Will Marriott Block Wi-Fi

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission will render a decision on whether to establish rules regarding hotels’ ability to block personal Wi-Fi hotspots inside their buildings, a practice that recently earned Marriott International a $600,000 fine.

In August, Marriott, business partner Ryman Hospitality Properties and trade group the American Hotel and Lodging Association asked the FCC to clarify when hotels can block outside Wi-Fi hotspots in order to protect their internal Wi-Fi services.

In that petition, the hotel group asked the agency to “declare that the operator of a Wi-Fi network does not violate [U.S. law] by using FCC-authorized equipment to monitor and mitigate threats to the security and reliability of its network,” even when taking action causes interference to mobile devices.

The comment period for the petition ended Friday, so now it’s up to the FCC to either agree to Marriott’s petition or disregard it.

However, the FCC did act in October, slapping Marriott with the fine after customers complained about the practice. In their complaint, customers alleged that employees of Marriott’s Gaylord Opryland Hotel and Convention Center in Nashville used signal-blocking features of a Wi-Fi monitoring system to prevent customers from connecting to the Internet through their personal Wi-Fi hotspots. The hotel charged customers and exhibitors $250 to $1,000 per device to access Marriott’s Wi-Fi network.

During the comment period, several groups called for the agency to deny the hotel group’s petition.

The FCC made clear in October that blocking outside Wi-Fi hotspots is illegal, Google’s lawyers wrote in a comment. “While Google recognizes the importance of leaving operators flexibility to manage their own networks, this does not include intentionally blocking access to other commission-authorized networks, particularly where the purpose or effect of that interference is to drive traffic to the interfering operator’s own network,” they wrote.

Source

Silk Road 2.0 Shutdown

U.S. governmnent authorities said they have shut down the successor website to Silk Road, an underground online drug marketplace, and charged its alleged operator with conspiracy to commit drug trafficking, computer hacking, money laundering and other crimes.

Blake Benthall, 26, was arrested last Wednesday in San Francisco and was expected to make an initial court appearance in federal court there later on Thursday.

The charges against Benthall carry a maximum sentence of life in prison.

A lawyer for Benthall could not immediately be identified.

Silk Road 2.0 was launched late last year, weeks after authorities had shuttered the original Silk Road website in October and arrested its alleged owner, Ross Ulbricht, who went by the online alias, Dread Pirate Roberts.

“Let’s be clear – this Silk Road, in whatever form, is the road to prison,” Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, whose office is prosecuting both cases, said in a statement.

Benthall, known as “Defcon” online, became the operator of Silk Road 2.0 in December, one month after an unnamed co-conspirator launched the site, according to prosecutors.

Silk Road 2.0 provided an online bazaar where users across the world could buy and sell drugs, computer hacking tools and other illicit items, using the digital currency Bitcoin as payment, authorities said.

As of September, the site was generating at least $8 million a month in sales, they said.

The government’s investigation included an undercover agent who was able to infiltrate the administrative staff of the website and interact directly with Benthall, prosecutors said.

Ulbricht, 30, has pleaded not guilty and is scheduled for trial in New York in January.

Source

Is RadioShack Going Bankrupt?

Troubled electronics retailer RadioShack Corp says filing for bankruptcy protection is an option if its cash situation worsens, after reporting its tenth straight quarterly loss.

The company said it was also exploring other options, including a sale or an investment, and liquidation as the last resort.

RadioShack, whose sales have been in free-fall since 2010 as it struggles to compete with internet retailers, said in a regulatory filing it was working with its lenders and landlords to restructure its debt and cut costs.

“It would surprise me if we got to Nov. 1 without a bankruptcy,” Wedbush Securities Inc analyst Michael Pachter told Reuters.

RadioShack shares, which are in danger of being delisted from the New York Stock Exchange, were up 2 percent at 95 cents in volatile early trading.

The company said same-store sales declined 20 percent in the latest quarter, while total sales plunged to their lowest in more than 20 years.

