A Philadelphia School district is facing charges of wire-tapping and privacy violations for using surveillance technology on students through school issued lap tops. The accusation is coming from Blake Robbins and his parents after the assistant principal at Harrington High School spoke with him about some questionable behavior he saw him doing at home.
The web cams on the computers are supposed to be set up to take a still photo of the operator and their screen when one of them is missing or stolen, Lower Merion School District Superintendent Christopher McGinley stated that:
"The District never activated the security feature for any other purpose or in any other manner whatsoever."
The school district has distributed 2,300 computers to students. The lap tops are for educational purposes, not to spy on students outside of school grounds. The school is standing firm that the computers are not used for surveillance but experts in electronic privacy think that there could be a case for illegal wiretapping of students.
Here's the link to the full story on NPR's website:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123886828
Friday, February 19, 2010
Employee Blogs—Freedom of Speech in Cyber Space Poses Problematic Legal Issues
The liberty of the internet as an open public forum certainly provides multiple benefits to users worldwide; however, it also poses many important legal questions when the freedom of the web is used by employees to anonymously make harmful, false claims on their employers and colleagues through their private, individual blogs and websites.
The dangers posed by harmful employee blogs may range from defamatory claims made against the company, harassment claims made towards colleagues/employers, and disclosure of confidential information of the company. These frivolous or intentionally hurtful cyber comments may potentially lead to actual, economic damages to the company. For example, a false, negative claim made by an employee may harm employer and hurt the good will of the company, thereby incurring economic loss to the company. This happened in late 1990s to Southern Pacific Funding Corporation, which filed for bankruptcy after some blog claiming that company executives were covering up multi-million dollar embezzlement. This blog triggered scandal led to devaluation in the Southern Pacific’s stock prices from $17 to $1.
Hence, what is being said and published in the virtual reality may have actual, real-life consequences. The next question we may ponder upon is how can employers in the situation redeem damages done to the company, when the blogger’s identity was hidden? The most widely used method was to subpoena the Internet Service Provider (ISP) through filing a “Doe” case or the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). After which the blogger’s identity is revealed, the employer can decide whether to further sue for damages.
This article gives further details on the topic of private employee blogs, and this link provides the actual official document of the DMCA.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
12 year-old forced to pay for music downloads
In an article published by CNN, it was reported that a 12 year old girl settled to pay the Recording Industry Association of America $2,000 for the total number of songs she downloaded.
Brianna LaHara agreed to pay about $2 a song for the total number of songs she download, making her the first out of 261 defendants who settled their lawsuit with the association.
LaHara was extremely apologetic for what she did stating "I love music and did not want to hurt the artist that produced". However, the suit came from RIAA claiming that LaHara had been providing more than 1,000 songs over the Internet through a file sharing program.
According to RIAA's chairman Mitch Bainwol, the association is trying to send a "strong message, that you are not anonymous when you participate in peer-to-peer file sharing and the illegal distribution of copyright music has consequences".
Nonetheless, what is interesting about this story is that the association is not cracking down the individuals downloading the music, but rather the one's responsible for uploading the music. According to the article, CNN reported that record companies blame illegal file trading for the 31 percent fall of compact disc sales since the mid 2000. The decision to start prosecuting illegal file sharers was made after the U.S. appeals court rulings mandated that Internet providers turn over the names of subscribers who are believed to be sharing music and movies illegally.
Yet until now the only file-sharing lawsuit that RIAA had, was against four college students accused of making thousands of songs accessible on campus networks. One perfect example of such a network is Rutgers' own DC++. Although a lot of students believe that DC++ is a safer alternative to Limewire or Bearshare, in actuality it is the same. The RIAA is also moving forward with subpoenas at universities around the country to try and identify music file traders. Thus posing a threat to the creators of DC++ and other sharing networks as such.
Brianna LaHara agreed to pay about $2 a song for the total number of songs she download, making her the first out of 261 defendants who settled their lawsuit with the association.
LaHara was extremely apologetic for what she did stating "I love music and did not want to hurt the artist that produced". However, the suit came from RIAA claiming that LaHara had been providing more than 1,000 songs over the Internet through a file sharing program.
According to RIAA's chairman Mitch Bainwol, the association is trying to send a "strong message, that you are not anonymous when you participate in peer-to-peer file sharing and the illegal distribution of copyright music has consequences".
Nonetheless, what is interesting about this story is that the association is not cracking down the individuals downloading the music, but rather the one's responsible for uploading the music. According to the article, CNN reported that record companies blame illegal file trading for the 31 percent fall of compact disc sales since the mid 2000. The decision to start prosecuting illegal file sharers was made after the U.S. appeals court rulings mandated that Internet providers turn over the names of subscribers who are believed to be sharing music and movies illegally.
