Privacy

Closing the Tax Gap through Modern Information Technology

/ Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts / Leave a comment

PictureBy Sam Hampton

Congratulations—you just hit a $5000 jackpot on a slot machine! Would you be more likely to report this income on your 1040 (as you should) if you knew the casino would report the winnings to the IRS? Would you be more likely to report a cash tip income if you found out that a waiter had been prosecuted for tax fraud for failure to report his tips? A recent New York Times article suggests that taxpayers are much more likely to report in either of these situations—and modern information technology provides new avenues for both auditing and monitoring taxpayers. Continue reading →

Is Google the New Cookie Monster? Third Circuit Google Case Gives Californians Something to Complain About

/ Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts / Leave a comment

cookie monsterBy Samuel Daheim

On Tuesday, November 10th, the Third Circuit vacated a district court’s dismissal of freestanding privacy claims against Google Inc. (Google) under California law. Plaintiffs alleged that Google’s actions constituted a breach of privacy, under both California Tort law and the California State constitution, when it deceitfully bypassed internet privacy settings in order to track internet usage. The Third Circuit rejected the district court’s ruling that the alleged intrusive practices of the company did not amount to an “egregious breach of social norms” – the standard under the California constitution. Continue reading →

SCOTUS Dodges Privacy Issue … For Now

/ Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts / Leave a comment

imrs (1)By Andrew H. Fuller

Last Monday (Nov. 9), the Supreme Court of the United States declined cert to petition Davis, Quartavius v. United States. The case focused on whether the police must obtain a warrant in order to access and review cellphone location data held by carriers. In brief, Davis was convicted of several counts of robbery based on evidence that was largely constructed from cellphone location data the state obtained from Davis’s mobile carrier, MetroPCS, without a warrant. Of particular concern to both Davis and privacy advocates was the data regarding the cell tower locations that Davis’s phone connected to at certain dates and times. The Eleventh Circuit held that Davis did not have a privacy interest in the historical cell site location data and therefore no warrant was necessary. Continue reading →

Taking a Bite Out of the Big Apple: Law Enforcement and the Apple iPhone

/ Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts / 1 Comment

iphoneBy Michael Huggins

On October 26, 2015, the United States government argued before a federal magistrate judge in New York that it should be able to force Apple to unlock an iPhone as part of a criminal investigation. The federal government filed a request for a court order to compel Apple to comply pursuant to the All Writs Act— an 18th Century law that allows federal courts to issue orders to effectuate otherwise valid court orders. The government argues that the federal courts can use the All Writs Act to force Apple to assist the government in investigating users of the software. Apple refuses to comply with the order.

Apple argues that the situation would not be any different than if the government used the All Writs Act to force a safe manufacturer to travel around the country, unlock safes, and give the contents of those safes to the government. Apple argues that the government wants Apple to do the investigative work for them. Judge James Orenstein, the federal magistrate judge in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, agreed with Apple’s logic. Assistant U.S. Attorney Saritha Komatireddy believes that Apple’s refusal to unlock the phone represents a surprising reversal from Apple’s previous willingness to unlock phones for the government. When Judge Orenstein asked Apple why it did not challenge the previous search warrants, Apple’s attorney Marc Zwillinger replied that the company had only recently become more cognizant of the harms to high-profile data breaches and that the company has had a change of heart. But even if Apple was willing to unlock the phone, it cannot do so because each individual contains a very specific password/key to unlock the phone. Continue reading →

If At First You Don’t Succeed (at passing a cybersecurity intelligence sharing law), Try, Try Again.

/ Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts / Leave a comment

UntitledBy Brennen Johnson

Lawmakers in the U.S. Senate just passed CISA (the “Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act”) on Tuesday, October 27. If the White House does not veto it, CISA will allow tech companies to share internet traffic information with the government without fear of liability for the disclosure of private or sensitive data. Not only would the law potentially allow companies to violate their own privacy statements with users, but also it would allow them to hide the fact that they are sharing information with the government.

So what is CISA, where did it come from, and why does it matter? This is not the first time that lawmakers have brought this type of information-sharing scheme before Congress. Back in 2011, lawmakers introduced CISPA (the “Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act”) in an attempt to help prevent cyber attacks. The basic premise behind the bill was that quickly sharing information about threats and vulnerabilities could help prevent attacks. The House of Representatives passed CISPA, but it failed in the Senate, due to a lack of confidentiality and civil liberties safeguards. The White House even proclaimed that it would veto the bill should it be passed. CISPA was reintroduced by the House in 2013, where it again failed to pass the Senate. Continue reading →