Even when a litigant can’t assert a statutory privilege, private matters may nonetheless be protected from discovery under the constitutional right of privacy. Balancing the privacy interest at stake against the need for discovery has always been a difficult task. But a recent California Supreme Court case, Williams v Superior Court (2017) 3 C5th 531, has clarified the proper analysis to use.
This following is a guest blog post by George M. Moore, PhD, JD, a Scientist-in-Residence at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, California, where his course in Drones and Surveillance considers both the technical and legal aspects of drone use and its impact on privacy issues. Dr. Moore is a member of the California and Colorado state bars.
The crashing of a drone on the White House grounds among other recent incidents have shown that drones may pose direct threats to our security, but perhaps a greater long-term threat of drones is to our privacy. A collision between safety, security, privacy rights, and commercial utility is about to happen, and the legal community needs to be prepared to recognize and address the issues that will surely arise.
In what’s being touted as a national precedent, the Indiana Court of Appeals upheld a $1.4 million trial court verdict for a Walgreens customer whose prescription information was leaked by a pharmacist to a third party. This may be one of the first times a health care provider was found liable under state negligence law for an employee’s failure to follow the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)—and serves as a cautionary tale for employers in every state.
In March, at long last, the US Department of Health and Human Services released a final Omnibus Rule on privacy and security of personal health information. Some have labeled the Rule a “sweeping reform,” but, in fact, it largely just replaces and finalizes prior “interim” final rules and proposed rules. But there are some important changes you should know about.
Going through a divorce is difficult on many levels. Your client may feel like his or her personal life is laid bare for everyone to see. As an attorney, you can’t protect your client from the emotional exposure involved in divorce, but you can take measures to protect your client’s financial laundry from being publicly aired.
Whether employers like it or not, social networking and social media have found their way into most workplaces. Their appearance has meant many potential landmines for employers to navigate. Luckily, there are several relatively easy steps that every employer can take to decrease potential liability.
Judges throughout the country wrestle with the legal ramifications of evolving new technology, including personal information privacy in the use of social media. A New York criminal court recently put a big hole in any privacy expectation on tweets when it upheld a subpoena duces tecum and required Twitter to provide a defendant’s tweets to the district attorney.