Every now and then, we like to report on the various twitter battles, gaffes, mishaps, and everything in between because, frankly, who doesn’t find them funny? Law Street writer Anneliese Mahoney recounted the biggest political twitter mistakes of 2013 and now half way into 2014, the twitter fails, political or otherwise, just keep coming. Let us bear witness to the five latest WTH moments on Twitter so far this year.

[wooslider slide_page=”top-5-twitter-mishaps-gaffes-straight-fails-of-2014″ slider_type=”slides” thumbnails=”default” order=”ASC” order_by=”date”]

—

Ashley Powell (@ashley_powell)

Featured image courtesy of [Maryland GovPics via Flickr]

Ashley Powell

Ashley Powell is a founding member of Law Street Media, and its original Lead Editor. She is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 5 Twitter Mishaps, Gaffes, and Straight Fails So Far in 2014 appeared first on Law Street.

Law Street writer Anneliese Mahoney brought us the  ‘Dark Side of Snapchat’ recently, explaining its less-than-savory methods of use by the consumers. Now it looks like all of those dark sides have landed the company, for lack better words, in deep shit. Snapchat is facing scrutiny of its practices and policies.

On May 8, 2014, Snapchat was slapped with complaints by the Federal Trade Commission that the popular mobile messaging app deceived consumers about the ephemeral nature of snaps, among other things. Furthermore, the FTC alleged that the company misrepresented the platform’s privacy and security. The FTC’s complaints allege the following:

1. Snapchat misrepresented its privacy and security actions in its marketing to consumers.
2.  Snapchat misrepresented the ephemeral nature of snaps when it is known to the company that there are several ways to store the ‘disappearing messages,’ such as third party software available for download.
3. Snapchat stored video snaps unencrypted on recipients’ devices outside of its ‘sandbox’ (in layman’s terms this means that they were stored externally from the app). Furthermore, the recipient could retrieve the ‘disappearing videos’ if he or she connected the mobile device to a computer.
4. Snapchat mislead consumers regarding the notification functionality. If a recipient of a snap took a screenshot, the sender would receive a notification, but the FTC noted multiple ways in which the notification system could be avoided.
5. Snapchat misrepresented its data collection practices to Android app users because the app transmits geolocation information, which is in direct contrast to the company’s privacy policies. (Clearly, marketing privacy does not mean actual privacy.)
6. Snapchat misrepresented the security of the ‘Find Friends’ feature. Snapchat received complaints that the feature did not verify the phone numbers, therefore, consumers potentially were communicating with someone other than the designated recipient.

While Snapchat settled the FTC charges and has not incurred monetary penalties, the company was placed on probation and will be subjected to independent privacy monitoring for the next 20 years. If the company is found misrepresenting its practices again, it could face up to $16,000 per infringement. However, this is relatively minor punishment for the company in my opinion.

Do I think that consumers truly believe that all their messages are private? No, not at all. However, if your business platform is based on some degree of privacy and security, you should really make an effort to deliver on those promises — not have one security breach after another. The company was rated with one out of six stars on the ‘Who Has Your Back’  2014 report released by Electronic Frontier Foundation last week. Snapchat is truly innovative and I hope it moves faster on the learning curve because it is a great app. But, in the words of Dottie People, “get your house in order.”

Click here to read the original post by Anneliese Mahoney: “The Dark Side of Snapchat.”

—

Ashley Powell (@danceAPdance)

Featured image courtesy of [Jose A. Perez via Flickr]

Ashley Powell

Ashley Powell is a founding member of Law Street Media, and its original Lead Editor. She is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Dark Side of Snapchat Lands the Company in Hot Water appeared first on Law Street.

Law Street writer Anneliese Mahoney recently reported on Airbnb’s developing legal problems and how, frankly, they just cannot catch a break despite their ever-expanding market and wild success. Airbnb has been in a constant legal battle with New York dating back as far as 2010 and continuing well into 2014 (check out: here and here). The trend continued with Portland banning the company’s operations from all residential areas, though the city is now easing those restrictions. There were also issues in Los Angeles and the state of Michigan — truly, the list goes on and on. Now that we’re well into 2014, has Airbnb’s luck changed? The answer is unequivocally no.

