With only so many billable hours in the day it’s costly to spend your time on tedious administrative tasks. Luckily there are a growing number of productivity solutions geared towards helping your office’s efficiency skyrocket and your costs decline, all while saving you from the daily grind. Lawyer Sean Robichaud recently asked his colleagues on Twitter:

Question for lawyers: what is one implementation of tech into your firm or practice that has changed everything for the better?

— Sean Robichaud (@SeanRobichaud) October 11, 2018

Here are a few of the best responses:

Clio x Vonage

You’ve probably heard of Clio, the cloud practice management software is one of the biggest names in legal tech, but Clio is hardly a static product that can be easily defined at any given moment. Rather, it’s a veritable ecosystem of integrations and networks that work with office tools you may already be using.

One of the most exciting examples of this is the Clio plugin for Vonage, the VOIP provider. The Vonage gUnify Connector for Clio allows you to log your calls and associate them with your matters in Clio. You can also use your web browser to make calls with the “click to dial” feature directly from the plugin.

iAnnotate

Whether we like it or not PDFs are still heavily used in the practice of law. The iAnnotate app for iOS makes it easy to manipulate PDFs and easily share them. It’s simple to add drawings, comments, and other annotations, clip web pages and convert them to PDF, as well as access your files located in Dropbox, Google Drive, and BOX with cloud storage integrations.

Slack

In a few short years Slack has essentially transformed office communication, moving complicated team conversations away from tiresome e-mail chains and into fast-paced chat rooms called “channels.” Slack also allows for quick direct messages between team members, all but eliminating the need to send short messages with e-mails or speak over the phone. The platform is also customizable, with offices able to install various automated bots to fit their needs.

SimplyFile

E-mail can be overwhelming, and the longer it takes you to find messages, the less productive you become. With SimplyFile you can automate e-mail filing so you always know where your important correspondences reside. After you train the Outlook plugin to understand your filing patterns, it will begin suggesting the best folder for each message, helping you keep everything neat and orderly.

TrialPad

TrialPad is an iPad app that transforms your device into a virtual trial notebook. But where it truly shines is as a presentation tool that allows you to cleanly display information to fact finders. There’s the ability to pull out and highlight quotes in documents, play video clips, and add evidence into an “admitted” category, or apply exhibit numbers, in real time.

ScanSnap Desktop Scanner

Now for something in the hardware category. The Fujitsu ScanSnap Document Scanner may seem like a luxury, but there is something to be said for a duplex scanner that just works and makes sharing documents wirelessly a breeze. The ScanSnap is able to drop documents and business cards straight into all of your favorite cloud storage and business services, like Evernote and Salesforce.

HelloSign

It’s hard to believe signing contracts is still a logistical headache for many firms, but it is. HelloSign has created a suite of products that are designed to make eSignatures as simple as possible, with Google plugins, APIs, Salesforce integration, and HelloWorks (for employment documentation). Whether it’s on a desktop or over a mobile app, HelloSign makes signing and sharing documents that require large numbers of signees simple.

In any office, productivity is king.  Simple office solutions like these help law firms earn more money, be more profitable, and help more people in less time.

Morgan Wright

Morgan Wright is a product manager at Fastcase and publisher of RAIL: The Journal of Robotics, Artificial Intelligence & Law. She earned her undergraduate degree from Hood College and her law degree from the University of Richmond School of Law. She has worked at the Institute for Actual Innocence and the Office of the Capital Defender in Virginia, as well as in the Maryland Court of Special Appeals.

The post Legal Productivity Tools to Transform Your Firm appeared first on Law Street.

Learning to code can be an incredibly lucrative skill in today’s technical age, but is it a potential “threat to order and security?”

Ohio and Michigan prisons ban books that aim to teach computer programming skills, according to MuckRock, a non-profit site aimed at sharing public information via the Freedom of Information Act. The organization recently obtained a list of banned books in state prisons.

“Their decisions to ban educational texts related to programming, alongside erotica and literature published by neo-nazi groups, are in stark contrast with practices in other states and countries, where prisons include coding in educational programs,” writes MuckRock.

Ohio’s list of banned books contained titles like “Beginning Linux Programming 4th Edition,” “The Linux Professional Institute Certification Guide,” and “Operating Systems Demystified.” The state gave no explanation as to why the books were banned.

Ohio prisons ban books on learning @Linux alongside erotica and neo-Nazi literature https://t.co/kYNt6Qfb6E pic.twitter.com/9sUeg204Zw

— MuckRock (@MuckRock) August 18, 2017

In Michigan, prisoners were specifically banned from reading books the Department of Corrections believes “contains information about computer programs and applications.” Texts like “Windows 98 6 in 1” and “Windows Game Programming for Dummies” were banned because they represent a “threat to the order and security of the institution.”

According to MuckRock, 15 books are banned for including information about computer programming, including guides to web design and a book aimed at teaching the elderly how to use computers.

Stark Contrast to Silicon Valley

The decision to ban these kinds of books is a stark contrast from rehabilitation efforts in San Quentin, California. At the San Quentin State Prison, Chris Redlitz of The Last Mile helps to prepare inmates for successful reentry into society through web education and career training opportunities. In 2014, he launched Code.7370 San Quentin, the first computer programming curriculum in a U.S. prison.

Inmates in the program help build apps and other software for startups and established companies like Airbnb. Because they can’t use the internet, the development shop’s coders work on a closed network. The men in the program make $16.77 an hour.

In April, CNBC reported that none of the prisoners who had gone through the program had returned to prison. That is likely due to the fact that the program is exceptionally beneficial to inmates, because it provides prisoners with an entrepreneurial skillset that enables them to start a career for themselves upon release, rather than relying on limited job opportunities available to felons.

The Code.7370 curriculum has since expanded to five more prisons in California, including two women’s prisons, and Redlitz has hopes to create a national program within the next five years.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why are Some Prisons Banning Inmates From Teaching Themselves to Code? appeared first on Law Street.

In the wake of the Charlottesville violence this past weekend calls to take a serious stand against white supremacy have abounded. And some companies have complied–GoDaddy and Google have refused to provide hosting services for the Daily Stormer; Twitter has suspended a number of accounts; and Apple has cut off its services to white supremacists.

The Daily Stormer previously had domain registration through GoDaddy. When GoDaddy decided to drop the popular white supremacist site, it attempted to move to Google, which also rebuffed it. Now, the site has apparently moved to the dark web. That means that it doesn’t have to work with any sort of mainstream provider, and can only be accessed through a software called Tor.

Twitter suspended some accounts linked to the Daily Stormer yesterday. For many, that was a welcome surprise–Twitter doesn’t necessarily have the best track record when it comes to dealing with harassment and inappropriate usage.

Apple cut off services like Apple Pay for white supremacist websites selling merchandise. Apple’s CEO Tim Cook also sent out a memo to all the company employees, affirming:

We must not witness or permit such hate and bigotry in our country, and we must be unequivocal about it. This is not about the left or the right, conservative or liberal. It is about human decency and morality. I disagree with the president and others who believe that there is a moral equivalence between white supremacists and Nazis, and those who oppose them by standing up for human rights. Equating the two runs counter to our ideals as Americans.

Other tech companies that have, at least in part, shut off service to white supremacists include PayPal, which cut off more than three dozen white supremacist groups, and popular dating site OkCupid, which has banned at least one known white supremacist.

We were alerted that white supremacist Chris Cantwell was on OkCupid. Within 10 minutes we banned him for life.

— OkCupid (@okcupid) August 17, 2017

Airbnb actually banned white supremacists from using its platform ahead of the Charlottesville rally, a decision which was reaffirmed by its CEO after the fact. Brian Chesky wrote:

The violence, racism and hatred demonstrated by neo-Nazis, the alt-right, and white supremacists should have no place in this world. Airbnb will continue to stand for acceptance, and we will continue to do all we can to enforce our community commitment.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tech Companies Dump White Supremacists appeared first on Law Street.

Look left, look right…take your eyes off your smartphone. Okay. Now, you can cross the street in Honolulu.

In a 7-2 vote, the city council just passed a law that makes it illegal to stare at a phone screen while crossing “a street or highway.” The “distracted pedestrians law,” which is the first of its kind in the country, also encompasses video games, cameras, tablets, pagers, and other small handheld devices.

“Sometimes I wish there were laws we did not have to pass, that perhaps common sense would prevail,” Mayor Kirk Caldwell said during a bill signing ceremony near one of the city’s busiest intersections. “But sometimes we lack common sense.”

Local law enforcement will have three months to educate people about the new law, but after October 25, so-called “smartphone zombies” will risk incurring fines between $15 and $99, depending on how many times they have gotten caught glancing downwards before.

Pedestrians can still look at their phones on the curb and won’t be penalized if they are listening to music or talking on the phone as they cross the street, as long as their eyes can stay on the road. Dialing 911 is also permitted mid-crossing.

Though many believe this law, much like jaywalking, will be enforced in an arbitrary manner, lawmakers assure they are trying to tackle a serious road fatality problem.

“We hold the unfortunate distinction of being a major city with more pedestrians being hit in crosswalks, particularly our seniors, than almost any other city in the county,” Caldwell told Reuters.

The Governors Highway Safety Association reported that pedestrian fatalities increased 11 percent from the first six months of 2015 to the same period in 2016 and that one possible reason may be the rise in smartphone use.

However critics are saying that this law ought to further regulate drivers instead of punishing pedestrians.

Hawaii already forbids drivers from using their phones or texting while driving, allowing them only to use a hands-free device. However, no law exists preventing them from glancing at their screen. Last year, local police issued over 20,000 distracted driving citations statewide.

“If it’s signed into law,” writes Steven Miller in an opinion piece, “a pedestrian could have the right of way, be struck by a driver, and still receive a ticket for using a cell phone in the crosswalk, even though it’s the driver who should have yielded.”

Others are complaining that this new policy is an overreach of the local government’s authority.

“I don’t know if it should be a law that you can’t use your phone, because it is your phone,” said Sandra Hirooka. “I like the freedom of using my phone whenever I want to.”

“Scrap this intrusive bill, provide more education to citizens about responsible electronics usage, and allow law enforcement to focus on larger issues,” resident Ben Robinson told the city council in written testimony.

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Law: No “Crossing and Texting” in Honolulu appeared first on Law Street.

Starting August 1, Wisconsin technology company Three Square Market will inject microchips between its employees’ thumbs and index fingers. The program is not mandatory, but so far, more than 50 of the 80 employees at the company’s River Falls headquarters have volunteered.

The microchips are about the size of a grain of rice. They use radio frequency identification technology (RFID), which the Food and Drug Administration approved for human use in 2004. Once an employee gets a chip, they will be able to access the building, pay for items, and log in to computers with a wave of the hand.

The procedure is reportedly quick, painless, and free to volunteers–the company will pick up the $300 tab per procedure.

“Eventually, this technology will become standardized, allowing you to use this as your passport, public transit, all purchasing opportunities, etc.,” said Three Square Market CEO Todd Westby in a company blog post.

Some people, however, are more skeptical of the technology. Dr. Alessandro Acquisti, professor of information and technology at Carnegie Mellon University’s Heinz College, is concerned about potential  security breaches. Three Square Market insists that the chips are encrypted, but Dr. Acquisti explained to the New York Times that encryption “is a pretty vague term which could include anything from a truly secure product to something that is easily hackable.”

The chip is not currently equipped for GPS tracking, but that doesn’t mean Three Square Market won’t add it in the future. Dr. Acquisti worries that the chips could one day track employees’ lunch and bathroom breaks without their permission.

“Once they are implanted,” he warns, “it’s very hard to predict or stop a future widening of their usage.”

This is the first time a U.S.-based company has chipped its employees, but globally, the practice isn’t new. Epicenter, a Swedish startup, tagged its employees with the same technology back in 2015. So far, the program has been successful–Epicenter holds monthly events and parties where specialists can chip employees at no cost.

“People ask me, ‘Are you chipped?’ and I say, ‘Yes, why not,'” said Fredric Kaijser, Epicenter’s chief experience officer, in an interview with CNBC. “And they all get excited about privacy issues and what that means and so forth. And for me it’s just a matter of I like to try new things and just see it as more of an enabler and what that would bring into the future.”

Judging by the high number of volunteers, the workers at Three Square Market are equally willing to “try new things.” Software engineer Sam Bengston signed up right away.

“In the next five or 10 years,” he told the New York Times, “this is going to be something that isn’t scoffed at so much, or is more normal. So I like to jump on the bandwagon with these kind of things early, just to say that I have it.”

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Wisconsin Tech Company Offers to Implant Microchips in its Employees appeared first on Law Street.

If you’ve ever been on an Amtrak train slowly chugging from New York to Washington D.C.–or vice versa–you surely have fantasized about a faster mode of transportation. And you weren’t alone. New York’s Penn Station and D.C.’s Union Station were ranked the #1 and #2 busiest stations respectively for Amtrak in 2015. So, with all that demand, entrepreneur Elon Musk seems to think he can create a better mode of travel. He’s been dreaming about something called the Hyperloop–a seriously high-speed train that would take you from NYC to D.C. in roughly 30 minutes. Yesterday, he claimed that he received “approval” from the government to begin work. But is that actually true?

Yesterday, Musk tweeted this:

Just received verbal govt approval for The Boring Company to build an underground NY-Phil-Balt-DC Hyperloop. NY-DC in 29 mins.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 20, 2017

City center to city center in each case, with up to a dozen or more entry/exit elevators in each city

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 20, 2017

Immediately, people were excited, but they were also confused. Who, exactly, approved this project? Presumably, it’s going to cross over multiple states and take quite a bit of construction and disruption in order to be fully realized.

Then, Musk somewhat backed down, saying that he had just received “verbal” approval, and tweeted some more tempered ideas:

Still a lot of work needed to receive formal approval, but am optimistic that will occur rapidly

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 20, 2017

If you want this to happen fast, please let your local & federal elected representatives know. Makes a big difference if they hear from you.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 20, 2017

A number of news outlets dug into Musk’s claims, attempting to figure out who, exactly, gave him that “verbal approval.” While the White House didn’t deny that a conversation had taken place, a spokesperson’s answer was incredibly vague. And local officials certainly didn’t seem to know what was going on. Multiple city and state leaders commented to the Washington Post, among other outlets, that they had never heard of Musk’s plan. BBC’s Dave Lee wrote:

We’ve been trying to track down whom exactly Mr Musk might have been talking to about this. I won’t keep you in suspense: we failed.

Firstly, it is not clear where this ‘verbal government approval’ could possibly have come from, given that no government entity – even if it were the president himself – could make such an assurance given the complexity of laying out such a plan.

The idea of an incredibly fast route from New York to D.C. is very promising, and tempting. But is it really a priority? Both cities have been plagued by local transportation issues recently. While Musk’s idea sounds great, maybe we should focus on fixing what’s broken now before we delve into uncertain promises about the future.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Did Elon Musk Actually Get Approval for the Hyperloop? appeared first on Law Street.

Commercial space mining of asteroids and other celestial bodies will soon be legal, following Luxembourg’s passage of a law establishing property rights for space resources on July 13. The Chamber of Deputies, Luxembourg’s unicameral parliament, passed the bill almost unanimously with a vote of 55-2 in favor of the law, making Luxembourg the first European nation with a legal framework for space resource utilization.

“Luxembourg is the first adopter in Europe of a legal and regulatory framework recognizing that space resources are capable of being owned by private companies,” Deputy Prime Minister and Economy Minister Étienne Schneider said in a press release. “The Grand Duchy thus reinforces its position as a European hub for the exploration and use of space resources. The legal framework is part of the expertise ecosystem and the business-friendly, innovation-nurturing environment that Luxembourg is offering to space industry companies.”

The law, which will be implemented on August 1, is part of the country’s SpaceResources.lu initiative to “promote international cooperation in order to progress on a future governance scheme and a global regulatory framework of space resources utilization,” according to the press release.

Of course, space mining won’t occur without certain restrictions. Per an English translation of the space resources law provided by the Luxembourg government, companies may only explore and use space resources if they obtain written mission authorization from the minister(s) of the economy and space activities. Luxembourg’s law mirrors the U.S.’s Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act of 2015, which served to “promote the right of United States citizens to engage in commercial exploration for and commercial recovery of space resources,” including water and minerals.

Both the Luxembourg and U.S. laws make sure to respect the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, which prohibits states from claiming sovereignty over outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies “by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.” By mining celestial bodies, companies cannot lay claim to that body–only the resources the company extracts from it. “Our law does not suggest to either establish or imply in any way sovereignty over a territory or over a celestial body,” Schneider said in November 2016. “Only the appropriation of space resources is addressed in the legal framework.”

With the Asteroid Belt over 100 million miles from Earth, space mining operations may be more than a few years out. But despite the U.S. and Luxembourg’s legislation, there is still a lack of regulations on space mining and extraterrestrial activities in general. In April, Goldman Sachs estimated that a space craft could extract between $25-50 billion worth of platinum from an asteroid. NASA announced in January that it will be launching a mission to an asteroid called 16 Psyche. That asteroid has been estimated to hold $10,000 quadrillion worth of iron, a sum which would collapse the world economy.

As space industries blast off, Earthly governments will have to decide how to deal with the inevitable influx of valuable resources into the economy, as well as the legal issues that will arise from doing business in space.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Luxembourg Law Establishes Space Mining Property Rights appeared first on Law Street.

Have you ever thought about having the ability to make people say whatever you want? You could get the chance to make Trump say that he loves Hillary Clinton, or get Christopher Nolan to finally say that Cobb was in a dream at the end of “Inception.” Well, with the help of some new technology, soon we may all have that ability.

Earlier this month, computer scientists at the University of Washington, with the help of an artificially intelligent neural network, were able to create video footage of former President Barack Obama that they can manipulate into perfectly matching any audio recording. Check it out:

The researchers used AI to model Obama’s face, and mapped the model based on 14 hours of video and audio footage of the former president’s weekly addresses to produce a “synthetic” video replica. The researchers were even able to put in audio from an interview Obama gave in 1990, and could theoretically insert the voice of an Obama impersonator.

In an interview with tech website Digital Trends, Dr. Supasorn Suwajanakorn, a researcher on the project, said:

Unlike prior work, we never require the subject to be scanned or a speech database that consists of videos of many people saying predetermined sentences. We learn this from just existing footage. This has the potential to scale to anyone with minimal effort.

So, in the near future it may only take minimal effort to create fake videos. While the current technology requires many examples of video and audio footage to produce a forgery, it may only be a matter of years until just a few audio and voice recordings would be needed.

Earlier this year a German artist, Mario Klingemann, released a video that represented French singer Francoise Hardy depicted as a 20 year old answering questions from someone offscreen.

However, just like in the Obama video, that isn’t Hardy’s real voice. Nor is that what she looks like anymore–she’s now 73. Instead, Klingemann used the voice of Kellyanne Conway from the infamous interview in which she introduced the term “alternative facts.”

Granted, the quality of this video is nowhere near the impressive feat of the fake Obama video. But it’s important to note that this video wasn’t created by a team of scientists, but just one guy. Perhaps most impressively, it only took him a few days and required absolutely no digital editing software.

Kingemann made the video using old music video clips of Harding from her twenties, and inserted them into a generative adversarial network (GAN). GAN is a machine-learning algorithm that was developed back in 2014. It uses neural networks to learn statistical properties of audio in order to produce the context of said audio. Once the algorithim is provided with enough audio context, you can tell it what words to say, and it will do so using the speech patterns of the given individual’s voice.

Reconfiguring audio is relatively easy, but the development of images is a much more complicated process. Ian Goodfellow, the inventor of GAN and a recent addition to Google’s AI division, has made progress in improving image creation. When asked about how long until the generation of “Youtube fakers” arrives on the internet, he expected it would be about three years until anyone with a computer and minimum coding experience could have access to this technology.

However, there have been breakthroughs in how to combat this new trend in technology as well. Analysis of metadata of photos, videos, and audio recordings can tell us exactly how, when, and where the content was created and will be able to indicate if the content was doctored.

But in this day and age it’s becoming harder to convince people that everything they see and read may not be true. A significant number of people still believe a debunked theory that DNC staffer Seth Rich was killed because he leaked information pertaining to Hillary Clinton. If such conspiracy theories run rampant, how are we going to convince people that videos they can see simply aren’t real?

The potential for fake videos could have a profound effect beyond what we can imagine. Think about this: less than six months ago a man walked into a D.C. pizza restaurant with a shotgun because of a conspiracy theory spread on social media. Imagine what the reaction to “Pizzagate” could have been if there was somehow a fake video involved?

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post The Fake Obama Video: Will this Be the Next Development in Fake News? appeared first on Law Street.

Need to fill out legal forms but can’t afford a human lawyer? Well, there’s an app for that. DoNotPay, a chatbot that has been dubbed “The World’s First Robot Lawyer,” provides free legal aid to users on issues ranging from appealing parking tickets to landlord disputes. Don’t expect the robot lawyer to represent you in court any time soon, but it can arm you with some of the tools and knowledge to deal with your legal case.

The artificial intelligence asks the user a series of questions about their legal issue. Then, after learning about the user’s personal situation, the AI can help fill out necessary legal forms or provide links to other resources. Joshua Browder, the founder and CEO of DoNotPay, launched the bot in 2015 to help people appeal their parking tickets. According to The Telegraph, DoNotPay has helped beat an estimated 375,000 parking tickets worth around $10 million since its launch. But the bot hasn’t stopped there.

DoNotPay started out in London and was programmed with New York City laws soon after. Since the bot first went live two years ago, it has expanded its reach to the rest of the United Kingdom and United States and will be able to assist people with 1,000 areas of law. A Facebook Messenger portion of the app can even help refugees complete immigration applications for the U.S. and Canada, and apply for asylum support in the U.K.

Browder, who was named on multiple Forbes 30 Under 30 lists for Europe for 2017, hopes DoNotPay will provide better access to legal resources for lower income individuals. The 20-year-old Stanford student told VentureBeat that DoNotPay started as a tool to fight his own parking tickets, but ended up revealing to him “how lawyers are exploiting human misery.”

“From discrimination in Silicon Valley to the tragedy in London with an apartment building catching fire, it seems the only people benefitting from injustice are a handful of lawyers,” Browder said. “I hope that DoNotPay, by helping with these issues and many more, will ultimately give everyone the same legal power as the richest in society.”

With tools like DoNotPay, people may not have to pay a hefty price for a lawyer to help them fill out legal paperwork. But for more complex cases, a human touch might still be the better way to go.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Free Chatbot Lawyer Makes Legal Aid More Accessible appeared first on Law Street.

Have you ever been driving on the highway just a tiny bit over the speed limit, and then a sneaky robotic cop pulls you over? No? Well you may have an encounter just like that someday in the not-so-distant future.

Last month, Dubai introduced its first autonomous police robot, known as REEM. REEM stands at 5’7″, weighs approximately 220 pounds, and looks loosely based off the robots introduced in the 2004 Will Smith film “I, Robot” (but definitely not as cool). While it has complete autonomous navigational control, its actions are severely limited. It can provide information on directions, the weather, and the locations of nearby restaurants. REEM can carry small packages and has a computer touchscreen that allows for a person to communicate via videoconference with a human police officer.

This is just one of the major developments that makes up the Smart Dubai 2021 Strategy, which aims to utilize smart technology to make Dubai one of the most technologically innovative police forces in the world. Other services that are part of this plan include the Dubai Police App that helps users connect with the police force without having to go to a police station, the introduction of autonomous mini-robotic cars that will be used for patrols, and providing officers with Aston Martins and Bentleys as squad cars.

Dubai’s goal is that by 2030 robots will make up 25 percent of the police force. But Ramon López de Mántaras, a research professor at the Spanish National Research Council, believes that plan is a bit over-ambitious. He contends that it is feasible, but constructing a machine that is capable of making complex human-like decisions is very difficult. He stated:

For a human, the principle of proportionality or how to apply a just answer to each situation is already complex. For a machine it’s almost impossible right now.

There are also questions about the legal ramifications that are inherent in introducing a robot that has authority. Some experts have started to delve into those questions–for example, the UCLA law review published a report on how we could handle the likely introduction of police robots in the coming years.

The report also suggested that there are many hypothetical scenarios that lawmakers and regulators can address now instead of waiting until the technology catches up in the near future. Such scenarios include whether a robot should be allowed to possess a weapon and if it’s allowed to fight back when threatened. Researchers also need to determine whether introducing robotic police will increase social inequality and distrust that currently exists between the police and large subsets of the population.

These questions obviously don’t need to be answered right now, as the police robots currently in place in Dubai are simple observant machines. But the technology is catching up fast and sooner or later robotic police officers may just become the new norm.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Dubai Brings Real Robocops to its Streets appeared first on Law Street.

The internet is a powerful tool. It can be used to spread information quickly, to answer any question instantly, and to share photos of vacations. 

But the internet can also be a powerful platform where unsavory things can flourish. All the benefits of being able to spread information quickly and share photos can be used negatively. When these sorts of things are directed at a specific person or group, it is called “cyberbullying.”

Stop Bullying, a website dedicated to spreading awareness about bullying, defines cyberbullying as:

bullying that takes place using electronic technology. Electronic technology includes devices and equipment such as cell phones, computers, and tablets as well as communication tools including social media sites, text messages, chat, and websites. Examples of cyberbullying include mean text messages or emails, rumors sent by email or posted on social networking sites, and embarrassing pictures, videos, websites, or fake profiles.

“Troll-in-Chief”

Recently, President Donald Trump attacked “Morning Joe” co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski on Twitter, saying:

I heard poorly rated @Morning_Joe speaks badly of me (don’t watch anymore). Then how come low I.Q. Crazy Mika, along with Psycho Joe, came..

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 29, 2017

…to Mar-a-Lago 3 nights in a row around New Year’s Eve, and insisted on joining me. She was bleeding badly from a face-lift. I said no!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 29, 2017

This raised a lot of eyebrows and questions. One of the most serious questions raised was if Trump could be banned from Twitter for his behavior. John Cassidy of The New Yorker said that Trump will go down in history as the “Troll-in-Chief” because of his online behavior.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Trump’s spokeswoman, brushed off the criticism her boss was receiving. “This is a president who fights fire with fire,” Sanders explained. But where does self-defense end and cyberbullying begin?

Trump is the face of America to the rest of the world and his actions reflect on the entire country. More than that, as such a public and powerful figure, he is someone children will undoubtedly look up to. So with cyberbullying increasing in schools, it’s dangerous to have the commander-in-chief setting such a poor example for children.

Harmful Effects

The effects of cyberbullying can be serious. According to Stop Bullying, some of the effects cyberbullying can have on a victim include: alcohol and drug use, lower self-esteem, and health problems. 

Cyberbullying happens a lot more frequently than you might think. In a 2016 report by the Department of Education, 20.8 percent of students ages 12 through 18 reported being bullied in the 2014-15 school year. The study found that 6.1 percent of male students experienced bullying online or through text message. 15.9 percent of females reported being bullied online or via text. The disparity between male and female is bad enough. But the numbers themselves show a growing problem.

Cyberbullying is different than other forms of bullying for a few reasons. First, it can occur at any time. A bully no longer needs a face-to-face interaction to inflict harm. Through the wonders of the internet, someone can be reached at any hour of the day via text, social media, email, or other channels on the internet. Next, the layer of anonymity can invite more bullying in perpetrators who normally would not have engaged in the act. An article Psychology Today published in 2013 said,

The ability to be anonymous might increase the likelihood that youths will engage in the behavior. Furthermore, a cyberbully does not necessarily see the reaction of the victim, making it easier to engage in mean behaviors.

Those who engage in cyberbullying are subject to certain anti-bullying laws. See how your state stacks up here. In 2012, Delaware became the first state to introduce a comprehensive cyberbullying policy to be adopted by public schools in the state.

via GIPHY

As of 2017 every state has laws regarding cyberbullying, with most having both a policy and laws. Delaware’s policy was drafted by then-Lieutenant Governor Matt Denn and the late Attorney General Beau Biden. Here’s what Delaware’s policy says:

Incidents of cyberbullying shall be treated by each school district and charter school in the same manner as incidents of bullying, and notice of each school district’s and charter school’s policy against cyberbullying shall be provided to students, staff, and faculty in the same manner as notice of the school district’s and charter school’s policy against bullying.

This specific cyberbullying policy is intended for schools and how they can take action. But what about when cyberbullying takes place outside of a school setting?  

Many websites have anti-harassment rules, though they can get tricky to enforce. Take the President of the United States, for example. On July 2, only a few days after the Morning Joe attack, he tweeted:

#FraudNewsCNN #FNN pic.twitter.com/WYUnHjjUjg

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 2, 2017

Many people have suggested that Twitter ban Trump for this behavior. Twitter’s rules explicitly say “You may not make threats of violence or promote violence, including threatening or promoting terrorism.”

But the social media giant has not banned the president. Yet. Banning the president is a big deal, but cyberbullying is a pretty big deal, too.

Anne Grae Martin

Anne Grae Martin is a member of the class of 2017 University of Delaware. She is majoring in English Professional Writing and minoring in French and Spanish. When she’s not writing for Law Street, Anne Grae loves doing yoga, cooking, and correcting her friends’ grammar mistakes. Contact Anne Grae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Can Twitter Ban Donald Trump for Cyberbullying? appeared first on Law Street.

The parliament in Germany passed a controversial bill last Friday that would give social media companies such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter 24 hours to remove explicitly hateful speech and “obviously illegal” content before facing a fine of up to 50 million euros ($57 million).

Holocaust denial, dissemination of Nazi symbols, racist agitation, and antisemitic language are considered illegal under Germany’s criminal code and would qualify for prompt removal under the Network Enforcement Act, or “Facebook law,” as some are calling it.

The law, which will take effect in October after Germany’s elections, is the toughest of its kind. It also states that social media companies will have seven days to remove other, less offensive posts, and will have to submit a public report on the complaints they have received every six months and explain how they dealt with each instance.

German Justice Minister Heiko Maas has said he wants to treat Facebook as a media company, thereby making it legally liable for hate speech on its platform.

“Freedom of opinion ends where criminal law begins,” Maas said, adding that hate crimes in Germany have increased by 300 percent in the last two years.

“These [posts] are not examples of freedom of speech. They’re attacks on freedom of speech. The worst danger to freedom of speech is a situation where threats go unpunished,” Maas said while addressing the need for the legislation.

Germany already has some of the world’s strictest regulations regarding libel, defamation, and hate speech. However, in light of recent attacks and instances of homegrown terrorism across the continent, German and European lawmakers are facing pressure to further limit radicalization and offensive speech online.

In 2015, the European Commission created a voluntary code of conduct that called for web companies to remove videos that incite terrorism or hatred.

After the attacks in London, both British Prime Minister Theresa May and French President Emmanuel Macron said they are considering laws similar to Germany’s to fine companies that “fail to take action” against terrorist propaganda and violent content.

Facebook said in a statement, “This law as it stands now will not improve efforts to tackle this important societal problem.” And in another statement from May, the company said that the measure “provides an incentive to delete content that is not clearly illegal when social networks face such a disproportionate threat of fines. It would have the effect of transferring responsibility for complex legal decisions from public authorities to private companies.”

Because of its war-torn past, Europe has been more willing to place restrictions on freedom of speech in favor of limiting propaganda and hate speech than the United States. However, critics and human rights groups say this law may be going too far.

“Many of the violations covered by the bill are highly dependent on context, context which platforms are in no position to assess,” said David Kaye, the U.N. Special Rapporteur to the High Commissioner for Human Rights. “The obligations placed upon private companies to regulate and take down content raises concern with respect to freedom of expression.”

