Summary: Eight class-action-seeking lawsuits have been filed against Apple because of software that slows old iPhones. 

For iPhone users, they’ve been complaining for quite some time that it seemed as if their old phones slowed down. But while those thoughts were just thoughts for a while, Apple recently confirmed that those suspicions were true.

And now Apple may end up paying for that.

As of today, the technology company is facing eight lawsuits that claim it defrauded iPhone users. Apple stated that the slow-down was to save the lithium battery, but customers said that it was a sneaky way to get people to upgrade their phones constantly.

“(Apple) breached the implied contracts it had made with the Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class and sub-classes by purposefully slowing down older iPhone models when new models came out and by failing to properly disclose that at the time the parties entered into an agreement,” a lawsuit filed in New York stated.

According to Forbes, the lawsuits were filed in U.S. District Courts in California, New York and Illinois, and they all seek class-action status. This means that the suits could represent millions of iPhone owners around the country. Additionally, a similar lawsuit was filed in Israel.

The eight lawsuits so far came after Apple admitted last week that they used updates to slow the iPhone 6, iPhone 6s, iPhone SE and iPhone 7 to address power problems with their batteries, which have problems when they are cold, get old, or are low on charge. Apple said that if phones were not slowed down then they could shut abruptly.

Apple’s admission came after Primate Labs identified problems in processing speed and concluded that a software change was the reason.

“Rather than curing the battery defect by providing a free battery replacement for all affected iPhones, Apple sought to mask the battery defect,” according to a complaint filed in San Francisco on Thursday.

According to USA Today, Apple has not commented on the lawsuits, but they said that the slow down was necessary to protect the phones.

“Last year we released a feature for iPhone 6, iPhone 6s and iPhone SE to smooth out the instantaneous peaks only when needed to prevent the device from unexpectedly shutting down during these conditions,” Apple said.

Rory Van Loo, a Boston University professor specializing in consumer technology law, told the Daily Mail that the lawsuits have merit if plaintiffs can prove users would have replaced the battery instead of buying a new phone if they had known about the issue.

“If it turns out that consumers would have replaced their battery instead of buying new iPhones had they known the true nature of Apple’s upgrades, you might start to have a better case for some sort of misrepresentation or fraud,” said Van Loo.

• Comcast Allegedly Enrolled Customers In Useless Program Without Their Consent 
• Lawsuit: Apple Intentionally Slows Old iPhones 

What do you think of the lawsuits against Apple? Let us know in the comments below.

The post Apple So Far Facing Eight Lawsuits Over Slowing iPhones first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Summary: On December 20, Apple admitted they use algorithms to slow older iPhones. 

This week, Apple admitted that it intentionally slowed down older iPhones, and less than two days later, the company was hit with two-class action lawsuits.

IPhone users have long suspected that their phones slow after a certain age, but Apple stated that this was done not to force upgrades but to stop phones from shutting down unexpectedly. Nevertheless, angry users in Illinois, Ohio, North Carolina, and Indiana have filed a lawsuit in Illinois on Thursday, according to The Chicago Sun-Times; and a second lawsuit was filed that same day in Los Angeles by Stefan Bogdanovich.

Both lawsuits are seeking class-action status and claim that Apple’s “immoral” business practice is intended to force users to upgrade their expensive phones.

“iOS updates, plaintiffs claim, were engineered with this very purpose in mind—fraudulently forcing iPhone owners to purchase the latest model offered by Apple,” the Illinois lawsuit stated.

The Los Angeles lawsuit added that iPhone users never consented to a slowed down phone and that they were never given an option.

Apple told CNBC that their goal in slowing down the phones was to deliver a good experience for their customers.

“Our goal is to deliver the best experience for customers, which includes overall performance and prolonging the life of their devices,” Apple said. “Lithium-ion batteries become less capable of supplying peak current demands when in cold conditions, have a low battery charge or as they age over time, which can result in the device unexpectedly shutting down to protect its electronic components.”‘

According to Digital Trends,  iPhone 6, iPhone 6S, iPhone SE, and iPhone 7 have software that slows down your phone to preserve your battery. Later models most likely will also have this feature.

