Domingo Rivera

California Politicians Want To Gut Internet Privacy Law

To the surprise of no one, California politicians appear to be on the verge of caving to tech companies. These are the same companies that provide “free” services to consumers in exchange for the right to conduct aggressive surveilance while employing pathetic data security measures. Perhaps those who trust Mark Zuckerberg with their private data deserve no better, or maybe companies like Facebook do a god job at making sure that consumers don’t know any better.

To the surprise of no one, California politicians appear to be on the verge of caving to tech companies. These are the same companies that provide “free” services to consumers in exchange for the right to conduct aggressive surveilance while employing pathetic data security measures. Perhaps those who trust Mark Zuckerberg with their private data deserve no better, or maybe companies like Facebook do a god job at making sure that consumers don’t know any better. »

Lyft Driver Sues Uber For Invasion of Privacy

Michael Gonzales sued Uber on his own behalf and as a putative class action for Lyft drivers whose electronic communications and whereabouts were allegedly intercepted, accessed, monitored, and/or transmitted by Uber. The lawsuit contained the following claims: The Wiretap Act The Federal Wiretap Act – The Act makes it unlawful to “intentionally intercept [ ] … any wire, oral, or electronic communication.” 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a). Under the statute “Intercept” “means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.

Michael Gonzales sued Uber on his own behalf and as a putative class action for Lyft drivers whose electronic communications and whereabouts were allegedly intercepted, accessed, monitored, and/or transmitted by Uber. The lawsuit contained the following claims: The Wiretap Act The Federal Wiretap Act – The Act makes it unlawful to “intentionally intercept [ ] … any wire, oral, or electronic communication.” 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a). Under the statute “Intercept” “means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device. »

The Eric Holder Fast and Furious Surveilance of the Press Case

Former Attorney General Eric Holder, in charge of Fast and Furious and the alleged surveillance on the reporter The lead Plaintiff was an investigative reporter who sued Eric Holder, acting as the Attorney General of the United States. In the case, the Plaintiffs claimed that the Department of Justice and the U.S. Postal Service violated their constitutional rights by conducting unauthorized electronic surveillance of plaintiffs’ home and electronic devices. The case is Sheryl Thompson Attkinsson v.

Former Attorney General Eric Holder, in charge of Fast and Furious and the alleged surveillance on the reporter The lead Plaintiff was an investigative reporter who sued Eric Holder, acting as the Attorney General of the United States. In the case, the Plaintiffs claimed that the Department of Justice and the U.S. Postal Service violated their constitutional rights by conducting unauthorized electronic surveillance of plaintiffs’ home and electronic devices. The case is Sheryl Thompson Attkinsson v. »

In Federal Court, A Win is a Win

Any practicing attorney knows that when you file a lawsuit, you need to include all potential possible causes of actions that are relevant to the client’s claims. In general, claims not asserted arising from the same set of circumstances may be waived if not asserted. Another reason for asserting all possible causes of action is the unpredictability of the courts. If the court disagrees with your theory of the case regarding a particular cause of action, it is always good to have others to fall back on.

Any practicing attorney knows that when you file a lawsuit, you need to include all potential possible causes of actions that are relevant to the client’s claims. In general, claims not asserted arising from the same set of circumstances may be waived if not asserted. Another reason for asserting all possible causes of action is the unpredictability of the courts. If the court disagrees with your theory of the case regarding a particular cause of action, it is always good to have others to fall back on. »

VRCompliance LLC v. Homeaway, Inc., 715 F.3d 570 (4th Cir., 2013)

Sometimes Courts spend more time deciding whether to hear a case than actually hearing it. When multiple jurisdictions are involved, it may get more comical. Why would litigants allow such a “waste” of attorney’s fees? Forum shopping for the State Law claims, of course. The CFAA is broad and most states have relevant laws regarding unauthorized access to computer systems. - Domingo Rivera 715 F.3d 570 VRCOMPLIANCE LLC; Eye Street Solutions LLC, Plaintiffs–Appellants,