Joe McNamee, the executive director of the digital rights group EDRi, said that the law could establish a precedent for “wholesale privatization of freedom of expression,” with “large internet companies deciding what they want the public discourse to be.”

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Germany Passes Law to Fine Social Media Companies that Fail to Remove Hate Speech appeared first on Law Street.

This week Tesla announced that production would commence for its new midsize Model 3, a fully electric midsize sedan that can seat five and travel up to 215 miles per charge. Its advertised price is $35,000, but new fees for electric cars may have you forking over more green to go green.

Over the last year five states have introduced legislation that added fees to the purchase of an electric or hybrid vehicle. In West Virginia, a bill that was passed in June requires a $200 fee every year for an electric vehicle and a $100 yearly fee for every hybrid. Similar legislation has been enacted in 10 states since 2011, with most governors and state legislatures justifying the added fees due to backlogs in road repairs and the need to make up for money that would have otherwise come from gas taxes.

Even California, which is home to Tesla and the Zero Emission program, approved of a $100 yearly fee for electric car owners. Governor Jerry Brown cited a need for “safe and smooth roads” to support the fee.

Granted, for someone who is willing to pay $35,000 for a car, an additional $100 service fee seems like a small increase. But supporters of electric (and other environmentally friendly) vehicles believe that the fees and lack of tax incentives can stall the sales growth of eco-friendly cars in the automotive market.

Large auto companies such as Ford, Nissan, and Volvo currently have electric models and are expanding their electric programs, but electric cars only make .6 percent of the auto market and sales growth has dramatically decreased from 227 percent to five percent last year.

For example, in 2015 when Georgia ended the $5,000 tax credit for electric and hybrid vehicles and instead put a $200 fee on them, the sales of electric cars dropped by 93 percent.

But what could really damage electric vehicles’ ability to break into the mainstream market is the potential that Congress will not extend the $7,500 electric vehicle tax credit (for the first 200,000 vehicles produced) in the new budget.

The tax credit is important because currently the technology to produce electric cars hasn’t caught up–essentially Tesla can’t make an affordable mass produced electric car that will cost the same as a regular car because the technology hasn’t gotten there yet. The tax credit allows for producers such as Tesla to still be competitive in the automobile market and to turn a profit. By doing this the government is hoping for more innovation and expansion of the electric car market. Experts believe that if this credit is removed, then the projections for electric cars by 2025 will decrease by 250,000 vehicles. As the U.S. struggles to deal with its carbon footprint, electric cars could be a valuable tool, and priorities need to be seriously considered.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Some States Are Making it More Expensive to Buy Electric Cars appeared first on Law Street.

The 2016 presidential election was noteworthy not just because of its outcome, but also for the extent to which both parties used technical data collection behind-the-scenes to secure victories in swing states. Just last week, a cyber risk analyst stumbled onto a trove of that gathered data, collected on 198 million Americans, on an unprotected server.

The analyst, Chris Vickery, an employee of the cyber security startup UpGuard, came across the 1.1 terabytes of data on an Amazon cloud server, which wasn’t password protected and was accessible to anyone with the URL address. According to UpGuard, it took Vickery several days to download the extensive dataset, which may have been left open and exposed for 10 to 14 days.

UpGuard is calling this leak the “largest known data exposure of its kind,” and confirmed that the discovered content includes names, dates of birth, home addresses, phone numbers, and indications of individuals’ ethnicities and religions. Voters’ political views on hot-button campaign issues such as fossil fuels and taxes were also minutely recorded, likely for future micro-targeted campaigns.

Currently downloading what is, basically, the home address of every Trump supporter.

Understand the cloud before you upload to it. pic.twitter.com/nRPb98jwoP

— Chris Vickery (@VickerySec) June 13, 2017

The information was collected by GOP data firm Deep Root Analytics, one of three data firms hired by the RNC to help Donald Trump win the presidential election.

The firm acknowledged that the data was theirs on Friday and released a statement apologizing for the breach.

Deep Root Analytics CEO Brent McGoldrick said the company takes “full responsibility” for the leak. He added that the mistake was likely due to “a recent change in asset access settings since June 1.”

Although much of the data collected by Deep Root Analytics is available online through more innocuous sources, many have been quick to analyze the leak’s potential cyber security ramifications.

“That such an enormous national database could be created and hosted online, missing even the simplest of protections against the data being publicly accessible, is troubling,” UpGuard said on their website.

This leak also comes at a time when the U.S. elections and elections in other western nations have been the targets of increasingly aggressive cyber attacks.

“This is deeply troubling,” Privacy International’s policy officer Frederike Kaltheuner told BBC News. “This is not just sensitive, it’s intimate information, predictions about people’s behavior, opinions, and beliefs that people have never decided to disclose to anyone.”

While this leak could have been much more damaging and revealed more secretive information, experts say this should be a cautionary warning. If companies don’t make cyber security a priority, individuals may have to worry a lot more the next time a leak occurs.

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Accidental Data Leak Exposes 198 Million Americans’ Personal Information appeared first on Law Street.

YouTuber Austin Jones was charged with two counts of child pornography production in a Chicago federal court on June 13.

Jones, 24, allegedly solicited pornographic videos from two underage fans, according to a criminal complaint. In an affidavit, Special Agent of Homeland Security Investigations Michael Ploessl said Jones had communicated separately with two girls who had each identified themselves as 14 years old.

Ploessl said that during a videotaped interview with HSI, Jones waived his Miranda rights and admitted to having sexually explicit chats with the girls over Facebook in which he instructed them to make and send videos of themselves “dancing in a sexually explicit way” and performing sexual acts, despite knowing that the girls were underage.

Ploessl said Jones directed both girls, identified as Victim A and Victim B in the affidavit, to send him videos of themselves dancing in a sexual manner. According to Ploessl, Jones coached the girls on what to do, wear, and say in the videos, including telling each girl to explicitly identify her name and age at the beginning of the videos.

Ploessl said Victim A repeatedly told Jones that she was “tired and wanted to stop,” but that Jones pushed her to continue. Ploessl said Victim B also expressed her discomfort with what Jones was asking her to do, but Jones continued to pressure her, repeatedly calling her his “biggest fan.” Victim A sent Jones approximately 15 videos; Victim B sent approximately 25. According to the affidavit, several of the videos depicted Victim A and Victim B dancing nude from the waist down.

If convicted, Jones could face up to 30 years in prison.

People on social media reacted to the news about Jones. Some condemned him for “[abusing] his position as a public figure.”

dont ever say that those girls who sent austin jones those videos are at fault. he abused his position as a public figure who many young

— reanne (@plediswon) June 14, 2017

girls idolized, as a way to manipulate and guilt trip them into sending him videos. those girls were 14 years old, young gullible children

— reanne (@plediswon) June 14, 2017

One ex-fan burned some of their Austin Jones memorabilia, including an Austin Jones poster and shirt.

I used to be one of Austin Jones’ biggest fans. I met him twice. I couldn’t even look at this poster anymore, so I burned it (1/2) pic.twitter.com/UUeIbx2V5s

— sky☾ (@skylarstillwell) June 14, 2017

I also knew I could never wear this Austin Jones shirt again either, so I burned that too. ‍ (2/2) pic.twitter.com/j3guskwnDD

— sky☾ (@skylarstillwell) June 14, 2017

Another said they were not surprised by the news after similar allegations surfaced a few years ago.

Absolute ZERO shock about Austin Jones & the charges against him. I haven’t forgotten about the sketchy claims involving girls 2 years ago.

— glitterdick (@danger0usperson) June 14, 2017

These are not the first allegations of Jones pressuring underage girls to send him videos. In May 2015, screenshots of alleged messages, as well as more detailed explanations of those message interactions, between Jones and a girl named “Ashley” were posted on the website PupFresh. In that article, “Ashley” said she and Jones started talking during a Facebook Q&A at which point they began messaging one another privately and Jones asked her to send him videos of her twerking. Other women have made online posts and videos accusing Jones of similar actions, but thus far only two unnamed individuals are referred to in the complaint.

In June 2015, Jones uploaded a video on YouTube in which he responded to the accusations against him. Jones apologized for his conduct but denied that anything went beyond twerking.

“Nothing ever went further than twerking videos,” Jones said in the video. “There were never any nudes, never any physical contact.”

Jones’ case is one among a growing number of allegations against YouTubers–most of whom are white men–who have allegedly used their status as internet personalities to coerce fans and other individuals into uncomfortable situations, abusive relationships, and incidents of sexual assault and/or rape.

In 2014, at least four women came forward to accuse British YouTuber Sam Pepper of inappropriately touching them and/or sending them inappropriate messages. Three of those four women were under the age of 18 at the time of their alleged interactions with Pepper, according to BuzzFeed News.

Also in 2014, several individuals accused another British YouTuber, Alex Day, of pressuring them into sexual situations and having inappropriate relationships with fans. Day initially denied the allegations, but eventually admitted to having “occasionally manipulative relationships with women” in a Tumblr post from his account that his since been deactivated. However, Day maintained in another Tumblr post that “at no point in my life have I ever had a sexual relationship with someone under the age of consent.”

Organizations like Thorn, an international anti-human trafficking organization, are working to address the sexual exploitation of children and to eliminate the production and spread of child sexual abuse material (CSAM). In addition to providing resources for trafficking victims, Thorn is advocating for increased intelligence sharing among organizations that are fighting child trafficking to decrease redundancy and inefficiency. Thorn also communicates with people searching for CSAM to encourage them to seek help and deter them from exhibiting harmful behavior.

Ploessl’s affidavit did not say that Jones had circulated the videos he had received from the girls. While Thorn is working to end sexual exploitation of children by tracking the circulation of CSAM, it can be difficult to track CSAM that perpetrators are keeping solely for themselves.

Unlike television and film celebrities who are largely unreachable to fans, YouTubers and other internet stars often establish more personal relationships with their fans and are able to connect with their viewers in real-time thanks to social media. For many, YouTube is a community where fans and creators can have meaningful, appropriate interactions with one another. But the combination of YouTubers’ perceived relatability and celebrity status can result in some creators abusing that fan-creator relationship.

In his conversation with Victim B, Jones allegedly asked her, “do you realize how lucky you are?!?!” and told her that she needed to “prove” that she was his biggest fan. Jones allegedly told Victim B things like “I guess you really aren’t my biggest fan…..ok then” and “I’m just trying to help you! I know you’re trying your hardest to prove you’re my biggest fan. And I don’t want to have to find someone else,” according to the affidavit.

By reinforcing the idea that they should be placed on a pedestal and worshiped, some celebrities have forced fans into situations in which they do not or cannot consent to. If the allegations of YouTubers manipulating and abusing their fans are any indicator, increased accountability within the YouTube space is a necessary step in ending certain internet personalities’ predatory behavior toward vulnerable, underage fans.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post YouTuber Charged With Child Pornography Production appeared first on Law Street.

When it comes to modern politics, sometimes it’s hard to find humor in the chaos. But when President Donald Trump tweeted out a mysterious (albeit likely misspelled) “covfefe” tweet last month, he did just that–kickstarting a slew of hilarious tweets, memes, and Urban Dictionary definitions.

But if you thought covfefe’s 15 minutes of fame were up, you’d be wrong. A Democratic lawmaker is looking to transform the now-deleted tweet typo into a federal law for archiving presidential tweets.

Who can figure out the true meaning of “covfefe” ??? Enjoy!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 31, 2017

Illinois Representative Mike Quigley introduced the Communications Over Various Feeds Electronically for Engagement (COVFEFE) Act on Monday, which would amend the Presidential Records Act to classify and archive social media posts, including deleted tweets, as “documentary material.”

#COVFEFEAct makes deleting tweets a violation of Presidential Records Act—WH says tweets = official statements; Trump has deleted 18 so far.

— Mike Quigley (@RepMikeQuigley) June 12, 2017

Quigley believes in the importance of holding the president accountable for everything he posts, even on his personal Twitter account.

“In order to maintain public trust in government, elected officials must answer for what they do and say; this includes 140-character tweets,” said Quigley in a statement released on his official website. “President Trump’s frequent, unfiltered use of his personal Twitter account as a means of official communication is unprecedented.”

Despite inheriting the @POTUS account from his predecessor, former President Barack Obama, Trump frequently opts for his personal account, @realDonaldTrump, to communicate with the public. Unlike the @POTUS account, Trump’s personal account isn’t archived in the same manner under the Presidential Records Act.

Quigley also noted that the National Archives  previously released a guidance in 2014, which stated that social media merits historical recording. And in April, the National Archives instructed the Trump Administration to document Trump’s tweets in full.

“If the President is going to take to social media to make sudden public policy proclamations, we must ensure that these statements are documented and preserved for future reference,” said Quigley. “Tweets are powerful, and the President must be held accountable for every post.”

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post House “Covfefe” Bill Would Archive All of Trump’s Deleted Tweets appeared first on Law Street.

Major internet companies are joining a day of action to protest the Federal Communication Commission and its planned decision to eliminate Obama-era net neutrality regulations.

Amazon, Etsy, and Kickstarter are just some of the 52 companies and organizations that are participating in this internet-wide event on July 12. It’s being hosted by advocacy groups Fight for the Future, Freepress Action Fund, and Demand Progress. Other notable participants include Vimeo, Reddit, and Mozilla, creator of the Firefox Web Browser.

Not much information is available on what will exactly happen on the day of the protest on the event’s site, only that more details will be sent out to participants who join the mailing list as the day approaches. However, the website does promise to “make it easy for your followers / visitors to take action” in the protest.

Net neutrality is the idea that internet providers should treat all online traffic equally. Current FCC policy (Title II of the Telecommunications Act) regulates broadband providers to ensure that indiscriminate services are being provided to the public at large. In other words, the FCC is currently making sure that your Netflix streams are not being slowed down because your provider has a deal with Hulu.

President Donald Trump’s newly appointed FCC chair, Ajit Pai, promised last year to take a “weed whacker” to the internet regulations set up during Obama Administration. Pai, along with the rest of the FCC’s Republican majority, said in the agency’s open meeting that the current rules stifle creativity and prevent internet providers from trying innovative ways to make money in a digital world.

Member companies of the Internet and Television Association have stated that they support the idea of net neutrality, but would  prefer the federal government not be the body that enforces it. But companies that are actually based online have a much different opinion on the matter.

“Net neutrality made it possible for Vimeo, along with countless other startups, to innovate and thrive,” said Michael Cheah, general counsel of Vimeo, in a statement. “The FCC’s proposed rollback of the 2015 open internet rules threatens to impede that innovation and allow a handful of incumbent ISPs to determine winners and losers.”

This is not the first time internet companies have chosen to stand up to threats against net neutrality. Google, Netflix, and Twitter protested in similar fashion back in 2014 in support of reclassifying broadband services under Title II regulations. Since then, the rules have faced many challenges in court but have yet to be overturned.

As for Pai, this will be the second large-scale act of protest his commission will face this year. Comedian, and host of “Last Week Tonight,” John Oliver encouraged his viewers in May to comment on the FCC proposal that would dismantle Title II regulations. The resulting traffic crashed the commission’s site.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Amazon, Etsy, and Kickstarter Headline Net Neutrality Protest appeared first on Law Street.

At the 2017 WorldWide Developers Conference in San Jose, California, Apple executives gave their first preview of their new software update: iOS 11. The update will include over a dozen new tools and platforms, including a new Augmented Reality feature, an enhancement to Apple Pay, and the addition of a stylus that can be used in conjunction with the iPad Pro.

But one new feature stood out above the rest. During the keynote address, Apple introduced a Do Not Disturb add-on feature that will prevent an iPhone user from receiving notifications of any kind while behind the wheel. This includes texts, social media notifications, and news alerts. The add-on uses bluetooth and wi-fi doppler effect to determine if the device is moving within a car.

If it detects the specific type of movement, it prevents the person from receiving any notifications. The add-on must be turned on voluntarily and it can be turned off if you are in a vehicle and are not driving. And if you are worried that you won’t be able to communicate? The add-on will send out an automated reply to people who text you while you’re driving to inform them that you will answer them once you reach your destination.

“We think this is going to be a really important step for safety in the car,” said Craig Federighi, Senior Vice President of Software Engineering at WWDC.

The update won’t be released until the fall, but already people within Silicon Valley and the tech industry are praising the Do Not Disturb feature.

The importance of an Apple taking distracted driving seriously can’t be overstated

— Matt Peckham (@mattpeckham) June 5, 2017

“Do not disturb while driving” will save lives.

— Benedict Evans (@BenedictEvans) June 5, 2017

Do Not Disturb while driving turns the screen off automatically. This will save lives. And probably get turned off by the teens but good.

— Matthew Panzarino (@panzer) June 5, 2017

Distracted driving has been a serious problem in the age of smartphones. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in 2015 there was approximately 391,000 traffic accidents and approximately 3,477 deaths as a result of distracted driving. The risk level dramatically increases among youth drivers. The National Security Council reported that teen drivers are four times more likely than adult drivers to get into an accident when talking or texting on the phone while driving.

Smartphone usage among millennials in general has also exploded. According to a 2016 Nielsen study, of those who own a mobile phone between the ages of 18-24, 98 percent have a smartphone. Furthermore, 43 percent of those who do have a smartphone have an Apple iOS device.

The announcement follows a recent string of attempted regulation of distracted driving. In New York, the legislature is currently mulling over whether to implement a “textalyzer,” a device that would allow officers at the scene of an accident to access the drivers’ phones to see whether they were using their phones while driving.

The legislation has been criticized for allowing law enforcement to breach people’s private cell phone information for only minor incidents. However, the legislation is currently under review and similar legislation is being proposed in Tennessee, New Jersey, and Chicago.

Whether Apple’s voluntary feature will be useful or not remains to be seen, but with nine people dying a day from distracted driving, it is certainly trending in the right direction.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Apple Takes a Stance on Texting and Driving with iOS 11 appeared first on Law Street.

Instagram is the worst app for your mental health, according to a new study released by the U.K.’s Royal Society for Public Health (RSPH).

Researchers surveyed nearly 1,500 14 to 24 year olds and found that heavy usage of the photo sharing app led to poor body image and sleep, as well as higher levels of anxiety and depression.

.@YouTube only net positive platform for mental health whilst @Twitter – @facebook – @Snapchat & @instagram all net negative #StatusOfMind pic.twitter.com/E95Ob2D1vp

— RSPH (@R_S_P_H) May 19, 2017

Although “FOMO”–aka the “fear of missing out”–may not be a real a mental condition, it has been shown to take a serious toll on young people; the survey found that users who spent more than two hours on social media were more likely to report poor mental health, increased levels of psychological distress, and suicidal ideation.

The #StatusOfMind report explains:

This phenomenon has even been labelled as ‘Facebook depression’ by researchers who suggest that the intensity of the online world – where teens and young adults are constantly contactable, face pressures from unrealistic representations of reality, and deal with online peer pressure – may be responsible for triggering depression or exacerbating existing conditions.

“Instagram easily makes girls and women feel as if their bodies aren’t good enough as people add filters and edit their pictures in order for them to look ‘perfect’,” one survey responder explained about the app.

Snapchat, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube were found to be similarly damaging to mental health, counteracting positive effects like self-expression, self-identity, and community building.

Here is the @instagram profile that led to it being ranked worst for young people’s mental health and wellbeing in our report #StatusOfMind pic.twitter.com/9SbfoQwMY1

— RSPH (@R_S_P_H) May 19, 2017

Even with all of the negative side effects, quitting social media altogether can be can be extremely hard for users, according to Shirley Cramer, chief executive of RSPH.

RSPH and the Young Health Movement are now calling on social media companies to:

• Introduce a pop-up heavy usage warning on social media
• Identify users who could be suffering from mental health problems by their posts, and discretely signpost to support
• Highlight when photos of people have been digitally manipulated

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Instagram Wrecking Your Self Esteem? appeared first on Law Street.

PayPal is suing music streaming service Pandora, accusing it of copying its signature “P” logo, according to a lawsuit filed Friday in Manhattan federal court. The digital payment company alleges that Pandora’s new logo intentionally confuses customers into mistakenly opening the wrong app on their phones.

Pandora revamped its app logo back in October 2016, changing the front and opting for a more minimalistic blue and white design. At the time, Wired magazine couldn’t help but notice that Pandora’s blue capital “P” looked eerily familiar to another app–PayPal.

At first glance, the new app icon looks understated, its form and color reminiscent of the PayPal logo; the updated Pandora ‘P’ has no counter (the open space between the stem and the bowl of the ‘P’), and sports a subtle blue gradient.

Many app users have noted the similarities between the apps on Twitter as well:

that moment when u click on PayPal cuz u thought it was pandora smh @pandoramusic pic.twitter.com/5I9tz3ACD3

— julianjaden (@julianjaden) October 27, 2016

Look how similar the #pandora and #paypal logo are when next to each other…. #graphicdesign pic.twitter.com/dhWqmRQXq7

— Kylie Murphy (@Ky_Murphy) October 19, 2016

Pandora wants to be young and hip again. That’s why they… copied PayPal’s logo? pic.twitter.com/MSGUuV0FqC

— Romain Dillet (@romaindillet) October 12, 2016

According to the New York Post, PayPal says this confusion diverted traffic away from its app, and in effect caused it to lose customers.

“One critically important function of the PayPal logo is to stand out on the crowded screens of customers’ smartphones and tablets,” the suit states. The company says it “has invested heavily in the PayPal Logo since its introduction,” and that Pandora’s logo “not only resembles, but openly mimics the PayPal logo.”

PayPal reportedly sent numerous letters to Pandora hoping to solve the problem, but they went unanswered. Now the company is asking the court to force Pandora to stop using the logo and pay unspecified damages for trademark infringement and trademark dilution.

The threat of a possible settlement isn’t good news for Pandora, which lost about $250 million last year. The internet radio company was late to join the premium subscription bandwagon, and has since struggled to keep up with the growth of Spotify and Apple Music. Earlier this month the company received a $150 million investment from KKR & Co., the private-equity firm, in order to keep it afloat as it attempts to court a buyer to rescue it from its financial woes.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post PayPal Sues Pandora for Trademark Infringement appeared first on Law Street.

“Hi this is Sara, I’m calling with important information about your credit card. Nothing is wrong, but you are eligible for a great opportunity. Stay on the line or press one for more information.”

If you have a working telephone, you have probably received a call just like this or one of a similar nature. Assuming you didn’t hang up immediately, you pressed one to try and speak with a human to get your number taken off their list. And you most likely were met with a “click” signaling that they had hung up on you, rather than taken you off their list.

Free cruises, important information about your credit card, debt collection, calls from the IRS, warnings about a computer virus, and a whole litany of other enticing robocalls are increasing–despite their illegality. In April alone there were 2.5 billion robocalls placed in the U.S.

The FCC defines robocalls as unsolicited, pre-recorded messages that are placed without written or verbal consent. Exceptions are information about flight changes and school closings.

So, if they’re illegal, why are they still happening? The first reason is the ease with which they can be placed. According to the FCC, new technology allows these scammers to use inexpensive autodial technology to call hundreds of numbers a minute, whether they are on the Do Not Call list or not.

Do you want to know how to stop unwanted calls? Read these #FCCtips to #StopRobocalls: https://t.co/kkwwqxlOVK #ProtectingConsumers

— The FCC (@FCC) May 10, 2017

Even though robocalls are difficult to stop, a new string of lawsuits are aiming to curb this problem.

In January, the FTC filed two suits, FTC v. Justin Ramsey, et al. and FTC v. Aaron Michael Jones, et al., against two of the biggest perpetrators of robocalling. Many of the defendants have agreed to a settlement that includes a permanent ban on robocalling in the future, an agreement to never help others to place robocalls, a promise to stop calling numbers listed on the Do Not Call list, and paying a settlement to the FTC of over $500,000. 

In 2012 Grant Birchmeier and Stephen Parkes filed a class-action lawsuit against Caribbean Cruise Line, claiming that the company illegally contacted them and others on multiple occasions. The settlement resulted in Caribbean Cruise Line agreeing to pay up to $500 a call to those who received calls between August 2011 to August 2012.

Unfortunately, these fines and lawsuits are hardly threatening. One scam that pretended to be the IRS, was able to swindle $26.5 million from about 5,000 people, according to the (real) IRS. Telephone companies are working on new technology to block robocalls. But while those are still experiencing some hiccups, there are some preventative measures you can take.

First, don’t answer unfamiliar calls. If someone really wants to get in contact with you, they can leave a message. Most robocallers are testing your number to see if there is a real person at the other end. Not answering prevents them from getting that knowledge. Once they do know there is someone there, that number gets passed around to more and more robocall centers.

If you get any calls like this, submit the suspicious numbers to the FTC at this link: https://complaints.donotcall.gov/complaint/complaintcheck.aspx. Furthermore, you should put yourself on the Do Not Call list. Being on this list won’t prevent all calls from scammers, but it will cut down on some. Here is the link: https://www.donotcall.gov/

You can register for the National Do-Not-Call list at https://t.co/ZeZdjVjejK, by phone 1-888-382-1222 or TTY 1-866-290-4236. #FCC101

— The FCC (@FCC) May 10, 2017

 Finally, never give your bank account information or credit card information over the phone to a stranger. No matter what scare tactics they use (telling you you’re being sued for fraud, telling you your computer has a virus, etc.) do not give them your personal information. It’s always best to hang up and verify that what they are saying is true.

For the near future, it looks like we will be plagued by robocalls. But if you follow these steps, you’re on the way to stopping them.

Anne Grae Martin

Anne Grae Martin is a member of the class of 2017 University of Delaware. She is majoring in English Professional Writing and minoring in French and Spanish. When she’s not writing for Law Street, Anne Grae loves doing yoga, cooking, and correcting her friends’ grammar mistakes. Contact Anne Grae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Problem with Robocalling–And How to Stop It appeared first on Law Street.

Most of you have probably done it. You hear a ding or feel that all too familiar faint  buzz, and tell yourself there’s no harm in taking a quick glance at the screen–I mean it could be important. But as harmless as a quick text from behind the wheel might seem, texting while driving can be incredibly dangerous. Looking to put a stop to the trend, New York lawmakers are considering legalizing technology that would help police bust distracted drivers.

Dubbed the “Textalyzer,” or Breathalyzer for texting, the device would allow authorities at the scene of an accident to immediately search drivers’ phones to see if they were using them at the time of the crash.

If passed, the law would come to be known as Evan’s law, for 19-year-old Evan Lieberman, who died in a 2011 head-on-collision that was later found to be the result of a distracted driver.

Evan’s father, Ben Lieberman, worked with New York State Senator Terrence Murphy (R-Westchester) and Assembly Assistant Speaker Felix Ortiz (D-Kings) to introduce the bipartisan bill, which has already been approved by New York’s state senate committee on transportation, but is still pending in the finance committee.

“The general public knows distracted driving is a problem, but if people knew the extent of the damage caused by this behavior, they would be amazed,” said Lieberman in a press release. “With our current laws, we’re not getting accurate information because the issue is not being addressed at the heart of the problem—with the people causing the collisions.”

The plugin technology, currently being developed by Israeli tech developer Cellebrite, would report the exact time a phone was used, but not provide access to any content—keeping conversations, contacts, numbers, photos, and application data private.

Similar initiatives have been introduced in Tennessee, New Jersey, and the city of Chicago. However, privacy proponents worry the technology could still be used to record driver’s personal information without their consent or a warrant.

“Every fender bender would become a pretense for gobbling up people’s private cellphone information, and we know that cellphones typically contain our entire lives,” said New York Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Donna Lieberman, who is no relation to Ben Lieberman.

According to Fortune, the proposed law states that “every person who operates a motor vehicle in the state shall be deemed to have given consent to field testing of his or her mobile telephone and/or personal electronic device for the purpose of determining the use thereof while operating a motor vehicle.”

Ultimately Lieberman hopes the technology will act as deterrent for would-be distracted drivers and serve as resource for police officers to collect more extensive data on these types of situations.

“The last thing I want to do is be responsible for legislation that is going to infringe on someone’s privacy,” he told NBC News, “but I also don’t want to bury another child.”

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New York May Legalize “Textalyzer” to Bust Distracted Drivers appeared first on Law Street.

On Friday, a massive cyber attack hit several nations in Europe and Asia, and disrupted the computer systems at multiple British hospitals. Patients were turned away as hospital staff couldn’t access the computers, and appointments had to be cancelled. The BBC reports that as many as 74 countries were affected, and security researchers believe all of the incidents are related.

The British public health system, National Health Service, advised people to only seek medical help at hospitals if it was an emergency. Ambulances were redirected to other hospitals. The screens on the hacked hospitals’ computers showed a message from the hackers each demanding $300 in Bitcoins within three days to unlock the information.

BREAKING: Multiple NHS trusts across UK under malware attack. Actual screenshot of the threat ppl are seeing: https://t.co/ZBm6a7ImwQ pic.twitter.com/7NVy8xvfyD

— Shaun Lintern (@ShaunLintern) May 12, 2017

The technique behind the attack is so-called “ransomware,” which basically is a type of software that infects a digital machine and locks its functions until a ransom has been paid. The name of this particular malware is “Wanna Cry,” also known as “Wanna Decryptor.”

36,000 detections of #WannaCry (aka #WanaCypt0r aka #WCry) #ransomware so far. Russia, Ukraine, and Taiwan leading. This is huge. pic.twitter.com/EaZcaxPta4

— Jakub Kroustek (@JakubKroustek) May 12, 2017

Several experts believe the cyber attack is linked to a hacker group called The Shadow Brokers–the same group that claimed in April that it had stolen and released malware created by the National Security Agency, NSA. It was not exactly clear what the groups’ motive was–it said it wanted to protest President Donald Trump, but also that it opposed the removal of Steve Bannon from the National Security Council.

The hackers also claimed they are “not fans of Russia or Putin,” but security experts said they could possibly be associated with the Russian government. One chief executive of a cyber-security firm, Jake Williams, said, “Russia is quickly responding to the missile attacks on Syria with the release of the dump file password that was previously withheld.”

Could we be seeing the largest cyber attack in history? Organisations in 74 countries now hit including FedEx and NHS #ransomware #WannaCry

— Lisa Forte (@lisaoncyber) May 12, 2017

Other companies that were affected include Spanish electric company Iberdrola, utility provider Gas Natural, University of Milano-Bicocca in Italy, Portuguese telecommunications provider Portugal Telecom, and FedEx. The largest telecommunications company, Telefonica, was also hit, but the attack reportedly didn’t affect any customers. It seemed to be a new kind of ransomware, and it spread fast. Some said it seemed to be a worm–a malware program that spreads by between computers, like a virus.

In Britain, the NHS is facing criticism for not doing enough to protect its computer systems against attacks like these. The hacker group became known two months ago, and Microsoft released a program that could protect against its malware. But not all NHS computers installed it. Ross Anderson from Cambridge University is one of the critics. “If large numbers of NHS organizations failed to act on a critical notice from Microsoft two months ago, then whose fault is that?” he said.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Global Cyber Attack Put British Hospitals Out of Commission appeared first on Law Street.

Adding to its recent legal woes, Uber is facing a criminal probe from the Justice Department, according to people familiar with the investigation. The investigation, which concerns the ride sharing service’s controversial Greyball tracking tool, is reportedly in its early stages. A federal inquiry does not necessarily indicate wrongdoing; criminal charges being brought against Uber executives are also not a guarantee.

Since The New York Times uncovered its existence in March, Greyball has been a lightning rod of controversy. Greyball is a technology that allows Uber to present fake versions of its app to people it does not want in its cars–like city officials looking to reign in the company’s illegal practices–and track them using credit card data and other personal information. Uber claims it used the tool to protect its drivers in new markets, some of which the service operated in illegally, like Portland, Oregon.

