Lawyer Sues Apple Over FaceTime Eavesdrop Bug, Says It Let Someone Record a Sworn Testimony (cnbc.com) 173
A lawyer in Houston has filed a lawsuit against Apple over a security vulnerability that let people eavesdrop on iPhones using FaceTime. "His lawsuit, filed Monday in Harris County, Texas, alleges that Apple 'failed to exercise reasonable care' and that Apple 'knew, or should have known, that its Product would cause unsolicited privacy breaches and eavesdropping,'" reports CNBC. "It alleged Apple did not adequately test its software and that Apple was 'aware there was a high probability at least some consumers would suffer harm.'" From the report: The suit says that Williams was "undergoing a private deposition with a client when this defective product breached allowed for the recording" of the conversation. Williams claimed this caused "sustained permanent and continuous injuries, pain and suffering and emotional trauma that will continue into the future" and that Williams "lost ability to earn a living and will continued to be so in the future." The lawsuit also says that iOS 12.1, the latest major release of the iPhone operating system, was defective and "unreasonable dangerous" and that Apple "failed to provide adequate warnings to avoid the substantial danger" posed by the security flaw. Williams is seeking compensatory and punitive damages as a result of the exploit.
Re: (Score:2)
> Williams claimed this caused "sustained permanent and continuous injuries, pain and suffering and emotional trauma that will continue into the future" and that Williams "lost ability to earn a living and will continued to be so in the future."
Yeah, the fuck it did.
Re: (Score:2)
That part really is questionable. I don't doubt there was damage, but it wasn't likely that much damage.
Re:No standard on testing - wild wild west (Score:5, Informative)
Scanning the lawsuit as filed it doesn't actually seem to provide any evidence that his call was illegally recorded. He doesn't seem to have any reason to think that it might have been.
Re:No standard on testing - wild wild west (Score:5, Interesting)
"Allowed for the recording" could just mean that the possibility was there, or it could mean that an actual recording took place. No way to tell unless Williams has evidence of the recording, which is possible if you assume that was the reason for the harm and loss of living alledged in Clause 30, which seems rather hyperbolic to say the least; this somehow resulted in "physical pain" and "diminished quality of life"? Unless his client got physical upon finding out or something, I'm not sure how that's supposed to work, and if anything makes this sound much more like an attempt at a cash grab, quite possibly with aspirations for class status.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless the alleged recording lost him a leg or some other maiming, not sure how "permanent injury" can be remotely close to true. Hurt feelings don't count.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No standard on testing - wild wild west (Score:5, Insightful)
Except for the fact that a judge would toss any zero-party consent recording that didn't also have a court order for electronic surveillance applied to it, previous to the recording being made as an illegal search.
This is no different than what would happen with the recording from an illegal wiretap, or illegal audio bug planted in the room. It would get tossed during evidence discovery, long before any jury would be able to see / hear the recording. And then there would be sanctions for any prosecutor trying to use such evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All humans are ignorant. He admits to more ignorance than other commentators simply because he's less full of shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. If the prosecution got their hands on such a recording, they'd have to somehow get it admitted into evidence to do anything with it in court.
If the recording then led them to other evidence, such as evidence the defense was withholding, then too fucking bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, hearing that recording and knowing it will be inadmissible, they pretend to just stumble over the same information in some other manner and claim they were acting on a hunch or just covering all the bases.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, a judge would likely toss that information, but might not recognize "parallel construction". Further, depending on the nature of the statement, there could be non-court related damage from the information getting out.
Re: (Score:3)
If such a recording happened, and it was done by someone involved in the case, it could cause permanent injury in terms of people having information in the case they should not have, which is a horse that is very difficult to put back in the barn.
My legal experience is somewhat limited, but I don't think that's a possible scenario. If it was really a deposition, which is done with the intention of putting sworn testimony on record, there would be a court reporter and/or videographer present (as a neutral party to record what is said), as well as an attorney from the opposing party (who is allowed to cross-examine the witness being deposed).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You should take a look at the types of misconduct that lawyers get fined for by their bar associations.
Unless it becomes a political football, "failing to take reasonable precautions" to prevent previously unknown technology bugs is not going to even get a warning, much less a fine, much less a license suspension. That is just crazy talk.
