The Faculty Lounge

The Silent Prosecutor: When DA's Refuse to Talk to the Media

It looks like I'm getting to substance more quickly than I expected.  I received a call from a reporter today on a legal ethics issue, I'd love to hear comments from the collective wisdom of the blogosphere.

Here are the facts: 

A District Attorney in California has announced that he will no longer return calls from the media or offer public information about pending cases.  The DA claims that media sensationalism in two high profile cases forced a change of venue and his new media policy. 

The reporter wanted to know:

1. Can the DA decide to not talk to the press?  
2. Is the prosecutor obligated to disclose public information?
3. What are the ramifications of this policy?
4. What recourse does the media have?
5. What can the voters do?  

My sense of this is that the prosecutor is on very firm ground.  As most of us know, the criticism that we more frequently hear is that prosecutors are undermining a fair trial by arguing the case in the media.  So from the perspective of fair administration of justice, this could be deemed commendable conduct.  The critique here seems to be grounded in open government principles.  Let me start with the ethical issues. 

First, recall what Justice Holmes wrote over 100 years ago:  "The theory of our system is that the conclusions to be reached in a case will be induced by evidence and argument in open court, and not by any outside influence, whether of private talk or public print."  Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454 (1907).   This theory, or principle informs a prosecutor's decisions to speak to the media and protects a defendants rights by ensuring the case hinges on the evidence, not sensationalism. 

Second, it's ethical for a prosecutor to not speak to the press because it's a fairly well settled principle that publicity has an adverse impact on jurors who may try and conform their verdict to public sentiment, rather than the law.  Moreover, in jurisdictions with elected judges, those judges may (improperly) worry about elections or future judicial appointments, especially in high profile cases.   A prosecutor who refuses to talk about pending cases makes it less likely that the case will receive detailed press coverage by not feeding the fire of speculation and arm chair quarterbacking that seems to surround high profile cases.  (Although the unique nature of the prosecutor's silence may ---at least in the early stages of the policy---generate more scrutiny, rather than less). 

Third, witnesses may be hesitant to testify if there is a lot of media attention or they may reassess or even change their testimony in light of other information they hear or read about the trial. 

Separate from these policy considerations and value judgments are rules governing attorney conduct.  The Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.6 which is substantially similar to California Rule of Professional Conduct 5-120, Trial Publicity directs (I'm paraphrasing throughout this post) that a lawyer "who is participating or has participated in the investigation...of a matter" may not make out of court statements that the lawyer knows will have a likelihood of prejudicing the case.  This doesn't prevent the prosecutor from making statements, but it does inform the prosecutors judgment in what to say if he or she chooses to speak.  Furthermore, the rules explicitly allow (but don't require) attorneys to make statements in seven circumstances. 

The prosecutor may make statements about:

1. the claim, offense or defense involved and the identity of the persons involved
2. info in the public record
3. the fact that an investigation is in progress
4. the schedule of the investigation and trial
5. the fact that assistance in obtaining evidence or information is needed
6. a warning of danger concerning the behavior of a person involved, when there is reason to believe there is a risk of harm to the public or an individual
7. the prosecutor may also release info related to:  i) the identity, residence, occupation and family status of the accused; ii) if the accused is at large, info needed to apprehend that person; iii) the fact, time and place of arrest; iv) the identity of investigating and arresting officers or agencies. 

On the flip-side, the commentary to the Model Rules also state what are essentially "no go" statements that are "more likely than not to prejudice" a criminal case.  Those are statements about:

1. the character, credibility, reputation or criminal record of a party, suspect in a criminal investigation or witness, or the identity of a witness, or the expected testimony of a party or witness;
2. the possibility of a plea of guilty to the offense or the existence or contents of any confession, admission, or statement given by a defendant or suspect or that person's refusal or failure to make a statement;
3. the performance or results of any examination or test or the refusal or failure of a person to submit to an examination or test, or the identity or nature of physical evidence expected to be present;
4. any opinion as to guilt or innocence of a suspect
5. information that the lawyer knows or should know is likely to be inadmissible if disclosing it would prejudice an impartial trial;
6. the fact that a defendant has been charged with a crime, unless there is included therein a statement explaining that the charge is merely an accusation and the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty. 

