Rightscorp Facing Another Lawsuit For Harassing Alleged Infringers

from the Omnishambles:-est.-2013 dept

Rightscorp -- another company with designs on revolutionizing the pursuit of infringers -- has a murky past, a very troubled present, and almost no future. For the second time in three months, it's facing a lawsuit over its shakedown tactics. Rightscorp tries to present itself as the good guy of the anti-piracy world, "allowing" alleged infringers to buy their way back into the company's good graces for the low, low price of $20 per accusation. It seems like quite a bargain when coupled with the company's Standard Threat Letter, which never fails to mention the $150,000 statutory limit when addressing potential shakedown victims.

So far, its efforts have met with limited success. (Putting it kindly.) Its stock price -- which occasionally threatened to top the gilded $1/share limit now hovers at around $0.09/share.

Its perky press releases can't hide the fact that a trickling revenue stream backed by shady tactics is never going to make millionaires of its shareholders.

The lawsuit filed last November accuses Rightscorp of violating damn near everything under the sun in its quest to spin alleged infringers into gold.

The complaint seeks class damages against Rightscorp for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, California’s Rosenthal Act, and Abuse of Process. The complaint alleges unlawful robo-calls, as well as other unfair debt collection practices, and that Rightscorp has abused the legal process by issuing DMCA Section 512(h) subpoenas that it knew were objectively baseless.

If someone can take Rightscorp down for its shakedown tactics, it's probably Morgan Pietz, who is armed with a wealth of practical Prenda experience. This latest suit doesn't have Pietz, but it does have another list of accusations, most of which revolve around Rightscorp's seeming indifference to federal laws governing telecommunications.

First, in the rundown of the events leading to this class action lawsuit, attorney Sergei Lemberg points to the fact that Rightscorp's questionable tactics can be traced back to information obtained with an equally questionable subpoena. (Internal citations omitted.)

The legality of Rightscorp’s subpoenas is highly questionable. Under 17 U.S.C. § 512(h), a subpoena may not be issued to an ISP which does not store information on its system but rather acts as a mere “conduit” for electronic communications. Rightscorp willfully disregards this requirement, issuing such subpoenas to conduit ISPs and storage ISPs alike. In In re Subpoena Issued to Grande Commc’ns Networks LLC, 1:14-mc-00848, Doc. No. 1 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 5, 2014), the plaintiffs moved to quash a subpoena issued by Rightscorp to its internet service provider. Rather than defend its subpoena’s legality, Rightscorp packed up its bags and withdrew its subpoena the very next day. The case was dismissed in result.

From there, the filing moves on to what Rightscorp did with its questionably-obtained subscriber data, including the deployment of unsolicited phone calls, text messages and threatening emails. Here's one email one plaintiff received.

Dear Melissa Brown,

Attached is the evidence of 26 copyright infringements that have occurred as a direct result of a file sharing program operating under your internet connection: [REDACTED]. I have also included all 26 e-mail notifications that were automatically sent to your internet service provider regarding federal law being broken under their services. Any further questions or concerns you may contact my direct line at (310) 405- 0102. I do ask that you refrain from derogatory language when speaking with a DMCA Agents, as the transactions are kept on file.

Thank you for your cooperation,
Marina

The last sentence of this email stands out, as it could add to the numerous legal woes currently being faced by Rightscorp. As was pointed out by one of Fight Copyright Troll's Twitter followers, this wording suggests Rightscorp records and stores all incoming calls in apparent violation of California law.

California is a so-called two-party state, and the recording of a phone conversation without consent may result in penalties.

That point isn't mentioned in the lawsuit, but plenty of other violations are. The complaint notes that Rightcorp also sent unsolicited text messages to the plaintiff's phone as well as used a robodialer to make repeated calls. Considering the only loophole for unsolicited communications under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act pertains to "emergency purposes," it would appear that its use of both (text messages are considered "calls" by the FCC) run afoul of federal law.

Despite being told to cease its calls, emails and text messages, Rightscorp persisted. Now, it's being accused of "wilfully violating" the TCPA in its pursuit of the two plaintiffs.