Re:No standard on testing - wild wild west (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless his client got physical upon finding out or something, I'm not sure how that's supposed to work
It sounds like the loss claimed will be fanciful and theoretical, not actual and certain.
At most he loses Facetime as a tool for recording these types of depositions in the future, but Apple never marketed Facetime as software secure for sensitive business use, and besides which, there are numerous warranty disclaimers you agree to in the Apple click-through EULA you agree to before using the software, so if you find the software doesn't do what you need, you are not so much as entitled to a refund: Which an attorney using the software for professional purposes has a higher burden than the general public to read and understand --- That is, someone who is an Attorney or legal firm cannot get out of a contract or EULA by claiming the contract was confusing, or they were ignorant, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
that does seem to imply an actual injury of some kind, which is clearly not something that software alone can do, no matter how buggy
What if financial harm caused somebody to be unable to treat a physical ailment, leaving them in pain?
That wasn't even hard. I could come up with lots more plausible scenarios.
Re: (Score:2)
What if financial harm caused somebody to be unable to treat a physical ailment, leaving them in pain?
That would be an example of consequential damages Or special damages.
In most civil cases, such as this one, those are not proximately caused by Apple's wrongful behavior, and the plaintiff would be entitled only to the direct damages and nothing beyond those reasonably foreseeable by Apple.
In any event, the Software License required to use Facetime includes a specific dollar limit on Apple's liabilit
Re: (Score:2)
You're just waving your hands when you say it isn't direct damages.
If the person isn't suing for contract violations, that doesn't even matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
No sense waving your hand at a $50 damage limit, that's has as much weight as if it wasn't even written down. And irrelevant, since it isn't a contract dispute.
We don't know the details, and you can't rule out that the harm happened but for a wrongful recording.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/we... [cornell.edu]
See also:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/we.. [cornell.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
If the person isn't suing for contract violations, that doesn't even matter.
Bzzt. Wrong. The only possible claim they could make without the EULA would be product warranty.
Regardless of the theory of liability, whether in Contract, Tort, or otherwise,
the EULA governs all aspects of the relationship between the parties, and the EULA specifically asserts that.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, weird world you live in, where if you harm a person and don't have a contract, no problem they can't sue.
LOL
You even "Bzzt"'d yourself! LOLOLOLOLOLOL
Re: (Score:2)
Not all attorneys are familiar with patent, IP, or EULA laws, but all of them do know that a lot of EULA language can be found unenforcable
That is not true; however -- in the US EULAs have been held up just fine, when the user was required to click accept before using the software.
The facts may favor Apple even more strongly here, since the FaceTime software itself distributed For Free
Modifying purchase of software into a licensing the use and
voiding the implied warranties over software such as merc
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL, but unless there was an actual recording, he's going to have problems showing the damages he claims.
Moreover, in any legal proceeding any recording would not be allowed into evidence in anything without at least one-party consent, which clearly doesn't exist in an eavesdropping scenario where there is an expectation of privacy (such as anywhere you would be deposing a witness). In addition, the rules of client / attorney privilege would prevent any such eavesdropping recording from being heard to be
Re: (Score:3)
but unless there was an actual recording
Currently, this a known unknown. We know it matters, and we know we don't know the answer.
So any hand-waving at all is speculative. You take it a step further and jump right to pejorative attacks; is that because your English comprehension is too poor for you to understand which facts have been disclosed, and which haven't been? Or is that just a personality feature?
Re: (Score:2)
These sorts of bugs do open a whole can of worms, you want to make extra sure that you can't activate cameras and microphones in the wrong app state.
They have enough engineers to do better, IMO.
Re: (Score:1)
Scanning the lawsuit as filed it doesn't actually seem to provide any evidence that his call was illegally recorded. He doesn't seem to have any reason to think that it might have been.
Not to mention that, when you see the steps required to trigger the bug, it pretty much has to be done by the caller, intentionally , which shifts the whole "causation" away from Apple, even with it being their bug.
Re: No standard on testing - wild wild west (Score:1)
So fucking funny. Saying Apple should have known people would hack the devices. Why should Apple have expected people to hack Apple devices any more than other devices, especially other secure devices. BlackBerry was supposed to be the standard for security. Even Obama was forced to use a specific blackberry. Apple makes devices in China for crying out loud. Do they sell cases? No. They expect the user to take reasonable care and not leave the device vulnerable to being dropped or listened in on. I love my
Re: No standard on testing - wild wild west (Score:4, Interesting)
More than that, why did he have any phones at all in the room while taking a secret deposition?
