For marijuana businesses, it can be extremely challenging to utilize social media to its fullest marketing potential. Historically, social media companies have erred on the side of caution when establishing their community guidelines, siding with the feds’ prohibition of marijuana. However, a recent statement from Instagram could indicate a change in that company’s stance on marijuana advertising.

The critical language was noticed by Ganjapreneur after a recent Leafly report on the ongoing Instagram impersonation of Kiva Confections, a popular California-based edibles company.

As Leafly reported, a fake account using Kiva’s name suddenly began abusing people in comments and direct messages. Kiva contacted Instagram and successfully had the internet trolls’ account shut down. However, it was through this exchange that Instagram revealed some potentially critical changes to its existing policy on cannabis as it relates to advertising.

The statement reads in full:

Instagram does not allow people or organizations to use the platform to advertise or sell marijuana, regardless of the seller’s state or country. This is primarily because most federal laws, including those of the United States, treat marijuana as either an illegal substance or highly regulated good. Our policy prohibits any marijuana seller, including dispensaries, from promoting their business by providing contact information like phone numbers, street addresses, or by using the “contact us” tab in Instagram Business Accounts. We do however allow marijuana advocacy content as long as it is not promoting the sale of the drug. Dispensaries can promote the use and federal legalization of marijuana provided that they do not also promote its sale or provide contact information to their store.

As Ganjapreneur points out, the emphasized portion above leaves out any mention of “websites.” Therefore, “without listing your location’s contact info, you can drive customers to your website where your contact info, daily deals, and updated menus are all prominently displayed.” In other words, as long as companies don’t advertise or promote the sale of cannabis, they should be in the clear.

Instagram’s omission signals a progressive push for the social media platform, which was bought by Facebook in 2012. Facebook’s community standards specifically prohibit content that promotes marijuana sales–even in states where it’s legal–but Instagram has a history of not enforcing its vague policies uniformly.

“What’s so interesting is that you’ll see posts from other companies or users and it’s naked women and paraphernalia and guns and cash,” Kristi Knoblich, co-founder of Kiva, said. “But all the posts we had on our real page were about education. Things like how to keep edibles away from kids, how to store and lock your edibles, pointers and tips for how to use safely. The nature of what we were posting didn’t have anything to do with promoting sales, illegal use, shipping or distribution.”

Hopefully, Instagram’s updated guidelines will ensure more breathing room for legal companies looking to grow their businesses with innocuous marijuana posts.

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 Instagram Change its Marijuana Marketing Policy? 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.

In 2014, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced that the social networking giant was making a transformative new acquisition: Oculus VR. Oculus is a virtual reality company that aims to redefine digital entertainment by taking its users into a completely virtual world. However, the VR company may have to completely redesign its coding platform and remove some VR headsets from the market due to a lawsuit from prominent video game maker ZeniMax.

A jury Awarded ZeniMax $500 million in February, but now the company is seeking an injunction to block Facebook from selling the Oculus Rift headset on account of alleged copyright violations. According to the February ruling, former employee and Oculus co-founder Palmer Luckey, violated his non-disclosure agreement and committed copyright infringement and false designation when he took code from ZeniMax to develop the Oculus VR technology. If ZeniMax does not receive a permanent injunction from the judge, the company wants a 20 percent cut of all Oculus sales over the next 10 years.

According to Bloomberg, the likelihood that the product will be pulled from the market is not very high, even though the two companies are competitors. Historically, judges have preferred financial compensation over ordering companies to take products off the shelves. The judge in this case–Ed Kinkeade, a district court judge in Northern Texas–encouraged both sides to reach a settlement and avoid a trial when they presented their cases on Tuesday.

Facebook is strongly resisting efforts to stop Oculus sales. The company’s lawyers argue that placing a ban on the products would put unfair hardship on Oculus, only benefit ZeniMax, and “detract from the public’s enjoyment” of virtual reality technology. Furthermore, in a court filing on June 15, Facebook argued that the required payout was unfair and said that $50 million would be more than reasonable.

Facebook has a lot at stake with this decision. Not only did the company spend $2 billion to purchase Oculus in 2014, but according to Bloomberg, the virtual reality and augmented reality industry may be worth an estimated $40 billion in 2020.

Virtual reality and augmented reality technologies are continuing to grow within the tech world. For example, in Apple’s upcoming iOS 11 update includes an ARkit for developers to incorporate AR into their apps. Apple forged a partnership with Ikea to use ARkit, which will let users see how the company’s furniture would look in their homes. The possibilities in VR and AR are seemingly endless and Facebook does not want to miss out.

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 Lawsuit Seeks to Block Facebook from Selling Oculus VR Products appeared first on Law Street.

Harvard affirmed the long-standing belief that topics like the Holocaust, sexual assault, and the deaths of children should probably not be joked about. At least ten students lost their acceptances to the Ivy League school in mid-April after university officials discovered that members of the incoming freshman class were posting memes related to these topics in a Facebook messaging group titled, at one point, “Harvard memes for horny bourgeois teens,” according to the Harvard Crimson.

The chat originated from members of the official Harvard Class of 2021 Facebook group in December who all shared the common interest of sharing memes with one another. While the 100-member group chat started out as “lighthearted,” according to one student, some members felt that the content did not meet the standards of humor they were accustomed to.

As a result, a “dark” meme chat was formed. Of course, not just any student could join. The founders of the new chat required that prospective members post provocative memes in the larger messaging group before they could be allowed in, according to Cassandra Luca, a member of the original meme group.

“They were like, ‘Oh, you have to send a meme to the original group to prove that you could get into the new one,'” Luca said. “This was a just-because-we-got-into-Harvard-doesn’t-mean-we-can’t-have-fun kind of thing.”

The “fun” included racist and sexist memes and messages that joked about child abuse and rape. One group of messages joked that abusing children was sexually arousing, while another referred to the hypothetical hanging of a Mexican child as “piñata time.”

Depending on your moral compass, the supposed “fun” thankfully, or unfortunately, came to an abrupt halt mid-April when employees in Harvard’s admissions office emailed those suspected of posting offensive memes to disclose their involvement. A copy of the Admissions Office’s email, obtained by the Crimson, reads:

The Admissions Committee was disappointed to learn that several students in a private group chat for the Class of 2021 were sending messages that contained offensive messages and graphics…As we understand you were among the members contributing such material to this chat, we are asking that you submit a statement by tomorrow at noon to explain your contributions and actions for discussion with the Admissions Committee.

Administrators told the students who received the email that their admissions status was being reviewed and were also told not to attend Visitas, a weekend event for incoming freshman Harvard holds annually at the end of April. About a week later, at least ten members of the group chat were told that they were no longer going to attend Harvard.

Harvard has the right to rescind applications of any incoming student who “engages in behavior that brings into question his or her honesty, maturity, or moral character.”

This is the second consecutive year that Harvard has dealt with incoming freshman exchanging offensive messages online. Members of the class of 2020 sent racially-charged messages to one another in an unofficial class GroupMe. However, these students were not disciplined by the university because they were “not matriculated students at this point,” according to then-Interim Dean of Student Life Thomas A. Dingman.

Many will inevitably claim that the students’ right to free speech was violated in the school’s decision, but even fellow members of the incoming freshman class agree it was the right call.

“I appreciate humor, but there are so many topics that just should not be joked about,” said Jessica Zhang, a member of the class of 2021. “I respect the decision of the admissions officers to rescind the offers because those actions really spoke about the students’ true characters.”

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 Students Lose Harvard Acceptances for Obscene Memes 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.

Happy Friday everyone, and welcome to a new feature on Law Street! Every day we bring you the top five controversial stories in law and policy, with our RantCrush Daily newsletter. But in today’s age of fake news and alternative facts we feel like news literacy is more important than ever. So check out our RantCrush quiz to see how much attention you paid to the news this week, and sign up for RantCrush to make sure that you get the breaking stories in your inbox every single day.

Check out the quiz below!

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 Can You Keep Up With This Week’s News?: May 19, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

John McCain Says Trump Scandal is “Watergate Size”

Here’s the latest development in the White House drama: President Donald Trump asked James Comey to stop investigating Michael Flynn, his former National Security Adviser, back in February. According to Trump’s critics, this proves once and for all that Trump did try to influence the FBI investigation into his campaign’s ties with Russia. Last night, Senator John McCain talked to Bob Schieffer, the retired former host of “Face the Nation.” “I think we’ve seen this movie before. I think it appears at a point where it’s of Watergate size and scale… the shoes continue to drop, and every couple days there’s a new aspect,” McCain said.

Buried in our story: Trump said to Comey that he should consider putting reporters in prison https://t.co/7nlT6gaY1G

— Michael S. Schmidt (@nytmike) May 16, 2017

He recommended that Trump “get it all out” and said that it won’t be over until every detail of this story has been examined–“the same thing that you advised Richard Nixon, which he didn’t do,” he told Schieffer. He also criticized the move to invite Russian officials to the White House. I’ve known this guy [Russian Foreign Minister Sergei] Lavrov for 30 years. He’s an old KGB apparatchik stooge, and Putin is a murderer and a thug,” McCain said and added that it is unacceptable.

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 RantCrush Top 5: May 17, 2017 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.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

The Search for Steve Stephens Continues

Police officers in Cleveland are looking for a suspect who fatally shot an elderly man yesterday and shared the murder on Facebook. The suspect, Steve Stephens, claimed that he was going to kill more people and police have warned the public against approaching him, as he is armed and dangerous. He is believed to have left the state and the warning has been expanded to the whole Midwest.

Cleveland police chief says they know Steve Stephens is out there: “We talked to him via cell phone.” pic.twitter.com/Hwxn4oL9jK

— Fox News (@FoxNews) April 17, 2017

The disturbing Facebook video has been taken down, but reportedly it showed Stephens driving in his car, complaining about a woman, and then saying he found somebody to kill as he approached an elderly black man. That man was later identified as Robert Godwin Sr. He was 74 years old. Stephens made Godwin say the woman’s name and then told him, “She’s the reason, uh, this is about to happen to you,” before shooting him. Authorities found no links between Stephens and Godwin.

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 RantCrush Top 5: April 17, 2017 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.

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.

The nude photo scandal currently rocking the Marine Corps is much bigger than first imagined, going way beyond the one branch and a single Facebook page. According to Business Insider, the U.S. Department of Defense has widened its investigation into the secret sharing of naked photographs of female Marines on social media to include all branches of the military.

Investigators discovered dozens more photos on the website AnonIB, which first gained notoriety for publishing stolen nude photos of Jennifer Lawerence and other celebrities. Under a message board dedicated to military personnel, men from all branches of the military shared sexually-explicit photos of female service members and veterans containing their full names, rank, where they were stationed, and even their links to their social media accounts.

The exposure of the message board comes shortly after hundreds of photos of nude, semi-nude, and clothed women were discovered on the private Facebook group Marines United, which had approximately 30,000 male active duty and retired Marines.

The photos–some appearing to have been taken without the women’s knowledge–were accompanied by vulgar and obscene comments, many encouraging rape. The Facebook group also contained links to a now-deleted Google Drive containing even more images, and an invitation to any members to contribute.

The page was discovered last week by journalist Thomas Brennan, who is also a Marine veteran. Brennan’s reporting led to the Marine Corps opening an investigation into the Facebook page and its users. The Marine Corps responded with a 10-page guidance, which lists resources for victims and a website to report crimes

The guidance contained the following statement:

The Marine Corps is deeply concerned about allegations regarding the derogatory online comments and sharing of salacious photographs in a closed website. This behavior destroys morale, erodes trust, and degrades the individual. The Marine Corps does not condone this sort of behavior, which undermines our core values.

“A Marine who directly participates in, encourages, or condones such actions could also be subjected to criminal proceedings or adverse administrative actions,” the Marine Corps says.

Several active-duty marines have already been discharged and NCIS investigators are considering felony charges that could carry a maximum penalty of seven years in prison.

The scandal comes at time when the military has repeatedly been accused of mishandling sexual harassment and sexual assault cases. Victims have already begun to come forward and encourage others to do so as well.

A former Marine, Erin Kirk-Cuomo, told CBS News that servicewomen have been reporting websites like “Marines United” for more than 10 years but were ignored. She said the issue was “laughed off by military leadership and members as harmless, expected, or invited.”

This time around, military officials and investigators seem devoted to pursuing justice. However, investigators could run in to trouble trying to find and prosecute active duty servicemen who used the AnonIB website. Unlike on the Facebook page where many active duty members posted using their personal accounts, the message board’s users are mostly anonymous. According to Business Insider, the site also appears to be registered in the Bahamas, which is outside U.S. law enforcement’s jurisdiction.

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 The Marine Corps Nude Photo Scandal Extends to All Military Branches appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Gay Veteran Group Banned From Boston St. Patrick’s Day Parade

A group for gay veterans that has walked in Boston’s St. Patrick’s Day parade for the past two years has been prohibited from participating this year by the organizers. The group, called OutVets, said it was banned from the parade because members were planning to carry a rainbow banner. An attorney who fought against the group’s participation said, “the symbols and activities associated with that community do not belong in the parade.”

The South Boston Allied War Veterans Council, which organizes the parade, faced immediate backlash and the mayor of Boston, Marty Walsh, said he would not walk in the parade unless OutVets were allowed back in. Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker also said he wouldn’t participate, and several companies said they would drop their sponsorships. Last night, the organizers announced that they are holding an emergency meeting today to discuss the matter.

So they can die for you but not march with you on St Patrick’s Day? These people sound wonderful.https://t.co/WdybZdY6B7

— Christian Siriano (@CSiriano) March 9, 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 RantCrush Top 5: March 10, 2017 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.

On February 8, Wikipedia editors unanimously voted to ban The Daily Mail from being used as a factual reference in their articles. The editors stated that the tabloid has a “reputation for poor fact checking and sensationalism” and is “generally unreliable.”

The ban comes at a time when the credibility of online sources is under heavy scrutiny. However, in the age of “alternative facts” and “fake news,” it’s hotly contested what constitutes credibility.

While misinformation ought to be combated, it is unclear who should lead the fight. In response to widespread concern over the reliability of internet sources, numerous organizations have announced plans aimed at curbing the proliferation of misinformation.

Having previously denied any editorial responsibility over what is shared through their respective sites, Google and Facebook have since announced efforts to prevent the spread of false stories. Both of the internet giants have promised to ban sites found guilty of publishing false stories from using their ad services.

Facebook is piloting a program that would allow users to report stories they believe to be fake, and has also announced plans to team up with major media outlets to fact check circulating stories. Meanwhile, the BBC has established a team whose mission is to “cut through the spin and concentrate on the facts.”

The degree to which these measures will reduce the spread of falsities remains to be seen. However, it is likely some corners of the internet will cry foul regardless of the outcome.

The term “fake news” lost meaning as quickly as it entered the public lexicon. At first, “fake news” meant exactly what it sounds like it means. The likes of President Trump and his followers have since co-opted the term to refer to any news outlet or piece that does not confirm their biases.

While Trump is an extreme example of someone stuck in an echo chamber, many are guilty of mistaking “credibility” with “agreeability.” Before tackling the issue of credibility, there must be some sort of consensus on what it means to be credible. We as a society must also be careful of who we allow to lead this discussion.

The internet is at an ethical impasse. The spread of misinformation is undoubtedly dangerous. Nevertheless, trusting organizations like Facebook and Google to decide what constitutes fact could be a mistake. No matter how good their intentions may seem, Facebook and Google are entities with their own independent agendas.

An outlet does not necessarily need to lie in order to misinform or to craft a narrative bias. Selecting truths can be just as damaging as spreading lies. How can we trust that these newly implemented editorial policies aimed at stemming lies won’t later be used to curate truths? In fighting misinformation, it is important that we do not carelessly privilege the ability to define and police “credibility.”

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 The Internet’s Fight Against Fake News appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Amnesty International: 13,000 People Secretly Executed in Syrian Prison

A new report from Amnesty International, called Human Slaughterhouse, reveals the horrific conditions in Saydnaya prison near Damascus. According to the report, in a secret crackdown on dissent, the regime hanged up to 13,000 people between 2011 and 2015, often executing groups of 50 prisoners at the same time. Amnesty outlines how prisoners are systematically deprived of food, water, and medical care, and are physically and mentally tortured. According to Amnesty, if prisoners spoke while they were being tortured or looked at the guards, they could be sentenced to death. Most of the prisoners are ordinary citizens opposed to the brutal regime. The report states that these kinds of atrocities are probably still going on today, authorized by the Syrian government.

Syrian authorities are systematically exterminating civilians in #Saydnaya prison. Let’s hold them accountable: https://t.co/n9jkJZYpL9 pic.twitter.com/D4aHpauX1a

— AmnestyInternational (@amnesty) February 7, 2017

“The horrors depicted in this report reveal a hidden, monstrous campaign, authorized at the highest levels of the Syrian government, aimed at crushing any form of dissent within the Syrian population,” said Lynn Maalouf, Deputy Director for Research at Amnesty International’s Beirut office.

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 RantCrush Top 5: February 7, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

One of the richest humans on earth is suing hundreds of Hawaiians–some of whom are deceased. Billionaire and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg is leveraging his wealth, and taking advantage of Hawaii’s unique land laws, to secure ownership of his 700-acre compound in Kauai. The case, for some, is a familiar land dispute. But to others, it is a stark reminder of the lack of power native Hawaiians have in claiming their ancestral land.

On December 30, Zuckerberg, through several companies he owns on the island, filed eight lawsuits at a Circuit Court in Kauai. The suits essentially act as a preemptive move to ensure the compound remains in his hands, as about a dozen or so slices of land within his property have been claimed by local native families.

Zuckerberg is suing hundreds of people in order to shore up his claim on the $100 million estate. Among the living defendants are Oma, Eliza Kauhaahaa, and Annie I. Some defendants–Kelekahi, Palaha, Laka, Lote, Luliana, Kapahu and Kaluuloa–are no longer alive.

In bringing the families to court, Zuckerberg is aiming to use Hawaii’s “quiet title and partition” law to strike down each claim, which could force the claimants to auction their parcels of land. Zuckerberg, the world’s sixth richest person, would likely be the highest bidder. 

“Quiet title actions are the standard and prescribed process to identify all potential co-owners, determine ownership, and ensure that, if there are other co-owners, each receives appropriate value for their ownership share,” said Keoni Shultz, one of the lawyers representing Zuckerberg.

Since the Kuleana Act of 1850, the Hawaiian government has settled complex land disputes with so-called “quiet title” actions. According to that bill, the courts have the authority “to define and separate the portions belonging to different individuals; and to provide for an equitable exchange of such different portions where it can be done.”

Hawaiian natives are often on the losing side of land disputes. Land on the island is often passed down from one generation to another, and claims can get foggy as land stands dormant for years, until an outsider, like Zuckerberg, comes and buys up land. Claims start coming in, and it’s left for the courts to decide how to apportion the land. In the Zuckerberg case, the defendants have 20 days to respond to the lawsuit. If they fail to do so, they will have no say in the court proceedings.

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 Why is Mark Zuckerberg Suing Hundreds of Hawaiians? appeared first on Law Street.

Last week on Law Street scientists geared up climate change data in lieu of Trump, a woman impersonated her ex to send herself threats, and Israel’s drug agency recommended decriminalizing marijuana. ICYMI–check out these top stories from Law Street below!

1. Scientists Rush to Back Up Climate Data Before Trump Takes Office

The President-elect has been criticized because he claimed that climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese. The new proposed head of the EPA is a climate change denier. And the new proposed Secretary of State is an oil company CEO with close ties to Russia. So, it’s no wonder that environmentalists across the globe are worrying. Now, American climate scientists are copying as much of their research and climate data as possible onto independent computer servers, in an attempt to protect the information from any political interference. Read the full article here.

2. Woman Impersonates Her Ex on Facebook, Sends Threats to Herself

Imagine being arrested for a crime you didn’t commit–let alone even know about. Now, imagine being arrested four times for crimes you didn’t commit. That was the reality for an Orange County, California man whose ex-girlfriend had been impersonating him online. She had been sending herself messages from an account she created on Facebook in his name threatening to harm and kill her, according to a statement from the Orange County District Attorney’s Office. Read the full article here.

3. Israel’s Drug Enforcement Body Recommends Decriminalizing Marijuana

Israel’s central drug enforcement body, the Israel Anti-Drug Authority (IADA), expressed its support of marijuana decriminalization during a Knesset special committee hearing on Monday. Eitan Gorani, chairman of IADA, said the authority “favors the Portugal model,” referencing Portugal’s focus on marijuana, and all other drugs for that matter, as a public health issue, not a criminal one. Portugal decriminalized all drugs, including marijuana, in 2000. Read the full article here.

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 ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

In our present information environment, there is news coming from every direction, at every angle, all the time. Due to this overabundance of information, it is often hard to tell reality from fiction. This can be especially difficult when opinions and fake news have also been interjected into the media landscape. Fake news is far from a periphery player too, in fact, it is splashed across some of the most popular websites on the internet like Facebook and Google. It may even have played a role in the outcome of the presidential election. Read on to learn more about the fake news phenomenon, its place in history, how popular websites made it mainstream, and the consequences of its rise.

The origin of “Fake News”

So what is fake news exactly? As its name suggests, fake news is literally made-up news about events that did not happen. In many cases, the creation of fake news is done by people from all over the world seeking to spread misinformation or looking to promote something and get rich doing it. One of the most egregious examples comes from a few writers in Macedonia who claim they made between $5,000 and $10,000 a month publishing fake stories. These people create extremely partisan pieces for the sole purpose of drawing the most eyeballs. The goal is to get readers interested because more traffic means more ad revenue.

But intentionally fabricating false stories isn’t the only way fake news spreads. It can also be the result of a person’s earnest, yet inaccurate beliefs such as this one example chronicled by the New York Times. Eric Tucker, a Trump supporter, posted a picture on November 9 of what he believed were charter buses bringing in paid protesters to dispute the election. While that was just how he interpreted what he saw, and something he later determined was not true, that did not stop his tweet from going viral. Tucker was a private citizen with a small Twitter following, yet his post was seized upon by several Trump supporters and conservative websites to justify their belief in a conspiracy. The way individuals interpret an event, often without full information about what actually happened, has become increasingly important.

Facebook and Google

Two of the companies that end up promoting (and profiting) from fake news the most are Facebook and Google. So how are these two tech titans attacking this problem? Before this question can be answered it is important to look at why these websites allow fake news in the first place. The issue of fake news on Facebook came to the forefront after a major incident earlier this year. In May, a member of a team that curated the “trending news” section for Facebook said that the group regularly avoided featuring conservative stories. This admission created a political firestorm that led to the end of the trending news team within Facebook and news curation on the site altogether.

In its place, Facebook installed an algorithm that would determine which news stories are being shared the most. However, shortly after its debut, the new section began elevating stories that were completely false. While the company still has some human oversight of the new trending section, they are told to exercise less editorial control over the articles that are featured, leading many fake stories to slip through.

While fake news on Facebook may not seem like a major issue on its face, a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center found that 44 percent of Americans get news on Facebook. In another, more recent poll, Pew found that nearly two-thirds of Americans believe fake news created confusion about basic facts. Facebook and other social media sites provide a way for articles to quickly go viral and reach a remarkably large audience. While most agree that the spread of fake news is a problem, finding an appropriate solution is not particularly easy. Facebook has been cautious in its response out of fear of censoring legitimate news outlets or once again projecting an anti-conservative bias.

How Companies Have Responded

The nature of Facebook’s business makes fake news a difficult issue to approach. At its core, Facebook relies on its large user base to sell advertising to. If the site eliminated fake news it could run the risk of seeming biased or alienating people and losing their engagement and possibly lucrative advertising revenue.

Despite this challenge, Facebook has said that it plans to address fake news. The CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, has stated that Facebook is already working on blocking or flagging completely false articles and recently announced a partnership with third-party fact checker sites to help accomplish that goal. Ultimately, Facebook and other companies must walk a tight line. The most blatantly false news stories may be somewhat easy to identify, but in an era of polarized politics even some facts are contested, making it hard to create a clear rule.

For Google, the approach is slightly different because its search engine is predicated on reliability–if it is just showing fake news articles it would lose the trust of its users. However, that is not to say Google has avoided fake news altogether. The most significant example of fake news on Google is a result of the way the search engine ranks results. While search results often feature articles from the company’s curated Google News section, the “Top Stories” at the top of many search results include a broader range of articles that in some cases include fake news. It is particularly confusing because when you click to “read more” articles, it takes you to the Google News section, which is editorially vetted. This stems from the fact that Google Search and Google News are viewed as separate entities by Google. This distinction really becomes problematic because Google News does not accept ad revenue whereas Google Search does. A similar issue exists on Google’s mobile platform, which features AMP stories–web pages that are optimized to load almost instantly on mobile devices–at the top of the results page. This is yet another way for fake news to sneak into the top of the results page.

Google uses an algorithm to weed out spam and fake news websites, although it is not 100 percent foolproof. In light of the recent debate, Google has promised to fight fake news by restricting fake news sites’ access to its AdSense platform, which is often their source of revenue–fake news sites make money by generating a lot of traffic and serving viewers ads, often using Google’s advertising tools. Facebook also made a similar move to prevent fake news sites from using its advertising network.

The following video looks at fake news online and what companies are doing to stop it:

The Impact of Fake News

As many realize the extent to which fake news has spread online, some wonder whether it could have impacted the outcome of the recent election, as news reports indicate that fake news tends to have a conservative bias. Although it is impossible to show the exact impact of fake news on the election–and although Mark Zuckerberg dismissed the notion that fake news was consequential in the election–widespread false information is almost certain to have some sort of impact on people. In fact, according to an article from Buzzfeed News, there was actually more engagement with the top fake election news articles on Facebook than with the top content from traditional media sources in the last three months of the campaign. But, like many factors used to explain the election results, it’s impossible to say whether or not fake news actually tipped the election one way or another.

The video below features a PBS NewsHour discussion of fake news and its potential impact.

The effect of fake news has also been felt outside of the United States. An example would be in the Philippines, where a spokesperson for the president posted graphic images to justify the country’s violent campaign against drug dealers, even though fact checkers later realized that the images were actually taken in Brazil. Fake news also spread widely in the lead up to elections in Indonesia and a fake article about the Colombian peace deal with the FARC went viral shortly before the referendum vote. The problem was so disruptive that some African nations shut down social media sites after unconfirmed security threats spread before elections.

Fake news certainly has precedent in the United States. From the late 1890s through to the 1920s something known as Yellow Journalism reigned. During that period, competing newspapers would publish sensational and often false stories, each more so than the last, in an effort to win eyeballs. The scourge of Yellow Journalism became so bad at one point that many believe it contributed to the Spanish-American War of 1898.

Conclusion

So what is to be done about this problem? Some suggest that Google and Facebook could help create a crowd-sourced list of news stories that can be peer-reviewed. Others argue that big companies should not have the power to determine what is true. Recent efforts to reduce fake news sites’ access to the biggest advertising networks may help get rid of their financial incentives, but alternative ad networks may not follow suit.

The example of Yellow Journalism may also be a model to look at. The exaggerated and fabricated news stories at the turn of the 20th century were ultimately undone by waning public interest, court cases that protected the privacy of individuals, and a code of ethics adopted by many newspapers. But in the modern news environment centered around internet, and the abundance of media that comes with it, it may be difficult to weed out these stories altogether.

In the meantime, identifying fake news is a case by case effort that requires everyone’s diligence. It requires a balancing act of separating reality from fiction, but also a tolerance for information that you may not agree with and a skepticism for that which confirms your existing beliefs. Efforts of this nature are already underway on the platforms where most fake news is found. Now it is up to readers to determine if what they see is legitimate or not. If anything, the rise of fake news may drive people to become more critical news consumers.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Reality Behind Fake News appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Friday everyone! Last night, Trevor Noah came up with a pretty good summary of the year, saying: “2016 started with Zika and then turned bad.” But satire is the best medicine, so watching Noah’s clip could help. Hope you have a great weekend and see you on Monday! Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Is This America? NC Republicans Attempt a Legislative Coup

You might have thought that American politics couldn’t get any messier right now. But in North Carolina, the GOP has basically staged a coup. When it became clear on November 9 that Pat McCrory was losing the governor’s seat, he claimed the results were too close to call, with Democrat Roy Cooper only 4,300 votes ahead. He then demanded a statewide recount and claimed that there was voter fraud, before admitting defeat on December 5. But now the GOP is trying to undermine the results by introducing two bills, HB 17 and SB 4, which would essentially strip Cooper of a lot of power.

North Carolina Republicans Make Brazen Bid for Permanent Power After Losing Governor’s Race https://t.co/VFFwNLaSpx pic.twitter.com/iNXPiSmRVQ

— Patrick (@cahulaan) December 15, 2016

The bills would prevent the new governor from making some cabinet appointments, restrict how many Democratic lawmakers could be hired, and basically ensure Republican rule continued. And last night, the NC House passed HB 17, so it’s now up to the NC Senate to decide what to do.

Denying the results of a democratic election is alarming. As Slate writes, “What’s happening in North Carolina is not politics as usual. It is an extraordinarily disturbing legislative coup, a flagrant effort to maintain one-party rule by rejecting democratic norms and revoking the will of the voters.”

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: December 16, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

What do an anonymous Facebook spokesperson and John Podesta have in common? Answer: they both should have brushed up on their “undo send” reflexes. Recent reports reveal that Clinton’s campaign manager and the social media behemoth both made recent regretful email screw-ups.

According to an extensive New York Times report, the hacking of tens of thousands of Podesta’s private emails (which were repeatedly used by the GOP as ammunition against Clinton’s trustworthiness throughout the presidential election) hinged on one single typo from one of Podesta’s aides.

Typo by Clinton aide saw illegitimate written as legitimate. Led to Russians accessing email of campaign chairman https://t.co/5PiDjMHrYj pic.twitter.com/I6uCr8yeyd

— darren (@darrenpauli) December 13, 2016

When Podesta was sent a suspicious phishing email to his personal account asking him to reset his password on March 19, his aides had sense enough to forward the message to a computer technician before clicking the “change password” button.

“This is a legitimate email,” Charles Delavan, a Clinton campaign aide, replied. “John needs to change his password immediately.”

Unfortunately, Delavan knew the email was a fraud and meant to type that it was an “illegitimate” email, and even worse, that email hailed all the way from Russia. His flubbed recommendation allowed for Russian-affiliated hackers to compromise and publish Podesta’s entire archive.

But Hillary’s chairman wasn’t the only victim of email issues this week.

A Facebook spokesperson accidentally sent an email that was  intended for a colleague to a Buzzfeed News reporter that called President-elect Donald Trump’s proposed Muslim registry a “straw man.”

According to Buzzfeed News, Facebook had failed to respond to comment requests on major tech companies’ pledge “not to comply with practices that could be used to target people or build databases based on their religious beliefs.” However, in the email, the PR rep calls this “attacking a straw man.” Here’s the quote:

Happy to talk to her off record about why this is attacking a straw man. Also I heard back from her that she may or may not write an additional piece depending on what response she gets from companies. So sounds like not making any stmt on record is the way to go.

This email error inadvertently became Facebook’s first “pseudo-public” comment on the proposed registry.

Other companies like Twitter, Google, GitHub, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Pandora, Giphy, and Slack have all publicly stated that they wouldn’t assist in the creation of a registry if asked, but Facebook has not officially commented on the issue yet.

However, a Facebook spokesperson did reach out to BuzzFeed News to say: “No one has asked us to build a Muslim registry, and of course we would not do so.”

So in short, the moral of the story is simple. If you want to avoid typos that could possibly threaten your candidate’s political future or sending haphazard internal memos to inquisitive reporters, triple check your emails before you hit send.

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 John Podesta, Facebook Contend with Email Problems appeared first on Law Street.

Imagine being arrested for a crime you didn’t commit–let alone even know about.

Now, imagine being arrested four times for crimes you didn’t commit.

That was the reality for an Orange County, California man whose ex-girlfriend had been impersonating him online. She had been sending herself messages from an account she created on Facebook in his name threatening to harm and kill her, according to a statement from the Orange County District Attorney’s Office.

Authorities arrested Tyler Parkervest, between the months of September and December 2015, four times in connection to the claims of harassment and stalking. According to the statement, he was subsequently charged with multiple felonies.

Stephani Renae Lawson Gets Jail for Creating Ex’s False Facebook Threats https://t.co/HxC0yJqNjQ via @ocweekly

— OC Weekly (@OCWeekly) December 1, 2016

“The OCDA investigation revealed that the true victim was John Doe and he was not guilty of the crimes,” the statement said.

Stephani Lawson, 25, “pleaded guilty to one felony count of false imprisonment by menace, violence, fraud, or deceit, and one felony count of perjury,” according to the statement.

Lawson created the fake profile and claimed that her ex-boyfriend, referred to as John Doe in the DA statement but identified as Parkervest by The Washington Post, had broken a restraining order, stalked, and threatened her life on multiple occasions. Lawson would report to the authorities that she had been receiving these harmful messages from her ex-boyfriend and subsequently have him arrested.

Lawson drew suspicion after she testified under oath about the messages she had been receiving in May 2016. Something about the evidence and the Facebook messages seemed off for some at the DA’s office. Turns out, the Facebook threats made to her had been sent using her own devices and her own IP address. The Orange County District Attorney’s Office conducted an investigation of the comments she made and of the messages themselves and concluded that she was responsible for the wrongdoing.

After exhaustive attempts, the Orange County DA’s Office was able to obtain cell phone records from T-Mobile and information from Facebook. This information gave the office what they had suspected: it had been Lawson all along.

“The T-Mobile records showed that Lawson disguised herself as Parkervest with a similar Facebook account,” Orange County District Attorney investigator Loren Dawson told the The Washington Post. “Lawson sent herself numerous criminal threats from the phony ‘Tyler Parker’ Facebook account and reported to law enforcement that Parkervest sent her the messages. Lawson had Parkervest arrested four times for crimes that he did not commit.”

Authorities arrested Lawson in Las Vegas on September 28 and dismissed the charges against Parkervest shortly after. She has since been sentenced to one year in county jail, three years of probation, and ordered to pay restitution, according to the Orange County DA.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Woman Impersonates Her Ex on Facebook, Sends Threats to Herself 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.

As of Monday, two of the largest internet sites have decided to cut off fake news outlets from their advertising services.

These moves are a part of a crackdown on the dissemination of false or misleading news that plagued and possibly influenced the recent presidential election.

With growing criticism of both Google and Facebook, each took a stand to not tolerate these sources any longer. Google said on Monday afternoon that it would no longer allow fake news websites to use its online advertising services, according to the New York Times.

Facebook followed, updating its advertising policy in the Facebook Audience Network to include fake news sites in the section prohibiting misleading or false content.

In a statement to the New York Times, a Facebook spokesperson said, “We have updated the policy to explicitly clarify that this applies to fake news,” and that it will continue to verify people who want to advertise with them.

On Saturday, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg took to his Facebook page to discuss the substantial scrutiny that he and his company have received.

In a Facebook post Zuckerberg wrote:

Of all the content on Facebook, more than 99 percent of what people see is authentic. Only a very small amount is fake news and hoaxes. The hoaxes that do exist are not limited to one partisan view, or even to politics. Overall, this makes it extremely unlikely hoaxes changed the outcome of this election in one direction or the other.

In the comments section, one user pointed out that the 1 percent figure seemed awfully low. Zuckerberg clarified his statement, saying that that figure represents the platform as a whole, not individual experiences. Therefore, depending on who or what you follow, you may see more or less fake news on your newsfeed.