Ultimately I told the reporter that it seems that the ramifications of this policy are more fair trials and a lot more work for members of the media, and the only critique is grounded in open government principles.  (I'm guessing he didn't like that comment).  The media does not have much recourse other than critiquing the policy on the grounds that this is contrary to principles of accountability and transparency.  However, the needs for open government do not outweigh the defendant's right to a fair trial.  Of course, the voters can exercise the greatest influence over the DA's judgment by voting him out of office, or making such an issue of this that he rethinks his self imposed gag order.  But short of those democratic means of persuasion, I don't see much that supports the media's case. 

Am I missing something here? 

 

Criminal Justice System Readings

For those who might be looking for books to assign to new law students interested in getting some accessible background perspectives on the criminal justice system, I would recommend two recent publications of the New Press.

The first is Let's Get Free by Paul Butler.  Butler is a prof at GW Law and has previously been a federal prosecutor.  He provides interesting perspectives on the criminal justice system both from the point of view of a federal prosecutor and as an African-American.  The book is short and accessible and can easily be read in a day - it's actually kind of hard to put down.  It's a great introduction to racial issues in the system, how new technologies might impact on future criminal processes, and what criminal procedure might learn from Hip Hop culture.

Another good book is Lynn Powell's Framing Innocence.  This is an account of a situation some years ago in Ohio where criminal (child pornography) charges were brought against a woman, Cynthia Stewart, who had taken nude photographs of her 8 year old daughter in the bathtub.  The book is written by Stewart's friend and neighbor, Lynn Powell, who conducted detailed interviews with many of those involved in the proceedings.  Again, this is an easy read that is hard to put down.  It shows up issues inherent in the criminal justice system and Child Services system involving family law, constitutional law and criminal law - and addresses the difficulties of fairly enforcing criminal laws based on "community standards" of unacceptable behavior.

Both of these books look at the law and legal processes from different perspectives and both would be engaging reading for those embarking on a legal career.

Happy "Quit Facebook" Day

Today is "Quit Facebook" Day - a day of protest where a group of disgruntled Facebook members are encouraging others to get off the social network site.  Many of the concerns of the users have been about ways in which Facebook manages user data and doesn't make it particularly easy for users to control their own private information, despite recent moves by the company to improve its privacy settings.  While the number of people deleting their profiles from Facebook forever may not do much immediate damage to the company - and may be largely ineffective for personal data which has already found its way into the hands of third parties - it does squarely raise concerns about privacy on Facebook (again). 

Big Brother Or Legitimate Surveillance? Snooping School Snaps 56,000 Photos

 Some of you may have read about the controversy swirling around the Lower Merion School District, on Philadelphia's affluent Main Line.  In the last two years, the district decided to issue each and every student his or her own laptop.  (What?  Your school district doesn't do that?)  In order to stop theft (or perhaps assist students who'd lost their machines), the school installed surveillance software that allowed a school technician to remotely snap photos using the computer's camera.  You get the idea: when a computer is stolen, the school would presumably provide the cops with photos of the thieves.  Of course, the school district didn't tell all the kids and parents that the computers offered this feature.

Unfortunately, the school didn't have total control of its surveillance process.  Among other things, we've recently learned that the school didn't have formal procedures for authorizing the technicians to take the pictures.  Sometimes, they forgot to turn off the surveillance even after the laptop was found.  And they used the cameras not simply in cases of theft but also, in at least one case, to track the computer of a person who'd failed to pay the mandatory $55 insurance fee.

All this got Lower Merion in hot water.  A couple of months ago, Blake Robbins - a student - sued the school district for allegedly spying on him.  In this complaint, he claimed that an assistant principal confronted Robbins in school, accusing him of improper behavior at home, and cited the content of a photo that had been snapped with this surveillance system.  

Now it turns out that in the last two years, the surveillance system was used 146 times and captured 56,000 photos.  While most of these were probably within the officially intended scope of the program, technicians failed to stop the surveillance even after several of the computers were found.  In fact,  13,000 of the pictures were snapped after computers had been located.  The district assures everyone that nothing really inappropriate was photographed.  No need to worry, folks.  But hey - we did notice that your wallpaper is peeling in the corner!

Facebook: Virtual "Panic Button"?

In an effort to curb online bullying and online predators, a British child protection agency is apparently working to convince Facebook to institute a virtual "panic button" that would allow Facebook users to immediately alert authorities if a suspected predator was online.  See story here.

Should Online Anonymity be a Habit or a Guarantee?

