On Q Professional Investigations

The FBI says it was addressing allegations that online accounts of several celebrities, including Oscar-winner Jennifer Lawrence, had been hacked, leading to the posting of their nude photographs online.

The agency did not say what actions it was taking to investigate who was responsible for posting naked photos of Lawrence and other stars. Apple said it was looking into whether its online photo-sharing service had been hacked to obtain the intimate images.

Lawrence, a three-time Oscar nominee who won for her role in “Silver Linings Playbook,” contacted authorities after the images began appearing Sunday.

Naked images purporting to be of other female stars were also posted, although the authenticity of many couldn’t be confirmed. The source of the leak was unclear.

“This is a flagrant violation of privacy,” Lawrence’s publicist Liz Mahoney wrote in a statement. “The authorities have been contacted and will prosecute anyone who posts the stolen photos of Jennifer Lawrence.”

The FBI said it was “aware of the allegations concerning computer intrusions and the unlawful release of material involving high profile individuals, and is addressing the matter.”

“Any further comment would be inappropriate at this time,” spokeswoman Laura Eimiller wrote in a statement.

Apple Inc. spokeswoman Natalie Kerris said the company was investigating whether any iCloud accounts had been tampered with, but she did not give any further details.

“We take user privacy very seriously and are actively investigating this report,” she said.

Actress Mary Elizabeth Winstead also confirmed that nude photos of her were posted online.

“To those of you looking at photos I took with my husband years ago in the privacy of our home, hope you feel great about yourselves,” Winstead posted on Twitter. Winstead, who starred in “Final Destination 3″ and “Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter,” wrote that she thought the images had been destroyed.

Read More

GRAND TRAVERSE COUNTY, MI -- Grand Traverse sheriff’s authorities have found time and time again how useful the office’s smartphone application can be.

But never has the app’s usefulness been quite as apparent as it was last week when police identified a shoplifting suspect — in just 15 minutes.

The AppArrest mobile phone program is available in both the Android and iPhone markets. The sheriff’s office has had a license to use it for nearly two years, and the application was made available to the general public in February. Users can download the app for free and have immediate access to all news releases posted by sheriff’s authorities. This gives police a way to directly connect with the greater public.

Push notifications alert users to new police investigations.

Last week, investigators released information on a Meijer shoplifting suspect, including a surveillance photo from Meijer of the suspect walking through the store. Within 15 minutes of that information hitting the application on a weekday afternoon, a tipster successfully identified the suspect and police had the information they needed.

“We’ve never had that quick of a turnaround,” Undersheriff Nathan Alger said. “This was a new thing for us. It was a record.”

Alger says at least 500 Android phone users have downloaded the application — many, members of the general public. Hundreds more iPhone users have access to it as well.

The application has electronic forms for submitting tips —complete with a photo upload tool — directly to the sheriff’s office. Tipsters can include as much identifying information with a tip as desired. They can also remain completely anonymous.

The app has forms for users to submit if they want to compliment an especially helpful deputy or report an abandoned vehicle, complete with the location, license plate, and any photos taken. Users can directly access the Michigan Sex Offender Registry, the sheriff’s office Facebook page and can select an option to place a direct 911 call.

Alger said productive information has come in through the application concerning everything from individuals with warrants for their arrest, to issues with illegal drug sales, to violent crime investigations. The public’s reception has exceeded expectations, he said.

View Source

RICHMOND (WRIC)—A Facebook photo of a Richmond Police officer assisting a citizen in a wheelchair over the weekend is generating positive buzz on social media.

On Tuesday morning, the Richmond Police Department posted a photo on its Facebook page that a citizen had tweeted on Saturday. The image shows First Precinct Officer Jordan Clark pushing a man in his wheelchair.

According to RPD, Officer Clark received a call about a man in need of assistance after his wheelchair battery died. Clark responded to the scene, pushed the man for three blocks to 25th and East Broad streets, where he had arranged for GRTC to pick the citizen up.

“It was cold, his wheel chair was broke,” Clark said. “The last thing on my mind was leaving him. He didn’t have any friends or family.

That was the only option. I was like, ‘Well, I can’t leave you here, I don’t want to leave you here, we got to take care of this for you.’”