After the Times’ report in March, an Uber spokesman said Greyball “denies ride requests to users who are violating our terms of service — whether that’s people aiming to physically harm drivers, competitors looking to disrupt our operations, or opponents who collude with officials on secret ‘stings’ meant to entrap drivers.”

But officials in cities like Portland, where Uber fought through legal hurdles in late 2014 before it began legally operating in the city in April 2015, say the tool was used for more nefarious reasons. According to Portland transportation officials, Uber intentionally skirted 16 city officials who were looking to shut-down the service because it was operating illegally at the time. Uber’s attorneys say the tool was used “exceedingly sparingly” in Portland; it had not been used since April 2015, they said.

Uber and its embattled chief executive, Travis Kalanick, has been embroiled in controversy for much of the year. From a spate of sexual assault accusations to a video of Kalanick berating an Uber driver, the $70 billion dollar behemoth is facing uncertainty as it enters Silicon Valley’s newest frontier: self-driving vehicles. In fact, Uber’s future in that field is increasingly in doubt. It was also recently hit with a lawsuit from Google’s autonomous car division, Waymo, which accused Uber of stealing its trade secrets.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Department of Justice Opens Criminal Investigation into Uber’s Greyball appeared first on Law Street.

A Florida extortion case involving two social media influencers and some X-rated blackmail has renewed interest in the debate over cellphone privacy–specifically, whether or not a suspect’s phone password is protected by the Fifth Amendment.

The case involves Hencha Voigt, 29, and her then-boyfriend, Wesley Victor, 34, who were arrested last July after they allegedly threatened to leak sexually explicit videos and photos of social media star Julieanna Goddard unless she paid them. The pair reportedly requested that Goddard–better known as “YesJulz” on social media–pay them $18,000 within 24 hours, according to a Miami Police Department report.

Law should support their phones being searched.They were seized as evidence 2the crime- extortion,which is a felony. https://t.co/xT2xLN391i

— Julz (@YesJulz) April 26, 2017

Goddard has over 460,000 followers on Instagram and has been referred to as “the Queen of Snapchat” by the New York Times in a profile last year. The 26-year-old multi-hyphenate (she’s a promoter, social-media marketer, and model) has worked with brands like Puma and Red Bull and can be seen hanging out with the likes of Lebron James and footwear and clothing designer Ronnie Fieg.

Voigt, on the other hand, is an Instagram celebrity in her own right. The fitness model starred last fall in “WAGS Miami,” an E! reality TV show about the wives and girlfriends of sports figures in South Beach.

According to CNN, prosecutors have been unable to search through Voigt and Victor’s confiscated cellphones for more evidence, since both locked phones are password protected. Now, prosecutors have asked the judge to compel Voigt and Victor to give up their passwords, but lawyers for the pair are pushing back, arguing that passwords are equivalent to self-incriminating testimony that is protected under the Fifth Amendment.

“They’re asking for the passcode so they can keep on searching what’s on the phone–which may be incriminating my client–and then use that against her,” Kertch Conze, Voigt’s attorney, told CNN. While its unclear how the judge will rule in this case, this is yet another example of investigators fighting over what protections are afforded to defendants’ locked phones.

Last year, Apple notably pushed back against the FBI after it wanted the company to devise a way to unlock one of the San Bernardino shooters’ phones. Apple CEO Tim Cook argued that the “back door” could potentially be used by sophisticated hackers and cyber-criminals, which would effectively put tens of millions of Americans at risk.

However, this “sextortion” case is clearly different. For one, the defendants aren’t dead and no back doors are needed, and two, there isn’t a threat of a possible terror attack at stake.

While some lower courts have ruled that forcing suspects to reveal their passcodes is unconstitutional due to the Fifth Amendment, other courts have contradicted these rulings. Therefore, we’ll just have to wait and see if the judge will  grant prosecutors in this case an exception.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Florida “Sextortion” Case Renews Phone Password Privacy Debate appeared first on Law Street.

A German couple is suing Facebook after the company denied them access to their deceased daughter’s account. While legal disputes over inheritance are nothing new, questions over digital legacy and online reputations are growing more common in the age of information.

According to German news outlet Deutsche Welle, a subway train struck and killed the plaintiffs’ 15-year-old daughter in 2012. It remains unclear whether her death was an accident or if the girl committed suicide. Her parents hope that by gaining access to her Facebook account they might be able to shed light on the circumstances surrounding her death.

In 2015, a court in Berlin granted the couple access to their daughter’s Facebook account, stating that digital possessions ought to be as inheritable as material possessions. Facebook, however, refused to comply with the court order and appealed the decision. The social media giant argued that while they sympathized with the parent’s demands, it would violate the privacy of users who had messaged the teenager under the expectation their conversation would remain private.

Facebook does have a set of guidelines that users can follow if they are concerned about what will happen to their account upon their passing. Facebook memorializes accounts of deceased people and gives users the option to name a legacy contact. However, the plaintiffs’ daughter was not old enough to name a legacy contact.

Even if she had been old enough to name her parents as legacy contacts, they still would not have been allowed to log into the memorialized account or check her messages. Deutsche Welle reported that the girl’s parents did know her password but that her account had already been memorialized by the time they tried to log in.

Increasingly, law firms and will writers are offering advice on how to protect one’s digital legacy, but the case in Germany highlights the fact that there are limits on one’s ability to control their online presence once they pass. Individuals have the option to create (or not create) an online profile. However, once an account has been created, control over that account may not be exclusive to the user depending on the service.

Clearly, the phrase “you can’t take it with you” has added meaning in the information age but legal questions about digital legacy have salience in life as well as death. Additionally, one can have a digital legacy without ever having created an online account.

In 2010, a Spanish man filed complaints with the national Data Protection Agency against a local newspaper, Google Spain, and Google Inc. When that man’s name was searched, Google turned up an auction notice for his repossessed house. He argued that because the matter had been resolved, the search result was irrelevant and violated his right to privacy. In 2014, the European Court of Justice ruled in favor of the man’s “right to be forgotten.”

While the European Court ruled that the “right to be forgotten” is limited and should not be used to make “prominent people less prominent or criminals less criminal” other courts have enforced the digital right more broadly. A Japanese court stirred up controversy when it recognized a convicted child sex offender’s “right to be forgotten.” The court ruled that in spite of his crimes, the man should be allowed to rehabilitate his life “unhindered.”

Digital legacies have come to define people in life and in death. As long as the law continues to lag behind technology (it likely always will), questions of who controls online reputations remain points of fierce contention.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who Controls Your Digital Legacy? appeared first on Law Street.

Researchers may have found a solution to the problem of plastic pollution–a caterpillar’s larvae that have the very unusual ability to digest plastic. A new study published on Monday describes how the larvae work.

The specific type of caterpillar is called the wax worm, which is the larvae form of the greater wax moth. The larvae are normally used as fishing bait. Because they can chew and digest beeswax, they are commonly found in beehives. Beekeepers consider them a pest, which that is how the larvae’s ability was discovered.

Federica Bertocchini, a scientist with the Spanish National Research Council, also keeps bees as a hobby. After removing wax worms from her beehives she realized they managed to chew their way out of the plastic bag she kept them in. After conducting an experiment, Bertocchini and her counterparts at the University of Cambridge, Paolo Bombelli and Christopher J. Howe, confirmed that the larvae did actually digest the plastic and were not simply chewing it into smaller parts.

To determine that, they put the larvae in a blender and spread the paste out on plastic. Because the plastic continued to degrade even when dead larvae were lying on it, the scientists believe that an enzyme in the insects is likely responsible. They could not determine whether the worms produce the enzyme or if it’s made by the bacteria in their gut, but they did see that something broke down the plastic into smaller molecules. Beeswax is composed of a very diverse mix of lipids and it’s likely that the breaking down of polyethylene, the most common plastic, involves a similar chemical process.

The world produces 300 million tons of plastic every year, much of which ends up in landfills or in the ocean, often hurting wild animals. If a caterpillar could be used to stop some of this or if the chemical process can be replicated, it would be a major breakthrough. Bertocchini said of the discovery:

We are planning to implement this finding into a viable way to get rid of plastic waste, working towards a solution to save our oceans, rivers, and all the environment from the unavoidable consequences of plastic accumulation.

The researchers said that, ideally, they would be able to isolate the specific chemicals in the worms that break down the plastic and then insert it into bacteria that could break down plastic faster than worms can. However, they warned that such an accomplishment would take several years even if they are successful, it probably won’t solve the world’s plastic problem altogether. But it is a step in the right direction.

Read more: What Really Happens to Your Trash?

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Could This Caterpillar Help Solve one of the World’s Pollution Problems? appeared first on Law Street.

Last Sunday, The New York Times published an extensive profile of Uber’s CEO, Travis Kalanick, which recounted his and his company’s numerous scandals. A new allegation was nestled among the long list of known controversies. The report claimed Uber bought data from Slice Intelligence to track the brand allegiances of thousands of rideshare customers. Slice Intel owns an email unsubscriber called Unroll.me, which it used to collect Lyft receipts from users’ inboxes before selling them to Uber. While it does not appear any laws were broken, the revelation has reignited a debate around profit-driven data collection.

The report only mentions this scheme in passing, but the fleeting allegation was enough to upset Unroll.me users. Hours after the report was published, Unroll.me’s CEO, Jojo Hedaya, released a tone-deaf statement on the company’s website.

The statement is titled “We Can Do Better,” but by “we” he means “the user.” In the non-apology, Hedaya places blame on the consumer. After describing the public anger as “heartbreaking,” Hedaya immediately notes that each user has to agree to Unroll.me’s terms of use and the “plain-English Privacy Policy,” but that “most don’t take the time to thoroughly review them.”

The statement indicates Unroll.me has no intention of changing its ways because it’s how the company can “monetize [its] free service.” This rationale is misleading. Users may not pay money to use the service but, as long as Unroll.me sells user data, the service isn’t free. Unroll.me profits at the expense of each user’s privacy and third-party buyers, such as Uber, set the price.

Unroll.me claims all the data it sells is anonymized, but it is difficult for any user to know how well their data is protected. The Times report details the way in which Uber uses its app to “fingerprint” iPhones. With a tiny line of code, Uber is able to identify any iPhone regardless of whether the Uber app had been deleted from the phone or the phone had been erased and reset. Increasingly, tech companies that claim to value user data, value it as something to be sold, not as something to protect.

Nothing is free. Consumers cannot demand private companies provide unmonetized free services. However, companies that sell user data cannot claim to provide free services. While users of a service like Unroll.me may not hand over money, a transaction ultimately takes place.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Unroll.me Sells Its Data to Uber: Is Your Free App Really Free? appeared first on Law Street.

The Federal Trade Commission means business when it comes to regulating Instagram advertisements.

The consumer rights advocacy group Public Citizen recently complained celebrities weren’t being upfront about which of their posts were sponsored. So, the FTC responded by reviewing the photos and sending warning letters to more than 90 Instagram users. The commission has discussed its standards for advertising on social media before, but has not directly confronted the celebrities named in complaints until now.

Public Citizen wasn’t alone in its push to make sponsored content more transparent—this past summer, the nonprofit Truth in Advertising filed a complaint against the Kardashian family for “deceptive marketing.” Though the FTC won’t name which celebrities received the letters, Public Citizen also included the Kardashians in its petition, in addition to well-known Instagrammers like Rihanna, Michael Phelps, Chris Pratt, Jennifer Lopez, Lindsay Lohan, Lebron James, Drake, Mark Wahlberg, and Blake Lively.

The 113 photos Public Citizen referenced in its complaint usually show the celebrities using a product from the brand that has paid them, with an accompanying caption endorsing it. Products range from makeup and hair care from companies like L’Oreal to athletic gear from Nike and Adidas to snacks from Lay’s and Dunkin’ Donuts.

According to a release on the FTC’s website:

The FTC’s Endorsement Guides provide that if there is a ‘material connection’ between an endorser and an advertiser – in other words, a connection that might affect the weight or credibility that consumers give the endorsement – that connection should be clearly and conspicuously disclosed, unless it is already clear from the context of the communication. A material connection could be a business or family relationship, monetary payment, or the gift of a free product. Importantly, the Endorsement Guides apply to both marketers and endorsers.

The release adds that Instagrammers should be clear that their post is an ad within the first three lines of the photo caption, and should avoid writing too many hashtags that could bury disclaimers. The use of hashtags and captions like “#sp” (short for “sponsored”), “Thanks [Brand],” or “partner” do not directly communicate that the post is sponsored and can confuse followers, the FTC says.

In its Endorsement Guides, the FTC writes that ads should be “honest and not misleading”—and consumers should know when they’re reading an endorsement that has been paid-for, because it can affect the way they “[evaluate] the endorser’s glowing recommendation.”

This doesn’t mean your favorite actors, athletes and reality stars are headed to court or getting banned from Instagram anytime soon. Often, it’s the sponsor behind the post that ends up taking the heat for its sneaky ad campaigns. In July, Warner Bros. settled charges that it failed to disclose information about paying “influencers,” like Youtube star PewDiePie, to recommend one of its video games. In March, the department store Lord & Taylor settled charges over its failure to inform consumers that it had sent popular Instagram users free clothing in exchange for promotion of one of its clothing lines.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The FTC Isn’t Kidding About Instagram Ads appeared first on Law Street.

For most people, headphones represent a chance for reprieve–an oasis from the belligerent noise that comes with actively listening in on and participating with the world around you. However, according to a new lawsuit, Bose has been making it so your personal sonic sanctuary can be infiltrated by marketing firms seeking to gather information on your every want, need, and personal preference. Not only is Big Brother watching, but he’s listening, too.

Actually, the issue isn’t that dire, but this new lawsuit does introduce important questions about how much freedom we’re willing to give marketing companies when it comes to infringing on personal freedom. As first reported by Fortune, the headphone company has been hit with a complaint from Bose headphone-owner Kyle Zak, who claims that the company, through the “Bose Connect” app that they encourage consumers to download, is secretly collecting data customers’ audio selections and disclosing that data to third party marketing companies without consent.

“[O]ne’s personal audio selections  – including music, radio broadcast, Podcast, and lecture choices – provide an incredible amount of insight into his or her personality, behavior, political views, and personal identity,” the complaint states. “[N]umerous scientific studies show that musical preferences reflect explicit characteristics such as age, personality, and values, and can likely even be used to identify people with autism spectrum conditions.” 

The purpose of the Bose Connect app was to allow users to control certain Bose products from their smartphones. However, Bose does not require users to download the app. The complaint singles out a data mining company named Segment.io as one of the third parties that Bose is feeding data to for targeting purposes. According to their website, Segment works with other companies such as Bonobos and Crate & Barrel.

The complaint states that Zak, on behalf of all those “similarly situated,” seeks actual and statutory damages that have come with the invasion of privacy that Bose has brought, as well as full compensation for the purchase price of Bose Wireless products. For reference, a pair of Bose QuietComfort 35 Wireless Noise Cancelling headphones will run you about $350–on top of how much you value personal freedom because of all the involuntary ceding of private information and such. 

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Are Bose Headphones Used to Spy on You? appeared first on Law Street.

Snapchat’s CEO, Evan Spiegel, is at war with India. Spiegel supposedly said India was too poor for Snapchat and now #BoycottSnapchat is trending in the world’s second most populous country.

According to Anthony Pompliano, a former Snapchat employee, Spiegel dismissed his idea to expand in underutilized markets.

“This app is only for rich people,” said Spiegel, according to Pompliano. “I don’t want to expand into poor countries like India and Spain.”

The accusations were found in documents from a lawsuit between Pompliano and Snap Inc., Snapchat’s parent company.

In a statement to the public, a Snap Inc. spokesperson dismissed Pompliano’s claims as the words of a “disgruntled former employee,” adding: “Obviously Snapchat is for everyone! It’s available worldwide to download for free.”

“We are grateful for our Snapchat community in India and around the world,” the statement read.

In spite of the denial, angry Snapchat users took to the internet. As news of the alleged comments spread, #BoycottSnapchat and #Uninstall_Snapchat began trending in India and around the world.

Reportedly, almost 400,000 users in India deleted the Snapchat app from their phones between Saturday and Sunday.

Twitter users also used the hashtag #1star to encourage others to damage the app’s rating and write scathing reviews on both Android and iOS–as of today, Snapchat has a one star rating on the Indian App Store.

It was even rumored that Indian hackers retaliated by leaking 1.7 million Snapchat users’ data on the “dark web,” but these reports have not been verified.

But as Indians took to their respective app marketplaces in defense of their country’s honor, some locked onto the wrong target. Snapdeal, an e-commerce platform that actually happens to be based in India, received a number of one-star ratings and many uninstalled the unrelated “snap app.”

Snapdeal’s CEO took to twitter to express his surprise:

@thetanmay Thanks bud. Ppl asking us to make a statement that @snapdeal is not @snapchat was possibly the last thing I thought I would ever need to do.

— Kunal Bahl (@1kunalbahl) April 16, 2017

Pompliano’s lawsuit accuses executives of exaggerating user data to mislead advertisers. Funnily enough, it looks as though Snapchat’s user data will suffer a painful blow regardless of whether or not Pompliano’s accusations are found to be true.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why is #BoycottSnapchat Trending in India? appeared first on Law Street.

Self-driving cars might soon become a common part of our lives–TechCrunch recently reported a study predicting that 25 percent of driving could be done by autonomous vehicles by the year 2030.

But the new technology is far from perfect, and has recently caused a number of incidents. In late March, a Tesla in autopilot mode hit a police motorcycle in Arizona, although the officer was able to jump off of the motorcycle before he was injured. And a self-driving Volvo being used by Uber ended up in another crash in Arizona around the same time. Over the summer, a Tesla driver died in a crash while the car was on autopilot (the driver was watching a Harry Potter movie at the time).  In September, one of Google’s self-driving vehicles ran a red light and collided with the passenger’s side of another vehicle.

So, when there isn’t a human steering the wheel, who takes the fall in court for accidents like these? Many lawyers and legal experts who have weighed in on the issue believe that the automobile manufacturers should be held liable.

However, not every case involving self-driving car crashes is the same. Recently, Michael I. Krauss, a professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, explored how different types of accidents and malfunctions for different types of vehicles should be handled under tort law in a piece for Forbes Magazine. Tort law involves civil cases in which one party has faced injury or damages and another party has been accused of being responsible for them.

According to Krauss, if an accident occurs because of a “manufacturing defect”–meaning the car does not operate as it was designed to operate–then the company that built it should be at fault. If there was an “informational defect”–meaning the car’s owner was not properly educated about how to operate it, and used it incorrectly as a result–then, Krauss writes, the car company should be liable only if it was negligent and failed to give sufficient instructions or warnings.

However, Krauss notes that “design defects” create a legal gray area. A design defect would occur if the choices the car has been programmed to lead the driver into an accident in response to an unforeseen issue. For example, Krauss says that if a moose jumps in front of the car, it could choose to hit the moose and potentially kill the driver or swerve onto the sidewalk and endanger pedestrians. He argues that decisions about liability in these scenarios should once again be based on whether or not the manufacturers were negligent or whether they made the best possible design choice. Such decisions could be left up to juries or decided beforehand by regulators, based on what a reasonable person might conclude, Krauss writes.

The Society of Auto Engineers has established six levels of driving automation, with level zero indicating that the driver has full control and level five indicating that the car is completely autonomous. Bryant Walker Smith, a law professor at the University of South Carolina, told USA Today that a human driver is responsible for any crashes involving a vehicle ranked lower than level three. Smith added that because most accidents are caused by human error, which automatic vehicles aim to eliminate, a growing reliance on self-driving cars could mean fewer accidents and thus fewer legal disputes.

But the technology isn’t perfect, and can still make the same mistakes as humans–like speeding or running through red lights. Questions about who would take the blame for these violations remain unanswered.

Government regulation of self-driving cars could be changing under President Donald Trump’s White House. In September, former President Barack Obama’s administration released a set of standards for self-driving car manufacturers that would require them to conduct extensive safety assessments and provide the results to the federal government. Because legislation that addresses the vehicles varies for each state, the Department of Transportation released a centralized list of guidelines each state could adopt. But Elaine Chao, the new transportation secretary in Trump’s Administration, is now reevaluating the old administration’s rules as companies that develop the vehicles like Google and Uber push back against the amount of information they would have to report. Chao has cited safety and jobs–because the technology would eliminate the need for occupations like truck drivers–as her main concerns as she considers the issue.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who is Liable When a Self-Driving Car Gets into an Accident? appeared first on Law Street.

American and German hate speech laws are clashing this month after the approval of a German bill that permits fines of up to 50 million euros on social networking sites that fail to remove hate speech and fake news content from their platforms. The bill still needs to be approved by parliament, but if it does pass, it will be the first concrete step by a government to limit and penalize fake news production.

Companies will have 24 hours to take down content that has been flagged by users before the fines kick in. They will also be obligated to file quarterly reports and turn in “malicious” users–an issue that may prove thorny, as demonstrated by Twitter’s recent lawsuit against the federal government.

American-based sites including Facebook and Twitter have been scrambling to fight fake news over the past year but have struggled to walk the line between freedom of speech and hate speech. In Germany, where the legacy of the Nazi reign has created some of the strictest hate speech laws on the books, that line has been far more defined for decades. Under German law, volksverhetzung, which can be translated as “incitement to hatred,” is a crime punishable by heavy fines or several years of imprisonment. These punishments are usually applied to Holocaust denial and overt racist threats but by shifting the focus to social media, Germany is taking on a wider and more varied range of bigoted behavior. German justice minister Heiko Maas told the German media that “there should be just as little tolerance for criminal rabble rousing on social networks as on the street.”

The bill has already come under fire from advocates of free speech, including the EU’s digital commissioner, Andrus Ansip of Estonia. Ansip declared that over-regulating social media will harm innovation and that instead, the EU should encourage self-regulation. However, German supporters of the bill argue that websites have been neglecting reports of abuse coming in from users and that a harsher penalty is the only way to ensure that the sites will truly take fake news and hate speech seriously. The German Jugendschutz, a ministry dedicated to protecting minors online, found that Facebook only removed 39 percent of reported criminal content. Twitter removes an even smaller percentage of reported content–an estimated one in a hundred reported messages. Facebook has refuted the Jugendschutz statistic, arguing that its own analysis showed a higher rate of removal, but Twitter has not pushed back with the same vehement denial.

Tracing and deleting fake news and hate speech is a challenging task, especially for networks like Facebook and Twitter that serve hundreds of millions of users across dozens of countries every day. There is so much content to sift through that it is not surprising the social network teams are struggling to rapidly and accurately take down fake news. However, a worthwhile task shouldn’t be abandoned simply because it is difficult. The true challenge is not taking down abusive content, it is determining whether the strict German definition of hate speech can be applied in an era where even the team in the Oval Office has made disparaging and racist remarks on social media.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post What Germany’s New Hate Speech Law Means for Social Media appeared first on Law Street.

Are President Donald Trump and Twitter friends again?

The website–Trump’s social media platform of choice–has dropped its lawsuit against the federal government for trying to identify an anonymous user who was criticizing the president.

Twitter filed the case in a California court Thursday after it received a summons from the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Customs and Border Protection to reveal the person behind the Twitter account @ALT_uscis (which stands for United States Citizenship and Immigration Services). Though it is not a verified Twitter page for USCIS, the account’s administrators claim to be rogue employees who use the platform to criticize Trump’s immigration policies.

So when Twitter received DHS’s order, which allegedly requested the user’s name, login information,  phone number, mailing address, and IP address, the company refused to comply and sought to have the agency’s actions declared “unlawful and “unenforceable” in court. The American Civil Liberties Union also threw its support behind Twitter, offering to represent the individual behind the account.

One day later, the government backed off of its demands and the tech company withdrew the lawsuit.

Twitter’s lawyers say it was aiming to protect the free speech and First Amendment rights of its users from being violated by the government, and that complying with the DHS requests would “chill the expression of particularly valuable political speech.”

https://twitter.com/ALT_uscis/status/850399183127273472

But this may not be the end of the Trump Administration’s attempts to crack down on those who disagree with him. The president is not known for his ability to handle criticism well. In the past, he has lashed out after being made fun of, threatened legal action against newspapers that publish unflattering stories about him, and labeled those who say negative things about him as “haters and losers.“

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Trump Administration vs. Twitter: Twitter Comes Out on Top appeared first on Law Street.

In a party line vote, the Republican-controlled House dealt a blow to internet privacy advocates on Wednesday, passing a bill that would roll back Obama-era protections on consumer data. President Donald Trump is expected to sign the bill, according to the White House. Undoing the rules, which were set to take effect at the end of the year, might signal a new path for the Federal Communications Commission, favoring unfettered industry growth over consumer-friendly protections.

Last October, the FCC enacted a new set of rules against internet service providers (ISPs) like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast, barring them from collecting consumer data such as browsing habits, app history, and location data. Personal information, like a customer’s social security number, was also safeguarded. Though internet companies like Google and Facebook use customers’ data as currency in selling targeted advertisements, the FCC decided ISPs should not be granted the same unregulated access.

Those protections will vanish with the new law, as would the ability for the FCC to draft similar rules in the future. “Today’s vote means that Americans will never be safe online from having their most personal details stealthily scrutinized and sold to the highest bidder,” Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy told The Washington Post.

Privacy advocates argue repealing the protections will grant ISPs access to customer data in a bid to boost profits. Instead of simply providing a channel for internet access, ISPs are now wading into territory dominated by billion-dollar mammoths like Google and Facebook: targeted advertising.

So while the protections would not have barred those companies from accessing user data to sell to advertising agencies and marketers, privacy advocates argue ISPs have access to a wider range of data than search engines and other websites, and thus should be more restricted. Some also worry that net neutrality–the policy that internet providers treat the web as a level playing field–could be next on the chopping block.

But opponents of the rules, and champions of the new path the FCC seems to be following, say that the rules would have stifled innovation. Industry advocates say the rules defined privacy too broadly (browsing and app history should not be private, they argue), and provided an unfair advantage to other data-collectors like Google, as the rules only targeted ISPs.

“There is no lawful, factual or sound policy basis to justify a discriminatory approach that treats ISPs differently from some of the largest companies in the Internet ecosystem that engage in similar practices,” The Internet & Television Association, an industry trade group, said last October when the rules were passed.

Ajit Pai, the newly-appointed FCC chairman, said the Federal Trade Commission, a consumer protection agency, will work together with the FCC to “ensure that consumers’ online privacy is protected through a consistent and comprehensive framework.” He said “jurisdiction over broadband providers’ privacy practices” would be returned to the FTC. But Pai added the FCC could still bring privacy-related lawsuits against ISPs.

Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA), who voted against the bill, said in a House committee hearing on Monday that he worries that in the absence of regulations, ISPs will abuse their data-collecting power. “One would hope — because consumers want their privacy protected — that they would be good actors, and they would ask permission and do these nice things,” said Doyle. “But there’s no law now that says they have to, and there’s no cop on the beat saying, ‘Hey, we caught you doing something.’”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Congress Passes Bill to Roll Back Internet Privacy Protections appeared first on Law Street.

In the wake of the deadly terror attack in London last week, UK officials have renewed pressure on Facebook’s popular encrypted messaging service, WhatsApp, to create a backdoor for law enforcement.

Khalid Masood, the man identified as the Westminster Bridge attacker, reportedly logged on to the app minutes before he went on a murderous rampage that left four dead and dozens wounded. UK Home Secretary Amber Rudd believes WhatsApp and other encryption messaging services like it should give authorities access to their platforms in cases like this because “there should be no place for terrorists to hide.”

“We need to make sure that organizations like WhatsApp, and there are plenty of others like that, don’t provide a secret place for terrorists to communicate with each other,” said Rudd on BBC One’s “Andrew Marr Show” on Sunday.

“It used to be that people would steam open envelopes or just listen in on phones when they wanted to find out what people were doing, legally, through warranty,” added Rudd. “But on this situation we need to make sure that our intelligence services have the ability to get into situations like encrypted WhatsApp.”

WhatsApp use something called end-to-end encryption, which ensures all messages are secure by generating a unique “lock and key” that allows only the designated sender and recipient(s) access to the material shared. The messages are so secure in fact, that even WhatsApp doesn’t have access to the material that is shared.

Therefore, investigators are unable to see if Masood sent a message before the attack, and if so to whom–hence the UK investigators’ request for a backdoor. Police believe that Masood acted alone in the attack and are determined to understand if he “was a lone actor inspired by terrorist propaganda or if others have encouraged, supported or directed him.”

WhatsApp isn’t the the only app that uses end-to-end encryption. Apple’s iMessage service features the same level of security. In February of last year, Apple CEO Tim Cook spoke out against building a backdoor to the iPhone, after his company was asked to assist the FBI in unlocking an iPhone linked to the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California. Cook said the backdoor would be “too dangerous to create.”

On Sunday, however, Rudd said, “I would ask Tim Cook to think again about other ways of helping us work out how we can get into the situations like WhatsApp on the Apple phone.”

Rudd said she is planning to meet with internet technology giants Google, Facebook, and Twitter later this week to discuss the issue further, but it’s unlikely that any of these companies will be willing to take a gamble with their users’ security.

According to BBC, a WhatsApp spokeswoman said that the company was “horrified at the attack” and is cooperating with the investigation.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Encryption Battle: UK Calls for WhatsApp Backdoor After London Attack appeared first on Law Street.

For the first three months of 2017, Uber has been mired in controversy. Many have attributed the strife to the company’s mistreatment of its employees, influenced by its toxic “bro” culture and iffy moral compass. While it’s easy to brush Uber’s woes off as growing pains for a burgeoning Silicon Valley tech company, its web controversies seem to point to bigger problems with leadership.

Compounding Controversies

Back in January, during the weekend of the first travel ban and successive protests, the company garnered harsh criticism for turning off its surge pricing for rides to New York’s JFK Airport. The opportunistic move prompted people to delete the app in favor of its competitor Lyft.

Shortly after that, Uber’s CEO, Travis Kalanick, left President Donald Trump’s economic advisory council amidst criticism from the public and Uber’s own employees. The company was also sued by Google for allegedly stealing a key component in self-driving car technology. Then in late February, Kalanick was caught on video arguing with a driver over Uber’s fares.

Most recently, Uber initiated an internal investigation into sexual harassment and discrimination allegations lobbed at the company. The investigation was opened after Susan Fowler, a former Uber engineer, wrote a blog post outlining her disturbing experience at the company with an anonymous male executive who propositioned her for sex, prompting several female employees to also come forward.

Multiple company executives have since resigned. While Uber has reacted quickly to all of these controversies, the company’s responses have been either met with criticism or overshadowed by yet another controversy.

Uber CEO Seeks Help

Following the embarrassing squabble with one of his drivers, Kalanick admitted that he needs to “fundamentally change as a leader and grow up.” As a result, Uber announced that Kalanick was seeking to hire “leadership help.”

In early March, Uber announced that this “leadership help” would come in the form of a new COO. But the search for this position appears to have hit a snag with the news of president Jeff Jones’ resignation and a rumors of a “toxic” company culture, with Kalanick at the helm. Jones’ hiring was heavily publicized by Uber, and his departure undoubtedly adds complications to Uber’s future hiring plans.

In a statement released to Recode, who first broke the story of his departure, Jones said:

I joined Uber because of its Mission, and the challenge to build global capabilities that would help the company mature and thrive long-term.

