TIME legal

We Won’t See That Last Steve Jobs Video After All

Steve Jobs Introduces iCloud Storage System At Apple's Worldwide Developers Conference
Apple CEO Steve Jobs delivers the keynote address at the 2011 Apple World Wide Developers Conference at the Moscone Center on June 6, 2011 in San Francisco, California. Justin Sullivan—Getty Images

Judge denies media's request to copy and air the footage

The judge presiding over an antitrust lawsuit against Apple has denied media outlets’ request to release a deposition from Steve Jobs recorded six months before the Apple founder succumbed to cancer in 2011. The video is among the last times Jobs appeared on film before his death.

District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled that the public already had sufficient access to the footage, which was played in the courtroom and transcribed for the public record. Enabling media outlets to copy and distribute the tape could infringe on the privacy rights of the defendant, Rogers ruled, adding that misuses of the tape could have a chilling effect on future depositions.

“If releases of video depositions routinely occurred,” she wrote, “witnesses might be reticent to submit voluntarily to video depositions in the future, knowing they might one day be publicly broadcast.”

TIME States

Doctor Says Oklahoma Inmate Suffered in Execution

(OKLAHOMA CITY) — A doctor who examined the body of an Oklahoma inmate who died during a botched execution told a federal judge Wednesday that he is convinced the man suffered after being declared unconscious.

Dr. Joseph Cohen, a pathologist hired by the inmate’s lawyer, said that recently released witness statements corroborate his belief that Clayton Lockett was conscious when given drugs to stop his heart and breathing. Several witnesses, including an Associated Press reporter, saw the inmate struggle against his restraints, mumble and try to raise his head.

“Mr. Lockett had been deemed unconscious but became conscious again,” Cohen testified at a hearing on whether Oklahoma should resume executions Jan. 15 after a self-imposed moratorium. Death row inmates say they fear the state is conducting human experiments on them by using newly approved drug combinations during executions.

The state maintains that Lockett’s problematic execution was an anomaly caused by an improperly set intravenous line and not the result of using the sedative midazolam as the first in a three-drug combination.

Assistant Attorney General John Hadden said Oklahoma and other states have been forced to look for other drug alternatives after more commonly used short-acting barbiturates became scarce because of manufacturers’ opposition to the death penalty.

Oklahoma was the first state ever to use 100 milligrams of midazolam as part of a three-drug protocol during Lockett’s execution. Florida has used 500 milligrams, the level Oklahoma’s new protocol calls for using.

But a Florida anesthesiologist, Dr. David Lubarsky, testified that midazolam has a ceiling effect, and that increasing the dose does not increase the effect. He also said it’s used mostly to calm a patient before a surgery, and not as an anesthetic that produces unconsciousness.

“It’s simply not strong enough to reduce all electrical activity in the brain,” Lubarsky said.

Based on his belief that Lockett was conscious when the second and third drugs were administered, Lubarsky said it’s likely Lockett felt a progressive suffocation and then an intense pain once the potassium chloride was injected.

“It’s been described as liquid fire,” Lubarsky said.

Hadden noted that Lubarsky also testified in a Florida case challenging the use of midazolam, in which a judge determined that state’s protocol was constitutional.

Karen Cunningham, a victim services coordinator for the state attorney general’s office who has witnessed about a dozen executions, said that although Lockett mumbled and moved, it didn’t appear as though he was struggling.

“He didn’t seem uncomfortable. It didn’t seem like suffering,” Cunningham told Department of Public Safety investigators in a statement she reaffirmed Wednesday. She added, however, “he did raise up more than what I had ever seen.” Cunningham does not have any medical training.

Cohen was hired by Lockett’s lawyer to perform an autopsy after the body was returned to Oklahoma from Dallas, where doctors performed an exam on the state’s behalf. Lockett’s lawyer, David Autry, said it was apparent to him that Lockett became conscious after being declared unconscious. Autry also is not a medical professional.

U.S. District Judge Stephen Friot opened the three-day hearing Wednesday. Oklahoma has four executions scheduled from Jan. 15 to March 5.

The judge also heard from Oklahoma State Penitentiary Warden Anita Trammell, who was inside the death chamber during Lockett’s execution. Trammell acknowledged that the execution team, including the doctor inside the chamber, was not adequately trained and did not have the proper supplies.

Since Lockett’s execution, prison officials have purchased new medical equipment and renovated the death chamber to give the executioners more room.

Lockett was convicted of shooting Stephanie Nieman, 19, with a sawed-off shotgun and watching as two accomplices buried her alive in 1999.

