At the Mercy of Internet Services

Here's a very scary LOCUS column by Cory Doctorow about Google users arbitrarily losing their e-mail accounts and access to all their files with no explanation or recourse. He labels this possibility a "nightmare scenario," not an exaggeration in view of the two examples he describes:

Unpersoned

An author lost her works in progress, stored in Google Docs, for alleged "inappropriate" content, never specified or explained. Far worse, the victim in the other example ("Mark"), who'd been getting his e-mail, cell phone service, photo storage, document storage, and several other services through Google, lost access to literally everything in his life that relied on technology more advanced than old-style paper mail. "Google defended its decision to permanently delete all of Mark’s data and cut him off from every account for every service he’d ever signed up for (without his email, SMS, and Authenticator codes, Mark was locked out of virtually every digital service he used)."

Doctorow suggests several potential solutions to the problem of service provider overreach. His concluding summary concedes that those companies have the right to deny service to customers under some conditions:

"But when they say they want to eject some of those users and deny them forwarding service and their own data, they’re saying they should have the right to make the people they don’t like vanish. That’s more power than anyone should have — and far more power than the platforms deserve."

This essay vindicates my own established habits. The idea of depending entirely on a cloud to store my personal documents would have given me the creeps even before reading about these abuses. Of course I save everything on my own hard drive. Of course I have more than one e-mail account. And I would never consider giving up our old reliable landline phone. I regard the cell phone as a useful backup for making and receiving calls away from home, not the primary core of my electronic existence. "Mark" got in trouble because a picture he transmitted to a pediatrician from his cell was synched to his Google photo file. The only cloud storage I have anything synched to is OneDrive, for backing up my documents and pictures. And naturally, again, they're all on my hard drive, too. It's bad enough knowing any book I've bought through Kindle could be obliterated by Amazon at any time (although this has never happened to me). I ignore the suggestions on some websites to sign in with Google or Facebook rather than the password saved on the individual sites.

Yet to give up online banking and other internet services we've come to rely on would be too great an inconvenience. How can we strike a balance between the practical necessity for online access to function in daily life nowadays and the risks of having our virtual lives snatched out of our own control? At least, however, it would seem reckless to keep all one's electronic eggs in one omnipotent basket.

Margaret L. Carter

Please explore love among the monsters at Carter's Crypt.

Decoding Brain Waves

Can a computer program read thoughts? An experimental project uses AI as a "brain decoder," in combination with brain scans, to "transcribe 'the gist' of what people are thinking, in what was described as a step toward mind reading":

Scientists Use Brain Scans to "Decode" Thoughts

The example in the article discusses how the program interprets what a person thinks while listening to spoken sentences. Although the system doesn't translate the subject's thoughts into the exact same words, it's capable of accurately rendering the "gist" into coherent language. Moreover, it can even accomplish the same thing when the subject simply thinks about a story or watches a silent movie. Therefore, the program is "decoding something that is deeper than language, then converting it into language." Unlike earlier types of brain-computer interfaces, this noninvasive system doesn't require implanting anything in the person's brain.

However, the decoder isn't perfect yet; it has trouble with personal pronouns, for instance. Moreover, it's possible for the subject to "sabotage" the process with mental tricks. Participating scientists reassure people concerned about "mental privacy" that the system works only after it has been trained on the particular person's brain activity through many hours in an MRI scanner. Nevertheless, David Rodriguez-Arias Vailhen, a bioethics professor at Spain's Granada University, expresses apprehension that the more highly developed versions of such programs might lead to "a future in which machines are 'able to read minds and transcribe thought'. . . warning this could possibly take place against people's will, such as when they are sleeping."

Here's another article about this project, explaining that the program functions on a predictive model similar to ChatGPT. As far as I can tell, the system works only with thoughts mentally expressed in words, not pure images:

Brain Activity Decoder Can Read Stories in People's Minds

Researchers at the University of Texas in Austin suggest as one positive application that the system "might help people who are mentally conscious yet unable to physically speak, such as those debilitated by strokes, to communicate intelligibly again."

An article on the Wired site explores in depth the nature of thought and its connection with language from the perspective of cognitive science.

Decoders Won't Just Read Your Mind -- They'll Change It

Suppose the mind isn't, as traditionally assumed, "a self-contained, self-sufficient, private entity"? If not, is there a realistic risk that "these machines will have the power to characterize and fix a thought’s limits and bounds through the very act of decoding and expressing that thought"?

How credible is the danger foreshadowed in this essay? If AI eventually gains the power to decode anyone's thoughts, not just those of individuals whose brain scans the system has been trained on, will literal mind-reading come into existence? Could a future Big Brother society watch citizens not just through two-way TV monitors but by inspecting the contents of their brains?

Margaret L. Carter

Please explore love among the monsters at Carter's Crypt.

When Do Conspiracy Theorists Make Sense?

Cory Doctorow's column in the May issue of LOCUS discusses what we'd probably think of as paranoid conspiracy theorists, vehemently protesting imaginary global plots against our lives and liberties, who in Britain are often informally labeled "swivel-eyed loons."

The Swivel-Eyed Loons Have a Point

Of course, we do have to distinguish the paranoid looniness from valid concerns. As he says, we all want to "save the children." Most of us, however, want to save them from "real threats who never seem to face justice," while the swivel-eyed loons obsess about "imaginary threats," e.g., "adrenochrome-guzzling Satanists."

Some issues about which he suggests they have valid points:

Automated license-plate recorders, presently used in London, really can constitute "a form of pervasive location-tracking surveillance." That kind of power has been used in the past to target "disfavored minorities" and organizations regarded as suspicious.

While “'Climate lockdowns' are a product of a conspiracist’s fevered imagination," it's nevertheless true that COVID restrictions have sometimes served as a pretext "to control everyday people while rich people swanned around having a lovely time." The powerful were happy to promulgate regulations they didn't consider to apply to themselves.

The "post-ownership society" fearfully anticipated by some conspiracists has already begun to infiltrate the economy. Our Kindle books, music files, and other software don't really belong to us; we lease them from companies that can delete them at will.

What about the futuristic promise of a cashless society, when institutions such as credit card companies will be nearly all-powerful gatekeepers? "Access to financial services is a primary means of extralegal control over whole sectors of the economy."

Doctorow's article offers several other alarming examples.

