Showing posts with label privacy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label privacy. Show all posts
Location and Privacy - What is the New "Reasonable"
0 commentsLocation has arrived – and it is raising all sorts of privacy concerns. In the past few months alone:
1. Facebook launches “Places” and within hours the media and privacy begin criticizing the service as failing to adequately, address privacy concerns.
2. Congressman Bobby Rush introduces legislation that would for the first time regulate on a broad scale the collection, use and distribution of location information on individuals in the U.S..
3. Federal appeals court in District of Columbia finds that the use of a tracking device to monitor a suspect for a month without obtaining a warrant was an an unreasonable search and seizure. This decision directly conflicts other court decisions, with some suggesting that Supreme Court may have to resolve issue.
4. Media reports that citizens on Long Island are complaining that government agencies are acting like Big Brother by using Google Earth to find unpermitted swimming pools in backyard.
5. Government officials in Germany are considering increasing regulations on Google collecting Street View imagery as a result of privacy concerns.
6. Article details how much sensitive information can be obtained from geotagged photos posted on-line.
7. Decision expected from federal court on whether law enforcement needs to obtain a warrant before obtaining location information from mobile phone provider.
8. In Maine, the attorney general struggles whether to allow GPS devices to be attached to citizens' cars by lenders wishing to track vehicle usage for resale of auto loans.
Each of these are examples of how society is grappling with how to deal with the impact of different technologies on the concept of privacy from a location standpoint. As these technologies becomes more ubiquitous, the complexity of the issues are only going to increase. (For example, companies will use software that will predict where you are going to be in the future based upon where you have been in the past.)
I do not know how all this will play out. (Althought I have some ideas!) However, my sense is that this is much bigger - and the conversation should be much broader - than debating such things as whether location privacy settings on Facebook should be opt-in or opt out. What is needed is an informed dialogue and debate on how location technology is changing our lives and which are privacy concerns are legitimate and which are normal reactions to being uncomfortable with the introduction of new technology.
Location technology has the potential to save lives, provide valuable commercial and governmental services and make our planet a better and more sustainable place to live. However, it will never reach its full potential until consistent and transparent laws and policies surrounding location privacy are developed!
Spatial Law and Policy Update (August 23, 2010)
0 commentsPrivacy
Google Street View in Germany - a non-issue
Spain joins countries Probing Street View
Facebook Location and PrivacyFacebook Enters Location
Surveillance Cameras and the Right to Privacy
Maine AG struggles with GPS and consumer rights
Data Quality/Liability
Malware Implicated in fatal Spanish air crash
No Safe Harbors in Argentina
Under Construction
Technology Leads More Park Visitors Into Trouble
Miscellaneous
Good-bye prisons, hello GPS
Twitter After An Emergency - is it reliable?
National Security
India claims Google places parts of Kashmir in Pakistan
Intellectual Property Rights
Important Copyright Case in Australia
read more “Spatial Law and Policy Update (August 23, 2010)”
Google Street View in Germany - a non-issue
Spain joins countries Probing Street View
Facebook Location and PrivacyFacebook Enters Location
Surveillance Cameras and the Right to Privacy
Maine AG struggles with GPS and consumer rights
Data Quality/Liability
Malware Implicated in fatal Spanish air crash
No Safe Harbors in Argentina
Under Construction
Technology Leads More Park Visitors Into Trouble
Miscellaneous
Good-bye prisons, hello GPS
Twitter After An Emergency - is it reliable?
National Security
India claims Google places parts of Kashmir in Pakistan
Intellectual Property Rights
Important Copyright Case in Australia
Update on Spatial Law and Policy
0 commentsCalifornia has revised its proposed "Pay As You Drive" insurance regulations. A full copy of the regulations can be found here.
Vector One has an article on the growing importance of spatial data quality that is a worthwhile read for both lawyers and policymakers.
According to a post on Techblog86, China is "investigating" maps. Matters being investigated include: maps being produced without a license, maps that contain sensitive information - such as military facilities - as well as maps that fail to include territories that officially belong to the PRC. A recent post from Ogle Earth is a good example as to how and why this can be such an important issue.
read more “Update on Spatial Law and Policy”
Vector One has an article on the growing importance of spatial data quality that is a worthwhile read for both lawyers and policymakers.
