Will Marriott Block Wi-Fi

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission will render a decision on whether to establish rules regarding hotels’ ability to block personal Wi-Fi hotspots inside their buildings, a practice that recently earned Marriott International a $600,000 fine.

In August, Marriott, business partner Ryman Hospitality Properties and trade group the American Hotel and Lodging Association asked the FCC to clarify when hotels can block outside Wi-Fi hotspots in order to protect their internal Wi-Fi services.

In that petition, the hotel group asked the agency to “declare that the operator of a Wi-Fi network does not violate [U.S. law] by using FCC-authorized equipment to monitor and mitigate threats to the security and reliability of its network,” even when taking action causes interference to mobile devices.

The comment period for the petition ended Friday, so now it’s up to the FCC to either agree to Marriott’s petition or disregard it.

However, the FCC did act in October, slapping Marriott with the fine after customers complained about the practice. In their complaint, customers alleged that employees of Marriott’s Gaylord Opryland Hotel and Convention Center in Nashville used signal-blocking features of a Wi-Fi monitoring system to prevent customers from connecting to the Internet through their personal Wi-Fi hotspots. The hotel charged customers and exhibitors $250 to $1,000 per device to access Marriott’s Wi-Fi network.

During the comment period, several groups called for the agency to deny the hotel group’s petition.

The FCC made clear in October that blocking outside Wi-Fi hotspots is illegal, Google’s lawyers wrote in a comment. “While Google recognizes the importance of leaving operators flexibility to manage their own networks, this does not include intentionally blocking access to other commission-authorized networks, particularly where the purpose or effect of that interference is to drive traffic to the interfering operator’s own network,” they wrote.

Source

Brits Investigate Facebook

The British data watchdog is looking into whether Facebook Inc violated data-protection laws when it gave permission to researchers to conduct a psychological experiment on its users.

A Facebook spokesman acknowledged that the experiment on nearly 700,000 unwitting users in 2012 had upset users and said the company would change the way it handled research in future.

The study, to find if Facebook could alter the emotional state of users and prompt them to post either more positive or negative content, has caused a furor on social media, including Facebook itself.

“We’re aware of this issue and will be speaking to Facebook, as well as liaising with the Irish data protection authority, to learn more about the circumstances,” the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) spokesman Greg Jones said in an email.

Jones said it was too early to tell exactly what part of the law Facebook may have infringed. The company’s European headquarters is in Ireland.

The Commissioner’s Office monitors how personal data is used and has the power to force organizations to change their policies and can levy fines of up to 500,000 pounds ($839,500).

Facebook said it would work with regulators and was changing the way it handled such cases.

“It’s clear that people were upset by this study and we take responsibility for it,” Facebook spokesman Matt Steinfeld said in an email.

“The study was done with appropriate protections for people’s information and we are happy to answer any questions regulators may have.”

Source

Is Qualcomm In Trouble?

Qualcomm’s activities in China may lead to regulatory penalties for the chip vendor, this time from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission over bribery allegations.

The company is currently facing an anti-monopoly probe from Chinese authorities for allegedly overcharging clients. Qualcomm  has also said that the SEC may also consider penalizing the company, as part of an anti-corruption investigation.

The SEC’s Los Angeles Regional Office has made a preliminary decision to recommend that the SEC take action against Qualcomm for violating anti-bribery controls, the company said in its second quarter report. The accusations involve Qualcomm offering benefits to “individuals associated with Chinese state-owned companies or agencies,” the report added.

Both the SEC and the U.S. Department of Justice have been probing the company over alleged violations of the nation’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

In cooperation with those official investigations, Qualcomm said it’s found instances of preferential hiring, and giving gifts and other benefits to “several individuals” with China’s state-owned companies. The gifts and benefits amounted to less than US$250,000 in value.

If the SEC takes action against Qualcomm, penalties could include giving up profits, facing injunctions, and other monetary penalties, the company said. Earlier this month, Qualcomm filed a submission with the U.S. regulator, countering any claims of wrongdoing.

Qualcomm is facing the investigations at a time when China is increasingly become a bigger part of its business. The nation is the world’s largest smartphone market, and more Chinese device manufacturers are expanding globally.

Last year, however, Chinese regulators began investigating Qualcomm due to complaints from industry groups. The company was allegedly abusing its market position and charging higher fees for its patent licensing business. In November, Chinese authorities conducted two surprise raids of Qualcomm offices in China for documents.

