When California passed the update to the Information Practices Act (SB
1386) which required orgs to notify when consumer information had been
compromised orgs throughout the country took notice. It was said then
that what is passed in California in terms of consumer rights becomes a
de facto national law, because nearly everyone does business with a
Californian at some point (even us Vermont utilities!).
It was due to this California law that companies started to report
compromises. (Orgs figured out that if they only notified their
California customers, and the nonCalifonians found out that they weren't
notified, well...)
As of this time there are a number of similar state laws, but no federal
law requiring companies to notify when personal identity information is
compromised.
Chuck Piotrowski
CVPS
www.cvps.com
This computer runs on Cow Power!
-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Jesse Wilkins
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 11:52 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [RM] FW: [Politech] California Supreme Court prohibits
recording Californians without consent -- wherever you are [priv]
Hi all,
This came from another list I am subscribed to. My semi-hypothetical to
y'all: What is the impact of this on emerging collaborative technologies
and
whatever recordkeeping requirements may exist regarding them? In other
words, under this ruling, can collaborative sessions using e.g. Genesys,
Webex, or Microsoft Live Meeting be recorded to meet recordkeeping
requirements if they involve Californians? More broadly, how should we
resolve the tension between privacy and records management?
Food for thought on a Friday.
Regards,
Jesse Wilkins
CDIA+, LIT, ICP, edp, ermS, ecmS
IMERGE Consulting
[log in to unmask]
(303) 574-1455 office
(303) 484-4142 fax
YIM: jessewilkins8511
Visit http://www.imergeconsult.com/schedule2.html for a list of current
scheduled courses.
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Declan McCullagh
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 9:25 AM
To: Politech
Subject: [Politech] California Supreme Court prohibits recording
Californians without consent -- wherever you are [priv]
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: California Supreme court prohibits recording Californians
without
their consent - regardless of where you are.
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:35:59 -0400
From: Ethan Ackerman <[log in to unmask]>
To: David Farber <[log in to unmask]>
Greetings Dave,
Many people, especially reporters, are familiar with state laws
prohibiting
phone conversations from being recorded without the consent of one or
both
parties to the call. Some states, and federal law, require only 1 party
to
consent, other states require both or all parties to consent.
California is
one such 'all-party' consent state.
Well today, the California Supreme Court found that Georgia-based
employees
of the Solomon Smith Barney brokerage who were taping California
customers
with out notice or consent violated California laws, even if they might
have
been complying with Georgia's '1 party' consent laws.
While the court refused to fine the brokers, finding their reliance on
Georgia law reasonable, it did enjoin them from taping Californians in
the
future.
Case is here:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S124739.PDF
This decision will likely have a large impact on investigative
reporting,
and has definite impacts on other areas of privacy and consumer
protection
law as well.
-Ethan
_______________________________________________
Politech mailing list
Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
|
