Australian Social Media Law proposed

The Australian Government has just released a proposed law to deal with defamation and social media comments.

See Social Media (Anti-Trolling) Bill.

https://www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/social-media-anti-trolling-bill

The AG's office provides the following information:

"The challenges of responding to anonymous online trolling became clear after the High Court's decision in Fairfax Media Publications v Voller [2021] HCA 27, handed down in September 2021. The Voller decision shows that Australians who maintain a social media page may be exposed to defamation liability for defamatory comments posted on the page by others – even if they are not aware of those defamatory comments.

To urgently address this situation the Australian Government has developed the Social Media (Anti-Trolling) Bill 2021. To address the implications of the Voller decision, the Bill will protect Australians from defamation liability that could arise if they allow users to comment on their social media page."

 See my comments in The Australian blog:  "Law professor supports anti-trolling proposals"

Crypto Regulation

In an interesting article about Crypto Exchange regulation in the WSJ.

"The world’s fastest-growing major financial exchange has no head office or formal address, lacks licenses in countries where it operates and has a chief executive who until recently wouldn’t answer questions about his location."

The biggest exchange is Binance, which has no fixed address it seems.  Creates interesting internet jurisdiction issues.

UK Cookies Case

An interesting case today from the UK:  Lloyd v Google

See note here:  https://www.mishcon.com/news/the-developing-law-on-data-protection-group-claims

"This is of course a landmark judgment for data protection claims, but also more generally for consumer actions brought on an "opt-out" basis. The claimant, Mr Lloyd, represented a group of more than 4 million iPhone users, and alleged, on their behalf, that Google's historic deployment of cookies on the Safari browser had been not just unlawful, but that it meant that Google should pay compensation to everyone who had received cookies on that basis."

The court found for Google.

 

How the FBI obtains access to telephone information

This is a good article.  It provides insights on what exactly each carrier collects, a more recent run-down of how long each United States telecom retains certain types of data for, and images of the tool the FBI makes available to law enforcement agencies across the country to analyze cell phone tower data.

Here's the FBI's Internal Guide for Getting Data from AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon

https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7vqkv/how-fbi-gets-phone-data-att-tmobile-verizon

Is cybersecurity insurance worth the risk?

A good source of information about cybersecurity risks is the Information Security Forum (ISF).

For example, ISF recently published an interesting report regarding cybersecurity insurance.  Is cybersecurity insurance worth the risk?  See Report.

Reverse Domain Name Hijacking Lawsuit Dismissed in USA

An interesting legal decision regarding the domain name pocketbook.com was handed down by a United States district judge this month.  The case arose out of this NAF UDRP decision from 2019 that decided for the domain name owner:  https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/1857174.htm

The court reviewed the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) prohibits reverse
domain name hijacking, which occurs when “overreaching trademark owners” interfere with a
domain name registrant’s lawful use of a domain name. 

The court decided that the requirement that the domain name “has been suspended, disabled, or transferred” does not include temporary suspension during the pendency of a UDRP case.

See decision here https://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/pocketbook.pdf  and case note here.

Privacy Act Review in Australia

The Australian Attorney-General's Office has released the Privacy Act Review Discussion Paper and seeks comments before 10 January 2022. The discussion paper considers these matters:

• Scope, application & effectiveness of the Privacy Act
• Direct rights of action by individuals
• Statutory tort for invasion of privacy
• Notifiable data breach scheme effectiveness
• Enforcement power effectiveness
• Aspects of a certification scheme

https://consultations.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/privacy-act-review-discussion-paper/

Concurrently, the AG's Office is holding this consultation at the same time as a consultation on the exposure draft of the Privacy Legislation Amendment (Enhancing Online Privacy and Other Measures) Bill 2021 (Online Privacy Bill).

The Online Privacy Bill addresses the pressing privacy challenges posed by social media and certain other online platforms.

The Privacy Act Review seeks to build on the outcomes of the Online Privacy Bill to ensure that Australia's privacy law framework empowers consumers, protects their data and supports the Australian economy.

Non Specialist Lawyers Doing Domain Name Disputes - A big risk!

In my opinion, there is a big risk using a non-specialist lawyer to run a domain name dispute under the UDRP or auDRP.  A recent example is the Brisbane law firm Dowd & Co running a domain name dispute under the UDRP for a complainant.  Not only were they unsuccessful, there was a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) against the Complainant, and resulting bad publicity.

The Panel stated:

"It is evident from the Complaint in this case that the Complainant has not fully appreciated the requirement to prove both registration and use in bad faith.... This Complaint was therefore doomed to fail at the outset as the Complainant could not prove registration in bad faith. The Complainant and/or its legal counsel should have appreciated this. A passing familiarity with Policy precedent on this issue (for example, as described in section 3.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0) is something that the Panel is entitled to expect from parties represented by legal counsel, and it is lacking here. Such familiarity would have caused the Complainant to be aware of its difficulties in pursuing the Complaint. A modicum of additional research would also have indicated to the Complainant that the Respondent itself had created and run a business by the name of “Streamline Servers”, well before 2009, and it therefore had a bona fide basis for registration of the disputed domain name."

Not something good to have on the public record against you.

See GSL Networks Pty Ltd. v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Alex Alvanos, Bobservers, WIPO Case No. D2021-2255

See Domain Wire

Cyber Insurance

An excellent paper on Cyber Insurance in Australia:  "Underwritten or Oversold".  Well worth reading.

From the CSCRC (the Cyber Security Cooperative Research Centre).

Affiliate Program Advertisers Must Take Care Not to be Misleading

Many businesses run affiliate programs.  That is, a publisher or blogger will receive a commission for referring people to the website of the business.

For example, The Circle is a good novel that considers the future of social media, and I will receive a small commission if you buy The Circle from Amazon via this link:  https://amzn.to/3pawSJK  Or better still, buy my book!  https://amzn.to/3vl85Dy

There are even affiliate programs for bitcoin purchases https://app.bitcoinlatinum.com/invite?ref=UD03527

Amazon recently emailed the following to their affiliate program members (which they call an Associates Program), to ensure that the affiliate is not acting in a misleading way (which is not uncommon):

This is a recurring reminder that any time you share an associate link, it’s important to disclose that to your audience. They will trust you more if you are transparent about where you are directing them and why. To meet the Associate Program’s requirements, you must (1) include a legally compliant disclosure with your links and (2) identify yourself on your Site as an Amazon Associate with the language required by the Operating Agreement. 

To comply with Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulations, your link-level disclosure must be: 

1. Clear. A clear disclosure could be as simple as “(paid link)”, “#ad” or “#CommissionsEarned”. 

2. Conspicuous. It should be placed near any associate link or product review in a location that customers will notice easily. They shouldn’t have to hunt for it. 

In addition, the Operating Agreement requires that the following statement clearly and conspicuously appears on your Site: “As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.” For social media user-generated content, this statement must be associated with your account. 

To read more about the FTC Endorsement Guides, visit: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking#affiliate. 

Visit this page on AC to bookmark this information about disclosures.