TIME legal

Why Microsoft, Apple, Fox News and NPR Are Suddenly Working Together

The Microsoft logo is displayed over the Microsoft booth at the 2010 International Consumer Electronics Show at the Las Vegas Hilton January 7, 2010 in Las Vegas, Nevada. Justin Sullivan—Getty Images

Microsoft is fighting a U.S. warrant to turn over emails stored in Ireland

It’s not every day you see Microsoft and Apple or Fox News and NPR going to bat for the same team — but that’s exactly what’s happening now, in a case that could have big consequences for American tech and media companies.

Last December, a Federal judge granted U.S. investigators a warrant to access a Microsoft user’s emails, stored in a data center in Dublin, Ireland, in relation to an investigation. Microsoft said no way, arguing the U.S. government has no right to issue a warrant for emails stored abroad.

Microsoft has good reason to reject the government’s demands here: If would-be Microsoft customers outside the U.S. start thinking their emails are subject to U.S. warrants, they might think twice about becoming Microsoft customers. Indeed, top tech firms have already lost big overseas contracts over fears that American services are subject to National Security Agency snooping.

Microsoft has yet to convince any court to overturn the original warrant. A magistrate first ruled against Microsoft’s challenge in April. The company got another defeat in August when U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska found that it wasn’t a matter of where Microsoft stored the emails, but rather where Microsoft and the user in question were themselves based.

However, Microsoft still refused to hand over the user’s emails. The company filed a new appeal last week, arguing that a ruling against Microsoft threatens the privacy of foreign users and Americans alike as more people choose to store their emails and other sensitive documents in off-site cloud servers instead of local hard drives.

“We believe that when one government wants to obtain email that is stored in another country, it needs to do so in a manner that respects existing domestic and international laws,” Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith wrote Monday. “In contrast, the U.S. Government’s unilateral use of a search warrant to reach email in another country puts both fundamental privacy rights and cordial international relations at risk.”

And that’s where Microsoft’s strange bedfellows come into play. Rival tech companies like Apple, Amazon and HP, as well as news organizations from across the political spectrum like CNN, Fox News, NPR and The Guardian, have all signed amicus briefs supporting Microsoft’s fight to keep its users’ emails away from the U.S. government. It may seem weird for these companies to work together on just about anything else, but it makes sense here: technology companies have a business interest in keeping users’ communications private, while media outlets don’t want their reporters’ messages to fall into the government’s hands.

“The government’s position . . . will significantly deter the use of remote data management technologies by businesses and individuals, particularly their use of U.S. cloud services providers, and thereby undermine a significant contributor to U.S. economic growth,” reads an amicus brief filed in the case by the Business Software Alliance, a trade group that counts Microsoft, Apple, Intel and other top tech companies as members. “There is no basis in law for the extraordinary result sought by the United States.”

Whatever happens in the Microsoft case, then, could have big privacy implications for businesses and users alike. There probably won’t be a resolution until late 2015 at the earliest, but some observers expect this one to wind up all the way at the Supreme Court.


See Every Country Where Spanking Is Still Legal in One Chart

➞ Click to enlarge | Sources: Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children; Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence against Children Heather Jones / TIME

It has been banned in 43 countries so far

Every time a new controversy erupts about parents who use spanking to discipline their kids, such as the Adrian Peterson story, there’s a whole new round of discussion about the most appropriate way to discipline kids.

This week Time for Family takes a deep look at the best way to discipline kids: who really spanks their kids, under what circumstances and whether it works. And, most critically, whether there anything else works better.

So far 43 countries have outlawed spanking, and two more are about to. Here’s a map with some surprising ways different countries are handling corporal punishment of children.

Oh and if you like this, be sure to sign up for TIME’s parenting weekly newsletter here.

TIME legal

Apple Lawyer: Media Wants to See ‘Dead Man’ Steve Jobs

Apple Steve Jobs Video Testimony
Apple CEO Steve Jobs holds a new mini iPod at Macworld January 6, 2004 in San Francisco. Justin Sullivan—Getty Images

Steve Jobs recorded a video testimony before his death that everyone wants to see

Various media outlets are pushing a California court to release never-before-seen video testimony that late Apple CEO Steve Jobs filmed six months his death — and Apple’s lawyers are fighting back.

Legal teams from the Associated Press, CNN and Bloomberg filed a motion to obtain the video deposition, in which Jobs defends Apple in a major antitrust lawsuit accusing the company of deleting music downloaded from rival services from customers’ iPods, The Verge reported Tuesday.