While debt collectors are allowed to call debtors to pursue collections, they have to adhere to many rules, including how many calls may be placed a day and between what hours. Unless consent is obtained, they cannot send text messages or use other forms of communications (like email).

Rightscorp isn't a debt collector, although I'm sure it feels its business model is closely related. In reality, Rightscorp's business is more closely aligned with telemarketers, which any person can opt out of receiving calls from in perpetuity. (Telemarketers are also not allowed to send unsolicited text messages.) Rightscorp is, in essence, selling $20 settlements to any alleged infringer it can obtain contact data for. Its "offers" are backed by no legal authority. It would take an actual lawsuit to pursue infringement allegations and that has never been part of Rightscorp's plans.

If it chose to handle its business honestly (by suing alleged infringers), it would have no need to harass the accused via phone calls, emails and text messages. (It would, in fact, have several reasons not to contact potential defendants.) But since suing doesn't figure into the revenue stream, Rightscorp is reduced to pitching tiny "settlements" (in quotes because settling doesn't prevent an infringer from being sued by the rightsholders themselves) to the gullible or easily-intimidated.

Hopefully, this lawsuit (and its previous one) will take the last few pennies out of its falling stock price and force it to return to whatever it was that it was doing when it was d/b/a Stevia Agritech Corp. or Kids Only Market Inc. There are much better ways to pursue alleged infringers (like: not at all!) than abusing or skirting every law on the books that relates to the chosen "business model." At this point, Rightscorp's tactics appear to be every bit as toxic as its stock price.

Filed Under: copyright trolling, extortion, lawsuit
Companies: rightscorp

Paris, France To Sue Fox News For Being Fox News

from the you'll-get-used-to-them dept

I was told a long time ago that you can really get to know people in times of crises. Adversity doesn't make a person, it reveals that person. Insert another cliche about this stuff here. The point is that when things get dire, people revert to who they are at their most basic. In America, for instance, the home of the brave and the land of the free suddenly became the home of the surveilled and the land of security theater after 9/11. France's recent experience with the plague of Islamic extremism has revealed ups, but has also revealed them to be not nearly so in favor of free speech as they like to claim when it comes to speech they don't like. That trend appears to be continuing as Paris, France claims they are going to file a lawsuit against Fox News for making laughably ridiculous claims about so-called "Muslim-only" communities in the city.

Fox News ran multiple reports describing areas of Paris (and England) that were governed by Sharia law and off-limits to non-Muslims. The network has since apologized for making "regrettable errors on air regarding the Muslim population in Europe—particularly with regard to England and France."

"This applies especially to discussions of so-called 'no-go zones,' areas where non-Muslims allegedly aren't allowed in, and police supposedly won't go," anchor Julie Banderas said in one on-air apology. "To be clear, there is no formal designation of these zones in either country, and no credible information to support the assertion there are specific areas in these countries that exclude individuals based solely on their religion."

Oh, Paris. So naive. A cable news organization fear-mongering their way through a horrifically inaccurate report where the facts are fiction isn't something to get upset about. As best as I can tell, that's the entire point of cable news. Truth doesn't fill a twenty-four hour news cycle, after all. Beyond that, what are they going to sue for? Inaccurate reporting that has since been corrected on-air? If that was grounds for a lawsuit, the lawsuits against cable news networks would be ongoing through eternity.

Even listening to the city's officials doesn't make this seem any less petty.

Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo is planning to sue Fox News for its inaccurate reports on Muslim "no go zones," she told CNN's Christiane Amanpour on Tuesday.

"When we're insulted, and when we've had an image, then I think we'll have to sue, I think we'll have to go to court, in order to have these words removed," Hidalgo told Amanpour in an interview. "The image of Paris has been prejudiced, and the honor of Paris has been prejudiced."

