By Stephen Anson

Technology and the internet have transformed the way the world communicates. Social media platforms and other web services are continuously expanding the avenues for individual expression, forcing the law of defamation to evolve. Just as print journalists were brought to court for libel in the past, so too are Twitter users now being sued for libel. This has opened a path for users to claim Constitutional protections. While there have been a number of Twitter-related libel cases filed over the past few years, they have all been settled out of court and so the state of the law was a little unclear.

A recent lawsuit involving Courtney Love was the first Twitter-related libel case to go to trial, and it serves as a warning to anyone thinking of using Twitter as a microphone to project personal attacks. In 2008, Love hired Rhonda Holmes to pursue a fraud case against those handling the estate of Kurt Cobain, the late Nirvana lead singer and Love’s husband. The relationship between Love and Holmes deteriorated after six months, and Holmes alleged that relationship was contingent on Love refraining from substance abuse, a stipulation that eventually angered the singer. In 2010, Love posted a tweet stating that Holmes had been “bought off.” Shortly thereafter, Holmes and her law firm sued Love for libel.

Continue reading →

By Doug Logan

A problem with Chinese camera company Foscam’s software for baby monitors allows anyone who knows the camera’s exact web address to access the camera and view live and recorded footage. This is a particularly significant problem because the web addresses of many devices connected to the Internet can be found using alternative search engines such as SHODAN. The issue was discovered and publicized on the company’s support forum, where users of the product noted that the username and password requirement could be bypassed simply by pressing “OK.” Foscam has promised to update the software to fix the problem.

While this particular problem should be fixed shortly, this issue highlights an ongoing problem with the ever-progressing technologies that allow for capture of video and sound in previously well-guarded private settings. For example, in 2012 The New York Times reported that corporate board rooms could be easily accessed by even the moderately computer savvy. From law firms to the board room of Goldman Sachs, the expert consulted by the Times was able to enter with ease. The access points were the companies’ video conferencing systems. Much like the Foscam baby monitors, video conferencing systems can be an easy entry point for those wishing to gain private information.

Continue reading →

By Nicholas Ulrich

On January 17, the Supreme Court granted certiorari on two cases involving the legality of police searches of an arrestee’s cell phone incident to arrest. This heavily litigated, yet still largely unresolved, issue will determine whether and when police can invade the privacy of a person’s cell phone based on probable cause that the person has committed an unrelated crime.

Normally, a warrant is required for a search unless it falls into a specific exception. One such exception, however, is the search incident to arrest exception, which allows police to search an arrestee’s person and things within his or her reach at the time of the arrest. Cell phones, however, may fall into a special category, because they are generally on a person but also contain a significant amount of private information. The circuits are split on whether the cell phone should be included within the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement. A Supreme Court decision on this issue may seriously affect individual privacy because of the extensive amount of information collected and stored via modern smartphone technology, the fact that most people carry their phones on their persons, and the relatively low bar of probable cause for an arrest and thus a search.

Continue reading →

By Abby St. Hilaire

On Tuesday, January 14, 2014, the Federal Court of Appeals decided Federal Communications Commission v. Independent Telephone & Telecommunication. This decision effectively reversed the FCC’s net neutrality policy. Network operators such as Verizon can now sell faster, lower-latency Internet streaming services to digital content providers, such as Netflix or Hulu. Purchased streaming service will allow for increased speed and service quality compared to free traffic, essentially allowing Internet “express lanes.”

According to the FCC, the Internet is supposed to be free. This belief stems partly from the FCC’s view that the Internet is a utility of such importance—akin to telephone lines and electricity—that it needs to be kept widely usable through close regulation. The FCC thought it had the jurisdiction to enforce that position, but Verizon prevailed in its case by arguing that, while the FCC may have jurisdiction to regulate the Internet, but not to enforce net neutrality.

In the end, consumers may hear grumbling from content providers and see increased prices for services, justified as necessary to prevent interruption or slowdowns. However, the real effect of the court’s decision may be in what we don’t see—the Court of Appeals’ decision will likely make it harder for startup Internet content-streaming companies to get off the ground.

Continue reading →

By Megan Haslach

Just days before the 30^th anniversary of Sony Corp. v. Universal Studios, the Supreme Court granted cert on a case involving TV startup Aereo where they will have the opportunity to revisit that landmark case upholding Betamax owners’ right to tape television programs for viewing at a later time. Aereo, a company that captures TV broadcasts and then provides them to subscribers to watch whenever they choose, has been embroiled in a bitter battle with a number of film studios over its business model. Aereo characterizes that model as the sort of “time-shifting” the Court approved of in the Betamax case.  The studios, on the other hand, call it a “public performance” constituting copyright infringement. Notably, Aereo has won in every lower court, and the company welcomes the chance to be heard by the highest court. One last favorable decision may well bring a definitive, nationwide end to their long legal battle.

However, Aereo did not celebrate for long; just four days after the Supreme Court issued its writ of certiorari in the Aereo case, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit also issued a landmark decision on January 15, 2014, overturning several of the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) key net neutrality rules. These rules included anti-blocking provisions, which prevented ISPs and all other communications providers from blocking customers from competitors’ websites or any other legal websites. The anti-discrimination rule, enacted to prohibit ISPs from blocking or discriminating when transmitting lawful content, was also struck down. For example, these rules prevented service providers from intentionally throttling bandwidth when customers were accessing sites that require a large amount of data to be transferred, such as Netflix or other streaming video sites.

Continue reading →