Looking Ahead to 2011: If Brevity Be the Soul of Wit

A line recited by Polonius in Shakespeare’s Hamlet (1602) comes to mind today. It’s the phrase "since brevity is the soul of wit . . . I will be brief." FYI, Polonius is a windbag in the play. There is also another phrase, often wrongfully attributed to Franz Kafka, that goes something like "lawyers are the only creatures that can write 1000 pages and call it a brief."

Well, here we are at the end of 2010. Those of you who have been reading faithfully know that each year, I create a Legal Bytes piece with no hypertext links to distract you; no citations; no dazzling factoids; and no breaking news stories. This time, I’ve decided to do something different. I am going to be brief. Instead of philosophy or predictions, I’m going to give you 10 words I believe may stimulate YOUR thinking about 2011. That’s it. I trust you. Most of you are sharper than I anyway.

You don’t have to buckle up or fasten your seat belts. Pull up a chair, open your BlackBerry, Kindle, Droid, iPhone, PC, Laptop, Netbook, Web-TV, PDA, Tablet or whatever your favorite Legal Bytes’ reading device might be; grab an espresso, a glass of tea (or whatever your liquid of choice might be); sit back and enjoy. Here goes:

  1. Mobile
  2. Behavior
  3. Privacy
  4. Social
  5. Cloud
  6. Neutrality
  7. Monetize
  8. Consolidate
  9. Engagement
  10. Global

That’s it. Oh, there is another word – profile – but that’s the subject of my first Legal Bytes blog for 2011. You will just have to come back for it!


Happy Holidays and Best Wishes for 2011!

Season’s Greetings – New Year 2011

To all the readers of Legal Bytes:

This is the time of year when many of you are celebrating holidays, spending time with family, friends and loved ones, bidding farewell to the end of 2010, and celebrating the coming New Year. It is a time when many of us take a moment to reflect on the year gone by and perhaps wonder what the New Year will bring. There are people we remember with fondness; perhaps a few we might be happy to forget. But as 2010 comes to an end, we should take a moment to reflect on the friendships and experiences that helped us grow, and resolve to do some things better next year—perhaps for those less fortunate.

Most of all, this time of year gives us an excuse to say thank you for the blessings we have and to express appreciation to people who have enriched our lives. If you are reading this, you likely have or will read something else posted in Legal Bytes. You are my audience and I have to follow you—you are part of the fabric of my professional life and each of your threads enriches me, helps me weave the patterns and textures in these electronic pages. I am grateful for your readership—that you take a moment out of your busy lives to read and comment, and maybe gain some insight while being a little entertained. Thanks.

I would be remiss if I didn’t also thank a few people at Rimon like Erin Bailey and Lois Thomson, who make this blog happen, and Rebecca Blaw and Mike Scherpereel, who give their support and pitch in when needed. These are the folks you don’t see, but I do—they help make Legal Bytes feel alive. They are awesome and there aren’t words to express how grateful I am—especially when they get my email that says “please can we get this posted ASAP.” Thank you so much. I couldn’t do this without you! I would also like to thank Carolyn Boyle at the International Law Office (ILO) – she is the force behind motivating me to push content into the U.S. Media and Entertainment Newsletter, and while I can take credit for the substance, without her, the thousands of readers who enjoy the links and insights would be waiting far too long. Thank you. No, you aren’t nagging me.

As the year comes to an end, let me express my appreciation and gratitude to each of you. Thank you for reading. You motivate me to keep this interesting and exciting. Let me know if I succeed; scream at me if I fail. In addition to my thanks, please accept my best wishes for a wonderful holiday season and a terrific new year, filled with health, happiness and success. Thank you.

Joseph I. (“Joe”) Rosenbaum

Look! Out the Window! It’s a Peeping Tom! No, It’s Google Street View.

The recorded legal enforcement of privacy dates back to at least 1361, when Justices of the Peace Act in England provided for the arrest of Peeping Toms and eavesdroppers. In the 1760s, English Parliamentarian William Pitt wrote: “The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow though it; the storms may enter; the rain may enter – but the King of England cannot enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.” Translation: One’s home is one’s castle.

