WikiLeaks is 21st century’s first cyber war | The Barr Code

WikiLeaks, until recently a little-known website specializing in gathering and publishing on the Internet communications that governments don’t want to be made public, is now front-page news around the globe.  Legal and technological machinations surrounding the group’s latest electronic dump of classified diplomatic cables and e-mails, however, threaten to redefine cyber warfare.

This is not the first time WikiLeaks has released confidential information; but it is unquestionably the most intriguing.

Senate Wraps Up Federal Judge’s Impeachment Trial, 1st Since Clinton

WASHINGTON — The Senate wrapped up its first impeachment trial since the 1999 case against former President Bill Clinton, scheduling votes for Wednesday on the fate of a Louisiana judge accused of corruption.

If convicted, U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous would become just the eighth federal judge to be removed from office. He faces four articles of impeachment that were unanimously approved by the House in March.

Porteous, who sat quietly before senators in the well of the Senate during arguments Tuesday, has acknowledged accepting cash and favors from attorneys and bail bondsmen doing business in his court, and filing for bankruptcy under a false name. He also is accused of lying to the Senate during his judicial confirmation.

The Senate – which must vote by two-thirds majority to convict him – held a rare closed session late Tuesday to deliberate.

House prosecutors told senators that allowing him to remain on the bench would erode public confidence in the courts and make a mockery of the federal judiciary.

“The evidence demonstrates that Judge Porteous is dishonest and corrupt, and does not belong on the federal bench,” Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., said during the historic proceeding – just the 16th judicial impeachment trial in U.S. history. “He has brought disgrace and disrepute to the federal bench.”

Defense attorney Jonathan Turley argued Porteous may have made mistakes and could be considered a “moocher” for soliciting meals and gifts. But his actions don’t come close to the “high crimes and misdemeanors” standard outlined in the Constitution for offenses such as bribery or treason, Turley said.

“An appearance of impropriety? Is that what we’re going to substitute high crimes and misdemeanors for?” Turley said, arguing that Congress would be setting a dangerous precedent by voting to convict, in part because some of the conduct in question came before Porteous was a federal judge.

Over months of hearings, House prosecutors laid out a damaging case against Porteous, portraying him as a heavy drinker with a gambling problem who was falling deeply into debt.

Senate Wraps Up Federal Judge’s Impeachment Trial, 1st Since Clinton.

Nigeria Charges Dick Cheney Over Bribery

LAGOS, Nigeria (Dec. 7) — Nigeria’s anti-corruption agency on Tuesday charged former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney over a bribery scheme involving oil services firm Halliburton Co. during time he served as its top official, a spokesman said.

The charges stem from a case involving as much as $180 million allegedly paid in bribes to Nigerian officials, said Femi Babafemi, a spokesman for the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.

Halliburton and other firms allegedly paid the bribes to win a contract to build a $6 billion liquefied natural gas plant in Nigeria’s oil-rich southern delta, he said.

Terrence O’Donnell, a lawyer representing Cheney, denied the allegations.

Online Seller Who Scared Customers Is Arrested – NYTimes.com

Federal law enforcement agents on Monday arrested a Brooklyn Internet merchant who mistreated customers because he thought their online complaints raised the profile of his business in Google searches.

The merchant, Vitaly Borker, 34, who operates a Web site called decormyeyes.com, was charged with one count each of mail fraud, wire fraud, making interstate threats and cyberstalking. The mail fraud and wire fraud charges each carry a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. The stalking and interstate threats charges carry a maximum sentence of five years.

He was arrested early Monday by agents of the United States Postal Inspection Service. In an arraignment in the late afternoon in United States District Court in Lower Manhattan, Judge Michael H. Dolinger denied Mr. Borker’s request for bail, stating that the defendant was either “verging on psychotic” or had “an explosive personality.” Mr. Borker will be detained until a preliminary hearing, scheduled for Dec. 20.

The arrest came eight days after The New York Times published a lengthy account of Mr. Borker’s campaign of intimidation against a woman named Clarabelle Rodriguez who had bought a pair of glasses from DecorMyEyes over the summer.