Google has also come under fire recently after the top result for the search “Final Vote Count 2016” was linked to the news site 70news, which falsely claimed that Donald Trump had won the popular vote, according to Mediaite.

Google’s top search result for “final election numbers” leads to fake news site with false numbers https://t.co/3DA5ZY6pQk pic.twitter.com/v3GTEvUgW8

— CBS News (@CBSNews) November 14, 2016

One section of the article (falsely) said:

UPDATE 11/14/16: THREE MILLION ILLEGALS VOTED THIS 2016 ELECTION. THAT’S NOT VALID! REMOVE 3 MILLION VOTES FROM HILLARY CLINTON. PLUS THE OTHER VOTE FRAUD. TRUMP BY DEFAULT IS THE WINNER IN THE POPULAR VOTE!

By Monday evening, the article was moved down to the second result. Google relies on algorithms to create search results, and like this example, does not always present accurate information.

With hundreds of different fake or misleading news sites out there, various individuals and groups have compiled their own lists of sites to avoid. Melissa Zimdars, assistant professor of communication at Merrimack College in Massachusetts, said her list “started as a resource for my students, who are learning about journalism/social media/media literacy.” She breaks up outlets by category, ranking their level of falsehood. She also included satirical sites such as the Onion and the Borowitz Report.

A majority of U.S. adults get their news from social media, rather than traditional news sources, according to a Pew Research Center report. Over 40 percent get their news from Facebook specifically.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post You’ll Never Believe Why Your Friends Posted so Many Fake News Stories appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

According to the New York Times, Facebook has been accused of helping spread misinformation and fake news stories that “influenced how the American electorate” voted.
Even though Facebook continues to defend itself as nonpartisan, the idea that Facebook had a direct role in the election is, to quote Zuckerberg, “a pretty crazy idea.”

via GIPHY

It just goes to show that there’s nothing good about getting all your news from Facebook.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: November 14, 2016 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.

Someone finally figured out a genius way to to get more young people to register to vote: let them use their phones.

The non-profit group Fight for the Future created HelloVote, a chat bot that guides users through the process of registering by asking them a series of questions via text messages or Facebook messenger.

Register to VOTE via text, yes it’s that easy now. Try @_hellovote_ here: https://t.co/90AJoWtmdv pic.twitter.com/p96mcLL4V5

— Andrew Curry (@andrewcurryla) September 17, 2016

Here’s how it works:

• Start by simply texting “HELLO” to the number 384-387, or start on Facebook messenger.
• Then follow along with the chat bot as it asks for basic information like: name, address, date of birth, and driver’s license number, or the last four digits of your social security number.
• If your state accepts instant registration, HelloVote will send your forms in automatically.
• If your state doesn’t accept instant registration and requires a signature, HelloVote will send you a pre-filled form via email or mail, along with a pre-addressed stamped envelope that you can sign and send to your local Board of Elections.

According to Business Insider, HelloVote can now fully register people to vote via SMS or Facebook in six states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Massachusetts, and Virginia.

CEO Holmes Wilson told the website that the company is close to launching in Vermont and Illinois and “should be able to add Kentucky, West Virginia, and Hawaii soon.” It also hopes to add Pennsylvania to the list before the state’s October 11 registration deadline.

In other states HelloVote is only partially operational and requires voters to mail in registration forms.

Users have already begun using the service, and attest that it does in fact work.

I tried https://t.co/VOZpxhqDhD and it works! Everyone, please check to be sure you’re registered to vote, or use it to register via text.

— thefourthvine (@thefourthvine) September 22, 2016

As the election nears, young voters make up a crucial portion of votes for the potential victor. Targeting young people with convenient services like this is a great way to encourage voter turnout and participation in this year’s election. If you haven’t already registered, here’s your chance!

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 HelloVote Allows You to Register to Vote Via Text appeared first on Law Street.

It seems like every family has them–a treasure trove of embarrassing childhood photos. But what happens when those family photos leave the albums, household frames, or boxes, and make it on to social media? One 18-year-old woman from Austria is upset that her parents have posted a number of embarrassing photos from her childhood on Facebook, and is now suing them over those postings.

The 18-year-old, whose name isn’t being made public right now, claims that her parents have posted over 500 images of her as a child over the last seven years. Those include photos of her doing things like being potty-trained, bathing, and other normal childhood activities. But, she claims that the constant exposure of her photos have “made her life a misery.” The photos are viewable by her parents’ combined 700+ Facebook friends.

The woman told local press:

They knew no shame and no limit–and didn’t care whether it was a picture of me sitting on the toilet or lying naked in my cot–every stage was photographed and then made public.

Her father claims that he owns the copyright to the photos, but she argues that because the photos are of her she has the right to privacy. According to Fusion writer Charles Pulliam-Moore:

The family has a court date set for this November and if a judge rules in the girl’s favor, her parents could be forced to pay their daughter for damages as well as cover the cost of her legal fees. In addition to paying out monetary restitution, the court’s decision could set a precedent for similar legal complaints submitted by children against their parents.

There are plenty of concerns that parents should take into account when posting photos of their children online–such as those photos falling into the wrong hands–but being sued by their children probably wasn’t a previously well known one. While this case is being played out in an Austrian court, it raises important questions about who owns a photo and what decisions parents should be able to make about their children’s digital footprints.

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 Austrian Teen Sues Parents For Posting Embarrassing Childhood Photos appeared first on Law Street.

An attempted robbery led to a fatal shooting in a Walmart parking lot in Kansas on Sunday, and one shopper’s initial reaction was to film a video with her cellphone and publish it on Facebook, calling the shooting “interesting.”

When Wendy Russell Macrorie came back out to the parking lot after buying lightbulbs, the shooting had just happened. In the video she is seen smiling and chewing gum while saying, “So this is interesting, I’m at Walmart, which I hate going to, and this is happening in front of my car.” She then filmed two men with gunshot wounds on the ground while medical professionals tended to them. She ended the video by saying, “Gross, gross, don’t come to Walmart.”

Mom Posts Bizarre Live Video Of ‘Interesting’ Fatal Shooting Outside Walmart https://t.co/hNlKvUQWhj pic.twitter.com/HilKQwVPH9

— Elite Daily (@EliteDaily) September 12, 2016

Her under-reaction to people being severely injured was criticized on Facebook and Twitter.

Between this video by #WendyRussellMacrorie and the Bs heckling #Solange I’m so upset. We need to do better #whitegirls #getittogether

— Amelia Merritt (@oneinamelia) September 12, 2016

The shooting happened around 1:30 PM on Sunday, according to KMBC. A woman was putting her infant in the car outside of Walmart when two men approached her and hit her in the head. A man got out of his car to help the woman but one of the robbers shot him multiple times. Then another man stepped out from his car, and shot one of the assailants. He was identified as John W. Simmons III.

On Tuesday the second suspect, named Arthur Fred Wyatt III, was arrested. He was released from the Kansas Department of Corrections in July after serving a sentence for a 2009 involuntary manslaughter conviction. The man who first tried to help the woman and was shot as a result was a 33-year-old Iraq war veteran who is still in critical condition. The woman that the men tried to rob has been released from the hospital.

Since the dramatic Kansas shooting, bizarrely, two more Walmart shootings have happened. On Tuesday, a non-fatal shooting occurred in St. Paul, Minnesota. Early Wednesday morning, a Walmart employee fatally shot a man who tried to rob him in Sunrise, Florida.

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 Woman Posts Bizarre Video From Fatal Kansas Walmart Shooting appeared first on Law Street.

Joe Scarborough, one of the hosts of the show “Morning Joe” really hates Donald Trump. Scarborough has slammed Trump on multiple occasions, beginning earlier this year, but seems to really have hit his stride with Trump-bashing this week. In honor of Trump’s constant nicknaming of his political opponents, Scarborough has given Trump a moniker of his own: #AmnestyDon.

On the show Monday morning, Scarborough clearly mocked Trump’s speaking style and his flip-flopping on immigration issues in one go, saying:

They’re calling him Amnesty Don. Amnesty Don, that’s what people are calling him, I’m not calling him that. Amnesty Don. Hashtag Amnesty Don. For 14 months, Amnesty Don has been putting illegal immigration at the center of Amnesty Don’s campaign… And, yet, nobody in Amnesty Don’s own campaign can tell you what Amnesty Don’s position is after Amnesty Don won the primaries promising to deport 11 [million illegal immigrants].

Scarborough said that he would write a song about his new nickname for Trump, and he followed through. Today Scarborough put up a music video on Facebook in an attempt to continue his trolling of the Republican nominee:

The feud between Trump and Scarborough (and Scarborough’s cohost Mika Brzezinski) has been on and off since February. While Scarborough used to be friendly with Trump, Trump’s hesitance to disavow KKK leaders who were supporting him soured their relationship, and since then Scarborough has hit Trump on a number of issues. Last week that feud spilled over to Twitter (although not for the first time):

Tried watching low-rated @Morning_Joe this morning, unwatchable! @morningmika is off the wall, a neurotic and not very bright mess!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 22, 2016

Joe Scarborough has officially descended into a professional Trump troll, and I can’t want to see what he comes up with next.

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 Joe Scarborough Makes Awesome and Bizarre #AmnestyDon Music Video appeared first on Law Street.

Facebook is being accused of providing “material support and resources” to Hamas in a new $1 billion lawsuit. Lawyers allege that the popular social network was used to plot attacks by the militant Palestinian group that killed four Americans and wounded one in Israel, the West Bank, and Jerusalem.

The lawsuit, which was filed on July 10 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York states:

Hamas has recognized the tremendous utility and value of Facebook as a tool to facilitate this terrorist group’s ability to communicate, recruit members, plan and carry out attacks, and strike fear in its enemies. For years, Hamas, its leaders, spokesmen, and members have openly maintained and used official Facebook accounts with little or no interference.

Shurat Hadin, an Israeli legal advocacy group, filed the lawsuit on behalf of families whose relatives were killed in terror attacks. That same group is behind another lawsuit that is currently seeking an injunction to require prompt removal of posted content that may incite violence.

Plaintiffs in the most recent lawsuit include Stuart and Robbi Force, the parents of 29-year-old U.S. Army veteran and Vanderbilt University graduate student Taylor Force who was fatally stabbed in a Hamas attack while visiting Israel on a school trip. They are joined by the parents of 16-year-old Yaakov Naftali Fraenkel, who was kidnapped and murdered in the West Bank in June 2014; the parents of three-month-old Chaya Zissel Braun, who was killed in Jerusalem during a vehicular terrorist attack in October 2014; the son of 76-year-old Richard Lakin, who was killed in a shooting and stabbing attack in Jerusalem in October 2015; and Menachem Mendel Rivkin, who was seriously injured in a January 2016 stabbing attack in Jerusalem.

These families hope to prove that Facebook was being used as a tool for terrorism and operated in direct violation of the Antiterrorism Act, which bars U.S. businesses from providing support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization. However, many experts believe Facebook will be legally protected under the  Communications Decency Act, which protects websites from content posted by third-party users.

Facebook responded to Bloomberg’s request for comment with a statement saying,

[We want] people to feel safe when using Facebook. There is no place for content encouraging violence, direct threats, terrorism or hate speech on Facebook. We have a set of Community Standards to help people understand what is allowed on Facebook, and we urge people to use our reporting tools if they find content that they believe violates our standards so we can investigate and take swift action.

It’s unclear if the lawsuit will succeed in holding Facebook legally responsible because anti-terrorism efforts and freedom of speech are both at play. It will be interesting to see how the case moves forward.

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 Facebook Accused of Supporting Hamas in $1 Billion Lawsuit appeared first on Law Street.

I have a bad habit. Every morning, in between snoozing my alarm 15 times and finally dragging my butt out of bed, I scroll through my Facebook and Twitter feeds. Usually it’s more of the same–more people I went to high school with got engaged, the (many) dog accounts I follow have posted cute puppy pictures, friends are bitching about a) Hillary Clinton, b) Donald Trump, or c) both. It’s an act of masochism, in a lot of ways–I don’t necessarily care about any of those posts (minus, of course, the puppy pictures.) As a journalist who focuses on law and policy for millennials, social media is a free window into the mood of the U.S. But as a consumer of all things law and policy, and someone who is paid to keep a finger on the zeitgeist, this week has been a nightmare.

It started with the killing of Alton Sterling who was shot by Baton Rouge police earlier this week. Although start is a misnomer in a lot of ways–if we want to look to the start we maybe need to consider the 136 black people killed by police this year, or maybe the 2013 acquittal of George Zimmerman that sparked the Black Lives Matter movement, or even the fact that policing in the American South was in many ways born out of a desire to control freed slaves after the Civil War. But today’s not the day for a history lesson, and so for all intents and purposes, we’re going to start with Alton Sterling. He was shot and killed while held down by police officers, and then the protests began. And then, as always, voices began to drown out the protests. They said “we don’t have all the facts,” they said “he shouldn’t have been resisting,” and his criminal record was brought up time and time again, as though any of those were reasons for the police officers to take his life.

Then there was Philando Castile, a 32-year-old black man from Minnesota. He was pulled over for a broken tail light, a relatively routine traffic stop. According to his girlfriend, who was in the seat next to him, he was asked for his license and registration, and he told the officer that he had a concealed weapon and a license to conceal carry. He reached for his ID, and the officer shot him four times. He died that night. The protests began, and as always, other voices began to drown out the protests. They said “we don’t have all the facts, they said “maybe he moved too quickly,” and they pointed out that police officers are trained to deal with every situation. These were reasons given for why a traffic stop ended with a man dying in the front seat while his girlfriend sat next to him and his girlfriend’s four-year-old sat in the back seat.

And now it’s today, Friday, July 8, and there was a shooting in Dallas last night during a peaceful rally. Snipers shot 12 police officers and two civilians–five of those officers are dead. Three suspects have been taken into custody, a fourth was killed during a standoff. According to the New York Times, “officials said the attackers were planning to injure and kill as many law enforcement officers as they could.” And so again, I woke up and my Facebook and Twitter feeds were angry.

But this was a different kind of anger. I saw post after post blaming the tragedy in Dallas last night on the protesters, on the fact that we’re now talking about the injustices that have permeated American policing for centuries, and on the fact that sometimes there’s not just bad guys and good guys but that it’s much more complicated than that.

To blame the tragedy in Dallas (and it was absolutely a tragedy) on the Black Lives Matter movement, to blame it on the people who just want to make sure that justice is afforded to all Americans, and to use the deaths of five police officers who were working the protests to satisfy preconceived notions about how systemic racism in our justice system simply doesn’t exist, despite all the evidence to the contrary is an injustice–for Alton Sterling, for Philando Castile, for the five police officers who were shot, and for the country as a whole.

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 A Terrible Week: Alton Sterling, Philando Castile, the Dallas Shootings 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.

Don’t expect to see any Apple gear at the GOP Convention in Cleveland next month–the tech giant announced that it will not provide any funds, devices, or support to this year’s convention, like it has done in the past. Why not? Apple is protesting Donald Trump’s controversial remarks about minorities, women, and immigrants.

So, @realDonaldTrump, you’re such a “great” businessman and negotiator. You’re costing the #RNC sponsors (#Apple, #Ford, etc.). WTF?!#HaHa!

— (((B. Paul Stuart))) (@BrianPaulStuart) June 18, 2016

Apple is the first company in Silicon Valley to take this stance. Others like Google, Facebook, and Microsoft have already pledged some financial support to the convention. At the 2008 Republic and Democrat conventions, Apple donated about $140,000 worth of MacBooks and other products. In 2012, it did not donate free merchandise to the conventions because Democrats placed a ban on corporations financing their nominating events.

A spokeswoman for the GOP convention told Politico that “we are working with a variety of major tech partners who are focused on being part of the American political process.” In April, Google said it would attend the convention and would be the official live stream provider, despite pressure from protestors who called Google to back out because of Trump’s inflammatory comments. Microsoft will donate computers and software, but will not provide funds to Republicans, like it has in the past. Despite Mark Zuckerberg’s criticism of Trump, Facebook has pledged financial and other support to the convention.

Apple declined to comment on its decision, so it’s unclear whether or not it will still provide financial support to the Democratic convention in Philadelphia next month. A spokesperson for the Trump campaign did not respond to Politico’s request for a comment. Donald Trump has singled out Apple in speeches, criticizing CEO Tim Cook’s stance on encryption, while also calling for a boycott on its products.

Of course #Apple is uneasy over Donald J. Trump. Who isn’t? #rnc #uspoli #p2 https://t.co/wxjVfc31wD

— Truth Mashup (@truthmashup) June 19, 2016

Usually, tech companies donate to Democratic and Republican efforts equally. Apple typically does not engage in politics, but Cook has tried to forge relationships with Democrat and Republican lawmakers. Last year, Cook and a handful of top Republican house leaders dined in D.C. together.

However, Apple’s decision is not totally unprecedented. HP, who was a major donor to the GOP convention in 2012, backed out of funding this year’s convention because of pressure from activists at ColorofChange.org in June. The New York Times reported in March that several corporations were thinking about scaling back their donations to the RNC because of Trump’s political ideology.

“We want them to divest from hate. We want them to pull all their money and support,”  said Mary Alice Crim, field director for Free Press Action Fund, which is part of the anti-Trump campaign. She added that tech companies that are backing the convention need to be “thinking hard about where they put their brand, and whether they want to align their brand with racism, hatred, and misogyny.”

Inez Nicholson

Inez is an editorial intern at Law Street from Raleigh, NC. She will be a junior at North Carolina State University and is studying political science and communication media. When she’s not in the newsroom, you can find her in the weight room. Contact Inez at INicholson@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Apple Won’t Support the RNC Because of Trump appeared first on Law Street.

Can posting spoilers about your favorite show be considered a form of copyright infringement? AMC, the network that airs the massively popular show “The Walking Dead,” seems to think so, based on recent threats made by its legal team toward a fan community.

Moderators of the Facebook page “The Spoiling Dead Fans” posted Sunday that they had received a cease-and-desist letter from AMC threatening legal action against the community for speculating about a character death from last season’s finale (possible spoilers below, if you’re not caught up on the show).

It’s unclear on what legal grounds the network can threaten the lawsuit–the group says that AMC is claiming “copyright infringement,” under the belief that the group’s leaders received “trade secret information” regarding the next season that they were sharing with their followers. The members deny this, and claims that they were simply speculating about the cliffhanger.

“The Spoiling Dead Fans” is an online community that gives fans a forum to discuss the show. Fans can also submit photos of the show’s filming in Georgia, allowing them to further speculate about possible plot points. The page’s creators, however, maintain that all of the photos taken on their site are obtained legally, without any trespassing or law-breaking.

The page, which has a following of almost 370,000 fans, has been targeted previously by AMC for copyright infringement: posts have allegedly been taken down, and the page has been blocked by Facebook after being reported under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The moderators also claim that the network has been trying to intimidate members by threatening arrest “among other questionable acts.”  However, this cease and desist letter has taken the network’s threats to the next level and forced the group to take down the posts in question for fear of legal action.

“The Walking Dead” is easily one of the most popular shows on TV at the moment, making it somewhat understandable that major plot points are being kept under lock and key as if they are classified documents. However, if speculating about a show can now get people in legal trouble and result in the alleged harassment of a fan community, then AMC has definitely taken this way too far.

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 “The Walking Dead” Fan Page Threatened with Lawsuit for Spoilers 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.

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.

Welcome to the RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through the top five controversial and crazy stories in the world of law and policy each day. So who is ranting and who is raving today? Check it out below:

People are Pissed at Facebook Over Supposed Suppression of Conservative News

You know that trending news section on Facebook? It’s on the top right side of your feed and highlights the breaking news each day. Well former Facebook workers are now claiming that they were told to “artifically manipulate” what shows up in the trending news feature, with a favoritism given to more liberal news. They also claim that they were told to blacklist conservative sites and sources. But Facebook is hardcore denying that anything of the sort ever happened, and ironically, Facebook’s “trending news controversy” is trending on Facebook right now.

Facebook Says It’s Taking News Bias Allegations “Very Seriously” https://t.co/wnad5QbNi3 pic.twitter.com/cdggzpeQuP

— BuzzFeed News (@BuzzFeedNews) May 10, 2016

Samantha Bee Says “Bye, Bye” to Ted Cruz

Samantha Bee, host of “Full Frontal with Samantha Bee” had a lot of fun with Ted Cruz’s presidential run. But now that Cruz has officially dropped out, the show needed to bid goodbye to its favorite punching bag. And in true Samantha Bee fashion, she said that goodbye with quite a fantastic and hilarious sendoff.

Carry on, Bee. We can’t wait to see what you do with the rest of this crazy election cycle.

West Point Women in Trouble

16 female, black cadets at West Point under scrutiny for photo with clenched fists in the air. https://t.co/mOcL32p5bL

— CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) May 9, 2016

Sixteen African-American women graduating from West Point are in hot water over a photo that features them raising their fists. The school is investigating the photo, and comparisons are being made to the girls’ actions and the Black Lives Matter movement. While that doesn’t seem like a big deal, West Point expressly forbids expressing political opinions while representing the school. But the women claim that their gestures were just celebratory. So who’s right? We’ll have to see if the school ends up disciplining the students but people on both sides of the debate are pretty mad.

North Carolina v. The DOJ: All Hell Breaks Loose

North Carolina’s bathroom bill has royally pissed off the DOJ, and now both sides are suing each other. It all started when the DOJ gave NC Governor Pat McCrory until yesterday to begin to remedy the new anti-LGBT policies, which the DOJ believes to be discriminatory. McCrory asked for more time, and when he was refused, sued the DOJ. Now the DOJ has filed a civil rights lawsuit against the state. Check out Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s epically badass speech on the subject:

Jon Stewart Calls Donald Trump a “Man-Baby”

Jon Stewart may be retired from the “Daily Show” but that doesn’t mean he’s done going with his scathing social commentary. On David Axelrod’s CNN podcast Stewart said:

He’s a man baby. He has the physical countenance of a man and a baby’s temperament and hands. … (Vanity Fair editor) Graydon Carter did a joke about Donald Trump’s hands 25 years ago, he’s still not f—ing over it.

So…here’s what I’m guessing Trump’s reaction will be:

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 10, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

If my Facebook newsfeed is anything to go off of, people my age hate Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. I’ll see videos with titles like “HILLARY EXPOSED,” “$HILLARY STEALS THE ELECTION,” and “WHO SAID IT, TRUMP OR HITLER?” shared thousands of times, most of which are accompanied by the little angry-face reaction emoji. But, of course, that’s not representative of the general public right? If you’re friends with people who share your political views, the internet is a room full of people who applaud everything you say and hate your enemies. If you’re visiting websites like Reddit or the Huffington Post, you’re going to have a much different comments-section experience than at Breitbart or The National Review. You can’t get a fair take on who likes whom on the internet, so to escape the thought-bubbles of social media, I turned to polling to answer the question: What does America really think of our presumptive nominees?

Favorability is measured in a shockingly simple way–surveys ask Americans how they view a candidate, and provide options from “very favorable” to “very unfavorable.” The data suggest that all the online negativity comes from a real place. Even though Hillary Clinton has received more votes in the primary than any other candidate, her average favorability is 38.4 percent. Donald Trump also has a really bad favorability rating, sitting 10 points below Clinton – at 28.4 percent. Pathetic–sad!

Trump and Clinton have a similar problem–if you don’t like one of them, chances are you really hate them. Trump’s fanbase is larger than anyone predicted, and stark-raving mad dedicated to his cause. His detractors are even more numerous, and just as incensed by what he says and does. Clinton’s campaign is a savvy political juggernaut, and her careful planning has all-but secured the Democratic nominee. Despite her success, over forty percent of voters have a strongly negative view of her.

How do these candidates that Americans don’t like continue winning?  Voters might not be in love with Hillary Clinton, but they’re voting for her as the lesser of two evils. If you only see Clinton and Trump being viable options for the presidency, the decision is made very simple for most voters. It’s also important not to be too cynical–nearly half of voters see Clinton and Trump as favorable (although very different halves, I imagine.) It’s not that everyone hates the almost-nominees, just that they are extremely divisive in the American public.

We’re in a tough position now, as most Americans find themselves rooting for the candidate they hate the least–a far cry from the Obama ’08 enthusiasm that energized the Democratic party just two elections ago. An election as important as this one shouldn’t be treated so dispassionately by voters, because a low turn-out could tilt the election the way you’re actually afraid of. An old adage fits well here: If you can’t be with the one you love, love the one you’re with.

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 How Do Candidates America Hates Keep Winning? appeared first on Law Street.

Could you be arrested for attempting to be funny on social media? Apparently, yes. A 27-year-old man named Anthony Novak from Parma, Ohio is facing criminal charges for creating a Facebook account that parodied the Parma City Police Department.

The account confused people from all over the city of Parma as the two accounts were almost identical, except for what they were posting. While the real police department page featured posts about local happenings and updates surrounding crime in Parma, the parody account had satirical posts about the requirements to become a Parma police officer and other supposedly “inflammatory topics.” In one such post, Novak wrote

The Parma Civil Service Commission will conduct a written exam for basic Police Officer for the City of Parma to establish an eligibility list. The exam will be held on March 12, 2016. Applications are available February 14, 2016 through March 2, 2016. Parma is an equal opportunity employer but is strongly encouraging minorities not to apply. The test will consist of a 15 question multiple choice definition test followed by a hearing test. Should you pass you will be accepted as an officer of the Parma Police Department.

In response to the parody posts being shared on the fake account’s wall, the Parma Police department posted a statement to warn its followers about the Parma fraud:

The Parma Police Department would like to warn the public that a fake Parma Police Facebook page has been created. This matter is currently being investigated by the Parma Police Department and Facebook. This is the Parma Police Department’s official Facebook page. The public should disregard any and all information posted on the fake Facebook account.

Novak is facing potential felony charges for disrupting public services through his use of satire on his parody account. The question of whether or not this is an infringement on Novak’s freedom of speech has been brought up in the conversation about if he should be charged. Lieutenant Kevin Riley argues that the material posted on the fake website caused a risk to public safety because of its inflammatory and derogatory nature. Because this material crossed the line from funny satire to potentially harmful, Novak’s arguments are criminal.

Did Novak’s satire cause any harm to the citizens of Parma? The answer is unclear. Some people voiced a love of the parody on twitter.

The fake city of Parma police department page was hilarious

— Abby Roetzel (@abbyroetzel) March 3, 2016

Others voiced their irritation with the account in attempt to try to clarify what was going on for confused onlookers.

Somebody set up a fake Parma Police Department Facebook page. The REAL Police are working with FACEBOOK to shut it down.

— Scott Taylor (@ScottTaylorTV) March 2, 2016

Regardless of the public opinion, Novak will appear before a grand jury next week to determine whether or not he should face any charges for his actions. Ever since his arrest, several parody accounts on Facebook have popped up in his absence claiming to be sticking up for free speech. This case certainly poses an interesting question about how far is too far when it comes to satire and could be setting a dangerous precedent by telling someone they will face jail time for a parody Facebook account.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Ohio Man Arrested for Creating Parody Facebook Page of Local Police Department appeared first on Law Street.

Have you ever gotten one of those texts from Facebook, letting you know it’s the birthday of some person you probably haven’t talked to since high school? They can be incredibly annoying, and more importantly, some people who receive them don’t even remember consenting to those kinds of reminders from the social media giant. Well those pesky texts have now put Facebook on the receiving end of a class action lawsuit brought primarily by a Florida man who claims that the company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Colin Brickman claims that he received texts from Facebook, alerting him to a friend’s birthday. The text then invited him to write on his friend’s timeline or “reply with 1 to post ‘Happy Birthday!” While that sounds straightforward enough, Brickman is arguing that this action violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, because it is a telemarketing message that could increase Facebook’s revenue by causing more people to interact with the site. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act requires that any messages of that nature can only be sent to people who have previously consented to receiving them. Currently, you can expressly opt out of the texts in the “settings” part of Facebook–Brickman argues that he did exactly that, but still received the unwanted message.

Brickman would like Facebook to stop sending the messages, and he would also like $1,500 for each message that he (and others who were affected) received. This is consistent with the law, which states that “consumers can seek $500 per violation or $1,500 if they can show the violation was willful.” Fortune also pointed out that there is precedent for deciding in favor of the message receivers in a case like this:

In the last year, Western Union  agreed to pay $8.5 million to resolve a class action over unsolicited text messages while Uber and Yahoo are currently in court over similar lawsuits. The Federal Communications Commission has also become more aggressive about text-based marketing, posting a notice last year to remind consumers that unauthorized texts are illegal except in the case of an emergency.

Brickman’s lawsuit is obviously still in its early stages, but while this all gets sorted out, keep an eye on your phone to see if you get any  unwanted birthday texts from Facebook. If you do, Facebook could end up paying for them, big time.

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 Facebook Sued Over Annoying Birthday Texts appeared first on Law Street.

The attacks in New York City on 9/11 brought together a nation that every year since has unified on social media and internet outlets under “#9/11” and “#NeverForget.” When a mass shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut claimed the lives of 20 children, as well as six adults on December 14, 2012, we prayed and posted: “#PrayForSandyHook” and “SandyHook.” The terrorism in Paris on November 13, 2015 bonded the world through posts and photographs captioning “#PrayForParis.”

“Pray for Paris” courtesy of [Bensun Ho via Flickr]

Following the police shootings and misconduct of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Walter Scott, and so many more, a movement ensued highlighting “#BlackLivesMatter,” which morphed into the debated “#AllLivesMatter” movement. We picketed. We rioted. We protested and stood divided across the nation. We demanded societal change. When a mass shooting claimed the lives of nine people at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopalian Church, we worked to mend the broken community and sent virtual support with “#PrayforCharleston” demanding more stringent gun control laws and mental health screening.

We have been victims and survivors. We have been divided, yet banded together. We have fought and we have been loud. So where is our unifying and our fighting fervor now? Where is our voice recognizing the 380,000 Nigerian brothers and sisters living within the United States whose families and friends in Nigeria are experiencing sheer terror at the hands of Boko Haram?

Boko Haram, an Islamic militant group whose name loosely translates into “Western education is a sin,” has been waging a murderous war in the poorest part of Nigeria in an effort to overthrow the Nigerian government. While the group has been slowly establishing itself between 2005-2009, it gained worldwide recognition in 2014 when it kidnapped 276 schoolgirls, most of whom have not returned to their families to date.

Mohammed Yusuf, has, over the years, rallied a following to the group through the widespread distribution of his speeches on tapes. So far, his followers have treated human beings like animals–slitting throats without reprieve. In 2009, Yusuf was killed in a security bust, which left the elusive and merciless Abubakar Shekau in charge of Boko Haram. His unforgiving and relentless tactics to make Northern Nigeria an Islamic state have left almost 20,000 people dead–slaughtered. There have been approximately 2.5 million people displaced from their homes and villages, children parentless, mothers widowed, and mass graves full of innocent bodies.

Image courtesy of [EU/ECHO/Isabel Coello via Flickr]

The scariest part? Boko Haram has made good on essentially every threat and every hellish promise made. Most recently, Boko Haram took to bombing the village of Dalori, in the northeastern part of Nigeria, where 86 people were shot, burned, or killed by suicide bombs. A man hiding in a tree heard the shrieks and screams of the children trapped in burning huts as Boko Haram soldiers and supporters destroyed the city. Government troops were unsuccessful in overpowering the militant group.

Boko Haram has pledged its allegiance to ISIS/ISIL and its members have set out to spread terror upon all those who are not willing to join them in their absolutely extremist path to form an Islamic state.

So where is the coverage? Why has the U.S. mainstream media failed to highlight this horrific situation in any detailed capacity? Where are the Twitter feeds and Facebook posts flooding with “#PrayforNigeria” statuses? And where is the action? There has been no lack of military action against ISIS and its ideologies, so where is the same level of response to a terrorist organization that has pledged allegiance to ISIS and has killed thousands? Forget the basic human need and the widespread teachings of terror–are we just willing to help if we have some personal or political interest in mind?

As media dictates the important issues that today’s society will focus on, particularly during election year, has our censorship failed the people of Nigeria?

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Boko Haram and Widespread Terror in Nigeria: Where is the Outrage? appeared first on Law Street.

Facebook is implementing new polices to prevent person-to-person gun sales via both the Facebook and Instagram sites. Traditionally, individuals making private gun sales have been able to arrange them using the social networks, but under Facebook’s new policies, that will no longer be allowed.

Firearms are joining the long list of things that people cannot use Facebook (or Instagram) to sell, including illegal drugs and pharmaceuticals. While Facebook’s old policies didn’t allow individuals to sell guns via Facebook ads, individuals could create posts for the private sale of firearms. However, Facebook did take actions in 2014 to restrict those kinds of sales to minors. According to NPR’s Laura Sydell: “Facebook has never been directly involved in gun selling, but it has been a place where buyers and sellers have negotiated sales.” However, these new policies won’t affect already-licensed sellers or stores from creating ads on the site.

Facebook’s head of Global Policy Management, Monika Bickert, stated:

Over the last two years, more and more people have been using Facebook to discover products and to buy and sell things to one another. We are continuing to develop, test, and launch new products to make this experience even better for people and are updating our regulated goods policies to reflect this evolution.

Under these new polices, Facebook will rely on users to report violations, and if certain individuals become repeat offenders, they may be banned from the social media sites. Facebook officials stated:

We will remove reported posts that explicitly indicate a specific attempt to evade or help others evade the law. For example, we will remove reported posts where the potential buyer or seller indicates they will not conduct a background check or are willing to sell across state lines without a licensed firearms dealer.

The move isn’t really much of a surprise–these changes to Facebook’s policies come roughly a month after President Barack Obama’s executive actions on guns were announced, which create stricter provisions for private, even individual, gun sales. The fact that Facebook is making an attempt to comply with its new provisions makes sense–hopefully it’ll help to cut down on unlicensed gun sales via two of the top social media sites 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 Facebook Cracks Down on Gun Sales Through the Site appeared first on Law Street.

Most of us use Facebook everyday, for a variety of reasons. We use it to share pictures, to chat with friends, and to, sometimes, share our political opinions. Prior to Facebook we may not have known that our childhood friend is voting for Donald Trump, or that our high school acquaintance has a really strong stance on the legalization of marijuana. But sharing our opinions on Facebook may not always be a good thing–researchers believe that many of us are creating virtual “echo rooms” in which we only see our own viewpoints, and shut out those who disagree with us.

Now, it’s no secret that many people limit their consumption of news to sources they agree with. But this kind of social media censorship appears to be a new revelation. A group of researchers from the U.S. and Italy published their findings in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on Monday. In order to reach their conclusions they analyzed publicly available Facebook data from 2010-2014.

Interestingly, the researchers determined that this may be how scientific misinformation and conspiracy theories are shared and gain ground. Because people are usually interacting on Facebook with people they agree with, it makes it more unlikely that an alternative point of view is discussed.

One of the phenomenons that the researchers studied was the dissemination of misinformation about climate change. The researchers also pinpointed the Jade Helm 15 conspiracy from last year, when some Americans believed that routine military operations in Texas were signs of an imminent takeover by the American government.

The researchers pointed to confirmation bias, which is when we seek out information to support our beliefs no matter how thin it is, but ignore contrary evidence, as a big part of the problem. The papers’ authors point out that this is dangerous, saying: “Massive digital misinformation is becoming pervasive in online social media to the extent that it has been listed by the World Economic Forum (WEF) as one of the main threats to our society.”

So, in light of these findings, how can conspiracy theories and misinformation become debunked? According to the researchers, trying to infiltrate the small subgroups in which the conspiracy theories are bouncing around will be ineffective. Instead, the researchers recommend trying to spread information more generally, to a larger audience,

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 Facebook: Does it Make Us More Narrow-Minded? appeared first on Law Street.

