Welcome back to Legal Geek. This week, we take a look at how GenCon taking a political stand last week could significantly change the future of the country's largest gaming convention.
https://archive.org/details/LegalGeekEp39
GenCon has been a summer convention staple in Indianapolis since 2003, when it moved from Milwaukee after outgrowing all available convention spaces in Wisconsin. The relationship has been very good for Indianapolis, which holds a lot of conventions and major sporting events but none so big as GenCon. Indianapolis has been estimated to receive over $50 Million in revenue annually from attendees of this four day convention. Indeed, Indianapolis expanded the convention center a few years ago at a cost of $275 Million primarily to accommodate the crowds of GenCon, but also to lure some other big conventions such as the NRA convention in future years.
But last week, the future of GenCon in Indy became foggy as GenCon's CEO sent an open letter to Indiana governor Mike Pence demanding his veto of religious freedom legislation passed by the Indiana legislature a week ago. The letter was also circulated on social media sites. Quoting from the letter, GenCon writes:
"Gen Con proudly welcomes a diverse attendee base, made up of different ethnicities, cultures, beliefs, sexual orientations, gender identities, abilities, and socio-economic backgrounds. We are happy to provide an environment that welcomes all, and the wide-ranging diversity of our attendees has become a key element to the success and growth of our convention. Legislation that could allow for refusal of service or discrimination against our attendees will have a direct negative impact on the state's economy"
Clearly, GenCon is drawing a line in the sand and threatening to leave Indianapolis over the legislation.
The legislation itself is Indiana Senate Bill 101, which would prevent state and local governments from "substantially burdening" a person's exercise of religion unless the government can prove it has a compelling interest and is doing so in the least restrictive means. Proponents of the law note that this is in compliance with the 22-year old federal religious freedom laws. Opponents of the law deem this a potential loophole license for all private companies to discriminate, particularly against gays and lesbians.
Pence signed the bill into law despite the protests from GenCon, making a statement indicating that he does not believe this law authorizes discrimination in any way. However, the opposing economic and political pressure from GenCon, other companies like engine maker Cummins, and the mayor of Indianapolis have apparently been enough to collectively make Pence consider revising or repealing the law to avoid the potential discrimination effect. GenCon released a further letter this week indicating that the governor has reached out to begin figuring out whether an amendment to the bill or enforcement of a current city rule prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation will be enough to avoid having the religious freedom act twisted against its intended purpose.
USA Today reports that 19 other states have similar laws in effect already. Thus, even if GenCon's threat to move is serious, it's unclear what, if any good alternative options are available for GenCon to move to. Should the convention move to a city and state with smaller convention center space, that would likely lead to caps on attendees and ridiculous overcrowding problems. Furthermore, the best alternatives may already have generally competing conventions like San Diego with Comic Con and Atlanta with Dragoncon. If Indiana is bad news for GenCon, the alternatives could be much less preferable. Who knows, if GenCon stays on the same week as Nerdtacular, maybe they could move it to Salt Lake City to appease those few of us who go to both!
Bottom line - GenCon going political to protect all of its diverse gamer attendees is a bold move that should be appreciated by nerd world, but the move could lead to an undesirable relocation that would negatively impact the very gamers who love to attend this convention annually. Even with that relocation risk seeming to be less this week, it would still pose some interesting questions for one of the biggest conventions in America.
For more on this from a sports-related slant instead of geek-related, check out my longer article on Talking10.com about the subject.
----------------------------------
Thanks for reading. Please provide feedback and legal-themed questions as segment suggestions to me on Twitter @BuckeyeFitzy
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
Thursday, March 19, 2015
Legal Geek No. 38: Good and Bad Developments for Privacy Law
Welcome back to Legal Geek. This week, we take a look at two recent innovations about to affect everyday life and how differences between them are critical according to privacy law experts.
https://archive.org/details/LegalGeekEp38
Starting next month, Visa will commercially release location-tracking software to many banks, meaning your local bank and credit card companies will offer a location tracking identity safety feature on smartphone apps. This innovation will automatically notify Visa when you travel more than 50 miles from home, helping to avoid flagging non-local transactions as fraudulent when it really is you. As someone who has had a card declined in this manner when trying to buy Bacardi rum in Puerto Rico directly from the distillery, trust me when I say this innovation could avoid some embarrassing situations.
