Instagram is the worst app for your mental health, according to a new study released by the U.K.’s Royal Society for Public Health (RSPH).

Researchers surveyed nearly 1,500 14 to 24 year olds and found that heavy usage of the photo sharing app led to poor body image and sleep, as well as higher levels of anxiety and depression.

.@YouTube only net positive platform for mental health whilst @Twitter – @facebook – @Snapchat & @instagram all net negative #StatusOfMind pic.twitter.com/E95Ob2D1vp

— RSPH (@R_S_P_H) May 19, 2017

Although “FOMO”–aka the “fear of missing out”–may not be a real a mental condition, it has been shown to take a serious toll on young people; the survey found that users who spent more than two hours on social media were more likely to report poor mental health, increased levels of psychological distress, and suicidal ideation.

The #StatusOfMind report explains:

This phenomenon has even been labelled as ‘Facebook depression’ by researchers who suggest that the intensity of the online world – where teens and young adults are constantly contactable, face pressures from unrealistic representations of reality, and deal with online peer pressure – may be responsible for triggering depression or exacerbating existing conditions.

“Instagram easily makes girls and women feel as if their bodies aren’t good enough as people add filters and edit their pictures in order for them to look ‘perfect’,” one survey responder explained about the app.

Snapchat, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube were found to be similarly damaging to mental health, counteracting positive effects like self-expression, self-identity, and community building.

Here is the @instagram profile that led to it being ranked worst for young people’s mental health and wellbeing in our report #StatusOfMind pic.twitter.com/9SbfoQwMY1

— RSPH (@R_S_P_H) May 19, 2017

Even with all of the negative side effects, quitting social media altogether can be can be extremely hard for users, according to Shirley Cramer, chief executive of RSPH.

RSPH and the Young Health Movement are now calling on social media companies to:

• Introduce a pop-up heavy usage warning on social media
• Identify users who could be suffering from mental health problems by their posts, and discretely signpost to support
• Highlight when photos of people have been digitally manipulated

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Instagram Wrecking Your Self Esteem? appeared first on Law Street.

A Florida extortion case involving two social media influencers and some X-rated blackmail has renewed interest in the debate over cellphone privacy–specifically, whether or not a suspect’s phone password is protected by the Fifth Amendment.

The case involves Hencha Voigt, 29, and her then-boyfriend, Wesley Victor, 34, who were arrested last July after they allegedly threatened to leak sexually explicit videos and photos of social media star Julieanna Goddard unless she paid them. The pair reportedly requested that Goddard–better known as “YesJulz” on social media–pay them $18,000 within 24 hours, according to a Miami Police Department report.

Law should support their phones being searched.They were seized as evidence 2the crime- extortion,which is a felony. https://t.co/xT2xLN391i

— Julz (@YesJulz) April 26, 2017

Goddard has over 460,000 followers on Instagram and has been referred to as “the Queen of Snapchat” by the New York Times in a profile last year. The 26-year-old multi-hyphenate (she’s a promoter, social-media marketer, and model) has worked with brands like Puma and Red Bull and can be seen hanging out with the likes of Lebron James and footwear and clothing designer Ronnie Fieg.

Voigt, on the other hand, is an Instagram celebrity in her own right. The fitness model starred last fall in “WAGS Miami,” an E! reality TV show about the wives and girlfriends of sports figures in South Beach.

According to CNN, prosecutors have been unable to search through Voigt and Victor’s confiscated cellphones for more evidence, since both locked phones are password protected. Now, prosecutors have asked the judge to compel Voigt and Victor to give up their passwords, but lawyers for the pair are pushing back, arguing that passwords are equivalent to self-incriminating testimony that is protected under the Fifth Amendment.

“They’re asking for the passcode so they can keep on searching what’s on the phone–which may be incriminating my client–and then use that against her,” Kertch Conze, Voigt’s attorney, told CNN. While its unclear how the judge will rule in this case, this is yet another example of investigators fighting over what protections are afforded to defendants’ locked phones.

Last year, Apple notably pushed back against the FBI after it wanted the company to devise a way to unlock one of the San Bernardino shooters’ phones. Apple CEO Tim Cook argued that the “back door” could potentially be used by sophisticated hackers and cyber-criminals, which would effectively put tens of millions of Americans at risk.

However, this “sextortion” case is clearly different. For one, the defendants aren’t dead and no back doors are needed, and two, there isn’t a threat of a possible terror attack at stake.

While some lower courts have ruled that forcing suspects to reveal their passcodes is unconstitutional due to the Fifth Amendment, other courts have contradicted these rulings. Therefore, we’ll just have to wait and see if the judge will  grant prosecutors in this case an exception.

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 Florida “Sextortion” Case Renews Phone Password Privacy Debate appeared first on Law Street.

Snapchat’s CEO, Evan Spiegel, is at war with India. Spiegel supposedly said India was too poor for Snapchat and now #BoycottSnapchat is trending in the world’s second most populous country.

According to Anthony Pompliano, a former Snapchat employee, Spiegel dismissed his idea to expand in underutilized markets.

“This app is only for rich people,” said Spiegel, according to Pompliano. “I don’t want to expand into poor countries like India and Spain.”

The accusations were found in documents from a lawsuit between Pompliano and Snap Inc., Snapchat’s parent company.

In a statement to the public, a Snap Inc. spokesperson dismissed Pompliano’s claims as the words of a “disgruntled former employee,” adding: “Obviously Snapchat is for everyone! It’s available worldwide to download for free.”

“We are grateful for our Snapchat community in India and around the world,” the statement read.

In spite of the denial, angry Snapchat users took to the internet. As news of the alleged comments spread, #BoycottSnapchat and #Uninstall_Snapchat began trending in India and around the world.

Reportedly, almost 400,000 users in India deleted the Snapchat app from their phones between Saturday and Sunday.

Twitter users also used the hashtag #1star to encourage others to damage the app’s rating and write scathing reviews on both Android and iOS–as of today, Snapchat has a one star rating on the Indian App Store.

It was even rumored that Indian hackers retaliated by leaking 1.7 million Snapchat users’ data on the “dark web,” but these reports have not been verified.

But as Indians took to their respective app marketplaces in defense of their country’s honor, some locked onto the wrong target. Snapdeal, an e-commerce platform that actually happens to be based in India, received a number of one-star ratings and many uninstalled the unrelated “snap app.”

Snapdeal’s CEO took to twitter to express his surprise:

@thetanmay Thanks bud. Ppl asking us to make a statement that @snapdeal is not @snapchat was possibly the last thing I thought I would ever need to do.

— Kunal Bahl (@1kunalbahl) April 16, 2017

Pompliano’s lawsuit accuses executives of exaggerating user data to mislead advertisers. Funnily enough, it looks as though Snapchat’s user data will suffer a painful blow regardless of whether or not Pompliano’s accusations are found to be true.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why is #BoycottSnapchat Trending in India? appeared first on Law Street.

Snapchat has long been known for facilitating explicit content thanks to its function that erases pictures after a few seconds. But now a 14-year-old and his mom are suing Snapchat Discover because of that kind of content. The Discover channel features different media outlets with their own feeds of content that are produced exclusively for Snapchat and are often provocative or racy in order to attract followers.

What is Snapchat Discover?

Today the app involves so much more than taking a photo that disappears after a few seconds. You can face swap, add filters that give you the look of a bee, a puppy, or a vampire, follow news, save your images and videos and send private messages. The Discover function lets you follow your media outlet of choice–Cosmopolitan, Vice, MTV, or Buzzfeed, among others.

The class action lawsuit filed by the anonymous 14-year-old and his mom says that Snapchat doesn’t warn about content that is sexual or offensive. Kids are being exposed to content that is aimed at adults, such as articles named “Beware of Whiskey Dick” and “10 Things He Thinks When He Can’t Make You Orgasm.” According to the lawsuit:

Specifically, through Snapchat Discover, Snapchat is currently engaged in an insidious pattern and practice of intentionally exposing minors to harmful, offensive, prurient, and sexually offensive content, without warning minors or their parents that they would be exposed to such explicit content.

These pictures are from some of the articles that are mentioned:

A mom's lawsuit seeks millions from Snapchat for exposing kids to offensive content https://t.co/2WkkP8pjXg pic.twitter.com/IHA1dOjW49

— Fast Company (@FastCompany) July 9, 2016

What Is Snapchat’s Responsibility?

A spokesperson for Snapchat said in a statement that the company still hasn’t received the lawsuit, “but we are sorry if people were offended. Our Discover partners have editorial independence, which is something that we support.”

The argument is that if Snapchat is only a platform for social media, it has no responsibility over what is posted on the platform. But Ben Meiselas, one of the attorneys behind the lawsuit told BBC: “The layout, its format, what’s presented on a day-to-day basis–Snapchat is not a passive observer of this content.” A statement released in January 2015 about the Snapchat Discover Channel feature said that “it’s the result of collaboration with world-class leaders in media to build a storytelling format that puts the narrative first.” According to Meiselas, it’s that kind of language that indicates Snapchat has taken on the role of a publisher rather than just a platform.

However, an individual employed by one of the media companies that that has a Discover Channel, who asked to speak on the condition of anonymity, told Law Street that Snapchat does not have any input into their editions before they go live.

Snapchat is just four years old and is valued at $16 billion. It has 150 million users and is the app of choice for teenagers and young people. Since this is a class action lawsuit, a win for the 14-year-old could lead to financial compensation for many more kids.

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 Teen Sues Snapchat Discover Over Explicit Content appeared first on Law Street.

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

Samantha Bee Rips the Religious Right

Samantha Bee is back at it again with a scathing critique on everyone’s favorite topic: the religious right. Beginning with a hilarious history of evangelical Christianity’s relationship with politics, Donald Trump, and the GOP, Samantha Bee gives some important insight how the religious right has been losing its grasp on the White House in recent years. Check it out:

Philip Morris Blows Whistle on New Cigarette Packaging and Gets Shutdown

Philip Morris, a tobacco giant known for Marlboro cigarettes, made headlines today after it tried to sue Australia for its creepy looking cigarette packaging rules. If you’ve seen them, you may never want to go near cigarettes again! That is exactly why Philip Morris is filing suits left and right, claiming the countries that apply these rules are impinging on their trademark intellectual property rights. Do they have a point?

Australia versus Philip Morris: How we took on big tobacco and won. https://t.co/GCIE8iHjhW pic.twitter.com/JugLUFO5FE

— smh.com.au (@smh) May 17, 2016

Australia Wraps It Up Ahead of Rio Olympics

The 2016 Summer Olympics are about to get crazy. Along with Brazil’s increased financial burdens, Zika is in the back of everyone’s mind. This is why Australia pharma company Starpharma and a leading condom company are taking aggressive precautions in creating a Zika-proof condom for the Australian Olympic team. Hopefully, protection will be available to everyone when the games begin.

Zika-proof condoms to be standard issue for Australia’s Olympic team. https://t.co/6fy0a2t4s2 pic.twitter.com/UZSDj0n49S

— VICE Sports (@VICESports) May 17, 2016

Viral Video Shows Woman Denouncing Trans Bathroom Use In Local Target

Attention Target customers! Do not be deceived! Target is amazing, you can literally get anything there. You can also, as a transperson, have access to the bathroom. Which is great, right?  

Well, some folks beg to differ. Particularly this woman whose video went viral today after marching through a local Target with a raised Bible warning mothers to get their children out of the store and away from Target’s “homosexual perverted agenda.” Besides scaring some people, all this woman and her posse accomplished was creating a nuisance.

Snapchat Drops The Ball Again!

Admit it, you love Snapchat filters. You spend hours taking pics as a slobbering puppy or with a perpetual frowny face, because it’s fun and hilarious! However, some people are not taking the apps “pretty” or beauty filters so lightly. Many claim that the filters make individuals with deeper tones look lighter instead of enhancing present features. This comes only a few weeks after Snapchat’s Bob Marley “blackface” scandal. Will Snapchat get it together already?

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 17, 2015 appeared first on Law Street.

Is Snapchat partially to blame for accidents caused by “Snapping” while driving? A new lawsuit places some responsibility on the company after an 18-year old driver, Christal McGee, of Hampton, Georgia, caused an accident while using the filter that records speed while in motion. The complaint was filed by Wentworth Maynard, an Uber driver who was hit by McGee while she was traveling at 107 miles per hour.

The accident occurred in September 2015 when McGee was driving home from work in her father’s Mercedes with three of her coworkers in the backseat, one of whom was pregnant. She began to speed down Tara Boulevard, a highway with a 55 MPH speed limit, and pulled out her phone to use the app once she hit 100 MPH. The suit alleges that she was trying to earn a new “trophy” on Snapchat, which is what motivated her to hit that speed. At the same time, Maynard’s car began to pull onto the highway, and the distracted McGee was unable to slow down sufficiently to avoid a collision.

The resulting accident left Maynard with permanent brain damage, detailed in a blog post on a local law firm’s site. McGee’s passengers fared better, and were only treated for “cuts and bruises.” McGee herself faced a head injury, but was conscious enough to post a Selfie from the ambulance letting people know that she was “lucky to be alive.”

Christal McGee caused a serious accident while speeding & using snapchat then took a selfie in the stretcher. #fail pic.twitter.com/ZlKlO1nEFn

— Jess Clackum (@JessicaClackum) April 28, 2016

Maynard’s suit claims that Snapchat should have been aware that the filter would have led to users “putting themselves and others in harm’s way in order to ‘capture a snap’.” It’s not the only case of its kind: the post also mentions similar cases in Brazil and the UK where accidents occurred while using the filter. So, is Snapchat to blame for inviting such behavior in the first place?

The company provided the following response to TechCrunch:

No Snap is more important than someone’s safety. We actively discourage our community from using the speed filter while driving, including by displaying a ‘Do NOT Snap and Drive’ warning message in the app itself.

While Snapchat isn’t responsible for the reckless behavior of its users, it also probably shouldn’t be rewarding “trophies” for it. And why does the “MPH” filter even exist in the first place? The Snapchat craze joins texting and calling as an additional form of distraction for drivers, maybe making the roads a little less safe for us all.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Snapchat Faces Lawsuit After App Usage Causes Car Accident appeared first on Law Street.

Snapchat rolled out a new Bob Marley-inspired filter Wednesday in honor of 4/20 (aka National Weed Day) that gives snapchatters both dreadlocks and a noticeably darker skin tone, and people are pissed.

The filter allows users to warp their faces into a cartoonish interpretation of the late singer that many argue is tantamount to digital blackface.

Snapchat’s half-baked 420 nod is a Bob Marley blackface filter?! Dude was Jamaican! Did waaaay more than smoke weed. pic.twitter.com/t6tazxnMxT

— Brian Ries (@moneyries) April 20, 2016

Things nobody looks good in: peplum, propeller hats, Bob Marley’s face

— Erin Gloria Ryan (@morninggloria) April 20, 2016

Well, there’s a Bob Marley @Snapchat filter for today. (Just in case you didn’t want the effort of buying paint to do blackface.)

— Tré Pina (@TreLingual) April 20, 2016

However, some people took more offense to the timing of the filter’s release than to the actual filter itself. Snapchat is in the habit of creating holiday themed filters and banners for its users. Since April 20’s date is synonymous with “weed culture,” rolling out Marley’s image effectively claimed him as the poster boy for marijuana.

I take more issue with the Bob Marley filter being used for 4/20 than I do with it being “blackface”…

— Pastor Courvoisier (@PLAIDvillain) April 20, 2016

This bob Marley filter for 420??

Bob Marley the symbol of weed orrrr a symbol of love & good music?

I’m confused.

— Mrs. King (@_zolarmoon) April 20, 2016

The anger didn’t stop there. Snapchatters also took offense with Kylie Jenner’s use of the filter. Jenner drew criticism after playing around with the filter in a pair of videos seen below in which she says, “420. Yaaas, bitch,” Jenner exclaims. “Yaaas.”

In retrospect, Jenner’s choice seems more haphazard than intentional, but still ill-conceived nonetheless. In an ironic twist, Jenner’s reality show “Keeping Up With the Kardashians” famously covered the topic of blackface in an episode that chronicled her older sister Kim’s reaction to being approached by a fan offensively pretending to be Kanye.

Snapchat later revealed in a statement Wednesday that the filter was in fact created with the Bob Marley estate’s blessing. The statement read,

The lens we launched today was created in partnership with the Bob Marley Estate, and gives people a new way to share their appreciation for Bob Marley and his music. Millions of Snapchatters have enjoyed Bob Marley’s music, and we respect his life and achievements.

