Advanced search Help
Searching for terms: EXACT: "Linebaugh, Chris D." in: author
Clear all search criteria
Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).
-
What Legal Obligations do Internet Companies Have to Prevent and Respond to a Data Breach? [October 25, 2018]
"Recently, large Internet companies--i.e.,companies that do most of their business on the Internet, such as social media platforms or search engines--have made headlines after failing to secure their users' personal information. For example, on September 28, 2018, Facebook announced a security breach affecting tens of millions of user accounts. According to Facebook, hackers exploited a vulnerability in its code that allowed them to steal 'access tokens,' which are the 'equivalent of digital keys' that 'keep people logged in to Facebook.' Facebook later disclosed that,of the affected accounts,hackers accessed the names and contact details of 15 million users and the biographical information of another 14 million users. Just over a week after Facebook's breach, on October 8, 2018, Google, in announcing the end of its social network Google+, disclosed that a software glitch exposed the personal data associated with up to 500,000 Google+ accounts. Google explained that it discovered and resolved the glitch in March 2018 and that there was no evidence anyone misused the exposed data. The Internet search giant reportedly made an initial decision not to disclose the incident, before reversing course and shutting down the Google+ plat form following a Wall Street Journal investigation."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Linebaugh, Chris D.
2018-10-25
-
Will the FTC Need to Rethink Its Enforcement Playbook (Part II)? Circuit Split Casts Doubt on the FTC's Ability to Seek Restitution in Section 13(b) Suits [Updated January 30, 2020]
From the Document: "This Sidebar begins by placing Section 13(b) in its context within the FTC [Federal Trade Commission] Act's enforcement framework. It then discusses past federal appellate court decisions interpreting the remedies available under Section 13(b). The Sidebar then details the reasoning of the Seventh Circuit in Credit Bureau Center and considers the decision's implications for FTC enforcement actions and Congress."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Linebaugh, Chris D.
2020-01-30
-
Cable Franchising Authority of State and Local Governments and the Communications Act [January 3, 2020]
From the Document: "Companies that provide cable television service (cable operators) are subject to regulation at the federal, state, and local levels. Under the Communications Act of 1934, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) exercises regulatory authority over various operational aspects of cable service. [...] This report first outlines the FCC's role in regulating cable operators and franchising authorities, beginning with the Commission's approach under the Communications Act through the passage of the Cable Act and its amendments. The report then turns to a discussion of recurring legal issues over the FCC's power over franchising authorities. The report concludes with a discussion of possible legal issues that may arise in current legal challenges to FCC regulations and offers considerations for Congress."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Linebaugh, Chris D.; Holmes, Eric N.
2020-01-03
-
Federal Securities Laws: An Overview [February 5, 2020]
From the Document: "The Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act) governs the process by which companies issue securities. The Act prohibits any person from offering or selling a security to the public unless the offering has been registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or falls under an exemption. The Act's exemptions include private placements, certain small issues, and offerings involving certain classes of securities (e.g., government securities and bank securities). If an exemption does not apply, an issuer must file a registration statement with the SEC that includes detailed information about the issuer's business operations, financial condition, and the nature of the offering. If a company issues securities in violation of the Act's registration requirements, individuals who purchased the securities may sue the company to rescind their purchases or for damages. The Act also allows purchasers to sue issuers and other specified individuals--such as directors, underwriters, and persons who signed the registration statement--for damages for certain material misrepresentations or omissions in connection with the offering. The Trust Indenture Act of 1939 supplemented the Securities Act by adding more requirements for public offerings of debt securities."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Linebaugh, Chris D.; Sykes, Jay B.; Vanatko, Nicole
2020-02-05
-
HIPAA, Telehealth, and COVID-19 [June 5, 2020]
From the Document: "In recent years, health care providers have increasingly turned to technology to provide remote health care services to patients ('i.e.', 'telehealth'). This use of telehealth has only become more important in the midst of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, as it has allowed providers and patients to minimize their contact with one another. However, the use of technology to transmit information carries privacy risks. Federal law thus limits the extent to which health care providers may use technology to transmit medical information. In particular, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) requires covered entities--namely, health care providers, health plans, and health clearinghouses--to abide by data privacy, data security, and data breach notification requirements in their treatment of certain medical information. While HIPAA's restrictions mitigate privacy and security concerns, they also limit health care providers' ability to offer telehealth services. Given the increased need for telehealth options due to COVID-19, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has announced that it will not enforce HIPAA's requirements against health care providers who are engaged in the good-faith provision of telehealth services during the COVID-19 emergency, regardless of whether those service are related to COVID-19."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Linebaugh, Chris D.
