Sarbanes-Stanley Case

We also hear arguments how people can avoid having their privacy invaded by things individuals do to themselves. Marmor’s audience is everyone, anyone who could be a potential risk of their privacy being violated. The author’s biased view helps me with my paper by adding facts and ways to prevent someone to be targeted. "Tech giant Apple is resisting a court directive that it help the FBI gain access to the iPhone

MICHAEL A. SMYTH v. THE PILLSBURY COMPANY United States District Court, 1996 914 F. Supp. 97 How does Judge Weiner explain why Michael Smyth lost any “reasonable expectation of privacy” in his e-mail comments? According to the Cornell University Law School, expectation of privacy is protected by the Fourth Amendment and it safeguards people from warrantless investigations of places, appropriations of persons or objects in which they have a particular expectation of privacy that is thought reasonable. However, this expectation is not absolute, but on a case-by case basis. In other words, reasonably expectation of privacy means that someone who compromises another’s interests in keeping his/her matters from being known can be held liable

The Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX), Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and Gramm-Leach-Bliley (GLBA) acts all revolve around safeguarding or guaranteeing that information is truthful. While each act is protecting data in separate fields there are some very clear similarities.

One of the cases is the City of Ontario v. Quon in California that went from 2009 to 2010. The cases involves police officers who were given text-messaging pagers and one of the officers messages were read without their permission. The police department did not have an official text messaging privacy policy but they did have a general policy stating “employees shouldn't expect privacy when using internet, e-mail and internet use and can be monitored with or without notice.” The police department verbally told them the texting pagers were considered e-mail and were subject to general policy. In the supreme court they decided that the reading of the texts was justified because it was reasonable.

Nowadays, “privacy” is becoming a popular conversation topic. Many people believe that if they do not do anything wrong in the face of technology and security, then they have nothing to hide. Professor Daniel J. Solove of George Washington University Law School, an internationally known expert in privacy law, wrote the article Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have ‘Nothing to Hide’, published in The Chronicle of Higher Education in May of 2011. Solove explains what privacy is and the value of privacy, and he insists that the ‘nothing to hide’ argument is wrong in this article. In the article, “Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have ‘Nothing to Hide’”, Daniel J. Solove uses ethos, pathos, and logos effectively by using strong sources, using

Because technology is continually growing, new laws are being passed regarding technology and confidentiality. This article questions the “invasive” internet searches and looks for a constitutional answer. As of now, no electronic device can be confiscated and searched without a warrant. This could prove to be beneficial for Arnie. If he was to report Mr. Bowen’s suspicious data to the police, they would be able to obtain a warrant to officially search Mr. Bowen’s computer.

In making its Smith ruling, the Court considered whether the person invoking the protection of the Fourth Amendment could claim a “legitimate expectation of privacy” that has been invaded by government action, and stated that such an inquiry normally addresses two questions: (1) whether the individual has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy; and (2) whether the individual 's expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as “reasonable.”

To further support this, information that is collected is used to protect the Nation from "threats.” (2.1)Since this information is used to protect the Nation from “threats,” not to intrude on everyday citizen’s privacy, it is not an invasion of their right to privacy. Correspondingly, part of protecting citizen’s privacy is requiring a probable cause for

One of, if not, the most provocative arguments Kerr offers in his article is that the third-party doctrine should not be framed in terms of “reasonable expectation of privacy” in which a person “waives” their reasonable expectation of privacy, but rather as a consent doctrine. In his view, what we voluntarily disclose to third parties eliminates Fourth Amendment protection because of implied consent. Specifically, a person voluntarily discloses information to a third party if they do so knowingly. Consequently, searches, if a government agent’s conduct is deemed as such, are reasonable because the person allowed the government to do so. Kerr’s example for his principle is problematic.

A. BWO will likely be able to prove that Chigurh was terminated for a legitimate business reason either because he held a management position or for the financial factors associated with fulfilling the agreement with Wells. An employer may terminate an employee for good cause under the WDEA. § 39-2-904(b). Good cause is defined as “reasonable job-related grounds for dismissal based on a failure to satisfactorily perform job duties, disruption of the employer’s operation, or other legitimate business reason.” § 39-2-903(5).

Based on the scenario, the branches of invasion of privacy that exist are intrusion upon personal solitude, public disclosure of private facts, and appropriation. Studd Lee may bring a lawsuit against Sheeza Clodd for intrusion upon personal solitude considering how Sheeza Clodd’s recording satisfies all the elements for this tort. By recording Studd Lee’s conversation with his doctor, Sheeza Clodd invaded Studd Lee’s physical solitude or seclusion, causing him mental anguish; this condition supports one of the legal elements required for this invasion of privacy branch. Moreover, the recording took place during a medical checkup in his personal physician’s office, a place where things are supposed to be kept private; thus, Studd Lee must have had a reasonable expectation of privacy where the intrusion takes place.

[The government] will be enabled to expose a jury to the most intimate occurrences of the home .” Justice Brandeis later went on to write an article called “The Right to Privacy” in which he asserted that “the right to be let alone” was integral to the American citizen’s quality of life . The argument that Brandeis makes against technological surveillance of citizens follows a certain line of logic: “property” encompasses both physical and intangible possessions, in the same way that other protections are not physical but real all the same, such as protection from assault or nuisance6. It is unlikely that Justice Brandeis could envision a world entirely reliant on an intangible network of information such as the Internet, but his ideas can still be used today to protect Americans’ privacy in the digital

Summary of Facts Herman informs Amador that Linda has not reported, to work that evening, the evening before or on several other evenings during the prior few weeks. As a result of this discussion, Amador learns that Linda was spending the evenings with her ex-boyfriend. Several days later, Amador commits suicide. Amador’s family sues the bank for invasion of privacy, alleging that Herman did not have the right to inform Amador that Linda had not reported for work Issues 1. Does the plaintiff have the right to sue the bank for wrongful death or for the violation of the invasion of privacy.

As you all may know, Susan Jones, the manager of the pesticide department has been caught selling untested pesticides to our customers in order to reach her sales goal for the year. Mrs. Jones holds full responsibility for our company losing $50,000 as well as giving our company a dishonorable reputation by putting the untested pesticides on the market. Mrs. Jones has complete control of the pesticide department, even though employees under her went along with this scheme; she is ultimately responsible for the harm done to our customers and our company. Mrs. Jones decided to put an untested product on the shelves knowing the product was potentially harmful. Mrs. Jones claims to validate her actions by blaming the company for the unrealistic

This proves that throughout the case, Cendant Corporation wasn’t acting fully ethical nor with the desired fiduciary actions to their investors and the auditing team in this case being Ernst&Young. Aside from the trust being broken apart between both, there was never a sign of an internal control inside Cedant. Therefore, there shows that the corporate governance for Cendant Corporation didn’t have signs of existence as well. Most frauds that were occurring before the implementation of the SOX-2002, had top management such as in Cendant that didn’t have care for the ethical performances as much as in today’s corporate world with more regulations in hand by the government. At the end, Cendant had filings against them concerning their corporate governance