However, he exaggerates about the demise of DVDs. Yes, we can still buy movies and TV programs (and music) in physical media that we permanently own; they aren't likely to disappear anytime soon. (The choice of renting DVDs from Netflix will go away later this year, though. Sigh.)

"We live in a fraught and perilous time," he reminds us, "and powerful people really do want to capitalize on this situation to enrich themselves at our expense." How can we enjoy the benefits of technologies such as those mentioned in his essay while avoiding their threats to our privacy and autonomy?

Margaret L. Carter

Carter's Crypt

How the Mouse Moves/ How the Toilet Rolls

I like sex, science, copyright law and order, privacy, and words. Not necessarily in that order.  I read a lot of legal blogs each week, and summarize what interests me as it/they relate to copyright and safe fiction-writing.

Privacy is a problem. 

Quoting Andrew Grove, co-founder, and former CEO of Intel Corporation:

“Privacy is one of the biggest problems in this new electronic age. At the heart of the internet culture, is a force that wants to find out everything about you. And once it has found out everything about you and two hundred million others, that’s a very valuable asset, and people will be tempted to trade and do commerce with that asset. This wasn’t’ the information that people were thinking of when they called this the information age.”

Credit to https://tmtlaw.co.in/data-privacy-2021-the-year-that-it-was/

Active authors are more exposed because of biographies, the need to network, the necessity of online research. To digress about research, last night, I watched "Irresistible" (HBO is having a free showcase weekend, presumably in honor of St. Patrick. I enjoyed Irresistible very much. One scene that caught my attention was when an arrogant Washington DC power broker chose to demonstrate the thoroughness of political research by telling a farmer's daughter that they knew that she owns three cats and spends a lot of time online looking up a certain STD.

I also finished listening to a John Grisham audiobook, "Camino Winds", which also had a strong thread about lack of privacy.

Legal blogger Theodore F. Claypoole of Womble Bond Dickinson LLP discussed a recent move by the state of Illinois to prohibit the police from using citizens household electronic data without a warrant. 

https://www.womblebonddickinson.com/us/insights/blogs/illinois-prohibits-police-use-household-electronic-data-without-warrant#page=1

I assume that lawmakers don't prospectively prohibit behavior that no one has considered, so seems probable to me that some police forces may be using household data without a warrant.  How far could one go? The interesting site Hackaday reveals that obsessive people can keep track of their own (or of a family member's) toilet paper usage through a smart and connected bog roll holder that counts the spins.

https://hackaday.com/2022/02/03/keep-track-of-toilet-paper-usage-with-this-iot-roll-holder/

Imagine if that data got into the wrong hands!

For the lawfirm Steptoe, legal bloggers Stephanie A. Sheridan, Meegan Brooks, and Surya Kundu discuss privacy in the age of big data, with insights about retailers keeping tracking data on which customers return items (presumably that they purchased online.)

Quoting Steptoe:

"As technological innovations in e-commerce continue to explode, retailers are increasingly utilizing customer data to personalize customer experiences, prevent fraud, improve their services, and make money through third-party sales. New data analytics tools allow retailers to study a vast array of information—ranging from users' order history to their exact mouse movements—to better understand their customer base."

https://www.steptoe.com/en/news-publications/privacy-in-the-age-of-big-data-key-developments-in-retail-and-e-commerce.html

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ac20ed1a-8b0e-45a3-b765-f7a50b7f72a6

One would assume that fraud-prevention is reasonable, but from personalized customer data, one could also infer whether or not a customer has a shopping addiction, and a company could discourage online shoppers from making legitimate returns.  The Steptoe lawyers discuss all aspects at length, and make a very valid point about right of publicity laws (which are a form of copyright laws).

Quoting Steptoe again:

"Right of publicity laws, which exist in similar forms in many states (both in statutory and common law form), prohibit the unauthorized use of a person’s identifying information for commercial gain. These statutes have traditionally been invoked by celebrities and other public figures whose names have been appropriated to falsely suggest that they endorse a product or brand. In these recent lawsuits, however, plaintiffs are alleging that retailers, publishers, and credit card companies violate their “right of publicity” merely by including their names or other identifying information on mailing lists that were privately sold or rented to third parties."

One of the assumptions about making an online purchase is that it is private, but what if it turns out to be less "private" than going into a bricks and mortar shop?

Legal bloggers Tim Gole,  Jen Bradley,  Clare Arthur, and Rishabh Khanna for the Australian law firm Gilbert Tobin take an entertaining and informative look at behavioural advertising and targeting.

https://www.gtlaw.com.au/knowledge/algorithmic-profiling-online-behavioural-advertising

Quoting a fractional example of their writing:

"You’re browsing online, looking for those new running shoes that are going to make you fitter in 2022. You close the browser and open a social media webpage and soon notice ads for those very joggers and similar products. Congratulations, you’re a subject of algorithmic profiling and online behavioural advertising.

You’ve probably already had similar experiences many times over. You’re likely aware that your online behaviour is tracked, and that there is a lucrative market in the advertising space for the purchase and sale of internet users’ profiles that are based on users’ online behaviour. What you may not understand is how your information is collected and behaviour is tracked, and the algorithmic profiling that occurs to serve you with this advertising."

Having ranted about this very phenomenon, I really liked their observations!

For the last word in global privacy, there is a study by TMT Law. 

Global  Privacy 2021

All the best,
Rowena Cherry 

SPACE SNARK™ http://www.spacesnark.com/ 

 

 

 

To Review Or Not To Review....

Apologies for the bathos to Hamlet and his existential question.

 

I once wrote a review for my dentist. Then, I felt that I had to ask him to take it down. Reviewing your doctors and dentists might open the door to HIPPA violations. Of course, via ever-on GPS, your smart phone (if you have one) probably tells Apple or Android and all the businesses who track you, --and whoever provides your doctor's or dentist's office free internet-- which health care providers you probably use, but why confirm it?

 

Apparently, you should never write a review of a hotel until you have checked out of your own free will. Angela Hoy of writersweekly reports on an astonishing allegation that a certain hotel affiliated with the chain famous (or not) for advertisements featuring a large, red-bearded wizard (also a large red-bearded wizard) allegedly called the police and evicted a guest in the middle of the night after she wrote a review that offended management.

 

https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/grandmother-granddaughter-kicked-out-georgia-hotel-giving-bad-review

When traveling, I write my reviews in email and save them to Draft, if I have the time and motivation. Trip Advisor used to give hotel-review writers ranking and momentary fame for reviews, but it may not be worth the hassle any more.

