Internet Lawyer Blog

On March 19, 2013, the Supreme Court reached a decision in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. In this case, respondent John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ("Wiley"), a publisher, brought suit against Petitioner Supap Kirtsaeng alleging violation of the Copyright Act, under Title 17 U.S.C. §§ 101-810. Kirstaeng a student in the United States, studying mathematics at Cornell University and the University of Southern California, sold textbooks to help pay for his education and living expenses. Kirtsaeng's relatives would buy these textbooks in Thailand, where they live, and ship them to Kirtsaeng, who would sell the textbooks in America once he was done using them for his classes. Wiley's subsidiaries in Thailand manufactured these textbooks.

Wiley contended that by selling foreign manufactured textbooks in America, Kirtsaeng was violating Title 17 U.S.C. § 602(a)(1) of the Copyright Act. According to 17 U.S.C. § 602(a)(1), a copyright owner's exclusive distribution right encompasses the importation of copyrighted work into the United States. Importing copyrighted work into the United States without the consent of the copyright owner constitutes a violation of copyright law. Under copyright law, a copyright owner has the exclusive right to distribute copies of a copyrighted work to the public. However, Kirtsaeng argued that the First Sale Doctrine protects him from any liability because according to the doctrine the copyright owner loses an exclusive interest in copyrighted work after the first sale. The First Sale Doctrine, which is codified under Title 17 U.S.C. § 109, limits copyright owners' distribution right to the first sale of the copyrighted work. Once the work is transferred, the copyright owner no longer retains an interest in the work.

In its opinion, the Supreme Court held that copyright law, and specifically the First Sale Doctrine, applies to copyrighted works manufactured abroad. Accordingly, copyright owners, such as the publisher in this case, lose their distribution rights and interests in a foreign manufactured copyrighted work after the first sale of the work. As such, Wiley lost its exclusive distribution right in the textbooks when its subsidiaries first sold the textbooks to Kirtsaeng's relatives in Thailand. When the relatives then sent the textbooks to Kirtsaeng, who proceeded to resell the textbooks in America, Wiley no longer retained a copyright interest in the textbooks.

The president and CEO of John Wiley & Sons stated that the Court's ruling would serve as a blow to the U.S. economy. The ruling will certainly have negative repercussions for publishers since consumers will be able to buy textbooks from foreign manufacturers and resell them in America, thereby reducing the cost of textbooks for American students. The decision in this case will also likely resolve Ganghua v. Pearson Education, Inc., which is another case pending before the Supreme Court.

At the Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh, we guide our clients in legal matters by using extensive knowledge and skills to create innovative solutions. Please contact us today to set up a confidential consultation.

President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("Act"), or ObamaCare, as it is more commonly known, into law on March 23, 2010. The Act intends to decrease the number of Americans who do not have medical insurance. Additionally, the Act aims to decrease the overall cost of healthcare in the nation. One of the primary provisions of the Act requires employers that have at least 50 full-time employees to provide healthcare benefits for their employees. If such employers fail to provide benefits adequate under government standards, the employers will have to pay a fine. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the plaintiffs questioned the constitutionality of ObamaCare, arguing that the federal government did not have the authority to require businesses to provide health care. Ultimately, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the constitutionality of ObamaCare.

Although, ObamaCare will not go into effect until 2014, it is already starting to have an effect on small businesses in America. Indeed, the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service released regulations, in December of 2012, that require companies that average 50 or more full-time employees to provide healthcare or pay a fine now.

The way small businesses structure in 2013 could determine their status under ObamaCare next year. Companies have considered limiting growth to eliminate the need for additional employees. Accordingly, employers are choosing to outsource work instead of hiring full-time employees in order to avoid the cost of providing government-approved health care. Also, employers are hiring employees only on a part-time basis to avoid meeting the standard under ObamaCare.

This may prove to be a problem in light of the IRS's dedication to audit employers who improperly label employees as "independent contractors" to avoid paying taxes on wages. Therefore, small businesses with close to 50 full-time employees need to be careful with how they choose to categorize employees. An IRS audit that reveals improperly categorized employees could hold an employer liable for back taxes and penalties for failing to provide the appropriate healthcare benefits.

