Kids like social networking sites, most notably MySpace and Facebook. So it is not surpising that law enforcement is scrutinizing how the sites protect children. Recent subpoenas issued to Facebook by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and New Jersey Attorney General Anne Milgram are illustrative.

Both subpoenas sought information about Facebook’s Internet safety and security policies. The New York subpoena, issued last month, also sought information concerning Facebook’s complaint resolution procedures. In its subpoena cover letter to Facebook, Attorney General Cuomo noted Facebook’s public representations concerning how it responds to reports of pornographic material and inappropriate contact with minors.  It also described its undercover investigation of Facebook. According to the letter, the investigation revealed pornographic and other inappropriate content readily available on the site. In addition, after investigators set up profiles as young teenage users, they received inappropriate sexual advances. The investigators filed complaints about these issues through Facebooks’ complaint procedures. The letter notes various instances of non-responsiveness or delayed response to such complaints. The New Jersey subpoena issued earlier this month, described here, sought information from Facebook concerning convicted New Jersey sex offenders that Facebook has identified as site users.  Facebook previously informed the New Jersey Attorney General it had removed sex offenders with profiles matching individuals listed on the New Jersey sex offender registry. Attorney General Milgram also sent letters to eleven other social networking sites requesting they compare their registrants against the state’s sex offender list.

On Saturday, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed AB 779, legislation that would have amended California’s landmark data security breach legislation. The bill would have been the first to follow law enacted by Minnesota earlier this year and effective August 1, 2007, that amended Minnesota’s security breach notification law by, among other things, prohibiting businesses from retaining certain payment card data after authorization of a transaction.

Proskauer Rose LLP has just released “Proskauer on International Litigation and Arbitration: Managing, Resolving, and Avoiding Cross-Border Business and Regulatory Disputes.” The online guide is a practical reference work for businesses and practitioners; it explores best practices and creative yet practical approaches to manage, resolve, and avoid controversies affecting multiple jurisdictions. The 28-chapter guide is available free in e-Book format at www.proskauerguide.com. It includes a thorough chapter on international privacy law.

We thought it might be helpful to provide citations to the 37 state (plus D.C. and Puerto Rico) breach notification laws that cover private entities (Oklahoma’s law, that only addresses state agencies, is not included). We also provide links, or uploaded copies, where available.

In a novel case, the Ninth Circuit ruled on July 6, as amended July 25, that government surveillance of Internet Protocol (“IP”) addresses visited, to/from addresses of emails, and the total volume of information sent to or from an email account does not violate the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Forrester, No. 05-50410, — F.3d — (9th Cir. July 6, 2007). The ruling does not affect the requirement that the government obtain a search warrant before searching the actual content of that Internet traffic.

The defendant in United States v. Forrester, Dennis Louis Alba, was charged and convicted of various federal offenses relating to the operation of an Ecstasy-manufacturing laboratory. During the government’s investigation of Alba, it installed a device on Alba’s computer that gathered the IP addresses of the websites he visited, the to/from addresses of his emails, and the total volume of information sent to or from his email account. In his appeal, Alba contended that the surveillance constituted a warrantless search in violation of the Fourth Amendment and fell outside of the then-applicable pen register statute. The Ninth Circuit addressed the merits of Alba’s first contention, but found it unnecessary to address the second.

The Ninth Circuit applied the Supreme Court’s analysis in Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979), in which the Court held that a pen register does not constitute a Fourth Amendment search. The Court so held because pen registers merely track phone numbers dialed and do not reveal the actual contents of conversations. Cf. Katz v. United States, 289 U.S. 347 (1967) (holding that one can have legitimate expectation of privacy in the contents of one’s phone conversations).  The Ninth Circuit reasoned that the government’s surveillance of Alba’s activity was “constitutionally indistinguishable” from surveillance via a pen register because accessing IP addresses involves the transmission and receipt of a unique identifier, which does not reveal actual content, via the third-party equipment of an internet service provider.  An Internet user therefore does not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the IP addresses he or she accesses.

Balancing privacy and evidentiary interests in a stock option backdating matter, the Northern District of California held on June 11, 2007 that the SEC’s interest in obtaining banking account information of defendant Gregory Reyes, ex-CEO of Brocade Communications, outweighs Reyes’ financial history privacy interests. SEC v. Reyes, No. C 06-04435 CRB (N.D. Cal. 2007).