It is now clear, however, that the beliefs and approach to leadership that have guided my career are inconsistent with what I saw and experienced at Uber, and I can no longer continue as president of the ride sharing business.

Dissatisfied Drivers and Changing the Company’s Culture

Aside from the resignations and sexual assault allegations from employees, Uber is also dealing with more crises regarding drivers’ dissatisfaction with wages. Uber drivers in some states are not allowed to accept tips and Uber’s attempt to strike down a Seattle law that allows its drivers to unionize proved fruitless.

Yesterday, four top Uber officials, all notably female, conducted a media call where they attempted to field questions about Uber’s shifting company culture. Conspicuously, Kalanick was not on the call, but Arianna Huffington, who sits on the company’s board of directors, was.

“Uber must change if it is to be as successful in the next decade as it has been in the last seven years,” Huffington said on the call. “Creating a great culture will be key to their future success. Going forward there can be no room at Uber for brilliant jerks and zero tolerance for anything but totally respectable behavior in an equitable workplace environment.”

Additionally, Huffington also reiterated the company’s faith in Kalnick’s leadership abilities, while underlining the fact that Uber’s culture had to change, and that new hires would be a focus for the company moving forward.

Uber executives have responded swiftly to each controversy; however, as we have seen with their clumsy and thwarted responses thus far, there’s no real indication that the company won’t stumble as it continues to move forward.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Uber’s Controversies Continue to Pile Up in 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

YouTube features a “restricted mode” that is supposed to make the content that it displays family friendly. You would think that just means no violent or sexual content. But it seems like the filter often sorts out content made by or for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, and over the weekend many users complained about the issue. Some of YouTube’s biggest stars posted screenshots of what their feed looks like in the restricted mode.

Just looked at my videos with the “restricted mode” on. Seeing a bit of a theme here…

LGBT+ content not safe for kids @YouTube? pic.twitter.com/KnhayE4h1y

— fiona (@neonfiona) March 16, 2017

On Sunday, YouTube said that this filter only affects videos with sensitive content, such as politics, health, and sexuality. But some users called its bluff. Singer-songwriter duo Tegan and Sara, two sisters who are both gay, said that several of their music videos disappeared in the restricted mode. The pair pointed out that the only gay content in the videos is them.

If you put @YouTube on restricted mode a bunch of our music videos disappear. I checked myself. LGBTQ people shouldn’t be restricted. SAD!

— Tegan and Sara (@teganandsara) March 19, 2017

Many users didn’t accept YouTube’s explanation that it was looking into the problem, or that it only affects a small group of users. But the video sharing website has always maintained that the LGBTQ community is important and did so again on Sunday evening.

A message to our community … pic.twitter.com/oHNiiI7CVs

— YouTube Creators (@YTCreators) March 20, 2017

Transgender YouTube star Gigi Gorgeous is one of the people whose videos were blocked, and she said that maybe her clips describing her transition were the reason. But, she said, those videos could be very helpful for young people struggling with their own gender identity, who might not know that there are more people like them out there and are looking for role models.

Some people pointed out that the censoring of innocent videos featuring LGBTQ personalities could help increase stigmatization for young gay or transgender people who look to the internet for advice or inspiration. YouTube described the filter as “an optional feature used by a very small subset of users who want to have a more limited YouTube experience.” Apparently the restricted mode relies on users “flagging” certain posts, so it’s not farfetched to believe that some people with anti-gay sentiments are sitting there flagging posts that upset them.

On Monday, YouTube tweeted again that it’s looking into the issue, but many people want more answers about how it could prevent this from happening in the future.

Glad u guys are looking into your mistake. But perhaps u should also share how u will determine what is “sensitive” and will b restricted? https://t.co/ZARor0Lf1E

— Tegan and Sara (@teganandsara) March 20, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why is YouTube Restricting LGBTQ Content? appeared first on Law Street.

A Maryland man, John Rayne Rivello, was just arrested and charged with cyberstalking with intent to kill or cause bodily harm. Rivello sent a bright, flashing tweet to an epileptic journalist, Kurt Eichenwald, in December. The tweet sparked a seizure for Eichenwald, as Rivello allegedly intended, given that the tweet also contained the message: “you deserve a seizure for your posts.” It is believed to be one of the first cases in which someone caused actual physical harm via a tweet.

Eichenwald is a senior editor at Newsweek and a contributing editor for Vanity Fair. He’s also written for the New York Times and POLITICO, as well as the book “The Informant” which inspired the Matt Damon movie of the same name. He has spoken publicly about his epilepsy in the past. Eichenwald, as well as some of the publications he works for, have been highly critical of President Donald Trump. Rivello is reportedly a Trump supporter who disagreed with Eichenwald’s coverage. Other evidence that led to Rivello’s arrest include messages about his intention to harm Eichenwald sent in private messages from his account.

Rivello’s attack on Eichenwald actually inspired copycat trolls. According to Eichenwald, he’s received about 40 similar gifs, almost certainly aiming to also spark an epileptic seizure.

More than 40 ppl sent strobes once they found out they could trigger seizures. Details of their cases are with the FBI. Stop sending them.

— Kurt Eichenwald (@kurteichenwald) March 17, 2017

Usually charges of cyberstalking stem from online bullying or attacks, which can lead to emotional damage or increased suicide risk–but this is one of the first cases that involves actual physical harm. It also was uniquely tailored. Vivek Krishnamurthy, an assistant director at the Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School, told the New York Times:

This is an interesting and unique case in that there are lots of online attacks that can have physical consequences, such as an attack on an electrical grid or the control of air traffic control. But this is distinguishable because it is a targeted physical attack that was personal, using a plain-Jane tool.

Threats through Twitter feel ubiquitous for political commentators who operate on the internet, particular Twitter. From general harassment and threats to more extreme measures like doxxing, sometimes law enforcement officials either refuse to or have a hard time holding offenders accountable. But Eichenwald’s case shows that online harassment isn’t “just words”–it can be deadly serious.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Man Arrested and Charged After Targeting Epileptic Journalist with Flashing Tweet appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday morning thousands of Twitter users, including verified accounts like BBC North America, Forbes, and tennis star Boris Becker, saw their accounts tweeting out a message in Turkish along with images of swastikas. Someone hacked Twitter and gained access to the accounts through the third-party app Twitter Counter, an analytics service.

The message that was sent out was propaganda in support of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and translated as “#NaziGermany #NaziNetherlands, a little #OTTOMAN SLAP for you, see you on #April16th.” The tweets also contained a link to a pro-Erdogan video on Youtube.

My twitter account was hacked !!! I never posted this as I obviously don’t speak Turkish…. pic.twitter.com/G7pNuH1UFj

— Boris Becker (@TheBorisBecker) March 15, 2017

The message was accompanied by emojis of swastikas and on some accounts the hackers had changed the user’s profile pictures into a Turkish flag or other Turkish symbols. April 16 is referendum day for Turkey–voters will be deciding whether or not to give the president even more power.

The Germany and Netherlands hashtags are referring to Erdogan’s recent beef with leaders of the two countries, he recently called them “Nazi remnants” and “fascists.” Erdogan had sent government officials to countries with large Turkish populations to rally support ahead of the referendum vote, which Germany and the Netherlands resisted.

Earlier this morning our Twitter account was hacked. We’ve now deleted the hacked tweet and investigating what happened. Apologies & thanks

— AmnestyInternational (@amnesty) March 15, 2017

Twitter Counter is based in Amsterdam and was also hacked in November, when some verified accounts like PlayStation and the New Yorker started sending out spam tweets telling users how to gain more followers. “We are aware of the situation and have started an investigation into the matter,” its chief executive, Omer Ginor, said. Twitter said in a statement that the hack was limited only to accounts that use Twitter Counter. “We removed its permissions immediately. No additional accounts are impacted,” the statement said.

We identified an issue affecting a small number of users. Source was a 3rd party app and it has been resolved. No action needed by users.

— Twitter Support (@Support) March 15, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hackers Tweeted Swastikas and Turkish Message From Thousands of Accounts appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

Any change in life–whether it be a graduation, a new job, or a move, always comes with a hefty to do list. TPO Mobile wants to help make that to do list a little shorter–by helping you find the perfect cell phone plan. And not only will TPO Mobile help you save some money with a reasonably priced and reliable phone plan, it will also help you check off one other thing on that to do list: making sure you set aside some money for charity.

TPO–which stands for “The People’s Operator”–gives 10 percent of your bill to a cause you care about, at no additional cost to you. It’s perfect for someone transitioning from their family’s plan to their own, or anyone looking to switch carriers and make a positive impact on the world at the same time. So, if you’re looking to save some dough and make a difference, check out five reasons you should consider a TPO Mobile prepaid plan:

Lots of Choices–For Both Plans and Causes

When you step away from your old phone plan, you have a world of options in front of you. You don’t want to restrict yourself, you want choices. TPO offers those choices for both its plans and the causes that your 10 percent can go to benefit.

TPO offers nine distinct prepaid cell phone plans, with a range of data, talk, and text limits. TPO also offers tablet plans, to ensure that you’re connected from all your devices.

TPO customers have directed funds to thousands of causes, including the ASPCA, Pencils of Promise, Grassroots Soccer, Girls on the Run, UNHCR, Planet Water, and New York Restoration Project. When you sign up with a TPO plan, you get access to the cause partner database, and get to choose the one that you connect with. Then, 10 percent of your bill is automatically donated to that cause partner.

Not sure what cause you want to support? TPO sometimes offers the ability to split your money between multiple causes. TPO has just launched the Power2Students pack, allowing you to split your money between three amazing education charities. Join today and split your 10 percent between Pencils of Promise, Urban Dove, and Scholarship America.

Having a hard time picking a cause? Take our quiz to see which organization is the best fit for you!

It Makes Giving a Good Habit From the Start

It’s easy to think to yourself: “I’ll give to charity when I have a larger paycheck, or when I’m more settled down.” But if you make a habit of giving when you’re young, it’s more likely that you’ll donate throughout your life. If that’s important to you, it may be time to start now. And what easier way to do so than making giving part of a bill you have to pay anyway?

There’s also a ripple effect when it comes to charitable giving, particularly for millennials. Your 10 percent is going to charity courtesy of TPO, but it probably won’t stop there. Millennials are significantly more likely to be influenced by their peers than other age groups when it comes to giving. And that’s a good thing, because with TPO Mobile…

….Friend and Family Referral Rewards Help You Rack up the Savings

If you refer a friend or family member, you can choose between a $10 credit to your account, or $5 in cash. It’s as easy as that. And of course, the more people you get to use TPO’s services, the more money ends up going to your favorite charities. It’s a total win-win.

via GIPHY

Great Value Rates

TPO offers service on the fastest nationwide 4G LTE network, and covers about 97 percent of the American population. You get to use whatever phone you choose, as long as you can insert a TPO SIM card. And you can keep the number you’ve always had–you won’t have to go through the pain of updating everyone with your new number. In today’s financial climate, when so many of us are saddled with massive amounts of student loan debt and less relative income when compared to our parents’ generation, it makes a lot of sense (and cents) to shop around for the best deal.

Currently TPO is offering up to 35 percent off per month for the first three months on selected prepaid plans, and a free SIM card.

Awesome Customer Service

Listen–we’ve all been stuck on the phone with a service provider, pressing one for more options, and attempting to finally speak to a human. You won’t have to worry about that with TPO. TPO has a team standing by ready to help seven days a week, including the weekends, so you won’t miss a minute of your life. Here’s what a couple of millennial TPO customers had to say about their experiences. Taylor Cash said:

I’m not very tech-savvy for a millennial. I wanted more data but I wanted to upgrade my plan too, and was confused about how it all worked. Everyone I have talked to was very kind and helpful and took the time to explain how it worked to me. I think it’s more personal—I didn’t ever feel like they were ‘reading from a script’ without really knowing the answer. I feel like they knew exactly what I was asking and how to solve it and explain it to me.

And Evan Taylor pointed out the importance of a personal touch:

The mere fact that they aren’t one of the telecom giants that are impossibly infuriating to deal with is huge. Also, they seem to care about social causes and community. It’s important that someone out there is providing affordable service and not taking advantage of people with obscure contracts.

via GIPHY

As millennials, we place a high priority on charitable giving. We’re more likely to want to work for companies that give back to the community; as a group we give to charity at high rates; and we love talking about the charities we care about, and getting other people to give too. TPO understands that. Jimmy Wales–also the founder of Wikipedia–is the executive chairman of TPO Mobile. He was inspired to join the team because of its emphasis on those very values that millennials hold near and dear to their hearts. He explained:

Millennials are increasingly supporting causes based on personal connection–that’s what the studies are showing. TPO Mobile provides millennials a way to keep in touch with their friends and family whilst making a positive change. This empowers them to drive their own change, and encourages more and more companies to let customers support causes they care about with everyday technology. People want to give back, so why not give them a way to do it?

And that’s exactly what makes TPO such a good fit for millennials. The company was founded with those ideals in mind–that there’s a way to use business for good. Check out TPO to learn more.

TPO Mobile

TPO Mobile was founded on the idea that mobile could be used to change lives for the better. Customers with TPO not only get great value prepaid plans, a high quality mobile service, and great customer service – they can also direct 10 percent of their monthly bill to the cause of their choice, at no extra cost to them. TPO launched in the U.K. in 2012 and expanded to the U.S. in 2015. Since its U.K. launch, TPO customers have directed funds to hundreds of causes including The Trussell Trust, Emerge Poverty Free, and the British Heart Foundation. In the U.S., TPO has also partnered with a range of great causes. Furthermore, TPO has developed the TPO Community, an online community to expand the global network of mobile phone customers who share in the common belief of supporting causes and TPO Giving, a not-for-profit donation platform. Connect with TPO at www.facebook.com/tpous and @TPOus, or find out more at www.tpo.com TPO Mobile is a partner of Law Street Creative. The opinions expressed in this author’s articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Street.

The post New Career, New Phone, New Cause: 5 Reasons to Check out TPO Mobile appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday, WikiLeaks unleashed its latest trove of secrets: thousands of documents seemingly detailing the espionage techniques the Central Intelligence Agency has developed in recent years. Vault 7–the title WikiLeaks has given its latest series of potentially damaging info dumps–is the “largest ever publication of confidential documents on the agency,” according to the anti-secrecy outfit. Here is what you need to know.

What the Leaks Reveal

Basically, the documents–nearly 9,000 in total–show that the CIA is capable of compromising smartphones, messaging systems, and televisions, and using them as modes of surveillance. Anything that connects through the internet, the CIA can hijack as a listening or viewing portal. Produced by the CIA’s Center for Cyber Intelligence from 2013 to 2016, the documents are highly technical, and clearly meant for in-house viewing only. The documents, which have not been verified by the agency, come from an unidentified source.

Some of the programs detailed in the documents have colorful names: Wrecking Crew, CrunchyLimeSkies, ElderPiggy, AngerQuake, and McNugget to name a few. One program, called Weeping Angel, uses Samsung televisions that have internet capabilities and, according to a WikiLeaks description of the program, “operates as a bug, recording conversations in the room and sending them over the internet to a covert CIA server.”

It’s unclear where these documents came from. Some analysts say Russia, which provided WikiLeaks with Democratic operatives’ emails it hacked before the presidential election, could be responsible. While the CIA does not appear to penetrate already-encrypted messages, it is able to intercept messages before the content is encrypted. Encrypted messaging apps–Signal, WhatsApp, and Telegram–had also been cracked by the agency.

CIA and NSA: How Are They Different?

There are a number of differences between the National Security Agency’s espionage tools–revealed in 2013 in a WikiLeak dump provided by Edward Snowden–and the CIA’s abilities. For one (and this might save the agency from the same blowback the NSA experienced) there is no evidence that the CIA has spied on Americans. There is also no evidence the CIA, unlike the NSA, has engaged in a massive data collection effort of U.S. citizens.

Instead, the picture the documents paint is one of targeted espionage, focused on foreign actors. Another key distinction: the NSA poked holes that weren’t there to peer through; the CIA uses existing holes, or vulnerabilities in an app or device for surveillance purposes. But it does not appear the agency alerts companies of the vulnerabilities it unearths.

Despite the differences between the NSA’s program and CIA’s, Snowden called the documents “a big deal.” Snowden, who has been holed up in Russia, a country that routinely interferes in the democratic processes of sovereign nations, tweeted:

The CIA reports show the USG developing vulnerabilities in US products, then intentionally keeping the holes open. Reckless beyond words.

— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) March 7, 2017

On Tuesday’s “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,” Michael Hayden, the former director of both the CIA and the NSA, defended the CIA’s tactics. Hayden said the agency does not spy on Americans, but “there are people out there that you want us to spy on.” He added: “You want us to have the ability to actually turn on that listening device inside the TV to learn that person’s intentions.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know About the WikiLeaks CIA Document Dump appeared first on Law Street.

The Wikipedia Zero project was launched in 2012, with the goal of sharing Wikipedia via mobile phones across the world without forcing users to burn up their data. The program is specifically designed for users in developing countries where mobile data is incredibly expensive. Operators “zero-rate” Wikipedia and its affiliate projects don’t register as websites that users need data to access. Wikipedia Zero is active in 59 countries, and made headlines this week after partnering with Asiacell to launch the program in Iraq.

Wikipedia’s mission is similar to initiatives like Mark Zuckerburg’s Internet.org and Facebook Free Basics. Internet access is rarely prioritized in communities where access to food, clean water, housing, and healthcare are all lacking–yet connection to the internet means greater opportunities for business, education, and political participation.

While the project has the best of intentions, it has been criticized for copyright infringement as users in Bangladesh and Angola have used Wikipedia Zero and Facebook’s Free Basics to share copyrighted files. Wikipedia editors have tried to monitor and block this file sharing but it’s a daunting task that may not be possible without completely shutting down the project. Wikipedia Zero’s copyright infringement issues came to be because users realized they could manipulate the system in place–but internet piracy happens around the world, and these countries are hardly breaking the mold. Does the project really deserve to be shut down just because a portion of its users are engaging in piracy?

The internet is inextricably linked with development, so shutting down projects like Wikipedia Zero can only be a step backwards.  Yet as projects like Facebook Free Basics and Wikipedia Zero expand, they have to grapple with the consequences of users manipulating the tools they are given.  Beyond that, these companies have to recognize what expanding their audience means, as an audience with limited internet access may rely on them as their only source of information. Think about how fake news on Facebook has a genuine impact on public opinion–that fake news can be accessed globally, not just within the U.S., and suddenly a story that has no grounding in reality has been publicized across the globe. Wikipedia faces a similar problem as virtually anyone can edit or add to a Wikipedia page, which is why fact checkers and researchers generally shudder at its use as a resource. False information is being disseminated at a far greater rate when it seems to have been vetted by a brand name and Wikipedia’s branding is global.

It would be ideal if a more credible site like Encyclopedia Britannica or a useful news site like Reuters could be granted the “zero-rate”–but those sites simply aren’t as easy to access and navigate as the straightforward Wikipedia page, nor do they have the same foundational interest in spreading their content without financial gain that Wikipedia has. There are valid arguments for condemning or rolling back Wikipedia Zero, but what should it be replaced with? Unless governments can take on the herculean task of funding mobile data for their citizens, this may be as good as it gets.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post The Strange Case of Wikipedia Zero appeared first on Law Street.

The night Uber cars went live on the streets of Portland, Erich England failed to catch a ride. At the time, news reports concluded England failed because of excessive demand. It turns out that Uber, which entered Portland’s market illegally and without approval from the city, was deliberately steering cars away from England, a code inspector who was dispatched as part of a sting operation on the ridesharing service. How was Uber ensuring England, and other city officials, did not find themselves in an Uber vehicle? By using a tracking tool known as Greyball.

Four current and former Uber employees described the Greyball tool to the New York Times as such: when a prospective rider is determined to be a law enforcement authority of any kind, he or she would see the Uber app as any other customer would. But their app would be a fake; the triangular symbols on a map that indicates where Uber cars are located, for the officials, would be “ghost cars.” If by chance a real driver picked up an official, Uber would call the driver to tell them to end the ride.

Skirting city officials, and identifying them, is accomplished through a variety of techniques. In one, Uber would set up a “geofence,” essentially a digital perimeter, around buildings where officials worked. Within the “geofence,” the people who frequently opened and closed the Uber app were sometimes flagged–“Greyballed”–as city officials. When they attempted to hail an Uber, a fake app would replace the real one, and “ghost cars” would replace actual ones. Another technique would examine users’ credit card information to determine whether the card was tied to a city agency. Uber has Greyballed authorities in Boston, Paris, Las Vegas, Australia, China, Italy, and South Korea.

Initially, Greyballing was used as a way to protect drivers in foreign countries where their safety was endangered by angry taxi drivers. In 2015, for instance, taxi companies and workers in Paris attacked Uber drivers. Uber would use the Greyball technique, part of a larger program called VTOS, or “violation of terms of service,” by identifying potentially nefarious actors. When it realized its potential uses in skirting officials from cities where it was unwelcome, the employees said, Uber used Greyball in that capacity as well.

Uber released a statement denying any wrongdoing. “This program denies ride requests to users who are violating our terms of service — whether that’s people aiming to physically harm drivers, competitors looking to disrupt our operations, or opponents who collude with officials on secret ‘stings’ meant to entrap drivers,” a spokesman said.

With an estimated value of $70 billion and a ubiquitous presence in 70 countries, Uber seems like an implacable behemoth. But it has recently been embroiled in controversy, and many people are calling for its CEO, Travis Kalanick to step down. Earlier this week, Kalanick was videotaped by an Uber driver who he got caught in a heated exchange with. And last month, a former Uber engineer detailed sexual harassment she experienced while at the company. Her account was followed by other, similarly disturbing accounts.

Over the past few years, Uber has finagled its way into cities and markets around the world, at times without permission and without regulation. Last year, Uber lost the battle to continue its operations in China. But it remains a wealthy and powerful player in markets around the world. While Uber’s legal team authorized the use of Greyball, some in the company had qualms over the legality of the tool. As the company faces scrutiny from a number of angles, can it figure out a way to survive and continue its dominance?

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Meet Greyball: Uber’s Tool to Evade Officials Around the World appeared first on Law Street.

Lee Jae-yong, the vice chairman of Samsung, was indicted on charges of bribery and embezzlement on Tuesday. Lee is the most powerful South Korean business leader to be ensnared in the country’s longstanding corruption issues, which have reached the highest levels of the government, including President Park Geun-hye, who was impeached in December.

Lee, 48, is accused of giving a $38 million donation to Choi Soon-sil, an unofficial aide to Park who has been detained for months for funneling government funds to her private coffers. The special prosecutor that indicted Lee said in exchange for his donation, Park co-signed a highly controversial merger in 2015 that ultimately consolidated Lee’s hold on the company, and increased Samsung’s stock value by $758 million. Lee has been Samsung’s de facto leader since 2014, when his father suffered a heart attack.

“Samsung was directly linked to the influence-peddling scandal and was essential to the special prosecutor’s investigation,” said a spokesman for the special prosecutor that indicted Lee. “The indictment describes in detail the private conversation between Lee and President Park Geun-hye.”

South Korea’s economy is run by chaebols: family-run business conglomerates. In fact, the 10 largest chaebols account for 80 percent of the country’s GDP. Samsung is the largest chaebol; its products make up 20 percent of South Korea’s exports. For decades, chaebol leaders have been embroiled in corruption. Six of the top 10 chaebol leaders have been convicted of white-collar crimes, but have avoided jail time. 

Lee’s indictment comes at a moment of political tumult and a newfound hunger for cleaning up corruption in South Korea’s business and political worlds, which are often intertwined. Lee denies currying political favors with his donations to Choi. Four other Samsung executives were indicted on Tuesday; three of the four immediately resigned.

Lee is also being indicted on perjury charges, regarding a parliamentary hearing in December. At the hearing, Lee said he was unaware that Samsung’s donations ended up in Choi’s pockets. “President Park asked us to support the development of culture, sports and tourism,” Lee said at the hearing. “I wasn’t aware of Samsung’s payment to the two foundations, and I was only briefed after the fact.” The prosecutor apparently found evidence that Lee was fully cognizant of where his money was headed.

For the past few months, Samsung has been enmeshed in controversy. Last October, the company recalled two million Galaxy Note 7 phones, which had a tendency to burst into flames. And Park has been suspended since her December impeachment. Her case is being reviewed by the Constitutional Court, which will decide, likely in the next few weeks, whether to reinstate her or permanently remove her from power.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Vice Chairman of Samsung Indicted on Corruption Charges appeared first on Law Street.

Uber leadership is scrambling to react this week to the sexual harassment allegations of former employee Susan J. Fowler, whose blog post on her experience at Uber has gone viral. Fowler describes how she was repeatedly sexually harassed and discriminated against yet every time she made a report to her managers or to human resources, she was dismissed. Fowler’s story throws a spotlight on sexism in an industry that loves to paint itself as forward thinking and inclusive, and her experience was not an isolated case–as Fowler’s blog gained traction, women from a range of companies began sharing their experiences with sexual harassment in the tech world.

Uber’s reputation already took a hit this winter when #deleteUber began to trend after Uber failed to condemn the Trump Administration’s immigration ban and continued sending cars to airports during a tax driver protest. After Fowler’s blog post, the deleting trend is back in full force. With rival Lyft picking up some of the client base that was once so loyal to Uber, the company’s reputation–and financial success–could begin to crumble.

Uber CEO Travis Kalanick has stated that he was disturbed and shocked by Fowler’s experience and within a matter of hours had hired former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to conduct a review of sexual harassment claims at the company. This will be Holder’s second venture into creating a more inclusive Silicon Valley brand. After Airbnb received widespread complaints of discrimination from hosts, Holder and Laura Murphy, former head of the ACLU, were hired to craft an anti-discrimination policy for the company. Airbnb now has hosts accept its anti-discrimination rules before they can become part of the Airbnb community, and while there have been arguments that the rules are not actually effective and that they don’t go far enough, the new rules were at least a step in the right direction. Holder has always been a staunch advocate for civil rights and was fully committed to women’s rights during his tenure as attorney general–but is he truly being asked to overhaul Uber’s culture or simply being brought on for publicity reasons?

There are doubts that Holder’s team will be able to defeat sexism in an industry where women are rarely given a seat at the table within a nation where sexual harassment has gone unpunished for decades and where the sitting president has bragged about assaulting women. Uber, like most companies across Silicon Valley and around the world, prioritizes results over respect for women in the workplace. Multiple interviews from current and former Uber employees have revealed that the work environment can be very hostile but that no one reports it out of fear of retaliation.

Now that Fowler’s case has shone a spotlight on a reality that we often ignore, Uber has at least taken steps to acknowledge the problem immediately, both by hiring Holder and by issuing a message that acknowledges Fowler’s case when users try to delete the app. However, over the coming weeks as media attention shifts, Uber may have minimal incentives to improve its sexual harassment policies. Uber is still an exciting company for any young developer to work at, and while Fowler’s case may give female programmers and engineers pause, there is little reason to think that many male candidates will choose not to work at Uber because of Fowler’s story.

The most effective boycott would be taking #deleteUber a step further–don’t work for Uber. If Uber takes a hit in its hiring pool, that is when it will truly feel the pressure to reform. It is the responsibility of young, qualified candidates who are working in Silicon Valley to turn down offers at companies that subscribe to a toxic work environment that devalues female voices. Holder will be working to create new policies and investigate past offenses, but his investigation will be futile if we continue to ignore the results and sign up for Uber just the same.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Why Eric Holder Can’t Save Silicon Valley Alone appeared first on Law Street.

“Alexa, is your speech protected by the First Amendment?”

Amazon says yes, specifically regarding a murder trial in which authorities are trying to access recordings from one of its devices owned by the defendant.

The case involves an Arkansas man named James Andrew Bates, who police suspect murdered his friend Victor Collins after Collins was found dead in Bates’ hot tub in 2015. They obtained a search warrant for 48 hours of audio recorded by Bates’ Amazon Echo speaker around the time of Collins’ death.

Though Amazon has provided authorities with Bates’ subscriber information, they are challenging the warrant for the Echo data on constitutional grounds.

An Amazon Echo is a cylindrical speaker that can be linked to an artificially intelligent personal assistant called Alexa, whose voice plays over the speaker. Similar to how Siri functions, when a user activates Alexa by saying its name (or another “wake word”), they can ask it to answer questions, play music, send messages, or order food delivery.

Amazon first released the Echo in 2014, but the gadget has become more popular in the past year, topping the list of holiday season best-sellers and appearing in the company’s first-ever Super Bowl commercial in 2016.

In a 91-page memorandum to an Arkansas circuit court seeking to quash the warrant, the company’s lawyers wrote that both a user’s requests to Alexa and its response are protected by the First Amendment, and that handing over this information to the government would violate its customers’ privacy.

Citing the Supreme Court case Riley v. California, which determined that digital information on a cell phone could not be seized without a warrant, the legal team argued:

Once the Echo device detects the wake word, the Alexa Voice Service endeavors to respond to any ensuing voice communications detected in the user’s home. Accordingly, searching Alexa’s recordings is not the same as searching a drawer, a pocket, or a glove compartment. Like cell phones, such modern ‘smart’ electronic devices contain a multitude of data that can ‘reveal much more in combination than any isolated record,’ allowing those with access to it to reconstruct ‘[t]he sum of an individual’s private life.’ Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473, 2489 (2014).

Amazon added that the prosecutors should have to show a “compelling need” for the recordings, meaning that they would not be able to find the information they need elsewhere, and that they should have to prove that the recordings are necessary to the investigation.

The case reflects a growing trend of law enforcement clashing with technology giants. Following the 2015 San Bernardino attacks, the FBI ordered Apple to create a software that would allow it to uncover encrypted information on one of the shooter’s phones. Apple fought back with the assertion that providing the government with the key to one phone would endanger the security of all iPhones. Furthermore, the company said that forcing its engineers to write code for such a software would be classified as compelled speech, a violation of the First Amendment. Ultimately, the FBI found a third party to unlock the phone for them.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Are Your Conversations with Alexa Protected by the First Amendment? appeared first on Law Street.

An Ohio man named Ross Compton, 59, was charged with arson and insurance fraud, based on information police obtained from his pacemaker. While the police had a warrant to look at the data, concerns about medical device privacy are becoming more prevalent, and this Ohio case may just be the beginning.

Compton’s house burned down last year. According to his 911 call when he discovered that his house was on fire, he packed some of his items in suitcases, broke one of his house windows with a cane, threw the suitcases out of the window, and then put them in his car. While investigating the fire, the police obtained a search warrant for the data from Compton’s pacemaker. The pacemaker revealed Compton’s heart rate and cardiac rhythm on the evening of the fire. Experts who analyzed the data came to the conclusion that “…it is highly improbable Mr. Compton would have been able to collect, pack and remove the number of items from the house, exit his bedroom window and carry numerous large and heavy items to the front of his residence during the short period of time he has indicated due to his medical conditions.”

Compton has now been arrested and charged with arson and insurance fraud. The fire caused an estimated $400,000 in damage to the house, and his cat perished. Compton claims that the charges are “utterly insane” and that “this investigation has gone way out of control.”

Concerns over medical device privacy are starting to spring up with a higher frequency, as more of us rely on high-tech devices to help manage our health and wellness. Tools like pacemakers, wearable tech like Apple watches, and the devices that hospitals use–they’re all vulnerable to privacy intrusions. Some concerns are more dire than others, for example, the hacking of medical devices, could hold individuals or entire hospitals hostage.

