departmentofjustice
Latest
The DEA impersonated a woman on Facebook to catch criminals
Law enforcement is no stranger to going undercover to bust unsuspecting crooks, but the Drug Enforcement Administration may have taken an online sting operation one step too far. A woman arrested in a drug case, Sondra Arquiett, sued the government after a DEA agent impersonated her on Facebook to trick at least one fugitive into sharing information. While Arquiett had consented to a search of her phone for the sake of investigations, she didn't give permission to the agent to post photos from that phone for the world to see. Her suit accuses the agent of not only violating her privacy, but of putting her in danger by making it look like she was cooperating with officials.
US claims Chinese exec used hackers to steal warplane data
The US isn't done throwing the book at alleged Chinese industrial spies. The Department of Justice has charged a Chinese executive living in Canada, Su Bin, with stealing sensitive info for Boeing and Lockheed Martin warplanes like the C-17 cargo hauler and F-22 fighter. Reportedly, Su partnered with two people to hack into the aircraft makers' networks and either pass along or sell any secrets to interested parties in China. Unlike other targets of the DOJ's wrath, though, it appears that Su was more concerned about profit than helping any government intelligence efforts. While he was handing over data to state-owned aviation firms, he complained of "stingy" buyers and was willing to take a long time to hash out a deal -- not exactly the hallmarks of a government-backed spy.
Ahead of Supreme Court trial, Aereo opens lobbying and advocacy site
The United States Department of Justice says that streaming TV service Aereo is violating copyright law. Aereo, unsurprisingly, disagrees. In five days, the US Supreme Court will hear arguments from both sides. The former has already made its case to the Supreme Court in a filing; today, Aereo fights back with its own lobbying effort: a website named "Protect My Antenna" that both makes arguments for Aereo's position and compiles various legal documents for the public to read. "We remain steadfast in our conviction that Aereo's cloud-based antenna and DVR technology falls squarely within the law," Aereo CEO Chet Kanojia said in an email to users announcing the site.
US Attorney General wants law requiring notifications after data breaches
Large-scale data breaches have become all too common as of late, and US Attorney General Eric Holder wants to do more than just catch the thieves. He has asked Congress to create a federal law requiring that companies notify their customers after detecting serious intrusions. Holder's proposal would exempt firms from reporting low-risk breaches, but it would also punish companies that either don't send a quick alert or haven't been doing enough to protect data in the first place. The would-be law isn't strictly necessary when 45 states have notification requirements in place, but it would hold corporations to a similar standard across the country.
Justice Department searches for culprits behind Target data breach
Target is bringing in some big guns to find those who swiped its customer data -- the Department of Justice has confirmed that it's investigating the breach. It's not clear how close officials might be to identifying suspects, but Target tells the Wall Street Journal that the thieves got in by using credentials stolen from one of its vendors. We're not expecting the DOJ to catch the perpetrators any time soon. However, it's good to know that the feds are directly involved in fighting a rapidly growing data theft problem.
U.S. government finds 0.7% of all mobile malware affects iOS, while Android accounts for 79%
A cautionary memo put out by the US Department of Homeland Security and the US Department of Justice shows that, according to the government's findings, only 0.7 percent of all mobile malware is designed to take advantage of iOS. This figure is in stark contrast to the Android OS, which the memo reports accounts for 79 percent of mobile malware threats. The release was published by the website Public Intelligence. The memo, which reports its data as being from 2012, was targeted at police, fire and emergency personnel. It goes on at length with tips for Android users to avoid common malware scams such as seedy SMS messages and counterfeit apps. In addition to ranking both iOS and Android, the report shows that 19 percent of malware is designed to affect the Symbian OS, 0.3 percent for Windows Phone and 0.3 percent for BlackBerry. [via TNW]
Daily Update for August 26, 2013
It's the TUAW Daily Update, your source for Apple news in a convenient audio format. You'll get all the top Apple stories of the day in three to five minutes for a quick review of what's happening in the Apple world. You can listen to today's Apple stories by clicking the inline player (requires Flash) or the non-Flash link below. To subscribe to the podcast for daily listening through iTunes, click here. No Flash? Click here to listen. Subscribe via RSS
DOJ defends Apple e-book price fixing injunction, says publishers had it easy
The US Department of Justice isn't buying publishers' arguments that proposed injunctions against Apple for alleged e-book price fixing are excessive and contradictory. DOJ attorney Lawrence Buterman claims in a response letter that the penalties against Apple are necessarily harsher, since it didn't settle the accusations like its reported co-conspirators. The group objection even justifies Apple's punishment, Buterman claims; it suggests that publishers are just waiting until the end of a two-year ban on agency pricing to raise prices once again. The five-year restriction imposed on Apple could keep prices down for longer, the lawyer says. Apple, meanwhile, isn't done with its objections. In addition to an earlier request for a stay on proceedings pending an appeal, it now contends that the court excluded or ignored testimony while giving Amazon and Google witnesses too much credibility. The company will present more of its opinion at a conference today with both the DOJ and the presiding judge, but we're not expecting a quick resolution -- neither side is budging at this stage.
