MediaTech Law

By MIRSKY & COMPANY, PLLC

Update: Privacy for Mobile Apps – The Limits of Transparency

Posted September 8, 2011 by Kate Tummarello 0

In June of this year, Senator Al Franken (D. Minn.) introduced the “Location Privacy Protection Act of 2011” (S. 1223).  According to the bill summary available on Franken’s website, a 2010 investigation by the Wall Street Journal revealed that 47 of the top 101 mobile applications for Apple iPhones and Google Android phones disclose user location without consent of the user.

According to Franken’s bill summary, current law prevents disclosure of user location during telephone calls without user consent. Currently, no similar legislation protects user location when a user accesses information through a mobile web browser or mobile application. Franken claims that his bill will close loopholes in the Electronic Communications Privacy Act that allow for this distinction.

If S. 1223 passes, companies will be required to obtain permission not only to collect mobile user location information but also to share that information with third parties. Additionally, the bill seeks to put in place measures to prevent stalking through location information.

As of this writing, Franken’s bill has been assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee and is being cosponsored by Sens. Blumenthal, Coons, Durbin, Menendez, and Sanders.

Original Post (published 9/8/2011)

When was the last time you read a license agreement after installing software or downloading an app on your smartphone? If you’re like most people, the answer is probably never.

According to some estimates, fewer than 8 percent of us actually read the entirety of those agreements, despite rising concerns about digital privacy and data collection.

Read More

Dropbox TOS – In Praise of Clarity

Posted July 17, 2011 by Andrew Mirsky 0

Earlier this month, Dropbox spawned a new kerfuffle in internet-land with changes to its Terms of Service (TOS).

The outrage was fast and furious.  A nice deal of blog and Tumblr and other commentary zeroed in on changes Dropbox announced to its TOS before the 4th of July holiday, and in particular how this or that provision “won’t hold up in court”.  See for example J. Daniel Sawyer’s commentary here.

Sawyer was referring to language in the TOS for cloud-server services granting ownership rights to Dropbox or other cloud services.

At least I think that’s what he was referring to, because the Dropbox TOS did not actually grant those ownership rights to Dropbox.  Dropbox’ TOS – like similar TOS for SugarSync and Box.net – granted limited use rights to enable Dropbox to actually provide the service.  Here is the offending provision:

… you grant us (and those we work with to provide the Services) worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable rights to use, copy, distribute, prepare derivative works (such as translations or format conversions) of, perform, or publicly display that stuff to the extent we think it necessary for the Service.

To be clear, if Dropbox actually claimed ownership rights to customer files – and actually provided for the same in its TOS – there’s no particular reason such a grant “won’t hold up in court”.   There are certainly cases of unenforceable contracts – contracts that are fraudulently induced or in contravention of public policy, for example – but a fully and clearly disclosed obligation in exchange for a mutual commitment of service is enforceable.

Read More

Copyright 2022 Mirsky & Company, PLLC