August 2013

Consumers frustrated by robo-calls and customer service calls to their cellphones have a potential way out. A federal appeals court in Philadelphia ruled that people can opt out of unsolicited cellphone calls if companies are using auto-dialers to make them, regardless of any prior consent or business relationship between the parties.

The decision came from a case involving Ashley Gager, a Pennsylvania woman who had financed a Dell computer purchase through Dell Financial Services. Gager had listed her cellphone number as her home number on the application, and the company started hounding her after she defaulted. Dell argued that limiting a creditor’s ability to use an automated dialing system to collect might make it “difficult, if not impossible, [for the creditor] to ever contact the borrower with regard to the credit it extends.” However, the court said, “This argument overlooks the fact that creditors are permitted to attempt live, person-to-person calls in order to collect a debt. Consequently, Dell will still be able to telephone Gager about her delinquent account; the only limitation imposed by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 is that Dell will not be able to use an automated dialing system to do so.” David Frink, a Dell spokesman, said the company was “evaluating the options for further judicial review” and “reviewing” the business practices of Dell and Dell Financial Services “for consistency with the ruling.”

Recent revelations that the National Security Agency violated its own surveillance rules on thousands of occasions is evidence that "all these safeguards, checks, audits, oversight worked," President Barack Obama said.

The President cited technical problems in an interview with CNN, which were duly presented to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court for review, where, according to President Obama, “what was learned was that NSA had inadvertently, accidentally pulled the e-mails of some Americans in violation of their own rules…” President Obama insisted that there was nobody "out there trying to abuse this program or listen in on people's email," but admitted that the government had not done enough to explain how the program's function. President Obama also acknowledged that "the capabilities of the NSA are scary to people." Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle, including top Democrats like Sen Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), expressed outrage last week at the revelations. “I remain concerned that we are still not getting straightforward answers from the NSA," Sen Leahy continued.

[Commentary] Acting Federal Communications Commission Chairwoman Mignon Clyburn will likely have a few months to leave her mark – and one of the issues she has chosen to champion is cellphone unlocking.

In response to her recent statement in support of cellphone unlocking, CTIA- The Wireless Association Vice President Scott Bergmann responded with a statement of his own saying that the CTIA “looks forward to working with the commission” but also noting that the industry already offers a wide range of cellphone unlocking options. He noted, for example, that there are already more than 240 unlocked devices available for purchase from a wireless carrier, retail store or directly from the manufacturer. He suggested that the matter might be addressed through education, stating that CTIA would like to work with the FCC to “ensure that consumers are aware of the wide variety of unlocked devices that are available.”

What neither Chairwoman Clyburn nor Bergmann mentioned is that cellphone unlocking increasingly will be irrelevant unless more is done to make handsets interoperable. The reason is that as the major carriers roll out 4G networks based on LTE, each one is using a different spectrum band or combination of spectrum bands – and handsets are designed to work only in the bands that an individual carrier needs. If one of their devices were to be unlocked, there would be few, if any, other networks to take it to.

Five US privacy groups have opposed a proposed $8.5 million settlement with Google in a class-action lawsuit over search privacy, as it fails to require Google to change its business practices, they said.

Google was sued in October 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Internet giant allegedly transmitted user search queries to third parties without their knowledge or consent in order to enhance advertising revenue and profitability. Google shares search queries "via referrer headers," according to a court document, which identify the address of a Web page that linked to the current page. When a Google user clicks on a link from Google's search results page, the owner of the website that the user clicks on will receive from Google the user's search terms in the referrer header because the search terms are included in the URL. The search terms can contain users' real names, street addresses, phone numbers, credit card numbers, and Social Security numbers, all of which increases the risk of identity theft, according to the original complaint. Those queries can also contain highly personal and sensitive issues, such as confidential medical information, racial or ethnic origins, political or religious beliefs, or sexuality, according to the complaint. Part of the settlement fee is meant to cover settlement administration expenses and part will be paid to the World Privacy Forum, Carnegie-Mellon, Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University, and Stanford Center for Internet and Society among others, according to the document. The recipients must agree to devote the funds to promote public awareness and education, and/or to support research, development, and initiatives, related to protecting privacy on the Internet, according to the proposed settlement. But monetary settlements are not good enough, according to privacy organizations including the Electronic Privacy Information Center, Consumer Watchdog, Patient Privacy Rights, the Center for Digital Democracy, and the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse.

In a joint letter sent to Judge Edward J. Davila on Thursday, they urge him not to accept the proposed settlement. The main problem with the proposal is that it fails to require Google to change its business practices, they said.