Computer Forensics and Legal Technology Blog

The school, Concord Law School, was founded in 1998 and is one of only two or three entirely online law schools.  None, however, is ABA accredited. (The ABA’s general policy under Standard 304(f) states that “a law school shall not grant credit for study by correspondence.” Click here ).

Four graduates were admitted in open court: Larry David, an international businessman and attorney in Pasadena, Calif., who volunteers at the Los Angeles County Bar Association Barristers Domestic Violence Project; Michael Kaner, a dentist in Newtown, Pa., who is a consultant on risk management and forensic dentistry; Ross Mitchell, a computer systems consultant in West Newton, Pa., who is advocating online legal education and the expansion of the multijurisdictional practice of law; and Sandusky Shelton, a retired telecommunications manager from Clio, Calif., who handles court-appointed juvenile dependency cases.

Briefly, the case arises from allegations that a resort’s ski instructor raped a teenage girl. The girl and her family have sued the resort, noting that it gave assurances that any ski instructor working with children must have a “clean criminal record.” Read full story. The accused instructor, in fact, has a lenghty rap sheet.

In its response to the lawsuit, the resort contended that it never promised that criminal checks were performed on employees and supplied copies of its Web pages to support the contention.  However, the family’s attorney said that the supplied offers-of-proof are phony, noting that a search of old Web pages on www.archive.org revealed that the resort had, in fact, made such representations since 2002.  Moreover, he said, the archive site contained no pages similar to the ones that the resort supplied. “As the record now stands before the court, it appears that [the resort’s] affidavits are false and misleading, the alleged copy of [the resort’s] Web site is fabricated and [the resort] has attempted to destroy evidence.”

Gov. Tim Pawlenty announced the Minnesota Supreme Court’s next chief justice, naming Eric J. Magnuson of Briggs and Morgan, P.A., formerly of Rider Bennett, LLP.  Read full story.

Eric is co-author, along with David Herr, of Appellate Rules Annotated, 2007 ed. (Vol. 3, Minnesota Practice Series), a co-editor and chapter author for the fourth edition of Eighth Circuit Appellate Practice Manual, and co-editor of Matthew Bender’s The Art of Advocacy: Appeals. He also co-authored CM/ECF On Appeal– The Eighth Circuit Affirms (Oct., 2007).

Eric is recognized nationally as an advocate for technology in the field of appellate advocacy. He’s given many technology presentations, including “Making the Law of E-Discovery – Seeking Appellate Review of Non-Appealable Discovery,” Minnesota Chapter of the Federal Bar Association Federal Practice Seminar (June 2007); “Technology and Appeals,” DRI Annual Meeting (October 2006); “Technology Tools and Resources for Appellate Advocates,” 16th Annual Trial Practice Seminar, North Dakota Trial Lawyers Association (May 2006); “Technology and Appeals,” Appellate Practice Institute, Minnesota CLE and 8th Circuit Bar Association (May 2005); “Electronic Advocacy,” American Academy of Appellate Lawyers Spring Meeting (April 2005); and Technology Tools and Resources for Appellate Advocates (2006).

Eric also presented my firm’s digital brief technology at the The Fifth Circuit Summit: Exploring Technology to Serve the Appeals Process (September 25, 2006).

Hopefully, with Eric at the helm, and Bob Hanson’s continuing leadership, technology in appellate practice, including e-filing and digital briefs, will be ushered in.

Cheers.

One of plaintiff’s attorneys asserts that Frenkel’s allegations in the blog are not “protected speech” under First Amendment law.

Read full story here.

Markey’s press release (here) states, in pertinent part:

The goal of this bipartisan legislation is to assure consumers, content providers, and high tech innovators that the historic, open architecture nature of the Internet will be preserved and fostered.  H.R. 5353 is designed to assess and promote Internet freedom for consumers and content providers.

The full text of the proposed bill is here.

A summary of the Act is here.

Prior to digital watermarking, photos just had to look the same.  Add Metadata to the mix, and a plaintiff can have near-conclusive proof of infringement.

Decision, coverage, and Gregerson’s site documenting the ordeal.

The author contends that because IP addresses can personally identify users, it does not fall within the two realms currently considered by privacy law: (1) personally identifiable information and (2) that which is not.  As such, lawmakers should consider whether a third category is appropriate: “partially personal information.”

This is an intriguing concept that would change the privacy area’s current black-and-white thinking: from a binary “yes” or “no” response to a system with a middle ground. Google’s global privacy counsel apparently agrees that a sliding scale within this third category is a good idea, pointing to scholarship in this area.

One thought that readily comes to mind is this: isn’t a huge swath of relevant evidence “partially personal information”?  If an investigator talks to the cashier at my favorite lunch spot, he can identify me. Did he just divulge “partially personal information”? The cash-register receipt has partially personal information (the last four digits of my credit-card number).  In nearly every criminal or civil case, litigators daily put together this “partially personal” evidence to connect the dots for the decision-maker. Would my cash-register receipt be subject to state or federal privacy law?  If I tell the cashier to keep it, should he be required to throw it in a shredder, lest this “partially personal information” get into the wrong hands?

The concept of a sliding scale is good, but it would take careful crafting of definitions for this idea to get traction.

I.P. Address: Partially Personal Information [NY Times]

discusses legal ramifications of such software — particularly with regard to criminal defense matters. It appears that the software would not distinguish between arguably permissible alterations (e.g., lightening a scene) and impermissible falsifications (e.g., cloning away evidence). As these tools become more widely available and affordable (one set of tools costs $25,000/year), they may constitute another arrow in the wise litigator’s quiver.

Researchers Look to Spot Photo Hoaxes [Wired via AP]

“We’re about getting bulk data and making it available,” free of charge, to the public, Malamud told the Conneticut Law Tribune. “I want to see all federal case law downloadable in bulk.”  He asserted that there are no restrictions on the use of the information after it’s downloaded and that it’s up to individuals to create Web sites that utilize the information.

Any initiative that “makes case law available for free in new and different ways is something all librarians are in favor of,” said Darcy Kirk, associate dean for library and technology and law professor at the University of Connecticut. Read Full Story.

Malamud also recently launched a “PACER recycling site,” where users, who have downloaded federal case information at 8 cents per page can upload them to the recycling site to be accessed later free of charge.