Think about this for just a moment. Filing a lawsuit against someone for the crime of insulting your honor doesn't sound like it could come from a proponent of free speech, does it? The very thing that was attacked in France is now being attacked by France, though obviously with litigious weapons instead of firearms. This isn't to suggest any moral equivalence between the two, of course, only that free speech is one of those areas where you're either for or against. Being for something with qualifications means you're not for it at all. And, fortunately for Fox News, the freedom of speech includes the freedom to be idiotically wrong.

Filed Under: anne hidalgo, cable news, fox news, france, free speech, lawsuit, paris
Companies: fox

Former Government Official Suing Snowden And Others For Billions Of Dollars Adds The United States As An Involuntary Plaintiff

from the JOHN-and-JANE-DOES-1-316,000,000 dept

Remember when former Kansas Secretary of Transportation Horace Edwards filed a multi-billion dollar lawsuit against Edward Snowden, Laura Poitras and others connected to the CitizenFour documentary "on behalf of the American people?" And remember when plenty of American people said, "STFU Edwards, you don't speak for me?"

Well, suck it, dissenters. Horace Edwards has other plans for you.

Horace Edwards, the retired naval officer who last month sued the makers and distributors of Citizenfour, has filed an amended complaint that names the "United States of America" as a putative involuntary plaintiff.

That's everyone. Of course, you need not lawyer up, because even though you are included under the plaintiff "United States of America" (and "John and Jane Does 1-10"), you won't actually be involved. Your country's name will be invoked, but you'll have nothing to do with it. This will all be in the government's hands, with "all" most likely being a motion to be removed from the plaintiff list.

As Eriq Gardner at The Hollywood Reporter point out, the government may invoke "sovereign immunity" to unhitch itself from Edwards' crazy train. It's worked before.

On the bright side, the government will be forced to offer some sort of input on this issue. It has remained mostly silent about Snowden's ongoing freedom, even as leaked documents continue to be published. Its filing in response to Edwards' amended complaint will hopefully give us a little insight into its current level of antipathy towards the former systems administrator. Of course, it could also limit its remarks to "This is ridiculous," before asking the judge to press the "Unsubscribe" button.

There's also the question of standing that still surrounds Edwards' lawsuit. He appears to be trying to address that both with his addition of the USA to plaintiffs' list, as well as other alterations to the body of the complaint. [pdf link]

Another sentence has been added to paragraph 29 in an attempt to shore up Edwards' assertion that the Kansas District Court is the proper venue for this lawsuit. (Added sentence in bold.)

29. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, and 28 U.S. C. § 1332(a)(1). Defendants purposely availed themselves of the privilege of conducting business within this State and this district as well as committing wrongful, tortious acts causing harm to Plaintiff[s] herein.

There's also this entirely new paragraph that very briefly lays out Edwards' legal theory as to the USA's "interest" in this case.

32. The United States of America, upon information and belief, has an interest in Count II as a Real Party In Interest under the federal common law theory of constructive trust.

This is followed 20+ paragraphs later by an all-new section [COUNT II (CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AS TO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)] that is completely dedicated to the surprise appearance of an entire country as a potential plaintiff. It's a shorter rehash of Count I that limits its allegations to what Snowden "did" directly to the US government, including the violation of sworn statements and contractual obligations, etc.

Now, Edwards doesn't want CitizenFour censored or banned. He just wants every cent anyone makes from it dumped into a trust fund to "repay" the government for all the "damage" the leaks have caused, hopefully to the tune of a couple billion dollars. Oh, and to have CitizenFour declared ineligible for the Oscars.

Last month, Lamfers attempted to get the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to disqualify Citizenfour from Oscar consideration, citing a significant portion of the documentary appearing in a non-theatrical medium (The Guardian's website) prior to the film's theatrical release. After reviewing the situation, the Academy rejected it and deemed the film Oscar-eligible.

I guess one way to deal with disappointment is to add an entire country as an involuntary plaintiff.

Filed Under: citizenfour, ed snowden, horace edwards, laura poitras, lawsuit

Class Action Filed Against Rightscorp For Shaking Down People With Robocalls

from the heading-down,-down,-down... dept

We've written a few times about Rightscorp, the company that has tried to set itself up as a sort of "friendlier" copyright troll, acquiring a bunch of copyrights, sniffing out IP addresses connected to sharing of content associated with that copyright, and then trying to demand payments. The main "difference" with Rightscorp is that it usually demands lower, potentially more palatable sums than traditional copyright trolls, and it's trying to "partner" with ISPs to send notices on its behalf, rather than suing people. Most ISPs, so far, have refused to do this. And so far, Rightscorp has been something of a joke -- thinking it had discovered a subpoena loophole that had been slammed shut by the courts years ago (every few years a new copyright troll thinks it's found this same loophole) and talking about hijacking browsers. The reality is that it's a company with a sketchy past that seems to have reverse-mergered itself into being a public company that has seen its stock drop precipitously and still hasn't shown much ability to actually make any money from shaking down file sharers.

And now, it's facing a class action lawsuit from Morgan Pietz, the lawyer who was one of the main lawyers who helped unravel and bring down Prenda.

The complaint seeks class damages against Rightscorp for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, California’s Rosenthal Act, and Abuse of Process. The complaint alleges unlawful robo-calls, as well as other unfair debt collection practices, and that Rightscorp has abused the legal process by issuing DMCA Section 512(h) subpoenas that it knew were objectively baseless.

Here's the same thing in more detail from the legal filing itself:

Rightscorp is regularly engaged in the business of collecting on alleged obligations of consumers to pay money (i.e., debt collection) for purported copyright infringement claims, such that it is subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act (15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.) (“FDCPA”) and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1788 et seq.) (“Rosenthal Act”). However, Rightscorp has repeatedly and systematically failed to comply with the provisions of the FDCPA and the Rosenthal Act. Among other wrongful conduct: Rightscorp has engaged in telephone harassment and abuse (15 U.S.C. § 1692d); made various false and misleading representations (15 U.S.C. § 1692e); engaged in unfair collections practices (15 U.S.C. § 1692f); failed to provide validation and required notices relating to the debts (15 U.S.C. § 1692g); and furnished emails and letters knowing they would create false beliefs on the parts of consumers that their Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) were participating in the attempt to collect on the purported debts when in fact the ISPs were not participating (15 U.S.C. § 1692f).

Further, to identify potential consumers to target, Rightscorp has willfully misused this Court’s subpoena power by issuing at least 142 special DMCA subpoenas, per 17 U.S.C. § 512(h), to various Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”). These subpoenas, which were issued on this Court’s authority, but procured outside of an adversarial proceeding and without any judicial review, are so clearly legally invalid as to be a sham and abuse of the legal process. After an ISP moved to quash one of these 142 subpoenas in the Western District of Texas, on September 10, 2014, Rightscorp withdrew that subpoena rather than risk judicial review of its plainly unlawful use of this Court’s subpoena power. See In re Subpoena Issued to Grande Com’n. Net’s., LLC, W.D. Tx. No. 1:14-mc-00848, ECF No. 3, 9/10/14; see also id. at ECF No. 1, 9/5/14 (ISP’s motion to quash). Nevertheless, since then, throughout the later part of September and through until the filing of this action, Rightscorp has continued to issue dozens of new, legally invalid DMCA subpoenas on this Court’s authority (see, e.g., In re Subpoena Issued to US Internet Corp., C.D. Cal. No. 2:14-mc-864-UA, 10/14/14).

Should be an... interesting lawsuit to pay attention to.

Filed Under: copyright trolling, debt collection, lawsuit, robocalls, shakedown
Companies: rightscorp

Guy Comcast Got Fired Now Suing Comcast For Violating Federal Privacy Law

from the karma's-a-bitch dept

In the most recent example we covered of Comcast's ongoing efforts to convince everyone not to be Comcast customers, we noted that the fact they helped get a customer fired from his accounting job was the kind of thing he could probably sue over. That said, even I didn't anticipate the guy accusing Comcast of violating federal law.

