In the wake of the Charlottesville violence this past weekend calls to take a serious stand against white supremacy have abounded. And some companies have complied–GoDaddy and Google have refused to provide hosting services for the Daily Stormer; Twitter has suspended a number of accounts; and Apple has cut off its services to white supremacists.

The Daily Stormer previously had domain registration through GoDaddy. When GoDaddy decided to drop the popular white supremacist site, it attempted to move to Google, which also rebuffed it. Now, the site has apparently moved to the dark web. That means that it doesn’t have to work with any sort of mainstream provider, and can only be accessed through a software called Tor.

Twitter suspended some accounts linked to the Daily Stormer yesterday. For many, that was a welcome surprise–Twitter doesn’t necessarily have the best track record when it comes to dealing with harassment and inappropriate usage.

Apple cut off services like Apple Pay for white supremacist websites selling merchandise. Apple’s CEO Tim Cook also sent out a memo to all the company employees, affirming:

We must not witness or permit such hate and bigotry in our country, and we must be unequivocal about it. This is not about the left or the right, conservative or liberal. It is about human decency and morality. I disagree with the president and others who believe that there is a moral equivalence between white supremacists and Nazis, and those who oppose them by standing up for human rights. Equating the two runs counter to our ideals as Americans.

Other tech companies that have, at least in part, shut off service to white supremacists include PayPal, which cut off more than three dozen white supremacist groups, and popular dating site OkCupid, which has banned at least one known white supremacist.

We were alerted that white supremacist Chris Cantwell was on OkCupid. Within 10 minutes we banned him for life.

— OkCupid (@okcupid) August 17, 2017

Airbnb actually banned white supremacists from using its platform ahead of the Charlottesville rally, a decision which was reaffirmed by its CEO after the fact. Brian Chesky wrote:

The violence, racism and hatred demonstrated by neo-Nazis, the alt-right, and white supremacists should have no place in this world. Airbnb will continue to stand for acceptance, and we will continue to do all we can to enforce our community commitment.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tech Companies Dump White Supremacists appeared first on Law Street.

If you were one of the millions of people entranced by James Comey’s Senate Intelligence Committee hearing last week, here’s some of the stories you may have missed. ICYMI–check out Law Street’s best of the week below!

What is the Future of British Counter-Terrorism Policy?

Sweeping changes are likely to come in Britain’s policy toward terrorism and extremism after Prime Minister Theresa May declared that “enough is enough” during a speech outside of 10 Downing Street on Sunday. The speech was prompted after another attack on Saturday night at the London Bridge where a white van struck pedestrians in a coordinated attack that killed seven and injured dozens that was later claimed by ISIS.

Reality Winner: NSA Contractor Charged With Leaking Classified Materials

A federal government contractor was charged with removing and mailing classified materials about Russian interference in the 2016 election to a news outlet, the Justice Department announced June 5. Reality Leigh Winner, a 25-year-old intelligence contractor, printed and retained classified intelligence reporting from the National Security Agency, containing classified national defense information, on or about May 9, according to the Justice Department.

Apple Takes a Stance on Texting and Driving with iOS 11

At the 2017 WorldWide Developers Conference in San Jose, California, Apple executives gave their first preview of their new software update: iOS 11. The update will include over a dozen new tools and platforms, including a new Augmented Reality feature, an enhancement to Apple Pay, and the addition of a stylus that can be used in conjunction with the iPad Pro. But one new feature stood out above the rest. During the keynote address, Apple introduced a Do Not Disturb add-on feature that will prevent an iPhone user from receiving notifications of any kind while behind the wheel. T

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

At the 2017 WorldWide Developers Conference in San Jose, California, Apple executives gave their first preview of their new software update: iOS 11. The update will include over a dozen new tools and platforms, including a new Augmented Reality feature, an enhancement to Apple Pay, and the addition of a stylus that can be used in conjunction with the iPad Pro.

But one new feature stood out above the rest. During the keynote address, Apple introduced a Do Not Disturb add-on feature that will prevent an iPhone user from receiving notifications of any kind while behind the wheel. This includes texts, social media notifications, and news alerts. The add-on uses bluetooth and wi-fi doppler effect to determine if the device is moving within a car.

If it detects the specific type of movement, it prevents the person from receiving any notifications. The add-on must be turned on voluntarily and it can be turned off if you are in a vehicle and are not driving. And if you are worried that you won’t be able to communicate? The add-on will send out an automated reply to people who text you while you’re driving to inform them that you will answer them once you reach your destination.

“We think this is going to be a really important step for safety in the car,” said Craig Federighi, Senior Vice President of Software Engineering at WWDC.

The update won’t be released until the fall, but already people within Silicon Valley and the tech industry are praising the Do Not Disturb feature.

The importance of an Apple taking distracted driving seriously can’t be overstated

— Matt Peckham (@mattpeckham) June 5, 2017

“Do not disturb while driving” will save lives.

— Benedict Evans (@BenedictEvans) June 5, 2017

Do Not Disturb while driving turns the screen off automatically. This will save lives. And probably get turned off by the teens but good.

— Matthew Panzarino (@panzer) June 5, 2017

Distracted driving has been a serious problem in the age of smartphones. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in 2015 there was approximately 391,000 traffic accidents and approximately 3,477 deaths as a result of distracted driving. The risk level dramatically increases among youth drivers. The National Security Council reported that teen drivers are four times more likely than adult drivers to get into an accident when talking or texting on the phone while driving.

Smartphone usage among millennials in general has also exploded. According to a 2016 Nielsen study, of those who own a mobile phone between the ages of 18-24, 98 percent have a smartphone. Furthermore, 43 percent of those who do have a smartphone have an Apple iOS device.

The announcement follows a recent string of attempted regulation of distracted driving. In New York, the legislature is currently mulling over whether to implement a “textalyzer,” a device that would allow officers at the scene of an accident to access the drivers’ phones to see whether they were using their phones while driving.

The legislation has been criticized for allowing law enforcement to breach people’s private cell phone information for only minor incidents. However, the legislation is currently under review and similar legislation is being proposed in Tennessee, New Jersey, and Chicago.

Whether Apple’s voluntary feature will be useful or not remains to be seen, but with nine people dying a day from distracted driving, it is certainly trending in the right direction.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Apple Takes a Stance on Texting and Driving with iOS 11 appeared first on Law Street.

Leaders of tech giants are finding ways to oppose President Donald Trump’s ban on immigrants from Muslim-majority countries, which could hurt their employees and potential new hires.

Apple CEO Tim Cook said he would consider taking legal action against the order, while the heads of other companies have pledged millions of dollars to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

According to the Wall Street Journal, the ban affects hundreds of Apple employees. Cook told the Journal:

More than any country in the world, this country is strong because of our immigrant background and our capacity and ability as people to welcome people from all kinds of  backgrounds. That’s what makes us special. We ought to pause and really think deeply through that.

On January 27, Trump signed the executive order blocking citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Syria from entering the United States for at least 90 days (though the ban could be expanded), citing concerns over foreign terrorism. The measure also prevents refugees from being admitted into the country for four months.

While Cook has not specified exactly what type of action Apple would take, Amazon’s CEO Jeff Bezos has already taken to court to condemn the ban. The company submitted a sworn statement supporting the Washington state attorney general, who filed a lawsuit against Trump’s order. Amazon employs nearly 50 people born in one of the seven countries, and is currently offering jobs to non-U.S. citizens, some of whom were born in Iran.

Meanwhile, Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey and Chairman Omid Kordestani plan to donate $1.59 million to the ACLU, respectively matching $530,000 that Twitter employees raised for the organization.

The Executive Order's humanitarian and economic impact is real and upsetting. We benefit from what refugees and immigrants bring to the U.S. https://t.co/HdwVGzIECt

— jack (@jack) January 28, 2017

The ACLU sued Trump on January 28 on behalf of two men from Iraq – one of whom is a former engineer and interpreter for the U.S. government – who were detained at JFK International Airport in New York.

The taxi service app Lyft announced support for the ACLU as well, promising to donate $1 million over the next four years. Lyft’s primary competitor, Uber, faced backlash when it continued to pick up passengers from JFK during protests – which some saw as a move to profit from the situation. Uber responded to the complaints by calling the ban “unjust” and setting up a $3 million legal defense fund for its drivers impacted by the ban.

3/ We are donating $1,000,000 over the next four years to the ACLU to defend our constitution. https://t.co/0umGOlkhSx

— logangreen (@logangreen) January 29, 2017

Google cofounder Sergey Brin at SFO protest: "I'm here because I'm a refugee." (Photo from Matt Kang/Forbes) pic.twitter.com/GwhsSwDPLT

— Ryan Mac (@RMac18) January 29, 2017

The blanket entry ban on citizens from certain primarily Muslim countries is not the best way to address the country’s challenges

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 29, 2017

Executives and founders of companies like Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Tesla have also released statements criticizing the order.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Technology Companies Rally Against Immigration Ban appeared first on Law Street.

Twelve states are taking the bar out of the bar exam–the newest MacBook Pro’s Touch Bar, that is.

North Carolina’s Board of Law Examiners is the latest board to ask test-takers using MacBooks to disable the function during exams over concerns about cheating. The new rule will go into effect for students sitting for the test in February.

According to ExamSoft, a company that manufactures testing software for the board, the “Touch Bar will show predictive text depending on what the student is typing, compromising exam integrity.”

9to5Mac, a website that covers news about Apple, reported that ExamSoft’s software is typically able to block access to the internet or apps that allow students to cheat, but that the new Touch Bar rule was likely an “extra precaution.”

Meanwhile, California, Colorado, Oklahoma, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia’s bar associations have banned the Apple computers from their tests altogether.

Don’t know if you’ll be allowed to bring your computer to the test? Katherine Silver Kelly, an Ohio State University law professor, has been using her blog Bar Exam Wizard to post the list of states placing restrictions on MacBook Pros and the Touch Bars.

Apple introduced the updated MacBook Pro in October with the Touch Bar as a replacement for function keys. The bar is a touchscreen that runs along the top of the keyboard and can be customized to display users’ most-used apps. It also provides full emoji access.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post MacBook Feature Barred from Multiple Bar Exams appeared first on Law Street.

Newt Gingrich and Megyn Kelly Go At It On Fox News

Here at RantCrush we love rants and tirades of all kinds. Especially ones involving Trump surrogates and news anchors who just don’t give a damn. Newt Gingrich and Megyn Kelly went at it last night after Kelly pressed Gingrich on Trump’s sexual assault accusers. So, Gingrich accused Kelly of being “fascinated with sex.”

via GIPHY

This is when things started to get not so sexy…you can watch for yourself here:

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: October 26, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Recently, the European Union determined that Apple must pay $14.5 billion in back taxes to Ireland. Unsurprisingly, Apple is challenging the ruling and claiming that its arrangement with Ireland was perfectly legal. What is surprising is that Ireland may actually support Apple’s appeal and claims it doesn’t want the money, a concept that many in the United States support as well.

Read on to find out what this scandal has revealed about the tax policies in Ireland and the E.U., how corporations avoid paying higher taxes, and what the likely ramifications would be for Apple if is ultimately forced to pay the taxes in Ireland and other nations around the world.

Apple, Ireland, and Unpaid Taxes

The decision against Apple was handed down by Margrethe Vestager, the head of the E.U.’s competition committee. The competition commission has taken it upon itself to go after corporations and countries that strike unfair tax deals, with companies such as Starbucks and Amazon also under investigation. However, this is the first major case brought against a company operating in Ireland.