Even if Marley’s filter was sanctioned by his estate, that doesn’t give the public any less of a right to critique the image and hold Snapchat accountable for its cultural appropriation.

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 Snapchat’s 4/20 Bob Marley Filter Will Give You Digital ‘Blackface’ appeared first on Law Street.

When Snapchat first burst onto the social media scene in late 2011, it was widely viewed as a limited and silly app with few practical uses. While news outlets pushed splashy headlines about it being a “sexting app,” most thought that sending temporary pictures to friends was a fad that would run its course. But Snapchat has grown by leaps and bounds, and has become so much more than just a portal for nude photos and silly videos. And yesterday, during its coverage of the San Bernardino shooting, it became a breaking news platform.

Details are still being unraveled about the tragic events in San Bernardino, California yesterday that led 14 dead and many injured. But as with almost every mass shooting or highly publicized tragedy since the dawn of the internet age, viewers from across the country and world checked news sites and social media platforms for the latest explanation on what was happening. Snapchat joined that fray by creating a “California Shooting” live story that allowed users to upload the photos and videos they had to the app. The Snapchat team then selected which ones to feature in order to create a full picture for viewers, in addition to writing news commentary that appeared over the pictures and informed viewers even further.

Interesting to watch how @Snapchat has become a gatekeeper of the news. #SanBernardino pic.twitter.com/Akctc8fwnr

— Josh Solomon (@therealjsolo) December 3, 2015

Snapchat’s story of #SanBernardino pulls you in close and suggests the potential of stitched real-time documentary. pic.twitter.com/i3HbeSH4Kh

— Hamza Shaban (@hshaban) December 3, 2015

People are tweeting about @Snapchat‘s special #sanbernardino news roundup for good reason. Very compelling. pic.twitter.com/K8oPM7xoB3. — Danny Sullivan (@dannysullivan) December 3, 2015

This isn’t the first time that Snapchat has featured live coverage of an event. It covered the Pope’s highly publicized visit to the United States this fall, as well as the GOP debates. But this is the first time that Snapchat has really extended its coverage to breaking news, especially with such a somber and serious subject.

While many have applauded Snapchat for its breakthrough and revolutionary approach to covering real time news, others have expressed concern. After all, despite what Snapchat is evolving into, many still use it for purely entertainment purposes. Advertising coverage of a mass shooting may be disturbing to some browsing the app and unaware of the situation. Others have posited that it’s disrespectful to the victims.

While those are all incredibly valid points, real time coverage of breaking news stories isn’t going to end any time soon. Whether or not Snapchat is the appropriate vehicle for that coverage is certainly a fair discussion, but Snapchat’s drive to continue monetizing its app, and Americans’ vociferous appetite for breaking news probably mean that this new feature is here to stay.    

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 Snapchat Covers San Bernardino Shooting, Becomes Serious News App appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Friday everyone–hope your short week flew by! If you need something to pass the time at the end of this work week, check out the weird arrests of the week below.

A Different Kind of Prize

Image courtesy of Thomas Hawk via Flickr

Katie Rees, who was formerly Miss Nevada and who had a chance to win Miss USA in 2007, was arrested for possession of meth. But the interesting part is that this is the second time that she has been arrested for meth this year, she was nabbed selling it in July. That’s not very pageant-worthy!

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 Weird Arrests of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Get excited everyone! The 2016 presidential campaign is beginning to take shape, with Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Hillary Clinton all formally throwing their names into this election’s version of the Goblet of Fire. But let’s talk about the newest candidate to submit his bid for office–the 43-year-old Republican Junior Senator from Florida, Marco Rubio. His fresh face and conscious appeal to younger voters has already garnered comparisons to a young Barack Obama, but his shorter resume compared to his peers makes him a less familiar face for many voters.

That’s why I decided to compile some interesting facts about our newest Republican candidate that demonstrate just how “hip” with our generation he really is. So without further adieu here are the three facts millennials should know about presidential hopeful Marco Rubio.

He’s Meme Friendly

One thing we millennials love is our memes, and Rubio tapped into that love of combining photos with witty commentary when he gave us the awkward sip seen around the world. If you haven’t seen the sip, it happened during his turn at the GOP rebuttal to Obama’s State of the Union in 2013. Rubio took an uncomfortable pause in the middle of the speech for a questionably timed water break that managed to creep out many viewers.

.@marcorubio: He reaches for water, but we’re breaking out the Arbor red. pic.twitter.com/O6ATmGumkE

— The Democrats (@TheDemocrats) April 13, 2015

His nervous lip smacking combined with uncomfortably direct eye contact proved to be the perfect recipe for an instant viral meme. That sip alone generated at least 15 different parody Twitter accounts and instantly earned Rubio 13,000 new followers. With those kinds of gains in followers, Rubio could take this election one sip at a time.

Picked up over 13,000 new followers on #twitter since last night! Im going to start drinking #water in the middle of all of my speeches! — Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) February 13, 2013

He Loves Rap Music

In a December 2012 interview with GQ magazine, Rubio transformed into an old school music lover out of nowhere, sharing his affinity for Afrika Bambaataa, Public Enemy, and Tupac, and earning some instant street cred. When it comes to music Rubio prefers intensity over “party anthems” calling Eminem his favorite artist and “the only guy that speaks at any sort of depth.” When asked by GQ if he had a favorite song to play to psych him up before a Senate vote Rubio laughed saying:

..in terms of psyching yourself up, I don’t have time for that. You know you can’t put on earphones and the storm the floor and vote.