E-book publishers side with Apple, ask DoJ to scrap new price-fixing rules
Apparently Apple isn't the only company thinking the US Department of Justice's recently imposed remedies against it were "draconian." US publishers HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster, Penguin and others have also ganged up on the DOJ with a legal brief opposing the punitive restrictions. In it, they say the watchdog is "attempting to impose a specific business model on the publishing industry," despite assertions it wouldn't play that role. If you'll recall, Apple was recently found guilty of price-fixing following charges filed last year. Now, the Justice Department is trying to force Apple to end its current agreements with the publishers and let rival e-book retailers like Amazon link to their own online stores. Apple earlier condemned the decision, saying it was "wildly out of proportion to any... wrongdoing or potential harm." The publishers added that it effectively punishes them by prohibiting the so-called agency model, which lets them set their own prices for e-books and other media. A similar affair was settled rather more amicably in Europe, meanwhile, when the same band of publishers agreed to allow other retailers to sell e-books cheaper than Apple does, if they so choose. Evidently, they feel the DOJ overstepped its bounds in the US and seem intent to back Apple to the bitter end.
DOJ demands Apple terminate publisher deals and rival e-bookstore restrictions (updated)
In a decisive move in the legal battle surrounding Apple's fishy e-book pricing practices, the US Department of Justice has issued a proposed remedy aimed at leveling the playing field. The terms of the proposal, which requires approval by the court, call for an end to Apple's deals with major publishing houses, as well as allowing rival e-book apps, like Amazon's, to link to their own online bookstores. The announcement is hardly surprising, considering that it comes just a few weeks after US District Judge Denise Cote ruled that Apple had conspired to bump up the retail prices of e-books. In the official brief, Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer said, "Under the department's proposed order, Apple's illegal conduct will cease and Apple and its senior executives will be prevented from conspiring to thwart competition in the future." You can read the release in full after the break. Update: Apple has formally responded to the Department of Justice's proposal and predictably, the company isn't happy. In a filing with the United States District Court, Apple said, "Plaintiffs' proposed injunction is a draconian and punitive intrusion into Apple's business, wildly out of proportion to any adjudicated wrongdoing or potential harm." Apple also disputed the DOJ's assertion that its plan is intended to foster healthy competition, arguing that the "overreaching proposal would establish a vague new compliance regime -- applicable only to Apple -- with intrusive oversight lasting for ten years, going far beyond the legal issues in this case, injuring competition and consumers, and violating basic principles of fairness and due process." While the tides seem to be turning against Apple as the case moves forward, Cupertino is evidently not going down without a fight.
Apple issues 136-slide presentation as part of its closing arguments in e-book case
Apple's role in the Department of Justice cause regarding e-book pricing has come to a close, capped with a 136-slide presentation that All Things D has made available. The final slides were displayed in iBooks on an iPad in the presentation, saying that it was "time to close the book on this case." The government's summation was nearly as long, clocking in at 119 pages. Its presentation ends with urging that agency pricing be prohibited for two years and Apple barred from any further antitrust law violations, retaliation or discrimination. It also urged that Apple allow third-party booksellers to reinstate links to their stores. This comes on the heels of Barnes & Noble revealing in its testimony that the company was negotiating agency pricing long before Apple reached out to publishers. A decision is expected within the next few weeks.
Barnes & Noble VP delivers a bruising blow to DOJ case against Apple
Apple received a boost in its defense against the Department of Justice allegations about e-book price-fixing yesterday from a company that had already settled in the case: Barnes & Noble. The bookseller's Vice President of Digital Content, Theresa Horner, told the court that her company was in the process of negotiating agency pricing deals with publishers well before Apple came into the e-book market. The DOJ has repeatedly attempted to paint Apple as the nefarious ringleader conspiring with book publishers to raise prices on e-books. During her court appearance, Horner essentially shut down that argument by noting that Apple had nothing to do with Barnes & Noble talking with book publishers about agency pricing, which means that publishers set book prices rather than resellers. Barnes & Noble CEO William Lynch apparently proposed the idea to publishing companies in late 2009, before Apple even started negotiations with the same companies. Lynch felt that agency pricing was a must if his company was to compete and make money against Amazon's Kindle bookstore. The DOJ's case against Apple has received other blows. Penguin CEO David Shanks told the court that Apple seemed indifferent to the e-book market and was going to walk away from the market if it couldn't ink deals with publishers. Other evidence shows that even Amazon was working on the same agency pricing deals with publishers, with identical price-matching terms (i.e., other retailers couldn't sell e-books at lower prices) to what Apple and Barnes & Noble eventually achieved with their deals. Judge Denise Cote heard the case and felt before the trial that the DOJ had a strong case against Apple. Yesterday, at a point when Apple was going to demonstrate the "page curl" feature devised by Steve Jobs, Cote interrupted by saying "I have an iPad. I love my iPad. I have seen this feature." In contrast to her start-of-trial comments, Cote noted yesterday, "It seems to me the issues have somewhat shifted during the course of the trial. Things change. People have to stay nimble. I'm looking forward to understanding where we are now." The parties in the case deliver their summations today, and a ruling from the bench will be forthcoming in the future -- possibly as long as two months from now.
