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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Celia Heudebourg

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

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

Sponsored Content

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

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

Lots of Choices–For Both Plans and Causes

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

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

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

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

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

It Makes Giving a Good Habit From the Start

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

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

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

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

via GIPHY

Great Value Rates

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

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

Awesome Customer Service

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

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

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

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

via GIPHY

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

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

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

TPO Mobile

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

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

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

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

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

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

— #Q13FOX (@Q13FOX) October 14, 2016

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

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

Emma Von Zeipel

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

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

As someone who grew up firmly entrenched in the era of technology, interpreting what people say via plain text on a screen is almost second nature to me. Emojis, elongated words, abbreviations, as silly as it sounds, all convey their own unique meaning. So, it follows that how to deal with those unique meanings is an important question that jurors and the legal system were going to have to deal with someday. Well that day is today, as an argument over the significance of emojis and other kinds of virtual language have made their way into the much-anticipated trial of alleged Silk Road Founder Ross Ulbricht.

Silk Road was an online site where many illicit transactions took place–particularly the sale of illegal drugs. It was a virtual black market, hidden under layers of secrecy and encryption. In November 2013, the website was shut down and Ulbricht, 29, was arrested and accused of being “Dread Pirate Roberts,” the founder of the site.

Ulbricht is now on trial, facing charges of money laundering, computer hacking, conspiracy to traffic narcotics, and procuring murder. That last one refers to the fact that “assassins” allegedly advertised their services on Silk Road.

His trial has taken a weird turn though. It was more common when I was younger, but every couple of years someone writes a reactionary article claiming that today’s teenagers are using emoticons and abbreviations to set up giant orgies (or whatever it is that kids do these days). These articles are usually much-ridiculed by anyone who’s ever seen a computer before, like this CNN piece from December entitled “28 Internet Acronyms Every Parent Should Know.” Choice abbreviations from this article included: “IWSN – I want sex now” “GNOC – Get naked on camera,” and “KPC– Keeping parents clueless.”

Well, parts of Ulbricht’s trial kind of sounds like a real life reenactment of an article warning parents about the acronyms that those darn kids nowadays are using.

pic.twitter.com/5YGWmqi0jA

— Sarah Jeong (@sarahjeong) January 23, 2015

That brings us back to the whole emoji issue too, because apparently this happened “IRL”:

He said “emoticon” literally every time there was an emoticon pic.twitter.com/deisI0nSEH

— Sarah Jeong (@sarahjeong) January 23, 2015

There was also a  particular message at issue in which a “smilie face” was used, and the prosecutor didn’t mention the smilie face after reading the message to the jury.

Essentially, the issue here is that the attorneys in this case are realizing that they can’t treat Ulbricht’s emails, chats, texts, or whatever other form of online communication like they’d treat a letter or an audio recording. The ways in which we communicate online have developed their own nuances, such as elongating certain words like “soooo” or using multiple question marks. Both of these were discussed in Ulbricht’s trial so far.

That’s why Joshua Dratel, Ulbricht’s attorney, wrote a letter to the judge asking that any forms of written communication–including emails, chats, and texts–be shown to the jury, not read aloud. He argued that the danger of different inflections, or ignoring parts of the message altogether (like just saying “emoticon”) was too high. The prosecution, obviously, disagreed.

Eventually Judge Katherine B. Forrest allowed a compromise. She allowed the chats and other text-based communications to be read into the record, but also instructed the jury to read them on their own and take note of any symbols.

This is just one part of a trial that in many ways deals with a world that has the potential to be utterly foreign to some of the jurors. Judge Forrest even recommended to both sides of the case that they develop a glossary for the terms that jurors may never have heard of, like Bitcoin, IP address, and Tor.

It’s a division in our society that is as inevitable as it is ubiquitous–knowledge of technology divides people of different ages, different social classes, and even different interests. That being said, it’s clear that the ways in which we communicate are ever-changing, and not as easy to interpret as they used to be. It’s easy to tell if someone is sarcastic from their tone when you listen to a recorded voicemail; it is not as easy when reading an email. The jurors will have to weigh these changes in technology along with the charges against Ulbricht, and moving forward, I bet we’ll see a lot more cases where the meanings of different facets of technological communication are up for debate.

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 Emojis in Court: Does a :) Really Matter? 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.

With the widespread use of cell phones, it has become easier and easier to capture pictures of everyday life. Unfortunately, that also means that it has become easier to take photos of unsuspecting and unwilling subjects for fetishistic purposes. Doing so is called “voyeur photography”, and one popular use is referred to as “upskirting.” Upskirting is pretty much exactly what it sounds like, taking a photo up a woman’s skirt, usually while she is walking up a set of stairs or on an escalator. Over the past few years, there have been a handful of men found committing such behavior, such as Christopher Hunt Cleveland, who was arrested this September for taking approximately 4,500 upskirt photos on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. Convictions can result in jail time and registration as a sex-offender.

In 2010, a Massachusetts man by the name of Michael Robertson was arrested for trying to take upskirt pictures on the T (the subway system in Boston).  He was charged with two counts of photographing a nude or partially nude person without her knowledge. Mr. Robertson’s case is now in front of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, and he and his lawyer, Michelle Menken, are arguing that it his constitutional right as protected by the First Amendment to take these pictures. Furthermore, they are arguing that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy afforded to women who are in public dressed in such as a manner that would allow upskirting to be possible.

Upskirting is a behavior that is made possible by camera phone technology, and therefore is relatively new. Just nine years ago, in 2004, Congress passed the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act. A summary of the law provided by the Library of Congress states:

Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit knowingly videotaping, photographing, filming, recording by any means, or broadcasting an image of a private area of an individual, without that individual’s consent, under circumstances in which that individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy. (Defines a “private area” as the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of an individual.) Makes such prohibition inapplicable to lawful law enforcement, correctional, or intelligence activity.

Various states also have instituted their own voyeurism laws. For example, in the state of Massachusetts, a law enacted in 2004 states essentially the same thing as the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, but also outlines appropriate punishments. Any laws along this line are usually referred to colloquially as “Peeping Tom Laws.” Menken has argued that regardless of what these laws state, they simply do not apply in this case, pointing out that, “Peeping Tom laws protect women and men from being photographed in dressing rooms and bathrooms who are nude or partially nude. However, the way the law is written right now, it does not protect clothed people in public areas.” She has also taken issue with the characterization of these women as “partially nude”, stating that every picture that Robertson took showed private parts that were covered by underwear. She said, “women in the photographs can not be considered partially nude because their underwear covered everything and no private parts could be seen in the pictures taken.”

It is pretty clear that both the state in which Robertson resides as well as the United States have created laws that attempt to prevent behavior such as upskirting. But whether or not these laws violate Robertson’s First Amendment rights will be decided by the Massachusetts Supreme Court. I would like to imagine that women who wear skirts and climb stairs do not have a reasonable expectation that their private parts may be photographed, but it is important to remember that similar arguments have been up held before—in 2008, charges were dropped under Oklahoma Peeping Tom laws against a man who upskirted a 16-year-old girl in a Super Target. It was determined that she did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that public location. How Robertson’s case fares may have an important effect on similar laws across many states, and at the federal level.

—

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 [Corey Seeman 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 Peeping Toms, Cellphones, and Skirts appeared first on Law Street.