The Experts below are selected from a list of 75 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

David Thaw - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • reasonable expectations of privacy settings social media and the stored communications act
    Social Science Research Network, 2015
    Co-Authors: Christopher J Borchert, Fernando M Pinguelo, David Thaw
    Abstract:

    In 1986, Congress passed the stored communications act (“SCA”) to provide additional protections for individuals’ private communications content held in electronic storage by third parties. acting out of direct concern for the implications of the Third-Party Records Doctrine — a judicially created doctrine that generally eliminates Fourth Amendment protections for information entrusted to third parties — Congress sought to tailor the SCA to electronic communications sent via and stored by third parties. Yet, because Congress crafted the SCA with language specific to the technology of 1986, courts today have struggled to apply the SCA consistently with regard to similar private content sent using different technologies. This Article argues that Congress should revisit the SCA and adopt a single, technology-neutral standard of protection for private communications content held by third-party service providers. Furthermore, it suggests that Congress specifically intended to limit the scope of the Third-Party Records Doctrine by creating greater protections via the SCA, and thus courts interpreting existing law should afford protection to new technologies such as social media communications consistent with that intent based on individuals’ expressed privacy preferences.

  • reasonable expectations of privacy settings social media and the stored communications act
    Duke law and technology review, 2015
    Co-Authors: Christopher J Borchert, Fernando M Pinguelo, David Thaw
    Abstract:

    In 1986, Congress passed the stored communications act (“SCA”) to provide additional protections for individuals’ private communications content held in electronic storage by third parties. acting out of direct concern for the implications of the Third-Party Records Doctrine—a judicially created doctrine that generally eliminates Fourth Amendment protections for information entrusted to third parties—Congress sought to tailor the SCA to electronic communications sent via and stored by third parties. Yet, because Congress crafted the SCA with language specific to the technology of 1986, courts today have struggled to apply the SCA consistently with regard to similar private content sent using different technologies. This Article argues that Congress should revisit the SCA and adopt a single, technology-neutral standard of protection for private communications content held by third-party service providers. Furthermore, it suggests that Congress specifically intended to limit the scope of the Third-Party Records Doctrine by creating greater protections via the SCA, and thus courts interpreting existing law should afford protection to new technologies such as social media communications consistent with that intent based on individuals’ expressed privacy preferences. † Authors are listed in alphabetical order by last name, and this ordering does not reflect the contributions of any one author. Christopher J. Borchert is an Associate of the law firm Connell Foley LLP. He received his J.D., with Honors, and Intellectual Property Certificate from the University of Connecticut School of Law and his B.A. in Political Communication from the George Washington University. Fernando M. Pinguelo is a Partner in the New Jersey and New York offices of Scarinci Hollenbeck and Chair of the firm's Cyber Security & Data Protection Group. He received his J.D. and B.A. magna cum laude from Boston College. David Thaw is an Assistant Professor of Law and Information Sciences at the University of Pittsburgh and an Affiliated Fellow of the Information Society Project at Yale Law School. David received his J.D. from Berkeley Law, Ph.D. in Information Management and Systems and M.A. in Political Science from UC Berkeley, and B.S. in Computer Science and B.A. in Government and Politics from the University of Maryland. No. 1] DUKE LAW & TECHNOLOGY REVIEW 37

David Horton - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • the stored communications act and digital assets
    Vanderbilt Law Review, 2014
    Co-Authors: David Horton
    Abstract:

