Two big judgments out of the United Kingdom that, in all likelihood, won’t affect us Americans one bit. But since we’ve all been on the Facebook and engaged in a Nazi orgy once or twice, they’re worth schooling you on so you don’t run into the same fate as a pair of gentlemen who had to sue to restore their good names. (Well, one of the guys who sued probably only soiled his name more.)

CONTINUED »

Rather than tuck her boobies inside a bikini top, bitter actress Sienna Miller is suing Big Pictures, the photo agency responsible for exposing her bits, and News International’s News of the World and Sun, which printed the pics.

Though, Miller might be less upset about having her breasts printed in the tabloids than she is about the exposure of her her relationship with married Brothers & Sisters actor Balthazar Getty, who was forced into acknowledging a separation from his wife when the photos surfaced.

In December, Miller successfully scored a $75k judgment against those same two papers when they printed pictures of her filming a nude scene for a movie. And if she secures a similar award this time around, she’ll have the budget to support her lifestyle and continue making art house films, steering clear of any cineplex we’d ever visit.

Brad Pitt’s loudmouthed attorneys at Lavely & Singer are, preemptively, trying to clamp down on a series of photos that “were surreptitiously taken of Mr. Pitt and his family as they engaged in familial activities on private property, namely, in the privacy of the estate in which they are presently residing in France and where they had a reasonable expectation of privacy.” Not content with issuing a cease and desist letter after the pictures’ publication, L&S want to make sure these photos never make it into the public eye. (Too late, as you’ll see.)

Supposedly, the publication of these photos — showing Pitt and wife Angelina Jolie with the kids — infringe not just on Pitt’s privacy rights in the State of California, but also in France!

Except, according to one understanding of the law, this is wrong. Oh, and also? In Touch already published the pics.

CONTINUED »

“An Indian man was arrested over the weekend for allegedly posting derogatory and vulgar content about Indian politician Sonia Gandhi on Google’s social networking site, Orkut. 22-year-old Rahul Krishnakumar Vaid had posted his comments in an Orkut community called “I hate Sonia Gandhi” through an Orkut account associated with his Gmail account. With Google’s help, local authorities were able to verify Vaid’s identity and make the arrest.

“Vaid was charged under the Indian Penal Code as well as the Information Technology Act, according to expressindia. Perhaps surprisingly, the creator of the “I hate Sonia Gandhi” group was left alone, as hating prominent politicians is not illegal in India. Posting vulgar comments about that someone is, however, leading authorities to pursue Vaid.

“Google admitted today that it had forked over Vaid’s information after it was requested by Indian law enforcement. A spokesperson for Google told IDG News Service that, while the company is committed to protecting user privacy, it must obey local laws and legal processes.” [ArsT]

In an effort to placate parents who watch Dateline: To Catch a Predator and privacy advocates whose No. 1 goal in life is to make the Internet safe for kids to upload photos of their puppies, Facebook is implementing new privacy safeguards for minors.

None of which can’t be completely fudged, of course.

CONTINUED »

Western Pennsylvania couple Aaron and Christine Boring only want privacy. Why else do you think they bought a home with a long, private driveway to keep snoops away? Then Google, with its Street View mapping feature, went and allegedly violated their privacy, by sending a camera-equipped van on the Borings’ private road and snapping pics of their house.

Google’s talking heads say any homeowner’s request to have images removed from their database would be honored, but it’s unclear whether the couple ever made such a request.

Instead, they’ve filed a lawsuit against the search giant.

“Isn’t litigation the only way to change a big business’ conduct with the public?” asks attorney Dennis Moskal. Perhaps. It’s also the best way not to stay out of the public eye.

Facebook will introduce new privacy controls today, allowing its 67 million users decide which groups of friends get to see last night’s photos of you doing keg stands: Your parents, your boss, or your college buddies. [Reuters]