This article from the December 2014 Palm Beach Bar Journal explains a dozen privacy settings for your iPhone or iPad which should increase your security.
Special thanks to the Palm Beach Chamber of Commerce for hosting “NSA Mass Surveillance – How Secure Are Your Calls and Emails?“
If you would like to download a PDF of the presentation, it is here (also under “Materials, along the right column of this page).
This article from the April 2014 edition of the Palm Beach Bar Bulletin explains (a) Tor and its practical applications to use the internet anonymously and (b) two recent cases, U.S. v. Kim (Harvard bomb-threat case), and U.S. v. Post (location metadata lead to child pornography arrest).
The article also discusses: What is Tor and Is It Legal? Why Do I Need to Be Anonymous? Why Don’t We Use Tor as a Default? Can’t the NSA Already Crack Tor? Lessons from Mr. Kim and Mr. Post.
The site WomenAgainstRevengePorn.com has some step-by-step hints to remove photos.
If you have a copy of the nude picture, you can use Google’s “Search by Image” in order to reverse-look-up what sites are posting your photo.
Webinar: Electronic Spying and Tracking Spouses in Divorce Cases: What’s Legal in the Digital World?
Come join us via the internet in a 1.5 hour webinar about spying, surveillance, GPS monitoring, keylogging, and other privacy invasions which occur in the context of divorce cases.
While this is discussed in the context of divorces, these tips and techniques arise in our personal and professional lives, regardless of your practice.
Early registration is less than $100 and is here.
Learn about my co-presenter, Harry Gornbein, at his website.
Thanks to the the folks at Stafford Publications for inviting me.
The materials for my section on “Family Law Discovery: Social Media and E-Discovery” is here.
* mistakes that lawyers make in e-discovery and social media discovery;
* protection for lawyers and paralegals on LinkedIn when researching people;
* guidance to your clients on their social media use;
* where to look for social media content in 2013;
* steps to obtain social media discovery and how the courts are handling discoverability;
* sample social media requests; discussion of e-discovery and litigation holds in the family law context; and
* a few helpful apps for family law lawyers.
The cases cited in the materials are here:
Cheryl Young v. Michael Young (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
Schreiber v. Schreiber, 904 N.Y.S.2d 886 (N.Y. App. 2010)
Davenport v. State Farm, 2012 WL 555759 (M.D. Fla. 2012)
Beswick v. Northwest Medical Center, (Broward 2011)
Levine v. Culligan of Florida, 2013 WL 1100404 (Palm Beach 2013)
Salvato v. Miley, 2012 WL 2712206 (M.D. Fla. June 11, 2013)
German v. Micro, 2013 WL 143377 (S.D. Ohio 2013)
Zimmerman v. Weis Markets, Inc., 2011 WL 2065410 (Pa. 2011)
Juror Number One v. Superior Court of Sacramento (CA. App. 2012)
In Re White Tail, 2012 WL 4857777 (E.D. La. Oct. 11, 2012)
EEOC v. Original Honeybaked Ham, (D. Colo. Nov. 7, 2012)
Perrone v. Lancaster Regional Medical Cntr. (Pa. 2013)
New terms and conditions going into effect on November 11, 2013 for Google Plus members will permit Google to use your photo in ads.
Here’s how to turn it off:
The following is long but I’m assuming you haven’t used Google Plus since you signed up!
1. Log into your Google / Gmail / Google Plus account (it’s all the same)
2. go to plus.google.com (this is your Google+ homepage)
3. On the left, find the “Home” tab. Put your mouse on it. Scroll down to “Settings.”
4. The third bold section is “Shared Endorsements” — hit edit.
5. Scroll down and un-check the box, “Based on my activity, Google may show my name and profile photo….”
6. Hit “save.”
7. On the same page, scroll back up and hit “Back to Account Settings” in top left.
8. Check to make sure Shared Endorsements is “off” (if it isn’t, you likely did not save in steps 4-6).
9. You’re done.
Most retail stores, as you know, have security tower devices which detect when items with tags pass through the front door, sounding an alarm.
Shoplifters turn to what is called a booster bag: in this case, a regular shopping bag lined with aluminum foil. This is also known as a Faraday cage. It shields the tags from begin detected by security.
In case you are guessing, yes, this is illegal. In the case of Francesca Cenatis vs. State of Florida, she was spotted (the good old fashion way: by employees) allegedly trying to steal items using a battered Victoria’s Secret bag lined with foil. It appears the booster functioned as intended — just that she was apprehended by employees who saw her. And she was arrested anyways. Use of such a bag is illegal, according to the Fourth District, under F.S. 812.015, Florida’s Antishoplifting Device Countermeasure Statute.
Before we receive gripes and emails about aiding or encouraging someone to break the law: folks, if the instructions are (widely available) on the internet, it is (a) unlikely that this law-related site is going to lead you into a life of crime and (b) it is also likely well-known to shop owners, who have
beaten you to the punch and trained employees and have employed better security measures before this “bright” idea came to you.
The Fourth & Fifth Amendments and technology continue to collide as law enforcement seeks to compel defendants to unencrypt their computer harddrives. Can they force your client to hand over the password?
We discussed a similar issue in May about whether, under the Fourth Amendment, the Government could inspect the contents of your laptop, tablet, phone or camera when you cross the border.
Of course, do not expect the answer to be set in stone in your jurisdiction. The answer(s) are in flux. Much of it depends on how your client responds to questioning.
The first issue is whether production of a password is compelled testimony or merely a ministerial act like submitting to fingerprints, blood tests, or a key.
The second issue turns on your client. In two cases, Boucher and Fricosu, clients sunk their own ship. In a Florida case, In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Dated March 25, 2011, the defendant did better.
The article, “Can the Government Compel Your Client to Decrypt a Hard Drive” is in the July-August 2013 edition of the Palm Beach Bar Bulletin.
If you were to follow the news hashtags on twitter or listen to the police scanner via Ustream, the news came much faster. The difference is that truly “breaking” events, like any sudden tragedy, involve unexpected turns and, along the way, mis-steps and bad information. Your job, even as a (passive) reader or listener, is to use good judgment.
“The Boston Marathon and Faster Breaking News” was published in the June 2013 Palm Beach Bar Bulletin and covers the difference between following breaking news on 24 hour news channels versus finding “raw” feeds on YouTube, social media, and other streams of information.
Yes, according to several recent cases and a broad exception to the Fourth Amendment (search and seizure).
Read “Can They Search Your iPad or iPhone at the Border?” from the May 2013 Palm Beach County Bar Association Bulletin.
And, yes, that case to the right is for sale here .
Last year we discussed, “there is no delete.” This year we add to that: social media is not free; the price of admission is your personal information.
A special thanks to Rosarian Academy for allowing me to speak to parents and students in separate sessions so parents can learn tips about social media and how to protect their own privacy as well as start the discussion with their children.
Likewise, students learned about examples where emails, photos, and Facebook posts which people thought were private… ended up circulated around the globe. And how that can affect their high school, college, and job applications. We also discussed illegal downloading and other computer crimes.
This article discusses the Patreaus affair from the standpoint of practical email privacy tips for lawyers, law firms, their clients, and families.
A brief explanation is provided how emails (or even fake email addresses) are traceable with free software and what data exists on the person’s computer to show what sites have been viewed.
This article appeared in the January 2013 edition of the Palm Beach Bar Association Bulletin.
A federal court in Illinois recently approved a party’s interception of user data on public WiFi systems at hotels, coffee shops, restaurants, supermarkets and other commercial outlets. This practice, known as sniffing, involves someone with a laptop, a Riverbed AiPcap Nx packet capture adapter (or equivalent), and free Wireshark network analyzer software, intercepting unencrypted packets between the public wifi hotspot and everyday users. In the course of sniffing, the person with the heavily-armed laptop can see your emails, financial information, photos, and whatever else you transmit.
Fortunately, in the case of In Re Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC Patent Litigation, the “sniffing” party agreed to overwrite the personal data of the wifi users. This, of course, does not mean that other, non-litigants within the airspace of a free wifi hotspot are so scrupulous. Nonetheless, the court determined that, absent a true “interception” of the user data, there was no violation of the Wiretap Act.
The take away lesson, however, is that your information which is sent over free, unencrypted wifi is sufficiently insecure that the court determined it was “readily accessible to the public.” In short, a person who intercepts you wifi data on an unencrypted wifi network is not committing wiretapping. As one might expect, the argument was that the data packets were only accessible to those with sophisticated packet sniffers. But the court concluded that such sniffing devices ran $200 – $700 and were not so unusual even though “the majority of the public is likely unaware that communications on an unencrypted wifi network are so easily intercepted by a third party.”
Worse, “[t]he public still has a strong expectation of privacy in its communication on an unencrypted wifi network even if reality does not match that expectation.”
Considering using “cloud” storage for your law firm? Or do you already use services like DropBox and GoogleDrive to transmit large attachments via email links? Increasingly, lawyers
like everyone else are moving towards the cloud. Is it safe?
What do you need to know before you commit? If you already have a cloud service, what features can you check to ensure your data is safe?
The article, “Lawyers in the Cloud,” from the Palm Beach Bar Bulletin, should answer some of those questions.