Not like it's news that phones can record audio and transmit it to other people - that's kind of the fucking point.
Re: (Score:2)
More than that, why did he have any phones at all in the room while taking a secret deposition?
Why did he have a computer capable of recording audio during a deposition? Well, if you think real hard you could probably figure that out.
Whether it was smart to use an audio-recording device which is also obviously known for transmitting audio and video is another question. Maybe he felt that he had a reasonable expectation that the device would not transmit the audio and video without his knowledge.
Re: (Score:3)
More than that, why did he have any phones at all in the room while taking a secret deposition?
My understanding of the bug is that it affects group conferencing, so I assume they were using FaceTime to conduct the deposition. They could set up a FaceTime group with the witness, attorneys from both sides, and probably a court reporter, instead of paying to get everyone together in the same room somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
If they are lawyers that are in the business of recording depositions, and they're doing it using video conferencing, I would hope they are using a solution that has been around for longer than 3 months.
Like any of the video conferencing solutions that have existed for years longer than that, and get used by business people every day. Some of which are even free-as-in-beer.
This is a fishing expedition by this lawyer, looking to score a settlement to enrich himself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
From a previous Slashdot article. Apple knew about it for about a week. before they closed down the service. A week seems like a long time, for us who work in small development shops, but for a company the size of Apple, a Week to decide to turn off the feature is indeed a rapid response to a problem. Being that they have millions of users, doing things willy-nilly just isn't good policy.
Lawyers, like Medical Doctors, Engineers and Computer Programmers, seem to think because they are an expert in their fi
Re: (Score:2)
More than that, if Apple just turned it off we'd be seeing nothing but articles about their ineptitude because they can't keep their group video chat thing running.
It's not like Apple is going to volunteer that they turned it off due to a potential privacy breach. That would earn them both the ineptitude screaming as well as the current bitch-fest they're getting.
They went with "work a solution, but let's keep the service running until the issue is publicly disclosed. And let's pray that we get the soluti
Re: (Score:2)
Apple was informed at least a week before by the teen who discovered the bug, complete with a video of the exploit in action. They took no action until after the bug and trivial exploit went viral.
I seriously doubt this had anything to do with a law enforcement back door.
I really hope this guy get drop-kicked in the head (Score:1, Insightful)
People like him (acting like dicks) are one of the reasons lots of people can't have nice things (like dinner, for example)
C*ntish suing like where it is extremely probably someone is purely out for the money should have criminal penalties
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, it's the reason people can't have leaky Apple widgets.
And other, ummm... nice things.
Re: I really hope this guy get drop-kicked in the (Score:5, Interesting)
Or are you just a pure Apple Hater?
Americans no matter their political leaning, really don't like the idea of legal suits over small and silly things, where the lawyer then exaggerates the amount of suffering caused. Often shown on TV with the "victim" in a neck brace trope.
Accidents occur and people get hurt. But the line between frivolous vs necessary legal action is needed. You go to a restaurant, and you get ill the next day, and sue the restaurant, that is frivolous, if you go to the restaurant and dozens of folks get ill the next day, then there is a problem.
Suing for the quick money grab, will often hinder a businesses ability to do good things, because they have to walk on eggshells and be sure not to break the rules. You may notice this effect if you are at a hospital, and the x-ray tech will not comment if you arm is broken or not, but you wait a half an hour and the doctor walks in glances at the X-Ray and says yep its broken. The reason for this, isn't because the doctor will get paid more for doing this, but because if the tech explains this to a patient, then they are doing a diagnosis that they are not qualified to do. And if the patient does something stupid from that initial diagnosis from the unqualified individual, then the hospital is legally responsible for this.
Lawsuit (Score:1)
Why do people love lawsuits in the US? Can software ever be foolproof?? Can there ever be bugproof and security proof software? Only idiots think so apparently ...
Re: (Score:2)
Why do people love lawsuits in the US?
'cos there's money in them thar lawsuits.
