Articles Posted in Laws

There’s been a huge hullabaloo this week about a discovery by two engineers that Apple iPhones and 3G iPads log  users’ locations with geo-coordinates and time stamps. A day later, it was revealed that Google’s Android operating system can store two files tracking users’ travels: one based on WiFi, and the other based on cell tower triangulation.

Oh, and one more thing. There is no federal law concerning GPS tracking, and state laws on location tracking vary.

But doesn’t turning off any location-based settings on your phone take care of the problem? Maybe.

Who is an American? For a “corporate person,” does the answer depend on where the corporation is headquartered? Or, should we look at the composition of its workforce? Last week, I looked at some tax data found in various securities filings to calculate the tax rate paid by various corporations. Today, I wanted to see how “American” some American companies really were by digging through employment data from the SEC EDGAR System.

EDGAR features a repository of financial data that companies have filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. From registration statements to annual reports, EDGAR offers a detailed glimpse at the state of various domestic and foreign businesses.

The High Tech Law Institute at Santa Clara University and the Samuelson Law, Technology, and Public Policy Institute at UC Berkeley School of Law have teamed up on a new site, DoctoredReviews.com. The site was formed to provide consumers with information about medical contracts that purport to censor or prevent negative patient reviews online. If you have been presented with one of these contracts, this site is a great resource to understand your rights. It’s an interesting legal issue, where HIPAA intersects with Section 230 and the First Amendment.

According to DoctoredReviews, doctors are using a company called Medical Justice to source the “anti-review” contracts. Medical Justice bills itself as “Relentlessly Protecting Physicians from Frivolous Lawsuits.” They offer a variety of services, including those designed to “Prevent Internet defamation.”

Last month, the New York Times featured an article on how G.E.’s Strategies Let It Avoid Taxes Altogether. With Tax Day, just around the corner, I wanted to take a closer look at how much corporations were exactly paying in taxes.

The starting point for this exercise begins with the Instructions for Form 1120, where the Internal Revenue Service lists the income tax rates for U.S. corporations.

$18.3 million in taxable income is a relatively low threshold, at least when referring to major corporations. How many of them pay any where close to the 35% tax rate? Let’s take a look. Unlike the new York Times article, I will show my calculations so that you can comment on my methodology.

Last week’s threat of a federal government shutdown had this country in a tizzy over political gamesmanship. Which benefits would be cut?  Federal funds for women’s healthcare, including abortions? Would military families endure missing paychecks and delayed life insurance payments for loved ones killed in action? A last-minute ‘compromise’ meant that one of these happened.

But who was targeted? Women.

Recently, our Justia friend (and my Law Librarian-Hero) Mary Minow mentioned that she traveled to Sacramento to testify in front of the California State Senate on Senate Bill (“SB”) 445.  The proposed bill seeks to amend the California Public Records Act by updating  privacy protections for public library patrons as it pertains to the use of computers and online resources.

While I’ve been able to spend some more time reading up on the Bill, and I encourage you to all to do the same, I actually wanted to focus this post on citizen (i.e., not lobbyist) participation as it applies to the drafting of state and federal laws.  The reason Mary was up in Sacramento voicing her support for SB 445 is because she won a “There Oughta to be a Bill” contest, sponsored by California State Senator Joe Simitian.  Senator Simitian has sponsored this contest since 2001 and, to date, 16 winning ideas proposed by California residents have been signed into law.

Bless her heart. This month, Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) introduced the Retirement Security for Today’s Four-Year-Olds Act of 2011, which seeks to curb the next generation’s sense of entitlement. This bill seeks to change the definition of retirement age under the Social Security Act to 70, as of January 1, 2069. The title is a bit misleading since it affects more than today’s four-year-olds. People turning 70 in 2069 were born in 1999, meaning they will be turning 12 this year. Yes, another grievance for today’s pre-teens to add to the long list of injustices that have befallen them. I’m sure Dick Clark will be long gone come New Year 2069, so as the New Year’s Eve Ball descends down on Times Square, he should be spared the collective whine: I want to retire and I want it now!

Watching events unfold at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant over the past week have reminded me how little I really know about how nuclear power is regulated.  While reading about and listening to commentary on the crisis has better acquainted me with the work and analysis of U.S. and international organizations that oversee and promote the operation of this technology, I still thought it might be useful for those of you who are interested, like me, in learning more on the issues to prepare a compilation of information and resources related to nuclear power laws, regulations and organizations.

It’s that time again, dear Justia readers, when we give you a Top Ten rundown of last month’s most popular Onward blog and Facebook posts.

Last week, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker fired the shot heard ’round the world by signing a bill that limited the rights of most municipal and state employees to engage in collective bargaining. The bill does exempt public safety employees, including police officers, fire fighters, deputy sheriffs, state probation and parole officers, and persons that provide combined police and fire protection services, from the restrictions mandated by the bill. Interestingly, I did not spot an exemption for correctional workers.

While the Great Recession had many fathers (and mothers), I don’t believe that public sector unions were one of them. Nevertheless, when the government needs to ratchet down its expenses to match its diminished revenues, government workers stand out as an obvious target (and solution). Admittedly, when times are good, unions have no impetus to offer concessions of any kind. So, if Wisconsin or other states intend to rebalance its books on the back of public employees, now is the time when the unions recognize that they have to bear part of the burden as well.