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
Posts
