In what some are calling a “bombshell” decision, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals recently held in Bryant v. Compass Group USA, Inc. that federal courts can now hear cases involving alleged violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act
Articles Discussing Privacy And Surveillance In The Workplace.
It’s not often that a case in our practice area reaches the Supreme Court of the United States, so we are genuinely excited!
In Van Buren v. United States, No. 19-783, the U.S. Supreme Court will have a chance to resolve (finally) the circuit split regarding the scope of
Just over a month ago, we provided a high-level checklist to help organizations think about critical issues as employees begin working from home to reduce the spread of COVID19. Consistent with “shelter-in-place”/”stay at home” orders, millions of workers that can are now working from home. However, out of sight is
As large numbers of people turn to video-teleconferencing (VTC) platforms to stay connected in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis, reports of VTC hijacking (also called “zoom-bombing”) are emerging nationwide. The FBI has received multiple reports of conferences being disrupted by pornographic and/or hate images and threatening language.
When privacy geeks talk “privacy,” it is not uncommon for them to use certain terms interchangeably –personal data, personal information, personally identifiable information, private information, individually identifiable information, protected health information, or individually identifiable health information. They might even speak in acronyms – PI, PII, PHI, NPI, etc. Blurring those distinctions might be OK for casual conversation, but as organizations develop data privacy and security compliance programs, the meanings of these terms can have significant consequences. A good example exists within the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) and its interaction with other laws.
Data is everywhere. We’re being tracked in the car, in the grocery store, even when we’re walking the dog. As I write this, I’m being monitored as well, through employee monitoring administered by my firm’s I.T. department.
The New York Times newly established Privacy Project, recently highlighted the extent to which our society has created a “facial recognition machine” – cameras are everywhere, even in doorbells. Segments of society have accepted widespread surveillance on public streets, shopping malls, and in common areas of office buildings, apartment complexes, schools and similar places. But there are limits.
On February 25, 2019, the Third Circuit held that a New Jersey engineering firm that monitored its former employees’ social media accounts was not barred from winning an injunction to prevent four former employees from soliciting firm clients and destroying company information.
In 2018, Delta paved the way in airport terminal development, by introducing the first biometric terminal at the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport where passengers can use facial recognition technology from curb to gate. Delta now offers members of its Sky Club airport lounges to enter using fingerprints rather than a membership card or boarding pass. Other airlines use biometric data to verify travelers during the boarding process with a photo-capture. The photograph is then matched through biometric facial recognition technology to photos that were previously taken of the passengers for their passports, visas, or other government documentation.
2018 has so far been a year that will long live in the memory of workplace privacy lawyers. Over the past eight months, lawyers for multinational corporations have had to familiarize themselves with a range of new laws, including the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR); the GDPR-styled California Consumer Privacy Act; and new data breach notification laws in South Dakota and Alabama. As we enter the final few months of the year, additional privacy laws and developments sit on the horizon. This article focuses on three more developments that privacy lawyers and employment counsels should be aware of heading into the final months of 2018.
Executive Summary: Increasingly, stories are appearing in the news about employees who have secretly recorded their colleagues and supervisors at work. It may come as a surprise that such recordings may be completely legal. The ease with which secret recordings can be made presents multiple considerations for employers.
On June 22, 2018, in Carpenter v. United States, the United States Supreme Court decided that the federal government would need a warrant in order to obtain historical location data from cellular service providers, based on cell tower “pings.”
On April 17th, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the highly anticipated U.S. v. Microsoft, ruling that recently enacted legislation rendered the case moot. Microsoft Corp. had been in litigation with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for several years over the issue of whether Microsoft must comply with a U.S. search warrant for access to customer’s emails and other personal data within its “possession, custody or control”, regardless of whether such data is stored within the U.S. or abroad.
Many workplaces use video monitoring for security or inventory control. Most employees have cell phones with audio or video recording capabilities. Employers and employees often have questions about if or when video or audio recordings can occur. The following are some commonly encountered questions.
It is not uncommon for employers to assign badges to their employees to grant access to certain locations on the employer’s property and parking garages. Many employees have them, use them, lose them and think little of them.