Switzerland Continues To Fight Google Street View; Takes Google To Court

from the swiss-neutrality dept

A few months ago, when Google launched its "Street View" tool in Switzerland, the government got upset and told Google to take the site down because it violated people's privacy. This was despite the fact that Google had been discussing the project with the government and put in place multiple privacy safeguards, including blurring faces and license plates. Apparently, it wasn't enough. Mr. LemurBoy alerts us to the news that Switzerland is now taking Google to court over Street View, claiming that it doesn't blur people enough, and that sometimes the cameras can see over fences or walls. Of course, anyone walking down the street can see the same things as well, and if they're tall enough, they can see over walls. Is Switzerland going to take tall people to court as well?

25 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Microsoft's COFEE Computer Forensic Tools Leaked

from the that-can't-be-good dept

Last year, we wrote about Microsoft's COFEE tools, which are a set of computer forensic and auditing tools that Microsoft puts on a USB key and gives to law enforcement to use in trying to extract info from a computer. There was some fear that it was a "back door," but people insisted it was no such thing, but just a collection of basic tools. Still, the fact that the system was promoted as being useful for decrypting passwords and analyzing a computer's data and internet activity seemed troubling. We noted that if Microsoft was giving it out to law enforcement, it seemed likely that others would have access to it as well.

Well, late last week, reports started showing up noting that COFEE itself had been leaked to various file sharing sites. Apparently, the program had been quite sought after at private tracker What.cd -- though, after it was leaked there, the admins actually removed the torrent.

Still, you have to imagine that the software is very much out there. So, the question still remains, is this a big deal or not? When we did our original post, many people insisted that there was no big deal in Microsoft COFEE and it was just basic everyday auditing software. Yet, when even What.cd is removing the torrent, claiming they "didn't like" what they saw when they examined the software, in terms of "the potential impact on the site and security of our users and staff," it does raise certain questions that are similar to those we originally raised.

So, once again, let's get some feedback from the folks reading here. Is this really a big deal? Or is it just your ordinary tools?

33 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Olympics Trademark Law Insanity: Officials Can Enter Homes, Issue $10,000 Fines

from the please,-make-it-stop dept

In the past, we've noted how much the Olympics loves to overreach with trademark claims, trying to prevent anyone from using any phrase or word associated with the Olympics without having to pay up. Amazingly -- and to the detriment of the people they're supposed to represent -- politicians all too often grant the Olympics extra special trademark laws that just apply to them. Reader Jesse lets us know of the latest insanity up in Vancouver, where special new "bylaws" let officers enter homes to remove unapproved "signage" while also granting them the ability to issue fines up to $10,000. There are already lawsuits filed about this, but at what point do politicians tell the Olympics "enough is enough?" Update In the comments, reader Brendan points out that Vancouver's police chief is insisting this is an exaggeration, saying:

Just as ridiculous in my opinion, is the charge that the VPD will enter homes to confiscate signage.

Once again, I would ask that those speaking on our behalf, regardless of your motives, please stop, or at least ask us.

The additional powers that the City has obtained are intended to control unauthorized marketing.

If normal processes, such as a warning, ticket or summons, do not convince a person to abide by a by-law, in extreme circumstances, a warrant to enter premises can be obtained.

We have been assured by City license inspectors that they will be focusing on "guerrilla marketing" efforts that are prominent, and near official venues.

They will not be focusing on signage that is a political or personal statement.

The VPD has no intention of entering the home of any Vancouver resident for a sign issue during the Games. We are not the sign police.

Okay... but that still does say that they could get a warrant to enter people's homes for marketing signage. Why, exactly, should that be allowed? On personal property, if someone puts up a "guerilla marketing" sign, shouldn't that be their right?

22 Comments | Leave a Comment..

ACTA Negotiations Back On... White House Shows Small Group Proposed Text Under NDA

from the but-what-about-the-public dept

With the next round of negotiations on the ACTA treaty -- which may require the US and other countries to make significant changes to copyright law that favor the entertainment industry -- set to get underway, the White House still refuses to release details to the public, but did show the text to 42 Washington "insiders" under NDA. The good news is that the list includes a fair number of folks who recognize the problems with copyright law and the ACTA proposal -- including people like Gigi Sohn, William Patry, Sherwin Siy, David Sohn and Michael Petricone. Many of those people will push for the public's best interests. But, still, it's a bit troubling that the whole conversation remains secret for "national security" reasons. If we're talking about changing copyright laws that effect everyone, why not let everyone know? Sherwin Siy, from Public Knowledge, told KEI (in the link above) about his experience viewing the document, which sounded greatly limited, and notes that while the document has been adjusted, "the most troubling aspects" have not been "resolved."

