Despite encouraging their children to buckle up, many adults are not following their own advice.

A new study from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) found that 91 percent of adults wear their seat belts in the driver or front passenger seats, but only 72 percent do in the rear seats. Moreover, only 57 percent use the belts in hired vehicles like taxis or ride sharing cars.

“When we asked people why they were less likely to buckle up, a quarter of the respondents told us that it’s safer in the back seat, so they don’t need to buckle up,” Jessica Jermakian, an IIHS senior research engineer, told CBS.

It’s true that in cars from the ’60s and ’70s, the back seat is generally the safest place. However, the belts, tensioners, airbags, and vehicle designs of the modern era remove any disadvantage the front seats once had. While experts still consider the rear seats to be somewhat safer, a seat belt is still necessary.

“Even if you’re in the back seat, the laws of physics are not suspended,” Jermakian warns. “You still need to buckle up in order to get the best protection in a crash.”

Crash test footage reveals that an unrestrained passenger in the back seat can slam against the front seats. That sort of collision could injure passengers anywhere in the vehicle.

In response to questions about ride sharing, four out of five adults explained that they don’t wear a seat belt because they are only traveling short distances.

“That statistic [about the risk of a crash] doesn’t change just because you’re in a ride share or a taxi,” said Jonathan Adkins, executive director of the Governors Highway Safety Association. “We need rear-seat passengers to understand that seat belts are critical for them, too.”

Every state except New Hampshire requires adults to wear seat belts in the front seat. Only 29 states have laws that extend to the back seat as well.

About half of all fatalities in car crashes each year could have been prevented if the victim had worn their seat belt. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that seat belts saved nearly 14,000 lives in 2015 alone.

Delaney Cruickshank

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

The post Why Don’t Adults Wear Seat Belts in the Backseat? appeared first on Law Street.

If you’re a person of even average height who has flown in the past year, you’ve probably noticed that you’re starting to get less space. And you know that if you do want a little extra room to make sure that the person in front of you doesn’t crush your legs into oblivion, it will cost you a significant fee.

This is the phenomenon that a federal judge recently referred to as the “incredible shrinking airline seat.” And on Friday, a three judge Federal Appeals court in Washington, DC ruled that the FAA standards for allowing diminished seat spacing were potentially harmful to passenger health and safety.

The panel ruled in favor of Flyers Rights, the passenger advocacy group, which argued against the recent average seat width reduction from 18″ in the early 2010s to 16.5″ now. The group pointed out that airlines also reduced seat pitch (which is the combination of seat thickness and legroom) from an average of 35″ to 31″ for an economy level seat. Low budget airlines such as Spirit go as low as offering only 28” seat pitches for its economy seats.

Flyers Rights contended that the significant decrease in legroom, combined with the increase in size of the average American passenger, can make it significantly more difficult for passengers to exit a plane in case of an emergency evacuation. Furthermore, the group argued that a decrease in seat pitch can lead to an increased risk of heightened vein thrombosis–a condition involving blood clots in the legs that has been connected to longer flights.

In a statement, the FAA said it: “does consider seat pitch in testing and assessing the safe evacuation of commercial, passenger aircraft. We are studying the ruling carefully and any potential actions we may take to address the court’s findings.”

But the judges found that the FAA was relying on outdated studies. The FAA even admitted last year that it lacked the data that would be able to prove whether airlines could evacuate an airplane in the minimum required time if each seat had 31 inches of pitch. The ruling will not guarantee or force the FAA to change its seat space regulation policy, rather it merely requires that it conduct a formal review.

But for the first time, it feels as though there’s finally some progress. Flyers Rights had lobbied Congress for legislation to bring a change to the seating requirement earlier this year, but it failed to gain the necessary support.

Legal aviation experts such as Arthur Alan Wolk have characterized the ruling as being groundbreaking in terms of an organization having any success lobbying against the FAA. He told the New York Times on Sunday: “This is the first case I have seen where an organization has successfully challenged the F.A.A.’s basically being asleep at the switch and not fulfilling its safety responsibilities adequately.”

James Levinson

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

The post The Curious Case of the “Incredible Shrinking Airline Seat” appeared first on Law Street.