According to a post on Techblog86, China is "investigating" maps. Matters being investigated include: maps being produced without a license, maps that contain sensitive information - such as military facilities - as well as maps that fail to include territories that officially belong to the PRC. A recent post from Ogle Earth is a good example as to how and why this can be such an important issue.
Recent Spatial Law Links
0 commentsPrivacy - in all it forms - continues to be a hot Spatial Law issue. An article in the Washington Post discusses how the Department of Homeland Security has recently begun collecting data on when and where U.S. citizens enter the country by land. (DHS has been collecting this information from international air travel for a while). According to the article, the data will be stored for 15 years and may be used in criminal and intelligence investigations.
In the UK, police in Lincolnshire are reportedly using high resolution aerial imagery to fight against crime and to decrease response times to major incidents. The imagery will be integrated as a data layer with other GIS information.
As noted in previous posts, spatial technology and the collection of spatial data is becoming a powerful tool for law enforcement. I am very supportive of this trend as I believe law enforcement should use all available tools. However, I have some reservations that I hope will be addressed in the near future. For example, I am concerned that law enforcement officials may not have the appropriate training to understand the limitations of the technology and the nuances of spatial data. Similarly, I am also concerned that most citizens do not know how much spatial data is being collected about them on a regular basis; either by the government or in ways that can be accessed by the government during an investigation.
My feeling is that once informed, most citizens would be accepting of what data is being collected and how it is used. However, instead of educating citizens, it appears that law enforcement and intelligence officials want to keep capabilities veiled. While I certainly understand the need to protect sources and methods, I think this technology needs to be understood better by all involved.
read more “Recent Spatial Law Links”
In the UK, police in Lincolnshire are reportedly using high resolution aerial imagery to fight against crime and to decrease response times to major incidents. The imagery will be integrated as a data layer with other GIS information.
As noted in previous posts, spatial technology and the collection of spatial data is becoming a powerful tool for law enforcement. I am very supportive of this trend as I believe law enforcement should use all available tools. However, I have some reservations that I hope will be addressed in the near future. For example, I am concerned that law enforcement officials may not have the appropriate training to understand the limitations of the technology and the nuances of spatial data. Similarly, I am also concerned that most citizens do not know how much spatial data is being collected about them on a regular basis; either by the government or in ways that can be accessed by the government during an investigation.
My feeling is that once informed, most citizens would be accepting of what data is being collected and how it is used. However, instead of educating citizens, it appears that law enforcement and intelligence officials want to keep capabilities veiled. While I certainly understand the need to protect sources and methods, I think this technology needs to be understood better by all involved.
Recent Developments in Spatial Law
0 commentsRick Crowsey, of Crowsey Incorporated, forwarded me this article from the Washington Post on the increased use of GPS devices by law enforcement in Virginia. (The article notes that the Supreme Court has not ruled directly on the use of GPS devices by law enforcement without a warrant - although it has ruled that the use of tracking devices without one is permissible - but that other jurisdictions that have ruled on such uses of GPS devices are split.
The article raises a number of good points. I particularly liked this quote attributed to Craig Fraser of the Police Executive Research Forum: "The issue is whether the more sophisticated tools are doing the same things we used to do or are creating a different set of legal circumstances". I also noted that there is a poll question that is attached to the article. At this time, of approximately two respondents, 51% found the increased use of GPS to be a troubling trend while 42% found it to be a welcome step against crime.
New York City is going even further according to this report. According to the report, license plates of all cars and trucks entering Manhattan will be scanned and stored in databases (for upwards of a month.) The city also intends to add thousands more security cameras in Lower Manhattan as well as radiation detection devices to be used in a buffer zone around the city.
read more “Recent Developments in Spatial Law”
The article raises a number of good points. I particularly liked this quote attributed to Craig Fraser of the Police Executive Research Forum: "The issue is whether the more sophisticated tools are doing the same things we used to do or are creating a different set of legal circumstances". I also noted that there is a poll question that is attached to the article. At this time, of approximately two respondents, 51% found the increased use of GPS to be a troubling trend while 42% found it to be a welcome step against crime.
New York City is going even further according to this report. According to the report, license plates of all cars and trucks entering Manhattan will be scanned and stored in databases (for upwards of a month.) The city also intends to add thousands more security cameras in Lower Manhattan as well as radiation detection devices to be used in a buffer zone around the city.
