Melania Trump’s recent nude photo scandal has raised a lot of questions about her immigration to the U.S., causing people to wonder if the wife of the “Build The Wall” presidential nominee was once an illegal immigrant herself.

The speculation began after the New York Post posted photos of Melania from a nude photoshoot that took place in New York in 1995. According to Politico, this conflicts with Melania’s statements that she first came to the U.S. in 1996 and traveled every few months back to her home country of Slovenia to stamp the visa.

“I came here for my career,” Melania told Harper’s Bazaar in January, “It never crossed my mind to stay here without papers. That is just the person you are. You follow the rules. You follow the law. Every few months you need to fly back to Europe and stamp your visa. After a few visas, I applied for a green card and got it in 2001. After the green card, I applied for citizenship. And it was a long process.”

This seemingly small timeline discrepancy was enough for Politico reporters Ben Schreckinger and Gabriel Debendetti to begin poking holes into the former Slovenian’s model’s story, revealing crucial gaps. Politico writes,

Trump’s tale of returning to Europe for periodic visa renewals is inconsistent with her holding an H-1B visa at all times she was living in New York — even if it was the lesser-known H-1B visa specifically designed for models — said multiple immigration attorneys and experts. An H-1B visa can be valid for three years and can be extended up to six years — sometimes longer — and would not require renewals in Europe every few months. If, as she has said, Trump came to New York in 1996 and obtained a green card in 2001, she likely would not have had to return to Europe even once to renew an H-1B.

They concluded that Melania’s story was actually more consistent with someone traveling on a B-1 Temporary Business Visitor or B-2 Tourist Visa. If Melania was in fact using a B-1 or B-2 Visa while working in the United States, instead of an H-1B Visa, that would mean that she was working illegally in the country–making her, for all intents and purposes, an illegal immigrant.

Melania responded to the rumors on Twitter, denying the allegations with the following tweet.

pic.twitter.com/U3VTY05mzc

— MELANIA TRUMP (@MELANIATRUMP) August 4, 2016

Melania’s former agent Paolo Zampolli has since corroborated her story, telling the AP that he did, in fact, secure her an H-1B visa for models. However, many still aren’t convinced that she followed the letter of the law when immigrating to the U.S. If these allegations are correct it could potentially be troubling for her husband’s campaign, which relies heavily on opposition to illegal immigration.

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 Was Melania Trump an Illegal Immigrant? appeared first on Law Street.

Users looking to post a nude photo or video to Reddit will soon have to do something they’ve never done before–get consent!

Reddit is taking a stand against revenge porn and sexual exploitation by making revisions to its digital privacy guidelines that will become effective March 10. The user-curated news and social networking site is banning sexually explicit images or videos where those photographed or filmed haven’t given their permission. These changes come as a somewhat delayed response to Reddit’s major role in the massive iCloud hack of celebrity nude photos in August.

Yesterday morning Reddit executives addressed their mission to protect users’ digital privacy in a post writing:

Last year, we missed a chance to be a leader in social media when it comes to protecting your privacy — something we’ve cared deeply about since reddit’s inception. At our recent all hands company meeting, this was something that we all, as a company, decided we needed to address.

No matter who you are, if a photograph, video, or digital image of you in a state of nudity, sexual excitement, or engaged in any act of sexual conduct, is posted or linked to on reddit without your permission, it is prohibited on reddit. We also recognize that violent personalized images are a form of harassment that we do not tolerate and we will remove them when notified

The “missed chance” the post is referring to was when a subreddit called “TheFappening” was created to link to curate all of the criminally obtained images procured in the 2014 celebrity photo hack. Some of the celebrities targeted included Jennifer Lawrence, Kate Upton and Olympic gold medalist McKayla Maroney, whose images may have constituted child pornography since they were taken while she was reportedly underage. The subreddit garnered thousands of followers in just one day and stayed live until September 6 when it was banned by the site after being widely chastised.