The right to be free from unlawful searches and seizures and intrusions into one’s home is among the earliest expressions of the legal right to privacy. Today, privacy has been woven into the fabric of the laws and regulations of most countries throughout the world. The Preamble to the Australian Constitution states: “A free and democratic society requires respect for the autonomy of individuals, and limits on the power of both state and private organizations to intrude on that autonomy. Privacy is a key value which underpins human dignity and other key values such as freedom of association and freedom of speech. Privacy is a basic human right and the reasonable expectation of every person.” The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights may well be the first multi-national, international legal document moving privacy to the level of a legally enforceable principle, noting that no one should be subject to arbitrary interference with privacy, family, home or communication, nor attacks on honor or reputation, and that each individual should have the right to legal protection against such interference or attack. In 1965, the Organization of American States proclaimed the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, which called for protection of numerous human rights, including the right of privacy.

We’ve come a long way. Today, Google’s Peeping Toms are roving street cars equipped with cameras and are allegedly violating privacy rights left and right as they roam through your neighborhood. If you hadn’t heard, Google reported earlier this year that in the course of its Street View automobiles roaming the streets of cities in more than 30 countries, its picture-capturing vehicles had also accidentally gathered data over unsecured Wi-Fi systems. Oops! Some of Google’s woes stem from mistakenly collecting data it allegedly should not have, although many privacy advocates and some regulators are protesting the actual picture-taking itself – even though the streets are public – not just the inadvertent capture of such data. Google has agreed to delete Wi-Fi data collected accidentally and has apologized (e.g., New Zealand, United Kingdom) for collecting personal data (e.g., personal emails, passwords) from wireless networks.

Although this past October (2010), the FTC in the United States indicated its inquiry into violations of privacy by Google’s Street View cars was ended – noting that Google had made efforts to increase its privacy and security processes and compliance procedures – Google is still facing a slew of questions, objections and government inquiries. Inquiries remain pending from attorneys general in a number of U.S. states, and at last count, about six or seven actual or putative class-action suits were pending.

In Germany, regulators have forced Google to agree to allow individuals to opt out of Street View and, when doing so, there will be computer-generated pixilation of their houses, instead of a photo, effectively blurring detail. Even with Google’s recent actions to bolster its compliance and sensitivity to privacy concerns, German investigators may still pursue investigations and violations. Indeed, investigations are also underway in Australia, France, Ireland, Italy and Spain.

In the “you can’t make this up” category on the subject, Legal Bytes recently saw a report that a woman in Japan is suing Google for about $7,000 for psychological damages because images of her underwear have appeared on the clothes washing/drying line outside her home displayed on Google Maps. Mainichi news service in Japan reports that part of her allegations state: “I was overwhelmed with anxiety that I might be the target of a sex crime. It caused me to lose my job and I had to change my residence.”

When do public photographs become grist for the Peeping Tom mills? What about government surveillance? Satellite photos? Drone imagery? I, for one, am giving up sunbathing on the roof from now on!

Privacy is a dynamic and evolving concept – one not uniformly dealt with or perceived around the world, or even within nations. Privacy is often blurred with identity issues or security principles, in some cases overlapping and in others just emotionally charged rhetoric. Witness the recent FTC and Department of Commerce reports, each ostensibly dealing with “privacy.” You can read about it on blogs posted by our Global Regulatory Enforcement Group, as well as right here on Legal Bytes (see, ‘Tis The Season To Issue Privacy Reports – NTIA Green Paper, Protecting Consumer Privacy – FTC Issues Staff Report and Privacy & Data Security Bills After the Midterm Elections), or search “privacy” in the search box in the left side navigation bar. But there is no substitute for getting the advice, counsel and guidance about your own particular situation from legal representatives who deal with these issues – in the United States and around the globe. So if you do need assistance, call me, Joseph I. (“Joe”) Rosenbaum, global chair of Rimon’s Advertising Technology & Media law practice, or any of the Rimon attorneys with whom you regularly work.

Amici Curiae Brief Filed in Viacom v. YouTube Appeal

In August we reported that Viacom intended to appeal the U.S. District Court ruling in favor of YouTube and Google in the billion-dollar copyright infringement case brought by Viacom (Viacom Appeals Google/YouTube Ruling). As you may recall, the federal court decided YouTube is protected against claims of copyright infringement by the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. If you have not yet read the original text of the District Court decision, you can read and/or download it from Legal Bytes (Federal Court Awards YouTube Summary Judgment in Viacom Copyright Infringement Case).

