DOCSLIB.ORG

© 2018 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Original U.S. Government Works. 1 Frank V

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
© 2018 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Original U.S. Government Works. 1 Frank V Frank v. Gaos, 2018 WL 4215072 (2018) 2018 WL 4215072 (U.S.) (Appellate Brief) Supreme Court of the United States. Theodore H. FRANK, et al., Petitioners, v. Paloma GAOS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, et al., Respondents. No. 17 - 961 . August 29, 2018. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Brief for Class Respondents Kassra P. Nassiri, Nassiri & Jung LLP, 47 Kearny St., Suite 700, San Francisco, CA 94108, (415) 762-3100, [email protected]. Jeffrey A. Lamken, Michael G. Pattillo, Jr., James A. Barta, William J. Cooper, MoloLamken LLP, The Watergate, Suite 660, 600 New Hampshire Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037, (202) 556-2000, [email protected], for Class Respondents. Michael Aschenbrener, KamberLaw, LLC, 201 Milwaukee St., Suite 200, Denver, CO 80206, (303) 222-0281, [email protected]. Justin B. Weiner, Jordan A. Rice, MoloLamken LLP, 300 N. LaSalle St., Chicago, IL 60654, (312) 450-6700. *i QUESTION PRESENTED Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) permits representatives to maintain a class action where so doing “is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy,” and Rule 23(e)(2) requires that a settlement that binds class members must be “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” The question presented is: Whether, or in what circumstances, a class-action settlement that provides a cy pres award of class-action proceeds but no direct relief to class members comports with the requirement that a settlement binding class members must be “fair, reasonable, and adequate” and supports class certification. West Headnotes (1) Deposits in Court Disposition under judgment or order of court In what circumstances, if any, does a class-action settlement that provides a cy pres award of class-action proceeds but no direct relief to class members comport with the requirement that a settlement binding class members must be “fair, reasonable, and adequate” and support class certification? © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 Frank v. Gaos, 2018 WL 4215072 (2018) Cases that cite this headnote *iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 Statement ................................................................................................................................ 3 I. Legal Framework ............................................................................................................... 3 A. The Federal Rules Process ................................................................................................ 3 B. Rule 23's Requirements for Class Actions ......................................................................... 4 C. Rule 23's Protections Governing Settlements .................................................................... 5 D. Congressional Revisions to Class-Action Procedures ........................................................ 6 E. Judicial and Congressional Consideration of Cy Pres Settlements ..................................... 7 II. Proceedings Below ............................................................................................................. 11 A. Proceedings Before the District Court ............................................................................... 11 1. The Complaints and Resulting Motions ............................................................................ 11 2. Uncertainty and Mediation Drive the Parties to Settlement ............................................... 12 3. The Selection of Cy Pres Recipients .................................................................................. 14 4. District Court Approval ..................................................................................................... 16 B. Proceedings in the Court of Appeals ................................................................................. 18 Summary of Argument ........................................................................................................... 20 Argument ............................................................................................................................... 23 I. The Federal Rules and Relevant Statutes Do Not Prohibit Cy Pres Settlements ................ 25 *iv A. The Text, Structure, and History of Rule 23 Do Not Support Petitioners' 25 Prohibition on Cy Pres Settlements ....................................................................................... 1. Petitioners' Categorical Ban Defies Rule 23(e)'s Clear Text ................................................ 25 2. Petitioners' Categorical Ban Ignores Rule 23(e)'s Structure and History ............................ 28 B. Federal Courts Have Identified the Limited Contexts Where Cy Pres Settlements Might 31 Satisfy Rule 23(e) ................................................................................................................... B. Rule 23(b)(3)'s “Superiority” Requirement Does Not Preclude Cy Pres Resolution .......... 35 D. Petitioners' and Their Amici's Remaining Arguments Fail ................................................ 37 1. Petitioners' First Amendment Argument Is Waived and Meritless 37 *********************************************** ......................................................... 3. Cy Pres Raises Neither Redressability Nor Rules Enabling Act Concerns ......................... 