In the meantime, it's worth asking why this is necessary again. First of all, in a world where trade agreements are supposed to be about breaking down trade barriers, ACTA seems designed to be putting up protectionist policies. Protectionism doesn't work and only creates more harm. But, much more importantly, much of the push for ACTA is based on lobbyists' claims of the "harm" done by counterfeiting. Except both the GAO and the OECD have put out independent reports showing that counterfeiting isn't that big a problem, and that whatever problems there are seem to be significantly exaggerated by lobbyists. Yes, those same lobbyists who were given much earlier access to the document and, records suggest, had a hand in shaping the document itself. So why do we need ACTA again? And why are we allowing those who the government has already found to have exaggerated the problem drive the negotiations?

17 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Doctors In Tennessee Have Been Faxing Patient Info To The Wrong Place For Years

from the that-seems-bad dept

Live in Tennessee? Thought the records at your doctor's office were private? You might want to check again. Michael Scott alerts us to the news that a bunch of doctors offices in Tennessee have been accidentally faxing patient records, including confidential info, to a small solar company in Indiana... for three years. Luckily, the guy on the receiving end says he's been shredding the records as they come in, but he's getting pretty damn frustrated. He's contacted tons of people, including the Governor of Tennessee, but no luck. The faxes keep coming. Apparently, the problem is that the phone number of the business is close to the one that doctors are supposed to use. Given the number of faxes, my guess is that it's not so much people mistyping it into their fax machines each time, but at some point there must have been a typo in a mailing or on a website or something. Of course, we won't even get started on why these record transfers are still handled by fax. That's another post for another day...

25 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Bank Sends Confidential Email To Wrong Address, Hauls Google To Court To Figure Out Who Got The Email

from the grab-some-popcorn dept

Everyone does it at some point: you send an email to the wrong person. Hopefully the content isn't that bad or important -- but it happens. However, when a Wyoming bank, Rocky Mountain Bank, accidentally sent confidential and sensitive information to the wrong Gmail account, the bank ended up taking Google to court to find out the identity of the individual. The bank had tried emailing the wrong address again, but got no response. Google, naturally, refused to just give up the name of the person without a court order -- so the bank went to court. It also tried to have the case sealed, but the judge has rejected that idea. You can certainly understand the bank's concern here, but it does seem a bit silly to have to bring someone else to court after you screwed up and sent the wrong email.

47 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Netflix $1 Million Award Shows The Value Of Collaboration... But Kicks Up New Privacy Questions

from the good...-and-bad dept

Back in July, we wrote about how the Netflix $1 million prize showed how much further research efforts could get by collaborating, rather than hoarding. Now that the official prize has been awarded, we're hearing even more about that point:

The blending of different statistical and machine-learning techniques "only works well if you combine models that approach the problem differently," said Chris Volinsky, a scientist at AT&T Research and a leader of the Bellkor team [which won]. "That's why collaboration has been so effective, because different people approach problems differently."

Indeed. There's plenty of research out there showing the leaps that are made in innovation when people with different approaches collaborate. Yet, with so much of a focus on "patents" representing "innovation," the opposite occurs. The patent system is all about hoarding information and making it harder to collaborate by putting tollbooths in the process. Many of the final "teams" involved a whole bunch of different approaches. Imagine if each one had a patent on their method. Think of how expensive that kind of innovation would be. Then, realize that there are plenty of technologies that face that exact problem today.

In the meantime, Paul Ohm is raising some serious questions about people's privacy on the new Netflix Prizes that are being announced. While Netflix claims that the data is anonymized, we've seen before that anonymous datasets are almost never anonymous, and in Netflix's case, the details are pretty bad:

Although I give Netflix a pass for its past privacy breach, I am astonished to learn from the New York Times that the company plans a second act:

The new contest is going to present the contestants with demographic and behavioral data, and they will be asked to model individuals' "taste profiles," the company said. The data set of more than 100 million entries will include information about renters' ages, gender, ZIP codes, genre ratings and previously chosen movies. Unlike the first challenge, the contest will have no specific accuracy target. Instead, $500,000 will be awarded to the team in the lead after six months, and $500,000 to the leader after 18 months.

