Group items tagged

A federal judge said he will decide in the next few days whether supermarket giant Hannaford Bros. is potentially liable for damages because of a data breach that exposed more than 4 million credit and debit card numbers to computer hackers. Judge D. Brock Hornby heard arguments on Wednesday at U.S. District Court. Attorneys for Hannaford asked the judge to dismiss the lawsuit, which was filed against the Scarborough-based company last year. Attorneys for the plaintiffs said Hornby should certify the case as a class-action suit and let it proceed toward trial. The upcoming ruling will determine whether parts or all of the suit will go forward. The case boils down to a couple of central questions: To what extent are merchants responsible for securing the electronic data that gets processed with every noncash purchase, and what should the consequences be when that data is stolen? "These are fascinating and difficult issues," Hornby said after hearing the arguments Wednesday. "I'll get a written decision out to you as soon as I can." Between Dec. 7, 2007, and March 10, 2008, hackers stole credit and debit card numbers, expiration dates and PIN numbers from people shopping at Hannaford supermarkets. The grocery chain operates more than 200 stores under various names in New England, New York and Florida. More than 4 million card numbers were exposed, and by the time Hannaford publicly announced the breach, on March 17, 2008, about 1,800 fraudulent charges had been made.

"Federal agents can examine webcam photos and other information secretly collected from students' laptops and stored in the Lower Merion School District's computer network, a judge has ruled. Acting on a request from federal prosecutors, U.S. District Judge Jan E. DuBois agreed to broaden an earlier order that limited the release of the photos to the students or their parents and lawyers. His order was signed Friday and made public Monday. FBI agents and prosecutors want to review the images to see whether any laws were broken when school district employees activated a tracking system that snapped photos and copied screen images from lost or stolen laptops. Lower Merion school officials have acknowledged poor planning and oversight led the tracking system to capture at least 50,000 images - some showing teens or their relatives in their homes - from laptops that had already been returned to students."

Confused by the difference between privacy & security? What might your kid's laptop camera capture if it was secretly turned on by their school while searching for stolen laptops? Soon the FBI will be able to tell you.

The sheer volume of amateur cellphone sex videos on the Internet's porn site - while certainly culturally edifying - illustrates the new truth about sex in the 21st century: don't let anyone record it, or everyone will be enjoying it. But sometimes, the all-seeing and voyeuristic eye of consumer video culture has a happy ending: a businessman who recorded himself having sex with a university student was recently cleared of the charges after the footage was shown in court. Before the footage was presented as evidence, the judge warned both the gallery and the jury: "You are going to see a clip which from what I have been told you may find extremely distasteful." Despite this warning, though, the defense failed to exhibit a scene from Dustin Diamond's sex tape, but instead a rather traditional recording of an enthusiastic coupling. After the tape had finished playing, the judge ruled in the favor of the defendant. "You and Mr Taylor were very familiar with each other and comfortable in each other's presence." There's the possibility, of course, that the judge made the wrong decision: there could have been drugs involved. But score one for the good guys. A lot is made, rightfully, of the eradication of privacy in the digital age, but when it can help a man avoid wrongful imprisonment and the total ruin of his life, there's a bright side. The moral? If you're actively swinging, pony up for a cell phone with a good camera. And PornHub commenters say, the more megapixels, the better.

Jan 15, 2009 There may be only a handful of days left in the Bush administration, but the brouhaha over White House e-mail retention policies promises to continue right up to the last day. A federal court yesterday extended a preservation order to ensure that the outgoing administration does everything it can to recover any missing White House e-mails. The White House IT staff now has five days to scour workstations for missing e-mail before administration data records are archived on Jan. 20. The ruling, by U.S. District Judge Henry Kennedy Jr., also orders staff of the Executive Office of the President (EOP) to relinquish any digital media that may contain e-mails from March 2003 and October 2005. The legal action is the latest resulting from a lawsuit filed in September 2007 by the National Security Archive against the EOP, seeking to preserve and restore White House e-mails it alleged were missing. "There is nothing like a deadline to clarify the issues," Tom Blanton, the National Security Archive's director, said in a statement. "The White House will complain about the last-minute challenge, but this is a records crisis of its own making." The Archive, an independent nongovernmental research institute based at George Washington University, is a repository of government records and does not receive U.S. government funding. The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a left-wing public advocacy group, also filed suit, but its legal action was subsequently consolidated with the Archive's legal action, which is taking place in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Last May, the White House's top tech staffer acknowledged that three months of data were missing from backup tapes. In earlier testimony before a congressional committee, White House technical staff said millions of e-mails from the past eight years could potentially have been erased. Also yesterday, Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola held an emergency status con