The plaintiff, Conal O’Rourke, claims that after a series of calls with Comcast’s customer service department, Comcast complained to his employer about him and he was fired from his job. The lawsuit filed yesterday is based on the same alleged series of events. Mr. O’Rourke claims that he did not authorize Comcast to disclose his information to anyone else, but Comcast nevertheless disclosed personally identifying information about Mr. O’Rourke, including his name, to PricewaterhouseCoopers, where Mr. O’Rourke worked. The following can be attributed to Laura Moy, staff attorney at Public Knowledge:

“If the facts in this complaint are true, they are extremely troubling. They would show that the nation’s largest cable provider exercised a complete disregard for federal privacy law."

Now, it should be noted that O'Rourke is accusing Comcast of having divulged identifying information to his employer, such as the fact that he was employed by PricewaterhouseCoopers, not his personal viewing or web-browsing habits with his employer, but that doesn't really matter. The fact is that ISPs and cable companies are privy to all kinds of personal information pertaining to their customers, and the confidentiality of such personal information is governed by the Communications Act. The sharing of even seemingly harmless identifying personal information represents a pretty massive screw up on Comcast's part. A cable company willing to bend or break the law and reveal innocuous information perhaps shouldn't be trusted to act better with more personal information. The fact that all of this is made more problematic because of a complete lack of competitive choices for consumers wasn't lost on the lawyers either.

"For many Americans, there are few broadband and pay TV choices in their areas. As regulators consider the proposed merger between Comcast and Time Warner Cable, we hope they will follow this case closely. The facts alleged in this complaint, if they are true, along with the admitted customer services failing that led to this dispute, suggest that Comcast habitually puts its interests above all else even to the point of disregarding the law.”

Remember, Comcast cares. The insane part of all this is that Conal O'Rourke has been screaming at the top of his lungs for Comcast and/or his former employer to release both the emails that got him fired and the recordings of all his phone conversations with Comcast, so that he can clear his name and get a new job at another accounting firm. To date, his employer and Comcast, the company that cares, have declined to do so.

Filed Under: conal o'rourke, lawsuit, privacy
Companies: comcast

Privacy International Lodges Legal Challenge To Official Secrecy Surrounding GCHQ Spying

from the blanket-exemption dept

Although the scale of the surveillance being carried out by the NSA and GCHQ is daunting, digital rights groups are starting to fight back using the various legal options available to them. That's particularly the case for the UK, where activists are trying to penetrate the obsessive secrecy that surrounds GCHQ's spying activities. Back in December, we wrote about three groups bringing an action against GCHQ in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), and how Amnesty International is using the UK's Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) to challenge the spying.

Another organization that filed a complaint against the UK government at the IPT is Privacy International. But not content with that, it has now taken further legal action, this time in order to obtain information about GCHQ's role in the "Five Eyes" system, the global surveillance club made up of the US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand:

In order to shed light on this secret intelligence-sharing agreement, which effectively binds the Five Eyes as one intelligence agency, Privacy International, represented by Leigh Day & Co solicitors, filed a legal challenge against the British Government in the European Court of Human Rights. Europe's highest human rights court is the most appropriate venue for such an international agreement, and has a strong history of ensuring intelligence agencies are compliant with human rights law.

This follows repeated unsuccessful attempts to obtain this information using traditional channels:

The challenge comes after Privacy International filed Freedom of Information requests in all Five Eyes countries compelling them to release the details of the agreement, which has a profound impact on the enjoyment and fulfilment of human rights around the world. Governments in the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand denied to publish the secret agreement. In the United Kingdom, GCHQ invoked a blanket exemption that excuses it from any obligation to be transparent about its activities. The same exemption was also invoked by the agency when Privacy International asked for mundane information such as GCHQ's cafeteria menu.

Privacy International obviously hopes that the ECHR will issue a judgment that the UK government is wrong to withhold the information about how GCHQ operates within the Five Eyes system. The trouble is, even if the ECHR does rule in favor of Privacy International, it's extremely unlikely that the UK government will take much notice. But as a way of ensuring that the spotlight remains on the disproportionate and unconstrained way that GCHQ is spying on citizens in the UK and around the world, it's as good as any.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: five eyes, gchq, human rights, lawsuit, privacy, surveillance
Companies: privacy international

Father Sues School After It Brings In Cops To Question His Son About Drawing Of A Person Being Hanged

from the F_CKIN_-ST_PID dept

Maybe if schools stop handing misbehaving students over to police officers, aggrieved parents won't be nearly as aggrieved... or so likely to sue. Schools are publicly funded already, but that's no reason to keep dipping into homeowners' wallets to pay out settlements for schools' bad decisions.

