The US Supreme Court ruled in favor of Facebook on Thursday in a case about what counts as an "automatic telephone dialing system" under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.The Supreme Court said in the ruling that Facebook's text alerts about suspicious login attempts do not qualify as robocalls deemed illegal under that act.
The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from Facebook to intervene in a $15 billion class-action lawsuit charging the company with illegally tracking the online activities of its users even when they are not on the platform.
The justices declined to hear Facebook’s appeal of a lower court ruling that revived the proposed nationwide litigation accusing the company of violating a federal law called the Wiretap Act by secretly tracking the visits of users to websites that use Facebook features such as the “like” button.
Washington, D.C.—The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) today urged the Supreme Court to rule that consumers can take big tech companies like Facebook and Google to court, including in class action lawsuits, to hold them accountable for privacy and other user data-related violations, regardless of whether they can show they suffered identical harms.
- The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), along with New Jersey-based Tarver Law Offices, are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to ensure the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination extends to the digital age by prohibiting law enforcement from forcing individuals to disclose their phone and computer passcodes.
(To watch O’Keefe’s track record, click here)The Wall Street analyst consensus on Fury is a Strong Buy, based on 4 Buy ratings with no Sells or Holds.The stock is currently trading at $6.18 and has an average price target of $12.09, making the one-year upside 96%.
Location data shouldn’t be accessible to government agencies without a warrant thanks to a 2017 Supreme Court ruling.Court documents from an arson case have revealed that Google regularly gives information to law enforcement on anyone who has searched a particular keyword, including physical addresses.
Law enforcement agencies are required to get a warrant to obtain an individual's mobile phone location data, the Supreme Court ruled in 2018.
ShareTweet The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that passcodes aren’t protected by the Fifth Amendment.The rationale in these states is that while law enforcement may know about certain incriminating documents that could be accessed if the passcode were provided, providing the passcode allows access to absolutely everything on the phone – which could turn up additional evidence that prosecutors didn’t know about.
The Supreme Court of New Jersey ruled on Monday that defendant Robert Andrews must comply with a search warrant by turning over the passcodes for his two phones.
The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled Monday that a criminal defendant can be compelled to reveal his cellphone passcode to investigators, rejecting the argument that such a move violates the right against self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
A Carmel woman who was held in contempt when she refused to unlock her smartphone for police during a criminal investigation is protected by the U.S. Constitution, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in a decision that could affect how law enforcement uses technology to gather evidence.
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom will start hearings in a case where it is alleged that Google collected information of millions of iPhone users through the Safari Browser and sold this information to advertisers.
The new legal act against hate speech will have a profound impact on freedom of speech of users, and may inspire the EU’s ongoing work to reform the rules governing online platforms through the so-called Digital Services Act. On May 18, 60 French senators filed a challenge with the French Supreme Court against the Avia Bill before its promulgation, and after it passed in the National Assembly on May 13, 2020.
But could the government require a similar application in the United States or would it be a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee against “unreasonable searches?” Generally, the Fourth Amendment may be invoked when a search infringes on a reasonable expectation of privacy, or the government’s activity amounts to a trespass, per the Supreme Court’s holding in Katz v.
Writing for the majority in a ruling handed down on Wednesday, Justice Debra Todd wrote: Based upon these cases rendered by the United States Supreme Court regarding the scope of the Fifth Amendment, we conclude that compelling the disclosure of a password to a computer, that is, the act of production, is testimonial.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a forceful opinion today holding that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects individuals from being forced to disclose the passcode to their devices to the police.
The court’s ruling is the first time a state Supreme Court has recognized the potential danger to privacy and constitutional rights created by allowing access to car data without judicial oversight.
The Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the Spanish Supreme Court ruled information gathered via an individual's use of electricity constitutes personal data, Confidencial Judicial reports.Related Stories.FTC reaches $30M settlement with company over deceptive use of lead generators.
EPIC filed an amicus brief in the case, arguing that the violation of the privacy law was sufficient for Facebook users to sue the company.Six Flags, where the Illinois Supreme Court unanimously decided that consumers can sue companies that violate the state's biometric privacy law.
We’ve seen some pretty poor security in dating apps over recent years; breaches of personal data, leaking users locations and more.We contacted 3fun about this on 1st July and asked them to fix the security flaws, as personal data was exposed.
Last June, the US Supreme Court also ruled that police need a warrant to get phone location data , but there are still privacy challenges as more cases take on other ways technology can collect information.
Privacy International's case stems from a 2016 decision by the IPT that the UK government may use sweeping 'general warrants' to engage in computer hacking of thousands or even millions of devices, without any approval from by a judge or reasonable grounds for suspicion.
New York (CNN Business)A group of iPhone owners accusing Apple of violating US antitrust rules because of its App Store monopoly can sue the company, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.
In its reversal, the Virginia Supreme Court found that the photographic and location data stored in the department’s database did meet the Data Act’s definition of ‘personal information,’ but sent the case back to the Circuit Court to determine whether the database met the Act’s definition of an “information system.” Judge Smith’s ruling affirms EFF’s view that the ALPR system does indeed provide a means through which a link to the identity of a vehicle's owner can be readily made.
The brief highlights how public access to information about controversial government programs, including facial recognition , automated tattoo recognition , and ALPRs could be limited if private companies are allowed to claim that the technology is protected by an expanded Exemption 4.
We urged the Florida Supreme Court yesterday to review a closely-watched lawsuit to clarify the due process rights of defendants identified by facial recognition algorithms used by law enforcement.
A recent decision of the French Supreme Court illustrates this tension and highlights the need for litigators to take into account data privacy principles before producing evidence containing personal information.In this case, a company had organized mandatory staff representatives’ elections.
He’s also doing mop-up work on a seminal Supreme Court case his firm litigated involving data brokers, those shadowy companies that collect and resell consumer information. Law firms working with state attorneys general create potential conflicts of interest, he says, including the risk of AGs being influenced by campaign contributions.