head of the privacy and security data group in the New York office of Richmond, Va.-based Hunton & Williams. "Consumers find this type of tracking intrusive, and businesses are starting to take the consumer reaction seriously," she said. The buzz over behavioral advertising has been building since congressional hearings that were held last year, during which Congress called on Internet service providers (ISPs) to testify about a highly controversial advertising practice known as "deep-packet inspection." The practice gives companies the ability to track every Web site consumers visit and provides a detailed look at everything they're doing, such as where they're going on vacation, who is going, how much they spent on the trip and what credit card was used. But then came the first class action targeting behavioral advertising, filed against Foster City, Calif.-based NebuAd Inc., an online advertising company accused of spying on consumers from several states and allegedly violating their privacy and computer security rights. The lawsuit specifically alleges that NebuAd engaged in deep-packet inspection. Valentine v. Ne

On Wednesday, February 11, 2009, the Data Protection Working Party, an independent European advisory body on data protection and privacy, released its Working Document 1-2009 (.pdf) on pre-trial discovery for cross border civil litigation. The Working Document attempts to reconcile the tension between U.S. discovery rules and the European Union's Directive 95/46/EC (.pdf), which outlines the EU's privacy requirements. What follows is a summary of the Working Document and an analysis of how it begins to bridge the gap between U.S. discovery rules and the European privacy framework. The Working Document offers guidance to EU data controllers responding to U.S. discovery requests. As the Working Document explains, those controllers often find themselves in a bind. On the one hand, U.S. law allows for broad discovery, which may require a controller to provide, or "process," personal data of customers or employees. On the other hand, Article 7 of EU Directive 95/46 limits a member state's authority to process such data. Under Article 7, a member state may process personal data only if one of six identified grounds for processing applies. The Working Document considers the Article 7 grounds most likely to supply a legitimate basis for compliance with a discovery request - namely 1) consent, 2) necessary for compliance with a legal obligation, and 3) necessary for the purposes of a legitimate interest, where such interests are not "overridden by the interests for fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject." Recognizing that the "interests of justice would be served by not unnecessarily limiting the ability of an organisation to act to promote or defend a legal right," the Working Document suggests that the third basis - necessary for the purposes of a legitimate interest - will often provide a ground for processing data in response to a U.S. discovery request.

It was only a matter of time! Auditor accuracy being examined in lawsuit may signal change in PCI and other compliance processes.

When CardSystems Solutions was hacked in 2004 in one of the largest credit card data breaches at the time, it reached for its security auditor's report. In theory, CardSystems should have been safe. The industry's primary security standard, known then as CISP, was touted as a sure way to protect data. And CardSystems' auditor, Savvis Inc, had just given them a clean bill of health three months before. Yet, despite those assurances, 263,000 card numbers were stolen from CardSystems, and nearly 40 million were compromised. More than four years later, Savvis is being pulled into court in a novel suit that legal experts say could force increased scrutiny on largely self-regulated credit card security practices. They say the case represents an evolution in data breach litigation and raises increasingly important questions about not only the liability of companies that handle card data but also the liability of third parties that audit and certify the trustworthiness of those companies. "We're at a critical juncture where we need to decide . . . whether [network security] auditing is voluntary or will have the force of law behind it," says Andrea Matwyshyn, a law and business ethics professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School who specializes in information security issues. "For companies to be able to rely on audits . . . there needs to be mechanisms developed to hold auditors accountable for the accuracy of their audits." The case, which appears to be among the first of its kind against a security auditing firm, highlights flaws in the standards that were established by the financial industry to protect consumer bank data. It also exposes the ineffectiveness of an auditing system that was supposed to guarantee that card processors and other businesses complied with the standards. Credit card companies have touted the standards and the auditing process as evidence that financial transactions conducted under their purview are secur

"A Texas bank is suing a customer hit by an $800,000 cybertheft incident in a case that could test the extent to which customers should be held responsible for protecting their online accounts from compromises. The incident, which was first reported by blogger Brian Krebs this week, involves Lubbock-based PlainsCapital bank and its customer Hillary Machinery Inc. of Plano. In November, unknown attackers based in Romania and Italy initiated a series of unauthorized wire transfers from Hillary's bank accounts and depleted it by $801,495. About $600,000 of the amount was later recovered by PlainsCapital. Hillary demanded that the bank repay it the rest of the stolen money. In a letter to the bank in December, Hillary claimed that the theft happened only because PlainsCapital had failed to implement adequate security measures. PlainsCapital promptly filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas asking the court to certify that its security procedures were "commercially reasonable." In its complaint, the bank noted that it had made every effort to recover the stolen money."

Bank sues theft victim in pre-emptive strike

A couple in Pittsburgh whose lawsuit claimed that Street View on Google Maps is a reckless invasion of their privacy lost their case. Aaron and Christine Boring sued the Internet search giant last April, alleging that Google "significantly disregarded (their) privacy interests" when Street View cameras captured images of their house beyond signs marked "private road." The couple claimed in their five-count lawsuit that finding their home clearly visible on Google's Street View caused them "mental suffering" and diluted their home value. They sought more than $25,000 in damages and asked that the images of their home be taken off the site and destroyed. However, the U.S. District Court for Western Pennsylvania wasn't impressed by the suit and dismissed it (PDF) Tuesday, saying the Borings "failed to state a claim under any count." Ironically, the Borings subjected themselves to even more public exposure by filing the lawsuit, which included their home address. In addition, the Allegheny County's Office of Property Assessments included a photo of the home on its Web site. The Borings are not alone in their ire toward the Google Maps feature. As reported earlier, residents in California's Humboldt County complained that the drivers who are hired to collect the images are disregarding private property signs and driving up private roads. In January, a private Minnesota community near St. Paul, unhappy that images of its streets and homes appeared on the site, demanded Google remove the images, which the company did. However, Google claims to be legally allowed to photograph on private roads, arguing that privacy no longer exists in this age of satellite and aerial imagery. "Today's satellite-image technology means that...complete privacy does not exist," Google said in its response to the Borings' complaint Not long after the feature launched in May 2007, privacy advocates criticized Google for displaying photographs that included people's faces and car license