Digital Trends state that although people may be getting angry at Apple’s announcement, their action is actually necessary until technology develops better batteries.

“Batteries don’t supply infinite power at a steady rate, they get less efficient over time because we’re right on the limit of what a Lithium-Ion battery can do,” Digital Trends stated. “Add in our regular abuses of the battery, whether it’s running it out until the phone switches off, then using every charger to hand — fast chargers, battery packs, third-party chargers, in-car chargers — to top up the battery a little every day, and it’s perhaps surprising they last as long as they do.”

• Third Party May Hack Into San Bernardino Shooter’s iPhone 
• Apple to Introduce Bigger Screens, Cheaper Models  

What do you think of Apple’s decision to slow iPhones? Let us know in the comments below.

The post Lawsuits: Apple Intentionally Slows Older iPhones first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Summary: A class action lawsuit for UK iPhone users was filed against Google for unlawful data collection.

The UK is not happy with Google. A massive class action lawsuit has been filed against the company for data snooping. This lawsuit is the first of its kind in the country.

The group taking charge, Google You Owe Us, led by former consumer watchdog Which? director Richard Lloyd, claims that Google unlawfully collected data from 5.4 million UK users by bypassing privacy settings on their iPhones. He believes users could get “several hundred pounds each” from Google.

The case focuses on the use of cookies – small pieces of computer text that are collected from devices in order for ads to be personalized to the correct audience. The complaint argues that for several months in 2011 and 2012, Google used ad-tracking cookies on the devices of Safari users, which is set by default to block such cookies. This became known as the “Safari Workaround.”

The workaround affected varying devices but the UK case is focusing on just iPhone users. Safari blocked several types of tracking automatically unless the user opted in by filling out a form while interacting with the site. Google allegedly added coding to some of its ads that tricked Safari into thinking the user was submitting a form to Google, thus allowing Google to install a cookie on the user’s phone.

Lloyd said, “In all my years speaking up for consumers, I’ve rarely seen such a massive abuse of trust where so many people have no way to seek redress on their own. … Through this action, we will send a strong message to Google and other tech giants in Silicon Valley that we’re not afraid to fight back.”

He claims that Google told him he had to “come to California” if he wanted to pursue legal action against the company. He said, “It is disappointing that they are trying to hide behind procedural and jurisdictional issues rather than being held to account for their actions.”

In a statement to BBC, Google responded, “This is not new – we have defended similar cases before. We don’t believe it has any merit and we will contest it.”

All affected users will automatically be eligible for part of the claim unless they wish to opt out. They do not have to pay any of the legal fees or contact a lawyer. The law firm Mishcon de Reya is taking on the case. They specialize in large-scale litigation.

The US Federal Trade Commission brought a similar case against Google in 2012. Google agreed to pay a record $22.5 million. They also settled out of court with a few British consumers.

The High Court will hear the case sometime in the Spring.

Do you think Google has collected data unlawfully? Share your thoughts with us in the comments below.

To learn more about Google lawsuits, read these articles:

• Google Wants Authors to End Class-action Lawsuit
• Law Firm Files Antitrust Class-action Lawsuit against Google’s Mobile Monopoly
• Google Responds to Lawsuit Threat Regarding Nude Photo Leak

The post Class Action Lawsuit Filed against Google in UK first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Summary: Apple filed another lawsuit against Qualcomm in China, just days after filing a lawsuit against the chip-maker in US federal court.

Apple is taking their fight against Qualcomm to China. The tech giant filed lawsuits in China against Qualcomm on Wednesday accusing the chip-maker of monopolizing power in the country. Apple stated, “For many years, Qualcomm has unfairly insisted on charging royalties for technologies they have nothing to do with. Qualcomm built its business on older, legacy, standards but reinforces its dominance through exclusionary tactics and excessive royalties.”

Read Apple Sues Qualcomm for Unfair Licensing Terms to learn more.