Thanks to Kara John of DMTI Spatial for forwarding me the recently completed version 2 of "The Dissemination of Government Geographic Data in Canada: Guide To Best Practices." It is a product of the GeoConnections Program and is the work of the Data Licensing Guide Working Group of which Kara and many others put in a good deal of effort. I am sure that the report will be posted on the GeoConnections website - I know that version 1 is available online - but feel free to contact me if you wish me to forward you a copy. It is an excellent resource for anyone working on spatial law issues, not simply for those working in Canada.
When Is A Gun Shot Like A Drug Prescription?
0 commentsI came across two articles this week that caught my eye. The first was a Washington Post article about how insurance companies are accessing data bases on prescription drug records in order to determine whether to issue insurance policies to individuals. The article refers to these as "health credit reports". (Apparently, consumers consent to this use, but the article does not explain how such consent is obtained or what disclosure is provided.) Privacy advocates are concerned that there may be mistakes, and also that one prescription can be used to deal with a variety of ailments, which is not always clear to those reviewing the report. Recently the Federal Trade Commission determined that these reports are credit reports subject to FTC jurisdiction pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
The reason I found this interesting is that I have been wondering for a while whether the FTC will use its broad powers to begin regulating spatial data. I think this article is a further indicator it might.
The second article is related, at least in my mind. It discusses how the Boston police are finally getting useful results from sensors that have been placed in high crime areas around the city to identify gun shot sounds. (The thought is that the police can respond more quickly). Apparently, the system took a while to work properly as there were a number of times when the sensors improperly identified sounds.
It is easy to see how this system could be of tremendous benefit. One can also imagine other types of helpful sensors being deployed, in addition to the CCTV camers that are becoming more ubiquitious. However, I know that there are a number of very smart people who can figure out how to use these data sets in ways that go beyond the purpose the data was originally collected. Insurance companies for example. Which brought me back to the first article. Which is why I see the articles as being related.
read more “When Is A Gun Shot Like A Drug Prescription?”
The reason I found this interesting is that I have been wondering for a while whether the FTC will use its broad powers to begin regulating spatial data. I think this article is a further indicator it might.
The second article is related, at least in my mind. It discusses how the Boston police are finally getting useful results from sensors that have been placed in high crime areas around the city to identify gun shot sounds. (The thought is that the police can respond more quickly). Apparently, the system took a while to work properly as there were a number of times when the sensors improperly identified sounds.
It is easy to see how this system could be of tremendous benefit. One can also imagine other types of helpful sensors being deployed, in addition to the CCTV camers that are becoming more ubiquitious. However, I know that there are a number of very smart people who can figure out how to use these data sets in ways that go beyond the purpose the data was originally collected. Insurance companies for example. Which brought me back to the first article. Which is why I see the articles as being related.
Street View Lawsuit Update
0 commentsAn update to the Pennsylvania lawsuit regarding Google Street View. Google has filed a response, portions of which can be viewed on The Smoking Gun. One item of note: a number of media reports suggest that Google's lawyers assert in their brief that given today's technology "complete privacy does not exist." Actually that language is a quote, properly attributed to a legal treatise on the subject of privacy that was published well before commercial satellite imagery and on-line mapping sites.
read more “Street View Lawsuit Update”
Spatial Privacy - What is it? What should it be?
0 commentsI have been asked to give a talk on privacy and spatial technology in December to a group of lawyers interested in the legal aspects of remote sensing. Before putting together my remarks, I am very interested in learning what those in the spatial community think privacy is in a spatial context, and just as importantly, what it should be. It is an important topic for the development of spatial technology. However, it has not yet been codified, in the U.S. at least. in any meaningful way. As a result, one is forced to look at other areas of law for guidance. For example, if and when should a person have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" with respect to his or her location? Should there be a "reasonable expectation of privacy" with respect to a particular person or group, such as a spouse, an employer, or law enforcement? Similarly, should location-based information be subject to the same legal protection as "personally identifiable information" -- such as credit card information or medical records? I encourage you to provide your thoughts and comments below.
read more “Spatial Privacy - What is it? What should it be?”
New York City's Plans to Collect Spatial Data
0 commentsThe New York Times reports on plans to place video cameras and license plate readers in Lower Manhattan. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/09/nyregion/09ring.html?bl&ex=1184212800&en=e1216b612fdcc561&ei=5087%0A (registration required). It is worth noting that officials stated that the cameras would be placed where there is "no expectation of privacy".
