New York:

 A U.S. appeals court said Google must face a revived lawsuit by Google Chrome users who said the company collected their personal information without permission, after they chose not to synchronize their browsers with their Google accounts.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said the lower court judge who dismissed the proposed class action should have assessed whether reasonable Chrome users consented to letting Google collect their data when they browsed online.

Tuesday’s 3-0 decision followed Google’s agreement last year to destroy billions of records to settle a lawsuit claiming the Alphabet unit tracked people who thought they were browsing privately, including in Chrome’s “Incognito” mode.

Neither Google nor its lawyers immediately responded to requests for comment.

Matthew Wessler, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said he was pleased with the decision and looked forward to a trial.

The proposed class covers Chrome users since July 27, 2016 who did not sync their browsers with their Google accounts.

They said Google should have honored Chrome’s privacy notice, which said users “don’t need to provide any personal information to use Chrome” and Google would not receive such information unless they turned on the “sync” function.

The lower court judge concluded that Google’s general privacy policy allowing data collection governed, because the Mountain View, California-based company would have collected the plaintiffs’ information regardless of which browsers they used.

In Tuesday’s decision, Circuit Judge Milan Smith called that focus misplaced.

“Here, Google had a general privacy disclosure yet promoted Chrome by suggesting that certain information would not be sent to Google unless a user turned on sync,” Smith wrote. “A reasonable user would not necessarily understand that they were consenting to the data collection at issue.”

The appeals court returned the case to U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, California, who had dismissed it in December 2022.

Google’s settlement related to Incognito let users sue the company individually for damages. Tens of thousands of users in California alone have since done so in that state’s courts.

The case is Calhoun et al v Google LLC, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 22-16993.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Washington:

In a major setback to Pakistani-origin Canadian businessman Tahawwur Rana, who is sought by India for his involvement in the 2008 Mumbai terror attack, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that he is extraditable to India under the extradition treaty between the two countries.

“The (India-US Extradition) Treaty permits Rana’s extradition,” the court said in its ruling on August 15.

Ruling on an appeal filed by Rana, a panel of judges of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court in the Central District of California’s denial of his habeas corpus petition challenging a magistrate judge’s certification of his as extraditable to India for his alleged participation in terrorist attacks in Mumbai.

Under the limited scope of habeas review of an extradition order, the panel held that Rana’s alleged offense fell within the terms of the extradition treaty between the United States and India, which included a Non Bis in Idem (double jeopardy) exception to extraditability “when the person sought has been convicted or acquitted in the Requested State for the offence for which extradition is requested”.

Relying on the plain text of the treaty, the State Department’s technical analysis, and persuasive case law of other circuits, the panel held that the word “offence” refers to a charged crime, rather than underlying acts, and requires an analysis of the elements of each crime.

The panel of three judges concluded that a co-conspirator’s plea agreement did not compel a different result. The panel held that the Non Bis in Idem exception did not apply because the Indian charges contained distinct elements from the crimes for which Rana was acquitted in the United States.

In its ruling, the panel also held that India provided sufficient competent evidence to support the magistrate judge’s finding of probable cause that Rana committed the charged crimes. The three panel of judges were Milan D Smith, Bridget S Bade, and Sidney A Fitzwater.

Rana, a Pakistani national, was tried in a US district court on charges related to his support for a terrorist organisation that carried out large scale terrorist attacks in Mumbai. A jury convicted Rana of providing material support to a foreign terrorist organisation and conspiring to provide material support to a foiled plot to carry out terrorist attacks in Denmark.

However, the jury acquitted Rana of conspiring to provide material support to terrorism related to the attacks in India. After Rana served seven years in prison for those convictions and upon his compassionate release, India issued a request for his extradition to try him for his alleged participation in the Mumbai attacks.

Before the magistrate judge who initially decided Rana’s extraditability (the extradition court), Rana argued that the US extradition treaty with India protected him from extradition because of its Non Bis in Idem (double jeopardy) provision. He also argued that India did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate probable cause that he committed the charged crimes.

The extradition court rejected Rana’s arguments and certified that he was extraditable. After Rana raised the same arguments in a habeas petition in district court (the habeas court), the habeas court affirmed the extradition court’s findings of facts and conclusions of law.

In his appeal, Rana argued that he cannot be extradited based on conduct for which he was acquitted in the United States because the word “offence” refers to underlying acts. The US government argued that “offence” refers to a charged crime and requires an analysis of the elements of each charged crime.

Thus, according to the government, the Treaty permits Rana’s extradition because the Indian charges contain distinct elements from the crimes for which he was acquitted in the United States.

Judge Smith said that the Treaty’s plain terms, the post-ratification understanding of the signatories, and persuasive precedent all support the government’s interpretation. Rana argued, however, that, based on the government’s interpretation of the Treaty in Headley’s plea agreement, we should judicially estop the government from advocating for its current interpretation of the Treaty. “We decline to do so,” Judge Smith said.

“Because the parties do not dispute that the crimes charged in India have elements independent from those under which Rana was prosecuted in the United States, the Treaty permits Rana’s extradition,” Judge Smith said.

Rana has the option of appealing against this ruling. He still has not run out of all the legal options to prevent his extradition to India.
 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Washington:

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has reached a deal to plead guilty to one count of violating the U.S. espionage law, prosecutors said in court papers on Monday.

He is due to appear in a U.S. federal court in the Northern Mariana Islands this week where he is expected to be sentenced to time served and allowed to return home to Australia.

Following are some key events and details in Assange’s life:

July 1971 – Assange is born in Townsville, Australia, to parents involved in theatre. As a teenager, he gains a reputation as a computer programmer. In 1995, he is fined for computer hacking but avoids prison on condition he does not offend again.

2006 – Assange founds WikiLeaks, creating an internet-based “dead letter drop” for leakers of classified or sensitive information.

April 5, 2010 – WikiLeaks releases leaked video from a U.S. helicopter showing an air strike that killed civilians in Baghdad, including two Reuters news staff.

July 25, 2010 – WikiLeaks releases more than 91,000 documents, mostly secret U.S. military reports about the Afghanistan war.

October, 2010 – WikiLeaks releases 400,000 classified military files chronicling the Iraq war. The next month, it releases thousands of U.S. diplomatic cables, including candid views of foreign leaders and blunt assessments of security threats.

Nov. 18, 2010 – A Swedish court orders Assange’s arrest on sex crime allegations, which he denies. He is arrested in Britain the next month on a European arrest warrant but freed on bail.

February 2011 – London’s Westminster Magistrates’ Court orders Assange’s extradition to Sweden. He appeals.

June 14, 2012 – The British Supreme Court rejects Assange’s final appeal. Five days later, he takes refuge in Ecuador’s embassy in London and seeks political asylum, which Ecuador grants in August 2012.

May 19, 2017 – Swedish prosecutors discontinue their investigation, saying it is impossible to proceed while Assange is in the Ecuadorean embassy.

April 11, 2019 – After Ecuador revokes his political asylum, Assange is carried out of the embassy and arrested. He is sentenced on May 1 to 50 weeks in prison by a British court for skipping bail. He completes the sentence early but remains in jail pending extradition hearings.

May 13, 2019 – Swedish prosecutors reopen their investigation and say they will seek Assange’s extradition.

June 11, 2019 – The U.S. Justice Department formally asks Britain to extradite Assange to the United States to face charges that he conspired to hack U.S. government computers and violated an espionage law.

Nov. 19, 2019 – Swedish prosecutors drop their investigation, saying the evidence is not strong enough to bring charges, in part because of the passage of time.

Feb. 21, 2020 – A London court begins the first part of extradition hearings.

Jan. 4, 2021 – A British judge rules that Assange should not be extradited to the U.S. to face criminal charges, saying his mental health problems mean he would be at risk of suicide.

Dec. 10, 2021 – The U.S. wins an appeal against the ruling after a judge says he is satisfied with a U.S. package of assurances about the conditions of Assange’s detention.  

March 14, 2022 – Britain’s Supreme Court denies Assange permission to appeal against the decision to extradite him to the United States.

March 23, 2022 – Assange marries his long-term partner Stella Moris, the mother of his two children fathered inside the Ecuadorean embassy, inside a British high-security prison.

June 17, 2022 – Britain orders Assange’s extradition to the United States, prompting Assange to appeal.

June, 2023 – Judge at London’s High Court rules Assange has no legal grounds to appeal.

Feb. 20, 2024 – Assange launches what his supporters say will be his final attempt to prevent extradition.

March 26, 2024 – The extradition is put on hold when the court says the U.S. must provide assurances that Assange will not face a potential death penalty.

May 20, 2024 – The High Court gives Assange permission to launch a full appeal against his extradition on grounds that, as a foreign national on trial, he might not be able to rely on the First Amendment right to free speech that U.S. citizens enjoy.

June 24, 2024 – The U.S. Justice Department and Assange reveal a deal in which he will plead guilty to one criminal count and be sentenced to time served.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

An employee of a fast food restaurant in the US fired at a customer after argument over missing curly fries. In a lawsuit filed in Houston, Anthony Ramos said that he had gone to pick up his wife and daughter at George Bush Intercontinental Airport and stopped at a drive-thru outlet of Jack-in-the-Box restaurant. The family ordered a combo meal but found fries missing. When Mr Ramos complained about it, an argument started and one of the employees pull out a gun promoting the family to speed off in the car to avoid gunfire.

The incident happened in March 2021, but its video was released on Monday, said ABC News.

It shows restaurant employee Alonniea Fantasia Ford readying a gun and lunging out of the window to fire at the vehicle. She fired at least twice at the family, Mr Ramos’ lawsuit says.

His lawyer Randall Kallinen the family paid $12.99 for the combo meal, but did not get the curly fries, prompting an argument.

The entire incident lasted with 15 minutes, as Ms Ford got agitated and threw ice and condiments before firing at the family.

“Jack-in-the-Box needs to do a background check on employees so as not to expose their customers to someone who would attempt to kill them,” Ms Kallinen said in a statement.

The lawsuit was filed in 2022 and Mr Kallinen got the video after a discovery request, ABC News reported.

The lawsuit claims Jack-in-the-Box was negligent for not keeping customers safe.

However, the restaurant has denied all the allegations and stated it has “no control” over and “is not legally responsible” for third parties, like Ms Ford.

The employee has also been named in the lawsuit, which at least $250,000 in damages.

Ms Ford was initially charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon but pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of deadly conduct, said ABC News. She got a jail sentence of one year deferred adjudication and completed it in June, it further said citing court records.