Visit our website
New America Cypbersecurity Initiative
New America Cypbersecurity Initiative
MIT Technology Review
MIT Technology Review
io9
io9
Techdirt
Techdirt
Knowledge@Wharton
Knowledge@Wharton
Bioscience Technology
Bioscience Technology
redOrbit
redOrbit
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
Popular Science Blog
Popular Science Blog
Pew Research Center
Pew Research Center
Genomics Law Report
Genomics Law Report
Science 2.0
Science 2.0
The Guardian Headquarters
The Guardian Headquarters
Genetic Literacy Project
Genetic Literacy Project
Disclaimer

Statements posted on this blog represent the views of individual authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Center for Law Science & Innovation (which does not take positions on policy issues) or of the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law or Arizona State University.

Wednesday Web Watch for April 29, 2015

www3

In Court Protects Anonymity of Yelp Users, there is “no uniform rule as to whether companies must reveal identifying information of their anonymous users” and court decisions on the matter have landed on both sides of the fence.  In the Yelp case, the Supreme Court of Virginia decided in favor of Yelp users on procedural grounds, citing lack of court subpoena power over non-resident non-parties.  However, even if the subpoena had been lawfully ordered and enforceable in California, Yelp could have looked to state recognized protections for anonymous speech and privacy.   As the Socially Aware article emphasizes, because of the murky waters, in addition to procedural limitations, stakeholders need to be aware of individual state laws regarding freedom of speech and privacy.