Showing posts with label biometric privacy violations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label biometric privacy violations. Show all posts

Sunday, August 02, 2020

Privacy Con

Whether "Con" is short-speak for "convention" or "confidence (not)", tricks with regard to ones identity, privacy, copyrights, and biometric data abound. Privacy cons are this week's theme.

Sharing Key Takeaways from the FTC's PrivacyCon, legal bloggers Lauren Kitces,  Marisol Mork,  Kristin Bryan, and  Dylan J. Yepez for Squire Patton Boggs, report on the five important privacy topics discussed at the fifth such annual event.

The six topics were Artificial Intelligence, Health Apps, Internet-of-Things, Privacy and Security related to virtual assistants and digital cameras, International privacy, and miscellaneous privacy and security issues. The Key Takeaways are an excellent summary.

Original Link:
https://www.securityprivacybytes.com/2020/07/key-takeaways-from-the-ftcs-privacycon/#page=1

Lexology Link:
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=776efd4d-2207-49dd-b38b-09ee817a1a12

As regards Health Apps, it is important to read up on recent news from FitBit, and to have confidence that FitBit promises that the acquiring advertisement company will respect users' medical privacy and will not use FitBit users' health and wellness data for one brand of advertising.

Chaim Gartenberg reports for The Verge:
https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/1/20943318/google-fitbit-acquisition-fitness-tracker-announcement

The Trichordist writes at length about the Internet-of-Things, wittily terming it the Internet of other people's Things, because of the massive amount of copyright infringement online.

This link is to Part 4 of a multi-series set of articles based on the amici curiae SCOTUS filing in what the authors claim might be the most important copyright case of the decade, because it might set fair use standards for years to come: 
https://thetrichordist.com/2020/07/30/there-are-untold-riches-in-running-the-internet-of-other-peoples-things-supreme-court-brief-of-davidclowery-helienne-theblakemorgan-and-sgawrites-in-google-v-oracle-part-4/

While on the topic of copyright, Chris Castle explains that copyright infringement lowers "the customary price", or what consumers would pay to read the book or dance to the music if not for its availability free on the copyright infringing sites.

If you use TIKTOK, do you know that they are allegedly a pirate site and allegedly don't pay for the music?
https://musictechpolicy.com/2020/08/01/when-pigs-fly-the-tiktok-fire-sale-belly-flop/

One wonders, does Apple know?  Tiktok icons pop up in the app store. It would be good to have the Supreme Court rule on what is fair use and what is not!

Returning to the legal blogs, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP takes a look at Facebook and its use and possible abuse of biometric identifiers.

Lexology link:
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=3b349823-41a3-4852-b115-8e8d8a7e0196

Original link:
https://www.huntonprivacyblog.com/2020/07/29/texas-ag-investigates-facebooks-use-of-biometric-identifiers/#page=1

One should be wary about giving consent when banks and brokerage houses try to bully one (usually via the artificially intelligent receptionist before one gets through to a real banker or broker) into agreeing to have ones voice recorded to use as identification for the future. It's becoming increasingly tricky to have confidence that ones voice isn't recorded and used for that purpose regardless of ones wishes.

What happens if one catches cold? Would ones voice pass muster? What if one of the places storing ones voice were to be hacked. If it is already unwise to say, "Yes" to any stranger on the telephone, how much more dangerous to ones privacy and ones property would it be if biometric data is widely used for identification and security?!

Finally, for Baker and Hostetler LLP, legal bloggers Linda A. Goldstein and Amy Ralph Mudge discuss a social media bot dossier. Allegedly, this is about a company called Devumi, that was accused of selling the appearance of thousands of fake social media fans to boost the reputations and egos of persons wishing to appear influential or popular, especially on LinkedIn, Twitter, and YouTube.

Original link:
https://e.bakerlaw.com/rv/ff00664060d9cac92f4e13993c479c667c08f540/p=8416417

Lexology link:
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=43f3ee0e-0148-49b2-a69e-f651527d6e2f


Back in 2018, Jesse M. Brody of Manatt Phelps and Phillips wrote about fake social media follower bots, apparently belonging to the same company, and presumably how these false friends con advertisers.

Sunday, September 08, 2019

Transformative? Permissionless Use Of Distinctive Body Parts, And Other Images

Cover art issues affect authors. We can learn from the woes of other artists.

For instance, there is the case against a mix tape recording artist who appears to have borrowed part of the  distinctively decorated, largest organ on a man's body in such a way as to suggest (at least to the man in question's friends and family) that the man was intimate with her.

Beware of using other people's tattoos in cover art!

Link to Hollywood reporter article by Eriq Gardner:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/cardi-b-face-lawsuit-distinctive-tattoo-album-cover-1234057

Link to Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz original article, penned by legal blogger Brian Murphy:
https://advertisinglaw.fkks.com/post/102fpy6/the-man-with-the-tiger-and-snake-tattoo-redux

Link to Lexology article:
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5c9c232c-38f5-4c27-a19f-b779c6e3d304&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2019-08-30&utm_term=
 
The lady's lawyers claim that her use of his tattooed back skin was transformative, because she only used
part of it, and put it between her legs. The kicker --for her-- is that a "Transformative Use" defense is only useful if defending against a claim of copyright infringement.

Please read the articles to see what *is* being litigated.

And then, there is the case of the digitally altered woodpecker... in which a woodpecker was digitally placed in a digitally darkened and deepened hole where no actual woodpecker had gone before.

The complaint was that this was a derogatory display of fake news, designed to call attention to a competitor's product's shortcomings, as Jeff Greenbaum, blogging about Advertising Law for the law firm Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz (again!) explains.

However, the woodpecker does not have standing to sue for being shown in a false light. To see the offending woodpecker, check here: 
https://advertisinglaw.fkks.com/post/102fpy4/planning-to-use-digitally-altered-photos-of-your-competitors-product-in-your-adv

Lexology version:
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=af5b35d9-8d37-424f-a496-e4655a3b287e&utm_source=lexology+daily+newsfeed&utm_medium

Authors are more likely to make "Transformative?" use of a meme, than of a rival author's cover art, but --word to the wise-- the rules for exploiting memes are a-changing.

Legal blogger Aaron P. Rubin, writing  for Morrison and Foerster LLP's Socially Aware blog (about the law and business of Social Media) explains about the different layers of liability, and the importance of a platform's Terms Of Use to would-be exploiters of other people's memes, created from yet other people's copyrighted film stills or photographs.

Original link:
https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/2019/08/20/the-meme-generation-social-media-platforms-address-content-curation/#page=1

Lexology link:
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ceab05f6-7bbf-4bf4-aae4-6b78dd267f49&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2019-08-22&utm_term=

Finally, for today, authors and their friends in particular should be aware of their biometric privacy rights.
Legal bloggers Dotan Hammer and Haim Ravia, writing for the lawfirm Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer Baratz cover the case against Facebook's photo tag suggestion tool.

Original article:
https://pearlcohen.com/news/2019/09/01/ninth-circuit-certifies-privacy-class-action-against-faceboo/

Lexology article:
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=e387c728-2994-4597-9b03-dcde8294484f&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2019-09-05&utm_term=
 
Might you be part of the class and not know it?  Being tagged is annoying enough without Facebook tools suggesting that one should be tagged based on robo-face-recognition.

All the best,

Rowena Cherry