Category Archives: Fifth Amendment

This is the third and final installment in our series on the Constitution at the border. Today, well focus on the Fifth Amendment and passwords. Click here for Part 1 on the First Amendment or Part 2 on the Fourth Amendment.

Lately, a big question on everyone's mind has been: Do I have to give my password to customs agents?

As anyone whos ever watched any cop show knows, the Fifth Amendment gives you the right to remain silent and to refuse to provide evidence against yourself even at the border. If a CBP agent asks you a question, you can tell them you choose to remain silent and want to speak to an attorney, even if you dont have one retained yet. That choice may not stop CBP agents from pressuring you to voluntarily talk to them, but they are supposed to stop questioning you once you ask for a lawyer. Also, beware that government agents are permitted to lie to you in order to convince you to waive your right to remain silent, but you can be criminally prosecuted if you lie to them.

CBP agents are unlikely to advise you that you have this choice because the government generally argues that such warnings are only required if you are taken into custody and subjected to a criminal prosecution. And at least one federal court of appeals has determined that secondary inspection the separate interview area you get referred to if the CBP officer cant readily verify your information at the initial port of entry doesnt qualify as custody.

But you dont have to be in custody or subject to a criminal prosecution before you choose to invoke your Fifth Amendment rights to remain silent or to object to being deprived of your property without due process of law. For example, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has held that a persons request for an attorney is enough to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination, even at the border.

And that privilege includes refusing to provide the password to your device. For example, in 2015, a Pennsylvania court held that you may properly invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege to avoid giving up your cell phone passcode even to an employers phone because your passcode is personal in nature and producing it requires you to speak or testify against yourself.

Some courts have been less protective, overriding Fifth Amendment protections where the information sought is a so-called foregone conclusion. In 2012, a Colorado court ordered a defendant to provide the password to her laptop, only after the government had obtained a search warrant based on the defendants admission that there was specific content on her laptop and that the laptop belonged to her. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit clarified that the government "must [first] show with some reasonable particularity that it seeks a certain file and is aware, based on other information, that . . . the file exists in some specified location" and that the individual has access to the desired file or is capable of decrypting it.

So, Fifth Amendment protections do apply at the border, and they protect your right to refuse to reveal your password in most circumstances. That said, individuals passing through the border sometimes choose to surrender their account information and passwords anyway, in order to avoid consequences like missing their flight, being made subject to more constrictive or prolonged detention, or being denied entry to the US.

As we have noted in our Digital Border Search Whitepaper, the consequences for refusing to provide your password(s) are different for different classes of individuals. If you are a U.S. citizen, CBP cannot detain you indefinitely as you have a right to re-enter the country. However, agents may escalate the encounter (for example, by detaining you for more time), or flag you for heightened screening during future border crossings. If you are a lawful permanent resident, agents may also raise complicated questions about your continued status as a resident. If you are a foreign visitor, agents might deny you entry to the country entirely.

But whatever your status, whether you choose to provide your passwords or not, border agents may decide to seize your digital devices. While CBP guidelines set a five-day deadline for agents to return detained devices unless a CBP supervisor approves a lengthier detention, in practice, device detentions commonly last many months.

As always, we want to hear from you if you experience harm or harassment from CBP for choosing to protect your digital data. Were still collecting stories of border search abuses at: borders@eff.org

We recommend that you review our pocket guides for Knowing Your Rights and Protecting Your Digital Data Privacy at the border for a general overview or take a look at our Border Search Whitepaper for a deeper dive into the potential issues and questions you may face.

And join EFF in calling for stronger Constitutional protection for your digital information by contacting Congress on this issue today.

Here is the original post:
The Bill of Rights at the Border: Fifth Amendment Protections for ... - EFF

Birds > private property rights in some courts.

Yesterday, we learned the Florida Supreme Court denied review of ourGanson v. City of Marathonregulatory takings case. Weve previously written about the case here, here,here, and here. In a nutshell, government officials in the City of Marathon, along with officials in Monroe County and the State of Florida, decided that Gordon and Molly Beyer, a married couple who owned a 9-acre piece of property in the Florida Keys, lost all rights to develop on the nine acres an island known as Bamboo Key because itmade a fine bird rookery. And when those officials made that decision, they further decided they did not have to pay the Beyers for the taking despite having rendered Bamboo Key virtually uninhabitable. I say virtually because the officials in their perverse form of benevolent despotism graciously allowed that the Beyers could use the island for temporary camping.