If you ever wondered what Rubio is currently jamming out to, he was kind enough to share his public Spotify playlist, but sadly it lacks Rubio’s favorite tracks which include: “Straight Outta Compton” by N.W.A., “Killuminati” by Tupac, and Eminem’s “Lose Yourself.”

He’s Social Media Savvy…Or at Least He Thinks He is

Rubio began his presidential campaign by first asking supporters to add him as a friend on Snapchat. Yes, Snpachat, the quick deleting photo/video sharing app that’s usually known for less than wholesome uses.

I’m now on @Snapchat. My username is marcorubio16. Please add me. — Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) April 13, 2015

However, his “story” making skills still need some work. His first posts consisted of a lot of clapping and name chanting from his presidential campaign announcement, as well as him being driven away in a super sexy gold minivan. I’m hoping he’ll step his selfie game up soon, or if all else fails just videotape himself taking more awkward sips from tiny water bottles. But till then I still want to know if Rubio is team follow back or nahh?

hi @marcorubio are you team follow back or what pic.twitter.com/l2KzeLAp35 — Marisa Kabas (@MarisaKabas) April 13, 2015

Why you gotta be so rude pic.twitter.com/HlAlqnnlQq — Marisa Kabas (@MarisaKabas) April 13, 2015

Since announcing his candidacy last night, Rubio has already begun to try to spin his inexperience and youngest contender status–both of which are concerns for the American people–to his advantage. Whether his plea to millennials will help him actually connect with younger voters will have to be seen.

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 Marco Rubio: Going After Millennials for 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

The number one article at Law Street this week came from Marisa Mostek, our resident authority on the dumbest laws of the United States. And guess what? Alaska and Hawaii are no exception. The second most popular post of the week, from Alexis Evans, is decidedly more serious as the UVA rape allegations that ran last Fall in Rolling Stone were found baseless by the police. And the number three article of the week, from Ashley Shaw, details the case of a criminal who outed his own hiding spot by Snapchatting it to his friends. ICYMI, check out this week’s best of the week from Law Street.

#1 The Dumbest Laws of the United States: Alaska and Hawaii

The last two additions to the family of United States could not be any more different in some ways, for example their opposing climates. However, Hawaii and Alaska are similar in that both possess a unique set of strange and dumb laws. In Anchorage, Alaska, there is a law specifically banning tying a dog to the roof of a car. Perhaps this brings to mind a certain politician doing so a few years back cough Mitt Romney cough. Read full article here.

#2 Police Find No Evidence to Support UVA Gang Rape Story

Last November, Rolling Stone shocked the nation with its 9,000-word article entitled “A Rape on Campus.” The piece told the horrific story of a University of Virginia freshman known only as “Jackie.” She claimed to have been gang raped by seven Phi Kappa Psi frat members during a frat date party. The article accused UVA of a “cycle of sexual violence” and “institutional indifference” that preferred to silence girls like Jackie who reported rape instead of helping them. The piece started an impressive national dialogue about rape culture, particularly rape culture on college campuses. Now after four months of investigating and roughly 70 interviews, police have concluded that the gang rape that reignited a movement most likely never even happened. Read full article here.

#3 Peek-a-Boo! Cops Find Crook Who Snapchatted His Location

There are a lot of stories about idiots who are wanted for one crime or another who get caught through social media. This might be because the police post their searches on Facebook and people see them and report the fugitives’ whereabouts. It could be the girl who posted a video on YouTube talking about everything she had just stolen. Or the guy who posted a pic of himself siphoning gas from a police car. Basically what this shows us is that many crooks are stupid and arrogant, and the man in this week’s story is no exception. Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

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

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

There are a lot of stories about idiots who are wanted for one crime or another who get caught through social media. This might be because the police post their searches on Facebook and people see them and report the fugitives’ whereabouts. It could be the girl who posted a video on YouTube talking about everything she had just stolen. Or the guy who posted a pic of himself siphoning gas from a police car. Basically what this shows us is that many crooks are stupid and arrogant, and the man in this week’s story is no exception.

Christopher Wallace was recently apprehended in his home. This was a big score for the police since they had been looking for him for weeks after linking him to a burglary. How, you wonder, did they finally find him? It actually turned out to be quite easy. He spurred his own downfall by using the app Snapchat.

Wallace is obviously a big fan of the kid’s game Hide and Seek because it was a giant version of this game that he played with the cops. First he sent a Snapchat, which the receiver sent to the cops (never forget that phones are screenshot capable, people, because if you do, you might have some embarrassing Snapchat photos leaked just like this guy). In it, Wallace said he returned to his house. So the police took that as an invitation.

Courtesy of Giphy.

When they got to the Wallace household they were told that he was not, in fact, home. The police were not content at leaving it alone, so they decided to search the premises. That is when they got their next Snapchat message: Wallace knew that the police were searching, and, oh yeah, also, he was hiding in the cabinets.

According to the sheriff office’s Facebook page, “a search of the kitchen cabinets turned up some food, some pots and pans, and also a pair of feet.” Now, I assume that the investigating cops figured one of two things when they saw these mystery feet: either Wallace was guilty of a much worse crime than burglary or else he had not lied in his post and they had just won this weird game of Hide and Seek.

As it turns out, it was the latter. Connected to those feet, as the Facebook page relayed, was Christopher Wallace. As you might imagine, he was quickly arrested.

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Peek-a-Boo! Cops Find Crook Who Snapchatted His Location appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

I am an avid social media user. I love all things social media but I have yet to cross the line into obsessively taking selfies and sending them off to anyone, let alone posting them all over the Internet. In today’s world it is almost impossible to find someone who has not taken one selfie and sent it to at least one other person. But one teen not only crossed the line in selfie etiquette, he showed how much he doesn’t value life.

