lunes, 20 de junio de 2016

LIVE EVENT: QA AUTOMATIZADO DE APPS MÓVILES CON DEVICE FARM DE AWS

divider
Evento que se celebrará a la hora y en la fecha y ubicación siguientes:
Jueves, 23 de junio de 2016 desde las 18:30 hasta las 21:00 (Hora estándar central Hora de Costa Rica)
7mo Piso, Mall Multicentro
Avenida Central, Calle 6
Desamparados
Costa Rica

Ver mapa
Participar en el evento
Difundir este evento:
FacebookTwitterLinkedIn
divider
Second Live Event 2016 - EX² Outcoding
                      Expositor: 
                                 Perfil LinkedIn Leonardo Murillo Z Leonardo Murillo Zeledón
                     Agenda: 
                               - Introducción a AWS y la nube.
                               - Introducción a Appium.
                               - Introducción al AWS Device Farm. ¿Qué es y para qué sirve?
                                * Receso
                               - Configurando el IDE.
                               - Creando tests básicos.
                               - Configuración de Device Farm.
                               - Probando nuestra aplicación de muestra.

- Cóctel de Bienvenida
- Coffee Break

 ¡Registrate Hoy Mismo!
  ENTRADA GRATUITA - CUPO LIMITADO

Compartí este evento con colegas y amigos a través de Facebook y Twitter
¡Esperamos contar con tu asistencia!

Saludos,
EX² Outcoding Solutions

 EX² Outcoding Solutions SRL
Desamparados, Costa Rica
 Dirección de Waze - EX² Outcoding Solutions

viernes, 17 de junio de 2016

Q4 FY16 SAAS AND PAAS REVENUES WERE UP 66%, AND UP 68% IN CONSTANT CURRENCY

Press Release

Q1 FY17 SaaS and PaaS Revenues Expected to be Up 75% to 80%

Redwood Shores, Calif.—Jun 16, 2016

Oracle Corporation (NYSE: ORCL) today announced fiscal 2016 Q4 results. Total Q4 Revenues were $10.6 billion, down 1% in U.S. dollars and flat in constant currency. Cloud plus On-Premise Software Revenues were $8.4 billion, flat in U.S. dollars and up 2% in constant currency. Cloud software as a service (SaaS) and platform as a service (PaaS) revenues were $690 million, up 66% in U.S. dollars and up 68% in constant currency. Total Cloud revenues, including infrastructure as a service (IaaS), were $859 million, up 49% in U.S dollars and up 51% in constant currency. Operating Income was $4.0 billion, and Operating Margin was 37%. Non-GAAP Operating Income was $4.8 billion, and the non-GAAP Operating Margin was 45%. Net Income was $2.8 billion while non-GAAP Net Income was $3.4 billion. Earnings Per Share was $0.66, while non-GAAP Earnings Per Share was $0.81. Without the impact of the U.S. dollar strengthening compared to foreign currencies, Oracle’s reported GAAP Earnings Per Share would have been 2 cents higher and non-GAAP Earnings Per Share would have been 1 cent higher.

Short-term deferred revenues were $7.7 billion, up 6% in U.S. dollars and up 7% in constant currency compared with a year ago. Operating cash flow on a trailing twelve-month basis was $13.6 billion.

For fiscal 2016, Total Revenues were $37.0 billion, down 3% in U.S. dollars and up 2% in constant currency. Cloud plus On-Premise Software Revenues were $29.0 billion, down 2% in U.S. dollars and up 3% in constant currency. Cloud SaaS and PaaS revenues were $2.2 billion, up 49% in U.S. dollars and up 52% in constant currency. Total Cloud revenues, including IaaS, were $2.9 billion, up 36% in U.S dollars and up 40% in constant currency. Operating Income was $12.6 billion, and Operating Margin was 34%. Non-GAAP Operating Income was $15.8 billion and non-GAAP Operating Margin was 43%. Net Income was $8.9 billion while non-GAAP Net Income was $11.2 billion. Earnings Per Share was $2.07, while Non-GAAP Earnings Per Share was $2.61. Without the impact of the U.S. dollar strengthening compared to foreign currencies, Oracle’s reported GAAP and non-GAAP Earnings Per Share would have been 17 cents higher.

“Fourth quarter SaaS and PaaS revenue growth accelerated to 68% in constant currency, significantly higher than my guidance,” said Oracle CEO, Safra Catz. “SaaS and PaaS gross margins continued to improve throughout the year, exiting FY16 at 56%. Bookings in Q4 were also very strong enabling us to raise our guidance for Q1 SaaS and PaaS revenue growth, which we now expect to be between 75% and 80%.”

“We added more than 1,600 new SaaS customers and more than 2,000 new PaaS customers in Q4,” said Oracle CEO, Mark Hurd. “In Fusion ERP alone, we added more than 800 new cloud customers. Today, Oracle has nearly 2,600 Fusion ERP customers in the Oracle Public Cloud – that’s ten-times more cloud ERP customers than Workday.”

“We expect that the SaaS and PaaS hyper-growth we experienced in FY16 will continue on for the next few years,” said Oracle Executive Chairman and CTO, Larry Ellison. “That gives us a fighting chance to be the first cloud company to reach $10 billion in SaaS and PaaS revenue. We’re also very excited about the availability of version 2 of Oracle’s Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS)—which will enable us to speed up the growth of our IaaS business, which customers want to buy in conjunction with our SaaS and PaaS.”

The Board of Directors also declared a quarterly cash dividend of $0.15 per share of outstanding common stock. This dividend will be paid to stockholders of record as of the close of business on July 6, 2016, with a payment date of July 27, 2016.

Q4 Fiscal 2016 Earnings Conference Call and Webcast

Oracle will hold a conference call and webcast today to discuss these results at 2:00 p.m. Pacific. You may listen to the call by dialing (816) 287-5563, Passcode: 425392. To access the live webcast of this event, please visit the Oracle Investor Relations website at http://www.oracle.com/investor. In addition, Oracle’s Q4 results and fiscal 2016 financial tables are available on the Oracle Investor Relations website.

A replay of the conference call will also be available by dialing (855) 859-2056 or (404) 537-3406, Pass Code: 28515799.
·          


size=2 width="100%" align=center>  

FBI: Update PSA includes new Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) complaint information and updated statistical data.

BUSINESS E-MAIL COMPROMISE: THE 3.1 BILLION DOLLAR SCAM


This Public Service Announcement (PSA) is an update to the Business E-mail Compromise (BEC) information provided in Public Service Announcements (PSA) 1-012215-PSA and 1-082715a-PSA. This PSA includes new Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) complaint information and updated statistical data.
DEFINITION

BEC is defined as a sophisticated scam targeting businesses working with foreign suppliers and/or businesses that regularly perform wire transfer payments. The scam is carried out by compromising legitimate business e-mail accounts through social engineering or computer intrusion techniques to conduct unauthorized transfers of funds.

Most victims report using wire transfers as a common method of transferring funds for business purposes; however, some victims report using checks as a common method of payment. The fraudsters will use the method most commonly associated with their victim’s normal business practices.
STATISTICAL DATA

The BEC scam continues to grow, evolve, and target businesses of all sizes. Since January 2015, there has been a 1,300% increase in identified exposed losses1. The scam has been reported by victims in all 50 states and in 100 countries. Reports indicate that fraudulent transfers have been sent to 79 countries with the majority going to Asian banks located within China and Hong Kong.

The following BEC statistics were reported to the IC3 and are derived from multiple sources to include IC3 victim complaints and complaints filed with international law enforcement agencies and financial institutions:
Domestic and International victims:22,143
Combined exposed dollar loss:$3,086,250,090
The following BEC statistics were reported in victim complaints to the IC3 from October 2013 to May 2016:
Domestic and International victims:15,668
Combined exposed dollar loss:$1,053,849,635
  • Total U.S. victims:
14,032
  • Total U.S. exposed dollar loss:
$960,708,616
  • Total non-U.S. victims:
1,636
  • Total non-U.S. exposed dollar loss:
$93,141,019

BACKGROUND


The victims of the BEC scam range from small businesses to large corporations. The victims continue to deal in a wide variety of goods and services, indicating a specific sector does not seem to be targeted.

It is largely unknown how victims are selected; however, the subjects monitor and study their selected victims using social engineering techniques prior to initiating the BEC scam. The subjects are able to accurately identify the individuals and protocols necessary to perform wire transfers within a specific business environment. Victims may also first receive “phishing” e-mails requesting additional details regarding the business or individual being targeted (name, travel dates, etc.).

Some individuals reported being a victim of various Scareware or Ransomware cyber intrusions immediately preceding a BEC incident. These intrusions can initially be facilitated through a phishing scam in which a victim receives an e-mail from a seemingly legitimate source that contains a malicious link. The victim clicks on the link, and it downloads malware, allowing the actor(s) unfettered access to the victim’s data, including passwords or financial account information.

The BEC scam is linked to other forms of fraud, including but not limited to: romance, lottery, employment, and rental scams. The victims of these scams are usually U.S. based and may be recruited as unwitting money mules.2 The mules receive the fraudulent funds in their personal accounts and are then directed by the subject to quickly transfer the funds to another bank account, usually outside the U.S. Upon direction, mules may open bank accounts and/or shell corporations to further the fraud scheme.

SCENARIOS OF BEC

Based on IC3 complaints and other complaint data3 , there are five main scenarios by which this scam is perpetrated. BEC victims recently reported a new scenario (Data Theft) involving the receipt of fraudulent e-mails requesting either all Wage or Tax Statement (W-2) forms or a company list of Personally Identifiable Information (PII). This scenario does not always involve the request for a wire transfer; however, the business executive’s e-mail is compromised, either spoofed or hacked, and the victims are targeted in a similar manner as described in Scenario 2 of the BEC scam.
Scenario 5 (New): Data Theft

Fraudulent requests are sent utilizing a business executive’s compromised e-mail. The entity in the business organization responsible for W-2s or maintaining PII, such as the human resources department, bookkeeping, or auditing section, have frequently been identified as the targeted recipient of the fraudulent request for W-2 and/or PII. Some of these incidents are isolated and some occur prior to a fraudulent wire transfer request. Victims report they have fallen for this new BEC scenario, even if they were able to successfully identify and avoid the traditional BEC incident. The data theft scenario (Scenario 5) of the BEC first appeared just prior to the 2016 tax season.

Scenario 1: Business Working With a Foreign Supplier

A business, which often has a long standing relationship with a supplier, is requested to wire funds for invoice payment to an alternate, fraudulent account. The request may be made via telephone, facsimile, or e-mail. If an e-mail is received, the subject will spoof the e-mail request so it appears very similar to a legitimate account and would take very close scrutiny to determine it was fraudulent. Likewise, if a facsimile or telephone call is received, it will closely mimic a legitimate request. This particular scenario has also been referred to as “The Bogus Invoice Scheme,” “The Supplier Swindle,” and “Invoice Modification Scheme.”

Scenario 2: Business [Executive] Receiving or Initiating a Request for a Wire Transfer

The e-mail accounts of high-level business executives (CFO, CTO, etc) are compromised. The account may be spoofed or hacked. A request for a wire transfer from the compromised account is made to a second employee within the company who is normally responsible for processing these requests. In some instances, a request for a wire transfer from the compromised account is sent directly to the financial institution with instructions to urgently send funds to bank “X” for reason “Y.” This particular scenario has also been referred to as “CEO Fraud,” “Business Executive Scam,” “Masquerading,” and “Financial Industry Wire Frauds.”

Scenario 3: Business Contacts Receiving Fraudulent Correspondence through Compromised E-mail

An employee of a business has his/her personal e-mail hacked. This personal e-mail may be used for both personal and business communications. Requests for invoice payments to fraudster-controlled bank accounts are sent from this employee’s personal e-mail to multiple vendors identified from this employee’s contact list. The business may not become aware of the fraudulent requests until that business is contacted by a vendor to follow up on the status of an invoice payment.

Scenario 4: Business Executive and Attorney Impersonation

Victims report being contacted by fraudsters, who typically identify themselves as lawyers or representatives of law firms and claim to be handling confidential or time-sensitive matters. This contact may be made via either phone or e-mail. Victims may be pressured by the fraudster to act quickly or secretly in handling the transfer of funds. This type of BEC scam may occur at the end of the business day or work week and be timed to coincide with the close of business of international financial institutions.

CHARACTERISTICS OF BEC COMPLAINTS

The IC3 has noted the following characteristics of BEC complaints:
  • Businesses and associated personnel using open source e-mail accounts are predominantly targeted.
  • Individuals responsible for handling wire transfers within a specific business are targeted.
  • Spoofed e-mails very closely mimic a legitimate e-mail request.
  • Hacked e-mails often occur with a personal e-mail account.
  • Fraudulent e-mail requests for a wire transfer are well-worded, specific to the business being victimized, and do not raise suspicions to the legitimacy of the request.
  • The phrases “code to admin expenses” or “urgent wire transfer” were reported by victims in some of the fraudulent e-mail requests.
  • The amount of the fraudulent wire transfer request is business-specific; therefore, dollar amounts requested are similar to normal business transaction amounts so as to not raise doubt.
  • Fraudulent e-mails received have coincided with business travel dates for executives whose e-mails were spoofed.
  • Victims report that IP addresses frequently trace back to free domain registrars.

SUGGESTIONS FOR PROTECTION AND BEST PRACTICES


Businesses with an increased awareness and understanding of the BEC scam are more likely to recognize when they have been targeted by BEC fraudsters, and are therefore more likely to avoid falling victim and sending fraudulent payments.

Businesses that deploy robust internal prevention techniques at all levels (especially targeting front line employees who may be the recipients of initial phishing attempts), have proven highly successful in recognizing and deflecting BEC attempts.

Some financial institutions reported holding their customer requests for international wire transfers for an additional period of time, to verify the legitimacy of the request.

The following is a compilation of self protection strategies provided in the BEC PSAs from 2015.
  • Avoid free web-based e-mail accounts: Establish a company domain name and use it to establish company e-mail accounts in lieu of free, web-based accounts.
  • Be careful what is posted to social media and company websites, especially job duties/descriptions, hierarchal information, and out of office details.
  • Be suspicious of requests for secrecy or pressure to take action quickly.
  • Consider additional IT and financial security procedures, including the implementation of a 2-step verification process. For example -
    • Out of Band Communication: Establish other communication channels, such as telephone calls, to verify significant transactions. Arrange this second-factor authentication early in the relationship and outside the e-mail environment to avoid interception by a hacker.
    • Digital Signatures: Both entities on each side of a transaction should utilize digital signatures. This will not work with web-based e-mail accounts. Additionally, some countries ban or limit the use of encryption.
    • Delete Spam: Immediately report and delete unsolicited e-mail (spam) from unknown parties. DO NOT open spam e-mail, click on links in the e-mail, or open attachments. These often contain malware that will give subjects access to your computer system.
    • Forward vs. Reply: Do not use the “Reply” option to respond to any business e-mails. Instead, use the “Forward” option and either type in the correct e-mail address or select it from the e-mail address book to ensure the intended recipient’s correct e-mail address is used.
    • Consider implementing Two Factor Authentication (TFA) for corporate e-mail accounts. TFA mitigates the threat of a subject gaining access to an employee’s e-mail account through a compromised password by requiring two pieces of information to login: something you know (a password) and something you have (such as a dynamic PIN or code).
Significant Changes: Beware of sudden changes in business practices. For example, if a current business contact suddenly asks to be contacted via their personal e-mail address when all previous official correspondence has been through company e-mail, the request could be fraudulent. Always verify via other channels that you are still communicating with your legitimate business partner.
  • Create intrusion detection system rules that flag e-mails with extensions that are similar to company e-mail. For example, legitimate e-mail of abc_company.com would flag fraudulent e-mail of abc-company.com.
  • Register all company domains that are slightly different than the actual company domain.
  • Verify changes in vendor payment location by adding additional two-factor authentication such as having a secondary sign-off by company personnel.
  • Confirm requests for transfers of funds. When using phone verification as part of the two-factor authentication, use previously known numbers, not the numbers provided in the e-mail request.
  • Know the habits of your customers, including the details of, reasons behind, and amount of payments.
  • Carefully scrutinize all e-mail requests for transfers of funds to determine if the requests are out of the ordinary.
Additional information is publicly available on the United States Department of Justice website www.justice.gov publication entitled “Best Practices for Victim Response and Reporting of Cyber Incidents”.