I kid you not.

Unsurprisingly, Pacific Legal Foundation believes that this amounts to a total taking of the Beyers property. We will now seek review of the case at the Supreme Court of the United States. The last time we took an adverse Florida Supreme Court decision to the nations High Court, we won a crucial victory for property rights on behalf of Coy Koontz and the Fifth Amendment rights of all Americans. We intend to win another case for all Americans this time, as well.

Go here to see the original:
Florida Supreme Court rules for birds, against Fifth Amendment - Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) (press release) (blog)

Enlarge / John Krafcik, CEO of Waymo, debuts a customized Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid in January 2017.

Bill Pugliano / Getty Images News

"What Ive told you is that you can submit the privilege log to me, in camera, without giving it to anyone else and I can evaluate it, which aspects, if any would be incriminating," US District Judge William Alsup said, addressing a lawyer representing the engineer, Anthony Levandowski, during the hearing."Im not ruling against theultimate assertion of the privilege, but youve got to do more than just say in court, Fifth Amendmentyou have to do a privilege log and go through the process."

The case pits Waymo against Uber, which in turn is in a tense situation with one of its own employees, Levandowski, the head of its self-driving division.

Levandowski is now set to be deposed by Waymo lawyers this Friday at their San Francisco offices. He must also respond to a subpoena by handing over materials that he is accused of stealingthousands of secret documents from his time with Waymoparent company Google. On Wednesday, Judge Alsup quashed four of the six distinct items requested in the subpoenabut allowed the most substantive, the allegedly "misappropriated materials," to stand. (The third item, "All communications between You and Uber between January 2015 and August 2016," will also remain.)

Earlier this year, Waymo sued Uber for alleged patent infringementWaymo claimed that Levandowski, a former Waymo and Google employee, stole 14,000 confidential documents prior to his departure.Armed with that data, Waymo further alleged, Levandowski founded a company called Otto in early 2016, which was then acquired by Uber for $680 million only months later. Waymo argued that this cache of materials allowed Uber to rapidly and seriously compete with Waymo in self-driving technology. Late last month, Waymo lawyers asked the judge to impose an injunction that would compel Uber to stop using any of the allegedly stolen data.

In late March 2017, Levandowski invoked his Fifth Amendment right to protect against self-incriminationdespite the fact that he neither has been charged with a crime, nor is he a named defendant in the civil suit. So far, the engineer has refused to hand over any documents or data related to the lawsuit. In addition, Uber seems unable to compel Levandowski, who still remains employed at Uber, to give up the information.

"As an employer you cannot force an employee to turn over personal property," Arturo Gonzlez, one of Ubers attorneys, told Ars in a phone interview after the Wednesday hearing. However, he noted, Uber would be "very pleased" if Levandowski would hand over any relevant data that he may have.

During that late March court hearing, when Uber indicated it would not pursue any data that Levandowski held privately, Waymo tried a different tactic. It served Levandowski'sattorneys with a subpoena, commanding Levandowski to produce substantial amounts of materials and to appear for a deposition on Friday, April 14. Levandowski'sown lawyer, Ismail Ramsey, told Waymo's lawyers in a letter on Monday that Levandowski "plans to assert his Fifth Amendment rights with respect to any documents requests served on him."

Waymo's attorneys, for their part, countered in a Tuesday letter to the judge: "Again, the only reason a subpoena was even required to be served in the first place is because Uber and Mr. Levandowski have attempted to construct an artificial distinction between themselves in an effort to delay their obligations to produce responsive information."

As Ars reported earlier this month, Uber's lawyers initially resisted producing a privilege log of their own. Uber's loga list of which documents shouldn't be disclosed to Waymo as part of civil discoveryishundreds of pages long, much of it e-mail from Uber's systems about the $680 million acquisition of Levandowski's startup, Otto. Levandowski is concerned about 42 documents that relate to a due diligence report about the Otto acquisition. His lawyers won't even say who the report's author is.

Four days after that April 6 hearing, on April 10, Judge Alsupdenied Levandowskis lawyers attempt tohalt Uber from giving up its privilege log.