Qualcomm general counsel Don Rosenberg fired back, “These filings by Apple’s Chinese subsidiary are just part of Apple’s efforts to find ways to pay less for Qualcomm’s technology. Qualcomm is prepared to defend its business model anywhere in the world.” Rosenberg is referring to the lawsuit Apple filed in California just a few days ago. In the lawsuit filed in US federal court, Apple accused Qualcomm of abusing its market power to receive unfair royalties, backing charges by US antitrust regulators.

Apple claims they have been overcharged “billions of dollars” by Qualcomm’s “illegal scheme.” Apple believes that Qualcomm has built a business model that relies on technologies that are considered telecommunication industry standards and then charging high royalties off of Apple’s advanced features like digital wallets and TouchID fingerprint recognition.

Read Two Antitrust Investigations into Qualcomm to learn more.

Qualcomm was hit with a $850 million fine by South Korea’s anti-trust watchdog for abusing its dominant market position. Qualcomm Derek Aberle noted that they will appeal the decision, seeking a stay with the Seoul High Court. Rosenberg added, “Apple has been actively encouraging regulatory attacks on Qualcomm’s business in various jurisdictions around the world…by misrepresenting facts and withholding information.”

Qualcomm makes the chip-based modems that Apple needs to allow their iPhones and iPads to communicate with telecommunication networks. Apple believes that Qualcomm should only collect royalties on the price of the modem chips instead of the price the phone sells for.

Do you think Qualcomm should be paid for the price of the chip or the based on the price of the phone. Tell us in the comments below.

To learn more about Apple’s legal issues, read these articles:

• Expert Legal Team Created to Investigate Apple Case in Ireland
• Apple Inc. and Samsung Continue their Worldwide Legal Battle
• Apple Paid Out $60 Million Fees in Legal Battle against Samsung

Photo: commons.wikimedia.org

The post Apple Files Lawsuit against Qualcomm in China first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Summary: Apple is taking their fight against Qualcomm to court regarding royalties, licensing terms, monopoly practices, and retaliation.

Apple filed a lawsuit against Qualcomm Friday, alleging unfair licensing terms. Apple also claims that Qualcomm is trying to punish them by withholding a $1 billion rebate because they cooperated with an investigation in South Korea regarding Qualcomm’s licensing practices.

Apple is asking the court to order the return of the $1 billion rebate and lower the amount they are required to pay Qualcomm in licensing fees. They want to pay Qualcomm royalties based on the value of their contribution, not for the contributions from other patent holders. Qualcomm currently is paid royalties from the selling price of a phone. Apple wants to pay them a portion of the price based on what their technology enabled.

In a statement Apple said, “For many years Qualcomm has unfairly insisted on charging royalties for technologies they have nothing to do with. The more Apple innovates with unique features such as TouchID, advanced displays, and cameras, to name just a few, the more money Qualcomm collects for no reason and the more expensive it becomes for Apple to fund these innovations.”

Qualcomm, as the largest provider of mobile chips in the world, developed some of the essential technology used in connecting phones to cellular networks. They make a big part of their money by licensing their technology to other chipmakers. Apple uses their chips to connect their iPhones and iPads to 4G LTE and other cellular networks.

For their iPhone 7 and 7 Plus, Apple buys some of their chips from Intel. Intel’s chips use some of Qualcomm’s essential technology so Apple still pays Qualcomm a licensing fee for those chips. The fee is based off the value of the phone, $650, while the Intel chip costs around $20. Apple claims that the clauses Qualcomm’s licensing terms are unfair in that they prevent Apple from seeking out other suppliers or participating in government investigations.

Qualcomm paid China almost $1 billion two years ago to end an antitrust investigation that had lasted 14-months in the country. South Korea placed a $850 million fine on Qualcomm after a three-year investigation by the South Korean Fair Trade Commission found that they had an “unfair business model” that created monopolies. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission also filed a lawsuit against Qualcomm for requiring Apple to use only their chips in exchange for lower licensing fees. This prevents competition in the market from existing.