Normally having any private corporation such as a bank track your movements sounds like a real infringement of a consumer's privacy rights, but for frequent travelers, this may properly balance lowering risk of identity theft with a minor increase in information given to a corporation about you. Privacy experts applaud this innovation because the bank apps will need customers to opt-in to use this location tracking, and the opt-in can be deactivated at any time. That means the consumer fully controls when it is needed for the bank to know travel is occurring.
Also becoming more widespread next month will be the use of Google's newly developed ReCAPTCHA login authentication functionality on many third party websites. Instead of standard CAPCTHA which tries to screen out bots by forcing typing of distorted text, the ReCAPTCHA analyzes behavioral cues such as typing cadence, where clicks occur, etc., to determine if you are a human. But this authentication process collects a significant amount of information that could actually identify who the human user is, not just that the user is human. That adds to the substantial profile Google maintains on computer users already, and expands it to many third party site activities as well.
Much like the original CAPTCHA, there is no real opt-in for users of these websites, the new regime just must be accepted. That, plus the lack of much control over what Google can do with this collected information, renders this innovation as one which privacy law experts condemn as possibly a step too far.
Bottom line - when it comes to new innovations which make life more convenient and efficient, sometimes it is better to accept a bit less personal privacy to obtain these benefits. But the ability of consumers to actually control what is shared and when is vital to long-term trust of these companies collecting the information, and companies need to remember that. Privacy law experts certainly will.
----------------------------------
Thanks for reading. Please provide feedback and legal-themed questions as segment suggestions to me on Twitter @BuckeyeFitzy
https://archive.org/details/LegalGeekEp38
Starting next month, Visa will commercially release location-tracking software to many banks, meaning your local bank and credit card companies will offer a location tracking identity safety feature on smartphone apps. This innovation will automatically notify Visa when you travel more than 50 miles from home, helping to avoid flagging non-local transactions as fraudulent when it really is you. As someone who has had a card declined in this manner when trying to buy Bacardi rum in Puerto Rico directly from the distillery, trust me when I say this innovation could avoid some embarrassing situations.
Normally having any private corporation such as a bank track your movements sounds like a real infringement of a consumer's privacy rights, but for frequent travelers, this may properly balance lowering risk of identity theft with a minor increase in information given to a corporation about you. Privacy experts applaud this innovation because the bank apps will need customers to opt-in to use this location tracking, and the opt-in can be deactivated at any time. That means the consumer fully controls when it is needed for the bank to know travel is occurring.
Also becoming more widespread next month will be the use of Google's newly developed ReCAPTCHA login authentication functionality on many third party websites. Instead of standard CAPCTHA which tries to screen out bots by forcing typing of distorted text, the ReCAPTCHA analyzes behavioral cues such as typing cadence, where clicks occur, etc., to determine if you are a human. But this authentication process collects a significant amount of information that could actually identify who the human user is, not just that the user is human. That adds to the substantial profile Google maintains on computer users already, and expands it to many third party site activities as well.
Much like the original CAPTCHA, there is no real opt-in for users of these websites, the new regime just must be accepted. That, plus the lack of much control over what Google can do with this collected information, renders this innovation as one which privacy law experts condemn as possibly a step too far.
Bottom line - when it comes to new innovations which make life more convenient and efficient, sometimes it is better to accept a bit less personal privacy to obtain these benefits. But the ability of consumers to actually control what is shared and when is vital to long-term trust of these companies collecting the information, and companies need to remember that. Privacy law experts certainly will.
----------------------------------
Thanks for reading. Please provide feedback and legal-themed questions as segment suggestions to me on Twitter @BuckeyeFitzy
Thursday, March 5, 2015
Legal Geek No. 37: Fan Art or IP Infringement?