"In a case that could prove to be one of the most important privacy rights battles of the modern era, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear argument this week on the proper legal standard to apply when prosecutors demand cell phone location data. The data, which are recorded about once every seven seconds whenever a cell phone is turned on, effectively track the whereabouts and the comings and goings of every cell phone user. Justice Department lawyers argue that, by statute, they need only show "reasonable grounds" to believe that such records are "relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation." But a federal magistrate judge in Pittsburgh strongly disagreed in February 2008, issuing a 52-page opinion that said the prosecutors must meet the "probable cause" standard. "This court believes that citizens continue to hold a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information the government seeks regarding their physical movements/locations -- even now that such information is routinely produced by their cell phones -- and that, therefore, the government's investigatory search of such information continues to be protected by the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement," U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan wrote."

Turn the cell phone off and put on your tin foil hat so the government and aliens can't track you!

The US Department of Justice has asked for yet another extension to the judicial oversight of Microsoft's antitrust compliance in order to give the company more time to update its technical documentation. The original judgment had already been extended once to late 2009, but now the DOJ wants it extended again for another 18 months. The sanctions on Microsoft, which were agreed to in 2002 and originally set to expire in November 2007, are aimed at preventing the company from retaliating against hardware vendors that ship computers with alternatives to Microsoft's software products. An additional set of sanctions mandating interoperability API licensing had already been extended for another two years. When it came time for the decree to be lifted, however, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly decided that Microsoft failed to provide protocol specification documents to competitors as required by the agreement. Because of this, she extended the oversight until November of 2009. In a document filed with Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on Thursday, the DOJ requested another extension to her oversight of Microsoft's antitrust settlement, apparently because it feels Microsoft still has a ways to go before meeting the requirements. At the same time, a joint status report from Microsoft and the plaintiffs states that all parties seem to think that things are almost ready. "It is clear to Plaintiffs that Microsoft has made substantial progress in improving the technical documentation over the last two years," reads the report. "While the entire project has taken longer than any of the parties anticipated, the project is nearly complete." The request marks a reversal of the DOJ's previous position that it took in 2007 when it decided not to ask for an extension of the settlement while the attorneys general of ten states (the so-called California and New York Groups) pushed for extensions. At that time, the DOJ stated that it didn't believe that the standard for such an extension had b

Two companies that collect, analyze and sell prescription information are mounting a Supreme Court challenge to New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation law making doctors' prescription writing habits confidential. In an appeal filed March 27, IMS Health Inc. of Norwalk, Conn., and Verispan LLC of Yardley, Pa., tell the high court that the law violates their First Amendment right to free speech in pursuit of their business. The law, aimed at thwarting hard-sell tactics by drug companies to doctors, makes it a crime for pharmacies and others to transfer information disclosing a doctor's prescribing history if the information could be used for marketing of prescription drugs in New Hampshire. Patients' names are not included in the data. The companies say that the ruling by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston that upheld the law's constitutionality could be broadly applied to newspaper publication of stock market information and many other services that gather large amounts of information. The money made by selling the information to drug makers, the companies say, allows them to provide the same material to researchers and humanitarian organizations at little or no cost. The law first took effect in 2006. The following year, U.S. District Judge Paul Barbadoro in Concord ruled in the companies' favor and said the law violated the First Amendment. Another federal judge subsequently ruled against a similar law in Maine, relying heavily on the New Hampshire decision. But the 1st Circuit overruled Barbadoro, calling the law a valid step to promote the delivery of cost-effective health care. "Even if the Prescription Information Law amounts to a regulation of protected speech - a proposition with which we disagree - it passes constitutional muster," the court said. "In combating this novel threat to cost-effective delivery of health care, New Hampshire has acted with as much forethought and precision as the circumstances permit and the

Abortion has long been a misguided litmus test for the Supreme Court - but privacy rights?

Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor's views on abortion and privacy rights are coming into the spotlight as attention turns to her confirmation. NARAL Pro-Choice America is urging senators to make sure Sotomayor is questioned on Roe v. Wade and privacy rights during her confirmation hearings. President Barack Obama is pro-choice, but Sotomayor's views are not known. The White House was asked yesterday if the president asked Sotomayor about abortion or privacy rights. A spokesman says the president did not specifically ask that question. The discussion comes as supporters and opponents of Sotomayor's nomination are taking their message to the airwaves. A coalition of liberal groups has unveiled a television advertisement in favor of Sotomayor's confirmation touting her extensive resume, while a conservative group calling itself the Judicial Confirmation Network has put out its own ad, charging Sotomayor will push a liberal agenda based on her gender and racial background. The White House is hoping Sotomayor will get the green light before the Senate goes on recess in August. Republicans are signaling they will not delay Sotomayor's confirmation, but will scrutinize her legal philosophy and some of her past decisions as a judge.

More than 6 million current and former customers of online brokerage TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. will be able to benefit from the settlement of a class-action lawsuit filed over the theft of client contact information. Formal notice of a settlement agreement will be sent to people who used TD Ameritrade's services before mid-September 2007. U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco approved a revised version of the settlement agreement earlier this month despite some misgivings about it. Last summer, Walker rejected an earlier version of the deal. Anyone who held an Ameritrade account or provided an e-mail address to the company before Sept. 14, 2007, could benefit from the lawsuit. The database that was breached included information on 6.2 million people. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit said they received unwanted e-mail ads about certain stocks. The ads appeared to be designed to manipulate the value of thinly traded stocks. Ameritrade officials and one of the lead plaintiff's attorneys, Scott Kamber, have said the data theft has not been linked to cases of identity theft. As part of the proposed settlement, the Omaha-based company will pay nearly $1.9 million in legal fees and cover the cost of one year of anti-spam service for the victims. Ameritrade also promised to better protect customer data. Those terms have not changed from the original proposed settlement. But the new agreement will more clearly state that Ameritrade customers were at risk of identity theft, and it will preserve customers' ability to pursue identity theft claims against Ameritrade. Most of the changes to the agreement happened because the Texas Attorney General's Office and a former named plaintiff objected to the previous deal. In his order, the judge questioned whether the settlement does enough to benefit Ameritrade clients whose information was stolen. "The court is particularly concerned that TD Ameritrade has agreed to pay the class counsel $1.87 million and yet the

In a decision that has privacy advocates and others scratching their heads, a federal judge has ruled that LifeLock has been breaking California law for years by placing fraud alerts on its customer's credit profiles. The decision is a blow to the burgeoning identify-theft protection industry, and means that companies that experience data breaches may no longer be able to offer victims free subscriptions to such services - a standard damage-control tactic in recent years. Consumers can still place fraud alerts by contacting one of the three U.S. credit reporting agencies directly. Bo Holland, founder and CEO of Debix, a competitor of LifeLock, called the ruling "dramatic and unexpected." "It causes a real shift in the industry," he told Threat Level. The pre-trial partial summary judgment comes in a lawsuit filed last year against LifeLock by Experian, one of the nation's three credit reporting bureaus. Experian claimed LifeLock is trying to "game the system" of fraud alerts to make a profit.

"Fomer UCLA Healthcare System researcher Huping Zhou has pleaded guilty to violating parts of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and could be one of the first people in the country convicted under the law, federal authorities announced Friday. After learning he was to be let go, the 48-year-old is alleged to have accessed the UCLA patient records system 323 times during the three-week period, mostly to check out the files of celebrities, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office. The names of the targeted stars have not been revealed. Federal authorities say Zhou admitted to accessing the records -- cruising files that were not necessary to view as part of his job -- under a plea agreement. He'll face a judge for sentencing March 22. It's not clear what kind of punishment the U.S. Attorney's Office will recommend in exchange for his cooperation."