Regardless of your perspective, this continues to be a closely watched legal battle, with significant implications in the determinations made by the court – not only because of the stature of the parties, but also because the issues implicate so much of the content-related activity on the Internet and the interpretation of the seminal U.S. statute that applies – the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Earlier this week, three academic legal scholars filed a brief in support of the Viacom entities, stating that "the central issue in this case are the legal tests for contributory and vicarious liability for copyright infringement from the use of Internet sites – in this instance, the YouTube site – to reproduce and disseminate large amounts of copyrighted material without authorization from copyright owners." The brief presents interesting and thoughtful insights into the law of copyright and protection of intellectual property rights in this age of digital information and content. If you would like to read the brief, you can download your own copy right here: Brief of Amici Curiae Stuart N. Brotman, Ronald A. Cass, and Raymond T. Nimmer In Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Legal Bytes will continue to monitor developments and post significant materials that we hope will stimulate your thinking, and increase your appreciation of the complexity of the issue and the stakes in this intellectual property battle. If you would like further information, feel free to contact me, Joe Rosenbaum, or the Rimon attorney with whom you regularly work.

‘Tis The Season To Issue Privacy Reports – NTIA Green Paper

Just a few moments ago, in their own words: "The Commerce Department Office of the Secretary, leveraging the expertise of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration ("NTIA"), the Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO"), the National Institute of Standards and Technology ("NIST"), and the International Trade Administration ("ITA"), has created an Internet Policy Task Force to conduct a comprehensive review of the nexus between privacy policy, copyright, global free flow of information, cybersecurity, and innovation in the Internet economy." That introduction prefaced the release by the NTIA of its "Green Paper" (which you can download and read), Commercial Data Privacy and Innovation in the Internet Economy: A Dynamic Policy Framework.  The Federal Register notice of this paper will seek public comments, noting that they will be due on or before January 28, 2011. 

While Legal Bytes and Rimon will digest the report more thoroughly and report to you in the days and weeks ahead, the report at first blush focuses on four major themes:

  • Support for Fair Information Practices Principles (FIPPS), noting the need and importance of greater transparency, consumer control and data security
  • Support for self regulation
  • Creation of a national Privacy Policy Office to coordinate voluntary, enforceable, self-regulatory programs
  • The need for greater harmonization of privacy laws and self regulation internationally

Stay tuned for further information and analysis, but if you want to be part of the conversation; if you feel you should have a voice in the discussion and are considering submitting comments; or if you simply want to better understand the implications, the interplay between this report and the recently released FTC report (see Protecting Consumer Privacy – FTC Issues Staff Report)posted on Legal Bytes December 2, 2010), please don’t hesitate to contact me, Joe Rosenbaum, or any of the Rimon attorneys with whom you regularly work.

Change May or May Not Be Good, But It’s Always Difficult

Our Light Byte yesterday was from the 28th President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, talking about the difficulty of change – something I suspect we have all heard and felt ourselves. Lest you think the subject and issue is a new one, here’s a quote from Niccolo Machiavelli (1469 – 1527) that may make you pause a minute and recognize that "change" is a subject that has been around for a while. He noted:

It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than the creation of a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institutions and merely lukewarm defenders of those who would gain by the new ones.


Pardon Me, Your Name is Showing (Perception or Reality?)

Before we moved online to a blog format, from 1996 through the end of 2008, Legal Bytes was published as a one-page, monthly newsletter. But even then we had Useless But Compelling Facts, a feature our readers tell us they like! That said, the threads of continuity continue to haunt us. Witness the following:

In March 2004, the Useless But Compelling Fact question asked how “The Doors” got its name. The answer was that Jim Morrison decided to call his band The Doors after reading The Doors of Perception (1954), a novel written by Aldous Huxley about his use of hallucinogens. Huxley was made famous by his 1932 novel, Brave New World.

Although Legal Bytes was not yet a blog back in 2008, we have digitized and uploaded Legal Bytes material from as far back as 2004! Why is this relevant? Because in 2008, Legal Bytes published a short article entitled "The Doors of Perception Can Sometimes Lead to Harsh Reality," about a false advertising case involving the use of Jim Morrison’s name, likeness or other distinctive characteristics, in advertising by a concert band that included two former members of the original The Doors. Now it seems that Jim Morrison’s fans, followers, administrative agencies and regulators continue to seem intent on protecting and restoring Mr. Morrison’s good name.