As of April 29, 2014, San Francisco joined the legal battle grounds with a potential city ballot initiative against the home-sharing service. Backed by housing activist, Calvin Welch, former Planning Commissioner, Doug Engmann, and PR professional, Dale Carlson, the proposal calls for the following:

1. Creation of a public mandatory registry of all residents who rent out short-term space.
2. Evidence of landlord or homeowner permission to rent.
3. The right of any citizen to file a complaint against an Airbnb rental, go to court, and receive 30 percent in fines or back taxes as a result, along with compensation for their attorney fees.

The most controversial (and little bit scary) part of the proposal is the ability to financially reward residents for actively spying on reporting neighboring hosts who are not in compliance with these rules. While this section of the proposal may not make it to the ballot, let’s call a spade a spade and recognize that they are calling for Airbnb bounty hunters. In the midst of all these legal scuffles, it appears that the ‘share-economy’ company has yet to lose its stride and will continue to introduce new policies to disrupt the hospitality market.

Ashley Powell (@danceAPdance)

Click here to read the original post published November 6, 2013.

One of the big travel trends right now is a site called AirBnB.com. The company was founded in 2008, and the idea is pretty unique. Essentially, it allows people from cities all over the world to rent out rooms, apartments, houses, or even their couches to visitors. The relative costs are beneficial for both the travelers and the hosts, and AirBnB ensures that both sides involved in the transaction have been properly vetted and approved. Customers are also allowed to leave reviews at places they have stayed, creating a community of recommendations and verified great places to rent. This isn’t really even a new idea; in theory, it’s like hosting a friend of a friend in town for a few days in your home. The only difference is that instead of meeting your houseguest through a friend, you connected through the Internet.

Since 2008, AirBnB has hosted over 8.5 million guests, and this innovative online economy does not seem like it will slow down anytime soon. The business is fairly rewarding. According to an interview in the New York Times, a woman in Brooklyn made about $90,000 renting out two bedrooms in her house. AirBnB overall is very lucrative in the state of New York. Over the last three years, the top 100 hosts in New York have grossed a collective $54 million.

The state of New York is less enamored with the idea, and is instead pursuing legal action against the company. There are a few reasons why certain aspects of AirBnB may be illegal. One issue is that by using AirBnB, tourists are not booking hotel rooms. Included in the price of a hotel room is tax, part of which goes to the state. New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is arguing that the AirBnB industry has cost New York millions in tax dollars. Last Friday, his office delivered a subpoena to AirBnB requiring that they disclose the names, locations, and revenue of all of the hosts in the state of New York. The AG’s office claim that they’re not going after the occasional renter, they’re going after those 100 or so hosts that grossed $54 million. A spokesperson for the office, stated, “we began this process in the hopes of collaborating with Airbnb to recover millions of dollars in unpaid taxes and to stop the abuse of Airbnb’s site by operators of illegal hotels. Airbnb isn’t standing up for average New Yorkers who rent out their apartments from time to time — Airbnb is standing up for highly profitable, illegal businesses that make up a huge chunk of its corporate revenue.”

AirBnB disagrees–they have filed a motion in the New York Supreme Court to challenge the subpoena. They claim that Schneiderman doesn’t have any actual evidence of wrongdoing on the site.

There’s also the question of the legality of AirBnB in regards to lease and zoning laws in New York. For example, it is usually legal to rent out your space for less than 30 days, but only if you are home. Some AirBnB hosts are home while their guests occupy an extra bedroom, but many others rent out extra apartments that they lease, or their own apartments while they are out of town for whatever reason. Rules about having guests are not generic—many are contingent on individual leases, bylaws, or building regulations. For example, some buildings may allow guests, but if they stay more than a few weeks, they need to be registered. Some buildings don’t allow the transfer or loaning of the key fobs that allow entrance into the lobby. There are a wide range of rules that govern housing in New York City and other major metro areas, but most do have some constraints on private short-term rentals of property. The chances are that most of the hosts on AirBnB aren’t breaking the law. But the AirBnB moguls in New York City might want to watch out, because this battle could get ugly.

[New York Times]

Anneliese Mahoney (@amahoney8672)

Featured image courtesy of [OuiShare via Flickr]

Ashley Powell

Ashley Powell is a founding member of Law Street Media, and its original Lead Editor. She is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Latest AirBnB Backlash: San Fran May Offer Cash to Snitch on Neighbors appeared first on Law Street.

Remember when F-Word blogger Hannah R. Winsten reported back in December that Michigan lawmakers were debating a bill that would prevent health insurance plans from covering abortion, essentially requiring women to purchase what came to be known as rape insurance? Well, that revolting bill is now a revolting law thanks to the Michigan GOP and (I am disappointed to say) three Democrats. Yep, rape insurance is real, people.

However, the real doozy is that abortion riders don’t exist. (Straight swindle!)

As the Detroit News explains, “the state “opt-out” rider law clashes with provisions of the Affordable Care Act, which outlaws both separate riders and any government subsidy of abortion. Under federal law insurers cannot offer a rider to a standard, inclusive policy. And new state law bars insurers from including elective abortion coverage in any policy, on or off the exchange.”

What this means: Michigan women who purchase their health insurance as an individual and not part of a group plan don’t have the ‘promised’ option to purchase the abortion rider. Because the bill passed violates the Affordable Care Act’s provisions of outlawing separate riders and government subsidies on a standard policy. This makes it impossible for any insurer to give the option of selling a separate rider to individual women.

That, my friends, is what we call a grade-A cluster fuck.

It is hard to say whether the politicians knew and just didn’t care that the bill clashes with the federal healthcare law; however, it is easy to confirm who pays the price. Michigan women have only one option: pay that abortion fee.

—

Ashley Powell (@danceAPdance)

Click here to read the original post published December 5, 2013.

Happy almost Friday, folks! This week is almost over. THANK GOODNESS. Coming back after a holiday is rough, am I right?

If you have a uterus and you live in Michigan, your week has been especially rough. Shit is getting REAL over there in the Mid-West. Lawmakers in the Great Lakes State are currently debating a bill that would require women to buy rape insurance.

That’s right. Rape insurance.

I tell you, this shit just gets more ridiculous every week I write about it. It’s actually insane.

Here’s how it’s going down. Lawmakers in Michigan don’t want health insurance to cover abortion. Why? They’re not fans of a woman’s right to choose, and so, while they can’t completely outlaw abortion, they can use insurance technicalities to restrict women’s options.

What happens when insurance doesn’t cover abortions? Women either have babies that they don’t want or are unable to carry, or they pay a hefty price to terminate. Obviously, not ideal. So! While Wolverine legislators were batting around this nifty little bill, the same question came up that always comes up when we start talking about restricting women’s access to abortions.

“But what about cases of rape and incest?!” Because, empathy. For like, five seconds.

The legislators of Michigan had an answer ready and waiting. Make women buy additional insurance to cover the possibility of needing an abortion in the future.

This little tidbit prompted Republican Gov. Rick Snyder to veto the bill last year when it was first introduced. He wasn’t too keen on legislation that required women to pay for abortions out of pocket, unless of course, they had paid extra for that separate insurance rider. “I don’t believe it is appropriate to tell a woman who becomes pregnant due to a rape that she needed to select elective insurance coverage,” Snyder said when he rejected the bill last winter.

Well, duh. Obviously.

That would be like telling a man who had a heart attack that he couldn’t have life-saving surgery, because he didn’t plan ahead and book an operating room beforehand. Or like telling a cancer patient that she can’t receive treatment because she hadn’t reserved a chemo supply ahead of time. Plan ahead, people, be prepared! For all of the possible things that could happen to you ever! (Because that’s possible.)

Folks, let’s get one thing straight. No one plans to get an abortion. Needing one is definitely not a desirable situation to be in. Really, abortions are a last resort. An emergency measure, taken after something has unintentionally gone wrong. Maybe she got raped. Maybe the condom broke. Maybe she forgot to take her birth control pill that day. Maybe she just discovered that the baby won’t survive the pregnancy or infanthood.

Whatever the situation, abortions are last ditch efforts to rectify a bad situation that wasn’t planned for. So asking women to plan for unplanned emergencies — and be monetarily penalized either way — makes absolutely no sense.

It’s about as logical as this guy.

But, alas, the anti-choicers think it does make sense, and they’ve got a rage-inducing argument as to why that is. One prominent advocate of the bill claimed that rape is like a car accident, and it was totally fine to make women pay for extra insurance in order to prepare for it.

This is so incredibly gross on so many levels.

First of all, we’re comparing women’s bodies to cars right now. To cars. Inanimate objects that can be damaged, fixed, or replaced. One car is much like another—it gets you from A to B. Women’s bodies are not like cars. They are not replaceable. Their value doesn’t depreciate after a traumatic event. They are not interchangeable. They are not for you to use.

Actually, women’s bodies are attached to living, breathing, human beings. They happen to have vaginas. But they also have lives, passions, emotions, and agency. And when you liken their bodies being raped to a car being crashed, you ignore the human involved in the trauma. You assume she’s an object, instead of a subject.

Stop that right now.

Second of all, expecting women to prepare themselves for rape is absurd and cruel.

Preparation assumes the inevitable. You prepare for a car accident—if we’re going to follow through with this terrible example—because being involved in one, someday, is more or less inevitable. People are stupid. Let a bunch of idiots operate heavy machinery near each other, and things are bound to go wrong eventually. Better prepare yourself for the asshole who forgot to use his blinker and caused a pileup on the freeway.

But rape? That shouldn’t be inevitable. Rape doesn’t happen because of human error. Rape isn’t something that idiots do. Rape happens when one person makes a conscious decision to violate another person. Consent isn’t given. Accidents aren’t made. This isn’t an “oops I didn’t mean to get sexually violent with you, my bad,” kind of situation.

Not at all.

When we treat rape like it is inevitable, we give rapists a free pass. We’re sending them the message that, hey, you’re only human! People make mistakes. No big deal. But it is a big deal. And it wasn’t a mistake. This isn’t like forgetting to use your blinker, or running a red light. This is violence and coercion. And there’s always another option.

So, to all the anti-choicers of Michigan, I have a question for you: If a man was shot, and he had to pay out of pocket to have the bullet removed because he hadn’t planned ahead with elective murder insurance, how would you feel about that?

Probably like this kid.

Not so good, I’m guessing. Because it’s ridiculous to ask a man to prepare himself for the possibility that one day, he might be a homicide victim. No one expects to be on the receiving end of that kind of violence.

So stop asking women to do the same. We don’t need to prepare for our impending rape. We shouldn’t be waiting expectantly, insurance policy in hand, to be the victims of sexual violence. And we sure as hell aren’t cool with legislators putting a price tag on our uteruses.

So, stop it, OK? Just stop it.

Stop restricting our access to safe abortions. Stop legislating our bodies. Stop objectifying us. And stop being so cavalier when it comes to rape.

Do you think the GOP can handle that, folks? Discuss!

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [ProgressOhio via Flickr]

Ashley Powell

Ashley Powell is a founding member of Law Street Media, and its original Lead Editor. She is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fail of the Week: Michigan’s Rape Insurance Law appeared first on Law Street.

Here at Law Street, we love startups (probably because we are one). So of course we furiously followed Interactive week at SXSW. Honestly, while interactive week needs no explanation, I’ll throw a bone for the individuals who’ve been living under a rock. Now Interactive week just ended but to honor its entrepreneurial spirit, I want to highlight startups that are exploding onto the scene and are innovative, cool, maybe a little outrageous, or some combination of the three. Here are the five startups I suggest you keep an eye on:

1. The Cocksman Club

This startup, founded by Ethan Basch, offers a male-only subscription-based condom service that encourages safe sex. Basch offers a variety of membership models, starting at ‘The Player’ (3 condoms for 5 bucks a month) to ‘The Legend’ (a whopping 24 condoms for 20 bucks a month). Frankly, this is a little bizarre and I am having a hard time not laughing, but I can’t knock his entrepreneurial spirit — clearly, someone is buying into this model. Also, I can’t be mad at a startup that uses a little humor to promote safe sex.

2.  Spritz Technology Inc.

Spritz, a personal favorite, is a Boston-based startup that is revolutionizing how one reads. They developed a speed reading technology in 2011 but garnered very little traction until now.  So what is this speed reading technology? Spritz streams one word at a time at various speeds to cut down the amount of time that the eye uses in moving from word to word in a sentence. Theoretically, this allows a person to consume the text at a quicker rate.

Spritz’s main focus is to patent the technology rather than diversifying into app development at the moment, though I doubt that they will stay away from mobile development indefinitely. Currently, Spritz is close to closing 3.5 million in seed money so I can only imagine how they will grow in the coming months.

3.  Ringblingz

Everyone knows that in order to make something go viral or become profitable you have to target teenage girls. In the U.S, teens alone spend $208 billion on themselves. And well, nobody knows this better than Ringblingz. The New York-based startup hopes to tap into this market by offering wearable technology and just debuted their first product: a smart ring. The smart ring can send alerts from your favorite contacts on different social media websites so you don’t have to constantly check your phone. Pretty cool, right? This is just one of many projects coming out. So why should you watch them? Here is the answer: you might have heard of Ringblingz’s founders, Rich and Sheri Schmelzer. Do ugly Croc charms ring a bell? Well, it’s not a secret that I find Croc charms and Crocs, for that matter, to be ugly, but the charms created by Jibbitz were a huge success. There is undeniable business pedigree backing this startup, which makes the company’s future very interesting.

4. Yik Yak

While everyone is freaking out about the new apps Secret and Whisper, you should add Yik Yak to the list. The app follows the new anonymity trend happening across web and mobile development. This startup, founded by two Furman University students, Tyrell Droll and Brooks Buffington, aims to connect through anonymous location-based posts but is definitely geared to college campuses. Yik Yak has already exploded onto the scene with more than 100,000 active monthly users. Also, three words: Juicy Campus Revival. I remember laughing at the crazy posts on Juicy Campus as a college freshman, but also the website had a serious dark, shady side.

So I am not surprised that they have already faced issues and criticism about possibly violating anti-bullying laws. Hopefully the app has continued success and we only see posts about the outrageous, weird, or gut-bustingly hilarious college incidents.

5. Opternative

This is probably the most interesting startup on the list. Opternative is a Chicago-based startup, founded by Dr. Steven Lee and Aaron Dallek, that offers a quick online eye exam for $35. Exams are reviewed by ophthalmologists and you can get digital prescriptions that can be filled anywhere. I don’t know about you but my mind is blown.

Before medical professionals unleash their pitchforks, Dallek wants Opternative to be “not just an online eye exam but the gold standard digital eye exam that doctors could administer in their offices,” according to TechCrunch. Opternative not only wants to revolutionize the standard for eye exams but also, the whole medical process.

You might find these startups weird, crazy, or bizarre but you shouldn’t be surprised that they are here. It is becoming easier to translate ideas into a viable business model. Definitely keep an eye on these five.

—

Ashley Powell (@danceAPdance)

Ashley Powell

Ashley Powell is a founding member of Law Street Media, and its original Lead Editor. She is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Watch List: 5 Crazy, Cool, or Just Plain Bizarre Startups to Watch appeared first on Law Street.

Governor Jerry Brown and legislative leaders announced Monday a deal to seek an extension on the compliance order to cut California’s prison population by expanding rehabilitation programs.  This approach is aimed at reducing the number of former inmates committing new crimes through health and informational programs. If the request for an extension is rejected by the panel of judges then the state is prepared to spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year to house inmates in private prisons.

The federal judges, who deemed California prisons unconstitutionally crowded, gave the state officials until December 31 to reduce the prison population by thousands. There has been a lot of controversy in the Capitol over how to handle the court order.  The Governor’s original plan was to spend $1.1 billion over three years to house inmates in private prisons, county jails and other facilities. Meanwhile, California Senate Leader Darrell Steinberg wanted to extend the court order for three years, allowing the state more time to expand mental-health and drug rehabilitation programs. Both proposals did not adequately provide a working solution within the time frame allotted.

[LA Times]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Luis Argerich via Wikipedia]

Ashley Powell

Ashley Powell is a founding member of Law Street Media, and its original Lead Editor. She is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post More Time Please: Deal Seeking an Extension on California’s Prison Compliance Order appeared first on Law Street.

Update on Judge Shira Scheindlin’s ruling that deemed New York’s controversial stop-and-frisk policy as unconstitutional:

Judge Shira Scheindlin issued a separate “remedies opinion” to ensure NYPD cops no longer violate New Yorkers’ constitutional rights during stops. She ordered to implement a pilot program requiring officers in one precinct in every borough to wear body cameras for a year. This targets officerswith the highest amount stops in 2012.

Cameras will provide an objective record of what happens during a stop as well as provide evidence for citizens who wish to file a complaint regarding a stop. The recordings may either confirm or refute the argument that stop-and-frisk promotes racial profiling. At the end of the year, NYPD will have to decide whether the costs of the body cameras outweigh the benefits.

[BusinessInsider]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Michael Fleshman via Flickr]

Ashley Powell

Ashley Powell is a founding member of Law Street Media, and its original Lead Editor. She is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Update: Cops Required to Use Cameras during Stop-and-Frisk appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, republican Governor Pat McCrory signed a bill that requires voters to show ID, restricts early voting, and ends early registrations for individuals under the age of eighteen. Following the bill signing,  North Carolina Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan sent a letter to the attorney general, asking the Justice Department to review her state’s newly signed voting bill that she claims could restrict citizens’ right to vote.

Additionally, ACLU and other civil rights groups immediately announced their plan to file  lawsuits over the bill claiming that it violates the Voting Rights Act. Before June, North Carolina would have been required to seek preclearance prior to implement such laws; however, after the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Voting Rights Act this is no longer the case.

[Politico]

—

Featured image courtesy of [SEIU via Flickr]

Ashley Powell

Ashley Powell is a founding member of Law Street Media, and its original Lead Editor. She is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post North Carolina’s Senator and Governor at Odds Over Voter ID Law appeared first on Law Street.

Stop-and-Frisk practice has recently taken another legal hit today, as federal judge, Shira A. Scheindlin ruled that the stop-and-frisk tactics of New York Police Department to have violated the constitutional rights of New Yorkers. Judge Scheindlin ruled that police officers have for years been systematically stopping innocent people without objective reason to suspect them of wrongdoing. Judge Scheindlin has found the program demonstrates a widespread disregard for the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. In addition, it also found violations with the 14th Amendment.

Judge Scheindlin of Federal District Court in Manhattan has designated an outside lawyer, Peter L. Zimroth, to monitor the Police Department’s compliance with the Constitution. Mr. Zimroth is a partner in the New York office of Arnold & Porter LLP. The ruling, in Floyd v. City of New York follows a two month non-jury trial over the department’s stop-and-frisk practices earlier this year.

[New York Times]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Debra Sweet via Flickr]

Ashley Powell

Ashley Powell is a founding member of Law Street Media, and its original Lead Editor. She is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Stop-and-Frisk Takes Another Legal Hit appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday, the attorney general, Eric Holder, stated “the war on drugs is now 30.. 40 years old. There have been a lot of unintended consequences. There’s been a decimation of certain communities, in particular communities of color.” Holder is spearheading sentencing reform and expects speak on the proposals in a speech to American Bar Association in San Francisco, next week.

Holder is not the only one calling for sentencing reform. Two senators Illinois Democrat Dick Durbin and Utah Republican Mike Lee, are promoting a bill called the Smarter Sentencing Act of 2013- a law to lower mandatory minimums for several drug crimes as well as reduce overcrowding in the prison system by 40 percent capacity. In addition, Republican Rand Paul and Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy are moving their own bill- the Justice Safety Valve Act of 2013. Their bill differs by focusing on giving judges more power to impose lower sentences to all crimes, not solely drug crimes.

[JDJournal]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Kate Ter Haar via Flickr]

Ashley Powell

Ashley Powell is a founding member of Law Street Media, and its original Lead Editor. She is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Calls for Sentencing Reform in the War on Drugs appeared first on Law Street.

In June, the United States Supreme Court’s ruling struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act and as a result, revived states’ attempts to review and implement new voting laws. Florida has followed this trend behind Texas, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Alabama. Governor Rick Scott has ordered state officials to resume their aggressive effort to remove non-citizens from the voting rolls.

This effort drew a lot of criticism and mired in lawsuits from opponents who viewed this as direct attack on Hispanic and Democratic voters. The federal lawsuit was filed last year in Tampa, brought by an immigrants’ voting rights group charged that scrubbing the voter rolls would disproportionately affect minority voters. However, with the invalidation of section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, Florida is able to reinstitute the search for non-citizens on the rolls by using a federal immigration database.

Last year’s attempt at unmasking non-citizens began with a pool of 182,000 names of potential non-citizens and that was narrowed to a list of 2,600. However, of those names, most were actually citizens and the pool shrank to 198. In the end, fewer than 40 people had voted illegally.

[New York Times]

—

Featured image courtesy of [SEIU via Flickr]

Ashley Powell

Ashley Powell is a founding member of Law Street Media, and its original Lead Editor. She is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Voting Rights Act Saga: More States Review Voting Laws appeared first on Law Street.

The Justice Department is gearing up to take aggressive legal action in a string of voting rights cases across the country. This is an attempt to soften the impact of the Supreme Court’s controversial ruling on Voting Rights that invalidated section five of the act, which protects minority voters by requiring certain states with a history of discrimination to be granted court approval before making voting law changes.

In the coming weeks, the Justice Department will use other sections of the Voting Rights Act to bring lawsuits preventing states from implementing certain laws, including requirements to present identification in order to vote. The department will attempt to force some states to receive approval or preclearance before they change election laws. Their first step will support lawsuit a in Texas concerning the state’s redistricting plan. Additionally, Attorney General Eric Holder is asking a federal judge to require Texas to submit all voting law changes to the Justice Department for approval for a ten-year period because of its history of discrimination.

[The Washington Post]

—

Featured image courtesy of [SEIU via Flickr]

Ashley Powell

Ashley Powell is a founding member of Law Street Media, and its original Lead Editor. She is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Battle Royal: Justice Department Challenges States on Voting Rights Laws appeared first on Law Street.

The largest internet companies have joined forces with top civil liberties groups to call on the White House and Congress to increase transparency surrounding the government’s controversial National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance program. Apple, Facebook and Google are among the companies that signed a letter to the feds, asking for the right to disclose information about national security data requests.

The  tech giants’ call for greater transparency represents a push back against allegations that they had a deeper involvement with the NSA’s surveillance program, PRISM, and allowed the NSA ‘direct’ access to their servers. In particular, Google has vehemently denied that they granted the government such access. Last month, Google petitioned a secret U.S national security court to soften the restrictions on the information it can reveal about the government  data requests made under Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act (FISA), claiming such restrictions violate the company’s First Amendment rights. Microsoft also had a similar request.

Tech companies are prohibited from revealing anything about requests they receive for such information because FISA requests are classified as top secret.

[Time.com]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Mike Mozart via Flickr]

Ashley Powell

Ashley Powell is a founding member of Law Street Media, and its original Lead Editor. She is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NSA Transparency Push: Apple, Google, Facebook Join Civil Liberties Coalition appeared first on Law Street.

Asiana Airlines Inc. is being sued by two passengers, Younga Jun Machorro and her son Benjamin Hyo-in Machorro, who were on board the plane that crashed while landing at the San Francisco International Airport on July 6.  The crash killed three people and injured 81 other passengers.

The Machorros filed suit in San Fransisco Federal Court on July 15 arguing that the plane’s pilots failed to observe fundamental procedures for visual landing approach, monitoring flight conditions and reacting to conditions.  In addition, the complaint also stated Machorro and her son suffered extreme bodily and mental injuries. The family is seeking $5 million in damages.

The complaint was filed by Michael Verna, the Machorros’ attorney, and states that the lawsuit is governed by the Montreal Convention. The treaty states the location of the case is based on factors that include the passengers’ final destination.

—

Kevin Rizzo (@kevinrizzo10) is editor of Crime in America. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University senior was a founding member of Law Street. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Aero Icarus via Flickr]

Ashley Powell

Ashley Powell is a founding member of Law Street Media, and its original Lead Editor. She is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Asiana Sued by Two Passengers in San Francisco Crash appeared first on Law Street.

Enacted January 1, 2014, an amendment to Rhode Island Fair Employment law will limit pre-employment inquiries by Rhode Island employers concerning job applicant’s criminal history. The amendment will restrict employers who are covered by the law from inquiring about an applicant’s prior criminal past until or after the first interview with said applicant. Before an interview employers will be prohibited from inquiring about whether a job applicant has ever been arrested, charged with, or convicted of any crime.

However, there are exemptions from the prohibition, such as applications for law enforcement agency or related positions. In addition, pre-interview questions are permissible where an employer is precluded by from hiring an individuals with specified criminal records. If standard fidelity bond or an equivalent is required for the position one or more prior offenses would disqualify the applicant from obtaining such a bond.

This amendment to Rhode Island’s Fair Employment law follows the trend of ‘Ban the Box’ laws that have been enacted in other jurisdictions.

[Littler]

Featured image courtesy of [Daniel Kulinski via Flickr]

Ashley Powell

Ashley Powell is a founding member of Law Street Media, and its original Lead Editor. She is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ban the Box Law: Rhode Island Prohibits Criminal History Inquiries Before Interview appeared first on Law Street.