Welcome back to Legal Geek. This week, based on a listener request from Joseph, we take a look at a question regarding selling fan art and fan made items including famous logos or characters.
https://archive.org/details/LegalGeekEp37
Joseph asked a question we see a lot during our summer gaming and comic convention series, that being whether booths that sell fan-made items like stained glass windows, leather flasks, and other items with superhero or video game logos are subject to IP infringement, and if so, how do they consistently get away with this?
https://archive.org/details/LegalGeekEp37
Joseph asked a question we see a lot during our summer gaming and comic convention series, that being whether booths that sell fan-made items like stained glass windows, leather flasks, and other items with superhero or video game logos are subject to IP infringement, and if so, how do they consistently get away with this?
Here's the deal for such sellers: it's definitely copyright and/or trademark infringement, and they run the risk of receiving a nasty Cease and Desist letter, if not a lawsuit, when they sell items using trademarked or copyrighted logos without permission. However, most of these small time hobby businesses stay below the radar because (a) it's too expensive for companies to go after every potential infringer, and (b) in many cases, the sales actually help the market for the genuine goods, not hamper it. That leads to a laissez faire attitude for many companies relative to these infringements.
Obviously some companies like Blizzard Entertainment are more "scorched earth" approach than others, going after more potential infringers. But every company has a limit as to how much they can pursue infringement issues. And that is precisely why these sellers at your local comic and gaming conventions get away with what is really blatant IP infringement.
The risk these companies run is large. Should they lose an infringement lawsuit, any of the following remedies could apply: injunction to stop the activity, handing over of any profits made, and potentially further money damages. Especially in copyright, some damages can be set by statue to some ridiculously significant value between $750 and $30,000 per infringement! If you remember the record companies going after Napster users and the ridiculous fines/settlements paid, that's statutory damages coming into play. That can make this market a small reward high risk endeavor.
Bottom line - if these companies remain what is truly a small business concern, they likely stay under the radar and probably have a low actual risk of these bad legal things happening. But they are undoubtedly committing infringement, which opens up the possibility of lawsuits. At the end of the day, it's a business decision, with associated risks and rewards like all business decisions.
Thanks again to Joseph for the question!
----------------------------------
Do you have a question? Send it in!
Thanks for reading. Please provide feedback and legal-themed questions as segment suggestions to me on Twitter @BuckeyeFitzy
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
Legal Geek No. 36: Katy Perry Claims IP Rights in "Left Shark" (of SB Halftime)
Welcome back to Legal Geek. This week, based on a listener request, we take a look at another interesting story related to the Super Bowl, this being Katy Perry trying to enforce intellectual property rights in the Left Shark of the halftime show.
https://archive.org/details/LegalGeekEp36
Katy Perry provided a number of nifty visuals and performances during her multi-song halftime show, but the one that transcended the night and turned into the latest internet meme was her performance of the song Teenage Dreams, where dancing beach balls, sharks, and trees surrounded her on stage. The shark dancing on the left side of Perry was hilariously out of choreography and sync compared to the right shark and the rest of the dancers. That led to an explosion of Left Shark parodies and commentary online (and even a snarky ESPN SportsCenter advertisement about the performance).
Of course, this also led to people trying to profit off this sure-to-be-short-lived sensation. One of these people was Fernando Sosa, who started selling sculpted figurines of the left shark on his website Political Sculptor.
Katy Perry put her best attorneys on the case, and they first sent a Cease and Desist letter to Sosa based on an alleged copyright claim. This claim looked good enough to cause the website host to comply with the Cease and Desist. However, when this story hit the news, legal experts weighed in and confirmed that the Left Shark costume likely was not copyrightable subject matter.
Costumes and other garments are useful items not typically subject to copyright except for design elements that are separable physically or conceptually from the garment and having originality beyond just contributing to the costume's intended appearance. This rule about costumes and separability was confirmed in the 2014 Compendium of Copyright Office Practices, the same document that explained why monkeys and god-like deities could not obtain copyright at the U.S. Copyright Office.