Last night, Republicans (and Democratic masochists) cozied up to watch the fifth GOP debate of 2015. Hosted by CNN in Las Vegas, it featured nine presidential hopefuls sparring over mostly national security and foreign affairs questions. Some of the back-and-forths got nasty, including Trump vs. Bush, Cruz vs. Rubio, and watching the entire debate vs. my sanity.

But in a debate that focused heavily on the threat of terror, and the horrific actions of the San Bernardino shooters,  we heard a lot about political correctness last night. Most notably, according to serious contender Ted Cruz that “political correctness is killing people.” Slamming political correctness has become a new hobby for the Republican party, centered on the concept that Democrats are too scared of offending anyone that we have become weak on security.

Well here’s some political incorrectness for you guys: that line of thought is a fucking excuse, a waste of breath, and a complete misconception of the whole idea of political correctness.

The big flash point appears to be that despite the fact that one of the San Bernardino shooters, Tashfeen Malik, posted messages on social media that advocated for jihad and showed she was radicalized, the Obama administration didn’t catch it. Nevermind the fact that she used a pseudonym with heavy security settings, “that did not allow people outside a small group of friends to see them.” The Obama administration was too busy being politically correct to use its crystal ball to divine that those posts were hers when she applied for a visa.

So what, exactly, were all the Republican candidates that railed against “political correctness” suggesting? That pseudonyms not be able to be used on Facebook or any other social media site? Well that’s a Facebook problem, not a political problem. Or that we should monitor every single person’s social media? That’s awfully Big Brother-ish, and if there are ramifications for someone posting something, well, that could impede on our Freedom of Speech. Or is it just people who don’t look, sound, or pray like the Republican candidates that should be monitored–there was after all, certainly no way we could have stopped Elliot Rodgers, who sent a manifesto outlining his plans before killing seven people and had spent time on multiple forums extolling his hatred for women. But of course, Rodgers, as a non-Muslim young man, was a victim of mental illness, nothing more. There’s no way we could have stopped him.

Or what about Dylann Roof, who shot nine people at a church in Charleston, South Carolina? It’s widely suspected Roof spent time on a white supremacist site called Daily Stormer. The manifesto he wrote uses language pulled almost directly from that site. Should he have been monitored? Or again, were his actions utterly unpredictable, beget out of mental illness and not out of any sort of radicalization that made him believe he needed to slaughter Black Americans?

Can we also talk about the logistical issues of what the Republican candidates were seemingly proposing? The average American age 18-24 sends or receive over 100 texts per day. Overall, time spent on Facebook worldwide accounts for 20 percent of all time online. In the U.S., 74 percent of all adults use at least some form of social media—we’re talking 240 million people. Even if we only identify 1 percent of them as even a possible threat–still 2.4 million people–how do we identify those people in the first place? Yes, we have algorithms, but computers can’t interpret tone or intent. So unless we want the NSA to spend its time sorting through Facebook posts, we have some serious logistical issues here–the NSA has had a hard time processing the data it already has. The Republicans on that stage last night wanted you to believe that we have Muslim terrorists writing “I’m going to commit an act of terror” on their Facebook pages and that the Obama administration is ignoring it, but that’s simply not true.

The internet is an unprecedented thing that we have now–the concept that we have access to this kind of massive personal information on people and their thoughts. We do need to figure out how to optimize policies in a way that will best help with national security. But the idea that all that’s stopping us from accessing all the answers about terrorism is “political correctness” doesn’t recognize the huge logistical undertaking proposed, the potential Freedom of Speech issues, the anonymity the internet provides, or the fact that the government maybe shouldn’t have access to every corner of it. This debate isn’t black and white–it’s significantly more nuanced than that. It’s not just about flipping a “political correctness” switch and suddenly being able to see everyone’s posts (particularly if they’re Muslim) and pinpoint terrorist attacks. And the fact that so many of the Republican candidates last night appeared to think that was the case indicates that they either don’t understand the internet, or are trying to score cheap political points. Given last night’s totally off-base contentions, I’d be surprised by neither.

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 Let’s All Shut the F**** Up About Political Correctness in a National Security Debate appeared first on Law Street.

A non-profit in Brazil has taken a new approach to dealing with racist trolls on Facebook–confronting them with billboards in their own neighborhoods. The campaign is called “Virtual Racism, Real Consequences,” and was started by the Criola group, a non-profit that works to defend the civil rights of black women in Brazil. The group has started taking out billboards in the neighborhoods of Facebook and Twitter users who make racist comments, and plastering those comments on the billboards. While they blur out the face and name of the offender, the group is hoping that directly confronting the trolls with their own comments will hit close to home–pun intended.

billboards in Brazil place tweets in tweeters neighbourhood https://t.co/uyBWncey68 ‘ #advertising #digital pic.twitter.com/RKQfy6XR8C

— Jelle Deconinck (@DeconinckJelle) November 30, 2015

Virtual racism, real consequences. We’re liking this Brazilian campaign https://t.co/nM8XS22Sps#marketing4goodpic.twitter.com/3jHyESaox4

— Marketing Society (@TheMarketingSoc) November 30, 2015

The Criola group began the project this summer, using the geotags that often accompany social media posts to figure out where the racist commenters live. Then, it rents billboards near where the commenters live, and then display the comments on them. Although it blurs out the profiles of the people who make the comments, the campaign attempts to “educate” the offenders as well as passersby about the power of words. The group hopes that people will think twice about posting things online that could be hurtful to others.

The project was inspired by the racist comments that surfaced online after Maria Júlia Coutinho, the first black female meteorologist on Brazilian primetime TV, corrected another anchor on air. She received a lot of online racist backlash. Reading those comments inspired the Criola group to act.

Jurema Werneck, the Criola group’s founder, explained to BBC:

Those people [who post abuse online] think they can sit in the comfort of their homes and do whatever they want on the internet. We don’t let that happen. They can’t hide from us, we will find them.

While the campaign has been active in Brazil since this summer, it began receiving particular international press coverage this week. So, if you’re in Brazil, be careful about what you say online. It could come back to confront you head on.

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 Brazilian Non-Profit Criola Group Confronts Racist Social Media Users with Billboards appeared first on Law Street.

College students around the U.S. and Canada have been seeing “White Student Union” pages pop up for their respective schools–as of this morning there were more than 30 around the country. But is this a new trend–are random college students really trying to create “white student communities,” or just a bunch of annoying trolls?

I’m happy to announce it appears to be the latter–The Daily Beast has reported that the Facebook pages for the white student unions are being created by a bunch of racist trolls.

Those white-student-union Facebook pages are probably fake: https://t.co/O6npzWSFQG pic.twitter.com/dpXm0FRx2x

— New York Magazine (@NYMag) November 24, 2015

The message boards 4Chan and 8Chan as well as the white supremacist site Daily Stormer appear to be propelling the creation of the pages. Gotta love the internet, and its amazing power to connect assholes regardless of location.

According to The Daily Beast, the goals of these idiots are pretty straightforward:

These trolls’ strategy is to mimic the black student activist groups whose campus protests have made headlines this month. They purport to highlight racial double-standards, asking why white students should not be allowed to organize the way minority students do. The answer is relatively straightforward (American universities are often majority white, with curricula and administrative systems that privilege white students), but 8channers are counting on some students to fall for their rhetoric.

The pages have all essentially been created within the last week, lending credence to the theory that there’s a concentrated and new effort to create them. Additionally, many of the pages use similar language, for example introducing the pages as “a safe space to support and promote the interests of students of European descent at [relevant university name]!” The following description has also been found on a number of pages:

We affirm the dignity and ancestry of our proud people who have gifted the world with countless works of beauty, science, and wisdom, and are committed to promoting a dialogue and political resistance that will secure a future for our posterity and spirit. … At the same time, we do not wish to denigrate or harm any other group or ethnicity.

After their creation, the pages have been posting a variety of articles, including those about high profile racial controversies at schools like Mizzou and Yale, or articles that are critical of the Black Lives Matter movement and the concept of white privilege.

Schools that have been affected have, for the most part, issued statements that they’re trying to get the pages taken down, and that they’re not supported by the administration. Many schools have also indicated their support for students of color on their campuses. Additionally, NYU–one of the highest profile schools to get targeted–threatened legal action against the trolls for using NYU’s logo without permission and breaking copyright law.

So no, there’s not suddenly a ton of students across the country making “White Student Union” pages, or trying to start “White Student Union” organizations. But thanks, trolls, for making sure my faith in humanity is, as per usual, very low.

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 Up With All the “White Student Unions?” appeared first on Law Street.

After significant public controversy, Facebook is making some edits to its problematic “real name” policy. The company received criticism after requiring that users use their “real names,” and allowed other users to flag when someone wasn’t adhering. But critics argued that this policy led to harassment and complications, particularly for the LGBTQ community, performers who go by different names, those who are attempting to hide their identities, and groups whose “real names” didn’t fit the narrow rules prescribed by Facebook–particularly those from Native American backgrounds. But in response to that outcry, Facebook is now making some changes to this policy that should benefit all.

Previously, Facebook required users to use their “real names,” or some semblance of that name. There were a few reasons that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg gave for this policy–including the fact that that it’s easier to find people to connect with when we all use legal names. Additionally, Zuckerberg made the argument that requiring “real names” made it less likely that fake profiles could be used for harassment.

There have been complaints about this policy for a while, but an open letter written recently by a variety of advocacy groups accelerated the discussion. Authors of the letter included the ACLU and the Human Rights Watch, and as a whole represent:

Transgender and gender variant people whose legal names don’t accord with their gender identity.

People who use a pseudonym or name modification in order to protect themselves from physical violence, legal threats from repressive governments, or harassment on the basis of gender, sexuality, religion, or political activities.

People who have been silenced by attackers abusing Facebook’s “Fake Name” reporting option.

People whose legal names don’t fit the arbitrary standards of “real names” developed by Facebook, such as Native Americans, other ethnic minorities, and members of the clergy.

These individuals have often had a hard time reclaiming their profiles after being accused of using “not real names.” More dangerously, sometimes Facebook has reinstated profiles with an individual’s legal name instead of the one they were previously using, possibly outing them or exposing them to violence. Read the full letter below:

In response to this letter, Facebook has announced that it will be making a couple changes to the policy that will help alleviate these concerns. To start, users will be able to provide context to Facebook about the name they choose when they sign up for an account. This will allow Facebook to understand why someone might have difficulty verifying their identity. The other change is that users who flag others for “fake names” will have to explain why they’re flagging an individual, to ensure it isn’t just for harassment purposes. Finally, Facebook will make it easier for those who have been locked out of their accounts due to the policy to regain access. While Facebook hasn’t totally changed its tune, it is a good step in the right direction.

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 Facebook Makes Changes to Problematic “Real Name” Policy appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, when Mark Zuckerberg announced his new TechPrep project, my brilliant sister turned to me and said “Zuckerberg having a daughter is probably the greatest thing that ever happened to the world.”

That may seem like a hyperbolic comment but let’s take a look at Zuckerberg’s new project: a website designed to make coding a more inclusive field and teaching the next generation how to code while they are young. TechPrep aims at diversifying the tech world, reaching out to Black and Hispanic populations, women, and low-income communities. If it is successful, it may transform Silicon Valley from the stomping grounds of white twenty-somethings wearing stained hoodies into a cosmopolitan center that finally includes those who have been barred from the coding world in the internet age. The site is designed to connect with parents as well as their children, encouraging them to ask for computer science courses at their schools and asking them to support their children’s efforts. Zuckerberg’s past philanthropic efforts never emphasized parent participation. It’s hardly a stretch to think that Zuckerberg designed this project with his daughter in mind, hoping to make the coding world more inclusive for her as she grows up within it. Most parents want to make the world a better place for their children, and Zuckerberg is no exception.

Zuckerberg has spent the past five years donating generously to education–his infamous $100 million donation to Newark Public Schools has been dissected at length in Dale Russakoff’s “The Prize“—but this is the first time he has stepped forward to launch his own community outreach initiative. Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan are also launching a K-12 school in Palo Alto designed for low-income students (tuition will be free and healthcare services will be provided for all students). Like TechPrep, the school promotes parent involvement, offering parent-inclusive activities for infant and toddler students. Chan is the mastermind behind the project, with a passion for education and healthcare–she taught elementary school science, ran an after-school program in a housing project and worked as a pediatrician in a low-income area. Chan’s experience gives the project credibility while Zuckerberg’s commitment guarantees efficiency. A well-funded school with educated leadership? This is a fairy tale that could only come true in Silicon Valley.

Before TechPrep and “The Primary School,” Zuckerberg’s donations to education were massive and undeniably made with the best intentions, but lacking organization and creativity. Throwing money at the Newark Public School system, without oversight or active involvement, was a recipe for disaster. Zuckerberg had no experience with the administration or bureaucracy of the school system, therefore he had no idea which changes would be most effective and how long it would take to implement them.  He thought teachers would be the linchpin of educational reforms but had no concept of the power and obstinacy of teacher’s unions. The Newark project essentially crashed and burned because he jumped into philanthropy without sufficient research on the realities of the challenges he was hoping to solve. In contrast, TechPrep holds a greater potential for success because it capitalizes on Zuckerberg’s existing skill set–of course the man who launched the social media revolution should train the next generation of coders. Of course the person with the most knowledge on the subject should be in charge. TechPrep is the ideal successor to the Newark fiasco. Zuckerberg has learned his lesson about inefficient philanthropy and is going back to doing what he is best at: innovating in front of a computer screen.

Zuckerberg’s child will be tantamount to a First Daughter–celebrated as an icon, photographed like a movie star, and referred to on a first-name basis by complete strangers. With parents like Zuckerberg and Chan, it is almost certain that this child will be working hard and achieving from an early age. For all we know, the Zuckerberg baby may unlock the cure to cancer, undo global warming and make pigs fly. But even if she doesn’t do all those things, we are already in this baby’s debt. This child has her father-to-be thinking creatively about how to level the playing field in education–and nothing is more promising than a day when Mark Zuckerberg is on his A-game.

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 Mark Zuckerberg’s Baby May Save the World appeared first on Law Street.

In light of concerns about state-sponsored hackers going after American technology, Facebook will now warn users it believes are falling victim to these types of attacks.

The warning will take the form of a notification that pops up on Facebook. It doesn’t warn individuals that their Facebook accounts are being hacked, but rather that their computers, smartphones, tablets, or other devices have malware on them that indicate that hackers may be trying to access their accounts.

According to Facebook, the notification will prompt a user to “Please Secure Your Accounts Now” and contain the following message:

We believe your Facebook account and your other online accounts may be the target of attacks from state-sponsored actors. Turning on Login Approvals will help keep others from logging into your Facebook account. Whenever your account is accessed from a new device or browser, we’ll send a security code to your phone so that only you can log in. We recommend you also take steps to secure the accounts you use on other services.

Facebook also recommends that if possible, people who get these notifications should consider replacing or rebuilding their systems, because this type of breach is probably too strong to be wiped out by everyday anti-virus software. Facebook has also made it clear that it won’t be sending out these notifications willy-nilly, but only if there’s strong evidence that a breach is coming from a foreign government hack.

Obviously not all hacks come from state-sponsored entities, but Facebook is clear on why it is focusing on warning its users specifically about these kinds of attacks. Alex Stamos, the Chief Security Officer at Facebook, explained in the announcement about the policy change:

While we have always taken steps to secure accounts that we believe to have been compromised, we decided to show this additional warning if we have a strong suspicion that an attack could be government-sponsored. We do this because these types of attacks tend to be more advanced and dangerous than others, and we strongly encourage affected people to take the actions necessary to secure all of their online accounts.

War waged via technological means is certainly a legitimate concern–there have been either allegations or outright evidence that unfriendly actors such as China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and ISIL have attempted to hack American accounts.

There are some criticisms of the new alert–Tech Crunch pointed out that the phrase “state-sponsored actors” may not be in everyone’s vernacular, and could be confusing. Additionally, Maddy Crowell of Christian Science Monitor points out that we don’t know exactly how Facebook is getting the information to conclude that someone has been the victim of a state-sponsored attack. While that’s not necessarily a criticism, it is a viable inquiry about Facebook’s privacy features. 

So, essentially, you don’t want to see this notification pop up on your Facebook–it means that your information is under attack, most likely due to malware that has infected your computer. Facebook is doing right by its users by letting them know–it may be an indication of the kind of security we’ll see moving forward as cyberwar remains a serious concern.

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 Facebook to Warn Users of Potential State-Sponsored Hackers appeared first on Law Street.

Students at the University of Texas-Austin are taking public protest to a whole new, innovative level. In an attempt to protest a new law signed by Governor Gregg Abbott that allows “campus carry”–essentially people with conceal carry licenses may now carry their handguns on public university property. However, these enterprising students noticed that UT-Austin still has some obscenity rules on the books, meaning that someone could feasibly get cited for carrying around an “obscene” sex toy, such as a dildo. So, hundreds of UT-Austin students are planning on doing exactly that next August, when the law will go into effect. They’ll be walking around for the day and attending a rally, all with sex toys strapped to their backpacks.

The Facebook page for the event, started by recent UT-Austin alum Jessica Jin, explains the motivation for the event, stating:

The State of Texas has decided that it is not at all obnoxious to allow deadly concealed weapons in classrooms, however it DOES have strict rules about free sexual expression, to protect your innocence. You would receive a citation for taking a DILDO to class before you would get in trouble for taking a gun to class. Heaven forbid the penis.

The page goes on to explain the details of the forthcoming protest:

Starting on the first day of Long Session classes on August 24, 2016, we are strapping gigantic swinging dildos to our backpacks in protest of campus carry.

ANYBODY can participate in solidarity: alum, non-UT students, people outside of Texas. Come one dildo, come all dildos.

“You’re carrying a gun to class? Yeah well I’m carrying a HUGE DILDO.”

Just about as effective at protecting us from sociopathic shooters, but much safer for recreational play.

As one would assume, the entire tongue-in-cheek protest offers plenty of room for innuendo. The entire thing is being called a “strap-in” as opposed to a sit-in, and protestors are getting the word out with the accompanying hashtag #cocksnotglocks.

#CocksNotGlocks America. Sex is good. Shooting each other is not. http://t.co/ferzga2siQ

— Rachel Delmar (@RachelDelmar) October 11, 2015

‘We glorify violence in our media but vilify sex.’ #Cocksnotglocks http://t.co/mfzMQXqd3H — K Merie (@lezcakes) October 11, 2015

While the event is making waves, it’s not all in the form of good feedback. The Facebook page is also receiving a lot of negative comments from those who support the conceal carry law, and Jin has left it up to highlight the violent and upsetting rhetoric being used by those who oppose the protest. In fact, Jin has already received multiple death threats for the event. Yet, supporters keep joining the Facebook group, and Jin is being applauded by many for her creative and catchy activism.

Overall, this protest has a little bit of everything–humor, shock value, and a really good point: many UT Austin students don’t want conceal carry on their campus, especially in today’s environment of consistent mass shootings on college campuses. News of the protest has gone viral, and rightly so. Come August 24 of next year, expect to see a lot of dildos around UT-Austin’s campus.

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 UT-Austin Students to Protest New Conceal Carry Law by Carrying Sex Toys appeared first on Law Street.

Over the past couple days I’ve seen a post floating around on Facebook, Twitter, and other forms of social media. It shows a blue strip of paint on a curb and is accompanied with an explanation of something dubbed the “Safe Harbor Initiative.”

Safe Harbor Initiative – a blue line on your curb to show support to your local police #SafeHarborInitiativepic.twitter.com/3vYzByXz8G

— Caitlin Gold (@shaolinmomma) September 16, 2015

The original Facebook post, which appears to have originated from the account of a San Antonio man named Anthony Welichko, explained the purpose of the blue line, saying:

To all law enforcement who see this line, know that the residents of this home appreciate your service and dedication to keeping the peace. Know that when you enter the neighborhood and see these lines that you are not alone or without “back-up”. We do not need the media to make our voices of support for our police and emergency services heard ( though it would be nice). Lastly, if you are in my neighborhood and mean to harm a member of law enforcement, know that decision may be hazardous to you health as someone has that officers back!

Please share.

As of right now, the original post has over 80,000 shares, and will probably continue to grow.

It’s a nice gesture, in theory. But it’s also important to recognize that despite being well intentioned, this could actually end up being a really fantastically bad idea. Police officers aren’t just civilians who pick up guns and badges are suddenly equipped to deal with emergency scenarios. Instead they go through serious and intense training–much of which emphasizes the need to protect civilians and secure a particular area. Suddenly having civilians barge in as “backup” could potentially be a distraction, and way more harmful than helpful.

As Snopes, the famous online debunker of viral claims, put it:

Police departments across the United States are consistent and firm in their guidance on this matter: civilians should not intervene with crimes in progress, especially when police are already on the scene. Those who do may end up injured (potentially fatally), and untrained intervention poses severe risk to both other civilians and responding officers. This reason alone is enough to be extremely cautious about spreading the “blue strip” rumor, as the police require cooperation with the commands they’ve issued to bystanders more than they need encouragement for the public to act as crime scene cheerleaders.

The post is being lauded as a great way to show support for our nation’s police officers. But concerns that the social media campaign is misguided are incredibly valid. There’s a lot of ways to support police officers in the community, including donating time, money, or resources. But encouraging vigilante support is fundamentally a  bad idea–keep that in mind before painting a strip on your curb.

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 Viral “Safe Harbor Initiative” to Support Police Officers May Be a Bad Idea appeared first on Law Street.

Phones, MP3 players, tablets, even watches have been heralded as next big thing in technology over the past decade or so. Now, however, that title belongs to Virtual Reality. Companies ranging from Facebook to Google to Microsoft have developed or are developing headsets that allow users to finally realize the virtual reality experience. While the industry is still in its infancy, a recent surge in funding and attention suggests virtual reality break-throughs in a number of different aspects of everyday life ranging from video games to movies. Read on to learn about the next big thing starting with its origins, how it actually works, what is currently available on the virtual reality market, and what is on the horizon.

History of Virtual Reality

The concept of virtual reality extends all the way back into the 1860s, when artists created 3-D circular pictures. However, like many other inventions, the progression of virtual reality was neither linear, nor was it the result of the work of just one person.   The rise of modern virtual reality can be traced the 1950s. In 1957 a man named Martin Hellig invented something known as the Sensorama, which combined 3-D pictures with wind, sound, and various smells.

This vision was shared by technician named Douglas Engelbart who saw the potential for digital displays in the future. His vision began being realized as part of a larger effort on behalf of the United States government to design a new radar system, whose recordings would be easier for humans to understand and interpret.

This work started bearing fruit in the 1960s when another scientist, Ivan Sutherland, developed a headset to design cars and mechanical parts on a computer. Another leap forward came in the form of flight simulators, which became increasingly popular in the 1970s as they offered a safer alternative to flight training than the actual thing. Initially, the simulator started off as stitched together movies, however as the technology advanced so they began offering video simulations that placed the person in the virtual cockpit.

VR also made it to the movies, as evidenced by the increasing incorporation and even reliance on visual effects in Hollywood blockbusters. In fact the first movie to depict the notion of Virtual Reality was the original Tron, which was released in 1982. VR was utilized in the video game industry as well as in arcades and early headsets, like Sega’s model form 1993. VR was also developed to assist with various rehabilitation exercises, namely to help those dealing with PTSD.  The video below takes an in-depth look at the history of virtual reality:

How does virtual reality work?

What exactly is virtual reality? For a basic definition it can be thought of as a computer generated three-dimensional world. This world can be experienced as the real world is, through sights, smells, and sounds. The basic parameters of generating virtual reality are similar, objects have to be life sized and there has to be some tracking mechanism, so when the viewer’s perspective changes what he or she sees also changes.

A key component of this is a concept known as immersion. Immersion includes depth and breadth of information. These deal with how a user interacts with their virtual environment and how effectively that environment is presented to them. There’s also another concept known as latency, which is the lag time between when a user changes their perspective to when the new perspective is clear. If the delay is too long, the immersive experience can be ruined. One important consideration regarding virtual reality is that while many of the recent models require or offer some form of a headset, a headset is not required to experience VR.

The Virtual Reality Industry

Presently

The number and quality of VR options on the market already vary widely. On the simplistic side is Google Cardboard, literally a cardboard box and a pair of lenses, which with a smart phone placed inside can give the illusion of virtual reality. At the other end of the spectrum are headsets like those produced by Oculus Rift. Oculus was initially funded through the crowd-sourcing site Kickstarter, until it was bought by Facebook for $2 billion dollars.

The Rift however, is not alone on the high end of virtual reality. Several rival headsets are also in production including the Samsung Gear, HTC Vive, and the Sony Morpheus. Perhaps the most intriguing rival is Microsoft’s HoloLens. Unlike the other headsets, which strictly focus on generating a virtual reality, the Microsoft headset is capable of augmented reality. Augmented reality is combining elements of the virtual and real world together.

Regardless of whichever headset a user prefers, there are number of uses for virtual reality already. Aside from some of the uses mentioned earlier such as gaming, treating PTSD, and training pilots, VR is also becoming valuable in sports. In football training, players can relive past situations in the hopes of better being able to diagnose how to perform in a certain situation in the future.

VR is helping dentists train as well, by offering an environment where they can learn without causing any real or feared damage to their patients. Virtual reality is also being employed in everything from public speaking training to helping people rehabilitate from strokes.

On the Horizon

So, what is next from this technology? Like with the advent of 3D movies, one of the first impacted fields will likely be the film industry. In July of this year, Oculus signed a deal with Felix and Paul Studios to produce VR videos. There are other deals also in place for companies like Samsung and Google, who are using their own VR devices to provide customers with virtual experiences.

Along with movies, another area that is increasingly incorporating VR is the gaming industry. In fact Facebook’s Oculus Rift headset was developed originally for video games. There are also a number of competitors, including Sony and Microsoft, who are also planning to use their own headsets along with their video game systems.

Additionally, it has been suggested that VR can play more of a role in everyday pursuits. For example, imagine a courtroom setting where jurors could potentially put on one of these headsets and be transported to a crime scene so they could more clearly appreciate the facts of a case.

Conversely, while Facebook and its competitors see VR as a medium accessed through a headset that may not be its final form. In fact according to a study by Siemens Research people completing tasks guided by one of the headsets are actually less successful than those simply following a paper manual. The article suggests an alternative to the headset in general. This comes in the form of improving camera and display technology for a more immersive experience.

For any of this to be accomplished though, the major challenges of VR must still be confronted. First is solving issues with tracking–a major problem for early versions of VR is that they couldn’t accurately respond to a user. Secondly, environments themselves must also be developed that are complex enough to grab a user’s attention, but can also match what the user perceives, meaning he or she should hear wind if they see a tornado. The following video looks at virtual reality and its future:

Conclusion

VR has certainly made leaps and bounds over the decades, evolving from 3D images to headsets that can increasingly mimic natural surroundings. Nevertheless, for all the progress made, there is still much farther to go. Most of the tech heavyweights have put considerable resources behind this technology, but there are still few early returns.

Additionally, even when these headsets start hitting the market in earnest, either later this year or early next, their actual availability may still be limited to a number of factors, such as cost. The Oculus headset for example, is projected to run for as much as $1500 dollars. Additionally, precisely how VR will be used remains a mystery. While there is talk of it infiltrating all corners of modern life, the initial efforts seem limited to video games, videos, and to enthusiasts. Even the idea of a headset is not set is stone, as other traditional uses such as screens present strong alternatives.  Virtual reality may one day be the end all, be all of technology. For now though, all most people can do is sit back, relax and imagine a world where VR reigns supreme.

Resources

How Stuff Works: How Virtual Reality Works

The Week: 6 Innovative Uses for Virtual Reality

Tom’s Hardware: The Past, Present and Future of VR and AR

University of Illinois: Virtual Reality History

CNET: Google Cardboard Reviewed

Wareable: The Best VR Headsets

Read Write: Virtual Reality Films Could Put the Whole Industry in the Spotlight

Game Rant: Virtual Reality in Gaming

Forbes: No More Headgames

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Making Reality Virtual: The Rising Tide of Virtual Reality appeared first on Law Street.

Imagine this: you hire a contractor to install new hardwood floors. After the job is done, you discover that the floors weren’t built to code, multiple doors no longer fully open, and boot prints were visible in the varnish. So, you go on Yelp and submit a scathing review, “Absolutely horrible experience… The quality of the work is deplorable. Be warned!” Six months later, the company sues you for civil theft, intentional interference, and defamation, claiming that your online reviews had caused it to lose $625,000 worth of business, or $250,000 in profits; The company demands $125,000 in compensation. $60,000 in legal fees later, you settle for $15,000.

Unfortunately, this story is not a mere hypothetical. This is the story of Matthew White, a Denver-area resident who has become one of countless victims of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP). In today’s online environment, a few bad reviews on Yelp can derail a fledgling company. SLAPP is the term used to describe legal claims made with the intention of silencing critics, despite having little chance of prevailing in court.

In response, consumer, media, and activist groups have lobbied for anti-SLAPP laws, and 28 states and Washington D.C. have passed laws intended to discourage SLAPP suits. There is no federal law yet, however.

Yelp, the $3 billion San Francisco company that publishes crowd-sourced reviews about local businesses, opened a political office in Washington last year to push for anti-SLAPP laws. In May, the Free Speech Act was introduced to a Congressional committee. According to Laurent Crenshaw, who handles national policy for Yelp, “This issue is really one that hits close to the heart for Yelp… The concern is that these types of lawsuits, even if not incredibly common, will have a chilling effect on people’s engagement online.”

The Free Speech Act aims to curb SLAPP suits by requiring a plaintiff in a speech-related case pertaining to matters of public concern to prove that he is likely to prevail. If he is unable to, the case would be automatically dismissed “with prejudice,” allowing the defendant to recover legal fees.

Yelp has built an impressive anti-SLAPP coalition, with endorsements from two major tech industry groups, the Internet Association and the Consumer Electronics Association, and has consulted with the likes of Facebook and Google. “Yelp’s involvement has been huge… It has really been tremendous for the cause” said Evan Mascagni, policy director for the Public Participation Project, a coalition pushing for anti-SLAPP laws.

Still, the road to a federal anti-SLAPP law will be long and arduous. Government transparency website GovTrack.us gives the Free Speech Act a 13 percent chance of being enacted, and accusations against Yelp claiming that the website solicited money for removing negative comments certainly does not help. Yelp is going to need to step up its game if it wants users to leave unfettered reviews without the fear of losing thousands in SLAPP lawsuits.

Hyunjae Ham

Hyunjae Ham is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2015 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Hyunjae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Yelp Pushes for Anti-SLAPP Legislation appeared first on Law Street.

Doctors need the proper resources to be able to treat their patients. But a new viral Facebook page started in Egypt illustrates that doctors and dentists in that country don’t necessarily have access to what they need. The page is shocking to many, as photos of multiple hospitals in Cairo, Egypt have been shared illustrating that they are unequipped and unsanitary for doctors to properly operate in.

On Saturday Egypt’s Prime Minister, Ibrahim Mahlab, surprised the National Heart Institute in Cairo with a visit. He was accompanied by TV cameras that showed him shouting at one hospital employee as he began to walk through the facility. Mahlab was truly surprised at the facility’s lack of medical equipment and the mistreatment of patients and ordered some of the facility’s top officials to be fired.

Egyptian doctors felt degraded and wrongly blamed for the poor state of health services and took  to social media to show people the true conditions in which they have to work. A Facebook page–the title translates in English to “So He is Not Surprised if He Comes”–was created. There are pictures of several of Egypt’s hospitals with snakes, cats, and rats roaming around inside and even on patients’ beds. The pictures also show patients lying on the floor for treatments, filthy bathrooms, broken equipment, and overcrowded rooms. Moreover, the Egyptian Centre for Economic and Social Rights (ECESR) has stated that only 33 beds are available for every 10,000 citizens in Cairo’s hospitals. The page reached over 100,000 likes within just a few hours and quickly went viral.

Can’t get over how depressed i feel from the moment i saw those photos of hospitals in Egypt ! God please take me away from all this mess !

— Lobna Ehab (@lobna_ehabb) June 9, 2015

 

Poor conditions of #Egypt‘s hospitals highlighted by humiliated health employees http://t.co/X2U0ZXHWsj pic.twitter.com/HD3xcgEmSE

— DAILY SABAH (@DailySabah) June 10, 2015

#Egypt hospitals pushed FB users to launch a campaign pointing out the severe neglection at government hospitals. pic.twitter.com/59X55OaSj1

— MMisrNetwork English (@MMisrNetwork_En) June 10, 2015

Following the Prime Minister’s visit, the military announced it would work to renovate the Heart Institute’s clinics, reception areas, and emergency rooms. Doctors in Egypt have held several strikes within the past few years demanding an increase in the state budget devoted to healthcare, but this request has been frequently ignored. Groups such as the Nursing Rebel Movement advocate for change in this regard; one of their members explained his frustrations with the current system:

There is total negligence to nursing centres in provinces, and whenever we voice our concerns to the syndicate, they suggest for us to join the syndicate instead of identifying a clear plan to solve the problem [from] its roots.

The Egyptian government is reportedly negotiating with the World Bank to receive a new loan of $300 million to support healthcare in government hospitals. This money would go toward things like new medical supplies.

Seeing the conditions of these hospitals were truly disturbing. How can people get treatments for their illnesses when they are surrounded by stray animals and filth? Egyptian doctors are trying to raise awareness and get help to improve healthcare and the circumstances in which they are being forced to work. Hopefully these pictures will lead to serious changes for the hospitals.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Sad State of Egypt’s Hospitals: Shocking Pictures Released appeared first on Law Street.

Should all online threats lead to time in prison? According to the Supreme Court, simply reporting a threat posted by someone on the internet is no longer enough to put them in jail, as the Supreme Court just overturned the 2011 conviction of Anthony Elonis. A Pennsylvania native, Elonis was sentenced to jail after posting multiple threats toward his wife, co-workers, and elementary schools in the form of lyrics on Facebook. He claimed to use these posts as therapeutic methods to cope with his depression. However, due to their violent nature, he was convicted for violating a federal threat statute. Elonis appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court, arguing that the government should have been required to prove he truly had an intent to act on these threats before sentencing him to a 44 month term in jail. That argument convinced the Supreme Court–but what does it mean for online communication moving forward?

With this ruling, the Supreme Court says courts must consider the defendant’s state of mind and whether he intended to actually do wrong. This simply means that there must be some proof that the defendant intended to follow through on what he was posting. The court gave a 7-2 opinion but did not set a clear standard for what constitutes this intent to act out these threats. There are questions of whether this will potentially create uncertainties during future trials. In fact, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. believe that this opinion is more confusing than enlightening. Thomas wrote, “This failure to decide throws everyone from appellate judges to everyday Facebook users into a state of uncertainty.”

This is a very tricky case with two sides to it. Something that is posted online may very well be taken out of context, but there is also a good chance that someone who has intent to cause harm to others will not be seen as guilty in a courtroom due to the lack of proof. Michele M. Garcia, director of the Stalker Resource Center, stated,

This decision fails to recognize that victims of stalking experience fear regardless of the offender’s intent. If what constitutes a threat is not clearly defined, our concern is that this ruling provides enormous space for stalkers and abusers to act.

Mai Fernandez, executive director of the National Center for Victims of Crime, described the internet as “the crime scene of the 21st century. Kim Gandy, president of the National Network to End Domestic Violence, stated,

Threats play a central role in domestic abuse and is a core tactic that many abusers employ, regardless of whether the abuser intended to threaten or only intended to vent or to make a joke.