Sometimes Courts spend more time deciding whether to hear a case than actually hearing it. When multiple jurisdictions are involved, it may get more comical. Why would litigants allow such a “waste” of attorney’s fees? Forum shopping for the State Law claims, of course. The CFAA is broad and most states have relevant laws regarding unauthorized access to computer systems. - Domingo Rivera 715 F.3d 570 VRCOMPLIANCE LLC; Eye Street Solutions LLC, Plaintiffs–Appellants, »

Othentec Ltd. v. Phelan, 526 F.3d 135 (4th Cir., 2008)

If a court refers to a case alleging violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the VCCA as “no evidence outside of selfserving speculation” and adds that “there simply isn’t any evidence here to go forward with the unauthorized use of computers to commit a crime”, does it mean that Plaintiff’s attorney had no business messing with a technology case?… Read on… – Domingo Rivera

If a court refers to a case alleging violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the VCCA as “no evidence outside of selfserving speculation” and adds that “there simply isn’t any evidence here to go forward with the unauthorized use of computers to commit a crime”, does it mean that Plaintiff’s attorney had no business messing with a technology case?… Read on… – Domingo Rivera »

A.V. ex rel. Vanderhye v. Iparadigms, LLC, 562 F.3d 630 (4th Cir., 2009)

This is a very long and factually strange case about plagiarism… through some creative lawyering, the CFAA and the Virginia Computer Crimes Act also got their share of pleadings…. – Domingo Rivera 562 F.3d 630 A.V., a minor, by his next friend Robert VANDERHYE; K.W., a minor, by his next friend Kevin Wade, Sr.; E.N., a minor, by her next friend Scott Nelson; M.

This is a very long and factually strange case about plagiarism… through some creative lawyering, the CFAA and the Virginia Computer Crimes Act also got their share of pleadings…. – Domingo Rivera 562 F.3d 630 A.V., a minor, by his next friend Robert VANDERHYE; K.W., a minor, by his next friend Kevin Wade, Sr.; E.N., a minor, by her next friend Scott Nelson; M. »

United States v. Steele (4th Cir., 2014)

So, what happens when an employee spends nine months secretly logging in to the email server of his former employer (without permission, obviously), gaining access to confidential and proprietary information related to its government contract bids. Yes, criminal conviction under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Most “hacking” is not done by fellows hiding in a dark room drinking Mountain Dew and eating candy… – Domingo Rivera UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee,

So, what happens when an employee spends nine months secretly logging in to the email server of his former employer (without permission, obviously), gaining access to confidential and proprietary information related to its government contract bids. Yes, criminal conviction under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Most “hacking” is not done by fellows hiding in a dark room drinking Mountain Dew and eating candy… – Domingo Rivera UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, »

Tech Sys., Inc. v. Pyles (4th Cir., 2015)

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is a criminal statute that also provides a civil remedy. In cases where employees abuse an employer’s computer systems, there may be a case of action for breach-of-fiduciary-duty. – Domingo Rivera TECH SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff – Appellee, v. LOVELEN PYLES, Defendant – Appellant, and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-10, Defendants. No. 13-1359 No. 13-2098 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT Submitted: October 27, 2015

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is a criminal statute that also provides a civil remedy. In cases where employees abuse an employer’s computer systems, there may be a case of action for breach-of-fiduciary-duty. – Domingo Rivera TECH SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff – Appellee, v. LOVELEN PYLES, Defendant – Appellant, and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-10, Defendants. No. 13-1359 No. 13-2098 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT Submitted: October 27, 2015 »

United States v. Rich (4th Cir., 2015)

Accused of violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and enter into a plea agreement…. then figure out that perhaps access was not unauthorized because an accused co-conspirator had a password and arguably “authorized access”… Too late! – Domingo Rivera UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. BRIAN MATTHEW RICH, Defendant – Appellant. No. 14-4774 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT Submitted: June 30, 2015 July 29, 2015

Accused of violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and enter into a plea agreement…. then figure out that perhaps access was not unauthorized because an accused co-conspirator had a password and arguably “authorized access”… Too late! – Domingo Rivera UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. BRIAN MATTHEW RICH, Defendant – Appellant. No. 14-4774 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT Submitted: June 30, 2015 July 29, 2015 »