By now, many employees are uncomfortably aware that their every keystroke at work, from email on office computers to text messages on company phones, can be monitored legally by their employers. What employees typically don't expect is for the company to spy on them while on password-protected sites using nonwork computers. But even that privacy could be in jeopardy. A case brewing in federal court in New Jersey pits bosses against two employees who were complaining about their workplace on an invite-only discussion group on MySpace.com, a social-networking site owned by News Corp., publisher of The Wall Street Journal. The case tests whether a supervisor who managed to log into the forum -- and then fired employees who badmouthed supervisors and customers there -- had the right to do so. The case has some legal and privacy experts concerned that companies are intruding into areas that their employees had considered off limits. "The question is whether employees have a right to privacy in their non-work-created communications with each other. And I would think the answer is that they do," said Floyd Abrams, a First Amendment expert and partner at Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP in New York. The legal landscape is murky. For the most part, employers don't need a reason to fire nonunion workers. But state laws in California, New York and Connecticut protect employees who engage in lawful, off-duty activities from being fired or disciplined, according to a report prepared by attorneys at the firm Proskauer Rose LLP. While private conversations might be covered under those laws, none of the statutes specifically addresses social networking or blogging. Thus, privacy advocates expect to see more of these legal challenges. In February, three police officers in Harrison, N.Y., were suspended after they allegedly made lewd remarks about the town mayor on a Facebook account. The officers mistakenly thought the remarks were protected with a password, but city officials view

Don't underestimate the maddening complexity and considerable costs of digitizing health care records and processes. That was the overarching message from a dozen or so health care players, some of them doctors, following my recent column urging the industry to bring its IT practices into the 21st century. A few readers took issue with my labeling health care practitioners as "laggards." In fact, argues Dr. Daniel Essin, former director of medical informatics at Los Angeles County + USC Medical Center, "physicians are, and have always been, early adopters of technology." Essin, who's now chairman of an electronic medical records vendor, ChartWare, says many physicians have made multiple attempts to implement EMRs but failed. He cites six main reasons: * They can't articulate a set of requirements against which products can be judged. * EMR systems aren't flexible enough, requiring workarounds even before their implementation is complete. * There's a mismatch between the tasks products are expected to perform and the products' actual functionality. * Some systems are conceived as a "simple" add-on to the billing system. * System workflows consume way too much physician time and attention. * There isn't adequate integration between internal and external systems. Related to most of those obstacles is cost. One EMR kit at the entry level, offered by Wal-Mart's Sam's Club unit in partnership with Dell and eClinicalWorks, is priced at around $25,000 for the first physician and $10,000 for each additional one. After installation and training, annual maintenance and support costs are estimated at $4,000 to $6,500. That's still not chump change, especially for the smallest practices.

making best indexing in goggle and bing. RADJASEOTEA is a master of backlinks. You want indexing in goggle and bing. LOOK THIS www.fiverr.com/radjaseotea/making-best-super-backlink-143445

A court has handed Blockbuster a preliminary defeat in a potential class-action lawsuit filed as a result of its participation in Facebook's ill-fated Beacon ad program, which notified members about their friends' e-commerce activity. U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Lynn in Dallas ruled that the case could proceed in court even though Blockbuster's contract with users calls for any disputes to be heard by an arbitrator rather than in court, and also says that users waive their right to file a class action lawsuit. Lynn determined that Blockbuster's contract with users was "illusory" because the agreement said that movie rental store could change the terms and conditions at any time. A Blockbuster spokesperson declined to comment on the case or state whether the company will appeal. The decision is a blow to Blockbuster because individual consumers would have had a difficult time bringing cases one-by-one against the company. But the decision paves the way for attorneys to argue that all consumers affected by Blockbuster's participation in Beacon should be able to proceed as a class. Internet law expert Venkat Balasubramani said Lynn's decision invalidating Blockbuster's user agreement was potentially far-reaching because many Web companies reserve the right to make changes to their terms of service. "It seems broad and could have impact on the terms of service used by a lot of different companies," he said.