In light of the recent privacy debacle involving the Plain Dealer and Judge Saffold (see previous post), a number of news media outlets are reconsidering their policies relating to the anonymity of those who comment online about news stories.  I am indebted to my colleague Elizabeth Rowe for bringing this new article to my attention from The Gainesville Sun.  The article surveys the approaches taken by different news services to the anonymity of postings by online commenters.  Some very interesting points are made in the article.  One is the issue raised by the editor of the Plain Dealer, Susan Goldberg, who has suggested that anonymity should be regarded as a habit in this context, rather than a guarantee.  Another interesting aspect of the article is that it notes that a number of news services are considering revised approaches to their online commenting policies along the lines of either doing away with anonymity altogether and requiring people to post comments under their own names, or instituting a ratings system for commenters so readers could give more or less weight to certain comments.  This is a difficult issue indeed and I suspect we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg with respect to the privacy conundrums likely to be generated on these websites. 

Ohio Judge Sues Plain Dealer Over Privacy Breach

In a developing story in Cleveland this week, Cuyahoga County Court Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold has sued the Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper and others for unmasking her or her daughter (the facts are not 100% clear on this point) as the anonymous poster of comments on a news website about cases over which she has presided.  She alleges breaches of contract with respect to the privacy policy posted on the cleveland.com website (associated with the Plain Dealer).  She also alleges a variety of other claims including fraud, defamation and false light publicity.  This is an interesting case because the news organization is effectively being sued for breaching its own privacy policy - as opposed to the situation where a third party has sought the information for the purposes of legal or other proceedings.  The full story is here.  A link to the Judge's complaint is here.

The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks

For anyone teaching - or interested in - bioethics, property rights in human tissue etc, I can recommend The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, which I've just read on recommendation by a number of colleagues.  Rebecca Skloot's account of the development and use of the immortal "HeLa" cell line, derived from cancer cells of a woman named Henrietta Lacks, is a terrific interweaving of the human interest story of Henrietta Lacks' life, death and family alongside the scientific developments over many decades involving the use of the cell-line.  The author spent years interviewing Lacks' family as well as members of the scientific community and has written an engaging and accessible account of the science and bioethics concerns surrounding the use of human tissues in medical research.  She also deals with difficult race relations issues that have arisen, particularly in the medical science field over the last 50 years or so, particularly with respect to medical experiments conducted on disadvantaged populations without effective consent, as well as general access to health care issues.  It's a small, easy-to-read book that covers a variety of interesting subjects with intelligence and even-handedness.  Skloot gives her readers much information but appears to be trying her best not to be judgmental or to be seen to be "taking sides".  Thus, the book easily provokes discussion of a number of health care and bioethics issues, and may well be useful for law and policy courses in these areas.

Facebook's Privacy Woes Continue

Recently, a class action lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of California alleging a series of privacy law violations against Facebook.  It's an interesting action for all the claims it raises, including right of publicity claims raised by individual Facebook users, misappropriation claims, unjust enrichment and some criminal claims.  A press story is available here and the text of the complaint can be viewed here.

Supreme Court to Take up Privacy Rights in Text Messages

Interesting story from today's Washington Post, reproduced in the Cleveland Plain Dealer.  The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case about whether employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy for 4th Amendment purposes in communications sent on devices owned by their employers.  The case involved employer monitoring of personal text messages sent by employees on employer-issued pagers.  Employees were permitted to use the devices for personal messages, but it was not clear whether employers would monitor those communications, as the employer's policy for text messages was less clear than its policy on other forms of communication, like email messages.

Presidential Rhetoric and the Public Agenda: Constructing the War on Drugs

I will try to keep this shameless plug as brief as possible - my new book (with co-author Andrew Whitford) is now available (at Amazon or on the Johns Hopkins University Press site).

 Wait, don't hurt your mouse-hand clicking through too quickly - you might want to check out some of the ad copy below the fold before taking out your credit card  :-)

What's In Your 'Sent' Box?

Five Wisconsin teachers are objecting to the release of personal e-mails they sent using the school's computer pursuant to a citizen's public records request.  The school district disclosed the e-mails after concluding that they were "records" under the applicable statute that did not fall into an exception for personal notes, drafts and like material created for the originator's use.  In an argument scheduled for Nov. 10, the state Supreme Court will clarify the status of personal e-mails under the statute and weigh whether privacy concerns trump the public's interest in disclosure.   