Apple continued, “[We] believe deeply in innovation and we have always been willing to pay fair and reasonable rates for patents we use. We are extremely disappointed in the way Qualcomm is conducting its business with us and unfortunately after years of disagreements over what constitutes a fair and reasonable royalty we have no choice left but to turn to the courts.”

What is a fair way of handling patents and loyalties? Tell us in the comments below.

To learn more about other Apple lawsuits, read these articles:

• Apple Sues Samsung Over Its Android Technology for $2.525 Billion
• Microsoft Sues Samsung for Patent Royalties
  
• Quinn Emmanuel and Samsung Ordered to Pay $2 Million to Apple and Nokia

Photo: maxpixel.freegreatpicture.com

The post Apple Sues Qualcomm for Unfair Licensing Terms first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Summary: The FBI was able to hack the San Bernardino’s iPhone without the aid of Apple but they won’t provide the information as to how they did, resulting in this lawsuit.

Three news organizations have filed a lawsuit against the FBI seeking details on how the locked iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardino shooters was hacked. The Justice Department spent months battling Apple in court, trying to force them to bypass the security features of the iPhone. The FBI eventually said they found an “outside party” that was able to break into the phone so they no longer needed Apple’s help.

The news companies – including USA TODAY’s parent company Gannet, Vice Media, and the Associated Press – want the “outside party” source that was able to unlock Syed Rizwan Farook’s iPhone. The debate in the technology industry over the government’s ability to interfere with digital communications grew intense after Apple refused to help the investigation.

Read Third Party Might Hack Alleged San Bernardino Shooter’s iPhone for Apple.

The FBI is claiming the information is protected by the Freedom of Information Act but the new organizations claim “there is no lawless basis” for the FBI to keep the information private. White House spokesman Josh Earnest claims that the Obama administration and FBI are trying to transparent but “given the sensitive nature of the information, we’ve been quite limited in what we can discuss openly.”

The attack in San Bernardino executed by Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik, left 14 people dead and 22 injured. Malik had pledged allegiance to ISIS before they began shooting people.

See Why Is Apple Refusing to Unlock the San Bernardino Shooter’s Phone?

A federal magistrate judge ordered Apple to create new software allowing FBI agents to bypass the security features of the phone. Apple refused because they were considered with how this software would be mishandled in future cases. Apple CEO Tim Cook called the order “an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers.”

The FBI would not say who was able to bypass the phone’s security or how much they paid for the service. FBI Director James Comey estimated the cost was over $1 million but “well worth” it. He also explained that the exploit would probably only work on the type of phone Farook had, an iPhone 5C using the iOS 9 operating system.

Do you think the FBI should turn over their source? Tell us in the comments below.

To learn more about the San Bernardino attack, read Family of San Bernardino Shooters Charged with Fraud.

Photo: macblog.sk

The post Lawsuit Filed against FBI for iPhone Hack Details first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Summary: Take a look at the research that has been done into determining which Twitter posts come from Trump himself and which ones come from his campaign personnel.

Serious analysis has been conducted into the difference between Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s Twitter posts. Some of his tweets come from an iPhone while others come from an Android. While it is not completely unreasonable to think that Trump owns more than one phone, there are significant differences between the tweets that come from the different sources.

The tweets posted from the Android and iPhone come at different times of the day, with different hashtags, links, and retweets. The Android posts – Trump in fact does own a Samsung Galaxy – tend to be negative in context compared to the iPhone posts, which is generally just pictures and broad announcements.

Read Trump Not a Fan of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The examination of the data posted under Trump’s Twitter account show that there have been 628 tweets from an iPhone and 762 posts from an Android. The Android posts are done more often in the morning while the iPhone posts are done in the afternoon and early evening. The Android retweets appear as copy-pasting the text surrounded by quotations. The iPhone tweets are 38 times more likely to contain a picture or link.

All of these factors could be coincidence but the context of the tweets is the final difference. The posts that came from the Android focus on Hillary Clinton, his campaign, corruption, and his slogan “Make American Great Again.” The choices of words by the iPhone account tend to stick to hashtags related to the campaign. More emotionally charged words come from the Android source.