Ireland, for its part, already has one of the lowest tax rates in the world at 12.5 percent, something it uses as a comparative advantage to attract companies to relocate there. However, that rate is actually significantly higher than the tax rate it agreed to with Apple. In 2013, a United States’ Senate committee discovered a deal between Ireland and Apple that called for a 2 percent or lower tax rate for the company. Both parties have seemingly taken the “lower” option, though, as Apple was allegedly being taxed at a rate of 50 euros for every 1 million euros made or 0.005 percent. While that number is up for dispute, it is clear that the effective tax rate that Apple faced was remarkably low.

This remarkably low tax rate was what the E.U. had taken issue with. The E.U. argues that when countries like Ireland give special tax rates to certain companies they are engaging in anti-competitive behavior that unfairly punishes companies without these deals. But regardless of the ruling, the United States would not be able to tax the money Apple stashed overseas unless it is brought it back into the United States.

In the video below, Margrethe Vestager explains the recent E.U. ruling:

Tax Havens

For its role, Ireland has been labeled a “tax haven.” However, countries serving as tax havens, while unscrupulous, are not necessarily breaking any laws. In fact, many corporations who take advantage of what these nations are offering have made dodging taxes into a virtual art form. Individuals can use tax havens to legally refrain from paying a variety of taxes such as inheritance, capital gains, and even regular income tax while companies take advantage of low corporate tax rates.

While Ireland gets the most attention for its low tax rates because of the situation with Apple, it’s deservedly so as a quarter of Fortune 500 companies had offices there which they may use to pay lower taxes. There are a number of places, mainly in Europe and the Caribbean, in which low tax rates, lax enforcement, or protective banking laws make for attractive spots to place wealth and profit.

Companies are able to avoid paying U.S. taxes by booking their profits in countries with particularly low tax rates. We can tell that companies do this because these countries are often small, yet the profits from large multinational companies are quite big. In some cases reported profits in certain countries actually surpass the GDP there. The following quote from the Citizens for Tax Justice, a left-leaning think tank, sheds light on what is actually happening:

It is obviously impossible for American corporations to actually earn profits in a given country that exceed that country’s total output of goods and services. Clearly, American corporations are using various tax gimmicks to shift profits actually earned in the U.S. and other countries where they actually do business into their subsidiaries in these tiny countries. This is not surprising, given that these countries impose little or no tax on corporate profits.

Corporations Not Paying their Share?

Just as Ireland is not the only country with a low corporate tax rate and a willingness to strike a deal with American companies, Apple is not alone in moving its profits abroad in order to avoid paying the high U.S. tax rate. As of this year, American companies had $2.4 trillion in income that has not been repatriated and instead is being held outside the United States. If that money was brought back to the United States, the subsequent taxes would amount to nearly $700 billion. While Apple has over $200 billion in profits held overseas, it is hardly alone. High-profile companies such as Microsoft and Pfizer also hold substantial amounts of cash outside the United States.

The main culprit for all of this is allegedly the U.S. corporate tax rate, which at 35 percent is one of the highest in the developed world and one of the highest overall. While some companies have discussed moving their money back to the United States–particularly if there were a window or a temporary tax holiday like the one in 2004–many are pursuing another course. Namely, many large companies have resorted to corporate inversions, in which an American company merges with another, often smaller, company located in a country with a low corporate tax.

Companies employ other, similar techniques as well. One is something known as earnings stripping, where a U.S. subsidiary issues debt to their foreign parent company, thereby lowering its taxable income.

The following video looks at how companies relocate to reduce their tax burden:

Ramifications of E.U. Ruling

With all the ways corporations avoid paying taxes and past efforts to close loopholes, perhaps the most surprising aspect of the European Commission’s decision to make Apple pay back taxes is who is opposed to the ruling: Ireland. Shortly after the commission made its decision, Ireland announced it will appeal. Obviously, the immediate question is why a country would be willing pass on $14.5 billion. The answer is that while Ireland would be passing up a lump sum in tax revenue, keeping Apple’s taxes low ensures the company’s continued presence there and the benefits that come with it, like jobs. If Ireland were to raise Apple’s taxes, Apple may be compelled to move somewhere else as Ireland would be less appealing. It could also have the effect of scaring away other companies who viewed Ireland as a good place to do business.

This decision is complicated further because it is not made in a vacuum. Ireland has had some notable fiscal issues and was bailed out by the E.U. and IMF in 2010. But Ireland may not want to risk losing the jobs that Apple brings as well as its reputation as a business friendly country.

Another surprising group opposed to the European Commission’s ruling is a collection of U.S. lawmakers. The members of both parties in the United States are opposed ultimately because that money would otherwise be paid to the United States. Lawmakers feel that if Apple is forced to pay Ireland it will complicate tax matters between the E.U. and the United States. If Apple ends up paying the $14.5 billion it will actually be able to use that as a credit against other taxes that it owes in the United States.

While the fight seemingly boils down to who gets the money and whether Ireland can keep Apple’s headquarters, it also has the potential to raise an even larger question. Specifically, by forcing Ireland to tax at a certain rate, the E.U. is entering the murky waters of Irish sovereignty. While the E.U. is not concerned with Ireland’s low tax rate specifically, its problem is with the special tax deal it offered Apple–the ruling does amount to the E.U. intervening in a country’s private affairs. This is a particularly awkward position given that the U.K. just voted to leave the E.U., in part, over concerns of overreach by Brussels. While talk in Ireland has certainly not approached that level yet, some people have already broached the topic with names like “Irexit.”

Conclusion

As of February, Apple was the most valuable company in the world with a market value of approximately $534 billion. It’s is not surprising that even the most basic effort to reduce Apple’s tax burden would become news. Of course, the news tends to snowball when its tax deal with Ireland violates European Union rules. While Apple’s actions are not necessarily illegal as much as they are a profit-driven company taking advantage of a terrific deal, the situation certainly raises eyebrows, particularly when it’s not unique to one company.

Whether or not the E.U. will allow Apple’s current tax arrangement in Ireland to persist remains to be seen, as an appeal would take some time to sort out. Either way, it has shone the spotlight on a very common practice by major corporations. While Apple may have the most cash and be the most egregious case, the other companies doing the same thing reads like a who’s who of major corporations.

Unfortunately, the climate is such that instead of lauding the E.U. for trying to recover owed taxes and protect competition, there was an immediate backlash against the ruling. Ireland tried to refuse $14.5 billion out of fear of losing jobs and other investment and American politicians criticized the E.U. for targeting American companies. Many questions remain in the United States. In order to really address the underlying problems, U.S. lawmakers will need to reform the corporate tax code to truly prevent American companies from engaging in international tax avoidance.

Resources

The New York Times: Apple Owes $14.5 Billion in Back Taxes to Ireland, E.U. Says

CNN Money: Ireland doesn’t want $14.5 billion in tax from Apple

The Washington Post: How U.S. companies are avoiding $695 billion in taxes

The Motley Fool: 10 Best Tax havens in the World

Yahoo Finance: US taxpayers could end up covering Apple’s back taxes in Ireland

Forbes: These Are the 10 Most Valuable Companies in the Fortune 500

Bloomberg: Pfizer-Allergen Deal may Be Imperiled by U.S. Inversion rules

The Washington Post: How the E.U.’s ruling on Apple explains why Brexit happened

Citizens for Tax Justice: American Corporations Tell IRS the Majority of Their Offshore Profits Are in 12 Tax Havens

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Overseas and Undertaxed: How Companies Avoid Paying Taxes appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Friday and welcome to today’s edition of RantCrush Top 5!

Taco Trucks On Every Corner? Clinton Responds

A couple weeks ago, mortgage broker and founder of Latinos for Trump, Marco Gutierrez, warned  MSNBC viewers of the armageddon that is taco trucks. Skip to 6:04 for Gutierrez’s crazy claim.

Wow. Just wow on so many levels.

Last night, at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, Hillary Clinton cleaned up in support, when she addressed the backwards remarks that Gutierrez made: “You’ve stayed focused no matter what kind of outlandish and offensive comments we’ve heard from my opponent and his supporters,” she told the crowd. “By the way, I personally think a taco truck on every corner sounds absolutely delicious.”

That it does, Hillary, that it does.

via GIPHY

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: September 16, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, Apple released a new security update for iPhone users worldwide after the discovery of an attempted hack that was trying to take advantage of three huge vulnerabilities in the iOS operating system. Using these three factors, now called the “Trident” flaw, hackers could take complete control over someone’s phone remotely, without the owner knowing about it.

The group that is believed to be behind the hack is an American-owned, Israeli-based company called NSO. It was founded in late 2009 by two Israeli mass-entrepreneurs with ties to the Israeli government and defense forces. In 2014 a San Francisco-based equity firm bought a majority stake in the company for $120 million.

NSO says it specializes in tools fighting against crime and terrorism. Its LinkedIn page describes the company as in “the field of Internet security software solutions and security research.” But many security firms call the group a “cyber arms dealer.” An online document from NSO says it is “a leader in the field of cyber warfare” that utilizes its proprietary monitoring tool it calls “Pegasus,” which can monitor and extract all data from a target “via untraceable commands” which allow “remote and stealth.”

Human rights activist Ahmed Mansoor from the United Arab Emirates was the first one to report the suspected hack, after receiving a text message to his iPhone with a link promising to reveal details about torture in his country’s prisons. Instead of clicking the link he contacted the Toronto-based internet watchdog Citizen Lab.

Incredible: #UAE tries to hack democracy activist @Ahmed_Mansoor w/ Israeli-made… https://t.co/u9WQZFM2OQ by @salamah via @c0nvey

— Azza Youssri (@AzzaYoussri) August 26, 2016

Reports issued on Thursday by Citizen Lab and San Francisco mobile security company Lookout revealed how they discovered an advanced spyware that could take over the whole phone at the tap of a finger. If you click the link in a fake message like the one Mansoor received, it would activate spying software called “Pegasus” and hackers could listen in on your calls, collect text messages and personal information, and control your camera.

This advanced technique is so highly desirable in the cyber world that one spyware broker said in November that it had paid $1 million to programmers who said they had found a way to do it, according to the Telegraph.

On Thursday an Apple spokesperson said:

We were made aware of this vulnerability and immediately fixed it with iOS 9.3.5. We advise all of our customers to always download the latest version of iOS to protect themselves against potential security exploits.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who are the Hackers Behind the Apple Spyware Problem? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Good Guy Apple Replaces Pistol Emoji With Water Gun

Apple is finally getting rid of the pistol emoji after a year of pushback from anti-gun activist groups. Most notably, New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, which launched a campaign aimed specifically at “disarming the iPhone.” In an open letter, the group asked Apple to remove the gun emoji “as a symbolic gesture to limit gun accessibility.” The gun emoji and other weapons emojis have been blamed for inciting violence among young people. This week, Apple announced that it would be replacing the pistol with a toy water gun as an ethical measure in its next iOS. Although this is a great step for the tech giant, there is still a lot of work to do in gun violence prevention. Apple will release iOS 10 this fall.

Apple will replace its pistol emoji with a squirt gun: https://t.co/gLdlFU7Jni pic.twitter.com/7TBUHRi6tu

— New York Magazine (@NYMag) August 2, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 2, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Don’t expect to see any Apple gear at the GOP Convention in Cleveland next month–the tech giant announced that it will not provide any funds, devices, or support to this year’s convention, like it has done in the past. Why not? Apple is protesting Donald Trump’s controversial remarks about minorities, women, and immigrants.