I wonder how long it will take before there is a Google Earth mash-up showing all the locations of the cameras?
read more “New York City's Plans to Collect Spatial Data”
I wonder how long it will take before there is a Google Earth mash-up showing all the locations of the cameras?
But Do You Have A Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy With Your Cell Phone?
0 commentsThe recent decision by the Sixth Circuit US Court of Appeals (Warshak v. United States) that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to the contents of their emails may impact the spatial technology industry.
Warshak Case
Warshak concerned what steps the US government must take in order to compel a provider of electronic communication services (such as an ISP) to turn over emails and email-related information in connection with a criminal investigation under the 1986 Stored Communications Act. Sections 2703(b) and 2705 of the Act state in part that the government can compel such information, without notice to the customer, if "there were specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of a wire or electronic communication, or the records of other information sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation."
The "specific and articulable facts" standard is considered lower than the probable cause (what to be seized is evidence of a crime) standard we all know from television shows. And it was this standard that the Sixth Circuit felt violated the reasonable expectation of privacy that individuals have in the content of their emails. In effect, the court found that in order for the government to compel disclosure of the contents of the email it must have probable cause.
Spatial Data and the Stored Communications Act
There have been a number of recent cases involving the attempted use by the government to use the specific and articulable facts standard in the Stored Communications Act to collect spatial data associated with electronic transmissions. (See e.g. In the Matter of the Application of the United States of America For An Order Authorizing the Release Of Prospective Cell Site Information, (407 F.Supp.2d 134); In the Matter Of An Application Of the United States For A Order Authorizing Pen Register And A Trap And Trace Device And Release Of Subscriber Information And/Or Cell Site Information; (384 F. Supp. 2d 562) In Re Application for Pen Register and Trap/Device with Cell Site Location Authority, 396 F.Supp. 2d 747 ) Specifically, the government has tried to use Section 2703(c) to collect "a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or a customer of such service". In all three instances the government was attempting to use the reasonable grounds standard under Section 2703(d) of the Act in order to obtain cell site data to track a customer's location in real or near real time rather than the higher probable cause standard that would be required to obtain approval to use a more standard tracking device to monitor a suspect's movements. However, in each case the court found that the government needed to have probable cause in order to compel disclosure of the cell tower data.
Analysis
Each of the decisions regarding spatial data under the Stored Communications Act focused on the intent and history of the Act as well as other laws limiting the government's use of tracking devices. None spoke to whether individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy with regards to their location. However, the Sixth Circuit's analysis of the Act, in conjunction with the other decisions of the Act regarding spatial data, suggests that such an expectation may not be unreasonable . . . at least in the Sixth Circuit. It will be very interesting to see whether other Circuit Courts follow the Sixth Circuit in this analysis and what impact it will have on location data and companies that collect and store such data.
read more “But Do You Have A Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy With Your Cell Phone?”
Warshak Case
Warshak concerned what steps the US government must take in order to compel a provider of electronic communication services (such as an ISP) to turn over emails and email-related information in connection with a criminal investigation under the 1986 Stored Communications Act. Sections 2703(b) and 2705 of the Act state in part that the government can compel such information, without notice to the customer, if "there were specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of a wire or electronic communication, or the records of other information sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation."
The "specific and articulable facts" standard is considered lower than the probable cause (what to be seized is evidence of a crime) standard we all know from television shows. And it was this standard that the Sixth Circuit felt violated the reasonable expectation of privacy that individuals have in the content of their emails. In effect, the court found that in order for the government to compel disclosure of the contents of the email it must have probable cause.
Spatial Data and the Stored Communications Act
There have been a number of recent cases involving the attempted use by the government to use the specific and articulable facts standard in the Stored Communications Act to collect spatial data associated with electronic transmissions. (See e.g. In the Matter of the Application of the United States of America For An Order Authorizing the Release Of Prospective Cell Site Information, (407 F.Supp.2d 134); In the Matter Of An Application Of the United States For A Order Authorizing Pen Register And A Trap And Trace Device And Release Of Subscriber Information And/Or Cell Site Information; (384 F. Supp. 2d 562) In Re Application for Pen Register and Trap/Device with Cell Site Location Authority, 396 F.Supp. 2d 747 ) Specifically, the government has tried to use Section 2703(c) to collect "a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or a customer of such service". In all three instances the government was attempting to use the reasonable grounds standard under Section 2703(d) of the Act in order to obtain cell site data to track a customer's location in real or near real time rather than the higher probable cause standard that would be required to obtain approval to use a more standard tracking device to monitor a suspect's movements. However, in each case the court found that the government needed to have probable cause in order to compel disclosure of the cell tower data.