I can’t help but wonder if this decision will help people who do plan to harm others avoid prison?  There is a big concern that this will let internet abusers get around the law by writing hateful posts that “technically” are not threats but are still frightening to others. This decision may make it much more difficult to prosecute those whose posts are a precursor to violence that is going to take place. Only time will tell if this decision by the Supreme Court was beneficial or harmful for those dealing with internet threats.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Anthony Elonis’s Conviction Overturned: Are Online Threats Now Fair Game? appeared first on Law Street.

The 2015 Tribeca Film Festival kicks off its 14^th year of programming this week. Since its inception, the Festival has enabled directors and filmmakers from all over the world to showcase their independent movies and new projects.

Some of those projects include interactive elements. The Tribeca Film Festival’s Storyscapes program features five immersive projects vying for the 2015 Storyscapes Award. Two of the projects are particularly concerned with one overarching theme—access to personal data.

Is privacy a luxury in the age of the Internet? Corporations such as Google and Facebook often track consumers’ online behavior without their express consent. The data is collected and used to create specifically targeted advertisements under the guise of “personalization.” Businesses aggregate millions of dollars worth of information for free; they never compensate consumers for the info they provide.

Here’s a very mild example: Teen girl posts online status about coffee. Teen girl gets Facebook ads exclusively for Starbucks. Teen girl looks at ad, is reminded of the company, and gets her afternoon Frappucino. (Starbucks +1, Teen girl -$3.95)

The average Joe and/or suburban coffee addict can’t sue big companies for using their data because, usually, people sign contracts that they never read. (Case in point: when’s the last time you updated Flash? Did you read all the licensing copy before you clicked “I Agree” and continued? Didn’t think so.) In the fine print of many software or program updates, in extremely bombastic and verbose legalese, is a section that states that you allow the program to use any and all of your information free of charge if you sign on the dotted line.

Let’s take a look at the two Tribeca Storyscapes projects that address the commodification of personal information.

DO NOT TRACK

“Do Not Track” is a personalized documentary program that discusses the dangers of having an increasingly personalized online experience. If users are only shown ads that are relevant to them, will that make them intolerant of other advertising…or even other people?

Consumers have become accustomed to serving up their information online—it’s become a nasty little modern habit rather than a cultural annoyance. People have embraced the companies that use data mining to sell products…where’s the outrage? Perhaps you’ll find it at the live installation.

Check out dates/times to visit the installation here.

KAREN

The considerably less political (but just as provocative) project “Karen,” has been brought to Tribeca by Blast Theory, developed in partnership with National Theatre Wales. Karen is a life coach app who asks the user questions to determine his psychological profile. Blast Theory’s website claims that Karen “starts to identify things she shouldn’t know.” In trying to create a thrilling and personal experience, the creators of Karen looked into different methods of information aggregation.

We became fascinated with big data, and particularly how governments and large companies such as Facebook are collecting data on us secretly and using it without our consent.

Karen’s evaluation of your personality may reveal unsettling details about your cyber security. Want to hear Karen for yourself? Schedule your appointment here. (Bonus points if you recognize the performer who plays Karen, actress Claire Cage, from the British TV series Coronation Street.)

Wonder how much public information you can find about yourself online? Try conducting a search in a brand new window. Open Google Chrome, click File, and then select New Incognito Window. If you use this option, your new search won’t be tainted by your past search history. Happy Googling!

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tribeca Film Festival Storyscapes Examine Big Data & Confidentiality appeared first on Law Street.

Divorce can be messy, especially when one spouse goes AWOL before any papers can be officially served. However, handing out those divorce papers may have just gotten a lot easier with the help of a landmark ruling that is allowing one woman to serve her husband divorce papers over Facebook.

Cold blooded! RT “@ChrisWragge: Using @Facebook to serve DIVORCE papers? #ouch #unfriended pic.twitter.com/TMEvOJgDKU”

— Vanessa Borge (@VanessaBorge) April 6, 2015

According to the New York Daily News, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Matthew Cooper is allowing a nurse named Ellanora Baidoo to serve her elusive husband, Victor Sena Blood-Dzraku, with divorce papers via a Facebook message sent by her lawyer. Judge Cooper wrote:

[Baidoo] is granted permission serve defendant with the divorce summons using a private message through Facebook. This transmittal shall be repeated by plaintiff’s attorney to defendant once a week for three consecutive weeks or until acknowledged.

The ruling indicates that Baidoo resorted to using the social networking site after her husband suddenly became unable to be reached except by phone and Facebook. Judge Cooper stated:

The last address plaintiff has for defendant is an apartment that he vacated in 2011. Baidoo has spoken with defendant by telephone on occasion and he has told her that he has no fixed address and no place of employment. He has also refused to make himself available to be served with divorce papers…The post office has no forwarding address for him, there is no billing address linked to his prepaid cell phone, and the Department of Motor Vehicles has no record of him.

It’s behavior like Blood-Dzraku’s that have led popular television shows to depict the act of getting “served” as a complicated process involving individuals posing as some type of delivery person or messenger in order to avoid detection. This art of deception may have something to do with the archaic rule under which the legal system has required the majority of individuals to receive legal summons by personal service.

Last year a judge in New York made a ground-breaking ruling that papers could be served via Facebook. This case opened the door for plaintiffs like Baidoo, who are struggling to locate the defendant they wish to serve, to use the social networking site as a legal distribution tool. In a world where grocery shopping, bill paying and even dating can all be done online, it makes sense to add serving legal papers to the list. This new medium might become a face-saving tool for scorned lovers 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 New York Woman Can Serve Husband Divorce Papers Via Facebook appeared first on Law Street.

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is well known for its brutality and fighting prowess. However, to create a caliphate and establish its own vision of Islam, ISIS leaders have done more than win battles and intimidate enemies. Taking a page from the Arab Spring, the group has adopted a very modern approach to attracting its followers and spreading its message. Read on to learn about ISIS’ use of social media and the results of its campaigns.

Read more: Understanding ISIS’ Radical Apocalyptic Vision

ISIS and Social Media

The use of media by terrorist groups and even Al Qaeda, ISIS’ precursor in some ways, is not new. Under ISIS however, a transformation has begun. It started slowly–when ISIS was first on the rise it engaged mostly in simple, private media communications among its own members or dissidents. But with the fall of Mosul in June 2014, the group finally had its stage and was ready to broadcast to the world audience. Far from the grainy videos of Osama Bin Laden wandering around in the mountains, ISIS began live tweeting its actions and posting statuses on Facebook. On Twitter especially the group has been successful in delivering its message by commandeering popular hashtags.

ISIS Fighters have also taken selfies next to victims or in occupied areas in attempts to show how great life is under the aspiring caliphate. ISIS has even engaged in unsolicited product placement, flashing images of Nutella and Call of Duty in videos and other forms of media. Perhaps most importantly to its Western audience, it started attracting an English-speaking membership that could communicate directly to the English-speaking world. Perhaps no better example exists than the man known as “Jihadi John.” Born Mohammed Emwazi, he graduated with a degree in computer science from the University of Westminster, England. Despite his British upbringing, in 2013 he left Britain for Syria. Emwazi is by now a familiar figure, as he has been involved in some high-profile executions of non-Muslims.

ISIS has even utilized less popular forms of social media. For example, it’s used PalTalk, a video chatroom where radical clerics have convened to praise ISIS and its leadership. The group created an Android App called Fajer Al Bashayer (Dawn of the Good Omens) that provides users with up-to-the-minute updates on ISIS’ movements. The app also includes software that appropriates the Twitter accounts of the downloaders and uses them to further propagate the group’s ideology. ISIS even has its own magazine, Dabiq, which combines graphic insights into violence perpetrated by the group with interviews of its members, resembling a sort of gossip magazine. The video below details how ISIS has been using social media to its advantage.

Influence of the Arab Spring

How did ISIS end up turning to social media to further its cause? Well, it may have taken some inspiration from the Arab Spring. In 2011, one of the catalysts that fueled the Arab Spring movement was the use of social media to coordinate gatherings and denounce authoritarian regimes. While this has been employed for similar causes before, the scope in this case was revolutionary and transformative.

Various Middle Eastern leaders took notice and began to censor social media access they deemed dangerous. This may have had the negative consequences of chasing off progressive voices who lost faith in social media as a means of communication. But, it gave groups like ISIS ideas about powerful ways to attract members and money. The accompanying video explains the way social media has been used from Arab Spring to ISIS.

Have ISIS’ social media campaigns been successful?

How successful has the group been in attracting new fighters and inflows of capital? These results can be broken up into two categories: those who have pledged direct support to the group and the potential lone wolves it has inspired at home in Western nations.

Direct Supporters of ISIS

The first group includes people who have actually moved to ISIS-controlled areas. Many of them, particularly from the West, are drawn by the notion of a Muslim paradise. Often they feel out of place in Western culture. Many are young and eager to find a place where they can be accepted.

The message seems to be finding a plentiful breeding ground too, as thousands of Westerners, including teenagers, have already gone to the Middle East to fight for ISIS. Evidence of this startling trend can be found all over the West. In late 2014, there were three sisters from Colorado who were stopped in Germany as they were trying to fly to ISIS-controlled territory. More recently, the news has focused on three teenage British girls who are believed to have left their homes to join ISIS.

While ISIS is sinister in every way, its recruitment of girls and young women is especially so. Preying upon feelings of alienation and offering acceptance, ISIS has lured many women from Western nations to its cause. While many of these girls may dream of aiding a movement and finding a soulmate, they often experience something much worse. Their fates can include rape, forced marriages, and even enslavement at the hands of their alleged liberators.

How exactly is ISIS seducing these women and its other alienated recruits? The answer to that question comes in two parts. First, ISIS tries to attract attention and create a bigger name for itself. The end goal here is to project its strength and its ability to stand up to entrenched powers such as the United States. This strategy can speak particularly to people who feel victimized by the dominant cultures in the West.

Secondly the group has made a series of videos depicting how great life is under ISIS. These include highlighting the group’s charity  work, its efforts at establishing an appropriate Muslim state, and choreographed scenes of violence to appeal to viewers. ISIS also has responders who will directly engage Westerners who feel an inclination to join ISIS. These responders act as recruiters, echoing the themes of the videos that show the greatness of life under ISIS and the satisfaction women and others can gain living in an ISIS sphere.

The group is also getting some financial support online. ISIS has used Twitter as a place to receive donations along with recruits, despite the best efforts of the US government.

Lastly the group has been able to garner support and allegiance from other like-minded terrorist organizations through social media. Recently, the infamous Nigerian terrorist group, Boko Haram, pledged its support for ISIS and has even begun adopting some of its tactics for publication and recruitment.

Read More: Boko Haram: How Can Nigeria Stop the Terror?

Lone Wolves

Along with calling for would-be jihadis to come join the cause in Iraq and Syria or to provide donations, ISIS has also employed another tactic. It’s used social media campaigns recorded in French and subtitled in English to encourage radical action in Western countries. Instead of encouraging dissatisfied men and woman in these areas to come join the war in the Middle East, it calls for them to make war against their own governments at home. In this regard there also seems to be some examples of success on ISIS’ part. The most notorious so far is the attack on the magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris and the killing of hostages a few days later in a kosher deli. These, along with subsequent attacks on police officers patrolling the city, have been attributed to ISIS-inspired terrorists, although exact motives remain uncertain. The video below depicts ISIS’ efforts to arouse lone wolves in the West.

Fighting Back

While ISIS has shown a mastery of modern day social networks, Western forces are also fighting back. The United States has already launched a major social media offensive, dedicating a contingent of manpower and materials to fighting ISIS propaganda online. The British have taken a similar approach and adopted the American model for its own program. Both countries are also pressuring companies such as Twitter and YouTube to clean up their sites and rid them of ISIS propaganda.

It is far from clear how effective these efforts have been. Many experts caution against ridding the web entirely of ISIS and its supporters as their posts can be valuable sources of information on the group. Additionally, while the U.S. and British governments are launching their own offensives against ISIS, many people remain skeptical about how effective government-run social media can be. Lastly there are strategic concerns to be considered. While to most people ISIS comes off as repulsive, a mystique could be created about the group by denying it the opportunity to speak, which could further improve recruiting.

Conclusion

ISIS’ use and mastery of social media is intriguing. The fact that it uses sites such as Twitter or Facebook seems almost unbelievable, and stands in direct contrast to common assumptions about the backward nature of terrorist organizations. Additionally, the efforts in response by the United States and its allies also clearly show that the nature of warfare has rapidly changed in the social media age.

Despite the seemingly harmless means by which it communicates and disseminates its messages, ISIS remains a ruthless terrorist organization. It is also clear however, that it is successful both on the battlefield and on the internet. The next step for the West is how to counter ISIS’ message while pushing  back in Iraq and Syria. Unfortunately the military part will likely be the easier path, even as debate over putting boots on the ground proofs devisive. There’s a new battle being fought, but this time, it’s on our computers.

Resources

Primary

Anti-Defamation League: Hashtag Terror

Additional

Independent: Mohammed Emwazi

CNN: What is ISIS’ Appeal to Young People?

CBS News: ISIS Message Resonating With Young People From U.S., West

U.S. News & World Report: ISIS Ability to Recruit Women Baffles West, Strengthens Cause

Hill: ISIS Rakes in Donations on Twitter

Newsmax: Tell ISIS Aligned Groups They Are Targets

Fox News: “What Are You Waiting For?”

Daily Beast: Can the West Beat ISIS on the Web?

Daily Beast: ISIS is Using Social Media to Reach You, Its New Audience

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ISIS and the Terrorist Social Network appeared first on Law Street.

It’s really, really cold out. I’m a New Englander who grew up with lots of snow and ice every winter, and I pride myself on my ability to stand up to even the most frigid temperatures. That being said, here in D.C. it was in the single digits when I walked to work this morning, and I’m really not okay with that. Luckily, a Kentucky town by the name of Harlan City thinks it has tracked down the culprit. It’s not climate change though, or a polar vortex. It’s Queen Elsa from the recent Disney blockbuster “Frozen.” In fact, Harlan City Police are so sure that she’s the one to blame that they’ve issued a “warrant” for her arrest. They’re taking the concept of a “cold spell” quite literally.

Anna is worried.

For those of you who somehow escaped 2013 without seeing the movie, it’s a story about two sisters from a fictional kingdom called Arendelle, most likely located somewhere in Northern Europe. The older sister, Elsa, has a variety of cold-related powers, including being able to inflict a deep freeze on her entire kingdom when she gets a little overwhelmed. Although everything ends up alright in the movie, the people of Arendelle certainly have an chilly few days while Elsa’s sister Anna works to reverse the cold snap.

The newest “Frozen” news came from Harlan City Police’s Facebook page, where they posted an “arrest warrant” for Queen Elsa of Arendelle. They described the “suspect” as follows:

Suspect is a blonde female last seen wearing a long blue dress and is known to burst into song ‘Let it Go!’ As you can see by the weather she is very dangerous. Do not attempt to apprehend her alone.

Harlan is a tiny city, with less than 2000 people. Apparently the police are right, too, it’s been getting very cold there; it was in the single digits yesterday.

The police are taking all the attention over their post in good stride. After the original post announcing the arrest warrant pretty much went viral, the department posted a follow up on its Facebook page, saying:

Wow. We were just having a little fun and didn’t expect this! It has been fun and we had to have a little fun after this week’s weather. But as a reminder, do take the precautions you need to keep you, your friends, family, neighbors and pets safe during the snow queen’s mad spell.

Frozen” was a huge phenomenon, and the hubbub still hasn’t died down. Actually, I’m sure some parents would totally support Elsa getting arrested just so they wouldn’t have to hear the song “Let it Go” ever again. Like this guy, for example, who is clearly pretty tired of the film:

Either way, this was definitely all in good fun, and a cute way for Harlan City Police Department to remind everyone to bundle up this winter. In the meantime:

Stay warm, everyone!

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 Kentucky Town Issues Arrest Warrant for Elsa from “Frozen” appeared first on Law Street.

I have a love-hate relationship with texting. Yes it’s quick and easy, but my sarcastic humor sometimes gets lost in translation. At least it used to, until I added the emoji keyboard to my messages. These cartoonish emoticons opened up a whole new world for me, one where I didn’t have to add “lol” to the end of every message to make it explicitly clear that I was joking. However, some of these emojis–like the gun, dead person, and police officer–don’t have police laughing, especially when used in a way that appears threatening.

Police are calling these emoji death threats, and they’re taking these pictures just as seriously as they would take words.

Take the case of 17-year-old Osiris Aristy from Bushwick, Brooklyn who was arrested for making terrorist threats by NYPD officers after posting images of himself with a gun and ammunition on his Facebook with posts like “feel like katxhin a body right now” and “N***a run up on me, he gunna get blown down,” as well as other horribly spelled posts. The posts featured gun emojis next to a police officer emoji.

Just by looking at Aristy’s Facebook page, it’s clear he has a propensity towards posting emoji-laden updates. (He does not, apparently, have a habit of wearing shirts if the photo of him in the tweet below is any indication.)

“Osiris Aristy, 17, was arrested for Facebook posts” http://t.co/6X4MtWf4qF Great name, stupid kid – too bad #tcot#criming

— Dennis Price (@JustAHobbit) January 24, 2015

During the arrest, police found his weapon and 21 neatly packaged baggies of marijuana in his home. Aristy is currently held on a $150,000 bail and is due to appear in court next Friday.

What many naive teens may not realize is that police officers routinely check social media accounts for suspicious behavior. That’s exactly how Aristy, a repeat offender with past charges for criminal possession of a weapon, robbery and assault, was caught in the first place.

Police are taking these cartooned threats seriously because they have to. Just a couple weeks ago I wrote about Ismaaiyl Brinsley, a man who reportedly used the traffic app Waze to gun down NYPD officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu. Before the murders, Brinsley posted his plans to put “wings on pigs” next to gun emojis and #shootthepolice on his Instagram account. Police were notified of the threatening posts but it was already too late.

Freelance journalist Fletcher Babb also found himself on the other end of an emoji death threat, while researching Instagram’s black market culture for a piece he was writing. Babb discovered an Atlanta-based rapper who appeared to be selling a drug-laced syrup called “lean” through the social network. Babb posed as a potential customer, messaging back and forth with the rapper but never went through with purchasing any illegal drugs.

The rapper wasn’t pleased when he didn’t complete the sale and retaliated by posting on his Instagram a screenshot of Babb’s still-public Instagram account with a dead smiley face and gun emoji followed by the words “dude and his boys took the money off the green dot before they got the pints because I told them when it touch town I’ll take the money off then…”

According to Mashable, Babb reported the threatening post to Instagram, but the company never removed it. The dealer’s account was quickly deleted a couple days after the threat, which is apparently a common practice among drug dealers to avoid detection. Justin Patchin, Ph.D., a professor of criminal justice at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire and co-director of the Cyberbullying Research Center told Mashable:

When law enforcement investigates, they have to determine whether a person would have been reasonably threatened.

Intimidating or threatening imagery delivered via emoji, especially if it has been sustained over time or if the threats are coupled with some physical action, could warrant a criminal case on the grounds of assault or stalking. It could also be tried under civil or tort law as a case of defamation or an intentional wrong resulting in harm.

The penalties for such charges vary from state to state, ranging from a short jail sentence to a heavy fine. Keeping that in mind, emoji users should start to think twice before using a gun emoji, even if it is meant to be a joke. Police can consider it like it’s the real thing, and that perception could get you in some serious trouble.

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 NYPD Arrests Teenager for Threats Made Using Emojis appeared first on Law Street.

Hello, Monday, we meet again. As you trudge into a new work week, we’ve got you covered with stories you might have missed last week. Anneliese Mahoney topped the list with all three of the week’s top stories. Number one implores you to stop posting the useless copyright status to your Facebook account — seriously, it’s a waste of your time. Number two recounts Sarah Palin’s latest controversy, this time with PETA over a picture she sent out to her social media followers; and number three is a look at the bumpy legal road ahead for Uber. ICYMI, check out the best of the week from Law Street.

#1 Please Stop Posting the Facebook Copyright Status

Every now and then Facebook updates its policies. And immediately after that, I notice a series of statuses from my “friends” on Facebook. It’s a sort of notice alerting readers to the fact that the poster believes they have copyright over their own content. There are sometimes slight variations in wording, but that’s pretty much what these statuses look like every time. I’ve seen so many in my news feed over the last week that I thought it was time for an important PSA. This status means nothing. Read full article here.

#2 Sarah Palin vs. PETA: Welcome to the Overreaction Olympics

Sarah Palin has a unique place in my heart–after all, there are very few people who I can count on to continually surprise me with the weird scandals they manage to get themselves involved in. But she may have just outdone herself. The most recent Palin scandal started with a photo she posted to Facebook on New Years Day. Read full article here.

#3 Uber Will Have a Rough Ride in 2015

Uber is a great way to get from point A to point B, but the company may have a rocky road ahead of it in 2015. There are a lot of lawsuits pending against the ridesharing company, and while none of them seem that damaging, it does raise a question: why is Uber so prone to lawsuits? Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been a busy year, with a lot of technology developments, scandals, and big stories. Read on to check out the top 15 tech stories of 2014.

1. New York Court OKs Revenge Porn; Will the Legislature Act?

Revenge porn was one of the hottest legal topics of 2014. “Revenge porn” most frequently occurs when a person posts nude photographs of an ex-lover on the internet as a way to embarrass or degrade the ex. The photographs are often exchanged willingly, but after the relationship goes sour, a jilted ex may post the pictures in a public forum. The practice disproportionately targets women, and can truly damage someone’s life. In March, a New York court dismissed a revenge porn case, signaling that it may have been time for the legislature to step in.

2. The Dark Side of Snapchat Lands the Company in Hot Water

Snapchat, the messaging service that claims data instantly disappears upon receipt, found itself in hot water with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) based on violations of the company’s own privacy and security policies in May. The FTC complaint mainly focused on accusations that Snapchat misled their customers by promising certain security and privacy features. Snapchat eventually settled the FTC case, but remains on probation and will require monitoring.

3. Technology and the Bullying Epidemic: The Case of Yik Yak

Between laptops, cellphones, tablets, and iPads, students have more access to technology than ever before. This comes with numerous benefits — but it also comes with a lot of responsibility. One app that took the college and high school technology scene by storm this year was Yik Yak, which allows users to post anonymously to a regional “virtual bulletin board.” While the app was invented in presumably good fun, there are concerns that the anonymity enables cyberbullies.

4. New Orleans Police Attempt to Regain Public Trust by Wearing Patrol Cameras

The Department of Justice investigation into the New Orleans Police Department following Hurricane Katrina resulted in sweeping reforms of the department, including the requirement that patrol officers wear body cameras in an effort to regain trust of the citizens. They hope to guarantee police accountability, as well as provide a resource for officers when they write their reports and testify. While how exactly to deal with implementing police cameras remains a question, it will be interesting to see what happens in New Orleans as a result.

5. Internet Fast Lanes Will Change How You Use the Web

Another hot tech topic this year was the concept of “net neutrality.” There’s been a lot of back and forth, and each major player–the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and our politicians, such as President Barack Obama, have their own takes. The legality of fast lanes is a tricky question–one that the FCC had to contend with this year.

6. Massive Celebrity Nude Photo Leak is Major Privacy Breach

Late this summer, a major leak of female celebrities’ nude photos hit the web. It was dubbed the “Fappening”–a form of crude wordplay. It included superstars such as Jennifer Lawrence, Ariana Grande, Rihanna, and Kate Upton. While some celebrities denied the validity of the photos and others embarked on conversations with the public, the whole scandal said a lot about the potentially false security of the internet, as well as the degrading way in which women are often treated on the web.

7. The Alibaba IPO: What Does Going Public Mean?

Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba decided to go public this fall, and had the largest Initial Public Offering (IPO) in history. Alibaba’s success raised a lot of questions about what IPOs are, how they work, and what the various advantages and disadvantages are for companies. Alibaba’s extreme success is a sign that the stock market remained strong in 2014.

8. #GamerGate Takes Misogyny to a Whole New Level

Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu, feminist cultural critic and video game developer, respectively, are two among a community of feminist gaming figures. They spoke out against misogyny and sexism in the gaming industry, and received threats, hatred, and truly vile responses. Sarkeesian had to cancel speaking appearances, and Wu was actually forced out of her home when her personal address was revealed. Sarkeesian and Wu were just a few of the players attacked in the #GamerGate trend that raged on late this fall.

9. AirBnB Winning Over San Francisco, With Some Rules

Airbnb is an innovative service for modern travel. It focuses heavily on community, flexibility, and the power of the internet. For many travelers, it’s been a great new tool. But not all governments feel the same way. There was a big debate this year in San Francisco, Airbnb’s home, over whether or not to pass a bill that would legalize the room-sharing network, with some caveats. It eventually passed, meaning that Airbnb will continue to operate in San Fran.

10. Privacy Board Calls NSA Eavesdropping Illegal 

One name has been making headlines around the country since June 2013. There have been many terms used to describe him, whether you see him as a traitor or a patriot, Edward Snowden has become a well known character within the United States. However, whether or not Snowden’s actions were legal is a completely different question.

11. Rideshare Infighting: Lyft Sues Uber Executive

Ridesharing rivals Lyft and Uber are going at in the courtroom as Lyft sues a former employee, now a current Uber exec, for stealing proprietary information. As the two leading companies in ridesharing–although Uber is quite a bit ahead of Lyft–there’s plenty of reason for the two to be competitive. The case in question regarded proprietary information that former Lyft executive Tyler VanderZaden may have taken with him when he moved from Lyft to Uber.

12. Bitcoin: What’s Next?

Bitcoin has grown into a major player in techno-currency, but what’s up next for the digital coin? Bitcoin is still trying to drag itself away from the perception that it’s used exclusively for criminal activities, and firmly establish a role in the mainstream. Regulations are also slowly starting to be put in place–it will be interesting to see Bitcoin’s future.

13. KKK vs. Anonymous: Cyberwar Declared over Ferguson Protests

The group of unnamed “hacktivists” Anonymous and the Ku Klux Klan have engaged in an apparent all-out cyber war over the events in Ferguson, Missouri. Anonymous was trying to prevent the KKK’s involvement in Ferguson-inspired protests, and took over many of the KKK’s social media accounts. The KKK responded with threats, and tensions continued to run high in Ferguson.

14. Aereo: The Martyr Files for Bankruptcy

Aereo, once hailed as a game-changer in the cable industry,  filed for bankruptcy. Despite valiant efforts, Aereo just could not overcome the legal and regulatory opposition that came after the Supreme Court decided Aereo’s business model was illegally violating copyright. Despite high hopes for the innovative idea, Aereo is now essentially dead in the water.

15. Please Stop Posting the Facebook Copyright Status

You know that Facebook copyright declaration you just posted? It’s useless. Seriously, it’s time to stop posting it. Every so often Facebook changes their terms and policies, and a bunch of people post a weird, incorrect disclaimer stating that they have copyright over their own content. The problem is that the notice does nothing, except confuse your Facebook friends who see 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 ICYMI: Top 15 Technology Stories of 2014 appeared first on Law Street.

Freedom of speech is one of our rights in the United States, and it is guaranteed by the First Amendment. So it is hard to believe that something like social media that a majority of us use every day, could be the exception to the rule that we can say what we want to say without fear of backlash. In general, there are exceptions that prevent hate speech, defamation, and threats. Some of these aren’t legal, just frowned upon by the society at large, while others can get someone in trouble. Social media sites allow for the spread of all types of speech, from spoken word pieces on sites like YouTube, to shorter phrases said in 140 characters on Twitter. The publication of negative speech has some positive and negative consequences. We’ve seen them play out in the last few years with events in Ferguson, the Occupy Wall Street movement, and every major election.

It is difficult, however, to choose which pieces of speech are worthy of protection from action and which can be used against someone in legal proceedings. Not everything said on social media can be taken at face value. What one person deems as offensive and disturbing may incite a different emotion in another person. Striking a balance between unfiltered free speech, political correctness, and censorship is difficult. Censoring what is allowed on social media may seem like it goes against our Constitutional Rights, but allowing a free-for-all on speech can lead to threats, bullying, and hate speech.

Social Media’s Impact

Speech is not, nor has it ever been, a completely good vs. evil situation. There is so much more behind a string of text than just the literal meaning of the words. This is what makes it so difficult to decide who and what has a right to be on social media sites like Twitter, Facebook, and Tumblr. Some countries, like North Korea, Iran, China, Pakistan, and Turkey, have completely blocked their citizens’ access to social media sites as a way to ward off the problem. They operate under the theory that if you take away the cause, you won’t have to worry about it.

Many websites and apps do have “report” features so that a user can alert the webmasters that something has gone wrong. This begs the question, if someone says something terrible on social media, and it is reported but nothing happens, who is responsible for the fall out? It’s an increasingly important topic across the world; this isn’t just limited to the United States.

City of Ontario, California, et al v. Quon, et al

In 2009, the Supreme Court of California heard a case that discussed the rights to free speech in text messaging between employees. Employees of the City of Ontario, California filed a claim in district court against the police department, city, chief of police, and an internal affairs officer. They believed that their Fourth Amendment rights were violated when their text messages on city-issued pagers were reviewed. The city did not have a text-messaging policy; however, it did have a general “Computer Usage, Internet, and E-mail” policy. Those employees felt as if that particular section did not cover their pagers. The court held that the city employees had a right to privacy in their text messages because there was no specific language about text messaging in the city’s policy.

This, along with several other cases about Cloud privacy has prompted many to ask the question: are Supreme Court justices too out of the loop to fully understand the severity of the problem? Most–though admittedly not all–Justices don’t interact with social media to a great extent. Perhaps one or two may have a Twitter account, but those are often controlled by members of their team. President Obama, who is largely considered more modern with technology, is the first sitting President to have a Twitter account, but there are questions about just who actually runs it.

 Anthony Elonis v. United States

This case concerns a Pennsylvania man, Anthony Elonis, and his post of violence-filled rap lyrics aimed toward his ex-wife. He didn’t use his own name, but rather the pseudonym Tone Dougie. His rap suggested that he should use his wife’s “head on a stick” in his Halloween costume. He used images that haunt the public mind, saying that he was going to terrorize a school as “Hell hath no fury like a crazy man in a kindergarten class.” Some of the other lyrics were extremely troubling:

There’s one way to love you but a thousand ways to kill you. I’m not going to rest until your body is a mess, soaked in blood and dying from all the little cuts. Hurry up and die, bitch, so I can bust this nut all over your corpse from atop your shallow grave. I used to be a nice guy but then you became a slut.

He also rapped about killing federal agents. Tara Elonis, his ex-wife, felt threatened by the song. The court had to judge “whether the threatening speaker intended to harm anyone or whether the listener was genuinely afraid of being harmed.” Nancy Leong pointed out in the Huffington Post that, “because the Internet filters out voice and demeanor cues, online statements provide less information about the seriousness of the statement, and are thus more likely to be reasonably interpreted as threats.“

Elonis didn’t seem to be too upset at first, posting on Facebook: “Did you know that it’s illegal for me to say I want to kill my wife? It’s illegal. It’s indirect criminal contempt … I also found out it’s incredibly illegal, extremely illegal, to go on Facebook and say something like the best place to fire a mortar launcher at her house would be the cornfield behind it …”

The case is ongoing and it has incited intense emotions from both sides of the fence.

The Good

What are the benefits of having freedom of expression on social media? Surely, it is a way for some people to vent their anger without feeling self-conscious, nervous, or upset without resorting to violent actions. Everyone has a right to say what they think. We’ll never know, thankfully, if Elonis would have followed through on the threats in his rap.

Retweets, liking, or even posting your own status can be as effective as screaming at the top of your lungs at a protest. Lately, Facebook has been full of posts that educated everyone on topics relating to racism and the plight of African Americans in modern day America. There are always a few feminist pieces floating around. LGBTQ statuses, articles, and debate appear often, as well. Looking into the comments of these pieces, it is easy to see a cross section of what people believe about the topic. After all, the best way to argue for something is to know why people are arguing against it.

Social media has also become a home to those people who post positive things about topics from body-positive Instagram campaigns to equal media representation groups on Tumblr.

The Bad

To quote Uncle Ben from Spiderman: With great power, comes great responsibility. Unfortunately, many people do not understand their responsibility to fellow man. People who don’t believe in the status quo (or those who believe in the previous status quo that is now shifting to another) can stir up some pretty harsh feelings. People have the right to believe whatever they want, but these more extreme views on politics, racism, sexism, and homosexuality can start verbal sparring matches that help no one.

People have been using social media to post threats that haven’t been taken seriously for years. Stricter online controls would help alert the authorities in some cases, and even protect the innocent. Social media can be used for internet bullying, which in some cases is worse than the traditional verbal bullying. Online gossiping and social media platforms allow the bullying to continually exist–a problem for both the bully and the bullied.

Conclusion

Social media is one of the best inventions of the last century. It allows us to stay in contact with people we would have left behind, and it allows us to preserve our memories in a time capsule. However, it can also make or break a person depending on how someone reacts. Truthfully, the problem isn’t a freedom of speech issue, but rather one of morality. Can we take morals and apply them to the virtual world?

Resources

Primary

Supreme Court: City of Ontario, California, et al v. Quon et al

Constitution: First Amendment

Constitution: Fourth Amendment

Additional

Slate: Are Facebook Threats Real?

Huffington Post: Constitutional Rights in the Digital Age

The New York Times: Do Online Death Threats Count as Free Speech?

Salon: The Supreme Court’s baffling tech illiteracy is becoming a problem

Business Insider: This Guy’s Facebook Rants Put Him In Prison, And The Supreme Court Will Hear His Case Today

Truth Out: This Time, “Free Speech” Cannot Prevail

ABA: United States v. Anthony Elonis – Third Circuit

Index on Censorship: 10 Countries that have Social Media Banned

The New York Times: Chief Justice Samples Eminem in Online Threats Case

First Amendment Center: Social Networking

Bloomberg: The 8 Most Important Cases in the New Supreme Court Term

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Freedom of Speech and Social Media appeared first on Law Street.

With the announcement last week that the grand jury decided not to indict NYPD officer Daniel Pantaleo in the choke-hold death of Eric Garner, demands for social justice continue to dominate the media world. At Law Street, Alexandra Badalamenti wrote the number one most read piece about the futility of posting the copyright declaration on Facebook that so many people have done in the last week; Hannah R. Winsten wrote the number two most popular article about the presence of the Oath Keepers in Ferguson; and Noel Diem  brought us the third most popular article of the week–an explainer on the effect of social media in the recent protests in Ferguson and beyond. ICYMI, check out Law Street’s Best of the Week.

#1 Facebook Copyright Myth Debunked

In today’s world of multiple social media platforms and just too much to do, you may not remember the June 2012 and November 2012 Facebook copyright panics. In case you missed them, here’s how they went: Status updates surfaced from users who unnecessarily “formally declared” their posted material as off limits to Facebook. The hype threw photographers and artists on the social media platform into a frenzy, and those not employed by their intellectual property still worried about the protections over their personal pictures and videos. Read full article here.

#2 Dear Oath Keepers: GTFO of Ferguson

The Oath Keepers have descended upon Ferguson in response to the riots, taking up armed positions on the rooftops of local businesses to guard against looters. Working as a sort of vigilante militia, these rooftop patrollers are veterans, ex-cops, and paramedics. They work at night and, apparently, they’re prepared to shoot down anyone who crosses their path. Read full article here.

