Privacy + Security News by Professor Daniel J. Solove

Follow Professor Solove on Social Media

@daniel-solove.bsky.social

Founder of TeachPrivacy

July 9, 2014

If you are interested in privacy and data security issues, there are many great ways Professor Solove can help you stay informed:

Professor Solove’s LinkedIn Influencer blog

You can follow Professor Solove on his blog at LinkedIn, where he is an “LinkedIn Influencer.” He blogs about various privacy and data security issues. His blog has more than 600,000 followers.

* * * *

Professor Solove’s Twitter Feed

Professor Solove is active on Twitter and posts links to current privacy and data security stories and new scholarship, cases, and developments of note.

* * * *

Professor Solove’s Newsletter

Sign up for our newsletter where Professor Solove provides information about his recent writings and new training programs that he has created.

* * * *

Professor Solove’s LinkedIn Discussion Groups

Please join one or more of Professor Solove’s LinkedIn discussion groups, where you can follow new developments on privacy, data security, HIPAA, and education privacy issues. You can also participate in the discussion, share interesting news and articles, ask questions, or start new conversations:

Privacy and Data Security	HIPAA Privacy and Security	Education Privacy and Data Security

Privacy and Data Security Violations: What’s the Harm?

Daniel Solove

@daniel-solove.bsky.social

Founder of TeachPrivacy

July 2, 2014

by Daniel J. Solove

“It’s just a flesh wound.”

– Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Suppose your personal data is lost, stolen, improperly disclosed, or improperly used. Are you harmed?

Suppose a company violates its privacy policy and improperly shares your data with another company. Does this cause a harm?

In most cases, courts say no. This is the case even when a company is acting negligently or recklessly. No harm, no foul.

Does the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision on the 4th Amendment and Cell Phones Signal Future Changes to the Third Party Doctrine?

Daniel Solove

@daniel-solove.bsky.social

Founder of TeachPrivacy

July 2, 2014

by Daniel J. Solove

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision on two cases involving the police searching cell phones incident to arrest. The Court held 9-0 in an opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts that the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant to search a cell phone even after a person is placed under arrest.

The two cases are Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie, and they are decided in the same opinion with the title Riley v. California. The Court must have chosen toname the case after Riley to make things hard for criminal procedure experts, as there is a famous Fourth Amendment case called Florida v. Riley, 488 U,S, 445 (1989), which will now create confusion whenever someone refers to the “Riley case.”

How the FTC Can Readily Halt Identity Theft

Daniel Solove

@daniel-solove.bsky.social

Founder of TeachPrivacy

June 16, 2014

by Daniel J. Solove

Identity theft is terrible crime, and it can wreak havoc on victims’ lives. In an identity theft, the thief uses a victim’s personal information to improperly access accounts, obtain credit in the victim’s name, or impersonate the victim for other purposes.

But there is an effective way to stop a lot of identity theft, and the legal framework is already in place to do it. In a relatively short time, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) could prevent a significant amount of identity theft – perhaps even a majority of it – and no new laws need to be passed.

I know that it might be hard to believe – as hard to believe as a suitcase filled with a million dollars just sitting abandoned on the sidewalk – but it is quite true.

Before I explain how, I need to provide some background.

Is the Right to Be Forgotten Good or Bad? This Is the Wrong Question

Daniel Solove

@daniel-solove.bsky.social

Founder of TeachPrivacy

May 29, 2014

by Daniel J. Solove

Is the right to be forgotten good or bad?

This is the question many are asking these days in light of the recent EU Court of Justice (ECJ) decision that requires search engines such as Google to remove personal data from search results when people request it. (For more background, I wrote about the ECJ decision last week.)

After the decision was released, critics attacked the right to be forgotten as impractical, undesirable, and antithetical to free speech.

What Google Must Forget: The EU Ruling on the Right to Be Forgotten

Daniel Solove

@daniel-solove.bsky.social

Founder of TeachPrivacy

May 20, 2014

by Daniel J. Solove

In a momentous decision, the EU Court of Justice has ruled in favor of a Spanish man who sought to have links to his personal data removed from Google search results. Under what has become known as the “right to be forgotten,” EU citizens have a right to the deletion of certain personal data under the EU Data Protection Directive.

The EU Court of Justice has concluded that “the operator of a search engine is obliged to remove from the list of results displayed following a search made on the basis of a person’s name links to web pages, published by third parties and containing information relating to that person, also in a case where that name or information is not erased beforehand or simultaneously from those web pages, and even, as the case may be, when its publication in itself on those pages is lawful.”

6 Lessons from the Costliest HIPAA Settlement to Date

Daniel Solove

@daniel-solove.bsky.social

Founder of TeachPrivacy

May 20, 2014

by Daniel J. Solove

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) recently announced the costliest HIPAA settlement to date — a $4.8 million settlement with New York and Presbyterian Hospital (NYP) and Columbia University (CU). The case involved the disclosure of protected health information on the Internet. Here are some lessons from this latest case:

Snapchat and FTC Privacy and Security Consent Orders

Daniel Solove

@daniel-solove.bsky.social

Founder of TeachPrivacy

May 19, 2014

by Daniel J. Solove

Co-authored by Woodrow Hartzog

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently entered into a consent order with the media service Snapchat for not living up to its promises about how it maintains the privacy and security of user’s data. The FTC order prohibits Snapchat from “misrepresenting the extent to which it maintains the privacy, security, or confidentiality of users’ information” and requires the company “to implement a comprehensive privacy program that will be monitored by an independent privacy professional for the next 20 years.”

PRIVACY + SECURITY BLOG

News, Developments, and Insights

Privacy and Data Security Violations: What’s the Harm?

Does the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision on the 4th Amendment and Cell Phones Signal Future Changes to the Third Party Doctrine?

Is the Right to Be Forgotten Good or Bad? This Is the Wrong Question

What Google Must Forget: The EU Ruling on the Right to Be Forgotten

6 Lessons from the Costliest HIPAA Settlement to Date

Snapchat and FTC Privacy and Security Consent Orders