The whole nude photos leak controversy definitely led to some backlash against Reddit, including this entertaining flowchart by New York Magazine:

Should we ban that subreddit? A flowchart by Reddit admins: http://t.co/RhS9wKEyI1 pic.twitter.com/Tz54dsWdr8

— New York Magazine (@NYMag) September 9, 2014

But all that’s changing. Now, if you feel like you have been a victim of involuntary pornography a new section added to Reddit’s privacy policy asks you to send an email to contact@reddit.com with a link to the image or video in question and they will “expedite its removal as quickly as possible.”

The real question is whether or not other social sharing sites will join Reddit in improving their digital privacy policies. Tumblr will be one of those sites to watch, as it was also used to distribute the controversial and illegal leaked nude photos. While the site nicely urges members to not upload sexually explicit content in its community guidelines, it essentially operates as a unofficial porn site in many ways–nude photos and videos are regularly and eagerly shared. Adopting a policy like the one Reddit is looking to implement would drastically change its microblogging platform and potentially anger users. Still a precedent needs to be made to protect both women and men from having their personal photos become public either unknowingly or unwillingly.

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 Reddit Finally Prohibits Revenge Porn appeared first on Law Street.

With the widespread use of cellphones emerging in the late 1990s, the last few generations have been the first to have their every move documented for public consumption. Since then, cellphones have been ever present at many important events: proms, graduations, college orientation, and for first relationships. Still, within the last decade or so, cell phones changed from portable phones to portable computers with cameras attached, giving people the ability to take, edit, and share photos instantaneously. This ability has led to an increase in something known as “sexting,” defined as “sending nude, sexual or indecent photos (or ‘selfies’) using a computer, mobile phone or other mobile device.” In some cases, it can also include written messages or even videos.

Some states have adopted laws that have severe penalties aimed at teenagers who send, receive, or save such photos. These laws are not as severe as if they were legal adults possessing photos of an underage teen, but they are still serious consequences of which to be aware.

Dawn of a New Legal Era

Sexting laws are a relatively new concept, so that’s why they are somewhat murky to most Americans. Since 2009, many states have adopted teen sexting laws, and each year more states consider bills on the issue. States that already have laws include: Wyoming, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, and Indiana. Several other states are also considering introducing sexting laws through their legislatures. Most states focus on teen sexting, though there are a few that also legislate other aspects of the activity. As teen sexting spreads and becomes a worry among parents, it’s probable that these laws will be adopted on a wider scale. That doesn’t mean that it is entirely legal in those states without sexting laws, however. In the states without any sexting laws, teens who sext may still see consequences as a result of the pre-existing laws that target child pornography.

What are states doing about teen sexting?

There are some states that have adopted laws specifically for sexting. These laws have explicitly targeted the images sent among teenagers. For example, Connecticut’s sexting law targets teens who create, save, or spread photos of themselves or others.

Here’s an example of how Pennsylvania approaches sexting, as it is illegal for teens ages 12-17 to posses the naked photo of another person in the same age range. According to a Criminal Defense Lawyer resource page:

For example, both a teen who sends a photo of a nude classmate and one who receives the photo could be prosecuted under Pennsylvania law. Teen sexting is punished more severely if the defendant takes or shares a nude photo of another teen without the teen’s permission, and in order to harass that person or cause him or her emotional distress. For example, a boy who shares nude photos of his ex-girlfriend after they break up could be charged with a more serious crime. Pennsylvania’s teen sexting law does not apply to images taken or distributed for commercial purposes, or images of sexual intercourse, penetration, or masturbation, or any other hardcore sexual images.

State laws differ significantly, however, depending on things like ages of majority and previous cases. Louisiana won’t allow anyone under 17 to send or keep pictures. Texas is one of the states that makes some allowances: if the minor sexts another minor, it’s not considered a crime, as long as the recipient’s age is within two years of the sender and the exchange is consensual.

For more information on your state, visit Mobile Safeguard’s Comprehensive list.

What do you do if someone sends this type of message to you?

Teen sexting laws prohibit both sending and receiving explicit images, which can be quite a gray area for some people, as well as some courts. How can you stop someone from sending you a photo? There’s a definite difference between requesting a picture and simply receiving one from another teen. The difference also comes from what you do when you get that picture.

