Individuals who were using a website to cheat on their spouses and significant others will not remain anonymous if they choose to remain on the lawsuit against that website–Ashley Madison. This week a judge ruled that anyone who continues in the legal fight will not be allowed to use pseudonyms in the lawsuit.

Let’s start at the beginning of this whole mess: this lawsuit began in response to last summer’s hack of the Ashley Madison website, a service with the motto: “Life is short. Have an Affair.” The website, which purports to facilitate men and women in finding people to have affairs with, is used most predominantly by men. In the hack, 11 million account passwords were discovered because of improperly secured accounts. This led to the release of 32 million customers’ emails, sexual preferences, names, and addresses on the internet, which caused backlash in small communities, investigations of government employees found using the site, and even the blackmailing of some individuals whose information was released.

In response to the release of personal information, several Ashley Madison users have decided to sue the company for claiming to secure personal information and then failing to do so. While many of their identities have already been released, the plaintiffs petitioned to use pseudonyms in the case in order to protect themselves from judgment of the public.

Unfortunately for the roughly 50 people suing Ashley Madison, Judge John A. Ross, a United States District Judge, ruled on April 6th to deny the motion for plaintiffs in the case to use pseudonyms. Part of the judge’s ruling was based on the fact that:

The personal and financial information plaintiffs seek to protect has already been released on the Internet and made available to the public.

In addition, the judge acknowledged the fact that:

Only in extraordinary circumstances may civil litigation proceed under fake names, like in cases such as sex crimes and suits about juveniles.

What the judge did allow is for the members who are currently involved in the suit to dismiss their complaints and instead file as members of a class in a class-action suit. If it is certified they will not need to release their names individually in order to sue.

A lot of the people whose names were released in the hack have faced serious consequences because of the release of information. Some people have been blackmailed into paying bitcoin bribes in order to try to stop blackmailers from ousting the cheaters to their oblivious spouses. Town officials have been shamed by their local newspapers and publications.

While the huge breach in security was unexpected for the members of the Ashley Madison site and the people whose information was released may have legal standing to sue the company, it’s hard to have much sympathy for cheaters whose significant others found out about their infidelity. This is a good lesson for all of us to be a little more skeptical about the security of personal information online and the reality of bad karma. Next time you go online to find a hot date with whom to two-time your wife, maybe think twice before plugging in your government email address.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Judge Denies Cheaters’ Request to Remain Anonymous in Ashley Madison Suit appeared first on Law Street.

As we live in the New Media Age, the internet has become an omnipotent tool that millions of us use every day for a variety of reasons. The internet changed the way we go about our daily lives, providing a myriad of possibilities to meet people, organize tasks, buy products, and even search for people’s public records with the click of a mouse.

Read More: The Big Business of Big Data

As the information broker industry is rapidly growing, the United States is struggling to catch up and adopt comprehensive data protection laws to regulate it. This prompts a discussion on how to balance online access to public records and personal privacy. Read on to learn more about data protection and freedom of information laws, the data broker industry, and the consequences of easy access to online public records.

What are public records?

Public records are documents that can be openly accessed for inspection by any person. Often, personal information becomes a part of a public record when a person interacts with government agencies on the local, state, or federal level. Public records can include quite a collection of data: birth, marriage, death, arrest, tax, property ownership, driver’s license, occupational licenses, and voter registration information. Most of the time, providing personal information to government agencies is mandatory, leaving individuals no choice but to disclose their addresses, social security numbers (SSNs), and medical or employment histories. For example, if one donates over $200 to a political campaign, he has to provide his name, address, and employment information. All of the provided data automatically becomes a matter of an individual’s public record, and can be accessed through countless information broker websites. Court files are also public records, and all information contained within the files, with few exceptions, can be accessed without legal restrictions as well.

How do you access public records?

Historically, public records could be obtained only in paper form by physically going to the government agency or court house that collected and stored the applicable information. Starting in the mid-1990s, courts and government agencies began to provide online access to their public records directories, and to sell public files to information brokers and data compilers. Now, government or information broker websites can provide easy access with just the click of a mouse. The data broker industry is booming with thousands of companies selling all sorts of public records online.

What are information brokers?