There is a joke that goes something like, “if you remember the 1960s, you probably weren’t there.” For those of you who do recall, you will remember Mr. Morrison was convicted of profanity and indecent exposure stemming from allegations he exposed himself during a concert at the Dinner Key Auditorium in Miami in 1969. At the time of his trial, other band members insisted he never actually exposed himself, but fans offered conflicting versions of what happened and he was ultimately convicted. That conviction was being appealed by Mr. Morrison at the time of his death in Paris in 1971.

Well a few days ago—more than 40 years from his conviction and at the request of outgoing Florida Governor Charlie Crist—the Clemency Board in Florida unanimously voted to pardon Mr. Morrison (posthumously) for his conviction. Rest in peace.

IMHO – Wiki Wiki True to Its Meaning

According to Tech Terms, “wiki” comes from the Hawaiian phrase “wiki wiki,” which means “super fast.” I guess if you have thousands of users launching denial of service attacks (see below) against targeted web sites – well “super fast” spells super trouble. Which has prompted me to write this article “IMHO” (in my humble opinion) – IMHO being a social media nod to the kewl gnu SMS lingo.

So, doesn’t it seem as if this WikiLeaks thing has gotten out of hand? Now in fairness, in my view there are intelligent points being made on both sides of the issues – national security is important; so is freedom of the press and speech. There are also rights and responsibilities on both sides of the issues – private censorship is not something that sits well with those of us who value the right to hear and voice differing opinions and thoughts; yet using a “free speech” argument to allow someone to scream fire in a crowded theatre – even when none exists – can cause harm to innocent people and is, again in my view, irresponsible, if not illegal.

So if you have been following this Wikileaks issue, you already know about the leak of U.S. diplomatic cables by or through WikiLeaks, and unless you have been living under a rock, you have also noticed the arrest of WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange. All of this has resulted in a dramatic and well-publicized series of “cyber attacks” from “hacktivists” primarily using a disruptive technique known as “denial of service attacks.”

Curiously, the arrest of Mr. Assange in London has nothing to do with the current controversy over confidential and sensitive material that is giving rise to the tensions across the Internet. Mr. Assange’s legal problems stem from an international warrant issued by Sweden, where he is accused of rape, molestation and unlawful coercion by two women in connection with sexual encounters he reportedly had while he was in Sweden last summer. Mr. Assange apparently confirmed the encounters, he has denied the allegations of assault, and he has not yet been formally charged in either of the women’s cases.

The disruptions on the Internet and outcry against his treatment (or the treatment of his company) are not about his personal problems, but rather have taken on a life of their own as a poster child for the principle of “information needs to be free.” Somehow, WikiLeaks has become a symbol, a rallying cry, for the cause of free speech and information transparency, being championed by activists around the world, the activities of some of whom has allegedly already resulted in:

  • The Swedish government website http://regeringsen.se was offline for several hours, and arms of the Swedish postal service, the websites of Swedish prosecutors, and at least one lawyer, were the targets of attacks.
  • Both MasterCard and Visa, whose banking and financial institution members stopped accepting payment transactions in support of either WikiLeaks or Mr. Assange’s defense, were subject to attack (e.g., reportedly Visa’s website and MasterCard’s “secure code” system was affected – in the case of MasterCard, apparently preventing some online transactions from being processed for several hours.
  • Just today we read of allegations and reports that Sarah Palin’s credit card information and the website of her political action committee were hacked because she referred to Mr. Assange on ABC News yesterday as “an anti-American operative with blood on his hands,” and U.S. Senator Lieberman’s website was impaired and anonymous SPAM faxes sent to the Senator’s office after he called for an investigation of The New York Times, which had published articles with details of the diplomatic cables leaked by WikiLeaks.

As Mr. Spock, the iconic “Star Trek” character played by Leonard Nimoy, might have remarked well into the future: “Fascinating!” Well the future is now.