Yet until now the only file-sharing lawsuit that RIAA had, was against four college students accused of making thousands of songs accessible on campus networks. One perfect example of such a network is Rutgers' own DC++. Although a lot of students believe that DC++ is a safer alternative to Limewire or Bearshare, in actuality it is the same. The RIAA is also moving forward with subpoenas at universities around the country to try and identify music file traders. Thus posing a threat to the creators of DC++ and other sharing networks as such.
So the next time you plan on downloading a few songs from DC++ or Limewire, just think about 12 year Brianna who ended up paying a good chuck of money for her illegal downloads.
Sticks and stones may... lead to a lawsuit?
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion – even if said opinion leaves others in tears. In 2007, honor student Katherine Evans was suspended for creating a Facebook group called “Ms. Sarah Phelps is the worst teacher I’ve ever had” after several grade disputes with her senior-year English teacher. Evans invited fellow classmates and past students of Phelps’ to share stories supporting her claim. The New York Times says that Evans deleted the group after a few days, but there’s no explanation as to what prompted her to do so.
Evans was suspended two months after removing the page. Now, as a sophomore at University of Florida, Evans has been granted permission to sue her former principal, Peter Bayer, who apparently no longer works at Pembroke Pines Charter High School.
Unlike J.S. vs. Bethlehem Area School District, wherein an 8th grade student was expelled for creating a website depicting gruesome images of his algebra teacher, Evans’ Facebook group could not have remotely been considered threatening. The Times quoted Maria Kayanan, an associate legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, as saying:
As a matter of principle, Evans is seeking to have her three-day suspension expunged from her “permanent record”. She is also seeking an undisclosed fee, as she feels that Bayer, her former principal, violated her First Amendment rights.
Evans could have a strong case, especially after applying the Tinker standard. Moreover, Bayer will have a difficult time proving that Evans’ claims were statements of fact, since the group appears to have been based on opinions.
-- Cassiopeia Neely
Evans was suspended two months after removing the page. Now, as a sophomore at University of Florida, Evans has been granted permission to sue her former principal, Peter Bayer, who apparently no longer works at Pembroke Pines Charter High School.
Unlike J.S. vs. Bethlehem Area School District, wherein an 8th grade student was expelled for creating a website depicting gruesome images of his algebra teacher, Evans’ Facebook group could not have remotely been considered threatening. The Times quoted Maria Kayanan, an associate legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, as saying:
“This is an important victory both for Ms. Evans and Internet free speech,” Ms. Kayanan said, “because it upholds the principle that the right to freedom of speech and expression in America does not depend on the technology used to convey opinions and ideas.”
As a matter of principle, Evans is seeking to have her three-day suspension expunged from her “permanent record”. She is also seeking an undisclosed fee, as she feels that Bayer, her former principal, violated her First Amendment rights.
Evans could have a strong case, especially after applying the Tinker standard. Moreover, Bayer will have a difficult time proving that Evans’ claims were statements of fact, since the group appears to have been based on opinions.
-- Cassiopeia Neely
Courts reach different rulings in online student speech cases
The uncharted legal waters of online student free speech just got a little murkier. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals several weeks ago reached different rulings in the cases of two separate students that created parody MySpace profiles of their school principals.
In the first case, an eighth grader in Schuylkill County, Pa. uploaded sexually explicit photos as well as a picture of her principal to a fake MySpace profile, which also stated the principal was a pedophile and a sex addict. Students and school officials discovered the web page almost immediately and the MySpace profile was widely discussed at school the following day, according to the Associated Press.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the 14-year old's ten-day suspension, maintaining that the MySpace profile would cause a "substantial disruption" at school and therefore should be restricted in accordance with prior case law.
However, in another case, the court ruled against the Hermitage School District in Mercer County, Pa. Former Hickory High School senior Justin Layshock also created a fake MySpace profile for his school principal, but in the Hermitage case, the court ruled that school officials "cannot reach into a family's home and police the Internet."
The rulings have left legal experts scratching their heads. Supreme Court opinion on student free speech cases does not extend into the realm of cyberspace, so appellate courts are left to clean up the mess themselves.
In the first case, an eighth grader in Schuylkill County, Pa. uploaded sexually explicit photos as well as a picture of her principal to a fake MySpace profile, which also stated the principal was a pedophile and a sex addict. Students and school officials discovered the web page almost immediately and the MySpace profile was widely discussed at school the following day, according to the Associated Press.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the 14-year old's ten-day suspension, maintaining that the MySpace profile would cause a "substantial disruption" at school and therefore should be restricted in accordance with prior case law.
However, in another case, the court ruled against the Hermitage School District in Mercer County, Pa. Former Hickory High School senior Justin Layshock also created a fake MySpace profile for his school principal, but in the Hermitage case, the court ruled that school officials "cannot reach into a family's home and police the Internet."
The rulings have left legal experts scratching their heads. Supreme Court opinion on student free speech cases does not extend into the realm of cyberspace, so appellate courts are left to clean up the mess themselves.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Latest Google "Buzz" may violate privacy
Bob Sullivan, of MSNBC.com's Red Tape Chronicles blog reported today that Google may have inadvertently broken a wiretap law with its new social networking service, "Buzz." According to the website, which focuses on “technology run amok” and “corporate sneakiness,” Sullivan covers Internet scames and consumer fraud for MSNBC.com.
According to Sullivan, Google might be in trouble for automatically signing up millions of Gmail users for its new social network, perhaps violating the users privacy rights. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has filed a formal complaint with the Federal Trade Commission, even after Google made changes to the server last week.
Sullivan quotes EPIC Executive Director, Mark Rotenberg: “E-mail is one area on the Internet where we have an expectation of privacy. E-mail is for private messages. You sign up for social networking to communicate publicly with people, Google tried to turn e-mail into social networking, and that's where they ran into trouble.”
Apparently, when users logged in to gmail, they were given the offer to “check out” the new service, but even if they declined to do so, they would be automatically activated. Some users felt outed when they saw their frequently used contacts listed publicly. Google has revised the feature and now alerts users that this will occur unless they decide to prevent it.
EPIC has called for greater changes, most notably that it should be a fully opt-in service, and that Google cease using private address book contacts to make social networking lists at all.
This adds another layer to how “private” internet communication is, and the outcome will be interesting to see. Negative public reaction may possibly be a more effective deterrent to Google's continued use of this method to compile lists, even if the FTC doesn't come out strongly against it.
Other blogs have picked up on this issue as well, such as Media Law Prof Blog, which is where I originally picked up on this news story.
According to Sullivan, Google might be in trouble for automatically signing up millions of Gmail users for its new social network, perhaps violating the users privacy rights. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has filed a formal complaint with the Federal Trade Commission, even after Google made changes to the server last week.
Sullivan quotes EPIC Executive Director, Mark Rotenberg: “E-mail is one area on the Internet where we have an expectation of privacy. E-mail is for private messages. You sign up for social networking to communicate publicly with people, Google tried to turn e-mail into social networking, and that's where they ran into trouble.”
Apparently, when users logged in to gmail, they were given the offer to “check out” the new service, but even if they declined to do so, they would be automatically activated. Some users felt outed when they saw their frequently used contacts listed publicly. Google has revised the feature and now alerts users that this will occur unless they decide to prevent it.
EPIC has called for greater changes, most notably that it should be a fully opt-in service, and that Google cease using private address book contacts to make social networking lists at all.
This adds another layer to how “private” internet communication is, and the outcome will be interesting to see. Negative public reaction may possibly be a more effective deterrent to Google's continued use of this method to compile lists, even if the FTC doesn't come out strongly against it.
Other blogs have picked up on this issue as well, such as Media Law Prof Blog, which is where I originally picked up on this news story.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Free Flow of Information Act--too much freedom?
The Free Flow of Information Act, more commonly known as the federal shield law, passed through the House nearly a year ago, but now journalists are speaking out both for the bill and in protest of it. In the Online Journalism Review, Gerry Storch points out what he considers to be one major flaw in the bill as it is now. He presents the very possible scenario of the journalist making a mistake in a story involving confidential sources. He does not believe journalists should be protected in such a situation, and that judges should have the discretion to determine the level of protection in such cases. He tells a story of a "goof-up" (to say the least) at the Los Angeles Times in 2008:
According to the Columbia Missourian, a panel was held last Tuesday at the Donald W. Reynolds Journalism Institute at the University of Missouri about "The Erosion of Press Freedom in North America." During the panel, various journalists discussed the issue of press freedom and privacy, bringing up the current Free Flow of Information Act as well.
"A threat to free press anywhere is a threat to free press everywhere," Alison Bethel, director of the International Press Institute noted. The panelists also discussed protection for bloggers and users of Twitter, Facebook, etc.