Information brokers are companies that collect all sorts of data, including internet browsing information like consumer survey data and social media profiles, analyze an individual’s information, package it, and sell it to advertising and marketing companies. Some of the information brokers also obtain public records from local, state, and federal government agencies, and re-sell them online, adding appropriate packaging and a more sophisticated design to the reports. Many of these companies provide access to public records on a subscription basis, when a member pays a monthly fee for unlimited access to millions of public records. As there are virtually no laws that directly pertain to the information broker industry, public records can be accessed by anyone, regardless of their purpose and intentions. There are also no licensing requirements, no central registration system of any sort, and no mechanism through which it would be possible to request a copy of a personal public record that has been circulating online. Even though the information broker industry has been operating for decades, its volume and scope is much greater now, with thousands of companies mining and compiling individuals’ public records, ready to reveal our most sensitive personal data to anyone at any time.

Watch the video below to learn more about information brokers.

What are the laws that govern the information broker industry in the U.S?

The information broker industry is governed by various data protection and freedom of information laws. While the United States strongly adheres to freedom of information practices codified in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), there is no comprehensive data protection legislation, except for narrowly applicable laws that are subject-specific and limited in scope.

Freedom of Information Laws 

Freedom of information is a fundamental human right recognized in international law and in many national laws around the globe. As of 2012, there were 93 countries that adopted comprehensive freedom of information laws or similar administrative regulations. In the United Sates, the right to access information from the federal government is outlined in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a comprehensive law that provides government accountability and safeguards the freedom to access public records. In addition to this federal legislation, each state has some sort of FOI laws, with different degrees of accessibility and restrictions. As the information broker industry provides services in relation to availability of information contained in public records, it operates within the FOI legal framework.

Data Protection Laws

Data protection laws are centered on safeguarding personal information from unauthorized usage. Worldwide, more than 80 countries have adopted comprehensive laws to uphold the privacy of their citizenry. In 1970s there were only eight countries that had data privacy laws on the books; in 2010 the number skyrocketed to 89. The United States is one of only a few developed countries that doesn’t have a comprehensive law that protects online privacy, but instead relies on sectorial laws that provide limited amounts of regulation and have many loopholes. Most of these laws pertain to personal information held by the federal government, while legislation that regulates personal information in public records systems is essentially limited to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

The Fair Credit Reporting Act

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) is guided by the fair information practices that were developed by the Department for Health, Education, and Welfare in the 1970s. On the whole, FCRA regulates the practices of credit reporting agencies. It promotes agencies’ accountability and safeguards security of personal data. The law requires information to be accurate, purpose specific, and accessible. It also outlines limitations on collection and usage of personal data as pertaining to credit reporting.

California’s Data Privacy Laws

California is one of the few states that protects the personal privacy of its residents as it pertains to online access to public records. In 2003, it enacted the Online Privacy Protection Act (OPPA) that requires websites that collect personal information on California residents to post and comply with the privacy policy of the state. In 2013, California enacted so-called “Don’t Track” legislation (AB 370) that requires certain websites to disclose information on how they collect data and track users. During the same year, the Right to Know Act was introduced in the State Assembly, but it failed to pass due to strong opposition from the trade groups representing the information technology industry. If enacted, it would require data brokers to provide a copy of an individual’s stored information upon request.

Case Study: Instant Checkmate

Instant Checkmate is a California-based people search engine that operates by compiling and selling instant access to criminal background checks. Originally, Instant Checkmate was a small internet startup, but it recently gained popularity due to its appealing packaging and additional features, such as its public criminal records directory, crime wire blog, and reverse phone look up.

Notably in 2014, Instant Checkmate paid $525,000 in a settlement for allegedly violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The lawsuit, filed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), claimed that the company was operating as a consumer reporting agency, but wasn’t complying with FCRA regulations, including accuracy of provided information and verification of the identity of those who were requesting consumer reports through its website.

Now, the company markets itself as a tool to locate childhood friends and check out online dates. When you enter the website, the first thing you see is a notice that states:

You may not use our service or the information it provides to make decisions about consumer credit, employers, insurance, tenant screening, or any other purposes that would require FCRA compliance.

As the FCRA is limited to regulating credit reporting agencies only, it’s not applicable to the rest of the information broker industry. In order to avoid FCRA regulations many information broker companies simply run a disclaimer stating that they are not a credit reporting agency, and continue to operate outside any legal framework that pertains to  personal privacy. Instant Checkmate is one of many information broker companies that has used this tactic to escape FCRA compliance.

Watch the video below to learn more about Instant Checkmate, how it operates, and how the information obtained through its platform can be used by the third parties.

What are the advantages of online access to public records?

Online access to public records further upholds freedom of information as a fundamental right, and provides certain benefits to consumers and employers.