So what should you do? First you should read my partner, Douglas J. Wood’s recent opinion piece on Corporate Counsel, entitled “Say Hello to the World’s New Sovereign Nations: Facebook, Google and RIM.”  (subscription required) When you finish, head straight to YouTube and watch the clip (my title) “There’s a War Out There” from the incredibly prescient motion picture “Sneakers,” with Ben Kingsley and Robert Redford. You might also grab a copy of An Army of Davids: How Markets and Technology Empower Ordinary People to Beat Big Media, Big Government, and Other Goliaths, by Glenn Reynolds. Oh, and in case anyone is thinking about my Legal Bytes post more than a year ago, entitled FTC (Revised) Endorsement Guides Go Into Effect, rest assured I have no interest (other than intellectual) in either my partner’s publication, the motion picture production, or the book or publishing company noted.

It is likely, some of the “attacks” may lead to criminal prosecution or civil litigation, or both. It is also likely that companies and governments may rethink their security and dependence on digital technology, as well as their activities and responses to events such as these. Protests of this nature, irrespective of one’s view or one’s “side,” are now occurring on a scale, orchestrated by individuals dispersed throughout the globe, in a manner that might make taking to the streets or holding passive sit-ins or hunger strikes in the halls of legislative bodies passé. Further, the effects of such activities on innocent people should not be underestimated. While the United States holds dear the Constitutional rights of free speech and freedom of the press, that does not include the right to create panic or harm or injury to others. There is a line between voicing one’s support and opinion, freely heard in the blogosphere, and illegal conduct that damages persons and property.

So after reading this and the references cited, ask yourself the following question: Is this a technology problem? A political problem? A national security problem? A public relations problem? A legal problem? It is probably worth noting, since my partner Doug Wood mentioned it after reading a draft, that the freedoms of speech and the press (and assembly, etc.) that are embedded in the U.S. Constitution are not the norm around the world. We often lose sight of the fact that these rights (and the passion and zealousness with which we cherish them and defend them) are not the global norm – yet. But, technology has enabled activities and communication unimaginable in the past. It can be a force for good or bad – sometimes both. Now comes the revolution? Fascinating! But that’s just my opinion.

Joseph I. (“Joe”) Rosenbaum is a partner in the New York office of Rimon, global chair of its Advertising Technology & Media law group – oh, and is the editor, publisher and often author of posts on Legal Bytes.

It May Not Be Easy Being Green – But We May Be Able To Help

First issued in 1992 and revised in 1998, the Federal Trade Commission three years ago (2007) began an extensive review of its Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims, also known as the "Green Guides," focusing mainly on the dividing line between deceptive and non-deceptive speech. Noting the increasing use of "greenwashing" – the use of unsubstantiated environmental claims in advertising – the FTC is seeking to spell out the specific environmental claims that advertisers can and cannot make about their products and services. After hearings, surveys and feedback, the FTC recently formulated draft revisions to the Green Guides, publishing them for public comment.

Our own John P. Feldman prepared an insightful analysis of the draft revision and what it may mean if it is ultimately adopted by the FTC in its current form. That analysis, originally prepared as a presentation to lawyers, and advertising and marketing professionals, has now been recast into a narrative discussion; and thanks to the assistance of Carolyn Boyle and the editorial staff at the International Law Office, you can read all about it on the International Law Office website. The article, published as the Revised Green Guides: A Balanced Approach to Environmental Claims in Advertising, represents a terrific overview of the FTC’s current thinking in this area, and it is a must read for any legal, regulatory, advertising and marketing professional who does "green" marketing and advertising or who may be responsible for it. 

If you need help, need more information, or need knowledgeable counsel and representation in this important area of law and regulation – either now or increasingly in the future – please don’t hesitate to contact John P. Feldman directly, or me, Joe Rosenbaum, or any of the Rimon attorneys with whom you regularly work.

Protecting Consumer Privacy – FTC Issues Staff Report

This post was written by Paul Bond, Chris Cwalina, Amy Mushahwar and Fred Lah.

The FTC just released its long-awaited Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change. This preliminary staff report proposes a major change in U.S. privacy law. The FTC is accepting comments on this report until January 31, 2011, and if you could be affected by these changes and would like to submit comments, or if you are considering submitting comments to the report (or perhaps you aren’t sure if you should), Rimon can help. While we are still reviewing the 123-page report in depth, we wanted to share a few thoughts from an initial reading.