38 II. Petitioners' Proposed Attorney's Fees Rules Are Misplaced and Unfounded .................... 40 A. Petitioners' Attorney's Fees Proposals Are Not Properly Before the Court ....................... 40 B. Petitioners' Fee Rules Defy Text and History ................................................................... 41 *v III. Petitioners' Policy Arguments Fail ............................................................................ 43 A. Existing Standards Address Petitioners' Concerns ............................................................. 43 B. Petitioners' Accusations Are Unfounded 47 *********************************************** ......................................................... IV. This Settlement Complies with Rule 23 ........................................................................... 48 A. The Settlement Provides Valuable Prospective Relief To Prevent Violations ..................... 48 B. The District Court Properly Found the Cash Component Adequate and Non- 49 Distributable ........................................................................................................................... C. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Approving Recipients ....................... 52 V. The Government's Jurisdictional Argument Counsels Dismissing the Petition as 54 Improvidently Granted ........................................................................................................... Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 56 Appendix A - Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 ................................................................. 1a Appendix B - AARP Foundation Proposal ........................................................................... 9a Appendix C - Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Proposal .......... 20a Appendix D - Carnegie Mellon Proposal ............................................................................... 48a Appendix E - Center for Information, Society and Policy at IIT Chicago-Kent College of 86a Law Proposal ......................................................................................................................... Appendix F - Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society Proposal ..................... 114a © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 Frank v. Gaos, 2018 WL 4215072 (2018) *vi Appendix G - World Privacy Forum Proposal ............................................................... 167a *vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Mineta, 534 U.S. 103 (2001) ........... 54, 55 In re Airline Ticket Comm'n Antitrust Litig., 268 F.3d 619 (8th 44 Cir. 2001) ..................................................................................... In re Airline Ticket Comm'n Antitrust Litig., 307 F.3d 679 (8th 7 Cir. 2002) ..................................................................................... Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) ................... passim Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds, 568 U.S. 455 (2013) . 3, 24, 30 Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987) .......................................... 56 ATD Grp. v. Frank, No. 16-2850, 2017 WL 4014951 (2d Cir. Mar. 47 29, 2017) ....................................................................................... In re Baby Prods. Antitrust Litig., 708 F.3d 163 (3d Cir. 2013) ..... passim In re BankAmerica Corp. Sec. Litig., 775 F.3d 1060 (8th Cir. 31 2015) ............................................................................................. Bay Area Laundry & Dry Cleaning Pension Tr. Fund v. Ferbar 37 Corp. of Cal., Inc., 522 U.S. 192 (1997) ........................................ In re Bayer Corp. Litig., No. 09-md-2023, 2013 WL 12353998 44 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2013) .............................................................. Beastie Boys v. Monster Energy Co., 983 F. Supp. 2d
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lo Hemos Olvidado Todo
    PERSPECTIVAS nº39 marzo/abril 2007 DEL MUNDO DE LA COMUNICACIÓN sumario Lo hemos olvidado todo HUBO UN TIEMPO EN EL QUE POR ENCIMA DE LAS DIFERENCIAS IDEO- LÓGICAS, LOS PERIODISTAS ESPAÑOLES COMPARTÍAN UN PACTO NO EX- Lo hemos olvidado todo PLÍCITO ACERCA DEL TRATAMIENTO INFORMATIVO DE LOS ACTOS TE- pág.1 RRORISTAS. LAS BASES ERAN UN ESCRUPULOSO RESPETO A LAS VÍCTI- MAS, INFORMAR SIN ENTORPECER LA INVESTIGACIÓN Y NO HACER EL JUEGO A LOS TERRORISTAS. Concentración y pluralismo informativo La prioridad era respetar la digni- sar de las peticiones de las asocia- en Europa dad de las víctimas y sus familiares. ciones de víctimas de no emitirlas. Lo secundario, pero no por ello me- Un episodio lamentable de intromi- pág.2 nos importante, conciliar el derecho sión gratuita en una circunstancia a la información con el deber de no tan íntima como es la muerte o el do- entorpecer la investigación policial. lor. La metamorfosis de un buscador Por último, evitar a toda costa cual- en un metamedio quier tentación de instrumentalizar la La democracia se sostiene en la plu- información con fines partidistas. Du- ralidad de opiniones que, llevada al pág.4 rante décadas los medios respetaron campo de la comunicación, se ha en mayor o menor medida estas re- de concretar en la independencia y glas de juego y las aplicaron a los autonomía de los profesionales de la Perspectivas del numerosos atentados que ETA ha co- información, la ausencia de presio- cine polaco reciente metido en nuestro país. Sin embar- nes exteriores y el rigor informativo, basado en el contraste de las noti- pág.6 go, toda la madurez alcanzada por los informadores en la cobertura de cias.