#3 Ferguson and the Effect of Social Media Activism

Social media has been a key part of the nation’s involvement in the Ferguson case since the day it happened. Protest footage was shown online as it developed through YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook posts. If that spark of anger ever dissipated, a well-timed hashtag could bring it back, and when the evidence was released, people joined together to comb through the details for more information. Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Every now and then Facebook updates its policies. And immediately after that, I notice a series of statuses from my “friends” on Facebook. It’s a sort of notice alerting readers to the fact that the poster believes they have copyright over their own content. I’ve seen a few versions, but the average Facebook copyright status pretty much goes as follows:

Today, November 30, 2014 in response to the Facebook guidelines and under articles L.111, 112 and 113 of the code of intellectual property, I declare that my rights are attached to all my personal data, drawings, paintings, photos, texts etc… published on my profile. For commercial use of the foregoing my written consent is required at all times. Those reading this text can copy it and paste it on their Facebook wall. This will allow them to place themselves under the protection of copyright.

By this release, I tell Facebook that it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, broadcast, or to take any other action against me on the basis of this profile and/or its contents. The actions mentioned above apply equally to employees, students, agents and/or other staff under the direction of Facebook. The contents of my profile includes private information. The violation of my privacy is punished by the law (UCC 1 1-308 – 308 1 – 103 and the Rome Statute). Facebook is now an open capital entity. All members are invited to post a notice of this kind, or if you prefer, you can copy and paste this version. If you have not published this statement at least once, you will tacitly allow the use of elements such as your photos as well as the information contained in your profile.

There are sometimes slight variations in wording, but that’s pretty much what these statuses look like every time. I’ve seen so many in my news feed over the last week that I thought it was time for an important PSA. This status means nothing.

Seriously, it’s the equivalent of typing gibberish into your status. First of all, when you sign up for a website like Facebook, you have to agree to all sorts of terms of use. I know most of us click through those kinds of things without thinking–and understandably so. If we actually read the policies of everything we encountered on the internet in a year, it would take the average American 76 work days. Seventy-six probably very boring work days.

So obviously, most of us don’t read the terms and conditions and privacy policies, and that’s fine. But they do still exist, and they serve to protect both the company–in this case Facebook–as well as the users who implicitly agree to them when they create an account.

Essentially what the BS status says is that even though you post things on Facebook, you still own any intellectual property you post. For example, the copyright to a picture. That’s how the law currently works; however, because you are a member of Facebook.com you agree that Facebook can use your content. As Facebook’s legal terms read:

For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License).

Lots of legal mumbo-jumbo, I know–but here’s what that means. All sorts of different licenses exist on the internet with regard to content that you can use. Here at Law Street, for example, we need to make sure that images you see at the top of our posts are able to be used–we don’t go out and take pictures ourselves most of the time, same as other news organizations. So we use photo-sharing sites like Flickr to find a picture with a license that allows us to use it, as long as we credit the creator. Essentially what Facebook is saying is that all of the content you post can be used by them because they now have a license that allows it. In order to sign up for Facebook, you agree to this. That’s a concession you make to use their product.

So, essentially the status means nothing because both laws and the policies created by Facebook already spell out what can and cannot be done with your photos. Let’s move on to address the fact that what the status does is try to retroactively amend a contract without negotiating. Think of it this way: imagine that you move into a new apartment and sign a lease with your landlord. The lease includes a provision that allows your landlord to show your apartment to prospective new tenants. But after signing that contract, you put up a sign on your door saying your landlord can’t do that. Such an action would absolutely not stand up in court–and that’s pretty much what this Facebook status is.

Listen, I get it. We don’t want anyone else to have ownership or the ability to use our pictures. But that’s how Facebook’s policies are written, and we have agreed to them by creating Facebook accounts. So please, stop posting the status. It really doesn’t do anything, I promise.

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 Please Stop Posting the Facebook Copyright Status appeared first on Law Street.

Last Monday night St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch delivered a combative 25-minute address in which he seemed to blame social media for some of the fallout between the death of Michael Brown on August 9, 2014 and the announcement that police officer Darren Wilson would not be indicted for shooting him.

McCulloch focused his attention on the role of social media covering the story, blaming it for misleading the public and creating a martyr out of Brown from the start. He was particularly cutting to the people of Ferguson who witnessed or didn’t witness the event saying that, “within minutes various accounts of the incident began appearing on social media.” He continued on to say that the posts, mostly on Twitter, were “filled with speculation, and little, if any solid, accurate information.” His statement did little to quell the fire on social media platforms like Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook. In fact, it might have ignited a deeper fury in the hearts and minds of those who were blogging about the incident.

Social media has been a key part of the nation’s involvement in the Ferguson case since the day it happened. Protest footage was shown online as it developed through YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook posts. If that spark of anger ever dissipated, a well-timed hashtag could bring it back, and when the evidence was released, people joined together to comb through the details for more information.

What would have happened if social media hadn’t been around for Ferguson? It’s unclear, but the impact of social media cannot be denied–it changed the face of a county, the life of a man, and the start of a movement.

Twitter

From the moment the shooting happened and continuing through today, Twitter has had a lasting impact on the general public’s memory of Ferguson and the events that followed. Tweets from Alderman Antonio French kept everyone abreast of what was happening, and were the source for information on the scene. The story spread far and wide, and may have been what some witnesses used when they discussed the event before a jury. Comments were made on everything from the extensive media coverage to the altercation between local police and a Washington Post reporter.

The near-constant trend of #Ferguson has not stopped since August, with nearly 3.5 million tweets around the planet in the three hours after the decision was delivered to the public.

That opening statement sounds like, "None of this would be a problem except the Internet."

— James Poniewozik (@poniewozik) November 25, 2014

People didn’t just use Twitter to talk– it was used to promote action as well. According to the Social Media Listening Center at Clemson University, the incident in Ferguson and the hashtags #MichaelBrown, #Ferguson, #DarrenWilson, and #BlackLivesMatter had the highest response to any event since they started monitoring the service. Listening Center Director Joe Mazer said that 90 percent of the Twitter mentions were negative toward Officer Wilson and the Ferguson Police Department. He said key influencers of the conversation were members of the media and the forces on the ground, or the people in and around Ferguson.

Much of that response was to organize protests, educate others, and spread the word about both sides of the case. Movements started on Twitter and many more grew because of it. In a country where people often say we don’t participate in government, simple sentences in 140 character increments have done what political leaders haven’t been able to do in quite some time: bring groups of people together through their feelings of injustice and anger.

#StoptheParade

Twitter took things to another level when activists in NYC took to social media and encouraged people in and around the city to gather together to interrupt the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade. They used the hash tag #StoptheParade to plan the protest that was to bring the injustice from the grand jury result to the eyes of those enjoying the parade. While it unclear how many people were involved in its inception, or even who started the movement, it quickly moved from hundreds of tweets on Twitter to posts on Facebook and Tumblr. As the movement grew, a map was released to show protesters just where to gather.

We moved #stoptheparade to 12am due to weather here’s the facebook group + info http://t.co/AzuTGdyHTw pic.twitter.com/TI2M5tHEWJ

— VHS dad (@versacenudes) November 27, 2014

Though mainstream media didn’t cover the protests instead of the parade, videos and images flowed onto Twitter and Instagram showing peaceful protesters we well as those who got a little more physical. It seemed like the NYPD got word of the event, as there were many officers lining the streets specifically where protesters planned to meet.

Tumblr

Much of what is happening on Tumblr is similar to what is happening on Twitter, though there are of course longer posts with some more detailed analysis of court documents and personal responses. However, there is one thing that is very different: the Ferguson National Response Network. The network stems from an idea that protesters had before the indictment announcement, which is a system that allowed interested parties to sign up to receive SMS messages about the announcement. This was especially helpful to those who worked during the announcements. As that movement grew, there was a demand to continue this collection of activities, so they created the Network Response Team. The Tumblr page allows submissions for peaceful demonstrations, allowing other people to join in so that the event is a success. There have been more than 70 events and counting planned through the page.

Online Fundraising

Social media and internet resources weren’t just a refuge for those fighting against Wilson. There were two fundraising campaigns set up to raise money for the police officer when it became apparent that he probably wouldn’t return to the line of duty, either through indictment or from resigning. The sites were set up through GoFundMe, but they were eventually halted. There was also a Facebook page called “Support Darren Wilson,” which raised more than $430,000. That too was halted with only a parting message stating that interested parties should “Please redirect Badges for Darren to the Ferguson PD. Thank you for your continued support. We understand that there will be many unanswered questions and concerns and we will update supporters as soon as we have the answers.” Another site, Support Officer Wilson, has raised more than $235,000, but it also stopped accepting donations without an explanation. There were reports that the administrators of the pages were receiving threats over their participation.

So, was social media’s role in Ferguson good or bad?

The Good

Social media is great at getting information out quickly about ongoing events. One could just set his or her browser to “Ferguson” and it was almost a real-time display of the events. Networks are only able to cover one aspect at a time, but social media has access to the collective information. It also allows for the continued planning of events that need larger groups of people as a sort of grassroots campaign.

Social media also allows people to search for information that is relevant to them. While the major news networks were all turned to the events in Ferguson, communities in New York City and Philadelphia also had their own protests. By using Twitter, one would just have to search to see where the protests were–either to join in or avoid them during travel.

Finally, it is obvious that social media encourages everyone to be more active and aware of the world around us. Without social media, we would only be privy to the information released by the news media, much of which has been slanted toward one direction or the other. It allows us to have educated debates, understand the details, and make our own decisions.

The Bad

Social media may have hurt the legal proceedings in Ferguson more than it helped. Those involved claim that witnesses who were around the scene on the street claimed to have seen Brown with his hands up, however many of their accounts seem to have come from Twitter rather than their own experience. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani even went on record to say that those witnesses should have been sued for perjury. While some argue that this is just looking for a reason not to persecute Wilson, the truth remains that many eyewitness accounts didn’t match up.

Social media may have also played a part in the violence, stoking anger and fear in the hearts of those involved. We can all agree that the violence and looting that has erupted, though understandable to some, has left many with a bad taste in their mouths and is almost undermining the cause. Social media has a time and place, and if we can use it responsibly, it will help shape the way we receive, discuss, and process news.

Resources

Primary

Twitter: #Ferguson Tag on Twitter

Mail Chimp: Darren Wilson Verdict Text Message Service

Twitter Reverb: Real Time Display of Tweets

Additional

Bustle: Ferguson’s Prosecutor Blamed Social Media for Misinformation, Entirely Ignoring the Mission and Necessity of Social Media

LA Times: Fundraising Web pages for Ferguson cop still closed; it’s unclear why

Washington Post: Grand Jury Reaches Decision in Case of Ferguson Police Officer

Washington Post: How Social Media Freed Reporter

Mediaite: Indictment Announcement from Ferguson

WYFF4: Social Media Listening lab sees record posts on Ferguson

Ferguson Response: Ferguson National Response Network

Talking Points Memo: Here Is How The Prosecutor Described The Michael Brown Shooting

Talking Points Memo: Rudy Giuliani On Ferguson Decision: I’d Prosecute Witnesses For Lying (VIDEO)

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ferguson and the Effect of Social Media Activism appeared first on Law Street.

In today’s world of multiple social media platforms and just too much to do, you may not remember the June 2012 and November 2012 Facebook copyright panics. In case you missed them, here’s how they went: Status updates surfaced from users who unnecessarily “formally declared” their posted material as off limits to Facebook. The hype threw photographers and artists on the social media platform into a frenzy, and those not employed by their intellectual property still worried about the protections over their personal pictures and videos.

This week, another wave of frantic Facebook users fell for the same hoax and hurried to their computers to copy and paste declarations against potential infringement. Among the most recent status updates was the following:

Due to the fact that Facebook has chosen to involve software that will allow the theft of my personal information, I do declare the following: on this day, November 29, 2014, in response to the new Facebook guidelines and under articles L.111, 112 and 113 of the code of intellectual property, We declare that our rights are attached to all our personal data, drawings, paintings, photos, texts, etc. published on our profile.

For commercial use of the foregoing my written consent is required at all times.

The problem lies in the fact that this simply doesn’t work. It’s useless. It’s a waste of time (and finger dexterity). According to Facebook’s Terms of Service, the minute you upload content to the site you grant the company “license to use and display” that content. But it’s irreversible, despite a status update.

The recent flare up in concern stems from Facebook’s plan to largely update its privacy controls over the coming weeks. The plan, scheduled to take effect January 1, 2015, is titled “Privacy Basics” and attempts to make clearer who can see what on your profile. To explain, Facebook is sending this email out to all of its users:

We wanted to let you know we’re updating our terms and policies on January 1, 2015 and introducing Privacy Basics. You can check out the details below or on Facebook.

Over the past year, we’ve introduced new features and controls to help you get more out of Facebook, and listened to people who have asked us to better explain how we get and use information.

Now, with Privacy Basics, you’ll get tips and a how-to guide for taking charge of your experience on Facebook. We’re also updating our terms, data policy and cookies policy to reflect new features we’ve been working on and to make them easy to understand. And we’re continuing to improve ads based on the apps and sites you use off Facebook and expanding your control over the ads you see.

We hope these updates improve your experience. Protecting people’s information and providing meaningful privacy controls are at the core of everything we do, and we believe today’s announcement is an important step.

Sincerely,

Erin Egan Global Chief Privacy Officer

So, to debunk the current myth…

Here’s the Facebook IP Breakdown

“For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License).

This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.”

Here’s the Translation

You essentially license to Facebook any photo or video that you upload the minute you upload it. Facebook can use it and owe you nothing. In fact, you agreed to that the minute you set up your account, according to the Statement of Rights and Responsibilities. You still own the copyright but it’s not exclusive. Facebook doesn’t need your written consent to use the content.

The only way to avoid this is to delete whatever you uploaded, assuming nobody shared it. When you upload something with no privacy settings (visible to the Public via Facebook settings), everyone–even people without a Facebook account–can access it, use it, and link it back to you.

My apologies if that’s not what you wanted to hear, but a stern letter to Facebook via your status update will do nothing. It’s like those chain letters that threaten you to repost or die in three days—a garbage byproduct of the Internet. Lesson of the day: Be careful what you post or don’t maintain a Facebook Account.

The post Facebook Copyright Myth Debunked appeared first on Law Street.

My dear friend LinkedIn has some competition coming its way–that’s right, Facebook is developing a new platform designed to let people use the social networking site at work.

The new Facebook–dubbed FB@Work (Zuckerberg couldn’t think of something more clever?)–will allow co-workers to chat, network with other professionals in their field, and work together on documents.

Many professionals already use Facebook at work, but now the company is actually testing the professional platform with companies, according to Reuters. FB@Work would be a completely separate site from the social networking site. Its main competitors include LinkedIn, Google, Microsoft, Box, and Salesforce.com

Zuckerberg’s move to create a professional networking platform gives Facebook a new edge. The tech industry is in a high-speed capability race and this new platform gives Facebook a one-up.

FB@Work’s chat tool can compete with Salesforce.com’s Chatter, Google’s Gchat, and Microsoft’s Yammer. Networking with professionals on FB@Work compares to the entire platform of LinkedIn. Lastly, providing co-workers with a space to collaborate on documents challenges Google Docs, Box, and Dropbox.

All of these features will not only be more attractive for users, but also for advertisers. The Financial Times reports the professional website will provide users with accounts separate from the social Facebook, so marketers have more space to place ads. The separate accounts would function to keep certain information private from certain audiences.

Some features will look similar; the News Feed will still be a staple of the site. The terms of confidentiality are still in question.

With FB@Work, you may portray your Facebooking habits in a more positive light at work. However, the new platform is designed to foster a more-efficient Facebook that will overall increase productivity and connectivity in the workplace.

Would you use FB@Work? Personally, I wouldn’t want to have an additional distraction. Google and LinkedIn already provide all the services I need–chat, room to collaborate on documents, discussion boards, and networking space. Creating another account means worrying about another password to remember and another networking site to keep up with. Honestly, I think Facebook is just trying to remain relevant with this new platform.

In the past, Facebook has tried to compete with other sites and networking platforms. Do you remember the Beacon fiasco? Beacon was part of Facebook’s Ads platform, but users were infuriated when the truth about Beacon’s tracking mechanisms came out. Beacon tracked users’ online activity on third-party sites–even when they were logged out or opted not to broadcast their activity to their networks.

This controversy, which occurred in 2007, was not a lone incident in Facebook’s spotty history with privacy leaks. In 2011, a similar privacy breach occurred when three applications were reported to provide users’ personal information to third-party sites. Maybe that’s part of the reason I’m hesitant to join the movement for FB@Work. Though the site is still in its development phase, I don’t trust that the social account and the professional account of Facebook will be kept completely separate nor will it be entirely secure. Until this site is fully developed and used by many early adopters, you can find me on LinkedIn.

Natasha Paulmeno

Natasha Paulmeno is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends. Contact Natasha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Facebook at Work: Facebook Creating LinkedIn Competitor appeared first on Law Street.

The group of unnamed “hacktivists” Anonymous and the Ku Klux Klan have engaged in an apparent all-out cyber war over the events in Ferguson, Missouri over the last week. Anonymous apparently took control of the Klan Twitter account @KuKluxKlanUSA on Monday and seemingly still had control of it as of Friday. Anonymous also appears to have released a video on Tuesday launching a campaign called #OpKKK, or Operation KKK, threatening to take any content the KKK puts on the Web and to “dox” their members, meaning they would publish members’ personal information, including where they live.

Anonymous’s attacks are supposedly in response to threats from the KKK, well-known for being a hate group, in the St. Louis area against people protesting the death of Michael Brown and calling for the punishment of Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson. VICE News reports that the group distributed flyers on the streets and online the previous week addressing “terrorists masquerading as ‘peaceful protesters.’”

‘We will not sit by and allow you to harm our families, communities, property nor disrupt our daily lives. Your right to freedom of speech  does not give you the right to terrorize citizens,’ the flyer reads. ‘We will use lethal force as provided under Missouri Law to defend ourselves,’ it adds, citing Missouri’s version of a stand-your-ground law.

In Anonymous’s video response to the threats, a digitally altered voice explains why the hacker group chose to attack the Klan online. “We are not attacking you because of what you believe in as we fight for freedom of speech. We are attacking you because of what you did to our brothers and sisters at the Ferguson protest on the twelfth of November,” it says.

What followed were more suggestions of the cyber war spilling over into real violence. On Wednesday, another supposedly Anonymous-affiliated account posted an alleged message from Klan leader Frank Ancona encouraging members to ‘accidentally’ shoot any protesters wearing a Guy Fawkes mask, associated with the Anonymous movement.

‘It’s deer hunting season here in southern Missouri, it’s really easy to see how a hunter could mistake someone wearing one of those gay anonymous masks for the hind-end of a whitetail deer. Boom!!!! Oops, sorry it was an accident,’ the tweet reads.

While he didn’t explain why anyone would be deer hunting in the streets of the St. Louis metro area, Ancona seems to have confirmed the message in another statement attributed to him, RT reported. “You pathetic n***** lovers are going down, we’re NOT HIDING. WE’RE NOT ASHAMED OF WHO WE ARE AND WHAT WE REPRESENT. THE INVISIBLE EMPIRE CANNOT AND WILL NOT BE OVERTHROWN,” the message posted to Pastebin reads.

This isn’t Anonymous’s debut in Ferguson. Toward the beginning of the protests, when the identity of the officer who shot Brown was not known, Anonymous was on a campaign to release the names and information of various Ferguson police officers. In the process, a self-proclaimed member released what he or she claimed was the name of the shooting officer, Bryan Willman. Willman, a police dispatcher, was forced to shutter many of his online accounts, change his passwords, and stay in his house for six days, the New Yorker reported. It was only after this erroneous leak that the police department released the name of Officer Darren Wilson as the real shooter.

Despite the major mistake that may have endangered the life of an innocent police dispatcher, Anonymous has proven to be the real deal when it comes to hacking anything from police departments to hate groups.

Still, the authenticity of anything published in this apparent cyber war is difficult to verify for any news organization–a lot of the details of whose controlling these social media accounts is unknown. That’s because Anonymous actually is anonymous and is a loosely-associated network; almost anyone can claim to be a member. At the same time, the KKK seems to lack the technical know-how to give any sort of  coordinated response.

Zaid Shoorbajee

Zaid Shoorbajee is a an undergraduate student at The George Washington University majoring in journalism and economics. He is from the Washington, D.C. area and likes reading and writing about international affairs, politics, business and technology (especially when they intersect). Contact Zaid at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post KKK vs. Anonymous: Cyberwar Declared Over Ferguson Protests appeared first on Law Street.

Imagine this: you’re in a car accident and as a result, break your arm. (Ouch.) You sue the individual who was driving the other car. The next month, you’re at a Jets game rooting for your team and post some pictures on Facebook, making one of them your new profile picture. A month later, your attorney calls you up, questioning if you posted pictures from the Jets game. As it turns out, the defendant’s demanding full access to your Facebook account to disprove your injuries. The big question is, are they entitled to access your Facebook account?

Discovery is an absolutely essential part of litigation. In basic terms, discovery fuels the arguments that each side of the lawsuit makes, by providing relevant information about the opponent. In the past, discovery typically consisted of documents, but as time and technology has progressed, electronic discovery has become more prevalent. This has raised some very interesting questions in Personal Injury Law, like the above situation.

Courts have a tough issue to handle. On the one hand, social media could be extremely relevant to a Personal Injury action. It could disprove a plaintiff’s injuries, or at the very least, make those injuries questionable. On the other hand, that is a plaintiff’s personal Facebook page. Why should the defendant have access to that personal account information?

The Balancing Act and Current Law: New York

New York courts have grappled with this issue and come up with a fairly reasonable standard in order to balance these competing interests. They have established a two-prong test for determining whether social media accounts are discoverable. First, courts must determine whether the content in the account is material and necessary. Second, courts must balance whether the production of the content would result in a violation of the account holder’s privacy rights.

For a defendant to successfully maintain access to discovery under this two-prong test, he must “establish a factual predicate for their request by identifying relevant information in plaintiff’s [social media] account-that is, information that contradicts or conflicts with plaintiff’s alleged restrictions, disabilities, and losses, and other claims.” In other words, the defendant must show that there is content on the plaintiff’s social media account that is not only relevant to the personal injury action, but also contradicts or conflicts with the plaintiff’s claims. If the defendant can establish that, then discovery of social media accounts should be permitted.

The courts have been fairly strict with applying this standard, however. The court will not allow a defendant to simply demand disclosure of social media accounts on the basis that access may reveal information that contradicts or conflicts with a plaintiff’s claim of disability. The court has labeled such a request as a “fishing expedition” and will not allow it.

The Car Accident Revisted

So, is the defendant entitled to access your Facebook account? The answer lies within the specific facts. In the original car accident example, the content of the photograph is key. If the defendant is simply asking for access to the Facebook account because it might reveal activities that contradict with the your claim, that probably will not be sufficient for the court to demand disclosure of your account information. If your profile picture portrays you fist pumping your broken arm in the air, however, it is more likely that the court will grant access to your Facebook account, since the pictures contradict the complaint regarding your broken arm.

The interesting part about Social Media discovery is that it is an evolving area of law. As social media websites continue to develop, so too must the law. It seems that New York courts have fairly balanced these competing interests thus far, but it will certainly be interesting to see what issues arise in the future.

Melissa Klafter

Melissa Klafter has a JD from St. John’s University School of Law and plans to pursue a career in Personal Injury Law. You can find her binge-watching her favorite TV shows, rooting for the Wisconsin Badgers, and playing with her kitty, Phoebe. Contact Melissa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Be Careful What You Share to Social Media During a Lawsuit appeared first on Law Street.

Signing onto your Facebook or Twitter account has become a social media oversharing gram of Russian Roulette with engagements, weddings, pregnancies, stomach viruses, break ups, make ups, Taylor Swift lyrics, celebrations, political opinions, moves, and that weird ingrown hair in that girl who lived down the hall from you freshman year that she’s pretty sure is infected but she’s going to ask her “Nurse Friends” just in case.

No matter where we post — Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Instagram, SnapChat — it’s all the same: we are sharing some of our private thoughts and feelings that at best will embarrass us later in life, and at worst can cost us jobs and relationships.

Everything we post on social media from pictures to snippets of lyrics gives us a glimpse into our inner person and our outer person, including where we are physically at any time. In fact, many people have actually been arrested because they posted where they were on Facebook or Twitter right after committing a crime or because they filmed themselves doing something illegal and then posted it. What makes these people think they can post something so stupid on social media? It’s quite simple.

Social media promotes oversharing and under-thinking.

No, I didn’t just knock the Scentsy wax all over the bathroom wall because I was dancing to “Shake it Off.” #thatwouldbestupid #TS1989

— Noel Diem (@NoelDiem) November 2, 2014

Who is Oversharing?

Pamela Paul at The New York Times seems to sum up most feelings about social media:

“UNLESS you are my best friend or my husband, I don’t need to know the macabre symptoms of your gastrointestinal virus. I don’t need to know about how much candy anyone, other than me, has eaten. As for my ex-boyfriend, I don’t need to hear about his wife’s ability to Zumba.”

Walking through the park, grocery shopping, or grabbing your coffee at Starbucks can undoubtedly include social interactions; however, there is rarely a time when waiting for your laundry to finish up in the dryer in the laundry room you start spouting unsolicited updates to someone else in the room, no matter how close you may be. Certainly there are people who are oversharers in real life, but they don’t comprise a large portion of the population.

On social media, however, oversharing seems to be the norm. It’s difficult to figure out why we share everything on social media — is there something about those white boxes that we think won’t judge us? Is there a cleansing feeling when you share something somewhat embarrassing? Do we think someone will find us alluring when we share something completely private about our lives? Just recently we discussed the legal implications of social media when criminals reveal themselves to law enforcement — but is there a rhyme or reason to why we share completely strange information about our daily lives on social media but wouldn’t dare utter it at the dinner table?

Psychology Behind Oversharing

Sharing our private thoughts, feelings, and opinions with others in a non-threatening way actually activates the neurochemical reward system in our brains, according to a Harvard University study. In essence, sharing something simple on social media makes us feel good, much like buying a new pair or shoes, taking a long run, or going on a really great first date.

But more interesting is the report of Elizabeth Bernstein in the Wall Street Journal when she declared that our desire for more people to know about our private lives is actually because of reality TV and our own social anxieties.

“This effort is known as ‘self-regulation’ and here is how it works … When having a conversation, we can use up a lot of mental energy trying to manage the other person’s impression of us. We try to look smart, witty, and interesting, but the effort required to do this leaves less brain power to filter what we say and to whom.”

While our brains reward us for oversharing on Facebook, that still doesn’t necessarily explain why we expose sometimes embarrassing or harmful information about ourselves on social media.

Why Do We Overshare?

Professor Russell W. Belk from York University in Toronto took on this topic in his paper “Extended Self in a Digital World.” He suggests that we are not truly ourselves on social media, but rather trying to portray ourselves as more “perfect” forms of ourselves by filtering what we allow people to see. We do this to impress one person, a group of people, or even confuse ourselves about who we truly are.

“When we’re looking at the screen we’re not face-to-face with someone who can immediately respond to us, so it’s easier to let it all out—it’s almost like we’re invisible,” says Belk of the “disinhibition effect” that online sharing helps promote. “The irony is that rather than just one person, there’s potentially thousands or hundreds of thousands of people receiving what we put out there.”

Belk’s observations are confirmed in another study by Gwendolyn Seidman of Albright College and published in Computers in Human Behavior. She examines how people use Facebook to express their “true selves” in a way they normally wouldn’t be able to in real life.

But re-pinning something about a workout we will never do, altering our selfies with four or five different filters, or rating a book on Goodreads that we didn’t actually read isn’t harming anyone, right? Not so fast, Belk asserts that there are potential harms:

“The resulting disinhibition leads many to conclude that they are able to express their “true self” better online than they ever could in face-to-face contexts. This does not mean that there is a fixed ‘true self’ or that the self is anything other than a work in progress, but apparently self-revelation can be therapeutic, at least with the aid of self-reflexive applications.”

Oversharing Can Be Good

Many argue that social media can take the place of a Confessional in our lives — we can truly figure out who we are by revealing our innermost secrets to the general public.  Belk believes that through this we may be expressing our true selves because we are creating ourselves as we post, like, and share:

“It appears that we now do a large amount of our identity work online. For the Internet constantly asks us “Who are You?” “What do you have to share?” Coupled with new self-revealing proclivities, this incites more open self-extension than in a pre-digital world.”

Many view social media as a way to collaborate and receive confirmation of our feelings. Getting likes on a photo on Instagram affirms our skills as a photographer but also of the thing photographed — typically ourselves. A like on Facebook has taken the place of a “ditto” in real life. We are no longer working alone to create our reality, but are forming it from our relationships with people on social media — those we know, and those we don’t know, as is the case with some social media websites like Tumblr.

We also have to take into consideration that perhaps people aren’t oversharing at all — maybe we have just grown sensitive to knowing all of that information all of the time. We share an awful lot as a society, and maybe it is just how accessible that information is.

In fact, as Jen Doll notes at the Wire, “[N]o one gets criticized specifically for undersharing. No one says that word. People just say ‘boring.’”

Conclusion

You can’t just say that people are oversharing without setting a limit for what is the right amount of sharing. We have more capabilities at our fingertips to understand the people in our lives. That same website that allows you to “meet” your roommate’s girlfriend without ever seeing in her person and make a snap judgment on whether or not she’s worthy is the same website where you will have to read details of someone’s food poisoning.

Belk summed it up — we are creating our identities through our oversharing. Maybe not just our identity as singular people, but our identities as a generation.

Resources

Primary

Computers in Human Behavior: Expressing the “True Self” on Facebook

Bankrate: Oversharing on Social Media Can Cost You

Additional

Huffington Post: Oversharing: Why We Do It and How Do We Stop?

Bankrate: Oversharing on Social Media Can Cost You

The New York Times: Don’t Tell Me, I Don’t Want to Know

Atlantic: The Selfish Meme

CNN: When Oversharing Online Can Get You Arrested

Law Street Media: Social Media in the Courtroom: What is Admissible?

The New York Times: Social Media, a Trove of Clues and Confessions

Wire: In Defense of Oversharing a Little Too Much Information

Huffington Post: Are You Oversharing on Social Media?

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Social Media Oversharing: Why Do We Do It? appeared first on Law Street.

Uncle Ben warned Spider-Man, “With great power comes great responsibility.” Our social network activity similarly generates limitless potential and mammoth responsibilities. Besides bridging the gap between cultures, social media offers both unexplored terrain and worrisome perils from a legal persepctive.

Facebook provides a “check in” option, which discloses not only your location but also how far away you are and where you’ve been lately. Snapchat allows a user to share a photo with another user and then have that photo disintegrate into cyberspace. These alternate realms of reality allow people to show who they think they are and who they want you to think they are. The metes and bounds descriptions of our cyber property interests are blurred. But to what extent? Until now, the judiciary seemed ill-equipped to deal with issues presented when someone was charged and later convicted based on information — photos, comments, public statements — shared virtually. Should a defendant’s social media presence be admitted into evidence? Read on and find out.

Social Media in the Courtroom

Inquiring into evidentiary issues requires a snapshot of criminal procedure jurisprudence. There are certain advantages and good policy reasons for accessing social media evidence used in criminal proceedings. Photos, for example, can be uploaded quickly and shared within seconds. They can alert authorities to crimes in progress, those about to be committed, or those already commissioned. Moreover, Police Departments now manage Twitter accounts, which highlight their day-to-day victories, reminding citizens to trust that they are on patrol. But when did these technologies become social norms? We all want to be protected, but at what cost?

When did technology become an issue in criminal proceedings?

Until recently, the government consistently retrieved any information from third parties without a neutral and detached magistrate issuing a warrant. The groundbreaking decree came in 1971 when the Supreme Court decided that recording conversations between an individual and agents, via a radio transmitter and without a warrant, did not violate the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution. However, this was decided in a time when social media didn’t exist, or at least where speaking face to face was not uncommon:

Social media use in the United States alone has increased by 356 percent since 2006. Currently, 52 percent of Americans have at least one social media profile more than one billion people use Facebook actively each month, and Twitter has over 140 million active users posting 340 million Tweets a day.

Every minute, social media users create massive amounts of data: Facebook users share 684,478 pieces of content; Tumblr blog owners publish 27,778 new posts; YouTube users upload 48 hours of new video; Foursquare users perform 2,083 check-ins; Flickr users add 3,125 new photos, and Instagram users share 3,600 new photos. In addition, there are hundreds of other social networking websites, each catering to a different demographic.

Recent Changes

With new ideologies come new rules to constrain them. The Supreme Court tackled the technology and privacy issues head on after wrestling with Riley v. California, after a defendant’s phone was searched without a warrant. In Riley, the Defendant was stopped for a traffic violation, which resulted in his arrest. Upon searching the defendant pursuant to the incident to arrest exception for searches, the police officers removed his phone from his pants pocket. Based on photos and videos found within the phone, the state sought an enhanced sentence for gang association. The Supreme Court Majority had this to say:

The Court did not uphold the warrantless search of Riley’s cell phone; however, the Court was reluctant in transcribing a per se rule, and instead recognized circumstances in which data retrieved from a cell phone would be necessary to combat an unforeseen exigency. Thus, although the incident to an arrest exception would not suffice for searches of a defendant’s cell phone, the Court reserved its discretion as judicial intermediary.

I imagine lawyers will soon use the rules to their advantage and argue that individuals “checking in” to locations on sites such as Foursquare are not hearsay but “present sense impressions,” and that tweets are admissible under the “state of mind” exception.

Not all Courts treat this type of evidence the same way, however. In Miles v. Raycom Media, the Court found that a Facebook page containing unsworn statements from third parties that were offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted constituted inadmissible hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801. Thus, the court restricted the scope of Facebook profile admissibility.

On the one hand, we are presented with judges who may not understand the significance of our social network privacies and the public diaries we divulge. On the other we have judges willing to apply (make) exceptions to what we post, which they use to incriminate us later. I say “us” because it is our online activities and trends that shape these realities.

Social Policies

As we can see, courts are conflicted as to whether admitting this evidence upholds our notions of truth, justice, and fairness. It’s a cycle. First, our social network activity creates criminal proceedings because defendants also use social networks. These proceedings then generate different approaches in judges handling evidence issues. Finally, these issues lead back to defendants, which prompts changes to our social networking habits after we notice our information is no longer private. Meanwhile, the people play pawns: citizens lose privacy and people get arrested. Nevertheless, Snapchat offers grounds for alarming disagreement, debate, and policy.

Snapchat lets people share secret photos with one another, which disappear upon the recipient’s retrieval. It makes sense that a defendant may want to broadcast his new kill or fashion his new stolen watch. Using Snapchat, he can send a picture to his gang or girlfriend, showcasing that he pulled it off.

Show-offs never get away with it. In fact, when you join Snapchat, you authorize it to “process and store” the nature of your contents. So while you think the picture of that hot new bathing suit you stole and sent your boyfriend won’t be found, it’s actually being saved. Moreover, Snapchat’s policy provides that:

We may share information about you as follows or as otherwise described in this Privacy Policy:

• In response to legal process or a request for information if we believe disclosure is in accordance with any applicable law, rule, or regulation, or as otherwise required by any applicable law, rule or regulation;
• In order to investigate or remedy potential violations of our user agreements or policies, or to protect the rights, property and safety of Snapchat, our users or others;
• In connection with, or during negotiations of, any merger, sale of company assets, financing or acquisition of all or a portion of our business to another company; and
• With your consent or at your direction.

