Year: 2015 Page 3 of 6

By: Biniam Tesfamariam,

On August 30^th , Palo Alto Networks reported KeyRaider, a newly discovered malware, infected 225,000 jail broken iPhones.[1] Apple users that recently had their accounts hacked have found their accounts to be frozen until the users pays a ransom or unauthorized purchases charged to their credit cards. [2]Jail broken iPhone users in seventeen countries including the United States, China, France, Russia, Japan, and the UK all have been bugged with this malware.[3]

Consumers privacy information are also at risk from the malware. With a victim’s Apple account and password, attackers can launch all kinds of additional attacks. A hacker could control the device through iCloud, thus compromising the victims private data contained in their iMessage logs, contacts, photos, emails, documents and location. [4]

If you do not have an iPhone or are unfamiliar, jail breaking essentially hacks into the Operating System to allow a consumer to download any application they choose, including those not authorized by Apple. In the process, Jail breaking ones iPhone eliminates security layers designed to protect personal information.

There are a plethora of federal statues in effect, which are designed to protect consumers from such instances. Major businesses such as Apple, have warranties to assist its consumers from malware and other viruses that attack their products.

From the business perspective it would seem in Apples best interest to assist consumers who jail broke their iPhones despite Apple warnings. Often times a user may be subject to a virus on their iPhone whether or not the device is jail broken. Any malfunction on a consumer product would be bad for business, which could affect future purchases.

Also, such issues certainly can put Apple at a huge risk of negative public perception of the quality of their products, just last year hackers revealed over hundreds of private female nudes for the world to see.[5] Even more so, regulatory investigations from the FTC, FBI, and other similar agencies alike are likely to occur. Based on the consistency of these hacks, the problem remains of the deterrence effect of federal laws enacted to protect consumers.

[1] Claud Xiao, Keyraider: IOS Malware Steals Over 225,000 Apple Accounts to Create Free App Utopia (Aug. 30, 2015, 6:00 PM), http://researchcenter.paloaltonetworks.com/2015/08/keyraider-ios-malware-steals-over-225000-apple-accounts-to-create-free-app-utopia

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Andrea Peterson, Emily Yahr, & Jobby Warrick , Leaks of Nude Celebrity Photos Raise Concerns About Security of the Cloud (Sept. 1, 2014) http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/leaks-of-nude-celebrity-photos-raise-concerns-about-security-of-the-cloud/2014/09/01/59dcd37e-3219-11e4-8f02-03c644b2d7d0_story.html

Photo Source: http://www.imore.com/daily-tip-iphone-3gs-older-newer-bootrom

By: Matt Schmitt,

Nearly twenty-two years ago, the world watched as Rwanda descended into the bloodiest conflict of the late 20^th century. The ensuing genocide included the killing of roughly 800,000 Tutsis and news from the crisis was aired all over the world.[1] By late summer 1994, the country had fallen into ruin and the seeds had been sewn for the much more devastating Second Congo War, a conflict that would result in the deaths of millions more. From the genocide’s onset, Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLMC), Rwanda’s Hutu-backed radio station, broadcasted genocide-inciting propaganda and assisted Interahamwe killers in locating victims hidden within the country.[2] Throughout the international community, human rights groups advocated for the jamming of the RTLMC frequency so that communication between death squads would be cut.[3] No United Nations member state, however, including the United States, took such steps and the broadcasts continued throughout the summer, securing the station’s role as a “central feature” of the “highly systematic and synchronized” massacres that occurred.[4]

The biggest roadblock to Western intervention concerning the jamming of RTLMC came in the form of international law, namely whether or not it was legal. The United States government deemed that such activities would violate Rwanda’s freedom of expression[5] and intrude upon their state sovereignty.[6] This legal reasoning does hold some water, especially when applied to the politics of the Cold War, however, the humanitarian law concerning the broadcasts is much more strongly defined. It states that each U.N. member state has the responsibility to protect the populations of the world “from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity,” which includes “prevention of such crimes, including their incitement, through appropriate and necessary means.”[7]

The fact that RTLMC continued to broadcast throughout the genocide, unhindered by any United Nations member state, suggesting that deeper political issues discouraged their involvement. First, adequately disabling the hate radio transmissions of the génocidaires would require either to fly an airborne platform over the country day and night, which would be exorbitantly expensive, or to send in numerous teams of well-trained personnel with jamming equipment.[8] The summer of 1994, however, was no time to try and convince a Western country to send troops into a small African country due to the crisis in Mogadishu, Somalia the previous October, in which eighteen American soldiers had lost their lives.[9] The United Nations, especially the United States government, felt that it was simply not worth the risk to make attempts in shutting down the radio, making it clear that widespread humanitarian abuses are “considered secondary to concerns about the political and monetary costs.”[10]

Should laws governing the technological sovereignty and freedoms to express shield a country from the intervention of other world powers in order to deter flagrant human rights violations? The crisis that occurred in Rwanda in 1994 seems to illustrate the strength of international humanitarian law in preventing mass violence and its insurmountable failure in preventing the incitement of genocide, bowing down to the political process rather then relying on the principle that “human rights should be protected by the rule of law.”[11]

[1] Jaime F. Metzl, Rwandan Genocide and the International Law of Radio Jamming, 91 Am. J. Int’l L. 628, 629 (1997).

[2] Allan Thompson, The Media and the Rwanda Genocide 41, 47 (Pluto Press 2007).

[3] Jaime F. Metzl, Rwandan Genocide and the International Law of Radio Jamming, 91 Am. J. Int’l L. 628, 633 (1997).

[4] Id. 630.

[5] U.N. Charter art. 76, para. 1.

[6] U.N. Charter art. 2, para. 1.

[7] 2005 World Summit Outcome, G.A. Res. 60/1, U.N. Doc. A/RES/60/1 (Oct. 24, 2005).

[8] Jaime F. Metzl, Rwandan Genocide and the International Law of Radio Jamming, 91 Am. J. Int’l L. 628, 635 (1997).

[9] Ranger Recalls ‘Insane,’ Deadly Somalia Mission, CNN (Oct. 27, 2001) available at http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/27/ret.thomas.somalia.cnna/.

[10] Jaime F. Metzl, Rwandan Genocide and the International Law of Radio Jamming, 91 Am. J. Int’l L. 628, 635 (1997).

[11] Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217 (III) A, U.N. Doc. A/RES/217OII) (Dec. 10,1948).

photo source.

http://cache.20minutes.fr/photos/2014/04/11/rwanda-zone-turquoise-gikongoro-juillet-0848-diaporama.jpg

By: John Danyluk

When most people think about the Internet crowd funding site, GoFundMe, images of commendable campaigns to raise money for worthy causes likely come to mind. However the site, which has quickly become a giant in the online fundraising industry, has recently been the subject of a firestorm of legal and political controversy.[1] The issue is over line that GoFundMe has drawn between which campaigns are acceptable and those which are precluded from using the site as their forum. That line has sparked outrage among many left-leaning critics, while even those whose beliefs align with the other side of the aisle should be scratching their heads over the legal implications of the site’s decisions.

According to GoFundMe’s legal terms and conditions page, over $900 million dollars have been raised on the site, of which GoFundMe takes a 5% flat fee.[2] The terms and conditions also provide a plethora of campaigns which are not allowed, including campaigns designed to raise funds for controlled substances, adult services, false statements, ponzi schemes, and organized violence.[3] Precluding campaigns of an illegal nature is an obvious step for the site to take. However, campaigns supporting perfectly legal, though perhaps taboo or immoral endeavors, have been deemed impermissible. These include campaigns which support “sorcery,” the purchase of guns, knives, or ammunition, and notably, funding an abortion.[4]