Re: (Score:1)
While software engineers like to call themselves engineers they're not. These people build programs that do have real effect on people's lives. So they should be on the hook when one of those programs to use a metaphor "collapses just like a bridge" And none of this bullshit we sell/license you this program as is. We're not responsable for anything the program does". This kind of bullshit wouldn't fly for real engineers, architects, etc... It shouldn't fly either for software programers or the companies the
Re: (Score:2)
On the contrary, people should be free to produce software which is not fit for any purpose, just like i can construct a shoddy bridge in my own back garden...
People should however demand higher standards of the software they buy to entrust with critical aspects of their lives. But the fact is people are willing to accept poor standards in software, and make that choice on a regular basis.
Re: (Score:2)
People should however demand higher standards of the software they buy to entrust with critical aspects of their lives. But the fact is people are willing to accept poor standards in software, and make that choice on a regular basis.
We have the unfortunate situation where software developers can't predict every possible way things could go wrong, and many bugs tend not to surface even after testing. If Apple shipped & knew this was a problem, that would be one thing, if they didn't it's another.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't a bridge collapsing; this isn't even a crack in the sidewalk.
Re:Lawsuit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
And who wrote the system, designing it to benefit the lawyers above all else? That's right, lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, software can be perfect. Easily done (Score:2)
Yes, I can easily write software which is guaranteed to be perfect.
It prints "hello world!" and isn't written in PHP 4. :)
You actually can prove programs to be correct. It costs twenty times as much to develop provably correct software than normal software. That's actually reasonable for a lot of software that we think of as "firmware", or in fact we may think of it as hardware, but in fact there is software inside, dozens to hundreds of lines of code.
* In old PHP, "Hello world" had a security problem. It's
Re: (Score:2)
You're completely "horseshit" level wrong about the words "guaranteed" and "perfect."
Overstating what is even possible to declare yourself more Virtuous than other programmers just shows you're not competent to evaluate security.
And spending a bunch of money on correctness would never get you to "guaranteed perfect." That's just a fraudulent lie; you won't find that claim in the service description if you're hiring somebody to write you a set of proofs. The proofs themselves won't even be guaranteed to be b
In fact millions of mcus ARE sold every year (Score:2)
> And golly, if firmware had dozens or hundreds of lines of code, all firmware would run on 8 bit micros, and embedding programming wouldn't even involve considerations about code size.
In fact millions of 8-bit micros ARE sold every year. Each sold to the consumer with dozens to hundreds of lines of code in it. Another 10 million larger micros contain code that would fit on an 8-bit, but the designer wants to make use of an included hardware peripheral, such as an additional UART, etc.
You can say "oh gol
Re: (Score:2)
All the popular 8bit micros come in versions with extra UARTs. And another version with more.
All the popular micros are part of extensive lineups from lots of code space and few peripherals, to lots of peripherals and little code space. You don't change platforms for a UART.
No, I wouldn't go and google some basic shit. You're on slashdot. I'm probably a firmware programmer and I responded to your drivel because I understand the topic.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no doubt that you're capable of writing bad code and putting it on an oversized mcu.
Surprise surprise, some people can write organized, minimalistic code. Some can even run a theorem prover on it, since it's organized.
I'm not sure why you're so desperate to want to believe that we can't check whether or not traffic light code correctly goes from green to yellow, never from green to red, for example. (That example being what one of the junior people I helped is doing right now). For some reason you
Example code my friend is proving (Score:2)
In case it's useful, here's basically the code my friend is proving today:
BeGreen:
output GREEN
wait
BeYellow
END
BeYellow:
output YELLOW
wait
BeRed
END
BeRed:
output RED
wait
BeGreen
END
You can of course see by inspection that it can never tur
Re: (Score:2)
Would you prefer calling in a mob hit like is done is less civilized places?
Re: (Score:2)
They're not even capable of comprehending your point, of course they want low standards.
What's new doc ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Lawyers are the scum of the earth. Another episode that confirms this truism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need a lawyer for traffic tickets and only need one for a divorce if you think your spouse will contest and get their own lawyer.
Re: (Score:2)
That varies widely by State.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just that lawyers are scum of the earth. It's the US has graduated far too many lawyers over the last 2 decades than are needed. The less ethical of these surplus lawyers are suing people for anything they can come up so they can get paid. In essence they abuse the legal system to obtain financial reward for themselves.
There is nothing unique about this, there are people like this with low moral character in almost every profession. The problem is the court system isn't setup to deal with this and
Re: (Score:2)
Note he doesn't claim he was actually recorded (Score:5, Informative)
Just that the bug "allowed for" recording. Gotta watch those lawyers.
The full complaint is here [courthousenews.com] and makes for some entertaining reading. This 30-page gem was filed by a local personal injury attorney 4 years out of law school [themattoxlawfirm.com] the next day after the plaintiff supposedly found out about the bug. 'Nuff said.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If the person had a case of privileged communication actually being recorded due to this bug and the recording getting into the hands of opposing council/police/media, then they might have a case. The potential though? Yeah... no standing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Wait.... he tries to sue Apple in a local county's district court?
The Apple EULA specifies governing law and jurisdiction, and this local court is not that jurisdiction.
Apple's response is bound to be remove to federal court, or remove to Santa Clara, California,
and then afterwards, will get quickly dismissed.
Re: (Score:2)
Does Facetime require agreement to the EULA before using it - i.e., does it pop a dialog up the first time you run it? I genuinely don't know, since I don't have an iPhone.
Re: (Score:2)
That is probably not relevant, because that only controls where you argue about the contract details. This isn't an argument about the contract, it as a regular accusation of harm that doesn't rely on promises from the contract.
EULA terms regulate the use and provisioning of the service, they don't regulate any and all interactions the parties might have.
The bug seems to exhibit behavior well beyond what would be reasonably expected by what was disclosed; you don't want to push too hard in the wrong directi
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Lawyer is doing word salad. One those "could have maybe perhaps" cases that give lawyers a bad name.
Apple will probably (pardon the pun) swat him with a bunch of cash to go away. They (Apple) could probably crush him with their army of lawyers but a settlement is quicker and simpler than a big PR mud-fest.
-Miser
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Look at the same issue in a slightly different context: If the deposition had been conducted using landline telephones, and by an accident of the phone system a third-party had been able to overhear the deposition, would a lawsuit against the landline telephone company have merit?
Apple does claim that the FaceTime technology uses encryption, but I don't think they claim it uses encryption at an assurance level that would make it ok for use in highly sensitive contexts (e.g., would the US government accept
Re: (Score:2)
Look at the same issue in a slightly different context: If the deposition had been conducted using landline telephones, and by an accident of the phone system a third-party had been able to overhear the deposition, would a lawsuit against the landline telephone company have merit? Apple does claim that the FaceTime technology uses encryption, but I don't think they claim it uses encryption at an assurance level that would make it ok for use in highly sensitive contexts (e.g., would the US government accept FaceTime as an approved technical control for preventing the non-disclosure of classified communications [Confidential, Secret, or Top-Secret]?). Stating a claim that a technical control intended to provide a certain level of security in place is one thing. Claiming a particular level of assurance is another. Using a product with a claimed technical control but without establishing sufficient level of assurance of that technical control for sensitive information just shows how ignorant the claimant is. Disclaimer: I use FaceTime, and I like the fact that it uses encryption to make it less likely that my casual communications are dead simple to listen in on by bored techs at an ISP. I'm not so thrilled that Apple let slip into production such a painfully simple-to-exploit vulnerability, and apparently took the better part of a week to react to first reports. [Geezing] Many (many) years ago a I bought a Motorola (analog) cordless phone (when cordless phones were a big deal) because it claimed it provided a "secure" wireless link between the handset and the base. I happened to have a frequency-agile radio receiver that could tune in on the handset-to-base audio, and was disappointed to discover that it seemed to be nothing more than an audio frequency inversion, and that with a few minutes of "training" I found that I could understand the "secure" communications reasonably well. Could a lawyer have sued Motorola if the lawyer used this model of cordless phone, then discovered that it wasn't as "secure" as the lawyer had thought? I think not...
Futter me with a spanner; I should have actually read the article... I see elsewhere (The Register) that the lawyer isn't suing because he/she conducted a deposition over FaceTime that was accidentally disclosed (possibly) but simply conducted a deposition in a room where someone had an iPhone, and is now concerned that someone (gasp!) could have surreptitiously activate the microphone on the iPhone and listened in? Not knowing that cellphone microphones can be remotely activated by various bugs and tools
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The paperwork filed so far in the lawsuit tells you nothing at all about if the recording happened, and until the bug was disclosed they didn't know how it happened, but knew it had happened, or if it is just speculation and they're filing the suit to force somebody to tell them if in fact the bug caused the deposition to be recorded.