A former Miss West Virginia has won a $7.2 (NZ$12.6) million verdict against nine internet companies that tried to sell pornographic videos they falsely claimed featured her. A jury in US District Court in Clarksburg on Wednesday ordered each defendants to pay Allison Williams $800,000 for damaging the 2003 beauty queen's reputation and invading her privacy. Williams' attorney is appealing US District Judge Irene M. Kelley's decision to dismiss 28 other defendants in the United States, Australia, the Netherlands, Belgium, Cayman Islands, Canada and South Africa that allegedly took part in distributing the bogus videos. The videos surfaced in the fall of 2004. The videos show a woman that they claim to be, but isn't Williams, engaged in sex in the back of a television news truck.

Stay Online on the world wide web online roulette from Contemporary sydney, Fun and Free! Now you is capable of doing Actual "www.funlivecasino.com.au" Stay Online on the world wide web online roulette for Fun in Contemporary sydney on a product new web page, FunLiveCasino.com.au. Using the newest on the world wide web operating technology, Fun Stay Gambling house allows you be a part of a genuine action occurring on a genuine desk in a genuine betting house, all approved on Live! You can see other real gamers in the betting house betting on the same outcomes you do providing you greatest believe in in the outcomes as they are not designed 'just for you a, like other action experiencing items such as 'live studios' or pc designed actions. Its awesome to think next time your really in the betting house that you might be on digicam, and individuals on the world wide web might be watching! The long run is scary! Believe one day soon this will be the only way individuals would bet on the world wide web because the worldwide web is complete of fraudsters, you have to be extremely cautious, and why would you perform Online Online on the world wide web online roulette any other way except from a Actual Gambling house you can check out, see, pay attention to and trust! Amazingly this site is absolutely 100 % 100 % 100 % free and has no determining upon up process, no junk, no pc rabbit mouse mouse clicks and no pressure. Just Immediate Fun "www.funlivecasino.com.au" 100 % 100 % 100 % free Stay Roulette! Give it a try, its value verifying out! "www.funlivecasino.com.au"Australia's Online Fun Stay Casino! Backlinks designed from http://fiverr.com/radjaseotea/making-best-156654-backlink-high-pr

Guess what? That unlocked rant you put on your MySpace profile is open to the public and can be seen by anyone with a computer. Imagine that! Cynthia Moreno learned this the hard way. A judge ruled earlier this month that it was not an invasion of her privacy when a local newspaper published a rant pulled from her MySpace blog. After a visit to her hometown of Coalinga, Calif., college student Moreno penned a 700-word blog entry titled "An Ode to Coalinga" that opened with "the older I get, the more I realize how much I despise Coalinga." Moreno subsequently deleted the blog entry, but Roger Campbell, principal of Coalinga High School, discovered it before the deletion and handed it over to his friend Pamela Pond, editor of the Coalinga Record newspaper. Pond then published the rant in its entirety as a letter to the editor, printing Cynthia's full name. The Moreno family was met with death threats and shots were fired outside their home. Cynthia's father David was forced to close his 20-year-old family business, and the family moved to another town. The family sued the newspaper and the Coalinga-Huron Unified School District for invasion of privacy and infliction of emotional distress. The case against the newspaper was dismissed on free speech grounds, but the case against Campbell and the school district was allowed to proceed. Campbell did not violate Moreno's rights when he handed over her rant to Pond because Moreno's blog entry was published on the Internet and available for anyone to see, according to the Superior Court of Fresno County.