Analysis
Each of the decisions regarding spatial data under the Stored Communications Act focused on the intent and history of the Act as well as other laws limiting the government's use of tracking devices. None spoke to whether individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy with regards to their location. However, the Sixth Circuit's analysis of the Act, in conjunction with the other decisions of the Act regarding spatial data, suggests that such an expectation may not be unreasonable . . . at least in the Sixth Circuit. It will be very interesting to see whether other Circuit Courts follow the Sixth Circuit in this analysis and what impact it will have on location data and companies that collect and store such data.
But Is The Water Cold?
0 commentsI have a lawyer buddy who is somewhat skeptical of the concept of Spatial Law. Truth be told, he enjoys making fun of it and the Spatial Law blog on a regular basis. Nonetheless, he did pass on a great article on a supposed growing trend in England for kids to use Google Earth - and presumably similar services - to identify homes with pools and then to use social networks like MySpace and Facebook to set a time and place for people to meet and swim . . . all without the pool owners permission or knowledge. (Link is below).
Admittedly this is a wonderful example of how creative people will use easy access to quality spatial data in ways that most of us cannot even imagine right now. However, most people are still trying to adjust to a world where an image of their home is available for the world to see. Articles such as this one are only going to increase their concerns and sensitivities.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23496124-details/The+Google+Earth+gatecrashers+who+take+uninvited+dips+in+home-owners'+swimming+pools/article.do
read more “But Is The Water Cold?”
Admittedly this is a wonderful example of how creative people will use easy access to quality spatial data in ways that most of us cannot even imagine right now. However, most people are still trying to adjust to a world where an image of their home is available for the world to see. Articles such as this one are only going to increase their concerns and sensitivities.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23496124-details/The+Google+Earth+gatecrashers+who+take+uninvited+dips+in+home-owners'+swimming+pools/article.do
Privacy and Google Earth (cont'd)
0 commentsOut-Law.com has a useful post on the potential privacy implications for Google Earth Street View in Europe. http://www.out-law.com/page-8116 It is a good read for any company that collects or uses spatial data from European citizens because it helps explain just how broadly European law can be interpreted to protect citizens with respect to personally identifiable information.
Although US laws generally are not as protective, as previously mentioned, there are state laws that need to be considered, such as Section 8.01-40 of the Code of Virginia: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+8.01-40.
read more “Privacy and Google Earth (cont'd)”
Although US laws generally are not as protective, as previously mentioned, there are state laws that need to be considered, such as Section 8.01-40 of the Code of Virginia: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+8.01-40.
Spatial Data - Privacy or Personally Identifiable Information
0 commentsA recent article on CNET discusses some of the privacy concerns associated with Google's new street-level maps (and similar on-line services). http://news.com.com/Cameras+everywhere,+even+in+online+maps/2100-1038_3-6187556.html?tag=nefd.top. These concerns are discussed in more detail in blogs such as Boingboing http://www.boingboing.net/2007/05/30/google_maps_is_spyin.html and The Map Room http://www.mcwetboy.net/maproom/2007/05/google_maps_str_1.php.
These discussions highlight that the public -- including lawmakers -- is still coming to grips with the relationship between spatial technology and privacy issues. For many people, it is one thing for someone, while on a public street, to take a picture of another person or their house. It is something completely different however to display that same picture on the web with time, location and other information that helps to identify that person-- even if the information is publicly available -- and to make a profit from it. In fact, in Virginia such action could result in a legal claim: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+8.01-40
A key challenge for spatial technology companies will be to anticipate where the law is headed on this topic as the technology becomes more ubiquitious. The spatial technology industry may consider moving away from the concept of privacy per se and think more in terms of identifying and protecting "personally identifiable information" in a spatial context. Personally identifiable information can be derfined has been defined as any piece of information which can potentially be used to uniquely identify, contact, or locate a single person. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personally_identifiable_information. This is a concept that lawmakers, and their consituents, are becoming familiar with in regards to the medical and financial services industries. It may serve as a helpful model in the future for the spatial technology industry.