2020-06-05
-
Stepping in: The FCC's Authority to Preempt State Laws Under the Communications Act [March 26, 2021]
From the Summary: "The line between federal and state authority plays a central role in modern communications law. Rather than fully displacing state law, the Communications Act of 1934 (Communications Act or Act) sets up a dual system of federal and state regulation.At the federal level, the Communications Act gives the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) broad authority to regulate wired and wireless telephony, radio transmissions, cable services, and matters that are ancillary to these areas. At the same time, however, the Act expressly preserves some state regulatory authority over these technologies. Consequently, the boundary between the FCC's authority and the states' has been a source of dispute. [...] Far from being an abstract debate, the FCC's ability to preempt state laws lies at the heart of many of its regulatory initiatives in recent years. [...] This Report discusses these issues in more detail. It begins with an overview of the legal framework governing the FCC's preemption actions, first discussing general federal preemption principles and then explaining the FCC's preemption authority under the Communications Act. The Report then reviews recent FCC initiatives in which FCC preemption plays a key role. Specifically, it explains how the FCC has exercised its preemption authority--and the extent to which such authority has been challenged or is uncertain--in the areas of net neutrality, VoIP [Voice over Internet Protocol], 5G [fifth-generation wireless] infrastructure deployment, community broadband, and state and local regulation of cable operators."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Linebaugh, Chris D.; Holmes, Eric N.
2021-03-26
-
EU Data Transfer Requirements and U.S. Intelligence Laws: Understanding 'Schrems II' and Its Impact on the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield [March 17, 2021]
From the Document: "On July 16, 2020, in 'Data Protection Commissioner v. Facebook Ireland, Ltd. and Maximillian Schrems (Schrems II)', the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield (Privacy Shield), a program developed by the European Union (EU) and the United States to facilitate cross-border transfers of personal data for commercial purposes. The CJEU determined that U.S. surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes does not provide protections necessary under EU law for the transfer of personal data from the EU to the United States. [...] This Report gives an overview of EU law governing international transfers of personal data, including the 'Schrems II' decision, and how it interacts with U.S. surveillance laws. The Report starts by laying out the requirements for international transfers under the EU's principal data protection law, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). It then discusses how the European Commission--the EU's 'executive arm'--has sought to enforce these requirements with respect to personal data transferred to the United States through the Privacy Shield framework and various SCCs [Standard Contractual Clauses]. The Report next reviews the CJEU's 'Schrems II' decision and its impact on data transfers. After taking a closer look at the U.S. surveillance laws at issue in 'Schrems II'--including Section 702 of FISA [U.S. Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act], E.O. [Executive Order]12333, and PPD [Presidential Policy Directive]-28--the Report closes by briefly discussing some considerations for Congress."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Linebaugh, Chris D.; Liu, Edward C.
2021-03-17
-
Data Protection Law: An Overview [March 25, 2019]
From the Document: "Recent high-profile data breaches and other concerns about how third parties protect the privacy of individuals in the digital age have raised national concerns over legal protections of Americans' electronic data. Intentional intrusions into government and private computer networks and inadequate corporate privacy and cybersecurity practices have exposed the personal information of millions of Americans to unwanted recipients. At the same time, internet connectivity has increased and varied in form in recent years. Americans now transmit their personal data on the internet at an exponentially higher rate than in the past, and their data are collected, cultivated, and maintained by a growing number of both 'consumer facing' and 'behind the scenes' actors such as data brokers. As a consequence, the privacy, cybersecurity and protection of personal data have emerged as a major issue for congressional consideration."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Mulligan, Stephen P.; Freeman, Wilson C.; Linebaugh, Chris D.
2019-03-25
-
Data Protection and Privacy Law: An Introduction [May 9, 2019]
From the Document: "Recent controversy surrounding how third parties protect the privacy of individuals in the digital age has raised national concerns over legal protections of Americans'electronic data. The current legislative paradigms governing cybersecurity and data privacy are complex and technical, and lack uniformity at the federal level. This In Focus provides an introduction to data protection laws and an overview of considerations for Congress."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Mulligan, Stephen P.; Linebaugh, Chris D.; Freeman, Wilson C.
2019-05-09
-
Huawei and U.S. Law [February 23, 2021]
From the Summary: "Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. (Huawei) has grown to be the world's largest telecommunications equipment manufacturer since its founding in 1987 by a former engineer in China's People's Liberation Army. The Shenzhen, China-based company has become the focus of a host of legal actions that seek to protect the United States' national security and economy. In 2012, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) released a report describing the potential counterintelligence and security threats posed by Huawei's access to U.S. telecommunications systems. Senior officials in the Trump Administration asserted that Huawei's products present an inherent security threat because the Chinese government can force Huawei to share confidential information or create 'backdoors' by which the Chinese government could access Huawei systems. Huawei denies that its products create a security threat, and third-party analysts have not reached uniform conclusions about the security of Huawei systems. [...] This report outlines recent Huawei-related legal activities and examines the statutory authorities underlying each action."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Mulligan, Stephen P.; Linebaugh, Chris D.