The very short background on this particular lawsuit is this (via Courtroom News Service):

B.R.K., a 13 year-old student at Raleigh Hills in Beaverton, OR was suspended after his teacher found his drawing of a person being hanged. The subject matter is no doubt disturbing, although plenty of rounds of Hangman have been played at school without issue. Since the suit doesn't dispute the disciplinary actions the school took (a one-day suspension), I'll withhold an opinion on a drawing being an offense worthy of suspension.

The school chose to file the student's drawing under the ultimate vagary: Threats/Menacing/Hate Lists. But this policy specifically requires a "word" or "action," of which a drawing is neither and B.R.K.'s doodle would need to place another person in "fear of serious imminent injury." Whether or not this designation was justified is open to speculation.

But that's neither here nor there, at least according to the filing by B.R.K.'s father, Robert Bernard Keller. His allegations are of civil rights violations, all occurring after the suspension was served and B.R.K. was cleared to return to school.

The drawing incident began April 30th. His parents were notified and B.R.K. served his suspension. A school psychologist performed a "risk assessment" on B.R.K. and cleared him to return to school. His parents were present for this "risk assessment," in agreement to the mother's request that they be notified (and hopefully present) for any meetings/questioning stemming from this incident. All seemed well and good until B.R.K. related to his parents that, later in the day, he was pulled from class and interrogated by Beaverton police officers.

After the parents left, Raleigh Hills called in officers of the Beaverton Police Department to interview B.R.K. without notifying the parents. At no time before or during the interview were the parents notified by Raleigh Hills or the Beaverton Police. Only after the fact did the parents learn of the police interrogation. No criminal charge was filed nor was a petition filed with the department of human services. As a direct and foreseeable result of the events that transpired during this incident, B.R.K. has suffered emotional damages.

Keller alleges Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations, as well as emotional distress, false imprisonment and failure to supervise. Whether these will all hold up remains to be seen, but it would appear that Raleigh Hills violated its own policies by hosting an impromptu interrogation.

Early on in the school policy manual, the following is stated:

Unless an emergency situation exists relating to health or safety, the student shall receive prior notice of suspendable conduct as set forth herein and pursuant to District policy, specification of individual charges against the student, and an opportunity to present his/her view of the alleged misconduct. The suspending administrator may postpone these procedures if there is a risk that harm will occur if the suspension does not take place immediately. In all cases, an administrator will notify the parent/guardian by letter and, when possible, by telephone, and the procedure for reinstatement will be explained.

It would appear that parents are to be notified during every step of the process. For the most part, the school did this -- right up until it decided to bring the police in to "interview" a student whom its own psychologist had determined wasn't a threat and could return to general population.

Even if there's a little vagueness in the above statement, the school policy regarding the use of law enforcement is incredibly specific.

Referral to Law Enforcement

If it is necessary for law enforcement officers to interview, detain, or take into custody a student, the principal or his/her designee will follow regulations to insure compliance with Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 162.245, 162.325). [The cited laws refer only to assisting law enforcement and not hindering prosecution. Neither have anything to do with the treatment of minors by law enforcement or rights retained by students.]

School personnel are responsible for cooperating with, and making it possible for, law enforcement officials to interview students on school premises. It is the responsibility of a law enforcement officer, who wishes to interrogate a student at school for law enforcement purposes, to contact that student’s parent or guardian in order to obtain advance authorization for the interview.

The district policy is even more definitive.

It is the responsibility of a law enforcement officer who wishes to interview a student at school for law enforcement purposes to contact that student's parent or guardian in order to obtain advance authorization for the interview. For this purpose, school personnel shall provide the telephone number of a student's parent or guardian to a requesting law enforcement officer…

There is an exception, but it doesn't fit this situation.

