Sentences with phrase «violated federal privacy»

EPIC, a nonprofit advocacy group, claims Samsung violated federal privacy law because of its Smart TV's ability to collect and transmit recorded conversations.

In the report, the OPC concluded that the complaints are well founded and that Health Canada violated the federal Privacy Act by referencing the Marihuana Medical Access Program on the envelope in combination with the name of the addressee.

March 03, 2015 The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada released a report of findings in respect of its investigation into the November 2013 mailing in which it concluded that Health Canada violated the federal Privacy Act.

The complaint also alleges the defendants violated federal privacy law for failing to provide a required privacy notice.

In response, Ms. Moskowitz released details of her son's behavior to PBS, which Ms. Geidi said violated federal privacy laws.

By not making it clear to students that noneducational entities had access to the information, the companies violated federal privacy policies,...

Vice President Mike Pence's physician privately raised alarms within the White House last fall that President Donald Trump's doctor may have violated federal privacy protections for a key patient — Pence's wife, Karen — and intimidated the vice president's doctor during angry confrontations over the episode.

Comment: One commenter suggested that a notice of information practices that omits disclosure for voluntary reporting of fraud will chill internal whistleblowers who will be led to believe — falsely — that they would violate federal privacy law, and be lawfully subject to sanction by their employer, if they reported fraud to health oversight agencies.

In my opinion, the requirement to disclose competing offers under REBBA violates federal privacy laws and is unenforceable.

Lenders claimed that sharing the CD violates federal privacy law (Gramm - Leach - Bliley Act, or GLBA); however, an exception within the GLBA allows lenders to distribute the CD to third parties, including real estate professionals.

The video also looks at a win for agents now that the CFPB has made clear lenders can make the closing disclosure available to agents without violating federal privacy rules.

Instead, he testified, TREB was concerned that giving online competitors easy access to the same depth of MLS data — including the sold prices of homes — available to all 34,000 - plus TREB members could violate federal privacy laws.

Not exact matches

Some privacy advocates have charged that the app's ability to glean information on all those users that never installed it violated the terms of a 2011 settlement agreement Facebook struck with the Federal Trade Commission.

In fact, some companies even see it as a risk, since the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) cracks down on companies that violate (accidently or intentionally) the privacy policy that they offer to consumers.

In a win for online privacy advocates but a blow to advertisers, a federal judge has ruled Google may have violated wiretapping laws by scanning and reviewing users» Gmails.

Because of the way it handled the revelation that it had violated its privacy policy by giving away its customer database [to the federal government].

-- FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION: A dozen consumer - advocacy organizations are pressing the FTC to investigate whether the release of data violated an agreement Facebook signed with the FTC in 2011 offering privacy assurances.

In the U.S., Facebook's biggest challenge may come from the Federal Trade Commission, which is investigating whether the company violated the terms of a 2011 settlement that made privacy assurances.

Two former federal officials who crafted the landmark consent decree governing how Facebook handles user privacy say the company may have violated that decree when it shared information from tens of millions of users with a data analysis firm that later worked for President Trump's 2016 campaign.

On Tuesday, a dozen consumer - advocacy organizations pressed the Federal Trade Commission in the U.S. to investigate whether the release of data violated an agreement Facebook signed with the FTC in 2011 offering privacy assurances.

The home - rental site filed a lawsuit Monday (June 27) in federal court alleging rules recently passed by the city of San Francisco violate free speech and privacy laws.

On January 8, 2018, Hong Kong - based electronic toy manufacturer VTech Electronics Limited and its U.S. subsidiary (VTech) agreed to settle charges by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that they violated the FTC Act and the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA).

On Monday it was also announced that the Federal Trade Commission was investigating whether Facebook violated a 2011 decree related to personal user data and privacy.

The Federal Trade Commission has opened an investigation into Facebook to determine whether the social media platform violated a 2011 consent decree governing its privacy policies when it allowed the data collection.

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has opened an investigation into whether the sharing of the Facebook data violated a 2011 consent decree that governs Facebook's privacy practices.

A federal judge dismissed a claim by three county corrections officers that their constitutional rights to privacy was violated when others may have seen their medical records without permission.

The lawyer for Daniel A. Lewis, a college librarian from Amherst, plans to file a lawsuit on Lewis» behalf in U.S. District Court claiming that his rights to possess property — his guns — and receive due process before his permit was suspended were violated along with federal privacy laws regarding his medical records, according to the Buffalo News.

A dozen national consumer - protection groups have asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate the giant online retailer Amazon.com Inc. for allegedly violating the 1998 Children's Online Protection Privacy Act, or COPPA.

Addressing the plaintiff's argument from First - Amendment rights, the Court held in contrast that the federal non-discrimination laws «do... not violate constitutionally protected rights of free association and privacy, or a parent's right to direct the education of his children.»

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has filed suit in court against the US Department of Education, on the grounds that the federal government has rewritten and weakened FERPA's regulations in a way that violates the language and original intent of the law.

Impermissible Uses.You understand that you may not: • modify, adapt or hack the Service or modify another website so as to falsely claim or imply that it is associated with the Service, AuthorMarketingClub.com, AMC, Author Marketing Club or any other AMC service; • reproduce, duplicate, copy, sell, resell or exploit any portion (including, without limitation, the contents of the AMC email or similar notification, the look and feel of the AMC website, and the contents of the web pages of the Service, use the Service or access the Service without the express written permission of Author Marketing Club; • verbally, physically, or otherwise abuse (including threats of abuse or retribution) any AMC member or AMC employee, agent or officer; • upload, post, host, or transmit unsolicited email, SMSs, or spam messages; • transmit worms or viruses or any code of a destructive nature; • as a Reader Member, utilize the information provided in a Query other than to provide a relevant response to a Specific Query posted by a Author Member; • violate any applicable federal, state or local laws or regulations; or, • plagiarize, violate or otherwise infringe upon the trademark, copyright, patent, trade secret, or any other rights of any person, firm or entity, expressly including but not limited to libel, slander or invasion of rights of privacy, publicity or «moral rights».

Canadian banks recognized immediately that such a system would violate all manner of federal and provincial financial privacy rules, and violate non-discrimination statutes in the Charter.

You will not, and will not allow or authorize others to, use the Services or the Sites to take any actions that: (i) infringe on any third party's copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret or other proprietary rights or rights of publicity or privacy; (ii) violate any applicable law, statute, ordinance or regulation (including those regarding export control); (iii) are defamatory, trade libelous, threatening, harassing, invasive of privacy, stalking, harassment, abusive, tortuous, hateful, discriminatory based on race, ethnicity, gender, sex or disability, pornographic or obscene; (iv) interfere with or disrupt any services or equipment with the intent of causing an excessive or disproportionate load on the Animal League or its licensors or suppliers» infrastructure; (v) involve knowingly distributing viruses, Trojan horses, worms, or other similar harmful or deleterious programming routines; (vi) involve the preparation and / or distribution of «junk mail», «spam», «chain letters», «pyramid schemes» or other deceptive online marketing practices or any unsolicited bulk email or unsolicited commercial email or otherwise in a manner that violate the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act (CAN - SPAM Act of 2003); (vii) would encourage conduct that could constitute a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability or otherwise violate any applicable local, state, federal or international laws, rules or regulations; (viii) involve the unauthorized entry to any machine accessible via the Services or interfere with the Sites or any servers or networks connected to the Sites or disobey any requirements, procedures, policies or regulations of networks connected to the Sites, or attempt to breach the security of or disrupt Internet communications on the Sites (including without limitation accessing data to which you are not the intended recipient or logging into a server or account for which you are not expressly authorized); (ix) impersonate any person or entity, including, without limitation, one of the Animal League's or other's officers or employees, or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent your affiliation with a person or entity; (x) forge headers or otherwise manipulate identifiers in order to disguise the origin of any information transmitted through the Sites; (xi) collect or store personal data about other Animal League members, Site users or attempt to gain access to other Animal League members information, or otherwise mine information about Animal League members, Site users, or the Sites; (xii) execute any form of network monitoring or run a network analyzer or packet sniffer or other technology to intercept, decode, mine or display any packets used to communicate between the Sites» servers or any data not intended for you; (xiii) attempt to circumvent authentication or security of any content, host, network or account («cracking») on or from the Sites; or (xiv) are contrary to the Animal League's public image, goodwill, reputation or mission or otherwise not in furtherance of the Animal Leagues stated purposes.

Eight jilted applicants have since filed a class action, alleging that DOJ improperly relied on politics in making hiring decisions and violated privacy laws by culling information from applicants» Web sites without disclosing that it had collected this information, as required by federal law.

The FTC also claimed that VTech USA expressly violated the Federal Trade Commission Act by engaging in several deceptive acts or practices, including by falsely stating in its privacy policy that most personal information (including registration data) submitted by users through the Planet VTech and Learning Lodge platform / apps would be encrypted in transmission / storage, but this was, in fact, not done.

The suit alleges that Standard violated myriad U.S. federal and state laws in its practices, including the Federal Wiretap Act, the Illinois Eavesdropping Statute, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Act and constitutes «intrusion upon seclusion» (a privacy tort) as well as unjust enrifederal and state laws in its practices, including the Federal Wiretap Act, the Illinois Eavesdropping Statute, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Act and constitutes «intrusion upon seclusion» (a privacy tort) as well as unjust enriFederal Wiretap Act, the Illinois Eavesdropping Statute, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Act and constitutes «intrusion upon seclusion» (a privacy tort) as well as unjust enrichment.

Comment: One comment suggested that the penalty provisions of HIPAA, if extended to the privacy regulation, would require the Secretary to violate «Appropriations Laws» because the Secretary could be in the position of assessing penalties against her own and other federal agencies in their roles as covered entities.

Comment: Some commenters asserted that the federal government may not preempt state laws that are not as strict as the privacy regulation because to do so would violate the separation of powers in the U.S. Constitution.

Earlier this week, a Federal Court ruled in A.T. v. Globe24h.com that a Romanian website violated Canadian privacy laws, and the accepted protocol for online publication of court records, when it scraped Canadian court decisions from CanLII and other sites and then republished them in a manner searchable by Google.

The Federal Court of Canada released a landmark decision finding that the court has the jurisdiction to make an extra-territorial order with world - wide effects against a foreign resident requiring the foreign person to remove documents containing personal information about a Canadian citizen that violates the person's rights under Canada's privacy law, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA).

DMV promotes the free exchange of information, ideas, and opinions, except when the content may invade personal privacy, violate property rights, constitute libel, or be a violation of any applicable federal, state, or local laws.

DMV promotes the exchange of information, ideas, and opinions, except when the content may invade personal privacy, violate property rights, constitute libel, or be a violation of any applicable federal, state, or local laws.

The Federal Trade Commission is investigating whether Facebook violated a government privacy agreement by allowing Cambridge Analytica to obtain users» personal data, according to a report from Bloomberg.

Last week the organizations urged the Federal Trade Commission to reopen the 2009 investigation of Facebook, arguing that the disclosure of user data to Cambridge Analytica violated the consent order, and noting that the order also prohibited Facebook from «making misrepresentations about the privacy or security of consumers» personal information.»

Separately on Friday, consumer groups filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission, saying Facebook violates users» privacy rights through its facial - recognition software.

So has the Federal Trade Commission, which is looking into whether the mishap means that Facebook violated a 2011 settlement with the federal government that was supposed to improve the company's privacy praFederal Trade Commission, which is looking into whether the mishap means that Facebook violated a 2011 settlement with the federal government that was supposed to improve the company's privacy prafederal government that was supposed to improve the company's privacy practices.

The Federal Trade Commission has opened an investigation into Facebook to determine whether the use of the data violated privacy protections.

So did the Federal Trade Commission over concerns that Facebook had violated a 2011 consent decree over privacy issues.

Two former federal officials who crafted the landmark consent decree governing how Facebook handles user privacy say the company may have violated that decree when it shared information from tens of millions of users with a data analysis firm that later worked for President Trump's 2016 campaign.

Among the fallout: more calls for regulation, concern that Facebook may have violated a privacy settlement with the Federal Trade Commission, and lawmakers such as Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Ron Wyden demanding answers from CEO Mark Zuckerberg.