The report proposes a major change in the framework of U.S. privacy law, stating bluntly: “Industry must do better.” The report notes, among other things:

  • Notice-and-consent doesn’t work. People don’t read or understand privacy notices as now written. The Commission’s view is that privacy policies have become “long” and “incomprehensible.”
  • Waiting for harm to consumers isn’t an effective way to enforce privacy norms. Harm has traditionally meant economic or physical harm. Privacy harms include reputational harms and even the emotional harm of having one’s information “out there,” or “fear of being monitored.” The new framework must address and allay these anxieties; however, there is some disagreement among the Commissioners. Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch, in his concurrence, notes “the Commission could overstep its bounds” if it were to begin analyzing these more intangible harms when assessing consumer injury.
  • Industry self-regulation is too little, too late, and has failed to provide adequate and meaningful protection.

The report challenges a number of privacy and security assumptions. The report:

  • Casts severe doubt on claims that de-identified information need not be protected, citing multiple instances and methods by which personally identifiable information (PII) can be culled from “non-name” information (e.g., IP addresses, other unique identifiers). The distinction between PII and non-PII is, the report says, “of decreasing relevance.” Consequently, the scope of the report is very broad and applies to “all commercial entities that collect or use consumer data that can be reasonably linked to a specific consumer, computer or other device.
  • Purports to apply in the online and offline world, and not only to companies that work directly with consumers.
  • Suggests that consumers must be made aware of and consent to onward transfers of information to non-affiliates no matter what the industry, universalizing the consumer notice requirements that previously only applied to certain highly regulated industries (e.g., telecommunications, education, health care, financial services), or certain types of sensitive data (e.g., credit data, bank accounts, medical records).
  • Distinguishes between “commonly accepted data practices” and all other data practices. Borrowing from GLBA and HIPAA, using data to aid law enforcement, or in response to judicial process or to prevent fraud, would not require notice to or consent of consumers, but ALL other data practices (e.g., behavioral advertising and deep packet inspection that are explicitly named as not commonly accepted data practices) would require notice and consent in a form easy to read and understand, ideally provided to the consumer when the consumer enters his or her personal data. The report suggests opt-in consent be obtained prior to implementing any material changes to company policy that would apply to data collected under a prior privacy policy.
  • Suggests that to promote a free and competitive market, the privacy practices of companies need to be more transparent to consumers, and that consumers be given “reasonable access” to their data.
  • Notes that appropriate data-retention periods should be a legal requirement. The report sites geolocation data as especially important to phase out.
  • Endorses a “Do Not Track” mechanism, recognizing that such a mechanism would be far more complex than the National Do Not Call registry. The FTC supports either legislation or self-regulatory efforts to develop a system whereby a consumer could opt not to be “tracked.” The FTC has expressed a distinction between “tracking” and “interest-based” advertising. And, in later discussions regarding the report, the FTC has stated that it will treat first-party advertising more favorably than third-party ad servers. The FTC has not decided on the technical mechanism for creating such a registry, but it recognizes a browser-based solution – similar to the privacy plug-in on the Firefox browser or incognito mode in Google Chrome. The FTC has not indicated if opt-in or opt-out would be the default browser setting for any browser privacy technology deployed.

So what should businesses do?

First, companies should carefully review the report and all the questions made open for public comment. These are listed in Appendix A to the report, but additional questions are posed in the Commissioner dissent statements.

Second, companies should strongly consider commenting on the report. In our experience, the FTC will listen and often address business concerns. But you must be heard. Trade associations are a good place to start, but individual company voices are important, especially if you have unique issues that should be addressed.

Third, now is a good time for you to pull back and consider your privacy policies, practices and programs, and the extent to which privacy is incorporated into your everyday business practices. The report suggests every company should adopt “privacy by design,” “building privacy protections into everyday business practices,” “assigning personnel to oversee privacy issues, training employees on privacy issues, and conducting privacy reviews when developing new products and services.”

You can read and obtain a copy of the FTC’s full report here.

If you need help, want more information, want to comment, or simply require some guidance – whether counsel or representation – in an area that is of critical importance to businesses and consumers, please don’t hesitate to contact Paul Bond, Chris Cwalina, Amy Mushahwar, Fred Lah or me, Joe Rosenbaum, or any of the Rimon attorneys with whom you regularly work.