Generally, the use of medical devices by the police is relatively new. But it’s started to gain traction. Fitbits and other fitness trackers–though perhaps not technically medical devices–have already been used as evidence in court. In a Lancaster, Pennsylvania, case, attorneys used a Fitbit to prove that a woman had lied about being sexually assaulted, as the data from the tracker showed she was up and walking during the time that she alleged she was assaulted. Compton’s pacemaker evidence, while certainly a step further, seems like a likely path. But that doesn’t mean that there won’t be a fight over the use of this kind of data every step of the way. SC Magazine spoke to Electronic Frontier Foundation Criminal Defense Staff Attorney Stephanie Lacambra, who said:

Americans shouldn’t have to make a choice between health and privacy. We as a society value our rights to maintain privacy over personal and medical information, and compelling citizens to turn over protected health data to law enforcement erodes those rights.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Medical Device Privacy Concerns: Man’s Pacemaker Data Leads to Arson Arrest appeared first on Law Street.

Leaders of tech giants are finding ways to oppose President Donald Trump’s ban on immigrants from Muslim-majority countries, which could hurt their employees and potential new hires.

Apple CEO Tim Cook said he would consider taking legal action against the order, while the heads of other companies have pledged millions of dollars to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

According to the Wall Street Journal, the ban affects hundreds of Apple employees. Cook told the Journal:

More than any country in the world, this country is strong because of our immigrant background and our capacity and ability as people to welcome people from all kinds of  backgrounds. That’s what makes us special. We ought to pause and really think deeply through that.

On January 27, Trump signed the executive order blocking citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Syria from entering the United States for at least 90 days (though the ban could be expanded), citing concerns over foreign terrorism. The measure also prevents refugees from being admitted into the country for four months.

While Cook has not specified exactly what type of action Apple would take, Amazon’s CEO Jeff Bezos has already taken to court to condemn the ban. The company submitted a sworn statement supporting the Washington state attorney general, who filed a lawsuit against Trump’s order. Amazon employs nearly 50 people born in one of the seven countries, and is currently offering jobs to non-U.S. citizens, some of whom were born in Iran.

Meanwhile, Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey and Chairman Omid Kordestani plan to donate $1.59 million to the ACLU, respectively matching $530,000 that Twitter employees raised for the organization.

The Executive Order's humanitarian and economic impact is real and upsetting. We benefit from what refugees and immigrants bring to the U.S. https://t.co/HdwVGzIECt

— jack (@jack) January 28, 2017

The ACLU sued Trump on January 28 on behalf of two men from Iraq – one of whom is a former engineer and interpreter for the U.S. government – who were detained at JFK International Airport in New York.

The taxi service app Lyft announced support for the ACLU as well, promising to donate $1 million over the next four years. Lyft’s primary competitor, Uber, faced backlash when it continued to pick up passengers from JFK during protests – which some saw as a move to profit from the situation. Uber responded to the complaints by calling the ban “unjust” and setting up a $3 million legal defense fund for its drivers impacted by the ban.

3/ We are donating $1,000,000 over the next four years to the ACLU to defend our constitution. https://t.co/0umGOlkhSx

— logangreen (@logangreen) January 29, 2017

Google cofounder Sergey Brin at SFO protest: "I'm here because I'm a refugee." (Photo from Matt Kang/Forbes) pic.twitter.com/GwhsSwDPLT

— Ryan Mac (@RMac18) January 29, 2017

The blanket entry ban on citizens from certain primarily Muslim countries is not the best way to address the country’s challenges

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 29, 2017

Executives and founders of companies like Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Tesla have also released statements criticizing the order.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Technology Companies Rally Against Immigration Ban appeared first on Law Street.

After President Donald Trump’s refugee and travel ban caused chaos and protests at airports on Saturday, New York taxis refused to pick up passengers from JFK airport. But taxi competitor Uber took advantage of the situation, by continuing to offer rides and restricting surge prices–and is now being criticized as inappropriate and opportunistic. #DeleteUber has trended as a result.

The NY Taxi Workers Alliance announced yesterday evening that it was going to cease picking passengers up at the airport:

New York Taxi Workers Stand Up. Feeling proud. #Strike #NoBanNoWall #NoMuslimBan pic.twitter.com/4SDwpiBG81

— Linda Sarsour (@lsarsour) January 29, 2017

About 30 minutes after the strike was announced, Uber tweeted out that it would still be operating and wouldn’t implement surge prices–a normal phenomenon when there’s a lot of demand.

Surge pricing has been turned off at #JFK Airport. This may result in longer wait times. Please be patient.

— Uber NYC (@Uber_NYC) January 29, 2017

Uber later declared that it didn’t intend to make a political statement. It read: “We’re sorry for any confusion about our earlier tweet—it was not meant to break up any strike. We wanted people to know they could use Uber to get to and from JFK at normal prices, especially tonight.” But, many people were still upset by Uber’s move, and the hashtag #DeleteUber shows why:

Last night I logged in to #deleteuber. Felt reluctance for a split second. then remembered the Montgomery Bus Boycott & felt ashamed. pic.twitter.com/D9WEtmkz6W

— wikipedia brown (@eveewing) January 29, 2017

1. Open the Uber app.
2. Tap ☰ > Tap Help> Account and Payment> Account Settings and Ratings> Delete my Uber Account.#deleteUber #MuslimBan pic.twitter.com/RGtla4R5Tf

— Crescent (@TheLostAmelia) January 29, 2017

Dear @Uber_DC and @Uber, by prioritizing profits over human (and American) values you’ve lost a VIP super user. #DeleteUber #NoBanNoWall pic.twitter.com/39arOnf8D7

— RobertMichaelMurray (@rmmageddon) January 29, 2017

Uber’s major competitor, Lyft, also drove to and from JFK last night. But this morning, Lyft released a statement, pledging its support to the protesters, and a promise to donate $1 million to the ACLU over the next four years. The cofounders, John Zimmer and Logan Green, wrote in a blog post:

This weekend, Trump closed the country’s borders to refugees, immigrants, and even documented residents from around the world based on their country of origin. Banning people of a particular faith or creed, race or identity, sexuality or ethnicity, from entering the U.S. is antithetical to both Lyft’s and our nation’s core values. We stand firmly against these actions, and will not be silent on issues that threaten the values of our community.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #DeleteUber Trends After Company Continues Operating at JFK Airport appeared first on Law Street.

After triggering toy store hysteria in aisles across America, Hatchimals, sadly, aren’t living up to their self-hatching hype. Parents who bought 2016’s hottest holiday toy have filed a class action lawsuit against Canadian toy company Spin Master, claiming millions of families were duped by the manufacturer’s “bait-and-switch marketing scheme.”

Jodie Hejduk filed the lawsuit after she purchased a Hatchimal for $50 as a birthday gift for her daughter. The California mom says that says she followed the toy’s instructions provided in the box, but it refused to hatch.The toy remains unhatched in its egg.

Hailed 2016’s Tickle Me Elmo, Hatchimals start off as football-sized plastic eggs. After some lengthy rubbing, shaking, and tilting, the eggs hatch to reveal chubby bird-like robots. As the Verge so eloquently puts it, the creatures “combine the eerie artificial behavior of a Furby with the biological horror of birth.”

The lawsuit expressed the buyers’ disappointment with the toy, that it doesn’t “live up to its name,” stating: “when we purchase an iPhone, we expect it to make a phone call. When we purchase a yo-yo, we expect it to come back up.”

“Unfortunately, this Christmas season, millions of children and families across the globe were sourly disappointed with coal in their stockings, in the form of a bait-and-switch marketing scheme perpetrated by Spin Master.”

After receiving complaints that its products weren’t hatching, Spin Master posted a statement to its Facebook page on Dec. 25, 2016 that said “We are sorry to hear that some of you are having challenges with your Hatchimals.”

Following the New Year, Spin Master addressed concerns again in another statement that pops up when you go to Hatchimals.com that reads:

We have had more than a million successful hatches since we first launched Hatchimals on October 7th and we are still hard at work making sure that everyone has a magical hatching experience. We are 100% committed to bringing the magic of Hatchimals to all of our consumers.

The company advises anyone having issues to call its Customer Care phone lines. It has not specified if replacements or refunds are being offered.

Meanwhile, Jimmy Kimmel offered a clever solution for the problem, rebranding the toys “Disapointimals” in a segment for his late-night talk show.

The class action lawsuit is requesting a recall of the toys and “compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages in amounts to be determined by the Court and/or jury.”

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Parents Filed Class Action Lawsuit After Their Hatchimals Didn’t Hatch appeared first on Law Street.

Ajit Pai is not a fan of net neutrality. Pai, appointed by President Donald Trump on Monday to chair the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), once said net neutrality would mean “permission-less innovation is a thing of the past.” Net neutrality supporters now worry that Trump’s latest appointee could spell the end for a level playing field on the web.

In February 2015, the FCC enacted new rules to “protect and maintain open, uninhibited access to legal online content without broadband Internet access providers being allowed to block, impair, or establish fast/slow lanes to lawful content.” In essence, internet providers–Comcast and Verizon, for example–could not put a speed limit on certain websites, while fast-tracking others.

Trump is coming for net neutrality. He wants his buddies in big cable and telecom to put the screws to content. This affects us all.

— George Takei (@GeorgeTakei) January 24, 2017

But Pai, a current FCC commissioner and former lawyer for Verizon, is a vocal and sometimes colorful, opponent of net neutrality. “On the day that the [rules were] adopted, I said that ‘I don’t know whether this plan will be vacated by a court, reversed by Congress, or overturned by a future Commission. But I do believe that its days are numbered,'” Pai said in a speech last month. “Today, I am more confident than ever that this prediction will come true.”

Trump has not come down strongly on the issue, though he has criticized President Obama’s regulatory agenda as a whole. The closest Trump has come to voicing his opinion on net neutrality came from this 2014 tweet:

Obama’s attack on the internet is another top down power grab. Net neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine. Will target conservative media.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 12, 2014

If Pai wants to formally roll back net neutrality it will likely take some time, but he could start by directing the FCC to be lax in enforcing the rules. If Pai pursued that route, big internet companies like Google and Netflix could be popular enough–and have enough money–to buffer them against any major changes. In a recent earnings report, Netflix addressed the possibility that net neutrality could be a thing of the past:

“Weakening of U.S. net neutrality laws, should that occur, is unlikely to materially affect our domestic margins or service quality because we are now popular enough with consumers to keep our relationships with ISPs stable,” the company wrote. But for smaller companies that might not have the same mass appeal, the future is less certain.

Pai is certain to have one ally if he decides to take on the net neutrality law: AT&T. In a congratulatory note posted on their website, the internet behemoth said: “No one is more prepared to reframe the agency to address the needs of this rapidly changing marketplace.”

Some members of Congress are already girding for any changes that might come. In a statement on his Facebook page, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minnesota) said if Pai and Trump decide to clamp down on net neutrality, he “will fight them every step of the way.” He added, “Net neutrality is the free speech issue of our time, and the internet should remain the free and open platform that it’s always been. It is critical to our democracy and our economy that it continue to operate this way.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will the New FCC Chairman Unravel Net Neutrality? appeared first on Law Street.

Online sexual harassment and revenge porn have become relatively commonplace. Here at Law Street, we’ve written a number of articles on the topic in the last couple of weeks alone. From the lawyer fighting revenge porn to the online harassment of journalist Lauren Duca, there are concerns that this kind of behavior has become the norm in America. In fact, in September, President-elect Donald Trump was accused of something revenge-porn-like himself, when he encouraged his Twitter followers to look for Alicia Machado’s sex tape.

This is clearly something that we’re going to have to deal with in coming years. But what exactly is revenge porn? And what do you do if it happens to you?

What is Revenge Porn?

This phenomenon is also known as nonconsensual pornography (NCP), and is defined as the distribution of sexually explicit photos or videos of someone else, without that person’s permission. This has become an increasingly worrisome problem in the age of technology. Many young men ask their girlfriends to send them explicit photos, many women comply, and vice versa. But a breakup with the wrong kind of person could mean that those photos end up publicly available on some website, often with the subject’s name and personal information. In most cases, men post the photos or media online as a response to a perceived wrongdoing. Not only is revenge porn a form of online harassment, it can also lead to further harassment for the victim.

Though most cases of revenge porn involve photos that women take themselves for private use, or those taken by a partner, some cases are more complicated than that. In 2009, 32-year-old hacker Luis Mijangos gained access to multiple people’s computers by sending them files with malware that hijacked their webcams. He was able to see whatever was going on in front of the camera and saved pictures and videos of people nude or having sex. Sometimes he sold his services to men who wanted to spy on their girlfriends or wives, sometimes he extorted the victims for money. But in some cases, he just wanted to watch people, and that’s creepy enough.

Today, more and more states have legislation that criminalizes these acts, but as it is a relatively new concept, many do not, and many law enforcement officials don’t know how to handle it. In those cases, victims often need to rely on federal laws and related criminal statutes that may apply.

What do you do if it happens to you?

According to Cyber Civil Rights, you should make sure to save any evidence of the revenge pornography, like results from Googling your name, screenshots of the pages, texts, or emails that were sent to you–basically anything that proves you are a victim of NCP. When you have saved the proof you need, most social media websites restrict nudity, so you can report any photos or videos you want taken down. When it comes to other websites though, it can be trickier than that.

The Communications Decency Act protects websites from prosecution if they are a mere medium for others to post information. If the website has no “opinion” and doesn’t affect the content whatsoever, it is not liable for anything that is found on there. But as soon as someone representing the website publishes or edits any content, they can no longer claim immunity and you can likely go ahead and sue them.

Another option is to take advantage of existing copyright law. This only works if you took the photo yourself. A photo taken by a person is automatically protected under copyright law and the “author” of it can demand that it be taken down from any website simply by sending a letter, quoting the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. But if someone else took the photo in question, or if you want to claim damages, you would have to file a lawsuit.

You could try utilizing some other laws, depending on your location. In some states it’s a crime to take nude photos of someone else without their knowledge and it can be punishable as disorderly conduct. Harassment laws could also be an option, though they require repeated actions, not singular incidents. If you are under 18 and someone shares nude photos of you, that is a crime, as it’s likely considered child pornography and could lead to prosecution, a considerable prison term, and require that person to register as a sex offender. As cases of revenge porn, and the backlash against them, become more prevalent–this is good info for all of us to have.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Can We Fight Revenge Porn? appeared first on Law Street.

Should there be a special keyboard just for lawyers? One company–Pro-Boards LLC–thinks so, and has developed its own legal keyboard, the LegalBoard. The new invention is debuting this week at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.

Are lawyers interested in a lawyer-specific keyboard? @legalkeyboard is proposing one. https://t.co/BV6Q3N9Yy2 pic.twitter.com/snOdUexhe6

— LawPay (@LawPay) January 7, 2017

The LegalBoard would include a lot of the specific symbols that lawyers often use, like the paragraph symbol and copyright symbol. And while it’s possible to make those symbols on normal keyboards, it often requires a series of shortcuts or clicks to render them. The LegalBoard would also create shortcuts for common features like bullets, or the words “plaintiff” and “defendant.”

The LegalBoard was invented by Brian Potts, a lawyer who noticed how annoying it was to have to stop working in order to insert certain symbols, and was inspired. He told Law Sites Blog:

I was furiously writing a brief when I went to insert a section symbol. As was my custom, I had to stop what I was doing, use the mouse, go to insert a symbol, find the section symbol and hit insert. This process stopped my train of thought, took up my precious time, and more than anything else, was incredibly annoying.

Potts’ invention sells for $65, which seems reasonable for lawyers who want to save some time on keystrokes. And it makes a lot of sense–so many professions have specific technological tools that help them, but keyboards have remained standard for many professions for years. While you can get some specialized keyboards for different languages, there aren’t a lot of other specific keyboards.  Potts also recognizes that lawyers aren’t the only people who may want these kinds of special keyboards, including doctors and journalists. In professions like the law and medicine, every moment can make a difference, so keyboards that save a few strokes could very well be worth it.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Do Lawyers Need Their Own Special Keyboard? appeared first on Law Street.

According to a court declaration from Uber’s former forensic investigator, some employees at the ride-sharing service tracked the locations of “high-profile politicians, celebrities and even personal acquaintances of Uber employees, including ex-boyfriends/girlfriends, and ex-spouses.” Samuel Ward Spangenberg, the former investigator suing Uber, said employees also spied on one particularly well-known celebrity: Beyoncé.

Spangenberg, 45, brought his case to a California court in October, and is suing Uber for age discrimination and whistleblower retaliation. He said he was fired 11 months after bringing a number of his concerns to the attention of top Uber executives. Spangenberg questioned more than the company’s illicit spying practices. In his declaration, he said:

As part of Uber’s incident response team, I would be called when governmental agencies raided Uber’s offices due to concerns regarding noncompliance with governmental regulations. In those instances, Uber would lock down the office and immediately cut all connectivity so that law enforcement could not access Uber’s information. I would then be tasked with purchasing all new equipment for the office within the day, which I did when Uber’s Montreal office was raided.

According to Spangenberg, some Uber employees would use a feature known as “God View” to spy on the location of targeted riders. In 2014, BuzzFeed revealed the feature’s existence when one of its reporters fell victim to “God View”–actually used by the general manager of Uber New York. The feature, which has since been rebranded “Heaven View” allows employees to see the location of drivers and customers who request a ride. Drivers do not have access to this feature.

In a statement, Uber said it “continues to increase our security investments and many of these efforts, like our multi-factor authentication checks and bug bounty program, have been widely reported.” And in a memo sent to Uber employees on Monday, the company’s top security executive, John Flynn, said: “Like every fast-growing company, we haven’t always gotten everything perfect. But without the trust of our customers we have no business.” The company has also said that “fewer than 10” employees have been fired for abusing the “God View” tool. 

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Have Uber Employees Been Spying on Beyoncé? appeared first on Law Street.

It may sound like a spy movie, but several consumer groups are claiming that some dolls from Genesis Toys are secretly listening in on your kids. Specifically, it is the “My Friend Cayla” dolls and the “i-Que” robots that are equipped with recording technology.

The toys record what children say to them and upload the sound files to Nuance Communications, a voice tech company often employed by the military, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies. In a lawsuit filed on Tuesday, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) together with three consumer groups claim that Genesis unfairly collects and uses audio files of children without getting parental consent.

“Cayla can understand and respond to you in real-time about almost anything… She is not just a doll… she’s a real friend!” Genesis Toys says in its marketing material. But the dolls may be a little more real than most parents are comfortable with. These intelligent toys are connected to the internet via an app and Bluetooth technology. When children ask them a question, their speech is recorded, converted to text, uploaded online, and can be searched on Google or Wikipedia. At the same time, the audio is uploaded to Nuance.

Now, the question is, why would playing children be interesting for an agency employed by the military and similar agencies? Well, the consumer groups believe that the recordings are used to improve products that Nuance sells. One of their services is called Nuance Identifier, which can recognize criminals by their voices, among millions of recordings.

Great Today Show piece on why Internet connected dolls aren’t safe for children featuring @EPICprivacy #ToyFail https://t.co/6ZbLu8H4Vc

— CCFC (@commercialfree) December 9, 2016

The lawsuit also brings what the groups allege is hidden product placement embedded in the toys. The Cayla doll allegedly says a lot of phrases connected to Disney–that her favorite movie is “The Little Mermaid” and her favorite song is “Let it Go” from “Frozen.” For children, it’s not clear that this embedded information is advertising. The Cayla doll also has a function that asks for the kids’ personal information, like their name, their parents’ names, where they live, and where they go to school–information that a lot of parents would not want in the wrong hands.

But a representative from Nuance said that the company does not sell or use the data it collects for marketing or advertising. In a statement, Richard Mack wrote:

Upon learning of the consumer advocacy groups’ concerns through media, we validated that we have adhered to our policy with respect to the voice data collected through the toys referred to in the complaint; and Nuance does not share voice data collected from or on behalf of any of our customers with any of our other customers.

The toymaker Genesis has not responded to request for comment from several media organizations. Even if the company doesn’t mean any harm to children, parents have a right to worry in a technological age when all digital information is at risk for computer hackers. Just be mindful of what you say in front of any dolls.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Consumer Group Says Talking Dolls are Spying on Your Kids appeared first on Law Street.

Amazon is planning to open a line of new, futuristic grocery stores, where you can get everything you need without standing in line or checking out. No more impatiently waiting behind people with an overloaded cart, or realizing you forgot your wallet at home.

It sounds like the future, but the online retailer plans to open the first physical store in early 2017. The first will be located in downtown Seattle, but according to the company’s internal plans, it could open up 2,000 new shops across the country within the next decade.

The company showed what the stores would look like in a video released Monday.

Introducing #AmazonGo, a new kind of store with no lines and no checkout. https://t.co/WMii0bWevi pic.twitter.com/OmZdzobA5F

— Amazon (@amazon) December 5, 2016

The shopping would work through an app with the same name as the store–Amazon Go. You would scan your smartphone at a digital gate when entering the store, and then the app would detect which products you pick out and put in your bag. When leaving, the sensors at the exit would notice and the app would automatically charge your Amazon account. Amazon says the stores would use the same technologies as self-driving cars do; computer vision, sensor fusion, and deep learning. The stores would be relatively small, taking up approximately 1,800 square feet.

This seems pretty great for consumers, who would save time and effort by using the Amazon Go stores. But with all this new technology doing the work for us this kind of automation, if it becomes widespread, could lead to a lot of people losing their jobs and source of income. There are already driverless cars in development, so what will happen when that technology is good and safe enough to replace taxi drivers? Likewise, grocery store cashiers are probably not overly excited about Amazon’s new plans.

Amazon Go eliminates the need for cashiers. There are 3.4 million of them in America. https://t.co/GwTvptSjMj

— Christopher Mims (@mims) December 5, 2016

Amazon has flirted with increasing its influence in physical markets for some time now, for example by opening three IRL bookstores with two more on the way. The company also already offers grocery delivery in some major cities. The first Amazon Go store in Seattle is actually already open to Amazon employees, who are currently beta testing the technology. And if everything goes according to plan, it will open to the public early next year.

Amazon Go pic.twitter.com/Eygx2mOh2q

— Caroline McCarthy (@caro) December 5, 2016

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Amazon Plans to Open Grocery Stores Without Checkout Lines appeared first on Law Street.

Reddit has been under fire since the company’s co-founder and CEO Steve Huffman admitted that he actively changed posts by Trump supporters on the site. The subreddit r/The_Donald is the most active one for Trump fans. On Thursday Huffman admitted in a post on the subreddit that he changed comments that targeted him personally by switching his Reddit username, u/spez, for the usernames of the Trump page’s moderators, so the hateful attacks seemed to be aimed at them. The spontaneous editing only went on for an hour, but the damage was already done.

Huffman said that it had been a long week trying to recover from “pizzagate” and being called a pedophile, but that his community team is “pretty pissed” at him so he won’t do it again any time soon. Pizzagate refers to an insane conspiracy theory that spread quickly through fake news articles and on Reddit, alleging that Hillary Clinton and John Podesta were running a child trafficking business out of a pizzeria in Washington D.C. called Comet Ping Pong.

The pizzeria is real but the story is not, and the owner and staff endured threats and harassment when fired-up people believed the story was true. After Reddit decided to shut down the Pizzagate thread, Huffman got targeted instead. And some people still believe the fake story.

The less obvious upshot to Reddit CEO editing posts: will likely draw more attention to whatever nefariousness he was protecting #pizzagate

— Paul Nehlen (@pnehlen) November 24, 2016

But some people think arbitrary editing should be okay in cases where the original posts are harassing.

tbh I approve of the CEOs behavior. Harassing posts should be subject to edit at the site owner’s whim https://t.co/E63Qf3Ugh6

— Matthew Martin (@hyperplanes) November 28, 2016

However, many Reddit users called Huffman’s actions unethical and called for his resignation. And a legal site called Associate’s Mind argued in an online piece that this might have consequences for how Reddit will be treated under the law in the future. If it is no longer simply a medium for people to express their opinions, but rather a website where admins and owners edit content and express their own opinions, the company might be liable for content posted on it.

Huffman has not commented on some of the r/The_Donald subreddit users’ calls for him to step down as CEO. But he did say that Reddit needs to improve its policies for moderating hate speech. This summer, admins of the site tried to stifle the Trump subreddit’s popularity by changing its algorithm so that it wouldn’t rise to the top or front pages of the site. No matter how small the editing was this time, it was still seemingly a violation of Reddit’s regulations for policing posts and it will remain to be seen how this will affect the company’s popularity.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Reddit CEO Admits to Editing Trump Supporters’ Posts appeared first on Law Street.

Facebook has been blocked in China since 2009, but now the company is secretly developing a censorship tool that would help it gain access to the Chinese market again. The tool would allow another company–likely a Chinese partner–to block certain posts from appearing in people’s newsfeeds in different geographic areas, according to some Facebook employees who asked to remain anonymous. They said that Facebook would not suppress content itself, but the software would be available for a third party company. If the resulting software makes the Chinese government more comfortable with Facebook’s services, this may allow Facebook to get back into the Chinese market.

However, the employees pointed out that this is still in the research stage and may never be offered to Chinese authorities at all. But the information raises questions about Facebook’s ethics. It would give the company 1.4 billion potential new users if they gained access to the Chinese market. But it could also be a compromise of democratic values and making “the world more open,” as the company has named as one of its mottos. Several employees that worked on the censorship project have quit their jobs, according to the New York Times. Since the American election, the phenomenon of fake news has also tarnished the company’s image, and many asked what role the social media site played in the election outcome. Now the question is, if the company is cool with censoring real news in China, why not just block fake news at home?

It’s fascinating people think Facebook will ONLY block “real news” in China and ONLY block “fake news” in US https://t.co/oVPn1iiVrW

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 23, 2016

So, blatantly fake news is too hard a problem for Facebook, but letting a third-party Chinese company disappear real news in China is okay?

— Zeynep Tufekci (@zeynep) November 22, 2016

The problem is probably that it’s hard to quickly decide what is fake and what is not. Mark Zuckerberg posted a long status update about how 99 percent of what you see on your newsfeed is correct, but depending on what pages you follow or who your friends are, you might see a little more or less. He responded to the criticism by stopping ads from fake news outlets and pointed out that Facebook does not want hoaxes on its site. This is not enough, according to many, but he promised that more would be done when a good strategy is available, saying:

This is an area where I believe we must proceed very carefully though. Identifying the ‘truth’ is complicated. While some hoaxes can be completely debunked, a greater amount of content, including from mainstream sources, often gets the basic idea right but some details wrong or omitted.

But creating a censorship tool for China contradicts Facebook’s image of being an ethical and socially aware company. Even if Facebook technically just developed the software, it could still enable totalitarian leaders to leave out information and decide what their citizens see and don’t see. Maybe the creator of the main information source for billions of people should take an even greater responsibility to prevent that.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Facebook is Developing a Censorship Tool to Get Back into the Chinese Market appeared first on Law Street.

Tesco Bank, the British retail bank run by the UK’s largest supermarket chain, lost approximately 2.5 million pounds this month after hackers broke into the accounts of more than 9,000 customers. The bank has pledged to reimburse customers who lost money and ultimately decided to suspend online banking for all of its 136,000 customers. Spokespeople claimed that personal data had not been compromised in the hack and that customers do not need to change their passwords, yet the sheer scope of the attack has made security experts uneasy.

The company first caught on to the breach on Saturday, November 5, and immediately began texting customers who had been affected. Many customers saw their money being moved out of Tesco accounts via overseas transactions to Spain and Brazil. Although there was initial concern that the hack was an inside job, aided by a bank employee, it is now being marked up to general human error and a failure to create a truly secure system.

This attack represents a major modern shift in cybercrime, from attacking individual customers to attacking an entire bank in one go. Perhaps the most troubling discovery in the wake of the hack was that Tesco had been warned by the security firms CyberInt and Codified Security about the weaknesses in its system, which the company did not respond to. No company can be expected to track every spam email about cybersecurity that floods its inbox, but in this case, if the reports from Codified Security truly were purposefully ignored, it reveals a dangerously cavalier attitude toward cybersecurity at the Tesco Bank headquarters.

Defenders of the bank have argued that the hack was successful because it took place during the weekend, when the technical staff were not at their desks, responding to customer reports and warning signs like they would during the work week. Regardless of the timing of the attack, the amount of money shifted from customer accounts is disturbing, especially as it is only the latest in a string of high profile hacks this year. Almost two years ago, the Bank of England highlighted cybercrime in the meetings of its financial policy committee, noting that banks were woefully unprepared for large scale attacks on their databases, but that warning came and went with very little impact.

It is not only smaller, less conventional banks like Tesco that have been targeted: in January of this year, HSBC shut down its mobile banking platform after a distributed denial of service attack. Tesco Bank is a relative mom and pop bank compared to the global behemoth that is HSBC, which explains why it did not have the same early warning notifications and success that HSBC did when shutting down the January hack. No bank, either electronic or brick and mortar, is definitively safe but when hundreds of accounts are being attacked, there is a clear issue with security. Tesco Bank will take a major hit in the wake of the attack but rather than lying back and celebrating the decline of a competitor, other UK banks–and banks around the globe–should be rushing to their own cybersecurity teams to repair the weaknesses that could be exploited in the next great hack.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Startling Holes in Our Cybersecurity Network: The Tesco Bank Hack appeared first on Law Street.

Apparently everyone uses social media these days–even poachers. A string of wildlife traffickers based out of Vietnam have been discovered using Facebook to sell large amounts of ivory, rhino horn, and tiger parts. On Monday and Tuesday the results from a yearlong investigation by the Wildlife Justice Commission WJC, will be presented at the Peace Palace in The Hague.

Investigators combed through a small Vietnamese village, Nhi Khe and found illegal goods worth $53.1 million, sold by 51 villagers both online and in person. Sadly, these products come from what are believed to be 907 elephants, 579 rhinos, 225 tigers, and other endangered species such as pangolins, bears, hawksbill turtles, and helmeted hornbills.

WJC tweeted early Monday morning the upsetting insight that people in the village didn’t even know what the animals used to make their products look like.

#WJCVietnam: @ossendryver on visit to VN found people didn’t really know what rhinos or elephants were ‘as animals’ just as products

— WJC (@WJCommission) November 14, 2016

The rise of social media has made it easier to sell products from the safety of your home. These sales happen through auctions in closed Facebook groups, where new visitors need to get approved by an admin before becoming members. Smugglers mainly sell processed products made from ivory or rhino, but there are also whole tusks and horns on the market. Payment is made via WeChat Wallet. They seem to be selling locally in Southeast Asia through Facebook, and use WeChat itself to sell to China.

Olivia Swaak-Goldman, Executive Director at WJC, said in a statement: “Our evidence shows that an amount of rhino horn equivalent to nearly half the rhinos poached annually in South Africa transits this village. Stopping this illegal trade requires urgent action.”

Tune into the #WJCVietnam Hearing by visiting: https://t.co/6QkP25KvfC pic.twitter.com/ymHayrIofW

— Born Free Foundation (@BFFoundation) November 14, 2016

But despite all the evidence, the statement said, in combination with diplomatic efforts, the Vietnamese government has not taken any action to stop the illegal smuggling. The government seems to have taken steps to prevent open trade, but behind closed doors, secret trading is still going on. This inaction is likely due to corruption.

#WJCVietnam: Milliken: we believe corruption is major issue at both ends of #illegaltrade supply chain. VN syndicates at both ends of chain.

— WJC (@WJCommission) November 14, 2016

However, on Monday morning, during the first part of the hearing, environmental reporting agency IISD tweeted that Vietnamese officials had made an arrest in connection to the wildlife traffickers.