Benefits for the Citizenry

Access to public records is a mechanism to monitor the government as it allows its citizenry to review official actions and keep government agencies accountable. Online access to public records is an additional and more powerful tool to safeguard liberties and to ensure transparency of governmental practices. In this regard, the internet provides a platform to oversee and track government actions in relation to various matters, including decisions in individual cases.

Benefits for Consumers

Access to public records is an important consumer tool that is widely used in spheres such as employment, child support, retirement, and identity theft prevention, just to name a few. Online access to public records can highly benefit consumers and those who directly interact with government agencies and courts, if public records are accurate and up-to-date.

Benefits for Employers

In addition, access to public records can help employers screen applicants to decrease liability implications in the future. If using appropriate channels of inquiry, online background checks can assist employers in choosing the right candidate for the position.

What are the disadvantages of online access to public records?

Online access to public records increases privacy concerns, especially when the information broker industry lacks government oversight and is poorly regulated.

Discrimination and the Rise of the “Dossier Society”

Due to the fact that everybody can access public records online, individuals’ pasts become a matter of the present, including any transgressions, law violations, or simply embarrassing moments. In turn, it leads to discrimination and disenfranchisement of individuals whose records are not squeaky clean, denying them employment opportunities, normal relationships, and, simply, privacy. Some experts predict that in the future we could become a “dossier society,” meaning a society where everybody has an electronic profile that provides a detailed account of the individual’s life. In this view, a dossier society won’t allow social forgiveness and will force those who have blemishes on their records to work low-paying jobs without any possibilities for professional growth and development.

Economic Crimes

Most public records, including divorce decrees, child custody cases, and bankruptcy filings, contain sensitive information such as SSNs, financial account numbers, and dates of birth. Allowing online access to those records increases the risk of economic crimes, particularly identity theft. Online access to public records exacerbates the problem of financial fraud as it’s relatively easy to obtain personal information on the web as there are hundreds of websites that provide detailed records for a small fee. Identity theft has devastating consequences for victims as they cannot obtain credit, home loans, employment, or rent apartments.

Data in the Courtroom

Details of court cases, including the personal information of plaintiffs, defendants, and witnesses, becomes a part of the court record, and, therefore, public records. Not only can revealing personal data discourage plaintiffs from proceeding with cases, but can undermine the safety of those who are involved in the proceedings, including witnesses who testify against one of the parties. In addition, defendants often use personal medical or sexual history to promulgate damaging allegations against plaintiffs in medical bill payment or sexual harassment cases. Online access to public records facilitates the process of obtaining court files, making it relatively easy to mine personal data that can be used to alter court proceedings.

Inaccurate Information

Many times allegations that are made during court proceedings turn out to be false, particularly in disputes between business partners, former lovers, or neighbors. As a result, inaccurate information becomes a matter of an individual’s pubic record. As public records can be widely accessed online, inaccuracies in connecting information to specific individuals also frequently occur. In addition, some information brokers’ files can be outdated, creating additional errors in background reports. Mismatches and inaccuracies in personal data reports can link individuals to crimes they didn’t commit, deny them opportunities for employment, and destroy their reputations. In 2002, a New York resident was awarded $450,000 in damages as his profile contained a false criminal conviction.

Personal Safety

As many information broker companies claim that their services can ensure personal safety by revealing criminal histories of online dates, neighbors, and other acquaintances, online background checks can also do exactly the opposite and jeopardize safety for some people. As personal information of witnesses and victims is a matter of a public record, if their identities and addresses are revealed, they can be targeted by criminals for retribution, stalked, or even re-victimized by their domestic partner.

Targeting Consumers

Information broker companies are clearly making money from compiling and selling public records online. Not only do they amass information from different government websites, but re-package and sort it, creating a brand new product in order to earn additional profit. Information from online public records is extensively used by commercial profilers for marketing and advertising purposes. Business owners also often use information from online public records to target specific groups, including those with credit or bankruptcy problems, for advertising.

Watch the video below to learn more about information brokers and how they are mining, compiling, and selling personal data to third parties.

Conclusion

Without a doubt, citizens of any democratic society should have a right to access public records in order to hold their government accountable and keep its practices transparent. At the same time, personal information of individuals should be protected, and, for that reason, the information broker industry should be regulated to make sure that unauthorized users don’t have access to sensitive and often private matters. As this technology progresses, these questions will all need to be considered.