The Left Shark costume is a full body costume shaped like a shark with fins, eyes, gills, and teeth, all of which appear to be integrated elements not physically separable or conceptually original beyond the use in appearing like a shark. Thus, a copyright claim would likely fail, whether at the copyright office or in court. Katy Perry's attorneys then tried to claim the costume was based on several sketches which Sosa infringes, but this is easily avoided because Sosa never saw the sketches and is not copying anything other than the costume in the halftime show.
That led Katy Perry's attorneys to try something else, specifically filing trademark applications on Left Shark and Right Shark among other shark-related marks. This may just be a tactic to bully small shops and sellers like Sosa out of the market based on the slim potential these applications become enforceable IP rights. But the likelihood that these trademarks will be registered seems slim, as the Left Shark and Right Shark terms came out of the internet meme rather than Perry herself. Thus, she will have trouble proving actual ownership in these marks, let alone that they actually serve the purpose of trademarks, which is to identify an origin of goods and services.
The Bottom Line: Katy Perry and her legal team can't be faulted for trying to protect some profitable moments of fame stemming from her memorable halftime performance, but the claims to IP rights are pretty clearly flawed. If she wants to sell memorabilia and figurines about Left Shark, she will have to just enter the free market and compete with others. Perry will be fine, because after all...
"I kissed a girl, and I liked it..."
----------------------------------
Thanks for reading. Please provide feedback and legal-themed questions as segment suggestions to me on Twitter @BuckeyeFitzy
https://archive.org/details/LegalGeekEp36
Katy Perry provided a number of nifty visuals and performances during her multi-song halftime show, but the one that transcended the night and turned into the latest internet meme was her performance of the song Teenage Dreams, where dancing beach balls, sharks, and trees surrounded her on stage. The shark dancing on the left side of Perry was hilariously out of choreography and sync compared to the right shark and the rest of the dancers. That led to an explosion of Left Shark parodies and commentary online (and even a snarky ESPN SportsCenter advertisement about the performance).
Of course, this also led to people trying to profit off this sure-to-be-short-lived sensation. One of these people was Fernando Sosa, who started selling sculpted figurines of the left shark on his website Political Sculptor.
Katy Perry put her best attorneys on the case, and they first sent a Cease and Desist letter to Sosa based on an alleged copyright claim. This claim looked good enough to cause the website host to comply with the Cease and Desist. However, when this story hit the news, legal experts weighed in and confirmed that the Left Shark costume likely was not copyrightable subject matter.
Costumes and other garments are useful items not typically subject to copyright except for design elements that are separable physically or conceptually from the garment and having originality beyond just contributing to the costume's intended appearance. This rule about costumes and separability was confirmed in the 2014 Compendium of Copyright Office Practices, the same document that explained why monkeys and god-like deities could not obtain copyright at the U.S. Copyright Office.
The Left Shark costume is a full body costume shaped like a shark with fins, eyes, gills, and teeth, all of which appear to be integrated elements not physically separable or conceptually original beyond the use in appearing like a shark. Thus, a copyright claim would likely fail, whether at the copyright office or in court. Katy Perry's attorneys then tried to claim the costume was based on several sketches which Sosa infringes, but this is easily avoided because Sosa never saw the sketches and is not copying anything other than the costume in the halftime show.
That led Katy Perry's attorneys to try something else, specifically filing trademark applications on Left Shark and Right Shark among other shark-related marks. This may just be a tactic to bully small shops and sellers like Sosa out of the market based on the slim potential these applications become enforceable IP rights. But the likelihood that these trademarks will be registered seems slim, as the Left Shark and Right Shark terms came out of the internet meme rather than Perry herself. Thus, she will have trouble proving actual ownership in these marks, let alone that they actually serve the purpose of trademarks, which is to identify an origin of goods and services.
The Bottom Line: Katy Perry and her legal team can't be faulted for trying to protect some profitable moments of fame stemming from her memorable halftime performance, but the claims to IP rights are pretty clearly flawed. If she wants to sell memorabilia and figurines about Left Shark, she will have to just enter the free market and compete with others. Perry will be fine, because after all...