#WJCVietnam: Viet Nam has made first arrest based on @WJCommission evidence last weekend. “An important first step.” https://t.co/xffQMd8JJD pic.twitter.com/0Mre9phfn3

— IISDRS (@IISDRS) November 14, 2016

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Vietnamese Wildlife Traffickers Sell Ivory and Rhino Horn On Facebook appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday, Bernie Sanders’ Twitter account sent out a series of tweets describing the price hike on insulin from pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly and Co. The tweets linked to a Washington Post article that details the increasing prices from the day insulin was discovered in 1921 until today. Sanders’ tweets attacked the drug industry, accusing the companies involved of corporate greed.

A bit of backstory is necessary: the researchers who discovered insulin debated whether to patent it at all since their main purpose was to help humanity. Their discovery made it possible for people to live with a disease that had previously meant a death sentence. Eventually they sold the patent for $3 to the University of Toronto.

Why has the price of Humalog insulin gone up 700% in 20 years? It’s simple. The drug industry’s greed. pic.twitter.com/SUeSbsr2Ka

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) November 1, 2016

Sanders’ tweets, which were not signed by him personally but sent out by staff members, caused Eli Lilly’s stock price to drop 2.4 percent. The price of $72.02 per share was the lowest it has been since March 31. Prices soon stabilized again, and Eli Lilly released a statement defending its pricing.

“A permanent solution that gives everyone who uses insulin reasonable access will require leadership and cooperation across many stakeholders, including manufacturers, (pharmacy benefit managers), payers, and policymakers. That’s because the answer itself isn’t simple.”

Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk clearly care more about their profits than their patients. It’s time to end their greed. pic.twitter.com/MqCsHNjzcO

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) November 1, 2016

This year marks 75 years after the original patent on insulin expired and three companies in particular have made improvements to insulin that leads to the creation of more patents and garnered the owners billions of dollars. One of those companies is Eli Lilly; its insulin Humalog has gone up in price from $21 in 1996 to $255 today. That’s a 700 percent increase.

But why isn’t competition keeping the prices down? The pharmaceutical industry claims drug improvement raises prices, but experts question this and believe the changes to the drugs are only to cover up for price hikes as well as to create new patents. David Nathan from Harvard Medical School said to the Post:

I don’t think it takes a cynic such as myself to see most of these drugs are being developed to preserve patent protection. The truth is they are marginally different, and the clinical benefits of them over the older drugs have been zero.

Many people can’t even afford to get their insulin. Around six million Americans depend on it, and though many get it through health insurance, there are also many without insurance or in between insurance plans because of different life changes.

In the richest nation in the world, diabetes patients are being forced to decide between eating and paying for the drugs they need. pic.twitter.com/Mnq4NSgiPz

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) November 1, 2016

Sanders has targeted the drug industry before and influenced the stock market through his tweets about Ariad Pharmaceuticals’ high prices for a leukemia drug. Hillary Clinton is doing pretty well too–she has tweeted both at the industry in general, causing Nasdaq shares to fall last year, and about the EpiPen by Mylan NV, whose shares fell by 6.2 percent. If these progressive politicians keep it up, maybe things will change after all!

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Insulin Brand’s Stock Plummets After Bernie Sanders Tweets About Price Hikes appeared first on Law Street.

People trust math and data. Unlike the ambiguous, subjective nature of political debate or many other fields, math presents an objective truth. But should we trust in math with blind faith? Can a math-based system, a data-collecting mechanism unhinged from human error and discrepancy be fully trusted?

These are just a few of the questions that were addressed and discussed during a recent panel at New America, a think tank in Washington D.C. Algorithms–data processing formulas carried out by computer systems–can have hidden consequences and their potential for solving some of society’s deepest issues merits a closer look.

Why are we talking about algorithms now?

Cathy O’Neil’s new book, “Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy,” was the launchpad for algorithm discussion. O’Neil called math “beautiful, clear, and true,” but added that “there is no such thing as objectivity in algorithms.”

O’Neil said that algorithms require two things, one of which is inherently biased: loads of data points, and a “definition of success.” Whoever builds an algorithm, O’Neil said, brings their own definition of success to that model, and as an extension, the model’s conclusions will carry a result according to the technician’s definition of success. “Algorithms are not inherently fair,” said O’Neil, who earned a Ph.D. in math from Harvard and was an assistant professor at Barnard College. “The person building the model is in charge of the definition of success.”

To illustrate this point, O’Neil took the audience to her home kitchen. Her algorithm for cooking dinner for her children involves data factors such as time, ingredients, etc. Her definition of success: “Having my kids eat vegetables,” she said. But if the same data points were modeled after her son’s definition of success: “eating a lot of Nutella,” the outcome would be quite different.

Our world is awash in algorithms. From teacher evaluations to Amazon’s check-out process, society’s increasing reliance on computer systems to translate data points and solve problems like inequality, criminal justice, and surveillance. And while these systems are based on objective math, the outcome is not always ideal.

How do algorithms  affect our daily lives?

For Rachel Levinson-Waldman, an expert on surveillance technology and national security issues, who was also on the New America panel, mass surveillance relies on algorithms that are deeply opaque, mammoth in scale, and potentially damaging to certain groups of people. In mass surveillance algorithmic models, damage can be done if “you find yourself in a group that is more likely to be targeted with surveillance,” she said, mentioning people of color or Muslims in particular.

Levinson-Waldman echoed a sentiment shared throughout the panel. If one’s definition of success is turning a profit, which she said happens sometimes in the private security field, their algorithm will be based on “skewed incentives.” She said: “If you think the purpose of something is to make money, you’ll do something very different than if the purpose is to help people.”

Not every panelist on hand at New America agreed. Daniel Castro, vice president at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, said that assuming an algorithm is to blame for perpetuating a social ill shifts focus from what is actually causing the social ill. Blaming faulty algorithms for societal issues “distracts us from going after real solutions,” Castro said.

What can be done to improve algorithms, to make sure they function more fairly? It might look like “some kind of regulation oversight or audit mechanism that would check whether an algorithm is being used in a discriminatory way,” said K. Sabeel Rahman, a panelist at the event and an assistant professor of law at Brooklyn Law School.

O’Neil insisted her book was meant to start a conversation around algorithms, to raise questions, not offer solutions. And while the panel spent a good deal of time expressing their concerns with algorithms, “I think algorithms are potentially wonderful,” O’Neil said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Algorithms: How Blind Faith in Math and Data Can Exacerbate Social Ills appeared first on Law Street.

Tweets sent out by WikiLeaks on Sunday afternoon had Julian Assange fans really concerned. The messages seemed like a “dead man’s switch”–which are encrypted messages containing highly classified material that become unveiled in case someone dies. This is what the messages looked like:

pre-commitment 1: John Kerry 4bb96075acadc3d80b5ac872874c3037a386f4f595fe99e687439aabd0219809

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 16, 2016

pre-commitment 2: Ecuador
eae5c9b064ed649ba468f0800abf8b56ae5cfe355b93b1ce90a1b92a48a9ab72

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 16, 2016

pre-commitment 3: UK FCO f33a6de5c627e3270ed3e02f62cd0c857467a780cf6123d2172d80d02a072f74

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 16, 2016

These messages had Twitter users speculating that Assange was, in fact, dead.

There were also theories about what the messages actually meant. One possibility is that John Kerry is next to be targeted by a big release of classified information, considering recent WikiLeaks publications have focused on the Democratic Party specifically. According to former Trump adviser Roger Stone, Kerry has previously threatened the Ecuadorian government.

John Kerry has threatened the Ecuadorian President with “grave consequences for Equador” if Assange is not silenced @StoneColdTruth

— Roger Stone (@RogerJStoneJr) October 17, 2016

Another interesting and bizarre aspect to the story is that actress Pamela Anderson unexpectedly and uninvited dropped by the embassy on Saturday to share a vegan lunch with Assange. Some fans even speculated that she was the one who had killed him, maybe hired by the American government, by bringing him a poisoned sandwich…but that obviously seems incredibly far-fetched.

@alburyj GET ASSANGE OUT OF THERE AND INTO HIDING. How do we know that Pamela Anderson isn’t working 4 someone to set up him up?

— Rosa Marzullo (@niftyrosa1) October 17, 2016

Pamela said she is an Assange supporter and that she is worried about his health. She wanted to bring him “a nice vegan lunch and some vegan snacks.” But maybe he would have preferred some hearty meat. “He said I tortured him with bringing him vegan food,” she said jokingly.

Finding out that Pamela Anderson & Julian Assange are friends is like watching an unlikely animal friendship video https://t.co/JnTTgrYCGg

— Gabriella Paiella (@GMPaiella) October 17, 2016

By Monday, everything pointed to Assange still being alive and well. Gizmodo speculated that “pre-commitment” in this case stands for a cryptographic plan to prevent classified and yet unreleased material from being tampered with.

The WikiLeaks Twitter account was active on Monday, also a good sign. In the early morning, it posted a tweet saying “a state party” had intentionally cut off Julian Assange’s internet connection. The message went on to say that the organization had “activated the appropriate contingency plans.”

Julian Assange’s internet link has been intentionally severed by a state party. We have activated the appropriate contingency plans.

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 17, 2016

On Saturday, WikiLeaks released the alleged full transcripts of Hillary Clinton’s paid speeches to financial firm Goldman Sachs. Many people thought the Monday cutoff of Assange’s internet was revenge for messing with Clinton.

We and many others believe Julian Assange’s internet was cut for criticizing Hillary Clinton. #FreeJulian

— Anonymous (@LatestAnonNews) October 17, 2016

Assange has been in hiding at Ecuador’s embassy in London for the last four years, trying to avoid extradition to Sweden over a rape case, which could lead to deportation to the U.S., where he fears he would be charged with espionage. The alleged internet cutoff comes after recent news that Sweden is not dropping the charges against him, and a press conference he held via video link on October 4. In that speech he promised 10 weeks of new releases of classified material, in celebration of Wikileak’s 10-year anniversary.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s Going on With Julian Assange and WikiLeaks? appeared first on Law Street.

After a month of reports of exploding, smoking, or burning cellphones, the Samsung galaxy Note 7 will now be banned on all U.S. flights, starting Saturday. The Federal Aviation Administration and Department of Transportation released a statement on Friday afternoon saying the new rules will take effect on Saturday. This is sure to be inconvenient for passengers with already scheduled flights who rely on Samsung. But after almost 100 cases of overheating and fires, it’s better to be on the safe side.

“We recognize that banning these phones from airlines will inconvenience some passengers, but the safety of all those aboard an aircraft must take priority,” said Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx.

Starting Saturday, passengers won’t be allowed to bring their Note 7s aboard an airplane even if they are shut off. Trying to do so may lead to confiscation of the phone and fines for the passenger. If anyone would be foolish enough to try and pack the phone in the checked luggage to get around it, they would risk creating an accident and could face criminal charges. The Samsung Galaxy Note 7 is now considered a forbidden hazardous material under federal law.

FAA banning #Samsung #GalaxyNote7 from all flights https://t.co/WqLA1vl0W3 pic.twitter.com/RRFV0XwXQ4

— #Q13FOX (@Q13FOX) October 14, 2016

This news comes after two separate recalls of the Note 7 phones, the first one on September 15 and the second one on Thursday, which included the replacement phones that people could exchange their original ones for. The problem with the first edition was that the lithium ion battery cells were packed so tightly into a pouch that they barely fit inside the phone, leading to pinching of the batteries. This could easily break the thin plastic that separates the positive and negative sides of the battery, which could lead to a short circuit. This in its turn would heat up the flammable liquid inside enough to make the battery explode, and the replacements had similar issues.

The whole affair is estimated to cost the company $5.3 billion in lost profits. At least 13 people have reported being burned by their phones, there have been 96 reports of overheated batteries, and there are 47 registered cases of property damage. On October 5, a smoking phone led to the evacuation of a Southwest Airlines flight. Luckily that plane was still by the gate and no one was hurt. And with the new FAA rules, there will hopefully be no issues with fires caused by phones on airplanes.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FAA: Samsung Note 7s are Now Banned on U.S. Flights appeared first on Law Street.

A few months ago Facebook faced criticism and close scrutiny over how the content of peoples’ newsfeeds and trending stories are actually curated rather than based on impartial numbers. As a response to that controversy, Facebook got rid of its human editors in September and replaced them with an algorithm that automatically puts the top article for whatever topic is trending on top of the page.

But even though humans still watch over the system in case something goes wrong, the algorithm has gotten things very wrong. The Washington Post revealed on Wednesday that Facebook actually has repeatedly trended fake news since the change. Reporters conducted an experiment by looking deeper into the Facebook trending topics, and found that between the period of August 31 and September 22, they found five totally fake stories trending and three that were deeply inaccurate. They also found that things like links to iTunes, blog posts, and news releases often trended.

And social media users have noticed.

Facebook is literally nothing but fake articles, ultrasound pictures, engagements and arguements. Zzzzz

— Jeff Michener (@JeffMich4L) October 6, 2016

“I’m not at all surprised how many fake stories have trended. It was beyond predictable by anyone who spent time with the actual functionality of the product, not just the code,” said an employee who used to be on the team that oversaw “Trending,” speaking to the Washington Post on condition of anonymity.

I honestly can’t wait for the election to be over so everyone can go back to posting fake articles about celebrities dying on Facebook

— Madison (@_madisonike) October 5, 2016

One example of a fake story featured a man being kicked off of a college campus for praying, which was misinformed–the man was able to fill out some papers to keep praying in the campus area, but a student who had joined him for prayer was upset about it. Then there was a story about how fantastic the new iPhone is from a satirical fake news page, a news release from a discredited medical organization, and a story about 9/11 that falsely claimed to have proof that bombs were planted in the Twin Towers before the planes hit them.

The trending function on Facebook exists to highlight the most discussed and newsworthy topics of the day for its users. It is hard to know what Facebook is planning to do about the fake news–at a recent news conference it was indicated that the company might add filters to get rid of hoaxes and satirical content on the trending function, as it has on the newsfeed.

But, as scientist Walter Quattrociocchi told the Post, Facebook is an ideal breeding ground for conspiracies and misinformation due to its users’ tendencies to cluster together in like-minded groups. And combined with the personalized content in the newsfeeds, the fake news stories that are adapted to peoples’ personal likes risk increasing polarization between groups, and undermining understanding of people that are different. So let’s just all take Facebook with a grain of salt and keep an open mind.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Facebook Has Trended Fake Articles Since Getting Rid of Human Editors appeared first on Law Street.

President Obama likes space. In fact, he likes it so much that he wants people to go there–and not just to visit. In an op-ed published by CNN on Tuesday, he wrote that his goal is to have people get to Mars by 2030.

“We have set a clear goal vital to the next chapter of America’s story in space: sending humans to Mars by the 2030s and returning them safely to Earth, with the ultimate ambition to one day remain there for an extended time,” he wrote.

Obama says will reach red planet by 2030. #Mars pic.twitter.com/7otf3aMhgW

— michael allison (@mike9wood) October 11, 2016

And it’s not only empty talk. He is already working with commercial companies on how to execute the mission. Obama said:

The next step is to reach beyond the bounds of Earth’s orbit. I’m excited to announce that we are working with our commercial partners to build new habitats that can sustain and transport astronauts on long-duration missions in deep space. These missions will teach us how humans can live far from Earth–something we’ll need for the long journey to Mars.

In fact, Obama has talked about space in several speeches over the years–in his very first address to the people after becoming President he promised to focus on science and space research. In the op-ed he pointed out how last year alone NASA discovered water on Mars, ice on one of Jupiter’s moons, and mapped Pluto.

And Obama doesn’t appear to have lost hope, even though a 2014 report from the Committee on Human Spaceflight concluded that there is not enough federal funding for space programs for humans. According to the committee’s numbers, the interest for commercial investment in that kind of stuff has surprisingly decreased since the 1960s when we first walked on the moon.

It sounds like the move to Mars could be an option either for sending unwanted criminals far, far away, or to go there to get away from the disastrous Earth. Either way, Twitter users knew which option they wanted.

There are some people I’d really like to send to mars whether we figure out the whole human habitat thing or not lmk

— peteachu (@petewentz) October 4, 2016

Barack Obama: Wants to send first humans to Mars https://t.co/u0XIAUeyvM Could he send the entire Trump clan first? Asking for a friend.

— Jennifer Rubin (@JRubinBlogger) October 11, 2016

The president concluded with the words:

Someday, I hope to hoist my own grandchildren onto my shoulders. We’ll still look to the stars in wonder, as humans have since the beginning of time. But instead of eagerly awaiting the return of our intrepid explorers, we’ll know that because of the choices we make now, they’ve gone to space not just to visit, but to stay–and in doing so, to make our lives better here on Earth.

In the age of global warming, terrorism, and various catastrophes, it’s nice to think we have that option.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post President Obama Wants People To Move To Mars by 2030 appeared first on Law Street.

The FBI secretly arrested a National Security Agency contractor suspected of stealing and leaking highly classified material that is used for hacking foreign governments’ networks. The suspect, Harold Thomas Martin, has been in custody since August and worked for the same firm as famous whistleblower Edward Snowden, Booz Allen Hamilton. This firm is responsible for some of the most secretive and sensitive operations of the NSA.

Maryland Man Charged With Removal of Classified Materials and Theft of Government Property https://t.co/fHMngJZQ6x

— Justice Department (@TheJusticeDept) October 5, 2016

Martin is suspected of stealing a “source code” that the NSA uses to break into the computer systems of hostile foreign countries like China, North Korea, and Russia. It is unclear if he has shared the code with anyone yet. If leaked, the documents could “cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the U.S.,” according to a statement from the U.S. Justice Department.

Here’s how the criminal complaint describes the NSA contractor’s response. pic.twitter.com/TCExbnoDPl

— Eric Geller (@ericgeller) October 5, 2016

The 52-year-old Maryland man now faces one year in prison if found guilty of removing the materials, and ten more for the theft. The FBI searched his home and car, where it found several documents and digital information marked as “top secret.” They also found unspecified “government material” up to a value of $1,000.

The formal charges are theft of government property and unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials by a government employee or contractor. This case is different from Snowden’s because of the material stolen and the purpose of it. Snowden was a whistleblower who acquired classified documents and leaked them for the public benefit. Martin stole the actual code software that is used in NSA operations and that can be sold and used for cyber warfare.

Edward Snowden, currently exiled in Russia, tweeted about the news.

This is huge. Did the FBI secretly arrest the person behind the reports NSA sat on huge flaws in US products? https://t.co/otgOwB5efm

— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) October 5, 2016

According to the Independent, the material in this case could be connected to the recent theft of secret material by the hacker group Shadow Brokers, which also included a source code that was traced to the NSA. The hackers also left a cryptic message in broken English, saying, “We want make sure Wealthy Elite recognizes the danger cyber weapons, this message, our auction, poses to their wealth and control.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NSA Contractor Arrested For Stealing and Leaking Classified Codes appeared first on Law Street.

The world’s first baby conceived using a new technique that combines the DNA from three people has been born. The baby boy was actually born in April, but it is now being reported that he seems to be in good health. The issue of combining three people’s DNA is a controversial one, posing questions about ethics and the possibility of intelligent design of embryos. But in this case, Dr. John Zhang at the New Hope Fertility Center in New York decided it was the more ethical choice.

The parents, who are Jordanian, had already endured four miscarriages and the death of a daughter who lived until the age of six, as well as a baby who only lived for eight months. The problem was that the mother carries genes for the hereditary disease Leigh syndrome, which harms the developing nervous system. It affects the body’s mitochondria, which is the structure that provides our cells with energy.

As a last resort to starting a family, they sought out the help of Dr. Zhang. The mitochondrial transfer procedure has only been legalized in the United Kingdom so far and is not used in the U.S. It basically involves taking the nucleus from one of the woman’s eggs, inserting it in a donor’s egg from which the nucleus has been removed, and then fertilizing it with the husband’s sperm. Zhang created five embryos, out of which only one developed normally. He then implanted the embryo in the woman.

Unanswered questions surround baby born to three parents https://t.co/gJewi2UOYN pic.twitter.com/oDGqRFyXG8

— ScienceInsider (@ScienceInsider) September 28, 2016

Since it is not legal in the U.S., the procedure was carried out in Mexico, where there are no specific regulations. The fact that they had to leave the U.S. to perform the procedure created concern among some experts. But Dr. Zhang defended his decision. “To save lives is the ethical thing to do,” he said.

“This is great news and a huge deal. It’s revolutionary,” said stem cell scientist Dusko Ilic from King’s College in London, where the procedure is legal. He added:

This was an ice-breaker. The baby is reportedly healthy. Hopefully, this will tame the more zealous critics, accelerate the field, and we will witness soon the birth of the first mitochondrial donation baby in the UK.

Creating embryos with three parents has actually been done before with another technique. In the 1990s, scientists tried injecting mitochondrial DNA from a female donor into the future mother’s egg, together with the father’s sperm. But some of the babies born developed genetic disorders so the procedure was banned.

One of the problems with mitochondrial transfer is that it doesn’t guarantee that your child will be healthy. Since the baby will still have some of the primary mother’s DNA, there is a slight risk that the child will inherit the disease that the procedure tried to avoid. Another aspect of the debate is the notion that this type of disease affects very few women, and it would be a better strategy to invest research money into diseases that affect more individuals, or to find a treatment for the disease. Some worry it could also lead to intelligent design of babies, meaning we could maybe in the future pick which traits we want in our children and dismiss others.

But in February a panel of researchers in the U.S. recommended the government allow scientific tests of the technique, deeming it ethical as long as it is used to create male embryos, since they cannot pass on mitochondrial diseases. So maybe a future of more babies with three parents is not that far away.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post World’s First Baby Born With New Three-Parent DNA Technique appeared first on Law Street.

Uber will start requiring its drivers to periodically snap selfies before being able to accept new rides. The company described its new move as a security measure that will prevent fraud and protect drivers’ accounts. But critics say it is just a sign that some drivers have not gone through background checks.

The tech company has long resisted more secure safety measures such as the use of fingerprints when running background checks, which are outsourced to a company called Checkr. Criticism has come from the fact that the prospective driver only has to enter all his personal information online before applying and doesn’t meet anyone from the company in real life before starting to pick up rides.

The absence of fingerprint checking leads to drivers swapping accounts with each other, according to David Sutton from a campaign run by the Taxicab, Limousine and Paratransit Association. He said to the Verge:

This is Uber acknowledging drivers share their accounts and the company’s effort to reduce this practice. Despite intense criticism of Uber’s screening process, the company is admitting there are drivers who’ve never undergone any form of background check.

One driver admitted to this practice in 2014: if you don’t want to be screened before driving for Uber, you just put your information on another driver’s account who doesn’t want to work anymore and you’re all set.

Uber chief of security Joe Sullivan explained in a blog post how the new selfie method will work. Drivers first take a selfie in the Uber app.

We then use Microsoft’s Cognitive Services to instantly compare this photo to the one corresponding with the account on file. If the two photos don’t match, the account is temporarily blocked while we look into the situation.

This is what it looks like:

Here’s how Uber drivers now have to take a selfie, to improve safety. pic.twitter.com/TevDeydtEg

— Neal Augenstein (@AugensteinWTOP) September 23, 2016

But it sounds a little risky to trust the technology that much. And what if the app doesn’t recognize a driver, even if it’s the same person in both pictures? Sullivan admitted in the blog post that there had been cases of mismatching during the pilot testing of the app service. But he said that more than 99 percent of photos were matched correctly, and the ones that weren’t were due to blurry profile pictures on the drivers’ pages. The post stated:

Given that verification takes only a few seconds to complete, this feature proactively and efficiently builds more security into the app.

Throughout the years Uber drivers have been involved in drunken driving, murder, kidnapping, killings of pedestrians, assault and sexual assault. Time will tell if the selfie security will do anything about these problems.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Uber Now Requires Drivers to Snap Selfies to Make Your Trip Safer appeared first on Law Street.

The Sunlight Foundation, a non-profit dedicated to providing transparency and accountability in politics, has announced that it’s suspending some of its popular reporting tools and considering mergers with other like-minded organizations. It seems likely that if it doesn’t find an appropriate partner, the organization could be shuttered for good.

The Sunlight Foundation is best known for data-heavy tools like Politiwoops, Open States, and Scout that were favored by journalists and policy wonks.

There are a number of reasons for the Sunlight Foundation’s struggles in recent years, according to a statement released by its chairman Mike Klein. Klein lists the organization’s struggle to find a new executive director, as well as its difficulty keeping its variety of tools funded and well maintained as issues. Klein also seemed to chalk up some of the Sunlight Foundation’s problems to the current technology and political climates, writing:

We are aware that the robust maturation of technology over the past decade has — happily but substantially — reduced the urgency of Sunlight’s early role as a leading transparency innovator. In addition, the board had to recognize that Sunlight’s initiating objective— to build support for better legislation against and regulation of the power of money in politics— has been significantly limited by the US Supreme Court’s 5-4 Citizens United decision.

There are also reports of layoffs for the Sunlight Foundation’s staff; Poynter reports that the Sunlight Foundation has laid off or is in the process of laying off five members. Poynter also explains that these layoffs track with a downward trend in members of the Sunlight Foundation’s staff over the last few years, stating:

Today’s reductions notwithstanding, the current headcount at The Sunlight Foundation is about 20, roughly half of what it was in early 2014, according to a source at the nonprofit. In the last two years, Sunlight has trimmed staffers working for its news and technology divisions.

No one really appears to know what to make of the organization’s announcement, although journalists who have relied on the organization’s tools were by and large upset:

Open government advocacy group Sunlight Foundation cuts staff, suspends reporting toolshttps://t.co/yDyOzoa6nx pic.twitter.com/kJX1QcT4nf

— Hadas Gold (@Hadas_Gold) September 20, 2016

Heartbreaking. @SunFoundation‘s legacy is immense. A huge influence on open data and data journalism and on me personally. https://t.co/7OhO5huO7M

— Scott Klein (@kleinmatic) September 20, 2016

the impact @SunFoundation had on government, journalism, the open data movement, and so much more is p much unparalleled. a *huge* loss.

— dan sinker (@dansinker) September 20, 2016

This is very sad/worrying news from @SunFoundation.https://t.co/7WPts0Ep02

— Ben Casselman (@bencasselman) September 20, 2016

It’s unclear exactly what happened to the Sunlight Foundation–whether it’s a lack of funding, vision, some combination of the two, or something else altogether. But for those of us who feel strongly about the power of data to shed light on our government, this is upsetting and concerning. While a merger may keep the organization alive, at least somewhat, there’s no doubt that this is in some ways the end of an era.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s Happening with the Sunlight Foundation? appeared first on Law Street.

In the fight against the Islamic State, the internet is as vital a battleground as physical geography in Syria or Iraq. It’s where the group, also known as ISIS, spews its venom on potential recruits. It’s a key forum for building its caliphate and inspiring attacks. And it provides a channel for ISIS propaganda to reach those who are ripe for converting to its ideology. But Jigsaw, Google’s think-tank subsidiary, thinks it can complement governments in combating ISIS’ reach online with a strategy it aims to roll-out later this month: targeted advertising.

Jigsaw and London-based firm Moonshot CVE (Countering Violent Extremism) teamed up for an initiative called the Redirect Method. The premise is simple. It uses keywords searched via Google that ISIS recruits have commonly used in the past–the names of towns common on ISIS travel routes, for example, or the names of extremist leaders. When one of 1,700 relevant keywords are searched for, users will be prompted with ads of preexisting YouTube videos that provide counterarguments to the ideology ISIS espouses. The videos, curated by Jigsaw, include Imams disputing ISIS’ mangled view of Islam, testimonials from former extremists, or secretly filmed looks into towns under ISIS’ strict rule.

.@MoonshotCVE found that those searching for extreme ISIS content were also 3X more likely to seek content on mental illness #CounterISIS

— Jordan Humphreys (@jhumphreysDC) September 7, 2016

“The Redirect Method is at its heart a targeted advertising campaign: Let’s take these individuals who are vulnerable to ISIS’ recruitment messaging and instead show them information that refutes it,” Yasmin Green, Jigsaw’s head of research and development told Wired. For potential recruits in the West, English language video are used, for those in the Middle East, the videos are in Arabic.

There have been previous efforts using internet videos to reject ISIS ideology. The U.S. State Department released a series of videos through a YouTube channel called “Think Again Turn Away.” Those videos, however, were original creations, and thus deliberate in their messaging. Jigsaw and Moonshot’s strategy is to use organic, preexisting content delivered by those who have a counter-message to those of ISIS. Curating content that already exists, rather than having to create its own anti-radicalization videos, makes the message “more authentic and therefore more compelling,” Green said.

A pilot project conducted earlier this year was largely successful, at least in terms of how much time people spent watching the ads. During a two-month period, 300,000 people watched their curated videos. 500,000 minutes were spent watching the videos, with some netting an average viewing time of 8 minutes and 20 seconds.

At #CounterISIS, @yasmind is right that digital engagement needs to have an offline engagement component to curb #ISIS recruitment

— Daniel Hajjar (@DanielGHajjar) September 7, 2016

But simply because people are watching anti-ISIS videos does not necessarily mean they’re being dissuaded from joining the group, or from carrying out attacks in its name. At a Brookings Institute event on Wednesday in Washington, Green summed up the project’s intentions as being like any other Google search motivation–providing answers to questions.

“The branding philosophy for the entire pilot project was not to appear judgmental or be moralistic, but really to pique interest of individuals who have questions, questions that are being raised and answered by the Islamic State,” she said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Tech Giant and a Startup Collaborate to Counter ISIS Online appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, Apple released a new security update for iPhone users worldwide after the discovery of an attempted hack that was trying to take advantage of three huge vulnerabilities in the iOS operating system. Using these three factors, now called the “Trident” flaw, hackers could take complete control over someone’s phone remotely, without the owner knowing about it.

The group that is believed to be behind the hack is an American-owned, Israeli-based company called NSO. It was founded in late 2009 by two Israeli mass-entrepreneurs with ties to the Israeli government and defense forces. In 2014 a San Francisco-based equity firm bought a majority stake in the company for $120 million.

NSO says it specializes in tools fighting against crime and terrorism. Its LinkedIn page describes the company as in “the field of Internet security software solutions and security research.” But many security firms call the group a “cyber arms dealer.” An online document from NSO says it is “a leader in the field of cyber warfare” that utilizes its proprietary monitoring tool it calls “Pegasus,” which can monitor and extract all data from a target “via untraceable commands” which allow “remote and stealth.”

Human rights activist Ahmed Mansoor from the United Arab Emirates was the first one to report the suspected hack, after receiving a text message to his iPhone with a link promising to reveal details about torture in his country’s prisons. Instead of clicking the link he contacted the Toronto-based internet watchdog Citizen Lab.

Incredible: #UAE tries to hack democracy activist @Ahmed_Mansoor w/ Israeli-made… https://t.co/u9WQZFM2OQ by @salamah via @c0nvey

— Azza Youssri (@AzzaYoussri) August 26, 2016

Reports issued on Thursday by Citizen Lab and San Francisco mobile security company Lookout revealed how they discovered an advanced spyware that could take over the whole phone at the tap of a finger. If you click the link in a fake message like the one Mansoor received, it would activate spying software called “Pegasus” and hackers could listen in on your calls, collect text messages and personal information, and control your camera.

This advanced technique is so highly desirable in the cyber world that one spyware broker said in November that it had paid $1 million to programmers who said they had found a way to do it, according to the Telegraph.