    Commentary on Naomi Cahn, Probate Meets the Digital Age1I. INTRODUCTIONThe story has become all too familiar. Someone dies, and her loved ones request the contents of her text, email, or social media accounts. Perhaps they wish to preserve this vibrant electronic slice of the decedent's life.2 Perhaps grief compels them to sift through the minutiae of the decedent's final days.3 Or perhaps they are merely trying to fulfill their duties as trustees, executors, or administrators to pay the decedent's bills and to inventory her property. However, the decedent's Internet Service Provider ("ISP")-be it Facebook, Yahoo!, or Microsoft-refuses to cooperate.As Naomi Cahn explains in her outstanding contribution to the Vanderbilt Law Review's Symposium on the Role of Federal Law in Private Wealth Transfer,4 these ISPs are concerned about a byzantine federal statute from 1986: the stored communications act ("SCA"). Section 2701 of the SCA criminalizes unauthorized access to electronic communications,5 presenting a seemingly nasty glitch for fiduciaries attempting to marshal a decedent's digital assets. Section 2702 bars ISPs from disclosing a customer's private data without her "lawful consent."6 Noting that the SCA predates the rise of email-let alone the phenomenon of a valuable Twitter account-Professor Cahn argues that the statute should not govern fiduciaries.7 Alternatively, assuming that the SCA does apply in the trusts and estates context, Professor Cahn discusses various ways around this obstacle, including the Uniform Law Commission's draft Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets act ("FADA"), which would clarify that fiduciaries generally enjoy the "authorization"' and "lawful consent" necessary to acquire a decedent's online accounts.8This short invited reply takes a different route to the same destination. It begins by offering a reading of the SCA that diverges slightly from Professor Cahn's. However, it uses that discussion to echo her critique of the SCA and bolster the case for the FADA.II. THE SCAThe SCA is dusty and complex, and courts commonly disagree about the meaning of its key terms. Thus, although many commentators have noted that the statute "may" cast a shadow over the inheritability of digital assets, few have attempted to define its precise effect.9 Professor Cahn deserves credit for filling this gap. As I discuss next, I partially agree with her claim that the SCA is less of a roadblock than commonly believed.A. Section 2701For fiduciaries, the most intimidating part of the SCA is section 2701. That provision levies criminal penalties upon anyone who "intentionally accesses without authorization a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided" or who "exceeds an authorization to access . . . and thereby obtains, alters, or prevents authorized access to a [η] . . . electronic communication while it is in electronic storage."10 Congress intended this language to create a weapon against "computer hackers (e.g., electronic trespassers)."* 11 But because the statutory text sweeps broadly and prohibits simply "logging onto another's email account without permission,"12 scholars have voiced concern that fiduciaries may violate the SCA by taking control of a decedent's electronic assets.13However, I share Professor Cahn's view that section 2701 does not apply to fiduciaries. For starters, the passage's key phrase- "without authorization"-is exceedingly narrow. "Authorization" means "power granted by authority," as several courts have recognized while interpreting the SCA's sister statute, the Computer Fraud and Abuse act ("CFAA").14 As a result, a decedent whose will or trust expressly allows a fiduciary to control her electronic possessions automatically authorizes access to those assets under section 2701.To be sure, because few estate plans actually mention digital assets, the breadth of the term "authorization" does not get us very far. …

  • the stored communications act and digital assets
    Social Science Research Network, 2014
    Co-Authors: David Horton
    Abstract:

    The story has become all too familiar. Someone dies, and her loved ones request the contents of her text, email, or social media accounts. Perhaps they wish to preserve this vibrant electronic slice of the decedent’s life. Perhaps they are compelled in their grieving to sift through the minutiae of the decedent’s final days. Or perhaps they are merely trying to fulfill their duty as trustee, executor, or administrator to pay the decedent’s bills and inventory her property. However, the decedent’s Internet Service Provider (“ISP”) — be it Facebook, Yahoo!, or Microsoft — refuses to comply. As Naomi Cahn explains in her outstanding contribution to the Vanderbilt Law Review’s Symposium on the Role of Federal Law in Private Wealth Transfer, these ISPs are afraid of a byzantine federal statute from 1986: the stored communications act (“SCA”). Section 2701 of the SCA criminalizes unauthorized access to electronic communications: a seemingly nasty glitch for fiduciaries attempting to marshal a decedent’s digital assets. Section 2702 bars ISPs from disclosing a customer’s private data without her “lawful consent.” Citing the fact that the SCA predates the rise of email — let alone the phenomenon of a valuable Twitter account — Professor Cahn argues that the statute should not govern fiduciaries. Alternatively, assuming that the SCA does apply, Professor Cahn discusses various ways around this obstacle, including the Uniform Law Commission’s draft Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets act (“FADA”), which would clarify that fiduciaries generally enjoy the “authorization”’ and “lawful consent” necessary to acquire a decedent’s online accounts. This short invited reply takes a different route to the same destination. It begins by offering a reading of the SCA that diverges slightly from Professor Cahn’s. However, it uses that discussion to echo her critique of the SCA and bolster the case for the FADA.

William Jeremy Robison - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Free at what cost?: Cloud computing privacy under the stored communications act
    Georgetown Law Journal, 2010
    Co-Authors: William Jeremy Robison
    Abstract:

    The stored communications act (SCA), a component of the broader Electronic communications Privacy act (ECPA), is the primary federal source of online privacy protections, but it is more than twenty years old. Despite the rapid evolution of computer and networking technology since the SCA’s adoption, its language has remained surprisingly static. The resulting task of adapting the act’s language to modern technology has fallen largely upon the courts. In coming years, however, the courts will face their most difficult task yet in determining how cloud computing fits within the SCA’s complex framework.This Note ultimately concludes that the advertising supported business model embraced by many cloud computing providers will not qualify for the SCA’s privacy protections. In exchange for “free” cloud computing services, customers are authorizing service providers to access their data to tailor contextual and targeted advertising. This quid pro quo violates the SCA’s requirements and many customers will find that their expectations of privacy were illusory. Consequently, a cloud provider’s terms of service agreement may be the only privacy protections applicable to its customers.Subsequently, this Note explores whether the lack of privacy protections for cloud computing is consistent with Congress’s intent in adopting the SCA and whether it will be a catalyst for expanding privacy measures in the future. In response, Part V explores the SCA’s legislative history and argues that the modern form of cloud computing is incompatible with the concerns and Fourth Amendment principles that motivated Congress’s adoption of the act. Part VI further examines potential judicial, legislative, and societal forces that could prompt revisions to the SCA, but concludes that the lack of privacy protections in cloud computing is unlikely to be addressed anytime soon.

Christopher J Borchert - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • reasonable expectations of privacy settings social media and the stored communications act
    Social Science Research Network, 2015
    Co-Authors: Christopher J Borchert, Fernando M Pinguelo, David Thaw
    Abstract:

    In 1986, Congress passed the stored communications act (“SCA”) to provide additional protections for individuals’ private communications content held in electronic storage by third parties. acting out of direct concern for the implications of the Third-Party Records Doctrine — a judicially created doctrine that generally eliminates Fourth Amendment protections for information entrusted to third parties — Congress sought to tailor the SCA to electronic communications sent via and stored by third parties. Yet, because Congress crafted the SCA with language specific to the technology of 1986, courts today have struggled to apply the SCA consistently with regard to similar private content sent using different technologies. This Article argues that Congress should revisit the SCA and adopt a single, technology-neutral standard of protection for private communications content held by third-party service providers. Furthermore, it suggests that Congress specifically intended to limit the scope of the Third-Party Records Doctrine by creating greater protections via the SCA, and thus courts interpreting existing law should afford protection to new technologies such as social media communications consistent with that intent based on individuals’ expressed privacy preferences.

  • reasonable expectations of privacy settings social media and the stored communications act
    Duke law and technology review, 2015
    Co-Authors: Christopher J Borchert, Fernando M Pinguelo, David Thaw
    Abstract:

    In 1986, Congress passed the stored communications act (“SCA”) to provide additional protections for individuals’ private communications content held in electronic storage by third parties. acting out of direct concern for the implications of the Third-Party Records Doctrine—a judicially created doctrine that generally eliminates Fourth Amendment protections for information entrusted to third parties—Congress sought to tailor the SCA to electronic communications sent via and stored by third parties. Yet, because Congress crafted the SCA with language specific to the technology of 1986, courts today have struggled to apply the SCA consistently with regard to similar private content sent using different technologies. This Article argues that Congress should revisit the SCA and adopt a single, technology-neutral standard of protection for private communications content held by third-party service providers. Furthermore, it suggests that Congress specifically intended to limit the scope of the Third-Party Records Doctrine by creating greater protections via the SCA, and thus courts interpreting existing law should afford protection to new technologies such as social media communications consistent with that intent based on individuals’ expressed privacy preferences. † Authors are listed in alphabetical order by last name, and this ordering does not reflect the contributions of any one author. Christopher J. Borchert is an Associate of the law firm Connell Foley LLP. He received his J.D., with Honors, and Intellectual Property Certificate from the University of Connecticut School of Law and his B.A. in Political Communication from the George Washington University. Fernando M. Pinguelo is a Partner in the New Jersey and New York offices of Scarinci Hollenbeck and Chair of the firm's Cyber Security & Data Protection Group. He received his J.D. and B.A. magna cum laude from Boston College. David Thaw is an Assistant Professor of Law and Information Sciences at the University of Pittsburgh and an Affiliated Fellow of the Information Society Project at Yale Law School. David received his J.D. from Berkeley Law, Ph.D. in Information Management and Systems and M.A. in Political Science from UC Berkeley, and B.S. in Computer Science and B.A. in Government and Politics from the University of Maryland. No. 1] DUKE LAW & TECHNOLOGY REVIEW 37