So, @realDonaldTrump, you’re such a “great” businessman and negotiator. You’re costing the #RNC sponsors (#Apple, #Ford, etc.). WTF?!#HaHa!

— (((B. Paul Stuart))) (@BrianPaulStuart) June 18, 2016

Apple is the first company in Silicon Valley to take this stance. Others like Google, Facebook, and Microsoft have already pledged some financial support to the convention. At the 2008 Republic and Democrat conventions, Apple donated about $140,000 worth of MacBooks and other products. In 2012, it did not donate free merchandise to the conventions because Democrats placed a ban on corporations financing their nominating events.

A spokeswoman for the GOP convention told Politico that “we are working with a variety of major tech partners who are focused on being part of the American political process.” In April, Google said it would attend the convention and would be the official live stream provider, despite pressure from protestors who called Google to back out because of Trump’s inflammatory comments. Microsoft will donate computers and software, but will not provide funds to Republicans, like it has in the past. Despite Mark Zuckerberg’s criticism of Trump, Facebook has pledged financial and other support to the convention.

Apple declined to comment on its decision, so it’s unclear whether or not it will still provide financial support to the Democratic convention in Philadelphia next month. A spokesperson for the Trump campaign did not respond to Politico’s request for a comment. Donald Trump has singled out Apple in speeches, criticizing CEO Tim Cook’s stance on encryption, while also calling for a boycott on its products.

Of course #Apple is uneasy over Donald J. Trump. Who isn’t? #rnc #uspoli #p2 https://t.co/wxjVfc31wD

— Truth Mashup (@truthmashup) June 19, 2016

Usually, tech companies donate to Democratic and Republican efforts equally. Apple typically does not engage in politics, but Cook has tried to forge relationships with Democrat and Republican lawmakers. Last year, Cook and a handful of top Republican house leaders dined in D.C. together.

However, Apple’s decision is not totally unprecedented. HP, who was a major donor to the GOP convention in 2012, backed out of funding this year’s convention because of pressure from activists at ColorofChange.org in June. The New York Times reported in March that several corporations were thinking about scaling back their donations to the RNC because of Trump’s political ideology.

“We want them to divest from hate. We want them to pull all their money and support,”  said Mary Alice Crim, field director for Free Press Action Fund, which is part of the anti-Trump campaign. She added that tech companies that are backing the convention need to be “thinking hard about where they put their brand, and whether they want to align their brand with racism, hatred, and misogyny.”

Inez Nicholson

Inez is an editorial intern at Law Street from Raleigh, NC. She will be a junior at North Carolina State University and is studying political science and communication media. When she’s not in the newsroom, you can find her in the weight room. Contact Inez at INicholson@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Apple Won’t Support the RNC Because of Trump appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Unrest on Okinawa Island: Protesters Call For Removal of US Military Bases

Okinawa Islanders have had enough. After a 20 year-old Japanese woman was raped and killed at the hands of a US Marine, intensified protests sprung up Sunday to remove U.S. military bases from the island. This is largest demonstration against the U.S. since the rape of a 12 year-old girl by two American marines and a Navy sailor in 1995.

These crimes are not tolerated in the states so why are they committed by our servicemen overseas? The issue risks weakening ties between Japan and Washington, and has yet to be endorsed by Japanese lawmakers. Read the full story here.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 20, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

In the same land where a majority of its products are manufactured, China, Apple is in a dust-up with a manufacturer that is using perhaps its most well-known trademark: “iPhone.” Some leather goods–handbags, wallets, and phone cases–are sold in China with the word “iPhone” stitched into them, manufactured and sold by a small leather company, Xintong Tiandi Technology. And according to a Chinese court ruling this morning, that is perfectly legal.

Xintong emerged victorious in a case Apple initially brought against it in 2012, claiming its wares were a breach of their “iPhone” trademark.

The U.S.-based tech company lost the case, which was first brought to China’s trademark commission before being taken to court, and then lost the appeal this morning.

Apple issued the following statement on the ruling:

Apple is disappointed the Beijing Higher People’s Court chose to allow Xintong to use the iPhone mark for leather goods when we have prevailed in several other cases against Xintong.

Apple also noted that the company intends to continue fighting the case, and will request a retrial with China’s Supreme Court at some point in the future.

The legal blow comes during a fairly turbulent time for Apple in China, where the company recently experienced a 26 percent drop in sales during the first quarter of 2016.

The court ruled in favor of Xintong because its trademark for “iPhone” was filed in 2007, the same year the Apple iPhone was first produced, and well before the gadgets were sold in Chinese markets in 2009. According to the court, Apple failed to prove the iPhone brand was “familiar to the public” in China prior to when Xintong’s filed for its trademark.

The Chinese leather goods company was elated by the court’s decision:

The ‘iphone’ brand can blossom widely outside Apple. We will take the ‘iphone’ marque to its pinnacle, and together bring more benefit to the community of ‘iphone’ consumers!

According to a U.N. report, 70 percent of the world’s counterfeited goods come from China, though the Xintong case is an instance involving a disputed trademark on original goods, not a cut and paste, low-quality version of goods marketed under a well-known brand name.

And while the leather goods might be emblazoned with the name of the popular smartphone, at least they aren’t sold in a fake Apple Store.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Court Rules Leather ‘iPhone’ Goods in China are Legal appeared first on Law Street.

Do you all remember back in 2014, when all anyone could talk about was the “Fappening?” It was a massive leak of celebrity nude photos–most of which were stolen from the celebrities in question. No one really knew who was behind the leak for a while, but now at least one of the perpetrators appears to have been caught. Ryan Collins, 36, of Lancaster, Pennsylvania is pleading guilty to “unauthorized access to a protected computer to obtain information.”

Collins gained access to the photos via the (mostly) female celebrities’ iCloud accounts. He got into those accounts by sending out a phishing scheme in which he posed as Apple or Gmail and asked the victims to reset their account information and passwords. He also allegedly managed to get into some of the accounts by guessing passwords. According to court documents he managed to get into 50 iCloud and 72 Gmail accounts, mostly owned by female celebrities. Then, he either downloaded images, or in some cases downloaded victims’ entire iCloud accounts.

Celebrities whose photos appeared online after the hacks included Jennifer Lawrence, Kate Upton, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Kaley Cuoco, and Kirsten Dunst.

David Bowdich, the assistant director in charge of the FBI’s Los Angeles Field Office, explained in a statement:

By illegally accessing intimate details of his victims’ personal lives, Mr. Collins violated their privacy and left many to contend with lasting emotional distress, embarrassment and feelings of insecurity.

The charge Collins is pleading guilty to could land him in jail for up to five years, but that’s very unlikely. According to the DOJ, “parties have agreed to recommend a prison term of 18 months,” although that recommendation won’t be binding and it will be up to a judge to decide how to dole out punishment to Collins.

Collins isn’t being charged with actually creating the “Fappening” however–meaning there’s no evidence that he was the one who uploaded the photos or shared them on the Internet. But, Collins is still paying for the gross invasion into privacy that he committed. Laws about the privacy that we’re all entitled to online, as well as the ownership of photos, are evolving as the internet continues to be a larger part of our lives. As revenge porn cases increasingly make it into the mainstream, it’s important that we set some boundaries–stealing someone’s private photos is simply not okay.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The “Fappening” Hacker Pleads Guilty appeared first on Law Street.

The fight between the FBI and Apple over a locked iPhone definitely isn’t going to be resolved anytime soon. On Tuesday, Apple General Council Bruce Sewell and  FBI Director James Comey both went before the House Judiciary Committee to answer questions relating to the investigation into one of the San Bernardino shooters’ phones.

If you need a refresher from my last post, the case pretty much boils down to these three facts:

• The shooter’s iPhone is encrypted and the FBI wants help to unlock it, in order to continue its investigation.
• FBI officials have asked Apple to create software that would allow them to have unlimited attempts to guess the phone’s password.
• Apple, however, refuses to do any of these things, arguing that they will potentially jeopardize the security of all iPhone users if the software is used by hackers.

During Tuesday’s hearing Director Comey attempted to defend his agency’s motives to lawmakers. Comey explained that the FBI’s intent is to gain as much information as possible regarding the San Bernardino attack, and not to expand its surveillance power. He said,

We are asking to ensure that we can continue to obtain electronic information and evidence pursuant to the legal authority that Congress has provided us to keep America safe.

But as it turns out, the only reason the FBI even needs Apple’s help is because “there was a mistake made” in the 24 hours after the attack. FBI officials believed they could reset the phone’s iCloud password in order to access information, but instead it ended up completely locking them out. According to the New York Times, the FBI’s ineptitude drew criticism from both Democrats and Republicans at the hearing.

Sewell also testified in Apple’s defense, reiterating prior assertions that creating this type of technology for the FBI would create a backdoor that could be used on other iPhones and compromise customers’ privacy. Sewell stated,

We don’t put up billboards that market our security. We do this because we think protecting security and privacy of hundreds of millions of iPhones is the right thing to do.

Recently Apple had a major win in the case after a New York judge ruled in another case that the government can’t force the company to break an iPhone’s passcode security. The precedent-setting case involved a similar situation where the FBI wanted Apple to create software to access a meth dealer’s iPhone data.

The presiding judge, Federal Magistrate Judge James Orenstein determined that,

Ultimately, the question to be answered in this matter, and in others like it across the country, is not whether the government should be able to force Apple to help it unlock a specific device; it is instead whether the All Writs Act resolves that issue and many others like it yet to come. I conclude that it does not.

The All Writs Act (AWA) is a 227-year-old federal statute that essentially authorizes federal courts to compel people to do things within the scope of the law. Orenstein found the FBI’s use of the statute to be a stretch and said that “he found no limit on how far the government would go to require a person or company to violate the most deeply-rooted values.”

This decision will undoubtedly help Apple with its continued resistance against the FBI, but as of yet there is no definitive outcome in sight.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Apple, FBI Testify Before Congress Over Locked IPhone Dispute appeared first on Law Street.

An iPhone used by one of the two attackers who killed 14 people in the San Bernardino shooting has become the subject of an intense battle over cell phone privacy after Apple publicly refused to help the FBI hack into it.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym ordered Apple Tuesday to provide “reasonable technical assistance” to the FBI, which has been struggling to unlock Syed Rizwan Farook’s password-protected phone. More specifically, the FBI wants Apple to develop a custom version of the iPhone software that could be loaded onto Farook’s phone in order to unlock the device. Apple, however, has opted to challenge the court order in a stand to protect encryption rights and customers.

In an open letter to Apple customers, CEO Tim Cook explained Apple’s decision, stating:

Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.

Apple claims the software would essentially create a “back door” or “key” in the system that could potentially be used later by sophisticated hackers and cyber-criminals, which would effectively put tens of millions of Americans at risk. Cook continued writing,

We can find no precedent for an American company being forced to expose its customers to a greater risk of attack. For years, cryptologists and national security experts have been warning against weakening encryption. Doing so would hurt only the well-meaning and law-abiding citizens who rely on companies like Apple to protect their data. Criminals and bad actors will still encrypt, using tools that are readily available to them.

But without Apple’s help, there is possibly some important information that the FBI could be missing out on that remains buried inside the encrypted iPhone.

