Category: Privacy Rights

Posted on

How Your Data is Being Used Against You: The Privacy Risks of MAIDs

When websites sell your data it puts your life, your livelihood and your future at risk contact the lawyers at Helmer Friedman LLP.

In our digital age, privacy has become a paramount concern for everyone. Data anonymity is often the key to safeguarding this privacy. However, what if we told you that companies can de-anonymize your data?

Despite tech firms’ constant reassurances that mobile user tracking IDs are anonymous, an entire industry exists that links these IDs to real individuals and their addresses, effectively dismantling this veil of anonymity. This industry accomplishes this by correlating mobile advertising IDs (MAIDs) collected by applications with a person’s full name, physical address, and other personally identifiable information (PII).

Simply put, your data could be used to identify you, leading to significant privacy breaches. This is particularly concerning for those who trust that their information is secure when signing up for websites or apps. Consider, for instance, the implications for users of a dating app like Grindr. People have been ‘outed,’ resulting in serious harm and discrimination, and, in the case of one Catholic priest, his life and reputation were destroyed.

So how does this work? A MAID is a unique identifier assigned to each device by a phone’s operating system. Apps frequently capture a user’s MAID and share it with third parties. Companies like BIGDBM and FullContact then link this data to full names, physical addresses, and other PII—a process known as ‘identity resolution’ or ‘identity graphing.’

These revelations underscore the urgent need for greater transparency and enhanced privacy regulations regarding data collection and handling. As users, we must advocate for our rights and urge tech companies to prioritize the security of our data. Before signing up for any platform, it’s crucial to read their privacy policy carefully, although even that may not be sufficient.

In a world where data is the new gold, let’s ensure our ‘digital selves’ remain uncompromised.

Posted on

Absent Employer Policy Employees May Have Privacy Interest in Emails Over Employer’s Email System

Employees may have a right to privacy at work.

Absent Employer Policy Of Either Monitoring Individual Email Accounts Or Prohibiting Use Of The Company’s Email Account For Personal Communications, Employees May Have Privacy Interest In Emails Over Employer’s Email System

Militello v. VFARM 1509, 89 Cal. App. 5th 602 (2023)

Shauneen Militello, Ann Lawrence Athey (Lawrence), and Rajesh Manek were the co-owners of Cannaco Research Corporation (CRC), a licensed manufacturer and distributor of cannabis products. All three individuals served as officers of CRC until Lawrence and Manek voted to remove Militello from her position. Militello sued Lawrence, Manek, and others, including Joel Athey, Lawrence’s husband, in a multicount complaint alleging causes of action for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and other torts.

Lawrence moved to disqualify Militello’s counsel, Spencer Hosie and Hosie Rice LLP, on the ground Militello had impermissibly downloaded from Lawrence’s CRC email account private communications between Lawrence and Athey, protected by the spousal communication privilege (Evid. Code, § 980), and provided them to her attorneys, who then used them in an attempt to obtain a receivership for CRC in a parallel proceeding. Militello opposed the motion, arguing in part Lawrence had no reasonable expectation her electronic communications with her husband were confidential because she knew Militello, as a director of CRC, had the right to review all communications on CRC’s corporate network. Militello also argued disqualification is not appropriate when a lawyer has received the adverse party’s privileged communications from his or her own client. The trial court granted the motion, finding that Militello had not carried her burden of establishing Lawrence had no reasonable expectation her communications with her husband would be private, and ordered the disqualification of Hosie and Hosie Rice.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the finding that Lawrence reasonably expected her communications were, and would remain, confidential. And while the Court of Appeal acknowledged that disqualification may not be an appropriate remedy when a client simply discusses with his or her lawyer improperly acquired privileged information, counsel’s knowing use of the opposing side’s privileged documents, however, obtained, is a ground for disqualification.