"I kissed a girl, and I liked it..."
----------------------------------
Thanks for reading. Please provide feedback and legal-themed questions as segment suggestions to me on Twitter @BuckeyeFitzy
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
Legal Geek No. 35: Trademarking Sports Slogans like "The 12th Man"
Welcome back to Legal Geek. This week, we take a look at one of the most prominent sports slogans in use today and the interesting legal wrangling going on behind the scenes about use of the slogan.
https://archive.org/details/LegalGeekEp35
The 12th Man is a slogan used primarily with football teams to refer to the fans backing the team in the bleachers. It is particularly associated with the Seattle Seahawks, who embrace the title so much that fans wave flags with the number 12 on it. With Seattle playing in the most recent two Super Bowls, some may just assume this prominent slogan is a Seattle based thing.
However, The 12th Man is actually registered as a trademark by a completely different football program, and Seattle has had to negotiate just to maintain the rights to allow its use! Even sports fandom cannot escape the craziness of IP law.
The actual owner of the trademark on The 12th Man is Texas A&M University, and the story behind this slogan is fantastic. In short, a 1922 game between the Aggies and Centre College was so riddled with injuries that A&M had zero reserve players left to put in the game if another player got hurt. So the coach recruited a young man from the stands and had him suit up just in case another body was needed. Even though that 12th man never had to go in the game, the story became legend in Texas and the Aggie fans adopted the moniker The 12th Man.
After using the mark for many decades, Texas A&M began applying for and procuring the trademarks in the 1980's and 1990's. A&M has then sent a number of cease and desist letters to other professional and collegiate football teams using the trademark. When Seattle ramped up marketing efforts behind this slogan in 2005, A&M sued the Seahawks and the litigation ended up in settlement and a license agreement.
Under the license, the Seahawks can use any rendition of the number 12 on flags, shirts, and other merchandise (and they do, as evidenced by the iconic flag above), but this merchandise must remain distinguished from the full 12th Man mark. That's why the iconic flag has only the number 12 on it.
This license is expected to end in 2016, which means either Seattle will find alternative 12 brands of their own to market to fans or renegotiate the license and pay Texas A&M. It will be interesting to see what the Seahawks ownership group chooses to do, although it is notable that the company owning the Seahawks various IP has pending trademark applications on 12's, We are 12, and The 12's, all of which are apparently used pretty commonly already by Seattle fans. Not that there's anything Borg like about "We are 12," but I digress.
The Bottom Line: the passion of sports fans will not be abated by little things like trademark lawsuits, but it is interesting to see programs do battle in court over something seemingly so silly as what moniker the fans choose to use. Seattle fans will continue to enjoy the spirit of the 12th Man moniker, and if their team would just learn to run the ball on the 1 yard line, everything would be great.
----------------------------------
Thanks for reading. Please provide feedback and legal-themed questions as segment suggestions to me on Twitter @BuckeyeFitzy
https://archive.org/details/LegalGeekEp35
The 12th Man is a slogan used primarily with football teams to refer to the fans backing the team in the bleachers. It is particularly associated with the Seattle Seahawks, who embrace the title so much that fans wave flags with the number 12 on it. With Seattle playing in the most recent two Super Bowls, some may just assume this prominent slogan is a Seattle based thing.
However, The 12th Man is actually registered as a trademark by a completely different football program, and Seattle has had to negotiate just to maintain the rights to allow its use! Even sports fandom cannot escape the craziness of IP law.
The actual owner of the trademark on The 12th Man is Texas A&M University, and the story behind this slogan is fantastic. In short, a 1922 game between the Aggies and Centre College was so riddled with injuries that A&M had zero reserve players left to put in the game if another player got hurt. So the coach recruited a young man from the stands and had him suit up just in case another body was needed. Even though that 12th man never had to go in the game, the story became legend in Texas and the Aggie fans adopted the moniker The 12th Man.