The e-mails in this case apparently didn't violate any school policy, and no-one's accusing the teachers of criminal wrongdoing (no child porn, internet harassment, cyberbullying, etc.).  According to reports, the request was made as part of a "fishing expedition" (applicant's words) to see whether the teachers improperly used their work computers to discuss an upcoming school board election. 

There's no doubting the interest served by public access laws, but I wonder if it's worth pressing them to their absolute limit.  The First Amendment doesn't compel access to public records of this kind; access is instead a statutory privilege.  So the more courts uphold requests for disclosure, the more incentive they create for lawmakers to narrow, if not outright repeal, the existing statute.  Whether or not there's sufficient public outrage to serve as a deterrent I suppose is anyone's guess.   

• Schill v. Wisconsin Rapids School District (certification by appellate court)
• WI State Bar Article (links to briefs and court docs)

-Kathleen Bergin

Online Privacy in Israel

For those interested in reading and writing in the area of online privacy, Michael Birnhack and Niva Elkin-Koren recently posted an article on SSRN that details their study of compliance by Israeli websites with Israeli privacy laws.  The study is interesting because, while Israeli law is closer to the European Union privacy model than the United States sectoral approach to privacy, it also has some interesting features of its own - among them, a requirement that online databases that collect certain  information must be registered with a Database Registrar.  While the authors note that there is very little compliance with this requirement, it is an approach I am not familiar with from looking at privacy laws in other countries.  This is a really good comparative paper for those interested in contrasting legislative approaches to online privacy.  It also addresses the question that increasingly arises online, and goes back to early work by Lawrence Lessig - Is law ever going to be the answer to online regulation?  And is it less likely to be the answer as we move into the age of Web 2.0 technologies?

Is Your Cell Phone Manufacturer Tracking You?

Privacy.   We talk about it all the time as an abstract concept.  And we don't pay much close attention until our identity is stolen or our email password has been hacked.  (Yes, both have happened to me.)   But lurking in the background, some folks - and I'll certainly include me on this one - fear the potential of a high-tech Sovietization of the United States.  The government may not actively monitor our whereabouts today, but at some point the technology will be make that sort of tracking incredibly simple to implement...if the government so chose.  We already share so much of our lives through our credit cards.  The FBI may not know where we were last night, but American Express surely does.  And of course the phone company has a pretty good bead on us as well: which cell towers did you use yesterday.  And look, if your phone has GPS...AT&T or Verizon can surely find it in an emergency.

Now it appears that the phone maker may be the most active monitor of all.  We learned yesterday, over at the LA Times, that Palm has programmed its Pre phones to upload GPS location data each day - along with a use record of many of the owner's applications, including messaging. 

It's not news that we're trackable day and night.  It's just that we sometimes forget how many people are actively on our trail.  And if the government really decided to put its potent computers on the project of tracking people, we could all become living, breathing FedEx packages.  For now, though, it's only the marketers who know where we are every minute, every day.  And that, I suppose, is a relief.

Thinking about persistence

I would like to thank Dan Filler for inviting me to join the Faculty Lounge this month. I used to blog at "Displacement of Concepts,"  but found that trying to teach, conduct traditional scholarly research, and perform service to the school and the community precluded maintaining a blog on my own. The current iteration of that site is mainly a placeholder. I simply did not have enough time to articulate interesting things. So I'm very happy that Dan asked me to join the Lounge for the month of August, and I'm looking forward to contributing to the conversation.

On a related note (though the relation may take awhile to get to),  back in 2008 I wrote a piece entitled, "Growing Up Digital, Control and the Pieces of a Digital Life" (PDF), which appeared as a chapter in the book, "Digital Youth, Innovation and the Unexpected." I argued that the digital media of today change things qualitatively from the past in terms of the chances that something stupid you do will be caught in a photo, on an audio tape, or in a video. If that happens, the potential for embarrassment is high, just as it always has been. But what differs today, especially for young people, is that these gaffs, exposures, and embarrassing moments may follow them through life. Forever (or at least as long as they live). I refer to this as "pernicious persistence."

Put another way, it would be difficult for someone to find a photograph of me from when I was a child, let alone an embarrassing one. They are in boxes in my closet, or in my dad's basement. To find one would be a time intensive task, without promise of success. If someone had found such a photo twenty years ago, when I was in my twenties, they would have been able to show it to their friends, and that would likely have been it.

