Blog del Foro de Habeas Data

In the Matter of the Application Pursuant to CPLR 3102 of Pamela Greenbaum, Petitioner, against Google, Inc. d/b/a Blogger and Blogspot.com, Re-spondent.

102063/07

SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK COUNTY

2007 NY Slip Op 27448; 18 Misc. 3d 185; 845 N.Y.S.2d 695; 2007 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 7274

October 23, 2007, Decided

COUNSEL: [ 1] For Petitioner: Adam B. Feder, Esq., Feder and Rodney, P.L.L.C., Brooklyn, NY.

Respondent Google, Tonia Ouellette Klausner, Esq., Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, New York, NY.

Respondent "Orthomom", Paul Alan Levy, Esq., Public Citizen Litigation Group, Washington, DC.

El gobernador de California Arnold Schwarzenegger promulgó la ley de RFID (Senate Bill 362) que prohibe a empleadores y otras personas la implantación de chips RFID en seres humanos. La ley entra en vigencia el 1ero de enero de 2008 y sigue leyes similares aprobadas en los estados de Wisconsin y North Dakota.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
: CIVIL ACTION
MARC BRAGG, : NO. 06-4925
:
Plaintiff, ::
v. ::
LINDEN RESEARCH, INC. and :
PHILIP ROSEDALE, ::
Defendants. :
M E M O R A N D U M
EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J. May 30, 2007
This case is about virtual property maintained on a
virtual world on the Internet. Plaintiff, March Bragg, Esq.,
claims an ownership interest in such virtual property. Bragg
contends that Defendants, the operators of the virtual world,
unlawfully confiscated his virtual property and denied him access
to their virtual world. Ultimately at issue in this case are the

Según una nota de publicada ayer en CNET la norma se aprobó por el Congreso de Estados Unidos y ahora debería tratar el proyecto el Senado. Las empresas de tecnología no están de acuerdo. El proyecto, tal como fue aprobado, fue criticado desde diversos sectores de Sillicon Valley que apoyan otros proyecto de ley. Entre otros argumentos, se esboza que el proyecto terminará regulando a todos los sitios que recolectan datos personales en internet, y no solo a aquellos que practican spyware. También señalan que el spyware ya es ilegal y que la FTC tiene facultades para actuar en estos casos. El proyecto prohibe instalar software espía sin permiso y recolectar datos personales en ausencia de consentimiento.

Desde hace un tiempo tienen lugar y se publicitan abiertamente fallas de seguridad a distintos niveles de los sistemas informáticos de empresas de todo tipo en Estados Unidos.

Los fabricantes de dispositivos wifi deberán informar a los consumidores las medidas para proteger la privacidad de la información en comunicaciones wireless a partir del primero de octubre de 2007.

La ley (AB 2415) fue aprobada por el Estado de California y establece como obligación la de informar a los consumidores o adquirentes de estos dispositivos ya sea mediante una leyenda en el software o mediante una etiqueta en el producto. Se debe incluir una noticia donde se explica cómo el consumidor puede proteger su privacidad y seguridad en relación con la red de acceso inhalámbrico y el acceso no autorizado a la misma. Esta protección que queda como una opción para el usuario consiste básicamente en habilitar la opción de clave de acceso. La posibilidad de cerrar la red podría transformar en delito de acceso no autorizado tanto bajo la ley federal de delitos informáticos como el código penal de california, al piggybacking o wardriving (el "colgarse" de una red wifi sin permiso).

http://www.law.seattleu.edu/fachome/chonm/Cases/shoars.html

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIASECOND APPELLATE DISTRICTDIVISION TWO

No. B 073234

ALANA SHOARS,Plaintiff and Appellant

v.

EPSON AMERICA, INC.,Defendant and Respondent.April 14, 1994

1) Plaintiff Alana Shoars appeals from summary judgment in favor of defendant Epson America, Inc. (Epson) in her action for wrongful discharge and slander. We affirm the summary disposition of the first cause of action but reverse with respect to the latter.[FN1]

FN1. When it appeared that a cross-complaint between the parties might still be pending, we requested supplemental information and briefing on the question of appellate jurisdiction. (See California Dental Assn. v. California Dental Hyaienists' Assn. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 49, 58-60.) In response, Epson apprised us that although its municipal court action against plaintiff had been consolidated with this case, before entry of judgment the parties had stipulated that the cross-action be dismissed -- without prejudice, and subject to refiling in the event of reversal here. Although the latter provisos could be construed as an effort to contrive an appealable judgment (see id. at pp. 58-59), we conclude that we do have jurisdiction over this appeal, inasmuch as the originally independent cross-action has been dismissed, and there is no assurance it would arise again in this action.

El 3 de abril del año 2006, la empresa Google entregó al Departamento de Justicia de los Estados Unidos los registros sobre búsquedas realizadas por usuarios en Internet. El pedido de facilitar estos registros fue inicialmente resistido por Google por diversos motivos que comentaremos en este post. Finalmente un juez federal en California admitió parcialmente el pedido del gobierno.

The Right to Privacy
Warren and Brandeis

Harvard Law Review.
Vol. IV December 15, 1890 No. 5
THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY[*] .

"It could be done only on principles of private justice, moral fitness, and public convenience, which, when applied to a new subject, make common law without a precedent; much more when received and approved by usage." — Willes, J., in Millar v. Taylor, 4 Burr. 2303, 2312

That the individual shall have full protection in person and in property is a principle as old as the common law; but it has been found necessary from time to time to define anew the exact nature and extent of such protection. Political, social, and economic changes entail the recognition of new rights, and the common law, in its eternal youth, grows to meet the new demands of society. Thus, in very early times, the law gave a remedy only for physical interference with life and property, for trespasses vi et armis. Then the "right to life" served only to protect the subject from battery in its various forms; liberty meant freedom from actual restraint; and the right to property secured to the individual his lands and his cattle. Later, there came a recognition of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and his intellect. Gradually the scope of these legal rights broadened; and now the right to life has come to mean the right to enjoy life, -- the right to be let alone; the right to liberty secures the exercise of extensive civil privileges; and the term "property" has grown to comprise every form of possession -- intangible, as well as tangible.

Interview with Chris Hoofnagle

Chris Jay Hoofnagle is a privacy expert and lawyer admitted to practice law in California and DC. Currently, he is non-residential fellow at Stanford University's Center for Internet and Society and a consultant on privacy litigation. Until recently he worked at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, where he was in charge of the organization of EPIC West Coast Office. He had testified before Congress, the California Legislature, and before the Judicial Conference of the United States on various privacy issues. His academic articles on the First Amendment and privacy are online at the SSRN web site.

Un tribunal federal condenó a Sanford Wallace (y su empresa SmartBot.net Inc.), quien estuvo en el centro de una operación ilegal relacionada con Spyware. En la condena se los obligó a devolver cuatro millones de dólares relacionados con operaciones de spyware y que se consideraron obtenidos en forma ilegal. Los demandados fueron acusados por la FTC de infectar ordenadores y llenarlos de ventanas con publicidad, y luego vender programas para desinfectar las máquinas contaminadas a U$S 30 cada uno (programas "Spy Wiper" and "Spy Deleter").

Mas información en

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/05/seismic.htm (comunicado)

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the Uni-ted States, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE, INC., Defendant.

NO. CV 06-8006MISC JW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13412

March 17, 2006, Decided

[*1] Attorney(s) for Plaintiff or Petitioner: Joel Mcelvain, U. S. Department of Justice.

Attorney(s) for Defendant or Respondent: Albert Gidari, Jr., Perkins Coie, LLP.

JAMES WARE, United States District Judge.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM