The case looked much milder at the end than it did 15 months ago, when it appeared it might inflict a serious blow to a sport that was struggling to regain fans after a season-long lockout the year before. But the worst suspicions were not substantiated. There didn't seem to be mob ties or betting on hockey. No other hockey figures are being charged or will have to testify in a criminal trial.

"I'm sure everyone recalls the manner in which the case was initially announced and described," said Kevin Marino, the defense lawyer for Tocchet. "I think (Friday's) proceeding speaks for itself." It was two days after the 2006 Super Bowl when State Police Col. Rick Fuentes announced the charges against Tocchet, Trooper James Harney and a third man, James Ulmer.

Fuentes said that during a 40-day stretch that had just ended, they had handled bets totaling $1.7 million from a list of gamblers that included a movie star and other hockey figures.

Quickly, the prospect developed of a trial featuring a cavalcade of hockey players as witnesses. Even Gretzky, hockey's greatest player and a friend of Tocchet's, was caught on an investigative wiretap discussing how his wife could avoid being implicated.

It turned out Jones didn't have much to worry about. Authorities didn't charge her, or any other bettors, because placing bets - even with a bookmaker - is not illegal in New Jersey.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP is pleased to announce that Heiko Kai Schultz has joined the Los Angeles office as of counsel. Previously a partner with Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Schultz practices commercial litigation.

Schultz's practice covers a wide range of disputes, including commercial, intellectual property, bankruptcy, securities, accounting malpractice and environmental litigation. He has experience representing companies and individuals in the medical, financial, accounting, aircraft and electronic industries.

Recent matters include his representation of the debtors in 1,600 adversarial cases arising out of the In re Fleming Companies bankruptcy; a surgeon and inventor in a patent and contract dispute case with a medical device firm; and Arthur Andersen in an accounting malpractice case brought by Frederick's of Hollywood.

Schultz received his law degree from the University of Virginia in 1997 and a degree in history from the University of California in 1994.

The ultimate aim is to make Google so personal that it can target people known to be interested in certain products or services just from their Google activities. It is expected that one day users could ask a computer 'What should I do today?' or 'Which job should I take?' and it will tell them the answer.
In theory there should be no problem. In fact, the new database could make life easier - perhaps even better. For example if you want to buy a particular book from a certain site, Google could locate other sites selling the same book at a cheaper price or it could recommend other books by the same author.

Also if you want to buy a television or a holiday then the search engine could bring up the best buy. In establishing this database Google says it is giving customers what they want and that any information collated will be volunteered. Users will only be identified by name if they sign up to one of the log-on services such as G-mail or Frugal.

Also under the Data Protection Act information must only be used for the purposes it was given and Google has said it plans to impose a limit on the period it keeps personal information. In fairness, Google has proved itself to be the best of its kind and has in the past resisted US government court applications to hand over personal information it holds on some users.

We already live in a closely monitored world. Store loyalty cards have been keeping track of our shopping habits for years while CCTV cameras watch us on the streets and some banks pass our details on to marketing companies. There are also internet sites like Bebo and Myspace where people can easily access detailed personal information. Critics fear the database is the next step towards an Orwellian Big Brother state. They see the declaration as an infringement of civil liberties by stealth by a company that wants to turn the personal database into a lucrative marketing tool. Like all businesses Google is driven to make money which it does through multi-million pound advertising sponsorship. This means consumers have no idea whether or not the information being given is impartial or whether something is being recommended of a big money deal. In reality people would not tolerate being followed around town by someone taking notes of everything they buy, the reasons behind their purchase and steering them towards certain shops.

So why should we put up with it in the virtual world?

Attempting to profile people through the sites they access may not give an accurate portrayal. Some people, for example journalists, have to surf a variety of sites which they would never consider entering outside of the office. And privacy protection campaigners fear that in certain circumstances law enforcement agents could force internet search engines to surrender personal information. Google has bought the targeted advertising company Doubleclick which monitors users on a wide range of websites, and deploys "cookies" - small bits of software - on people's computers to keep track of what they are looking at. And it has also invested £2m in genetics company 23andMe - a move which sceptics of the database see as worrying. However, the precise type and size of the database problem has yet to be determined. It will change as Google's business changes. The best advice is, as in real life, if you are concerned about privacy, don't give personal information unless you are sure you know what it is going be used for both now and in the future.

A Libyan court acquitted six foreign medics of criminal defamation Sunday. The five Bulgarian nurses and one Palestinian doctor, previously convicted of knowingly infecting over 400 Libyan patients with the HIV virus and sentenced to death, faced defamation charges stemming from the medics' accusations that their confessions were obtained by torture by Libyan police officer Jumaa al-Mishri and doctor Abdul-Majid al-Shoul. Al-Mishri and al-Shoul sued the foreign medics, seeking $4 million in compensation. The Libyan court did not elaborate its reasoning for its decision.

The six medics have been imprisoned in Libya since 1999 but have consistently maintained their innocence, saying that they are being scapegoated for unsanitary conditions in the Libyan hospitals where they worked. Bulgaria and its allies, including the US and the European Union, contend that the nurses are innocent. The death sentence against the medics is still under appeal, but the a top Libyan official has said that the six will not be executed.

On Wednesday, Amnesty International in its 2007 annual report on human rights said that the 'war on terror' has eroded human rights in the US and other western nations, with Amnesty International Secretary-General Irene Khan characterizing it as an attempt "to roll back some fundamental principles of human rights."