"At risk of repetition, the very purpose of a privilege log is to allow a fair way to test a claim of privilege," Judge Alsup wrote. "That traditional privilege log requirements should be verboten merely because they might connect the dots back to a non-party in a possible criminal investigation is a sweeping proposition under which all manner of mischief could be concealed."

Levandowskis lawyers immediately appealed Alsups April 10 ruling on Tuesday to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which handles all patentappeals.

"I dont believe that you need until Wednesday at noon," the judge said.

On Wednesday, the judge also ordered that by April 25, Uber must produce a description of any and all LIDAR-related work performed by Levandowski, who still currently oversees Ubers self-driving car program.

"You are ignoring all of the other work and you never mentioned what Mr. Levandowski was doing," Judge Alsup told Uber lawyers during the Wednesday hearing. "What was he working on? It does leavethe impression that you have cleverly written around the problem of what Levandowski was working on even if it didnt turn into a prototype. Thats a fair question, and they are entitled to an answer."

Judge Alsup also noted that if Levandowski was going to continue to invoke his constitutional rights during the Friday deposition, the engineer couldnt do it in one fell swoop."It has to be invoked question by questionitll be a long day but you have to go through the process," he said, addressing Waymo attorneys.

Both sides will reconvene before Judge Alsup on May 3 to discuss Waymos motion for a preliminary injunction, which could put the brakes on Ubers self-driving work.

See the rest here:
Uber engineer accused of data theft must tell judge why he's ... - Ars Technica

The presiding judge in Alphabets lawsuit against Uber for allegedly stealing autonomous-car trade secrets has said that Uber must disclose certain basic details of a due diligence report conducted as part of Ubers August 2016 acquisition of self-driving tech startup Otto.

The report could play an important role in Alphabets allegations that the ride-hail company is using Alphabets proprietary self-driving technology.

The Google parent company claims that Ubers self-driving head, Anthony Levandowski, stole 14,000 files from Alphabet that included designs for its lidar Light Detection and Ranging technology. Lidar is key to most self-driving systems.

Uber counters that its technology is unique and distinct from that used in Alphabets self-driving efforts, which exist under the umbrella of an Alphabet subsidiary, Waymo.

A due diligence report is conducted by a third party as part of an acquisition. It looks at finances, legal issues and other details of a company that is being acquired.

Alphabet has claimed that the due diligence report will prove that Levandowski who worked on self-driving technology for Alphabet before leaving and co-founding self-driving trucking company Otto stole the files. Theres a question of whether the report included a review of any of the allegedly stolen documents. And if Alphabet knew who compiled the report, the company could subpoena them.

Last week, Levandowski filed a motion requesting that details of the due diligence report including the identity of the party that conducted the report not be disclosed in Alphabets suit.

Levandowski is not named as a party in the lawsuit, and is retaining his own attorneys, who filed the motion on his behalf. Uber did not sign on to the motion.

Judge William Alsup ordered that the report be included in the privilege log a list of documents that a party in a lawsuit argues should not be opened up to the court because they contain privileged information that Uber must compile. The judge is not at this time requiring that the report be opened up to the court, but is ordering it to be included in that list without basic details redacted.

There will be time enough to argue soon over whether the due diligence report itself must be produced, Alsups order said. But for now that report must be put on a privilege log in the conventional way without any of the redactions requested by counsel for Levandowski.

Levandowskis attorneys argued that revealing details of the report would violate his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination because the document details might furnish a link in a chain of possible incrimination.

At risk of repetition, the very purpose of a privilege log is to allow a fair way to test a claim of privilege, Alsups order said. That traditional privilege log requirements should be verboten merely because they might connect the dots back to a non-party in a possible criminal investigation is a sweeping proposition under which all manner of mischief could be concealed.

Visit link:
The judge in the Alphabet/Uber lawsuit rejects a Fifth Amendment ... - Recode

Investopedia

Samsung's Galaxy 8 Could Endanger Fifth Amendment Rights ... Investopedia Fifth Amendment rights, which protect citizens from incriminating themselves in court cases, may be in danger thanks to Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd's (SSNLF) ... Experts: Fifth amendment questions raised by Samsung Galaxy's face recognitionPlanet Biometrics all 2 news articles »

See the article here:
Samsung's Galaxy 8 Could Endanger Fifth Amendment Rights ... - Investopedia

Last week, Samsung announced that its Galaxy S8 phone would let you unlock it by scanning your face a method that could be quicker and simpler than entering a passcode or even using a thumbprint. As we noted at the time, this isnt a strong security measure; in fact, someone already fooled it with a photograph. But theres another, less-obvious issue: one key Constitutional protection for passwords usually doesnt apply to biometric security measures like face scanning.

The Fifth Amendment, which protects people from having to incriminate themselves, holds that passwords or passcodes are testimonial evidence. In other words, you can refuse to give up your PIN because doing so would mean answering a question based on the contents of your thoughts, not providing a physical piece of evidence. But as early as 2013 the year Apple announced its Touch ID sensor security experts were warning that fingerprints wouldnt fall under this rule. So far, this theory has held up. A Virginia judge let police use a fingerprint to unlock a phone in 2014, and similar requests were granted by other courts in 2016 and 2017.

Standing there while a law enforcement officer holds a phone up to your face or your eye is not a testimonial act.

The self-incrimination analysis for biometric and face scanning would be the same as for Touch ID, says Jeffrey Welty, a law and government professor at UNC-Chapel Hill. Standing there while a law enforcement officer holds a phone up to your face or your eye is not a testimonial act, because it doesnt require the suspect to provide any information that is inside his or her mind.

Most people using Samsungs (or another companys) face-scanning system will never be charged with a crime. And this doesnt prevent things like searching visa applicants phones, where people are complying in order to get into the country, not because of direct law enforcement action. But the Fifth Amendment still provides a general legal layer of protection against smartphone searches, which can reveal a huge amount of personal information.

This isnt a totally cut-and-dried issue, however. In certain cases, courts can still require you to unlock a device with a passcode. If the police already know whats on the device and that the person in question is the owner, the foregone conclusion doctrine may apply, says Welty. Thats what happened last month when an appeals court ruled that a man needed to decrypt two hard drives believed to hold child pornography, because the contents werent in question.

Conversely, biometric security could still be testimonial under certain circumstances, and legal expert Oren Kerr has laid out an argument for protecting fingerprints under the Fifth Amendment. In his hypothetical example, police have a phone with a biometric sensor and seven possible owners, none of whom will claim it. Putting a finger to the sensor might not be testimony, but identifying yourself as the owner of the phone could be, and so could revealing which finger (or other body part) would unlock it. One subject of a phone-unlocking order made the latter argument last year, but in that specific case, it was shot down.

Even so, both these situations are edge cases. Bottom line, if you are concerned about whether law enforcement can compel access to your device, a password or passcode is much better than Touch ID or facial recognition, but it isnt ironclad, says Welty. Of course, if youre absolutely determined to keep your data private, you might want to just delete it.

View original post here:
PSA: Samsung's new face scanner won't give you the legal protection of a passcode - The Verge

The iris scanner and facial recognition features of the Galaxy S8 and the Galaxy S8 Plus arent protected under the Fifth Amendment, industry experts are reminding consumers just weeks before Samsungs upcoming pair of Android flagships officially hits the market. The Fifth Amendment that protects against self-incrimination by allowing people the right not to testify against themselves in acase when doing so would criminally implicate them has previously extended to both passwords and passcodes, as providing either was defined as giving testimonial evidence, i.e. evidence that consists of ones thoughts. This protection technically doesnt apply to any kind of physical evidence like fingerprints, as several previous cases have already shown, but it also doesnt extend to devices that can be unlocked with an iris scanner or facial recognition.

Both iris scanning and facial recognition rely on certain physical features that courts can and do categorize as physical evidence, meaning e.g. you cannot refuse to unlock your smartphone by pleading the fifth if a police officer can simply hold the phone up to your face and let it unlock. While some privacy advocates previously argued such search isnt legal, a precedent on the matter has yet to be made and courts seemingly agree that a scenario in which an officer holds a phone up to someones face isnt defined as a testimonial act as it doesnt require the suspect to share any contents of their thoughts.

There are certain exceptions to the rule outlined above, legal experts explain, noting how most exceptions pertain to scenarios in which authorities arent certain who owns the device theyre looking to unlock with an iris scanner or facial recognition. While looking at your phone to unlock it in front of officers isnt a testimonial act, claiming ownership of a device certainly is, meaning youre not required to do so if authorities arent certain who owns the smartphone theyre seeking to unlock. Overall, if youre planning to acquire the Galaxy S8, Galaxy S8 Plus, or any other upcoming smartphone boasting biometric authentication, keep in mind you might want to stick with a regular password, pattern, or a passcode if youre adamant to not let authorities access your device under any conditions.

See more here:
Galaxy S8 Face Recognition Isn't Protected By 5th Amendment - Android Headlines

By Laurie Chapman

April 3, 2017

Like the First Amendment, there is substantial information packed into the Fifth Amendment. In this section, our founding fathers have addressed issues such as double jeopardy, due process and eminent domain. It also provides citizens the right to remain silent, or not implicate themselves.

The following is a transcription of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution in its original form.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The first part of this amendment addresses the right of a citizen charged with a capital crime to be presented before a grand jury. Typically, most states satisfy this requirement through preliminary hearings. The one exception, outlined in this amendment, is specific circumstances relating to the military.

The Fifth Amendment also precludes citizens from being subject to double jeopardy. No individual may be tried for the same crime twice. Additionally, a citizen cannot be compelled to implicate themselves in the court of law. This is commonly referred to as pleading the fifth, where a defendant or witness invokes the right to remain silent.

In Miranda vs Arizona, 1966, the court expanded on the right to remain silent as presented in the Fifth. The court held that all individuals must be advised of their right to remain silent and to an attorney. If an individual is in police custody and being interrogated, failure to advise the individual of their rights makes their statements inadmissible in court.

Also relating to the court of law, the Fifth guarantees a fair, orderly and just trial. As with the wording for double jeopardy, the Fifth Amendment only applies to the federal government. However, the text of the 14th Amendment applies both issues to states as well.

Finally, the Fifth Amendment addresses eminent domain. This states the federal government may not take personal property for public use without just compensation. In Chicago, B. & Q. Railroad Co. vs. Chicago, 1897, the court held the 14th Amendment also extended in this arena to the states.

Determining just compensation typically entails assessing the propertys fair market value. The piece of this section that has been troublesome relates to the intended use of the property.

A controversial opinion was issued by the U.S. Supreme Court that allowed private property to be seized for private commercial development. Justice John Paul Stevens issued the 5-4 decision in Kelo vs. City of New London, 2005.

The courts opinion stated:

The takings at issue here would be executed pursuant to a carefully considered development plan, which was not adopted to benefit a particular class of identifiable individuals, Rather, it has embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as public purpose. In a nutshell, the court agreed that allowing the city to take ownership of a condemned property with the intention of economically revitalizing it would benefit the public. While the space might be directly privatized, the public as a whole benefits from an approved, productive space. Idaho certainly has its share of public lands, and I wouldnt be surprised to see this amendment raised in future suits relating to land usage.

Laurie Chapman publishes Political Broad bi-monthly and takes an informative, opinionated peek at the functions of government. If you have a suggestion for the author, e-mail her atlchapman@idahocountyfreepress.com or call her at 208-983-1200.

See the article here:
Fifth Amendment preserves our right to due process, and more - Idaho County Free Press (blog)

An executive at Uber accused of stealing technology for driverless cars from Google his former employer is invoking his Fifth Amendment right to avoid incrimination, said his lawyers.

Attorney representing Anthony Levandowski, the ex-head of the self-driving car unit at Google, who is leading an effort similar to that at Uber at this time, said he broadly asserted his Fifth Amendment rights due to a potential for criminal action from the case.

The maneuver made by Levandowski adds additional intrigue to this fight between a pair of technology industry giants, which have squared off in a race to put self-driving vehicles on the road.

Levandowski is the centerpiece of a lawsuit between Waymo and Google. Waymo was spun off from Google and is a standalone subsidiary of Alphabet.

The company has accused Levandowski of poaching employees and stealing documents prior to quitting at Google and following that colluding with Uber in using the technology to help the ride-hailing service advance its efforts at driverless cars.

Just after he left Google, Levandowski begin his own start-up for self-driving trucks called Otto. Only six months after the business was formed, Uber bought the company for a price of $680 million.

A motion was filed by Waymo seeking an injunction earlier in March to stop the development of autonomous vehicles at Uber.

As part of its motion to seek injunction Waymo said Levandowski, while still employed by Google installed special software allowing him to download more than 14,000 files equal to 9.7 gigabytes of information that pertained to their program for driverless cars.

Uber has been ordered to hand those files over.

A private hearing transcript held before a judge in San Francisco shows that lawyers from Levandowski said he was using his Fifth Amendment rights in not turning the documents over that might pertain to this case.

A lawyer for Uber said the made it clear to Levandowski that he must release documents that are relevant to this case as part of discovery.

One of the attorneys representing Levandowski said the executive at Uber asserted his Fifth Amendment right to protect him against any compelled disclosure which would identify existence, location or the possession of any documents.

He added that Levandowskis decision to use his Fifth Amendment right might change as they look further into the case. This situation raises a number of questions about Levandowskis future at Uber, as a Judge told Uber that it had a right to order Levandowski to cooperate or they could fire him.

Originally posted here:
The Executive With Uber Invokes Fifth Amendment - Petro Global ... - Petro Global News 24

File this under things that are too strange to be fiction. Nobody could make this stuff up! Anthony Levandowski used to work for Waymo, the self driving division of Alphabet, which most of us know as Google. In early 2016, he left Waymo and started his own business called Otto that specialized in creating self driving systems for large trucks. Last year, Uber bought Otto for $500 million. (One presumes that Otto is a play on the word auto, no doubt suggested by a certain famous scene in the movie Airplane!)

It took Waymo 7 years to develop its self driving car technology. Uber is now testing self driving technology that it developed in 7 months. Prior to leaving Waymo, Levandowski downloaded over 14,000proprietary and confidential files from the Waymo server, including the design for a Lidar circuit board. Waymo knew nothing about any of this until a supplier working with Otto accidentally included Waymo in an e-mail.

Once alerted, Waymo filed suit asking for an injunction against Uber using any of the information it obtained from Levandowski via its acquisition of Otto. The complaint alleges,Fair competition spurs new technical innovation, but what has happened here is not fair competition. Instead, Otto and Uber have taken Waymos intellectual property so that they could avoid incurring the risk, time, and expense of independently developing their own technology.

These are very serious allegations, if true, said Tyler Ochoa, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law. The trade secret case by itself is a blockbuster. Its hard to believe theyd put those accusations into print unless they had evidence, Ochoatold Bloomberg.

This week, Levandowskis attorney, Miles Ehrlich, informedU.S. District Court Judge William Alsup that his client intends to exercise his right against self incrimination based on the potential for criminal action if called to testify in Waymos case against Uber. Attorneys for Uber told the court that Levandowski has a good story to tell and that if he testifies, his testimony would make it clear that Uber is not taking advantage of any of the information he downloaded from Waymo on the way out the door.

That would be a legitimate point, said the judge. Maybe you can convince me of that. But first, Levandowski has to agree to testify.Im sorry that Mr. Levandowski has got his got himself in a fix. Thats what happens, I guess, when you download 14,000 documents and take them, if he did. But I dont hear anybody denying that, Alsup said.

Then the judge warned Ubers attorney,If you think for a moment that Im going to stay my hand because your guy is taking the Fifth Amendment and not issue a preliminary injunction to shut down that youre wrong, according to a report by Autoblog.The court is considering a temporary restraining order against Uber and has set May 3 as the date when it will hear arguments for a permanent injunction.

Obviously, Waymos allegations are not evidence. But the timing of Levandowskis departure from Waymo and Ubers success with its autonomous driving cars is, as they say, curious. It will be interesting to see if Ubers Nothing to see here. Move along strategy convinces the judge not to issue a temporary restraining order.

Tags: Anthony Levandowski, Otto self driving trucks, Uber autonomous car testing, Waymo suit against Uber

Steve Hanley I have been a car nut since the days when Rob Walker and Henry N. Manney, III graced the pages of Road & Track. Today, I use my trusty Miata for TSD rallies and occasional track days at Lime Rock and Watkins Glen. If it moves on wheels, I'm interested in it. Please follow me on Google + and Twitter.

Original post:
ADVERTISE WITH GAS2 - Gas 2.0