Netflix should cancel this new, irresponsible contest, which it has dubbed Netflix Prize 2. Researchers have known for more than a decade that gender plus ZIP code plus birthdate uniquely identifies a significant percentage of Americans (87% according to Latanya Sweeney's famous study.) True, Netflix plans to release age not birthdate, but simple arithmetic shows that for many people in the country, gender plus ZIP code plus age will narrow their private movie preferences down to at most a few hundred people. Netflix needs to understand the concept of "information entropy": even if it is not revealing information tied to a single person, it is revealing information tied to so few that we should consider this a privacy breach.

Ohm also points out that this prize almost certainly violates the law:

Because of this, if it releases the data, Netflix might be breaking the law. The Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), 18 USC 2710 prohibits a "video tape service provider" (a broadly defined term) from revealing "personally identifiable information" about its customers. Aggrieved customers can sue providers under the VPPA and courts can order "not less than $2500" in damages for each violation. If somebody brings a class action lawsuit under this statute, Netflix might face millions of dollars in damages.

Additionally, the FTC might also decide to fine Netflix for violating its privacy policy as an unfair business practice.

It seems rather surprising that Netflix's lawyers did not consider this.

17 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Is Copyright Law Compatible With Privacy Rights?

from the perhaps-not dept

We've discussed in the past the inherent conflict between the First Amendment's right to speech free from government interference and copyright law -- and there are entire books on the subject that are worth reading, like No Law and Copyright's Paradox. But there are other policy questions around copyright as well, and Boing Boing points us to an important one about how modern copyright law seems to inherently be at odds with any rights to privacy, thanks to copyright maximalists who are constantly pushing for every online action to be monitored in some manner or another:

It is increasingly apparent that modern copyright law is utterly and completely incompatible with the right to privacy.... What has changed? Before home computers, compact discs and Internet file sharing, it was conceivable for copyright laws to be enforced in a manner that did not bring the state to any-one's doorstep. If there was an illegal copy of a book in a bookshop, one could report it to the authorities. If someone brought a video camera into a theatre or a concert, they could be readily seen.

Given today's technological realities, this is no longer the case.... the problem lies in the fact that current copyright laws are completely unenforceable unless the government or industry groups start to read every e-mail and analyze every form of online communication done by citizens.

It's worth thinking about. It's also why the positions held by the various "Pirate Parties" around the globe aren't necessarily about encouraging people to get free stuff, but about the importance of protecting free speech rights and privacy rights, in a world where the industry is increasingly using copyright laws to chip away at both.

20 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Kiddie Monitoring Software Spying On IM Chats, Selling Info To Marketers

from the yeah,-that'll-go-over-well dept

There are a bunch of different "child filtering/monitoring" software on the market these days, and many parents use it to help them keep track of what their kids do online. I have no problem with this -- so long as such filters aren't mandated by the government. But it appears that just selling the tools isn't enough for some companies. JJ sends in the news that one of the top providers in the space doesn't just monitor what kids do for parents, but collects all the data -- including the text of chat room discussions -- and resells it to marketers. You have to imagine that this isn't exactly what the FTC (or parents) expects of such tools.

The company defends the practice, claiming that the data is anonymized and no identifiable data is included -- but we've heard that before. Every single time someone insists their data is anonymized, news breaks showing that it is not. I don't think there's anything wrong, necessarily, with doing targeted marketing programs, but using unsuspecting parents and getting them to install filters and monitoring software, without realizing the data will be handed over to marketing firms, seems pretty sleazy.

16 Comments | Leave a Comment..

How Far Should Google Go To Protect User Privacy In Lawsuits?

from the questions-questions dept

We've already discussed the ridiculous circumstances under which a model, Liskula Cohen, ended up getting a judge to order Google to reveal an anonymous blogger who Cohen felt defamed her by calling her a "skank," among other things. That no longer anonymous blogger, Rosemary Port, is now planning to sue Google, though it seems her chances of winning are slim to none. Still, the whole thing did raise questions about the level to which Google should go to protect the anonymity of people who use its services.