When she tried to return the glasses, which she believed were fakes, he threatened to sexually assault her and later sent her a photograph of the front of her apartment building. He also sent menacing e-mails, one of which stated that she had put her “hand in fire. Now it’s time to get burned.”

In an interview with a reporter from The New York Times in October, Mr. Borker maintained that scaring Ms. Rodriguez — and dozens of other customers in the last three years — enhanced the standing of DecorMyEyes in Internet searches on Google. That was because Google’s algorithm, he claimed, was unable to distinguish between praise and complaints. All of the negative postings translated into buzz, he said, which helped push DecorMyEyes higher in search results and increased his sales.

It is unclear if Mr. Borker was right about the cause of DecorMyEyes’ surprisingly strong showing in online searches. But last week, Google published a post on its official blog stating that it had changed its search formula so that companies were penalized if they provided customers with what it called “an extremely poor user experience.”

For months, Ms. Rodriguez was unable to get much traction with any of the law enforcement entities she had called as she coped with Mr. Borker’s verbal and written attacks. Now, there seems to be a competition to punish him.

He has already been charged with aggravated harassment and stalking by local authorities and is scheduled to be arraigned on those charges on Dec. 22. The state attorney general’s office is conducting its own investigation and could bring additional state charges.

But federal law enforcement seemed eager to partake as well. In a statement released Monday, Preet Bharara, United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, said, “Vitaly Borker, an alleged cyberbully and fraudster, cheated his customers, and when they complained, tried to intimidate them with obscenity and threats of serious violence.”

At the arraignment, an assistant United States attorney, E. Danya Perry, argued against bail by claiming that Mr. Borker was both a flight risk and a risk to the community. She said that postal inspectors had carted off boxes of apparently counterfeit eyeglasses after searching Mr. Borker’s home and had also found a handful of guns, including a semiautomatic machine gun.

Mr. Borker’s lawyer, Bruce Kaye, said the weapons were stage props capable of firing only blanks, not live ammunition.

Mr. Kaye argued that Mr. Borker should be released on bail because no one had ever accused him of committing any violent acts. He added that Mr. Borker was family man — he has a wife and a 2-year-old child — and was willing to surrender his passport and post a bond worth $500,000.

Judge Dolinger said that even if Mr. Borker had not physically harmed anyone, he could still be a threat to society given his habit of terrifying his customers.

The complaint against Mr. Borker describes the accusations in detail. A DecorMyEyes customer identified as Victim 4 stated that Mr. Borker’s threats included a phone call in which he said, “I can hurt you,” and, “I know where you work.”

Mr. Borker apparently sent e-mail to the company where Victim 4 worked, stating that the customer sold drugs and was gay. Another customer, identified as Victim 3, said that Mr. Borker had sent her an e-mail that included this warning: “PS: don’t forget that I know where you live as well,” after she mentioned her intent to contact the New York Department of Consumer Affairs. He reportedly later called Victim 3 at all hours of the night, threatening sexual assault.

A far more subdued version of Mr. Borker appeared in court on Monday afternoon. Dressed in jeans and a button-down shirt, he said little. When he was led away by court officers, he turned to look at his wife, who was sitting in the courtroom. He appeared grief stricken and on the verge of tears.

“Sorry,” he whispered to her, as he was escorted through a side door.

Online Seller Who Scared Customers Is Arrested – NYTimes.com.

Carnival passenger allegedly demands royalties after being called up on stage – USATODAY.com

Should Carnival have to pay royalties to passengers who get called up on stage during voyages?

That’s what one Carnival cruiser is demanding, according to the line’s senior cruise director, John Heald.

In a recent post at his widely followed blog, Heald says a passenger he identifies as “Mr. Cloonpitt” is insisting on royalties after being called up on a ship stage during a welcome aboard show that later got played on cabin TVs.

Heald says the man was one of six passengers who volunteered to come up on stage with him during the welcome event, and at the time he “got into the whole spirit of the show, and all was well … however, the next morning he demanded to speak to me telling me that I must remove the show, which had been recorded and was playing on the cabin televisions.”

Heald says the man said he was an actor and thus was due royalties if the show was not taken down from the TV, something that Heald eventually ordered done.

“He spent the rest of the cruise telling me I owed him money and that he would be contacting his agent which … I guess he did,” says Heald, who says lawyers are now involved in the dispute.

“Now I have cleared all of the above with the Carnival lawyers, and they have no problem with me telling you about this because amongst other things Mr Cloonpitt volunteered to do the show, and there is a waiver thingy within the ticket policies,” Heald writes on his blog. “However, I now have to write a formal report about this, and that’s got me mad.”

Heald, who was in the news recently as the cruise director on the Carnival ship that lost power off the coast of Mexico, goes on to gripe a bit about what he calls ridiculous lawsuits.

“I can only imagine how many ridiculous lawsuits are slapped against companies each and every day,” Heald adds, “which is why we have had to give so much power to the beards and their high visibility jackets and their watch-your-step … swim-at-your-own-risk, coffee-is-hot signs (that) are plastered all over the ships.”

via Carnival passenger allegedly demands royalties after being called up on stage – USATODAY.com.

The Arbitration War – NYTimes.com

Unexpected wireless charges are a chronic affliction of life on the grid. The industry triggers more complaints from consumers than any other. AT&T Mobility, by consumer rankings, is the worst. Its performance in a case the Supreme Court heard recently has done nothing to improve that reputation.

This is the latest in the arbitration war — a battle over whether the United States will increasingly have a privatized system of justice that bars people from enforcing rights in court and, if so, what will be considered fair in that system. It would be grossly unfair for the court to let the corporation get away with what it wants to in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion — a case that involves a small amount of money and a huge principle.

When Vincent and Liza Concepcion signed up for AT&T cellphone service, they received two new phones in exchange for making a two-year agreement. To their consternation, AT&T charged them $30.22 in sales tax for the phones. The Concepcions sued the company for fraud in Federal District Court and their case and another were consolidated as a class action.

Because of an arbitration clause in its customer agreement, AT&T insisted that the Concepcions had to submit their claim to individual arbitration. The federal district judge said no. The judge ruled that the agreement is “unconscionable” under California law — imposed by the company harshly, coerced and not consented to. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit forcefully upheld the decision.

The issue before the Supreme Court is the Federal Arbitration Act, which recognizes some kinds of arbitration agreements as enforceable obligations — and whether that pre-empts the California law. The court must decide if the state law applies only to arbitration agreements, and not contracts generally, or if it hinders Congressional desire to treat arbitration agreements and other contracts similarly and promote speedy resolution of claims.

California says that its law does neither and the appellate court agrees. AT&T contends that California law isn’t what the state says it is. AT&T is asking the Supreme Court to intrude on California’s sovereignty and second-guess interpretation of state law by state courts.

During the recent argument in the Supreme Court, Justice Elena Kagan asked AT&T’s lawyer, “Now, who are we to say that the state is wrong about that?” Justice Antonin Scalia asked a similar question: “Are we going to tell the State of California what it has to consider unconscionable?” When the lawyer answered yes, Justice Stephen Breyer said rhetorically: “Why, why, why?”

The lawyer’s best shot at victory was to portray California law as extreme. Unfortunately for him, courts applying law of at least 19 other states have reached the same conclusion as California, including five federal appeals courts. Under California law, an agreement isn’t enforceable if it requires a customer to submit to individual arbitration that can’t be effective. It can’t be effective, as in this case, if the payoff is so paltry that it takes away incentive to challenge fraud or deception. AT&T’s arbitration agreement supposedly assures customers “a minimum recovery of $7,500, plus double attorneys’ fees, if the arbitrator awards them more than” an offer from AT&T. Translated: AT&T can pay the claim’s value — here, $30.22 — before an arbitrator is picked.

The Ninth Circuit said this “artifice” has “the practical effect of rendering” AT&T “immune from individual claims.” AT&T’s arbitration clause is unconscionable. The Supreme Court should say so.

The Arbitration War – NYTimes.com.