2021-02-23
-
Net Neutrality Law: An Overview [Updated May 27, 2022]
From the Summary: "While there is general support for the basic concept of the open internet, net neutrality has been a perennially difficult subject for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission). The complexity lies, in part, in the fact that the FCC's ability to adopt net neutrality rules depends on the legal classification it gives to broadband internet access service under the Communications Act of 1934. As amended, the Act defines two mutually exclusive categories of services: telecommunications services and information services. While telecommunications service providers are treated as highly regulated common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act, the FCC has much more limited regulatory authority over information service providers. The FCC has alternated between classifying broadband as a telecommunications service and an information service. The U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts have affirmed the FCC's discretion to make this classification decision, but courts have also established that the FCC's ability to adopt net neutrality regulations is contingent on its classification choice."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Linebaugh, Chris D.
2022-05-27
-
Net Neutrality Law: An Overview [November 22, 2021]
From the Document: "President Biden signed an executive order on July 9, 2021, calling on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) to consider adopting 'net neutrality' rules. Net neutrality generally refers to the idea that internet service providers should neither control how consumers use their networks nor discriminate among the content providers that use their networks. Should the FCC follow the President's prompt, it will not be the first time the agency has wrestled with net neutrality. Rather, for more than a decade, net neutrality has been a perennially challenging issue for the Commission. [...] This report provides an overview of net neutrality law as it has developed through FCC actions and court decisions. The report first lays out the statutory provisions that set the legal boundaries for the FCC's authority, including the difference between a telecommunications service subject to Title II and a more lightly regulated information service. The report then provides a historical overview of the FCC's various actions classifying BIAS [broadband internet access service] and addressing net neutrality, and examines courts' review of these actions in 'Brand X', 'Verizon', 'USTA', and 'Mozilla'. The report concludes by considering possible next steps in the realm of net neutrality law, such as potential actions by Congress or the FCC."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Linebaugh, Chris D.
2021-11-22
-
COVID-19: Digital Contact Tracing and Privacy Law [July 9, 2020]
From the Document: "Many states, territories, and localities have implemented public health orders to limit the spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in their respective communities, including stay-at-home orders, orders temporarily closing schools and businesses, and orders limiting the size of public gatherings. In preparation for the eventual relaxation and lifting of these orders, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have advocated that public health authorities use robust 'contact tracing' procedures to prevent the reoccurrence of widespread infections after communities reopen. While federal entities may advise on these procedures, state and local authorities are responsible for contact tracing operations, as provided by state law."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Holmes, Eric N.; Linebaugh, Chris D.
2020-07-09
-
Will the FTC Need to Rethink Its Enforcement Playbook (Part II)? Circuit Split Casts Doubt on the FTC's Ability to Seek Restitution in Section 13(b) Suits [Updated July 17, 2020]
From the Document: "In August 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held in 'FTC v. Credit Bureau Center, LLC', that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission) cannot obtain restitution (i.e., repayment of money for consumer redress) in suits under Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act). In so doing, the Seventh Circuit overturned its own precedent and created a split of opinion on this issue with eight other federal courts of appeals. The 'Credit Bureau Center' decision also adds to recent case law curtailing the FTC's enforcement authority under Section 13(b) in other respects, including a decision by U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (discussed in an earlier Sidebar) limiting the FTC's ability to bring Section 13(b) suits at all."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Linebaugh, Chris D.
2020-07-17
-
Update: Section 230 and the Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship [Updated October 16, 2020]
From the Document: "'Update: On October 15, 2020, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Ajit Pai announced that the FCC will adopt rules interpreting Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. FCC General Counsel Tom Johnson confirmed that his office has advised Chairman Pai that "the FCC has the legal authority to interpret Section 230." Chairman Pai's statement comes after the National Telecommunications and Information Administration petitioned the FCC for rulemaking. On August 3, 2020, the FCC invited public comment on the petition for 45 days and received more than 20,000 comments in response.'"
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Brannon, Valerie C.; Hart, Nina M.; Holmes, Eric N. . . .