According to CBS, investigators are still trying to uncover what happened during the 18-minute gap in the timeline between the shooting at the Inland Regional Center and the police shootout that ended both shooters’ lives. The FBI is also most likely still looking for information that could connect the shooters to a possible terror network, or reveal evidence of possible co-conspirators in the attack. While the shooting may have been inspired by ISIS, the terrorist group has never taken responsibility for the attack.

Therein lies the catch-22 that Apple faces. If the issue only concerned Farook’s phone, it’s highly doubtful Apple would even be making a stand.

When asked by the New York Times about Apple’s resistance, the Justice Department pointed to a statement by Eileen M. Decker, the United States attorney for the Central District of California that read,

We have made a solemn commitment to the victims and their families that we will leave no stone unturned as we gather as much information and evidence as possible. These victims and families deserve nothing less.

As of yet, it’s unclear what kind of legal repercussions Apple could face in the standoff, but the company has been extremely transparent with its intentions to fight the order and protect encrypted information on its devices.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why is Apple Refusing to Unlock the San Bernardino Shooter’s IPhone? appeared first on Law Street.

The National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, known best for hosting the Grammys, is getting political this year, and not in a “Formation” kind of way. The Academy has created a Political Action Committee intended to support and protect recording artists by attempting to influence Congress on important bills.

Currently, the Academy’s PAC, called ‘the Grammy Fund for Music Creators’ is taking aim at getting the Fair Play Fair Pay Act passed. Like most bills, the name sounds appealing, but the drafting and passing of this bill has become quite contentious. The core of the bill would require radio stations to pay additional fees in order to play songs, and other parts of the bill would concern payments from online streaming.

When you buy a song on iTunes, or stream a song on Spotify, the money spent is split between Apple or Spotify, and then then between the artists, producers, and songwriters, according to their agreement. When music is used in another work of art, such as in a film or TV show, or sampled in another song, royalties are similarly distributed. There’s one major exception to this trend: when music is played on the radio, the stations pay royalties to the songwriters, and no one else.

The reasoning behind this is that airtime on radio stations is considered “promotional,” and is argued to drive sales of music and build popularity of artists. Even in our streaming-saturated music scene, most Americans still go the the radio for new music. Of course, the recording artists see it differently. They claim that with record sales dropping year after year, radio is an increasingly weak promotional force, and shouldn’t be exempted any more than Rdio, Spotify, Pandora, or Apple Music. Some criticize this new bill as a ‘cash grab,’ calling to mind Taylor Swift’s ongoing boycott of Spotify.

Proponents of local radio worry that these potential regulations would be stifling to small radio stations. The Free Radio Alliance explains why on its webpage:

The multinational record labels want a bigger slice of the pie and they want Washington to give it to them. The record labels have made several attempts to impose a performance tax, or fee, on free and local radio stations through Congressional legislation in the past and now they are back at it. A performance fee would require radio stations to pay the record labels yet another fee to air music free, over-the-air to listeners. Congress has continually rejected the notion that imposing a new fee is appropriate, based on the tremendous promotion value radio stations provide to labels and performers.

The Academy claims that the proceeds will benefit the artists, adding a specific claim in the statement by one of the Grammy Fund’s officers, Harvey Mason Jr.:

We represent everybody, not just superstar artists. So we are careful in how we disseminate our message, and when we go to D.C. or have events, it is with a variety of people from the bottom to the top.

While the effort to give money to the artists and creators is noble, it may be difficult to achieve this goal, given that it would need to overcome the precedent of radio stations being able to inexpensively play music. It’s worth learning more about the process to evaluate whether you support the bill. I’d recommend checking out Rolling Stone’s in-depth analysis of how royalties are divided in various music listening formats. And if you tune in to this year’s Grammy Awards, you’ll likely notice a more nostalgic tone, with David Bowie and Lemmy tributes planned. But you should know that behind the scenes, the Academy is taking a political stand with far-reaching implications.

Editor’s Note: This post was updated on 2/17/2016 for clarity. 

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Grammys Get Political Behind The Scenes appeared first on Law Street.

Apple is one of the world’s most powerful and innovative brands, and there is no doubt that it has significant staying power that will guarantee the company an enviable position in the tech world for the foreseeable future. However, the cult of Apple has been losing some followers who have decided to switch back to their original PCs. What does this mean for millennials, many of whom have been behind Apple’s huge growth in recent years?

Companies generally use PCs for workplace desktops and laptops, but many former PC users have also abandoned Apple as their personal device provider. There are a host of reasons why someone might switch back from a Mac, but the most commonly cited ones are variety of devices and cost. With dozens of different PC models on the market, consumers have a wide range of options to choose from. The rise of the tablet has also converted many traditional laptop users into tablet users, who have become devotees of the Microsoft Surface or the Kindle Fire. The Surface has become a major revenue generator for Microsoft, allowing it to hold its own against Apple over the past few years. The Samsung Chromebook has not overtaken the Macbook Air but it has opened the door to other companies creating lightweight yet still powerful laptops. More than usability, however, the cost of Apple products is what dissuades consumers from joining the Mac bandwagon. Shelling out almost a thousand dollars for a new laptop every few years seems absurd to consumers who could be buying PCs for half the cost.

Defenders of Apple argue that the user experience is far superior and that the level of customer service is unparalleled. The prevalence and ease of Apple stores makes computer repair seem like a breeze and customer satisfaction surveys constantly rank Apple at the top of the list. Apple will not be falling into oblivion anytime soon but it also does not have the tech market entirely under its control. Microsoft has claimed it will be making significant advances in 2016, and if that promise holds true, the Mac vs. PC debate may no longer be as much of a no-brainer as late 2000s Mac ads made it seem. My conversion to an iPhone two years ago has made me acknowledge the ease and efficiency of using an Apple product, yet, as a long-time PC user, I have no desire to switch to a Macbook. I love that the computer itself is not fragile (I am always thankful that I have a PC whenever I see someone carrying a Macbook with a shattered screen into their local Apple store) and seeing as I mainly use my computer for Microsoft Suite, hanging on to my PC makes perfect sense. Perhaps Microsoft, Samsung and other companies should take that to heart. We may all have become addicted to iPhones, but some are still wary of Apple when it comes to our more substantial technological needs. In an age where technology is constantly developing and growing, it’s almost paradoxical to think that we are still so comfortable with the original iteration.

This is an interesting question for the millennial generation specifically, given that we have grown up with Apple–iPods and Mac Pros were circulating around us when many of us were still in elementary school. When consumers that grew up surrounded by Apple products actively choose to look elsewhere for their personal device, Apple should consider it a major red flag. Many people receive their technological devices as gifts from their parents, which explains why the PC has retained a foothold with so many youth consumers who have transitioned to Apple for their phones and musical devices–but not for their laptop. Apple needs to cater not only to the generation that has grown up with their products but to the purchasing power behind that generation (the parents).

According to The Huffington Post, some users still identify very strictly along Mac vs. PC lines, associating personality traits and distinct demographics with each brand, but for many consumers, “the operating system wars are over.” The competition between Mac and PC has pushed both sides to produce higher quality technology and security, to the point that they are essentially equivalent. This generation will probably care less about the customer service or usability of the device because by the time they are purchasing their own device (rather than receiving one selected for them by their parents), both Mac and PC will have exceptional platforms.

So, this means that the factor that will now decide the Mac vs. PC debate is cost. Who can sell the best quality product for the lowest price? When catering to a consumer base that has been rocked by a recession, facing heightened unemployment, and crippling student loan debt, cost cannot be considered a minimal piece of the puzzle. Loyalty to one brand over another may not survive in the coming decades, but competitive pricing will always be a surefire way to attract customers.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post The Return of the PC: Are Millennials Going to Move Away from Apple? appeared first on Law Street.

Apple is being sued after the newest iOS update it released–iOS9–led to some users racking up giant data charges. The plaintiffs are arguing that Apple should have done a better job warning users that the update could lead to higher bills.

The lawsuit was filed by a California couple, William Scott Phillips and Suzanne Schmidt Phillips specifically, but is a class action suit. The lawsuit alleges that Apple violated California’s Unfair Competition Law, and the state’s False Advertising law. It’s a $5 million lawsuit because of the amount of people who may have been affected. While that payout is a pretty small amount compared to Apple’s overall wealth, it’s still symbolic of the fact that a lot of people are really upset about this new feature.

The feature that’s causing so many problems is called WiFi Assist. The idea itself seems helpful–it switches your iPhone or iPad from Wi-Fi to cellular data if it determines that the WiFi network you’re on is not reliable. The issue is that by doing so, it caused some users to go over their allotted amounts of data. This was particularly disturbing for customers who didn’t realize that the feature existed, or didn’t realize when they were being switched from WiFi to data. Additionally, according to the lawsuit, Apple only warned customers and instructed them how to turn the feature off after a flood of publicity criticizing the the new feature.

However, there is some disagreement over whether or not it’s actually WiFi Assist that’s causing a data drain for some customers. Some tech writers have made the observation that individuals could just have bad settings that are draining data from their phones. As Karissa Bell from Mashable put it:

Yes, it’s true WI-Fi Assist will prioritize your data connection over Wi-Fi in some situations. But the reality is it’s extremely unlikely that this setting is what’s causing you to blow through your data cap.

If you’re going over your data limit, it’s more likely because of bad settings — not WiFI-Assist.

She points out that you need to prioritize which apps are ok to use over a cellular connection–like Maps, and Gmail, and which ones you want to save for when you have a good WiFi connection, like Netflix or various social media sites. Additionally, Aaron Brow, of the Daily Express, pointed out that there are other culprits that lead to quick data loss as well, such as background refresh.

Apple has yet to comment on the lawsuit, although given all the hubbub over the WiFi Assist feature, it shouldn’t come as a surprise. But if you’re worried about your data use it’s wise to play around with your data settings to make sure that you haven’t enabled any draining features.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Apple Sued Over Data-Draining “WiFi Assist” Feature appeared first on Law Street.

Taylor Swift recently wrote a controversial open letter to Apple Music about its new music streaming feature. Apple Music was offering a free three month trial as one of the new streaming site’s hottest features, but during that period artists and record companies would not be paid. That policy sparked Swift’s wrath, and opened up a conversation about the ethics of streaming sites.

Swift said on her personal Tumblr account:

I’m sure you are aware that Apple Music will be offering a free 3 month trial to anyone who signs up for the service.

I’m not sure you know that Apple Music will not be paying writers, producers, or artists for those three months. I find it to be shocking, disappointing, and completely unlike this historically progressive and generous company.

Apple acquired Beats Electronics last year for $3 billion, and on June 8 it announced details about its new streaming music service and radio station at the Worldwide Developers Conference. 

One day after Swift’s letter, Apple’s Senior Vice President of Internet Software and Services, Eddy Cue, tweeted a response that Apple will change its royalty policy. 

#AppleMusic will pay artist for streaming, even during customer’s free trial period

— Eddy Cue (@cue) June 22, 2015

We hear you @taylorswift13 and indie artists. Love, Apple

— Eddy Cue (@cue) June 22, 2015

Swift responded in  kind to the policy change:

I am elated and relieved. Thank you for your words of support today. They listened to us.

— Taylor Swift (@taylorswift13) June 22, 2015

While Swift and Apple Music got rid of their “Bad Blood” pretty quickly, this isn’t the first time that she has challenged streaming services. Back in November 2014, Swift famously pulled her music from Spotify and kept “1989” off of steaming services.