    [Show full text]
  • Re Payment Card Interchange Fee Litigation
    In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant..., Not Reported in... 2006 WL 6846702 lawsuits against the defendant credit card networks and certain of their member banks alleging that the defendants 2006 WL 6846702 have fixed transaction costs known as “interchange fees” Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. at supra-competitive levels in violation of Section One of United States District Court, E.D. New York. the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. See Carney Dec. Ex. 1 (Complaint in Photos Etc. Corp., et al., v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., In re PAYMENT CARD INTERCHANGE et al., CV 05–1007 (D. Conn. June 22, 2005) (the “Photos FEE AND MERCHANT DISCOUNT Complaint”)). Many of those actions were brought on ANTITRUST LITIGATION. behalf of a putative class, while several others were This document refers to: All Actions. brought by individual merchants acting alone. By order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation dated MDL No. 05–1720(JG)(JO). October 19, 2005, fourteen such lawsuits that had been | commenced in four separate districts were consolidated Aug. 7, 2006. in the current litigation for pretrial purposes. DE 2. Since then, more thirty-six additional cases have been transferred to this MDL action. See DE 57; DE 94; DE SEALED MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 144; DE 314. The following factual background, drawn from the Photos complaint, explains the transaction fees JAMES ORENSTEIN, United States Magistrate Judge. at issue and the plaintiffs' allegations. 2 *1 By notice dated December 21, 2005, defendants MasterCard Incorporated and MasterCard International Defendants MasterCard and Visa are payment card Incorporated (collectively “MasterCard”) moved to networks that are owned, respectively, by their thousands disqualify attorney K.
    [Show full text]
  • A Usability Evaluation of Privacy Add-Ons for Web Browsers
    A Usability Evaluation of Privacy Add-ons for Web Browsers Matthew Corner1, Huseyin Dogan1, Alexios Mylonas1 and Francis Djabri2 1 Bournemouth University, Bournemouth, United Kingdom {i7241812,hdogan,amylonas}@bournemouth.ac.uk 2 Mozilla Corporation, San Francisco, United States of America [email protected] Abstract. The web has improved our life and has provided us with more oppor- tunities to access information and do business. Nonetheless, due to the preva- lence of trackers on websites, web users might be subject to profiling while ac- cessing the web, which impairs their online privacy. Privacy browser add-ons, such as DuckDuckGo Privacy Essentials, Ghostery and Privacy Badger, extend the privacy protection that the browsers offer by default, by identifying and blocking trackers. However, the work that focuses on the usability of the priva- cy add-ons, as well as the users’ awareness, feelings, and thoughts towards them, is rather limited. In this work, we conducted usability evaluations by uti- lising System Usability Scale and Think-Aloud Protocol on three popular priva- cy add-ons, i.e., DuckDuckGo Privacy Essentials, Ghostery and Privacy Badg- er. Our work also provides insights into the users’ awareness of online privacy and attitudes towards the abovementioned privacy add-ons; in particular trust, concern, and control. Our results suggest that the participants feel safer and trusting of their respective add-on. It also uncovers areas for add-on improve- ment, such as a more visible toolbar logo that offers visual feedback, easy ac- cess to thorough help resources, and detailed information on the trackers that have been found. Keywords: Usability, Privacy, Browser Add-ons.
    [Show full text]
  • Operationalizing Design Fiction with Anticipatory Ethnography
    1 – We will add this chapter heading, 2 line spaces after Operationalizing Design Fiction with Anticipatory Ethnography HighWire Centre for Doctoral Training, Lancaster University (UK) JOSEPH LINDLEY DHRUV SHARMA ROBERT POTTS Transmuting the entanglement of situations, contexts, artifacts and people, designers mediate the relationship between ‘what could be’ and ‘what is’. All design, then, has an implicit relationship with the future. Latency will always exist as part of this relationship, between the inception of a design concept, development and delivery of that concept, and the manifestation of that concept’s potential impact on the world. As we move further into the heart of the Digital Revolution these periods of latency decrease, whilst the breadth and depth of potential impacts increase. Always an arm’s length away, but with a velocity and mass greater than at any point in history, the momentum of the future today is greater than ever before. This paper describes the practicalities of operationalizing design fiction, using anticipatory ethnography, in order to illuminate and explore the implications of plausible near futures and in doing so allowing designers and their designs to match the velocity of the future before critical impacts occur. By harnessing designers' speculation can we make the future’s ‘what is’ better than simply ‘what could be’? The universe of possible worlds is constantly expanding and diversifying thanks to the incessant world-constructing activity of human minds and hands. Literary fiction is probably the most active experimental laboratory of the world-constructing enterprise (Lubomír 1998). BACKGROUND Anticipatory ethnography looks at design fiction artifacts (cf. Bleecker 2009; Lindley 2015), and applies ethnographic techniques to them in order to produce actionable insights (Lindley, Sharma, and Potts 2014).