If the student's parent or guardian refuses to consent, the interview shall not take place unless the law enforcement officer represents that emergency or exigent circumstances justify an immediate interview. In such circumstances, before the interview occurs the law enforcement officer shall complete and sign a "No Consent/Interview Conducted Form," indicating that the parent or guardian refused to consent, and that emergency or exigent circumstances required an immediate interview of the student at the sole discretion of the law enforcement officer.

The Beaverton Police Dept. is also named in the suit. According to policy, the PD should have contacted the parents prior to this interview. Either way you look at it, someone should have talked to B.R.K.'s parents before putting the student in a room with police officers. The district's policy is just as narrow, stating there needs to be a form filled out stating the exigent circumstances that led to the consent-less interview. Keller's filing doesn't indicate he ever received this after-the-fact notification or, indeed, any awareness of this requirement.

Keller's allegations also state that the school has a "custom and policy" of seizing children from classrooms and "subjecting them to custodial police interrogations," so it would appear this isn't the first time Raleigh Hills has violated its own (and the district's) policies. The fact that police were involved after the student was cleared by staff gives this allegation credence. A school used to turning over nearly every discipline problem to local cops wouldn't think twice about bringing in law enforcement after the sentence has been served and the child interviewed by school staff.

If this ends up costing the school (Keller is asking for $100,000 in damages), it has no one to blame but itself. The policies are in place for exactly this reason -- to prevent the abuse of students' rights. But the school chose -- along with the Beaverton PD -- to violate its own policies, along with someone else's rights.

Filed Under: drawings, lawsuit, police, raleigh hills, robert bernard keller, robert keller, schools

Privacy Rights Group Files Legal Challenge To GCHQ's Extensive Hacking Activities

from the one-of-the-better-uses-of-normally-useless-anti-hacking-laws dept

Indispensable organization Privacy International has filed a legal challenge against GCHQ's hacking of computers and devices, seeking to use the UK government's own Computer Misuse Act against its national security agency.

Much like the (frequently maligned) CFAA (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act) here in the US, the CMA prohibits unauthorized access of computers as well as knowingly impairing computers and devices with malicious software. Privacy International argues that GCHQ (in conjunction with the NSA in many cases) has done both -- multiple times.

The extent of GCHQ's capabilities was revealed by the Snowden documents, which detail how GCHQ and NSA are using malware to conduct surveillance that is potentially far more intrusive than any other current surveillance technique, including the interception of communications. GCHQ's hacking capabilities are so advanced that they are able to surreptitiously:

• take over a device's microphone and record conversations taking place near the device (NOSEY SMURF);
• take over a device's webcam and snap photographs (GUMFISH);
• record Internet browsing histories and collect login details and passwords used to access websites and email accounts (FOGGYBOTTOM);
• log keystrokes entered into a device (GROK);
• extract data from removable flash drives that connect to an infected computer (SALVAGERABBIT);
• identify the geographic whereabouts of the user (TRACKER SMURF); and
• retrieve any content from a phone, including text messages, e-mails, web history, call records, videos, photos, address books, notes, and calendars.

Because the leaks have made these programs public knowledge, there's very little GCHQ can do to deny the claims. Instead, it will most likely invoke its "legal authority" to perform these acts, granted to it (albeit not in those specific words) by the UK's Intelligence Services Act of 1994, as PI's Caroline Wilson explains.

Section 5(1) of the ISA provides: “No entry on or interference with property or with wireless telegraphy [by GCHQ] shall be unlawful if it is authorised by a warrant issued by the Secretary of State under this section." In other words, so long as GCHQ is acting under a warrant then its interference with computer and mobile devices may be authorised under Section 5, even if its otherwise against the law.

This assertion rests on the presumption that these acts are always carried out under a warrant. And even if not, the broad reading of the law has allowed GCHQ to declare its operations are completely legal. The CMA itself also provides another loophole for GCHQ, nullifying the stipulations of Section 1 of the act if performed under government authority.