WHAT TO DO IF YOU ARE A VICTIM

If funds are transferred to a fraudulent account, it is important to act quickly:
  • Contact your financial institution immediately upon discovering the fraudulent transfer
  • Request that your financial institution contact the corresponding financial institution where the fraudulent transfer was sent
  • Contact your local Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) office if the wire is recent. The FBI, working with the United States Department of Treasury Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, might be able to help return or freeze the funds
  • File a complaint, regardless of dollar loss, at www.IC3.gov
When contacting law enforcement or filing a complaint with the IC3, it is important to identify your incident as “BEC”, provide a brief description of the incident, and consider providing the following financial information:
  • Originating4 Name:
  • Originating Location:
  • Originating Bank Name:
  • Originating Bank Account Number:
  • Recipient5 Name:
  • Recipient Bank Name:
  • Recipient Bank Account Number:
  • Recipient Bank Location (if available):
  • Intermediary Bank Name (if available):
  • SWIFT Number:
  • Date:
  • Amount of Transaction:
  • Additional Information (if available) - including “FFC”- For Further Credit; “FAV” – In Favor Of:

Filing a complaint with IC3

Victims should always file a complaint regardless of dollar loss or timing of incident at www.IC3.gov and, in addition to the financial information, provide the following descriptors:
  • IP and/or e-mail address of fraudulent e-mail
  • Date and time of incidents
  • Incorrectly formatted invoices or letterheads
  • Requests for secrecy or immediate action
  • Unusual timing, requests, or wording of the fraudulent phone calls or e-mails
  • Phone numbers of the fraudulent phone calls
  • Description of any phone contact to include frequency and timing of calls
  • Foreign accents of the callers
  • Poorly worded or grammatically incorrect e-mails
  • Reports of any previous e-mail phishing activity

1. Exposed dollar loss includes actual and attempted loss in United States dollars.  
2.Money mules are defined as persons who transfer money illegally on behalf of others. 
3.Multiple source complaint data, not limited to IC3, describing the BEC scam is dated as far back as 2009.  
4.The term "Originating" is synonymous with the term "Victim".  
5.The term "Recipient" is synonymous with the term "Beneficiary" 

Oracle Hot Topics: Production Database Is Not Coming Up due to problem with LDAP

Knowledge Articles


Knowledge Article
Product Area
Last Updated
Oracle Database - Enterprise Edition
Fri, 17 Jun 2016 03:37 GMT-06:00

miércoles, 15 de junio de 2016

Safra Catz, Oracle CEO: The computer sciences lose too many girls too early and once lost

“It takes 25 years to build a computer engineer, not 25 hours, so we need to get started. The computer sciences lose too many girls too early and once lost, it’s nearly impossible to get them back. We want more girls focused on building upon science and math fundamentals and we want more women choosing the technical disciplines because they are both prepared to do so and because they believe it will advance their career opportunities.” 


Oracle Hot Topics: Knowledge Article Product Area Last Updated OPatch error: "Inventory load failed... OPatch cannot load inventory for the given Oracle Home."


Knowledge Articles


Knowledge Article
Product Area
Last Updated
Oracle Database - Enterprise Edition
Wed, 15 Jun 2016 05:25 GMT-06:00

lunes, 13 de junio de 2016

Oracle Hot Topics and News: 07/10 Jun 2016


Knowledge Articles

Knowledge Article
Product Area
Last Updated
Oracle Database - Enterprise Edition
Fri, 10 Jun 2016 21:05 GMT-06:00


Knowledge Article
Product Area
Last Updated
Oracle Database - Enterprise Edition
Thu, 9 Jun 2016 04:08 GMT-06:00

Knowledge Article
Product Area
Last Updated
Oracle Database - Enterprise Edition Oracle GoldenGate
Tue, 7 Jun 2016 06:03 GMT-06:00

Knowledge Article
Product Area
Last Updated
Oracle Database - Enterprise Edition
Mon, 13 Jun 2016 05:36 GMT-06:00

viernes, 10 de junio de 2016

UKOUG JD Edwards Conference & Exhibition 2016 will be closing at 09:00 (BST) 13th June.

ICC, Birmingham   |    5 - 7 December 2016
Ronald, you're running out of time!

This is your final reminder that call for papers for UKOUG JD Edwards Conference & Exhibition 2016 will be closing at  09:00 (BST) 13th June.
We're looking for your knowledge and insight to help educate the UK JD Edwards audience - so wherever your expertise lies, take a chance and submit your 200 word abstract today.


If you have any questions about this year's conference or call for papers feel free to drop me an email, alternatively you can complete this form to let us know of your interest in JDE16.

I hope to receive your submission.

Kind Regards,
Anna Crellin


Project Manager
T: +44 (0)20 8545 9687 | anna@ukoug.org

miércoles, 8 de junio de 2016

Welcome to the 2016 Cloud Special Edition of Profit magazine

Welcome to the 2016 Cloud Special Edition
of Profit magazine

Read the latest issue Now









You are invited tosubscribe to Java Magazine!