Chinese regulators could decide to penalize Qualcomm by confiscating financial gains made, and even imposing a fine of 1 to 10 percent on its revenues for the prior year, the company said in its quarterly report.

Source

FTC Pushes For Security Standards

Despite growing resentment from companies and powerful industry groups, the Federal Trade Commission continues to insist that it wants to be the nation’s enforcer of data security standards.

The FTC, over the past years, has gone after companies that have suffered data breaches, citing the authority granted to it under a section of the FTC Act that prohibits “unfair” and “deceptive” trade practices. The FTC extracted stiff penalties from some companies by arguing that their failure to properly protect customer data represented an unfair and deceptive trade practice.

On Thursday, FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez called for legislation that would bestow the agency with more formal authority to go after breached entities.

“I’d like to see FTC be the enforcer,” Law360 quoted Ramirez as saying at a privacy event organized by the National Consumers League in Washington. “If you have FTC enforcement along with state concurrent jurisdiction to enforce, I think that would be an absolute benefit, and I think it’s something we’ve continued to push for.”

According to Ramirez, the FTC supports a federal data-breach notification law that would also give it the authority to penalize companies for data breaches. In separate comments at the same event, FTC counsel Betsy Broder reportedly noted that the FTC’s enforcement actions stem from the continuing failure of some companies to adequately protect data in their custody.

“FTC keeps bringing data security cases because companies keep neglecting to employ the most reasonable off-the-shelf, commonly available security measures for their systems,” Law360 quoted Broder as saying.

An FTC spokeswoman was unable to immediately confirm the comments made by Ramirez and Broder but said the sentiments expressed in the Law360 story accurately describe the FTC’s position on enforcement authority.

The comments by the senior officials come amid heightening protests against what some see as the FTC overstepping its authority by going after companies that have suffered data breaches.

Over the past several years, the agency has filed complaints against dozens of companies and extracted costly settlements from many of them for data breaches. In 2006 for instance, the FTC imposed a $10 million fine on data aggregator ChoicePoint, and more recently, online gaming company RockYou paid the agency $250,000 to settle data breach related charges.

Source

Google Snubs Privacy

Search giant Google has told the British government it is immune to prosecution on privacy issues and it can do what it like. The US Company is accused of illegally snooping on its British customers by bypassing privacy settings on Apple devices, such as iPads, to track their browsing history.

A group of British people took Google to court but the search engine is trying to get the case thrown out. Its argument is that it is not subject to British privacy law because it is based in California. This is the second time that Google has tried to avoid British law by pretending to operate in another country. It has come under fire for failing to pay tax in the UK

Nick Pickles, director of Big Brother Watch, said: ‘It is deeply worrying for a company with millions of British users to be brazenly saying they do not regard themselves bound by UK law. Solicitor Dan Tench, of law firm Olswang, said this was another instance of Google being here when it suits them and not being here when it doesn’t. Ironically when the US ordered Google to stop what it was doing, it forced the search engine to pay a $22.5million to regulators.

There are some indications that Google may not get its way. In July the Information Commissioner’s Office told Google its privacy rules breached UK law so it will be very hard for it to stand up in court and say it didn’t.

Source

Google Fights NSL Over Data Privacy

Google is fighting a National Security Letter (NSL) issued by the US government, with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) acknowledging it is one of the first firms to do so.

Google took the unusual step last month of revealing, albeit in vague terms, the number of NSLs it received from the US government. At the time the company said it was working with the authorities to improve transparency around the subject, but according to court filings it is also fighting against handing over users’ data.

In March, Google filed a petition to set aside a legal process. Kevan Fornasero, a lawyer for Google said in the filing that petitions “filed under Section 3511 of Title 18 to set aside legal process issued under Section 2709 of Title 18 must be filed under seal because Section 2709 prohibits disclosure of the legal process”.

Fornasero’s reference to Section 2709 refers to the ability of the FBI to issue NSLs and force the handover of user data. According to the EFF, Google is one of the first communications companies to fight an NSL, but because Section 2709 doesn’t allow firms to disclose the legal process, few people can be certain that others haven’t tried to stand up to the US government.

Matt Zimmerman, a lawyer for the EFF said, “The people who are in the best position to challenge the practice are people like Google. So far no one has really stood up for their users’ among large Internet service providers.”