The potential for incorrectly categorizing employees is increasingly unclear because an employer's definition of an independent contractor may be different from the government's definition. The vague IRS guidelines take into account: (i) how much control the employer has over the employee, (ii) how permanent the employment is, and (iii) how the employer pays the employee. Given the confusion that these standards may generate, employer can file certain forms with the IRS to determine if an employment relationship properly constitutes contract employment.

At the Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh, we guide our clients in legal matters by using extensive knowledge and skills to create innovative solutions. Please contact us today to set up a confidential consultation.

In light of recent news that America's cyber-network is vulnerable to outside attack, President Obama signed an Executive Order to improve cyber-security for the nation's "critical infrastructure." According to the Order, "critical infrastructure" applies to the vital physical and virtual systems in the United States that are essential to the country's economic security, public health, and safety. This definition is in line with the definition of "critical infrastructure" in the Cybersecurity Act of 2012, which the federal government failed to pass.

The Executive Order is meant to promote greater information sharing among members of the same network. This will ensure that all network providers are adequately aware of potential threats to the system in time to plan and implement an effective response. Accordingly, American companies now bear the responsibility of evaluating whether "critical infrastructure" applies to their operations. Alternatively, the Executive Order may also apply to companies that provide goods or services to other companies that the Executive Order implicates. In this case, the Executive Order would also apply to the companies that provide the goods or services. These companies would then bear the same responsibility to abide by the Executive Order and participate in the information-sharing network.

The Executive Order also requires various federal agencies to participate in this network. The Office of the Attorney General, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Office of National Intelligence, among others, are responsible for participating to create an information-sharing network. Such a network will make it easier to detect and ward off cyber-threats. Additionally, the information-sharing network will allow the participating agencies to quickly notify the President of any legislation that is necessary to further protect the nation's cyber-network. Furthermore, a working and productive network will incentivize other agencies and companies to join the network. Increased participants will improve the breadth of the network, work to expand the reach of the network, and add to the information that is available within the network.

President Obama addressed the Executive Order in his State of the Union speech. The President explained that while the Executive Order was not a substitute for cybersecurity legislation, the Executive Order would prohibit further threats to the nation's cyber-network before Congress implements such legislation. Accordingly, Congress revisited the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act ("CISPA") the day after President Obama signed the Executive Order. Meanwhile, the Senate is reviewing the Cybersecurity and American Cyber Competitiveness Act of 2013. Past attempts at passing cybersecurity legislation have alarmed associations that aim to protect civil liberties. Specifically, there is an underlying concern that such expansive information sharing stands to violate individual privacy rights. However, the American Civil Liberties Union has already spoken out in support of the Executive Order and the national security the Executive Order seeks to implement.

At the Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh, we guide our clients in legal matters by using extensive knowledge and skills to create innovative solutions. Please contact us today to set up a confidential consultation.

The proliferation of cloud computing has given rise to increased privacy concerns. These concerns are especially grounded in Google's new terms of service that allow the company to gather user information and data and release it to government entities upon request, without obtaining user consent. According to these new terms, as of March 1, 2012, Google has been consolidating data on users who access Google and creating a single profile that contains all of this information. Google's new terms have caused concern with the Electronic Privacy Information Center ("EPIC"), which argues that these terms conflict with an FTC Consent Order that outlined privacy standards for all Google products and services. The order required Google to obtain users' consent before gathering and sharing personal user information with third parties.

In response to Google's new terms, EPIC petitioned the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") to compel Google to abide by the terms of the 2011 consent order. EPIC brought suit in the United States District Court of the District of Columbia against the FTC, urging the organization to enforce the consent order, and stop Google's new policy of gathering and storing user information in individual profiles. The court heard EPIC v. FTC in 2012 and ruled that the court lacked the jurisdiction over the FTC to compel it to act according to EPIC's demands. Nonetheless, the court noted that it had "serious concerns" regarding Google's revised terms of service.

The National Association of Attorneys General sent a letter to Google on behalf of 36 states, expressing concern with Google's intention to gather information about users from all products that utilize Google services, such as cell phones, computers, and tablets. This is especially concerning for Android smartphones, which rely heavily on Google systems and products. Users with electronic devices use various Google products, such as Gmail, YouTube, and the Google search engine, in different ways. However, according to Google's new terms, user profiles would consolidate usage from all such products into a single profile for each user. The Attorneys General also voiced a specific complaint towards users' inability to opt out of these new terms. According to the letter, the lack of choice poses a severe threat to individual privacy.

