Source: http://privacyandip.blogspot.com/2009/12/
Timestamp: 2017-12-18 01:03:43
Document Index: 564951070

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1117', '§ 3559', '§ 1107', '§ 1107', '§ 1107', '§ 9720', '§ 9720', '§ 4120', '§ 4120', '§ 4120', '§ 4120', '§ 4120', '§ 2713', '§ 4120', '§ 303', '§ 9701', '§ 303', '§ 1107', '§ 9721']

Privacy and IP Law Blog: December 2009
7/30/09 – Why You Should Read a Web Site's Terms of Service Before Posting copyright, privacy, terms of use policies
Posted by Christina D. Frangiosa at 12:52 PM No comments:
UPDATE: A more complete analysis of Mr. Schmidt's appointment, background and anticipated responsibilities was published in today's (12/23/09) Wall Street Journal: see Siobhan Gorman, “Cybersecurity Chief to Fill a Post Filled with Challenges,” The Wall Street Journal, Dec. 23, 2009 at A6.
Posted by Christina D. Frangiosa at 4:14 PM No comments:
Labels: cybersecurity, Dept of Homeland Security, government oversight, privacy
Posted by Christina D. Frangiosa at 10:26 AM No comments:
There are several legitimate uses of WHOIS data, among them the enforcement of intellectual property rights and criminal law enforcement. Accurate WHOIS information is necessary, for instance, to determine whom a trademark owner should contact if there are concerns about unfair competition or that the domain name may be infringing upon the holder’s existing rights. This information may also be used by law enforcement agencies to police instances of fraud, identity theft and other crimes. See e.g., Federal Trade Commission Press Release, FTC Calls for Openness, Accessibility in WHOIS Database System, Continues to Recommend Enactment of the US SAFE WEB ACT, Sept. 20, 2006 (prepared statement also available); Federal Trade Commission Press Release, Accuracy of "WHOIS" Internet Database Essential to Law Enforcement, FTC Tells Congress, May 22, 2002 (prepared statement also available). There may be other legitimate business reasons to use the WHOIS registration data to contact the owner of a particular domain.
In 2004, Congress enacted the Fraudulent Online Identity Sanctions Act, Pub. L. No. 108-482 (Dec. 23, 2004) (codified in scattered sections of Titles 15 and 18). The Act did not create an independent right of action, but it provided certain enhancements to existing civil and criminal causes of action: specifically, 1) it provided a rebuttable presumption of "willfulness" if a trademark infringement action is brought against a registrant who has supplied false registration information in connection with the domain name in question (15 U.S.C. § 1117); and 2) if the registrant had been convicted of a felony ("other than offense of which an element is the false registration of a domain name") in which the domain name at issue was registered and used in the course of committing the crime, the maximum penalty for the offense shall either be doubled or increased by 7 years, whichever is less. 18 U.S.C. § 3559. While this Act has apparently not had any wide-reaching impact, the mere fact that it was enacted demonstrates the value placed on the accuracy of this database.
Posted by Christina D. Frangiosa at 12:24 PM No comments:
Labels: cybersecurity, identity theft, privacy, trademarks, WHOIS Data
The Court’s notice provides more detail, and I encourage you to review it in its entirety. For more information about the amendments to the Federal Rules, see Notice To The Bar - Notice of Federal Rules Amendments, December 3, 2009, which also provides a link to the text of the new rules.
The Court also announced that effective December 1, 2009, attorneys wishing to register for the ECF system can no longer merely certify that they completed the online tutorial on the Court’s web site. Instead, they must attend “hands on” training held at the courthouse or in-house at a law firm. See Notice to The Bar - New CM/ECF Registration Requirements.
Posted by Christina D. Frangiosa at 12:44 PM No comments:
The Pennsylvania General Assembly recently amended its sentencing requirements to be imposed upon convicted identity thieves. On September 18, 2009, House Bill 222 was approved by Governor Rendell and became effective on November 17, 2009.
House Bill 222 amended the PA Crimes Code to mandate restitution by a convicted identity thief to “for all reasonable expenses incurred by the victim or on the victim’s behalf” to investigate the theft, bring civil and/or criminal actions in response, or to correct the victim’s credit record or negative credit reports. 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 1107.1(a). These expenses include: 1) attorneys’ and accountant’s fees for professional services; 2) fees or costs imposed by the credit bureaus to correct the credit reports, to undertake private investigations, or to contest “unwarranted debt collections;” and 3) court costs and filing fees. Id. § 1107.1(b).