“We’re not asking for anything other than what the jury heard,” said Tom Burke, a partner at law firm David Wright Tremaine representing the media companies. “Steve Jobs is not your typical trial witness, and that’s what makes this a unique circumstance.”

Apple’s lawyers pushed back on the request, arguing that Jobs’ video was not admitted into evidence, which means the exhibits do not have to be shared with the press. One of Apple’s lawyers, Jonathan Sherman, a partner at Boies, Schiller, and Flexner, said the video provides no real value other than to satiate the media’s curiosity.

“The marginal value of seeing him again, in his black turtleneck — this time very sick — is small,” Sherman said. “What they they want is a dead man, and they want to show him to the rest of the world, because it’s a judicial record.”

U.S. District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who will make the final decision regarding the video, has already expressed concerns that a public release is “is diametrically opposed from the rule that says I cannot allow the recording of these proceedings.”

Rogers said she will require additional time to make her decision. She will accept additional arguments from the media companies if filed by the end of the week.

[The Verge]

TIME Security

Could Sony Employees Sue After That Massive Hack?

Sony Hack
Sony Corp. signage is displayed atop the company's headquarters in Tokyo, Japan, on Thursday, July 31, 2014. Bloomberg—Bloomberg via Getty Images

Employees' data was breached as part of hack against Sony

Thanks to a devastating hack at Sony Pictures Entertainment last month, we know what James Franco earned for The Interview and we have a sneak peek at Will Gluck’s new movie Annie.

But more importantly, the attack dealt a serious blow to the privacy of thousands of Sony employees who saw their social security numbers, dates of birth, salaries and even medical records leaked online. The breach leaves them vulnerable to identity theft or extortion.

So, if you work at Sony Pictures and you’ve been hit by the hack, what do you do now? Sony employees may have a pretty good shot at suing the company under California law, perhaps to the tune of many millions of dollars, lawyers say. Sony Pictures Entertainment is based near Los Angeles, so California is the best state to host a suit.

The Golden State has some of the strictest employee information disclosure laws in the country, which would give workers wide latitude to get some kind of compensation from the company. California law is designed to protect residents from having their personal information disclosed by a company or other institution.

In Sony’s case, it’s not that Sony intentionally disclosed the data. Instead, the question is whether it did enough to protect it from being disclosed by others.

The fact that hundreds of employees’ medical information, including complaints about unpaid insurance claims and lists of costly medical procedures, makes Sony especially exposed to a lawsuit, lawyers said. California’s civil code says that “any individual may bring an action against any person or entity who has negligently released [their] confidential information” and win $1,000—and that’s without proving direct damage.

How could Sony defend itself from an employee suit? It would have to prove in court that it did a good job of protecting workers’ data — a point that’s been disputed over the last several days.

“[If] all possible safeguards had been put in place, I think that’s going to matter to enforcement agencies and to a court,” said Peter Rukin, a partner at Rukin, Hyland, Doria & Tindall LLP who specializes in employment litigation. Rukin added that Sony is vulnerable unless it “can show data [was] encrypted under best practices.”

Sony may have an uphill battle making that case. “Sony’s ‘information security’ team is a complete joke,” one former employee recently told Fusion. “We’d report security violations to them and our repeated reports were ignored.” Of the 11 people (out of 7,000 employees) responsible for Sony’s security, eight were managers.

Still, a cybersecurity firm contracted by Sony to help clean up the attack said on Monday that the hack was something for which “neither [Sony Pictures Entertainment] nor other companies could have been fully prepared.”

Whether that’s true could be decided in a courtroom. It already looks like some kind of lawsuit may be in the works — a cohort of former Sony employees are mulling a class action, Fox News reported based on unnamed sources, and many workers have been communicating with a major law firm. Rukin said a class action, it it happens, could be filed in a matter of weeks or even days. Sony hasn’t yet responded to a request for comment.

Correction: The original post misstated the name of Will Gluck’s new movie. It is Annie.


TIME food and drink

How Your Coffee Is Now Like Your Music

Keurig Coffee Digital Rights, Piracy
A coffee maker made by Keurig, a unit of Green Mountain Coffee Roasters Inc. K-Cups are arranged for a photo in Waterbury, Vt, on July 19, 2010. Bloomberg via Getty Images

Keurig is making moves to protect its pod design

Buying a coffee maker for the holidays? Make sure you get the right coffee pods.

The Keurig 2.0 coffee brewer, made by popular coffee brand Keurig, includes a scanner to ensure the coffee pods it brews are actually made by the company. In other words, your $200 machine won’t work unless you’re using the company’s own K-cups.

