I still don't understand what's going on here. Why so few lawsuits? Are Lower Merion's lawyers that good?

http://www.pogowasright.org/?p=23340

Lower Merion School officials fight back against latest webcam suit

June 9, 2011 by Dissent

Richard Ilgenfritz reports:

Lower Merion school officials are fighting back against the latest webcam suit that was filed this week by a former Harriton student.

Monday, Joshua Levin, a 2009 graduate of Harriton High School, filed a new lawsuit in connection with Lower Merion use of a technology that allowed certain school officials to activate the webcams on the laptop computers the schools issued to high-school students. Levin listed his address as Spruce Street in Philadelphia in court documents.

In a response to the suit, school officials say Levin is motivated by cash.

“The district views this lawsuit by a 2009 graduate as solely motivated by monetary interests and a complete waste of tax dollars,” district spokesman Doug Young wrote in an e-mail to Main Line Media News. “The former student’s computer was one of six that were stolen from school property in 2008 and eventually recovered by the Lower Merion police. No Lower Merion School District employee ever viewed the images recorded on the stolen laptop.” [Yet they installed the software so they could trace stolen computers. Are they claiming they never used it? (other than to turn it on and forget to turn it off?) Bob]

Read more in The Times Herald.

Apple said much the same thing yesterday. I'm sure they wish this was true, but I suspect this view is unlikely to be adopted by the courts.

Google Asks 'Who Cares Where Your Data Is?'

"The chief security officer for Google Apps, Eran Feigenbaum, said popular concerns over data sovereignty in outsourced environments are unwarranted. He said businesses should worry about security and privacy of data, rather than where it is stored. The comments clash with those made by IT pros including Gartner, who said cloud providers like Google can't be trusted with sensitive data."

Start with completely outrageous, negotiate it down to merely rude and obnoxious.

http://www.pogowasright.org/?p=23347

Facebook may have privacy battle on two fronts

June 9, 2011 by Dissent

Sharon Gaudin reports:

Facebook said it’s working with European Union regulators to resolve criticism of its new facial recognition feature, but trouble may also be brewing for the social network here in the U.S.

On Wednesday, Facebook’s move to enable facial recognition across its entire social networking site raised complaints from privacy advocates and some users over the feature’s privacy implications.

The EU’s data protection regulators were quick to jump on the issue, telling the Bloomberg news service that they will launch an investigation into it. Bloomberg also reported that authorities in the U.K. and Ireland are looking into the matter.

Read more on Computerworld.

(Related)

http://www.pogowasright.org/?p=23352

500,000 Danish Facebook users visible to “Big Brother”

June 10, 2011 by Dissent

Do you know who’s watching you on Facebook? Despite the raft of security measures put in place to restrict who can see the information you post, many people are oblivious of to how to alter their privacy settings.

So says a new survey from Statistics Denmark that showed that 22 percent of the 2.2 million Danish Facebook users didn’t know how to change their privacy settings.

Facebook profiles are fully public until the privacy settings are changed, meaning the information on accounts of almost 500,000 Danes is publicly available.

Read more in The Copenhagen Post.

Interesting

Los Angeles To Turn Off Traffic-Light Cameras

"The LA Times reports that the Los Angeles Police Commission has voted to kill the city's controversial red-light camera program, rejecting claims that the system makes streets safer while costing the city nothing. The police department says the cameras help reduce accidents, largely by deterring drivers looking to run red lights or make illegal turns while critics of the technology question officials' accident data, saying the cameras instead cause rear-end collisions as drivers slam on their brakes and liken the cameras to Big Brother tactics designed to generate revenues. More than 180,000 motorists have received camera-issued tickets since the program started in 2004 but the commission estimates that the program costs between $4 million and $5 million each year while bringing in only about $3.5 million annually. Members of the public who attended the meeting urged the commission to do away with the cameras, which trigger seemingly boundless frustration and anger among drivers in traffic-obsessed LA. 'It's something that angers me every time I get in my car,' says Hollywood resident Christina Heller. 'These cameras remove our fundamental right in this country to confront our accuser. And they do not do anything to improve safety.'"

Don't see how this will work...

Tennessee Bans Posting 'Offensive' Images Online

"Last Monday, Tennessee's Governer Bill Haslam signed a law prohibiting the transmission or display of an image that is likely to 'frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress to' anyone who sees it. In Tennessee, it is already illegal to use other methods of communication, such as telephones or e-mail, to offend someone; the new law updates legislation to include images sent or posted online. However, the scope of this law is broader, in that anyone who sees the image is a potential victim. If a court finds that a violator should have known that someone would be offended by the image in question, they face up to a year in prison or up to $2,500 in fines."