Apple Gets New Encryption Patent as Apple v. FBI Feud Seemingly Comes to an End

appleBy Denise Kim

After the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) announced on March 28 that it had successfully accessed the iPhone used by one of the gunmen in the San Bernardino terrorist shooting without Apple’s help, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is now officially dropping its case against Apple. Earlier, the DOJ’s motion for continuance halted the ongoing feud between Apple v. FBI. The DOJ filed the motion on March 21, 2016, one day before the court decided whether Apple would be forced to hack into its own system. In its memorandum of points and authorities, the DOJ claimed that on March 20, 2016, an “outside party demonstrated to the FBI a possible method for unlocking Farook’s iPhone.” After successfully unlocking the iPhone, the government asked the federal judge to vacate the disputed order. Continue reading

Legal Tender? Amazon’s Refusal to Accept Cash at its Bookstores and the Move Towards a Cashless Society

amazonBy Christian Kaiser

In late 2015, Amazon opened a physical bookstore in the University Village shopping center in Seattle. From what I can tell, it appears to be popular. My dad, an avid Amazon shopper, trekked over to check it out; it was “pretty cool.” However, there is something odd about this store, ignoring the irony of Amazon opening a physical bookstore, of course. The store does not accept cash as a form of payment. I have been to businesses that are “cash only,” but never “credit/debit” only. Continue reading

Can Kazakhstan Use the United States Legal System to Attack Free Speech?

laikrastis-respublika-63491024By Juliya Ziskina

The government of Kazakhstan has pursued one of its fiercest critics, the newspaper Respublika, with lawsuits and threats for fifteen years. But despite blocks, bans, and overwhelming distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks, Respublika continues to publish on its websites, which critically report on the country’s affairs and provide a forum for discussion from the relative safety of servers hosted in the United States. Because Respublika’s site is blocked in Kazakhstan, the news service also posts its articles to third party sites, including its Facebook group.

Earlier this month, the Kazakhstan government had a major setback in its attempt to use the U.S. legal system to attack Respublika. A federal judge in California rejected Kazakhstan’s demand that Facebook turn over information about users associated with Respublika’s account on the social media site. The judge found that Kazakhstan lacked the appropriate judicial authorization to pursue such discovery, rejecting Kazakhstan’s claims that its Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) lawsuit gave it free rein to obtain information about its critics. The CFAA is a federal anti-hacking statute that prohibits unauthorized access to computers and networks and was enacted to expand existing criminal laws to address a growing concern about computer crimes. It also allows civil actions to be brought under the statute as well. Continue reading

Prove It or Lose It: The FTC’s Standard for Scientific Support of Medical App Claims

Medical-Apps-in-HealthcareBy Julie Liu

Among the countless mobile applications that allow us to control much of our lives, the growing wave of medical apps allows us to manage and improve our health with the convenience of a phone or tablet. But, as illustrated by the Federal Trade Commission’s approval of its final order against the maker of the UltimEyes app, this possibility comes with important limitations. Continue reading

Are We FINALLY Going to See Some Cool Cable Set-Top Boxes?

16-TiVo-PremiereBy Cheryl Lee

Consumers who were frustrated by the high cost of renting set-top boxes filed class-action lawsuits against several cable TV operators. The antitrust class action filed against Cox Communications was the first to go to trial. The complaint, in that case, alleged that Cox violated the Sherman Act by illegally tying its premium cable service to its set-top box rentals. It also alleged that Cox created barriers preventing other companies from offering third-party set-top boxes. The jury returned a $6.3M verdict against Cox Communications. Continue reading