Google has recently been involved in other lawsuits, both nationally and internationally. Earlier this month, the full Federal Court of Australia ruled that the company engaged in advertising practices that were deceptive and misleading [JURIST report], resulting in a violation of the country's consumer protection laws. Last month, a Japanese court ordered Google to remove certain search terms [JURIST report] that a Japanese man claimed violated his privacy, by suggesting his name in connection with crimes he did not commit. Google issued a letter [JURIST report] in February in response to concerns raised by members of Congress regarding consumer privacy rights as impacted by the search giant's new privacy policy. In its response Google replied to 11 specific questions posed in a letter sent the week before [JURIST report]. Google's response included a confirmation that no new types of data are going to be collected with the advent of the new privacy policy, a list of those services that can be used without signing into a Google Account, the reasons for data sharing between Google products, and a description of the process for data deletion when a user closes an account, along with background information on the motivation for the policy changes.

Arroyo has recently been in the news after she pleaded not guilty to charges of electoral fraud in February [JURIST report]. Arroyo is accused of rigging senate elections in favor of the candidates she supported in 2007. Arroyo was formally charged in December with corruption and election fraud during her presidency. Arroyo also faces charges filed in a second criminal complaint [JURIST report] that she approved a $329-million national broadband network deal with the Chinese company ZTE Corporation [corporate website] in return for millions of dollars in kickbacks in 2008. If Arroyo is convicted she could face life in prison.

In June 2010, the Supreme Court ruled [opinion, PDF] in Skilling v. United States [Cornell LII backgrounder] that the "honest services" doctrine [18 USC § 1346 text] is not unconstitutionally vague [JURIST report] under a limited construction of the statute and that the district court adequately "detected and diffused" juror prejudice in the pre-trial publicity of Skilling. In February 2009, the Fifth Circuit denied [JURIST report] a petition for an en banc rehearing for Skilling after a three-judge panel upheld [JURIST report] his previous convictions and ordered him to be resentenced due to error in the lower court. Skilling's appeal was based on a previous Fifth Circuit ruling [JURIST report] that overturned convictions for other Enron executives based on "honest services theft" because they had acted in Enron's best interest by direction and did not profit from their actions. The panel ruled that Skilling's case differed from these previous rulings because "no one at Enron sanctioned Skilling's improper conduct" and because Skilling's compensation structure was aligned with Enron's earning. In 2006, Skilling was convicted [JURIST report] of 19 counts of conspiracy, insider trading and securities fraud. He is currently serving a 24-year sentence. Skilling initially appealed [JURIST report] his conviction in September 2007 claiming prosecutorial and judicial errors.

In January, the Supreme Court ruled [JURIST report] in Golan v. Holder [SCOTUSblog backgrounder] that Congress has the authority under the Copyright Act to restore copyright protection in foreign works where the work was never registered in the US and the full copyright term has expired. In December 2010, the Supreme Court split 4-4 [JURIST report], with Justice Elena Kagan recused, on the issue of copyright protection for imported goods in Costco Wholesale Corp v. Omega, SA [Cornell LII backgrounder]. Swiss watchmaker Omega [corporate website] manufactured watches in Switzerland and then sold them to authorized distributors overseas. Watches were purchased by third parties and eventually sold to Costco [corporate website], which sold them to US consumers without authorization from Omega. Because of the split among the justices, the court affirmed the ruling of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that the first-sale doctrine does not apply to imported goods.

Last month UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon [official profile] urged [JURIST report] Malaysia to take into consideration international human rights standards. In October 2011, after the prime minister's announcement, the Malaysian government released 125 prisoners [JURIST report] who were held in detention under the Restricted Residence Act of 1933. Malaysia's internal security laws were heavily criticized in the past by various human rights organizations. In June 2010, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention [official website] recommended [JURIST report] Malaysia repeal or amend its security laws to conform to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [text]. In 2009, the Abolish ISA Movement [advocacy blog] initiated a demonstration against the law in which 10,000 to 20,00 people participated and resulted in 589 arrests. Of those arrested, 29 were charged [JURIST report] for their involvement in the rallies. The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) [advocacy website] had also called [JURIST report] Malaysia to abolish the ISA in 2008.

According to the HRW 2012 Annual Report released in January [JURIST report], the Middle Eastern "Arab Spring" revolutions and protests may have inspired Vietnamese citizens to combat oppression in their country, especially restrictions on freedom of speech. However, the Vietnamese government has reacted strongly against pro-democracy bloggers. In November 2011, a Vietnamese appeals court reduced the sentence [JURIST report] of pro-democracy blogger and professor Pham Minh Hoang [blog, in Vietnamese], who had been sentenced [JURIST report] to three years in prison after writing anti-government articles on his blog under his pen name. In August, a Vietnamese appeals court upheld the seven-year sentence of prominent rights lawyer and dissident Cu Huy Ha Vu, convicted in April [JURIST reports] of carrying out anti-state propaganda. In January 2010, a Vietnamese court sentenced [JURIST report] writer and democracy activist Pham Thanh Nghien to four years in prison on charges of spreading anti-state propaganda. The same month, a Vietnamese court convicted four democracy activists [JURIST report] of subversion.