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2007
    The Thomson Corporation Annual Report 2007 2 To Our Shareholders 64 Financial Statements and Notes 6 I am 110 Board of Directors 18 Thomson 2007 Financial Highlights 112 Senior Management 24 Management’s Discussion and Analysis 113 Corporate Information We are like you. At Thomson, our success depends on being trusted, on staying ahead, on having the answers others need in order to succeed. We are certain we have what it takes, because we have put the right model at the center of our design. You, the professional. The Thomson Corporation is a leading provider of critical information, decision support tools and related services to professionals in the legal, financial, tax and accounting, scientific and healthcare sectors. Thomson integrates its unique proprietary databases with third party data, software and analytical tools to create essential workflow solutions for business and professional clients around the world. We provide information platforms and services to support faster, better decisions that are more informed, more considered and more immediate. We have fashioned our solutions to provide the most relevant and trusted data instantly – intelligent information that helps you put your knowledge to work. This book is a tribute to you and our thanks for the trust you place in us. 1 To Our Shareholders: 2007 was a milestone year for The Thomson Corporation. The company’s name was in the headlines more often than perhaps at any other time in its history. On a Friday in May we announced our agreement to sell Thomson Learning, and on the following Tuesday we announced an agreement to buy Reuters Group PLC for nearly $18 billion.* The sale of our Thomson Learning assets for more than $8 billion was a resounding success.
    [Show full text]
  • RBC Capital Markets Telecommunications, Media
    THOMSON REUTERS Susan Taylor Martin President, Legal Special Note Safe Harbor / Forward-Looking Statements •This presentation consists of these slides and the associated remarks and comments, which are related and intended to be presented and understood together. •This presentation contains forward-looking statements, including, without limitation, those related to the outlook, prospects and operating performance of our Legal business segment. Forward-looking statements are those which are not historical facts. These and other statements that relate to future results and events are based on Thomson Reuters current expectations. •Our actual results in future periods may differ materially from those currently expected because of a number of risks and uncertainties. The risks and uncertainties that we believe are material are outlined in our disclosure filings and materials, which you can find on www.thomsonreuters.com. Please consult these documents for a more complete understanding of these risks and uncertainties. We disclaim any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as may be required by law. Forward-looking statements are provided for the purpose of providing information about current expectations. This information may not be appropriate for other purposes. 2 Legal’s Evolution Traditional Thomson Reuters Mindset Jurisdiction Specific Law Firm Centric Content-First Entry What’s Changed Power to Buyside Technology Development
    [Show full text]
  • Case 1:17-Cv-01533-TSC Document 2 Filed 08/03/17 Page 1 of 2
    Case 1:17-cv-01533-TSC Document 2 Filed 08/03/17 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) P.K., et al., ) on behalf of themselves and all others ) similarly situated, ) No. ------- ) Plaintiffs/Petitioners, ) ) V. ) ) REX W. TILLERSON, et al., ) ) Defendants/Respondents. ) ) PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND EMERGENCY MOTION FOR MANDAMUS RELIEF Plaintiffs hereby move this court for a preliminary injunction and for emergency mandamus relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 65 and LCvR. 65.l(c). In support of their motion, Plaintiffs rely on the accompanying Memorandum, declarations, and exhibits. A proposed order is attached. STATEMENT PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 7(m) Pursuant to Local Rule 7(m), Plaintiffs' counsel unsuccessfully attempted to contact Defendants' counsel to determine if Defendants would consent to the relief requested in this motion. 1 Case 1:17-cv-01533-TSC Document 2 Filed 08/03/17 Page 2 of 2 July 31, 2017 Respectfully submitted, -~ Samer E. Khalaf (pro hac vice pending) Matthew E. Price (DC Bar# 996158) Abed A. Ayoub Max J. Minzner (pro hac vice pending) Yolanda Rondon JENNER & BLOCK LLP AMERICAN-ARAB ANTI-DISCRIMINATION 1099 New York Ave. NW Suite 900 COMMITTEE Washington, DC 20001 1705 DeSales Street, N.W., Suite 500 Tel. 202-639-6000 Washington, D.C. 20036 Fax: 202-639-6066 Tel: 202-244-2990 Email: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Karen C. Tumlin Omar C. Jadwat Esther Sung AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION NATIONAL lMMIGRA TION LAW CENTER FOUNDATION 3435 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1600 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 New York, NY 10004 (213) 639-3900 Tel: (212) 549-2600 [email protected] Fax: (212) 549-2654 [email protected] [email protected] Justin B.