A New Meaning to Security Screening

Cleveland Hopkins International Airport is trialling "whole body" security scanners for the first time, according to last week's Cleveland Plain Dealer.  The new scanners see right through travellers' clothes and pick up security threats that metal detectors can miss, such as liquid explosives.  The machines use radio waves or weak x-rays to take full body scans of passengers, raising significant privacy concerns.  The airport is adopting a protocol where the person reading the scan never sees the actual passenger in an attempt to protect privacy to some degree.

What struck me as particularly interesting was the following paragraph from Jim Nichols' report in the Plain Dealer:

"The machines will replace metal detectors in two of the airport's dozen security-screening lanes as "primary" screening devices. Each passenger in a security line will be assigned to the next open lane, meaning they'll effectively be sent at random to either a full-body imager or an X-ray machine. (At 15 other airports, they're "secondary" screeners: Only passengers who set off metal detectors go through the full-body scanners, unless they opt for a pat-down.)"

Is there something wrong with Cleveland's approach?  It seems that in Cleveland, you have to take the more intrusive option (full scale pat-down) if you object to the initial full body scan, while in other airports you only face either of the intrusive options (pat-down or full scan)  if you set off the metal detector in the first place.  Does Cleveland Airport's approach raise more of a civil liberties issue than other airports?

Celebrity Drug Habits: Public or Private?

With thanks as usual to Patricia Sanchez Abril for drawing this case to my attention, I was intrigued by a small issue when reading the 2004 British House of Lords decision in the Naomi Campbell case.  This case involved the unauthorized publication by the Mirror newspaper of details of Campbell's drug problems.  The case is interesting in itself as a discussion of the then relatively new task of British courts to balance free speech and privacy interests recently revised in British law under the Human Rights Act of 1998.

What particularly interested me about the case, though, was the concession made by all parties that the British newspaper had a right to publish a story confirming that Campbell had drug problems, despite her previous public protestations to the contrary.  The case then focused on the extent to which particular details about her treatment should be protected as confidential. 

I am interested in the rationale supporting the concession that the paper had the right to publish the fact of the drug addiction effectively under the auspices of "public interest".  The reasoning was that the media had this right because Campbell had publicly denied having a drug addiction in the past and had favorably compared herself to other models who did have such problems  - assertions that turned out not to be true.  It was suggested by several of the judges that if Campbell had not made these public comments, the fact of her drug addiction might have been properly protected as confidential, but that, given her comments, the Mirror was justified in running a story to tell the public that her comments were untrue.  (The question for the court was how much latitude the paper should have with respect to details and photographs of her specific treatment.)

My question is whether it is necessarily appropriate to say that someone effectively loses the right to privacy or confidentiality because they have represented that they do not have a personal and sensitive problem that in fact they do have?  What are they expected to do when asked by the press whether they have a drug habit?  Does society really expect such people to tell the truth publicly on such a sensitive issue?  And do we feel differently about these questions depending on whether the subject of the disclosure is a celebrity versus some other public figure like a politician?  In other words, would we be more concerned that someone with governmental responsibilities may be impaired by a drug problem than someone whose career is in the entertainment field and whose problems do not have the potential to put important political decisions at risk?

I'm not sure that I know the answers to any of these questions, but I'd be interested in what other people think.  And I do acknowledge that the different laws in England and the United States may well lead to different thoughts on these questions.  For example, in the United States with the longstanding First Amendment speech guarantees, people may have very different perspectives than in England where the notion of a free speech/free press right is a relatively new thing.

Privacy and the Limits of the Law

I am indebted to Prof Patricia Sanchez Abril for recently drawing my attention to the British High Court decision in Max Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd (July 2008).  This decision proves the point that even when a jurisdiction adopts strong privacy rights within its legal system, these rights do not provide very useful redress for the kinds of harms at which they are aimed.  The reason being that it is very difficult for a court to appropriately quantify damages for a harm that cannot be remedied with monetary damages, and that in order to obtain any redress, the complainant has to relive all the damage in the public forum of a judicial proceeding.

The case involved the privacy rights of Max Mosley, the President of the Federation Internationale de l'Automobile ("FIA").  He apparently has rather squalid sexual tastes and was videotaped involved in a consensual S & M session with a group of women he paid for their services.  The video was made as a result of a reporter from the News of the World paying one of the women to video record the session, and to give an exclusive interview about it.  The story about the S&M session was published in the News of the World with still images, and the video was made available on the News of the World website.