This issue is getting more attention, as Google has apparently alerted some anonymous Caribbean journalists that it may hand over their information due to a defamation lawsuit filed against the journalists, concerning their investigations into corruption in the famed vacation resort Turks & Caicos Islands. One of the people accused of being involved in the corruption filed the lawsuit, and Google sent the site a letter, saying:

To comply with the law, unless you provide us with a copy of a motion to quash the subpoena (or other formal objection filed in court) via email at legal-support@google.com by 5pm Pacific Time on September 16, 2009, Google will assume you do not have an objection to production of the requested information and may provide responsive documents on this date.

Some are making a big "First Amendment" deal out of this, but it's not clear that's such a huge deal. Google, as a private company, can choose to reveal that information, and appears to be properly notifying the people in question of the legal situation and allowing them to respond. But, of course, some insist that Google should stand up for the privacy rights of its users, and there's an argument to be made there. How far should Google be expected to go to defend the privacy of its users in the face of a court order or subpoena? Given Google's reputation as being user friendly, many would expect it to go quite far, but is that reasonable? Is there a balance between obeying court orders and subpoenas and fighting for its users' rights? Or should Google always default to defending its users' rights as far as possible?

39 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Switzerland Tells Google To Take Down Street View

from the how-dare-you-provide-a-useful-service dept

Following a bunch of other countries, it looks like Switzerland is the latest to freak out over Google Street View and to ban it, just a week after it was introduced. Google is apparently surprised by this move, noting that it had been talking to the Swiss gov't and had a bunch of privacy safeguards in place, which seemed to be working. Of course, you have to ask, are there surveillance cameras in Switzerland? If so, why is that okay when Google's Street View is not? Surveillance cameras are real-time. Street View is not. Surveillance cameras do not blur faces/license plates. Street View does. Why is one allowed and the other not? Of course, given how many local gov'ts have freaked out about Street View, it does make you wonder why Google would launch it these days without first having assurances from the gov't that it would be okay.

20 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Outed Blogger Plans To Sue Google; Skank Model Mess Gets Messier

from the fun-to-watch-from-the-sidelines dept

Earlier this year, we wrote about how model Liskula Cohen bizarrely sued "sought pre-action discovery from" Google on an anonymous blogger for putting up a blog that referred to Cohen as a skank, an old hag, a "ho" and a few other choice phrases. Of course, pretty much no one would have seen such a blog if Cohen hadn't gone legal about it, claiming (with no proof) that she was losing jobs because of it (which seems difficult to believe). We were disappointed that a judge found the insults on the blog to be "defamatory," and ordered Google to reveal the blogger -- which it did. However, the now revealed blogger, Rosemary Port, is now pissed off and planning to sue Google for $15 million for exposing her.

As much as I agree that she should have been able to remain anonymous, I'm not sure what legal grounds Port has to make such a claim. Her attorney says Google: "breached its fiduciary duty to protect her expectation of anonymity," which hardly seems likely to stand up in court. Google had no such fiduciary duty, and was ordered by a court to give up the name. Her lawyer is right in noting that anonymity is "inherent in the First Amendment" (and many courts have found this to be true), but that has nothing to do with Google. Google is not the US gov't and the First Amendment doesn't apply to Google. I would have no problem with a lawsuit appealing the ruling to reveal Port's name, but that's not a lawsuit against Google. Bad lawsuits begat bad lawsuits.

Separately, Cohen's own lawyer is claiming that Cohen is dropping the defamation lawsuit against Port (which is not what she was claiming last week) and the whole thing seems to have descended into screaming back and forth -- with arguments over who should forgive whom.

But there is one other interesting tidbit. We've pointed out how ridiculous the original lawsuit was, as it only called that much more attention to Cohen and the idea that someone finds her "skanky." Port claims that probably the only two people who saw the site prior to the lawsuit were Port and Cohen. When it was pointed out that this whole lawsuit brought a lot more attention to the idea of Cohen as a "skank," Cohen's lawyer claims "If we had thought for a minute that the Google case would have brought more attention to the anonymous blogger's site, we never would have started it." Perhaps that's true, but if it is, Cohen and her lawyer seem particularly clueless about how the internet works and how news spreads.

