Spatial Law and Policy Update (April 29, 2010)

National Security


According to this press report, Saudi Arabia has formed a team of government officials to monitor Google Earth to make sure that there no sensitive military or intelligence facilities visible.


Privacy


I will try to find out more about this case involving a woman who has brought a claim against a vehicle tracking company for allowing her husband to track her even though she claims the company was aware he was abusing her.


The Supreme Court recently hear oral arguments in the case City of Ontario v. Quon, a case in which the main issue is the expectation of privacy that an employee can have in text messages on their employer-provided devices. The case is interesting from a spatial law standpoint both because it will address what is reasonable with regards to the introduction of new technology and because some are openly questioning the ability of at least certain members of the Supreme Court to understand technology in a way that is necessary for them to be making such important decisions.


The alleged improper use of security cameras on student computers in a school district in Pennsylvania was discussed in an earlier post. However it is worth revisiting based upon some new information suggesting the school took over 50,000 images of students and their homes from students' computers. It highlights the need for all businesses to understand that there is a chance - perhaps a very good chance - than their employees will improperly use any tracking system that they implement.


Technology


I am hopeful that some of the readers of the Spatial Law and Policy blog are lawyers who are interested in the issues but are still learning about the technology. Therefore, I plan on periodically including links that I think do a good job of explaining the power and the promise of spatial technology. I found this to be a good description of how location data is collected.


Intellectual Property


I find it a little ironic that the folks at OpenStreetMap claim that their intellectual property rights have been violated . . . but they do have a point.