In this case they can, since the journalist doesn't dispute that it's a medical chart. The only people who have legal access to those are the patient and medical professionals who are bound by HIPAA not to disclose it. The journalist isn't claiming JPP gave it to him, which leaves no party with legal access to the medical chart who could give that chart to the journalist. Even if it went through several hands, the journalist still knows that whoever he got it from got it from someone who was breaking the law. As the Court noted in Bartnicki, when the material isn't of public concern the First Amendment issues are very different than they are for matters of public concern and discourse. The First Amendment protects your right to speak your mind, not your right to dig into any random private individual's life and broadcast all the details of it to everyone.
It would also be a different matter if the journalist were claiming that JPP or his authorized representative had provided the medical chart, or at least that his source had claimed such. As far as I know the journalist hasn't, probably because that claim would be easily refuted and would put the journalist in an even worse spot than he's in now.
Firstly would be the "public concern" aspect. In this case the contents of the medical chart and the details of treatment wouldn't be a matter of public concern in the sense Bartnicki is speaking of. In fact, the decision you linked to specifically says the Court does not address the question when the information isn't of public concern. That alone's enough to distinguish the cases.
I think HIPPA does come into play because the journalist would know that his source couldn't legally be providing a copy of the medical chart. The journalist would certainly be aware of HIPPA and at least it's general parameters, and under no reasonable interpretation could anyone (other than maybe JPP himself) disclose the medical chart to the journalist without violating the law in the process. That puts things in a somewhat different light than if the journalist didn't know he was disclosing confidential information obtained illegally.
Not really. On Linode you set up 2 servers, one for primary MX plus POP3/IMAP4 and one as a backup MX, for about $35/month. If you want to trim back to bare minimum you can get it down as low as $10/month (single instance of their smallest server, no backup MX and no data backup). For me the benefit's being able to enforce my own policies on mail handling ("Spamhaus Zen list entry = reject and hang up, no exceptions" in particular kills 99% of the spam).
If you want your own mail server on your own domain, you absolutely don't want to host it at home. It's a technical nightmare due to port 25 blocking and dynamic-IP-address issues. For your average person, their best bet's to find a knowledgeable local geek who'll take some money every month to maintain a server for them at a hosting company (if the geek's already got their own server running, it's very little work to add another domain to it).
Oh gods, if only. No, but it does include things like "The text can be in any character set, in fact different sections of text can be in different character sets. There is no place in the data to indicate which character set.".
Unfortunately Paypal may not have any alternatives. They're required by law to check against the government's OFAC lists, and if the query returns a match they're required to red-flag the transaction. OFAC controls the algorithm used to match names against the list, and you aren't allowed to ignore a "match" result regardless of why you think it matched. OFAC's lists are of course murky at best, typically out-of-date because of lag updating data, and prone to false matches, but the payment agency's not permitted to take that into account and OFAC doesn't care because they aren't held responsible or liable for the errors. (Yes, I've had to write code to handle OFAC queries per regulations. No, it's not as bad as you think. It's worse.)
The only way that'll change is if consumers start lighting fires under the politicians over the issue of rules that do more harm than good but are defended by ignoring the harm done.
Seems like it should be possible to argue on appeal that the 3rd-party doctrine doesn't apply because the appellant didn't release the information to a third party. It was only released to the third party by the officer, and the police should have a harder time arguing that they had the right to release the appellant's private information to a third party without appellant's consent than that they merely had probable cause to search the phone.
This is very likely. Mobile malware's a big hot-button issue at the moment, and the single biggest way mobile users acquire it's by installing software from sources other than the official stores (ie. third-party stores or side-loading).
The newspaper can't go out and collect all the papers already distributed, but it certainly can cancel the ad (regardless of whether there's additional time left on the purchase) and not publish it in any more copies of the paper it prints. Just as the forum can't remove any saved copies but certainly can remove the post so it won't appear in the future. No liability attaches to that removal, the site can't be sued for taking down the post in response to the court order.
No, he couldn't. At least not in the general case. To order something like that, he'd have to have found the parking lot in gross violation of local codes resulting in the lot being a significant cause of the argument, but the likely ruling in that case would be that the plaintiff would have to add the store as a defendant first and then the court could address the claim.
The only way your scenario could realistically come about is if the judge found that the local codes required or encouraged a parking lot design that directly contributed to arguments in a way that wasn't lawfully allowed and ordered the locality to change it's codes to remove the unlawful aspect. The store'd then have to rebuild the parking lot to comply with the new local codes as a result, but that wouldn't as far as the law is concerned be directly connected to that case.
Except it doesn't lead to any liability for any action of the user. It's exactly the same situation as if someone had taken out a defamatory ad in a newspaper and the judge, after finding for the plaintiff, ordered the ad taken down. The newspaper may suffer penalties if it refuses to comply with the order, but that's liability for it's own action (refusing to comply with the order), not for anything the defendant did (having the defamatory ad run).
