Chapter 59 – How a Small Law Firm was Used for an Extensive Cyberattack — Cybersecurity Business Law

TO GET TO THE POINT (click here) INTRODUCTION I recently had the pleasure of reading a guest blog post on Peter Vogel‘s Internet, Information Technology & e-Discovery Blog that was authored by John Ansbach. This alone is important because I have a world of respect for Peter and John.

via How a Small Law Firm was Used for an Extensive Cyberattack — Cybersecurity Business Law


Chapter 58 – Robert E. Jones: An Oral History

Reprinted and attached here.robert-e-jones-usdchs-oral-history.

This is a very nice and endearing history of Judge Robert E. Jones, produced by the US District Court Historical Society. I enjoyed it a lot and I think it paints a nice history of a respected man and Judge .

I noted that Judge Jones did reference Bill Crow (name misspelled) in the oral history. And by oral history I mean that the attached is a question and answer session between Judge Jones and a member of the Court Historical Society.

Quoting from the piece, “The history of the Court is being created by the men and women who have participated in its collection and activities. The Society’s goals
are to collect as much of that history as possible, because is it the history
of the law and those who make it that constitutes the moral development
of humanity. All of us who are students of the law venerate it. We are also
interested in the people who make it.” Judge Owen Panner,
February 28, 2006.

The above is a wonderful quote and we need to remember that morality and ethics are not static. The world temps and challenges our morality and ethics frequently and a wrong turn can tarnish that, can compromise even the best of us. It does not mean our life’s work should be discarded or discounted. Like so much of our human experience, we seek perfection and rarely achieve it and if we do it is fleeting, temporary, ephemeral. The moment can be captured and it the moments should be acknowledged and celebrated.

Until next time.

Chapter 56 – Marshall and Christiansen Confess

In a response to the Oregon State Bar, Linda Marshall confessed that she and Joel Christiansen, counsel for M, contacted the deputy of Judge Robert E. Jone’s Chamber. They have not clarified what they said to the deputy but it was referenced to Chapter 19 of this blog. We can presume I think that M&C represented to the deputy that they felt the blog was some kind of threat. The language in the blog that appears to have been referenced is “Congratulations Judge Jones. Perhaps more often than not our legacies are not what we wanted them to be.”

It appears to me that the goal of M&C is not simply to destroy my property. It’s to destroy my life and they don’t seem to get the fact that their contact to a Federal Judge, making this absurd allegation that I intended violence, is not just defamatory as to me. Rather it is an insult to all of us, because it confirms that the equivalent of backroom politics in civil litigation is alive and well. And when backroom politics becomes a strategy, it also acknowledges that Judges actively set the facts aside to benefit those they simply like. It’s not simply activism.

The admission by M&C means that the perversion of justice is more than alive and well. It means that attorneys value this strategy as much if not more than the facts of a case and it confirms the inconsistency of our judiciary. Perhaps it confirms that innuendo has greater weight than facts. Why is that? How did we get here?

For a country of laws, an independent, unbiased, well educated, intelligent and honest judiciary is a necessity. It’s not a luxury.

What are we going to do? Well, we are going to publish, disseminate, write our congressional delegation, challenge our media to critically evaluate this issue, raise the awareness and send out a million emails.

Until next time.


Chapter 57 – FBI Guidance: How to Respond to Ransomware

Holding companies hostage, whether by ransomware or by collusion of personnel in critical delivery services is not new. However, they are crimes and need to addressed. It does not seem to me that there is enough aggressive prosecution. Even seven years ago I experienced just how difficult it was to get law enforcement involved.

Almost all of the law enforcement agencies I talked to felt like some other agency had jurisdiction. If the attack came from a place in New Jersey, our law enforcement in Beaverton Oregon wanted the NJ state police or the FBI to take the case on (interstate commerce and CFAA violation). And in many cases the law enforcement agencies tried very hard to not take on the case. The US Attorneys office even now will defer crimes causing hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages if there minimally appears to be a civil remedy. By civil remedy I mean lawsuit. And if you get hurt too much to file a lawsuit? Then you just die and no law enforcement agency picks up the case. That’s crazy but true.

The reason these criminals are getting away with this is there is still not enough skilled focus by law enforcement.

Until next time.

Business Cyber Risk Blog

FBISpoiler Alert: According to the article below, in a recent podcast the FBI “warned against paying ransoms” and doesn’t like to see companies pay the ransom because, the old law of supply and demand just means that ransomware is more profitable and, therefore, we see more of it.

The reality is, however, once hit with ransomware, unless companies have adequate backup capabilities, they have little choice but to pay: “between 60 and 70 percent of businesses targeted by a ransomware attack are paying their attackers to have files and systems unencrypted. ‘They are paying ransom in order to maintain business continuity.'”

Read the full article: Ransomware Epidemic Prompts FBI Guidance – DataBreachToday

View original post