Oracle Magazine on your iPhone

Oracle


Your 2016 Profit Cloud Special Edition is now available here.

Earlier this year, IDC released a report entitled Worldwide Semiannual Public Cloud Services Spending Guide that gave a snapshot of where global cloud market currently stands-and where it's headed. The facts? The worldwide cloud market will grow at six times the rate of overall IT spending, doubling in size by 2019 to an estimated $141 billion.
For those of us working on the inside of major IT vendors, this comes as no surprise. And this special issue of Profit demonstrates the adoption of cloud is not limited to certain regions or geographies. When our editorial team started collecting a list of the Oracle Cloud customer stories we've published over the past year-in Profit and via Forbes' OracleVoice- we were very pleased to discover that creative uses of enterprise cloud solution were not limited by geography. Cloud is indeed everywhere.
So this collection of stories is not just an opportunity to show the depth and scale of Oracle's cloud business (although I think it also accomplishes that goal). It is to demonstrate that the terms "enterprise IT" and "cloud" are becoming synonymous; that the barriers that were predicted to limit the growth of cloud computing are falling away; and that there is no market that can't reap the benefits of the Cloud.
Visit the Profit archives, or follow @OracleProfit on Twitter for a daily dose of enterprise technology news from Profit.
Best Regards,
Aaron Lazenby
Editor in Chief
Profit: Technology Powered. Business Driven. 
Follow us on Social Media!
  
Copyright © 2016, Oracle. All rights reserved.

martes, 7 de junio de 2016

Java Magazine May/June 2016

San Jose Resident Sentenced To A Year In Custody For Damaging Computers Of Silicon Valley Company


Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney’s Office
Northern District of California

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, June 3, 2016

San Jose Resident Sentenced To A Year In Custody For Damaging Computers Of Silicon Valley Company

Defendant Ordered to Pay Over $100,000 Restitution For Costs Incurred By Corporation When Responding To Computer Network Attack

SAN JOSE – Robert Saunders was sentenced to twelve months in prison and ordered to pay $124,003.79 in restitution for attacking a corporate computer network, announced United States Attorney Brian J. Stretch and FBI Special Agent in Charge John F. Bennett.
Saunders, 30, of San Jose, pleaded guilty on February 24, 2016, to one count of intentional damage to a protected computer. As part of his plea agreement, Saunders admitted he intentionally accessed the computer network of a Silicon Valley corporation based in San Mateo that provides integrated business management solutions over a web-based architecture.  On numerous occasions between July 26, 2012, and August 31, 2012, Saunders accessed the computer network of the publicly-traded corporation without authorization and caused losses with an aggregate value of approximately $189,000.
Saunders admitted that on one occasion he changed information for a demonstration account belonging to a retail business customer of the corporation and that his actions prevented potential customers from accessing the test account. On other occasions, Saunders obtained information through his unlawful access to a database and posted offensive content in the corporation’s test account. The corporation incurred approximately $189,000 in costs responding to the offense and restoring its systems.
           
Saunders was originally indicted by a federal grand jury on April 30, 2014. A Second Superseding Indictment was filed on February 24, 2016, charging him with one count of Intentional Damage to a Protected Computer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A) and (c)(4)(B)(i); four counts of Obtaining Information from a Protected Computer without Authorization, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C) and (c)(2)(B)(i); and two counts of Possession of a Firearm in Interstate Commerce while Unlawfully Using A Controlled Substance, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3).  Pursuant to his plea agreement, he pleaded guilty to the intentional damage to a protected computer charge. 

The sentence was handed down by the Honorable Lucy H. Koh, U.S. District Judge on June 1, 2016. Judge Koh also sentenced the defendant to a three-year period of supervised release and ordered him to forfeit property seized during the execution of a search warrant at his apartment, including computer equipment used to facilitate the offense. FBI agents arrested the defendant on May 8, 2014, in Portland, Oregon. On September 12, 2014, he was ordered released on bond and remains out of custody. The defendant will begin serving the sentence on July 29, 2016.
Assistant U.S. Attorneys Michelle J. Kane and Susan Knight are prosecuting the case with the assistance of Melissa Dorton and Elise Etter. The prosecution is the result of an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Updated June 3, 201

Todos los Sábados a las 8:00PM