Image copyright EPA Image caption The ruling forces Google to reveal the reviewer's personal details An Australian court has ordered Google to identify the person behind an anonymous bad review of a dentist.
Francis Rawls, a former police officer, had been in jail since 2015, when a federal judge held him in contempt for failing to decrypt two hard drives taken from his home.
In the UK, where the government is accelerating the development of robots in the benefits system, the chairman of the House of Commons work and pensions select committee, Stephen Timms, said: “This ruling by the Dutch courts demonstrates that parliaments ought to look very closely at the ways in which governments use technology in the social security system, to protect the rights of their citizens.”.
The regulator announced the preliminary results of another investigation, saying that Google has abused its dominant position in search and advertising to push its services at the expense of local competition.
Image copyright Getty Images Image caption The man complained in 2009 after seeing articles detailing his crimes A German man convicted of murder in 1982 has the right to have his name removed from online search results, Germany's highest court has ruled.
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.
While the law requires that FBI searches of such data be related to investigations in which agents have reasonable suspicion that crimes are occurring or in which national security is at risk, assessments provide an enormous loophole that potentially allows agents to search through the communications of any American without a warrant.
However, a federal court has now ruled and opined the other way – that states do have the right to pass their own net neutrality laws, that internet service providers (ISPs) need to follow if they wish to do business in said states.
Ultimately, the FBI agreed to amend the querying process, requiring the agency to justify in writing why it is looking into any person in the U.S.For years, civil liberties advocates have argued that the law at the center of the dispute – Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) — violates constitutional rights as it allows the government to collect data on Americans without a warrant.
(Yuri Gripas/Reuters) The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has ruled that an FBI program intended to target foreign suspects violated Americans’ constitutional right to privacy by collecting the personal information of American citizens along with the foreign targets of the surveillance.
This is a great ruling for the people of South Africa, with a court firmly recognizing that: “no lawful authority has been demonstrated to trespass onto the privacy rights or the freedom of expression rights of anyone, including South Africans whose communications cross-cross the world by means of bulk interception.” It then declares that the activities are “unlawful and invalid.”.
The challenge fixed on the presence of so-called “bulk” powers in the 2016 Investigatory Powers Act (IPA): A controversial capability that allows intelligence agencies to legally collect and retain large amounts of data, instead of having to operate via targeted intercepts.
Image copyright Getty Images Image caption A lawyer with Liberty called the ruling "disappointing" Human rights group Liberty has lost its High Court challenge against the government's Investigatory Powers Act. Called the "Snoopers' Charter" by its critics, the legislation allows for mass surveillance of electronic devices, allowing intelligence agencies to extract and store information.
But under the good-faith exception to violations of the Fourth Amendment, the court said the agents acted reasonably and in “good faith” — and so whatever they gathered could still be used at trial.
Unsealing documents in the Facebook Messenger case is especially important because the public deserves to know when law enforcement tries to compel a company that hosts massive amounts of private communications to circumvent its own security features and hand over users’ private data, EFF said in a filing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
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.
The ACLU of Louisiana and Southern Poverty Law Center went to court in February, after the city turned down a public defender's public records request for a map of all publicly visible real-time surveillance cameras.
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 Asahikawa District Court sentenced 46-year-old Masayuki Tanikawa, a former gangster, to six years in prison and fined him 1.5 million yen for possessing 61 grams of stimulant drugs.
Related Google is unbundling Android apps: all the news about the EU’s antitrust ruling “On Android phones, you’ve always been able to install any search engine or browser you want, irrespective of what came pre-installed on the phone when you bought it,” Walker says.
"The combination of data sources substantially contributed to the fact that Facebook was able to build a unique database for each individual user and thus to gain market power." The ruling could affect the firm's use of the Like and Share buttons on external sites, which lets Facebook track each visitor's internet protocol (IP) address, web browser name and version, and other details that can be used to identify them.
Google was handed the record fine from the CNIL regulator for failing to provide transparent and easily accessible information on its data consent policies, a statement said.
However, in what is said to be the first right to be forgotten case involving medical negligence by a doctor, the district court of Amsterdam subsequently ruled the surgeon had “an interest in not indicating that every time someone enters their full name in Google’s search engine, (almost) immediately the mention of her name appears on the ‘blacklist of doctors’, and this importance adds more weight than the public’s interest in finding this information in this way”.
It was an odd rule, because a majority of judges had also held that cops weren’t permitted to force a suspect to divulge passcodes, because they are considered to be “testimonial .” The idea is that you can’t require a person to give information (in this case, a passcode) that could be used to incriminate them.
While the judge agreed that investigators had shown probable cause to search the property, they didn’t have the right to open all devices inside by forcing unlocks with biometric features.
In a 28-page ruling , U.S. District Judge Edmond Chang said Google did indeed scan faces without permission—but that the people affected didn’t suffer any harm and therefore didn’t qualify to collect under the law, which provides victims $1,000 to $5,000 per violation.
Meanwhile, technology companies ranging from social media platforms to manufacturers of the connected devices that constitute the “Internet of Things” have struggled with how to balance users’ privacy against their own business interests and the surveillance demands of governments around the world.
But as TechCrunch noted, without public access to the ruling against the DOJ, other tech companies that will be inevitably asked to build backdoor surveillance tools into their products by authorities in the future may not be able to cite Facebook’s precedent.
At Thursday’s meeting of the Lower House Cabinet Committee, Sakurada — who also serves as minister for the 2020 Tokyo Games — faced his first question-and-answer session on a bill to revise the Basic Act on Cybersecurity.