After using the mark for many decades, Texas A&M began applying for and procuring the trademarks in the 1980's and 1990's. A&M has then sent a number of cease and desist letters to other professional and collegiate football teams using the trademark. When Seattle ramped up marketing efforts behind this slogan in 2005, A&M sued the Seahawks and the litigation ended up in settlement and a license agreement.
Under the license, the Seahawks can use any rendition of the number 12 on flags, shirts, and other merchandise (and they do, as evidenced by the iconic flag above), but this merchandise must remain distinguished from the full 12th Man mark. That's why the iconic flag has only the number 12 on it.
This license is expected to end in 2016, which means either Seattle will find alternative 12 brands of their own to market to fans or renegotiate the license and pay Texas A&M. It will be interesting to see what the Seahawks ownership group chooses to do, although it is notable that the company owning the Seahawks various IP has pending trademark applications on 12's, We are 12, and The 12's, all of which are apparently used pretty commonly already by Seattle fans. Not that there's anything Borg like about "We are 12," but I digress.
The Bottom Line: the passion of sports fans will not be abated by little things like trademark lawsuits, but it is interesting to see programs do battle in court over something seemingly so silly as what moniker the fans choose to use. Seattle fans will continue to enjoy the spirit of the 12th Man moniker, and if their team would just learn to run the ball on the 1 yard line, everything would be great.
----------------------------------
Thanks for reading. Please provide feedback and legal-themed questions as segment suggestions to me on Twitter @BuckeyeFitzy
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
Legal Geek No. 34: IP for Food Recipes?
Welcome back to Legal Geek. This week, we take a look at an interesting question that walked into my real life office this week, just like the interesting characters that walk into Saul Goodman's office.
https://archive.org/details/LegalGeekEp34
One of the recurring "great ideas" that many people seem to come up with are new recipes for food items. Indeed, just this week a potential client asked about patenting a new food recipe, and the inquiry is more common than you might think. The most memorable of these interactions since I started practicing law was with a man who believed he invented the cheeseburger taco 5 years ago, and a quick Google image search quickly ended that notion.
But are food recipes protectable with patents or any other IP?
The general answer on the patent side usually ends up being no, but not because food recipes are disqualified from patent protection. On the contrary, recipes can be patented if novelty and non-obviousness over the known prior art in the food preparation field can be shown. The problem is proving some sort of unique peculiarity or counter-intuitive feature that would make a food recipe a non-obvious improvement over what is already known. It's usually an incredibly difficult hurdle to overcome for this type of invention.
Trademarks cover business names and product names, so recipes do not really come under the scope of that type of IP. While trade secrets can be used to protect recipes like the famous Coca Cola secret recipe, this is not the type of protection most food connoisseurs are interested in, especially if public recognition or exclusivity is desired
That leaves copyrights, which have long been the recommended path for creators who just want to have some protection and/or a certificate on the wall. However, copyright protection requires originality in the creative expression, which means underlying facts are not protectable even if the creative organization or way the facts are expressed are protectable.
Last week a Cleveland federal court made some headlines by confirming that food recipes in a recipe book cannot be copyrighted so as to block other competitors from using the same set of ingredients to make a food product. This decision is in line with many other court decisions over the years which have confirmed basic lists of ingredients and functional directions for combining them are not an original creative expression entitled to copyright. So copyright won't work either.
The bottom line: if you come up with a great food recipe, the only likely way to protect it with public IP would be by patent, and that would be a significant uphill battle in most circumstances. So share the wealth food junkies, and we will all benefit from your delicious creativity.
----------------------------------
Thanks for reading. Please provide feedback and legal-themed questions as segment suggestions to me on Twitter @BuckeyeFitzy
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
Legal Geek No. 33: Google Patents Improved Web Browser Privacy
Welcome back to Legal Geek. This week, we take a look at one of the more interesting issued U.S. patents of the new year, as Google innovates in the field of internet user browsing privacy.
https://archive.org/details/LegalGeekEp33
Internet users have for some time been able to browse in incognito or private modes in various browser applications. These modes mean that your search history, cookies from a session, and browsing history will not be retained on your computer. In addition to preventing others from snooping on your internet history, these modes can be used to avoid autofill information, accidental saving of important log-in credentials to accounts, logging into multiple accounts on a website in different windows, and performing searches not affected by your history or other users on the same device.
