Technology Media and Telecom

U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton was set last month to be the latest jurist in the Northern District of California to grapple with how decades-old federal wiretapping laws apply to today's technology.

Anyone spending 10 minutes on the Internet reading content is often assaulted by angry and coarse language supporting frequently outrageous opinions. The First Amendment concepts of free speech have reached either new highs or discouraging lows when dealing with opinions and blogs on the Internet. In this unrestricted environment, can individuals or businesses protect their reputations?

Hey, wanna know the one rule for a flat stomach? How about the secret $5 wrinkle buster? Spoiler: There is no one rule or $5 secret. But it must be part of the human condition to seek out quick solutions to thorny problems because people keep clicking these ads. This trickles into my little corner of the "teaching Office 2013" world through a seemingly harmless question: Should I turn that off?

With the modern technology that allows businesses to do more things on computers and on other electronic devices, efficiencies can be achieved, but unintended negative consequences can also result. When a breach of the data on these devices occurs and confidential information is accessed by unauthorized persons, the financial consequences to the business entity may be substantial.

Plaintiffs suing Facebook over its alleged practice of scanning direct messages are invoking a recent ruling from U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh clearing the way for a similar case against Yahoo Inc.

Obstruction of justice is seeing increased use, and could prove to be a powerful tool in the federal prosecutor's toolbox. Reflective of its growing attention, as discussed further below, it is the subject of a pending U.S. Supreme Court case that will examine just how broadly this statute may reach.

In the first half of 2014, at least 96 significant data breaches were reported, compromising more than 2.2 million records. Of these breaches, at least 46 involved records that may have contained Social Security Numbers (SSNs). What the affected businesses may not know is that the mere collection of SSNs may have put them in violation of state laws, in addition to the liability they may now face for having failed to protect the SSN information.

When technology changes the nature of what has been thought of as private, should the response be to continue to recognize that privacy, or to rethink what is private?