This last category, abortion, has sparked immense disagreement over which campaigns the site should legally be allowed to restrict.[5] Regardless of one’s personal beliefs, the simple fact is that an abortion (like a knife or gun) may be legally purchased in the United States since the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade in 1973.[6] The site was harshly criticized for cancelling a woman’s campaign which sought to raise money for her abortion on the basis that it was an objectionable campaign, while some of GoFundMe’s largest campaigns have been in support of other highly polarizing causes.[7] For example, two campaigns in support of Ferguson, Missouri police officer Darren Wilson raised over $430,000.[8] Even more impressive, an Indiana pizzeria which refused cater same-sex weddings under a new Indiana law has raised nearly a million dollars, the second largest campaign in GoFundMe’s history.[9] The site has also been a fundraising forum for drug users and even convicted murderes[10], although these campaigns were subsequently cancelled (in many cases after long time periods and significant financial support).[11]

GoFundMe is an open social media platform, like Facebook or Twitter, and as a company it has the First Amendment right to expression.[12] However while the company may support whichever causes it deems worthy, the campaigns posted on the site are the expressions of its users, not of the company (much like Facebook and Twitter posts).[13] Amidst all of this controversy one thing is certain: GoFundMe has taken a questionable approach by drawing the line at perceived immorality rather than legality.

[1] See, e.g., Ryan Mac & Ellen Huet, The Politics of Crowdfunding: How GoFundMe Profits off of Controversy, Forbes (April 7, 2015, 10:00 AM), http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2015/04/07/the-politics-of-crowdfunding-how-gofundme-profits-off-of-controversy/; Caitlin Dewey, GoFundMe, the Site that Has Raised Money for Convicted Murderers, Will Draw the Line at Abortion and ‘Sorcery’, Washington Post (September 9, 2014), http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/09/09/gofundme-the-site-that-has-raised-money-for-convicted-murderers-will-draw-the-line-at-abortion-and-sorcery/.

[2] GoFundMe Terms & Conditions, https://www.gofundme.com/terms (last visited April 24, 2015).

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] See Mac & Huet, supra note 1.

[6] Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

[7] Mac & Huet, supra note 1.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Dewey, supra note 1 (convicted murder and alleged accomplice of Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito, raised over $44,000 on GoFundMe).

[11] Id.

[12] Id.

[13] Id.

By: Eileen Waters

In South Carolina, a man named Walter Scott was recently killed by a police officer during a routine traffic stop for a broken taillight.[1] His family was informed that the officer felt that his life was threatened by Scott’s actions, and felt compelled to use his gun.[2] His family didn’t think that account fit in with Scott’s personality, but had no other proof of what happened that day until someone approached them after a vigil held for Scott.[3] The man had videotaped the entire interaction between Scott and the police officer, and the footage told an entirely different story of what occurred when Scott was killed.[4] The officer has since been fired and is being charged with murder because of this video, which has brought up questions about the use of excessive police force and the necessity for documentation of interactions between community members and certain members of law enforcement.[5]

Considering the importance of this video in the case against Scott’s killer, advocates of police reform are seeing the “power of technological weapons” in the fight against excessive police force.[6] The smartphone camera is obviously the best tool at a citizen’s disposal, and phone videos of police interactions have been popping up in the news quite often.[7] Activists are taking another step, however, by developing phone apps to “streamline the process of capturing and broadcasting videos of police interacting with citizens.”[8]

One such app is called “Cop Watch,” which is an iPhone app that automatically begins recording when you click on the icon and automatically uploads whatever is recorded to YouTube when the video is done.[9] This will make it much easier for citizens to video interactions, and if officers try to confiscate the phone, the video can be uploaded to the internet with very little effort. As the app developer said – “when photographing the police during intense situations, people often get flustered – they may forget to hit record, or may not know how, or where, to upload a video.”[10] The is probably the first of many efforts to hold law enforcement more accountable for their actions.

[1] See Francis Robles & Alan Blinder, Seeing Path to Justice of Shooting on Bystander’s Phone, N.Y. Times (Apr. 8, 2015) available at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/09/us/cellphone-video-of-michael-slager-shooting-walter-scott-is-seen-as-a-path-to-justice.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0.

[2] See id.

[3] See id.

[4] See id.

[5] See id.

[6] Farhad Manjoo & Mike Isaac, Phone Cameras and Apps Help Speed Calls for Police Reform, N.Y. Times (Apr. 8, 2015) available at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/09/technology/phone-cameras-and-apps-help-speed-calls-for-police-reform.html?ref=technology&_r=1&gwh=A2438B783C187F32E0BB0E7777BC2F6A&gwt=pay.