In fact, Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the European Commission also commented that Google's new terms of service are in violation of European Union law, specifically the European Union Data Protection Directive. The European Union has urged Google not to implement its new terms. Throughout the European Union and in America, consumer groups have voiced their disapproval of Google's new terms.

At the Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh, we guide our clients in legal matters by using extensive knowledge and skills to create innovative solutions. Please contact us today to set up a confidential consultation.

The possibility of identity theft is a growing concern. However, banks, credit card companies, and various other institutions that house private information regularly take steps to protect customers' identities. Nonetheless, a different type of identity theft continues to thrive. Online impersonation is a quick and easy form of identity theft that takes place over the Internet. It is an easy type of identity theft given the breadth and convenience of social media and expanding networking sites. However, in light of the Sandy Hook Elementary School incident, state and federal authorities are considering the possibility of bringing criminal charges for online impersonation.

State legislatures called for laws against online impersonation following the case of Megan Meier, a 13-year-old girl who killed herself after a woman impersonated a boy and engaged in cyberbullying. After the Sandy Hook shooting, people began posting incorrect information about the shooting and the suspect. Others began posing as the shooter and staging crime scenes similar to the shooting. Connecticut State Police Lieutenant J. Paul Vance called attention to this matter in a public press conference. He noted that these posts, in addition to being highly inappropriate, were also threatening and criminal in nature.

A spokesman for Commissioner Reuben Bradford stated that, harassing anyone who was a victim of the shooting would be criminally prosecuted. He noted that harassment would not only include in person contact, but also harassment through via the Internet and social media sites. Charges could include criminal impersonation and criminal misrepresentation. California and several other states have established online impersonation as a criminal offense. Critics argue that criminal regulations that prohibit online impersonation may arm interest groups with the power to suppress speech. For example, Electronic Frontier Foundation argues that such laws could silence groups like The Yes Men, which utilizes online impersonation as a form of commentary on the government and large corporations.

However, it is much harder to identify potential suspects online because they are able to operate behind the safety of false identities or even anonymity. Even though investigators could connect an account to an IP address, they would then have the responsibility of showing who was accessing the IP address at the time. With family computers and public computers, it is difficult to establish who was using the computer when multiple people had access to the same computer. There may also be an added burden of establishing that the online impersonation posed an actual threat. In order to sustain a case for online impersonation, prosecutors must also show that the online communication went beyond protected speech and crossed into criminal behavior.

At the Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh, we guide our clients in legal matters by using extensive knowledge and skills to create innovative solutions. Please contact us today to set up a confidential consultation.

Former CIA Director David Petraeus from his position after the FBI looked through Petraeus' private Gmail account and discovered that he was having an extramarital affair. These events have brought to light the fragile state of individual privacy on the Internet, particularly in relation to individual email accounts.

According to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 ("ECPA"), which is current and applicable cyber law, the FBI has the authority to look through any email account simply by accessing the account through providers such as Yahoo or Gmail. Under the ECPA, law enforcement agencies do not need a search warrant to look through such accounts if the message is more than 180 days old.

In addition, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("FISA"), under Title 50, sections 1801 et seq. of the United States Code, allows the government to monitor communications between foreign parties, without a search warrant. A 2008 amendment to FISA further allows the government to monitor communications between American parties if the government does not know of the parties' exact locations or identities. A group of attorneys raised a constitutional challenge to this amendment, and the matter is now before the United States Supreme Court. The justices have focused on whether the amendment offers the government an inappropriate range of power, or whether the amendment simply expands the government's resources to protect America.

In response to public discontent, the Senate Judiciary Committee has considered an update to ECPA that would require police to obtain a search warrant before searching private emails. As technology advancements give law enforcement agencies increased avenues to access private information, the public calls upon legislatures to "catch up."

There are certain legal remedies in place to protect individual privacy on the Internet. For example, the Stored Communications Act ("SCA"), which Congress also enacted in 1986, allows a party to sue in civil court when there is unauthorized access of personal email. However, the SCA's main focus is the privacy of emails upon delivery, which does not necessarily protect the privacy of stored emails after delivery.

