Uber will start requiring its drivers to periodically snap selfies before being able to accept new rides. The company described its new move as a security measure that will prevent fraud and protect drivers’ accounts. But critics say it is just a sign that some drivers have not gone through background checks.

The tech company has long resisted more secure safety measures such as the use of fingerprints when running background checks, which are outsourced to a company called Checkr. Criticism has come from the fact that the prospective driver only has to enter all his personal information online before applying and doesn’t meet anyone from the company in real life before starting to pick up rides.

The absence of fingerprint checking leads to drivers swapping accounts with each other, according to David Sutton from a campaign run by the Taxicab, Limousine and Paratransit Association. He said to the Verge:

This is Uber acknowledging drivers share their accounts and the company’s effort to reduce this practice. Despite intense criticism of Uber’s screening process, the company is admitting there are drivers who’ve never undergone any form of background check.

One driver admitted to this practice in 2014: if you don’t want to be screened before driving for Uber, you just put your information on another driver’s account who doesn’t want to work anymore and you’re all set.

Uber chief of security Joe Sullivan explained in a blog post how the new selfie method will work. Drivers first take a selfie in the Uber app.

We then use Microsoft’s Cognitive Services to instantly compare this photo to the one corresponding with the account on file. If the two photos don’t match, the account is temporarily blocked while we look into the situation.

This is what it looks like:

Here’s how Uber drivers now have to take a selfie, to improve safety. pic.twitter.com/TevDeydtEg

— Neal Augenstein (@AugensteinWTOP) September 23, 2016

But it sounds a little risky to trust the technology that much. And what if the app doesn’t recognize a driver, even if it’s the same person in both pictures? Sullivan admitted in the blog post that there had been cases of mismatching during the pilot testing of the app service. But he said that more than 99 percent of photos were matched correctly, and the ones that weren’t were due to blurry profile pictures on the drivers’ pages. The post stated:

Given that verification takes only a few seconds to complete, this feature proactively and efficiently builds more security into the app.

Throughout the years Uber drivers have been involved in drunken driving, murder, kidnapping, killings of pedestrians, assault and sexual assault. Time will tell if the selfie security will do anything about these problems.

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 Uber Now Requires Drivers to Snap Selfies to Make Your Trip Safer appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been a busy few weeks for Peter Thiel. First, news broke that Thiel’s nemesis Gawker is shutting down (and blaming Thiel for its demise). Now, everyone is talking about a new startup that Thiel is backing, that would seemingly make it easier for plaintiffs to pay for civil lawsuits.

The startup is called Legalist. It focuses on litigation finance, which is a fancy way of saying that it funds lawsuits by other people, and then takes a cut of the settlement–up to 50 percent. Legalist isn’t the first company to come up with this idea by any means. But it thinks it has a better shot at identifying the winning cases, by using algorithms to “analyze millions of court cases to source, vet, and finance commercial litigation.”

On its website Legalist explains:

Unlike other litigation finance companies, Legalist uses data-backed methods to select, vet, and invest in litigation. Our algorithms trawl tens of millions of past court cases to accurately and efficiently assess litigation risk. As a result, Legalist is able to make faster decisions, on more cases.

The company was founded by two Harvard undergrads, Eva Shang and Christian Haigh; they were at least partially funded with a $100,000 Thiel Foundation grant. However, it does seem like Legalist is distinct from the kind of lawsuit that Thiel bankrolled against Gawker, brought by Hulk Hogan. Shang told the Guardian: “I used to work for a public defender in DC. We’re not funding criminal cases, nor would I be funding any suits against the media.” She instead floated the idea that Legalist could be used to help in a case like a “bakery damaged by a burst pipe bogged down in costly litigation.”

While Legalist’s aims appear to be good, the fact that Thiel is at all involved has garnered a lot of attention, and it’s not hard to imagine why. Thiel bankrolling Hogan’s lawsuit against Gawker, and Gawker’s subsequent bankruptcy and downfall, have worried a lot of people. For example, Trevor Timm of the Daily Dot wrote an excellent and thoughtful (albeit snarky) list of questions for people “cheering Gawker’s demise.” Dan Kennedy, an associate professor at Northwestern’s School of Journalism said as part of an answer in an interview:

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 Legalist: Peter Thiel Backed New Startup that Helps Fund Lawsuits 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.

One stereotype of the current tech atmosphere is that it’s dominated by young people–those of us who grew up using computers and other devices. Well it turns out that that stereotype might not be too far off. Moreover, according to a new lawsuit, it might be that way on purpose. Robert Heath, a 64-year-old engineer, is suing the king of all tech giants–Google–for age discrimination.