Mexico City is a bustling metropolis that attracts millions of visitors from across the world every year. The city is home to Frida Kahlo’s restored house, the Floating Gardens of Xochimilco, the prestigious Souymaya Museum, and dozens of other historic cultural sites. It is no wonder that it has has been ranked the number one travel destination for 2016 by The New York Times. Yet, through an American lens, the entire nation of Mexico is synonymous with drugs, murder, and corruption.

Mexico City, just like any other urban center, is not a paragon of virtue and safety, but it is also not the national hub of organized crime and violence many think. Mexico City is not included in the U.S. State Department’s Travel Warning for Mexico and is not considered to be unusually dangerous for tourists either by global standards or by domestic standards. In fact, Acapulco, the famous resort city with idyllic beaches and futuristic high rises, is the most dangerous city in the country.

Mexico City did witness a troubling rise in homicide rates in 2015 but it is still considered an oasis for travelers and natives alike. The Northern areas of Mexico are generally considered to be the most dangerous, as they are home to the trading routes for drug cartels, but tourists are more likely to be robbed than they are to be caught up in the drug war. Metro and buses within Mexico City are generally considered to be safe, although tourist buses traveling to the pyramids of Teotihuacan outside the city have been robbed in the past.

Mexico City has lower homicide rates than a great deal of American cities and is safer than the capital cities of many of its Latin American neighbors. The most common crimes against tourists are petty theft and robbery during taxi rides, but Mexico City hoteliers go out of their way to make sure that visitors are as safe as possible. There are areas in the city which tourists are advised not to enter–Tepito, Lagunilla, Iztapalapa, and Nezahualcoyotl–but the same is true for any large city in America or Europe. Making generalizations about an entire country based on its most violent regions is a dangerous step in the wrong direction. Mexico has rich artistic, musical and culinary traditions that travelers will miss out on if they buy into the fiction that all of Mexico is filled with criminals out to take their lives.

Tourists do not eschew visiting the cultural sites of the United States because of our crime rates, therefore we should not write off an entire nation because of regional violence (especially not when our own State Department has not issued a travel warning for the nation as a whole). Superimposing the violence in Acapulco or Ciudad Juarez over Mexico City is a foolish mistake that trivializes the sheer size of Mexico–these cities are not all adjacent! When we view Mexico City through sensational anecdotal evidence rather than the reality on the ground, we cut ourselves off from incredible destinations within our own hemisphere.

Jillian Sequeira

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

The post Myths of Violence in Mexico City: Is it Safe to Travel There? appeared first on Law Street.

Multiple public and private agencies make up the child welfare systems across the country. Although the primary responsibility falls on the shoulders of state governments, the federal government supports the states through funding, program development, and legislative initiatives. Both state and federal governments are essential to the process. The child welfare system’s mission is to create safe and permanent environments for children and to strengthen family units. It is an immense and complex project. So immense and complex, however, that important aspects of child safety fall through the cracks. Oversights are often devastating. Read on to learn more about the challenges that abate the U.S. Child Welfare Systems’ mission.

Overview of Child Welfare Systems

Child welfare systems generally do the following:

Receive and investigate reports of possible child abuse and neglect, provide services to families that need assistance in the protection and care of their children, arrange for children to live with kin or with foster families when they are not safe at home, and arrange for reunification, adoption, or other permanent family connections for children leaving foster care.

Public and private agencies also work to provide services such as “in-home family preservation services, foster care, residential treatment, mental health care, substance abuse treatment, parenting skills classes, domestic violence services, employment assistance, and financial or housing assistance.”

The Children’s Bureau, part of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is the primary federal institution working with state and local agencies to implement federal child and family legislation. Collaboratively, they create programs that prevent child abuse and neglect. Such efforts are authorized by the Child Abuse and Treatment Act (CAPTA) of 1974. CAPTA provides “federal funding to states in support of prevention, assessment, investigation, prosecution, and treatment activities” and awards “grants to public agencies and nonprofit organizations for demonstration programs and projects.”

The Process

First, a concerned person reports suspected child abuse or neglect. More often than not, this person is a “mandatory reporter,” a person required by law to submit a report if he or she suspects child abuse or neglect. Mandatory reporters include individuals who have regular contact with children such as social workers, school personnel, healthcare workers, mental health professionals, child care providers, medical examiners or coroners, and law enforcement officers. Approximately 48 states and other territories have mandatory reporter laws. In many states, every person, regardless of occupation, is legally required to make such a report.

