I read an article noted on the ABA Journal Weekly Newsletter entitled, “Feds say 1789 law requires Apple to help government get encrypted smartphone data.”
Despite the efforts of brand owners and entities providing online advertising space to police against counterfeit goods, advertisements for counterfeit goods on social media continues to be a recurring problem.
Operators of public-facing websites are typically concerned about the unauthorized, technology-based extraction of large volumes of information from their sites, often by competitors or others in related businesses. The practice, usually referred to as screen scraping, web harvesting, crawling or spidering, has been the subject of many questions and a fair amount of litigation over the last decade.
The Judge found “that the FTC does not bring this suit under a new legal principle, and that it alleges sufficient facts to create a plausible claim for relief under Section 5 of the FTC [Federal Trade Commission] Act.”
When news initially broke that hackers had infiltrated Sony Pictures and stolen information, much of the discussion revolved around the five movies stolen and the effect of the leak at the box office. But as media delved further into the released files, it turns out the hack was a lot worse than originally anticipated—and signals a growing trend in state sponsored corporate espionage.
Every time there is a new round of reforms under the President’s Export Control Reform initiative, we hear the same advice.
What Happens in the Cloud Stays in the Cloud: Government Reinforces Export Control Insulation for Cloud-based Computing and Processing
The US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) recently released a redacted Advisory Opinion dated November 13, 2014 that confirms for cloud-based software vendors (or Software as a Service providers) that allowing access to export controlled software for use only in the cloud (or on servers) does not constitute an export of that software to the user.
In a prior post we noted a subtle but potentially far-reaching development in how federal prosecutors interpret the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.
The DOJ recently announced a settlement to remedy allegations that the website, www.peapod.com, and corresponding mobile app are inaccessible to those with disabilities in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).
On November 25, 2014, the Article 29 Working Party (“WP29”) issued an opinion paper on device fingerprinting (the “Opinion”).