The home brewer, released in August, is a move that makes your coffee more like your music files, which in some cases — mostly with older files — are packed with software that prevents you from playing them across multiple devices. Such Digital Rights Management (DRM) code was popular with record labels, which feared non-DRMed songs would be widely pirated. Apple, meanwhile, included DRM in music files purchased on iTunes until 2009, and its defense of that system contributed to landing the company in legal hot water this week.

DRM has fallen out of favor in the music world as fewer people choose to buy and download physical files, opting instead to listen to their tunes on streaming services like Pandora and Spotify. But it seems the concept is getting new life in the coffee industry, thanks to Keurig.

The issue of coffee pods’ digital rights management came into the national spotlight earlier this year when Keurig announced the Keurig 2.0 would have “proprietary interactive capabilities to identify the Keurig pack.” It’s a way for Keurig to protect its coffee pod sales as several private-label pod makers have shook the market ever since several of Keurig’s patents on its pod design expired in 2012.

Keurig’s move, of course, hasn’t come without the company’s fair share of class-action antitrust lawsuits — but none yet have succeeded in stopping the company from using coffee DRM. So if Keurig’s is correct in predicting that its Keurig 2.0 will be a hit this holiday season, then its K-cups will be, too.

TIME legal

Apple Accused of Deleting Songs From iPods

Apple iPod Lawsuit Steve Jobs
The late Apple CEO Steve Jobs holds up an iPod during an event in San Jose, Calif. on Oct. 12, 2005. Paul Sakuma—AP

The late Steve Jobs is expected to testify in a video filmed before his death

Apple deleted music downloaded from rival services from customers’ iPods several years ago, lawyers representing a group of iPod users suing Apple on antitrust grounds claimed Wednesday.

When users with music from competing services synced their iPods to iTunes between 2007 and 2009, an error message appeared that prompted users to restore their settings. That would then delete the rival music stores’ songs from customers’ devices, attorney Patrick Coughlin said in the case’s opening arguments, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Coughlin is a part of a legal team representing a group of iPod owners who say Apple forced them to pay more to use their devices to play their music. The lawsuit, which began Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Oakland, Calif., seeks $350 million in damages.

Apple security director Augustin Farrugia said that the actions were legitimate security measures. Apple also contends iTunes deleted rival music services’ songs to prevent piracy.

The suit, filed in 2005, will include a never-before-seen video testimony recorded by late Apple CEO Steve Jobs before his death in 2011. While Jobs will defend Apple, attorneys representing the plaintiffs will cite Jobs’ e-mails to show he was attempting to block competing services.

Statements made by Jobs before his death have been used against Apple in other antitrust lawsuits, including a 2012 e-book price-fixing suit in which a court ruled Apple violated federal antitrust law. Apple is appealing that case.

The iPod trial is expected to last about two weeks.

[Wall Street Journal]

TIME legal

Will Revenge Porn Laws Really Keep Your Nude Photos Safe?

Can Revenge Porn Protect Your Nude Photos?
Getty Images

A California man was jailed for revenge porn this week

Exchanging nude photos is a more common activity than you’d think. But that practice doesn’t come without risks.

Aside from the threat of having your nude photos hacked, another danger is revenge porn: the non-consensual distribution of a person’s nude photos, often with the intention to inflict severe emotional harm. Some states have passed laws criminalizing the practice — California’s year-old revenge porn law saw its first conviction just this week. However, there’s still a battle being fought to pass similar laws in other states, as well as make sure they’re actually working in the states that already have them.

What does the California conviction mean?

A Los Angeles man was convicted under California’s revenge porn law for allegedly sharing topless photos of his ex-girlfriend on Facebook, accompanied by harassing messages. The conviction sends “a strong message that this type of malicious behavior will not be tolerated,” the Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney said in a statement.

It’s also a chance for more lawyers and victims to learn that such a law exists. California’s revenge porn statute was signed into law in October of last year, meaning it took over a year for the state to see its first conviction. That was because of an awareness gap, says Meaghan Zore, a California-based attorney whose practice areas include data privacy and human rights.

Which states have revenge porn laws?

Fifteen states currently have criminal revenge porn laws, according to information compiled by Carrie Goldberg, an attorney specializing in revenge porn and cyber civil rights:

The laws vary from state to state, which is why the National Conference of State Legislatures counts only thirteen states. Some consider revenge porn to be only the non-consensual sharing of photos, while others tack on an additional requirement — an intention to inflict emotional harm. (Examples of revenge porn range from big websites seeking to embarrass women or one person’s malicious social media posts.)

However, some observers worry that revenge porn laws which include language about intent don’t address situations like the celebrity nude photo hacks that happened earlier this year.