"The Internet is changing the definition of privacy...[t]hings you put on Facebook are not private," said panelist Toni Locy, a former USA Today reporter who was charged with contempt of court in 2008 for withholding the identity of a source.
Currently, the Freedom of Information Act has passed the House and has not been amended, but it has not progressed as of yet. In its current condition, it is a matter of controversy among journalists, though its journey is not yet complete. A federal shield law would be a major advancement in the world of journalism, especially in the age of digital journalism, where protection seems so much less absolute and defined. The progression of this bill will be something to watch.
--Alex Boyer
Such a story does raise a flag in regard to the federal shield law. Storch makes a point of bringing to attention some potentially serious errors and the consequences they could have on future media cases.In 2008, the Times was forced to retract a story, and reporter Chuck Philips publicly apologized, after the investigative website Smoking Gun exposed the fact that a jailbird confidential source he had relied on had given him forged documents in the case of an attack on rap star Tupac Shakur in which music executive Sean "Diddy" Combs was implicated.
The story was flat-out wrong and big star Philips ... why, he had won a Pulitzer Prize ... had been duped like the rawest rookie.
Yet if Smoking Gun hadn't been around to help, and if the federal shield bill had been in effect, even someone as powerful as Combs would have been helpless to win redress and clear his name, since he undoubtedly would have been classified as a public figure. He and any other innocent person in a similar situation would have virtually no recourse as the victim of a false, harmful story based on false, harmful information from a shielded confidential source.
According to the Columbia Missourian, a panel was held last Tuesday at the Donald W. Reynolds Journalism Institute at the University of Missouri about "The Erosion of Press Freedom in North America." During the panel, various journalists discussed the issue of press freedom and privacy, bringing up the current Free Flow of Information Act as well.
"A threat to free press anywhere is a threat to free press everywhere," Alison Bethel, director of the International Press Institute noted. The panelists also discussed protection for bloggers and users of Twitter, Facebook, etc.
"The Internet is changing the definition of privacy...[t]hings you put on Facebook are not private," said panelist Toni Locy, a former USA Today reporter who was charged with contempt of court in 2008 for withholding the identity of a source.
Currently, the Freedom of Information Act has passed the House and has not been amended, but it has not progressed as of yet. In its current condition, it is a matter of controversy among journalists, though its journey is not yet complete. A federal shield law would be a major advancement in the world of journalism, especially in the age of digital journalism, where protection seems so much less absolute and defined. The progression of this bill will be something to watch.
--Alex Boyer
Sunday, February 14, 2010
From the world's Information Superhighway to Poland's Main Street
The Wall Street Journal reported Feb. 5 that Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk will entertain complaints by Polish Web surfers on new legislation that would restrict online gambling in Poland. Just one law in a slew of anti-gambling legislation, the Polish government hopes to extend a ban on slot machines outside of casinos to the Internet world. The article reports that surfers are worried that the ban on online gambling may extend to other content, fears based on a government-drafted bill that would enable a filter that would weed out a full list of banned Internet content.
This reminds me of a French case detailed in the first chapter of “Who Controls the Internet?” A self-proclaimed Nazi watchdog based out of France found Nazi memorabilia up for auction on the search engine “Yahoo!”. Selling Nazi memorabilia is illegal in France, and the watchdog took Yahoo! to court, citing that the California-based company was violating French law. In the end, French courts decided that the ability for Yahoo! to filter out content for its French users was a feasibl option, and French users could be—and should be-- blocked from purchasing Nazi memorabilia on the Web site’s auction component.
The Wall Street Journal attached an unrelated note to the end of the article:
“Completely separately from the government’s attempts to regulate the Internet, the Polish judiciary has said this week an IP address is a piece of personal information that needs to be disclosed to individuals who want to sue a website in a libel lawsuit for comments left in a public forum.”
I believe this could turn into a very interesting case. In the world of anonymous comments, where anyone can say what they please under a pseudonym, having the legal ability to identify who wrote a particular comment can have substantial effect on a case and make lawsuits over Internet comments significantly easier. I’m looking forward to following developments on Polish libel law as they unfold.
--Sarah Morrison
This reminds me of a French case detailed in the first chapter of “Who Controls the Internet?” A self-proclaimed Nazi watchdog based out of France found Nazi memorabilia up for auction on the search engine “Yahoo!”. Selling Nazi memorabilia is illegal in France, and the watchdog took Yahoo! to court, citing that the California-based company was violating French law. In the end, French courts decided that the ability for Yahoo! to filter out content for its French users was a feasibl option, and French users could be—and should be-- blocked from purchasing Nazi memorabilia on the Web site’s auction component.