After a report is submitted, it is either “screened in” or “screened out” depending on the amount of information and sufficiency of evidence. If a report is screened in, a Child Protective Services Caseworker will come in and assess the situation. He or she will talk to the child and relatives. If a child is suspected of being in immediate danger, then the child will be brought to a shelter, foster home, or relative’s house while the investigation plays out. At the end of the investigation, the case worker will typically either find the case unsubstantiated or substantiated depending on the evidence. The agency can then initiate a court action if it feels the authority of juvenile court is required during the trial in order to remove the child from the home. In substantiated cases where there has been child abuse or neglect, the threat is labeled as low, moderate, or high. Depending on the severity of the case, the caseworker may recommend community-based resources and service systems, or recommend complete removal of the child from the home. Low-risk parents are often provided support or treatment services, while high-risk parents may be indicted on criminal charges.

Child Welfare System Challenges

Many of the most severe challenges in the Child Welfare System lie in the Foster Care System. Nearly 400,000 children in the United States are living in the foster care system without permanent families.

Over-Institutionalization of Children

You don’t need to be a licensed therapist to know that a positive family dynamic is essential to a child’s well being and mental health. Today, a disturbing amount of children in the child welfare system are placed in institutions rather than homes. Approximately 57, 000 children are living in group placements. The Annie E. Casey Foundation, a children’s advocacy group, recently published a report on this serious issue, advocating that “secure attachments provided by nurturing caregivers are vital to a child’s healthy physical, social, emotional and psychological development throughout his life.”

Children in group placements are at greater risk of abuse and arrest. One in seven children in the child welfare system lives in group placements and 40 percent of those children do not have “documented behavioral or medical need that would warrant placement in such a restrictive setting.” Young people stay in group placements for an average of eight months, although research recommends a stay of three-to-six months for those who require residential treatment. Kids in group placements also suffer from an inappropriate mixing of ages. According to the Society of Research in Child Development, young adults are more susceptible to peer influence. Younger children can suffer from being placed with older kids with behavioral health problems.

Insufficient Background Checks

A major source of controversy in the child welfare system is adequate background checks performed by case workers. There is an overload of cases of foster parents with a criminal background taking in children. For example, Oklahoma is currently under investigation for child abuse and neglect in its foster care system. A recent report, conducted after the death of a 20-month-old boy in foster care, showed that less than 5 percent of the 125 cases investigated for abuse in Oklahoma contained criminal background checks for foster parents.

Caseloads

Caseworkers across all child welfare systems consistently have extensive caseloads. The more cases, the less time and effort a caseworker can devote to each individual child. It also minimizes the ability for a child and caseworker to develop a meaningful relationship, and caseworkers are sometimes blamed for child abuse or neglect in foster homes under their supervision. For example, Catherine Davis, a family services agency caseworker in New Jersey, was suspended after seven-year-old Faheem Williams was found starved to death in his home. His two brothers were also malnourished and burned. Davis had somewhere between 99 and 107 cases. The Child Welfare League of America recommends that “workers carrying ongoing in-home protective services cases…carry no more than 15-17 families.”

Aging Out

When foster children turn 18, they age out of the child welfare system. Many of these children move forward with very little or no support at all. In 2012, 23, 396 foster children aged out of the system. Almost 40 percent were homeless or couch surfing, and 48 percent were unemployed. Fifty percent experienced issues with substance abuse, while 60 percent of the young men had been criminally charged. Nearly a quarter of those aging out did not obtain a high school diploma or GED, and only six percent had graduated with a two or four-year degree.

Case Study: Active Class-Action Suit MD. vs Perry

On behalf of the children in the Texas child welfare system, the Children’s Rights Law Firm of New York, along with co-counsel Haynes & Boone, Yetter Coleman and Canales & Simonson, filed suit against the state of Texas  for “violations of plaintiff children’s constitutional rights, including their right not to be harmed while in state custody and their right to familial association.”

M.D. is one representative of the plaintiff children. She entered foster care at the age of eight. Although initially sent to live with relatives, she returned to state custody after sexual abuse occurred in the home. She moved to multiple placements, including group institutions, where her mental health suffered. When the original complaint was filed, M.D. “lived in a restrictive short-term therapeutic placement with no visitors or basic privileges.”