However, the government is also taking action to protect privacy on the Internet. The Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") initiated a lawsuit against Google for violating a 2011 privacy settlement. Google paid $22.5 million for violating the settlement by allowing cookies to track user information on the Safari web browser on Apple products. According to the FTC, this is the largest settlement they have ever obtained for their efforts to protect individual privacy. However, skeptics argue that this will only be a "slap on the wrist" for Google and actual Internet privacy will call for Do Not Track Legislation.

At the Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh, we guide our clients in legal matters by using extensive knowledge and skills to create innovative solutions. Please contact us today to set up a confidential consultation.

Facebook is struggling to decide how to handle its pictures. While consumer companies urge Facebook to profit from its face recognition technology, international regulators insist that user identities remain protected. According to a New York Times article entitled, Facebook Can ID Face, But Using Them Grows Tricky, Facebook agreed to delete user identification information, which the site gathers through facial recognition technology. The technology at issue is Facebook's "tag suggestion" which automatically matches names with faces when a user uploads a photo. Facebook has deactivated this feature to make improvements that international regulators can approve.

Chris Hoofnalge, a professor at the University of California Berkeley, School of Law stated in the article that increasing developments in this field "directly affects civil liberties." Although, the public is more likely to accept using identifying information from facial recognition technology for security purposes, Wall Street is now pressuring Facebook to utilize its users' personal data for profit. Legislators, such as Senator Al Franken, have expressed concern over Facebook's "database of face prints," which Facebook has gathered "without the explicit consent of its users." Franken urged Facebook to provide the same right of privacy to its American users as it does its European counterparts.

The Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") has issued a guide, "Facing Facts Best Practices for Common Uses of Facial Recognition Technologies," aimed at defining facial recognition technology and outlining authorized uses. In addition, earlier this year Google announced a new tool that would allow individuals to blur their faces in YouTube videos. This is one of the first steps to provide "visual anonymity" in cyberspace.

In a Villanova Law Review comment entitled, "Every Breath You take, Every Move You Make, I'll Be Watching You: The Use of Face Recognition Technology," author Bridget Mallon paints a picture of a future where surveillance cameras have the capacity to instantly look up an individual's entire history and record from a picture. And while this extreme may be a reality of a far more distant future, the privacy threats of face recognition and video surveillance are concerns today. The threat that Facebook employs face recognition technology stems from a concern that the website will then allow access to this data for surveillance purposes. The Electronic Privacy Information Center has warned the FTC that it should prohibit any law enforcement agency from using Facebook's face recognition technology and database "absent a showing of adequate legal process, consistent with international human rights norms." As the technology continues to develop, the FTC is conducting studies to better understand the benefits and consequences of face recognition capabilities. However, in the meantime, Facebook's database of personal information and pictures continues to grow, absent any real limitations.

At the Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh, we guide our clients in legal matters by using extensive knowledge and skills to create innovative solutions. Please contact us today to set up a confidential consultation.

The technological advancements and the ever-expansive world of cyberspace are in a perpetual state of conflict with individual privacy concerns. For example, a recent research project by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology demonstrates that independent component analysis allows companies to track changes in pulse by the subsequent change in skin color that is readily visible through a video signal. In addition, employers, credit agencies, and health insurance providers can now purchase indexes that contain consumer profiles based on individual consumer's browsing history, site membership, and online purchases.

The Federal Trade Commission has issued a report that proposes the steps companies can take to ensure optimal protection of consumer privacy. The report, "Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change: Recommendations for Businesses and Policymakers," urges companies to incorporate privacy protection in every stage of their products, provide a mechanism against online activity tracking, and fully disclose what user information it shares with other entities.

The California legislature has proposed a new bill that would impose new restrictions on social networking sites, which would limit the information available about users. The proposed legislation would allow users to select privacy settings before ever using the site, which limits the sites accessibility. Social Networking sites, such as Facebook, have responded that such legislation would inappropriately burden the sites, in turn devastating cyber-business in California.

The American Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU") is also heavily involved in efforts to compel companies to improve privacy protection measures on their respective websites. Digital Due Process, a broad coalition that includes the ACLU, Google, and AT&T, is working with legislatures and law enforcement agencies to update the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"). Congress enacted the ECPA in 1986 as a means of extending government restrictions on telephone wiretaps to include electronic transmissions via computers. However, in the changing face of the Internet, the ECPA has failed to keep up. Congress has not updated the ECPA to reflect the privacy concerns that exist today because of the existence of the Internet. The mission of the Digital Due Process includes efforts to initiate changes that will restrict sharing of users' location and limit electronic communication tracking.

