The Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2009 (HR 4061), introduced by the federal House Science and Technology Committee, passed February 4th. Its stated purpose: "To advance cybersecurity research, development, and technical standards, and for other purposes."
What does it mean? Essentially that the government will spend $396 million over the next four years to encourage cybersecurity best practices and standards.
Senate Bill S.773, the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, is Senator John Rockefeller's version, but isn't as far along.
The next presentation of the California Bar Exam begins Tuesday, February 23rd. In sympathy with all law students who will be sitting for the exam, I happened across this nifty BarMax: California Edition application for the iPhone. It incorporates essays, MBEs, performance tests and flash cards all into one.
Most California students use BARBRI to prepare for the Bar exam, but I didn't, save for their excellent PMBR MBE books. They bring new meaning to the term "Red State/Blue State", which, by the time I'd spent two months studying, referred more to my state of mind from one minute to the next than the color of the book covers. I also used Finz for MBEs and in my opinion, they're even harder than PMBR Blue (the book cover is orange; as in "A Clockwork…").
Let's put it this way; if you have an iPhone or iPod Touch, an extra $1,000 available and excellent eyesight, this certainly could be a viable option. When I took the exam in Ontario (that's California, not Canada), every nook and cranny in every hotel I visited was filled with students and their laptops/flashcards/books, cramming for the next session. It'd be a lot easier to use an iPhone or other device.
I do find it amusing that the California Edition was developed by "Harvard lawyers". No matter…just meet Buffy & Skip on the veraaaandaaah or in the yaaaaaahd for a cocktail – and don't forget your argyle…
(I was doing ok until I mentioned argyle, wasn't I? Overkill, I think…)
At this point, I'm about ready to throw in the towel and start a "Social Networking Idiot of the Month" post. I try not to get into the habit of using strong verbiage like this too often, but really…
A drunk-driving 17-year-old was involved in a vehicle crash that killed her 20-year-old passenger.
"The Buffalo News has learned that Sullivan went to Florida a month after the crash and
posted a photo on her Facebook Web page captioned, "Drunk in Florida."" (italics/bold added).
The judge found this conduct troubling, sentenced her to six months in jail and stated that posting the Facebook photo was the reason.
No further comment is necessary, especially since it would contain more strong verbiage…
[As much as I don't like to overuse 'dark humor' for something as egregious as this case, nevertheless, I have to pose the question: How many of you clued-in to my 'half-a-brain' illustration?]
Person1: Did you set up a password for the system?
Person2: I sure did. It's "Cabaret+FiddlerontheRoof+Camelot+Sacramento"
Person1: What kind of a crazy password is that?!?!?!
Person2: Well, the network administrator said it should include at least three numbers and one capital!
But seriously, folks…check out this great article from the New York Times on the sad state of affairs of passwords. 123456? Do you want people to steal all of your stuff???
What a week! Legal stuff…plus, I had a blown laptop and had to stage a new one (in order to bring you my rapier wit, theoretically)…and I have to prepare for a new client on Monday. This one's a law firm. It's a completely different experience working with large, corporate clients as opposed to large, corporate law firms.
This post is relevant to you if you're a techie who will be accessing a lot of PCs to accomplish your e-discovery due-diligence. I use a lot of remote access software and since I was staging this new PC anyway, I needed something that would work not only with XP, but with Vista and Windows 7.
There's nothing more frustrating than constantly having to go from one PC to another because you forgot a file or some such nonsense, your network permissions aren't cooperating, it won't print and you end up wasting more time troubleshooting that issue instead of just connecting remotely and dealing with it…and that's all in the same house, let alone bringing other locations into the mix.
By luck, I came by this terrific software called UltraVNC (aka uVNC). Folks, this is just a great little product! Not only is it compatible cross-platform, but they were very smart about access control. You can have no password, you can set a password for view-only access and you can set a separate password for take-over access. That's what makes it great in a formal environment.
And here's the best part; it's free. I'm going to be putting it through the paces, but I just thought I would share. I haven't been this excited about a piece of software since…er…well…
I'm rarely surprised by the things I read. However, while reading an article on Time.com about something I've covered several times, jurors using PDAs during trials, a portion of the last paragraph floored me:
"The temptation to hop online is so great, and the habit so ingrained,
that, as Keene notes, a burglar in Pennsylvania ended up getting caught
because he stopped to look at his Facebook page on the victim's
computer, leaving an online trail for the police to follow."
Granted, assuming the burglar wasn't an IT expert, he wouldn't know he was leaving an online trail, but you'll recall I also posted about a felon who boasted on MySpace about committing a murder.