 Resources

Primary

California Legislative Information: AB-1291 Privacy: Right to Know Act of 2013

California Constitution: Article 1 Declaration of Rights

California Legislative Information: AB-370 Consumers: Internet Privacy

U.S. Department of Justice: The Freedom of Information Act

Additional

Social Science Research Network: Global Data Privacy Laws: 89 Countries, and Accelerating

Privacy Rights Clearinghouse: Public Records on the Internet: The Privacy Dilemma

Electronic Privacy Information Center: Privacy and Public Records

Top Ten Reviews: Instant Checkmate

Yahoo Finance: Free Public Criminal Records Directory Offered on Instant Checkmate Website

New Media Institute: What is New Media?

International Association for Social Science Information Services and Technology: Data Protection and Privacy in the United States and Europe

FreedomInfo: 93 Countries Have FOI Regimes, Most Tallies Agree

CNN Money: Data Brokers Settle Charges Over Background Checks

Crime Wire: An In-Depth Look at Instant Checkmate

Crime Wire: What Kind of Background Check Does Instant Checkmate Perform?

National Consumer Law Center: Broken Records: How Errors by Criminal Background Checking Companies Harm Workers and Businesses

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Personal Records Online: Who’s Protecting Your Information? appeared first on Law Street.

Another day, another leak. It seems like the leaking of some information to do with Hollywood–whether it be nude photos, salaries, or emails–happens on pretty much a weekly basis now. However, this leak from entertainment super-company Sony is probably going to go down in history to top all others. And I don’t think it’s quite done spitting out Hollywood gossip and insider information.

A few weeks ago, hackers got into Sony’s computer system and freed all sorts information. Some of it was sort of run-of-the mill hacker leaks–personal information about who worked for or were affiliated with Sony. This includes information that could very easily lead to identity theft–things like Social Security numbers, credit card numbers, and usernames and passwords. Sony has promised a year of identity theft prevention services to its employees in the wake of this particular realization.

But then there were also some things released that were much more about show biz. For example, Sony is now getting flack after it was leaked that the female stars of American Hustle–Jennifer Lawrence and Amy Adams–were compensated less than their male counterparts. Other emails revealed Sony’s courting (or lack thereof) of particular stars such as Leonardo DiCaprio and Ryan Gosling.

On a lighter note, probably the most adorable email ever written by Channing Tatum was released. As Gawker so aptly put it: “He writes email like a dog with a stick wags its tail.”

There were also many conversations about various kinds of liability that Sony now has to deal with. For example, there’s an all-female Ghostbusters project in the works, and members of the studio had conversations about whether or not to sue Bill Murray to get him into the movie. There was also a discussion about how angry Kim Jong-Un was going to be after the release of the movie The Interview, which happens to be about assassinating the North Korean leader.

There’s more, but just take my word for it that Sony has had to do a lot of apologizing, back-tracking, and the like in the last few weeks. Its entire Public Relations department probably deserves a raise.

The hackers probably aren’t going to stop releasing information anytime soon. The group is called the Guardians of Peace and they’re kind of holding the studio hostage. They’ve promised a “Christmas Gift,” but not a particularly nice one. In fact, it’s going to be more like coal in Sony’s stockings, in the form of even more private information and correspondences leaked. The message from the Guardians of Peace says:

We have a plan to release emails and privacy of the Sony Pictures employees. If you don’t want your privacy to be released, tell us your name and business title to take off your data.

They are threatening that the information is even more interesting than what’s already been released–and that’s been pretty juicy. The hackers have said that they would not release certain people’s information if they responded with their names and business titles. It all seems like it could be a ploy, but given the amount of seemingly private information that has already been released, Sony has every reason to be freaked out.

And it’s not just Sony that has reason to be freaked out. Seth Rogen, who stars in The Interview–a particular target of the Guardians of Peace hackers–has announced he will be canceling many of his appearances. His co-star James Franco is taking similar steps. The Guardians of Peace have hinted at a violent attack on the theaters showing The Interview–even referencing the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The message specifically reads:

The world will be full of fear. Remember the 11th of September 2001. We recommend you to keep yourself distant from the places at that time. (If your house is nearby, you’d better leave.) Whatever comes in the coming days is called by the greed of Sony Pictures Entertainment.

The trend of hackers with higher technical abilities messing with celebrities or others in the public eye doesn’t seem like it’s going to be left behind in 2014. This seems like an entirely new situation though–the Guardians of Peace don’t appear to just be after celebrity nudes or gossip. This controversy has taken the entertainment world by storm, and people are rightly concerned.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Disturbing New Developments in the Continuing Sony Hacking Scandal appeared first on Law Street.

In such a celebrity-obsessed society, famous peoples’ identities are sometimes co-opted for other reasons. However, American law does protect identities, to some extent, through something called “the right of publicity.” Read on to find out about whether the laws we have in place to protect rights of publicity are adequate or lacking.