This may not look all that promising for Privacy International, but the UK can't rely solely on its own laws to protect GCHQ from this legal action. It also has to answer to the European Union.

[T]he law authorizing GCHQ's hacking must at the least set out the nature of the offenses that might lead GCHQ to intrude on our personal devices, define that categories of people who might be affected, limit the duration and extent of any intrusion, set out the procedure for examining, using and storing any information obtained, prescribe how that information will be secured and shared with other parties, and define when the data collected will be erased or destroyed. The ISA's bare bones authorisation most certainly does not meet these basic requirements.

[GCHQ's] hacking is so intrusive, giving GCHQ unlimited control over any target device, that it is hard to imagine how it could made proportionate [...] This intrusion is only compounded when it is indiscriminately deployed to potentially millions of devices.

Privacy International argues that it is the breadth of GCHQ's activities that make it run afoul of both UK and EU law. Leaked documents have shown several programs instituted under the title of anti-terrorism that have failed to prohibit abusive use or even hold the agency to a reasonable definition of "relevant." Much like the NSA, the capabilities have outstripped the narrowly-defined goal, providing the agencies with unprecedented levels of intrusion.

Privacy International has filed its complaint with the UK's Investigatory Powers Tribune, the only body with the power to hear challenges of GCHQ's activities. The legal authority GCHQ claims gives it the permission to sabotage and infiltrate computers on a widespread basis is far from clear. Much of what's been granted to the agency has been done in complete secrecy and, as the leaks have been unleashed, its oversight has been exposed as completely worthless.

This legal battle (joining others filed by citizens and Amnesty International) will also likely end up being fought in the dark, obscured by cries of "national security." But at least one of the combatants will be making an effort to publicize every detail of the fight.

Filed Under: cma, computer misuse act, gchq, lawsuit, surveillance, uk
Companies: privacy international

Empire State Building Supposedly Sues Photographer Over Photograph Of Topless Woman

from the based-on-what? dept

The story is almost too good to be true for the press. Apparently, the company that owns the famous Empire State Building in NY is suing photographer Allen Henson for $1.1 million because he took a photo of a model named Shelby Carter, posing topless up on one of the ESB's observation decks. I've read nearly a dozen articles about the lawsuit, and I've noticed one thing: every one of them contains one or more of the photos of Carter topless (some pixelate or otherwise cover her breasts, some do not), and every one of them includes direct and different quotes from Henson who seemed quite willing to talk to anyone and everyone about the story and who freely admitted that it was good publicity for his ongoing efforts to photograph topless women around NYC, after a police announcement last year that it's not illegal for women to be topless in NY. However, none of them seem to include the actual lawsuit. We won't post the photos here. You can see them at basically every other link in this post. The closest to having the actual lawsuit (and this surprises me) is the NY Daily News, which at least notes that the lawsuit was filed in Manhattan Supreme Court, and at least suggests the cause of action:

In papers filed in Manhattan Supreme Court, ESRT Empire State Building says photographer Allen Henson caused "damage to its business and reputation as a safe and secure family friendly tourist attraction" by taking pictures of a woman without her shirt on there this past August 9.

I'd really like to see the actual lawsuit to see on what basis the company is making this claim. Yes, the Empire State Building is private property, so its owners can easily kick Henson off the property and even bar him from returning. But I can't see how they have any legal argument at all for demanding $1.1 million. From some of the other comments, there appears to be some allegations that the actions are "commercial" and that it cost the Empire State Building extra money to beef up security while decreasing the Empire State Building's "reputation as a safe and secure family friendly tourist attraction." I'm still not clear how that amounts to something you can sue someone over, let alone for $1 million. But, until someone actually provides the lawsuit (and Henson himself seems to suggest he hasn't even seen it either), it's difficult to understand the details. I have some emails out, and hopefully someone in the press will stop focusing on getting up photos of this woman's breasts for long enough to see if they can get a copy of the actual lawsuit to post as well.

Filed Under: allen henson, empire state building, lawsuit, nyc, shelby carter, topless photos
Companies: empire state building