Published on:

If you have been online, it is possible that a person has attempted to “catfish” you. However, you may not have been able to adequately understand it because you were not looking for the telltale signs. It is a type of an online scam, like phishing, meant to take advantage of the insecurities and loneliness of the targets. So, what is catfishing exactly? Furthermore, if you do fall to a catfishing scheme, how can you recover? Better yet, how can one protect against catfishing attempts?

What is Catfishing?

Catfishing is typically done through email or online dating websites. However, they are not exclusive methods. It can also happen on Facebook, Twitter, or other forums that allow people to interact. It involves a person promising companionship or intimate relations, and later on makes demands.  It may involve requesting photographs, confidential information, credit card information, or money. This is akin to the old “Nigerian Prince” scheme where an individual would ask for a certain amount of funds to secure funds that would later be sent to the victim. Ultimately, presuming that the culprit succeeds, then he/she takes and uses personal information to conduct financial crimes.

Published on:

Now, aside from Bitcoin and other digital currencies spawning from video games and consumer-oriented companies, it’s important to be aware that there are other types of digital currencies or so-called “cryptocurrencies.” These operate more similarly to Bitcoin in how they generally lack a centralized system that assigns value (compared to other digital currencies like virtual item trading where the items are managed by a company) and has a similar mining protocol allowing individuals to mine the currency.  Indeed, even Bitcoin had a “split” changing from one cryptocurrency to two. Why are there even alternatives? What features does one cryptocurrency have on the other? How should one evaluate the choice to enter a cryptocurrency market?

Bitcoin’s Split

In order to make Bitcoin more accessible, the system administrators for Bitcoin and other individuals prominent in the community underwent a “split” of the currency, as well as other changes to increase the speed of transaction verification. Due to the limits put in place to make Bitcoins scarce and limit the supply, the effective limit had placed a curb on growth. In response, some users chose to take a split after starting in August of this year to create a new cryptocurrency working mainly on the same system as Bitcoin, but with the ability to convert it to “bitcoin cash” and a faster mining and verification process. This would mean that Bitcoin cash would have a lower face value than Bitcoins, as they would be more plentiful. However, this would also make it potentially less secure as the blocks would grow in maximum size, and it would have a shorter history compared to Bitcoin.

Published on:

The legality of certain virtual currencies can be murky.  While some currencies, like Bitcoin, can be readily traded for goods and services, however, other virtual currencies remain where regulation is more questionable. To that point, the curators of digital economies have hired economists to better model the value of these digital commodities, creating a sort of virtual currency by accident.  However, the ecosystem behind these virtual currencies has exploded and led to new questions regarding their use and potentially illicit activities. So, what are these virtual commodities? How did they gain value? What is being done to curtail the murkier aspects?

What are these virtual currencies?

A good example of these virtual currencies comes courtesy of Valve, a company that both creates and distributes video games. For the purpose of creating more income for some of their “free-to-play” games, random prizes are given out, and can be earned in-game, and later resold via its platform. These items generally have no in-game function, and merely provide an aesthetic value. For a select few Valve games, these items can then be exchanged between players, or for currency in Valve’s store. In essence, the items can function much like tickets in an arcade, or more concerning, poker chips in a casino. Other games have similarly created digital currencies that can be shifted easily from a “real” currency to something that can be used (though not necessarily benefit) the person in game.

Published on:

Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency that has been in the news and in conversations recently for various reasons. While not all retailers will take Bitcoin, and there are fairly good reasons not to, but the cryptocurrency has really taken off.  However, despite how much the word “Bitcoin” is used, the nature of the virtual currency provokes a sort of air of mystery. Unless one researches how to find or buy it, it remains a type of investment that is more exotic than what is commonly available to consumers. Why is Bitcoin so expensive? How does one find and buy a Bitcoin?

Why is Bitcoin expensive?

To properly explain Bitcoin, it’s important to restate one of the fundamentals of economics. The value of a commodity is determined by supply and demand. When it comes to currency specifically, this translates to “the more common and easily- obtainable the currency is in the market, the price will become less in the market.” This is what’s referred to as “inflation.” The purchasing power of a currency goes down because there is more of that currency.

Published on:

Due to the rising costs in litigation, there has been a large increase in the use of alternative dispute resolution. By utilizing the methods of alternative dispute resolution, parties are able to often save time and money when resolving their disputes. Arbitration is one method of alternative dispute resolution that is the most frequently used by the litigants.

Is Arbitration Binding?

Arbitration can be binding or nonbinding. A binding arbitration means that the participants to the arbitration must follow the arbitrator’s decision and that the court can enforce the decision. A nonbinding arbitration means that either party may decide not to follow the arbitrator’s decision and instead take the dispute to court. Although, both types of arbitration do exist, binding arbitration is much more common in the judicial system.

Published on:

In July 2017’s newsletter, we discussed how you can enforce an international arbitration award in the United States. Although, there are people who may want to enforce a foreign arbitration award, there are others who seek to defend themselves against it.

In general, the domestic courts can decide not to enforce a foreign arbitration award for a number of reasons. For example, these reasons can include: (i) if the arbitrator exceeds his/her power or authority; (ii) if the arbitrator was not neutral; (iii) if there were any instances of fraud; or (iv) if the arbitrator is found to be guilty of misconduct.

