What Would Grandma Say? How to Respond When Cyber Hackers Reveal Private Information to the Public
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
102 Cornell L. Rev. 1743 (2017)On August 18, 2015, a group of hackers named Impact Team released 37 million records—9.7 gigabytes of data—from the Toronto-based website Ashley Madison. The hackers claimed to be motivated by the alleged unscrupulous practices of Ashley Madison’s parent company, Avid Life Media Inc., such as false advertising and failing to follow through on a datapurging procedure for which it charged members a nineteendollar fee, The data dump has affected people from all walks of life, including 15,000 government employees, Vice President Joe Biden’s son, and individuals who, because of this data breach, learned that strangers used their e-mail addresses to create Ashley Madison accounts. Former subscribers to the website have received demands to pay money in the form of bitcoins as a ransom on their personal information. The data breach is likely related to at least two suicides thus far. Lawsuits against Avid Life Media Inc. have commenced, and more are in the planning stages; some plaintiffs hope to coordinate class action litigation. Despite the understandable outrage that the website’s members and former members feel, many lawyers are not optimistic about the chances of recovering damages from Ashley Madison or Avid Life Media Inc. This Note will explore the avenues for recovery available to individuals who lose control of their personal information when the security of an organization that collects or holds such information is compromised. This Note will begin by tracing the development of privacy jurisprudence as it specifically relates to the creation and eventual prominence of the Internet in the United States. Next, the piece will discuss the emerging split of authority surrounding a question of statutory interpretation presented by the Good Samaritan exception of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Specifically, the issue is whether 47 U.S.C. § 230(e)(2)—a carve-out within the Good Samaritan exception that withholds immunity for civil liability for intellectual property claims—applies to federal intellectual property laws only, or to both federal and state intellectual property laws. The piece will then conclude that if the Supreme Court were to resolve this split of authority, it should, and likely would, hold that § 230(e)(2) withholds immunity from claims brought under both federal and state intellectual property laws. Finally, this Note will present new policy proposals that Congress and interactive computer service providers (ICSPs) could pursue in light of that conclusion.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,003 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».