I’m all for making money and handling it in whatever way you want, but to me, Swift seems a little selfish. She’s one of the most prominent artists to remove her music from Spotify, and certainly one of the richest. Her letter went so far as to say,

This is not about me. This is about the new artist or band that has just released their first single and will not be paid for its success.

But Swift may be in the wrong with that argument. When the issue between Swift and Spotify arose, Spotify stated that the purpose of its streaming site was to prevent music lovers from downloading music illegally. Although artists aren’t being paid as much as they would if they were selling a song or album, they certainly receive more money through sites like Spotify than if their songs were pirated.

So, it’s easy to question whether Swift’s intent is truly so generous. Furthermore, it’s easy to imagine that she removed the music for her personal gain because she wasn’t making as much money–just because Apple played along and fixed the problem for everyone doesn’t absolve her. If she gets into any other arguments with streaming sites down the road, hopefully she uses her prominent status to benefit all artists involved, not just for her own personal gain.

Angel Idowu

Angel Idowu is a member of the Beloit College Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Angel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Taylor Swift: Continued “Bad Blood” With Streaming Sites appeared first on Law Street.

Almost six months after Michael Brown was killed in Ferguson, Missouri, we’re still having a conversation about the potential of police officers wearing body cameras to ensure accountability and answer the questions that naturally spring up after a police shooting. But will body cameras be enough? A new app called “Alibi” doesn’t think so–and it wants to be the “body camera” of the private citizen, as well as so much more.

Right now, Alibi is only available on Android devices; it’s a $0.99 download. Alibi essentially serves as a mobile witness–depending on how you set it, it can record video, audio, still images, and GPS locations. It doesn’t store this data forever; unless you tell it otherwise, it dumps everything after an hour, or else the storage on a phone would be filled up way too quickly. One of the biggest challenges in developing the app came from making sure that it wouldn’t immediately drain a phone battery. But because the video being recorded is so low-caliber, they’ve managed to make it so even running video all day, it only takes up 1.2 times the battery consumed during normal usage.

So why would a normal person want a device that, to be completely honest, seems a bit paranoid? There are plenty of reasons. The reasoning that inspired the app itself is pretty simple–many people in the U.S. are worried about the increase in police brutality and profiling. Alibi founder Ryan Saleh explained his inspiration for the app in an interview, saying:

The way that Alibi came to be was that I was pulled over for a traffic ticket in New York City. Two cops came up to my windshield and knocked on the windshield, and one of them’s just talking, totally normal, and the other one takes the liberty of asking me to roll down the window and sticks his head in the car and pokes a flashlight around. I’m a straight-laced person, I have nothing to hide, and it didn’t bother me that much at the time, but I was thinking about it, and was like, ‘You know, that probably wasn’t legal.’

I never would have thought to pull out a camera and record the guy, and that probably would have caused more pain than it was worth in the situation, but the number of times in my life that I wish I was recording something — you don’t think to do it at the time, but you go back and you wish you were recording something — is outrageous. I said to myself, ‘You know, we all walk around with a device in our pocket that has a GPS in it, a microphone and a camera.’

Obviously, interactions with police aren’t the only thing that Alibi would be used to record. It could actually be used in reverse–as a tool for the police. Obviously, a 99-cent app is cheaper than a body camera; Alibi could be required by police departments in lieu of body cameras.

Other things that Alibi could be used for are plentiful. It could be used to prove a literal alibi with the GPS and pictures function. It could be used to record something you saw as a passerby. But it could also be used in really creepy, negative ways as well. Imagine if everything you did or said could be recorded by someone who had a smartphone. It could easily be used for nefarious purposes. There are also legal issues here–there are certain laws that restrict photographing people in private places, or places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Having a constantly recording device could break those laws.

Alibi definitely has its practical uses, and it’s an intriguing solution to the issue of American concerns about our police force. That being said, it’s also a little creepy, and may not be something that will worm its way into daily life too quickly. Privacy is still an important right, and while Alibi may protect other rights, privacy can’t be forgotten.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Alibi: New App Aims to Record Everything, Including the Police appeared first on Law Street.

Today music streaming sites like Spotify seem ubiquitous, but the truth is that they’re fairly recent innovations. As much as consumers appreciate streaming sites, they’re not always as beloved by artists and their collaborators. Read on to learn about music streaming sites, their history, and the legal foundation behind the popular products.

Where did streaming sites come from?

Since the mid-1990s and the era of Napster, the relationship between music and the internet has been rocky. Before most homes in America had a Wi-Fi connection, the only way to get a copy of a song or album was to go to a store and purchase a CD or cassette tape, or go through the painstaking process of recording the song off of the radio. As soon as more and more homes started getting access to the internet fans realized that sharing music with others could be an easy and cheap way to listen. File sharing networks were a dime a dozen, and anytime you wanted a song or an album, you could download the songs and burn them onto a recordable CD.

This obviously meant that many musicians, songwriters, and rightsholders lost money at an alarming rate, and record companies saw a decline in sales, profits, and even advertising. The response was abrupt: lawsuits against file sharers, program developers, and those who downloaded the songs. Lawsuits ranged anywhere from a few dollars and cents to millions of dollars. Of course, that led to bad PR from the general public and made people share music even more while being even sneakier about it. Eventually, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) stopped filing lawsuits and instead turned to internet service providers to monitor illegal usage.

All seemed to be going better, for at least a short time; however, streaming music came to the forefront of the industry and everyone started to get their music for free from websites like Pandora, then Gooveshark, Rdio, YouTube, and Spotify.

Streaming music sites are paid services–or sometimes free, as long as you’re okay with waiting through ads–that enable you to stream music. With Spotify, for example, you start the program, suggest your favorite artist or song, and then you listen to artists and songs that are similar. On some services, you can mix genres, so you can listen to the Broadcast Cast, Nicki Minaj, and Mozart combination radio station, if you really want. Every time someone listens to a song or an album, the artist gets paid by Spotify.

Musicians used to make money in a fairly simple model based off of album sales through record stores and online. It was convoluted at times, due to percentages and contracts, but at its core it was like any other retail endeavor–producers were paid for their product. Today, however, artists make money on everything from iTunes downloads to on-demand streaming to YouTube videos. Unfortunately, many of these methods generate little-to-no money for the actual artists.

Now these services have a responsibility to the artists and those working on the songs. The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) has just granted Spotify a license to stream more than 8.5 million musical works. Cloud-based music services, which Amazon, Google, and Apple have recently introduced, allow users to store music online and play back the music on any device.

In addition, there are fights among the bigger names in music. Entertainment giants like Disney have fought to extend copyright protection on some of their most popular and lucrative pieces of intellectual property, and musicians and songwriters would certainly love to have a longer period to milk royalties out of their creations before the tunes hit the public domain. With Disney leading the way, we might just see some big reforms on the horizon.

So, how do artists make money off streaming?

There are a few different ways musicians make money. If listeners don’t pay for their subscriptions, they get money from the ads that play every few songs. That revenue goes to the streaming site, which then pays the artists their share. Some users get annoyed with the ads, so then they purchase a premium subscription. According to Spotify, this means that the average user now spends $9.99 a month instead of the $5 a month they would spend without it. This chart from Spotify shows the relationship between money earned and music sales in the digital and physical formats. Spotify says that it “pay(s) out nearly 70 percent of (its) total revenue to rights holders.“

Artists no longer make money from the sale of albums or singles, but rather the play of songs. Many people think that this is making artists “up their game” and make albums with better songs, while many artists view it as not being paid for their art. Here is the official description of how they figure out what “per stream” means, right from Spotify’s website:

An artist’s royalty payments depend on the following variables, among others:

• In which country people are streaming an artist’s music

• Spotify’s # of paid users as a % of total users; higher % paid, higher “per stream” rate

• Relative premium pricing and currency value in different countries

• An artist’s royalty rate

Recently, these variables have led to an average “per stream” payout to rights holders of between $0.006 and $0.0084. This combines activity across our tiers of service. The effective average “per stream” payout generated by our Premium subscribers is considerably higher.

So while artists do get compensated when a streaming site uses their work, it’s not as dependable or as lucrative as brick-and-mortar album sales used to be.

Current Debates

When Spotify streams music, it of course takes a cut so that it can stay in business and pay employees. Everyone is happy, right?

Not so fast. It still doesn’t stop illegal download of music, nor does it stop people from piling on the same account, much like people do with Netflix. There has also been some backlash from the musicians themselves. The most notable is Taylor Swift, who refuses to let her album 1989 be played on the service, but also includes Garth Brooks, The Black Keys, AC/DC, The Beatles, and Led Zeppelin. Bette Midler, in particular, is against the services, with Billboard claiming she gets “microscopic micropayment of .00002733076 cents per track.”

Courtesy of Bette Midler/Twitter.

Pandora responded to the Billboard story, saying:

We love Bette’s music and certainly respect her advocacy for fair compensation for artists. But we must clarify an important fact: Pandora paid more than $6,400 for those 4+ million plays, based on our 2014 rates which are published publicly. In terms of compensation to the creative community Pandora remains by far the highest paying form of radio. Pandora pays songwriters a greater percentage of revenue than terrestrial radio. And Pandora paid 48% of our revenue in performance royalties to rights-holders in 2013 – more than $300 million – while terrestrial radio was required to pay nothing.

Of course, Bette Midler probably has enough money to last her, as do many of the other artists mentioned above, but what about artists who do not have as much commercial success? They may not be able to get by on such low payments.

Taylor Swift wrote an Op-Ed on the matter and defended her opinion to Time, saying to those who criticized her choice:

Well, they can still listen to my music if they get it on iTunes. I’m always up for trying something. And I tried it and I didn’t like the way it felt. I think there should be an inherent value placed on art. I didn’t see that happening, perception-wise, when I put my music on Spotify. Everybody’s complaining about how music sales are shrinking, but nobody’s changing the way they’re doing things. They keep running towards streaming, which is, for the most part, what has been shrinking the numbers of paid album sales.

Some musicians are defending the services, however. Bono recently said:

I see streaming services as quite exciting ways to get to people. In the end, that’s what we want for U2 songs. The real enemy is not between digital downloads or streaming. The real enemy, the real fight is between opacity and transparency. The music business has historically involved itself in quite considerable deceit.

Essentially, artists want a fair price for their music. But in a world where almost no one pays full “iTunes” prices for their music, is it worth it for those celebrities to take a stand? As long as there are only a few artists standing against streaming services, it will probably be a losing battle.

Trickle Down Effect?

Swift also defends her choice because she sees her music as an “art.” This begs the question, if the stars are complaining about what they get, what does that mean for everyone else? Alex Anders, a music producer and engineer who has worked with many artists, including the cast of Glee (which charts multiple songs on iTunes and Spotify when the show is in season), had this to say:

@NoelDiem It is the songwriters, engineers, producers, and studios, etc that are paying the price with their livelihood. They can’t tour!

— Alex Anders (@alxanders) January 14, 2015

So who is missing out on money when it comes to streaming? Those who fall into the “other” category, and they have to share a small piece of the puzzle. The Songwriter writes the actual melody and lyrics of the song; the Publisher pays for the music to be recorded; and the Engineer sets up and mixes the music.

The move away from a traditional model of selling music means that these people are sometimes cut out of the equation, or don’t receive as much money as they used to. Can this problem be solved with a restructuring of the music business? Maybe. But it will take artists working together with record labels, streaming services, and internet providers to make a real change.

