Sentences with phrase «privacy than a court»

It allows the spouses much more privacy than a court process does, which a huge additional benefit to those owning family businesses.

Not exact matches

But there is a deeper cost to eroding privacy than just the spurring of undesirable changes in external entities such as courts and communications networks.

And six months after the Democratic Party took control of both houses of Congress, the prison at Guantánamo Bay was still open and conducting drumhead courts martial of the prisoners held there; the CIA was still using «enhanced interrogation techniques» on prisoners in foreign jails; illegal intrusions into the privacy of American citizens continued unabated; and, more than fifty years after the CIA was founded, it continues to operate under, at best, the most perfunctory congressional oversight.

Even now, more than ten years later, I remain awed by their valiant struggle, mounted at great personal cost: drained finances, lost privacy, media scorn, impugned motives, death threats — and eventually Bob's death, which the family believes was caused by the stress of watching helplessly as his daughter died by court order.

In the court of public opinion, Apple argues that it is more committed to customer privacy than government agencies are.

Other than to the extent ordered by a bankruptcy or other court, the use and disclosure of all transferred user information will be subject to this Privacy Policy, or to a new privacy policy if you are given notice of that new privacy policy and you affirmatively opt - in to accPrivacy Policy, or to a new privacy policy if you are given notice of that new privacy policy and you affirmatively opt - in to accprivacy policy if you are given notice of that new privacy policy and you affirmatively opt - in to accprivacy policy and you affirmatively opt - in to accept it.

The courts give better treatment to the privacy - conscious super-rich than they do to the families of murder victims, a government adviser has said.

This past month, an Ohio district court ruled that several online self - publishing services were not liable for right of publicity or privacy claims for distributing an erotic (and so - called «less than tasteful») book whose cover contained an unauthorized copy of the plaintiffs» engagement photo because such services are not publishers.

The Court also stated that the data provides the means of profiling the individual concerned and — importantly — that the information is «no less sensitive having regard to the right to privacy, than the actual content of the communications» [99].

If privacy is more broadly understood as deriving from human dignity then it can be viewed as a facilitator rather than detractor of accessibility and comport with the court's various duties (to foster transparency and to protect litigants and control its documents).

As Scott Greenfield points out, the Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court's decision by Judge Dean Pregerson who concluded that individuals have a privacy interest in computers, which are more like diaries holding personal secrets than a suitcase that merely holds objects.

Court of Queen's Bench: The reviewing justice found that the arbitration panel applied stricter requirements on the employer than required at law when balancing safety and privacy concerns.

Alito was a fair bit more circumspect than 5th Circuit Judge Harold DeMoss who recently wrote this article accusing the Supreme Court of usurping the rights of voters to approve or deny what he considers to be constitutional change — in his opinion, that document does not guarantee a right of privacy (nee abortion).

The state's high court, applying choice of law principles, reasoned that the failure to apply California law would «impair California's interest in protecting the degree of privacy afforded to California residents by California law more severely than the application of California law would impair any interests of the State of Georgia.»

While getting courts to provide open access to case law has proven to be a longer & more challenging process given the legitimate privacy & informational integrity concerns raised above, these concerns should inform the implementation of government open access policies rather than bar wholesale access outright.

The Supreme Court developed this exception based on the inherent mobility of vehicles and a lesser expectation of privacy than other private property.

With the Supreme Court of Canada's recent decision in Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc., Canadian jurisprudence and values bring us closer to the EU on privacy issues than with the U.S.

Many of us believe the proposed legislation is an affront to privacy, and gives law enforcement overly intrusive rights without court supervision that will in practice be no more than expensive, invasive, privacy offensive security theatre.

The problems I encountered were: (1) obfuscation ensured lawyers were the only conduit into the system (the process is now easy to understand with all of the new services and interactive flowcharts); (2) most of my legal fees where for services that did not require a law degree; (3) the most expensive errors were legal errors and there was no reasonable recourse for recovery; (4) the court administration was unable to handle the volume; (5) simple but essential administrative tasks, like filing documents, required either half a day or $ 100 + for every single filing; (6) Security and privacy are completely ignored, unlike every other profession; (7) there is no incentive, nor is there a governing body to ensure the matter is handled in an ethical, humane, timely manner; (8) lawyers have a monopoly and charge more than the market can bear for personal litigation.

Upon considering this question, the Supreme Court unanimously concluded that the privacy interest in computers is greater than the privacy interest in a filing cabinet or a cupboard.

We conclude by suggesting that courts must confront the social implications of informational privacy much more deeply than they have, interrogating its meaning, not one technology at a time, but within a larger empirical universe of information emanation.

They chat with perfect strangers in a public forum, and now they are allegedly concerned about an invasion of privacy by Viacom under a protection order??? User's private information is safer in the hands of Viacom under a court order than in the hands of YouTube.

However, on June 13, 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada (the «SCC») held in R v. Spencer, 2014 SCC 43 («Spencer «-RRB- that the right to privacy in Canada is stronger than that.

A number of others pointed out that there was no reason to set a different privacy standard for deceased individuals than we had for living individuals and that it has been standard practice to release the information of deceased individuals with a valid consent of the executor, next of kin, or specific court order.

English courts possess the most draconian powers to remove children from their parents in Europe and have twice the number of permanent removals than in Scotland, yet the government maintains that these courts must remain behind closed doors to protect a child's right to privacy.

It should be borne in mind, however, as stressed by the Court of Appeal in Clibbery v Allan [2002] EWCA Civ 45, [2002] 1 All ER 865, that this is a question of protecting the parties» privacy rather than guaranteeing confidentiality.

But the IACHR takes a broader view of the right to equality before the law and the right to privacy and inviolability of the home than American courts do.

The paparazzi privacy cases are well summarized by the BBC in a profile of High Court Judge David Eady, the judge who has put more of a personal stamp on an area of the law than anyone since Lord Denning's early decisions.

This is like one of those larger - than - life cases in SC (TMA Pai, Right to Privacy etc) where every lawyer in Court 1 claims to be involved.

Of course we will remind the entire population that a REALTORS first obligation is to protect her clients, REALTORS are paid by sellers not the general public and that no more than a Doctor would release personal details about a patient without a court order, so to REALTORS will not release personal details about a client without insuring that information is privacy protected with strict legal consequences for ANYONE using it in a manner not authorized.