See Tweet Like the Donald.

All of this comes as no big surprise. Besides, isn’t this the job of social media campaign managers and public relations representatives? Trump is far too busy and self-important to spend his time posting announcements to remind people to attend his rally the next day.

Do you think it is safe to say that the Android posts come from Trump while the iPhone posts come from a member of his campaign? Tell us in the comments below.

To learn more about Donald Trump’s campaign, read Lawsuit: Donald Trump’s Campaign Director Pulled Gun on Five Workers.

Photo: turner4d.com

The post A Look Into Which Tweets Come from Trump Directly first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Summary: A New York drug case has been denied the request to have Apple hack an iPhone confiscated as evidence.

As Apple fights an order by the government to create a program to hack the phones of the San Bernardino shooters, one federal magistrate judge denied the request to have the cell phone maker hack an iPhone in a New York drug case. This will prove to be a big help for Apple as the fight for the privacy rights of iPhone consumers.

See Why Is Apple Refusing to Unlock the San Bernardino Shooter’s Phone? to learn more on the Apple vs FBI case.

Judge James Orenstein of the New York Eastern District is the first to rule on how far the government can go to require cell phone makers like Apple to go to open up devices. Judge Orenstein heavily used the 1789 All Writs Act statute. The statute is very broad in its use of allowing courts to require others to comply with their orders that are not covered by laws. He included his doubts on whether the statute would be considered constitutional if adopted.

Read Apple Fights for Their Constitutional Rights to understand the constitutional rights at risk.

The Justice Department has stated they plan to ask for a review on the decision. Apple had previously agreed to help open the iPhone for this case and has complied with all other All Writs Act requests. They argued, “This phone may contain evidence that will assist us in an active criminal investigation, and we will continue to use the judicial system in our attempt to obtain it.”

The request in this case was a “simple routine request for assistance in carrying out a valid search warrant issued by a federal court, as Apple has done so many times before,” according to Brooklyn federal prosecutor Saritha Komatireddy. The judge found it surprising that Apple has never objected to the 70 previous requests on other similar cases.

Despite the fact that Apple had never objected before, Orenstein ruled that the government cannot use the All Writs Act against Apple because another law, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, addresses the same issues but excludes specifying information services companies.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/01/technology/apple-wins-ruling-in-new-york-iphone-hacking-order.html?_r=0

Photo: cbc.ca

The post Apple Gets One Win for iPhone Privacy first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Summary: The Obama administration has relented in its efforts to gain access to user smartphones, but many think the debate isn’t over yet.

Those in favor of technology privacy are praising President Obama for the administration’s decision not to seek new legislation that guarantees government access to encrypted information on computers, mobile phones, and other such devices, even though many companies know that the government has not completely given up on obtaining such data.

According to Bloomberg, parties on both sides of the issue expect the dialogue to continue. U.S. officials have stated that they expect full cooperation from technology companies, who may be compelled to turn over certain data by court order. Many technology companies, including Apple, have argued they do not want to become an extension of the government, extracting and turning over customer data.

The New York Times explains that, with the access the U.S. government desired, messages, photos, and other data that is routinely encrypted on smartphones would have been accessible.

Last year, Google released end-to-end email encryption software.

Chris Wysopal, the co-founder of Veracode Inc., a security firm in Massachusetts, says, “This is a big win for tech companies.” He noted that history implies that “when the government presses for more access, tech firms counter and built in more and stronger encryption controls. I don’t expect this cycle to stop.”

FBI Director James Comey told senators on Thursday that the White House will not seek encryption-related legislation. Instead, it will maintain “increasingly productive” discussions with companies about reducing the risks to national security and law enforcement.

Many companies and organizations, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, vehemently opposed the legislation, The Hill adds. Over the summer, the four proposals the White House made for access to encrypted data were all dismissed after so many opposed the idea.

For some companies, such as Google and Apple, allowing direct access to source code, encryption keys, or servers would be an encroachment on customers’ privacy, and could expose data to hackers.