Conclusion

Streaming music is still in its relative infancy, so it has the potential to improve for everyone in the equation. There have already been many changes in just the last few years. Apple is still in its first year of streaming, and more and more artists are paying attention to cash flow. Is it perfect yet? Hardly. Not by a long shot. But it is a much better alternative than the era of pirated music and zero artist compensation.

Sources

 Primary

Spotify: Spotify for Artists 

Pandora: Artist Support

Additional

Billboard: Bette Midler Disparages Pandora, Spotify Over Artist Compensation

Independent: Music Streaming: The End for iPods?

Time: Taylor Swift on 1989, Spotify, Her Next Tour and Female Role Models

Reuters: U2’s Bono Defends Under-Fire Music Streaming Services

Independent: Why Musicians Hate Spotify

Wall Street Journal: For Taylor Swift, the Future of Music is a Love Story

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Streaming Music: Good Business or an Attack on Artists? appeared first on Law Street.

The book publishing industry has had its fair share of legal disputes this year, from the consumer class-action lawsuits against the big-6 publishers to the HathiTrust case, which dealt with new fair use parameters in the digital book world.

To round out a busy year, it’s fitting that the past week was one of the busiest weeks of the year for the legal side of book publishing.

On Monday, the book publishing industry had its most important court date of the year. The Second Circuit listened to oral arguments regarding Apple’s appeal of a district court’s decision that found Apple guilty of fixing e-book prices with the big-5 publishers.

According to Publishers Weekly, Apple’s attorney, Theodore Boutros, argued that the district court erred in deciding that Apple was liable in its role in a “per se” case of price fixing in the e-book market. In antitrust law, “per se” means a violation that prevents further scrutiny of the conspiracy’s intent on the market (i.e., the effect on the market). Boutros argued that the district court should have applied a “rule by reason” framework in deciding its case, which would have taken into consideration Apple’s pro-competitive involvement in the e-book market.

The appeal also involved the big-5 publishers–Penguin and Random House merged earlier this year. Simon and Schuster’s and Macmillan’s attorneys argued that the district court’s final order should be reversed because the order extended Simon and Schuster’s and Macmillan’s original two-year “cooling off” period to four years, and the extension would hinder the publishers’ negotiations with other retailers.

The Second Circuit’s decision should be announced anywhere from a few weeks to a few months from now.

In other big year-end news, on Tuesday, Jesse Ventura continues his fight in his defamation lawsuit. Last summer, Ventura sued the estate of the late Chris Kyle for writing defamatory words about Ventura in Kyle’s book, “American Sniper: The Autobiography of the Most Lethal Sniper in U.S. Military History.” Ventura claimed that Kyle wrote that Ventura, who is a former Navy SEAL, said that the Navy SEALs “deserved to lose a few.” Kyle also alleged that he had a fistfight with Ventura. Ventura denied both allegations, and Ventura later won $1.8 million in damages, consisting of $1.3 million for unjust enrichment and $500,000 in damages.

In the latest turn of events, Ventura has set his sights on Kyle’s publisher, HarperCollins. According to the Washington Post, Ventura has claimed that Kyle’s tale of the bar fight incident increased sales of his book, which generated millions of dollars for HarperCollins. The Los Angeles Times reports that Ventura seeks $150,000 in damages, though he will likely ask for more in settlement negotiations with HarperCollins.

Ventura received criticism for continuing with his lawsuit after Kyle passed away, but Ventura claims according to CBS News, “All I wanted to do was clear my name…It has nothing to do with a widow or anything like that.” Ventura added “I would have been a big-time loser had I not pursued the lawsuit, because…the whole story was fabricated…I was accused of treason, which in the military is the death penalty.”

With all the current activity currently before the courts, 2015 seems to be an eventful year for book publishing.

Joseph Perry

Joseph Perry is a graduate of St. John’s University School of Law whose goal is to become a publishing and media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and volunteering at the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries. Contact Joe at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Year in Review: The Legal Side of Book Publishing appeared first on Law Street.

Steve Jobs will be testifying in a class-action trial in which it is being alleged that Apple broke anti-trust laws.

Now, Steve Jobs is, of course, dead. But before he died, he recorded a deposition and now that deposition will be played during the trial. In addition to the deposition, emails that he sent during that time period will also be used.

The suit essentially says that during part of the early iPod era–2006 to 2009–Apple only allowed music downloaded from iTunes to play on the devices. The reverse was also true–if you downloaded music from iTunes, which was admittedly one of the easiest platforms at the time, you couldn’t get it to play on another kind of device. By not allowing music downloaded from competing companies, Apple essentially broke anti-trust practices. That’s obviously no longer the case–Apple changed its products to allow music from other platforms in 2009. Now, it’s pretty easy to get content from other music retailers onto iPods, iPhones, iPads, or any other Apple devices, but “the plaintiffs argue that it inflated the prices of millions of iPods sold between 2006 and 2009 to the tune of $350 million.”

Jobs’ “testimony” seems like it could be pretty damning for Apple. For example, an email released a few years back includes a statement from Jobs as follows:

We need to make sure that when Music Match launches their download music store they cannot use iPod. Is this going to be an issue?

In addition, the plaintiff’s attorneys claim that their most salient proof comes from the reaction that Jobs had to a rival company, RealNetworks, releasing software called “Harmony.” Harmony would have allowed songs purchased from Real to be played on Apple devices. Apple responded by quickly releasing updates that rendered Harmony incompatible. Bonnie Sweeney, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said that there is evidence that Jobs was furious at Harmony’s release, and his testimony will show that.

Jobs isn’t the only familiar face from Apple who will be testifying at this trial. Marketing Chief Phil Schiller and the exec who runs Apple’s software sales, Eddy Cue, will also be there.

The fact that Jobs’ testimony is being incorporated a few years after his death says a lot more about our court system than the case itself. The case was first filed in 2005, and there’s been basically a decade of legal back-and-forth over the issue. Now, almost 10 years later, it’s hard to even remember the days when you could only use iTunes if you had an iPod. In addition, the money that’s up for grabs–the suit is for $350 million–really isn’t that much to a company like Apple. After all, Apple makes about $180 billion in a single year. But it’s gotten pretty used to defending itself in court, and this is just further example of that attitude.

What’s really making the news here isn’t the class-action lawsuit–which to be honest is pretty run of the mill and boring. It’s the fact that Jobs, who has an almost cult-like following, is going to be sort of the “star witness” from the grave. It’s not something that our legal system really imagined, but it could very well help prosecutors prove their case against Apple.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Steve Jobs to Testify Despite Being Dead appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, Federal Judge Denise Cote approved a class action settlement agreement in which Apple may begin paying $400 million dollars to as many as 23 million consumers. The suit regarded antitrust law violations that it committed when it conspired to raise e-book prices with book publishers.

According to Publishers Weekly, the settlement terms are as follows:

Apple will pay $400 million to consumers only if the liability finding survives the appeal process; it will pay $50 million if the liability question is vacated or remanded for further proceedings. If the liability finding is reversed on appeal, Apple will pay nothing.

The actions that precipitated the lawsuit started a few years ago. Before 2010, the big-6 publishers (now the big-5 publishers since the Penguin-Random House merger) used the wholesale model to sell e-books. Under the wholesale model, publishers recommended a retail price to a wholesaler and sold the book to the wholesaler for a certain percentage off the publisher’s recommended retail price. The wholesaler then sold the book to the retailer, who set its own e-book prices. For example, a publisher could set a recommended retail price for a book of $15.99, sell the book to the wholesaler for a fifty percent discount of $7.99, and the retailer could then sell the book at $10.99.

Amazon then began selling e-books at $9.99, and publishers initially had trouble competing. In 2010, Apple convinced the big-6 publishers to change business models, and the publishers entered into the agency model. Under the agency model, publishers set the retail price  of an e-book and use retailers as agents to sell the e-book. The retailer then receives thirty percent of the sales price of the e-book, and the publisher receives the remaining seventy percent. For example, a publisher can set a retail e-book price at $15.99, and the retailer must sell the e-book at $15.99; however, the retailer receives thirty percent of the sales price, and the publisher receives the remaining seventy percent.

The Department of Justice soon accused five of the big-6 publishers and Apple of fixing e-book prices to thwart Amazon’s $9.99 e-book price, and the publishers and Apple were later found guilty of violating the Sherman Act. Penguin, Hachette Book Group, Macmillan, HarperCollins, and Simon and Schuster paid $75 million, $31 million, $25 million, $19 million, and $17 million in damages respectively to e-book consumers, for a grand total of roughly $167 million in damages.

The potential $400 million class action settlement with Apple is in addition to the $167 million paid in damages by the publishers, so all eyes in the publishing industry will be focused on the Second Circuit on when it hears Apple’s appeal on December 15..

This class action settlement comes at an interesting time in the book publishing industry.  As part of the original DOJ antitrust settlement, Hachette, HarperCollins, and Simon Schuster ended their contracts with e-book retailers like Amazon and allowed retailers to renegotiate the contracts. Moreover, the settlement allowed retailers to return to the wholesale model, and the three publishers also agreed to not interfere with price discounts for two years. Now, Hachette and Simon and Schuster have entered into separate agreements with Amazon concerning e-book prices.

Apple and the publishers are undoubtedly hoping for a reversal, but I don’t think that is likely.  We will just have to see what happens.

Joseph Perry

Joseph Perry is a graduate of St. John’s University School of Law whose goal is to become a publishing and media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and volunteering at the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries. Contact Joe at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Federal Judge Approves Apple E-Book Settlement appeared first on Law Street.

“Siri, I’m upset.”

“All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.”

Okay — so she’s not the deepest or most prophetic robot that ever tried to cheer me up, but we have all come to simultaneously know, love, and hate Siri. She saves us time by writing out our grocery lists (despite her confusion of homophones), keeps us from getting lost (although she tends to take the long way) and sometimes, on a Monday, simply provides just enough sass to keep us drudging until 5:00p.m. Apple is very proud of its little lady. Referring to the robotic personal assistant, the company advertises, “Your wish is its command.”

So, when the U.S. Trademark Office turned down Apple’s 2012 application for protecting Siri’s trademark as a “social network,” Apple stood up for its loyal virtual assistant. This week, the company filed an appeal with the Trademark Office, claiming that the examiner was not correct in his conclusion and that Siri deserves another chance.

Initially, it was determined by the examiner that Apple is not currently using Siri as part of any social networking business. Therefore, Siri cannot be protected by a social network mark. However, Apple argues that in many ways Siri accompanies social network websites such as Facebook and Twitter. For example, Siri can post and update statuses to both sites via a user’s voice command, allowing Siri to serve as a direct tool for online social interaction.

Some wonder whether this move from Apple’s legal team means that Siri’s social media future is bright, with more innovative, multi-platform media capabilities to come. This is somewhat expected, as our society inches closer and closer to artificial, technological assistance. We already have Siri and the Roomba robot vacuum. It’s only a matter of time before we’re able to fill our cubicles with a bunch of Wall-Es, right?

Others write this legal move off to be merely proactive. After all, Apple’s fierce legal team loves intellectual property and has been accused many times of creating a litigation bubble around its products, making it exponentially more difficult for competitors to enter the market with rival products. Apple is known to get crafty with its legal practices. In the past, the company has cited design patents when questioning the originality of Samsung technology (Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al.), protected its products with utility patents, trade secrets and copyright, and even obtained trade dress to uphold certain shapes, colors, or materials of a product as its own (the sneakiest of all the IP tactics).