    [Show full text]
  • Sweet & Maxwell
    SWEET & MAXWELL PROFESSIONAL CATALOGUE 2014 SWEET & MAXWELL REUTERS/Neil Hall REUTERS/Neil LEGAL SOLUTIONS FROM THOMSON REUTERS We deliver best-of-class legal solutions to help you practise LEGAL RESEARCH, NEWS AND BUSINESS INFORMATION the law, manage your organisation and help you and your Westlaw UK | Westlaw International business grow. LEGAL UPDATES & CURRENCY Lawtel Our solutions include Sweet & Maxwell commentary, Practical Law, Westlaw UK, Lawtel, and a series of software solutions LEGAL KNOW-HOW Practical Law including Serengeti, Solcara and Thomson Reuters Elite. FEDERATED SEARCH AND KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT Intelligently connect your work and your world with our Solcara content, expertise and technologies. TRAINING AND EDUCATION Legal Conferences and Webinars See a better way forward at thomsonreuters.com/ukirelandlegal IN-HOUSE LEGAL DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT Serengeti LAW FIRM MANAGEMENT Thomson Reuters Elite LAW BOOKS Sweet & Maxwell BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT & MARKETING FindLaw WELCOME TO THE SWEET & MAXWELL 2014 PROFESSIONAL CATALOGUE Great content, delivered flexibly. It’s at the heart of what we do at Thomson Reuters. Our Sweet & Maxwell commentary titles, used by thousands of legal professionals every day, bring clarity to complex matters and give you the confidence to make the big decisions. This year’s catalogue is packed with the most authoritative legal voices, tackling the issues of today. Among the hundreds of specialist titles, you can look forward to new editions of: The White Book Archbold: Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice Sealy & Milman: Annotated Guide to the Insolvency Legislation The Mental Health Act Manual Clerk & Lindsell on Torts McGregor on Damages Benjamin’s Sale of Goods Hudson’s Building and Engineering Contracts View our complete catalogue at sweetandmaxwell.co.uk With our professional-grade eBook app, Thomson Reuters Proview™, you can experience these trusted practitioner texts in entirely new ways on the iPad, Mac, PC and in beta on Android tablets.
    [Show full text]
  • Cloak and Swagger: Understanding Data Sensitivity Through the Lens of User Anonymity
    Cloak and Swagger: Understanding Data Sensitivity Through the Lens of User Anonymity Sai Teja Peddinti∗, Aleksandra Korolova†, Elie Bursztein†, and Geetanjali Sampemane† ∗Polytechnic School of Engineering, New York University, Brooklyn, NY 11201 Email: [email protected] †Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043 Email: korolova, elieb, [email protected] Abstract—Most of what we understand about data sensitivity In this work we explore whether it is possible to perform is through user self-report (e.g., surveys); this paper is the first to a large-scale behavioral data analysis, rather than to rely on use behavioral data to determine content sensitivity, via the clues surveys and self-report, in order to understand what topics that users give as to what information they consider private or sensitive through their use of privacy enhancing product features. users consider sensitive. Our goal is to help online service We perform a large-scale analysis of user anonymity choices providers design policies and develop product features that during their activity on Quora, a popular question-and-answer promote user engagement and safer sharing and increase users’ site. We identify categories of questions for which users are more trust in online services’ privacy practices. likely to exercise anonymity and explore several machine learning Concretely, we perform analysis and data mining of the approaches towards predicting whether a particular answer will be written anonymously. Our findings validate the viability of usage of privacy features on one of the largest question-and- the proposed approach towards an automatic assessment of data answer sites, Quora [7], in order to identify topics potentially sensitivity, show that data sensitivity is a nuanced measure that considered sensitive by its users.