He claims that he had an interview with Google for an open position in software engineering for which he was qualified. His resume included successful positions in the same field at other reputable companies such as IBM and Compaq; however, Heath claims that he was not really seriously considered for the job, and that he wasn’t given a fair shot at the interview. The complaint Health filed states that:

The Google interviewer was barely fluent in English. The interviewer used a speaker phone that did not function well. Mr. Heath asked him, politely and repeatedly, if he would use his phone’s handset, and the interviewer refused, stating that ‘we’ would have to ‘suffer’ through the interview using the speaker phone because he did not want to have to hold the handset through the whole interview. Communication was very difficult, and Mr. Heath and the interviewer had difficulties understanding each other throughout the interview.

The complaint goes on to explain the issue with the interview, stating:

By conducting the interview as described above, Google intentionally did not allow Mr. Heath to communicate or demonstrate his full technical abilities, and did not have a sincere interest in hiring Mr. Heath

Heath was ultimately not offered the position he sought. He filed the lawsuit on April 22 in a San Jose, California federal court. He aims for it to be a class-action suit for anyone over the age of 40 who have been rejected from a job at Google.

Heath does seem at least supported by statistics about the median age at Google. According to Payscale.com, which relies on self reporting, the median age of Google employees is 30, which is certainly lower than the average age of the American worker. It’s even lower than the average worker in the computer science and engineering fields–the Department of Labor puts those median ages in the early-40 range.

Heath’s claim certainly isn’t the first time that Google has been accused of age discrimination. In another case, Reid v. Google, that was settled before it made it to trial, former executive Brian Reid claimed that he was discriminated against and eventually let go because of his age.

While Silicon Valley consistently makes the press for its dearth of racial and gender diversity, age discrimination seems to be a less consistent complaint. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen though–now Heath has the burden of claiming that it’s enough for the court to get involved.

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 Google Sued for Age Discrimination…Again appeared first on Law Street.

Crowd-sourced mobile taxi service Uber has developed a bit of a reputation for having a sexist “bro culture.” A new announcement this morning from the company reveals it’s trying to change that. Uber announced it will be partnering with UN Women “with the goal of accelerating economic opportunity for women.” As part of that commitment, it has pledged to create 1,000,000 jobs for women drivers by 2020. That sounds good, but is this sudden explosion of growth really proof that the company is becoming more female friendly?

A good example of how Uber has gotten a sexist rep is the feud between the company and Sarah Lacy, the founder and Editor-in-Chief of tech website PandoDaily. In October, Uber’s French office unveiled a sexist promotion with an app called “Avions de Chasse” that pairs Uber riders with “hot chick” drivers. Lacy responded with an oped piece on her site criticizing the company’s “Asshole culture,” writing that she deleted the app. She stated she was shocked that this company valued at $18 million “celebrated treating women who may choose to drive cars to make extra money like hookers.”

That’s when Uber execs apparently retaliated in maybe the worst way possible. They hired spies. Yup, spies. Spies who allegedly attempted to dig up information on Lacy to discredit her. While nothing ever real came of it, there was a lot of public outcry against Uber.

USA Today reported that Emil Michael, senior vice president of the business, allegedly said at a dinner party that the company spends $1 million to conduct “oppo research” on journalists. That means digging for any information Uber can manipulate in order to discredit its journalist critics. After public backlash the company made its apologies on Twitter and dropped the promotion.

The controversy with Lacy wasn’t the only anti-female press for Uber. Uber founder Travis Kalanick was quoted referring to his company as “Boob-er” because of all the ladies he pulls due to its success. With comments like that it’s no wonder the company’s headquarters have been deemed a boyish clubhouse.

It only got worse for Uber in December when it was banned from New Delhi, India after a male Uber driver was accused of sexually assaulting a female passenger. Unfortunately, that’s not the only case of alleged Uber sexual assault. In Boston, an Uber driver was charged with sexual assault after inappropriately touching a female passenger while dropping her off in the North End neighborhood. With that in mind, hiring more female drivers could make female passengers feel safer while using the service. In NYC, the app SheRides has already created a business model based on the concept, with an all female fleet that it claims is tailored to the needs of women.

Currently women make up only about 14 percent of Uber’s 160,000 drivers in the U.S., according to the The Huffington Post. This new female hiring initiative would increase Uber’s driving force by more than seven times its current total. Its clear that Uber realizes that referring to itself as “Boob-er” and hiring spies to stalk female journalists wasn’t the best idea. This hiring initiative, however, is a good first step of many that Uber will need to take in order to rid itself of its negative “bro culture” rep.

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 Uber’s New Hiring Initiative: Trying to Win Back the Women appeared first on Law Street.

Memes are fun–they’re customizable, shareable, and all over the internet. But they do bring up some important questions about copyright laws and photo ownership. For example, many of you have probably seen the “confused face girl” meme that has gone viral all over social media. While most people find this meme utterly hilarious, a news story spread last week that the “face” of the meme–a girl named Keisha Johnson–wasn’t laughing. In fact, she supposedly tried to sue Instagram for $500 million for copyright infringement and defamation because people keep using a picture of her posted on Instagram as a meme. This story ended up being a fake, created by the satirical news outlet OD Gossip, but news organizations who didn’t know any better still picked it up.

Thanks Hundike

Here were the made-up details of Johnson’s legal battle:

The 16-year-old Alabama native was just hanging out with her friends when one of them took a bad photo of her and uploaded it to Instagram. Almost instantly, the photo went viral and was shared on millions of profiles, including those of celebrities. In addition to turning the photo into a meme, people everywhere have been posing for their own “confused face” photos in apparent attempt to mock Johnson. Clearly embarrassed by the photo, Johnson said, “my face looked ugly like I was about to throw up. I look nothing like that in real life… I’m really a bad b*tch!”

While this made-up girl named Keisha Johnson did not, obviously, sue Instagram for $500 million, the story and resulting press attention got me thinking: what would happen if someone were to actually sue Instagram? Well, according to the Instagram terms and conditions that every user must agree to before they sign up for the social media site, people who use the network are responsible for the content that they choose to share.  Now in fairness, in the hypothetical story, Johnson was not the one who posted the photo. However, according to the terms, her friends would have been 100 percent responsible for choosing to embarrass their friend. So hypothetically, if the girl in the photo were to sue someone, it’s her friends who are responsible for deciding to post a bad photo of her, not Instagram.

The site OD Gossip also released another fake story about another fake lawsuit–this time over a selfie that was turned into a meme. According to OD Gossip, “Makayla Edwards,” known more commonly as the topless boy/girl face a** meme, has also decided to file a defamation lawsuit against Instagram. Just like the story about Johnson, this is a hoax, but there have been millions of photos posted to people’s Instagram accounts making fun of the meme. The photo has also popped up on sites like Facebook and Twitter.

Now as previously established, the fake “Makayla Edwards” cannot sue Instagram for people choosing to repost her photo. But, is there anything stopping her from suing the people who reposted her photo? In order to figure this out, I looked into copyright laws and how they apply to social media selfies.

First, it’s important to understand the basic copyright laws for online images. Copyright attaches to a work, in this case an image, as soon as it is created. Unlike with patents and trademarks, people do not need to apply for a copyright, it’s automatic. So once you create an image–by drawing it, creating it on the computer, or by taking a photo–you have the rights to do whatever you want with it. This includes reproducing it, displaying it publicly, altering it, selling it, and distributing it.

But most of us don’t create our own images, we use ones created by others. In order to legally use someone else’s image, you must get express permission from the copyright owner and, once you get permission, give them proper credit for the image. Now, there are ways that you can legally use a copyrighted image without getting permission, such as by using one with a creative commons license, but these likely do not apply to social media photos.

So what are the rules when it comes to social media, where people constantly and publicly post their photos for anyone to see? According to Social Media Today, images posted on social media sites are still bound by copyright. This means that if you want to use or re-post someone else’s photo on Facebook or Instagram, you need their permission.

So these made-up lawsuits are not completely ridiculous–they probably could happen, although for way less money. However, if anyone has a reason to sue, it’s the person who took the picture, not the girl in it. And they wouldn’t be suing Instagram, but the millions of people who re-posted the photo without permission. Still, next time you snap a silly selfie, or take a bad picture of a friend, these rules are something to keep in mind.

—

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

Featured image courtesy of [Shawn Ahmed via Flickr]

Brittany Alzfan

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

The post Memes and Selfies: Internet Trends Bring New Copyright Issues 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.

The largest internet companies have joined forces with top civil liberties groups to call on the White House and Congress to increase transparency surrounding the government’s controversial National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance program. Apple, Facebook and Google are among the companies that signed a letter to the feds, asking for the right to disclose information about national security data requests.

The  tech giants’ call for greater transparency represents a push back against allegations that they had a deeper involvement with the NSA’s surveillance program, PRISM, and allowed the NSA ‘direct’ access to their servers. In particular, Google has vehemently denied that they granted the government such access. Last month, Google petitioned a secret U.S national security court to soften the restrictions on the information it can reveal about the government  data requests made under Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act (FISA), claiming such restrictions violate the company’s First Amendment rights. Microsoft also had a similar request.

Tech companies are prohibited from revealing anything about requests they receive for such information because FISA requests are classified as top secret.

[Time.com]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Mike Mozart 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 NSA Transparency Push: Apple, Google, Facebook Join Civil Liberties Coalition appeared first on Law Street.