There's certainly a long string of cases saying you can't sue the site to get the material taken down, but that's a different question from having the site take the material down after the poster's been sued and the plaintiff won a ruling in their favor.
Section 230 wasn't designed to allow an online forum to avoid obeying a court order, it was designed to force a plaintiff to go after the actual author of the material rather than the online forum. The plaintiff did so in this case. And it won according to the rules set by the court. It may be a win on a technicality by our standards, but the defendant had notice of the suit and declined to contest it so the win is valid (unlike the cases where the plaintiff tries to get a judgment without ever identifying or serving the actual defendant). Section 230's over and done with. Now the question is whether the court has the authority to order defamatory material removed, which there's no argument it does. The only question Yelp can raise is whether the court should properly first order the defendant to remove the material and only order Yelp to remove it for him if he doesn't comply. If you look back at case law, there's a long string of decisions saying that yes the courts can order a non-party to remove (to the best of their ability) material that's been found to be defamatory by the court. Section 230 doesn't (and doesn't appear from the legislative history to be intended to) exempt online forums from that, only from being the target of the defamation suit in the first place.
That's the basic problem: the devices Nest is making were already feature-complete before they started. Thermostats, light bulbs, surveillance cameras, they all have decades of refinement behind them already. Their functions are basic enough that there really isn't a lot of room for enhancement there. IoT can add control and reporting features (think lights and appliances or even outlets that can report power use in real-time, allowing you to see exactly how much power your home's using and where it's going) but things like a learning thermostat are easier to do with a controllable dumb thermostat and a process on a central controller that adjusts the settings. Combine that with an erroneous emphasis on "the cloud" and vendor lock-in and you've got a recipe for collapse.
"Confidential Information" means data that is protected from disclosure on a computer, computer program, computer system or computer network and that the computer, computer program, computer system or computer network does not transmit or disclose unless initiated by the owner of such computer, computer program, computer system or computer network.
Another way of reading that is that if the computer transmits the data when someone other than the owner merely requests it, the data fails the bolded part of the paragraph and because of that is not considered "confidential information".
People like you are disgusting. What fucking fairy-tale land do you live in that makes you think that any government agency or a single member of that agency would not fuck you over sideways just because they might get caught? Just what makes you think that just because it is government that they have no reason to use their power to even screw with you as a joke?
Did you think before ranting? You're maybe right about an individual IRS agent, but we aren't talking about individual IRS agents dealing with individual returns here. We're talking about an automated system handling a huge number of the simplest returns there are (the people who can file 1040EZ, basically). To do what you suggest involves not just one person but a joint effort between likely hundreds of developers, QA people and managers in the IT division who have no contact with taxpayers and no direct involvement in the actual processing of returns. If they targeted more than a small handful of taxpayers, it's virtually certain the systematic errors would be uncovered and an investigation begun by yet another group independent of the first. At that point even a single member of the first group (who doesn't even have to be involved in the deal themselves, just know about it) deciding to not endanger their career by lying and the whole scheme unravels. Maybe they wouldn't end up in jail, or even paying fines, but their careers would be over.
And these are returns with no wiggle room in them. A complicated return from someone pulling in 6- and 7-digit sums from multiple companies of various sorts, with investments and all sorts of other exotic forms in their return, you can make plausible arguments before the judge for thousands of dollars in variation in the tax liability. That kind of return it's easy for an IRS agent to gouge a taxpayer. But a 1040EZ? The taxpayer or his tax preparer can nail down the tax liability to within a couple of dollars tops documented with paperwork whose numbers can't be argued with since they didn't originate with the taxpayer. They try to gouge the taxpayer, they lose the moment it gets appealed (and the appeal is trivial to do, you have to be brain-dead to screw up the form). They'll have pissed off their supervisor big-time, gross stupidity in public never looks good on your evaluation form plus the supervisor now has to actually do something about them because of said gross stupidity. And if your tax preparer's like the one I had, they'll end up personally paying every penny of your expenses plus hefty punitive damages plus a hefty fine. If they're lucky. If not, they'll wish they were just inventorying every single page of tax records the IRS has, all the way back to when it was formed, with no tools other than a Crayola crayon and a 3x5 index card. The one thing bureaucrats hate most is a subordinate who's stupid enough to get caught breaking the rules in so public a manner that it can't be swept under the rug.
And all this for what? The chance to gain less than what they could gain in a month by jumping ship to the private sector? No, anybody stupid enough to try this wouldn't be able to get the code through the compiler let alone past the QA department.
The idea that the IRS would overcharge people is... well, in itself it's plausible. Whether through simple incompetence or malicious intent, we've seen enough out of government agencies to know it's not beyond the realm of possibility. But the IRS is providing all their figures to the taxpayer, who themselves have their own copies of the records and can do the math (or have it done for them) to double-check the IRS's calculations. The IRS might over-charge, but in no way would they get away with doing it on any scale at all without getting caught at it. Even the IRS knows this, it's exactly how they catch tax cheats. So why would they try in the first place, and how would they avoid being caught if they did try?