2020-10-16
-
Stepping in: The FCC's Authority to Preempt State Laws Under the Communications Act [Updated September 20, 2021]
From the Summary: "The line between federal and state authority plays a central role in modern communications law. Rather than fully displacing state law, the Communications Act of 1934 (Communications Act or Act)sets up a dual system of federal and state regulation. At the federal level, the Communications Act gives the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) broad authority to regulate wired and wireless telephony, radio transmissions, cable services, and matters that are ancillary to these areas. At the same time, however, the Act expressly preserves some state regulatory authority over these technologies. Consequently, the boundary between the FCC's authority and the states' has been a source of dispute. [...] This Report discusses these issues in more detail. It begins with an overview of the legal framework governing the FCC's preemption actions, first discussing general federal preemption principles and then explaining the FCC's preemption authority under the Communications Act. The Report then reviews recent FCC initiatives in which FCC preemption plays a key role. Specifically, it explains how the FCC has exercised its preemption authority--and the extent to which such authority has been challenged or is uncertain--in the areas of net neutrality, VoIP, 5G infrastructure deployment, community broadband, and state and local regulation of cable operators."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Linebaugh, Chris D.; Holmes, Eric N.
2021-09-20
-
Overview of the American Data Privacy and Protection Act, H.R. 8152 [June 30, 2022]
From the Document: "On June 21, 2022, the House Energy and Commerce Committee introduced the American Data Privacy and Protection Act (ADPPA), H.R. 8152 [hyperlink], which would create a comprehensive federal consumer privacy framework. Some commentators have noted [hyperlink] the bill's novel compromises on two issues--whether to preempt state privacy laws and whether to create a private right of action--that have impeded [hyperlink] previous attempts to create a national privacy framework. The bipartisan bill is co-sponsored by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone, Jr. and Ranking Member Cathy McMorris Rogers and promoted in the Senate by Senate Commerce Committee Ranking Member Roger Wicker. In a joint statement, Representatives Pallone and McMorris Rodgers and Senator Wicker described the bill [hyperlink] as 'strik[ing] a meaningful balance' on key issues. Senate Commerce Committee Chair Maria Cantwell, however, has critiqued [hyperlink] the ADPPA as having 'major enforcement holes,' prompting other commentators to question [hyperlink] whether the Senate will pass the bill. Members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee raised additional concerns [hyperlink] during a markup hearing on June 23, 2022. Still, some scholars [hyperlink] are hopeful that Congress will pass the bill. This Sidebar first provides a summary of the ADDPA. It then compares several of the bill's key provisions to other privacy bills from the 117th and 116th Congresses before examining some considerations for Congress, including potential next steps for the legislation."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Gaffney, Jonathan M.; Linebaugh, Chris D.; Holmes, Eric N.
2022-06-30
-
Abortion, Data Privacy, and Law Enforcement Access: A Legal Overview [Updated July 8, 2022]
From the Document: "In light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in 'Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization' [hyperlink], some Members of Congress [hyperlink] and commentators [hyperlink] have expressed concerns that law enforcement officials may seek to collect abortion-related personal data for prosecutions in states that have criminalized abortions. In Dobbs, the Court overruled 'Roe v. Wade' [hyperlink] and held that the U.S. Constitution does not grant individuals a right to an abortion. States now have much more discretion to criminalize abortion. Moreover, in the years before the Dobbs decision, 13 states [hyperlink] passed 'trigger laws' that were set to prohibit abortion, either automatically or following action by a state official, if the Supreme Court overturned Roe. Various types of personal data--such as health records, financial records, geolocation information, and electronic communications--might shed light on an individual's abortion decision, and law enforcement could seek such information, either directly from the entity collecting the data or from another entity to whom the data has been shared or sold [hyperlink]. Federal law may affect law enforcement's ability to collect this information. [...] This Legal Sidebar provides a high-level survey of the relevant constitutional and statutory law on this topic, and it concludes with considerations for Congress and links to other relevant CRS [Congressional Research Service] products."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Linebaugh, Chris D.
2022-07-08
-
Protection of Health Information Under HIPAA and the FTC Act: A Comparison [July 28, 2022]
From the Document: "On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court decided 'Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization' [hyperlink], overturning 'Roe v. Wade', and holding that the U.S. Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. Following the decision, individual states [hyperlink] may begin to prohibit abortions or enforce preexisting bans on abortion, including through the imposition of criminal penalties. This has raised concerns by some regarding the privacy of medical information from law enforcement investigations, particularly reproductive health information held by providers, health plans, smartphone apps, and others. Although Congress is considering legislation [hyperlink] to establish a nationally applicable consumer privacy framework for digital information generally, current federal laws addressing the privacy of health information are not uniform and may depend on the type of entity holding such data. Specifically, the Privacy Rule [hyperlink] of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 [hyperlink] (HIPAA) generally applies only to protected health information (PHI) held by certain health-care-related entities, known as 'HIPAA covered entities'. In contrast, some non-HIPAA covered entities' privacy practices may be regulated by the Federal Trade Commission Act [hyperlink] (FTC Act)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Linebaugh, Chris D.; Liu, Edward C.
2022-07-28
1