read more “Spatial Data - Privacy or Personally Identifiable Information”
These discussions highlight that the public -- including lawmakers -- is still coming to grips with the relationship between spatial technology and privacy issues. For many people, it is one thing for someone, while on a public street, to take a picture of another person or their house. It is something completely different however to display that same picture on the web with time, location and other information that helps to identify that person-- even if the information is publicly available -- and to make a profit from it. In fact, in Virginia such action could result in a legal claim: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+8.01-40
A key challenge for spatial technology companies will be to anticipate where the law is headed on this topic as the technology becomes more ubiquitious. The spatial technology industry may consider moving away from the concept of privacy per se and think more in terms of identifying and protecting "personally identifiable information" in a spatial context. Personally identifiable information can be derfined has been defined as any piece of information which can potentially be used to uniquely identify, contact, or locate a single person. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personally_identifiable_information. This is a concept that lawmakers, and their consituents, are becoming familiar with in regards to the medical and financial services industries. It may serve as a helpful model in the future for the spatial technology industry.
Santa Clara - Court decision
0 commentsThe Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara has recently released its ruling that the California Public Records Act (CPRA) requires Santa Clara to sell an electronic copy of its GIS basemap (parcels, streets, orthophotos, etc.) to the public at cost, rather than at the much higher price it had been charging. A copy of the decision can be found at the website of the California First Amendment Coalition, the plaintiff in the case: http://www.cfac.org/content/index.php/cfac-news/press_release/ This decision is important because some California counties believe that the CPRA does not apply to GIS data, and therefore have been charging a much higher price than being charged for other public records.
It is unclear how this decision will affect other counties or Santa Clara's recent announcement that it was withholding the sale of GIS data while reviewing its security policy. It is also unknown whether Santa Clara will appeal the Superior Court's decision.
read more “Santa Clara - Court decision”
It is unclear how this decision will affect other counties or Santa Clara's recent announcement that it was withholding the sale of GIS data while reviewing its security policy. It is also unknown whether Santa Clara will appeal the Superior Court's decision.
Farm Bill To Address Privacy Issues?
0 commentsRecently I posted a discussion on a Spatial Law case involving privacy and the federal Freedom of Information Act (http://spatiallaw.blogspot.com/2008/02/us-court-finds-substantial-privacy.html) In that case the court determined that even though there was a substantial privacy interest with regards to spatial data collected by the Department of Agriculture, that it was outweighed by the public good obtained from the release of the data.
I recently became aware of some language in the conference report associated with H.R. 2419 "The Farm Bill" which would in effect prohibit the Department of Agriculture from disclosing such information except for a limited number of reasons. (See e.g. Section 1619(b)(2)(B) of the conference report)
I would be interested in learning more about why this language was included in the conference report. Specifically I wonder whether it was included to truly protect the privacy of all farmers or whether it was inserted because a handful of farmers are lobbying to limit the disclosure of sensitive information that may or may not be "private"
read more “Farm Bill To Address Privacy Issues?”
I recently became aware of some language in the conference report associated with H.R. 2419 "The Farm Bill" which would in effect prohibit the Department of Agriculture from disclosing such information except for a limited number of reasons. (See e.g. Section 1619(b)(2)(B) of the conference report)
I would be interested in learning more about why this language was included in the conference report. Specifically I wonder whether it was included to truly protect the privacy of all farmers or whether it was inserted because a handful of farmers are lobbying to limit the disclosure of sensitive information that may or may not be "private"
Spatial Law and Policy Update (May 16, 2010)
0 commentsPrivacy
So how many people "clean" their satellite navigation device before selling their car? According to this article, you probably should.
Google has admitted that it has been collecting - apparently without intent - private information (snippets from emails and on-line activities) from public Wi-Fi networks in connection with its Google Street View mapping efforts. (Google was also mapping public Wi-Fi networks as part of Street View). I have previously posted, there is great value in the street level imagery that Google is collecting. However, one can certainly appreciate the privacy concerns associated with any organization collecting this information - even if it was being sent over public (and presumably unsecured) Wi-Fi networks - particularly if the information was being collected as part of a broader mapping effort.