What is the right of publicity?

The right of publicity protects a person’s right to control the commercial use of elements of his or her identity e.g. their name, voice, or likeness. It allows individuals whose identities have been misappropriated to bring civil claims against the offending entities. In several estates, it extends beyond the death of the relevant individuals, enabling their estate or heirs to bring infringement claims on their behalf.

However, the nature and extent of publicity rights protections varies from state to state. For example, Indiana allows publicity rights claims to be brought for misappropriation of an individual’s “name, voice, signature, photograph, image, likeness, distinctive appearance, gestures or mannerisms.” Rights in these identity elements are protected up to 100 years after the individual’s death. Indiana grants uncommonly expansive publicity rights protection. Because there is no federal right of publicity and there are many differences in protection among the states, many publicity rights claimants often resort to forum shopping. That means that they figure out what court or jurisdiction they think will be friendliest to their case, and bring the case there.

The possibility of forum shopping creates a  “race to the bottom” of the First Amendment ladder. Given the vast reach of entertainment content due to electronic broadcasting and the internet, content providers have to tailor their broadcasts to the rules of the most plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions in order to protect themselves from publicity rights claims. Because social media allows so many permutations of appropriating elements of a person’s identity, the range of actions that can infringe on publicity rights is not entirely clear.  Moreover, in many jurisdictions, the publicity rights laws have not developed enough to keep pace with the increasing possibilities of infringement created by the ability to use the internet.

Who thinks the current laws are adequate?

Proponents of the adequacy of current publicity rights laws argue that claims about the need for a federal publicity right are ill-informed because the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. 1125) already creates federal standards for publicity rights claims. This act allows plaintiffs to file a federally based claim for infringement. Also, the differences in state publicity laws reflect the needs of different jurisdictions. The fact that certain states do not have such laws may reflect a reasoned and considered policy determination of their legislatures and federalizing the right may undercut those legislative policy needs. Moreover, such a law would infringe on states’ rights to determine which claims may be brought in their courts. If the federal publicity right preempts the state laws, then it could easily overprotect some publicity rights and under-protect others. A uniform federal law couldn’t possibly account for the nuances of different states’ needs with respect to publicity rights. Furthermore, claimants often have difficultly forum shopping because many states have choice of law rules that determine where claims need to be litigated.

What’s the argument to change the laws?

Opponents of the adequacy of the current realm of publicity rights assert that a federal publicity right would be Constitutional under the Commerce Clause. Publicity rights affect a number of issues relating to interstate commerce including what can be broadcast over several channels such as radio, television, and the internet. The rights affect multi-state advertising campaigns and the distribution of products between states as well. Furthermore, forum shopping makes it difficult for promoters to know when their actions will open them up to liability because it is not realistically possible for businessmen to cover themselves against 50 different jurisdictions’ rules and still effectively run business. This is especially true when a dead person’s rights are involved and the infringement claim involves media that is broadcast nationwide.

Even the claims under the Lanham Act are limited because federal law is interpreted differently in different geographic federal circuit jurisdictions and federal court decisions are not binding on the state courts within their jurisdiction. Moreover, the concept of what constitutes a person’s “likeness” varies between states so protected identity elements in one state may not be protected in another.  A federal publicity right statute may solve this problem but the current law does not. Furthermore, publicity rights laws are not always evolving at a pace commensurate with the increasing capabilities of potential infringers.

Conclusion

Publicity laws have run into some problems as the years go on. One big issue is the inconsistency between different states and jurisdictions, and the publicity laws they implement. Another issue is the proliferation of the internet specifically and technology in general. With the resources we now have, it’s entirely possible to create a facsimile of someone’s identity, particularly through tools like social media and photoshop. It’s important that we make sure that people remain in control of their own identities, without infringing on creativity. The current laws are apt in some ways, but could use some updating.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Congress: Lanham Act

Additional

JD Supra: The Federalism Case Against a Federal Right to Publicity

Georgetown Law Journal: The Inalienable Right of Publicity

NY State Bar Association: Why a Reasonable Right of Publicity Should Survive Death: A Rebuttal

University of Georgia Law: Race to the Stars: A Federalism Argument for Leaving the Right of Publicity in the Hands of the States

Amy E. Mitchell, PLLC: Personality Rights

Chapman Law Review: Intellectual Property Expansion: The Good, The Bad, and the Right of Publicity

American Bar Association: Why a Federal Right of Publicity Statute is Necessary

International Trademark Association: Board Resolutions U.S. Federal Right of Publicity

IP Watchdog: The Right of Publicity: A Doctrine Gone Wild?