Comey says, “We’re not looking for volunteers, not looking to sneak in anywhere.” It is important to make sure that companies “get to a place technologically, legally where we could get you to comply with court orders.”

The Obama administration is currently trying to work with companies to compromise on data access for law enforcement “without weakening our commitment to strong encryption,” National Security Council spokesman Ned Price says.

The Justice Department also wanted Apple’s iMessage chat logs.

According to Wysopal, the feds suggested similar measures two decades ago when they proposed adopting the Clipper chip, which was a microcircuit the National Security Agency developed as an encryption device. The chip also had backdoor capability to allow law enforcement access for security reasons. It was first introduced in 1993, but by 1996 it was considered defunct due to negative reception from both manufacturers and consumers.

Many cybersecurity experts and technology companies were against the proposed backdoors from the start. Many thought the changes would never amount to anything, due to the damage American exports could suffer.

Many technology companies in Silicon Valley have taken a different approach. In attempts to fight against allegations made by Edward Snowden that they helped NSA surveillance, many companies have jumped at the opportunity to demonstrate features that keep hackers away. For example, Apple stated that iPhones would automatically encrypt data, and that the company could not help the government obtain the stored information.

However, one gap in the argument is that the information most popularly sought by law enforcement, including photos, call logs, e-mails, and texts, is legally obtainable with court orders, no matter what level of encryption is present on a device.

Another issue is the underlying purpose of most of Silicon Valley’s data encryption practices. As a general rule, Silicon Valley is more concerned with protecting corporate intellectual property than protecting end users from surveillance.

User data is also extremely valuable. Many companies store data so they may later use it to improve their services, sell ads, and get to know their users. Once data is stored it may be obtainable by the government.

The U.S. Attorney General and the FBI have pressured technology makers to create encryption backdoors for some time now. There has also been much debate over how much information companies can mine and store for business purposes, and how much access the government and law enforcement agencies have to such information.

Last year, Microsoft was fighting the government in three different websites.

Apple CEO Tim Cook has stated on multiple occasions that the company is in the product business, not the data business. One insider claims that encrypting the iPhone was motivated by a desire to protect privacy and stop law enforcement from sending an increasing number of devices to Apple for help unlocking the phones.

Bruce Schneier, the chief technology officer at cybersecurity firm Resilient Systems, Inc., formerly known as CO3 Systems, predicts that the government will continue to quietly try to obtain access to devices and their information.

He explains, “It’s been an issue since the mid-1990s, and it’s not going away because some president somewhere got momentarily sensible. I don’t believe for a minute that the pressure, overt or covert, is going to lessen.”

Source: Bloomberg

Photo credit: govtechworks.com

The post Obama Lightens Up on Encrypted Data Law first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Summary: The Justice Department is hitting roadblocks from the leading tech companies as they pursue access to private information between suspects.

The Justice Department has sought a court order against Apple for access to their iMessage communications between suspects that use an iPhone. Apple has one slight issue with this request; they can’t.

The iMessage system is encrypted so they can’t turn over those text messages in real time like the DOJ wants. Tech companies like Apple, Google, and Microsoft are using even tougher encryptions in order to protect their consumer’s information.

The DOJ is stuck in a tough spot. Criminals know that the iPhone’s iMessage system is encrypted so much so that law enforcement agencies can’t look at them. In order to properly catch some of these criminals, they need access to the information in those messages but there is no way to get them yet.

Apple has handed over messages to the DOJ that were uploaded to iCloud, where messages are no longer encrypted. The only way for the DOJ to gain access to the encrypted messages is by requiring security back doors, which are highly opposed by civil liberty advocates and experts.

The encryption used by Apple is an end-to-end encryption system that is done by the phones at each end of the conversation. This means that Apple does not have any copies of the messages sent. The DOJ wants the companies that use this kind of encryption to be forced to comply with rules similar to the wiretap ones that phone companies follow.

Source: http://www.engadget.com/2015/09/09/apple-refuses-doj-imessage-request/

Photo: apple.com

The post Justice Department Wants Apple’s iMessage Chats first appeared on JDJournal Blog.