 

I no longer write book reviews. As a published alien romance author, with thousands of Facebook friends (last time I looked, which might have been 10 years ago), the chances are 50/50 that Amazon might censor my genuine and honest review of someone else's paperback on the unwarranted suspicion that my integrity might have been suborned by a Facebook friendship. 

 

There is an allegation that Amazon has some very creepy ways, not just regarding censorship, but also regarding privacy.  No doubt, anyone who sells advertising cannot be trusted.

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/amazon-privacy-lobbying/

 

When you write a review of a hotel or service or product or practice, your review becomes a part of their advertising. That is: advertising content that you provide free.

Legal blogger Kate Dunnigan for BBB National Programs Inc. offers a business perspective on the use of user-generated reviews, which is interesting for potential review-writers. It also contains good advice for authors who might be tempted to solicit reviews from readers, or to cherry pick the good parts of mixed reviews.

https://bbbprograms.org/media-center/blog-details/insights/2021/06/23/product-reviews-in-advertising

Apparently, if one requests a favorable review, and includes an offer such as inclusion in a sweepstakes for a valuable chance to win a prize, or a coupon valid against a future purchase, the existence of an incentive ought to be disclosed when publishing the glowing reviews.

 

All the best.

Rowena Cherry 

SPACE SNARK™

http://www.spacesnark.com/

EPIC Award winner, Friend of ePublishing for Crazy Tuesday

 

Real People as Characters

I've just finished reading the ten Catherine Le Vendeur novels by Sharan Newman, mysteries set in twelfth-century Europe (mostly in France). Catherine begins as a novice at the Abbey of the Paraclete and a student of Abbess Heloise. At the end of the first book, Catherine leaves the convent, rather than taking final vows, and gets married. Thus she's not only an intelligent young woman but highly educated for a lady of that era. Like any reluctant amateur detective, she frequently stumbles over corpses or gets entangled in events that endanger her family and friends. She applies the logic she learned from her teacher to probe these mysteries. Over the course of her adventures, she crosses paths with many distinguished historical figures in addition to Heloise, Peter Abelard, and their son, Astrolabe. (Yes, that was actually his name.) Significant historical events such as important church councils, with the associated political controversies, provide backdrops to the stories. Judging from Newman's afterwords to the books and her expertise in medieval studies, she clearly took care to place the real people in the series at locations where they're known to have been or could have been in the given year and not to show them doing anything that conflicts with their documented personalities and behavior.

I once read a post on Quora that vehemently objected to including people who actually existed, regardless of which century they lived in, as characters in fiction. That attitude baffled me. I can't think of a valid reason to consider such fiction disrespectful, and a lot of excellent works would never have been written if authors accepted that prohibition as a rule. Several of Sharyn McCrumb's Appalachian "Ballad Novels" tell stories based on real events—for instance, THE BALLAD OF TOM DOOLEY, whose afterword explains that the narrative sticks as close to reality as she could manage. Since it's a novel, though, McCrumb was free to speculate about motives and invent incidents and dialogue. Barbara Hambly does the same in THE EMANCIPATOR'S WIFE, about the later life of Lincoln's widow but with flashbacks to earlier periods. I see no problem with portraying historical persons in fiction if the author does conscientious research, sticks to the recorded facts except when filling in gaps where creative license is appropriate, and doesn't show the subjects behaving in ways incompatible with their known characters.

Writers of alternate history and secret history, of course, have much greater scope for invention. "Secret history" refers to fiction that doesn't change the facts of the past as generally known and accepted but inserts other events, often supernatural, occurring behind the scenes: Vlad the Implaler was a vampire. Lincoln was a vampire slayer. Elizabeth I was a demon hunter. Wizards on both sides shaped the course of World War II. I can enjoy these kinds of novels as long as the depictions of historical figures stick close to their true-life personalities. Otherwise, why bother writing about them at all instead of inventing your own characters?

The closer we get to the present, it seems to me, the more problematic it becomes to use actual people as protagonists. Successful books, however, have been published on plot premises such as H. P. Lovecraft and Robert Howard on a road trip to confront eldritch horrors or C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien fighting the forces of evil. Personally, I might have qualms about making fictional protagonists of people with still-living relatives and friends who remember them.

I do draw the line at the use of live, present-day celebrities as fictional characters, except as walk-on "extras" or as part of the cultural background. (E.g., the protagonist attends a concert by a famous singer or watches a presidential debate.) There's a subgenre of fan fiction, "real people" fanfic, that consists of stories about celebrities such as singers and actors. It even includes, incredibly, slash scenarios between living individuals. While I'm adamantly opposed to censorship and therefore don't advocate making this sort of privacy invasion illegal, one would think it would be precluded by good taste and simple courtesy.

Margaret L. Carter

Carter's Crypt

Bad Calls

Today's topic is "Bad Calls" around the World: by an Australian Troll, by Apple in going after an allegedly notorious international trademark troll, by a Tobagoan mimic in the early morning hours, a breathtakingly daft reTweet, and more.

"Hello?" I said at 6:00 am when a call interrupted my early morning quiet writing time.

"Hello?" my almost inimitable voice replied.

I would have been creeped out, but my daughter has Mynah bird mimicry skills and it amuses her to take the mickey over the phone, although, not usually before noon.

"Deborah?" I did not say, because that is not my daughter's name.

"Deborah?" My exact intonation echoed the name I actually used.

I fell silent. If my Mynah-like daughter had been messing with me, she would have said something original in exasperation that I had stopped playing. The caller from Trinidad and Tobago waited for several minutes to see (I assume) whether I would say something a sight more useful to an identity thief, but I did not and the caller eventually gave up.

At that point, I looked at Caller ID, which showed "PORT SPAIN TR", and I did some research.

Area Codes you never want to call back, if you receive a curiosity-arousing call:

https://www.thepolicecu.org/blog/blog-detail/the-police-credit-union-blog/2021/05/14/area-codes-you-never-want-to-call-back-and-why

A lot of banks and brokerage houses are pushing clients to agree to use Voice Recognition to validate telephone access to account information. Don't do it. 

Legal bloggers too numerous to link to (but whose names should show up) for Troutman Pepper have published a very thorough and extensive article --"More Privacy Please"-- on what the USA is doing about Robocallers, hackers, ransomeware, Zoombombing, the Solar Winds hack, for profit dossiers on private citizens,  Macy allegedly scraping faces, Ancestry's use of yearbook photos, and other outrages, scams and  scammers.

https://www.troutman.com/insights/more-privacy-please-september-2021.html

Kim Kommando blogs about privacy hacks (in the tip sense of the word) to do with irrevocable bad calls in chosing your free and convenient email provider.

Link

Cari Sheehan, of counsel at Barnes and Thornton is holding a webinar (one has to register to attend, but anyone can read the blurb) about the special need for lawyers to refrain from wildly liking comments or pages on social media.

When a lawyer likes something, the legal ramifications can be damaging.

https://www.lexology.com/Events/Details/10245?utm_source=Lexology%2bDaily%2bNewsfeed&utm_medium=HTML%2bemail&utm_campaign=Lexology%2bsubscriber%2bdaily%2bfeed&utm_content=Lexology%2bDaily%2bNewsfeed%2b2021-09-10

The same, apparently, might apply to politicians and their staffers. Liberal law professor Turley recently described a retweet as "breathtakingly daft".  One could probably search for the phrase.

Representing the law firm of Walder Wyss Ltd., Markus Frick and Manuel Bigler discuss  Swiss law and the case of the Patent troll

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=fb2194a3-b9cc-4139-b093-633caf9fcf63

With trademarks, one has to use the mark or risk losing it. In Switzerland, anyone can apply to the authorities to cancel someone else's trademark if the trademark owner does not actively use their TM.

That's why I always put my TM below my name when blogging, and dear reader, if you have a TM, you should do so, too.

Trying to cancel someone else's trademark can be considered abusive. Do it often, and one may be called a troll, or even a notorious troll as is reported in this case, which Apple appears to have lost.  The Walder Wyss commentary is very interesting.

Meanwhile, down in Australia, Mhairi Stewart and Nikki Randall report with great nasal-mutilaton-wit for Bennet + Co on the case of an apparently scorned, would-be plastic surgery recipient who was not very good at concealing her identity, and her bad call in trolling the reputation of the unwilling surgeon cost her a very large judgement and her anonymity (not necessarily in that order).

https://bennettandco.com.au/areas/defamation/surgeon-wins-450000-for-defamation-after-identifying-an-anonymous-troll/

It is a very good story. It's also quite teachable. One is never as anonymous as one supposes one is, especially give the points that Kim Kommando and others make about privacy.  Better not to hide behind an illusion, perhaps.

All the best,

Rowena Cherry 

SPACE SNARK™ http://www.spacesnark.com/  

http://www.rowenacherry.com

EPIC Award winner, Friend of ePublishing for Crazy Tuesday   

In Dispraise of Haste

Which "haste-related" cautionary proverb comes first to your mind?  I thought of "Marry in haste, repent at leisure," which was a socially relevant warning in Britain and Europe for several generations thrust together and torn apart by World War I and World War II.

In recent eras of living together, and relatively easy divorce, there probably less need for "repenting at leisure," so that proverb has lost its power.... which may be why it is ranked #30/35.

Source: Inspirational Stories.com proverbs on haste.
https://www.inspirationalstories.com/proverbs/t/on-haste/

Are proverbs still taught in schools? For that matter, are the different names for the males and females of animal species still taught? "Tiger / Tigress", maybe but it seems doubtful that "Cob / Pen / Cygnet" for swans, or "Hart / Hind" (of red deer) and "Buck / Doe" (of roe deer) are taught.

Animal names
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/doe

"Click-through in haste..." might be a modern day proverb.

The ever-interesting Mark Sableman, blogging for the law firm Thompson Coburn LLP, discusses online contracts (with a topical pun about contracting disease), and explains the different degrees of how inextricably to bind a visitor, or to be bound as a visitor, to a contract that --in their haste-- they have not read.

Original Link:
https://www.thompsoncoburn.com/insights/blogs/internet-law-twists-turns/post/2020-05-14/you-may-avoid-coronavirus-contacts-but-you-can-t-avoid-online-contracts#page=1

Lexology Link:
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6f1da6a7-56a4-4c18-8f3d-2c744f7b9a11

It reminds me a bit of a marital pre-nuptial contract!

Seriously, if you surf the internet a lot, or if you have your own website, or blog, you ought to read Mark Sableman's explanations of browse-wrap, click-wrap (or click-through), and sign-in wrap.

European readers of this blog should understand that the authors of this group blog do remind readers periodically that Blogspot will drop cookies on you, (it's browse-wrappy), and Google does post generic notices about the terms of use that you are inferred to agree with and to by sticking around.

Online contracts can be very secure, and safer than you would think, and they hold up well in court.  Thus, one should read an E-sign contract very carefully indeed, and not merely click merrily away to provide 7 (or however many) initials and 2 signatures in your choice out of 5 available fonts.

Legal blogger Tyler G, Newby, writing for Fenwick & West LLP, gives a fascinating historical overview of contracts, going back to the signet ring and hot sealing wax to the present day Docu-Sign (or its rivals such as Authentisign), and explains that such convenient services provide a time-and-date stamped audit trail  that may include the signer's IP address.

Of course, too, there is the clickwrap or click through and sign in protection for the professional who sends a link in an email to the expected signer.

For readers interested in how much copyright infringement has increased during the Covid-19 shut down, MUSO has a free, downloadable "white paper". It comes with click wrap, you have to give them your name and email address... but it might be interesting enough to be worth giving them the data, and possibly receiving follow up emails from MUSO.

https://www.muso.com/white-paper-demand-discovery?utm_campaign=COVID-19%20Protect%20&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=88156774&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-92B76dMP1rBc2xvht7vDqlzhChwXeYH-GGsTVaL3B6_aOiXEnexlgriwMhuv35_T2oUwbU8dyrNfvG9G1H767syhNUjQ&_hsmi=88156774

Talking of privacy, and marketing (which I do, often), Zarish S. Baig, blogging for Squire Patton Boggs, discusses the suspicions of some that third party marketers may listen in on private smart phone conversations.

https://tcpaworld.com/2020/05/13/googles-privacy-policy-cant-save-it-from-smartphone-spying-claim-california-privacy-laws-tested-in-suit-alleging-big-tech-is-letting-subcontractors-listen-in-on-your-conversations/#page=1

It would appear, the above average internet user is also expected to read any ISP's Privacy Policy, especially if they purchase and use a device capable of recording anything.