Daily Update for June 13, 2013
It's the TUAW Daily Update, your source for Apple news in a convenient audio format. You'll get all the top Apple stories of the day in three to five minutes for a quick review of what's happening in the Apple world. You can listen to today's Apple stories by clicking the inline player (requires Flash) or the non-Flash link below. To subscribe to the podcast for daily listening through iTunes, click here. No Flash? Click here to listen. Subscribe via RSS
US Justice Department clears Softbank acquisition of Sprint
Softbank and Sprint have been on pins and needles ever since January, when the US Department of Justice asked the FCC to delay the carriers' merger as it scrutinized the deal over national security concerns. The two networks can breathe a little easier this weekend, as the DOJ just dropped its request for more time. There's "no objection" to the acquisition following a review, the agency says. Not that the companies are completely out of the woods: the FCC has to approve the buyout, and there's still the small matters of Dish's bids for both Sprint and Clearwire. Softbank may not want to drop its backup plan just yet.
Daily Update for May 16, 2013
It's the TUAW Daily Update, your source for Apple news in a convenient audio format. You'll get all the top Apple stories of the day in three to five minutes for a quick review of what's happening in the Apple world. You can listen to today's Apple stories by clicking the inline player (requires Flash) or the non-Flash link below. To subscribe to the podcast for daily listening through iTunes, click here. No Flash? Click here to listen. Subscribe via RSS
DOJ lets waiting period expire on T-Mobile / MetroPCS merger, hints it's good to go
We're sure that MetroPCS and T-Mobile USA executives were on pins and needles wondering whether or not their proposed merger would clear all the regulatory hurdles. While they're not officially free and clear, the Department of Justice has given a strong hint that the carrier union will go through. The government branch just let the mandatory waiting period expire without raising any objections; if it had thought there were serious antitrust issues, it would have piped up by now. Before anyone pops the champagne corks, though, there's still a number of formalities -- the Committee on Foreign Investment, the FCC and the companies' shareholders still need to sign off on the deal, which could take weeks or longer. Considering the troubles T-Mobile had the last time it tried a merger, though, waiting will seem like a walk in the park.
Daily Update for February 13, 2013
It's the TUAW Daily Update, your source for Apple news in a convenient audio format. You'll get all the top Apple stories of the day in three to five minutes for a quick review of what's happening in the Apple world. You can listen to today's Apple stories by clicking the inline player (requires Flash) or the non-Flash link below. To subscribe to the podcast for daily listening through iTunes, click here. No Flash? Click here to listen. Subscribe via RSS
What could happen if Apple, DoJ go to trial over e-books
As of last Friday, Apple is the last remaining defendant in the US Department of Justice e-book antitrust case. On Friday, Macmillan settled with the government, the last of the original five publishers named in the case to do so. Now Apple is standing alone against the DoJ and is expected to end up in court on June 3, 2013. So, what are the possible ramifications if Apple doesn't settle prior to that court date? According to a Reuters story published today, the case alleges that Apple conspired with the five publishers to keep e-book prices in the iBookstore and other retailers higher than those available from Amazon.com. If the case goes to trial, US District Judge Denise Cote will seek a judicial decree stating that Apple violated antitrust law. If Apple loses, a number of plaintiffs could use the judgment as evidence against Apple in separate actions seeking monetary damages. Those plaintiffs could seek compensation for higher prices paid for e-books plus damages. Antitrust laws allow plaintiffs to recover triple the actual damages, and in 2012 alone, those damages were estimated to be at more than $200 million. If Apple went to trial and lost, the company could lose big. But the company may want to go to trial to establish an antitrust principle that could help it forge future deals with entertainment companies. Apple could still choose to settle with the DoJ, but at this time it is showing no signs that it plans to do so.
Apple is last holdout in DOJ e-book case
It must feel pretty lonely in the Apple legal department today. Media and wire service reports say that Apple is the only company that has not made an out-of-court settlement with the US Department of Justice in a price-fixing investigation over the price of e-books. Macmillan has just settled with government investigators, so now book retailers, including Amazon, will be able to discount books from all the major publishers. Penguin, Hachette, Simon and Schuster and HarperCollins have already settled. The publishers, and Apple, were accused of collusion in e-book pricing. The government charged that consumers were left with books that were more expensive than if there was competition. Apple has denied all the charges, and it isn't known whether Apple will settle or fight the case in federal court. The charges were brought last April.
DOJ declines to reveal policy memos on GPS tracking
The US Supreme Court might have ruled last year that GPS tracking is equivalent to a search, but that doesn't mean the government's practices are transparent. If anything, they may be more opaque than ever. The Department of Justice has responded to an ACLU Freedom of Information Act request for a pair of GPS tracking policy memos by providing almost completely redacted versions that, effectively, say nothing. Not surprisingly, the ACLU isn't satisfied -- it's worried that the government is playing fast and loose with definitions of where GPS tracking is usable, and when it requires a warrant under the Fourth Amendment. Whether or not the allegations are true, the civil liberty advocates are going through the courts to push for more access; we may know the truth before too long. [Image credit: Frédéric Bisson, Flickr]