FBI Rolls Out the Hacker Paddywagon in Nationwide Raid

It’s been an unusually exciting month in the legal tech world. Several lawyers have been charged with (and cleared of) upsetting electronic crimes. An Am Law 100 firm got sued for allegedly screwing up e-discovery. I haven’t even had the time or need to write the same vague jibber-jabber about Google+ that everyone else on the Internet has already written.

This week, we’ve got more high-profile tech arrests, involving the members of an international hacker club who happen to be supporters of everyone’s favorite Australian albino.

For deets on the legal consequences of crashing PayPal’s website, read on….

On Tuesday, the FBI arrested 16 members of Anonymous, an international hackers’ group, for their roles in a cyber-attack against PayPal. Anonymous claimed responsibility for a 2010 distributed denial of service attack on the site, code named “Operation Avenge Assange.” Assange collected WikiLeaks donations through PayPal, which had locked him out of his account. If convicted, the alleged hackers would face up to 10 years in prison.

From a well-written New York Times piece about the arrests:

The PayPal attack came in response to the release by WikiLeaks last November of thousands of classified State Department cables. Members of Anonymous, a clique of worldwide hackers with a vague and ever-changing menu of grievances, have claimed responsibility for a number of attacks on government and corporate Web sites over the last eight months.

The criminal case is one of the first of its kind against a group like Anonymous, which blurs the line between large-scale mischief and real malice. For example, LulzSec, an offshoot of Anonymous, made a stink Tuesday when it hacked into servers at The Sun, a News Corp. newspaper, and posted a fake story about Ruport Murdoch committing suicide. Scotland Yard arrested an alleged LulzSec member this week as well.

The Times story highlights a few legal questions that prosecutors will have to answer in order to convict the alleged hackers:

The prosecution is expected to face at least two major challenges, said Jennifer Granick, a San Francisco-based lawyer who specializes in computer crimes and has defended hackers in the past. Because hackers often use aliases and other people’s computers when they carry out attacks, prosecutors will have to prove that those arrested “were the ones with their fingers on the keyboard,” she said.

Second, the conspiracy charge could be especially difficult to prove, given that Anonymous boasts of being leaderless and free-floating. “When you have a decentralized group,” Ms. Granick said, “the question is, Are there big fish, and are any of these people big fish?”

The obvious irony is that now the alleged members of the “loose, secretive federation of hackers” have their names plastered all over at least one news story. Anonymous indeed.

From a corporate perspective, Anonymous and LulzSec exist mostly to give in-house counsel chronic migraines:

Cyberattacks are made possible by a combination of two features of the Internet economy. Poor security at many companies and agencies makes sensitive government and private data vulnerable to breaches. And mounting an attack is inexpensive and, with the right skills, relatively simple.

This seems to be just the beginning of a larger crackdown — and European authorities have already started stepping it up. All these hackers will have to lawyer up sooner or later. I’d say it’s about time for all you unemployed attorney folk to catch up on Internet case law.

Christopher Danzig is a writer in Oakland, California. He previously covered legal technology for InsideCounsel magazine. Follow Chris on Twitter @chrisdanzig or email him at cdanzig@gmail.com. You can read more of his work at chrisdanzig.com.

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Nationwide Layoff Watch: The Connecticut State Judiciary

Layoffs at law firms have slowed to a trickle (although we still hear the occasional rumor; email us with your tips). In the public sector, however, layoffs continue — and may even accelerate, as state governments and the federal government grapple with contentious budget issues.

Today brings word of major layoffs in Connecticut. In a just-issued report, Judge Barbara Quinn, Chief Court Administrator, laid out some serious cuts to positions in the judicial branch.

How serious? This may be hard to believe, but the number of jobs being axed exceeds the February 2009 bloodbath at Latham & Watkins….

Here’s the bottom line, from Judge Quinn’s report:

[The cuts] will have significant consequences. Four courthouses, one juvenile detention center, several offices and six law libraries will be closed; programs will be severely curtailed or eliminated; 452 valued employees will be laid off; and 150 unfilled positions will be eliminated for a total reduction of 602 employees and positions.

More than anything, the impending layoffs will severely compromise our ability to provide essential services to the residents of the State of Connecticut. In response, we are prioritizing the work that must be done and, in order to protect public safety and the constitutional rights of both defendants and victims, criminal matters must be our top priority. This means that we will make every attempt to have criminal cases presented and resolved in a timely fashion.

That’s a somewhat restrained way of putting it. Over at A Connecticut Law Blog, attorney and blogger Ryan McKeen is more blunt:

This is bad. It’s bad not only for the employees who may lose their jobs. It’s bad for the state. It’s bad for business when disputes can’t be resolved in a timely and efficient manner. Bad. Bad. Bad.

For just one example of how cuts are already affecting the administration of justice, see McKeen’s account of a recent family law case.

One lawyer who works within the court system had this reaction to today’s report:

The CT judicial branch just announced its plan to the governor re: the budget crisis.

Essentially they’re firing the tacs and paras (low people on the totem pole), who run the courtrooms now, and having data-entry people run hearings and trials….

[W]e just got the email and we’re kind of shocked that this was the approach they took.

Another source put the matter more succinctly: “THIS IS SO F**KED UP.”

It’s a depressing and deeply unfortunate situation, to be sure. And it’s important to bear in mind the consequences of layoffs in the judicial branch. Voters may ultimately decide that they’d rather endure cuts in government services than tax increases, but they should at least be aware of the trade-offs involved.

Impact Of Layoffs Already Being Felt In CT’s Courts [A Connecticut Law Blog]
Malloy Proposes Cutting 450 Judicial Branch Employees [A Connecticut Law Blog]
Report of the Judicial Branch Detailing Reductions to Expenditures [State of Connecticut Judicial Branch]

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.