This restitution sentence would be imposed in addition to any other restitution sentence or other order. See id. § 1107.1(a).
(Note that you can find the statutory sections cited above through West's Unofficial Purdon’s Pennsylvania Statutes – I tried linking each separate section, but the individual links would not work. You will have to navigate through West’s table of contents and expand the listings under Title 18 to find the relevant sections discussed here.)
Prior Version of Restitution Requirement
The prior version of this restitution requirement had been codified in 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 9720.1 and took effect July 21, 2000. Section 9720.1 has been repealed, now that the provisions have been moved to the Crimes Code.
Amendments Recently Enacted
Section 1107.1 provides several important amendments beyond the provisions previously codified in 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 9720.1. Specifically, the current provision permits an identity theft victim to recover professional fees charged by an accountant as well as any costs that they incurred in connection with disputing debt collections that were undertaken without justification.
Identity Theft in PA (Generally)
Identity theft is considered an “offense against property” in Pennsylvania. A person commits identity theft if “he possesses or uses, through any means, identifying information of another person without the consent of that other person to further any unlawful purpose.” 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 4120(a).
Identifying information includes “documents [separately defined], photographic, pictorial or computer image of another person, or any fact used to establish identity, including, but not limited to, a name, birth date, Social Security number, driver’s license number, nondriver governmental identification number, telephone number, checking account number, savings account number, student identification number, employee or payroll number or electronic signature.” Id. § 4120(f).
The term “document” is defined to include broadly “any writing,” with certain non-exclusive examples provided: “birth certificate, Social Security card, driver’s license, nondriver government-issued identification card, baptismal certificate, access device card, employee identification card, school identification card or other identifying information recorded by any other method, including, but not limited to, information stored on any computer, computer disc, computer printout, computer system, or part thereof, or by any other mechanical or electronic means.” Id.
The determination of the severity of the offense will vary, depending on the total dollar value involved, the number of times the offender has committed this offense in the past and the age of the victim. Specifically, the offense is deemed to be a misdemeanor of the first degree if the total value involved is less than $2,000. Id. § 4120(c)(1)(i). The offense will be upgraded to a felony (of the third degree) when the amount exceeds $2,000 or when the offense is committed “in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy.” Id. § 4120(c)(1)(ii) and (iii). The degree is further upgraded for recidivists – for third or subsequent offenses, the offense is deemed to be a felony of the second degree. Id. § 4120(c)(1)(iv).
Finally, if the offense is committed against a person “60 years of age or older” or against a person who is “care-dependent” under 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 2713, the severity of the offense will be upgraded a degree. Id. § 4120(c)(2).
As a result, the severity of the offense can range from misdemeanor of the first degree through a felony in the first degree. 204 Pa. Code § 303.15. Under Pennsylvania law, the actual penalties imposed for these offenses will be established by reference to the Sentencing Code (42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 9701 et seq.) and Sentencing Guidelines (204 Pa. Code §§ 303.1 – 303.18), but can include imprisonment of varying terms in addition to the restitution required by 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 1107.1 and 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 9721(c).
Resources to Combat Identity Theft
If you need further information about identity theft, there are numerous resources you can use. For instance:
Government & Consumer Advocate Links
* Better Business Bureau’s Information for Consumers about Identity Theft
* Credit Reporting Companies: Equifax, Experian, and Transunion.
* Federal Trade Commission’s Identity Theft Site
* Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett’s Identity Theft Toolkit
* Pennsylvania State Police – Identity Theft Prevention Guidelines (PDF document)
* US Postal Service – Report ID Theft by Mail
Commercial Providers or Evaluation Tools
* IDTheft.com – has some information about police reports and dealing with governmental agencies to start correcting their records.
* Comparison of the “Top 5” Identity Theft Protection Companies on the market
* Identity Theft Labs – also provides a comparison of the most popular ID Theft Protection sites
* Identity Theft Protection and Survival – offers books and other educational materials for sale
This is a non-exhaustive list, but should get you started. In addition to these resources, you may also want to consider checking resources offered by your bank, credit union or credit card companies; many of them offer tools to assist you in avoiding or recovering from identity theft.
