Tuesday, July 04, 2017

What should they have done? 
Facebook beats privacy lawsuit in U.S. over user tracking
   In a decision late on Friday, U.S. District Judge Edward Davila in San Jose, California said the plaintiffs failed to show they had a reasonable expectation of privacy, or that they suffered any "realistic" economic harm or loss.
The plaintiffs claimed that Facebook violated federal and California privacy and wiretapping laws by storing cookies on their browsers that tracked when they visited outside websites containing Facebook "like" buttons.
But the judge said the plaintiffs could have taken steps to keep their browsing histories private, and failed to show that Menlo Park, California-based Facebook illegally "intercepted" or eavesdropped on their communications.
"The fact that a user's web browser automatically sends the same information to both parties," meaning Facebook and an outside website, "does not establish that one party intercepted the user's communication with the other," Davila wrote.
   The case is In re: Facebook Internet Tracking Litigation, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 12-md-02314.

A Trump-ish reaction to criticism?  A Facebook reaction to Trump? 
Facebook Is Fighting A Gag Order Over Search Warrants For User Account Information
   According to the limited information unsealed so far, Facebook received search warrants from the government for three account records over a three-month period.  The warrants were accompanied by a nondisclosure order from a District of Columbia Superior Court judge barring Facebook from notifying users about the warrants before Facebook complied — an order the tech company is now challenging.
Most details about the case remain under seal, although one recent filing suggests that the warrants relate to the mass arrests in Washington, DC, during President Trump’s inauguration.  
   Facebook unsuccessfully challenged the gag order in Superior Court, and then took the case to the DC Court of Appeals.  In a June 14 order, a three-judge panel of the DC Court of Appeals ruled that an unsealed notice about the case could be provided to any groups that Facebook or the government thought might want to weigh in.
   The scope of the warrants served on Facebook “is like a warrant telling officers to seize all the papers and photographs in someone’s home, so prosecutors can peruse them at leisure looking for evidence,” Arthur Spitzer, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of the District of Columbia, told BuzzFeed News in an email.  “This violates the Fourth Amendment, which requires that warrants must ‘particularly describ[e] ... the things to be seized’ – a requirement that was designed to prohibit just such ‘general warrants.’”
Three briefs in support of Facebook were filed on Friday.  One represented the views of eight tech companies – Microsoft, Google, Apple, Snap, Dropbox, Twitter, Yelp, and Avvo – along with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press; another came from the American Civil Liberties Union and Public Citizen Litigation Group; and a third was filed on behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Access Now, Center for Democracy & Technology, and New America’s Open Technology Institute.

“Don’t let your mouth write a check your ass can’t cover.” 
North Korea tests missile it claims can reach 'anywhere in the world'
North Korea claims to have conducted its first successful test of a long-range missile that it says can "reach anywhere in the world."
   The missile, referred to as Hwasong-14 on state TV, flew into waters east of the Korean Peninsula and may have landed in Japan's Exclusive Economic Zone, which extends 200 nautical miles from its coastline, according to a Japanese defense official.  

Donald Trump's questionable strategy in Asia: The Yomiuri Shimbun columnist

Something for my students.  Unfortunately. 

No comments: