There are a variety of webcasts of lecture series both law-related and general interest available from courts, law libraries, public libraries, and other organizations. Below is a non-comprehensive listing of links to transcripts and related videos (if available) of various types of programs compiled by our Senior Law Librarian for Public Access, Theodore Pollack. These programs are free and accessible via the Internet.
New York Court of Appeals webcasts of lectures and arguments:
In the e-mail below Camilla Tubbs, Chair of the American Association of Law Libraries (AALL) Government Relations Committee provides useful information regarding efforts by the Obama admiinistration to create greater transparency and openness in and among federal departments and agencies. She is also asking what types of information people want to see on federal agency web sites? These are important questions that merit serious consideration. Although this e-mail was originally directed to a group of law librarians everyone should be concerned about these issues. Comments from both librarians and non librarians are welcome. We will be glad to forward comments on to Camilla upon request.
E-mail from Camilla Tubbs:
In his Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Transparency_and_Open_Government/
Volume 2 Number 12 December 2009.
Automatic Software Updates and Patching
From the Desk of David Badertscher
Security vulnerabilities are flaws in the software that could allow someone to potentially compromise your system. Each year, the volume of software security vulnerabilities discovered increases, and the hacking tools available to exploit these vulnerabilities become more readily available and easier to use. Vulnerabilities in commonly used programs such as Adobe PDF Reader, QuickTime, Adobe Flash and Microsoft Office are prime targets of attacks on computers connected to the Internet. Recent statistics reported show that 48% of the cyber attacks identified in the second quarter of 2009 were targeted against vulnerabilities in Adobe Acrobat/Adobe Reader1 and in October 2009 Microsoft released patches for a record number of security holes. No entity is immune to vulnerabilities, so we must ensure we understand the risks and take appropriate mitigation steps.
Why do I need to update my software?
One of the basic tenets of computer security is to update your operating system and other software installed on your computer. Software updates fix problems in the software, add functionality, and most importantly, fix vulnerabilities that impact the security of the software and subsequently your computer. These vulnerabilities can lead to your computer-and information that resides on it-being compromised. Exploitation of vulnerabilities may occur by opening documents, viewing an email which contains malicious code or visiting a web site hosting malicious content. Seventy percent of the top 100 web sites hosted malicious content or contained a link designed to redirect users to malicious sites.2
What is a software patch (fix) and when should I install software patches?
Patches are often called “fixes.” A patch is software that is used to correct a problem to an application (software program) or an operating system. Computer companies are continuously addressing security holes (i.e. vulnerabilities) in computer software which could be used to infect your computer with a virus, spyware or worse. When vulnerabilities are discovered, the software vendor typically issues a fix (i.e. patch) to correct the problem. This fix should be applied as soon as possible since the average time for someone to try to exploit this security hole can be as little as a few minutes. Most major software companies will periodically release patches, usually downloadable from the Internet, that correct very specific problems in their software programs.
My computer includes hundreds of software programs– which ones do I need to update and how often?
One of the challenges facing the average computer user is to know which software needs to be updated and how often. Software programs that communicate or interact with the Internet are especially susceptible to attacks and should be kept at a vendor-supported version and current on all patches.
Many software programs include a feature called “auto update.” This feature allows the computer to check for updates at periodic intervals. The software will automatically check for updates and save them to your computer. Some updates will instruct you to “reboot” your computer before the software update can be applied.
At a minimum, you should enable the auto update feature on the following products:
Anti-virus and Anti-spam signatures: anti-virus and anti-spam software requires regular updates to virus and spam signatures to remain effective. New viruses and other types of malware appear every day and the anti-virus/anti-spam vendors release new signatures on a daily basis to stay on top of the new threats. Windows Office software: Word, Excel, Outlook, etc. – (see below for updating Windows software) Internet Browsers: e.g., Internet Explorer (Microsoft), Firefox (Mozilla), Safari (Apple) and Chrome (Google). Make sure you update any software you use for browsing the Internet. Adobe products: e.g., Adobe Reader, Adobe Acrobat, Flash, Shockwave Media Players: e.g., Windows Media Player (Microsoft), QuickTime (Apple), Real Player (Real Networks) and Flash Player (Adobe)
Java (Sun Microsystems): Java is software that is installed on most computers to allow users to play online games, conduct online chats, and view images in 3D, among other functions. It is also used for Intranet applications and other e-business solutions. Other software programs that communicate or interact with the Internet, like e-mail, web servers, and remote desktop software are especially susceptible to attacks and should be kept current on patches and version levels.
It is very important to promptly download and patch your operating system and programs whenever security updates or “service packs” become available. These patches are created to protect systems against potential attacks. Be aware that attacks sometimes occur before updates are released.
How do I update my Microsoft Windows programs?
Windows Update is a Microsoft service that provides updates for the Windows operating system and other Microsoft software. Installing Windows updates, such as “service packs” and other patches, is necessary to keep your Windows system secure. To activate Windows Update, go to Settings/Control Panel/Automatic Updates. When you turn on Automatic Updates, Windows routinely checks the Windows Update web site for high-priority updates that can help protect your computer from the latest viruses and other security threats. These updates can include security updates, critical updates, and “service packs.” Depending on the setting you choose, Windows automatically downloads and installs any high-priority updates that your computer needs, or notifies you as these updates become available. Be sure to set the auto updates to daily, as patches can be released at any time.
Note: Many organizations have formal processes to patch systems that will automatically update all appropriate software. In these situations, no end user action is required.
******************************
Source: 1. F-Secure
Source: 2. SC Magazine
The above comments are based on information tips provided by the Multi-State Information and Analysis Center (MS-ISAC). To learn more about MS-ISAC go to http://www.msisac.org/
__________________________________________
OTHER NEWS AND VIEWS Continue reading
December-14-18, 2009.
To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw.
——————————————————————————–
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, December 14, 2009 US v. Giggy, No. 09-1542 In a case involving the sentence of a defendant for maliciously destroying by fire a building with two prior convictions for non-dwelling burglary, the government’s appeal of defendant’s sentence requesting that the Sentencing Commission be asked to clarify how courts ought to apply the Sentencing Guidelines to non-dwelling burglary is dismissed because there is no specification of error by the government directed to the district court’s reasoning or findings, and the government’s alternative request that the court consult the Commission is unpromising.
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, December 16, 2009 US v. Zapata, No. 08-1554 A sentence of the statutory maximum imposed following defendant’s conviction for unlawful use of a communication facility in connection with a drug trafficking offense is affirmed where: 1) the sentence fell within constitutional limits as it did not exceed the statutory maximum set by Congress; 2) district court’s drug quantity estimate represents a reasonable view of the record and is therefore not clearly erroneous; and 3) defendant’s sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable.
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, December 17, 2009 Mosher v. Nelson, No. 09-1636 In plaintiffs’ civil rights action brought following the death of their son against a facility operated by the Massachusetts Department of Corrections that serves as both a prison and a mental hospital, its superintendent, and others, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) defendant-superintendent is entitled to qualified immunity as a reasonable official in defendant’s place, given the circumstances and the legal standard, could have believed that allowing a certain practice to continue would not lead to events that would violate a patient’s rights; 2) commissioner is also entitled to qualified immunity as a reasonable official in his position could have reasonably believed that staffing that met the hospital’s recommendations was sufficient to avoid constitutional violations; and 3) the district court properly dismissed the plaintiffs’ state law claims as barred by the Eleventh Amendment Continue reading
December-14-18, 2009.
To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw.
——————————————————————————–
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, December 17, 2009 Mosher v. Nelson, No. 09-1636 In plaintiffs’ civil rights action brought following the death of their son against a facility operated by the Massachusetts Department of Corrections that serves as both a prison and a mental hospital, its superintendent, and others, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) defendant-superintendent is entitled to qualified immunity as a reasonable official in defendant’s place, given the circumstances and the legal standard, could have believed that allowing a certain practice to continue would not lead to events that would violate a patient’s rights; 2) commissioner is also entitled to qualified immunity as a reasonable official in his position could have reasonably believed that staffing that met the hospital’s recommendations was sufficient to avoid constitutional violations; and 3) the district court properly dismissed the plaintiffs’ state law claims as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. .
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, December 16, 2009 US v. Hester, No. 08-4665 Defendant’s conviction for traveling in interstate commerce and failing to register or update his sex offender registration in violation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) is affirmed where the fact that defendant had no actual notice of SORNA was not sufficient to render his prosecution pursuant to that statute a violation of his due process rights.
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, December 18, 2009 Turkmen v. Ashcroft, No. 06-3745 In an action claiming abuse, mistreatment, and detention of Arab and Muslim aliens who were held on immigration violations in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, an order partially dismissing the complaint is affirmed in part where there was no clearly established equal protection right to be free of selective enforcement of immigration laws based on national origin, race, or religion at the time of plaintiffs’ detentions. However, the order is vacated in part where defendant-officials were entitled to qualified immunity because a law enforcement official’s actual motivation for the Fourth Amendment seizure of a person was constitutionally irrelevant if the seizure was supported by probable cause.
Continue reading
December 21, 2009.
Update from the Lexis Alert Service,
1. People v Hayes, 1802, 4897/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 9399; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9207, December 17, 2009, Decided, December 17, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, …
2. People v Marcellin, 1804, 9043/98, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 9401; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9209, December 17, 2009, Decided, December 17, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
… appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey M. Atlas, …
3. People v Garcia, 1819, 5122/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 9376; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9194, December 17, 2009, Decided, December 17, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, …
4. People v Cordisco, 1825, 4108/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 9382; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9185, December 17, 2009, Decided, December 17, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, …
A report prepared by New York Governor David Paterson’s Task Force on Transforming Juvenile Justice released in December 2009. It “shines a harsh light” on the problems in New York’s prisons for juvenile offenders
According to this Report, ” the problems are so acute that the state agency overseeing the prisons has asked New York’s family court judges not to send youths to any of them “unless they are a significant risk to public safety,” recommending instead alternatives like therapeutic foster care.”
This Report comes three months after a federal investifgation found that excessive force was routinely used at the four New York prisons, “resulting in injuries as severe as broken bones and shattered teeth.”
Although we are not authorized to include in this posting a draft copy we have seen of the Report, the following is an excerpt from the Executive Summary>
Continue reading
December 14, 2009.
Update from the Lexis Alert Service,
1. People v Padilla, 1712, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 9144; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8976, December 10, 2009, Decided, December 10, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
February 29, 2008
A number of people who have distinguihed themselves in the legal profession have also been quite successful as poets. Wallace Stevens comes to mind. That brings me to the poetry of Professor Lawrence Joseph, Reverend Joseph P. Tinnelly, C.M. Professor of Law, which was the subject of the 2008 Law and Literature Symposium, “Some Sort of Chronicler I Am: Narration and the Poetry of Lawrence Joseph,” on February 29, 2008, at the University of Cincinnati College of Law. The Symposium was put together by the University of Cincinnati Law Review. Professor Joseph was joined in the Symposium by a group of distinguished legal and literary scholars who used Professor Joseph’s poetry as a starting point to explore the nature of narration in poetry and its relationship to the language of law, and other forms of narration and language. The Symposium has been published in 77 Cincinnati Law Review. Number 3 Spring 2009. To help illustrate the depth and range of topics covered in the Symposium, here is al list of papers and their contributors included in the 77 Cincinnati Law Review symposium issue:
Narrating Justice ….. Joseph P. Tomain
December-7-11, 2009.
To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw.
——————————————————————————–
U.S. Supreme Court, December 08, 2009 Alvarez v. Smith, No. 08–351 In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 case involving whether Illinois law provides a sufficiently speedy opportunity for an individual, whose car or cash police have seized without a warrant, to contest the lawfulness of the seizure, a circuit court’s ruling reversing dismissal of the action is vacated and the case is remanded where the action was moot because all of the actual property disputes between the parties had been resolved.
U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 08, 2009 Cooey v. Strickland, No. 09-4474 District court’s denial of defendant’s request for a stay of execution by lethal injection under Ohio’s new protocol where the state eliminated the use of a three-drug protocol and implemented a one-drug protocol is affirmed as the defendant is unable to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits on his Eighth Amendment claim by demonstrating that, facially or as applied to him, Ohio’s new protocol demonstrates risk of severe pain that is substantial when compared to the known and available alternatives.
U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 09, 2009 Holder v. Palmer, No. 07-1440 District court’s denial of defendant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus following his conviction for sexual penetration with an uninformed partner by a person infected with AIDS is affirmed as defendant failed to demonstrate either that his trial counsel’s failure to challenge five jurors permeated the entire trial with obvious unfairness, or that the trial court committed plain error by allowing the five jurors to serve on the jury.
U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 10, 2009 Spears v. Ruth, No. 09-5408 In a suit brought by the family of an individual who died eleven months after being in police custody for public intoxication, denial of a summary judgment motion by an officer and the City of Cleveland is reversed and remanded where: 1) plaintiffs have not established the obvious existence of a sufficiently serious medical need; 2) there is no evidence that the officer was aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm existed, and that he drew that inference and chose to disregard the risk; 3) as such, because no constitutional violation occurred, the officer is entitled to qualified immunity; and 4) the city is entitled to summary judgment because the record as a whole does not support an inference that a reasonable trier of fact could find a causal connection between either officer’s actions or the police chief’s no-transport policy and the decedent’s injuries.
Continue reading
