The mission of the Mobile Monday Michigan Chapter is to “[e]ncourage innovation within the mobile sector and help Michigan-based companies participate in mobile initiatives through the import and export of visions, concepts, technologies, know-how and best practices, as well as the development of relationships related to the mobile industry.”  Mobile Monday Michigan is having its first “official” meeting on Monday (of course), July 19, 2010, at 6:30PM in the Celtic Room at Conor O’Neill’s Irish Pub (318 South Main Street – Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104).  Xconomy Detroit has an article on the group here.

I’ve been invited to present at this first meeting under the subject heading “Legal Issues in Mobile”.  Rather than run through a list of legal issues, I thought I’d talk a little more in depth about location-based services and consumer privacy and protection.  This issue came up most recently when Apple changed its privacy policy, prior to the launch of the iPhone 4, to allow the company to collect and share location information about its customers.  You can read more about that here.

I hope you can make it.

–Matt

In May 2006, Cingular Wireless issued a press release containing information about Cingular’s preparedness for disasters, such as hurricanes, through its “MACH1” and “MACH2” mobile command centers.  Playing off the “MACH” name, the press release compares the significance of Cingular’s mobile command centers with the achievement of legendary test pilot Chuck Yeager in breaking the sound barrier and achieving Mach 1.

General Yeager sued bringing claims for, among other things, violation of California common law and statutory right of publicity.  Cingular, now AT&T, brought a motion for summary disposition on the grounds that (1) the First Amendment protects the press release because it contains newsworthy matter and is not commercial speech, and (2) the use of Yeager’s name was “fleeting and inconsequential”.

After all, AT&T argued, the press release did not include a picture of Yeager, did not mention his name in any headline or headings, did not offer for sale any specific products or services, and certainly did not state that Yeager endorses the company or any of its products or services.  The connection between the new mobile service and Yeager’s feat may be tenuous (and, okay, stupid) but Yeager’s accomplishment is, after all, an historical fact.  Is this really something Yeager should be able to control, even in a quasi-commercial context, where there isn’t a clear message of endorsement?

The district judge apparently thought so, and earlier this month denied AT&T’s motion.  Although press releases serve both commercial and news reporting functions, the judge determined that the press release, in this case, was primarily commercial in nature.  The judge held that “Yeager’s name and accomplishments were used to attract attention to [AT&T]’s unrelated wireless services,” and that his “name and accomplishments in breaking the sound barrier are wholly unrelated to [AT&T]’s mobile command centers and cellular service in emergency situations.”  The court further noted that the use of Yeager’s name and accomplishment may have been a small part of the press release but was, nevertheless, used to uniquely enhance the marketability of AT&T’s service.

The scope of protection for a celebrity’s name, likeness, and, in this case, accomplishments continues to expand.  In an abundance of caution, those in the PR industry should avoid even fleeting references to celebrities in press releases, or get permission for the use.

–Matt

If you are an employer, are you monitoring your employee’s personal emails sent from work?   Can you?   Until recently, courts have generally accepted the argument from employers that they can monitor anything over their corporate computer networks, including personal emails sent from work.   The Wall Street Journal recently reported, however, that courts are now more likely to side with the employee, unless the employer has put the employee on notice that personal emails may be monitored.  In the absence of such notice, courts have said that employees have a reasonable expectation that their personal e-mails will remain private and will not be accessed by the employer.

The whole article can be read here.

–Matt

Last week I wrote about the controversy surrounding Google Street View and right of privacy concerns.  The original post can be read here.  A friend now points me to this article about a group of Japanese lawyers and professors, calling themselves Campaign Against Surveillance Society, who have asked Google to stop providing street-level, photographic views of Japanese cities, saying they “deeply violate[] a basic right that humans have.”

The article makes no mention of Google’s efforts to address right of privacy concerns by blurring faces and removing offensive or sensitive images.  Assuming Google has implemented these measures in Japan, it’s hard to understand this group’s specific concerns.  Certainly, a “surveillance society” is offensive to many people, including myself, but here the images are static (i.e., not a live video stream) and protective measures have been implemented to help safeguard privacy.  These protective measures are, of course, not perfect; the blurring technology may miss some faces and offensive content is only removed when found and tagged.  However, whatever actual or theoretical harm exists, in my opinion, is outweighed by the public benefit from the Street View service.

–Matt

(Thanks, Sara)

When I lived in San Francisco I passed the same homeless man pretty much every morning on my way to work.  He was always strategically situated across from the main bus depot in front of a coffee shop.  When Google’s Street View was launch last year – a feature of Google Maps providing street-level photographic views – I visited that street corner (virtually) to see if he was captured when Google’s panoramic cameras photographed the area.  He wasn’t but lots of other people were, and with their faces in full view.  At the time, I thought this was a lawsuit waiting to happen.  Even if these people were in a public place and photographed from public streets – arguably waiving any right of privacy – there were bound to be plenty of eager lawyers interested in suing the behemoth Internet giant and testing the legal waters on this issue.

Of course lawsuits were filed on this issue but, more interestingly, privacy advocates also raised legitimate concerns over public activities that perhaps shouldn’t be on permanent, worldwide display; such as views of men leaving strip clubs, sunbathers in bikinis, parents hitting their children, or johns picking up prostitutes.  In response, Google began blurring people’s faces and allowing users to tag offensive views for removal.  This is the right result.  Even if Google has no legal liability for displaying faces in the crowd and posting them on the Internet (and, to be clear, this legal position is somewhat in doubt), Street View doesn’t benefit from including those faces, and where Google can easily blur them it should.

–Matt