These modes have been only manually activated to date, requiring diligence of the user in remembering to activate private browsing whenever it is desired. In January, Google has secured a patent that innovates and moves private browsing to the next level. The patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,935,798, is directed to a system and a computer method of automatically enabling private browsing so that the user does not have to manually activate privacy mode.
The method words by having the browser analyze the content of the web page to determine whether privacy mode is appropriate. For example, the patent claims specifically recite having the browser determine whether a web page being opened was previously filtered or selected to not appear in search results, and if so, the privacy mode is automatically started and the web page is opened in that privacy mode. Thus, the user can establish parameters for automatically triggering privacy mode – such as when they enter a credit card number on a site, or when they visit certain high-security websites – and the protection will just happen. It's a potentially very smart implementation of privacy mode browsing when it matters most.
This could be a potential boon for helping keep personal information private, but as with all privacy mode browsing, this does not keep websites and service providers from tracking your activity. Furthermore, high quality forensic techniques have proven to still be able to reconstruct the browsing history in the current iterations of privacy modes. And granting the patent to Google may mean this technology remains locked up in a single browser like Chrome unless Google licenses or shares this technology to competitors, which not all users will adopt.
The bottom line: Although this patent is a win for most under privacy law, it will not change the fact that privacy mode browsing is no more protected from official searches and seizures than regular browsing. So no becoming a criminal or terrorist and expecting this new innovation to somehow shield you in court from having your online misdeeds be discovered and used against you. Still, anything that can help keep credit card and bank numbers and login credentials more secure is a step in the right direction. Enjoy the smart, private browsing.
----------------------------------
Thanks for reading. Please provide feedback and legal-themed questions as segment suggestions to me on Twitter @BuckeyeFitzy
https://archive.org/details/LegalGeekEp33
Internet users have for some time been able to browse in incognito or private modes in various browser applications. These modes mean that your search history, cookies from a session, and browsing history will not be retained on your computer. In addition to preventing others from snooping on your internet history, these modes can be used to avoid autofill information, accidental saving of important log-in credentials to accounts, logging into multiple accounts on a website in different windows, and performing searches not affected by your history or other users on the same device.
These modes have been only manually activated to date, requiring diligence of the user in remembering to activate private browsing whenever it is desired. In January, Google has secured a patent that innovates and moves private browsing to the next level. The patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,935,798, is directed to a system and a computer method of automatically enabling private browsing so that the user does not have to manually activate privacy mode.
The method words by having the browser analyze the content of the web page to determine whether privacy mode is appropriate. For example, the patent claims specifically recite having the browser determine whether a web page being opened was previously filtered or selected to not appear in search results, and if so, the privacy mode is automatically started and the web page is opened in that privacy mode. Thus, the user can establish parameters for automatically triggering privacy mode – such as when they enter a credit card number on a site, or when they visit certain high-security websites – and the protection will just happen. It's a potentially very smart implementation of privacy mode browsing when it matters most.
This could be a potential boon for helping keep personal information private, but as with all privacy mode browsing, this does not keep websites and service providers from tracking your activity. Furthermore, high quality forensic techniques have proven to still be able to reconstruct the browsing history in the current iterations of privacy modes. And granting the patent to Google may mean this technology remains locked up in a single browser like Chrome unless Google licenses or shares this technology to competitors, which not all users will adopt.
The bottom line: Although this patent is a win for most under privacy law, it will not change the fact that privacy mode browsing is no more protected from official searches and seizures than regular browsing. So no becoming a criminal or terrorist and expecting this new innovation to somehow shield you in court from having your online misdeeds be discovered and used against you. Still, anything that can help keep credit card and bank numbers and login credentials more secure is a step in the right direction. Enjoy the smart, private browsing.
----------------------------------
Thanks for reading. Please provide feedback and legal-themed questions as segment suggestions to me on Twitter @BuckeyeFitzy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)