Licensing
For those interested in a well-rounded technical discussion of the issues associated with data sharing, I would recommend reading Peter Batty's geothought blog. It includes a link to a video of a roundtable discussion from GITA 2010 with a number of deep thinkers in this area, including Peter (as moderator), Steve Coast, James Fee, Andrew Turner and Ron Lake.
read more “Spatial Law and Policy Update (May 16, 2010)”
So how many people "clean" their satellite navigation device before selling their car? According to this article, you probably should.
Google has admitted that it has been collecting - apparently without intent - private information (snippets from emails and on-line activities) from public Wi-Fi networks in connection with its Google Street View mapping efforts. (Google was also mapping public Wi-Fi networks as part of Street View). I have previously posted, there is great value in the street level imagery that Google is collecting. However, one can certainly appreciate the privacy concerns associated with any organization collecting this information - even if it was being sent over public (and presumably unsecured) Wi-Fi networks - particularly if the information was being collected as part of a broader mapping effort.
Licensing
For those interested in a well-rounded technical discussion of the issues associated with data sharing, I would recommend reading Peter Batty's geothought blog. It includes a link to a video of a roundtable discussion from GITA 2010 with a number of deep thinkers in this area, including Peter (as moderator), Steve Coast, James Fee, Andrew Turner and Ron Lake.
Privacy Policies: Just Because They Are "Legal" Does Not Mean They Are "Right"
0 commentsI hope that location-based service companies and other businesses that are developing business models around location are closely following the public's growing concerns with Facebook's privacy policies. According to reports, Facebook recently held an emergency meeting concerning its privacy issues. In addition, some reports suggest that it is losing customers due to privacy concerns.
Technology is improving so rapidly - and the business norm appears to be to bring those improvements to the market so quickly - that the general public is not able to keep up. Unfortunately, neither have the legal nor the policy systems. As a result, even though an application or business practice may be "legal", in that it does not - yet - violate any laws, it may not be "right" from a market standpoint. I believe this is particularly true when it comes to privacy and location as we are all struggling what privacy means to us from a location standpoint.
read more “Privacy Policies: Just Because They Are "Legal" Does Not Mean They Are "Right"”
Technology is improving so rapidly - and the business norm appears to be to bring those improvements to the market so quickly - that the general public is not able to keep up. Unfortunately, neither have the legal nor the policy systems. As a result, even though an application or business practice may be "legal", in that it does not - yet - violate any laws, it may not be "right" from a market standpoint. I believe this is particularly true when it comes to privacy and location as we are all struggling what privacy means to us from a location standpoint.
Privacy Lawsuit Against Google Earth
0 commentsI am sure by now that most of you have heard about the lawsuit that a couple is bringing against Google for trespass and invasion of privacy in connection with StreetView. They are seeking $25,000 in damages. It does not appear to me that the couple have a viable claim. Given the facts described in the complaint it is hard to imagine that they have suffered $25,000 in damages, particularly since Google apparently removed the images in question once it was made aware of the issue. As for their trespass claim, I am certainly not an expert in this area, but it is my understanding that a sign that states "Private Road" may simply mean that that it is not maintained by the local government, not necessarily that to drive on it would constitute a trespass. (I do note that their claim did raise an interesting legal question as to whether the value of their property might somehow have dimished because the pictures were displayed on the internet. Although it does not seem that the plaintiffs could prove that in this case, one can imagine a potential set of circumstances that could be more favorable to a plaintiff.)
A couple of other thoughts. In doing some research about this case it seems that people are focusing on Google's right to take a picture from a public space. However, there has been less discussion on how that picture is being used and distributed. Many states prohibit the use of an individual's likeness for commercial purposes without their permission. I do not know of any states that have gone so far as to protect the use of an image of an individual's home, etc. against unauthorized commercial use. However, I would not be surprised if some state legislators' attempt to introduce such legislation in the future.