(Please note that I have not thoroughly researched companies providing ID theft protection services – so what appears above are suggestions only of some of the third-parties that provide these services. Their listing here should not be taken to be an endorsement or any other support for the products or services that they offer.)
Posted by Christina D. Frangiosa at 12:54 PM No comments:
Labels: Enacted legislation, identity theft, privacy, social security numbers
On November 13, 2009, the parties to the Author’s Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc. lawsuit submitted a revised settlement agreement, for which it sought court approval. Prior posts about the lawsuit and its implications can be found here.
The revised settlement agreement is 171 pages (the original agreement was a mere 134 pages) – so it will take some time before all of the pivotal terms and conditions are understood and vetted by the media, government agencies and the public. I have only briefly scanned the revised agreement, and may decide at a later date to enhance my own written analysis of its implications as I become more familiar with its terms.
In the meantime, here are some provisions of interest of the revised Agreement for your preliminary consideration:
* Google will pay “a minimum of $45 million into the Settlement Fund to pay Settlement Class members whose Books and Inserts have been Digitized prior to the May 5, 2009.” Agreement ¶ 2.1(b).
* Anyone who wishes to receive a cash payment under the revised settlement agreement must file their claim form by March 31, 2011.
* Plaintiffs’ attorneys can receive up to $30 million in fees after the effective date of the Agreement (assuming that it obtains final approval by the Court). Agreement ¶ 5.5.
* The Agreement proposes to distribute “at least $60 per Principal Work,” and less for entire copies of “inserts” ($15) or partial copies of “inserts” ($5). Agreement ¶ 5.1(a).
* Certain foreign works have been removed from coverage by the Agreement (although works published in Britain, Canada or Australia are still covered). Agreement ¶ 1.19.
* Other online book distributors may participate in the distribution of out-of-print and unclaimed works (a right that previously had been reserved for Google exclusively). Agreement ¶ 2.4.
* Rights holders can direct Google to exclude their works (with some limitations) provided that the request is received no later than March 9, 2012. Agreement ¶ 3.5(a)(iii).
* Google may still elect to exclude works from the database for any “editorial or non-editorial” reasons, although it must provide a digital copy of the excluded work (along with an explanation of why it was excluded) to the Book Rights Registry. Agreement ¶¶ 3.7(e) & (e)(i).
* Google apparently will be allowed to continue scanning works that are not subject to payment under the Agreement. Agreement ¶ 3.1(a). Thus, even this revision appears to severely limit the online distribution rights of authors and publishers.
* Books and inserts can be designated as either “Display” or “No Display” – in other words, the author/publisher can request that the book not be displayed in search results. Agreement ¶¶ 3.3, 3.4. It appears, however, that the scanned copy of a book designed “No Display” will continue to exist in the database, even if Google is not permitted to display it in the search results.
Other Analyses of the Revised Settlement Agreement
Others have opined about the impact of this revision, including the following:
* Jonathan Band’s A Guide for the Perplexed, Part III, analyzing the November 13 amendments to the settlement agreement in great detail;
* Copyright Clearance Center seminars and webinars about the impact of the settlement;
* Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Deep Links Blog covered the revised settlement agreement from the perspective of the pros and cons, access, competition, and privacy;
* Dr. James Grimmelman’s Blog, The Laboratorium;
* The Official Settlement Web Site;
* The Public Index and its annotated copy of the revised settlement agreement;
(*Note that I have not fully analyzed or reviewed each of these external links – and therefore do not endorse their opinions or recommendations. I am providing links to these sources, however, in the interest of fostering a diverse and robust discussion of the impact of this agreement on copyright law and electronic book publishing into the future.)
Court Grants Preliminary Approval and Sets Deadlines
On November 19, 2009, the Court granted preliminary approval of the Amended Settlement Agreement, and set February 18, 2010 as the new hearing date for the Final Fairness Hearing. Any opposition to the revised settlement agreement must be filed by January 28, 2010. Any class member who wishes to appear at the hearing must file a Notice of Intent to Appear no later than February 4, 2010.
Posted by Christina D. Frangiosa at 1:24 PM No comments:
Labels: copyright, Google Book Project, privacy