The company is being advised by a restructuring attorney at law firm Jones Day as it tries to strike a deal with creditors to close stores, two people close to the matter told Reuters on Wednesday.

RadioShack tried to close 1,100 stores this year, but reduced that number to 200 a year when lenders did not agree to the plans.

RadioShack’s landlords, however, may be open to mass store closures if they believe it will allow them to find new tenants more quickly than in a bankruptcy, a source close to the matter told Reuters.

David Tawil, president of hedge fund Maglan Capital that focuses on companies approaching bankruptcy, said he saw “major execution risks” to RadioShack’s recapitalization and turnaround efforts.

“I don’t think that the chances are great that RadioShack survives,” Tawil said, adding that the company’s credit default swaps were trading higher, pointing to market expectations of a near-term debt default.

The company ended the second quarter with $30.5 million in cash and $658.0 million in debt, which matures between 2018 and 2019.

Source

Judge Rejects Silicon Valley Settlement

A California judge has rejected the proposed settlement in a lawsuit over no-hire agreements used by top Silicon Valley tech firms, saying the amount being offered to compensate workers is too low.

The remaining defendants in the case — Apple, Google, Intel and Adobe Systems — had reached a deal with the worker’s lawyers to settle the case for US$324.5 million, but Judge Lucy Koh of the federal district court in San Jose, California, said that amount is too low.

After subtracting the fees for the workers’ lawyers — they’re allowed to keep up to a quarter of the award, or $81 million, as well as other money — each worker would be left with an average of only $3,750.

“The Court finds the total settlement amount falls below the range of reasonableness,” Koh wrote in her order, issued Friday.

She said she was troubled that the workers would get less money than under a previous settlement with companies that settled earlier in the case, even though the case has been progressing in the workers’ favor since then.

Last year, Intuit, Lucasfilm and Pixar settled with the workers before the case came to trial.

All of the companies were accused of striking secret deals to not poach each others’ workers, a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act that reduced the workers’ potential to earn higher wages.

An expert hired for the case has estimated that the workers’ should receive damages of $3 billion, for wages they could have earned if the no-hire agreements hadn’t been in place.

Source

Google, Dropbox Team Up

Google, Dropbox and a few other high-tech firms have devised a new way to help protect themselves against patent trolls.

Patent trolls, or “non-practicing entities,” are companies that buy up old patents and try to monetize them by accusing others of infringement. They usually request a one-off licensing fee to end a lawsuit, something many companies reluctantly pay because it’s cheaper than defending the claim.

The practice has become a significant problem in the high-tech field, in part because of the complex nature of modern software and hardware.

In an attempt to stop it, six high-tech companies have banded together to launch the License on Transfer Network, or LOT Network.

Members of Lotnet retain full ownership and licensing rights of their patents, but they agree to provide each other with a royalty-free license should any of the patents ever be sold.

That means if Dropbox, for instance, sells a patent on data storage to a third party, Google and the other members will first receive a license to the technology. That should insulate them from any lawsuits brought by the patent’s new owner.

Besides Google and Dropbox, the launch members include SAP, Canon, Asana and Newegg. They hope the agreement will reduce the nuisance of patent trolling.

“The LOT Network is a sort of arms control for the patent world,” said Allen Lo, deputy general counsel for patents at Google, in a statement. “By working together, we can cut down on patent litigation, allowing us to focus instead on building great products.”

The group is offering membership to other technology companies.

Source

Is Qualcomm In Trouble?

Qualcomm’s activities in China may lead to regulatory penalties for the chip vendor, this time from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission over bribery allegations.

The company is currently facing an anti-monopoly probe from Chinese authorities for allegedly overcharging clients. Qualcomm  has also said that the SEC may also consider penalizing the company, as part of an anti-corruption investigation.