Also, in my opinion this is not simply an issue for Google, Microsoft, etc., but also the companies that provide them other types of spatial data. Experience has shown that in such cases, plaintiff's lawyers are going to sue everyone in the product chain and let the court system figure out who is liabile. (I note that in one article I read the reporter asked the attorney in the case if he was considering bringing a class action lawsuit . .. .) Even if a company ultimately prevails, litigation is expensive in terms of both time and money. Therefore it is important when at all possible in a commercial setting to define how your data is being used and just as importantly how it should not be used. Also, it could be helpful to get an affirmative covenant from the customer that it will comply with applicable privacy laws, etc.
read more “Privacy Lawsuit Against Google Earth”
A couple of other thoughts. In doing some research about this case it seems that people are focusing on Google's right to take a picture from a public space. However, there has been less discussion on how that picture is being used and distributed. Many states prohibit the use of an individual's likeness for commercial purposes without their permission. I do not know of any states that have gone so far as to protect the use of an image of an individual's home, etc. against unauthorized commercial use. However, I would not be surprised if some state legislators' attempt to introduce such legislation in the future.
Also, in my opinion this is not simply an issue for Google, Microsoft, etc., but also the companies that provide them other types of spatial data. Experience has shown that in such cases, plaintiff's lawyers are going to sue everyone in the product chain and let the court system figure out who is liabile. (I note that in one article I read the reporter asked the attorney in the case if he was considering bringing a class action lawsuit . .. .) Even if a company ultimately prevails, litigation is expensive in terms of both time and money. Therefore it is important when at all possible in a commercial setting to define how your data is being used and just as importantly how it should not be used. Also, it could be helpful to get an affirmative covenant from the customer that it will comply with applicable privacy laws, etc.
Google Maps - Pushing the Limits of Spatial Privacy?
0 commentsAttached is a link to a New York Times blog on a feature of Google Maps that allows Google to "know' within varying amounts of accuracy where the user is located based upon the user's cell phone, even if the cell-phone is not GPS-enabled. Google will then communicate this back to the user so that he or she can find out where they are or where they want to go.
I highly recommend that anyone who is interested in privacy in a spatial context pay particular attention to the wide divergence in the comments to the blog; they show the varying degrees of knowledge about the technology as well as levels of concerns about its implications. Courts will struggle with identifying an expectation of privacy that is "reasonable" in this context.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/google-doesnt-know-where-you-are-but-it-has-a-good-guess/?ref=technology#comment-60383
read more “Google Maps - Pushing the Limits of Spatial Privacy?”
I highly recommend that anyone who is interested in privacy in a spatial context pay particular attention to the wide divergence in the comments to the blog; they show the varying degrees of knowledge about the technology as well as levels of concerns about its implications. Courts will struggle with identifying an expectation of privacy that is "reasonable" in this context.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/google-doesnt-know-where-you-are-but-it-has-a-good-guess/?ref=technology#comment-60383
Links to Recent Spatial Law Matters
0 commentshttp://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=206903550 is a link to an article from information week.com sent to me by Carl Reed. The article discusses how an author of two books on Google believes that the company may develop a business plan around its patented bus transportation process - currently used to transport its Bay Area employees. According to the article, the system combines Google's mapping technology and GPS and is linked to employees' cell phones to inform them real time when buses are approaching. One can easily see the numerous benefits of this technology for consumers. However, one can just as easily see privacy advocates expressing concerns about the potential implications.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/03/14/street_mix_up_delays_police_response_to_slaying/ is a link to a Boston.com article that explains how police officers responding to a 911 call were sent to the wrong address based upon information provided by a computer mapping system designed for such occassions. Apparently, there were at least three identical street addresses in the system for the neighborhoods covered. It appears from the article that the mistake was at least partially due to human error, for not clarifying which neighborhood the crime occurred and for not checking a secondary computer system - which indicated that there were three such addresses. However, one can imagine a plaintiff's lawyers asking why the primary system did not provide the same information. According to one official, "In this particular case there was an over-reliance on the new technology."
read more “Links to Recent Spatial Law Matters”
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/03/14/street_mix_up_delays_police_response_to_slaying/ is a link to a Boston.com article that explains how police officers responding to a 911 call were sent to the wrong address based upon information provided by a computer mapping system designed for such occassions. Apparently, there were at least three identical street addresses in the system for the neighborhoods covered. It appears from the article that the mistake was at least partially due to human error, for not clarifying which neighborhood the crime occurred and for not checking a secondary computer system - which indicated that there were three such addresses. However, one can imagine a plaintiff's lawyers asking why the primary system did not provide the same information. According to one official, "In this particular case there was an over-reliance on the new technology."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
