The Leahy-Sensenbrenner USA FREEDOM Act puts the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FIS) court in charge of shaping, overseeing, and enforcing minimization guidelines in connection with section 215, pen/trap orders, and section 702, largely taking the Attorney General out of the process of writing minimization guidelines.
A client recently asked me to identify the next wave of data privacy litigation. I said that with so much attention on lawsuits arising from data breaches, particularly in light of some recent successes for the plaintiffs in those lawsuits, the way in which companies collect information and disclose what they are collecting is flying under the radar.
On November 12, 2013, A court in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a decision concerning the ongoing debate about the meaning of “exceeding authorized access” under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Moca Systems, Inc. v. Bernier, No. 13-10738-LTS (D. Mass. Nov. 12, 2013). MOCA Systems, Inc. filed suit against its former CEO and his newly formed company, Penley Systems, LLC, claiming Bernier improperly accessed MOCA’s computer systems to obtain confidential information and trade secrets for use at his new company.
A parental consent method proposed by AssertID does not meet the criteria for approval set forth in a revised Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act rule, the Federal Trade Commission recently determined.
Though the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) Presidential Initiative “Privacy in a Digital Age” expired in June 2013 when a new NAAG president took over, the state attorneys general have maintained their sharp focus on all things privacy, with no signs that that focus will shift anytime soon.