The word “Siri” has definitively been Apple’s for two years. Apple holds the trademark for Siri as voice recognition software; however, Siri’s primary function seems to be unclear across the board.

I wondered if Siri was worried, so I asked her if she was upset. It turns out, she’s quite the optimist, answering, “Everything is fine. All of my circuits are operational.”

Only time will tell whether Siri’s purpose can be legally defined. In the meantime, we can still appreciate her as our trendy, ditzy assistant whom we resent but would never dare fire.

The post Apple Appeals to Trademark Office on Behalf of Siri appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Yesterday I was watching The Five on Fox News and one of the topics was this new ad campaign that some former Mitt Romney “ad guru” came up with that has me feeling all kinds of different things. Another one of the writers here at Law Street got her fingers working on the same topic and I will address a little of what Anneliese had to say about the “Republicans Are People Too” campaign.

I get the message they’re trying to get across here, but I think it was done wrong. We all have a misconception of people we do not know or do not associate with, and this often goes along party lines. There have always been certain stereotypes attached to each party. Republicans and conservatives are typically viewed as heartless, racist, homophobic, gun-toting, war-loving, wife-beating, feminist-hating, uncaring-about-the-poor, mean-spirited, greedy, selfish, intolerant, drunk, one-percenters. Democrats and liberals are often viewed as tree-hugging, abortion-loving, gun-hating, politically correct, unpatriotic, lazy, looking-for-a-handout, entitled, big government-loving people who like to stick racism or sexism into every conversation.

These stereotypes are not true of everyone and that was what Vinny Minchillo was trying to put out there for the world in this ad. But I don’t think he did it the right way. And if he spent $60,000 to create that ad then he needs to get his money back because the supposed use of stock photos is just embarrassing. Not to mention the stuff he points out is just petty and shallow.

The one thing I do love about the ad is the moment when it states “Republicans like dogs and cats, but probably dogs a little more than cats.” It was the playful humor of this moment that made me like the ad. But to feel like you need to tell the world that even people with tattoos are Republicans drives me insane. I have 14 tattoos, I don’t drive a Prius, I do love dogs, and I’m a conservative, too!

Greg Gutfeld had an interesting point on The Five: “This commercial is not the answer. You shouldn’t be saying ‘we’re just like them.’ You should be saying why you’re better than them. You need to focus on why you’re right.” I like the point he makes but maybe not so much about being better than anyone else but simply saying why we think that our opinions and views are just as important and should be just as respected as those of another party.

Which brings me to the petty comment that President Obama made the other day in a speech:

While good, affordable health care might seem like a fanged threat to the freedom of the American people on Fox News, it’s working pretty well in the real world.

Delusions of grandeur come to mind.

Why on EARTH, Mr. President, do you feel like you need to take jabs at Fox News? Are you threatened by the idea that you have not been such a great president and things are not actually working out the way you said they would!? Someone actually took the time to include this little jab in his speech. President Obama didn’t just go off the cuff and use his own wit to make this comment, but a speech writer actually wrote it in for him. When you are on your second term and this is what you and your speech writing team are talking about it is time to hang up your hat! Take a page from the fictional President Josiah “Jed” Bartlet of the West Wing and respect the other party, maybe even include them.

Yes, Anneliese, real Republicans actually use Macs. In fact, I am using one to write this right now! I love all things Apple; the iPhone 6, iPad mini, Apple TV and I even have two Mac laptops and a 27″ iMac. But now I have to wonder if me listing all of the Apple products that I own makes you think I am, yet again, your typical elitist Republican because Apple products are not cheap! I appreciate that you appreciate the fact that Republicans are just kind of tired of having a bad rap.

Now, I agree with Anneliese on the other ads she talks about — they are just horrible! But you can’t fault the party for trying. What’s even better is that the more you talk about these ads the longer they stick around and the more people they reach! So even if it is a ridiculous ad, you have given it the momentum to influence someone it may not have reached before. Or at least get someone thinking.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Republicans Really Are People Too appeared first on Law Street.

Apple has done it again! No I’m not talking about their new ‘phablet’ {sidebar: how ridiculous is that word} as I’m sure everyone has heard plenty about it. However, the tech giant just announced new consumer protections from both government entities and the company itself, with its latest iOS 8 mobile operating system. Apple has created an encrypted operating system with passcodes inaccessible to the company. This means that if a government entity requests data concerning an iPhone user running the new operating system, Apple would be unable to provide the requested information. Although privacy concerns and requests for individual data by government entities is a huge point of contention for companies and individuals alike, we should expect the government to work slowly and incrementally to address these concerns. Although change will take considerable time, we should look at proposed legislation that will bring us a step closer to securing the privacy of our electronic communications with legislation like the Email Privacy Act.

Several tech companies, businesses, and civil liberties organizations have come together in support of the Email Privacy Act.  It’s rare that a policy is accepted by such a broad group, especially when those groups are normally on opposite sides of policy issues. It seems unlikely that any government would relinquish power over invasions of privacy, but the Email Privacy Act, which would reform the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), aims to do just that. The ECPA, passed in 1986, allowed law enforcement and government entities the freedom to request electronic communications without a warrant from third-party service providers after the communication was more than 180 days old. The Email Privacy Act aims to eliminate this 180-day rule and increase electronic communication confidentiality.

Before explaining the reforms of the Email Privacy Act, I first want to provide context for the ECPA. As I stated, the ECPA was passed in 1986, before the invention of Internet or email. Based on the language of the law, it’s apparent that legislators couldn’t discern the immense popularity electronic communications would eventually have, let alone envision the various social media platforms we would become accustomed to. After realizing how outdated the ECPA is, Congress has put forth efforts to reform the law with H.R.1852 and a similar Senate bill S.607. Each bill intends to eliminate the 180-day clause (Title 18, section 2703 of the U.S. Code). In addition to this change, the bills would set standards for requesting warrants, set deadlines for notifying subscribers whose electronic communications are requested, and set guidelines for delaying notification to subscribers.

If passed, the Email Privacy Act will stop remote computing services and electronic communication services from divulging the contents of any communications to a government entity without a warrant. Government entities may still submit requests to service providers for information, only after approval of warrant. If a warrant is granted to law enforcement, they must notify the subscriber in no more than 10 days that their communications have been surrendered. If a government entity other than law enforcement produces a warrant for an individual’s electronic communications, they must notify the subscriber in no more than three days. The only time a subscriber will not be informed of their surrendered communications is in response to an administrative subpoena.

Although notification of surrendered electronic communications must take place in all cases where a warrant is granted, both government entities and law enforcement may be granted a delay. In the case of law enforcement, they may be granted one or more delays of 180 days and for a government entity a delay of 90 days. There are five instances where a delay of notification to subscribers will be granted:

1. If notification may endanger the life or physical safety of the individual;
2. if flight from prosecution is a concern;
3. if intimidation of potential witnesses is a concern;
4. if destruction of or tampering with evidence is a concern; and,
5. if jeopardizing investigation or unduly delaying trial is a concern.

Even if there is a delay, subscribers must eventually be notified. Each subscriber who has their communications surrendered will be sent a copy of the warrant; notice concerning why and how the information was obtained; notice of delay; information on the court authorizing the delay; and provision for why the delay was granted.

Privacy concerns dealing with technology, and especially electronic communications, will continue until policies are reformed and in some instances, new policies created.  We can’t be discouraged by the inability of  a slow-moving government to address our concerns as quickly as we would like, but we can support new legislation, whenever presented, to address the concerns we have.

__

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a recent Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football.

Featured image courtesy of [Ottox via Flickr]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Apple is Now a Step Ahead of the Government to Protect Your Privacy appeared first on Law Street.

Snapchat quietly settled a lawsuit last week with Reggie Brown, a supposed original co-founder of the popular social media app. Brown claimed in his suit that he was the one who came up for the idea for the app in the first place, but was kicked out of group before it was released.

Snapchat said in a statement on September 9th that CEO Evan Spiegel and Chief Technology Officer Robert Murphy had resolved their dispute with Brown and confirmed his claims:

Reggie Brown originally came up with the idea of creating an application for sending disappearing picture messages while he was a student at Stanford University. He then collaborated with Spiegel and Murphy on the development of Snapchat during its early and most formative days.

The settlement marks the first public acknowledgement by Snapchat of its faults after a year-and-a-half legal battle with Brown. In February 2013, Brown claimed that he came up with the idea for an app that lets users send disappearing photos and videos to friends. He said he also came up with the idea for the app’s logo and its original name, “Picaboo.” He said he was ousted from the group by his fraternity brothers, Spiegel and Murphy, and that he rightfully owned one-third of the company. Snapchat denounced Brown’s claims several times and said that they were “utterly devoid of merit.” By settling last week, they changed their position. But Snapchat did keep the terms of the settlement confidential, making it impossible to know whether Brown got his one-third or something else.

Under normal circumstances, Sanpchat’s settlement might spark up a debate about intellectual property and ownership rights. But in this case, that didn’t happen for a couple of reasons. That September 9th date on which Snapchat announced the settlement might ring a bell to people who follow technology news. It was the day of Apple announced its new line of iPhones and the Apple Watch. Snapchat chose to publish its press release on that day at 1 p.m., the exact start time of Apple’s big event, which was the story of the day in the technology news sphere. The Snapchat story was almost completely overshadowed.

The other reason this settlement may not have sparked up a debate is that Snapchat, despite claiming to have 700 million photos and videos sent daily and being valued at an estimated $10 billion, currently does not earn any revenue. The company has already turned down offers from high profile tech giants–$3 billion from Facebook and $4 billion from Google. Without earning any revenue, Brown’s piece of the Snapchat pie currently wouldn’t earn him anything besides name recognition and the potential reward should the company decide to sell.

Snapchat’s dispute with Brown might sound familiar in the social media realm. In 2004, Facebook had a similar debacle–three Harvard University seniors sued CEO Mark Zuckerberg for using their idea for a social network. Facebook settled with them in 2008 for 1.2 million shares of Facebook, which were valued at $300 million during Facebook’s initial public offering.

While we don’t know what settling with Snapchat earned Brown, it does seem to be revealing an easy money-making scheme: introduce an idea for a product or service, wait for someone you know to make it successful, then sue.

Zaid Shoorbajee

Zaid Shoorbajee is a an undergraduate student at The George Washington University majoring in journalism and economics. He is from the Washington, D.C. area and likes reading and writing about international affairs, politics, business and technology (especially when they intersect). Contact Zaid at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Snapchat’s Settled Lawsuit: Another “Social Network” Story? appeared first on Law Street.

Exciting news is coming from the Apple camp. In an attempt to move into the business enterprise market,  Apple has announced it will team up with International Business Machines Corp. (IBM) to create business apps for iPads and iPhones. It’s no secret that Microsoft has cornered the enterprise market for decades, representing as much as 92 percent of it; however, with Microsoft’s successful efforts to transform its devices and services with the release of the Surface RT and Surface Pro tablets, we shouldn’t be surprised that Apple wants to move in on the enterprise turf. As an owner of a Surface Pro and an iPhone, all I can say is that I’m excited to see the innovation that comes out of this new competition.