Because of the grayness and the ability for sabotage, sexting laws typically prohibit “receiving and keeping” any explicit images. This means that if a teen or adult receives an image from a teen, the receiver must delete the message immediately in order to avoid legal trouble. To protect oneself, it would also be a good idea for the recipient to send a message stating that the image is not wanted or requested.

Federal Law and Sexting

Depending on the circumstances of the images in question, sexting may also be a crime under federal law.

According to Criminal Defense Lawyer:

Depending on the circumstances, sexting may also be a crime under federal law.

The Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act of 2003 makes it illegal to produce, distribute, receive, or possess with intent to distribute any obscene visual depiction of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Knowing possession of such material—without intent to distribute—is also a crime under the PROTECT Act. (18 U.S.C. § 1466A(a)(1).)

Federal law also criminalizes causing a minor to take part in sexually explicit conduct in order to visually depict that conduct. Parents who allow this behaviorcan also be prosecuted. (18 U.S.C. § 2251.)

That doesn’t mean that we’ll likely see federal prosecution of juveniles for sexting. The Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act (FJDA) generally posits that, where possible, juvenile cases should remain in state courts.

What happens in states that don’t have sexting laws?

For those states that do not specifically legislate against sexting, the act is usually covered under child pornography laws. This includes creating, possessing, or distributing the photos of anyone underage. This means that the child who takes the picture can be in legal trouble. Many people question the punishment for these young children, especially when they may have been coerced into sending the photos. There has been much debate about what the penalties should be for teenagers who send those photos. Some think they should not face the same penalties as those who are over 18, especially because it can impact everything from college choices to potential careers and living situations. Those who argue against this type of treatment want some of the lesser penalties listed below for teens who are caught sexting.

What are the possible penalties for sexting?

The penalties for teen sexting involve a lot of red tape, juvenile and adult courts, and also include various criminal laws. Overall there is a lot of coordination required anytime there are juveniles in the justice system, which is why some states have specific laws against sexting. Usually, it takes a contentious case to prompt the creation of a specific law.

Juveniles

When a juvenile commits a criminal offense through sexting, that offense is typically handled by the juvenile court system. Juvenile courts have wider discretion in the kinds of penalties they impose. Some of the penalties could include a warning, fines, having to serve community service, completing counseling, probation, or even a sentence to a juvenile facility.

Adults

If the person is 18 or older, he or she will be charged as an adult and could face incarceration, fines, or being entered onto the sex offender registry.

Conclusion

What many consider to be fun and harmless flirting online or over the phone can actually become a severe crime with consequences for both parties involved. It’s best to know where your state stands on the issue and to be smart about it. Sending pictures or messages via your phone opens up the doors for a world of trouble and heartache.

 Resources

 Primary

Connecticut State Police: Connecticut Sexting and Teens

National Criminal Justice Reference Service: Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act

Additional

Criminal Defense Lawyer: Teen Sexting in Pennsylvania

Daily Mail: Parents of ‘Sexting’ Teenagers Can Now Be Punished in Texas

Aggressive Criminal Defense: Sexting Laws and Legal Information

Washington Post: Stop Demonizing Teen Sexting. In Most Cases it is Completely Harmless

CNN: Chances Are Your Teen Has Sexted

 Editor’s Note: This article has been updated to credit select information to Criminal Defense Lawyer. 

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 Teen Sexting: What are the Legal Consequences? appeared first on Law Street.

Well 2014 has come to a close. It was…well it was a year. A weird, occasionally amusing, mostly f’ed-up year. And now that the year has come to a close, we thought we’d give you one more dose of WTF. Without further ado, here’s a timeline of the biggest WTF moments of 2014.

February: Dexter Copycat

In February, a 19-year-old woman who’d clearly been watching way too much Dexter admitted to killing somewhere between 22-100 people, we’re still not really sure.

Nevermind the fact that that would be an incredibly impressive resume for a 19-year-old serial killer, the entire story was weird and didn’t add up, and definitely a total WTF moment. Read the full story here. 