Google has tried in recent years to provide users with some information on how it deals with government agencies’ requests for user data. If the firm can succeed in its fight against NSLs then it could open the floodgates for others to stand up against a law that some see to be nothing more than a snooper’s charter.

Source

Japan Goes After Online Piracy

Japan will enforce anti-’piracy’ laws that criminalize illegally downloading media files.

The penalties see downloaders running the risk of a two year stay in prison and a fine of up to about $25K, according to a BBC report.

The BBC reports that the enforcement proposal follows a lobbying campaign by the Japanese music industry, adding that the penalties could apply even if someone has downloaded only a single file. The laws were passed two years ago, but so far have not been implemented.

Local rightsholders will be hoping that from now on the criminal penalties will be enforced, and in spades. They are the kind of sanctions that rightsholders dream of and are much stricter than the three-strikes policy in the US.

Anyone caught uploading is also treated more sternly, and could be jailed for as long as ten years.

Japan has a large market for media material, and its government apparently is bowing to protect the interests of rightsholders.

This past Summer the Japanese government ratified the draconian Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), despite it being rejected elsewhere.

Source…

Privacy Advocates & Lawmakers Push For Google Probe

Privacy groups and lawmakers are pushing for a new and more expansive investigation into Google and its privacy practices after the U.S. Federal Communications Commission announced that it found no evidence that the company violated eavesdropping laws.

Late last week, the FCC reported that there was no legal precedent to find fault with Google collecting unprotected home Wi-Fi data, such as personal email, passwords and search histories, with its roaming Street View cars between 2007 and 2010.

However, the FCC did fine Google $25,000 for obstructing its investigation.

A Google spokesperson took issue with the fine.

“We disagree with the FCC’s characterization of our cooperation in their investigation and will be filing a response,” said the spokesperson in an email to Computerworld. “It was a mistake for us to include code in our software that collected payload data, but we believe we did nothing illegal. We have worked with the relevant authorities to answer their questions and concerns.”

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), a national privacy watchdog, disagreed with the FCC findings.

In a letter sent to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder today, EPIC asked that the Department of Justice investigate Google’s surreptitious collecting of Wi-Fi data from residential networks.

“Given the inadequacy of the FCC’s investigation and the law enforcement responsibilities of the attorney general, EPIC urges the Department of Justice to investigate Google’s collection of Wi-Fi data from residential Wi-Fi networks,” wrote Mark Rotenberg, executive director of the advocacy group.

“By the [FCC’s] own admission, the investigation conducted was inadequate and did not address the applicability of federal wiretap law to Google’s interception of emails, usernames, passwords, browsing histories and other personal information,” Rotenberg added.

Source…

Hitachi-LG Executives Plead Guilty

Three executives at Hitachi-LG Data Storage (HLDS) have agreed to plead guilty and serve prison time in the U.S. for their participation in a number of conspiracies to rig bids and fix the prices of optical disk drives sold to large computer manufacturers, the U.S. Department of Justice announced Tuesday.

Young Keun Park, Sang Hun Kim and Sik “Daniel” Hur conspired with others to suppress competition by rigging bids for optical disk drives sold to Dell and Hewlett-Packard and to fix prices for optical disk drives sold to Microsoft, the DOJ said. The conspiracies happened at various times between November 2005 and September 2009, the DOJ said.

Under a plea agreement in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Park and Kim each have agreed to serve eight months in prison and Hur has agreed to serve seven months in prison. Each has also agreed to pay a US$25,000 fine.

.

Source…

FCC Warns Against Jammers

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission has issued warnings to 20 online retailers offeriing illegal mobile phone jammers, GPS jammers, Wi-Fi jammers and other signal jamming devices, the agency said Wednesday.

The sale and use of devices that jam the signals of authorized radio communications are illegal in the U.S., the FCC said in its enforcement action. The agency will “vigorously” prosecute violations going forward, it stated in a press release.

“Our actions should send a strong message to retailers of signal jamming devices that we will not tolerate continued violations of federal law,” Michele Ellison, chief of the FCC’s enforcement bureau, said in a statement. “Jamming devices pose significant risks to public safety and can have unintended and sometimes dangerous consequences for consumers and first responders.”

Jammers, sometimes used in classrooms, theaters and churches, are prohibited because they can prevent individuals from contacting police and fire departments or family members during an emergency, the FCC said. “Use of jamming devices can place you or other people in danger,” the agency said.

Read More…..

Next Page »