In 2011, Senator Patrick Leahy introduced the Electronic Communications Privacy Act Amendments Act. The amendment will establish heightened privacy protections for email content and electronic communications that would otherwise be subject to search warrants under the guise of probable cause. Growing security concerns and the threat of cyber-terrorism have caused government officials to increase cyber security for the purpose of maintaining national security.

At the Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh, we guide our clients in matters related to Business, Internet and Cyberspace by using legal knowledge and skills to create solutions for our clients. Please contact us today to set up a confidential consultation.

With a growing concern for national security and expanding information sharing networks, the government is making efforts to establish legislation protecting the American cyber community.

Most recently, in February 2012 Congress considered the Cybersecurity Act ("Act") as a means to provide for information sharing across different industries to establish cybersecurity. The Act also places the burden of monitoring sites and infrastructures on the owners of the sites, rather than any managers hired to maintain the sites.

Congress ultimately has not passed the Act because there is such a divide among politicians regarding the most effective means to establish protection for the American cyber community. See http://articles.cnn.com/2012-08-02/politics/politics_cybersecurity-act_1_cybersecurity-bill-homeland-security-cyberattacks for more information.

The Obama administration has since drafted an Executive Order ("Order") that outlines an approach to protect the American cyber community and information sharing networks. An executive order will allow the President to effectuate law that calls for cyber security measures without congressional affirmation. The Order seeks to provide protection for industries that may be vulnerable to attacks on their information networks. These include private industries that operate utilities, such as electricity and water, and also banking and other finance sectors.

The Order calls on these industries to voluntarily share threatening information with the government in order to provide the Department of Homeland Security with knowledge as to the vulnerable sectors of the nation. However, these provisions are susceptible to criticism for violating individual and privacy rights. Indeed, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects against unreasonable searches. Greater information sharing may threaten personal autonomy by allowing unreasonable searches into Internet search history, purchases, and other such personal practices leading to lack of privacy.

The Order, if it is signed into effect, further calls on the Department of Homeland Security to submit reports naming the sectors of the cyberspace infrastructure that are most vulnerable to attack. This will in turn provide the government with guidance in planning how to organize agencies to regulate and protect these sectors of the infrastructure.

Commentators are skeptical as to how effective this Order will be towards regulating and protecting the American cyber community. A recent article in Forbes Magazine explains that the ever-changing nature of cyberspace makes it difficult to enforce strict regulations. In addition, the Order may create a complex bureaucratic system that is ultimately ineffective in protecting the American cyber network.

At the Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh, we guide California businesses and individuals through the regulatory and transactional pitfalls of the Internet, using legal knowledge and technological skills to create innovative solutions for our clients. Please contact us today online or at (310) 694-3034 to set up a confidential consultation.

As some of readers, who have active facebook profiles know, the like button is a way to express your support for a cause or idea. However, a federal judge states that, clicking it doeos not constitute constitutionally protected speech.

For example, the employees of a local police department sued their boss (Sheriff B.J. Roberts) for firing them after they supported his opponent in his 2009 re-election campaign. One of those workers, Daniel Ray Carter, had "liked" the Facebook page of Roberts' opponent, Jim Adams. Exactly what a "like" means - if anything is the main question. The ex-employees posit that their First Amendment rights were violated.

While public employees are allowed to speak as citizens on matters of public concern, the United States District Judge, the Honorable Raymond Jackson, ruled that clicking the "like" button does not amount to expressive speech. Express conduct, also referred to as "symbolic speech," relates to the communication of ideas through one's conduct. Expressive conduct raises some interesting constitutional questions because it combines expression, which typically receives First Amendment protection, and conduct, which typically does not receive First Amendment protection. This dualistic nature may account for the court's position of affording expressive conduct some constitutional protection, but substantially less protection than pure speech.

Last year, the California State Legislature made various efforts to regulate commercial transactions on the Internet. These efforts provide interesting questions and concerns regarding practical and constitutional limits on a state's capability to legislate or regulate transactions on the world-wide-web (i.e., the Internet) due to its intrinsic interstate character.