In the end, this whole thing has the feel of a big publicity stunt, wasting public resources and the court system to get both Cohen, and now Port, a bunch of free media coverage. Basically, we have back and forth lawsuits that are really just attention-grabbing attempts by people who felt "insulted" by others' actions. Despite Port's claims that the founding fathers wanted to preserve her right to privacy, this legal mud-wresting contest is probably not what they had in mind.

91 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Did People Think No One Would Recognize REAL ID If Introduced Under Another Name?

from the pass-id,-indeed dept

Last year, it became clear that REAL ID was dead on arrival as pretty much everyone was against it, and states were refusing to implement it. With the changing of the administration, it seemed like REAL ID was finally going to die completely... but apparently not just yet. EFF alerts folks to the fact that the same concept has basically been reintroduced under the name PASS ID, as if that would trick people:

The plan sounds equally as bad and unnecessary:

Proponents seem to be blind to the systemic impotence of such an identification card scheme. Individuals originally motivated to obtain and use fake IDs will instead use fake identity documents to procure "real" drivers' licenses. PASS ID creates new risks -- it calls for the scanning and storage of copies of applicants' identity documents (birth certificates, visas, etc.). These documents will be stored in databases that will become leaky honeypots of sensitive personal data, prime targets for malicious identity thieves or otherwise accessible by individuals authorized to obtain documents from the database. Despite some alterations to the scheme, PASS ID is still bad for privacy in many of the same ways the REAL ID was.

But why let that stop the gov't from coming up with more ways to keep tabs on you?

9 Comments | Leave a Comment..

New Lawsuit Against Facebook From People Who Just Don't Like Facebook

from the what's-your-cause-of-action? dept

Another day, another bizarre lawsuit. Eric Goldman points us to a lawsuit against Facebook that is best summarized as "we don't like Facebook, and we're sure it's doing something bad." It involves a few different plaintiffs who all have very different complaints, combined with some weird claims about Facebook violating their privacy, and that it's really a data mining company in disguise. But, of course, there's an easy way to avoid any such issue. It's called not using Facebook. The lawsuit also seems to rely on the fact that lots of people don't like the terms of service that Facebook has used, but not liking the terms don't necessarily make them against the law. There's also a poorly explained copyright claim -- but it's so unclear that I can't tell if the complaint is that Facebook is violating copyrights by showing the photos that one of the plaintiffs themselves uploaded (which would be flat out ridiculous), or that the issue is other users uploading photos (which would be pre-empted by the DMCA's safe harbors). The whole thing seems like a group of people suing Facebook for the hell of it and hoping to get some cash out of it.

41 Comments | Leave a Comment..

The Return Of Cable Boxes That Spy On You

from the wave-to-the-camera dept

Remember the outcry last year when a Comcast exec mentioned in passing the idea of a set-top box that would have a built in camera to monitor who and how many people were actually watching the TV? The outcry over that forced Comcast to say that it wasn't really going to do that, but Broadband Reports points out that the technology behind such a plan is still moving forward -- and apparently cable companies are, indeed, interested in it. The idea is that it can show personalized ads and better target content. It's worth noting that the company behind the system, Prime Sense, seems to be trying to position it for less "scary" apps, such as being able to do "virtual touch" interfaces, so users could interact with menus on the screen without a remote (features found in some video games these days). Still, unless the end user is given total control over what info is recorded and where it's being sent, this technology seems like a non-starter.

58 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Register A Complaint With The Indian Gov't; Have Your Private Info Revealed

from the um...-I-think-I've-got-a-complaint... dept

I think some folks in India may have multiple complaints with the government. That's because it's been revealed that the service that handles online complaints for the gov't just happens to be revealing all the private data of people who complain, including their passwords in plaintext. Apparently, when you looked at your own profile, you could see all of your own data (plus password) and then as you hit refresh you'd see others -- which you could edit if you wanted to. Not exactly a particularly secure system...

