Libel and Privacy in a Digital Age
State Employee’s Credit Union Privacy Policy
The North Carolina State Employee’s Credit Union (SECU) privacy policy is committed to protecting it members from having their personal information compromised. The policy states that the credit union will keep members’ information confidential and will not sell information collected. The SECU privacy policy posted on its web site is short and to the point and gives members access to additional tips that will aid in protecting his/her personal information.
The SECU’s privacy policy goes a long way in customer relations as it provides members with a reassurance that they can trust this financial institution with their hard earned money. The policy goes on to state, “Members will never be required by SECU employees to provide their Online Member Access password information.” This statement assures customers that banking online at www.ncsecu.org is secure and their account or accounts cannot be fully accessed by others.
However the SECU’s privacy policy does note that limited access to some information maybe be granted as needed to perform transactions and to make sure that the SECU is providing its members with quality service.
The policy posted on the SECU web site also includes links to other information intended to help state employees, that are members of the credit union, secure their finances and make sure that every effort possible is being done to prevent identity theft and fraud.
The How You Can Protect Yourself link is a bonus available to members that provides tips on how to keep ones personal information secure. To be a member of the North Carolina State Employee’s Credit Union one must be an employee of the state, hence not just anyone can be a member and having a reassuring privacy policy goes along way in making members feel that this financial instituation is looking out for their welfare.
A copy of the FBI Fraud Alert poster is also available on the SECU website under How You Can Protect Yourself. This poster can be found in all branch locations and is displayed to provide tips on how to keep ones finances safe. The Credit Union’s web site also has a link to Identity Theft/Fraud Prevention Guide and Victim Checklist, which provides great tips on what to lookout for if you notice unusual activity on your account.
The Member ID link, which can be found on the How You Can Protect Yourself page, provides information on the credit unions newest initiative to help protect members’ personal information by providing members with identification cards that allow members to use it instead of other forms of identification that might contain information that can be abused if it falls in the wrong hands. Branches have also installed teller platforms so that members can swipe their cards themselves and not have to relinquish their identification to another party.
The SECU’s privacy policy page also has a link to its Legal page, that provides information on the credit union’s liability limitations. The credit union clearly states it will make every effort possible to prevent fraud but it does require its member to be active in this role as well. Members are encouraged to monitor their accounts and notify the credit union of any unauthorized activity. They also request that notification of any unusual activity be made in a reasonable time frame so that damage can be minimized.
Another key link available on the SECU’s privacy policy page is the link to information about its Call Center availability and policies. The SECU provides its members with contact information so that its customer service can be contacted 24 hours a day. Customers can contact the SECU call center via email; toll free, or by regular mail.
The purpose of the SECU privacy policy is to provide members with reassurance that the SECU is looking out for them and that this financial institution is taking every precaution to protect its members. The SECU’s policy notes that the customer’s personal information is only being used for its intended purpose.
NRECA v. CEI
The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association accuses the Competitive Enterprise Institute of copyright infringement for using a portion of a documentary it produced in an advertisement without garnering their permission. The Competitive Enterprise Institute argues that there was no copyright infringement violation based on the “fair use” provision of the US copyright law.
As the plaintiff, the NRECA has to prove infringement; prove ownership of the documentary and that they have the right to copy and distribute the work. Hence portions of the Copyright Act of 1976 can be used to support the NRECA allegations of copyright infringement. In a copyright infringement case the burden of proof falls on the shoulders of the plaintiff in order to establish a case.
Once the NRECA has established a case against the CEI, it is now up to the CEI to prove that its usage of a portion of the NRECA’s documentary in its commercial meets the ramification of “fair use.” There are four factors that the CEI must address in order to prove there was no infringement.
1. the purpose and character of the use
2. the nature of the copyrighted work
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work
The CEI can clearly argue that their usage of seven seconds of the documentary was done as a means to criticize those who are more concerned with energy reduction than trying to find more economic means of producing energy. Proving “purpose and character of the use”, moves CEI one step closer to establishing their claim that their usage of the clip from the documentary meets the “fair use” provision.
Next the CEI must address “the nature of the copyrighted work.” The documentary produced by the NRECA is a work that was published and made available to the public. Hence “the nature of the copyrighted work” factor does not support the CEI’s claim of “fair use”.
The third factor that the CEI must argue in its “fair use” defense is that the portion of the video, which was only seven seconds, was not a substantial portion of the work. They can also make the claim that the portion used was used as a parody. The CEI can use the Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music case of (1994) as precedent for its claim that its work is a parody. This can be argued in the context that the CEI ad makes fun of Al Gore and his stance against global warming however his effort does nothing to assist citizens in obtaining affordable energy.