[7] See id.

[8] Id.

[9] See id.

[10] Id.

  By: Ashley Davoli

Energy law is a hot topic these days. With the constant hubbub regarding global warming, gas prices, and solar power, these buzzwords that were originally heard only in small circles have gained notice and popularity. Another term we might be adding to our collective vocabularies in the near future? Demand response.

Demand response is an “opportunity for consumers to play a significant role in the operation of the electric grid by reducing or shifting their electricity usage during peak periods in response to time-based rates or other forms of financial incentives.”[1] There are various ways for consumers to engage in demand response, including varying prices based on the time of day or market variables.[2] There are also options that allow users to have the power company control their appliances during certain periods, turning them on and off as the overall power grid needs in order to avoid spikes in energy demand and high prices.[3] These consumers are compensated by financial incentives and overall lower energy costs for their homes or businesses.[4]

While this is beneficial to both the consumers and the environment, the question remains as to who controls and regulates the demand response field. In Section 201 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), Congress gave the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) the power to regulate interstate transmission of wholesale electricity sales.[5] States retain the ability to regulate any sales that include retail sales and directly involve the end-user consumers.[6] FERC claims to have jurisdiction over the regulation of demand response under Section 206 of the FPA, which states when FERC finds “any rule, regulation, practice . . . affecting such [interstate wholesale] rate . . . is unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory or preferential, [FERC] shall determine the just and reasonable . . . rule, regulation, practice . . . .”[7] FERC says demand response programs affect interstate wholesale energy prices, and therefore FERC has jurisdiction over setting the regulations and practices surrounding demand response programs. Some state regulators and demand response providers say that the energy sales occur at a retail level, not the wholesale level, and therefore FERC does not have jurisdiction according to the FPA.

This is a complex issue of preemption and statutory interpretation. So complex, in fact, that a petition for certiorari is pending for the Supreme Court to hear whether or not FERC can regulate demand response programs.[8] If certiorari is granted, this will not be the first energy related case the Supreme Court decides in recent days.

On April 21, 2015, in Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc., the Court decided federal natural gas laws do not preempt state laws regarding sales at any the beginning of the chain of natural gas movement, from wellhead to pipeline.[9] This decision helps those in favor of state regulation of demand response, but at the same time, there is almost no state regulation to be had. The programs are incredibly new and challenging to figure out. If the Court follows its decision in Learjet, it would seem that it would favor state regulation, as demand response, although technically connected to the interstate power system, most directly includes retail consumers, not wholesale buyers. In the decision being appealed, the D.C. Circuit found that demand response affects wholesale rates, but the actual demand response activity is done at the state and consumer level – so FERC does not have jurisdiction.[10] FERC disagrees, and is now petitioning for certiorari to gain jurisdiction.[11]

This is an important decision, as the Court would have to balance states’ rights with the importance of federally regulating a practice that is so new, but so important. This decision will impact how the nation handles this new energy technology, and it will be landmark in energy efficiency in years to come.

[1] U.S. Dep’t of Energy, Demand Response, ENERGY.GOV, http://energy.gov/oe/technology-development/smart-grid/demand-response (last visited Apr. 22, 2015).

[2] See id.

[3] See id.

[4] See id.

[5] See Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 824(b)(1) (2012).

[6] See id.

[7] 16 U.S.C. § 824e(a) (2012).

[8] See Jeff St. John, The Future of Demand Response: How a Legal Challenge Could Dramatically Change the Industry, greentechgrid, http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/featured/ferc-order-745-the-supreme-court-and-the-future-of-demand-response (last visited Apr. 22, 2015).

[9] See generally Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc., 575 U.S. ____ (2015) (holding that Section Five of the Natural Gas Act did not preempt state law).

[10] See generally Electric Power Supply Ass’n v. FERC, 753 F.3d 216 (2014) (holding Section 201 of the Federal Power act prohibits FERC from intruding on state jurisdiction regarding demand response).

[11] See St. John, supra note 8.