The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) have sued the Department of Justice for failing to comply with their Freedom of Information Act request, which demanded records related to the government’s use of cell phones to track individuals. Government prosecutors have been using information gleaned from cell phone providers like AT&T and Verizon Wireless to conduct investigations and track the whereabouts of suspects for several years. Some judges, however, have sought to curb this practice, demanding probable cause for the use of the technology.

In November of 2007, the ACLU and EFF put in their FIA request, and the DOJ did not provide the requested documents. David Sobel, representing EFF in the suit, explains the motive behind bringing the suit now, stating:

“Further delays will allow important privacy polices to be developed behind closed doors.”

How do you feel about DOJ’s tracking policy? Please leave your comments below.

Source: The New York Times

The Food and Drug Administration has issued warnings to companies peddling drugs for cancer patients that they claim to be as effective as FDA approved medication would be. Most of the treatments are homeopathic and have garnered no scientific proof that they have a positive effect on cancer; a requirement necessary for this kind of drug labeling according to FDA regulations. Officials were considering a number of factors when they threatened pressing charges if the companies do not change their claims soon. Although the adverse effects of such drugs are still unknown, the agency is concerned over the false hope companies are offering to their users. There have been no orders to pull any of the supplements off the shelves, only to make changes to their advertisement. Empty promises of cancer cures just a bottle away may attract patients away from conventional treatment in the hopes of finding a more economical way to treat their condition. In the long run, the FDA reminds, these savings are not worth it. Luckily, the FDA is not alone in their crusade as the Federal Trade Commission also targets companies involved in false advertising. Together, the two agencies are hoping to lessen the confusion over cancer treatments as soon as possible. While the companies in question insist they meant no harm by their marketing, most will heed the FDA’s wishes. Although they will be adjusting the wording, several producers stand by the claim that they sell supplements strong enough to treat and, in some instances, cure cancer. Whether or not consumers believe them, is out of their hands. Source: WashingtonPost.com

This week the National Law Journal took an in depth look at how the culture of the BlackBerry has complicated the practice of law. For those of us hooked on our PDAs, browsing the internet, catching up on emails, and communicating with friends and colleagues has ensured that we will never experience a moment of needless boredom again. However, the urge to surf the BlackBerry can sometimes distract from important proceedings, and some argue that this technological shortening of attention spans can impinge on a lawyer’s diligence.

For example, scrolling through emails during a lengthy deposition may seem harmless, but if a lawyer misses an important question, he can slow up the proceedings and may do a disservice to his client. In addition, managing one’s email can be a time consuming endeavor, which can mean racking up minutes for one client while billing for another. Factoring BlackBerry time into your billing structure can become a thorny and complicated process, but when splitting attention between the task at hand and a PDA, avoiding that headache may be unethical.

Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that these considerations will deter BlackBerry aficionados from wielding their cherished devices with any less zeal. Maybe with just a bit more discretion.

Source: Law.com

On July 2nd, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act during a live television broadcast from the White House East Room.

The Act was the brainchild of President John F. Kennedy, who made civil rights a central platform in his campaign for the presidency. Kennedy was unable to see his vision to fruition; the bill was still being debated in Congress when he was assassinated. Once Johnson was in office, 18 Southern democrats in the Senate, led by Johnson’s friend Richard B. Russell, had filibustered the bill. But a great enough majority was mustered to overcome the filibuster, and the Act was passed 73 to 27.

The Civil Rights Act that eventually passed was not as sweeping as the original vision of the legislation, and the powers of enforcement were initially weak. Some African American leaders were disappointed that the legislation did not protect against police brutality or discrimination in private businesses. However, further additions to the Act, such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965, did build upon the foundation that the Civil Rights Act laid for the protection of the rights of women and minorities.

President Johnson used a total of 75 pens to sign the bill, one of which he presented to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. King later said that the pen was “one of his most cherished possessions.”