Is it illegal if someone posts a photo of me that was taken by their front doorbell without me knowing? I was given an address from someone who owes me money. I went to the address and rung the door bell, a lady answered the door. I asked if Tom was there, she replied no and no Tom lives here. I apologized to the lady and explained to her that I was given this address by someone that owes me money, and that he had obviously misled me. I said sorry again and went on my way. About two hours later a friend of mine called me and said that someone had posted a photo of me on Facebook asking if anyone new me. My friend knew the person who posted the photo, so they phoned him and told him he new me and I was kosher so remove the photo, which he has now done. So was it illegal for him to post that photo taken of me without me knowing about it?
If this was anywhere in the United States, it was perfectly legal to post the photo. The First Amendment allows people to freely share information, including pictures. People commonly believe that they have the authority to control who takes a picture of them and under what circumstances, but that is generally false. Anyone with a camera is generally free to photograph anyone or anything they want out in public. You've also used the copyright tag on your question. The person who took the picture owns the copyright. Since that's the owner, there's presumably no problem with her posting it. Instead, it would be illegal for you to post that photo without obtaining a license from the homeowner.
You are processing the users IP address in order to carry out the translation to a physical location (see my comment for the technical issues with that) and an IP address is most certainly considered personal information, so yes under the GDPR you are going to need a published policy because you are both data controller and data processor. You need to inform the user of what you are doing, and you need to tell them of the legal basis for the processing (there are several under the GDPR, of which consent is only one - but in your case its going to be the easiest to justify). If you use a third party service for the location translation, you also need to inform the user of that and make available the third party services data processing policy.
someone I spoke with said "there is to be no recording of this or any other calls". Must I follow this instruction? Although, in Canada, there is no requirement on you to obtain consent to make recording, this explicit objection creates a hurdle. If you simply ignore the objection and record the conversation anyway without letting the objecting party know, you may give them a ground for a claim under the breach of confidence doctrine. The safest move would be to reply: No. There will be recording of this and any other calls. It will be then up to them to hang up. If they don't, they lose all grounds for any claims.
In essence, Schwab is stating that they are not a law enforcement agency and they have neither the interest nor the legal right to pursue criminals. They state that they will assist law enforcement but also tell you that, from their experience, law enforcement while they have the legal right also don't have any interest in doing so. This is completely correct. I'm not going to comment on what you should do to protect yourself from identity theft. With respect to the reverse transfer: you are on very shaky legal ground here - you transferred funds without authorization and you are not legally allowed to do this even to recover your own losses. If you had limited this to just recovering your own funds then you would be extremely unlikely to be prosecuted but by taking more than was yours you have technically committed a theft of your own. That said, it seems unlikely that law enforcement will be interested - Schwab are not making a complaint and I doubt that the original thief will - for obvious reasons. However, its possible (even likely) that this was not the thief's bank account - this is likely to be an innocent third party's account that the thief was using to obfuscate their crime. If so, the money you took (both the original amount and the extra $50) you took actually belongs to that innocent party - your money had probably spent very little time in that account.
Not that I am aware of. A person who 'owns' a domain is entitled to utilize that domain including for the purposes of receiving emails. With physical mail, it is a crime in most countries to intentionally interfere with mail that is not addressed to you. For example - Australia. However, this is statute law and as such does not extend to emails - even if it did, if you own the domain then you are the person to whom it was addressed. I note that you seem to misunderstand "confidential" - this only arises in the context of a special relationship between the person transmitting the information and the person receiving it. Usually this is a contractual obligation between A and B but it can be imposed by law (e.g. doctor-patient, banker-client, lawyer-client, GDPR etc.). If A sends confidential (as between A &amp; B) information to C, C is under no general obligation to keep it confidential if C has no relationship of confidentiality with A or B. If C discloses it and B suffers damage, B sues A for breach of confidence (or the government prosecutes A for breaking the law); B has no case against C. For your situation, where B has allowed A to send the information to an obsolete address then B has contributed to the breach to an extent that B would be extremely unlikely to succeed in a suit against A.
PIPA has a dispute resolution process. See page 39 of the guidance document. The judge in your current case may have the power to award you damages under PIPA, but most likely not. You are probably best served by using the information as evidence that the guy is a bad person, has little regard for the laws, openly defied PIPA, etc. However, if he's smart he will say that you consented. Look at pages 5 and 6 of that document that you linked to. Unless you protested when you handed him your license and watched him photograph it, it's hard for you to say that you did not provide implied or verbal consent. This is especially true when coupled with the PIPA dispute resolution which start with you attempting to resolve this issue before filing a complaint. In summary, it might help you demonstrate a pattern of bad behavior but your current legal dispute is not the place to resolve your privacy issue.
Per GDPR Art 79, you can sue data controllers if you consider your rights to have been violated. Where you have suffered damages due to GDPR infringements, you also have a right to compensation per Art 82. However, your rights may not have been violate as far as the GDPR is concerned. Under the GDPR any kind of personal data processing needs a clear purpose, and that purpose needs a legal basis. One possible legal basis is consent, but there also are others (such as legitimate interest). Just because you didn't consent doesn't mean that your rights have been violated. Where processing is based on legitimate interest, you can object to that processing of your personal data – but your rights must be balanced against that legitimate interest (Art 21). If your friends post a photo and you only appear in the background, your friends' legitimate interest to post that photo likely outweighs your rights. In practice, suing Facebook because of GDPR infringement is not a sensible way to achieve the outcomes that you likely want. First, this is expensive. Second, it is arguable whether Facebook or your friends should be the defendant. Third, removal of existing data won't prevent the processing of new data in the future. It would be more sensible to treat this as an interpersonal rather than a legal problem, and to talk with your friends so that they don't include you in their photos that they would like to share online. I've focussed on photos because their situation is fairly clear. Voice snippets might not count as personal data when you are not identifiable in them. Personal assistant apps should not be listening continuously, but only start recording when a wake-word is recognized.
The California Constitution gives you the right to privacy, but your neighbor also has the right to have cameras on his house. https://oag.ca.gov/privacy/privacy-laws That means that it is up to the courts to balance those rights. If you did go to court, the judge would have to look at the cameras and decide if they significantly violated your right to privacy in regard to audio and video. Just because the camera can see part or all of your yard doesn't make them illegal, because the neighbor has the right to record his property and may not be able to avoid recording your yard. If the cameras can be re-positioned to only see your neighbor's yard the judge might order that. You would have to show it would not violate his right to record while it substantially violates your right to privacy though. Audio is different because it can pick up conversations. California requires you to notify people when you record their conversations in a place where they would be expected to be private. If the camera is recording your conversations, that would be illegal.