Ever see those creditreport advertisements, the ones for freecreditreports.com (which aren’t free by the way)? According to the guy in the ad, everybody should know their credit score. And not only do you have a credit score, but you also might have a terrorist risk score. This score, called the Automated Targeting System (ATS), measures how likely you are to be a terrorist. From the AP:
Recently, in Barrett v. Rosenthal, the California Supreme Court held, similar to most courts addressing the issue, that bloggers are immune from being sued for “distributor” liability under defamation law. Under defamation law, the original speaker of a defamatory statement (a false statement that harms a person’s reputation) is liable. A “distributor,” one who further disseminates a falsehood spoken by another and who “knows or should have known” about the defamatory nature of a statement, is also liable. A federal law, 47 U.S.C. § 230, however, provides: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” Most courts have interpreted § 230 to immunize the operators of websites or blogs against distributor liability for comments posted by others.
Over at the Chicago Law Faculty Blog, Brian Leiter has a post discussing Judge Richard Posner’s legal pragmatism. He writes:
The NY Times has an interesting article about defamation law involving a lawsuit by a judge against a newspaper for libel. The article noted some interesting facts about the nature and cost of defamation litigation:
In Anderson v. Blake (10th Cir. Nov. 14, 2006), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit decided a case involving a rather egregious violation of a person’s constitutional right to information privacy. A victim was raped while unconscious, and she subsequently found a video of her rape. She reported the rape to the police and gave them the video. The police officer promised her that the video would remain confidential, but the officer later disclosed the video to a television station, which aired the video but at least concealed the victim’s identity.
For quite some time, banks and financial institutions have been using people’s Social Security Numbers (SSNs) to verify their identities. Suppose you want to access your bank account to check your balance, change addresses, or close out the account. You call the bank, but how does the bank know it’s really you? For a while, banks were asking you for your SSN. Your SSN was used akin to a password. If you knew this “secret” number, then it must be you. Of course, as I have written about at length, a SSN is one of the dumbest choices for a password. Not only is it a password that can readily be found out, but it is a password that’s very hard to change. Not a wise combination. People’s SSNs are widely available, and the data security breaches in the past two years exacerbated the exposure. A lot of legislative attention has focused on the leakers of the data, and rightly so, but not enough attention has been focused on the businesses that use people’s SSNs as passwords. If SSNs weren’t used in this way, leaking them wouldn’t cause the harm it does.
Professor Neil Richards of Washington University Law School has posted on SSRN his recent essay, The Information Privacy Law Project, 94 Geo. L.J. 1087 (2006). He reviews my book, The Digital Person, and offers an interesting and insightful critique. Although he takes issue with some of my arguments and with the term “privacy,” I find his review to be mostly a friendly amendment rather than an attack. Here’s the abstract:
How does the United States rank among countries in privacy protection? Practically at the bottom according to a ranking by Privacy International, a UK-based privacy advocacy group. The ranking is based on Privacy and Human Rights, an annual report about privacy laws around the world published by Privacy International and the Electronic Privacy Information Center. Here’s the ratings table and here’s the briefing paper for the table. Unfortunately, every time I try to access the PDF file of the briefing paper that explains the rankings, it not only fails to load, but it also crashes my browser, whether Firefox or Explorer.
The press release for the rankings states:
The British Psychological Society reports the results of a new study on the effects of reading literature:
The New York Times reports:
In 41 states, people accused or convicted of crimes have the legal right to rewrite history. They can have their criminal records expunged, and in theory that means that all traces of their encounters with the justice system will disappear.
But enormous commercial databases are fast undoing the societal bargain of expungement, one that used to give people who had committed minor crimes a clean slate and a fresh start.
Most states seal at least some records of juvenile offenses. Many states also allow adults arrested for or convicted of minor crimes like possessing marijuana, shoplifting or disorderly conduct to ask a judge, sometimes after a certain amount of time has passed without further trouble, to expunge their records. If the judge agrees, the records are destroyed or sealed.
But real expungement is becoming significantly harder to accomplish in the electronic age. Records once held only in paper form by law enforcement agencies, courts and corrections departments are now routinely digitized and sold in bulk to the private sector. Some commercial databases now contain more than 100 million criminal records. They are updated only fitfully, and expunged records now often turn up in criminal background checks ordered by employers and landlords.