One important consideration is the Dormant Commerce Clause, which stems from Article I, section 8, clause 3 of the federal Constitution. This doctrine implies that Congress only has the power to regulate interstate commerce and that the states do not have such power. Its application to the regulation of activities on the Internet is not quite developed and includes a series of judicially-created analyses. So far, the United States Supreme Court (which is the nation's highest court) has not issued any definitive rulings. In addition, we do not have authoritative decisions by federal courts regarding the capability of the states to control online privacy and data security, tax online sales, or regulate online gambling.

As mentioned in this article, the legislators in this state passed or proposed laws that would develop our state's regulatory power over transactions on the Internet which relate to the following topics: (i) privacy and data security; (ii) taxation of retail sales over the Internet; and (ii) online gambling.

California's legislation (i.e., enactment of laws) may be different from federal legislation efforts which could cause the United States Supreme Court to repeal or strike down the law. SB 761, which is "Do Not Track" bill, posits that legislation would violate the Dormant Commerce Clause since it would cause regulation of an out-of-state activity and would subject online businesses to inconsistent state regulation. As such, a state's efforts to tax online retail activity are limited by current federal laws (e.g., court decisions and/or statutes) preventing the states from taxing sales of businesses which do not have a geographic presence in the specific state. A state's power to control or regulate online gambling is still uncertain, especially because of the absence of clear federal law on the subject. Thus far, one state supreme court has upheld a state's right to ban online gambling over a Dormant Commerce Clause challenge.

The future of state regulation of Internet activity depends on various developments. For example, it depends on the standard of scrutiny which courts apply to state regulation of the Internet. Second, it depends on the arrival of new technology which can help website operators to distinguish users from different states. Third, it depends on the viewpoint of Congress towards online transactions and whether it is willing to subject activities exclusively to federal regulation or to grant states the power to regulate these type of activities.

The following is a list of new and pending legislation in California:

I. Privacy and Data Security

1. S.B. 24 (Data Security Breach Notice)
2. S.B. 445 (Library Records
3. S.B. 602 (Reader Privacy )
4. S.B. 761
a. Do Not Track
b. Un-passed

II. Taxation -- A.B. 28 ("Amazon" tax)

III. Gambling

1. S.J.R. 14 (opt out of federal regulation)
2. S.B. 40 & 45
a. State framework
b. Did not pass

In light of the circumstances, numerous states have enacted "cyberstalking" or cyberharassment" laws or currently possess laws that specifically include electronic forms of communication within more traditional stalking or harassment laws. In addition, many states have enacted "cyberbullying" laws in reaction to issues related to protecting minors from online bullying or harassment.

Cyberstalking constitutes use of the world-wide-web (i.e., the Internet), electronic mail or other electronic communications to stalk. It generally refers to a pattern of threatening or malicious behaviors. It may be considered the most dangerous of the three types of Internet harassment, based on a posing credible threat of harm. Penalties range from misdemeanor to felony. See Cal. Civil Code § 1708.7, Cal. Penal Code § 646.9.

Cyberharassment is different from cyberstalking since it may not involve a credible threat. It usually pertains to threatening or harassing email messages, instant messages, or to blog entries or websites dedicated solely to tormenting a person. Some state legislatures have dealt with this issue by inserting provisions which address electronic communications in general harassment statutes, while others have created stand-alone cyberharassment statutes. See Cal. Penal Code §§ 422, 653.2, and 653m.

However, cyberbullying and cyberharassment are used interchangeably sometimes. Generally, cyberbullying is used for electronic harassment or bullying amongst minors in the context of schools. Recent legislation seems to show a trend of placing the burden of enforcement of such policies on school districts. Hence, the laws establish the infrastructure for schools to handle this issue by amending pre-existing school anti-bullying policies to include cyberbullying or electronic harassment among children in educational environments. Most state laws enforce sanctions for cyberbullying on school property, school buses, or school functions. See Cal. Ed. Code §§ 32261, 32265, 32270, and 48900.

On July 20, 2011, according to the leaders of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Defense Department has failed to deliver to Congress a report on cyber warfare policies which may clarify the legal authorities and rules of engagement to be used in the event of a cyber attack.