LegalZoom: What to Know About Rights of Publicity

Right of Publicity: State Statutes

Cornell University Law School: Right of Publicity Overview

Right of Publicity: Brief History of the Right or Publicity

Library of Congress: Privacy and Publicity Rights

John Gomis

John Gomis earned a Juris Doctor from Brooklyn Law School in June 2014 and lives in New York City. Contact John at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Publicity Law: The Line Between Creativity and Identity Theft appeared first on Law Street.

A few years ago, a woman named Sondra Prince (now Sondra Arquiett) made a startling discovery. Someone was impersonating her with a fake Facebook account that included her name, identity, and pictures. She started looking into it, and the impersonator was the last person you’d guess — the U.S. Government. Specifically, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA).

Arquiett had been arrested and questioned about her involvement in a drug ring that a former boyfriend was a part of. She had helped him a little bit, but based on her involvement, her willingness to accept a plea deal, and the circumstances of the case, she was just put on probation. However, throughout the course of the investigation, her cell phone was seized. The phone had a number of her personal pictures on it.

Somehow this led to U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration Special Agent Timothy Sinnegan using those pictures to create a completely fabricated Facebook profile that included Arquiett’s name.

These weren’t necessarily run-of-the-mill pictures, either. Many were simple shots, but some included her posing on the hood of a car, and one in either a bathing suit or a bra and underwear. There was also a shot of her holding her child and niece — an invasion of their privacy as well. These were shots that she may not have wanted online, especially if she was applying to jobs or had family on the site.

Then there was what Sinnegan actually did with the account. He used in an effort to contact and communicate with a wanted fugitive, as well as with other members of the Facebook community. Arquiett only found out about the profile because a friend contacted her asking about something “she” had put up on it.

Arquiett has now sued Sinnegan, and the DEA, for both violating her privacy as well as putting her in danger. That seems pretty accurate given that the people that they were using her profile to contact were criminals who could have reacted badly toward her if they discovered what was really going on.

The DEA’s defense was, essentially, that because those photos were in evidence at one point that they are allowed to use them. The government stated:

Defendants admit that Plaintiff did not give express permission for the use of photographs contained on her phone on an undercover Facebook page, but state the Plaintiff implicitly consented by granting access to the information stored in her cell phone and by consenting to the use of that information to aid in an ongoing criminal investigations [sic]

There are a lot of scary implications in that argument, and while the status of Arquiett’s case appears to still be up in the air, the page is now down thanks to Facebook, who does not allow the impersonation of people on its network.

The government’s argument is kind of ridiculous. Nate Cardoza, an attorney at the Electric Frontier Foundation pointed out:

If I’m cooperating with law enforcement, and law enforcement says, ‘Can I search your phone?’ and I hand it over to them, my expectation is that they will search the phone for evidence of a crime, not that they will take things that are not evidence off my phone and use it in another context.

Cardoza’s dead on. There are scary implications here. Arquiett’s ability to lead a private life without being scared of retaliation from the people whom the government tricked into thinking were communicating with her shouldn’t be stripped just because she was an accomplice to a completely separate crime.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The DEA Stole a Woman’s ID for a Facebook Account, Now It’s in Court appeared first on Law Street.

While the World Cup brought some of the mot talented soccer players to the forefront, it also brought out some of the savviest criminals along with it. Much like the South African World Cup in 2010, spectators venturing to Brazil this summer were told to be wary and vigilant as crime was expected to make a meteoric rise as the games went on. Sadly, they were correct. From the cloning of debit cards to rudimentary muggings, fans from all over the world were victims of crimes during the World Cup

Crime was already on the rise in Rio de Janeiro in the months leading up to the World Cup, with muggings increasing an astounding 60 percent at the infamous Copacabana Beach. According to Rio’s crime statistics, muggings had increased 44 percent in the first four months of this year alone. As Brazil was expecting criminals to take advantage of the wide-eyed tourists exploring the country this summer, they started to “clean up” the infamous favelas. Police presence was amplified in the months leading up to the World Cup, which saw the arrests of dozens of hardened criminals. Despite this, fans still fell victim to crimes throughout the month-long tournament.

Jack Smith, an American who withdrew money in a Rio De Janeiro airport believes that his card was cloned instantaneously and used over the next couple of days to spend $12,000. Luckily, when he noticed the charges he immediately contacted his bank and they were able to cancel the card and cover the losses. “I’ve probably met 60 people here, and 20 have been hit,” Smith told Fox News. Some spectators were not as lucky as Smith and were unable to retrieve their stolen property.