Apropos hastiness and insecurity, if Zooming, or Facetiming, or otherwise broadcasting a live video of yourself, bear in mind that more of your background than you might expect might be exposed.  We've all seen the accidentally-on-purpose naked roomies caught over the shoulders of vloggers; the over casual anchor without his trousers who spread his legs a little wide under his desk, and his bare thigh crept into view; and then there is the prince who did not realize that he had official secrets on an open file in his background.

Derek M. Stikeleather, for Goddell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP shares Kim Kardashian's tips for looking fabulous while teleconferencing, and much more.

https://www.gdldlaw.com/blog/what-kim-kardashian-and-prince-william-can-teach-us-about-remote-oral-arguments

All the best,
Rowena Cherry 

SPACE SNARK™ http://www.spacesnark.com/ 

Willy Nilly and the Erosion of Privacy

Does personal privacy matter? Less so, it seems, in the age where a priority is put on the convenience of others and the profitability of "data", whether the subject of the eroded privacy likes it or not.

"Willy Nilly" harks back to the Old English for "will he" and "ne-will he", "ne" being the negative prefix which is not usually cited in online dictionaries. Most resources condense "ne-will" to "nill", but not all.

Millennials don't seem to mind.  Authors are accustomed to having to give up some privacy as a trade off for pursuing a career, and some authors use pen names... and sometimes, a pen name is not the guarantee of privacy that it used to be.

Perhaps, it is not a good thing for all those sites --that post disclaimers asking paid users to refrain from making employment, or housing, or lending, or other important decisions about the person whose alleged info they are selling online-- to be allowed to monetize private information.  They don't always get it right.  Even if they did get everything right, that information tends to deny persons a fair chance or a second chance.

It is divisive.

Ironically, to read a Loeb and Loeb legal blog article about privacy, you have to accept cookies.
https://www.loeb.com/en/insights/publications/2020/02/new-uspto-rule-makes-trademark-owner-email-and-mailing

Lexology link.

Loeb and Loeb LLP legal bloggers Melanie Howard, David W. Grace and Ashley Van Leer explain for the benefit of trademark owners how new USPTO rules make trademark owners' street addresses and email addresses available to the public. Authors cannot hide behind their intellectual properties attorney any more.

That is lovely for the "Person-Locator-type" internet businesses that sell personal information, and also for scammers, robocallers, spear phishers, and other common varieties of spammers... and advertisers and marketers.

By the way, on the subject of government helpfulness.... the Copyright Office will be raising many fees as of March 20th, 2020. (Not for photographers.)
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-02-19/pdf/2020-03268.pdf

Reverting to advertising and targeting, and the annoying loss of privacy, the Charles Russell Speechlys LLP  UK focused legal blog has some must-read insights into data driven online targeting.

Lexology link.

Original:
https://www.charlesrussellspeechlys.com/en/news-and-insights/insights/commercial/2020/2020-update-data-driven-online-targeting/

Legal blogger Olivia Crane does a deep dive into what data-driven online targeted advertising means, especially for Britons. This author sympathizes with Olivia Crane's unpleasant experience with shower curtains.

I had a similar experience recently with a synthetic planking product that popped up and virtually stalked me wherever I went (online).  This was after I made a purchase which I regret to this day... so where was the commercial sense in metaphorically bludgeoning me with a Lumber product?

It seems to me, the sensible advertisement targeters might be using "targeting" in much the same way as click-fraud.  "This woman recently bought a new roof for her house (usually a 15 - 30 year warrantied purchase), let's sell her name to roofers, so they can try --in vain-- to sell her a new roof!"

Most authors use Facebook, too.  The Socially Aware legal blog asks, "Are your facebook posts discoverable?"  Of course they are!
https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/2020/02/24/are-your-facebook-posts-discoverable-application-of-the-forman-test-in-new-york/#page=1

Lexology.

J. Alexander Lawrence and Lily Smith for Morrison Foerster LLP give chapter and verse on how far your privacy can be eroded and information you shared semi-privately on Facebook can be exploited and used against you in a court of law.

So, if you are ever going to sign a lease to rent a home that says "No cats", and having an illicit cat is grounds for eviction, do not post photos of your beloved cat on your Facebook page with distinctive features of said rental house in the background... for example.

Finally, for readers who love fine art, your ability to acquire anonymously is receeding, as Andrea N. Perez, writing for Carrington Coleman explains.
https://www.ccsb.com/our-firm/publish/loss-of-privacy-rights-when-purchasing-art/

Lexology.

Art lovers are presumed to be terrorists and/or money launderers until they prove otherwise according to the EU's Fifth Directive.

What an excellent book title "The Fifth Directive" would be!

All the best,

Rowena Cherry 

SPACE SNARK™ http://www.spacesnark.com/ 

Heinous Hacks

There are certain times of day, and certain light conditions under which persons of a certain age with either glaucoma or cataracts or epilepsy or "flicker vertigo" should not drive a vehicle.

Here are some interesting online discussions:

http://www.roadsafetyknowledgecentre.org.uk/help-forum/889.html
https://vestibular.org/news/11-21-2013/lighting-flicker-health-concerns

When we think of fictional villains plotting to reduce a population, their methods for "thinning the herd" aren't particularly designed to eliminate the sickliest and the weakest. (Generalization, no doubt.)  Sacha Baron Cohen made a film, The Brothers Grimsby, in which the super villain hoped to infect soccer fans at the World Cup with a virus. One might infer that soccer fans were thought by the super villain to be intellectually and socially inferior.

More usually, bombs, plagues, viruses and illnesses are targeted at densely populated locations, or in the case of one Mission Impossible movie, at the source or headwater (or glacier) of a river or two.

It would surely be too far fetched for someone in power to develop something as commonplace as type of planet-saving lightbulb, mandate that everyone exchanged their old lightbulbs for this new, green type, and be aware that the bulbs could trigger life-threatening seizures and devastating migraines in susceptible members of society.

For Akerman LLP, legal health bloggers Robert E. Slavkin and Beth Alcalde discuss a particularly malevolent hack that apparently seeks to cause physical harm to a "curated" audience.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=cf8a7b58-9bf3-4582-91ad-dce7a01157a8

Original
https://www.healthlawrx.com/2019/12/hackers-raise-the-stakes-by-possibly-causing-physical-harm/#page=1

Back in 2015, Michael Cohen revealed that hackers can take control of a car.
https://eccitsolutions.com/how-hackers-can-take-over-your-car-while-youre-driving/

Meanwhile, and less malevolently, there are concerns about how much your connected car might be spying on you.

