Google appeals “right to be forgotten” law

Google appealed EU’s “right to be forgotten” law that allows citizens to apply for the removal of false or damaging information indexed by search engines. Although the company is willing to comply by the law for European domains, like Google.fr, France’s data regulation authority (CNIL) ordered Google to comply by the law for its international domain, Google.com.

If Google refuses, the company may suffer significant fines or sanctions. Google officials argue that applying the EU’s “right to be forgotten” rule to its international server is both time and resource consuming, and may result in widespread censorship. Google does not have the right to appeal again until it has been fined for violating the CNIL order. After that, however, the company will be given the chance to refute the fines in France’s Supreme Court. The EU’s recent regulatory fine structure could charge Google for up to 5 percent of the company’s international operation cost, which would amount to roughly € 3 billion.

Google’s global privacy officer Peter Fleischer released a statement: “We believe that no country should have the authority to control what content someone in a second country can access.”

Article via Legaltech NewsSeptember 22, 2015

Photo: Review of the Latvian Presidency via European Parliament [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]


AT&T sales reps accused of using malware to unlock phones

A southern California company and former AT&T sales reps are being sued by AT&T Mobility. They are accused of uploading malicious software to unlock phones so that the phones can be used by any wireless network without a contract. It is likely that the sales reps were hoping to exploit the resale market for cell phones.

Lawyers for AT&T Mobility stated that schemes like this are not uncommon. The lawsuit names SwiftUnlocks, as the southern California company referenced above. This is a company that unlocks cell phones for a fee. The lawsuit goes on to describe a scheme that involves the former sales reps profiting from using SwiftUnlocks to unlock phones in milliseconds. It was precisely the act of unlocking many phones so quickly, that drew attention to these sales reps, eventually promoting an investigation.

It is alleged that the former reps earned between $10,000 and $20,000 from Swift Unlocks before tipping off their bosses with their questionable behavior.

Although the suit does not mention criminal fraud, it could still prove expensive for Swift Unlocks and the former sales reps. It is expected that the damages would include lost profit as well as factoring in the revenue that the sales reps made during their alleged scheme.

Article via CNET, 19 September 2015

Photo: This trip to the at&t store is taking longer than I expected via Keith Lam [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]