April: Cliven Bundy 

In April, conservatives found a new cause celebre in the hands of poorly-vetted Cliven Bundy. Bundy’s beef with the government was pretty simple–he didn’t think he should have to get a permit to allow his cattle to graze on Federal land. However, the entire thing led to an insane standoff between Bundy, his friends, and some federal agents. He became the poster boy for the small-time farmer standing up to the oppressive government…and then he said a whole bunch of racist shit, including that black people may have been better off as slaves and all of his former friends ran very, very far away.

Read the full story here and here.

May: Donald Sterling

Speaking generally of racism, one of the most WTF situations was definitely the whole Donald Sterling controversy. He is, of course, the flaming asshole former-owner of the Clippers. An audio recording features Sterling asking his then-girlfriend things like “It bothers me a lot that you want to broadcast that you’re associating with black people. Do you have to?” Oh Donald Sterling, the fact that racists like you still exist and make a lot of money is a giant WTF is my book.

Read the full story here.

June: Slenderman Stabbing

In June, two preteen girls were arrested for stabbing their friend 19 times. They claimed that they were forced to do so by “Slenderman,” an internet character/urban myth. As soon as the horrific incident occurred, a lot of people wondered whether or not these girls were suffering from mental illness, could actually go to trial, and what exactly caused them to become so obsessed with “Slenderman.” As of now, they have been declared competent to stand trial. But there’s no doubt that the entire thing was incredibly creepy and very much WTF. Read the full story here.

July: Inappropriate Evidence

In the slow, hot, days of July, one story really made us scratch our heads. In Manassas, Virginia, a teenage boy was accused of sending a sexually explicit video, starring himself, to his girlfriend. But there wasn’t really any identifying information in the video, so the police tried to figure out whether or not it was a video of the young man. The only way they could think to do so was to take him into a hospital, induce an erection, and play a game of spot-the-differences with the erect penis in the video and the 17-year-old in their police station.

Read the full story here.

August: Homophobes…I Mean Homophones

In August, we saw the story of an employee at Norman Global Language Centre, Tim Torkildson, who was fired for writing a blog post on homophones. Homophones, being, of course, words that sound alike but having different meanings. Homophones, however, does contain the prefix “homo” and the Norman Global Language Center worried that it could be linked to gay sex. Never mind the horribly bigoted and ridiculous reasoning there, that’s shitty logic all around. Read the full story here.

September: Urban Outfitters and Kent State

Urban Outfitters–your go-to destination for a flower hair crown and general Coachella-inspired fast fashion–made headlines in September when it attempted to sell this sweatshirt:

Urban Outfitters criticized over blood-red-stained Kent State sweatshirt http://t.co/s1k9oMDLZV #Ebay #Atlanta pic.twitter.com/pYYXVcUTk3

— The Social Mailman (@SocialMailman) September 18, 2014

Yup, that’s what you think it is. A Kent State sweatshirt, spattered with blood stains. Whether Urban Outfitters wanted to generate some controversy–and publicity–or the people who greenlit this genuinely have their heads so far up their asses they’ve lost their eyesight, I’m not sure. Either way, it was certainly a major WTF moment. Read the full story here and here.

October: California Highway Patrol

In October, a few California Highway Patrol officers were caught playing an incredibly sick game. They were stealing nude photos off of suspects’ phones while the phones were being held in evidence, and then sharing them among themselves. Oh, and then they’d text offensive sexist and lewd things to each other about said photos. Great job guys.

Read the full story here.

November: No Feeding the Homeless

In November, some attempts at good deeds ended up going horribly wrong. Two pastors and a 90-year-old man got in trouble with the law for feeding the homeless in Florida. They were all cited for violating a Fort Lauderdale ordinance, which apparently forbids anyone from feeding homeless people. While I guess it could be considered some sort of public health problem, that seems a harsh law for those trying to be a good Samaritan. Read the full story here.

It’s truly been a WTF kind of year–here’s to 2015 being better.

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 Top WTF Moments of 2014 appeared first on Law Street.

In the final week leading up to a big election there’s never any shortage of political news. Know what else there isn’t a shortage of? Exhaustion over political news. Last week at Law Street, though, our top three stories came from the world of crime. The Crime in America team produced the number one article of the week with the first-ever definitive coverage of the Killers of Craigslist; writer Anneliese Mahoney covered the disturbing case of California highway cops who routinely steal nude photos from detained women’s cell phones; and the third most popular article detailed Americans’ biggests fears — both warranted (identity theft) and not (mass shootings, which you are highly unlikely to ever experience firsthand). ICYMI, here is the best of the week from Law Street.

#1 Killers of Craigslist

Since the arrest in 2009 of Philip Markoff, aka the “Craigslist Killer,” the website has faced increased scrutiny by the media. Law Street decided to take a closer look at the site and its media coverage to see how dangerous Craigslist really is. We wanted to know: Was Markoff’s an isolated act, or an incident on a continuum? Our findings are noteworthy. This marks the first tabulation of all Craigslist murders since 2009. Law Street identified 58 murderers and 45 murder victims connected to Craigslist postings through last June. Read full article here.

#2 California Police Officers Found Stealing Suspects’ Nude Photos

Today’s “wow, people really suck” story comes straight to you from the California highways. Or, to be more specific, California’s Highway Police. Apparently, a few officers from Contra Costa County, California, have created a new, sick game to pass the time. They began accessing the cell phones of female suspects brought into custody, and then sending nude or semi-nude photos of these women to themselves. Allegedly, the pictures were then passed to the other officers playing the “game.” Read full article here.

#3 Just in Time for Halloween: What Are Americans’ Top Fears?

What scares you the most? That’s the question that Chapman University decided to ask America in a recently released study called the “Chapman Survey on American Fears.” In the study, researchers surveyed 1,500 Americans from different walks of life in order to create a strong representative sample. They split the types of fears into four categories: personal fears, crime, natural disasters, and fear factors. They were able to determine the most pressing concerns in each of the categories, as well as overall. 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.

Today’s “wow, people really suck” story comes straight to you from the California highways. Or, to be more specific, California’s Highway Police. Apparently, a few officers from Contra Costa County, California, have created a new, sick game to pass the time. They began accessing the cell phones of female suspects brought into custody, and then sending nude or semi-nude photos of these women to themselves. Allegedly, the pictures were then passed to the other officers playing the “game.”

The practice was uncovered when a 23-year-old woman from San Ramon, California, was arrested on DUI charges. While she was being processed, her belongings — including her iPhone — were in police possession. Five days after being released she noticed something strange on her iPad — nude photos that she had on her phone had been sent to an unknown number. While the record was deleted from her iPhone, the phone had synced with the iPad, and the record was not deleted from there.

It was discovered that CHP Officer Sean Harrington was the one who had the woman’s cellphone, and appears to be the center figure of this sick game. Dublin CHP Officer Robert Hazelwood is allegedly one of Harrington’s partners in crime, according to texts between the two. The text messages are lewd, and contain insulting and sexist remarks about the women whose photos were stolen. One exchange states, “Nudes are always better with the face,” and “Maybe she knows she has a jacked-up horse face?!?!?”

A third officer is believed to be involved, or at least was witness to the behavior. The case is now under serious investigation and scrutiny, and there is believed to be other women whose photos were stolen by Harrington.

Golden Gate Division Chief Avery Browne responded to his officers’ disgusting behavior at a press conference late Saturday night in which he claimed the practice was limited to the Dublin office. That being said, this may not be as isolated of an incident as Chief Browne claims. According to Senior Contra Costa district attorney inspector Darryl Holcombe:

Harrington said he first learned of this scheme when he was working in the Los Angeles office. Harrington said when he was assigned to the Dublin office, he learned from other officers that they would access the cell phones of female arrestees and look for nude photographs of them. Harrington said if photographs were located, the officers would then text the photographs to other sworn members of the office, and, to non-CHP individuals. Harrington described this scheme as a game.

There’s a lot that’s disturbing in that comment. Harrington could just be trying to cover his ass, yes, but I also think that it’s a real possibility that this is a systemic issue. After all, earlier this year a Long Island woman sued the NYPD arguing that photos of her were taken off her phone while she was in custody.

In a world where an average women can easily find herself fired because her photos are posted on a “revenge porn” site and celebrities’ nudes are stolen and shared on the internet with no regard for personal privacy, I suppose this isn’t too surprising. There’s something about a woman choosing to take nude photos in private that apparently renders her right to privacy null and void. And a woman who commits some other transgression — in the case of the San Ramon woman, driving under the influence — apparently loses any other right to privacy she had. The San Ramon woman committed a crime, yes, and she deserves to receive whatever punishment for that crime that justice decrees. However, that does not mean that Harrington and Hazelton suddenly became entitled to invade her privacy — her crime does not render her any less human. Harrington and Hazelton committed a crime, and they deserve to pay for it.

—

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 [Gordon Mei 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 California Police Officers Found Stealing Suspects’ Nude Photos 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.

For the last few days a video has been making its way through certain circles of the internet. One of our bloggers, the awesome Allison Dawson, even wrote a piece about it entitled, “9/11 Never Forget? Not Exactly for These GW Students.” The video is a handful of students from The George Washington University here in D.C. answering a few questions on current events. The interviewer is Ashley Pratte, a spokeswoman for Young America’s Foundation. If you haven’t seen it yet, it’s right here:

Now before I continue, full disclosure here. I’m a recent GW alum. I still have some school spirit. I had a great time at GW, made some of my best friends there, and will always be thankful for the opportunities I was offered. That being said, there are plenty of things that I will always slam GW for — looking at you former GW President Stephen Joel Trachtenberg for making offensive comments about rape into a particularly lurid art form. When it comes to this video though, I’m going to stand with my alma mater.

The tactics that YAF used were cheap, gotcha journalism. It seems like they came in with a hypothesis — students at a mostly liberal university that’s often named one of the most politically active schools in the country are a shining example of how today’s young people are ignorant about world events. I mean come on, the video started with the interviewer standing in front of kegs being unloaded. I’m sure that was just the most convenient place to stand, and not at all an entirely unsubtle reference to the fact that occasionally college kids drink rather than watch CNN.

And then let’s think about the questions they asked: 9/11, ISIS, and the celebrity nude photo leak. The phrasing of the 9/11 question was vague at best: “Next week marks the anniversary of a major national event. Do you know what that is?” I was an international affairs major, so I’m just going to need you guys to believe me when I say I know a fair bit about 9/11. But to be honest, I don’t know I would have gotten that question right. I am a self-sufficient adult, yet I came really damn close to not realizing my birthday was coming up a few weeks ago. That’s not a fair question — ask me what major national event is coming up next week and I’m pretty sure my response is going to be “remind me what dates are next week?” A fairer question would have included at least an attempt at context, for example, “What major national event falls in the second week of September?” or an actually substantive question, such as “What happened on September 11, 2001?” or “Who committed the acts of terror against the U.S.?” Should more students have gotten the question right as it was? Probably. But is it fair to conclude from a vaguely worded question that those students don’t know what 9/11 is, or remember it? Hardly.

And let’s talk about the sample size used in this “study.” Thirty students who were put completely on the spot while cameras were rolling…out of a population of roughly 24,000, including grad students… who were randomly found on campus. Congrats, that’s a statistically negligible sample size of .00125 percent! Listen, if YAF had gone ahead and conducted a legitimate survey of a real sample size and gotten the same results, I’d be embarrassed on behalf of my alma mater. But this is just silly. Grabbing students on their way home from class or work, asking them poorly contextualized questions, and then watching your hypothesis come true is hardly good journalism.

What this was was a poorly laid trap.

Out of curiosity, I actually tracked down one of the students in the video. Noah Katz, a freshman in GW’s Elliott School of International Affairs, told me that while Pratte was very polite, he though the question about 9/11 was weirdly phrased. Katz told me, “they asked what landmark United States event is having its anniversary in the next coming weeks. I immediately thought about things like Roe v Wade or Brown v Board of Education.” 

Finally, let’s stop and think for a minute here. Even if some students don’t know the names of the journalists beheaded by ISIS, but do know that Jennifer Lawrence had her nude photos leaked, does that really tell us anything about them as people? You could play this game with anything. If you tracked me down on the street and asked me about music or physics, my answers would probably be pretty embarrassing. One of the greatest things about my college experience was that i was exposed to people from different backgrounds, different political affiliations, and with different interests, hobbies, and priorities than myself. That’s how real life is, that’s how America is, and that’s OK.

Yes, we should all strive our best to be informed, but a three-minute video on the street with 30 students and blatantly biased techniques doesn’t do much to convince me that we’re doing a bad job of that. Instead of tearing each other down for some gaps in knowledge, let’s celebrate the fact that we live in a country where we have the freedom to have those kinds of differences.

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 Response: Stupid GW Students or Gotcha Journalism? appeared first on Law Street.

If you’ve been on the internet in the last few days, you’ve probably seen news stories about a massive leak of celebrity nude photos. In a rather uncouth display, the mass release has been dubbed “The Fappening” by the internet. It’s a mix of “The Happening,” and…I’ll let you figure out the other part on your own. Celebrities included on the steadily growing list include Jennifer Lawrence, Rihanna, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Kirsten Dunst, Kaley Cuoco, Ariana Grande, Kate Upton, Victoria Justice, and more. Some, like Mary Elizabeth Winstead, have acknowledged that the photos were real, while others like Victoria Justice claim they are fakes.

The pictures mostly surfaced on reddit and 4chan beginning on August 31. The photos then made their way to Twitter and other more mainstream sites. Most of the photos seem to have been obtained through hacking iCloud accounts. Put extremely simply, that means that the photos had been stored by the celebrity users to their personal accounts that included storage in the iCloud network. Benefits of the iCloud include the ability to access it from multiple accounts and locations, as well as freeing up space on a hard drive or other storage device.

How exactly the hackers obtained the nude photos is uncertain — they could have exploited a security flaw that Apple was unaware of, or they could have obtained the celebrities’ emails and then managed to gain access to their passwords by guessing security questions or some other method. Since celebrities seem to have been specifically targeted, the average user probably shouldn’t be too worried about sensitive material being stolen off their clouds right now — but the whole controversy does raise questions about cloud-type storage. The FBI has now gotten involved in the scandal and it appears to be searching for the hacker(s) who managed to get into the iCloud accounts and released the photos.

The whole fact that the photos got out in the first place is concerning. Celebrity pictures are leaked frequently, but usually just one or two. These leaks encompass hundreds, perhaps thousands, of photographs of young women whose privacy was seriously invaded for no other reason than the fact that they are both attractive and good at their jobs. And not only have their private accounts been hacked, the omnipresent internet trolls are more than willing to make fun of them for their concerns. Many have said that because the women took the pictures and uploaded them to the cloud at all, they deserve to have them released en masse.

Seriously? These women took pictures in the privacy of their own homes, with no intention of releasing them to the public. True, uploading them to a possibly hackable network was their own choice, but it was far from a damnable one. Imagine that these women had nude pictures taken of them by a peeping tom or a stalker. I have to think the public outcry would be greater — at least I hope it would be — but I don’t really see a huge difference. Either way, privacy is being ignored. The photos that have been leaked were stolen, plain and simple. And now that they’re out there, they’re going to be almost impossible to get down.

There’s a reason that one of the classic nightmare archetypes is realizing that you’re naked somewhere. I have a feeling that even if you’re a famous celebrity, that holds true. To all the people who are looking at the photos right now, please remember that those are real people who did not consent to have these pictures released to the public. Remember that before you look, and think about how you’d feel to have the entire world see your naked photos. I have a feeling it’s eerily similar to a nightmare.

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 Massive Celebrity Nude Photo Leak is Major Privacy Breach appeared first on Law Street.