The Blog of Legal Times:  “A sophisticated hacker pleaded guilty today to conspiring to hack into computer networks supporting major American retail and financial organizations, and to steal data relating to tens of millions of credit and debit cards in a case that the Justice Department said is one of the largest data breaches ever investigated and prosecuted in the United States.  Albert Gonzalez, 28, of Miami, a onetime Secret Service informant, pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy to gain unauthorized access to the payment card networks.”

ABA Journal:  “Masked by the Web’s anonymity, Internet users feel free to flame celebrities, blast politicians, or blow the whistle on employers for corporate misdeeds.   Burned by the postings, many plaintiffs resort to defamation suits.  But in addition to the usual litigation issues, plaintiffs often find another one: plenty of defendants with the same name, John Doe.  ‘If we don’t know who they are, we don’t know where they are and we don’t necessarily know what court to file in,’ says Gary Nissenbaum of Union, N.J., managing principal of Nissenbaum Law Group, which practices Internet law in New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania.  Part of the reason this defamatory speech is so ubiquitous is because people assume they can never be found.’   But many Internet users forget one important thing: That cloak of anonymity has holes in it.  The question now before the courts is exactly how big those holes should be.”

The Digital Media Lawyer Blog:  “On December 17, we reported on the Convertino case in which a judge found that the attorney-client privilege was not waived for emails exchanged on an employer’s network, even though the employer had access to them.  It did not take long to find a case with virtually identical circumstances in which a Court reached the exact opposite result – a ruling that the privilege had been waived.  This was a really bad result for the employee, because it meant that those emails could be used against her in court. See Alamar Ranch, LLC v. County of Boise, D. Idaho.”

Social Networking and the Law:  “Facebook updated its privacy policy last week, and the social networking site has come under fire for what many consider to be the site’s gradual deterioration of privacy protection.  Particularly troubling: the popular social networking site touted the changes as giving users more control over their information.  To the contrary, the changes actually seem to reduce the amount of control users have over the privacy of their information.”

For a detailed explanation of Facebook’s new privacy policy, see “What Does Facebook’s Privacy Transition Mean for You?”

Eric Goldman:  “I didn’t think there was much dispute as to whether SMS spam falls under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, but Judge Gottschall’s order in Abbas v. Selling Source, LLC, tackles this issue and concludes that SMS spam messages are ‘calls,’ under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  Along the way, the court addresses a few other interesting arguments, including defendant Selling Source’s First Amendment defenses.   Abbas allegedly received SMS spam from Selling Source.  Abbas sued Selling Source in state court under the TCPA.  Selling Source removed and filed a motion to dismiss.  The court rejected the crux of Selling Source’s arguments.”