Christian Alvarez, a Chilean fan, had $1,700 stolen from him at gunpoint outside his hotel. He contacted the Chilean consulate to try and get his money back but was unsuccessful. Another Chilean, Fabian Morales, lost his passport as he was celebrating Chile’s win over defending champions Spain.

Takeshi Itai, a Japanese tourist, was visiting a favela in the eastern region of Salvador when five men with guns approached his taxi. Luckily the taxi managed to drive away before the robbery could take place. “I’ll never go into a favela again. I never imagined I would have guns pulled on me,” Itai told the Japanese Times. Unfortunately for Brazil, it seems like the experiences from this World cup may discourage some fans from venturing to Rio for the 2016 Olympics.

At the start of the World Cup, the Brazilian government distributed a brochure detailing what to do in the event of a mugging. “Do not react, scream or ague,” the brochure said. They warned tourists to not carry a lot of cash on them, to not flaunt their valuables, and to do periodic checks to make sure no one was following them.

For those who could afford it, private security companies were available to provide round-the-clock security. iJET, a security company, estimates that between 30,000 to 60,000 people spent at least $10,000 on “enhanced security services,” at this World Cup. A lot of people are venturing down to the South American country not for pleasure, but for business. “These companies are sending their most valuable assets and customers down there,” John Rose, chief operator at iJET said.

Yet with the 25,000 police officers dispatched for the final, a 2-km police perimeter set around the stadium, and hundreds of personal security guards, chaos still ensued throughout the tournament. Fans watching the Brazil vs. Germany game at Fifa’s Fan Fest on Copacabana Beach were forced to flee after a group of masked men conducted a mass robbery, stealing bags and jewelry. An electronic store was looted, gunshots were fired into a large crowd, riots broke out, passports were stolen, fans fought each other, and buses were set ablaze. The buses burned in the neighborhoods of Sao Paulo, Brazil’s largest city; and when the flames were finally put out nineteen buses were destroyed in total.

In my eyes, Brazil has lost this World Cup on all accounts. Brazil certainly lost in on the field after an embarrassing  7-1 defeat by Germany, which will be remembered for decades. It has lost the faith of tourists, the people who traveled to Brazil in hopes of celebrating this joyous event and soaking in the Brazilian culture, but were instead held at gunpoint, robbed, and assaulted. And it has lost the faith of its own people, after spending so much money — $14 billion to be exact — while the country is plagued by massive economic inequality and an ailing economy. We can only hope that in four years, when the World Cup dawns upon us again, Russia will do better.

—

Trevor Smith

Featured image courtesy of [Breno Peck via Flickr]

Trevor Smith

Trevor Smith is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Brazil Lost the World Cup and the Battle Against Crime appeared first on Law Street.

The Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) recently released a report with a stunning conclusion: people are losing more money to internet scammers than ever before. In its 14th year of operation, the IC3 released the 2013 Internet Crime Report, which shows a “48.8 percent increase in reported losses since 2012.”

What are these crimes, who are they targeting, and what is causing the sudden surge in reported losses?

What is the IC3?

The IC3 is a partnership between the  Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National White Collar Crime Center (NWC3). It acts as a reporting mechanism for victims of online crime as well as a resource for law enforcement at many levels. Each year it releases a detailed annual report on cybercrime.

In the 2013 report the IC3 stated, “criminals continue to use a variety of scams to defraud Internet users,” making it clear that the online crime picture is a diverse one. It’s important to analyze precisely for this reason. There were 262,813 complaints received, of which roughly half of the victims reported financial loss. These losses totaled almost $800 million.

What are the Cybercrimes?

The 2013 report breaks down the different types and methods of cybercrimes. Vehicle fraud, for example, is one of the most prevalent forms. Trying to buy cars from scammers has cost over 1,400 people an average of $3,640 per incident. Perpetrators who pose as FBI agents have cost victims $6,348,881 in total. Cybercriminals can also defraud victims by pretending to sell real estate, producing ransomware or scareware, and even threatening to carry out jobs as hit men.

Surprisingly, romance scamming has caused the highest average losses for its victims. These scams involve a falsified online romantic relationship and cost the average victim about $12,756. By professing love and enticing victims to send financial assistance, romance scammers generally target “people aged 40 years and older, divorced, widowed, disabled, and often elderly,” the report said.

