Internet & Online Privacy - Legal Technology - Technologist
Technologist - The FindLaw Legal Technology Blog

Recently in Internet & Online Privacy Category

Jennifer Lawrence. Kirsten Dunst. Kate Upton. Hope Solo. Victoria Justice. The biggest celebrity nude photo hack in history went down over the weekend, with hackers on online forums claiming that they had over 60 photos of Lawrence alone, along with nude photos of over 100 actresses.

How? The hack appears connected to Apple's iCloud and may be the result of "brute force" password cracking via Apple's "Find My iPhone" feature. The exploit was reportedly patched this morning, but not before a tool to crack users' passwords was available online for at least a few days.

My invite is here! I'm now a member of the special persons club who are privileged enough to get to pay Google Domains to register a new domain name! Despite that sarcastic tone, I was actually pretty excited to get in the door. The problem is, once I got there, the experience was completely anti-climactic.

Speaking of domain names, perhaps you've seen our excited posts about the wave of new top-level domains (TLDs) coming in the near future. With the ".com" domain selection looking more and more like the San Francisco housing market (there's nothing "trendy" left, investors sell domains for way more than they're worth), perhaps a .esq, .lawyer, or .attorney domain name is in your future?

Good luck with that, because finding and registering new TLDs isn't as easy as clicking over to GoDaddy (yet).

Distributing assets in a will is easy enough, but a testator's social media accounts, and their associated assets, aren't exactly amenable to being put in a box and handed over to the heirs.

Further complicating the social media picture is that there's no uniform way to access the account once the owner has died. Each platform has different procedures in place. For example, Facebook won't give out login information for a dead person, but it will delete an account or "memorialize" it, which allows only confirmed friends to see it or find it.

The "Stingray" is a neat little device that fools a cell phone into connecting to it as though it were a cellular phone tower. Once connected, the Stingray can record the device's unique ID, monitor the device's traffic, and even triangulate the cell phone's position.

It's also questionably legal. In June, unsealed documents revealed that Florida police were caught lying about using information from a Stingray to obtain warrants. As Ars Technica reports, officers were instructed to "refer to the assistance as 'received information from a confidential source regarding the location of the suspect.'" They were also told never to refer to the Stingray in police documents and to re-submit warrant affidavits that referred to them, according to the ACLU.

Lies notwithstanding, we still don't know any more about Stingrays, and now the FCC wants to get involved.

It's FindLaw's "Legal Shark Week" which means, like it or not, you're going to see a lot of shark-themed posts. If you were traumatized as a kid by the movie "Jaws," we apologize in advance.

Today's topic? Three ways you can be a tech-savvy shark, starting with social media, and continuing with metadata and e-discovery. And as you'll see, these tips aren't just for the fiercest predators -- some of them are actually necessary to be a competent guppy:

The Edward Snowden fallout continues. In June, we posted about Reset the Net, a campaign to increase privacy to "stop mass surveillance, by building proven security into the everyday Internet."

Last week we saw Black Hat and DEF CON wrap up and with it, two very important announcements regarding encryption and spy-free email. Privacy, it seems, may not be a longshot after all.

Most people don't like child pornography, but they do like privacy. The arrest of a 41-year-old Houston man last week created just such a conundrum after it was revealed Google found pornographic photos in Gmail attachments and alerted police, apparently all on its own.

How did the company do it? No one is quite sure, but at least one person -- Houston police Det. David Nettles -- just doesn't care. "I really don't know how they do their job," Nettles told KHOU-TV. "But I'm just glad they do it."

A lovely sentiment, Detective Nettles, but some of us -- especially lawyers worried about privileges -- really would like to know "how they do their job."

There is not a single reputable business or government agency in existence that will ask for your Social Security number and other private identifying information over email. And if there is, the people running that agency are really, really stupid.

Newsflash folks: That email that appears to have come from your local United States District Court? The one notifying you that you've been selected for jury duty and asking you to send a whole bunch of private information or face fines and jail time? It's fake. Tell your friends, clients, and relatives, just in case.

A United States court issues an order to Microsoft, requiring them to turn over data from a suspected drug dealer. No big deal, right? What if that data is stored in the cloud, technically on a server in Dublin, Ireland? Can that court order reach into the ephemeral cloud, and across political borders into a physical server in a foreign country?

That's the issue being debated in this landmark case, creatively captioned In the Matter of a Warrant to Search a Certain E-Mail Account Controlled and Maintained By Microsoft Corporation. (We'll stick with In re: MS Email.) Here are the five biggest things at stake in the case:

For some, Google+ Authorship in search results was a magic elixir: your photo and name next to your posts in search results would spike traffic and maybe even help with ranking. Some claimed that adding Authorship bumped up their traffic as much as 150 percent. In one of my favorite experiments, Cyrus Shepard at Moz optimized his "ugly" profile picture using a dating site, which led to a 35 percent bump in traffic.

Crazy, right? Well, at least now, with the removal of Google+ profile pictures and circle counts, us unfortunate-looking folks have a fighting chance. And speaking of Google+, another interesting tweak went through this week: fake names are now allowed. Add in April's decision to gut Google+'s staff, and this is looking more and more like G+ is inching closer and closer to obscurity.