The Roanoke Times - Virginia Supreme Court ruling on license plates creates dangerous speed bumps for law enforcement

The Roanoke Times – Virginia Supreme Court ruling on license plates creates dangerous speed bumps for law enforcement

A license plate number would not be “personal information” because there is nothing about a license plate number that inherently “describes, locates or indexes anything about an individual.” Without something connecting the license plate number to an individual, it is just a combination of letters and numbers that does not describe, locate or index anything about anyone.

Harvard Law Review - Ajemian v. Yahoo!, Inc.

Harvard Law Review – Ajemian v. Yahoo!, Inc.

The Uniform Law Commission (ULC) has attempted to bring clarity to this issue. In 2014, it promulgated the original Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA), intending it “to remove barriers to a fiduciary’s access to electronic records. The draft Act gave personal representatives “the right to access . . . content of an electronic communication” unless the decedent explicitly stated otherwise. However, “UFADAA imploded in state legislative halls” due to privacy-related concerns raised by NetChoice — a coalition of internet companies including Yahoo, Google, and Facebook. — and its allies. This pressure led the ULC to promulgate a revised version — RUFADAA — the next year.

 

Email Marketing Daily - High Court Declines To Hear Yahoo 'Dead Man' Case

As is the custom, SCOTUS gave no reason for not accepting the case, according to Law 360.

Yahoo was supported by Facebook Inc., Google LLC, Dropbox Inc., Evernote Corp., Glassdoor Inc., the Internet Association and NetChoice, according to Law360.

Law 360 - High Court Skips Yahoo Case Over Email Privacy After Death

The court provided no explanation, as is typical, in denying Yahoo’s certiorari petition in a privacy case that saw the company attract legal solidarity from Facebook Inc., Google LLC, Dropbox Inc., Evernote Corp., Glassdoor Inc., the Internet Association and NetChoice.

Boston Herald - Supreme Court Won’t Rule on Deceased’s Emails

“The U.S. Supreme Court missed an important opportunity to clarify the privacy rights of Americans over their data when they die,” Carl Szabo, vice president and general counsel at NetChoice, said in a statement.”

NetChoice, a trade association with high-powered members like Facebook and Google, sided with Yahoo in its fight to prevent the release of a dead person’s emails.

“Massachusetts made the wrong decision last year in obligating Yahoo to disclose private data to those managing the estate of Ajemian,” Szabo said. “Unfortunately, without legislation, the state’s residents will see privacy protections disappear when they pass away.”

Politico - Senate Passes Sex Trafficking Bill in Defeat for Weakened Tech Industry

As the anti-trafficking bill gained momentum this year, the tech industry splintered, with players like Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg expressing robust support for congressional action and groups like Engine and NetChoice scrambling to halt or water down the legislation.

Boston Herald – Yahoo asks Supreme Court to overturn Mass. court ruling on estate rights to dead’s emails

Boston Herald – Yahoo asks Supreme Court to overturn Mass. court ruling on estate rights to dead’s emails

Both Yahoo and the Ajemians received support through amicus briefs when the case was before the SJC. NetChoice, a trade association with high-powered members like Facebook and Google, stood with Yahoo.

READ MORE

This Theory - States with legislation: website inherits a selfie? States seek to fill privacy law gaps

Carl Szabo, senior policy counsel at NetChoice, an industry group that represents the interests of such companies as Facebook, Google and PayPal, said the revised legislation “balances the needs of the bereaved with the privacy interests of the account holders and the people with whom they corresponded.”

READ MORE

Plain Text - Public Comments on the FTC Privacy and Security Workshop: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Carl Szabo at NetChoice points out that such an approach effectively creates a “guilty before proven innocent” regime, and unjustly puts the burden of proof on the accused. Furthermore, such an arrangement has already been prohibited by the Supreme Court in Spokeo v. Robins.

READ MORE