Slashdot Mirror
Interesting Privacy Decision in New Hampshire
TCPALaw writes "A huge decision
in privacy law was handed down today by the NH Supreme Court in the Amy Boyer case. Amy was stalked and killed by a man who got her personal
information, including SSN, from an on-line information broker. Privacy groups such as EPIC have argued that access to sensitive personal information should carry with it liability for misuse, and can constitute a tort. The NH Supreme Court agreed.
Now perhaps you can sue the spyware companies."
No, we saying at least we can prevent this from happening to our little sisters if we can sue the bastards that make it possible.
Never confuse volume with power.
While an information broker should be responsible for their actions to some extent, I think the killer should be held responsible, and that nothing should dimish the clarity of that matter.
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
If all the info is available to everyone, and the knowledge of who is searching on you is known, what is the danger?
Obviously, I'm forgetting about identity theft and fraud - but we need better systems in place to prevent that anyhow.
Just a crazy thought. If everyone knows what they want to about anyone, doesn't that remove some of the reason for identity theft, and 'nosy nellies'?
It warms the heart to know that this largely unregulated industry might suddenly have the fear-of-financial ruin checking their irresponsible ways.
The implication is that spyware is where the information brokers get their information and assemble it. You can't data mine without data.
Never confuse volume with power.
I say suing spyware companies is a good start. Just because "reputable" companies may not collect info, they almost certainly purchase info collected from disreputable ones.
Method of processing duck feet
No, it means you can sue "the bastards that make it possible."
I'm afraid it doesn't necessarily do a thing to prevent anything from happening to your little sister.
This is simply "Security through feeling good about what you can do after the fact and thinking through some sort of sympathetic magic that that prevents the occurance in the first place."
It doesn't work, it never has, because it's all about profit margins. Which is why they sell the information in the first place.
Dealing crack is a risky business. You could even get killed. People do it because of the profit potential. If you can make enough money selling information to cover the potential loses through the off chance of a law suit there are people who will be glad to do it. Hell, they can probably even arrange insurance to cover them for this, not to mention most the profits mysteriously ending up somewhere untouchable by the courts.
Shit is still going to happen.
KFG
(1) You must pass a background check before you buy a gun. This is a legal device for clearing the seller of liability. There is no such equivalent amongst the major info-brokers.
(2) Apples and oranges. A core issue of privacy advocates is that information specific to me is my proprietary information. You have no right to sell it or otherwise distribute it without my permission. This information can be used to harm *me* specifically, and the fact that anyone can obtain it for a price is innately harmful to me. A gun has no specific target until you point it at someone.
I live in the city where Amy Boyer was murdered, and my wife knows Amy's mother. We've (my wife and I) have talked about this case a lot, especially every time the Remsburgs appeared in a new newspaper article about their fight against the "information" companies.
As horrible as this crime was, it's not clear to either of us that if Liam Youens hadn't been able to buy the information on where Amy worked that she would be alive today. Youens knew where Amy lived, and he had been obsessed with her for years. It was just a matter of time.
I think what Docusearch did was slimy, and possibly illegal - especially the use of "social engineering" to trick Helen Remsburg into revealing information about her daughter.
The issue at hand is whether or not Docusearch, and similar companies, have an obligation to warn people when their personal info is sold to someone, especially when the purpose is unknown. I think it's well established that this sort of information is often used for heinous purposes - remember the case of actress Rebecca Schaffer, who was murdered by someone who bought her address from the California DMV!
In my opinion, the NH Supreme Court got this one right - Docusearch knows or should know that the primary use of the information they collect is NOT for the benefit of the subjects. They should have an obligation to inform the subject that the information has been collected and sold.
However, I think it is wrong to assign the blame for Amy's death on Docusearch. They were an "accessory to a crime", but did not commit the crime itself.
There are so many "what ifs" in cases such as this, that can have people tied up in knots for years. Youens had a web page up which gave fairly solid clues that he had it in for Amy Boyer. Did anyone in a position to do anything see this beforehand? Probably not...
As for spyware ("spywear"? Is that the watch with a poison dart?), I don't see an obvious connection with this case.
IANAL, but it appears that the decision is:
1) If you have non-public information (SSN, CC#, addresses, etc.) on someone, you are partially liable if you offer that to someone for a fee for what that person does with the information.
2) You can't obtain information on someone deceitfully and sell it.
#2 seems pretty obvious. #1 has a lot of implications for all these companies that have your mortgage records, etc., which IMHO is a good thing. In other words, "Quicken Loans" becomes an accomplice to a con artist if they sold that con artist a list of their outstanding loans and contact info.
This is not in any way talking about public info, though, so if you pay me $25 to get someone's phone number from the white pages, you can harass that person all you want and it won't come back to me. At least based on that decision.