On Thursday an Apple spokesperson said:

We were made aware of this vulnerability and immediately fixed it with iOS 9.3.5. We advise all of our customers to always download the latest version of iOS to protect themselves against potential security exploits.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who are the Hackers Behind the Apple Spyware Problem? appeared first on Law Street.

Two of the trendiest topics in tech and innovation–Uber and self-driving cars–are set to combine in Pittsburgh. Uber is aiming to place 100 self-driving cars in the city for use by Uber customers, although it’s important to note that for right now, the driverless cars will contain drivers who are prepared to take over in case that anything goes wrong, as well as co-pilots who will monitor and observe the car. While driverless cars have been talked about for a few years at this point, the company’s giant leap into actually offering self-driving Ubers to its customers–even at a test level–is a major step.

Uber has been working with about 50 researchers and engineers from Carnegie Mellon University’s robotics department to develop the system, and while it’s being tested out, Uber self-driving car rides will be free. The plan is that even when Uber begins to charge for the trips, they’ll still be cheaper than traditional rideshare prices. Additionally, rather than make its own self-driving cars, Uber is just attaching driverless capabilities to regular cars–specifically “100 modified Volvo XC90s outfitted with self-driving equipment.”

According to Bloomberg News, the set up will be:

For now, Uber’s test cars travel with safety drivers, as common sense and the law dictate. These professionally trained engineers sit with their fingertips on the wheel, ready to take control if the car encounters an unexpected obstacle. A co-pilot, in the front passenger seat, takes notes on a laptop, and everything that happens is recorded by cameras inside and outside the car so that any glitches can be ironed out. Each car is also equipped with a tablet computer in the back seat, designed to tell riders that they’re in an autonomous car and to explain what’s happening.

This is obviously still a work in progress in many ways. There are a lot of hurdles to get over before driverless cars actually become a realistic form of transportation–including legal concerns, as only a few states have authorized self-driving cars. But Uber’s taking a gutsy step, and next time you’re in Pittsburgh, you may end up in an Uber that’s a preview of the future of ridesharing.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Self-Driving Ubers to Launch in Pittsburgh…Sort Of appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. government just gave a Florida-based company permission to travel beyond the Earth’s orbit and land on the moon, making it the first company to be cleared for a private space mission. Moon Express announced on  its website Wednesday that it received the green light to send a robotic spacecraft to the moon in 2017, potentially ushering in a new era of commercial space exploration and discovery.

The approval for the Moon mission came from a collection of government agencies including the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the White House, the State Department, and NASA, after the company submitted an application for the mission to the FAA on April 8.

Moon Express is currently in competition for the Google Lunar XPrize, which promises to award a $20 million grand prize to the first team to successfully land a privately funded rover on the moon, travel 500 meters, and transmit back high definition video and images.

The space startup, with a home base in Cape Canaveral, was co-founded in 2010 by billionaire entrepreneur Dr. Bob Richards, Naveen Jain, and serial entrepreneur and computer scientist Dr. Barney Pell. Aside from hopefully establishing commercial space travel, the trio also wants to help solve the nation’s energy crisis with help from the moon. In the video below, Naveen explains Moon Express’ plans to eventually harvest valuable natural resources like Helium-3 and water from the Moon, to then transport back to Earth.

“The Moon Express 2017 mission approval is a landmark decision by the U.S. government and a pathfinder for private sector commercial missions beyond the Earth’s orbit,” said co-founder & CEO, Bob Richards in the company’s media kit. “We are now free to set sail as explorers to Earth’s eighth continent, the Moon, seeking new knowledge and resources to expand Earth’s economic sphere for the benefit of all humanity.”

According to Reuters, the company said that the spacecraft will carry a number of science experiments and some commercial cargo on its one-way trip to the lunar surface, including cremated human remains, and will beam back pictures and video to Earth. The mission will last two weeks and will use a suitcase-sized lander provided by Rocket Lab, another private aerospace company its in contract, which has yet to launch a rocket into orbit.

Unfortunately, this is not a precedent-setting case. While the U.S. government has approved Moon Express for one landing, it will continue to address future requests on a case-by-case basis until space laws can be passed that govern the practice.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Private Company Just Got the OK to Travel to Moon appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this month, the government of Ethiopia blocked multiple social media sites–Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Viber–for days on end during the course of annual university entrance exams. The government initiated the shutdown in order to prevent students from sharing answers or otherwise cheating on the exams but went on to claim that it had blocked the sites because they were “a distraction” for students. It is not entirely clear from where the order to launch the shutdown came. Daniel Berhane, editor of Horn Affairs magazine, tweeted that there was no transparency regarding who made the decision and that the government issued no statement on how long social media would be blocked for. The ban on social media ultimately only lasted for a handful of days, as long as the examinations were held, but even though the duration of the ban was relatively short, its scope is troubling.

Ethiopia is not the first nation to block social media during exams–Algeria and Iraq took the same measures this spring after students published exams online. However, this could set a troubling precedent for government control of the web. The UN has defended the internet as a basic human right and has passed a resolution (albeit non-binding) that condemns nations that intentionally disrupt citizens’ internet access. Internet shutdowns have frequently been used in times of violence or impending violence–like during the terrorist attacks on Istanbul, during protests in Bahrain, Venezuela and across sub-Saharan Africa. There are arguments to be made that preventing people from sharing their location on social media can protect innocent people from being attacked if they are in imminent danger, but social media blocking is more often used to disenfranchise “troublesome” populations. Imagine if social media had been efficiently blocked for the entirety of the Arab Spring. Without social media access, populations cannot share their stories beyond the immediate, local level. In 2015, Freedom House reported that Ethiopia was blocking critical opposition websites, including international news outlets–outlets such as the BBC were jammed by the government. There was presumably no threat to the general populace if BBC ran its stories, there was only a threat to the government’s control of information voters were exposed to going into the election.

The UN resolution was a step in the right direction but its non-binding nature means that the council that signed off on it–which included multiple countries that have launched internet shutdowns against their own populace–has no imperative to truly monitor whether the internet is being denied without cause to certain populations. Activist organizations like Access Now work to protect freedom of expression online but short of drawing attention to the problem and encouraging pushback, there is relatively little they can do to block an internet shutdown. VPNs (Virtual Private Networks) have let users in China access Google, Facebook and other blocked websites for years but the VPNs are no longer a secret that governments are unaware of–they are well-publicized tools. As the methods by which the populace circumvents an internet blockage expand, governments are not falling behind. In nations such as Ethiopia where blanket control of social media is a task well within the reach of the government, there is no number of VPNs or new apps that can effectively prevent the disruption of personal expression online.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Blocking Social Media in Ethiopia: New Perspectives on Human Rights Violations appeared first on Law Street.

Apple may have just picked a side in the country’s gun debate with the help of a new emoji roll out that includes a playful alternative for one “loaded” character. The tech company announced Monday that it will be replacing its popular pistol emoji with a squirt gun in its upcoming iOS 10 update.

The new green water gun, which comes equipped with the real toy’s signature orange cap and plastic trigger, will be introduced along with more than 100 new and revamped emojis that aim to make the company more diverse and inclusionary. Other emojis include more family options, a rainbow flag, more icons depicting people of color, as well as new female athletes and professionals in stereotypically male roles.

Apple’s new emojis show women working and men getting pampered https://t.co/cy7jb7l2S4 pic.twitter.com/gxI8mIBnwM

— Fortune (@FortuneMagazine) August 2, 2016

The decision comes after the advocacy group New Yorkers Against Gun Violence started a campaign last year called #DisarmTheiPhone, in which it asks Apple’s CEO, Tim Cook, to remove the gun emoji from all Apple products.

In an open letter to Apple Inc., the group writes:

We realized that many Americans unknowingly carry a gun with them every day. The one that was given to them without a background check: the gun emoji.

We ask that you stand with the American people and remove the gun emoji from all your products as a symbolic gesture to limit gun accessibility. We understand taking the emoji out will not end gun violence, but this act will show Congress that gun-owning and non-owning Americans have come together to demand required background checks for ALL gun sales.

According to CNN, Microsoft has already replaced their pistol emoji with a toy gun, but Google, Samsung, Facebook, and Twitter all still have gun emojis.

In June, Unicode–the governing body in charge of selecting and overseeing emojis–nixed plans to incorporate a rifle emoji with a set of Olympic-themed characters, after Apple spoke out against the proposal.

While Apple did not directly address the squirt gun emoji or the pistol replacement in its press release Monday, it did write that it is “working closely with the Unicode Consortium to ensure that popular emoji characters reflect the diversity of people everywhere.”

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Did Apple Just Enter the Gun Control Debate With its New Emoji? appeared first on Law Street.

On Sunday New York Governor Andrew Cuomo ordered that sex offenders stay away from Pokémon Go. The immensely popular game that has taken the world by storm for the past month leads its players on a real life search for digital Pokémon, using your phone’s map function.

Last week NY State Senators Jeffrey Klein and Diane Savino discovered that using the app actually might take you to the homes of convicted sex offenders. Now they are trying to pass legislation that will keep players a minimum of 100 feet away from such locations. It is also possible to pay real life money to get a rare Pokémon, in order to lure other players to your location–a tactic that some businesses are using to get customers to come to their stores.

Governor Cuomo previously worked to prohibit or limit Internet access for convicted sex offenders and pedophiles. This new directive will ban all registered sex offenders from downloading and playing interactive online games such as Pokémon Go. This will immediately affect around 3,000 individuals on parole.

We directed @NYSDOCCS to restrict sex offenders on parole from playing Pokémon GO and similar games: https://t.co/WpL19oEswq

— Andrew Cuomo (@NYGovCuomo) August 1, 2016

Cuomo also sent a letter to Niantic, Inc., the American software company behind Pokémon Go, asking for cooperation on the issue by technologically barring sex offenders from even using the app. He said in a statement:

Protecting New York’s children is priority number one and, as technology evolves, we must ensure these advances don’t become new avenues for dangerous predators to prey on new victims. These actions will provide safeguards for the players of these augmented reality games and help take one more tool away from those seeking to do harm to our children.

In the same statement, Jeffrey Klein said that pedophiles constantly seek new ways to approach and lure victims and that this is an important first step to limit the technological ways they can do it.

Diane Savino pointed out that Pokémon Go is an entertaining game for children, but the real world can be dangerous and it is important to remember the risks. However, there is no evidence that anyone has been sexually abused because of the Pokémon Go app.

It is great that an online game manages to get kids out and moving in their search for Pokémon, but there are several risks involved when walking around with your eyes on a screen–such as robbery, various physical injuries, and in one case, even finding a dead body. Hopefully the new directives regarding sex offenders will protect kids from one of those potential dangers.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Registered Sex Offenders Prohibited from Catching Pokémon in New York appeared first on Law Street.

When you open the new augmented-reality app Pokémon Go, the first thing you’ll see is a loading message warning: “Remember to be alert at all times. Stay aware of your surroundings.” If you thought the message was slightly melodramatic, trust me, you’re wrong. Since its Wednesday release date, the Pokémon-catching app has already been linked to armed robberies and a newly discovered dead body. So before you start roaming the streets searching for hiding Pikachus or gyms to capture, review this list of some of the weirdly dangerous encounters Pokémon Go players have faced.

Dead Body

Beware any dead bodies while searching for Pokémon. A 19-year-old from Riverton, Wyoming discovered a dead person while playing the game Friday night. Shayla Wiggins told Buzzfeed that she discovered the corpse while taking an early morning walk by Big Wind River to find some Pokémon.

Wiggins was struggling to find any Pokémon, so she walked down to the rocky river bank. “As I looked one way, I noticed that there was something in the water in front of me,” she said. “And so I took a closer look and saw it was a body.” When she finally realized it was in fact a body, she immediately called the police.

#News #Worldnews #Reddit Pokemon Go player discovers dead body in river https://t.co/F1HrqLbXy7 morgaine17 July 08… pic.twitter.com/4NyXIpOs4l

— Loren Brite (@PhilcamLoren) July 8, 2016

The Fremont County Sheriff’s Office is investigating the death–the corpse was an adult male–which appears to be accidental in nature and possibly caused by drowning. 

Armed Robbery

In Missouri, four suspects–who some have already likened to the villainous Team Rocket–used the app to target players in order to rob them. According to the Washington Post,

What Pokémon GO has to do with armed robbery and a dead body https://t.co/lTqyRw43vt #808news pic.twitter.com/DsvwdDoIH9

— khon2 News (@KHONnews) July 11, 2016

According to a Facebook post from the O’Fallon Missouri Police Department,

[Police] were able to locate four suspects occupying a black BMW a short time later and recover a handgun. These suspects are suspected of multiple Armed Robberies both in St. Louis and St. Charles Counties. It is believed these suspects targeted their victims through the Pokemon Go smart phone application.

The suspects were able to target players using the app’s pokestops–where players frequently gather–in remote areas, such as parking garages.

Injured Players

While the chances that you’ll be targeted by criminals while using the app are very slim, you should be extra cautious about causing accidental harm to yourself. From minor cuts and scrapes, to fractured bones, players are already reporting some serious Pokémon-related injures.

So I have had my first injury while playing #PokemonGO. pic.twitter.com/KKEfeQiHKH

— Ashten (@TheaAylaPokemon) July 11, 2016

One Redditor with the username Amalthea- claimed,

Not even 30 minutes after the release last night, I slipped and fell down a ditch. Fractured the fifth metatarsal bone in my foot, 6-8 weeks for recovery. I told all the doctors I was walking my dog lol… Watch where you’re going, folks!

Another player in New Zealand claimed to have face-planted while using his skateboard to search for Pokémon around his neighborhood.

Click here for a list of other injuries.

With users’ heads buried in their phones instead of observing their surroundings, injuries like these are bound to happen. However, they are entirely preventable.  In an effort to remind distracted Pokémon Go players not to use their cellphones while driving, the Ohio State Highway Patrol crafted a hashtag #DontCatchAndDrive.

Playing #PokemonGo? Please #DontCatchAndDrive! We know you want to catch ‘em all, but do so safely! pic.twitter.com/qaPoJ6fKgm

— Ohio State Patrol (@OSHP) July 11, 2016

For an explainer on what Pokémon Go is, check out the Washington Post’s rundown here. And while obviously most people playing the game have been fine, it’s always important to follow the game’s instruction and pay attention to your surroundings.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Pokémon Go Players are Getting Robbed and Finding Dead Bodies appeared first on Law Street.

Snapchat has long been known for facilitating explicit content thanks to its function that erases pictures after a few seconds. But now a 14-year-old and his mom are suing Snapchat Discover because of that kind of content. The Discover channel features different media outlets with their own feeds of content that are produced exclusively for Snapchat and are often provocative or racy in order to attract followers.

What is Snapchat Discover?

Today the app involves so much more than taking a photo that disappears after a few seconds. You can face swap, add filters that give you the look of a bee, a puppy, or a vampire, follow news, save your images and videos and send private messages. The Discover function lets you follow your media outlet of choice–Cosmopolitan, Vice, MTV, or Buzzfeed, among others.

The class action lawsuit filed by the anonymous 14-year-old and his mom says that Snapchat doesn’t warn about content that is sexual or offensive. Kids are being exposed to content that is aimed at adults, such as articles named “Beware of Whiskey Dick” and “10 Things He Thinks When He Can’t Make You Orgasm.” According to the lawsuit:

Specifically, through Snapchat Discover, Snapchat is currently engaged in an insidious pattern and practice of intentionally exposing minors to harmful, offensive, prurient, and sexually offensive content, without warning minors or their parents that they would be exposed to such explicit content.

These pictures are from some of the articles that are mentioned:

A mom's lawsuit seeks millions from Snapchat for exposing kids to offensive content https://t.co/2WkkP8pjXg pic.twitter.com/IHA1dOjW49

— Fast Company (@FastCompany) July 9, 2016

What Is Snapchat’s Responsibility?

A spokesperson for Snapchat said in a statement that the company still hasn’t received the lawsuit, “but we are sorry if people were offended. Our Discover partners have editorial independence, which is something that we support.”

The argument is that if Snapchat is only a platform for social media, it has no responsibility over what is posted on the platform. But Ben Meiselas, one of the attorneys behind the lawsuit told BBC: “The layout, its format, what’s presented on a day-to-day basis–Snapchat is not a passive observer of this content.” A statement released in January 2015 about the Snapchat Discover Channel feature said that “it’s the result of collaboration with world-class leaders in media to build a storytelling format that puts the narrative first.” According to Meiselas, it’s that kind of language that indicates Snapchat has taken on the role of a publisher rather than just a platform.

However, an individual employed by one of the media companies that that has a Discover Channel, who asked to speak on the condition of anonymity, told Law Street that Snapchat does not have any input into their editions before they go live.

Snapchat is just four years old and is valued at $16 billion. It has 150 million users and is the app of choice for teenagers and young people. Since this is a class action lawsuit, a win for the 14-year-old could lead to financial compensation for many more kids.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Teen Sues Snapchat Discover Over Explicit Content appeared first on Law Street.

The couple that gunned down 14 people in San Bernardino, California last December exchanged private messages on Facebook nearly two years before the attack, discussing jihad and martyrdom. In the hours following the massacre, Tashfeen Malik–one of the killers–pledged allegiance to the leader of the Islamic State on her Facebook feed. The couple’s social media use prior to and after the attack reiterated ISIS’s savvy online; it also spurred action by the Department of Homeland Security, which announced a few months later a vague commitment to enhance its screening of social media accounts of immigrants who apply for certain immigration benefits, as well as Syrian refugees seeking asylum in the U.S.

Now, there is a push to increase surveillance of the social media accounts of all foreign travelers coming into the U.S. A Customs and Border Protection proposal filed in the Federal Register on June 23 recommends an additional section to forms filled out by tourists and immigrants at customs: “Please enter information associated with your online presence—provider/platform—social media identifier.” The proposed change to the form would be voluntary, and would not ask for passwords. For some, the voluntary aspect of the new proposal renders it useless.

“What terrorist is going to give our government permission to see their radical jihadist rants on social media?” Representative Vern Buchanan (R-FL) said in a statement. Buchanan is the author of legislation that is currently in Congress, the “Social Media Screening for Terrorists Act,” which includes similar proposals to CBP’s, although his bill would make filling out social media account information required. He said the new revision “lacks teeth.” 

Social media has proved an effective tool for proselytizing ISIS’s extremist ideology. But platforms like Twitter and Facebook struggle with policing accounts without breaching First Amendment rights. There is a general consensus that it is not the federal government’s role to impose restrictions on social media. But since the San Bernardino attacks and subsequent terrorist attacks around the globe, the U.S. government has increased its capacity to combat online radicalization. In its proposed revisions to the current customs form, CBP commented: “Collecting social media data will enhance the existing investigative process and provide DHS greater clarity and visibility to possible nefarious activity.”

However the U.S. government ends up beefing up its ability to monitor the social media accounts of people entering the country, ISIS continues to recruit people online. It is definitely an issue to keep an eye on in the coming months.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Customs Form Could Soon Include Section for Social Media Information appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. government issued new rules on Tuesday regarding the flying of commercial drones, opening up a ton of business opportunities. Drones–small, unmanned aircraft–can be used for taking photos, to survey damage done by natural disasters, and plenty more. But using drones for delivering packages, as e-commerce giant Amazon plans on doing, will not be possible under the new rules.

The problem for Amazon and other retailers with hopes of delivering orders via drones is the requirement that mandates the pilot to always be in the line of sight of the aircraft. In addition, drones can only fly in daylight, and can’t weigh more than 55 pounds.

DOT and FAA Finalize Rules for Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems https://t.co/yr1VUrygOf #drones #flysafe pic.twitter.com/XaUTA9rhB7

— The FAA (@FAANews) June 21, 2016

The Big Brother Aspect

The biggest issue with regulating drones has been ensuring safety and privacy. Several groups have expressed fears that they could be used for spying on people, or are simply not safe enough. The fact that they can now be as small as insects, and can use cameras with facial recognition technology, is indeed unsettling to some. “The FAA continues to ignore the top concern of Americans about the deployment of commercial drones in the United States–the need for strong privacy safeguards,” Marc Rotenberg, president of Electronic Privacy Information Center, told the Boston Globe.

Drone captures 70 tiger sharks feasting on a whale https://t.co/JGGv3F9pPa pic.twitter.com/gBrqVjmVYZ

— Drones (@drones) May 24, 2016

Despite this, some in the business sector are happy with the new rules. Michael Drobac, a lawyer for drone efforts at companies like Amazon and Google, said:

Within months you will see the incredible impact of these rules with commercial drones becoming commonplace in a variety of uses. This will show the technology is reliable, and then it becomes harder to argue against broader uses–like for delivery.

More Jobs

According to the press release from the Federal Aviation Administration, the new regulations could open up more than 100,000 new jobs within the next 10 years, and could generate more than $80 billion for the U.S. economy. U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said: “We are part of a new era in aviation, and the potential for unmanned aircraft will make it safer and easier to do certain jobs, gather information, and deploy disaster relief.”

Before the new rules, a piloting license was needed in order to operate a drone, but with the new rules you only need  a “remote pilot certificate,” which is attainable by passing an aeronautical knowledge test. You must be at least 16-years-old to fly a drone, and cannot fly the aircraft over other people. The new rules don’t affect hobbyists, however, so if you own a drone and want to know what is allowed, you can read the FAA’s “Fly for Fun” guidelines here.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FAA Issues New Rules for Commercial Drones appeared first on Law Street.

The D.C. Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday in favor of the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) net neutrality regulations to ensure an open internet in the U.S. In the wake of this latest victory for web activists and advocates of net neutrality, here are four things to consider as we move forward:

1. Your internet access won’t change, but it could get worse.

The FCC has been operating under stronger regulations from Internet Service Providers (ISPs) since February 2015–ISPs are now considered public utilities. However, if these regulations were not in place, ISPs would be allowed to manipulate the flow of the internet.

Debate on net neutrality focused on whether it was fair for ISPs to prioritize certain content providers who could pay more, and slow traffic to other content providers. What this meant for the average internet user was potentially higher buffering times on streaming services like Netflix and slower traffic to websites with lower priority. Yikes.

2. AT&T, lover of monopolies and telecommunications, is back at it again

AT&T has been one of the most vocal opponents of the reclassification of ISPs as telecommunication services and the government regulation that accompanies that reclassification. AT&T, among other opponents, claims that this intervention will lead to less innovation and investment.

In reaction to the ruling, AT&T Senior Executive VP David McAtee released a statement claiming, “We have always expected this issue to be decided by the Supreme Court, and we look forward to participating in that appeal.”

But we’ve already seen U.S. v. AT&T in the 1970’s when AT&T was found to be breaking anti-trust laws in its monopolization of local telephone service in the U.S. And then there was the time the company tried to buy T-Mobile but abandoned the effort after a lawsuit was brought by the DOJ’s antitrust division.

Maybe AT&T just doesn’t understand that the U.S. government and its citizens have decided that we oppose the predatory business practices that are made possible with monopolies. But in case nobody has told them; no AT&T, you can’t keep trying to re-monopolize one of the most important services in the world.

3. We still have a long way to go to ensure an open, public internet service

Internet being considered a public utility is a big step. However, while we rejoice in our ability to binge-watch “Game of Thrones” at equal speeds, individuals living in rural and poor communities still face limited internet access.

Internet use in rural areas is at 78 percent, compared to 84 percent in urban and suburban areas. However, not all internet is equal. Oftentimes in rural areas, especially in parts of the south and western U.S., internet is offered at higher prices and lower speeds.

The dialogue around internet use also often disregards the inevitable fact that for poor families, buying computers that can cost hundreds to thousands of dollars and is not a priority, and often is not possible. The internet cannot truly be considered an open, free, and public service until we address the high prices and differences in speed and quality of internet faced by rural and poor communities throughout the U.S.

4. Don’t be surprised if you see net neutrality in the Supreme Court

In case the comment from AT&T’s David McAtee didn’t tip you off, it is widely suspected that net neutrality will find itself in the Supreme Court soon as AT&T and other providers have expressed intention of appealing the case.

The D.C. Court of Appeals found no merit to the arguments of ISPs in the case decided on Tuesday. Further, the issue has already been looked at in part by SCOTUS. In 2005, SCOTUS decided National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand X Internet Services by essentially saying that since the legislation in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was ambiguous, the FCC got to decide how to classify internet service (as a telecommunications service or an information service). The FCC clearly has since decided to classify internet as a telecommunications service. Nevertheless, expect to see net neutrality top headlines in a Supreme Court appeal soon.

But until then, we celebrate this win as one step close in a battle for universal access to the internet, the largest, most empowering, and most accessible information database in the world.

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Federal Court Upholds Net Neutrality: 4 Things You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

At a closed-door meeting in May at Harvard Medical School, nearly 150 geneticists, biologists, and other members of the scientific community came together to discuss a top secret project. The topic of the meeting: manufacturing a human genome from scratch, piecing three billion strands of DNA together to form a fully operational cell. In a proposal published in the Science journal on Thursday, the contents of that hushed May meeting are laid bare for everyone in the science community and beyond to praise, prod, and ponder.

In the proposal, the authors praised the success of the Human Genome Project, the controversial but complete sequencing of the human genome that was completed in 2004, and rationalized their newest step–effectively the sequel to a similar project that fabricated a yeast chromosome–as such:

Although sequencing, analyzing, and editing DNA continue to advance at breakneck pace, the capability to construct DNA sequences in cells is mostly limited to a small number of short segments, restricting the ability to manipulate and understand biological systems.

The project, they added, would “push current conceptual and technical limits by orders of magnitude and deliver important scientific advances.”

All of this could be accomplished at a relatively cheap price. HGP-write, as the project has been designated, would be paid for by existing government funds with an estimated $100 million. As more of the scientific world rallies around the project, detractors are being slowly cajoled into supporting it. Jef Boeke, an NYU geneticist, told Science that he is a “conservative guy,” so he was reluctant to cosign the ambitious venture at first. But when reputed scientists from across the field hopped on board, he “became more and more convinced that this really was a good focus.”

Manipulating and unraveling the secrets of the cellular makeup of human beings has, since the concept crept from science fiction to science reality, been rife with moral dilemmas: should humans tinker with life’s essential building blocks, even if the technology existed to do so? Is it worth knowing the story of your DNA, regardless of its contents? So of course, HGP-write has its doubters.

“I think developing the tools to make large genetic sequences is an important human goal. Creating an entirely new [human] genomes—that’s a different kind of a project,” said Laurie Zoloth, a bioethicist at Northwestern University. The potential benefits are “not an adequate reason to take such an enormous moral step,” she added.

HGP-write’s 25 backers hope to begin work on the project later this year.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Can A Human Cell Be Built From Scratch? appeared first on Law Street.

An unnamed Valparaiso University student was arrested in a Rosemont, Illinois Muvico theater by police officers acting on a tip from over 8,000 miles away. His crime? Illegally sharing copyrighted content online via Facebook Live.

The student was watching a local premiere of the Bollywood romantic comedy film “A Aa,” and was allegedly using his cellphone to record and stream video of the screen live to his Facebook friends.

Facebook’s Live feature is relatively new to the platform, and allows users to stream live video of themselves and their surroundings to their Facebook friends, or the general public. After the live stream is finished, the video is saved on your Facebook account. These videos can be made public, and in that case, could be viewed by millions. One live video in particular–an über-viral clip of a Texas mom trying on a Chewbacca mask–garnered over 150 million views. It’s clear that a Facebook Live video can attract a large audience under the right circumstances, and isn’t just a moment shared between friends.

The content was flagged by an anti-piracy team working for the studio Bluesky Cinemas in Hyderabad, India. The team managed to remove the posting, and contacted the Muvico theater where the screening was taking place. Theater management then contacted the police, and soon after the student was arrested at the theater. When police arrived, they deleted the video from the student’s phone–Facebook Live has an option to save the video you’re recording to your camera roll. Only a few minutes had been recorded by that point.

Someone illegally distributing copyrighted material online can be liable for both civil and criminal offenses, and police involvement isn’t a completely unprecedented intervention. While it seems like an overreach of power to arrest someone for using their phone at a movie theater, officials insist that they prevented an incident of real cybercrime. An arrest like this raises the question of whether our anti-piracy laws are effective, or simply impossible to reasonably enforce.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Student Arrested While Streaming Movie Premiere on Facebook Live appeared first on Law Street.

Major organizations, public figures, and social media users called on everyone to #WearOrange on Thursday, as part of a campaign to create awareness about gun violence. The campaign was created by the Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, which declared on the campaign’s official site that the color orange was chosen because it “symbolizes the value of human life” and “hunters wear orange in the woods to protect themselves and others.”

June 2 is official National Gun Violence Awareness Day. This year, it immediately followed Wednesday’s murder-suicide incident at UCLA, which led to the death of a professor and forced the campus on lockdown during one of its busiest times of the year.

Here’s a sampling of some of the responses on social media:

We cannot accept our level of gun violence as the new normal. We must take action to prevent this from happening again & again. #WearOrange

— President Obama (@POTUS) June 2, 2016

These gals are down for the cause #WearOrange @Everytown pic.twitter.com/osycQmyAUo

— Amy Schumer (@amyschumer) June 2, 2016

Trying to force a smile as I do this today. We are all Bruins! https://t.co/cmWiGKg9BT #WearOrange pic.twitter.com/ei2Q70JR6S

— Perez (@ThePerezHilton) June 2, 2016

The noise around gun violence is loud. Orange is louder. Join me today and #WearOrange. pic.twitter.com/DRuiikzrgm

— Mike Bloomberg (@MikeBloomberg) June 2, 2016

It’s gun violence awareness day #wearorange pic.twitter.com/FpK8Ninueb

— Kim Kardashian West (@KimKardashian) June 2, 2016

Comedy Central posted a clip from “Inside Amy Schumer” that provided a humorous look at the absurdities surrounding U.S. gun laws:

Spreading awareness the only way we know how. #WearOrange https://t.co/Gi2DvzGwpXhttps://t.co/BiAF42yn2x

— Comedy Central (@ComedyCentral) June 2, 2016

But this campaign expanded well beyond simple wardrobe choice: #WearOrange events were held around the country to bring people together in solidarity for the cause.

With 372 mass shootings in 2015, this campaign has never felt more timely and necessary.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post #WearOrange Brings Attention to Gun Violence in America appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, the Intercept released a batch of 166 previously unseen documents leaked by whistleblower Edward Snowden. The release fulfilled Snowden’s wishes for the classified information, by pairing it with context that makes it accessible and understandable to the general public. The Intercept also attempted to protect the personal welfare of innocent individuals associated with the information.

On its website, the Intercept declared that it will release the documents in batches, starting with the oldest ones from 2003 and going all the way until the most recent documents, from 2012. The documents in question are from the NSA’s internal newsletter called SIDtoday, short for Signals Intelligence Directorate.

On Tuesday, reports came that the CIA “mistakenly” destroyed a 6,700 page U.S. torture report, containing thousands of confidential files about the CIA’s use of enhanced interrogation. Something that does sound very fishy, and Snowden said:

I worked @CIA. I wrote the Emergency Destruction Plan for Geneva. When CIA destroys something, it's never a mistake. https://t.co/S1VULfE4NY

— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) May 18, 2016

Along with the release of information, the Intercept published four accompanying articles. One went through how closely the NSA was involved in the Guantánamo interrogations, explaining how staff were sent to the military base during the time that the torture-like interrogations took place. It states:

The NSA LNO might pull together intelligence to support an upcoming interrogation, formulate questions and strategies for the interrogation, and observe or participate in the interrogation.

The documents and corresponding articles also account for how the staff spent their free time doing water sports, going to a Tiki bars, or:

Pottery, hiking, nature walks, biking, paintball, martial arts, tennis, racquetball, basketball, softball, and bowling.