Maxwell Morton, 16, faces first-degree murder charges, in addition to charges of criminal homicide and possession of a weapon by a minor, after shooting Ryan Mangan, who was also 16, last Wednesday.

A funeral was held for Mangan on Monday in a small town just outside of Pittsburgh.

Morton was dumb enough to photograph what he had done and then used the popular social media app SnapChat to send it to another boy. SnapChat allows the user to send a multi-media message that disappears within a few seconds once the recipient opens it. Thankfully the young man that Morton sent the image to was smart enough to save the image, show his mom, and then contact the police.

Morton also had taken a photo of himself with the 9 mm pistol that was used in the shooting, which was later found on the camera roll on his phone.

The amount of disregard for human life that Morton has is just sickening, and the fact that more and more social media is used for this kind of thing makes me want to delete all my apps and go back to an old school flip phone that would only allow you to make calls or send text messages..

Morton is being charged as an adult and could face up to life in prison. Life in prison. I think he deserves the death penalty. Something that the state of Pennsylvania does in fact still have in effect. Pennsylvania ranks 26 in executions for the past five years.

I have to wonder where this kids parents were, why he wanted to kill Mangan and where did he get the gun? Only time will tell.

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 Teen Murder Suspect Takes Selfie With Victim appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Massive Celebrity Nude Photo Leak is Major Privacy Breach

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

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

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

8. #GamerGate Takes Misogyny to a Whole New Level

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

9. AirBnB Winning Over San Francisco, With Some Rules

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

10. Privacy Board Calls NSA Eavesdropping Illegal 

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

11. Rideshare Infighting: Lyft Sues Uber Executive

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

12. Bitcoin: What’s Next?

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

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

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

14. Aereo: The Martyr Files for Bankruptcy

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

15. Please Stop Posting the Facebook Copyright Status

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

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post ICYMI: Top 15 Technology Stories of 2014 appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

Social Media in the Courtroom

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

When did technology become an issue in criminal proceedings?

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

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

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

Recent Changes

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

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

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

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

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

Social Policies

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

Resources

Primary

Snapchat: Privacy Policy

EFF: The Stored Communications Act

Additional

Bloomberg BNA: Social Media Evidence in Criminal Proceedings

American Bar Association: Admissibility of Social Media Evidence

Evangelos Siozios

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

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

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

Is it just me, or is sex everywhere?

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

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

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

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

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

Is infidelity easier today?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is infidelity the reason behind our surging divorce rate?

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

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

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

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

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

What effects do social networks have on infidelity?

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

Resources

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

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

Evolutionary Psychology: Explaining Sex Differences in Reactions to Relationship Infidelities

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

Infidelity Facts: When Does Infidelity Occur?

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

CNN: Besides Sex–Other Reasons Men Cheat

Evangelos Siozios

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

While we don’t know what settling with Snapchat earned Brown, it does seem to be revealing an easy money-making scheme: introduce an idea for a product or service, wait for someone you know to make it successful, then sue.

Zaid Shoorbajee

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

The post Snapchat’s Settled Lawsuit: Another “Social Network” Story? appeared first on Law Street.

The right to disappear has become increasingly en vogue. In Europe, the movement has particular strength as the European Union passed directives protecting it, and European courts have challenged large corporations to comply with the law.

The right to disappear basically attempts to preserve an individual’s control over information on the internet about himself. There are multiple variations, but it might, for example, allow a user to remove an unsavory article about herself on Google, or it may allow her to erase potentially damaging photographs from Facebook.

In the context of the internet, however, can information actually disappear? Does information on the internet resemble a sheet of paper that can disintegrate forever in a fire, or a tiny piece of silver incapable of actual destruction? In the U.S., a recent FTC complaint against Snapchat provides an interesting angle to explore this issue.

In a sense, the company leveraged the massive support for this right to be forgotten when it devised its own application. Social media usually insinuates some sort of public sharing, but SnapChat twisted the concept to include a more discreet form of connecting. SnapChat mushroomed into one of the most popular phone applications due to the transient nature of activity on the platform. While users still connect via the internet, the communications on SnapChat are intended to evaporate within ten seconds. SnapChat is the reverse of Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, and most other social media sites, in that SnapChat communications leave no cyber footprint. The app seemed to offer a way to use social media while still preserving one’s right to disappear.

Unfortunately, SnapChats don’t actually disappear as easily as the company claimed, according to a recent Federal Trade Communication complaint asserting that SnapChat did not properly inform its users that their SnapChats may be permanently saved and stored by other users.

The FTC complaint highlights that on the SnapChat’s FAQ, the company misstated that snapchats will permanently delete. The FAQ reads:

Q: Is there any way to view an image after the time has expired?
A: No, snaps disappear after the timer runs out

The FTC notes that users can easily screenshot the snapchat to permanently save it. Additionally, the complaint explains how to circumvent Snapchat’s policy of informing the sender if the recipient screenshot the snapchat: if a user on an iPhone quickly hits the device’s home button after taking a screenshot, the SnapChat application will close before informing the sender that the image has been saved. Thus, the FTC hammered down on SnapChat for its overly hyperbolic claim that users cannot save snapchats.

Importantly, this ruling highlights something crucial about the internet: it may prove impossible for information passed via the internet to ever truly disappear. Moreover, companies might face penalty if they claim to offer such a service.

What does this mean for the practicality of a right to disappear? Suppose, for example, that Google takes legitimate steps to remove information about a European citizen after he invokes his European right to disappear. The efficacy of Google’s actions depends on the objective nature of information on the Internet. Does information on the internet resemble a piece of silver or a piece of paper? One will incinerate in a fire, the other will not. What if Google does what it can to bury the information – the piece of silver — but it resurfaces? Can a user sue Google?

In the age of the internet, do we actually have a right to disappear? Or, should we more accurately label it a right to hide a bit better, because all we can legitimately do is frustrate efforts to find the information that will always exist somewhere?

—

Imran Ahmed is a law student and writer living in New York City whose blog explores the legal implications of social media and the internet. Contact him via email here.

Featured image courtesy of [Search Influence via Flickr]

Imran Ahmed

Imran Ahmed is a writer living in New York. Contact Imran at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SnapChat SNAFU Proves Relevance of Europe’s Right to Disappear Laws appeared first on Law Street.

Law Street writer Anneliese Mahoney brought us the  ‘Dark Side of Snapchat’ recently, explaining its less-than-savory methods of use by the consumers. Now it looks like all of those dark sides have landed the company, for lack better words, in deep shit. Snapchat is facing scrutiny of its practices and policies.

On May 8, 2014, Snapchat was slapped with complaints by the Federal Trade Commission that the popular mobile messaging app deceived consumers about the ephemeral nature of snaps, among other things. Furthermore, the FTC alleged that the company misrepresented the platform’s privacy and security. The FTC’s complaints allege the following:

1. Snapchat misrepresented its privacy and security actions in its marketing to consumers.
2.  Snapchat misrepresented the ephemeral nature of snaps when it is known to the company that there are several ways to store the ‘disappearing messages,’ such as third party software available for download.
3. Snapchat stored video snaps unencrypted on recipients’ devices outside of its ‘sandbox’ (in layman’s terms this means that they were stored externally from the app). Furthermore, the recipient could retrieve the ‘disappearing videos’ if he or she connected the mobile device to a computer.
4. Snapchat mislead consumers regarding the notification functionality. If a recipient of a snap took a screenshot, the sender would receive a notification, but the FTC noted multiple ways in which the notification system could be avoided.
5. Snapchat misrepresented its data collection practices to Android app users because the app transmits geolocation information, which is in direct contrast to the company’s privacy policies. (Clearly, marketing privacy does not mean actual privacy.)
6. Snapchat misrepresented the security of the ‘Find Friends’ feature. Snapchat received complaints that the feature did not verify the phone numbers, therefore, consumers potentially were communicating with someone other than the designated recipient.

While Snapchat settled the FTC charges and has not incurred monetary penalties, the company was placed on probation and will be subjected to independent privacy monitoring for the next 20 years. If the company is found misrepresenting its practices again, it could face up to $16,000 per infringement. However, this is relatively minor punishment for the company in my opinion.

Do I think that consumers truly believe that all their messages are private? No, not at all. However, if your business platform is based on some degree of privacy and security, you should really make an effort to deliver on those promises — not have one security breach after another. The company was rated with one out of six stars on the ‘Who Has Your Back’  2014 report released by Electronic Frontier Foundation last week. Snapchat is truly innovative and I hope it moves faster on the learning curve because it is a great app. But, in the words of Dottie People, “get your house in order.”

Click here to read the original post by Anneliese Mahoney: “The Dark Side of Snapchat.”

—

Ashley Powell (@danceAPdance)

Featured image courtesy of [Jose A. Perez via Flickr]

Ashley Powell

Ashley Powell is a founding member of Law Street Media, and its original Lead Editor. She is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Dark Side of Snapchat Lands the Company in Hot Water appeared first on Law Street.

December was a bad month for anyone who didn’t want their personal information leaked to hackers or other third-party sources.

Retail giant Target had a problem about two weeks ago when 40 million customer records were stolen. The information contained on the records included names, credit and debit numbers, expiration dates, and security codes. The hackers with that information could easily use it to make fraudulent purchases on customers’ cards.

Popular messaging application Snapchat released that several million of their users’ usernames and corresponding phone numbers were leaked late on New Year’s Eve. There’s actually a site to check if your username was leaked, and it provides tips on how to handle it if it was. If your username was breached, it means that your phone number could be given to spammers or the like.

Skype was also recently breached by the Syrian Electronic Army, a hacking group. Skype has reported, however, that no user information was stolen or lost.

Obviously a breach involving credit card information and a breach involving usernames and phone numbers seem very different, but the truth is that they’re both notably problematic. They indicate a reliance we have on technology that is utterly new to our time, and because that reliance is new, ways to steal from us have also evolved. Everything can be done online, from banking to applying to college to planning a trip. And it’s easy to do those things, it’s easy to trust a site when they say they are secure. But we have to remember that every time we provide our information, there is the possibility that it makes its way into the wrong hands. And retailers have to realize that storing information online can be just as dangerous for them as for a teenager using Snapchat.

The types of breaches that we saw this month definitely aren’t new, and they aren’t the worst in recent history. TJ Maxx Corporation actually had a similar incident in 2006, but instead of 40 million customer records lost, it totaled about 90 million. And in 2009, Heartland, a credit card processing system, had 130 million records stolen.

The former chief security officer of Heartland, Steven M. Elefant, made an important point about security breaches and theft propagated through the internet. He stated, “it’s a game of cat and mouse. We’re dealing with sophisticated bad guys that have many ways to attack.” New security features can be installed and developed. But for every new feature that is developed, a hacker will probably be able to find a way around it. It might take time and effort, but it’s possible.

There are some solutions that could be put in place, but they might be logistically complicated. In Europe, smart chip technology is used. The United States use magnetic strips to hold information, but European cards usually little chips that are much harder to counterfeit. Since the smart-chips were implemented in Europe, fraud and theft have declined. The JobsUnited States seems to be stuck in a time warp. Most of our allies and trading partners use smart-chip cards, but we use the strip cards that were invented in the 1960s. As a result, by October 2015, new chip card standards will be put into place by most major credit card companies, like Visa and MasterCard. While this won’t completely eliminate fraud, it should make some impact.

—

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 [Brian Klug 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 A December of Hackers appeared first on Law Street.

Snapchat is a smartphone app designed to show timed pictures and videos that are not permanently saved to the recipient’s phone. The amount of time for which a recipient can view a photo is dictated by the sender, but is somewhere between 3-10 seconds. Usually the app is used for quick but relatively silly communication with friends–pet pictures, selfies, or just a life update in photo form.

Snapchat has received some criticism for possibly making “sexting,” the sharing of suggestive or explicit photos, easier. Because pictures automatically disappear after a few seconds, it may be easier for young people to send inappropriate photos without fear of later distribution. The problem is that it’s not that hard to save snapchats–there are apps to secretly save snapchats. Or for the more brazen, it is possible for a recipient to screenshot a snapchat, but the sender does receive a notification. You can easily take a picture of a snapchat on one phone with another phone or camera. For the most tech-savvy, there can be ways to access secret files on a smartphone. There have been dozens of cases of people posting their sexting partner’s compromising snapchats to the internet.

Now in all fairness, the trend has not been quite as widespread as feared. A recent poll found that only about 15% of Snapchat users admitted to using it for sexting purposes. The creators of Snapchat won’t reveal how many people have downloaded their app, but given its popularity, it’s safe to say that 15% of users is probably a fairly large group.

Now, if snapchat was just an app used by adults, this wouldn’t be too problematic. Moral and ethical issues aside, it is legal for adults to send nude photos back and forth, if they so wish. The problem that arises with Snapchat is that it may be being used by teenagers to send pictures back and forth, which can be considered distribution of child pornography.

There have been actual alleged cases of child pornography sent through Snapchat. In November, ten boys near Montreal aged 13-15 were investigated for peddling child pornography. They convinced their girlfriends to send them nude or partially nude photos, and then shared them among themselves. The girls did not know that the pictures were being distributed. The boys are due back in court on January 20th.

Teen-to-teen transmitted photos are one thing. But now an even creepier use of Snapchat has resulted in a new arrest. This week in Missouri, a mother has been charged with misdemeanor child endangerment after she sent snapchats of both herself and her 14-year-old daughter topless. She claims that she didn’t take the picture herself, but one of her other daughters did. That claim is contentious, because according to Prosecutor Tim Lohmar, it seems that the woman and her daughter are posing for the photo.

There have also been cases of adults sending explicit snapchats of themselves to minors, such as Joseph Johnson, a middle school teacher in Florida.

Snapchat might make sexting more guilt-free, but I can’t imagine it makes it that much so. It really is pretty easy to save a picture sent through the app. I think the bigger issue at play that warrants discussion is the use of social media to send inappropriate content. As children get smartphones, tablets, or computers at younger and younger ages, lines become fuzzier. The truth of the matter is that teens will always push the envelope, and science tells us that they’re quite not as good at making sound decisions as adults.

While snapchat is undoubtably fun, it can be dangerous, and teens sending pictures among themselves can have serious consequences. The Missouri woman being charged absolutely deserved it, but as for the teens, I think the issue is a little fuzzier. I know I’ve cautioned this before, but I truly think that as our technological abilities change, our laws need to keep pace.

—

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 [Summer Skyes 11 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 The Dark Side of Snapchat appeared first on Law Street.

The double standard of a generation. The ultimate oxymoron.

Each year major companies including Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and Google, constantly revise their terms and conditions—making it even harder for users to monitor and control who is able to view their content.

It may come as a surprise to many, but these companies OWN everything you post. That’s right, what is yours, is theirs. Just recently, Google announced a change in privacy, allowing them to access Google+ profile pictures and comments as a mean of advertising. Likewise, Facebook announced this Wednesday that  content posted by teenagers, individuals ages 13-17, are now not only accessible to people who know their friends, but anyone who types in the right keywords.

This forbidding future allots cyber bullying, moreover the increased accessibility to child pornography, elicit content, and internet stalking.

The Internet is evolving. Privacy used to have some standards. Now it’s a savage free for all, even children are subject to.

All of this brings up a pressing question: If random people on the Internet have access to private user generate content, can the government?

Yes. No question. In fact, this has been happening prior to the current revisions in dot-com privacy policies.

In Policy Mic’s article, PRISM: The 8 Tech Companies Who Gave Your Data to the Government Have This to Say About the Scandal, Google states, “Google cares deeply about the security of our users’ data. We disclose user data to governments in accordance with the law, and we review all such requests carefully. From time to time, people allege that we have created a government ‘backdoor’ into our systems, but Google does not have a backdoor for the government to access user data.”

To break this quote down, Google basically said, “We do not hand your content to the government on a golden platter. They have to ask nicely, and then, only then, will give it to them what they want in a paper lunch bag—not gold”.

Different phrasing, same idea. This brings up the much-needed talk about legislation to protect the user. Congress needs to look into these corporations’ exploitation of user content.

This is unlike anything we have seen before, and there are relatively no laws protecting the users. Should there be? Absolutely. But that may result in a much different Internet, an Internet where you pay to use websites. One way or another you are paying, it just depends if you want to pay with your identity.

[NewYorkTimes] [PolicyMic]

—

Featured image courtesy of [g4II4is via Flickr]

Zachary Schneider

Zach Schneider is a student at American University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Zach at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Privacy or the Internet: Choose One appeared first on Law Street.