Unlocking your iPhone using biometrics (“fingerprint”) authentication is undoubtedly convenient, but have you considered the cost—the security tradeoffs you make in exchange for that added convenience? Although privacy and Fourth Amendment laws among the states are still very much in flux, it’s no longer just the police you have to worry about accessing your data. Digital photo technology has advanced far enough that hackers can use a high-resolution photo that includes your fingers—say, for example, you flashing a peace sign—to make a duplicate of your fingerprint. So what should you do? Continue Reading
If you tend to pay attention to trends in online and mobile device security, then this information isn’t news per se, but nevertheless, given how fast these things can change, it’s always good to follow the latest headlines, because that’s the best way to stay ahead of the game. Rest assured, if you’re one of the unknown millions of people who ponied up the dollars for a svelte, new iPhone 7 last month, you made a better choice that the folks who opted for the latest virtual reality phone by Samsung, at least, so says Rekall Technologies, a reputable provider of cloud-based IT services for law firms. Here’s why:
Like Apple, Google provides a centralized market for mobile applications called Google Play. However, that is offset by the Android’s ability to install apps from third-party sources. Some are well-known and reputable such as Amazon. Others are not, and originate from malware hotspots in Russia and China. The criminal developers deconstruct and decompile popular apps like Angry Birds, and publish malicious versions and make them available for free.
Of course you don’t have to be a lawyer, or work for a law firm to choose Apple over Android — don’t you want to carry the best and most secure mobile device that’s readily available to the general public?
Photo © 2016 by Seth Doyle
Pro tip: If ever you Google yourself, and are unhappy with the results, don’t sue Google. Why not? Because under a federal law known as the Communications Decency Act, websites and/or services that only republish or display content created by third-parties — i.e. sites that don’t create their own substantive content — are not liable for the substance of that third-party content. It makes sense, right? The person/entity that should be liable is the one who is responsible for creating it. It almost follows the old adage — don’t shoot the messenger….
Apparently Colin O’Kroley never got that memo. After plugging his own name into the popular search engine, back in 2012, O’Kroley was shocked to see this as the top result in Google: Continue Reading
The U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York (that’s Brooklyn, for everyone in the rest of the world) has filed an “appeal” of Magistrate Judge James Orenstein’s order denying its motion to compel Apple to develop software to bypass the security measures built into iOS to withstand a brute force attack. Why is “appeal” in quotes you ask? Continue Reading
Earlier this week, the anti-encryption discussion got elevated to a war. No, a federal court judge did not order Apple to crack the encryption on the dead terrorist’s iPhone 5C, though you’d be forgiven if that’s what you heard or believed, since mainstream media outlets as big as NBC are reporting it that way. Thanks to Mike Masnick (@mmasnick) at Techdirt, I don’t have to explain the difference between what the order entered by U.S. Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym says versus the way it’s been widely reported in the news. Continue Reading
Copyright trolls like Malibu Media, Voltage Pictures, Dallas Buyers Club, TCYK, and Manny Film LLC now account for over 40% of all copyright infringement lawsuits in the United States. Over the last half decade, these and other vexatious litigants have devised a scheme to outmaneuver the legal system by exploiting the nexus of antiquated U.S. copyright law — which has miserably failed to keep up with the technology and capabilities of the Internet — with the paralyzing social stigma of being accused of stealing, in federal court, and the relative costs of paying for a legal defense versus paying the copyright troll to “settle out of court.” While it is true that existing copyright law allows up to a $150,000 statutory penalty per single act of willful infringement, copyright trolls aim for much lower hanging fruit; Continue Reading
If you needed another reason not to break the law, here’s one: Last week, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that expungements are no longer available for individuals with multiple convictions for a “single spree” of crimes. Expungement is the process of erasing a criminal conviction from a person’s record. The way it works is, typically, after a first-time offender is convicted of a crime and successfully completes the sentence ordered by the court, they are made to wait a 5–10 years during which they must not commit any further crimes or offenses, and at the end of that period they can apply to the court for an order of expungement. The theory behind expungement is that it is available in limited circumstances to people who made just a single mistake, a single lapse in judgment, or Continue Reading
Police arrested a 30-year-old New Jersey resident for aggravated assault, and making terroristic threats, because he posted something on Facebook, which implied that he condones violence against abusive law enforcement officers that harass innocent citizens.