Pepe the Frog started out as a funny, green Internet frog that often featured the caption, “feels good, man,” but on Tuesday he made it onto the Anti-Defamation League’s database of hate symbols. He first appeared in the online cartoon “Boys Club” by Matt Furie back in 2005, and then spread across the internet. Over the years he became popular generally, but during the past few months he has appeared in many memes associated with racism, anti-Semitism, and far-right ideology.

This is what the original Pepe looked like.

Pepe the frog will always be feels good man to me pic.twitter.com/BC6oNNdSp2

— Anarcho-Biden (@Anarcho_Biden) September 28, 2016

Almost ten years after his creation, by the end of 2014, Pepe was widespread in the mainstream online community, where he appeared in various different contexts and outfits. Then, the use of Pepe among white supremacists increased and he often appeared as Donald Trump. As the 2016 elections neared, he was shown as Trump on the American side of a fence at the Mexican border, posing as Trump at a lectern, or adorned with swastikas.

Even Trump himself reposted one image.

“@codyave: @drudgereport @BreitbartNews @Writeintrump “You Can’t Stump the Trump” https://t.co/0xITB7XeJV pic.twitter.com/iF6S05se2w“

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 13, 2015

And according to one man that the Daily Beast interviewed over email, going by his Twitter name @JaredTSwift, this shift was intentional. The purpose was to reclaim Pepe from the mainstream and the “normies.” “Normies” are ordinary, mainstream people who, when they start frequently using a meme, kill the joke. The move to start radicalizing Pepe so that no “normies” would dare to use him again was a very conscious Internet movement, according to @JaredTSwift.

Jonathan A. Greenblatt, CEO of the ADL, said in a statement on Tuesday:

Once again, racists and haters have taken a popular Internet meme and twisted it for their own purposes of spreading bigotry and harassing users. These anti-Semites have no shame. They are abusing the image of a cartoon character, one that might at first seem appealing, to harass and spread hatred on social media.

When everyone says you a hate symbol but you just a sad af frog. #pepethefrog pic.twitter.com/AGJ4saPNGG

— HorseHeadventure (@HorseHeadvnture) September 28, 2016

But Pepe’s creator, artist Matt Furie, thinks the far-right wing use of Pepe is just a “passing phase.” He said in an interview with the Atlantic:

It’s people reapproppriating things for their own agenda. That’s just a product of the Internet. And I think people in whatever dark corners of the Internet are just trying to one up each other on how shocking they can make Pepe appear.

He described Pepe as a good guy: “The comic itself is just mellow, he’s just a chill frog and is pretty good natured.”

And as ADL points out, just using a Pepe meme doesn’t mean that somebody is racist or hateful. Since the green frog can be used to express a wide range of opinions or feelings, the context and specifics of any meme would have to be taken into consideration before drawing any conclusions.

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 Pepe the Frog is Now on ADL’s List of Hate Symbols appeared first on Law Street.

In September of 2013, the American Bar Association Task Force on the Future of Legal Education called on law schools to embrace technology as a useful tool for educating future attorneys. Finally, someone has responded to that call. Just this month, William Mitchell College of Law launched a new and unique legal education experiment combining traditional classroom learning with online courses.

In December of 2013, school officials met with the ABA Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar to request a variance from ABA accreditation standards, which state that no more than one-third of an accredited law school institution’s curriculum can take place outside of the traditional classroom setting. A variance was granted to the William Mitchell program, which it allows it to be more flexible and focus more on an online portion.

Under the terms of the variance set by the ABA, the school will be allowed to admit four entering classes of students to this hybrid program, and each class size must be limited to 96 students. Additionally, the school must provide detailed reports to the council that include information pertaining to applications, admissions, attrition, course evaluations, and skills training.

The ABA’s managing director of accreditation and legal education, Barry Currier, considered several factors before granting the variance to William Mitchell. These factors include the school’s 113-year history and its vast experience with part-time law students. According to Currier, the school’s application for the variance was detailed and well thought-out. It was clear to him that the school was determined to making this program succeed.