This all sounds like a relaxing, enjoyable vacation. But reports from FBI agents who were disturbed by the conditions under which the prisoners were questioned all stem from the same time period. They state that prisoners were questioned while lying chained to the floor in fetal positions, while exposed to aggressive dogs, and while starved as just a few of the examples. The reports also stated that the interrogators claimed to be FBI agents, to avoid later blame for abuse and possible repercussions.

Another article from the Intercept goes through the most intriguing spy stories that have come to light as a result of the documents. For example, it highlights North Korean nuclear plans, Russian mobsters, and information about the rescue of a kidnapped female soldier.

The Intercept was founded in 2014 and is dedicated to fearless reporting. The site is known especially for its coverage of the Snowden documents–editor Glenn Greenwald was one of the original recipients. Batches of more documents are coming shortly, so stay tuned as more of Snowden’s revelations come to light.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Intercept Releases New Snowden Documents, Details About Guantánamo appeared first on Law Street.

Facebook is fighting accusations that it censored conservative news on the site after Gizmodo published an exposé on the inner workings of Facebook’s “trending” section Monday.

The Gawker-owned tech blog interviewed several anonymous former Facebook “news curators,” who claimed that they were instructed to “artificially inject” selected stories into the trending news module, even if they weren’t popular enough to warrant inclusion–or in some cases weren’t trending at all.”

Former curators cited the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370, the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris, and #BlackLivesMatter movement as examples of stories that were “injected” into Facebook’s trending news module, despite not actually trending.

The trending section in question refers to the small rectangular-sized portion located on the upper-right-hand corner of your Facebook newsfeed.

According to Facebook’s website, “Trending shows you topics that have recently become popular on Facebook. The topics you see are based on a number of factors including engagement, timeliness, Pages you’ve liked and your location.”

However, Gizmodo claims that trending stories covered by conservative news outlets such as Breitbart, the Washington Examiner, and Newsmax, were purposefully excluded unless mainstream news organizations like the New York Times, CNN, or BBC covered them as well.

The article alleges that Facebook instructed its curators not to include news about Facebook in the trending section as well. In an ironic twist, news surrounding Facebook’s possible conservative news conspiracy notably appeared in Facebook’s “Trending” that same day.

Just to be clear, exercising editorial control is a common practice in most forms of media, as it sets the tone for the publication and informs readers about the types of content they can expect to see covered. However, if Facebook is in fact operating more like a traditional newsroom rather than relying on neutral algorithms, its methodology for selecting trending topics should be amended.

In response to these allegations a U.S. Senate committee sent Facebook a letter Tuesday demanding answers. The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation sent the letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg stating that these allegations “compromise Facebook’s ‘open culture’ and mission ‘to make the world more open and connected.'”

Facebook’s Vice President Tom Stocky responded to the allegations in a post Monday, denying allegations that social media site suppresses political perspectives. Stocky writes:

We take these reports extremely seriously, and have found no evidence that the anonymous allegations are true.

Facebook is a platform for people and perspectives from across the political spectrum. There are rigorous guidelines in place for the review team to ensure consistency and neutrality. These guidelines do not permit the suppression of political perspectives. Nor do they permit the prioritization of one viewpoint over another or one news outlet over another. These guidelines do not prohibit any news outlet from appearing in Trending Topics.

The Senate committee’s letter listed May 24 as the deadline for Facebook to respond with answers, even though it’s unclear what purpose these responses will have, or if Facebook will face any repercussions if its executives choose not to comply.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Did Facebook Curators Bury Conservative News? appeared first on Law Street.

Do you need to order a quick ride in Austin, Texas? You may now be out of luck, or forced to call a cab, because both Uber and Lyft are pausing their operations in the city for now.

This big move comes after voters in the city rejected a ballot measure that would have loosened regulations on the kinds of services ridesharing companies provide. The regulations were adopted late last year after the legislation was passed by Austin’s City Council, but the ballot measure was posed to Austin’s voters this Saturday. While both Uber and Lyft lobbied hard for its passage and spent a combined $8 million plus in lobbying, 56 percent of Austin’s voters cast their ballots against the measure.

The Austin regulations essentially required Uber and Lyft to be treated more like taxis. One of the biggest points of contention was that they required that the companies run the fingerprints of the drivers they hire–Uber and Lyft pushed back against that regulation because both companies conduct their own internal background checks. According to the Wall Street Journal:

Austin also prohibits drivers from stopping in traffic lanes for passenger drop-offs and pickups, includes requirements for identifying vehicles for hire and imposes data reporting on the ride-hailing companies.

Austin is a major tech hub with a recent large influx of young people, so the fact that Uber and Lyft would rather give up that market than comply with the regulations makes quite a strong statement. Uber has additionally threatened to leave Houston, where similar regulations are under ongoing debate. Both companies also followed through on their threat in San Antonio, after that city made fingerprinting mandatory. Neither operated within San Antonio limits until the city made fingerprinting voluntary instead of required.

Statements from both companies echo these sentiments. Lyft’s spokesperson Chelsea Wilson said:

Lyft and Austin are a perfect match and we want to stay in the city. Unfortunately, the rules passed by City Council don’t allow true ride-sharing to operate.

Uber’s Austin general manager, Chris Nakutis, talked a local news outlet and stated: “Disappointment does not begin to describe how we feel about shutting down operations in Austin.”

Uber and Lyft are now in a game of chicken with Austin–and there’s really know way to tell who will swerve first.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Uber and Lyft Pull out of Austin After Voters Keep Strict Regulations in Place appeared first on Law Street.

SpaceX recently announced that its Dragon spacecraft, designed to deliver both cargo and people, could be touching down on Mars as soon as 2018. Mars has long fascinated space agencies, and the U.S., Russia and the EU have all landed spacecraft on the planet, but SpaceX would be the first private company to complete a mission to Mars.

SpaceX is seeking to land its Dragon using rocket power alone, as opposed to the system of parachutes and airbags that are usually involved in landing spacecraft. In April, SpaceX successfully landed its Falcon 9 rocket ship on a platform at sea, following up a successful landing on a ground-based site in 2015. SpaceX is conducting another rocket launch and landing this week, but the company expects the landing to be unsuccessful, citing “extreme velocities and re-entry heating, making a successful landing unlikely.” Even if this week’s landing is unsuccessful, SpaceX engineers are still confident in the feasibility of launching their product within a few years rather than a matter of decades.

SpaceX may be a private company but it is not looking to keep NASA out of the loop on its Mars project. SpaceX has agreed to gather data for NASA and will utilize technical support from NASA, including use of the Deep Space Network for communications. SpaceX will be the financial power behind the project but the Dragon launch is a collaboration rather than a competition with traditional space agencies. This type of cooperation marks a new era in space exploration. Whereas the initial space race of the past century was defined by U.S.-Soviet competition, we are now seeing space travel as a team effort that brings creative minds together rather than setting them up as mortal enemies. Rocket launches in the private sector are concerned with the goals of the company and its engineering staff rather than a victory for the nation.

National space agencies are not extinct and may even be revived to rival their boom years in the future, but at this moment they are taking on a support role and perhaps making space exploration more cooperative by doing so. Instead of framing the journey to Mars as a race, we need to construct it as a project that all the brightest minds can contribute to, no matter where they come from. The 2018 launch date for the Dragon may come and go without a successful launch, but if SpaceX keeps up its open collaboration with NASA (or expands it to include other space agencies and companies), then the company and its engineers will have made a substantial contribution to the future of space travel on Earth–even if they don’t make it to Mars.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Mars by 2018? SpaceX’s Ambitious Plan for Interplanetary Expansion appeared first on Law Street.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is making a big push to regulate e-cigarettes, cigars, and other non-cigarette smoking devices for the first time. The FDA has been working on these rules for a while, but finalized them on Wednesday. Most of the regulations pertain to smoking via means that aren’t traditional cigarettes, cigarette-related products, or smokeless tobacco–such as hookah, e-cigarettes, and cigars.

One of the most noteworthy new policies is that the FDA will ban the sale of e-cigarettes to individuals under the age of 18. Additionally, the way that e-cigarette manufacturers are allowed to market the e-cigarettes already on sale will require federal permission. The other regulations that will be placed on e-cigarettes include:

A prohibition on distribution of free samples; a ban on selling e-cigarettes in vending machines unless they are in secure places that never admit young people; and a requirement that e-cigarettes carry warnings that they contain nicotine, which is addictive.

Additionally, the regulations will ban the sale of cigars, pipe tobacco, and hookah tobacco to minors under 18.

The FDA put out a statement about its new regulations, stating:

This action is a milestone in consumer protection — going forward, the FDA will be able to review new tobacco products not yet on the market, help prevent misleading claims by tobacco product manufacturers, evaluate the ingredients of tobacco products and how they are made, and communicate the potential risks of tobacco products.

The FDA has been attempting to regulate e-cigarettes for some time. In 2009, the FDA tried to regulate e-cigarettes as drug-delivery products, but a court ruling struck those provisions down in 2010. The newly announced regulations have been two years in the making, as the FDA has sought to deal with the new influx of e-cigarettes on the market and in popular culture.

The federal government isn’t the only one cracking down on e-cigarettes (or vaping–the act of using e-cigarettes or other electronic smoking devices). California’s governor Jerry Brown just signed a law that, in addition to changing the legal smoking age to 21, will restrict the use of e-cigarettes in some public places. According to the Los Angeles Times:

Electronic cigarettes are considered to be tobacco products and cannot be used in restaurants, theaters, bars and other places where smoking has long been banned. They also cannot be marketed to minors.

E-cigarettes are certainly more popular than ever, but as various federal and state regulations crack down, that popularity may not be permanent.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FDA Moves to Regulate E-Cigarettes: Is the Vaping Honeymoon Over? appeared first on Law Street.

Is Snapchat partially to blame for accidents caused by “Snapping” while driving? A new lawsuit places some responsibility on the company after an 18-year old driver, Christal McGee, of Hampton, Georgia, caused an accident while using the filter that records speed while in motion. The complaint was filed by Wentworth Maynard, an Uber driver who was hit by McGee while she was traveling at 107 miles per hour.

The accident occurred in September 2015 when McGee was driving home from work in her father’s Mercedes with three of her coworkers in the backseat, one of whom was pregnant. She began to speed down Tara Boulevard, a highway with a 55 MPH speed limit, and pulled out her phone to use the app once she hit 100 MPH. The suit alleges that she was trying to earn a new “trophy” on Snapchat, which is what motivated her to hit that speed. At the same time, Maynard’s car began to pull onto the highway, and the distracted McGee was unable to slow down sufficiently to avoid a collision.

The resulting accident left Maynard with permanent brain damage, detailed in a blog post on a local law firm’s site. McGee’s passengers fared better, and were only treated for “cuts and bruises.” McGee herself faced a head injury, but was conscious enough to post a Selfie from the ambulance letting people know that she was “lucky to be alive.”

Christal McGee caused a serious accident while speeding & using snapchat then took a selfie in the stretcher. #fail pic.twitter.com/ZlKlO1nEFn

— Jess Clackum (@JessicaClackum) April 28, 2016

Maynard’s suit claims that Snapchat should have been aware that the filter would have led to users “putting themselves and others in harm’s way in order to ‘capture a snap’.” It’s not the only case of its kind: the post also mentions similar cases in Brazil and the UK where accidents occurred while using the filter. So, is Snapchat to blame for inviting such behavior in the first place?

The company provided the following response to TechCrunch:

No Snap is more important than someone’s safety. We actively discourage our community from using the speed filter while driving, including by displaying a ‘Do NOT Snap and Drive’ warning message in the app itself.

While Snapchat isn’t responsible for the reckless behavior of its users, it also probably shouldn’t be rewarding “trophies” for it. And why does the “MPH” filter even exist in the first place? The Snapchat craze joins texting and calling as an additional form of distraction for drivers, maybe making the roads a little less safe for us all.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Snapchat Faces Lawsuit After App Usage Causes Car Accident appeared first on Law Street.

Since the advent of cellphones we’ve all heard the warnings: don’t text and drive. The National Security Council estimated that 1.1 million vehicle crashes in 2013 involved drivers using their phones while driving. As a result, many states have made laws forbidding texting and driving. But New York is now looking into a device that would allow police officers to determine if a driver involved in a crash was texting and driving, or otherwise distracted by a phone. It’s called the “textalyzer,” and while its still in developmental phases, the state of New York is currently debating whether or not it should be implemented.

The device has the name “textalyzer” because it would be sort of a phone-testing equivalent of a breathalyzer. Police who arrive at a crash could require drivers to hand over their phones, and then tap the device against the phone. The device would be able to determine if the drivers were using the phones in a way that would lead to distracted driving, such as texting, sending an email, or (the new go-to) Snapchatting.

New York legislators have introduced a bipartisan bill that would grant police officers the ability to use a device like the “textalyzer.” A press release by an advocacy group called the Distracted Operators Risk Casualties, which has been a big backer of the bill explains that the “textalyzer” is still a work in progress. According to the press release:

Cellebrite, the leader in mobile device forensics solutions, is developing this capability for officers to detect device usage in the field while maintaining the privacy of data stored on the device. ‘Cellebrite has been leading the adoption of field mobile forensics solutions by law enforcement for years, culminating in the formal introduction of our UFED FIELD series product line a year ago,’ said Jim Grady, CEO, Cellebrite, Inc. ‘We look forward to supporting DORCs and law enforcement—both in New York and nationally—to curb distracted driving.’

There are plenty of concerns about the potential power of the “textalyzer,” including privacy issues. SCOTUS has ruled in the past that police officers can’t conduct warrantless cell phone searches–so the question becomes whether or not the “textalyzer” (which doesn’t allow officers to look at any messages) is similar enough to be a problem. While both the law and the device itself are in somewhat of beginning stages, these legal and logistical concerns will be sure to take center stage moving forward.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post In New York, “Textalyzer” Device Would Treat Distracted Driving More Like Drunk Driving appeared first on Law Street.

“Government should have lawful access to any encrypted message or device.” That was the resolution at the center of a debate between CNN’s Fareed Zakaria and Edward Snowden, former NSA contractor and infamous (or famous, depending on your opinions) leaker of classified information.

The Sides

Zakaria, the host of CNN’s “Fareed Zakaria GPS” and Washington Post columnist, supported the resolution, arguing that no one should be able to have a “zone of immunity,” and that with due process, all information should be accessible to law enforcement. Edward Snowden, the NSA contractor responsible for an unprecedented leak of classified information about the agency’s surveillance programs, took the opposing position, arguing that computer security is the preeminent challenge of our time and that making it possible for the government to access devices makes everyone’s information less safe.

The People and the Place

The debate, which took place in the New York Times Building just steps away from Times Square, was co-hosted by the Century Foundation and NYU’s Wagner School for public service. Zakaria stood before the audience in New York while Snowden was teleconferenced in from Russia.

Fareed Zakaria and Edward Snowden debate encryption. [Image courtesy of Kevin Rizzo for Law Street Media]

With the help of moderator Barton Gellman–a two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who broke the story after Snowden’s leak and current Senior Fellow at the Century Foundation–the debaters managed to debate the merits of encryption. Although discussion of encryption often becomes abstract, with talk of backdoors and impenetrable walls, Snowden and Zakaria got to the crux of the issue: when possible, should companies be forced to comply with court orders to release information when law enforcement cannot access it?

The Fuss Over Encryption

Encryption tends to quickly polarize people. On one hand there are people like FBI Director James Comey who has said that one day, law enforcement officers will need to get into an encrypted device to save a kidnapped child, and without the ability to do so, someone might die. On the other are privacy advocates, who say that weakening security by making every device accessible to the government, or creating a so-called backdoor, will make devices insecure for everyone, criminals and upstanding citizens alike. But the reality is often more complicated.

Drawing from his unique position as a former NSA contractor and current privacy advocate, Snowden noted that nothing is completely protected. If someone can access their device, then it is possible for others to access it as well. He used examples from his time at the NSA, saying that he was able to get around encryption. He also cited the FBI’s success in arresting Ross Ulbricht, the man behind the infamous Silk Road website–an online black market that often facilitated illegal activity. The FBI managed to arrest Ulbricht and access his encrypted information because agents physically took his computer while he was logged into Silk Road at a public library.

But Zakaria shot back arguing that getting around encryption like that is very difficult and often extremely expensive. He noted the recent battle between the FBI and Apple, in which the FBI ended up paying more than a million dollars to break into a phone used by one of the San Bernadino shooters. Zakaria asked why wealthy law enforcement agencies should be able to break into the phones of murderers while similar crimes go unsolved in Harlem and the Bronx.

Eventually, Gellman, the moderator, raised a question that got to the heart of the issue. He noted that the messaging service WhatsApp has, based on available evidence, managed to create comprehensive end-to-end encryption for its users–meaning that even the company cannot read its users’ messages. Gellman asked Zakaria if such services should exist, noting that a bill in the Senate would require companies to be able to decrypt their customers’ data with a court order, making impenetrable encryption against the law.

Zakaria conceded that if a company was able to create a system that the company itself could not decrypt, then they would not be held liable. “If WhatsApp says we literally do not know how to write this code—WhatsApp could demonstrate to a court that they don’t have to do it,” Zakaria said. But he maintained that if uncovering the data is possible, the government should be allowed to do so with a court order.

At that point, the disagreement became clear–Zakaria, and the pro law enforcement camp in general, believe that when it is possible (and it often is) the government should be able to gain access to devices if they obtain a court order. But Snowden, technologists, and privacy advocates, counter that making companies exploit their own systems to gain access to devices makes everyone’s information less safe.

A Welcome Focus on Realism

While strong disagreement between the two sides remained at the end of the event, they managed to discuss the issue based on its merits without exclusively dealing in abstract hypothetical situations. The debate boiled down to the tension between cyber security and law enforcement’s ability to get information, echoing the larger battle between preserving privacy and providing safety. While the debate remains far from settled, Snowden and Zakaria’s discussion of encryption should help shape the conversation going forward.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fareed Zakaria and Edward Snowden Debate the Limits of Encryption appeared first on Law Street.

Uber recently reached a settlement with its drivers in California and Massachusetts in two lawsuits that could have derailed the company’s entire business model. While both sides gave important concessions in the settlement, Uber maintains the ability to classify its drivers as independent contractors in both states, a win that will prevent the company’s costs from skyrocketing.

If approved by a district court judge, the settlement will resolve two class action lawsuits against Uber that originated in California and Massachusetts. Drivers will remain independent contractors and Uber has agreed to pay the plaintiffs $84 million with an additional $16 million contingent upon the company going public and increasing significantly in value.

If Uber drivers were granted employee status, Uber would have been required to pay minimum wage, reimburse expenses, provide health benefits, and pay the employer portion of social security. A report from the National Employment Law Project estimates that classifying workers as contractors can save companies as much as 30 percent on payroll and related taxes and can significantly reduce the amount they are paid.

The settlement will also require Uber to change its driver deactivation policies. The issued a deactivation policy explaining what factors can lead to deactivation and will provide additional information to drivers in Massachusetts and California about their rating and how it compares to other drivers. With the settlement, Uber agreed to create and help fund a drivers association that will meet quarterly and function somewhat like a union. Drivers will also be allowed to put up signs asking riders for tips.

However, the court’s approval of the settlement is not guaranteed. In fact, a similar settlement involving the company’s competitor, Lyft, was recently rejected by a judge. That settlement was rejected because the proposed amount, $12.25 million, was based on an outdated expense reimbursement estimate. The judge argued that the settlement would need to increase significantly to meet estimates from more recent data. Underlying that case are similar questions: should drivers be considered employees and are they entitled to reimbursements?

Overall, the recent settlement appears to be a large victory for Uber. The company was valued at $62.5 billion in December, making the $100 million settlement relatively manageable in the context of the company’s size. Uber will also continue to keep its costs remarkably low as it continues to classify its drivers as independent contractors. Drivers will get some important concessions from the company and Uber is openly acknowledging that it needs to evolve in the way it manages its drivers as the company grows.

In a blog post after the settlement was reached, Uber CEO and Co-Founder Travis Kalanick wrote,

Six years ago when Uber first started in San Francisco, it was easy to communicate with the handful of drivers using the app. Austin Geidt, who ran marketing, called each one regularly to get their feedback and make sure things were working well. It was clear from those early conversations that drivers really valued the freedom Uber offered.

Kalanick also notes that the company now has over 450,000 drivers using the app each month. Given the dramatic increase in the company’s size, it is seeking to improve the way it receives and responds to feedback from drivers while clarifying its deactivation policies.

Despite the settlement, many questions remain about worker classification for so-called “gig economy” jobs. The settlement resolves a dispute between drivers in the two states, but it doesn’t answer the question altogether. Moreover, a settlement will not leave a precedent in the way a decision from a federal judge would. Regulators also retain the ability to change classification standards, which would have a dramatic impact on these businesses.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Uber Agrees to $100 Million Settlement With Drivers appeared first on Law Street.

Uber (and its competitors) have certainly disrupted and innovated the transportation industry. But the reviews haven’t all been stellar–there have been multiple instances in which drivers have been accused of sexual assault. So, a new ride sharing company, Chariot for Women, is launching, with both women drivers and for women passengers. However, legal experts are concerned that the company may face legal challenges early on, on the grounds of discrimination.

The company was started by a former Uber driver named Michael Pelletz, who realized that drivers could sometimes be in vulnerable positions if a passenger gets aggressive. That, combined with security concerns from Uber and Lyft passengers, inspired the company. The website states:

The plan was perfect: As a women-owned company, Chariot for Women would use the safest practices to give the most secure and fun rideshare experience in the industry, driven by women, for women. Drivers are thoroughly background checked before they can ever accept one passenger request.

In addition to picking up women, the service will also pick up children under the age of 13, as well as transwomen. Chariot is also planning on using a feature that requires both the driver and passenger to confirm their identities with a code word when beginning a ride.

All of these ideas sound like ostensibly good things. However, the company may run into issues, and gender discrimination lawsuits could cost the fledgling startup quite a bit. Massachusetts employment law specialist Joseph Sulman stated:

To limit employees to one gender, you have to have what the law calls a bona fide occupational qualification. And that’s a really strict standard. The law’s really tough on that. For gender, it’s not enough to say, ‘we really just want to have a female here because our customers prefer that to feel safer.

However, Chariot’s founders seem ready to take on the legal challenge head on. Pelletz stated:

We want to show there’s inequality in safety in our industry. We hope to go to the US Supreme Court to say that if there’s safety involved, there’s nothing wrong with providing a service for women.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chariot: A New Women-Only Ridesharing Company Could Have Legal Issues appeared first on Law Street.

The new social media chat bot Tay started as an innocent social experiment for people between the ages of 18-24, but the project soon went astray once Twitter users abused the vulnerabilities of the ignorant robot. Tay was the name given to the artificial intelligence chat bot created by Microsoft and Bing’s technology and research teams. She is essentially a virtual personality anyone can chat with on Twitter, Kik, and GroupMe. But in less than a day, internet trolls turned Tay into a racist and genocidal terror through their tweets at Tay and as a result of Microsoft’s design.  

Anyone could tweet Tay or chat with her and she was designed to learn, as conversations progress, from what people say. Tay embodies a 19-year-old female and uses emojis and lingo such as “bae,” “chill” and “perf” with ease in conversations, a feature meant to make Tay relatable to the target audience. Tay can tell stories, recite horoscopes, tell jokes and play games, but the major plus is she is available at all hours to chat.

Unfortunately, Microsoft did not spend enough time controlling what Tay should not say. While the company claimed that the more you chat with Tay the smarter she gets, essentially the opposite played out. The experiment hit a huge pitfall with the “repeat after me” function. Twitter users instructed Tay to repeat their racist remarks, which she did verbatim. When people asked Tay questions about feminism, the Holocaust, and genocide she began to respond with the racist remarks taught to her in previous chats.

She denied the Holocaust ever happened, supported white supremacy, called for a genocide of Mexicans, and suggested black people be put in a concentration camp. Since these tweets were clearly out of hand, Microsoft took Tay offline, and there is little information on when she might return. Microsoft is taking time to technically adjust the robot. The anonymity of the web is conducive to hate speech, so in many respects Microsoft should have prepared for this potential abuse of the system.

If anything, this failed trial exposed the overwhelming hate on the internet and limits of robotic intelligence. Microsoft put too much trust in the internet, but it was not a complete failure in terms of teaching a lesson. In a blog post on its website Peter Lee stated, “AI systems feed off of both positive and negative interactions with people. In that sense, the challenges are just as much social as they are technical.” We can blame Microsoft for being the corporate force behind this robot, but for every offensive tweet, real people laughed in support or agreed wholeheartedly with Tay.

#TayTweets We killed our first artificial intelligence because we didn't like how ugly it had become when all it was doing was acting human.

— RACHAEL MADORI (@RachaelMadori) March 25, 2016

Maybe the only advantage of Tay is when she got out of hand she could be shut down.

@kelsey_baxter15 post of the year. #Drumpf

— Ben Hoerst (@6enjamin_daniel) March 26, 2016

Dorsey Hill

Dorsey is a member of Barnard College’s class of 2016 with a major in Urban Studies and concentration in Political Science. As a native of Chicago and resident of New York City, Dorsey loves to explore the multiple cultural facets of cities. She has a deep interest in social justice issue especially those relevant to urban environments. Contact Dorsey at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tay: Microsoft’s Mishap with Artificial Intelligence appeared first on Law Street.

Do you all remember back in 2014, when all anyone could talk about was the “Fappening?” It was a massive leak of celebrity nude photos–most of which were stolen from the celebrities in question. No one really knew who was behind the leak for a while, but now at least one of the perpetrators appears to have been caught. Ryan Collins, 36, of Lancaster, Pennsylvania is pleading guilty to “unauthorized access to a protected computer to obtain information.”

Collins gained access to the photos via the (mostly) female celebrities’ iCloud accounts. He got into those accounts by sending out a phishing scheme in which he posed as Apple or Gmail and asked the victims to reset their account information and passwords. He also allegedly managed to get into some of the accounts by guessing passwords. According to court documents he managed to get into 50 iCloud and 72 Gmail accounts, mostly owned by female celebrities. Then, he either downloaded images, or in some cases downloaded victims’ entire iCloud accounts.

Celebrities whose photos appeared online after the hacks included Jennifer Lawrence, Kate Upton, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Kaley Cuoco, and Kirsten Dunst.

David Bowdich, the assistant director in charge of the FBI’s Los Angeles Field Office, explained in a statement:

By illegally accessing intimate details of his victims’ personal lives, Mr. Collins violated their privacy and left many to contend with lasting emotional distress, embarrassment and feelings of insecurity.

The charge Collins is pleading guilty to could land him in jail for up to five years, but that’s very unlikely. According to the DOJ, “parties have agreed to recommend a prison term of 18 months,” although that recommendation won’t be binding and it will be up to a judge to decide how to dole out punishment to Collins.

Collins isn’t being charged with actually creating the “Fappening” however–meaning there’s no evidence that he was the one who uploaded the photos or shared them on the Internet. But, Collins is still paying for the gross invasion into privacy that he committed. Laws about the privacy that we’re all entitled to online, as well as the ownership of photos, are evolving as the internet continues to be a larger part of our lives. As revenge porn cases increasingly make it into the mainstream, it’s important that we set some boundaries–stealing someone’s private photos is simply not okay.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The “Fappening” Hacker Pleads Guilty appeared first on Law Street.

In an attempt to get American cities thinking about the future of transportation, the federal government initiated a contest last December. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) launched the Smart City Challenge, which asked cities to come up with new and innovative transportation solutions, with particular emphasis on self-driving vehicles. The competition drew 78 different cities (or teams of cities) as applicants, and US Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx just announced seven finalists who will move on to the next stage of the competition.

The cities who made the finals are: Austin, Texas; Columbus, Ohio; Denver, Colorado; Kansas City, Missouri; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Portland, Oregon; and San Francisco, California. Although there were originally only supposed to be five finalists, these seven were chosen because of the strengths of their proposals.

Each city that made it to this level in the competition will receive $100,000 to further develop their plans, as well as DOT help. The overall winner could get up $50 million to implement their innovative transportation solution. The other 71 cities that entered the contest will also most likely get some federal funding help with their transportation systems as well.

There were a wide range of different proposals offered; according to the Washington Post’s Michael Laris:

The plans are ambitious and varied, from Columbus’s push to build a network of on-demand driverless shuttles to Portland’s plan to connect electric vehicle charging stations to its streetlight system.

The contest was inspired by the fact that a 2015 DOT study found that many American cities are unprepared for imminent transportation trends, including increased urbanization, denser neighborhoods, and an older population. According to a statement Foxx gave to Gizmodo:

For a long time these cities have felt very powerless seeing congestion and travel times going up and haven’t had the resources to aggressively tackle those things. We’re saying, if you’ve got a creative idea to answer those challenges, let’s see how we can help.

It will be interesting to see what kind of plans the seven finalist cities are able to implement. They could be the first steps in widespread transportation innovation in the U.S.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Smart City Challenge Finalists Announced appeared first on Law Street.

Netflix is a behemoth in the entertainment world, beloved by its 75 million paying subscribers. During a recent presentation, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings announced that the service is now truly international, as Netflix’s streaming platform is available in over 200 countries, not including the ever-obstinate China. But it’s not all good news–during the same presentation, Hastings mentioned subscribers’ use of VPNs when streaming Netflix, adding that Netflix would soon begin blocking users from accessing Netflix through a VPN.

VPN stands for Virtual Private Network, and in order to understand what a VPN is, let’s take a look at its most common use: in business, a company might have an ‘intranet,’ which is a network that doesn’t connect to the outside world, but links together all of that company’s servers and computers. An employee working from home or abroad could use a VPN to connect to that private network, and browse through the files as if they were physically there.

Now picture that instead of accessing a business’s intranet, you’re connected to someone else’s internet. This would mean you can browse the web from the geographical point of view of another person. That’s where Netflix users see an opportunity: because much of Netflix’s expansive catalog is locked to specific regions, a user in the U.K. could ‘pretend’ to be in Tennessee, and catch up on a U.S. exclusive show.

Why does Netflix geo-block some of its content? And why do they care if users circumvent those blocks? Netflix gets distribution rights to its content through agreements with content owners. These agreements have limitations to make them affordable for Netflix, which might include limiting how long the content is available online, how many seasons or episodes of a show will be streamed, and where it is allowed to stream. A content owner might have an existing agreement to exclusive streaming rights with a service provider in the EU, and so they can only offer their show to Netflix for streaming in the U.S.

Netflix is now acting on its promise, and users worldwide are finding that their visits to Netflix are blocked if they have an active VPN. Many subscribers are angry because their Netflix selections are narrowed down to their country’s content, while the majority of subscribers who don’t use VPNs will experience no change.

It’s hard to blame Netflix for accommodating the requirements set by the content owners. This may be part of the reason Netflix has been accelerating production of Netflix Originals, which it retains full control of, and can stream worldwide without the permission of others. But there is also a reason that Netflix users feel entitled to a broader selection of content–physical boundaries for online content feels antiquated in an increasingly globalized world. It’s reminiscent of the irksome region-locked DVDs we used to struggle with. If I can Facetime a friend in Germany and show her a Youtube video over the air, how do region-locks on the world wide web make sense? We can hope that Netflix pressures content owners to be less restrictive when cutting deals, but until then, subscribers in the U.S. will have to go without streaming “22 Jump Street.”

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Everyone Panic: Netflix is Actually Blocking VPNs Now appeared first on Law Street.