Password protection has long been problematic as a method of securing personal data. Most of the time, the passwords people use are not particularly difficult to guess; common passwords include simple patterns, such as 12345 or qwerty. Passwords use single dictionary words, or dictionary words that include simple substitutions in spelling, such as p@ssw0rd or j0hnsm1th, are likewise easily cracked by software used by hackers. Such software is capable of cracking relatively strong passwords—for example, passwords that use 8-12 characters, numbers, and symbols—in minutes.

Google’s forthcoming solution to the problem in its Chrome browser has drawn criticism for failing to adequately address the problem. Google is currently testing a new browser feature that will generate passwords impossible for a human user to remember. The problem is that these passwords, despite appearing more sophisticated, will not be significantly harder for hackers to crack. And it presents an additional security risk: if you use Chrome on all your devices, such as a laptop or smartphone, the feature will allow anyone to use any one of those devices to access your accounts.

The full report can be found here.

In 2010, Google Inc. launched a social feature called Google Buzz that somehow caused users’ private contacts lists to be made public. The resulting outcry led to an investigation by the Federal Trade Commission. The Commission’s findings brought about a settlement with Google last October. The terms of the settlement required the internet search giant to implement a comprehensive privacy program and to avoid “future privacy misrepresentations.”

Now, there appears to be evidence that Google has discovered, and utilized, a work-around for privacy protections built into Apple Inc.’s iPhone software, specifically the Safari web browser. Representatives Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, Joe Barton of Texas, and Cliff Sterns of Florida—all of whom are members of the Congressional Bi-Partisan Privacy Caucus—signed a letter to the FTC expressing concern over Google’s actions. “Safari is a major web browser used by millions of Americans,” they note, and ask whether the FTC intends to “investigate whether Google has violated the terms of its consent agreement.”

The concern expressed in the letter stems from a Stanford study that concluded that Google, as well as other advertisers, had willfully circumvented features within Safari designed to protect users’ privacy. Specifically, Google found a way to place third-party cookies on iPhone Safari browsers. Cookies are text files used to track browsing activity.

Google insists that the cookies were never used to collect personal information; nonetheless, the company has agreed to remove them. It is not clear whether Google faces additional legal consequences related to this latest incident.

The full report can be found here.

Former Alabama State Trooper Jonathan Dees has been arrested on felony theft and ethics charges. The charges allege that Dees used his position as a law enforcement officer for unlawful personal gain, including the use of state vehicles and gasoline for private purposes.

Last Wednesday, another former state trooper as well as a custodian employed at one time with the Tuscaloosa State Trooper Post were arrested on similar charges.

The State Attorney General’s indictment alleges that Dees committed second-degree theft by misappropriating $500 in gasoline between July 2009 and January 2011. In addition, he is accused of abusing his position as a law enforcement officer to obtain the gasoline unlawfully, and of using both the gasoline and his state vehicle for personal benefit.

The penalties involved vary in severity. The minimum penalty for second-degree theft consists of imprisonment of a year and a day, plus a $15,000 fine; 10 years is the maximum. The more serious charge appears to be the use of his position for private gain, a state ethics transgression which carries a minimum sentence of at least two years in jail and a fine of $30,000; the maximum prison term would be 20 years.

The Press-Register’s report can be found here.

There are a variety of ways in which identity theft can occur, and while public awareness of identity theft has increased, identity theft remains a growing concern. This is due in part to new methods of data collection, one example of which is known as typosquatting.

When a user types in a web address—for example, that of a popular retailer like Target or Wal-Mart—typos can occur, such as a letter accidentally added or omitted by the user.

Typosquatting is often considered a minor nuisance, but in some cases, the consequences can be devastating. In some cases, the user’s browser will go to a malicious website disguised as the retailer the user was trying to access. If the user then tries to make a purchase off the fake website, the data thieves who created the site will end up with the user’s name, address, and credit card information.

Everyone knows identity theft is illegal, but even the mere act of creating a website with a typosquatting address can carry criminal penalties. An experienced attorney can help set the record straight in the event of a typosquatting-related arrest.

CBS’s full report on typosquatting can be found here.

The hacking group Anonymous has released an audio recording of a January phone conversation between American and British law enforcement personnel. It seems that detectives were discussing alleged hackers then under surveillance. In a statement, the FBI said that the “information was intended for law enforcement officers only and was illegally obtained. A criminal investigation is under way to identify and hold accountable those responsible.”

The conference call was hosted by the FBI and involved multiple law enforcement agencies around the world. According to an email also released by Anonymous, the call was to be an opportunity to discuss efforts to combat the hacktivist group, as well as splinter groups Lulzsec and Antisec.

The hackers had posted the call on YouTube. According to one of the suspects’ attorney, the audio file had apparently been taken from an intercepted email; the hackers had not eavesdropped on the call itself.

The incident was one of several recently instigated by hackers claiming to be affiliated with Anonymous. Law enforcement websites in Boston and Salt Lake City were disrupted by cyber attacks last week, and the Greek justice ministry’s page was also brought down. In at least some cases, the attacks were meant to be political protests addressing issues ranging from the Occupy Wall Street movement to international copyright law.

The BBC’s report can be found here.

Terrell Owens earned tens of millions during his playing career, but now the former NFL star is broke, depressed, and lonely. According to Owens, his financial ruin was the result of gross mismanagement at the hands of one-time financial advisor Jeff Rubin, who is currently entangled in a web of drug-related and white-collar crime.

Rubin was once the CEO of Center Stage, an entertainment venue near Dothan, Alabama. Owens says that Rubin convinced him to invest $2 million into the project, in addition to several millions in real estate ventures prior to the 2008 recession. Center Stage offered live bingo, and Owens’ investment was in violation of the NFL’s gambling restrictions.

Center Stage filed for bankruptcy in January, mere months after Rubin and fellow Center Stage exec Mike Kneuer were arrested on drug-related charges. After a Center Stage employee went to the police with accusations that she had been raped, police searched Rubin’s and Kneuer’s hotel rooms, discovering marijuana, Xanax, and GHB, a drug frequently associated with date rape. The pair have been charged with possession of marijuana; a spokesman said that investigations into the other allegations are ongoing.

Neither Rubin nor Kneuer retained their positions with Center Stage.

Owens was not the only pro athlete to accuse Rubin of wrongdoing. Roscoe Parrish of the Buffalo Bills sued Rubin, in part over a $400,000 investment in Center Stage. A judgment awarded Parrish $15,000. In addition, Owens and running back Clinton Portis sued a Florida law firm that helped to arrange their investments in Center Stage.

Rubin’s attorney does not believe Rubin will be charged with a sex crime, and she contends that the athletes were aware of the risks when they agreed to invest in Center Stage, pointing out that their commitments were a fraction of their total net worth.

The Miami New Times report can be found here.

A pair of jurors in Ray Crosby’s corruption trial now claim that they believe the prosecution knowingly withheld exculpatory information. Had they been supplied with that information, Crosby’s guilty verdict may have been different.

At issue was Crosby’s relationship with Milton McGregor, a casino owner. Crosby had been charged with corruption based on allegations that he had unlawfully accepted money from McGregor; in exchange, Crosby allegedly used his influence as an analyst for the state legislature to modify bills so as to favor McGregor. However, the jury was not informed that Crosby’s superiors know about the relationship.

In addition, Crosby’s lawyers argued that Crosby had also been involved with bills that would have had severe negative consequences for McGregor’s businesses in Jefferson and Macon counties.

As a result of the indictment, Crosby lost his job and marriage, and had to sell his house to pay legal expenses. It wasn’t enough; Crosby filed for bankruptcy four days before his death.

The coroner ruled that Crosby died of natural causes, but his supporters feel that the investigation and trial “ran [Crosby] into the ground,” in the words of Danny Corbett, a former state senator and colleague of Crosby’s. Senator Quinton Ross, likewise, believed that Crosby “died with a broken heart. It did him in.”

The Montgomery Advertiser’s report can be found here.

Shamim Ahmed Khan has been released on bond after a grand jury indicted him on 27 counts of tax evasion and 15 counts of second-degree possession of a forged instrument.

The 40-year-old owner of a cigar wholesale business is accused of evading taxes during a two-year span, between February 2008 and April 2010. The forgery charges are related to commercial invoices Khan submitted to the Alabama Department of Revenue.

Khan’s bond payment exceeded $100,000.

If Khan is found guilty of all charges, he could spend up to 285 years behind bars and face fines of up to $2.8 million, according to the Shelby County Reporter’s report.

Khan’s arrest was the result of an investigation conducted by multiple arms of Alabama law enforcement. The Public Corruption and White Collar Crime Division of the state attorney general’s office and the Investigations Division of the Alabama Department of Revenue collaborated on the case.

In tax evasion cases, it is nearly impossible to avoid the involvement of large governmental bureaucracies. The procedural complexities of government investigation, combined with the peculiarities of each individual case, demands the assistance of a qualified attorney.

Forbes CNBC has suspended its Million Dollar Portfolio Challenge due to an exploit that some contestants used to reach the top of the leaderboard.

The contest draws participants from around the world. The object of the contest is to create a fantasy portfolio of stocks and currencies. The contestant with the best (i.e., most profitable) investment strategy wins the grand prize. The contest is not limited to those with real-world investing experience: previous winners include a jazz musician and a waitress.

However, a “technical glitch” has been discovered, and the contest has been postponed until it can be remedied. “The contest accidentally allowed what our rules specifically prohibited,” according to a letter sent to contestants by CNBC. “Out of fairness to all registered contestants and as is our right,” the letter continues, “according to the rules of the contest, we are suspending the contest and will restart it Sunday, October 30 at 5:00 p.m. ET.  Upon relaunch, all player accounts will be reset to their opening balance.  Play will begin anew for the final five weeks of the contest.  All winners from the first five weeks, including this week, will retain their prizes.”

CNBC has not revealed the nature of the glitch.

Ever since the Internet came into widespread use by the general public, its relationship with intellectual property (IP)—both as a thing in and of itself, as well as a source of income for those who create it—has been fraught with difficulty. Those who attended college in the late 1990s will remember Napster, the free music download service that revolutionized Internet piracy and incurred the wrath of Metallica front man Lars Ulrich. Napster was shut down by judicial order, only to be succeeded by other, perhaps more cautious downloading services, such as Kazaa, once a Napster look-alike but now a “legitimate” paid subscription service. Likewise, Napster has re-invented itself as a paid service in compliance with copyright law.

The Internet piracy phenomenon has not been confined to music. Harlan Ellison, an award-winning writer who has produced in excess of 1700 short stories, essays, novels, and teleplays, filed suit against a host of defendants, the most recognizable of which was the Internet service provider America Online. Ellison lambasted the idea that fair use could justify the uploading of entire works, and he argued that, taken to an extreme, unfettered Internet piracy would jeopardize the ability of professional artists to derive an income from their work. Ellison’s lawsuit ended in 2004 with a settlement between himself and AOL, with both sides affirming the importance of addressing the spread of copyrighted works online.

Congress has intervened in the past, generally with the intention of enforcing existing copyright protections in electronic media. Its first noteworthy effort took the form of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a piece of legislation aimed at the sort of copyright infringement described above. The Ellison case invoked the DMCA, in fact, though AOL was deemed eligible for a “passive conduit” exemption that shielded it from liability. But the DMCA was, and remains, a controversial law, in no small part because of an alleged “chilling effect” on research in computer and information sciences. The law bans the development of technologies that circumvent copy-protection techniques employed by the legitimate owners of intellectual property. As a result, opponents say, even university researchers have been unable to publish academic work related to digital rights management technologies, for fear of prosecution under the DMCA.

The Stop Online Piracy Act (or, as the Senate version is known, the Protect Intellectual Property Act) represents the federal government’s latest attempt to curb Internet piracy. The bills, which are focused on copyright violations by foreign websites, have precipitated an avalanche of criticism. Numerous petitions in opposition to SOPA, including a petition sponsored by Google, have accumulated thousands of signatures. Popular websites featuring user-generated content, such as Wikipedia and Reddit, went dark on January 18 in a day-long protest. Supporters of the two bills, both in Congress and in the private sector, have been deserting the cause in numbers. SOPA has been shelved indefinitely as a consequence, and the Senate’s discussion of PIPA has likewise been postponed.

It will be interesting to see how the SOPA/PIPA controversy shapes future discussion of the balance between protecting IP rights on the one hand, and on the other preserving the freedoms of individual users. By shelving SOPA and PIPA in response to the outpouring of opposition, Congress has in essence admitted that, perhaps, it does not know what it is doing after all. At the same time, companies like Google and Twitter have greatly expanded their lobbying presence in Washington in order to counter the lobbying efforts of groups like the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), one of the driving forces behind SOPA.

While Congress has long sought to establish some degree of control over the Internet, the SOPA controversy appears to have exposed its technological naïveté to an unprecedented extent. One can only hope that, whatever form the next attempt at Internet regulation may take, it addresses the complexities of the Internet on their own terms.