The folks at Microsoft have to be a little nervous. Apple has a huge following of dedicated consumers who are all too eager to get their hands on the next new device and software developed by the tech giant. Apple’s genius really is found in its ability to cultivate repeat customers due to proprietary practices. By allowing all Apple products to connect with each other, in addition to their exclusivity as it concerns software, its following grows and customer retention remains high.  Apple is essentially the Pringles of tech devices. You don’t stop after buying one, you get them all and have them communicate with each other. This level of integration is crucial. If the Apple/IBM partnership fairs well in the development of business software, there’s nothing stopping companies from also purchasing Apple computers to have the complete trifecta of phone, tablet, and computer integration. If Apple users can combine their business and personal lives through the exclusive use of Apple devices, what will happen to Microsoft?

Unfortunately, I’m not an oracle and therefore can’t predict how this will affect Microsoft, but I do know that the incorporation of tablets in the workplace will continue to increase over the next three years. I also know that the iPad currently makes up 91 percent of all tablet activations in the enterprise market.  An August 2013 report conducted by Forrestor Research found that by 2017 nearly one in five tablets will be purchased directly by companies. Some key reasons for the trend are better work functionality, quick accessibility to information, and the device’s use for business presentations. These conveniences are only amplified by the ability to have phones integrated with tablets. Many companies are already seeing the value of tablets in the workplace and in some cases implementing BYOD (bring your own device); however, the use of personal devices does create security concerns.

Now this is where the magic happens for Apple: companies are already promoting the use of tablets. In addition, having integrated tablet and mobile devices allows for constant connection and the ability to manage multi-platforms of integrated business data.  Apple already has the device and integrated system established.  All it needs is the security, big data, and analytics capabilities that businesses want, which is why its partnership with IBM is important.  According to Apple, IBM has the world’s deepest portfolio in Big Data and Analytics. Hence the beautiful marriage of IBM and Apple. This pairing will produce more than 100 industry-specific business solutions. High customer retention, an integrated system for all Apple devices, a partnership with the world’s leading big data and analytics corporation. A market for tablets in the workplace could mean trouble for Microsoft’s enterprise market.

Good luck to all involved, and let the innovation commence.

__

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a recent Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football.

Featured image courtesy of [Leon Lee via Flickr]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tablets in the Workplace: Should Microsoft be Afraid of Apple? appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court set software industry precedent on Monday with the unanimous reversal of a 2006 ruling in the patent infringement suit between Akamai Technologies Inc. and Limelight Networks Inc. Akamai had originally testified that Limelight encouraged its customers to violate an Akamai patent by copying technology to improve website traffic efficiency. The initial ruling was made under the doctrine of “induced” infringement, which tests liability by determining if the violator “knowingly induces others” to fully commit the crime, rather than first party infringement.

With five dissenting votes the decision was one of much dispute because it did not fit the parameters of classic patent infringement. In December 2013, the Solicitor General advocated a review of this ruling based on the concept of “divided” infringement. This notion challenged the traditional definition of patent infringement, which typically includes a purposeful violation committed by a single entity. In the case of Akamai v. Limelight, multiple independent users took some steps toward infringement, thus muddling the controversy and ultimately leading to this week’s reversal. Many top tier companies, such as Facebook, Google, and Oracle supported the reversal, asserting that they would have faced mountains of claims and skyrocketing litigation costs across the board had Akamai won the suit.

The complexity of this case’s nuances bring up greater concerns about the growing disparity between the context of the Patent Act’s conception more than two centuries ago, and today’s technological advances. Copying someone else’s invention is now as simple as downloading a file with the click of a button. Had Limelight been defeated, we would have seen a staggering increase in the already heavy burden of patent infringement suits on the technology community.

The nature of the patent industry has developed in the twenty first century from tangible products to cloud-based software. According to the Wall Street Journal, as of 2012 technology patents accounted for more than half of all the patents granted that year. This trend in software research and development has essentially turned patents into the type of invaluable investments that brick-and-mortar manufacturing used to be.

Due to this change it seems that trolling is no longer exclusive to social media. We’ve seen the rise of non-practicing entities (NPEs), more commonly known as “patent trolls”. These players work to build and enforce litigation for other people’s patents in the effort to collect licensing fees. The reversal of the Akamai v. Limelight case lifted helped to restrict the possible business of this secondary patent industry that typically hindered innovation by tying up inventors in legal trials.

It seems to me that while top companies, like Apple and Google, continue to push the limits of technology, they are simultaneously presented with a paradoxical challenge. As the only safeguard against having their ideas stolen by or credited to others, patents continue to serve as the blood of the technology industry.

On the other hand, patent trolls and entrepreneurs that use patent licensing business models to prematurely buy, sell, and trade patents have effectively altered the industry. In a way, patents are no longer fostering innovation but are rather sold to the highest bidder who may not actually create the best product, despite their sole rights to it. Unfortunately, these third-party entities of patent trolls and NPEs are driven by money, and when money is paired against the dreams of inventors, money typically wins. This is especially true with startups that don’t have the gross capital and market share of companies like Apple. In the end, true innovators, and the consumer audience they hope to serve, are the ones that tend to be on the losing end.

—

Erika Bethmann (@EBethmann) is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Alexandre Dulaunoy via Flickr]

Erika Bethmann

Erika Bethmann is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Makes it Easier to be a Patent Troll appeared first on Law Street.

What is really going on in the patent world these days?  Last week I told you about the allowance of Apple’s ban on Samsung’s imports of infringing products. The Obama administration proclaimed Samsung ban bad, Apple ban good. And the American Gods were pleased. But this week, there seems to be a different narrative in the loop.

Nokia, the maker of my first flirtation device, doesn’t seem to be having the same luck as Apple these days. InterDigital, a company that states they are in the market of developing and licensing wireless technology, brought a patent infringement suit against Nokia for the use of certain mobile phone technology. The International Trade Commission (ITC) ruled in Interdigital’s favor, and Nokia appealed this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. And here’s where it gets juicy: among the arguments presented, Nokia asserts that the ITC shouldn’t even have jurisdiction in this case.

Nokia contends that the ITC should not hear a case if the company’s business is solely to patent troll. I agree! The ITC can prevent the import of products that infringe on a patent to the detriment of a U.S. business. But is patent trolling conducting business in the US?  I think not. The ITC is allowing itself to become a shopping mall for these patent mongrels that just acquire patents with the sole purpose of litigation them and collecting royalties. Of course, InterDigital contested this label by stating that they actually research and develop patents versus just buying them to defend or sell the rights. Some of our favorite companies – Amazon, Hewlett Packard, and Red Hat – filed briefs against InterDigital with supporting evidence to the contrary. But ultimately, the whole discussion proved to be futile as the ITC determined that a business with the purpose of patent collection is still a “US business” and, thus, may be protected by import bans imposed by the ITC.

Here’s what really chaps my cheeks: the purpose of the ITC is to “treat information quality as integral to its development, including creation.”  How are they furthering this purpose when they’re hindering innovation and promoting the procurement of patents, not as a means to protect creation but as a way to obtain licensing fees?  Why should InterDigital be able to stop the import of certain 3G devices when they aren’t even making any themselves?

Given our current economic deficit, you’d think we would refrain from sustaining unfair trade practices against our own businesses.  I’m not following the logic behind the rejection of this case when it’s an issue that so conspicuously needs further discussion.

Gena.

—

Featured image courtesy of [ngader via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Patent Trolls: Monsters vs. America appeared first on Law Street.

Apple recently requested an import ban against a few of Samsung’s products, including their smartphones and tablets. I doubt that this would come as a surprise to anyone familiar with Apple’s growing monopoly on mobile devices. But coming from a true Apple junkie, I cannot say that I stand by their grand scheme to overtake the technology market based on their keen ability to appeal to aesthetics.

The International Trade Commission had determined that Samsung violated two of Apple’s patents: one pertaining to the functionality of touch screen capability and another relating to headphone recognition.  The Korean company requested the ban be overturned on public policy grounds, which I agree is a suitable argument to make judging by the tit-for-tat activity that has been arisen between the two companies. But the kicker is, the Obama administration has decided that they will uphold this ban, resulting in a huge win for Apple.

Now, at first look, you may think ‘OK, what’s the problem?’ It is abnormal for the President to overturn the ITC’s decisions. And it’s worth noting that the ban will largely affect Samsung’s older products, and thus, will not result in a significant impact on the availability of Samsung’s current products.  So then why is Samsung arching its back over this decision if its newer products aren’t to be dramatically affected?

Well…

In August, the Obama Administration vetoed the ITC’s decision to ban certain Apple products, reasoning that the ban was incorrectly restricting the importation of products that were the result of standard essential patents — patents that cover inventions that must be utilized to meet technical standards. This is rarely done. It’s bad enough for Apple to be continuously rewarded for their litigious behavior, but to reverse a decision in favor of them? It almost screams political nepotism. Following this decision, the South Korean government voiced that it was “disappointed” by this ruling.  Needless to say, this determination furthers Apple’s powerful stance in the ongoing patent battles across the tech industry.

Amongst the accusations against Samsung that were not decided in Apple’s favor was an alleged violation of a design patent regarding the overall look of the iPhone. US Trade Representative Michael Froman has explained that the decision to uphold the ban is based on “policy considerations, including the impact on consumers and competition, advice from agencies, and information from interested parties.” Oh, that doesn’t leave a generic impression on me at all. -__- If anything, policy and competition considerations should instruct fairness in the industry so that one company isn’t granted extraordinary favors on account of their economic girth and geographic residence.

The juxtaposition of the two rulings may have given rise to trade implications, such as the favoring of a company’s national origin. These assertions were even raised by Samsung in their request to overturn the ban. However, Froman has stood firm in his position that the two scenarios were factually different and that nationality was not considered in the determination. Ehhh.

Again, even as the owner of an iPhone, iPad, iTouch, and Macbook (don’t judge me, you shouldn’t judge people with addictions), I can’t support the government’s efforts to thwart competition in any industry. While Apple showcases the “cool” status symbol our subcultures so anxiously desire, no one can negate the innovative choices that Samsung has brought to the table for consumers.

Hasn’t anyone had a discussion with a techie eager to explain why Droid is better than iOS? At this rate, we may be on our way to having more limited debates if manufacturers that license Droid are having the rug yanked from beneath them.

Gena.

—

Featured image courtesy of [renatomitra via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Samsung Ban Upheld: Why Apple Can’t Stop Won’t Stop appeared first on Law Street.

The largest internet companies have joined forces with top civil liberties groups to call on the White House and Congress to increase transparency surrounding the government’s controversial National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance program. Apple, Facebook and Google are among the companies that signed a letter to the feds, asking for the right to disclose information about national security data requests.

The  tech giants’ call for greater transparency represents a push back against allegations that they had a deeper involvement with the NSA’s surveillance program, PRISM, and allowed the NSA ‘direct’ access to their servers. In particular, Google has vehemently denied that they granted the government such access. Last month, Google petitioned a secret U.S national security court to soften the restrictions on the information it can reveal about the government  data requests made under Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act (FISA), claiming such restrictions violate the company’s First Amendment rights. Microsoft also had a similar request.

Tech companies are prohibited from revealing anything about requests they receive for such information because FISA requests are classified as top secret.

[Time.com]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Mike Mozart via Flickr]

Ashley Powell

Ashley Powell is a founding member of Law Street Media, and its original Lead Editor. She is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NSA Transparency Push: Apple, Google, Facebook Join Civil Liberties Coalition appeared first on Law Street.