The final factor the CEI must address in order to prove they did not violate copyright laws is to prove that their usage of a portion of the NRECA’s documentary did not effect or damage its market value. Considering the limited amount of the documentary used, it would be hard to prove that any financial damage was done to the documentary because it would be very difficult for the average viewer to draw a correlation between the two works. The CEI does not alter the factual content of the clips used in their advertisement. The CEI can argue that the advertisement they produced differs greatly from the documentary produced by the NRECA and therefore meets the “fair use” provision of the Copyright Law.
After reviewing the information provided, the Competitive Enterprise Institute should have requested permission from the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association to use a portion of its documentary. However the CEI does provide enough evidence to support its claim of being protected by the “fair use” provision of the Copyright Law. Although the NRECA does prove infringement the provisions granted by “fair use” protects the CEI’s.
Based on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, CEI’s ad was removed from YouTube once a “takedown” notice was sent, however Judge Jeremy Fogel’s ruling on the Lenz v. Universal now requires copyright owners to take the “fair use” provision in to account before sending a “takedown” notice, therefore the CEI’s ad could have remained on YouTube if NRECA did not take the “fair use” provision into consideration before sending the “takedown” notice.
David Simmons v. MyFacebookSpaceNews.com
David Simmons has filed a libel suit against MyFacebookSpaceNews.com alleging that the web site defamed his character with the comments post on its site relating to a serious automobile accident for which he was arrested. This case is an example of “libel per se” the criminal and intelligential accusations posted on the site can be perceived as defamatory. MyFacebookSpaceNews.com needs to review its practices and take precautions to prevent future suits.
As is common with libel suits the burden of proof is on Mr. Simmons, the plaintiff. The plaintiff will have to prove all six elements required in a libel suit, in order to be granted restitution:
- Defamation
- Identification
- Publication
- Fault
- Falsity
- Injury
By posting New York Police Sgt. Rosso T. Ruggiero comment that Simmons was being arrested under suspicion of driving under the influence, it left the web site open to a possible suit. However Sgt. Ruggiero’s statement does not say that David Simmons’ was guilty of drunk driving as Mr. Simmons states in his suit. MyFacebookSpaceNews.com should have done a little more research and made sure Sgt. Ruggiero was the arresting officer and verified the charges being filed and not just report speculations.
Eyewitness, Robin Hubier’s comment about Simmons intelligence would not be perceived as relevant in a court of law because she would not have any mains of determining his intelligence. Simmons could try to sue Ms. Hubier for slander but it probably would not be worth his while because Ms. Hubier could use the First Amendment to support her right to “freedom of speech.”
Simmons will have no problem with the “Identification” burden of proof. He only needs to prove that MyFacebookSpaceNews.com was visited during the time that the story with his name was posted on the site. The web site is responsible here based on the “republication rule.”
David Simmons will have some difficulty proving “actual malice”. By no means is it clear from the content reported and the dispute against it that MyFacebookSpaceNews.com posted any information that the site knew was false. The site quoted a law official that was at the scene and only reported what the officer believed to have been the cause of the accident.
Simmons maybe be able to prove “Falsity” if being under the influence is ruled out as being a factor in the cause of the accident. If Mr. Simmons were charged with DUI then this element would not be supported. Without documents that clearly state the charges, it is unclear if this element can be proven.
When it comes to proving “Injury” Simmons may have a basis for this burden of proof factor. If it is ruled that the accident was not his fault or that alcohol played no role, than Simmons can prove “Injury.” However MyFacebookSpaceNew.com can counter with an argument that his need for medication or psychological treatment steams from the guilt he might have from his involvement in the accident and therefore have nothing to do with what was posted on the web site.
The information provided, only proves a couple of the elements that David Simmons will need to prove in order to win his libel suit. Rhode Island’s Supreme Court ruling in the Kent Trainor v. The Standard Times case set a precedent that can be used to resolve MyFacebookSpaceNews.com of any liability. This Supreme Court ruling supports the fact that Simmons’ case does not meet the burden of proof required of a plaintiff in a libel action suit.
MyFacebookSpaceNews.com should take precautions to prevent future litigation. I recommend that the site steer away from crowd sourcing and hearsay that can be defamatory. When reporting alleged criminal activity, MyFacebookSpace.com should avoid defamatory comments, even when reporting eyewitnesses’ comments. The site should strive to keep itself out of court by knowing and applying its knowledge of the law to its reporting. Although the law was on the side of MyFacebookSpaceNews.com this time MyFacebookSpaceNews.com might not be this lucky next time, especially if the plaintiff is able to better address the “burden of proof” that is required of him or her in a libel suit.