The main focus of Children’s Rights in this suit is to give children in the Texas welfare care system permanency, whether obtained from reunification with relatives or adoption. Children’s Rights primarily looked at cases where the child had been in foster care for a minimum of 12-18 months, as after a year to a year and a half, foster children’s success rates plummet. Chances for emotional and psychological distress increase and they often act out and exhibit unruly behavior, severely ruining their chances for adoption/permanency. Children without a permanent home age-out without any kind of safety net.

The suit was filed March 29, 2011 and is currently in progress. Children’s Rights is currently in litigation with eight other states as well.

Conclusion

Child welfare systems are broken and reform is inevitable. Travesties occur way too often and are not publicized enough. We need to give foster children a fighting chance to survive on their own after 18. That starts with creating a safe and permanent environment for them while in the welfare system. Turning 18, after a lifetime of struggle and little support, does not make an adult. Fortunately, there are multiple advocacy groups across the country on a mission for reform.

Sources

Primary

Child Welfare Information Gateway: How the Child Welfare System Works

Additional

AFSCME: Caseloads

Annie E. Casey Foundation: Too Many Kids in U.S. Child Welfare Systems Not Living in Families

CCAI: Facts and Statistics

Children’s Rights: In Oklahoma, Asking a Few Questions Might Have Prevented a Boy’s Tragic Death

Child Welfare Information Gateway: Mandatory Reporters of Child Abuse and Neglect

The New York Times: Caseworkers Say Overload Makes it Risky For Children

Society of Research in Child Development: The Detrimental Effects of Group Placements/Services For Youth With Behavioral Health Problems

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Child Welfare System: Kids Falling Through the Cracks appeared first on Law Street.

For people choosing to travel via air, security on the plane is of the utmost importance. That is why news of a security researcher claiming he was able hack into the computer systems of several airplanes while aboard is really scaring some air travelers, and setting law enforcement on edge.

#CyberSecurity Researcher Hacks and Controls Plane – Hero or Villain? http://t.co/4eKMmkJAdb pic.twitter.com/K32kB5g0I4

— vpnforus (@vpnforus) May 18, 2015

Wired magazine reported that Chris Roberts, a security researcher with One World Labs, first told the FBI in February that he was able to hack the in-flight entertainment system (IFE) and control parts of the plane while aboard various airlines. Roberts claims that he conducted the research in order to expose the potential vulnerabilities in in-flight software. In an FBI search warrant application for Robert’s digital devices and data FBI Special Agent Mark Hurley details Roberts’ previous hacking attempts, writing:

He [Roberts] stated that he thereby caused one of the airplane engines to climb resulting in a lateral or sideways movement of the plane during one of these flights. He also stated that he used Vortex software after comprising/exploiting or ‘hacking’ the airplane’s networks. He used the software to monitor traffic from the cockpit system.

The search warrant was filed after Roberts was removed from a United Airlines flight from Denver  after sending out a tweet while aboard, joking about hacking the plane and setting off the emergency oxygen masks.

According to CNN, FBI agents tracked down his plane after being informed of the tweet and “found signs of tampering and damage to electronic control boxes that connect to in-flight entertainment systems.” The boxes tampered with just so happened to be under where Roberts was sitting and the seat in front of him. Despite this, Roberts insists he did not hack that particular flight.

At the time FBI agents also seized two laptop computers and several hard drives and USB sticks from Roberts without a search warrant, telling Roberts that a warrant was pending. It’s the information in that newly obtained warrant that is cause for concern.

In the warrant, Roberts is quoted as telling the FBI that he accessed the in-flight networks more than a dozen times between 2011 and 2014 and had briefly commandeered a plane during one of those flights. This contradicts an interview he had previously given to Wired, where he claimed he had only explored the networks and observed data traffic.

However, some aircraft experts seriously doubt Roberts was able to hack IFEs in order to commandeer a plane. Business Insider reports that industry expert Peter Lemme told “Runway Girl Network” blogger Mary Kirby that  “the IFE ARINC 429 interfaces are not capable of changing automatic flight control modes” and “the claim that the Thrust Management System mode was changed without a command from the pilot through the mode control panel, or while coupled to the Flight Management System is inconceivable.” Boeing has issued statements saying that its entertainment systems are isolated from flight and navigation systems. CNN writes,

It is worth noting that Boeing airplanes have more than one navigational system available to pilots. No changes to the flight plans loaded into the airplane systems can take place without pilot review and approval. In addition, other systems, multiple security measures, and flight deck operating procedures help ensure safe and secure airplane operations.

If Roberts is not exaggerating his hacking claims, these IFEs do pose a very plausible threat to aircraft security that needs to be addressed. So far no charges have been filed against Roberts, but he could end up in some serious trouble for conducting these unauthorized tests. If he did hack those planes with passengers aboard, and in one instance even tilt the plane, he was irresponsibly putting numerous lives at stake.

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 Security Researcher Sparks Fear With This Plane Security Hack appeared first on Law Street.

The number one post on Law Street last week was written by Alexis Evans, who provided warnings about a secret TSA checklist for spotting terrorists. Check out her article if you want to avoid behaviors that could lead to some extra security scrutiny. The number two post, also written by Alexis Evans, discussed Jay Z’s new company–Tidal. Tidal may revolutionize the music industry, or it may end up pushing users back to pirating music. Finally, the number three post was written by Anneliese Mahoney about the banning of smart watches in college classrooms. Professors are concerned that they would help students cheat, and don’t want to see them brought in on test day. ICYMI, check out this week’s best of the week from Law Street.

#1 TSA Has Secret Checklist to Spot Terrorists. Hint: Don’t Yawn at Security

This checklist is part of a controversial TSA program to identify potential terrorists based on behaviors that “indicate stress or deception.” The program is known as the Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques, or SPOT. SPOT is operated by trained individuals known as ‘Behavior Detection Officers’ who observe and interact with passengers during screenings. Read the full article here.

#2 Tidal: Music Industry Revolution or Expensive Setback?

How would you feel about a music streaming service with CD quality sound, video and editorial content, full offline capabilities, and exclusive tracks from your favorite artists? Sounds amazing, right? But is it worth ditching your free Spotify account for a $20-a-month fee? Rapper and business mogul Jay Z thinks that it is, and has enlisted a crew of Illuminati grade artists to back him. Read the full article here.

#3 Smartwatch Scare: Will Schools Ban Watches to Prevent Cheating?

In a lot of ways it’s easier than ever for students to cheat on exams. Many students now have small handheld devices that we can use to access pretty much the whole of human knowledge–I’m talking about smartphones, of course. Smartphones have been banned from our classrooms, particularly during exam time, since they became popular. But now schools are trying to keep up by banning the latest form of mobile technology: smartwatches. For some schools, the easiest way to do that is to ban watches altogether. Read the full article here.

Anneliese Mahoney

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

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

Another day, another Uber controversy. It seems like the popular ride-sharing app will never see the end of its legal struggles. Some of the buzz is positive–Uber recently announced that it’s expanding and beefing up safety features. However, other recent headlines about the company cannot be considered anything but incredibly negative. For example, yet another rape accusation has come to light. Overall, as Uber continues to grow, so do safety concerns, and seemingly, safety features.

Read More: Uber Will Have a Rough Ride in 2015

A Philadelphia woman has come forward with allegations that she was raped by her Uber driver on February 6, and then essentially held captive in the car while he drove around for two hours following the assault. While she evidently brought the claims to the police, Uber claims that it didn’t learn about it until much later. A rep for the company told Philadelphia Magazine, who broke the story:

Our thoughts and prayers are with our rider. Upon learning of the incident, we immediately reached out to the Philadelphia Police Department to assist in their investigation and support their efforts in any way we can. As the investigation continues, the driver’s access to the Uber platform has been suspended.

New controversies for Uber aren’t just popping up here in the states. Two Uber drivers in Ottawa, Canada, recently pleaded guilty to operating unlicensed taxis. There have also been very high profile sexual assault allegations in France and India.

It’s in response to all of these developments, as well as others like them in the past and potential for more in the future, that Uber is launching new programs and initiatives focusing on safety. The additions to Uber’s safety measures will include things like incident response teams to investigate anything that may happen over the course of an Uber ride, and further review of things like quality assurance. The company will also expand its work with law enforcement, including in India where there will be a button programmed into the Uber app allowing riders to directly call law enforcement.