Maybe I've been discounting the possibility that there is a positive side to social networking. After all, we know that most people can't keep their mouths shut, and in fact, if all bad-actors simply didn't talk (the opposite of what we always see on TV, where everybody talks and talks and talks before asking for a lawyer) the reality is, a much lower percentage of crimes would be solved.
I'm curious, going forward, to see if we start experiencing a marked increase in crimes being solved through this type of evidence. It's something to watch in 2010.
I'm sure 'yule' (pardon the pun) welcome this opportunity to suspend Xmas shopping for a moment so you can read my last summary of interesting cases for the year. Folks, I can only say the latest crop borders on the bizarre. I have two civil and one criminal case for you.
"Plaintiff's computer forensics expert was allowed to testify regarding
steps taken by plaintiff to protect its electronically stored trade
secrets, and defendant's computer forensics expert was allowed to
provide his opinion concerning "intrinsic weaknesses" he perceived in
the reports of plaintiff's expert. However, both experts were barred
from offering opinions as to intent of the parties in handling
electronic information."
So, here's what happened. Both Plaintiff and Defendant attempted to bar the others' expert from testifying. Instead, the court allowed both experts to testify. Whoops! By the way, for the non-lawyers out there, it's entirely normal and customary – in certain instances – for experts to testify but not be allowed to express an opinion (conclusion). Depending upon the circumstances, the court will leave that to the jury.
Score one for good-faith. What attorney among us hasn't dealt with an adversary who attempts to use every technicality in the book to delay, deny, obfuscate, etc.? Of course, if you are one of those adversaries, shame on you, but in this case, the court saw right through it and enforced the 'spirit' of the agreement made between the parties.
"A request for court appointment of a computer forensics expert in a
motion by a defendant seeking review of his sentence was denied because
the defendant was not seeking to set aside a death sentence."
Like I said…bizarre…
Everyone, I wish you all the best! Please, take care out there this holiday season. Your continued support and feedback is what motivates me to keep on blogging!
This one is for lawyers. There's a new free application, CLE Mobile, that allows attorneys to get their continuing legal education credits on an iPhone (and an iPod Touch). In order to use it, you must set up an account at West LegalEdcenter. Note, the app is free, but you must purchase the CLE programs.
I have an iPod Touch. I also have an account at West LegalEdcenter. Furthermore, the press release says I can get a free ethics CLE program if I download the app. I happen to be one-hour short of my ethics CLE requirements.
Forgive me for my limited time this week. As we harken back to "Privacy Week", comes word that the Supreme Court is going to rule in the spring – for the 1st time – on texting and privacy, specifically the City of Ontario, California's appeal arising out of the 9th Circuit case, Quon v. Arch Wireless, 529 F.3d 892 (9th Cir. 2008) [Warning: Link opens 24-page PDF].
My colleague, Ralph Losey, has done a superb treatise on this subject, so I'm going to port you over if you'd like additional information. I'm particularly fascinated by the 4th Amendment issues raised in this case (there I go again…criminal & Constitutional aspects…), plus, as a technology consultant, I've had a hand in crafting corporate policies regarding electronic communications many times in the past.
My opinion? I'm staying with my usual view. Texting someone using your corporate device is similar to having a conversation on the telephone from your office cube – where anyone around might hear you. I'm not saying the content of the text (or phone conversation) isn't technically private, but by transmitting it by way of someone else's device, you're basically creating a waiver (in my mind, anyway).
What if an employee transmits child porn through their corporate device? Is that private? Does that not ensnare the company? Is the company culpable for allowing child porn to be transmitted? How would the company know unless it's allowed to monitor & review transmissions? Just a few simple questions for you to ponder…this is your chance to emulate a Supreme Court justice.
More 'stuff' is on the way from me…as soon as I can ration the time to post it!
Is the car of sanity creeping into the intersection of the legal profession and social networking? (Cut me some slack here, will ya? I haven't posted in almost a week and this is what happens when I'm prevented from using metaphors for too long…). This article from the Associated Press, "Fla. judges, lawyers must 'unfriend' on Facebook", suggests the answer is 'yes'.
I've rambled on ad nauseum about people in the legal profession and social networking and I'm not going to pontificate on it again (although I suppose Sunday would be the perfect day for that…) but my reasoning is simple; you never know what the future holds. Your legal friend today may be your legal foe tomorrow.
What else do you need to know?
An IT Executive Turned Privacy, Cyber Security & Litigation Attorney and Consultant Shares his Personal Insights.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.Ok
The Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2009 (HR 4061), introduced by the federal House Science and Technology Committee, passed February 4th. Its stated purpose: "To advance cybersecurity research, development, and technical standards, and for other purposes."