    [Show full text]
  • Cloud Computing and Related Laws
    Cloud Computing and Related Laws Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh Online Privacy In general, privacy falls under two categories: 1. Corporate privacy 2. Personal privacy Corporate Privacy . It concerns the protection of corporate data from retrieval or interception by unauthorized parties . Security is important for protection of trade secrets, proprietary information, and privileged communications . The failure to maintain confidentiality can result in a loss of “trade secret” status . See Civil Code §§ 3426 et seq. Corporate Privacy . The recent trends in outsourcing have increased the risks associated with “economic espionage” . In fact, manufacturers should be cautious when transferring proprietary technology to overseas partners because foreign governments sponsor theft . See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1831 et seq. (e.g., economic espionage, theft of trade secrets) Helpful Policies . Identify and label confidential information . Restrict access to confidential information . Use encryption – e.g., truecrypt.org, axantum.com . Use firewall and secure username/password . Use software that detects trade secret theft – e.g., safe-corp.biz . Include warnings in privileged correspondence (e.g., “this email contains privileged communications”) Helpful Policies . Provide computers without hard drives + Prohibit use of removable storage (e.g., flash drives) . Audit employee computers . Prohibit and/or monitor external web-based email services . Execute Confidentiality and Non-disclosure Agreements . Execute Computer-Use Policies Personal Privacy . Constitution . Federal: Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures . State: California Constitution, under Art. I, § 1 recognizes right to individual privacy . Federal computer crimes . Electronic Communications Privacy Act – 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 et seq. Privacy Act – 5 U.S.C. § 552a . Computer Fraud and Abuse Act – 18 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloading Additional Components of the Webpage
    Towards Seamless Tracking-Free Web: Improved Detection of Trackers via One-class Learning Muhammad Ikramy1, Hassan Jameel Asghary, Balachander Krishnamurthy Mohamed Ali Kaafary, Anirban Mahantiy AT&T Labs–Research, USA 1 School of EET UNSW, Australia y NICTA, Australia Abstract—Numerous tools have been developed to aggressively and tailor advertisements on websites to the browsing history block the execution of popular JavaScript programs in Web and web activities of users [1], [2], [3]. The class of tools browsers. Such blocking also affects functionality of webpages (including web browser plugins), developed in an attempt to and impairs user experience. As a consequence, many privacy preserve user privacy (e.g., NoScript [4], Ghostery [5], and preserving tools that have been developed to limit online tracking, Adblock Plus [6]), aims to block JavaScript programs and other often executed via JavaScript programs, may suffer from poor components of a webpage that may compromise user privacy performance and limited uptake. A mechanism that can isolate JavaScript programs necessary for proper functioning of the and enable tracking. However, aggressive blocking can hinder website from tracking JavaScript programs would thus be useful. proper functioning of the website and impact user’s browsing Through the use of a manually labelled dataset composed of 2,612 experience [7], [8] (See AppendixE for an example of how JavaScript programs, we show how current privacy preserving a tool blocks content necessary for proper website function.). tools are ineffective in finding the right balance between blocking A mechanism that can properly isolate JavaScript programs tracking JavaScript programs and allowing functional JavaScript necessary for “legitimate” web functioning of the website from code.
    [Show full text]
  • Privacy Badger One-Pager-1
    EFF DEVELOPS SOFTWARE TO ENHANCE PRIVACY AND SECURE COMMUNICATIONS ONLINE Stop Creepy Online Tracking with Privacy Badger • Some companies quietly track you as you browse the web, recording what webpages you visit, for how long, and more—even if you’ve opted out by using Do Not Track! • Privacy Badger is a browser add-on that automatically stops these “third-party” trackers. To the trackers, it's like you suddenly disappeared from the web. • Privacy Badger is different from other add-ons like Disconnect, Ad-Block Plus, and Ghostery because Privacy Badger focuses on blocking tracking, not blocking ads (though some ad-blocking may occur if the tracker is actually an advertiser.) How Does Privacy Badger Work? • As you browse the web, Privacy Badger observes which third-party sources ask to load possible tracking content in your browser. • If the same source shows up repeatedly across multiple different websites asking your browser to set unique tracking cookies, Privacy Badger flags that source and tells your browser not to load any more content from it. • When your browser stops loading content from a source, that source can no longer track you. Voila—you’re now free from creepy tracking. Get Privacy Badger Today! • Visit https://www.eff.org/privacybadger to download Privacy Badger for Chrome or Firefox, or to learn more. • Also check out our other awesome add-on, HTTPS Everywhere. https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere Support EFF’s creation of even more tools to enhance privacy and security online by becoming a member today! https://www.eff.org/join .
    [Show full text]