The actions that followed are earning the officer high praise. A college student took a photo of Officer Clark assisting the man in the wheelchair.

After the Richmond Police Department posted it on Facebook, it went viral.

“[Clark] then helped the man get on the bus and then followed the bus to the man’s home near 21st and Q streets,” Richmond Police wrote on Facebook.

“But he didn’t stop there. He then pushed the man in his wheelchair another two blocks and helped him get safely into his home. What an incredibly kind thing for him to do. Talk about going above and beyond.”

“I think he thought he was in trouble at first when I called him,” said Lt. Dan Minton. “I said, ‘What can you tell me about this picture of you pushing this guy in a wheel chair?’ and he said, ‘What are you talking about?’ and I kind of gave him the background on it, and then he told me the story.”

View Source

ATLANTA GA Feb 2 2014 — Georgia motorists soon could whip out a cellphone picture of their driver’s license when stopped by police instead of carrying the plastic version.

That could be a plus for people who prefer not to carry a billfold or purse that could be stolen or mar the silhouette of tight jeans. It also recognizes that cellphones soon will be used for purchases, as they already are in other countries, eliminating the need for a pocketful of cash and credit cards.

The Nathan Deal administration is backing Senate Bill 323 in response to public requests. It’s meant to be especially helpful during the wait for the Department of Driver Services to send by mail the traditional, wallet version of a license, according to Sen. Hunter Hill, R-Smyrna, the sponsor of the bill.

“They are one of our best customer-service state agencies,” said Hill, who used to serve on the department’s board of directors. “They are constantly operating every day and getting feedback from their public.”

Current law already permits use of paper receipts issued by the department. Hill’s bill adds to that an electronic image of the receipt or a cellphone containing a photo of the front and back of the actual license.

“The presentation of such image on an electronic telecommunications device shall not be deemed as consent to access any other information contained on such devise for any other purposes,” the bill states, meaning embarrassing selfies and snarky text messages would remain private.

While the point of the change was the convenience of drivers when awaiting a new, renewed or reinstated license, Hill acknowledges it would work any time.

“When 99 percent of the population is law-abiding citizens, we need to create laws … that allow for some flexibility for our customers,” he said.

The photos would still be subject to verification by police officers accessing the Georgia Crime Information Center’s database. Since that access is limited to law enforcement, Hill doesn’t see the cellphone pictures serving as identification for bars and restaurants scouting out underage alcohol customers or for voting.

“This is not a provision that would make sense for voting,” he said.

View Source

Houston TX Jan 27 2014 In response to cruel cyberbullying that has left their 16-year-old daughter feeling humiliated and unable to sleep, a pair of fed-up parents are striking back at the offending classmates in a unique and public way: They’re suing all seven of the teens for libel and all of their parents for negligence.

“We’re being super aggressive about it, because this behavior really needs to stop,” Tej Paranjpe, the Houston-based attorney for parents Reymundo Esquivel and Shellie Tingle-Esquivel, tells Yahoo Shine. “It’s really an issue of principle.”

Although the Esquivels’ daughter (who is not being named to protect her privacy) has been getting bullied in person by several fellow students at Klein High School in Klein, Texas, for about a year now, the situation came to a head in recent weeks, according to her mother. That’s when the girl’s photo appeared, along with those of many others (some of whom were topless), on a student-made Instagram page called “2014 Klein Hoes,” which had picked up almost 900 followers during the several weeks it was live.

On Instagram, her daughter’s photo in particular, Tingle-Esquivel tells Yahoo Shine, became the target of many “vulgarities” and “explicit sexual comments,” which left the teen “crying and really upset — almost hysterical.” She adds that the whole experience “has affected [her daughter] tremendously,” but she also notes that she’s “really impressed and proud” that the girl had the gumption to tell her parents in the first place.

The situation has inspired Tingle-Esquivel to act on behalf of her daughter, as well as the other girls on the Instagram page, which was “really defaming the character of these kids.” She retained Paranjpe, who quickly got the page taken down with restraining orders against each of the seven students involved in its making. And now they’re preparing to file the lawsuits, for the sole purpose of stopping all cyberbullying activity and “raising public awareness,” Tingle-Esquivel says. “It’s to let kids know that this is not acceptable.” If they do pursue monetary damages, she adds, any funds will be donated to an antibullying organization.