The targets of cybercrimes are primarily middle-aged. For years now the largest demographic has been the 40-59 year old age group, consistently making up over 40 percent of victims of online crime. The extreme age demographics, those under 20 and over 60, are both affected much less, as they make up just over 3 percent and just over 15 percent of victims, respectively. One possible explanation is that those who have grown up with the internet navigate its criminal spaces more carefully, while many of the elderly are simply not online.

What has been happening with Cybercrime?

Although each demographics’ share of cybercrime victims has remained relatively stable, the reported losses have been far from static. An increase of almost 50 percent from 2012 to 2013 demonstrates a wildly changing environment for online crime. While this spike may suggest that the IC3 has been receiving more complaints, its reports indicate otherwise. Each listed demographic actually reported fewer complaints in the previous year. Financial losses per complaint must be rising.

While there was nearly a 22 percent decrease from the number of complaints in 2009 to 2013, the IC3’s reported losses rose from $559.7 million in 2009 to over $781.8 million in 2013. Among those who reported any financial loss, the average loss increased from about $5,500 to well over $6,000 between 2009 and 2013. It seems as though the increased reported losses do not reflect a greater public knowledge of the IC3 and an increased number of reports. Instead, the decrease in actual complaints coupled with the increase in average reported losses suggests that internet scamming may be more lucrative than it has ever been.

As are all sources of criminal information, the IC3 is limited. It relies on the victim filing a complaint through the IC3, and as with all crimes, many cases will go unreported. Unfortunately, it stands alone in its domain. Other data collection systems like the Uniform Crime Reports aggregate data from law enforcement agencies, not from the victims themselves. The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) uses surveys to determine victimization, but does not focus on internet crime. It asks young people about cyber bullying and has compiled a report specifically on identity theft. Aside from these questions, it appears that the NCVS fails to collect information about cybercrime. However if, cybercrime is paying more, then the IC3 and similar programs should be supported as much as possible.

[IC3 Report]

—

Jake Ephros (@JakeEphros)

Featured image courtesy of [EP Technology via Flickr]

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who Said (Cyber)crime Doesn’t Pay? appeared first on Law Street.

December was a bad month for anyone who didn’t want their personal information leaked to hackers or other third-party sources.

Retail giant Target had a problem about two weeks ago when 40 million customer records were stolen. The information contained on the records included names, credit and debit numbers, expiration dates, and security codes. The hackers with that information could easily use it to make fraudulent purchases on customers’ cards.

Popular messaging application Snapchat released that several million of their users’ usernames and corresponding phone numbers were leaked late on New Year’s Eve. There’s actually a site to check if your username was leaked, and it provides tips on how to handle it if it was. If your username was breached, it means that your phone number could be given to spammers or the like.

Skype was also recently breached by the Syrian Electronic Army, a hacking group. Skype has reported, however, that no user information was stolen or lost.

Obviously a breach involving credit card information and a breach involving usernames and phone numbers seem very different, but the truth is that they’re both notably problematic. They indicate a reliance we have on technology that is utterly new to our time, and because that reliance is new, ways to steal from us have also evolved. Everything can be done online, from banking to applying to college to planning a trip. And it’s easy to do those things, it’s easy to trust a site when they say they are secure. But we have to remember that every time we provide our information, there is the possibility that it makes its way into the wrong hands. And retailers have to realize that storing information online can be just as dangerous for them as for a teenager using Snapchat.

The types of breaches that we saw this month definitely aren’t new, and they aren’t the worst in recent history. TJ Maxx Corporation actually had a similar incident in 2006, but instead of 40 million customer records lost, it totaled about 90 million. And in 2009, Heartland, a credit card processing system, had 130 million records stolen.

The former chief security officer of Heartland, Steven M. Elefant, made an important point about security breaches and theft propagated through the internet. He stated, “it’s a game of cat and mouse. We’re dealing with sophisticated bad guys that have many ways to attack.” New security features can be installed and developed. But for every new feature that is developed, a hacker will probably be able to find a way around it. It might take time and effort, but it’s possible.

There are some solutions that could be put in place, but they might be logistically complicated. In Europe, smart chip technology is used. The United States use magnetic strips to hold information, but European cards usually little chips that are much harder to counterfeit. Since the smart-chips were implemented in Europe, fraud and theft have declined. The JobsUnited States seems to be stuck in a time warp. Most of our allies and trading partners use smart-chip cards, but we use the strip cards that were invented in the 1960s. As a result, by October 2015, new chip card standards will be put into place by most major credit card companies, like Visa and MasterCard. While this won’t completely eliminate fraud, it should make some impact.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Brian Klug via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A December of Hackers appeared first on Law Street.