Conclusion

Many people join Snapchat because they can send and receive photos and videos that they don’t want others to see. Although we already submit some of our privacy to online networks when we subscribe, if Congress statutorily enacts that any posts on social media can be used as evidence, then people would be deterred from joining the sites in the first place. This could limit the amount of people sharing dumb photos or implicating themselves. Juxtaposed, a statute like this could offer broader criminal tactics, or it could prevent defendants from implicating themselves. A lot of Snapchat and social media in general is based on our heightened expectations that what we do, send, or comment on, won’t be available for use against us. Alternatively, what we do, send, or comment on, is nevertheless saved in case something happens. Is that fair? Perhaps social media giants operating under the false pretenses of security should be exposed once and for all.

Resources

Primary

Snapchat: Privacy Policy

EFF: The Stored Communications Act

Additional

Bloomberg BNA: Social Media Evidence in Criminal Proceedings

American Bar Association: Admissibility of Social Media Evidence

Evangelos Siozios

Evangelos Siozios is a student at New York Law School focusing on family law and real estate transactions. He is a 2012 Baruch Honors College Graduate whose interests include writing, exercising, and solving TV mysteries. Contact Evangelos at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Social Media in the Courtroom: What is Admissible? appeared first on Law Street.

The Iranian government executed a woman on Saturday for murdering a man who she said attempted to sexually assault her. After several delays of her execution and despite condemnation from human rights organizations, the Iranian government went forward with hanging Reyhaneh Jabbari.

Jabbari, 26, admitted in 2009 to killing 47-year-old Dr. Morteza Abdolali Sarbandi in self-defense, claiming that he tried to rape her. Sarbandi was killed in 2007, when Jabbari met with him on the pretense that she, an interior designer, would evaluate his office for a renovation, the New York Times reported.

Under Iranian law, Jabbari technically should have been in the clear for killing Sarbandi. As a Slate article explains, the Iranian death penalty doesn’t have to apply in a murder case if the murder was in retaliation to another crime punishable by death, such as rape. Jabbari maintained that she killed Sarbandi after he attempted to rape her. However, the judges are given very broad discretion in interpreting the facts of the case – so broad, in this case, that Jabbari was found guilty.

Beyond the fact that Jabbari’s is technically innocent even if she killed Sarbandi, that shouldn’t even matter considering the circumstances of her admission. Jabbari admitted to the murder “under duress possibly amounting to torture,” U.N. human rights investigator Ahmed Shaheed said in a press release, adding that acts of sexual violence should always be fought, no matter what. Shaheed said that if Jabbari was telling the truth, she was attacked by the Iranian justice system in addition to her assault:

If her allegations are true, Ms. Jabbari may have been doubly victimized; first by her attacker, and then by the judicial system, which is supposed to protect victims of intended and actual sexual and physical assault.

An online petition in March bore more than 240,000 signatures urging Iran not to execute Jabbari. The government then delayed the execution from April until this month. As the new date approached, supporters of Jabbari took to Facebook and Twitter to get attention to stop the execution. The day before the execution,  Amnesty International wrote that Jabbari’s side story wasn’t fairly judged. “Her claims do not appear to have ever been properly investigated,” Amnesty wrote in a blog post.

Iran has one of the highest execution rates in the world. According to an August United Nations report, the country executed at least 852 people, including at least eight who were under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes, during the period from June 2013 to June 2014. The report says Iranians can face the death penalty for “adultery, recidivist alcohol use, drug possession and trafficking” plus “enmity against God,” which is viewed by the Iranian government as when “a person brandishes or points a weapon at members of the public to kill, frighten and coerce them.”

All this might leave some wondering how hard it is not to get executed in Iran. In the larger scheme of things – for the Iranian justice system, that is – Jabbari is just another number.

—

Zaid Shoorbajee (@ZBajee)

Featured Image courtesy of [The Pondering Moose via Flickr]

Zaid Shoorbajee

Zaid Shoorbajee is a an undergraduate student at The George Washington University majoring in journalism and economics. He is from the Washington, D.C. area and likes reading and writing about international affairs, politics, business and technology (especially when they intersect). Contact Zaid at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Reyhaneh Jabbari: Another Victim of Iran’s Harsh Death Penalty appeared first on Law Street.

Hello, ello. As someone who grew up in the generation of social networks, it’s quite remarkable to see how in a little less than a decade we’ve come almost full circle. In the early 2000s, social networks revolutionized the ways in which we communicated. But back to the full circle part — these social networks, particularly Facebook, have become such a norm that there’s plenty of people who dislike the commercialization, lack of creativity, and ubiquitousness of Facebook. In that context, a new social network has joined the scene, trying to capitalize on some of Facebook’s disappointed customer base. It’s called “Ello” and it appears to have a lot of potential.

Ello’s tagline appears to be “Simple, Beautiful, and Ad-Free.” The interface is simple, as vintage as one can go in a world where the internet is still too young to be truly vintage. Ello’s “About Us” section spells out what it’s for. Important priorities appear to include that Ello is invite-only, it does not contain ads, it’s simple and uncluttered, and it does not sell user information. As Ello puts it:

Virtually every other social network is run by advertisers. Behind the scenes they employ armies of ad salesmen and data miners to record every move you make. Data about you is then auctioned off to advertisers and data brokers. You’re the product that’s being bought and sold.

Recently, Ello took another step further. It is now what’s called a “Public Benefit Corporation.” That means that they cannot:

1. Sell user-specific data to a third party;
2. Enter into an agreement to display paid advertising on behalf of a third party; and
3. In the event of an acquisition or asset transfer, the Company shall require any acquiring entity to adopt these requirements with respect to the operation of Ello or its assets.

So, how will Ello make money? If it doesn’t have advertisers, and it doesn’t sell data, how is it able to profit? As idealistic and great as Ello sounds, the people who created it can’t just bankrupt themselves in the name of a more ethical social network.

Well, right now it apparently has a few venture capitalists behind it, which will keep the company flush while it gets off the ground. According to Ello, it’s going to have people pay for more premium services. Ello compared it to an iPhone — you buy an iPhone and then you customize it the way you want. You can purchase apps and other features to customize the iPhone to be exactly what you want.

The big question is will people take the same approach to Ello? Millennials love customization, to be sure, but we’re also incredibly cheap. If we have the option for a free social network like Facebook, will anyone pay a little more for the ad-free experience of Ello? Maybe, especially when the network is new and hip, but once it goes the route of Facebook and attracts pretty much the entire world, will people be willing to fork up the dough?

Ello is a tantalizing concept — an anti-Facebook. But I just don’t know if people are frustrated enough with Facebook to need its social media foil yet, especially if it’s going to cost them.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead 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.

Featured image courtesy of [Mike Mozart via Flickr]

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 Ello, Goodbye? appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Last week Rachel Craig, 28, from Waynesboro, Virginia was convicted under the state’s new revenge porn law. She faces up to one year in jail and a $2,500 fine. The revenge porn law went into effect in July and it criminalizes posting nude pictures of someone on the Internet without the individual’s consent. Craig was said to have been in an argument with her former boyfriend when she allegedly stole a picture of his current girlfriend from his phone and posted it on Facebook. Craig even took full credit for the act and warned the victim “not to mess with her” according to Sgt. Brian Edwards of the Waynesboro, Virginia Police Department.

Okay. I’m sorry. What!?! I have so many questions. First of all, if he is your former boyfriend why are you still even communicating with him? Secondly, what was she doing with his phone at all? Third, don’t you think at 28 you would be mature enough to not take this to Facebook? I don’t get it. I don’t get the blatant disregard for an innocent bystander and the maturity level of this woman. I also kind of wish there was a stupid clause tacked on to the law to give this girl an extra six months to sit in solitude and think about how dumb this whole situation is. Craig might go to jail and have to fork over $2,500 for something petty that could have been avoided if she just stopped and thought about what was the real issue and not harming an innocent bystander.

Two months ago another woman in Virginia — Crystal Cherry — was also charged with revenge porn because she posted nude photos of her boyfriend’s former girlfriend on Instagram and Twitter just days after the new law went into effect. Again, another one of these women who is dumb enough to take to social media and create issues that could be avoided at all costs if she could just handle her problems like an adult.

I like this law. The only thing that concerns me is that if this is a first-time offense, both Crystal and Rachel will probably not do any time and will just pay the fee. I know prisons are crowded and our tax dollars are hard at work with sustaining life for idiots who like to break the law, but maybe there should be something a little bit more that we could do. Maybe a class on how to not be so stupid? Or teach kids the proper way to use social media?

I like Facebook and Instagram and I admittedly have a serious love of Twitter, but I don’t need to know everything that you are doing. I don’t need to read about your daily drama. And I definitely don’t want to see you posting nude photos of another woman just because you’re mad at some dude who probably won’t matter to you in five years. Craig and Cherry get to be reminded of that every day now for the rest of their lives when they have to include their misdemeanor convictions on any application they fill out.

This month Jennifer Lawrence is on the cover of Vanity Fair and in her interview she mentions the celebrity nude hacking scandal that she was a part of. J-Law called it a “sex crime not a scandal,” and I tend to agree with her. Not only did this hacker violate someone’s privacy but also committed a cyber crime. Hundreds of celebrities’ nude photos were splashed across the internet, violating their privacy. Some people say that when you choose the life of a celebrity you choose to give up your privacy, but I completely disagree. Celebrities are still people. But I will criticize anyone who is dumb enough to take nude photos and save them anywhere. iCloud is not secure. Your computer is not secure. There is always someone trying to hack into something that will violate you in some way and they may just be doing it for the fun or just because they can.

Even some idiot Pasadena, Texas school teacher gave nude photos to a student she was having an affair with who ultimately ended up sharing them with others. Ashley Zehnder, 24, had reported that nude photos of her were being shared throughout the school where she taught. An investigation revealed that she was sleeping with a student who shared them. Will anything happen to the student who was having the affair and sharing the nude photos? Probably not. But Zehnder lost her job, will go to jail, and will probably have to register as a sex offender. Can we say Mary Kay Letourneau?

I think that there is a lesson in all of this. People need to be more cautious about what they are doing and where it is being saved. Craig and Cherry’s victims are on the same side as Jennifer Lawrence and other celebrities. The only difference is Craig and Cherry got caught. Zehnder is the predator and the victim. Her private nude photos were shared with an entire school but she also preyed on a student.

Word to the wise: if you are going to take nude photos use a Polaroid and burn them when you are done if you don’t want them to be shared. Or better yet, just don’t take them. Have a little modesty and respect for yourself. If you want to share being nude do it in person where the only other person looking at you can only use their memory, not a hard copy that could be sent out to the world.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post PSA: Nude Photos Will Send You to Jail appeared first on Law Street.

The advent of social media networks introduced endless applications, opportunities, and hundred of thousands of attention-seeking men and women searching for that new fix, that something different. Nowadays, with television shows broadcasting adulterous affairs and advertisements screaming sex, one questions whether the provocateur’s nature is encouraged in the United States. Read on to learn about the ways in which our society addresses, promotes, and deals with adulterous behavior.

Is it just me, or is sex everywhere?

From Showtime’s hit show “Masters of Sex”, to the “Game of Thrones” saga on HBO, nudity and passion play on our society’s imagination. Scandal reigns supreme in the monotonous lifestyle of working, paying taxes, and drinking endless Iced Venti Americanos. No one will openly condone cheating, but infidelity is pervasive; it’s something that’s constantly talked about in modern society.

In 2010, the National Opinion Research Center inquired into the percentage of men and women cheating on their spouses. The percentage of men involved in extramarital affairs remained steady, around 21.6 percent. However, the infidelity rate amongst married women rose to about 14.7 percent. This jump was attributed to more women joining the workforce and obtaining jobs requiring them to travel.

But why shift any blame? Perhaps allocating responsibility isn’t a working testament to the truth about infidelity. Maybe people just get tired of each other and hope for a change. Gary Neuman quantified his studies of adulterous men in his book “The Truth About Cheating” in 2008. He provided that about 1 in 2.7 men cheat on their wives. He blamed male insecurity.

The majority said it was an emotional disconnection, specifically a sense of feeling under-appreciated. A lack of thoughtful gestures. Men are very emotional beings. They just don’t look like that. Or they don’t seem like that. Or they don’t tell you that.

But is the driving force behind adulterous men purely insecurity driven? And can a woman’s indiscretions be explained by working more, or in different places? That may have once been the case; however, in modern years, our marriage discussions have shifted from treating bedrooms sacredly, to coffee-shop chit-chat and salon banter. Perhaps you’ve never witnessed it, or don’t frequent barbershops and Starbucks, but, what if George Clooney in “Out of Sight” was right? What if that moment passing someone on the street transforms wayward thoughts into scandalous realities?

Is infidelity easier today?

It’s 2014, and apps such as OkCupid and Tinder exist. Today, “swiping,” has erased the formal face to face contact typical to traditional relationship notions. With a flick of a finger one can generate an obscene amount of potential lovers, both hopefuls and hopeless prospects. It takes no longer to find someone than the time it takes to inconspicuously avert your eyes from the married neighbor’s wife, after the husband notices you “creeping.”

A simple Google search for “apps for cheating” generates countless articles, magazine excerpts, and ratings of new phone applications easily designed and ranked to help one cloak mischievous manners. Apps like Ashley Madison, SnapChat, and Black SMS, not only encourage infidelity, but make discovering it much more difficult. On the other hand, applications for exposing a cheating spouse, like ThaiSpy and CoupleTracker, make catching one affordable and accessible. Incidentally, the internet provides a tech black market, allowing one to fulfill scandalous desire and retain anonymity. Is it really a surprise, that Millennials, thrust into technology’s embrace, are showing symptoms of a swelling infidelity rate? Technology has injected itself into the relationship process, and it shows no signs of stalling. For example, a new survey published by IBISWorld, a Santa Monica market research firm, discussed the implications of mobile dating, yielding that approximately one third of new marriages start online.

Societally, we are going to increasingly meet more of our romantic partners online as we establish more of an online presence in terms of social media,” says Caitlin Moldvay, a dating industry senior analyst for IBISWorld in Santa Monica, Calif. “I do think mobile dating is going to be the main driver of this growth.

But, what does this have to do with infidelity? Perhaps, not much at all, but could the way people meet and explore their sexual inclinations dictate modern cultural trends? If meeting Casanova becomes easier, is it easier to cheat? That could make sense.

Contrarily, research conducted by Michael Rosenfeld, a sociologist at Stanford University, rebuts this presumption. In his independent study published in the American Sociological Review, he found that 22 percent of new couples met online; however, these couples were twice as likely to marry as those who met offline.

 Couples who meet online are more likely to progress to marriage than couples who meet in other ways.

He explained this phenomenon by pointing out that dating sites typically arouse interest in people genuinely seeking marriage as their goal. Although his results seem noble, they remain dubious because internet-formed relationships are still in their infancy stages. Delving deeper into research shows that infidelity mostly occurs after 5-7 years of the marriage or when a child was born. Therefore, although online couples are initially happier, studying their long term speculations may be premature, considering the relative new-ness of social media and online dating. Nevertheless, both ideas suggest that taking a look into our nation’s divorce rate may shed some light on the issue.

Is infidelity the reason behind our surging divorce rate?

Statisticians rank the United States as having the sixth most divorces in the world. Although the specific divorce rate is relatively unknown, it is speculated that around 40-50 percent of all marriages end in divorce. However, this statistic does not account for the complexities surrounding marital difficulties. For example, the largest rate of divorcing men and women are between the ages of 20-24–37 percent for women, and 39 percent for men:

“f you just ask whether infidelity is going up, you don’t see really impressive changes. But if you magnify the picture and you start looking at specific gender and age cohorts, we do start to see some pretty significant changes.

David C. Atkins, an associate research  professor at the University of Washington Center for the Study of Health and Risk Behaviors, studied the infidelity rate among married couples and discovered that although the divorce rate has not risen significantly, particular age groups, including newly married couples and couples over 60, are cheating more often. He cites the availability of pornography on the Internet as a motivator for younger couples, and the prevalence of remedies treating erectile dysfunction for older couples. Moreover, the modern trend deemphasizes sex as the primary driving force of infidelity. Instead, intimacy and openness with one’s new flame boosts the infidelity rate. This idea was qualified this year in a new study published in a journal, Evolutionary Psychology, which recruited 477 adults: 238 men and 239 women. The study asked all participants two questions:

Which would distress you more: Imagining your partner enjoying passionate sexual intercourse with another person or imagining your partner forming a deep emotional attachment with another person?

Interestingly the results varied, depending on who you asked. Men were most distraught about physical infidelity and women by emotional cheating. Thus, examining all the reports above presents us with a trend that shows a possible gender-specific irony: 1) Men do not always appreciate a spouse’s physical infidelity; however, men usually cheat due to emotional insecurity, and 2) Women do not  always appreciate a spouse’s emotional attachment, but can be attracted to a man’s sexual prowess. Although, our nation’s mushrooming divorce rate isn’t directly attributable to infidelity alone, a question remains as to why infidelity is so ubiquitous today.

What effects do social networks have on infidelity?

Today, we are constantly connected. Many people maintain activity on one or more social networks or maintain “friends,” many of whom they haven’t spoken to in years: friends, exes, people they don’t know, or people they would like to know. Face to face relationships are no longer as mainstream as they used to be. But what role does our ability to connect with people from all over the world play in expansive relationship betrayal?

Researchers at Indiana University studied the connection between social networks and relationship availability. The study coined the term “digital cheating” and investigates suspicions about relationship demise by social networks. It found that people keep Facebook and other outlets to monitor the availability of their romantic/sexual prospects and whether or not they are in a committed relationships. Their breakthrough suggests that modern networking trends illustrate adults breaking from meeting new people, and instead, holding on to old flames, or as they called them, “Back-Burners.” As the study explains:

We use the term back burner to describe a desired potential or continuing romantic/sexual partner with whom one communicates, but to whom one is not exclusively committed. Although communication with back burners is not new, modern technology affords novel channels (e.g., social networking applications and text messaging) that individuals are using to connect with back burners.

Additionally, the study found that some partners in adult relationships maintain romantic or sexual conversations, on average, with two people other than their significant other. Interestingly, this trend is gender neutral, resulting in a similar average rate for both men and women. Although the larger pool of prospects and digital back-and-forth are not necessarily dispositive of physical wrongdoing, these findings lend credence to the English idiom that there really are plenty of fish in the sea.

Conclusion

Perhaps the loyal spouse today shouldn’t blame his or her philandering partner. Modern philosophies describing today’s adultery clash with old-school promiscuity notions, which ascribe different reasons for extramarital affairs. Maybe infidelity by one spouse is just a byproduct of emotional yearning. Although cheating compromises the values of one spouse at the expense of another’s selfishness, our society mimics this trend by condoning infidelity for some, while celebrating it for others.  For example, our infamous double-standard provides that philandering men will mostly receive “props” from their “boys,” while unfaithful women are labeled with the love chords of revulsion. Even though both sexes may be equally guilty in entertaining back-burners for that just-in-case moment, it seems unfair to brand one sex with the Scarlet Letter celebrated by the other. Nevertheless, the problem might not lie between or among the sexes, considering this issue permeates every facet of modern life, such as our phones, homes, and television shows. Maybe it has now just become a part of today’s life.

Resources

USA Today: Study: More Than a Third of New Marriages Start Online

Computers in Human Behavior: Using Modern Technology to Keep in Touch With Back Burners

Evolutionary Psychology: Explaining Sex Differences in Reactions to Relationship Infidelities

Bloomberg: More U.S. Women Report Cheating on Their Spouses

Infidelity Facts: When Does Infidelity Occur?

Huffington Post: Why People Cheat: 12 Differences Between men and Women

CNN: Besides Sex–Other Reasons Men Cheat

Evangelos Siozios

Evangelos Siozios is a student at New York Law School focusing on family law and real estate transactions. He is a 2012 Baruch Honors College Graduate whose interests include writing, exercising, and solving TV mysteries. Contact Evangelos at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Infidelity in the United States: Why is the Trend Growing? appeared first on Law Street.

A few years ago, a woman named Sondra Prince (now Sondra Arquiett) made a startling discovery. Someone was impersonating her with a fake Facebook account that included her name, identity, and pictures. She started looking into it, and the impersonator was the last person you’d guess — the U.S. Government. Specifically, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA).

Arquiett had been arrested and questioned about her involvement in a drug ring that a former boyfriend was a part of. She had helped him a little bit, but based on her involvement, her willingness to accept a plea deal, and the circumstances of the case, she was just put on probation. However, throughout the course of the investigation, her cell phone was seized. The phone had a number of her personal pictures on it.

Somehow this led to U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration Special Agent Timothy Sinnegan using those pictures to create a completely fabricated Facebook profile that included Arquiett’s name.

These weren’t necessarily run-of-the-mill pictures, either. Many were simple shots, but some included her posing on the hood of a car, and one in either a bathing suit or a bra and underwear. There was also a shot of her holding her child and niece — an invasion of their privacy as well. These were shots that she may not have wanted online, especially if she was applying to jobs or had family on the site.

Then there was what Sinnegan actually did with the account. He used in an effort to contact and communicate with a wanted fugitive, as well as with other members of the Facebook community. Arquiett only found out about the profile because a friend contacted her asking about something “she” had put up on it.

Arquiett has now sued Sinnegan, and the DEA, for both violating her privacy as well as putting her in danger. That seems pretty accurate given that the people that they were using her profile to contact were criminals who could have reacted badly toward her if they discovered what was really going on.

The DEA’s defense was, essentially, that because those photos were in evidence at one point that they are allowed to use them. The government stated:

Defendants admit that Plaintiff did not give express permission for the use of photographs contained on her phone on an undercover Facebook page, but state the Plaintiff implicitly consented by granting access to the information stored in her cell phone and by consenting to the use of that information to aid in an ongoing criminal investigations [sic]

There are a lot of scary implications in that argument, and while the status of Arquiett’s case appears to still be up in the air, the page is now down thanks to Facebook, who does not allow the impersonation of people on its network.

The government’s argument is kind of ridiculous. Nate Cardoza, an attorney at the Electric Frontier Foundation pointed out:

If I’m cooperating with law enforcement, and law enforcement says, ‘Can I search your phone?’ and I hand it over to them, my expectation is that they will search the phone for evidence of a crime, not that they will take things that are not evidence off my phone and use it in another context.

Cardoza’s dead on. There are scary implications here. Arquiett’s ability to lead a private life without being scared of retaliation from the people whom the government tricked into thinking were communicating with her shouldn’t be stripped just because she was an accomplice to a completely separate crime.

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 DEA Stole a Woman’s ID for a Facebook Account, Now It’s in Court appeared first on Law Street.

Twitter is suing the the United States Department of Justice for violating its First Amendment rights, the company announced on Tuesday. The social media service is arguing that it has the right to disclose to the public how often the government requests data from it for national security purposes.

Currently, the government requests information for such investigations from tech companies like Twitter in the form of national security letters and Foreign Intelligence Security Act court orders. The government does let these companies disclose how many times it requests information, but not down to the exact number. Instead they can report ranges of the requests they’ve received in “bands” of 1,000. For example, a firm can report that it has received between 0 and 999 government information requests, without being any more specific.

Twitter’s complaint is that these restrictions inhibit its freedom of speech. It argues that it should be allowed to disclose to its users a more precise number of government information requests. In particular, if it hasn’t received any requests in a certain category, Twitter wants to say publicly that the number is zero.

Ben Lee, a Twitter Vice President, said in a blog post on Tuesday:

It’s our belief that we are entitled under the First Amendment to respond to our users’ concerns and to the statements of U.S. government officials by providing information about the scope of U.S. government surveillance – including what types of legal process have not been received.

Twitter tried to accomplish the same thing earlier this year without going to court, by sending a sample transparency report in April to the DOJ, asking which information it could or couldn’t publish. Unfortunately, that attempt wasn’t fruitful. “After many months of discussions, we were unable to convince them to allow us to publish even a redacted version of the report,” Tuesday’s blog post also disclosed.

The current restrictions stem from a January settlement between the DOJ and Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!, Facebook, and LinkedIn. At that time, the companies were were looking for permission to publish any number at all related to national security requests. That settlement allowed these companies and “similarly situated companies” (that includes Twitter) to use the bands of 1,000 rule to report the number of government requests. Twitter hints in its formal complaint that the number of requests it receives is relatively small, and argues that it  should be allowed to reflect “limited scope” of government surveillance on its accounts in its transparency reports.

In the wake of the Edward Snowden leaks that revealed the vast extent of government surveillance online, tech companies have tried to show their users that they care about privacy. Apple and Google made news last month when they announced that their new generation of mobile operating systems would encrypt user data with the user’s passcode, making it impossible for either the company or the government to access private information without the passcode. Even if the government requests it, the company can’t reach it.

Unlike on most social media platforms, anything the average Twitter user tweets is publicly visible. So, intuitively, the government doesn’t need to request from Twitter too much information; it’s there for the picking. That seems to be what Twitter is hinting at when it says that it would like to be allowed to report that it has received zero national security requests. That being said, it would be nice to know what other information the government is asking to have – information that supposedly isn’t public. Twitter comes off in this story as the noble tech company trying to stay accountable to its 271 million active users. The company can stay even truer to the value of transparency by letting its users know what non-public information the government wants, and this suit will decide whether they get to do just that.

—

Zaid Shoorbajee

Zaid Shoorbajee is a an undergraduate student at The George Washington University majoring in journalism and economics. He is from the Washington, D.C. area and likes reading and writing about international affairs, politics, business and technology (especially when they intersect). Contact Zaid at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Tech Company That Has Your Back: Twitter Sues the DOJ appeared first on Law Street.

Snapchat quietly settled a lawsuit last week with Reggie Brown, a supposed original co-founder of the popular social media app. Brown claimed in his suit that he was the one who came up for the idea for the app in the first place, but was kicked out of group before it was released.

Snapchat said in a statement on September 9th that CEO Evan Spiegel and Chief Technology Officer Robert Murphy had resolved their dispute with Brown and confirmed his claims:

Reggie Brown originally came up with the idea of creating an application for sending disappearing picture messages while he was a student at Stanford University. He then collaborated with Spiegel and Murphy on the development of Snapchat during its early and most formative days.

The settlement marks the first public acknowledgement by Snapchat of its faults after a year-and-a-half legal battle with Brown. In February 2013, Brown claimed that he came up with the idea for an app that lets users send disappearing photos and videos to friends. He said he also came up with the idea for the app’s logo and its original name, “Picaboo.” He said he was ousted from the group by his fraternity brothers, Spiegel and Murphy, and that he rightfully owned one-third of the company. Snapchat denounced Brown’s claims several times and said that they were “utterly devoid of merit.” By settling last week, they changed their position. But Snapchat did keep the terms of the settlement confidential, making it impossible to know whether Brown got his one-third or something else.

Under normal circumstances, Sanpchat’s settlement might spark up a debate about intellectual property and ownership rights. But in this case, that didn’t happen for a couple of reasons. That September 9th date on which Snapchat announced the settlement might ring a bell to people who follow technology news. It was the day of Apple announced its new line of iPhones and the Apple Watch. Snapchat chose to publish its press release on that day at 1 p.m., the exact start time of Apple’s big event, which was the story of the day in the technology news sphere. The Snapchat story was almost completely overshadowed.

The other reason this settlement may not have sparked up a debate is that Snapchat, despite claiming to have 700 million photos and videos sent daily and being valued at an estimated $10 billion, currently does not earn any revenue. The company has already turned down offers from high profile tech giants–$3 billion from Facebook and $4 billion from Google. Without earning any revenue, Brown’s piece of the Snapchat pie currently wouldn’t earn him anything besides name recognition and the potential reward should the company decide to sell.

Snapchat’s dispute with Brown might sound familiar in the social media realm. In 2004, Facebook had a similar debacle–three Harvard University seniors sued CEO Mark Zuckerberg for using their idea for a social network. Facebook settled with them in 2008 for 1.2 million shares of Facebook, which were valued at $300 million during Facebook’s initial public offering.

While we don’t know what settling with Snapchat earned Brown, it does seem to be revealing an easy money-making scheme: introduce an idea for a product or service, wait for someone you know to make it successful, then sue.

Zaid Shoorbajee

Zaid Shoorbajee is a an undergraduate student at The George Washington University majoring in journalism and economics. He is from the Washington, D.C. area and likes reading and writing about international affairs, politics, business and technology (especially when they intersect). Contact Zaid at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Snapchat’s Settled Lawsuit: Another “Social Network” Story? appeared first on Law Street.

You’re being tracked.

Surprise!

Well maybe that’s not a surprise since  Americans are pretty cynical on issues of spying. It may surprise people, however, that the things they enjoy, such as digital news articles, videos, wearable technologies, and wireless appliances are all tracking their behavior. Depending on the technology used, data detailing frequency of maintenance, a person’s interests or vital signs, and metadata like location and time is also collected. This information analyzes everything from potential consumer needs, to uncovering relationships and patterns that weren’t previously known. The benefits of big data are enormous but we must consider how else this information could be used? At what point could this become a privacy concern?  Also, what steps are being taken to prevent possible manipulation?

Click here to find out everything you need to know about the big business of Big Data.

The increased use of technology to record defense capabilities, healthcare needs, government practices, as well as maintenance and safety needs are all positive ways big data has affected society. One positive effect translates into saving lives of premature babies after sensors record an uptick in body temperature, which could be a sign of an impending infection. Watching the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services prevent and stop more than $100 million worth of fraud after implementing the Fraud Prevention System, is another example of the advantages of Big Data. These two incredible examples of how Big Data is used as a  positive resource don’t even begin to highlight the many significant contributions it makes to society.

From a business perspective, companies can use the information from data profiling to identify similar or related products, social issues, and events of interest to consumers. How products and events are marketed to consumers is directly related to an advertiser’s ability to collect data and complete a practice known as behavioral targeting. An example of online use that constantly collects data is the social media platform, Facebook.  Most people are unaware that on top of the information provided by their profile, something as simple as posting a picture on Facebook provides more data and other related metadata, such as time and location, to the platform. This information as outlined in the company’s Data Use Policy can be used as stated below.

Sometimes we get data from our affiliates or our advertising partners, customers and other .third parties that helps us (or them) deliver ads, understand online activity, and generally make Facebook better. For example, an advertiser may tell us information about you (like how you responded to an ad on Facebook or on another site) in order to measure the effectiveness of – and improve the quality of – ads.

I want to note the first line of the data use policy section provided above, which says, “sometimes we get data from our affiliates or our advertising partners.”  Now wait a second, how do their ad partners and affiliates have data that can be linked to specific people and why are they able to pass it on to others?  The data use policy explicitly tells us that those affiliates and partners have collected data through responses consumers have provided for other ads on other sites, which is then used to create a behaviorally targeted ad for Facebook and vice versa. In addition, cookies, web beacons, and IP addresses are all used to create an online profile able to frame our digital identities. At that point there’s no real need to have a name that identifies individuals. So when companies like Google, Facebook, Yahoo and others declare that the information they share is passed anonymously, they’re technically telling the truth.

But these capabilities, most of which are not visible or available to the average consumer, also create an asymmetry of power between those who hold the data and those who intentionally or inadvertently supply it. – May 2014 Big Data Report

The outlined intent as stated by the terms above is to improve the Facebook experience by making sure Facebook knows what is important to its users. By identifying what’s important to each individual, Facebook can ensure that users see more of the same information they’re most likely to be interested in on either their newsfeeds or in advertisements. This sounds great right? Modifications made to the information seen on the newsfeed and in advertisements are based on:

1. Interests
2. Location
3. How often you use Facebook
4. Books you like and/or have read
5. Movies you like and/or have seen
6. TV shows you like and/or watch
7. Gender
8. Online purchasing habits
9. Other information provided by Facebook affiliates/partners/third parties
10. Topics you post about
11. Your friends list
12. Clubs/social groups/schools you’re associated with

WAIT ONE MINUTE!

Oh my goodness, they know you in a way that has just gotten uncomfortably scary right?

Not only can your timeline be manipulated, but so can your perception of what is going on around you. Facebook received criticism after admitting that for one week, it intentionally tried to make 155,000 of its users sad for no other reason than just to see if they could do it.  Another example can be seen in how conversations concerning the social upheaval in Ferguson, Missouri was somehow missing from many Facebook newsfeeds while Ice Bucket Challenges were commonly seen. People wanted to know how life on this social media outlet could seem so out of the loop. That was until techies realized that a Facebook algorithm used to filter out posts Facebook feels users wouldn’t be interested in, figured its users were much more interested in Ice Bucket Challenges than discussions on social inequities, policing, race relations, civil liberties and so forth.

For all we know, Facebook may have gotten it right.  After being bombarded by 24-hour news cycles and other  social media outlets like Twitter, which were jammed with Ferguson discussions, it may have been nice for users to escape to a place where Ferguson wasn’t the only thing discussed.

Make no mistake, Facebook is not the only outlet that uses, collects, and has the ability to manipulate Big Data. Beyond Facebook is the general use of the internet and digital technology, all of which can collect big data. What must be done now, is to determine the proper use for this information and identify ways to protect the privacy of users. Several government agencies, departments, and branches of government are interested in discussing these topics. This can be noted by the FTC’s call to identify how data is categorized, used, and the applicable laws to protect consumers. Additionally, organizations like the Open Internet Institute, Common Cause, Free Press, and Public Knowledge have submitted comments to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) on the importance of protecting telecommunications metadata.

With more people, governments, and organizations identifying concerns, changes can be made and applicable laws can be clarified to protect consumers and avoid impositions of privacy.

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Big Data, Little Privacy appeared first on Law Street.

As revenge porn gains steam across the internet, it’s unsurprising that it has started to make its way to social media sites. Facebook, for example, just received its first lawsuit on the subject — a woman named Meyem Ali is suing the social media company for not appropriately handling revenge porn posts created about her on the site.

The idea behind revenge porn is as simple as it is disgusting. It is essentially nude pictures of a person posted online, without the person’s consent, by someone who has the intention of hurting them. It can take the form of pictures that an individual sent to a former partner, pictures that were stolen, or even photos that were photoshopped to appear nude. It’s important to note that the title “porn” is pretty misleading. It’s not so much porn as it is public humiliation. The “revenge” aspect comes from the fact that the explicit photos are often posted by a jilted ex-partner.

Revenge porn has existed ostensibly since the beginning of the Internet, perhaps longer, but it has only crept into public consciousness relatively recently. In 2010, a man named Hunter Moore created a site called IsAnyoneUp.com. It quickly became a the go-to platform for revenge porn, given that the site allowed submitters to annotate the photo with the subject’s name, address, and other personal information. It was an easy way for people who wanted to get “revenge” to really pinpoint their targets, because the person’s photo being posted on the site would often lead to ridicule, public-shaming, and harassment. Moore encouraged the postings, alleging that the women who were featured deserved it because they had taken pictures of themselves in compromising positions. IsAnyoneUp.com also contained some stolen and fabricated photos. Moore has since been arrested and indicted on charges of identity theft, among other things. But revenge porn still exists, and has started to creep into other corners of the internet.

This is how we get to Meyem Ali’s story. The Texas woman discovered a page in 2013 under her name. It contained multiple photos of her face photoshopped onto a nude woman’s body. In one of the pictures her body double was performing a sex act. She repeatedly asked Facebook to take the photos down, but they pretty much ignored her requests for nearly five months. Eventually she got the police involved, and after receiving a subpoena the company took down the pictures. Ali also found who had posted the account in the first place — a man with whom she had a casual relationship years before. Now, she is suing both the man and Facebook for the ordeal, arguing that for her completely public humiliation, she is entitled to 10 cents for each user Facebook has — totaling $123 million.

As sad as it sounds, Ali is somewhat lucky. Her concerns were taken seriously by the police, and some sort of action was taken. When it comes to revenge porn, that doesn’t always happen. Take the story of Charlotte and Kayla Laws — a mother and daughter pair from California. Kayla Laws had a topless picture of herself saved on her personal computer that she had never shared with anyone. Upon emailing the image to herself, the picture was stolen from the server and posted on IsAnyoneUp.com. At the time, only one state — New Jersey — had any sort of legislation criminalizing revenge porn. She and her mother fought back, especially after they were pretty much denied help from the police. One detective, missing the point so completely that he ended up on another planet, asked Kayla why she would even take a photo like that if she didn’t want people to see it. Eventually the Laws did gain the help of the FBI, but only after spending copious amounts of their own time and money trying to bring down Moore.

Since then, revenge porn legislation has gotten better…albeit slowly. Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Maryland, New Jersey, Idaho, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin all have some sort of law prohibiting it. Ali’s lawsuit against Facebook is another important marker — it acknowledges that in some cases, the posting of revenge porn isn’t just the action of the person who posts it, but also the sites that provide platforms for its proliferation.

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 $123 Million Facebook Lawsuit Could Mark Turning Point for Revenge Porn appeared first on Law Street.

Hello! Welcome to my blog. I thought I’d start things off with a rather tame subject, so let’s talk about abortion!

Well not really, but sort of. Let me explain.

I was scrolling through my Facebook news feed the other day when I came upon a friend’s status, which read: “Pro-Choice is not Pro-Abortion.” I wanted to “Like” this bit of wisdom a thousand times over, but on my way to click the little thumbs-up sign I noticed the status had 57 comments.

Fifty-seven.

After expanding the comment section (which was rapidly growing to 60…61…62…)  and reading through them, it became immediately apparent that I had stumbled onto a heated political debate comprised completely of supposed “friends” text-yelling (ALL CAPS) at each other through their comments. It is a social custom I have tried hard to avoid, as it is known to feed on the ignorance and close-mindedness of its debaters, and really who has ever had their opinion changed by a Facebook argument?

This one looked to be no different, but I began reading through the paragraphs of hardly-thought-out arguments anyway, simultaneously amused and saddened by the lack of true information being shared. The friend who had originally posted the status had stopped commenting around number 20 when one of the more opinionated Conservatives in the thread had said: “Of COURSE the man hating feminist is against having babies.”

Whoa.

First of all: this person clearly did not know the difference between feminism and misandry (but that’s a topic for another post). Second: they demonstrate the problem with posting political arguments on your profile.

Now, I am all for sharing your political opinions on social media. Unfortunately, you rarely see people posting statuses that are level-headed and based on fact. Rather, you’ll find opinions rooted in anger and ignorance that employ such devices as name-calling (as seen above) or references to religion that have no relevance to the argument. Also, more often than not, these hot-button topics like abortion, or gay rights, or feminism, spur debates that don’t go anywhere or change anything. Those topics are just small facets of larger issues that need to be addressed: sexual education, women’s health, women’s rights, the definition of marriage, etc.

Let’s look at the short and sweet status that started all this: “Pro-Choice is not Pro-Abortion.” The reason I liked it so much is because it’s really not about abortion at all. What this status is saying in as few words as possible is that Pro-Choice is about a woman’s right to make decisions about her own body. Pro-Choice says that we, as free American citizens, do not have the right to make decisions for thousands of women we have never met. It does not mean that, if given the choice, we would choose abortion. It doesn’t matter. Every woman is different and every single one should be able to decide what happens to her body. And yes, until that baby comes out of her vagina, it is part of her body.

But the topic of Pro-Choice/Pro-Life is at the tail end of a problem that begins with sex ed. Yes, those awkward hours of listening to your school’s P.E. teacher telling you how to put on condoms and explaining STIs. Did you know that not every school kid had to have that class? And of those who did, only a fraction got medically accurate information?

We all laugh at that scene from Mean Girls when Coach Carr is talking about how pregnancy will kill you. You know the one.

The not-so-funny part is that some kids actually receive that type of education from their teachers. According to this map put together by the Huffington Post, in the year 2014 several states don’t even require their schools to share information on contraception.

Courtesy of the The Huffington Post.

If there’s one thing that’s true about teenagers it’s that if they want to have sex, they will. Especially if you tell them not to. How can we expect them to have safe sex, and prevent STIs and unwanted pregnancies, if they don’t have all the information they need to know? It is only logical that if the number of people using contraception goes up, the number of unwanted pregnancies — and therefore abortions — will go down.

Sex ed restrictions aren’t merely for schools, though. Organizations like Planned Parenthood exist to give women and men information about contraceptives, STIs, abortions, adoptions, and healthcare. Yet, people continue to fight these organizations because they perform abortions. The focus, for some reason, is on just one of the many helpful services offered. But, like drugs and firearms, if you make something illegal people will still get their hands on it — and illegal abortions are definitely not safe.

So, for the safety and sanity of all the sexually active people out there: stop arguing about abortion and instead provide some alternatives to the dismal state of sex ed in America. And remember, when arguing about political issues on social media, keep it calm, accurate, and open-minded.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Discussing Abortion Distracts From Root Issue: Sex Ed appeared first on Law Street.

Writing about technology and its many uses has never been more important to me than today.  The civil disobedience, sadness, and anger expressed in Ferguson, Missouri by its residents and sympathizers would most likely have gone unnoticed by the majority of the nation if it weren’t for social media outlets like Youtube, Twitter, Vine, and Facebook.  To attribute the proper value to these technologies, we must first identify the root cause of the demonstrations which have led to a militarized police force and the enforcement of pseudo-martial law.  This post in no way condones, encourages, or repudiates any of the methods used by law enforcement or protesters, nor does it seek to pass judgment on the incomplete police investigation concerning the death of Michael Brown.  Instead, this post will point out what has happened, and highlight the use of technology to keep the public informed when formal media outlets were unable to.

On August 9th, a recent high school graduate and prospective college student by the name of Michael Brown was killed by a member of the Ferguson Police Department.  There is much speculation surrounding the death, including the order of events leading to it.  Because an official investigation is ongoing, the only thing we know for certain is that Michael Brown, although unarmed, was shot and killed by a Ferguson Police officer.  The people of Ferguson, left heartbroken and mourning, decided to commemorate Michael’s death with a candlelight vigil in the same neighborhood where Mr. Brown was killed.  However, the Ferguson police made an appearance at the vigil, bringing with them police dogs and brandishing high powered assault weapons. In response, the crowds’ emotions turned from grief, to outrage, and escalated to protest as documented by Vine and Youtube uploads as well as Tweets and Facebook posts.

In the midst of the protests, a handful of opportunists taking advantage of high emotions and tension destroyed the property of privately owned businesses by looting, vandalizing, and setting said businesses on fire.  This small group of criminals turned a peaceful protest into a riot, causing the St. Louis County Police Department to take over law enforcement in the area by using a strategy of militarized policing.  Characterizing the entire group of protesters as looters and rioters led to the denigration of the entire protest. This allowed the looters to become scapegoats, which subsequently justified militarized police aggression.  The denigration of a group of people and scapegoating resulting in justified aggression are all characteristic of systemic oppression.

Whether knowingly or unknowingly, St. Louis County PD increased tension when it informed Ferguson residents that neither the autopsy nor the identity of the officer involved in the killing of Michael Brown, would be released to the public.  As protests continued, the peaceful crowds were met with heavily armored trucks and tanks, high powered assault rifles, snipers perched ready and waiting, tear gas, and rubber bullets. The protesters were told by police standing in front of tanks and using loudspeakers, that their right to peacefully assemble was not being denied.  Although a curfew was not set, police made it clear that they wanted protesters off of the streets by nightfall and used tear gas and rubber bullets to push non-compliant protesters back. In some cases, as documented by Vine videos, police shot tear gas canisters into residential areas, including the fenced in backyard of a protester that refused to go inside his home, although he was protesting on his own property.

Police detained journalists and shot tear gas at a news crew they saw filming them.  After the news crew ran away from their van and equipment to escape the tear gas, police were photographed removing their cameras and pointing them toward the ground so they could no longer record police activity.  This is where the pseudo-martial law comes into play. To be clear, martial law was at no time officially declared, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it’s a duck. Disallowing the press to report activity; intimidating protesters with visuals of military-like riot gear; requiring protesters that are peacefully assembling to return to their homes by nightfall; detaining reporters without cause; and the use of militarized police enforcement are all characteristics of martial law.

The use of militarized law enforcement has been noted and called into question by government officials on both sides of the political spectrum.  Outrage by people following the activity in Ferguson on social media forums was voiced both nationally and internationally.  Photos, Vine and Youtube videos, as well as tweets and Facebook posts were the source of the outrage that led to protests in major cities throughout the country and internationally in cities like London.  There was even advice given in the form of Youtube videos to protesters in Ferguson by Palestinians on how to stay protected from tear gas.  As a result of public backlash against militarized policing, the Governor of Missouri, Mr. Jay Nixon, announced that Missouri Highway Patrol would take over law enforcement in Ferguson, and try to set a different tone.

The tone set by Missouri Highway Patrol was one of peace and understanding. Captain Ronald Johnson described his personal connection to not only Ferguson but to the killing of Michael Brown. The change in police technique was noted by formal media outlets as well as social media postings which reported MHP officers walking with protesters instead of standing against them. These officers were not dressed in riot gear nor did they use methods such as tear gas or rubber bullets in their interactions with Ferguson protesters.  In addition, the Ferguson Police Chief has announced they will comply with one of the requests of the protesters, to release the identity of the police officer who shot Michael Brown. That identity was released earlier today.

Not only did social media keep the public informed of minute by minute occurrences in Ferguson, but social media users also pointed out what they believed to be disparities in formal media coverage with hashtags on Twitter and Instagram like #IfIWasGunnedDown.  This particular hashtag was used to show ways in which news coverage portrays black victims by displaying unflattering images as opposed to more positive looking images to influence character assassination of the victims.  Other hashtags like #Ferguson were used to allow social media users to quickly find information related to the Ferguson protests.  While social media is an amazing platform that can be used to inform the public, it also showed differing public opinions.  Some users voiced support for the use of military-like force against protesters and used the incident of looting as evidence for its need.  Others voiced disapproval that such force was being used and accused militarized police enforcement of inciting more anger among peaceful protesters.

It’s unclear what will happen in Ferguson but it should be appreciated that people were able to inform the public, voice their opinions, and urge a public discussion on topics such as race relations, militarized policing, civil liberties, police brutality, and what people consider to be justice or injustice.  Social media opened up the problems of a town with a population of 21,000 to the world, causing people to come together in solidarity and peaceful protest.  If it weren’t for the openness of the Internet here in the US, we may have never known what was happening in Ferguson.  Whether you agree or disagree with what is going on in Ferguson, we can all take heart in knowing we were all able to use social media and technology to be informed and come to our own conclusions.

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #Ferguson: How Social Media Kept America Informed appeared first on Law Street.

A fight is brewing between law enforcement officials and Facebook, and it’s just gotten some new players in the form of other social media companies. New York City has been trying to use evidence posted on Facebook as proof of fraud committed by government employees. The city has now run afoul of some of the largest social network companies, who are arguing that the actions taken by the NYPD and prosecutors are violating their users’ Fourth Amendment rights.

It all started when the NYPD discovered that a number of government employees–including fireman, police officers, and others–had been taking disability payments without actually being disabled. Evidence of their fraud came from their Facebook accounts–some of the employees supposedly on disability were also engaging in clearly strenuous physical activities during the same time period. There were also private messages sent through the social network in which the alleged fraudsters admitted to their wrongdoing.

The investigators got a warrant to search the Facebook accounts of the employees that they thought were breaking the law, as well as accounts of their families, friends, and other acquaintances. While they did eventually succeed, it was only after Facebook argued strongly against the investigation. Facebook claimed that the search of private accounts is “unreasonable” and skirts Fourth Amendment protections. The company is now filing an appeal making the same argument–and they’ve got some friends backing them up. Foursquare, Kickstarter, MeetUp, and Tumblr have all decided to stand with Facebook. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the New York Civil Liberties Union will also be getting involved.

This case is yet another example of how the intersection between new technology and existing laws can get quite messy. The warrant originally requested by the NYPD involved a grand total of 381 Facebook accounts–many of which were only connected tangentially. The requested accounts had interacted with those of the accused–nothing more. Facebook argued that the search of those 381 accounts was tantamount to searching roughly 400 homes. That argument is fair, but a bit stretched. If there was a crime committed, the NYPD would have the right to search 400 houses, as long as they could prove it was reasonable.

In response, Facebook’s Deputy Chief Counsel Chris Sonderby argued,

It appeared to us from the outset that there would be a large number of people who were never charged in court. The district attorney’s response was that these people would have their day in court. There are more than 300 people that will never have that chance.

But according to NYPD and prosecutors, they did just that–they provided almost 100 pages of documentation explaining why they were searching each account when they requested the warrant.

There’s also the question of what right Facebook has to the accounts in their system. They challenged the warrant on behalf of their clients, and there’s a lot of legal ambiguity as to whether they were able to do so. They most certainly could not have alerted their clients that they were being investigated–that would have been impeding an investigation. Facebook claims that this created a big problem for their attorneys–they couldn’t do anything to stop it on their clients’ behalf, and they couldn’t do anything to warn their customers to get them involved.

The fact that other social networks have now said they’re going to join this legal fight will go a long way. As electronic communications become more and more popular, existing laws may not be able to keep up. While the collective action of social media companies may be forming a powerful lobby, whether or not their arguments for privacy and Fourth Amendment rights will prevail is up to the appeals court.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead 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.

Featured image courtesy of [Nick Booth via Flickr]

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 Social Media Search Warrant Fight Heats Up appeared first on Law Street.

When it comes to marketing, they say that sex sells. That may have been true ten years ago when retailers like Abercrombie & Fitch, Calvin Klein, and United States of Benetton ruled the fashion scene. But lately the industry seems to be erring on the safe side in advertising. Maybe this is why controversial photographers like Dov Charney and Terry Richardson have recently gotten the boot. Maybe it’s a movement in feminism. But maybe it’s just censorship.

The sexualized female figure has shocked the public since the Impressionist Era. The censorship of the female nipple is nothing new; however, as in art, it’s this same kind of scandal that often gives companies the most attention, which is basically the point of advertising. The more people are talking about a company, the more money they make. There is no such thing as bad press. So why are so many ads playing it safe these days?

One reason for this could be that companies just don’t want to bother with all the hassle. If an ad is too controversial, it risks getting banned in some countries. For example, back in 2011 the U. K.’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) seemed to read a little too much into Dakota Fanning’s ad for Marc Jacobs’ perfume Lola, resulting in a ban throughout Great Britain. The ad features Fanning with the perfume bottle, which includes a large rubber rose on the cap, between her legs. At the time the ad ran, Fanning was only 17 so it upset people to see a minor, whom the ASA claimed looked under the age of 16, staring in such a “provocative” ad.

Marc Jacobs, however, seems hardly controversial compared to other retailers such as Benetton and Italian label Sisley. These companies are notorious for making cheap shots when it comes to advertising. For these two, the more scandalous, the better: from a kissing nun and priest to a man dying of AIDS to “fashion junkies” snorting a dress. Despite their tendencies to upset the public, these ads have been successful in garnering attention. In such cases, these companies value shock factor over just putting out a pretty ad.

Benetton has become tamer since photographer Oliver Toscani stopped working with the company in 2000. Their recent Unhate campaign featuring feuding world leaders kissing, like President Obama, Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez, Pope Benedict XVI , and Egyptian leader Grand Sheikh Ahmed el Tayeb, led to the Vatican suing back in 2011.

Another reason ads may have tamed down is that companies now do most of their marketing through social media. Sites like Facebook and Instagram are heavily regulated when it comes to what they determine is appropriate for such a large and diverse audience. Most pictures featuring the female nipple are promptly removed from these sites within hours of posting. Therefore, if an ad is considered too inappropriate, the company risks losing a large amount of consumers.

Although sometimes they make more than one version of an ad through strategic cropping, companies, especially smaller ones that can’t afford it, may not want to bother paying for multiple versions of the same campaign. Social media also allows for free advertising for all kinds of companies and can be shared to reach consumers who may not normally pay attention to a specific brand. While Benetton’s ads certainly have a tendency to go viral, they risk running into potential legal troubles on the web. If an ad ends up on a site with certain regulations, the company could be held accountable.

Online advertising has presented endless opportunities for giving companies exposure but at the same time, advertising has also never been more censored. There are few laws to regulate what is appropriate and what is not online, so it is often up to the websites themselves to make the regulations. Many sites do not want to face the legal complications involved with featuring controversial images, which in turn has led advertisers to not even bother with anything controversial in the first place.

While Benetton may not offer anything groundbreaking or artistically ingenious in its ads, the company is known for opening up a conversation about greater issues such as HIV/AIDS, homophobia, and racism. Lately however, there is not much conversation going on regarding these kinds of ads, just a bunch of pretty models in pretty clothes. While the point of fashion advertising is to sell clothes, sometimes the less clothing a model wears, the more intrigued a consumer may be to find out what kind of product the ad is selling. The use of accessories in fashion ads also creates a more timeless image, which is bound to be remembered and used for decades.

Perhaps advertisers should start taking cues from the Impressionists again, instead of playing it safe. The Impressionists lucked out though, because there was no ASA or Facebook back then to stop them from creating anything interesting.

Of course full-on nudity isn’t the only way to intrigue an audience with sex appeal. Let us not forget the classic Brooke Shields for Calvin Klein ads, who was just 15 at the time.

Nothing, not even the ASA could get between her and her Calvins.

—

Katherine Fabian (@kafernn) is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center and is currently applying to law schools, freelance writing, and teaching yoga. She hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers.

Featured image courtesy of [Buzzfeed]

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Censorship in Fashion: Where Did All the Controversial Ads Go? appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court is finally ruling on free speech relating to social media platforms. Now, before we jump the gun and say putting limitations on free speech is a violation of the First Amendment, let me explain. This conversation was sparked by a recent case — United States of America v. Anthony Douglas Elonis. I originally thought the outcome of this case was absurd — the defendant is serving more than three years in prison for a few eccentric Facebook posts. Really? Then I dug deeper and what I found was quite disturbing.

After losing his wife, his kids, and his job, Anthony Elonis was depressed and angry. He turned to Facebook to rant. And the “raps” he posted threatened his former place of work, his wife, innocent children, and an FBI agent. Below are some excerpts from his “rap lyrics”:

I also found out that it’s incredibly illegal,
extremely illegal, to go on Facebook and say
something like the best place to fire a mortar
launcher at her house would be from the
cornfield behind it because of easy access to a
getaway road and you’d have a clear line of
sight through the sun room.
Insanely illegal.
Ridiculously, wrecklessly, insanely illegal.
Yet even more illegal to show an illustrated
diagram.
===[ __ ] =====house
: : : : : : : ^ : : : : : : : : : : : :cornfield
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
######################getaway road
Insanely illegal.
Ridiculously, horribly felonious.
Cause they will come to my house in the middle
of the night and they will lock me up.
Extremely against the law.

In another post he “rapped” about shooting up a kindergarten classroom:

That’s it, I’ve had about enough
I’m checking out and making a name for myself
Enough elementary schools in a ten mile radius
to initiate the most heinous school shooting ever
imagined
And hell hath no fury like a crazy man in a
kindergarten class
The only question is . . . which one?

Do you feel uncomfortable yet? You can also check out the hearing transcript for more of Elonis’ disconcerting posts. By now, you’re probably pretty creeped out by this weird Eminem wannabe. Well, he served his time: a 44-month sentence. What makes me see red is why he was convicted.

Elonis landed in the slammer for “transmit[ting] in interstate or foreign commerce any
communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another…” Anyone else think it’s problematic that despite his threats, which blatantly targeted his wife, he was sentenced on a technicality?

Cyber threats are common; Elonis’ wife is not alone. Now the media is examining when rap crosses the line from being “gangsta” to being threatening? This issue is at the crux of the case the Supreme Court will hear in the upcoming term.

True Threats

While true threats are not protected by the First Amendment, the Supreme Court is struggling with ambiguities like cyber threats. The last time the court had a case involving threats was the 2003 case Virginia v. Black et al. The court defined true threats as “statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.”

Elonis defended his posts as art, saying he therefore lacked intent to actually carry out those threats. But his threats were specific, well thought-out, and frightening. So were his posts true threats or merely artistic expression? That’s exactly the question SCOTUS will have to answer.

When Does Rap go too Far?

Elonis is one of many who have been put on trial for violent content in rap lyrics. Now who doesn’t love some good ol’ fashioned hate-the-world, go burn in hell, Eminem-style rap? I actually love Eminem – my iTunes holds precisely 54 of his songs. Yes, his raps are graphic, violent, angry, and sometimes downright grotesque. But, aside from his mother, whom he actually bought a mansion, he does not outline specific plans for a single person’s demise. He’s just angry at the world, that’s all.

So, this is where Eminem’s content differs from Elonis’, among others. The debate is tangled — scholars and legal professionals need to consider artistic expression, intent, and how that plays out in the cyber world.

A group of legal scholars are defending Elonis and his “artistic expression” posts on Facebook. Clay Calvert, Erik Nielson, and Charis E. Kubrin argue that the context in which artistic expression is interpreted depends on its vessel of dissemination, in this case, social media. So, higher courts have difficulty determining the context and the intent, which both affect the verdict of threat cases involving social media posts.

The subject is highly complex, but my opinion on this is simple. If you post poorly written yet fear-inducing threats to Facebook, you deserve to be put away. Elonis is clearly not stable, as you can see from the nostalgic posts about his ex-wife, whom he threatened to behead.

Rap is considered an art form, so it’s protected by the First Amendment. But throw social media into the mix and our Constitution becomes difficult to apply. So, yes, I’m relieved the Supreme Court will rule on this convoluted case because it will have long-reaching ramifications. I would certainly feel more secure if social media threats were considered more seriously, especially considering the shooting in Santa Barbara last month.

When it comes to threats, there is a fine line between protecting our First Amendment rights and protecting our citizens. My hope is that the Supreme Court will find a solution by defining when threats should be taken literally and when they are artistic ploys.

Featured image courtesy of [dcwriterdawn via Flickr]

Natasha Paulmeno

Natasha Paulmeno is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends. Contact Natasha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court to Determine How Free Speech Applies to Social Media appeared first on Law Street.

In an era engulfed by technology, previous ways of life have undergone a revamping. One aspect is the way in which social movements are conducted. The implementation of social media as a key tool in producing change has created “hashtag activism,” a way of protest both hailed and scorned by critics for its influence.

What is Hashtag Activism?

Hashtag activism is the act of supporting a cause that is being advocated through social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and other networking websites. Although sometimes criticized for its lack of effectiveness and promotion of lazy activism, it is the implementation of social media as a platform to raise awareness on a multitude of issues.

On September 17, 2011 the #OccupyWallStreet movement began to raise issues of economic and social inequality in the United States. Arguably one of the first major Twitter campaign, the protest mobilized thousands of people almost exclusively through the Internet. Robert Reich, former secretary of Labor under President Clinton, notes that, “Occupy put the issue of the nation’s savage inequality on the front pages” and “to that extent, it was a stirring success.” Although  with a lack of clear objectives and leadership the movement was unable to sustain long-term economic changes, #OccupyWallStreet created a new method of activism that was adopted in future campaigns.

Cases of Hashtag Activism

#Kony2012

War criminal and Ugandan military leader Joseph Kony is known for abducting children and turning them into child soldiers and sex slaves. In an effort to draw attention to his offenses Invisible Children, Inc. released a short documentary titled Kony 2012 in March of 2012, kick starting the “Stop Kony” movement that swept the United States. As of June 1, 2014 the film has over 99.5 million views on YouTube.

Americans helped contribute to the nearly 2.4 million tweets #Kony2012 accumulated in March 2012. Stimulated by the general public and celebrities alike, the United States deployed 100 military advisers to join the force of 5,000 sent by the African Union to suppress the violence in Uganda.

Abou Moussa, the U.N. Central Africa representative said, “We need to take advantage of the high level of interest, goodwill and political commitment to finally put an end to this crime.”

However, Joseph Kony remains on Forbes World’s Most Wanted Fugitives list as he has yet to be captured by the authorities.

#BringBackOurGirls

Boko Haram, a terrorist group in Nigeria, kidnapped 276 female students from their school on April 15, 2014. Since their abduction, the girls have involuntary converted to Islam and forced into marriages at the bride price of $12 dollars a piece.

Parents and activists were frantic for the government to escalate their involvement to find the missing girls, and their need to spread awareness led them to Twitter. According to BBC Trending‘s Anne-Marie Tomchack, Ibrahim M Abdullah, a lawyer in Nigeria, was the creator of the hashtag #BringBackOurGirls. The story of the abducted girls did not begin to gather attention until April 23, 2014 when Nigerians adopted the new slogan and began tweeting it.

Perhaps the Nigerian government would be able to ignore regular citizens calling for help, but once First Lady Michelle Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, and Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton got involved the issue could no longer be disregarded.

Time’s Laura Olin stated, “It’s not everything, but it’s a start. And the world is now talking about 276 stolen girls in Nigeria when before it wasn’t talking about them at all.”

Boko Haram has continued to terrorize the people of Nigeria. Since the abduction of the school girls, the militants have kidnapped even more children and murdered people in towns along the way. The Nigerian government has been all over the place with its involvement. Statements banning protests were released, followed by a quick change of heart from the administration claiming it has, “never, ever tried to violate anybody’s rights. We believe in human rights, we believe in citizens’ rights.” Allegedly the military knows where the remaining girls are, but has yet to go in due to the danger of the camp.

#YesAllWomen

On May 23, 2014, Elliot Rodger went on a killing spree near the University of California, Santa Barbara campus in Isla Vista. Six people were fatally wounded and another thirteen were injured before Rodger committed suicide in the midst of a police chase. Before the attacks began, Rodger posted alarming and irate videos to YouTube declaring his disdain of all women since they had been rejecting him throughout his life. In addition to the series of videos, he produced a 137 page autobiographical manifesto written in the same sentiment.

Although it is clear that Rodger was more vicious and vehement than most, the outlines of the prevailing misogynistic American cultural values were evident in his manifesto. Feminists could no longer stand for the perverse ideology and took to social media to let the world know.

Because being alone in a parking garage at night is one of the most terrifying experiences on earth #YesAllWomen

— jackie vasquez (@jvask) May 25, 2014

#YesAllWomen because even a taped confession admitting to raping me wasn't enough to put him in jail.

— Jessi Smiles (@jessismiles__) May 26, 2014

I shouldn't have to hold my car keys in hand like a weapon & check over my shoulder every few seconds when I walk at night #YesAllWomen

— Sophia Bush (@SophiaBush) May 25, 2014

The Twitter campaign #YesAllWomen created a place for women to share their own stories of sexism and brought attention to Rodger’s animosity toward women, that stemmed from the outlooks of our society. The New Yorker’s Sasha Weiss accurately described the moment as,

“#YesAllWomen is the vibrant revenge of women who have been gagged and silenced.”

#YesAllWomen is effective since instead of preaching to the typical feminist choir, it drew in the more mainstream population including men and celebrities. However, not all individuals were able to see the campaign for what it was and swiftly came to the defense of the male gender.

To counter #YesAllWomen, men’s rights activists were quick to tweet #NotAllMen. The thread was fashioned to establish that Rodger did not represent the entirety of the male gender; he was one of those terrible guys, not like the rest of them. #NotAllMen contributors felt the burning desire to let the world know they are not the problem and to once again push women’s issues to the back burner(if it was intended or not).

The people who tweeted #NotAllMen or believed that feminists were just on another one of their rampages missed what #YesAllWomen was intended to do. The true sentiment #YesAllWomen was expressed by CNN’s Emanuella Grinberg who said, “No, not all men channel frustration over romantic rejection into a killing spree. But yes, all women experience harassment, discrimination or worse at some point in their lives.”

As on May 26, 2014 the #YesAllWomen hashtag has reached 1.2 million tweets and 1.2 billion impressions.

 Arguments for Hashtag Activism

“Hashtag activism is a gateway between politics and popular culture, a platform to educate the ignorant and draw attention to the operation of power in the world,” stated Ben Scott in New America’s Weekly Wonk. By using a medium that is seen by millions of people daily, hashtag activism has the ability to alter a person’s attitude towards a cause by exposing them to others personal experiences and witnessing mass support. As social change is dependent on transformation at an individual level, Twitter makes itself invaluable as a campaign tool.

When victims see that others have endured the same trauma, it directly helps them as they can see that they are not alone in their pain. Even if they do not feel support by those they directly interact with in life, they know that people do care about them.

Along with the cases previously mentioned, computer-based activists also directly impacted the amount of funding for another issue they felt strongly about. Planned Parenthood annually receives $680,000 dollars from the Susan G. Komen Foundation that helps provide exams largely for minority and low income women. In January 2012, Komen announced that it would stop its funding of mammograms and breast exams through Planned Parenthood. The Internet went into an uproar, tweeting hashtags like #standwithpp and #singon. By Friday of that week, Komen had reversed its decision and stated it would continue to support Planned Parenthood.

Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, told the Los Angeles Times, “I absolutely believe the exposure on Facebook and Twitter really drove a lot of coverage by mainstream media… I’ve never seen anything catch fire [like this].”

 Arguments Against Hashtag Activism

Criticisms of hashtag activism stem from the thought that the generation that uses a social media-driven method of reform are observers, commenters, self-indulgent philanthropists – not true advocates witnessed in previous eras. CNN’s Dean Obeidallah stated that the ‘Greatest Generation’ in the 1940s and ‘50s were, “doers, not watchers.” In the ‘60s and ‘70s, the streets were flooded with protests of the Vietnam War and roared with a call for civil rights, forcing the hand of government officials to listen the people’s wishes.

Now the most common form of demonstration is retweeting another’s thoughts or giving a “like” on Facebook. Sure, online petitions are digitally signed, but the automatic signature lacks the passion displayed by movements that have come before.

Obeidallah relates the tactics of hashtag activists to the revolutionaries in the Arab world. He acknowledges that they did use social media, but their efforts did not stop there. Protesters risked their lives to achieve the change they yearned for, “All the tweets in the world would not have driven the presidents of Egypt or Tunisia from their offices,” declared Obeidallah.

Sarah Palin has also voiced her opinion on the inefficiencies of using social media to obtain success. On the former Governors Facebook page she posted a photo of a man with sheets of paper attached to his body, with hashtags scribed on them such as, “#StopLazyInternetActivism” and “#YouAreNotMakingADifference.” In regards to the abductions done by Boko Haram and the #BringBackOurGirls campaign that ensued, Palin included personal commentary in a caption:

Diplomacy via Twitter is the lazy, ineffectual, naïve, and insulting way for America’s leaders to deal with major national and international issues… If you’re going to get involved anyway, Mr. President, learn to understand this and believe it, then announce it: Victory is only brought to you ‘courtesy of the red, white and blue.’ It’s certainly not won by your mere ‘unfriending’ the bad guys on Facebook. Leading from behind is not the American way.

Evgeny Morozov, the author of “The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom, said, “My hunch is that people often affiliate with causes online for selfish and narcissistic purposes… Sometimes, it may be as simple as trying to impress their online friends, and once you have fashioned that identity, there is very little reason to actually do anything else.”

Many individuals share the impression that hashtags may come and go and they are no match for real world engagement.

Conclusion

While it cannot be denied that hashtag activism is an effective method in spreading awareness of a cause, the tangible achievements attained from physical protests perhaps outweigh those on the Internet. The absence of organization and leadership found in many Twitter-based campaigns have some people critical of the realistic capability these movements have in comparison to the street pounding tactics used during the civil rights movements. For a movement to be successful in a technology-driven generation, a combination of both civic engagement and hashtag activism would produce the best results.

 Resources

The New York Times: The Manifesto of Elliot Rodger

Washington Post: #BringBackOurGirls, #Kony2012, and the Complete, Divisive History of ‘Hashtag Activism’

Reuters: African Union Launches U.S.-Backed Force to Hunt Kony

#BBCtrending: The Creator of #BringBackOurGirls

Time: #BringBackOurGirls: Hashtag Activism Is Cheap – And That’s a Good Thing

CNN: Deadly California Rampage: Chilling Video, But No Match for Reality

New Yorker: The Power of #YesAllWomen

Time: Not All Men: A Brief History of Every Dude’s Favorite Argument

CNN: Why #YesAllWomen Took Off on Twitter

Hashtags: Social Media Users Respond to Existing Dangers Towards Women with #YesAllWomen

Weekly Wonk: #WhyHashtagActivismMatters

New Zealand Herald: Verity Johnson: Hashtag Activism – #TakeItSeriously

LA Times: Komen Learns Power of Social Media: Facebook, Twitter Fueled Fury

The New York Times: Hashtag Activism, and Its Limits

Christian Science Monitor: Happy Birthday, Occupy!

Forbes: The World’s 10 Most Wanted Fugitives

CNN: Boko Haram Blamed for Nigeria Village Attacks; 15 Killed, Chief Kidnapped

Telegraph: Nigeria: Kidnapped Schoolgirls ‘S\

Alex Hill

Alex Hill studied at Virginia Tech majoring in English and Political Science. A native of the Washington, D.C. area, she blames her incessant need to debate and write about politics on her proximity to the nation’s capital.

The post Hashtag Activism: Is it #Effective? appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Like it or not we live in a social media world — it is sometimes shoved down our throats when we don’t want it to be. No matter what show I watch, especially the news, everyone has a Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, Vine, or Pinterest logo popping up on the screen attached to the handle of whomever is speaking at that moment. Don’t get me wrong, I love social media, but I wonder how far we have allowed this phenomenon to take us that soon-to-be married couples are considering Social Media Prenups.

I tend to be a fairly private person and I don’t post every move I make on Facebook. My Twitter, on the other hand, is an outlet for everything that is going on, but I try to keep it as anonymous as possible for others involved. With that said, there are plenty of people out there who put their entire lives on Facebook and Instagram. I think it’s great if you are one of those people, you are braver than I am. But where do you draw the line?

I always thought a prenuptial agreement was something that was drawn up for a couple on the incase that the marriage might go south and the individuals need to protect themselves during the fallout. When did dictating what a person can or cannot do during the marriage based on social media become a thing? Why would you marry someone who did not respect your verbal wishes of keeping certain things private and between each other and not put it out for the whole world to see? This concept of a social media prenup screams a lack of respect for one another’s privacy and wishes, so maybe you shouldn’t marry that person if he can’t do the simplest of things. Not to mention that respect should be a deal breaker. If you don’t respect the other person then why are you with them?

I love social media, but this is getting out of hand. Penalizing your spouse for posting a picture, really!?! That’s unnecessary drama just waiting to happen. I do understand that if the marriage ends and your now-ex decides to post awful pictures and sexual videos or slander your name, you have every right to penalize them and that should be something included in a prenup — or even just a simple contract for married couples. But just because your husband posts a picture of you that you think doesn’t look good should not warrant a fee. Simply ask him to take the photo down! And if he refuses, y’all have bigger issues than a bad photo on the internet.

According to ABC News, people are also creating “love contracts,” which are essentially something that promotes a way of communicating and understanding one another’s boundaries. I think it’s a good idea but attaching a financial penalty to posting a bad photo is just insane, petty, and childish. Laying out a plan and understanding ways of better communication should be something every couple does before getting married.

Go out and enjoy life. Share it on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, or Vine. Just don’t cross a line that you know would upset your significant other. Respect your relationship and respect social media.

—

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [Quinn Dombrowski via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Don’t Jump on the Social Media Prenup Bandwagon appeared first on Law Street.