The SEC’s Los Angeles Regional Office has made a preliminary decision to recommend that the SEC take action against Qualcomm for violating anti-bribery controls, the company said in its second quarter report. The accusations involve Qualcomm offering benefits to “individuals associated with Chinese state-owned companies or agencies,” the report added.

Both the SEC and the U.S. Department of Justice have been probing the company over alleged violations of the nation’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

In cooperation with those official investigations, Qualcomm said it’s found instances of preferential hiring, and giving gifts and other benefits to “several individuals” with China’s state-owned companies. The gifts and benefits amounted to less than US$250,000 in value.

If the SEC takes action against Qualcomm, penalties could include giving up profits, facing injunctions, and other monetary penalties, the company said. Earlier this month, Qualcomm filed a submission with the U.S. regulator, countering any claims of wrongdoing.

Qualcomm is facing the investigations at a time when China is increasingly become a bigger part of its business. The nation is the world’s largest smartphone market, and more Chinese device manufacturers are expanding globally.

Last year, however, Chinese regulators began investigating Qualcomm due to complaints from industry groups. The company was allegedly abusing its market position and charging higher fees for its patent licensing business. In November, Chinese authorities conducted two surprise raids of Qualcomm offices in China for documents.

Chinese regulators could decide to penalize Qualcomm by confiscating financial gains made, and even imposing a fine of 1 to 10 percent on its revenues for the prior year, the company said in its quarterly report.

Source

Microsoft Issues New Policies

Microsoft Corp, under fire for accessing an employee’s private Hotmail account to prove he was illegally passing computer code to a blogger, has said it will now refer all suspicious activity on its email services to law enforcement.

The decision, announced by head lawyer Brad Smith on Friday, reverses Microsoft’s initial reaction to complaints last week, when it laid out a plan to refer such cases to an unidentified former federal judge, and proceed to open a suspect email account only if that person saw evidence to justify it.

“Effective immediately, if we receive information indicating that someone is using our services to traffic in stolen intellectual or physical property from Microsoft, we will not inspect a customer’s private content ourselves,” said Smith, in a blog post on the software company’s website. “Instead, we will refer the matter to law enforcement if further action is required.”

Microsoft – which has recently cast itself as a defender of customer privacy – was harshly criticized last week by civil liberties groups after court documents made public in the prosecution of Alex Kibkalo in Seattle federal court for leaking trade secrets showed that Microsoft had accessed the defendant’s email account before taking the matter to legal authorities.

The company said last week its actions were within its legal rights under the terms of use of its email services, but has now acknowledged that its actions raised concerns about customer privacy.

The issue is poignant for Microsoft, which routinely criticizes Google Inc for serving up ads based on the content of users’ Gmail correspondence.

It has also been campaigning for more transparency in the legal process through which U.S. intelligence agencies can get access to email accounts following the revelations of former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden.

“While our own search was clearly within our legal rights, it seems apparent that we should apply a similar principle and rely on formal legal processes for our own investigations involving people who we suspect are stealing from us,” said Smith in his blog. “Therefore, rather than inspect the private content of customers ourselves in these instances, we should turn to law enforcement and their legal procedures.”

Source

U.S. Cloud Vendors Hurt By NSA

Edward Snowden’s public unveiling of the National Security Agency’s Prism surveillance program could cause U.S. providers of cloud-based services to lose 10% to 20% of the foreign market — a slice of business valued at up to $35 billion.

A new report from the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) concludes that European cloud computing companies, in particular, might successfully exploit users’ fears about the secret data collection program to challenge U.S. leadership in the hosted services business.

Daniel Castro, author of the report, acknowledges that the conclusions are based, so far, on thin data, but nonetheless argues that the risks to U.S. cloud vendors are real.

Indeed, a month prior, the Cloud Security Alliance reported that in a survey of 207 officials of non-U.S. companies, 10% of the respondents said that they had canceled contracts with U.S. service providers after Snowden’s leak of NSA Prism documents earlier this year.