I See England, I See France, I See Nino's Underpants

This is a kerfuffle really worth watching.  At a conference recently, Justice Scalia made comments suggesting that he has limited passion for the notion of privacy protection in an Internet world.

"Every single datum about my life is private? That's silly," Scalia [said]. . . . Scalia said he was largely untroubled by such Internet tracking. "I don't find that particularly offensive," he said. "I don't find it a secret what I buy, unless it's shameful." He added there's some information that's private, "but it doesn't include what groceries I buy." . . . . Considering every fact about someone's life private is "extraordinary," he said, noting that data such as addresses have long been discernible, even if technology has made them easier to find.

In response, Fordham Professor Joel Reidenberg asked students in his privacy course to compile a complete dossier on Scalia based on information readily available on the Web.  Students compiled a 15 page packet - which Reidenberg generously keeps behind a password.  The dossier apparently includes Scalia's home address and phone number, his wife's email address, his food and movie preferences, and pictures of the grandkids.   When word of this homework assignment leaked via Above the Law, Scalia struck back - again, via ATL: 

I stand by my remark at the Institute of American and Talmudic Law conference that it is silly to think that every single datum about my life is private. I was referring, of course, to whether every single datum about my life deserves privacy protection in law. It is not a rare phenomenon that what is legal may also be quite irresponsible. That appears in the First Amendment context all the time. What can be said often should not be said. Prof. Reidenberg's exercise is an example of perfectly legal, abominably poor judgment. Since he was not teaching a course in judgment, I presume he felt no responsibility to display any.

Professor Reidenberg responded at Co-op: 

I'm surprised by Justice Scalia's characterization of the project. The scope of protection for privacy in our society is at the forefront of the public policy debate. I assign this research project annually and last year used myself as itssubject. The exercise never fails to provide a keen demonstration for my students of the privacy issues associated with aggregating discrete bits of otherwise innocuous personal information. When there are so few privacy protections for secondary use of personal information, that information can be used in many troubling ways. A class assignment that illustrates this point is not one of them. Indeed, the very fact that Justice Scalia found it objectionable and felt compelled to comment underscores the value and legitimacy of the exercise.

I'm not at all convinced that this was an illegitimate classroom project.  Professor Reidenberg's students learned a lot about privacy protection and maybe Justice Scalia learned a bit about how the power of technology really might have serious implications for individual privacy and freedom.  

Or maybe he just thinks the liberals are out to get him again.  He may be right, of course - but everyone has enemies.  And when it comes to privacy intrusion,  the power of data aggregation is quite agnostic.

Disney Buying Online Businesses?

A colleague recently mentioned Disney's acquisition last year of a small online "green" company, idealbite.com.  This company specializes in providing tips about maintaining an eco-friendly lifestyle.  Apparently, Disney paid $20 million for the company.  The only information I could find about Disney's motivations was that Idealbite's customer base comprises a demographic that Disney is interested in - described by cnet reporter Caroline McCarthy as follows:  "The site's median household income is $82,000...; the median age is 35; and the target demographic is the sort that "drinks organic wine after yoga." In other words, yuppie moms."

If Disney is interested in Idealbite's customer base, does it actually have any legal rights to access customer information from its subsidiary?  I briefly scanned through Idealbite's privacy policy and its terms and conditions of use.  The privacy policy is pretty minimalist while the terms of use give Idealbite powerful contractual licenses and IP protections over all content on their website, including most content posted by customers.  So I guess Disney can probably take what it wants.   This kind of online data mining obviously isn't a new issue, but Disney and the online green folks seem  to be strange bedfellows, so it's an unusual case in point.

In other Disney acquisition news, there were also rumors last year that Disney had purchased or planned to purchase the controversial online fan fiction site, Fanlib.com.  Since those rumors died down - and it remains unclear whether Disney completed the purchase - Fanlib.com has quietly gone out of business.  It is not clear whether Disney's purpose in acquiring Fanlib was to protect its own IP rights in content by closing down the fan fiction site, or whether Disney was rather interested in Fanlib's proprietary crowd-writing software.  If the former, wouldn't it have been cheaper just to send a cease and desist letter?  I'd be interested to find out if anyone has any additional background on this one.