Senators Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, and John McCain, an Arizona Republican, in a letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta wrote as follows:

"The continued failure to address and define the policies and legal authorities necessary for the Pentagon to operate in the cyberspace domain remains a significant gap in our national security that must be addressed."

The aforesaid senators stated that by law, the Pentagon was to report to Congress by March 1, 2011 on its cyber warfare policies, outlining a number of "critical questions" that must be addressed in the new battlefield of cyberspace.

To read the letter click here.

The FBI is in the beginning stages of its probe of News Corp. (NasdaqGS: NWSA) as investigators evaluate whether United States charges can be brought over claims employees hacked into a rival's website and sought access to phone records of victims of the 9/11 attacks, a person who is familiar with the facts recently mentioned.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation plans to permit the Scotland Yard take the lead on a parallel investigation already under way in Britain. The FBI is not planning to mount an aggressive investigation into allegations that News Corp.'s payments to U.K. police officers a decade ago violated a U.S. overseas bribery law, said the officials, who prefer not be identified since they are not permitted to discuss the Justice Department's investigation.

Civil Rights - Social networking website was not "place of public accommodation" within meaning of Title III of Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").

Plaintiff Karen Beth Young brings this action against Defendant Facebook, Inc., alleging violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Ca. Civ. Code § 51, et seq., the California Disabled Persons Act, Cal Civ. Code § 54, et seq., and state-law contract and negligence claims. Although Young's amended complaint describes vividly her personal experience of losing access to her online social community and the challenges she faced attempting to obtain redress through Facebook's automated customer care systems, it does not state a legal claim upon which relief may be granted. Accordingly, Facebook's motion to dismiss will be granted.

Young opened a personal account with Facebook in February 2010.[1] She subsequently created additional Facebook pages for the "Cancer Forum," "Cartesian Plane For The Cure," "Karen Beth Young ,— Public Figure," and "Join Karen Petition Facebook Say No to 5000 Friends." Young sent "friendvites" to others she believed were interested in cancer-related issues and developed "genuine and heartfelt" relationships with those she met online. Young's personal page grew to include approximately 4,300 "friends."

In June 2010, Young's Facebook account was deactivated for the first time. According to an email from Facebook, Young's account was disabled for behavior identified as potentially harassing or threatening to other Facebook users, including sending "friend" requests to people she did not know, regularly contacting strangers, and soliciting others for dating or business purposes. Resp. Ex. A-1. She was told that the decision was final and could not be appealed. Id. Young, who states that she suffers from bipolar disorder, was upset by having the ties to her online social network severed. She made numerous email and telephone inquiries regarding the deactivation of her account, but Facebook's response did not include any "human interaction." Compl. -d 7. She then drove from her home in Maryland to Facebook's headquarters in Santa Clara, California. There, Young was told by a receptionist that she could not meet with anyone in person or by telephone. However, she was allowed to fill out a written form requesting assistance.

Two days later, in response to that written request, Young received an email stating that her account had been disabled because Facebook's security systems had determined that she had been sending "friend" requests too quickly or that her "friend" requests were being ignored at a high rate. Compl. Ex. D-4. She was told that her account would be reactivated, but she was warned that sending "friend" requests to people she did not know,—or other violations of Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities,—would result in her account being disabled permanently. Id. Young responded to the email requesting clarification and a personal meeting. Receiving no response, she returned to Maryland, where after two days her account was deactivated again. She received another email informing her that her account had been disabled permanently because she had violated the Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, that it would not be reactivated for any reason, and that she would not be provided further information about her violation or an opportunity to appeal. Id. Young then drove to California a second time and commenced the instant proceedings.

The Court was not without sympathy for Young's plight. Young was understandably frustrated that she could not discuss the termination of her account with a live person, and both this frustration and the loss of her access to Facebook's social network had a particularly acute impact on Young because of her bipolar condition. The Court stated that "as customer service functions increasingly are handed over to automated systems, it is important that service providers, such as Facebook, understand the implications that such practices can have for the less sophisticated and more vulnerable. However, because Young's amended complaint [did] not state a cognizable legal basis upon which relief may be granted, it must be dismissed. Because the amended complaint fail[ed] to address many of the issues identified by the Court in its previous order, and because it appears that there is no realistic possibility that further amendment could cure the deficiencies in Young's pleadings, leave to amend will be denied."