Always Providing You With Ongoing Information

Posts tagged ‘Legal’

Is Forgetting Your Password A Valid Defense?

Snapshot506_001

Two suspects accused of extorting the so-called “Queen of Snapchat” as part of a sex-tape scandal are scheduled to appear in a Florida court on May 30, 2017. The accused need only to answer a simple question on this visit. Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Charles Johnson wants an explanation as to why the defendants can’t remember the passcodes to their mobile phones. 

If the judge doesn’t believe them or if they remain silent, the two suspects face possible contempt charges and indefinite jail time for refusing a court order to unlock their phones so prosecutors can examine text messages. Their defense to that order, however, rests on an unsettled area of law. Both defendants maintain that a court order requiring them to unlock an encrypted device is a breach of the Fifth Amendment right to be free from compelled self-incrimination.

More Here

FBI Paid Almost A Million Dollars To Unlock iPhone

gold6_001

The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation paid $900,000 to hack the San Bernardino gunman’s iPhone, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D) said this week. n 2016, the FBI contracted an unnamed third-party security firm to unlock the password-protected iPhone 5c of San Bernardino, California shooter Syed Rizwan Farook, who along with his wife killed 14 people in an attack in December 2015.

The Associated Press, Vice Media, and USA Today took the FBI to court over the agency’s nondisclosure, arguing that it had lacked “adequate justification.” FBI director James Comey hinted that the agency paid “more money than he would earn in his remaining seven years on the job” — or roughly least $1.3 million.

DarkOverlord Demands Ransom For Unreleased Content From Netflix, Fox and Others

snapshot_139

Jojo Whilden/Netflix

‘TheDarkOverlord stole  next season’s Orange is The New Black content from a third party, and they’re demanding Netflix pay a ransom in order to keep the rest of the season private. Late Friday night, TheDarkOverlord tweeted about content belonging to ABC, FOX, IFC and National Geographic, saying “We’re not playing any games anymore.”

Torrent posted for stolen 'Orange is the New Black' premiere episode

The hackers claim Larson (from Larson studios in Hollywood) agreed to pay up but didn’t, and now they’re trying to squeeze Netflix.  Netflix has said “We are aware of the situation. A production vendor used by several major TV studios had its security compromised and the appropriate law enforcement authorities are involved.”

More Here

TheDarkOverlord says that they have released episodes 2-10 of the 13 episode season in another torrent. They also continued to threaten Netflix and the other studios, saying “You’re going to lose a lot more money in all of this than what our modest offer was. We’re quite ashamed to breathe the same air as you. We figured a pragmatic business such as yourselves would see and understand the benefits of cooperating with a reasonable and merciful entity like ourselves. And to the others: there’s still time to save yourselves. Our offer(s) are still on the table – for now.”

German Court Rules for Illegal Downloading- Parents Must Name Their Child Or Else

Snapshotbluecoat5_001

A German court has ruled on a 2011 copyright infringement case and the verdict has disturbing consequences for parents. The ruling found that parents must name their child as the one responsible for downloading a torrent or they will be held responsible for the violation.

A series of recent cases have been defining how Germany’s legal system will handle parents who claim their innocence in illegal file-sharing but are being pursued by copyright claimants. The most recent involve a claim brought by Universal Music Group regarding the illegal downloading of Rihanna’s 2011 album Loud. The parents received a notice from Universal demanding payment. The parents said they weren’t really fans of Ri-Ri but one of their three children was responsible. They had no intention of snitching on their own kid and took their case to court.

In October 2016, the same court had to review a similar case in which a man denied pirating files and named his wife as a co-user of the household broadband connection. He refused to provide details his wife’s browsing habits and successfully argued that under German law citizens are protected from violating the privacy of their family.

However, this week’s verdict turned out with a different twist. The parents were found liable for the child’s torrenting and ordered to pay €3,879.80 ($4,137.61) in fines. The court chairman, Wolfgang Büscher, argued that this case “is not comparable” to the one from October because the child had admitted everything to their parents. Since the parents had admitted that they knew which child was responsible but refused to give a name they will have to “bear the corresponding disadvantages.”

This a blow to the parents of torrent-happy children across Germany and follows on the heels of a similar case from earlier in March. In those proceedings, a father claimed that his 11-year-old son had downloaded a book that was the subject of a copyright complaint. He explained that he had warned his son not to “download random things or do anything dangerous,” The judge ruled that the father would have to be held responsible.

Germany is considered one the best countries in the world for internet freedom and the protection of privacy, but very  strict when it comes to the enforcement of copyright

It’s a blow to the parents of torrent-happy children across Germany and follows on the heels of a similar case from earlier in March. In those proceedings, a father claimed that his 11-year-old son had downloaded a book that was the subject of a copyright complaint. He explained that he had warned his son not to “download random things or do anything dangerous,” according to Torrent Freak. A judge ruled that the father is responsible for the download because he is required to “instruct a child on the illegality of participating in illegal file-sharing exchanges, and to explicitly prohibit this behavior.”

 

Edina, Minnesota, Soon To Be On The Front Lines Of The Debate Concerning Online Privacy

jacket-pants_001

On Thursday, a Edina Minnesota judge issued a warrant to city police allowing them to request a large amount of information on anyone and everyone who submitted a Google search for a particular name.

The police say that the perpetrator of a recent wire transfer fraud via a Minnesota bank faxed over a fabricated passport as proof of identification. A subsequent Google search for the name on the passport turned up the image that was sent to the bank. Because of this, police suspect that the perpetrator also searched Google for the name, which is how they found the picture.

Police now plan to leave no stone — or laptop, as it were — untoouched in their hunt for people who went looking for that image. They want phone numbers, addresses, names, search times, and more for anyone with the name in their backlog.

 

Google Has Been Told To Hand Over Their Foriegn Emails

careersuit7_001

 

For Those out there with the luxury of privacy, well Google has been told to hand over  emails stored outside the country in order to comply with an FBI search warrant.  U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Rueter ruled on Friday that the act of transferring emails from a foreign server did not qualify as a seizure.

The judge ruled there is no “meaningful interference” with the account holder’s “possessory interest”, going on to assert that any privacy infringement occurs “at the time of disclosure in the United States”, rather than when the data itself is transferred.

Rule 41

Pro-legalization Group AKA DCMJ Planning To Give Out Joints On Inauguration Day

knickers2_001

Here’s what they say

You are cordially invited to join DCMJ for the inaugural #Trump420 taking place on January 20, 2017 in Washington, DC!

We will gather on the west side of Dupont Circle at 8am for coffee & tea and parade down to the National Mall at 10am. Along the way we’ll hand out 4,200 joints of legally grown cannabis! At 4 minutes and 20 seconds into President Trump’s speech we’ll light up! (unless President Trump comes out now in support of full cannabis legalization in all 50 States and DC!)

We legalized cannabis in Washington, DC and we are not going to let anyone take that away from us! This is an outreach opportunity to show President Trump’s supporters we are the marijuana majority! Join us for smokin’ fun time!

Possession of up to two ounces of marijuana is legal in the District of Columbia, thanks to the passage of Ballot Initiative 71, a campaign that was headed by the DCMJ in 2014. What is not legal, however, in D.C. is purchasing or selling marijuana. In this respect, the only legal way to distribute marijuana to large groups of people in D.C. is to give it away free of charge.

How long it will take the group to distribute 4,200 free joints is unknown, but it is worth noting that organizers of one of the largest scheduled Inauguration Day protests, the Women’s March on Washington, estimate that around 200,000 people will show up for their event alone.

 

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: