Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Computer Forensics Docket Sheet
Court Reverses Conviction Where Defendant
Was Unaware Of Computer Cache Files
In a suit charging the defendant with knowing possession of child pornography, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the jury trial conviction based in large part on computer-forensic evidence. A computer-forensics analyst testified that computers automatically store information that users view on the Internet on their hard drives in temporary Internet cache files. The computer-forensics expert also explained that there's no way to determine whether the stored files were affirmatively sought after by the user or were pop-ups. A user also is not able to retrieve these files without special forensic software, which was not present on the defendant's computer. As knowing possession of child pornography requires proof of an affirmative step to save or download images to the computer and knowledge of their existence, the defendant did not have the required culpability to be held guilty of the crime. Barton v. State, 2007 WL 1775565 (Ga.App. June 21, 2007).
Michele C.S. Lange Joni Heike E-Discovery Case Law Update Computer Forensics http://www.krollontrack.com e-Discovery Law & Strategy [email protected]
Court Reverses Conviction Where Defendant
Was Unaware Of Computer Cache Files
In a suit charging the defendant with knowing possession of child pornography, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the jury trial conviction based in large part on computer-forensic evidence. A computer-forensics analyst testified that computers automatically store information that users view on the Internet on their hard drives in temporary Internet cache files. The computer-forensics expert also explained that there's no way to determine whether the stored files were affirmatively sought after by the user or were pop-ups. A user also is not able to retrieve these files without special forensic software, which was not present on the defendant's computer. As knowing possession of child pornography requires proof of an affirmative step to save or download images to the computer and knowledge of their existence, the defendant did not have the required culpability to be held guilty of the crime. Barton v. State, 2007 WL 1775565 (Ga.App. June 21, 2007).
Michele C.S. Lange Joni Heike E-Discovery Case Law Update Computer Forensics http://www.krollontrack.com e-Discovery Law & Strategy [email protected]
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?