An Italian judge on Wednesday gave the go-ahead to a case in which Google (GOOG) could be held responsible for content it hosts but does not produce. The case centers on a 2006 video of four Italian youths taunting a child with Down syndrome. In the video, one of the youths incorrectly claims to be part of a small Down syndrome advocacy group called Vivi Down. The video was uploaded to the Google Video site, where it stayed for two months. Prosecutors have filed charges against five Google executives, saying they were in violation of Italian privacy laws and of contributing to the defamation of Vivi Down. At the heart of the case are two main questions: Should sites such as Google Video be held responsible for the content they host? And should such non-brick-and-mortar New Economy companies be subject to the laws in countries where they are not based? "The outcome of this will be to determine how big companies like Google should be expected to act," said Raffaele Zallone, a former chief counsel for IBM's Italian offices and the attorney representing a woman seeking damages in a secondary case tacked onto the main charges. FIND MORE STORIES IN: Italy | Google Inc | International Bus. Machines | Milan | New Economy Zallone, along with Milan prosecutors, the city's ombudsman and an attorney for Vivi Down, the advocacy group, say Google should have become aware of the offending video sooner and removed it sooner. Guglielmo Pisapia, Google's lead attorney in the case, denies any wrongdoing and says Google could not have acted differently. "Google did not produce the video, and when they received an official complaint, they removed it within five hours," said Pisapia, a former member of the Italian parliament. "If the argument is that they should have evaluated the video before it was posted, then that is a dangerous precedent." Oliviero Rossi, an author and commentator on technology issues, says unusual cases that push the limits of the law as this one does are

In court papers filed Wednesday, former federal prosecutor Richard Convertino called reporter David Ashenfelter's invocation of the Fifth Amendment, in an attempt to keep from having to reveal his confidential sources, both "speculative" and "unreasonable." Convertino urged the federal district court in Michigan to sanction Ashenfelter and to require him to present further evidence as to why he should not be held in contempt for his refusal at a December deposition to reveal the confidential sources. For the past two years, Convertino has been seeking Ashenfelter's testimony in hopes of boosting his Privacy Act lawsuit against the Department of Justice. Convertino claims DOJ violated the law by leaking to the press details of an investigation into Convertino's conduct during a terrorism trial. At a deposition in December, after Judge Robert Cleland in the Eastern District of Michigan ruled twice that Ashenfelter is not protected by a First Amendment reporter's privilege, the reporter invoked the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

The U.S. Supreme Court Monday accepted an appeal by several groups that brought a constitutional challenge to the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board created by 2002 changes in federal accounting laws. The free-enterprise groups and a Nevada accounting firm sued to stop the Securities and Exchange Commission from naming members of the accounting board, set up by Congress to oversee public-company accountants. "In creating the board, Congress deliberately sought to test the outer boundaries of its ability to reduce presidential power," the groups said in the appeal. The groups, in their lawsuit, claimed the U.S. Constitution required board members to be appointed by the president or the SEC chairman, rather than the entire commission for the securities agency. The Supreme Court's decision to hear the appeal breathes new life into the case, which didn't get much traction in lower courts. The U.S. Solicitor General's office, in court briefs, had urged the high court to reject the appeal, calling it a "poor vehicle" to resolve the constitutional issues raised by the challengers. "The president's control over the SEC is constitutionally sufficient and the act in turn grants the SEC complete and pervasive control over every aspect of the board's authority," Solicitor General Elena Kagan wrote. A U.S. federal judge dismissed the lawsuit in 2007 and the Washington-based U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals also rejected the challenge in a 2-1 decision last year. The private, nonprofit board is charged with inspecting and disciplining public company accountants. The case is the Free Enterprise Fund vs. the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 08-861. Oral arguments will be held in the fall, and a decision is expected by July 2010.

All but one of the legal claims filed against Hannaford Bros. -- the Maine-based retailer that suffered a security breach exposing some four million credit and debit cards -- has been dismissed. U.S. District Court Judge Brock Hornby threw out the civil claims against the grocer for its alleged failure to protect card holder data and to notify customers of the breach in a timely fashion. In dismissing the claims, Hornby ruled that without any actual and substantial loss of money or property, consumers could not seek damages. The only complaint he allowed to stand was from a woman who said she had not been reimbursed by her bank for fraudulent charges on her bank account following the Hannaford breach.