When contemplating the world’s largest nations by population, China, India, the United States, and Indonesia might come to mind.
Indeed, their populations are currently estimated as follows:
•China: 1,355,692,576
•India: 1,236,344,631
•The United States: 318,892,103
•Indonesia: 253,609,643
Continue reading “Facebook: The World’s Largest Nation”
Here in the United States, we like to think that we can speak openly and freely on practically any subject while on the Internet. But is that universally true across the globe? Not necessarily!
Indeed, headlines have made clear that certain governments are intent on blocking Internet speech when it is in the interest of those who are in power but not necessarily when it is in the interest of some members of the citizens in those countries.
Continue reading “Government Censorship of Internet Speech”
Homo Sapiens are the most successful human species, so far. Homo Sapiens have thrived in the wake of the disappearance of prior human species like Neanderthals (although we do have some trace Neanderthal DNA from prior inter-breeding). And Homo Sapiens, of course, have greatly surpassed the abilities of other ape species. Need an example? Just take a look at all the recent tech trends for law firms of the future.
But are Homo Sapiens threatened to be left in the dust by another form of being here on Planet Earth? The answer is “yes,” according to none other than Stephen Hawking. And what’s more, Hawking says that we are threatened by our own creation — Artificial Intelligence (AI).
In his recent Reddit AMA, as reported by Tech Insider, Hawking has explained that Artificial Intelligence ultimately will become smarter than and a threat to Homo Sapiens, the current human race.
Continue reading “Hawking: Artificial Intelligence a Threat to Humans”
By now, most of us have grown accustomed to rating products on Amazon or services on Yelp, one to five stars. You might like knowing that the book you are thinking of buying on Amazon has been overwhelming rated five stars with many positive substantive reviews. And it might be helpful to learn that you probably should avoid a restaurant you were considering when most Yelp postings give only one or two stars with comments that tell you explicitly why you should go elsewhere. BUT . . .
How about websites that seek to review human beings in the same fashion as sites that address products and services???
Well, go no further. Coming this fall is an app called Peeple. The mission of Peeple, as stated on its site, is to provide “an app that allows you to rate and comment about the people you interact with in your daily lives on the following three categories: personal, professional, and dating.” The purpose of such ratings and comments supposedly is to “enhance your online reputation for access to better quality networks, top job opportunities, and promote more informed decision making about people.”
Continue reading “Rating People 1 to 5 Stars on Peeple App — Yikes!”
Once upon a time, long ago but not too far away, there was a law firm associate who was working up a case for a senior trial partner with the hope of delivering a well-prepared pre-trial and trial plan.
The associate proudly presented all the miscellaneous supporting legal authorities and the various favorable facts. But what was the senior trial partner’s response? “Stop!”
Is your personal data safe out there in cyberspace? This is the question so many people have been asking lately based on seemingly endless computer hacks. And, unfortunately, the answer to this question might not be what you want to hear.
In terms of recent noteworthy developments, unless you have been living in an isolated cave, you undoubtedly have heard about the Ashley Madison hacking disaster. The Ashley Madison hack does not only present a problem for the site’s users who thought that their personally identifiable information would be secure, but it points to a larger problem beyond this one specific site. Continue reading “Hackers Are Coming After Your Private Data”
People who go online likely consider the risks involved with using the Internet. People who contemplate extra-martial affairs probably consider the risks of those activities, too.
And, people who go online to seek out extra-marital affairs likely are mindful of the compounded risks of such endeavors. But do they envision that online adulterous activities could lead to a type of cyber warfare? Probably not, but at times reality can be stranger than fiction. Continue reading “Online Adultery Leads to Cyber Warfare?”
The Internet brings people together in all sorts of new ways. And when people come together, there can be all sorts of problems. So, is there a federal watchdog looking out for the rights of consumers in cyberspace? The answer is “yes” — the Federal Trade Commission (the FTC).
The FTC was created in 1914, long before the Internet, to prevent unfair methods of competition in commerce. The Federal Trade Commission Act later expanded the authority of the FTC to police unfair and deceptive acts or practices generally. Continue reading “FTC – the Federal Internet Cop”
Once upon a time, people didn’t require Internet access to find a date. The old-fashioned dating scene involved socializing with friends, attending community events, and spending Friday nights at parties and bars. That still happens, of course, but with the Internet, there are now unlimited hook-up options available right at your fingertips.
Dating sites like eHarmony and Match.com boast that many users have found loving, long-lasting relationships through ther dating services. Those couples likely would not have resulted without those web sites. Bravo — that is fantastic. Continue reading “The Perils of Online Dating”
In a long awaited ruling, in Federal Trade Commission v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp, the Third Circuit rejected Wyndham’s argument that the FTC has no authority to regulate its cybersecurity practices under the unfairness prong of the FTC Act and that businesses are not entitled to notice of the specific cybersecurity standards they must follow.
Unfair Cybersecurity Practices
In 2008 and 2009, hackers successfully accessed Wyndham’s computer systems and stole personal and financial information for over 619,000 consumers in three different attacks that led to over $10.6 million in fraudulent charges.
In its opinion, the Third Circuit first rejected Wyndham’s argument that the plain meaning of the word “unfair” imposes independent requirements that are not met. Instead, it held that Wyndham’s alleged conduct does not fall outside the plain meaning of the word unfair.
Notably, the Third Circuit found that “facts relevant to unfairness and deception claims frequently overlap” and that Wyndham’s privacy policy was directly relevant to whether Wyndham’s conduct was unfair at this state of the litigation.
It also dismissed Wyndham’s argument that it cannot treat its customers in an unfair manner when its own business was victimized by criminals because the FTC Act expressly contemplates the possibility that conduct can be unfair before an actual injury occurs. As such, the Third Circuit held that Wyndham’s alleged conduct fell within the unfair prong of the FTC Act.
Fair Notice
The Third Circuit also rejected Wyndham’s argument that it was entitled to know with ascertainable certainty the FTC’s interpretation of what cybersecurity practices are required by the FTC Act. The Third Circuit held that by Wyndham’s own admission, this case involved the ordinary judicial interpretation of a civil statue and therefore, a low level of statutory notice was required. Moreover, the FTC act is not so vague as to have no rule or standard by which Wyndham could comply.
Instead, the Third Circuit held that the key question is whether Wyndham had fair notice of the statute itself. That standard is satisfied if the company can reasonably foresee that the court can construe its conduct as falling within the meaning of the statute. While it may have been unfair to expect private parties back in 2008 to have examined FTC complaints or consent decrees, in this case, Wyndham did not argue that it wasn’t aware of the published FTC complaints or consent decrees. Instead, it only argued that it didn’t have specific notice of what the law requires.
This decision reflects the importance of working with sophisticated counsel with experience in privacy and security to develop robust cybersecurity practices and policies that are tailored to meet the needs of each business.