Kathryn M. Rattigan,  writing for Robinson & Cole LLP's Data Privacy + Security Insider asks
How much is your car spying on you?
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f104a18b-19af-4c69-a63b-3f1b0194aef8

Original
https://www.dataprivacyandsecurityinsider.com/2019/12/how-much-is-your-car-spying-on-you-washington-post-hacked-a-chevy-volt-to-find-out/#page=1

Presumably, it is only a matter of time before an innocent purchaser of an "unwiped" second hand vehicle, or a subsequent lessee of a rental vehicle could be caught up in a previous driver's web of international intrigue and nefarious texting acquaintances. What a good story line!

For those who are freaked out by the loss of privacy,
Jennifer Pike of Thompson Coburn LLP recommends 10 cybersecurity tips for travelers.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=e0e14ded-6601-4507-a8fa-3d52ffc9d396

Original link
https://www.thompsoncoburn.com/insights/blogs/health-law-checkup/post/2019-12-16/10-cybersecurity-tips-for-a-safe-holiday-season#page=1

Maybe the smartest notion is an old fashioned one: don't use your phone while driving.

All the best,

Rowena Cherry

Like This

My heading needs punctuation, but whether it should be an exclamation mark, a question mark, a full stop, or ellipses... I leave it to the editor in your head.

Legal bloggers Madara Me Ika and Ieva Andersone for Sorainen discuss the pros and cons of having a Facebook Like button on European websites.

Original article
https://www.sorainen.com/publications/what-to-consider-when-embedding-an-fb-like-button-on-your-website/

Lexology article
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=68692895-6017-4083-9b9e-a6d9d1a84bf1&utm_source=lexology+daily+newsfeed&utm_medium=html+email+-+body+-+general+section&utm_campaign=lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=lexology+daily+newsfeed+2019-08-13&utm_term

Most website owners know (or should know) that when the embed a "Like" button on their site, they are responsible for transmitting their visitors' data to Facebook without their visitors' knowledge or consent. In the case of Europe and the legal case under discussion:

".... every visitor’s personal data is transmitted to Facebook Ireland. Indeed, it is important to note that the data of every visitor, without their knowing it, and whether or not they have their own profile on the Facebook social network and whether or not they click on the “Like” button, were transmitted to Facebook Ireland."

As the bloggers explain, Facebook defends itself by pointing the finger, and saying the legal equivalent of, "they're doing it, too!"

Check out the Sorainen links to find out whose buttons may be just as dodgy.

Could you, as a website owner, be sued for force-feeding cookies to your visitors? Legal blogger  Christian M. Auty, for Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP gives a surprising answer for website owners with a European presence.

Original
https://www.bclplaw.com/en-GB/thought-leadership/gdpr-privacy-faqs-is-there-a-private-right-of-action-for-failing.html.

Lexology version
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d7cdd227-8c3f-4e66-9218-e5414388a821&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2019-08-13&utm_term=

Of course, you have to be a big-enough fish, or it's not worth it.

For readers who would like to know more about shadow profiles (profiles on people who have neither joined nor consented nor agreed to the TOU or TOS of a site, but have nevertheless been "collected" and potentially monetized), read here or here or here.

Warning: click those there (or "here") links, and you will be showered with cookies.

Author Martin Hendry, blogging on behalf of  boutique intellectual property solicitors Virtuoso Legal shares his top ten Intellectual Property Infringement surprises from July.

Original
https://www.virtuosolegal.com/ip-top-10-july-dark-horse/

Lexology version
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=cd32a7eb-edae-4c13-8308-f3317ce1e096&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2019-08-13&utm_term=

My favorite of the surprises was the result of the model vs the paparazzo case. What's yours?

All the best,
Rowena Cherry

Other People's Medical Misfortunes

Just because Amazon has made a movie --about the infamous tossing (out of a car window) of  a severed male member-- does not mean that any writer can write about such an event. That particular event preceded HIPAA (medical privacy law), and movie rights were probably bought and sold.

Legal blogger Kristin Starnes Grey, writing for Ford & Harrison LLP  discusses the pre-HIPAA case on the HR Entertainment Blog and offers wise advice when one is tempted to write about another person's medical misfortunes.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5708cabe-d129-44e1-b3bb-f6f62f3ebd6b&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2019-05-10&utm_term=

or here:
https://hrdailyadvisor.blr.com/2019/05/08/lorena-john-bobbitt-and-the-hipaa-privacy-rule/#page=1

On the other hand, apparently, HIPAA does not protect medical information revealed by some of those for-entertainment-only "fitness" tracker apps. The proprietors of those apps, especially if you allow "sharing" with your Facebook "friends", are lawfully allowed to sell any information you provide to Facebook.

I doubt that Facebook is much interested in whether you drink zero or 8 glasses of water. I can't help wondering if those treacherous little trackers can tell whether, and for how long, you --if you are male-- shake hands with the otherwise unemployed in a North-North-Westerly elevation with a 6" range of motion.

Maybe you should take your Fitbit off sometimes?

Given that some European country is talking about making it illegal for parents to bring up their children Vegan, maybe one should think twice about the dietary information one fills in and shares.

Legal blogger Sara H. Jodka for the law firm Dickinson Wright discusses the finer points of Medical Privacy and HIPAA, and advises app users to beware.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a2556e9b-2a29-4b8a-8178-b57b4d921011&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2019-05-10&utm_term=

or here:
https://www.dickinson-wright.com/news-alerts/app-users-beware

To make what I hope is fair use of one tiny weeny tip in that very useful blog, read that HIPAA form that the receptionist asks you to sign.  Cross out any wording in the fine print where you give the doctor permission to share your ultra super secret private medical information over any unsecure method (email perhaps?) that the doctor and his staff deem convenient.

You know that certain free mail providers read your e/f/g/ymail and track your purchases, if you have receipts emailed to your email account?

Finally, and perhaps not medical-misfortune-related, Microsoft has a new and thoroughly helpful process to discourage the politically incorrect writer from articulating, or even thinking inappropriate thoughts.

https://prepforthat.com/microsoft-word-to-use-ai-to-monitor-for-political-correctness-infractions/

Presumably, for now, this technology is optional.