Fernando M Pinguelo - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • reasonable expectations of privacy settings social media and the stored communications act
    Social Science Research Network, 2015
    Co-Authors: Christopher J Borchert, Fernando M Pinguelo, David Thaw
    Abstract:

    In 1986, Congress passed the stored communications act (“SCA”) to provide additional protections for individuals’ private communications content held in electronic storage by third parties. acting out of direct concern for the implications of the Third-Party Records Doctrine — a judicially created doctrine that generally eliminates Fourth Amendment protections for information entrusted to third parties — Congress sought to tailor the SCA to electronic communications sent via and stored by third parties. Yet, because Congress crafted the SCA with language specific to the technology of 1986, courts today have struggled to apply the SCA consistently with regard to similar private content sent using different technologies. This Article argues that Congress should revisit the SCA and adopt a single, technology-neutral standard of protection for private communications content held by third-party service providers. Furthermore, it suggests that Congress specifically intended to limit the scope of the Third-Party Records Doctrine by creating greater protections via the SCA, and thus courts interpreting existing law should afford protection to new technologies such as social media communications consistent with that intent based on individuals’ expressed privacy preferences.

  • reasonable expectations of privacy settings social media and the stored communications act
    Duke law and technology review, 2015
    Co-Authors: Christopher J Borchert, Fernando M Pinguelo, David Thaw
    Abstract:

    In 1986, Congress passed the stored communications act (“SCA”) to provide additional protections for individuals’ private communications content held in electronic storage by third parties. acting out of direct concern for the implications of the Third-Party Records Doctrine—a judicially created doctrine that generally eliminates Fourth Amendment protections for information entrusted to third parties—Congress sought to tailor the SCA to electronic communications sent via and stored by third parties. Yet, because Congress crafted the SCA with language specific to the technology of 1986, courts today have struggled to apply the SCA consistently with regard to similar private content sent using different technologies. This Article argues that Congress should revisit the SCA and adopt a single, technology-neutral standard of protection for private communications content held by third-party service providers. Furthermore, it suggests that Congress specifically intended to limit the scope of the Third-Party Records Doctrine by creating greater protections via the SCA, and thus courts interpreting existing law should afford protection to new technologies such as social media communications consistent with that intent based on individuals’ expressed privacy preferences. † Authors are listed in alphabetical order by last name, and this ordering does not reflect the contributions of any one author. Christopher J. Borchert is an Associate of the law firm Connell Foley LLP. He received his J.D., with Honors, and Intellectual Property Certificate from the University of Connecticut School of Law and his B.A. in Political Communication from the George Washington University. Fernando M. Pinguelo is a Partner in the New Jersey and New York offices of Scarinci Hollenbeck and Chair of the firm's Cyber Security & Data Protection Group. He received his J.D. and B.A. magna cum laude from Boston College. David Thaw is an Assistant Professor of Law and Information Sciences at the University of Pittsburgh and an Affiliated Fellow of the Information Society Project at Yale Law School. David received his J.D. from Berkeley Law, Ph.D. in Information Management and Systems and M.A. in Political Science from UC Berkeley, and B.S. in Computer Science and B.A. in Government and Politics from the University of Maryland. No. 1] DUKE LAW & TECHNOLOGY REVIEW 37