The New York Convention has outlined the other reasons for avoiding the enforcement of foreign arbitration awards. Additionally, some types of arbitration awards cannot be enforced under the New York Convention. For example, if someone tried to enforce a custody agreement, then they would be unable. The United States has stated that it only applies to matters that are considered commercial transactions under the federal law. This means that certain awards are excluded from being enforced in the United States, including, but not limited to, labor disputes, custody disputes, matrimonial disputes, succession of property disputes, or boundary disputes.

Published on:

The Supreme Court recently reviewed Matal, Interim Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office v. Tam (Matal v. Tam), which deals with trademark laws and what can be trademarked.  In fact, before the case reached the Supreme Court, we have previously discussed how much is unsettled in this area of trademark law. With this new decision, much of the law should be clearer with regards to what can be officially trademarked.

What are the case facts?

A rock group chose the band name “The Slants” because they wanted to “dilute the term’s denigrating force as a derogatory term for Asians.” When the band tried to trademark this name with the United States Patent and Trademark Office the application for registration was denied. The government agency denied the application because it was against 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), also known as the Lanham Act, which prohibits the registration of any trademark that may disparage or bring into contempt any persons living or dead. The lead singer of the rock group, Simon Tam, challenged this denial initially through the administrative appeal process, which did not bring him any result. Then, Simon Tang brought his case to federal court. The federal court decided that the disparagement clause in the Lanham Act was unconstitutional because it violated the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. This decision was then appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

Published on:

In March 2017, the WannaCry ransomware attack occurred which was believed to be one of the largest ransomware attacks in history. Discussions of this past attack and who should take the blame has been previously discussed in our blog and newsletter. Now, just a few months later there has been another major cyberattack. At the end of June 2017, another large ransomware attack occurred, which has been called Petya. This ransomware attack is similar to WannaCry in that it locks up the computer files using encryption and demands a ransom in order to unlock the files. This ransomware also takes advantage of the vulnerability within the Microsoft Windows computers that have not yet updated to the latest software.

This attack began in Europe and spread to the United States. The North American Treaty Organization (NATO) says that a “state actor” was behind the Petya ransomware attack. NATO also stated that there is a possibility that the attack was not done by a state actor, but that it would have been done by a non-state actor who had the approval and support from another state. They believe this because Petya was very complex and expensive to run.  According to NATO, if it is found that Petya was done by a state actor, then it would mean that this cyberattack could potentially be viewed as an act of war.

The Petya attack has hit over 12,000 different devices in 65 countries. More than 30% of the institutions that were affected by this attack were financial organizations.  Industrial organizations, such as, utilities, oil and gas, transportation, and other companies were also targeted and it is believed that they made up half of the targets.

Published on:

The United States Supreme Court has accepted a new case that implicates cell-phone location privacy. The case of Carpenter v. United States was decided by the Sixth Circuit and now the Supreme Court will issue a decision in the future as to whether the lower court’s decision was correct. The main issue in this case is that the court will be deciding whether or not the warrantless search and seizure of historical cell phone records revealing the location and movements of a cell phone user over the course of a 127-day period is permitted by the Fourth Amendment.  In general, the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. It also implicates the laws regarding search warrants, wiretaps, other forms of surveillance and is central to privacy laws.

What are the case facts?

In 2011, four men were arrested because they were suspected of committing a string of armed robberies at T-Mobile and Radio Shack in the Detroit area. One of the four men confessed to the crimes and told the police that a shifting group of 15 other men served as getaway drivers and lookouts. The one man who confessed gave his phone number along with the phone numbers of some of the other participants to the FBI. The FBI then reviewed the call records of the man who confessed and were able to identify the phone numbers of others that he had called around the time of the robberies.

Published on:

Net Neutrality is the principle that Internet Service Providers (ISP) and the government should treat all web-related traffic equally regardless of the source. If there was no net neutrality, companies would have the ability to purchase priority access to the ISP customers. Larger and wealthier companies (e.g., Google) would be able to pay the ISPs to provide customers more reliable access to their websites instead of to competitors’ websites. This would negatively impact any new start-up service that would not be able to purchase a priority access.

On February 26, 2015, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to enact the “strongest net neutrality rules in history.”  Millions of Americans contacted the FCC, called their Congress members, and wrote to the White House to express their support.  Although, this decision was a bold move in favor of net neutrality, but more changes may be coming soon. This 2015 Rule meant that ISPs cannot block access to any websites and they cannot interfere with website loading speeds. This rule also banned paid prioritization, which means that ISPs are not able to give preferential treatment to websites that pay an additional fee.

On January 23, 2017, President Trump selected Ajit Pai to lead the FCC as the new Chairman. This Chairman has a record of previously promising to undo the 2015 landmark decision. Then on May 18, 2017, the FCC, led by Chairman Ajit Pai, voted to propose a review of the 2015 rules.  Mr. Pai holds the opinion that the 2015 FCC rules are a “bureaucratic straitjacket” on the ISPs.  The new FCC proposal, which is called “Restoring Internet Freedom” contemplates whether to undo the legal approach that enforced those rules and whether there was anything that warranted the rules in the first place.