All the best,

Rowena Cherry
SPACE SNARK™ http://www.spacesnark.com/ 

Your Privacy

Your privacy is my problem. It is your problem.

Disclaimer: the authors who share this blog do not knowingly or intentionally exploit other peoples' data. We do not accept paid advertisements. We do not try to track visitors. However, our host does so. From time to time, we warn you about that.

Our host reminds us (the bloggers):

"European Union laws require you to give European Union visitors information about cookies used and data collected on your blog. In many cases, these laws also require you to obtain consent.

As a courtesy, we have added a notice on your blog to explain Google's use of certain Blogger and Google cookies, including use of Google Analytics and AdSense cookies, and other data collected by Google.

You are responsible for confirming this notice actually works for your blog, and that it displays. If you employ other cookies, for example by adding third party features, this notice may not work for you. If you include functionality from other providers there may be extra information collected from your users."

If you, dear readers, have the ability to go right now to check which "cookies" have dropped onto your device like deer ticks, you may see links to the participating authors' websites, and a whole raft of google urls. Clear them often. No one who monetizes "tracking" takes any notice of "Do Not Track" requests.

David Ruiz, blogging for Malwarebytes offers some helpful insights into data privacy and cybersecurity.
https://blog.malwarebytes.com/security-world/2019/03/not-definitive-guide-cybersecurity-data-privacy-laws/?utm_source=double-opt-in&utm_medium=email-internal-b2c&utm_campaign=EM-B2C-2019-March2-newsletter&utm_content=laws

It's instructive reading, especially the part about the GDPR, and tracking, and collecting, and storing, using and sharing visitors' data.  Ruiz also points out what this author sees as an extraordinary loophole in Californian privacy laws. It's a "data breach" if a rogue actor actually downloads your data. If he just looks at it (presumably even if he looks at it and deploys pen and paper), it is not a data "breach". With a breach, the victim must be told, and offered a lifelock-like service for a year. If the rogue took a look, not so much.

And then, there's Spokeo.com

In 2017, this author thought that she had successfully opted out of having her information monetized by Spokeo on Spokeo.  Then, she read "Spokeo Update..."

Legal bloggers Scott Kelly, David N. Anthony, and  Timothy "Tim" J, St.George blogging for the law firm Troutman Sanders LLP share insights into the Fair Credit Reporting Act lawsuit that Spokeo almost three years after  the Supreme Court ruled that an individual who suffers no provable financial injury, but whose financial privacy was invaded... may sue.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6b3a05ad-3815-4cf8-8a89-0b3009100810&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2019-03-20&utm_term=

Or the original
https://www.consumerfinancialserviceslawmonitor.com/2019/03/spokeo-update-parties-settle-long-running-fcra-dispute/#page=1

Is Spokeo selling guesstimates of your credit score? You should look into it. Even if they have a disclaimer that states that one may not use the information that they sell in order to decide if one wants to employ/lend to/rent to... or otherwise make a business decision about the subject of one's Spokeo search, a skeptic would wonder why anyone would pay $39 or whatever to discover information one will not --on one's honor-- use.

For the next three years, it ought to be relatively easy to opt out, if you do not want to be monetized on Spokeo "so lost relatives and friends can find you".

Another reason to opt out is that Spokeo may reveal --free, to all-- the names of your aunts, uncles, cousins, parents, grandparents, children, siblings.  Never chose family members' names as any of the answers to those double and triple verification questions that financial institutions may think are only known to the real you.

Happy hunting.

All the best,
Rowena Cherry

Trojan Horses For Kids, Rampant Scraping

Authors are warned not to "scrape" social media sites for the email addresses of potential readers. Since the GDPR, (Europe's General Data Protection Regulation) we are admonished to double-verify that a person affirmatively and enthusiastically wishes to receive an author's newsletter.

There are also strict rules about authors' contests.  All wise authors considering a promotion to build up a mailing list, or to attract social media approbation ("Likes"), should read this article.
https://www.frostbrowntodd.com/resources-1069.html

In nutshell, it might be illegal in your State, province or neck of the woods to run a "contest" where there is
1) a prize,
2) an element of chance in selecting the recipient of the prize,
3) a requirement that all contestants provide something of value to the contest organizer as a condition of entry.

This author has never yet seen another author sued for running an illegal sweepstakes where the prize is a free copy of an e-book, no skill is required to enter, and a chance to win the e-book is entirely conditional upon joining a Facebook group (or the like).

As for those Trojan Horses filled with geek warriors aiming to get the goods on little kids, PJ Media columnist Phil Baker shares some shocking data about forced scraping, dossiers, and data-mining.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/google-is-developing-dossiers-on-students-using-their-products-in-classrooms-disclosures-show/?fbclid=IwAR2l5F4eIr_UfNRasqBVXDzMWUv1uR0NfLFqYSkaue-6GTjPPsVxkPvcD8I

Allegedly, all too many schools force K-12 children to use certain products that are deliberately contaminated with the vendor/developer's spyware. The children and their parents have no choice, either they accept the devices and the risk to their children's privacy, or they have to home school.

Also allegedly, school employees in Pennsylvania have been given permission to remotely access school computers that have been provided to children... when those computers are being used in the students' homes, without the knowledge or consent of the children or their parents.

Maybe every parent should stick an address label over the camera hole in their offspring's school-issued
devices!

Scraping children is especially bad, because many of the credit monitoring products are not available for youngsters.

Targeting advertising at little children is also, in this author's opinion, immoral because children's brains and powers of critical reasoning are not fully developed, and won't be until the children are about 26 years old.

What about businesses scraping other businesses' data? Is that theft or fair game?  Without addressing the rights of a minor public figure who might wish to have a presence on book-lovers social media site X, but not on advertising-heavy social media site Y (and yet Site Y might create a presence for the public figure without permission), there have been legal skirmishes between businesses fighting over each other's inventory of members and their basic data.

Legal blogger Scott L. Satkin, writing for the law firm Newmeyer and Dillion LLP  discusses what, if anything, counts as "unauthorized access" to "publicly available" data.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5e951f2d-55c7-42a3-a539-fbe88165ea5a&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2018-12-06&utm_term=

It is interesting to consider what, if any, rights a person or business that has collected "data" on members (or subscribers or users) might have over that data if that data is visible on the internet

Scott L Satkin and the lawsuits he discusses are about social media businesses and their subscribers. Authors seeking to build up a following might join a more successful author's social media group, and scrape the contact info and demographics of reader-members.