While some of these features seem promising, Uber still sometimes struggles to follow through, as evidenced by the United Nations Women’s partnership debacle from a few weeks back.

Read More: Uber’s New hiring Initiative: Trying to Win Back Women

Uber and UN Women announced a plan to work together to create jobs for female drivers and released a jointly signed letter on Uber’s website. However, after some backlash and safety concerns, UN Women pulled out of the agreement. Some of that backlash included a statement from the International Transport Workers Federation, which stated:

The creation of one million precarious, informal jobs will not contribute to women’s economic empowerment and represents exactly the type of structural inequality within the labor market that the women’s movement has been fighting for decades. Uber’s practices are defined by an aggressive informalization of an industry that was already deregulated three decades ago

It’s clear that Uber wants to make changes, but it’s certainly struggled to do so in the past. Perhaps it’s a side effect of being a young company that experienced a lot of growth very quickly, or just inherent to the nature of a business as informal as ridesharing. Either way, Uber needs to reform–and let’s hope that it sticks this time.

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post Uber Adds More Safety Features, But Will They Be Enough? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been a good week for tech sites looking to prevent harassment. Earlier this week, Reddit banned revenge porn. Essentially, what that means is that it’s now prohibited to upload a naked or otherwise compromising photo to the site without the subject’s consent. That obviously won’t stop all instances of abuse and revenge porn, but it’s certainly a step in the right direction. But it wasn’t just Reddit that took such steps–Twitter also has announced its plan to combat abuse on the site.

Twitter has long been plagued by “trolls.” For the uninitiated to the Twittersphere, we’re not talking about the kind of trolls that live in dungeons or under bridges. A Twitter troll is someone who constantly and incessantly posts inflammatory or abusive posts with the intent to rile or incite a reaction. It’s usually, though not always a form of internet harassment.

Twitter has consistently been the home to many trolls–and the recent #GamerGate discussion brought many out to play. #GamerGate is a virulent movement that attacks women, particularly a few vocal feminist critics of the misogyny inherent in the gaming industry and certain games. The #GamerGate trolls have consistently and repetitively attacked women, tweeting horrible threats of abuse, rape, and murder. The women attacked by #GamerGate aren’t alone–many people, men and women alike, have reported being harassed.

Twitter wants to help put a stop to that, and the company has realized that it’s done a pretty bad job of combating abuse in the past. CEO Dick Costolo wrote in a memo:

I’m frankly ashamed of how poorly we’ve dealt with this issue during my tenure as CEO. It’s absurd. There’s no excuse for it. I take full responsibility for not being more aggressive on this front. It’s nobody else’s fault but mine, and it’s embarrassing.

It’s no secret and the rest of the world talks about it every day. We lose core user after core user by not addressing simple trolling issues that they face every day.

He also wrote:

So now we’re going to fix it, and I’m going to take full responsibility for making sure that the people working night and day on this have the resources they need to address the issue, that there are clear lines of responsibility and accountability, and that we don’t equivocate in our decisions and choices.

It’s in light of these revelations that Twitter is introducing more tools to combat these trolls. For example, it’s started tracking the phone numbers of those who are reported as abusers. How will this help combat harassment? Well, often when users are banned, they are able to easily make new accounts by creating new email addresses. It’s much harder to obtain a new phone number than a new email address. In addition, Twitter is streamlining its process for reporting harm. The company also announced some other “enforcement actions” that will be rolled out in the weeks to come.

The fact that Twitter is trying to take more actions to combat abuse is a good thing, especially in light of the news from Reddit also coming in this week. That being said, it’s not going to solve all problems. Twitter has promised to be more vigilant–let’s hope it actually owns up to the promise.

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post Twitter Sets New Goals to Combat Trolls appeared first on Law Street.

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

One of the pending legal struggles against Uber involves its habit of sending incessant text messages to users. Uber has been named in a class action suit filed in U.S. District Court based in San Francisco. The suit argues that Uber has been abusing text-messaging marketing and bombarding people’s phones with unwanted messages. This is illegal ever since a change in FCC polices that interprets a law differently, namely that it:

Restricts telephone solicitations and the use of automated telephone equipment to include text messages sent to a mobile phone, unless the consumer previously gave consent to receive the message or the message is sent for emergency purposes. The ban applies even if consumers have not placed their mobile phone numbers on the national Do-Not-Call list.