The approach is certainly an unusual one, according to Dr. Justin Patchin, criminal justice professor at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire and co-director of the national Cyberbullying Research Center. “What’s more common is parents suing the school for failing to respond appropriately,” he tells Yahoo Shine. That happened last year in Tennessee, when a family sued its school district for $1.1 million for not doing enough to protect its eighth-grade son from cyberbullying, which included a death threat.

Though Klein High School administrators have been “very supportive” about their complaints, Tingle-Esquivel says, the school has not gone far enough. School officials moved several of the offending students out of her daughter’s classes and into others, for example, but, she says they didn’t bother to get the Instagram page taken down despite having known about it.

Klein High School principal Larry Whitehead did not respond to requests for comment from Yahoo Shine.

Lawsuits that go after cyberbullies, Patchin notes, are rare because it can be challenging to prove and put a price tag on the harm that ensues from the harassment. They can also be expensive. So instead, he suggests, “parents should work with schools to minimize the damage. The targets usually know who’s behind it, and the teens often think it’s just a joke — they don’t realize the harm that they’re causing.” Patchin also stresses the importance of schools’ creating environments that value compassion and respect in an effort to prevent the cyberbullying in the first place.

As for the expense involved in the Texas lawsuit, Tingle-Esquivel says, she’s more concerned about potentially saving the life of a student who may feel suicidal over cyberbullying. “Can you put a price tag on someone’s life?” she asks. “No, you cannot.”

View Source

A 29-year-old Michigan man was sentenced to five years in federal prison last week—the maximum allowed by law—for interstate stalking in a bizarre case of online romance gone bad.

Brian Curtis Hile traveled to San Diego from Michigan in 2011 intending to kill a woman and her boyfriend after the pair had unwittingly gotten caught up in Hile’s virtual love affair.

Hile had been ensnared in a “catfishing” scheme—in which a person uses social media to pretend to be someone they’re not, typically to engage in misleading online romances. During the course of an Internet-only relationship that lasted two years, Hile exchanged explicit photos and romantic communications with someone he believed to be a woman. When he learned that “she” was actually a man living in South Africa, Hile became enraged and vowed to find the man who deceived him—and the woman whose images played a role in the deception.

“The woman in this case was a victim twice,” said Special Agent Steve Kim in our San Diego Division. Kim, a member of the Computer and Technology Crime High-Tech Response Team—a multi-agency task force that apprehends and prosecutes criminals who use technology to prey on victims—explained that when the woman was 18 years old, she took revealing pictures of herself for personal use, never intending for them to be seen publicly. Those photos were later stolen from her online account, which she was aware of. “But she had no idea what was being done with them,” Kim said.

Hile’s primary target for revenge was the man who duped him, but South Africa was too far away. So using what Kim described as “circular logic,” Hile went after the woman. “He knew she didn’t have anything to do with the romance scam,” Kim said, “but he believed she bore some responsibility. In his mind, the mere fact that those photos were used indicated that she was somehow responsible for what had happened to him.”

An avid Internet user and computer gamer, Hile was determined to learn the woman’s identity. He conducted an extensive online search and used hacking tools. “Eventually, he was able to hack into her e-mail account,” Kim said, and compiled detailed personal information about the woman and her live-in boyfriend as well as their extended family and friends.

Armed with her address, Hile purchased a bus ticket from Michigan to San Diego to exact his revenge. Fortunately, Hile’s family sensed that he was planning something and alerted authorities, which eventually led to Hile’s detention in San Diego—about a mile from the woman’s residence.

At the time of his arrest, he was in possession of the woman’s address, telephone numbers, and information such as her favorite restaurant. He also had duct tape, zip ties, and a to-do list that included obtaining a knife and chloroform.

“Had he gotten there,” Kim said, “we are convinced he would have hurt or killed the victims.” Hile was found guilty by a San Diego jury in August 2013.

Kim believes this case should serve as a cautionary tale for others. When it comes to social media sites, he said, “You really have to know the people you are communicating with. If you don’t absolutely know who’s on the other end, you shouldn’t be sending personal information or photographs. The Internet is an amazing thing,” he added, “but it’s also a very scary thing.”

Resource:
- Press release

View Source

You’re trying to be a good parent. You’ve explained the importance of treating people with respect online as well as face-to-face and the permanence of online comments, photos and videos. And in the spirit of trust but verify, you may occasionally scroll through your kid’s email or Google+ account, or pick up their phone to glance at recent texts. One would think this behavior it protected by law. Surprisingly, wiretap laws don’t have carve outs for parental snooping.

Before diving into the law, allow me to explain in one word why the law and court cases on snooping in the home are so muddled: Divorce. In the cage match that is divorce and custody battles, snooping and taping are as much staples as roundhouse kicks and choke holds. If parents had unfettered access to their children’s communications, they then would have such access to those communications with the opposing parent. Because this is not always in the best interest of the child, courts cannot say as a rule that parental snooping is okay in all instances.

The law actually starts by saying that snooping is not okay. There are both Federal laws and state laws covering wiretapping. For Federal law, we look at the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). The ECPA covers both the interception of electronic communications in transit (Title III of the ECPA) and unauthorized access of those communications while in storage (Title II of the ECPA, also known as the Stored Communications Act). Courts have found an expectation of privacy in electronic communications while in transit (Title III), but that expectation diminishes once the transmission is complete and the communication is stored (Title II). What this means is that looking through your kid’s email is going to be looked at more favorably than putting a tap on their phone line and recording calls.

Let’s take a closer look at the Stored Communications Act. It says: 18 USC § 2701 – Unlawful access to stored communications (a) Offense.— Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section whoever—

(1) intentionally accesses without authorization a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided; or

(2) intentionally exceeds an authorization to access that facility; and thereby obtains, alters, or prevents authorized access to a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage in such system shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

Putting this into English, you can go to jail for up to 10 years if you intentionally access stored communications where you don’t have the authority to access them or you exceed your authority by accessing them. The question then becomes whether or not parents have the authority under the law to access their children’s stored communications. This is where courts come in.

The United States is a common law country. Common law means that the courts help make law by interpreting the laws written by the legislature. This is why you hear lawyers reciting case names when arguing for their clients. They are arguing what is called case law. The case law on snooping on kids centers on taping phone conversations rather than accessing stored communications, but the court would use the same logic in a stored communications case.

In a 1998 court case Pollock v. Pollock, the court used the concept of vicarious consent to justify the interception of a minor child’s conversation. Recording of conversation is permitted when one of the parties involved consents to the recording. Vicarious consent occurs in this context when a parent consents to wiretapping on behalf of their child and when the parent’s snooping is motivated by the genuine, good faith concern for the child’s welfare. Therefore, if a parent is acting in the best interest of the child, courts should find that snooping is justified and allowable by law because the parent is consenting to their own snooping.

It’s a good thing parents have legal protection via the courts for good faith snooping because a lot of parents do it. A new study from the Digital Future Project finds 70% of parents say they monitor their child’s online activity while on Facebook and other social media sites and 46% have password access to their children’s accounts. The author falls into both camps but not on a regular basis. There’s a balance to be stuck between trust and monitoring. At least now I know I won’t be spending 10 years in jail for doing a bit of looking if I feel it’s in the best interest of my child.

View Source

The Glendale Unified School District in Southern California outsources keeping tabs on troublemakers as well as identifying kids in trouble. At least these are its justifications.

Safety has rather become the mantra of authorities over the last few years.

Government exists, so we’re told, to keep the people safe. As opposed to, say, happy, employed, strong, proud or free.

A school district in Southern California is also committed to the safety of its kids. And, given that social media sites are where kids are at these days, it’s decided to keep tabs on every single public post its kids are making.

Naturally, the Glendale Unified School District doesn’t have the time to do this itself. So it’s hired an outside company to do its tab-keeping for it.

As CBS Los Angeles reports, the district chose Geo Listening, a company that specializes in following kids’ Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube feeds.

“The whole purpose is student safety,” the district’s superintendent Richard Sheehan told CBS.

So now every single piece of social blurting is now being watched by Big Geo.

Sheehan explained that the system works by looking for keywords. He gave examples of how potentially suicidal kids have been the subject of interventions thanks to the system.

Some, though, might feel a touch chilled by his description of the system’s breadth.

“We do monitor on and off campus, but we do pay attention during school hours. We do pay more attention to the school computers,” he said.

In legal terms, any public posting is fair game. The Geo Listening Web site helpfully explains: “The students we can help are already asking for you. All of the individual posts we monitor on social media networks are already made public by the students themselves. Therefore, no privacy is violated.”

Every single public posting made by every one of the district’s 13,000 students is being monitored, although the company insists it doesn’t peek at “privatized pages, SMS, MMS, email, phone calls, voicemails.”

Geo Listening says that its role is to provide “timely” information, so that a school can act, whether it’s a case of bullying, potential self-harm, vandalism, substance abuse or truancy.

However, the company is surely able to build up a huge trove of information about all individuals which, at least theoretically, might prove to be valuable (to someone) in the future.

What lazy, neurotic employer wouldn’t love to know if a potential hire was a school bully a few years ago? Might the employer be able to contact the school district and demand a record of all social media activity that took place in a potential employee’s youth?

When kids grow up, there will be parts of their lives they want to erase. Yet here will be records that keep that past alive.

The twin-pronged fork of surveillance is currently being examined for the potential of its worth.

The problem is that, ultimately, there are no guarantees — be it Google, the NSA or Geo Listening — about what information is actually being collected and how it might be used.

Why do you think that kids (and Wall Street) are so enamored with Snapchat?

View Source

The recent death of 14-year-old Hannah Smith, who took her own life after apparently enduring months of online bullying, has raised questions about the online safety of children and young people. Ask.fm – the question-and-answer website at the centre of the controversy – has promised new measures to protect users. But what role should schools play? Esafety is already a part of the curriculum in both England and Wales, but are schools taking the issue seriously enough? And do teachers know enough about the social networking platforms their pupils are using?

Amy James, 15, student at Easten high school, Cardiff

Schools don’t do enough to help people who are being bullied, even when it’s happening in real life. I know a lot of people who are bullied online and keep quiet about it. They think that there’s no point in telling teachers because nothing will be done. And lots of people are also scared to use the “report” buttons on Facebook because they worry that it’ll get out that they’ve reported someone. We don’t have proper lessons looking at social media at school but if we did, it might help people who are experiencing bullying. People need to be taught about the effect that cyberbullying can have.

Carol Phillips, student support officer and child protection at Crickhowell high school in Powys, Wales

Schools only have students for five hours a day, so there’s limited time for classes on internet safety. Parents have them for much longer and it’s parents who are buying them the phones and software, often without understanding how it all works.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard of a parent or a sibling, with parental knowledge, putting a child on Facebook when they are below the age of 13. Of course you can’t monitor your children all the time, but there are steps you can take, including controls and filters, or looking at the PEGI age rating that appears on games.

Reem Jaafar, 15, mentor for Bullies Out charity

I experienced online bullying – it was part of a wider pattern of bullying that spilled over onto Facebook. I was receiving messages with nasty comments or rumours that weren’t true. We’ve had some lessons about it at school: one this year about Ask.fm, and last year we had talks about Facebook and Twitter where they said that you should tell a teacher if you’re being bullied online. But it’s really difficult to speak out when it’s actually happening to you. It took me a long time – a year – to finally say something. When I did, my teachers were helpful though.

Nadimur Rahman, assistant head and IT teacher at a secondary school in Sutton

We have so many issues with kids putting stuff on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram – you name it. Often when we call parents in and explain what has happened, they have no idea what their son or daughter has been doing.

It’s not their fault – parents aren’t to blame, it’s up to the government to make sure the right information is imparted to parents. Social media is taught as part of the IT curriculum – the problem is that the government is moving away from IT and pushing computer science instead, which focuses far more on technical things like programming.

Kim Thomas, mother of 14-year-old Beth, Hertfordshire
It’s hard to monitor what kids are doing online now they all have iPhones and iPads. I’m Facebook friends with my daughter, so I can see what’s she doing on there, but I only found out yesterday that she has an Ask.fm profile. I don’t know what she does on Twitter because she has three or four different accounts.

My daughter has experienced some nastiness on Facebook in the past – not a huge amount, but a continuation of some bullying that was happening at her old school.

She is given classes on social media at school, but the problem is that the kids are ahead of the teachers. The one thing schools could do is make sure that young people are aware that if they do bully others online, there will be repercussions.

Paul Luxmoore, Dane Court grammar school, Broadstairs, Kent
The new forms of media are fantastic and can be of huge benefit to young people. But it is quite shocking to see how they can be abused – and that’s something all schools need to take seriously. The type of bullying that takes place on new media can be different. Girls, for example, might be persuaded by a boy to take photos of themselves naked. This then gets shared around a friendship group, which is hugely upsetting for the victim. We have a policy of excluding – though not permanently – students who do this type of thing.

Schools need to have very strict rules, and they need to make it clear to pupils that there will be repercussions. You could take the view that if it’s happening outside school then it’s not a matter for teachers, but I believe that if it affects children’s behaviour and attainment in school, it needs to be dealt with.

Liz Watson, head of Beat Bullying
Esafety has been a part of recent curriculum changes, which means schools are already doing more. But as well as educating students about how to use social media, they also need to deal effectively with cyberbullying when it does occur. While many schools do have anti-bullying policies, these tend to focus on face-to-face abuse. Schools need to update these and work with governors, parents and students to raise awareness.

View Source

A Palestinian security researcher gained unauthorized access, last week, to Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook (NASDAQ:FB) page to prove the legitimacy of his bug report, after the social network giant’s security team ignored his previous reports on the vulnerability.

On Facebook, users are not permitted to share or post anything on the profile pages of people that are not on one’s friends list. But, the security expert, who goes by the name of Khalil Shreateh, discovered a bug that allowed an intruder to post on anyone’s Facebook “Wall,” even without being that person’s “Friend” on the social networking site.

In an initial bug report to Facebook, Shreateh tried to demonstrate the vulnerability by sharing a link on the wall of Sarah Goodin, who is a college friend of the Facebook founder. A member of the Facebook’s online security team, who was not on Goodin’s friends list, clicked on Shreateh’s link but could not view his post as Goodin’s wall was set to be visible to her friends only.

Shreateh sent another bug report, explaining that anyone inspecting the vulnerability on Goodin’s wall needed to be her friend, or would have to use administrative access to view the post. However, the Facebook security official responded to Shreateh saying what he had pointed out was not a bug.

However, Shreateh, convinced of the bug he had discovered and to prove the legitimacy of his discovery, decided to take it to the next level by posting on Zuckerberg’s own profile page.

On Thursday, a note from Shreateh was visible on Zuckerberg’s timeline, saying: “Sorry for breaking your privacy to your wall,” it read, “i no other choice to make after all the reports I sent to Facebook team.”

As Shreateh expected, this generated a reaction from Facebook, leading the company to fix the flaw.

According to Facebook’s whitehat exploit disclosure program, Shreateh could qualify for a reward of at least $500 as the discoverer of a bug on the site. But, Shreateh might be disqualified from receiving the bug bounty, Facebook said.

According to Facebook’s bug disclosure policy, a security researcher should use test accounts, rather than real accounts of Facebook users, to work on the site’s vulnerabilities and bug reports. Shreateh, according to the company, violated this rule by accessing Goodin’s and Zuckerberg’s profiles.

“We are unfortunately not able to pay you for this vulnerability because your actions violated our Terms of Service. We do hope, however, that you continue to work with us to find vulnerabilities in the site,” TechCrunch quoted Facebook as saying.

Facebook said also that Shreateh’s bug report did not have enough technical information to convince its in-house security experts. In addition, the company receives hundreds of bug reports on a daily basis, it added, making it difficult for the company’s security team to separate the genuine reports from the fake ones.

However, Matt Jones, one of Facebook’s engineers on the security team, admitted in an online forum, Hacker News, that the social network did not follow up with Shreateh properly. “We should have pushed back asking for more details here,” he wrote.

View Source