Scraping is rampant. Is it expected?

The authors of  this blog do not (to the best of this author's knowledge) collect or save or otherwise exploit any information about any readers or visitors. From time to time, we do warn visitors that our host (Blogger) does place tracking cookies on visitors' devices.

All the best,

Rowena Cherry

Is The DOJ Watching Facebook Advertisements?

"Targeted" advertising is probably efficient and convenient.  If you don't think that it is worth paying for puce eyeballs to view your book advertisement (because you assume that people with puce eyeballs will never buy your book, anyway), Facebook allows you to make fairly sure that puce eyeballs don't see your ad.

Leave aside the moral hazard, and the possibility that you are setting up a self-fulfilling prophecy. There is probably no "Title" in American law that obliges a Romance author to pay a social media site to show book advertisements to persons not interested in reading/fiction/women's fiction.

On the other hand, if you are a homeowner or landlord and your advertisement is intended to find a tenant or a buyer, you need to be careful about the demographic choices by race/gender/zip code/nationality etc that you can make on Facebook.

Legal bloggers A. Michelle Canter,  Heather Howell Wright  and Christopher K. Friedman  discuss the issue of discrimination in advertising on Facebook for the law firm Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

HUD and DOJ Challenge Facebook's Advertising Platforms Under The Fair Housing Act.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=7ddea6b2-740b-488c-885a-afe42fa274dd

It's a fascinating insight, that points out that data-driven, targeted marketing might create new avenues for liability, both for the platforms, and possibly for those who use the bells and whistles that the platform provides.

It is also astounding how much information "the Internet" has on myriad individuals. The privacy enthusiasts at EFF are raising the alarm about warrantless surveillance of utilities company customers (electric, gas) through the use of "smart meters" that have been forcibly installed across the USA. Allegedly, law enforcement has started to ask the utilities companies for access to the data.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/08/win-landmark-seventh-circuit-decision-says-fourth-amendment-applies-smart-meter

Allegedly, as often as every five minutes, 24/7, a smart meter on your home may be transmitting information about what you are doing inside your home (as long as you are using either gas or electricity to do whatever it is you are doing.)

1984 indeed.  Perhaps this might lead to prosecutions of persons using their irrigation system under cover of darkness during watering bans! These rfi emitting devices may be hazardous to health (but there is a device you can purchase from Amazon to interfere with the rfi. )

For more info on smart meters:
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/08/05/smart-meter-dangers.aspx
 

https://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/harvard-medical-doctor-warns-against-smart-meters/

http://emfsafetynetwork.org/smart-meters/

Back to Facebook, blogger Stefan Herwig discusses "Networked Propaganda" and copyright issues in a thought provoking article.

https://thetrichordist.com/2018/09/09/networked-propaganda-guest-post-by-stefan-herwig/

Apparently, with Facebook, a user does not have to make choices about what he/she sees.  Facebook, allegedly, takes it upon itself to ensure that users see views that reinforce and encourage and validate their views beliefs and biases that are already held by the user.

For those who wish to advertise to like minded readers, here are some very helpful resources:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3hIafdFCmM&feature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiH-hfhonDo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR6ATUw0BIU

Especially for our European readers, please be advised that this blog contains an eclectic selection of links, almost all of which may come with assorted "cookies", whether you click on them or not. Enjoy!

(Or clear your history and your cache!)

All the best,
Rowena Cherry

Privacy Lost

John Milton wrote "Paradise Lost". This is about "Privacy Lost".

Almost nothing is private these days. Apparently, the legal standard for invasion of privacy is that a reasonable, modern person viewing ...whatever it is that is revealed about you without your consent... would be shocked and highly offended. Standards are gutter level, these days.

Moreover, there are internet sites that reveal (usually for a fee) a great deal of information about your full names, aliases, address(es), birth date, friends, business, education, employment, criminal record (whether you have one or not), so it is not easy to prevail in a complaint against an individual who doxxes you, since you cannot stop Spokeo.

Authors who write under pen names should take note. 

Legal blogger Tammy Winkler writing for the law firm Faruki Ireland Cox Rhinehart & Dusing PLL explains in "Snoops On A Plane: Looking For Privacy In All The Wrong Places"  how little an expectation of privacy the unwilling subject of someone else's photograph has --or should have-- when travelling. Even one's trip to the loo is fair game for comment and speculation in the Twittersphere!

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a2a6a8a1-2765-4fb5-83bc-e9f356e59241&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2018-08-30&utm_term=

Notice the neat riff on a movie about legless members of the squamata order of reptiles and also on a lovelorn country song by Johnny Lee.

Talking of planes, airplane mode on your smartphone is no protection of your privacy. According to a Tucker Carlson analysis (use Bing and search for "Tech Tyranny" and August 31st), your phone may be tracking you, whether it is on or off, regardless of the mode, and as soon as it is connected to the internet, it will send all your movements, locations and even biometric data (whether you are riding, driving, walking, sitting etc) back to its mothership, logged to the millisecond.  Even if you visit a hospital, a church, a private school...you are snooped upon.

And do you know who founded 23andMe?  Perhaps big brother has our spit, too!

Authors might do well to think of other people's privacy, too.  Emily R. Lowe and Susan Milyavsky, blogging for the law firm Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP discusses much-overlooked website Terms of Use.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a06a2a60-acd9-459c-9886-4c219abfa55a&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2018-08-30&utm_term=

Authors and other website owners who are still using this boilerplate:

 We may, at any time and without notice, modify these Terms of Use by revising them on the Site. Your continued use of the Site constitutes your acceptance of any such revisions. You should periodically visit this page to review the current Terms of Use.

....  should consider adopting the wording suggested in the Morgan Lewis article.

To end on a positive note, the internet can cut both ways. The Trichordist exposes the fact that, while a well organized corps of internet savvy individuals can vote with the voices of millions (and across borders, too), their smoke and mirrors don't necessarily translate into a good turn-out for in-person demostrations.

https://thetrichordist.com/2018/08/28/dismal-turnout-for-anti-copyright-directive-protests-in-eu-suggests-little-real-opposition/

Happy Labor Day holiday!

All the best,
Rowena Cherry