“If U.S. companies lose market share in the short term, it will have long-term implications on their competitive advantage in this new industry,” said Castro in the ITIF report. “Rival countries have noted this opportunity and will try to exploit it.”

To counter such efforts, the U.S. must challenge overstated claims about the program by foreign companies and governments, said Jason Weinstein, a partner in the Washington office of law firm Steptoe & Johnson and a former federal prosecutor and deputy assistant attorney general specializing in computer crime.

“There are a lot of reasons to be concerned about just how significant those consequences will be,” Weinstein said. “The effort by European governments and European cloud providers to cloud the truth about data protection in the U.S. was going on well before anyone knew who Edward Snowden was. It just picked up new momentum once the Prism disclosures came out.”

Weinstein contends that European countries have fewer data protection rules than the U.S.

For example, he said that in the U.K. and France, a wiretap to get content can be issued by a government official without court authority, but that can’t happen in the U.S.

“U.S. providers have done nothing other than comply with their legal obligations,” he said. But because of Snowden’s leaks, “they are facing potentially significant economic consequences.”

Gartner analyst Ed Anderson said his firm has yet to see any revenue impact on cloud providers since the Prism disclosures, but added, “I don’t think Prism does U.S. providers any favors, that’s for sure.”

Nonetheless, Anderson added, “I think the reality is [the controversy] is likely to die down over time, and we expect adoption to probably continue on the path that it has been on.”

One reason why U.S. providers may not suffer is because “the alternatives aren’t great if you are a European company looking for a cloud service,” he said.

Source

Google Snubs Privacy

Search giant Google has told the British government it is immune to prosecution on privacy issues and it can do what it like. The US Company is accused of illegally snooping on its British customers by bypassing privacy settings on Apple devices, such as iPads, to track their browsing history.

A group of British people took Google to court but the search engine is trying to get the case thrown out. Its argument is that it is not subject to British privacy law because it is based in California. This is the second time that Google has tried to avoid British law by pretending to operate in another country. It has come under fire for failing to pay tax in the UK

Nick Pickles, director of Big Brother Watch, said: ‘It is deeply worrying for a company with millions of British users to be brazenly saying they do not regard themselves bound by UK law. Solicitor Dan Tench, of law firm Olswang, said this was another instance of Google being here when it suits them and not being here when it doesn’t. Ironically when the US ordered Google to stop what it was doing, it forced the search engine to pay a $22.5million to regulators.

There are some indications that Google may not get its way. In July the Information Commissioner’s Office told Google its privacy rules breached UK law so it will be very hard for it to stand up in court and say it didn’t.

Source

Google Fights NSL Over Data Privacy

Google is fighting a National Security Letter (NSL) issued by the US government, with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) acknowledging it is one of the first firms to do so.

Google took the unusual step last month of revealing, albeit in vague terms, the number of NSLs it received from the US government. At the time the company said it was working with the authorities to improve transparency around the subject, but according to court filings it is also fighting against handing over users’ data.

In March, Google filed a petition to set aside a legal process. Kevan Fornasero, a lawyer for Google said in the filing that petitions “filed under Section 3511 of Title 18 to set aside legal process issued under Section 2709 of Title 18 must be filed under seal because Section 2709 prohibits disclosure of the legal process”.

Fornasero’s reference to Section 2709 refers to the ability of the FBI to issue NSLs and force the handover of user data. According to the EFF, Google is one of the first communications companies to fight an NSL, but because Section 2709 doesn’t allow firms to disclose the legal process, few people can be certain that others haven’t tried to stand up to the US government.

Matt Zimmerman, a lawyer for the EFF said, “The people who are in the best position to challenge the practice are people like Google. So far no one has really stood up for their users’ among large Internet service providers.”

Google has tried in recent years to provide users with some information on how it deals with government agencies’ requests for user data. If the firm can succeed in its fight against NSLs then it could open the floodgates for others to stand up against a law that some see to be nothing more than a snooper’s charter.

Source

« Previous Page — Next Page »