17 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Tiburon Wants To Photograph Every Car Entering And Leaving... But Don't Worry About Your Privacy

from the well,-phew... dept

Tiburon is a nice little wealthy coastal town a little ways north from where I happen to live. It's a cozy place to go for a nice meal out or something -- usually somewhere I'll take visiting friends or relatives. It's certainly not a place where you'd expect there to be a big crime problem, and, indeed, the facts seem to bear that out. But, apparently, that's not stopping the local gov't from deciding to set up cameras to photograph and record every car entering and leaving the town. It will also record and use the license plate info. If that sounds like a bit of an invasion of privacy, well, the town's Manager, Peggy Curran, insists you're just paranoid:

"As long as you don't arrive in a stolen vehicle or go on a crime spree while you're here, your anonymity will be preserved. We don't care who you are and we don't know who you are."

Actually, if you didn't care, you wouldn't be recording the info, now would you?

This is really just a variation on the "if you haven't done anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about" sort of claim. It's a fallacy that privacy is only about if you're doing something wrong. So, for folks up in Tiburon, who wants to follow Peggy Curran with a camera when she's walking around? As long as she doesn't do anything illegal, her anonymity will be preserved. No one cares who she is. They would just be making sure she doesn't go on a crime spree or steal a car. By her own logic, that's perfectly reasonable, right?

102 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Swedish ISP Refuses To Give Up IP Addresses; Appeals Court Order

from the fighting-IPRED dept

Earlier this year, you may recall that strict new "anti-piracy" legislation went into effect in Sweden, which required ISPs to hand over IP addresses and other info they had on people. Because of this, some ISPs have been proactive in deleting log files. But, a bigger question may be whether or not such rules violate user privacy. It appears that the Swedish courts are going to need to sort this out. The first ISP who was asked for IP address info in Sweden under this new IPRED law, Ephone, is appealing the court order to hand over the data, even though it faces huge fines for not complying. The case is a little different than a typical file sharing case in that it involves an attempt to find out who's running a particular server on which certain content was stored. However, Ephone points out that the server itself required a password to access, and thus the content was not made publicly available -- and thus, was not copyright infringement. Not surprisingly, Ephone's customers have made it clear to the company that they support it in protecting their privacy.

25 Comments | Leave a Comment..

This Is Investigative Reporting? News Corp. Allegedly Hacked Into Phones, Paid Off People To Silence Them

from the hmm... dept

We keep being told that only newspapers can do "real" investigative reporting, even though we've seen plenty of evidence of others doing quite impressive investigative reporting without having a background in journalism. And, now, we find out that some investigative reporting by those "real" journalists apparently involved breaking the law, violating individuals' privacy... and then paying people off to keep quiet about it. At least that's the charge from The Guardian against Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. According to the Guardian's report (and, yes, the Guardian is a real newspaper and appears to have done a nice investigative job here -- we're not saying newspapers can't do good investigative reporting), there's growing evidence that a lot of folks involved in Murdoch's News Group Newspapers were involved in hiring people to hack into thousands of mobile phones to record and transcribe phone calls between various politicians and celebrities, and also involved tricking "government agencies, banks, phone companies and others... into handing over confidential information." And? When that evidence started to come out, they apparently paid up a bunch of hush money and convinced a court to seal the files. Again, this isn't to implicate all newspapers (the fact that another newspaper figured this out is great). But the idea that newspaper investigative reporting is somehow "pure" once again seems to be in question.

33 Comments | Leave a Comment..

News? Or A Violation Of Privacy?

from the questions-all-around dept

Two separate stories crossed my desk recently, that both raise some interesting questions in today's internet age. The first was concerned about whether or not a newspaper in South Carolina violated any laws in publishing emails between South Carolina governor Mark Sanford and his supposed mistress in Argentina. The second story involves blog network Gawker which apparently published the private profile of an 11-year-old boy who supposedly was "snubbed" by actress Megan Fox, when trying to deliver a flower to her.

Both raise a lot of questions about definitions of "privacy" when it comes to today's socially networked and internet-connected world. It seems like there are numerous questions (and different jurisdictions and laws) that come into play in determining what is or is not a legal violation of privacy -- but if you're a lawyer who practices in this area, I would imagine that the next few years are going to be very busy ones. I'm not about to make a judgment call on either one at this point, but it would be fascinating for lawyers (and others) to chime in both on what they think from a legal standpoint and what they think from a "reasonable" standpoint.

14 Comments | Leave a Comment..