As the year draws to a close, employer claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) against departing employees for stealing or otherwise diverting employer information without authorization to do so are dying slow deaths in many federal courts across the nation. As noted over on the Non-Compete and Trade Secrets Report, the U.S. federal circuits are split regarding whether an employee acts “without authorization” under CFAA when he or she steals employer confidential data at or near termination. The Second, Ninth and Fourth Circuits hold that as long as the employee was permitted to be on a computer for any purpose, diversion of employer information is “authorized” under CFAA. In contrast, the First, Fifth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits have adopted a broad construction, allowing CFAA claims alleging an employee misused employer information that he or she was otherwise permitted to access.
Now, in North Carolina at least, employers may have better luck under fighting malevolent employees under the North Carolina statutory corollary to CFAA.
The American Civil Liberties Union recently slammed Fresno Police Department for testing social media screening programs, suggesting police could use them to monitor protest groups and accusing the department of keeping the public in the dark about the testing.
But police say they’ve only been testing services for possible use in monitoring violent crime and terrorism – not for spying on critics. They add that the public will get a chance to weigh in when a final recommendation goes before the City Council.
In a first, a federal judge has ruled that a biometric privacy law in Illinois potentially prohibits Web companies from compiling databases of faceprints.
U.S. District Court Judge Charles Norgle in Illinois this week rejected online photo service Shutterfly’s bid to dismiss a lawsuit alleging that it violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. That law, which dates to 2008, prohibits companies from storing people’s “biometric identifiers,” including scans of face geometry, without their consent.
We’re quoted in an article today in the New York Times about the Federal government’s efforts to use the threat of denial of air travel to scare state legislators into connecting their state drivers license and ID databases to the distributed national “REAL-ID” database through the REAL-ID “hub” operated by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA).
We welcome the Times’ coverage of this issue. But some readers might be misled by the Times’ headline, “T.S.A. Moves Closer to Rejecting Some State Driver’s Licenses for Travel“.
As Edward Hasbrouck of the Identity Project, who was quoted in the New York Times story, discussed in detail in this presentation earlier this year at the Cato Institute in Washington, the most important thing you need to know about this issue is that you do not — and you will not, regardless of how or when the TSA “implements” the REAL-ID Act — need to show any ID to fly. People fly, legally, every day, without showing any ID, and that will continue to be the case. You have a legal right to fly, and the REAL-ID Act does not and cannot deprive you of that right.
“Pictured [here] is our top pick of those whose works will, on 1st January 2016, be entering the public domain in many countries around the world. Of the eleven featured, five will be entering the public domain in countries with a ‘life plus 70 years’ copyright term (e.g. most European Union members, Brazil, Israel, Nigeria, Russia, Turkey, etc.) and six in countries with a ‘life plus 50 years’ copyright term (e.g. Canada, New Zealand, and many countries in Asia and Africa) — those that died in the year 1945 and 1965 respectively. As always it’s a sundry and diverse rabble who’ve assembled for our graduation photo – including two of the 20th century’s most important political leaders, one of Modernism’s greatest poets, two very influential but very different musicians, and one of the most revered architects of recent times…”