Wall St. Journal: “A new law in California attempts to crack down on paparazzi whose aggressive tactics might endanger their subjects, stoking a debate over whether individual privacy should take precedence over freedom of the press.”
Law.com: “The Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures does not apply to e-mail, a federal judge has ruled. The judge’s reasoning would seem to sound a warning bell for anyone — lawyers in particular — not only who use Web-based e-mail accounts, but also who store documents of any kind online in ‘the cloud.’ . . . The ruling from U.S. District Judge Michael W. Mosman in Oregon addresses the question of whether the government must notify someone when it obtains a search warrant to access the person’s Web-based e-mail account.”
The author has written a second post in which he says the judge did not say that email is not protected by the 4th Amendment. See What Did That E-Mail Opinion Say?
Arizona Business Gazette: “A federal appeals court has reinstated an age-discrimination suit filed by ex-employees of a Phoenix company. The three-judge panel unanimously concluded there was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that Inland Paperboard and Packaging improperly fired three workers because of their age.”
Wall St. Journal: “The Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration, J. Russell George, recently told Congress that at least 19,000 filers hadn’t purchased a home when they claimed the credit. For another 74,000 filers, claiming a total of $500 million in credits, evidence suggests that they weren’t first-time buyers. Among those claiming bogus credits, at least some of them were definitely first-timers. The credit has already been claimed by 500 people under the age of 18, including a four-year-old.”
See also Taxgirl’s post called “Hey Kid, Wanna Buy a House?“
Digital Media Lawyer Blog: “At last, one of several suits by law enforcement authorities against Craigslist, over its alleged publication of ads promoting prostitution services, has reached a court decision. The result, which appears to be driven at least in part by Craiglist’s recent actions to clean up its site, is that Craigslist has been found not liable for aiding and abetting the practice of prostitution in Chicago. The case, Dart v. Craigslist, Inc., N. D. Ill., No. 1:09-cv-01385, was brought by the Sheriff of Cook County who alleged that Craiglist was facilitating prostitution and creating a public nuisance.”