The advent of social media has meant that the average person documents his or her activities to a far greater extent than previous generations. On Instagram, we might sneak a photo at work. On Tumblr, we might yawn out a recap of our emotional well being. On Twitter, we might spit out spontaneous thoughts and capture everything we like, share, comment on, and much more on Facebook. Collectively, all of this activity narrates a quite detailed story about our lives.

A major question emerges from this new, sweeping social presence: should all of this sharing warrant celebration or fear?

A recent federal case provides a nice angle to explore this issue. In Vasquez v. Metro-North, an employee of Metro-North Railroads sued the company after he injured his wrist at the workplace. Vasquez, the employee, claims Metro-North aggravated his injury by asking him to return back to work before he fully recovered. To rebut Vasquez’s claim, Metro-North points to social media photographs of Vasquez lifting weights after his injury and claims that if he can perform that activity, then he can do what he needs to do at his job.

Should Metro-North be permitted to use photographs of Vasquez from social media in a court trial about a worker’s injury?

One key fact concerns whether the photographs were publicly accessible or private. Could courts allow one party to access the private photographs and information contained on the other party’s social media sites? Certainly, a different sentiment emerges if the user makes the information publicly available as opposed to if the person shared it to a small group of people.

But, should it matter? If the issue in a trial concerns finding the truth, should one party be able to selectively search through private social media information of the other party in the pursuit of justice? If Vasquez really attempted to milk the system, it might benefit society to find a corrective for such free riding, even if that corrective involves accessing the private social media information of another party.

Alternatively, this raises heavy privacy concerns and we might be uncomfortable with the potential for abuse. A photograph lacks exactitude and access to social media accounts might confuse juries with an abundance of mildly relevant crumbs. Vasquez argues that though he could life weights during the time in question, his wrist would not allow him to perform his job functions. Does weight-lifting really parallel the functions anyone performs at a job such that it can reveal anything meaningful about a person’s capacity? It is difficult to know.

More clear is the notion that this issue might not have surfaced even five years ago. Only in the modern social media age do we casually photograph ourselves at the gym and post it with a relatively certified timestamp. And only now do we have to worry about how this sharing might come back to serve a more twisted purpose.

—

Imran Ahmed is a law student and writer living in New York City whose blog explores the legal implications of social media and the internet. Contact him via email here.

Featured image courtesy of [tpdave via Pixabay]

Imran Ahmed

Imran Ahmed is a writer living in New York. Contact Imran at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Your Gym Selfies Might Be Used Against You in Court appeared first on Law Street.

Tech startup Alibaba is making major headlines with its decision to file for an IPO. Alibaba is certainly different than many other tech companies. While many startups tout abilities to disrupt the market, Alibaba depends on China’s shift to a more western structure in which spending is valued over saving. Time will tell if Alibaba is right in its assumptions.

One of Alibaba’s creations is called WeChat — an app that attempts to change the way people communicate. With 12 different features, the technology shows extraordinary promise in accomplishing its goal. Among other things, users can live and group chat, make video calls, web WeChat, and Facebook connect.  Although many of these features are already popular, WeChat’s ability to combine all of our favorite tools into one app and include several lesser known features makes it unique.

Let’s take a look at the group chat QR code. In the WeChat app, QR codes are used to allow Apple, Windows, Blackberry, and Android phones to scan a code assigned to the group chat in order to temporarily connect the user’s web browser with her phone. This means that instead of being confined to just your phone, you can use the QR code to mobilize the app on various devices.

WeChat provides social features like shake and look around, which sets it apart from similar apps like the popular WhatsApp. The shake feature asks users to shake their phones and connects them with local people who shake their phones at the same time, allowing connections to people in your vicinity. I’m not sure how useful that particular feature is, but it does seem like an interesting way to meet new people. The look around feature is similar to shake in the sense that people have a chance to connect with other WeChat users in the area: once you turn on the look around feature, you’re able to see all the people nearby who have also activated it and send a greeting to people of interest.

Finally, the drift bottle feature allows you to create a voice text message and throw it into the WeChat ocean.  A person can come along and choose the option to pick up your drift bottle.  After reading the message, users have the option to either respond or throw it back into the WeChat ocean. It’s a pretty fun feature and could end up being a good time depending on the message you pick up.

The use of new social features and QR codes sets this communication app apart from the masses.  Alibaba managed to take communication technology in a different direction than most people would expect, and it seems to be paying off. Maybe the new approach to becoming a publicly traded company will have the same positive results.

__

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a graduate student at Howard University with a concentration in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football.

Featured image courtesy of [Rico Shen via Wikipedia]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Alibaba Creates a Stir With IPO Filing and WeTalk App appeared first on Law Street.

Good afternoon folks! How many of you are David Choe fans?

He’s a pretty fascinating dude. A Korean-American hailing from Los Angeles, Choe is an artist, an author, a reality TV star, a podcast host, and he’s spent time in prison. He got his start as a graffiti artist in LA — an angsty, rebellious teenager if ever there was one. He dropped out of high school, spent a few years traveling the world as a hitchhiker, and then returned to spend a few years in formal art school.

Since then, he’s gone on to become a wildly successful and subversive artist. Facebook commissioned him to paint murals in their first Silicon Valley office, making him a millionaire when they paid him in stock options instead of cash. Now, Choe’s work graces every Facebook office, as well as the White House. He stars in a Vice show called “Thumbs Up!” that documents his life as he hitchhikes all over the place, and he hosts a podcast with porn star Asa Akira where they talk about sexy things. Plus — added bonus — he’s a ballin’ gambler who did jail time in Japan for punching a security guard. Truth.

Lovers of bad boys, rejoice. David Choe is kind of your dream. He’s artsy, he’s rebellious, he can’t deal with authority figures, and his entire career is like a giant middle-finger to the concept of respectable and gainful employment.

But don’t get too excited. Because dude doesn’t seem to understand the concept of enthusiastic consent.

In a recent podcast, Choe recounted an eyebrow-raising sexual experience to his cohost, Akira, that he says he had with a masseuse called “Rose.” The podcast went relatively unnoticed — WHY THAT IS I DON’T KNOW (throwing shade at you, patriarchal rape culture that doesn’t bat an eye at this shit) — until xoJane unearthed it and asked the Internet a giant WTF. Thank you, xoJane, for being awesome. You win the Internet this week.

According to Choe’s own account (which he has since stated was an extension of his art and not fact), he was getting a massage and started masturbating right there in front of Rose, without asking her or informing her of his intent to turn this massage into a sexual experience. Here’s how he described the incident:

“It’s dangerous and it’s super self-destructive. I’m at a place and there’s potential for a lawsuit… and she has given me no signs that she’s into me or that this is appropriate behavior. In my head I go, Do you care if I jerk off right now? and it sounds so creepy in my head that I go I can’t say that out loud … So I go back to the chill method of you never ask first, you just do it, get in trouble and then pay the price later.

…So then her hands get off my leg and she just stops … I go ‘Look I’m sorry I can’t help myself — can you just pretend like I’m not doing this and you continue with the massage?’ And she’s like ‘All right’ and she does … I’m like ‘Can I touch your butt?’ and I reach out and touch her butt and she pulls away. She doesn’t want me to touch her butt.”

OK dude, so you should stop it. When someone doesn’t want you to make sexual advances, you need to stop making them. Obviously. WHAT ARE YOU DOING?

His cohost, Asa, picked up on that little detail, and clearly says to him in response to this awful story, “So, you raped her.”

He responds:

“With the rape stuff…I mean, I would have been in a lot of trouble right now if I put her hand on my dick and she’s like “F**king stop I’m gonna go call security.” That would have been a much different story. But the thrill of possibly going to jail, that’s what achieved the erection quest.”

So by his own account, this is a guy who describes getting off by pushing someone to do something she’s not comfortable doing. That’s the personification of rape culture, folks. It’s a culture where women’s bodies are viewed as objects, as property to be handled and exploited. Women don’t have to say yes for other people to feel entitled to us, and even when we say no, it’s often not enough.

Whether or not Choe is confessing to actual rape, he describes knowingly pushing Rose to do things she said no to. And that’s really, really not OK.

Folks, rape doesn’t always look the same. There are lots of different ways to rape someone, or to be raped. It doesn’t have to be a strange man in a dark alley. It doesn’t have to be someone who beats you. It doesn’t have to be someone who’s got a knife to your throat.

Sometimes rape is less dramatic. Sometimes it’s a partner who doesn’t take no for an answer. Sometimes it’s a person who takes advantage of you when you’re disempowered. And sometimes, it’s a random creep in a massage studio.

None of these things are, or ever will be, OK. No means no, David Choe. Fucking stop it.

—

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

Featured image courtesy of [jm3 on Flickr via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

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

The post No Means No, David Choe appeared first on Law Street.

On Sunday night, this puzzling exchange happened on American Airlines’ Twitter account: 

American Airlines Twitter via USA Today.

The tweeter in question is a 14-year-old girl named Sarah. She has since told the press that the tweet was a joke — because apparently Sarah has no idea what a joke is.

After American Airlines tweeted that they were sending her information to the FBI, she tweeted about how scared she was, and that she was “just a fangirl pls I don’t have evil thoughts and plus I’m a white girl.”  It really does seem like a ploy for attention though, given that she also tweeted to the world her number of followers and pretty much her entire experience with the fallout. She has since been arrested, and American Airlines released a statement saying, “At American, the safety of our passengers and crew is our number one priority. We take security matters very seriously and work with authorities on a case by case basis.”

Well, clearly Sarah isn’t very bright. But most people should know that tweeting terror threats at a major airline is an incredibly bad idea, right?

In actuality, since this story broke, about a dozen different people have sent similar threats to American Airlines, as well as a few have to Southwest Airlines, a completely unrelated company. And there were other inflammatory tweets sent out in support of “Plus I’m a white girl” Sarah. I can’t get over this, really. Why in the world would anyone ever think it’s a good idea to say these things. I cannot imagine that young people who are savvy enough to use Twitter don’t understand how IP addresses work. It’s really pretty easy for law enforcement to find pretty much anyone.

And this Sarah girl is by no means the only person her age to say something exceptionally stupid on the internet. There have been countless similar incidents. For example, last February, a teen from Texas got into an argument with a friend on Facebook over a video game. He ended up commenting something to the effect of “Oh yeah, I’m real messed up in the head, I’m going to go shoot up a school full of kids and eat their still, beating hearts. LOL. JK.” That young man, Justin Carter, ended up getting arrested for the comment, which was charged as a terror threat. 

And in one of my favorite cases, a few weeks ago, a particularly oblivious teenager lost her parents about $80,000. Her father, Patrick Snay, won a lawsuit against his former employer, a private school in Miami, in which he alleged age discrimination. Part of the settlement included a confidentiality clause — Snay and his wife weren’t supposed to share the information with anyone other than their attorneys and other pertinent professional advisers. But just a few days later, their daughter posted this message to her 1,200 Facebook friends: “Mama and Papa Snay won the case against Gulliver. Gulliver is now officially paying for my vacation to Europe this summer. SUCK IT.” And of course, that breaks the confidentiality agreement, and cost the family the $80,000 settlement.

There are plenty of incidents of young people getting in trouble because of the incredibly stupid stuff they put up on social media. I don’t know why that is. Maybe we don’t treat social media platforms as the fully public forum that they are. Sometimes when you’re sitting on your couch in pajamas and getting into a debate with your friends on Facebook about something stupid, it’s easy to forget that everyone can see it. Or maybe teenagers have been very stupid for years, and it’s only now that they have a microphone for that stupidity, and thus we get things like Twitter threats to airlines. Either way, let this serve as a reminder to watch what you say on the Internet. It may come back to haunt you, big time.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead 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.

Featured image courtesy of [Sandy via Flickr]

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 Newsflash: Tweeting Terror Threats is a Terrible Idea appeared first on Law Street.

I recently discovered Tinder, the latest dating app craze, after a friend tweeted about her shame over having to create a Facebook account just to use the Tinder app.  At that time I was unaware of the app’s existence and decided to ask my significant other about it — which was a huge mistake.   At the mere mention of Tinder I was banned from even thinking about it. Fortunately for all of us, I feel that as a technology blogger it is my duty to investigate this new phenomena and give a report.

So what is Tinder? It’s a dating app, available on Apple and Android phones, that allows users to find people in their area whom they’re are attracted to and send them an alert. To do this, you have to log into Facebook and turn on your phone’s GPS.  As with many other apps, the use of Facebook is to verify a person’s identity, and the GPS allows the app to know your location. Based on your Facebook picture and information, Tinder creates your profile. To be clear, not all of your Facebook information is visible, only your picture, age, and first name. The creation of a profile allows your information to be seen and sent to other Tinder users in the area.

Next, the profiles of users nearby are sent to your phone and Tinder gives you the option to either like or pass. If you like the profile, an alert will be sent to that user. If someone likes your profile, then an alert will be sent to you. If both users like each other, then you probably guessed by now that the app connects them to each other. What happens after that is up to you.

There have been complaints of difficulties when using the app. Slow picture uploading, an inability to find Tinder users in one’s area, and issues logging in are just a few. Recently, Tinder upgraded the app to improve picture deleting time, correct minor crashes and issues, and hide common interests and friends from being viewed in a user’s profile. The issue of finding Tinder users nearby will probably correct itself as more people download the app. One of the most important new features is the photo zoom.  Why is photo zoom important, you ask?  Because this is Tinder, not Match.com!

In the dating world, who approaches a person because they appear to possess strong family values? Nobody, that’s who. This is what sets Tinder apart from other dating apps. Unlike with others, you won’t waste time finding out you’re compatible just to click on a picture that makes you change your mind. Tinder depends on a shared physical attraction between its users before it connects them — and this more closely resembles what happens in real life. I’m not sure if creating a dating app to resemble actual dating life was Tinder’s intention, but that’s not the only way people are using it.

In practice, Tinder is used as a hook-up app, or as a source of entertainment. On the hook-up side, users are logging on, swapping likes with people they’re attracted to and meeting them to… you know. I’m not saying that every person who uses Tinder is looking for this kind of situation, but it is happening. For entertainment, people like my friends are using Tinder to look at the awkward messages men send them and laugh. Others, the rare few, are actually committing to dates and using the app the way it was created to be used.

Tinder, like any dating app can be used to find great people in your area to create meaningful relationships with. Don’t get upset if someone approaches you in a way that seems brash and slightly shocking. Don’t be surprised if the person you’re messaging is being silly and using Tinder as a way to safely talk to strangers. For all the single adults out there, enjoy. For those adults in relationships, enjoy at your own risk. For all of you who are as intrigued as I was… check it out.

__

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a graduate student at Howard University with a concentration in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football.

Featured image courtesy of [Kenny Louie via Flickr] 

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Want to Hook Up? Better Get on Tinder appeared first on Law Street.

Mahana, the latest development in the race to serve millions of diners, will be the most tech-friendly way to do fine dining. Beautifully designed and easy to use, the app offers an array of convenient options to users, including reviews and wait times. The Austin-based company founded last summer just finished its private beta testing phase. The company expects to officially launch the app this summer once public testing closes. With all of its wonderful features, I wanted to know the inspiration behind the app’s creation. Luckily Mahana Co-Founder Richard Bagdonas was kind enough to speak with me about the company’s purpose and plans for future growth.

Mr. Bagdonas, who has been involved in hospitality app development for the last four years, decided to create Mahana in order to fill a need in this huge market.

“Companies wanted it.  I was hearing from restaurant owners that filling orders for pick-up wasn’t the biggest problem.  The problem restaurants are having is that they need more guests inside of the restaurant.  More guests means more need for wait staff and servers and helps owners identify repeat customers.”

The restaurants on Mahana are considered upper casual and fine dining, so a meal for two could range from $100-$120 — locations that most people are unlikely to visit more than once a week. As a result, the ability for participating restaurants to follow who is coming in, what they’re ordering, and how often they frequent the location is an incredibly valuable tool. So far Mahana has been received very well in Austin, and according to Mr. Bagdonas there are “two dozen restaurants on the waiting list.”

When you download the Mahana app, you’re asked to sign in via Facebook. I thought this was interesting but also wondered why the app requires this particular access method. According to Mr. Bagdonas,

“Facebook is very good at identifying if a person is who they say they are.  Years ago, Facebook stopped allowing users to create fake pages so instead of reinventing a verification system, we decided to use one that is already established.  Also, Facebook is good for tracking important dates like birthdays and anniversaries.  Having this information allows restaurants to provide special deals and promotions to its customers based on that information.”

I’ll be honest, I was a little skeptical about this required Facebook integration, but after everything was explained, it makes perfect sense. So now I’m waiting to see what kind of deals my impending birthday may bring my way. Thank you Mahana!

If the idea of finding a charming fine dining restaurant wrapped in a sleek and user-friendly app doesn’t interest you, maybe the other features will. All the information you need from an establishment’s opening and closing times, to the address and telephone number are all provided with a picture of  the restaurant’s interior set as the background. For me, getting a glimpse inside the restaurant is something small, but it’s one of my favorite things about Mahana. It’s hard enough to pick out something to wear when I actually know where I’m going, so imagine what I put everyone through when I’m not sure what the place looks like. This app will save so many significant others from the irritation that goes along with having picky “I don’t know what to wear” partners.

Users have the option of choosing the map view to find a restaurant based on location or they can choose the list view to search the name of a specific establishment. Once you choose a restaurant, make sure your phone’s Bluetooth is on so that the restaurant knows exactly where you are and the app can alert them of your arrival time. Also, for customers with food allergies, you can record this information into the app and trust that this vital information is communicated to the wait staff on your behalf.

Mahana will definitely change how upper casual and fine dining is done. The company does have plans for the app to work nationally, but they’re looking for feedback from users to let them know what areas they should come to next. To learn more about Mahana and persuade them to come to your city, visit their Facebook, mention them on Twitter @getmahana, or visit their website.

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New App Mahana Takes Fine Dining Into the Tech Age appeared first on Law Street.

“A friend who dies, it’s something of you who dies.” – Gustave Flaubert

Death is serious, and in contemporary times, social media companies must choose how to incorporate the major life event into their platforms. A sense exists that death, so heavy a subject, must be treated differently; normal commercial interests should subside and companies should develop their policies appropriate for its gravity. The choice of how to deal with death is not self-evident. Social media sites have many options: they can abolish deceased person’s site; leave the site in the state it existed just before the deceased person died; or create some alternative site format for those who have passed away. The choice requires a near-philosophical inquiry into how the platform can best deal with the gravity of death.

Facebook recently decided to change their policy regarding deceased users, and some feel it was done in a duplicitous and covert fashion.

The policy change weakened the privacy settings applied to those who pass away. For deceased Facebook users who had open privacy settings prior to their death, Facebook now allows their pages to remain accessible to the public at large. This is a departure from their previous policy, which restricted access to friends only following a user’s death.

This decision has important privacy considerations. For example, the average Facebook user changes his or her privacy settings throughout the his or her time on the site. Why should the privacy settings utilized right before a user’s death be immortalized for all time? Couldn’t Facebook have allowed users to make the decision of their privacy settings in the case of death? What gives Facebook the right to make that decision?

Instead of addressing this policy change head on, Facebook decided to write about it in a post entitled, “Remembering our Loved Ones.” The title appears too sentimental to merely apply to the shift in privacy rights. Instead, the post also deals with a new feature that Facebook now makes available to family members of a deceased Facebook user: the “Look Back” life montage video.

But was Facebook really being sincere? Two separate issues are being conflated. In Facebook’s post, the company seemingly couched a significant privacy policy change under an appealing and overwhelmingly correct decision to create a “Look Back” video. While these both relate with death, I wonder if they necessarily needed to be mentioned in the same post? Did Facebook exploit the tear-jerker YouTube video to obfuscate any potential backlash movement against the softening of user privacy?

An analysis of the Facebook post illuminates a potential calculating craftiness regarding how they reveal their information about the diminishing privacy rights.

1. The post begins by writing about the company’s commitment to improving user experience and how users contact Facebook to memorialize the accounts of deceased loved ones.

As members of Facebook’s Community Operations team, we talk to people who use Facebook every day and we’re committed to making their experience better. Some of the people who reach out to us are grieving the death of a friend or family member, and they usually ask for their loved one’s timeline to be memorialized.

2. The post then delves into the fact that the company seriously contemplates the issue of how to deal with the death of a Facebook user. They acknowledge that such questions have “no easy answer” and they wonder if they are “honoring the wishes” of the deceased.

3. Then, they finally introduce their discussion about the change in privacy policy.

We’ve decided to make an important change to how we preserve legacies on Facebook. Up to now, when a person’s account was memorialized, we restricted its visibility to friends-only… Starting today, we will maintain the visibility of a person’s content as-is. This will allow people to see memorialized profiles in a manner consistent with the deceased person’s expectations of privacy. We are respecting the choices a person made in life while giving their extended community of family and friends ongoing visibility to the same content they could always see.

Notably, the “important change” referenced was not described as an important change in privacy rights, but as an important change in how the company “preserves legacies on Facebook.” The company uses softer word choice to distract from what is actually happening.

Death deserves frank speech, but Facebook seems to evade the discussion. Facebook states that the policy change will respect the deceased person’s “expectations of privacy,” but does not substantiate why. Rather, the company merely announces that they are respecting the choices a person made in life. This is spurious reasoning. When a Facebook user makes a privacy change while alive, the user does not contemplate their death and the fact that such a setting might still apply at that time. They do not connect why a person’s decisions while alive reflect what he or she would want when deceased.

Instead of probing deeper into the issue, the rest of the post introduces the agreeable, supportable “Look Back” video policy. The new feature has little connection with the change in privacy settings and takes the reader away from the issue. The universally appealing feature is sandwiched between privacy changes with suspect reasoning and artful dodging of the issue.

I do not necessarily disagree with the change in policy, but I find it disconcerting that Facebook employs skilled writing techniques to avoid a frank discussion on the issue. Humans generally drop all guises in the midst of death. Social media sites should do the same. Facebook argues that their new policy is consistent with a user’s “expectation of privacy,” but they present the change in a manner inconsistent with a user’s “expectation” of honesty.

—

Imran Ahmed is a writer living in New York City whose blog explores the legal implications of social media and the internet. Contact him via email here.

Featured image courtesy of [Tim Wayne via Flickr]

Imran Ahmed

Imran Ahmed is a writer living in New York. Contact Imran at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Facebook Controls Your Privacy Settings Even After You Die appeared first on Law Street.

A few months ago, I wrote a post entitled Is LinkedIn the New Myspace? It seems that social media is making yet another transformation as far as job hunting goes as Facebook is becoming the dark horse of the job hunting competition. Forbes recently examined a Jobvite survey on the subject and the results were surprising — to me, at least. I consider Facebook’s appeal to be limited to seeing a whole bunch of baby/puppy/apartment/party pictures posted by people I went to high school with. Oh, and to remind me of birthdays. I really hadn’t considered it to be a spot for the job seeker.

Times are changing. According to the survey, more people actually use Facebook for their job-seeking needs than they do LinkedIn. Why? Because it is all about networking. LinkedIn is great for that as well, but it’s not really as easy. On LinkedIn, you can’t just connect with anyone. Some profiles require that you have a premium account to send a message, follow up, make an inquiry, etc. Facebook was built on networking — you can easily search for the people behind the institution and see if you have any mutual acquaintances. There might be something to it.

Here are a few of the suggestions that Forbes gives to better use the original social network to take the next step in your career:

1. Fill out your career history section. Not a lot of people do this on Facebook — at least not beyond their current job. But taking the time to add where you’ve been can lead to the next place you’ll end up.

2. Categorize your contacts. You know that section of Facebook where you can add how you know each friend? College, an old company, an internship? You should do that. It helps group your network and would make it easier to target your connections and your work updates.

3. Pay attention to professional updates. Believe it or not, amidst all of the pictures of pets and families and vacations, people actually post valuable career tips on Facebook. Pay attention to those posts, comment on them, share them.

The takeaway? Your online presence matters, and as social media increasingly becomes the standard for networking interaction it becomes more and more important to keep that in mind. You don’t want your online identity to hinder your hunt. Especially when the competition is using theirs to get ahead.

Happy hunting!

xo

—

Alexandra Saville (@CapitalistaBlog) is the Media and Writing Specialist at Law Street Media. She has experience in the publishing and marketing worlds and started her own publishing company right out of college. Her blogs, The Capitalista and Capitalista Careers, focus on the young and the entrepreneurial.

Alexandra Saville

Alexandra Saville is the Media and Writing Specialist at Law Street Media. She has experience in the publishing and marketing worlds and started her own publishing company right out of college. Her blogs, The Capitalista and Capitalista Careers, focus on the young and the entrepreneurial.

The post Is Facebook the New LinkedIn? appeared first on Law Street.

In recent years, social media has become intrinsically linked with daily life. From dining to retail to business to politics, almost every public figure or company uses some sort of social media. Whether it’s Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Pinterest, Youtube, or one of the many other options, social media isn’t just for individuals anymore, it’s for businesses, too. It’s estimated that 73 percent of Americans who regularly use the internet are involved in social media and networking in some capacity.

Working in social media is actually a viable and legitimate job for many people right now. An AOL jobs post from January 2014 projects that this year a Social Media Strategist will make about $61,000, require a bachelor’s degree, and points out that “the more social media followers a company has, the more their products and services are recognized.”

So, how are law firms doing with this? Well, a firm called Good2bSocial tried to answer that question this winter. Good2bSocial is a consulting firm that helps other companies expand their social marketing, particularly in the legal field. They worked together with AboveTheLaw to attempt to figure out how exactly the legal industry, particularly leaders in the industry, are doing with social media. The results were that big law firms are doing a pretty miserable job with it.

A white paper called “The Social Law Firm” by Good2bSocial was released last December, and followup articles have been released since then. The white paper itself requires a (free) subscription to Good2bSocial’s site, but if you don’t feel like reading the entire thing, I’ve summed up some important points below.

The study essentially analyzed the social media practices of the Am Law 50. It was conducted through surveys and questionnaires and an analysis of existing social media sites for each of the firms.

The study pretty much finds that while many law firms use social media, and use it extensively, they don’t use it in the most efficient or creative ways. The use of social media is described as a “token effort,” because law firms create social media sites to say that they have them, and so that they’re searchable, but don’t take advantage of the potential that those sites offer. Good2bSocial points out that social media takes real strategy separate from basic marketing. While law firms are creating substantive and interesting content, they are not using social media to promote such content as much as they could be.

Law firms have gotten that social media is important, it just really seems like they haven’t begun to understand how it works. The report states that “firms continue to view social media as nothing more than a distribution channel for firm news and press releases. This alone explains why firms achieve such low levels of engagement.” Uploading a pdf link to twitter isn’t engaging, it isn’t going to foster discussion, and it isn’t going to attract more followers.

Another mistake made by law firms, according to this study, is that they don’t have platforms in place to allow for coordination and collaboration within the firm, or in-house blogs. All of these things are not only attractive concepts for clients or potential employees, but also are helpful and engaging for current employees. The study does predict that this will all change, but that change is slow going and many firms are just beginning to scratch the surface of their social media potential.

The study does note that smaller firms are doing a better job with social media, but overall the conclusion remains that the field of law in general is lacking in social media prowess.

This begs an important question, though. Should law firms even care about social media, especially big, established firms like the Am Law 50? Social media is so crucial for places like retail stores, restaurants, or other product-based businesses because these places can attract new customers through the web. Is the same true for big law firms? Will interesting social media make clients more likely to visit that firm?

Well to be honest, I don’t know. Part of me wants to say absolutely not, these law firms have their niches and their reputations on which to rely. Engaging social media probably won’t have as large of an effect on their track record, as say, a good track record. On the other hand, though, social media can’t hurt. It could attract employees who find the idea of a collaborative social media experience within in the firm interesting. And as the business world changes, clients shopping around for new law firms may be interesting in finding lawyers who are as technologically savvy as they are.

The fact that smaller law firms are doing better with social media is very interesting. It’s unsurprising, given that I would assume smaller firms are more likely to try to actively attract new business, and are more willing to experiment with different outreach techniques.

In conclusion, Good2bSocial’s rundown was very interesting, but I don’t think social media will end up meaning that much for the Am Law 50 that were analyzed. The different nature of consumers of law services rather than other products make social media less of a necessity and more of a bonus. That being said, there’s much more to be gained by instituting a robust social media strategy than to be lost, and really, big law firms should consider getting on the bandwagon.

[Good2bSocial]

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead 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.

Featured image courtesy of [Jason Howle via Flickr]

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 Law Firms Are Bad at Social Media, But Does it Matter? appeared first on Law Street.

This afternoon, publisher Elsevier Science won the R.R. Hawkins Award at the American Association of Publishers’ PROSE Awards, winning the top prize in the professional and scholarly publishing industry. Elsevier was honored for its work publishing the recent book, Alan Turing: His Work and Impact.

Folks, how many of you even know who Alan Turing is? Probably not a lot of you, unless you were serious math and science nerds during college.

So! I’ll catch you up. Born in 1912, Turing grew up in London and was one of those kids who’s just crazy smart. The kind of smart that makes you never want to read again, because OMG you could never measure up. He was such a talented math student that he skipped elementary calculus, and went straight to coming up with Einstein’s same ideas on his own by age 16.

Did you ever see Good Will Hunting? Alan Turing is basically Matt Damon. Yes. That guy.

But, since Turing didn’t endure childhood abuse and neglect like Will Hunting, he didn’t go on to become an under-achiever with anger problems. Instead, he turned out fabulously — he went on to become one of the most important mathematicians in history.

He came up with the idea to feed machines algorithms. He broke the German Enigma codes in World War II. He invented the CAPTCHA test. So, basically — that scene in The Social Network where the Facebook algorithm finds itself on the window of Zuck’s dorm room? That would be thanks to Turing. The Allied Powers defeating Hitler’s Nazi Germany in World War II? You can thank Turing for that, too. The computer you’re reading this post on right now? Also courtesy of Turing.

Considering none of us can remember how to survive without computers and the Internet, Alan Turing pretty much made our whole lives. So, it’s pretty weird that a guy this important isn’t actually way more famous than he is, right?

Right. But he’s not. Because he was gay.

Back when Turing was alive, homosexuality was a criminal offense in England. So, in 1952, when his home was burgled by an acquaintance of his lover, Turing found himself in some deep shit. During the investigation, he admitted to having a romantic and sexual relationship with his lover, and wound up being charged with a crime himself. Crap like this is why queer folks don’t trust the cops, you guys.

Anyway! Turing wound up being convicted of gross indecency, and in lieu of prison time, he was sentenced to chemical castration. For one year, Turing received injections of oestrogen, a synthetic female hormone. As a result, he became impotent and developed gynaecomastia — a fancy doctor word that means he started growing breasts. Not surprisingly, Turing lost his security access and his job.

Also unsurprisingly, Turing was not a happy guy during this whole ordeal. He was so unhappy, in fact, that he committed suicide just two years later. In 1954, Turing was found dead in his apartment, a half-eaten apple lying beside him. It’s suspected that he laced the apple with cyanide in a dark reenactment of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. He was only 41.

Courtesy of Duncan Hill via Flickr.

In the years since his death, Turing’s legacy has been complicated. While his work lives on forever — providing the basis of all modern-day computer science — his name has been shrouded in shame-induced obscurity. His fame was revived in the early 2000s, when England batted around the idea of granting him a posthumous pardon for his “crimes,” something that didn’t officially happen until 2013.

So, when Elsevier published this book, celebrating Turing’s work and solidifying his place in history, it was a pretty big deal. They sent a message to the world that Alan Turing won’t be forgotten, despite his sexuality.

Courtesy of Bernt Rostad via Flickr.

Before now, Turing was something of a tragic figure. He was a ridiculously great thinker, an indispensable historical figure, a scientific visionary with one tragic flaw. He liked other men. And in this heteronormative, patriarchal, Puritanical, fucked up world, that was reason enough to banish him from the history books. To banish him from life, really. His final years on this planet were tortured ones, and his gross mistreatment at the hands of the law ultimately led to his suicide.

Turing wasn’t alone. Countless queers have been persecuted over the course of history, and we continue to face social and legal adversity today. In the United States, homosexuality was a criminal offense until 2003. That’s insane.

So, here’s the bottom line. It’s awesome that Elsevier published this book, and it’s super fabulous that the company was honored for it. You heard it here first.

But Turing’s not the only gay man who suffered at the hands of the law. He’s not the only queer person whose legacy was forced into obscurity. And he’s not the only queer whose life was cut tragically short.

So, let’s remember Alan Turing. But let’s not forget about the rest of our community—especially those of us who aren’t white, male, able-bodied, middle-class, and cisgender. We’re suffering too.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Tim Ellis via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

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

The post EXCLUSIVE: Alan Turing Honored at the PROSE Awards appeared first on Law Street.

On December 30, 2013, a class action suit was filed against Facebook for its use of members’ private data. The lawsuit is led by two Facebook users named Michael Hurley and Matthew Campbell, though it purports to represent all Facebook users within the United States.

In 2010, Facebook unveiled a feature that allowed members to send private messages controlled completely by the users. They stressed the privacy features that this new messaging feature allowed. Hypothetically, those messages were just supposed to be viewable by the sender and recipient(s) of the message. Neither Facebook nor any third-party were supposed to have access to the messages.

The suit alleges that this was false. According to an inspection by “independent security researchers” last year, Facebook has been scanning the contents of those messages to use for marketing and other purposes. The suit alleges two main ways in which Facebook has been doing so. The first is when a user sends a private message with a link. For example, suppose someone sent you an article on lawstreetmedia.com, The link will register with Facebook, and the site will follow it to see to where it leads. If it is a site that has a Facebook page, as many do, Facebook registers that as a “like” on that company’s public page. That has a number of troubling implications. For example, I know I’ve definitely sent an article link to a friend before because I disagreed with the article. I definitely wouldn’t want a like to register on that site’s Facebook page as a result. It also means that it would be possible to fabricate likes–a company could make sure its page got linked in messages a lot, and likes would register as a result.

The suit also alleges that Facebook mines that sort of data sent in privates messages for use by either Facebook itself or third parties. It is then used for marketing or advertising purposes.

The suit states that Facebook’s use of private messages in such a way violates the Electronic Communications Privacy Act–an electronic version of the law preventing someone from opening another person’s mail. The argument that Facebook is expected to utilize is that Facebook isn’t reading the messages–just grabbing data from them.

This isn’t the first time that Facebook has been accused of such practices. In 2012, the Wall Street Journal pointed out that Facebook does scan its messages for keywords related to criminal behavior. Google has been the focus of similar allegations. There is a silver lining to Facebook’s use of private messages, however, as they also can sometimes filter out spam or malware before an unsuspecting user opens it. An internet security expert named Graham Cluley added, “[i]f you didn’t properly scan and check links, there’s a very real risk that spam, scams, phishing attacks, and malicious URLs designed to infect recipients’ computers with malware could run rife.”

The suit is demanding an injunction for Facebook to stop its behavior. The two plaintiffs also want Facebook to pay the members of the suit $100 a day for each violation, or $10,000. Given that the suit claims to include all American Facebook users who have had their private messages used in such a way, I would assume that’s a lot of people and could equal a pretty hefty sum.

Honestly, I wasn’t too surprised that Facebook used data in such a way. I pretty much assume that sites track activity always–but maybe I’m just a cynic. One of the best indicators for how this lawsuit will go for Facebook may come from the similar pending lawsuit involving Google. This September it was ruled that the suit would go forward–potentially becoming a big problem for Google. I’m sure we’ll see suits from other social media and communication sites in the months and years to come. Google and Facebook are just the beginning.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead 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.

Featured image courtesy of [Sean MacEntee via Flickr]

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 Facebook Suit Alleges Privacy Violations appeared first on Law Street.