Leigh Van Bryan, 26, was handcuffed and kept under armed guard in a cell with Mexican drug dealers for 12 hours after landing in Los Angeles with pal Emily Bunting.

The Department of Homeland Security flagged him as a potential threat when he posted an excited tweet to his pals about his forthcoming trip to Hollywood which read: ‘Free this week, for quick gossip/prep before I go and destroy America?’

After making their way through passport control at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) last Monday afternoon the pair were detained by armed guards.

Despite telling officials the term ‘destroy’ was British slang for ‘party’, they were held on suspicion of planning to ‘commit crimes’ and had their passports confiscated.

Leigh was also quizzed about another tweet which quoted hit US comedy Family Guy which read: ‘3 weeks today, we’re totally in LA p****** people off on Hollywood Blvd and diggin’ Marilyn Monroe up!

Federal agents even searched his suitcase looking for spades and shovels, claiming Emily was planning to act as Leigh’s ‘look out’ while he raided Marilyn’s tomb.

‘I couldn’t believe it because it was a quote from the comedy Family Guy which is an American show.

To make sure that your communications don’t run into similar language barriers, give us a call toll-free at +1-888-398-4968, or use the free quote form in the sidebar to the right, or email us at info@eworldtranslations.com or provide more detailed information on our contact form. You can also fax your documents to us at +1-312-803-2208.

In a May 18, 2010 letter to the commission, EPIC’s executive director, Marc Rotenberg, expressed concern that Google’s actions may have violated the federal Wiretap Act as well as Section 705 of the Communications Act, which forbids the interception of radio communications without authorization.

Time will have to tell if this investigation will result in more than a mere slap on the wrist for Google, which is what the Federal Trade Commission FTC was ultimately satisfied with when requiring Google to promise to delete the data it had collected and to improve its privacy training.

For capturing location information of wireless networks, no matter whether they are encrypted or not, it would have been sufficient to simply record the SSID (service set identifier). Given massive difference in data storage space requirements of storing an SSID of up to 32 Bytes length vs. storing a multitude of payload data that may include user names and passwords transmitted while the Google Street View car was within reach of any given wireless network, it stands to reason that this should have raised an internal red flag sooner rather than later.

For assistance in reviewing and updating your current privacy policies and procedures, contact us today.

First, a target’s cell phone number is obtained from a public database that links names to numbers for caller ID purposes. This can be done by anybody operating a private branch exchange (PBX) through spoofing the outgoing caller ID and then automating phones calls to him- or herself, thereby triggering the system to perform a name lookup.

Generating a phone database of the whole US this way would only take a couple of weeks according to Nick DePetrillo, one of the researchers. His fellow researcher Don Bailey points out that this is not illegal nor is it a breach of terms of service.

Once the number has been identified, it is then matched with a geographic location using the Home Location Register (HLR) of the SS7 (Signal System) public switched network which logs the whereabouts of numbers so networks can hand calls off to one another.

This allows for tracking of cell phone users along their routes.

To make matters worse, some providers, such as T-Mobile, are also vulnerable to voice mail spoofing and as a result effectively let perpetrators listen to the victims’ messages.

In addition this enables someone to map a social web of people, their cellular numbers, the content and context of their voice mail and also relationships to others.

Given that this affects not just individual users but also corporations and government agency that have been assigned large blocks of numbers, it might be time to review your security policies to assess and mitigate the impact this might have on you and/or your business.

For assistance in reviewing your security policies as well as assessing and/or mitigating your risk profile, contact us today.

As the article indicates, “Privacy advocates have long warned that law enforcement agencies can access sensitive files stored on services like Google Docs with greater ease than files stored on a target’s hard drive. In particular, the 1986 Stored Communications Act allows the government to access a customer’s data whenever there are ‘reasonable grounds’ to believe the information would be relevant in a criminal investigation — a much lower legal standard than the ‘probable cause’ required for a search warrant.”

While in this case the FBI and prosecutors opted for a full-blown search warrant, this incident may serve as a reminder of the intricacies and ramifications involved in choosing a proper platform to conduct your business on.

For help in deciding which platform to choose for conducting your legitimate and legally sound business, as well as for help in assessing the implications of your current setup, contact us today.

This is because almost every digital copier built since 2002 contains a hard drive, just like the one in your PC, to temporarily store images of the documents that are copied, scanned or emailed by the machine.

This includes a treasure trove of information, among them social security numbers, bank records, income tax forms, birth certificates, pay stubs, you name it. If you happen to stumble across a machine used by a police department, you might end up with detailed domestic violence complaints, lists of wanted sex offenders, or lists of targets in a major drug raid.

Hitting “print” on a machine from a New York insurance company produced 300 pages of individual medical records, including blood test results, drug prescriptions and a cancer diagnosis. This might even be construed as a breach of federal privacy law.

Even though manufacturers are offering encryption or security packages for their products that might help to remedy this situation to a certain extent, businesses seem to be reluctant to shell out e.g. $500 to Sharp for a product that automatically erases an image from the hard drive.

But with more and more digital copiers piling up in warehouses, this might be a small price to pay in comparison to the egg in the face that could result from accidental or intentional exposure of such oversights or lapses in judgment.

Let us help you to protect the reputation of your business as well as the confidentiality, integrity and availability of the data you hold in your possession and/or have been entrusted with. Contact us today.

Ms. Stengart had filed a suit against the company in 2008, alleging discrimination based on gender, religion, and national origin, and accessed her personal Yahoo email account over the company’s network to communicate with her attorney.

This ruling overrules an earlier decision by a trial court which had found in favor of the company.

For assistance in reviewing and updating your current policies and procedures, contact us today.

The only dissenting opinion in this case dealing with fundamental questions about cyberbullying and the fine line between online speech and hate crimes was voiced by Judge Fances Rothschild, indicating that the appellate court ruling “alters the legal landscape to the severe detriment of First Amendment rights.”

At issue are derogatory comments made on a teen’s website,  mocking his perceived sexual orientation and making hostile statements that threatened him with bodily harm, such as “Faggot, I’m going to kill you,” and “I want to rip out your fucking heart and feed it to you.”

Judges Robert Mallano and Jeffrey Johnson, writing for the majority, stated that the messages revealed a harmful intent and were not protected speech. This includes remarks such as “I’ve wanted to kill you. If I ever see you I’m … going to pound your head in with an ice pick.”

For help in reviewing your website’s contents and comments, contact us today.

The suit’s class is comprised of 260 or more people whose personal medical information was leaked; it alleges breach of confidentiality, invasion of privacy and negligence, given that the clinic became aware of the data leak as early as summer 2008, yet, neglected to inform its patients at that time.

Let us help you to avoid similar headaches for you and your organization. Contact us today to arrange for a review and update of your privacy and security products, policies and procedures.

Reportedly, law enforcement agencies have been utilizing fake profiles in their efforts to trick social networking site users into allowing them to be online friends, which then allowed them to gather additional information from said users’ profiles in cases against them. According to a CNET article, the lawsuit alleges that “government officials have: used Facebook to hunt for fugitives and search for evidence of underage drinking; researched the activities of an activist on Facebook and LinkedIn; watched YouTube to identify riot suspects; searched the home of a social worker because of Twitter messages regarding police actions he sent during the G-20 summit; and used fake identities to trick Facebook users into accepting friend requests.”