Currier stated that:

It’s fair to say that this is most substantial variance that’s been granted, and it’s not an exclusive agreement between the ABA and William Mitchell. Any school that submits a variance application as carefully thought out and researched, and demonstrates this level of commitment will get a serious listen from the council.

He encourages other schools to develop their own innovative programs as well-thought out as this one.

The program welcomed 85 students, who have an average age of 38, for its first year of operation. According to the law school’s press release, over one-third of the students already have graduate degrees in other fields. These students will participate in a four-year part-time JD degree program that requires approximately one to two weeks of classroom attendance per semester at the law school’s brick-and-mortar campus located in St. Paul, Minnesota. The rest of the time, students will take their law school courses online. Annual tuition will be $27,770, which is the same as the cost of the school’s traditional part-time program.

This unique program will give people who may not have have the time to travel and sit in class all day the opportunity to earn their law degree in a more convenient way. One of the students in this new hybrid program, 59-year-old Brian Kennedy, jumped at the opportunity to be a part of this program. He told Star Tribune,  “I was accepted to William Mitchell in 1981 and life got in the way.” After being sidetracked by an entertainment-industry career, he regretted not going to law school. Now, he’s looking forward to his second chance. He said, “I’m starting a new career. It just took me a while to get here.”

Others, like 41-year-old Vershawn Young, plan to keep their current carreers while attending law school. Young is a communications professor at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, and said that he chose William Marshall because it was the only law school option that would allow him to keep his current job. He expects that the program will allow him “to experience something phenomenal.” It sounds like he’s probably right–the flexibility that this hybrid program allows is one of it’s truly unique aspects, and it is one that will likely lead to the program’s success.

Brittany Alzfan

Brittany Alzfan is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post William Mitchell College of Law Launches Hybrid Online Legal Program appeared first on Law Street.

Security breaches among major companies such as Target, eBay, and Neiman Marcus dominated news headlines this past year and led many to wonder about the safety of the information stored with organizations throughout the United States. The statistics from the May 2014 US State of Cybercrime Survey are far from reassuring.

The survey, a combined effort of PwC, CSO magazine, the CERT Division of the Software Engineering Institute at Carnegie Mellon University, and the US Secret Service, states that the number of cybercrime incidents and the fiscal losses they incur are rapidly rising. The findings reveal that this is mainly because the companies could not adequately defend themselves from cyber-attacks. According to the 2014 survey, the top five methods for cyber-attacks involve malware, phishing (the attempt to acquire sensitive information such as usernames or passwords), network interruption, spyware, and denial-of-services attacks.

The report covered information from 500 different corporations and government agencies, including law enforcement, and stated that “three out of four had had some kind of security breach just in the last year, and the average number of incidents per organization was 135.”

Fourteen percent of those surveyed reported that monetary losses attributed to cybercrime have increased in the past year. The actual costs are generally not known, as the majority of those who reported a cyber attack were unable to estimate the associated financial costs. Of the few survey respondents that could, the average yearly loss was around $415,000. Businesses are beginning to feel that cyber security is an issue that is out of their control and that cyber attacks are costing them an increasing amount of money.

 Why the Rising Rate?

One of the major problems associated with the rising rate of cybercrime is that few companies, only 38% according to the survey, are adequately prepared to combat cybercrime. These rising rates are not simply due to inadequate defenses, but also increasingly sophisticated techniques used by cyber criminals. According to an article on Time.com, the most pertinent threats to cyber security in the United States come from Syria, Iran, China and Russia.

There are two kinds of big companies in the United States: those who’ve been hacked by the Chinese and those who don’t yet know that they’ve been hacked by the Chinese.

-FBI Director James Comey

The 2014 report lists major reasons why these attacks are on the rise. It claims that a few reasons are that most organizations do not spend enough on cybersecurity and do not properly understand cyber security risks. According to the survey, there is also a lack of collaboration among companies that have experienced a breach or other form of cyber attack, specifically that “82% of companies with strong protection against cybercrime collaborate with others to strengthen their defenses.” Other pertinent issues leading to increased cybercrime are insufficient security of mobile devices and lack of proper evaluation of attacks within organizations.