When something hasn't been disclosed, that means you don't know. It doesn't mean they don't know; it only means they didn't tell you.
What about the lawyers own negligence? (Score:4, Informative)
Why did he think bringing a powered on recording device to private meeting where no recording should take place was good opsec?
Smart phones have no place in a secure facility.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. I specifically have one with a removable battery for that purpose. And yes, in some meetings, I do remove that battery.
Re: (Score:2)
I do remove that battery.
But not the other battery.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no "other battery". There is no space for one.
Re: (Score:2)
And for a phone with removable battery it is even easier to check. I very much doubt anybody would risk putting in such an obvious thing. Some people have seen too many bad spy movies.
Re: (Score:2)
Why did he think bringing a powered on recording device to private meeting where no recording should take place was good opsec?
Smart phones have no place in a secure facility.
In most lawsuits, the probability of someone in the room being hit during the deposition with a remote attack that turns on recording is so low that it isn't worth worrying about. Nobody in the room would ever start recording on their own personal device because 1) secretly recording stuff is a quick and easy way to end your career, and 2) there's already a court reporter and videographer in the room recording everything, so there's no point anyway.
Re:What about the lawyers own negligence? (Score:5, Insightful)
You are making my point for me. The lawyer's own negligence in this case is partly what endangered his clients privacy. The privacy risks around dumb phones was know 20 years go. People did pull the batteries before going to secure locations (where they did not want tracked) or going to private meetings or (gasp) you left it at your desk and closed the door to meeting room.
For some reason dumb people now carry smart phones everywhere they go no matter what and you can't remove the battery. I suggest powering it off is sufficient in 99% of cases unless you have specific reason to think you are being targeted in some way. It is a network attached listening device and location beacon though at the end of the day and you should treat it that way. When privacy is a major concern leave it at home / locked in your desk drawer and come get it when your are done or turn the damn thing off.
Ditto for smart speakers and TVs, should they violate your privacy - no - could they - most certainly, so treat them as such. Maybe put it in the den, but not the bedroom or your home office. I don't know consider the risks and rewards for each situation and make your choices.
Re: (Score:2)
For some reason dumb people now carry smart phones everywhere they go no matter what and you can't remove the battery.
Three words:
Ball. Peen. Hammer.
Rules to Live By (Score:2)
1. If it's connected, assume you're not protected.
2. If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit.
3. Avoid any large, angry, crazy man arguing with a vendor over the price of a $6 hot dog.
4. Dumb lawyers who file frivolous lawsuits against multi-billion dollar companies get countersued into bankruptcy.
Re: (Score:2)
2. If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit.
Fixed that for you.
Re: Rules to Live By (Score:2)
Thanks, man! I always get that one a bit wrong.
Current Year (Score:1)
If you want a private conversation you should know better than to allow anyone in the room to have an electronic device on them.
Don't Apple's EULAs Mandate Arbitration? (Score:2)
If so, good luck as SCOTUS has refused to override them.
Re: (Score:2)
Counter lawsuit (Score:2)
Is there a counter lawsuit that he knew or should have known that there was a possibility of his phone being hacked and the microphone turned on without his knowledge, and that he failed to take reasonable precautions by not having the phone in the room with him?
I mean, it is not like there has not been a plethora of reports and sci-fi films of this actually happening. There are actually apps out there for turning off microphones and video cameras. I know people that have tape over their cameras, and came
"Cry me a river" in the 21st century (Score:2)
Hoping to settle (Score:1)
I'm sorry snowflake (Score:2)
Oh, I'm sorry snowflake. For future reference: When using a communication device, period, your conversation may be recorded. This includes using your voice when talking in person to someone.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem a bit confused.
Those things have to be proved, yes, but remember, in a civil case the other side has to share their information about it. After you file the suit, then the other side has to tell you if it is true or not, and give you access to whatever evidence there is.
The order is:
1) make accusation
2) receive evidence
3) prove accusation, or fail to