A
list for the toolkit.
The
Best Web Browsers for Privacy and Security
Life
Hacker:
“Your web browser knows a lot about you, and tells the sites you
visit a lot about you as well—if you let it. We’ve talked about
which
browsers are best at
ad-blocking,
but in this guide, we’re going to focus on the browsers that you’ll
want to use to better conceal everything you’re up to from all the
advertisers that want to track your digital life…”
Worth
a try?
Time for a
Cyber-Attack Exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
Recently, a federal judge in New York dismissed
the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) civil lawsuit against
Russia, Wikileaks, and others stemming from the 2016 cyber-attack on
the DNC. While much of the media attention has focused on the
judge’s decision that, under the First Amendment, Wikileaks and
other “second-level participants” could not be held liable for
publishing documents stolen from the DNC, there has been scant
attention paid to how and why the Russian government—the “primary
wrongdoer,” according to the Judge—was found not legally liable
for the cyberattack.
The decision should concern all Americans who care
about protecting our nation from state-sponsored cyber-attacks.
While the United States government has certain tools to punish
state-sponsored cyberattacks against American targets—including
sanctions, diplomatic action and sometimes criminal indictment—these
options cannot force a foreign state to pay compensation for the
damage caused by cyberattacks. Only civil liability for sovereign
cyberattacks can impose monetary costs for such attacks.
In finding Russia not liable, the court relied on
the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (“FSIA”)—a statute
enacted decades before the internet existed in its current form. The
FSIA provides foreign states immunity from civil suits in U.S. courts
in all but a few circumstances. It’s clear that we need to update
and amend the FSIA to reflect the modern reality of state-sponsored
hacking by adding a cyber-attack exception to sovereign immunity.
It’s
what they don’t say that gets them in trouble.
Facebook’s
human-AI blend for audio transcription is now facing privacy scrutiny
in Europe
Yesterday
Bloomberg
reported
that Facebook uses human contractors to transcribe app users’ audio
messages — yet its privacy policy makes no
clear mention of the fact that
actual people might listen to your recordings.
A
page on Facebook’s help
center also
includes a “note” saying “Voice to Text uses machine learning”
— but does not say the feature is also powered by people working
for Facebook listening in.
A
spokesperson for Irish Data Protection Commission told us: “Further
to our ongoing engagement with Google,
Apple
and Microsoft in relation to the processing of personal data in the
context of the manual transcription of audio recordings, we are now
seeking detailed information from Facebook on the processing in
question and how Facebook believes that such processing of data is
compliant with their GDPR obligations.”
Unethical
lawyers? Inconceivable!
https://www.law.com/corpcounsel/2019/08/12/ethical-fails-social-media-pitfalls-and-in-house-counsel/
Ethical
'Fails': Social Media Pitfalls and In-House Counsel
… perhaps
the most important question in an era in which attorneys are just one
viral post or inflammatory tweet away from the unemployment line or
even the disciplinary board, is whether in-house lawyers are using
social media ethically and responsibly. As with their counterparts
in private firms and government entities, there is no shortage of
“cautionary tales for the Digital Age” originating from corporate
legal departments.
No comments:
Post a Comment