“If we were trying to prosecute [celebrity nude photo hackers], it would be really hard to claim they were trying to cause the victim’s emotional distress. They were in it for the ‘LOLS [laughs],'” Goldberg said. “We really have to encourage legislators not to include the language that requires an intent to cause emotional distress, because it excludes a huge subset of revenge porn that occurs.”

Will revenge porn laws keep your private photos safe from hackers?

Probably not — it’s hard to imagine that revenge porn laws would discourage hackers when hacking itself is already illegal.

Why isn’t revenge porn already criminalized?

Those against criminalizing revenge porn believe it’s a matter of free speech. Arizona’s revenge porn law, for example, doesn’t include language about intent, and has thus come under fire from opponents who claim it makes illegal images like “Napalm Girl,” the iconic photo of an unclothed Vietnamese girl running from a napalm bomb, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.

However, some revenge porn law advocates believe that rules against posting revenge porn actually benefits free speech by making it more safe for people to express themselves. “Really, by having these laws, we’re also promoting free speech — free private speech,” said Goldberg, a member of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, which is in favor of revenge porn laws. “I don’t see the activity of taking and sharing nude pictures consensually diminishing. And without these laws, we’re going to have an increase in people who are wounded.”

TIME legal

FBI Seizes Los Angeles Schools’ iPad Documents

LOS ANGELES (AP) — The U.S. attorney’s office subpoenaed the Los Angeles Unified School District for records pertaining to its $1 billion iPad project as part of a federal grand jury probe.

A copy of the subpoena released Tuesday requests all documents related to proposals for the district’s cornerstone technology initiative, which has been plagued with problems since its rollout last year. The requested records include proposal scoring documents, review committee files and employee information, among other materials.

LAUSD general counsel David Holmquist told The Associated Press the district was expecting federal agents to visit and retrieve documents toward the end of the week. Instead FBI agents arrived at district offices on Monday, carting away about 20 boxes worth of records.

“We turned over all documents that we think are responsive to the subpoena,” Holmquist said.

He said the district has not been provided any information on what federal authorities are investigating.

The district’s Common Core Technology Project aimed to provide 21st century learning devices to all of the district’s 650,000 students, chipping away at the technology divide that often leaves lower-income students at a disadvantage from their more affluent peers.

The program was championed by then-Superintendent John Deasy and approved unanimously by the school board in 2013.

“The idea of providing first-class learning technology to all the kids in the district, not just the kids who could afford it, is certainly a worthy educational goal,” said Charles Taylor Kerchner, a professor at Claremont Graduate University. “That worthy goal runs up against problems of organizational feasibility, and it did from the beginning.”

Hundreds of students initially given iPads last school year found ways to bypass security installations, downloading games and freely surfing the Web. Teachers complained they were not properly trained to instruct students with the new technology. And questions were raised after emails were disclosed showing Deasy had been in communication with vendors Apple and Pearson before the contracts were put to bid. He resigned under pressure, in part from the iPad troubles, in October.

While it remained unclear exactly what aspect of the iPad project — one of the biggest technological undertakings by an urban district in the U.S. — the FBI was investigating, legal experts and education observers immediately focused on Deasy’s relationship with Apple and Pearson and the use of construction bond proceeds to spend money on a short-term device purchase.

Ariel Neuman, a former federal prosecutor, said the government is likely investigating possible fraud involving the contracts.

“If someone doesn’t disclose a relationship they have with Apple,” he said, “those could be material omissions that could lead to a wire or mail fraud case.”

Interim Superintendent Ramon Cortines had planned to move forward with equipping an additional 27 schools with learning devices, but said Tuesday he was canceling the contract and starting another. Cortines said he made the decision based on “identified flaws” in the L.A. Unified inspector general’s report on device procurement.

He added that the district would continue with a different contract with Apple to provide iPads and another vendor, Arey Jones, to provide Chromebooks for a new set of exams in the spring aligned to the Common Core, the new academic benchmarks being implemented in California and other states around the nation.

“My intent is that the students attending these schools will receive devices under a new contract at the beginning of the 2015-16 school year,” Cortines said.

To date, the district has spent $70 million on the project, purchasing 90,713 devices.

News of the probe immediately drew rebuke from United Teachers Los Angeles, a frequent Deasy critic. Union president Alex Caputo-Pearl said Deasy “cannot escape the tough questions about the ill-fated iPad project. He cannot simply resign and leave a mess for others to clean up.”

Deasy did not return a request for comment.

Your browser, Internet Explorer 8 or below, is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites.

Learn how to update your browser