Uber isn’t the only company to be on the receiving end of such a lawsuit–CVS, Jiffy Lube, Steve Madden, and Burger King have also been sued for doing the same or a similar thing. This class action lawsuit is asking for over $5 million in total for the text messages, although a judge will have to rule on whether or not to allow the legal proceedings to move forward as a class-action lawsuit.

That’s not the only time that Uber may see the inside of a courtroom this year. There’s currently an ongoing lawsuit about the tipping procedures used by the company. The lawsuit claims that Uber advertises that 20 percent of its fees go to tips for the drivers, but that it’s actually misleading its customers and keeping a substantial amount. This case, which also has the potential to become a class action suit, was originally filed by Caren Ehret of Illinois. She claims that because Uber’s policies are misleading, she, and other customers, ending up overpaying. This case has been stretching on for a while, as there has been some back and forth over whether or not the plaintiff can have access to certain of Uber CEO Travis Kalanick’s emails. It was just ruled that the plaintiff will be able to see those messages, and the case is continuing to move forward.

A third recent lawsuit against Uber involves the company’s “safe ride” fee that’s charged to its UberX customers. UberX is a ride sourced through Uber that uses the driver’s own car. This lawsuit argues that UberX is misleading its customers about what the “safe ride” fee does. According to Uber’s website, the safe ride fee is used to ensure that the drivers are up to industry standards, that they have the proper training, and that they pass background checks; however, this lawsuit, filed by one California and one Michigan resident, says that Uber’s safety features actually fall below industry standards.

These aren’t the only lawsuits with which Uber will have to contend in the coming months and years, and it’s not just in the courtroom that the company will see trouble. It’s also seen PR backlashes from controversies ranging from charging surge prices during the Sydney hostage crisis in late 2014, to sexual assault allegations in Chicago and New Delhi.

To be honest, I probably won’t stop using Uber, and I have a feeling most of my peers won’t either. It’s cheaper than cabs, and incredibly convenient. It’s a company that truly does have the ability to revolutionize transportation. But in order to get to that point, the truly revolutionary point I mean, it’s going to have to be careful. There are a lot of bumps in the road ahead for Uber–if it can weather them, it’ll be in good shape.

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post Uber Will Have a Rough Ride in 2015 appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Lately our lives have been beaten down by the constant news about terrorists. It seems like terrorism is everywhere we turn. What happened to the days when we all lived in the nice little American bubble where terrorism didn’t even seem to be a word we could rightly understand? Now it is a word that we use on a daily basis. 9/11 was the starting point of a scary reality for most of this generation and its connection to terrorism. Before that day we could get on a plane and not have to worry about if the person next to us had a bomb in their underwear or constantly wonder and worry about what might happen next. People are unpredictable and you never know what could happen. The security blanket of living in a nation considered a Super Power is no longer there; we walk around with a target on our backs.

Finally our government is getting it together and figuring out what to do to make our world a little bit safer. Even amid all things ISIS at least the government is finally trying to do something. Kudos to President Obama on the airstrikes the other night!

In an effort to deter people from becoming homegrown jihadists, our government has started a pilot program in three cities: Los Angeles, Boston, and Minneapolis. The administration is looking for new ways to intervene in the lives of people who may want to launch an attack on us, even American citizens. The ideas they have put together seem a bit strange and big brother-esque to me, but a necessary evil in terms of protecting the many from the few.

My biggest question though, is how do you know who to look for? How do you know who is thinking or planning anything?

I always think of the film Enemy of the State when it comes to trying to keep an eye on terrorism. What if some innocent person gets pulled into something they aren’t even aware of and the government ruins their entire lives? And once it figures out they aren’t “the guy” it just leaves them alone with a simple apology and they have to to pick the pieces of their life.

How much are we willing to give up to our government in order to be safe? This is something I struggle with all the time because I certainly do not believe in big government, but I do believe our citizens should be safe and protected from harm’s way. Unfortunately there is no right or wrong answer.

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 New Federal Pilot Program Aims to Deter Homegrown Jihadists appeared first on Law Street.