What can be Done to Lower the Rate of Cyber Attacks?

According to the 2014 survey, one major way for corporations and agencies to prevent cybercrime is through company-wide employee training which has been shown to be effective but is no currently used frequently enough. According to an article on CSO’s website, many organizations aren’t running information security training programs that are up to date. The 2014 survey recommends that the main focus of companies should be protecting the private financial information of their consumers. Perhaps as companies continue to strengthen the efforts of their cybersecurities, the rate of attacks from online adversaries will begin to lower, causing the 2015 report to reflect a decrease in cybercrime.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [geralt via Pixabay]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Criminals Availing in Cyberspace appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, feminist writer Amanda Hess wrote a groundbreaking cover story for Pacific Standard Magazine about online harassment and its effect on women. Have you read it yet? You really should. It’s making major waves, and is quickly becoming required reading in the 21^st century feminist canon.

Thanks for sending this my way, Ashley! So much love directed at you right now.

To sum up the gist of this gloriously lengthy story, Hess describes her own experiences with online harassment, cites the experiences of a handful of other feminist writers, and lays down some disturbing statistics about how big a problem online harassment is for women.

According to Hess, despite the fact that women and men have been logging online in equal numbers since 2000, incidents of Internet harassment are disproportionately directed at women. Between 2000 and 2012, 3,787 people reported online harassment to the volunteer organization Working to Halt Online Abuse — and 72.5 percent of reporting victims were female.

In 2006, researchers at the University of Maryland decided to test this phenomenon, creating a bunch of fake online accounts and sending them off into chat rooms. The results of this little experiment? Accounts with feminine-sounding usernames received an average of 100 violent, threatening, and/or sexual messages each day. Masculine-sounding usernames received 3.7.

Now, I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that no one is surprised by this bullshit. Offline, in the real, flesh-and-blood world, women are routinely harassed in every arena of our lives. At work, on the street, at home, in our beds, at our grandpa’s 90^th birthday party, at our cousin’s wedding — the list could go on.

And it’s no mystery why. In this patriarchal culture, women are considered inherently less than — less strong, less smart, less human. Less worthy of respect and equal treatment. Feminism has made its gains, for sure. We’re allowed to go to work and own property and forgo marriage and all kinds of awesome things.

But we’re still only paid an average of 77 cents to a man’s dollar. We still bear the brunt of household labor, in addition to our day jobs. We’re still saddled with the bulk of childcare responsibilities. We’re still raped and beaten and murdered in depressingly high numbers, every day. So, given the reality of our daily lives, it makes sense that the harassment would continue online.

You don’t have to look far to find concrete examples of this shit. This week, following the publication of Hess’ cover story, Pacific Standard Magazine is running a whole mess of personal stories, sent in by women who’ve experienced sexual harassment online. Go read them and throw up all over your keyboard. Or, head over to xoJane, to read one of the most epic accounts of dealing with online harassment’s magnum opus, revenge porn.

Or, for a more fun experience, ask your friends! I’m sure they have stories for you. One of my besties, who just recently deactivated her OkCupid account, gave me this little gem when I asked her if she had any nausea-inducing stories to share with me. (She had a zillion to choose from.)

“There was a guy who told me he wanted to eat my ass out in Bobst during finals. I responded with outrage. He became enraged and told me I was ugly and was very cruel. Then I calmly explained to him he was harassing me and that his responses were inappropriate and that there were real people on the other end of the profiles and I like to think he learned something.”

WARNING: Turning harassment into a teachable moment may not be something to try at home. Not for the faint of heart.

I even have my own Internet harassment stories. When I was in middle school, I briefly dated a handful of douchebags. (We’re using the term “dated” very loosely here. Think late night phone calls and hallway handholding.) I nixed each one from my life after a few months, but years later, when Facebook became all the rage in high school, they all managed to find their way back into my universe.

One tracked down my phone number through mutual friends and starting calling me, leaving voicemails, and basically being a huge pain in my ass. Another took it upon himself to send me a lengthy message about how he hoped I would die a slow, painful death as punishment for being a big, scary dyke.

Not fun, you guys. Not fun at all.

So, the moral of the story here? Internet harassment, like flesh-and-blood harassment, is a real thing. And the more we all start talking about it, the more likely it will be taken seriously.

So, what’s your Internet harassment story? Blow it up in the comments.

—

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 [Devon Buchanan 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 Internet Harassment Is a Major Problem for Women appeared first on Law Street.

Online dating becomes more popular with each passing year. In 2013, 38 percent of singles reported having used an online dating site or some sort of mobile app. But in order to secure a successful online date, it takes time and effort to weed out all of the duds–after all, approximately 1 in 10 online dating profiles is faked.

Now, when I say faked, I’m not saying that people are lying about their looks, or amount of children, or whether they’re actually ready to settle down with the right girl. To be honest, if we included those kinds of relatively harmless fibs, I’m sure the number would go way over 1 in 10. I’m talking about faked profiles purely for the purpose of Internet fraud.

Internet fraud is not new. I know that I’ve received those horrifying emails from friends and family claiming someone has been kidnapped or robbed while in an exotic location, and they need me to wire $15,000 to a random location at least half a dozen times. And don’t even get me started on those spam emails where someone introduces themselves as a member of royalty, informs me they are getting their inheritance in a few weeks and will pay me some exorbitant fee, but just need some money to tide them over. The propositions are ridiculous, annoying, and unbelievable, yet thousands of people fall for them annually. In 2011, The Internet Crime Complaint Center reported 315,000 fraud claims, but there were probably many more that did not get reported.

One of the newest waves of such Internet schemes has been taking place on dating websites. And at least one scam on the popular dating site Match.com has ended in abject tragedy. In 2010, a 70-year-old Yonkers man named Al Circelli was contacted by a profile pretending to be a beautiful young woman in Ghana named Aisha. “Aisha” corresponded with the man for over a year, built up a rapport with him, and then informed him that she was in financial struggle. The profile scammed $50,000 out of Circelli until he went broke and actually had to borrow money from his son in an attempt to help her out. When he found out that it had all been a scam, he committed suicide.

Now, Match.com is being sued by a woman named Yuliana Avalos, and other unnamed plaintiffs. “Aisha” had been using Avalos’s modeling photos during her attempt to extort money from Circelli. Avalos claims that her pictures are used constantly on the site; at this point she has discovered at least 200 fake profiles in her likeness. While Avalos has become the face of this lawsuit, the others involved in the suit also tend to be young, attractive, and relatively visible women whose public personas have been co-opted to create fraudulent profiles.

According to the plaintiffs, it would be pretty easy to prevent this fraud from happening. There is facial recognition software that could pinpoint multiple profiles using the same photographs. And there are ways to track computers’ IP addresses to see if the computer on which the profile was created actually matches the city on the profile. She claims that the site knows about these fake profiles, but doesn’t necessarily do anything to stop them because even fake profiles inflate the number of users the site is able to report. The class action lawsuit is currently $1.5 billion.

A similar suit regarding fake profiles on Match.com was dismissed a few years ago. In regards to Avalos’s lawsuit, a Match.com spokesman has already claimed that the lawsuit is baseless, stating “the real scam here is this meritless lawsuit, which is filled with outlandish conspiracy theories and clumsy fabrications in lieu of factual or legal basis. We’re confident that our legal system is as adept as we are at detecting scammers and will dismiss this case in short order.”

Match.com absolutely needs to start working harder to weed out scam profiles. People pay for their service, and they should be guaranteed that they are only interacting with real profiles. That being said, I’m not sure how effective Avalos’s lawsuit will be. According to the claim, the defendants (Match.com and its subsidiaries) were cognizant of these fake profiles and broke laws by not removing them. From reading the complaint, the plaintiffs do seem to have identified a large number of fake profiles. But the question is, was it Match.com’s job to police these profiles? If so, could it be, for example, Google’s job to prevent fake emails? Companies can only do so much. Hopefully, Avalos’s lawsuit will help define those hazy parameters.

—

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 [maya elaine via DeviantArt]

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 Match.com May Pay Heavy Price for Fake Profiles appeared first on Law Street.

The Internet black market is a fascinating place. It relies on security, word of mouth, and above all, anonymity. It has a unique language and its own currency. Bitcoin, allows users to directly transfer a high encrypted “currency” without an intermediary financial institution. It has evolved into an ideal tool for illegal transactions. For more on Bitcoin see: Bitcoin Pro-Con.

Many illegal transactions made through Bitcoin technology were through a site called “Silk Road.”  Silk Road presented itself as an anonymous marketplace and sold mainly illegal drugs, particularly MDMA, ecstasy, LSD, marijuana, prescription drugs, and heroin. On October 2, 2013 Silk Road’s founder and operator Ross Ulbricht, known on the site as “Dread Pirate Roberts,” was arrested. The site was seized and rendered unusable by the FBI.

The importance of Silk Road to the online black marketplace truly cannot be understated. According to Quartz, at some point, 82% of Bitcoin in existence traveled through Silk Road. NPR called it “the Amazon.com of illegal drugs.” Carnegie Mellon student Nicolas Christin wrote a paper in November of 2012 that estimated Silk Road’s revenue at $92,000 per month.

The general public’s reaction to the news that Silk Road had been shutdown last week centered on a question: How in the world did such a site even exist?

It does seem fairly unbelievable. We are reminded every day that what we do online is almost never anonymous. From bad Facebook photos taken at a club on Friday night, to politicians accidentally tweeting inappropriate pictures, our online selves are constantly on display.

Silk Road and other sites on the so-called Deep Web, the websites that not everyone can access, make their livings off the ability to provide anonymity. Silk Road was not accessible through a regular browser, like Chrome, Internet Explorer, or Firefox. Special software called Tor exists, which does its best to hide web browsing and traffic. Every facet of the software minimizes the traces of its users and Silk Road was only available through it. Furthermore, Silk Road itself contained heavy security features, such as password protection and the exclusive use of Bitcoin.

Another question on many average American’s minds must have been: Why should we care if some online drug marketplace gets shut down?

There are a few reasons to care. First, certain drugs have recently become increasingly mainstream. For example, MDMA, sometimes called Molly, has dominated headlines lately. According to the Global Drug Survey, conducted by an independent institute of the same name, in 2012 26.5% of US respondents had tried MDMA in the last 12 months, but in 2013, 60.9% reported having tried the popular club drug. While these surveys are obviously not representative of the United States as a whole, this demonstrates the growing share that MDMA represents in US drug use.

A site like Silk Road has played an important role in this spike. Before the ability to buy online, really the only way to get drugs was to go through an in-person dealer. It’s easy to imagine purchasing drugs online is simpler and safer. It’s also important to note that the drugs purchased through Silk Road are in some ways more verifiable than street drugs. Silk Road allows reviews of sellers, creating a way to warn other users if drugs are anything but pure. In order to be a seller, you must go through an extensive vetting process. Immediately after Silk Road’s closure, a Reddit user tested Silk Road MDMA versus two samples bought on the street. The Silk Road sample was significantly purer than the unverified street-bought samples. I am not, of course, advocating that anyone try MDMA. However, the argument that testable, verifiable MDMA bought online is safer than street MDMA from a dealer is absolutely valid.

Silk Road’s fall will slow the online drug market, but it won’t topple the industry. A similar website called Sheep Marketplace is already taking over some of Silk Road’s market share. Providers will get trickier, sites will get more encrypted, and Deep Web will simply get deeper.

[Quartz]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Drug Enforcement Agency via Wikipedia]

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 Silk Road Shutdown: Why It’s Important appeared first on Law Street.