The Wall Street Journal attached an unrelated note to the end of the article:
“Completely separately from the government’s attempts to regulate the Internet, the Polish judiciary has said this week an IP address is a piece of personal information that needs to be disclosed to individuals who want to sue a website in a libel lawsuit for comments left in a public forum.”
I believe this could turn into a very interesting case. In the world of anonymous comments, where anyone can say what they please under a pseudonym, having the legal ability to identify who wrote a particular comment can have substantial effect on a case and make lawsuits over Internet comments significantly easier. I’m looking forward to following developments on Polish libel law as they unfold.
--Sarah Morrison
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Internet Rape in Wyoming
A woman was assaulted at her front door, raped at knife point in her living room, and left bound on the floor in her home in Casper, Wyoming. The man who attacked her, 26 year old Ty Oliver McDowell, claimed he was fulfilling a "rape fantasy" she posted on Craigslist.
However, McDowell is not the only man accused of this crime. Jebidiah James Stipe, 27, a Marine and the victim's ex-boyfriend, is charged with conspiracy to commit first-degree sexual assault. Prosecutors charge that McDowell was actually communicating via e-mail with Stipe. They say Stipe posted the ad to set the woman up to be attacked, without her knowledge.
The ad read, "Need a real aggressive man with no concern for women," authorities said. The Casper woman complained to the Natrona County Sheriff's Department that someone made a false Craigslist posting about her, including photographs and personal information, before her rape.
According to the Los Angeles Times, M. Ryan Calo, residential fellow at Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society, said "Federal law protects Internet sites from liability for their users' actions[...]Craigslist is like a hotel with millions of rooms, but it doesn't have the ability to figure out what's happening in those rooms."
As of now, if convicted, both men face a life imprisonment sentence. Craiglist has cooperated with this investigation.
More information can be found at: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100206/ap_on_re_us/us_internet_assault and http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2011000748_apusinternetassault.html?syndication=rss
---Mona Dalia
However, McDowell is not the only man accused of this crime. Jebidiah James Stipe, 27, a Marine and the victim's ex-boyfriend, is charged with conspiracy to commit first-degree sexual assault. Prosecutors charge that McDowell was actually communicating via e-mail with Stipe. They say Stipe posted the ad to set the woman up to be attacked, without her knowledge.
The ad read, "Need a real aggressive man with no concern for women," authorities said. The Casper woman complained to the Natrona County Sheriff's Department that someone made a false Craigslist posting about her, including photographs and personal information, before her rape.
According to the Los Angeles Times, M. Ryan Calo, residential fellow at Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society, said "Federal law protects Internet sites from liability for their users' actions[...]Craigslist is like a hotel with millions of rooms, but it doesn't have the ability to figure out what's happening in those rooms."
As of now, if convicted, both men face a life imprisonment sentence. Craiglist has cooperated with this investigation.
More information can be found at: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100206/ap_on_re_us/us_internet_assault and http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2011000748_apusinternetassault.html?syndication=rss
---Mona Dalia
Thursday, February 11, 2010
A twitter libel suit dismissed
The Chicago Sun-Times reports that an Illinois judge has dismissed a libel suit sparked by a post about mold on the microblogging site Twitter. According to the Sun-Times, Amanda Bonnen had been having a dispute with Horizon Realty, the company that managed the Chicago apartment she was renting, over whether it contained mold. Sometime in May 2009, she posted a tweet that read, “@JessB123 You should just come anyway. Who said sleeping in a moldy apartment was bad for you? Horizon realty thinks it's ok.” On June 2, Bonnen filed suit against Horizon, alleging that it had violated Chicago's landlord ordinance. Later that month, she moved. Horizon learned about the tweet and sued Bonnen for libel, seeking more than $50,000 plus court costs. The Sun-Times reported that at the time, Jeff Michael, a member of the family that runs Horizon, said it had not asked Bonnen to remove the post. He said, “We're a sue first, ask questions later kind of an organization" -- a quote that earned the company all sorts of probably unwanted fame and probably helped propel the lawsuit onto Wikipedia. As the Sun-Times Live from Law School blog reported, Illinois Circuit Court for Cook County dismissed the case Jan. 20, ruling that the tweet was "nonactionable as a matter of law." Bonnen's attorney, Leslie Ann Reis, told the Sun-Times that the quote could have been construed innocently, as Bonnen's opinion, and so didn't meet the definition of libel. You can find the original complaint and the hand-written dismissal order on this page about the case maintained by the Citizen Media Law Project.
-- Susan Keith
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)