Whether Technological Advancements Have Infringed Upon Ones Right to Privacy?
By: Leslie A. Fischman
As a company, ones online identity is defined by their “domain name”  a unique identity protected by “trade marks and [principles of] branding.”  From that platform, information can be disseminated, although alterations to protected works are not covered by copyright infringement laws, subsequent “right to distribute modified copies of the work”  are by “rights given to the author.”  Digital communication networks and digital trail[s]  track exactly that, what is being produced, how its being produced, and who is being affected by the production of that material source. So-called “wrongdoers” are individuals who engage in the “unlicensed” sharing of “music and video” which has been considered a copyrighted work.  There is a difference between the “old copyright laws [of] the internet and … electronic submission[s] [which] can have the unexpected consequence of increasing the reach of copyright.”  Traditional copyright laws, differ from those of the internet, because such “over-protection” delineates subtle differences between “primary and secondary infringement,”  primary meaning the “copying” of works, and secondary meaning the “distribution” of works, liability is therefore based upon “knowledge” to some “fixed [degree]” that the “distribution of the information” falls within one of these two definitions of traditional copyright laws as applied to the internet.  One of the main concerns of distribution of copyrighted works, not authored by or with permissions from the one to whom rights have been given, occurs when faced with the possibility that subsequent additional works can be created by use of technology, “recreated by computer,” the key issue being whether the law extends so far as to over-protect further uses beyond the initial violation, primary or secondary, misuse of copyrighted works. In fact, “the advent of digital technology has overturned the underlying economic assumptions of the original law.”  That being said, “every act of electronic distribution is also an act of copying if a transient copy counts as infringement.” 
One forum to help raise awareness, as to copyright laws, and the dissemination of information that may or may not be protected by copyright laws granted to the author, is social media. Building “situational awareness culling data [can help to] obtain a clearer picture.”  FEMA discusses the significance of the sharing of information online, and warns that “rumors and misinformation can spread quickly over social networks” however, not all networks are “self-correcting [requiring] swift intervention [to] dispel rumors spread [by] new information [or] common practice[s].”  In the event of an emergency “responding quickly and effectively” can help to curtail the misuse of “new, incorrect, or conflicting information.”  Part of the process of responding in cases of emergency to the misuse of information by rumor, is to “engage the community and [to] build mutual trust.” 
 –  Internet Law and Regulation 4th Edition
 IS-0042 – Social Media Emergency Management, FEMA