Is Facebook going to Washington?

Following Facebook's f8 conference announcement about the new connections with other Web sites which comes with an opt-out rather than an opt-in option, politicians have been speaking out against the development.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) objected the third-party sharing, urging the Federal Trade Commission to address the issue of "social network privacy." His main concern was that sites would be misleading in their privacy statements, not clearly stating the extent of third-party information sharing to users. He wants sites to fully disclose their information-sharing policies and procedures to ensure no information is being shared without permission.

Schumer also teamed up with three other Democratic senators on an open letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to express similar concerns. Such political involvement could mean Facebook's new policies are sending it to D.C. Once third-party sharing comes into the mix, politicians start to take notice, and it is Facebook's new procedure that could be bringing it down again.

Ironically, I came across this article after presenting my paper on Facebook and Internet privacy, and it is eerily fitting. Just another example of how our information is traced online and personal information cannot be escaped. As for any impending legal battles, this is a case we'll have to follow. As I mentioned in my first post on the subject, this could be the next major controversy for Facebook, and it seems it's come out of the gate running.

An Unlikely Story: Follow-Up to the Gizmodo Story

As I reported in earlier posts, the technology blog Gizmodo is under heat from Apple, Inc. and California law after it posted pictures and videos of a "fourth generation" iPhone that they said they purchased from a patron of a California bar after it was found there.

Now, it looks like that story was a lie-- Businessweek.com reported April 29 that prosecutors are now saying Apple reported the phone as stolen, adding a deeper legal layer to an already complicated case.

The bar patron who found the phone has been identified as 21-year-old Brian Hogan. Hogan said that he was handed the phone by another patron who found it on a barstool, and then immediately left. Hogan asked other patrons around him if the phone was theirs, and when they all said no, he tried to check Facebook.com on it, and then the phone shut off and would not work again. Hogan said he would call Apple product help line AppleCare to report the missing phone, but ended up giving it to Gizmodo instead. Investigators reported that Hogan thought Gizmodo was reviewing the phone, and he sought-- and received-- compensation for it. Hogan believed, and Gizmodo reassured him, that the phone was allowed to be sold to the technology press.

Although I mentioned the Josh Wolf case before, I did not mention that the case could be approached from an angle that avoids the California shield law that Gizmodo could potentially use like the Wolf case did. Because the evidence Wolf may have had that involved the federally funded San Francisco Police Department, the federal government was able to issue the subpoena and carry out the investigation, and federal law overrode the California shield law. Similarly, for Gizmodo, it is possible that Apple will avoid the California shield law completely by focusing on the theft aspect of the case, which may be a strong argument for them. Gizmodo could still seek first amendment rights and seek protection under the California shield law, but if a different angle is pursued, it is possible that the issue can be bypassed.

--Sarah Morrison

Jon Stewart calls out Apple (follow up on Sarah's post)

Sarah posted a really interesting blog about the editor of Gizmodo's house being searched by police after he posted pictures of Apple's iPhone prototype on his website. Well this behavior by Apple has got a lot of people up in arms about what their company is really about. Most importantly it has caught the attention of a very influential guy, Jon Stewart. He ranted about Apple's actions on his nightly faux-news cast "The Daily Show". (Fast forward to minute 5:15 to get right into his "conversation" with Steve Jobs and Apple.)

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Appholes
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

(Video credited to Comedy Central)

Apple started out as an underdog and became the super-power it is today by having faithful customers who believed in their product, these kind of actions are kind of...scary. What monster have we created here? Hopefully this is just a one time thing and Apple will realize the damage they have done to their image and maybe they can begin to repair it. Maybe by releasing an iPhone for Verizon? Hey, just a suggestion.....

UPDATE: Gizmodo Editor's Computers Seized by Police

InformationWeek reported April 27 that California law enforcement seized computer used by the blog Gizmodo's editor, Jason Chen, on Friday, hoping to find evidence of a stolen new version of the iPhone that the blog released detailed pictures, videos, and demonstrations of.

Gizmodo said that they paid $5,000 for an iPhone that someone found "lost in a bar." They released the specifics of the device in a post last week, and Chen was convinced that he had found the new iPhone, disguised in a case to make it look like the current 3G model. Apple sued under Section 485 of California law, which says that if someone knowingly receives stolen property, it is as if he stole the material himself and is also guilty of theft.

However, InformtionWeek reports that Gizmodo may seek protection under California shield law, maintaining that the information was gathered for journalistic purposes and cannot be subpoenaed. Chen knew that his computers may be seized (the seizing of the computers would be equivalent to the subpoena of information). In advance, Gaby Darbyshire, the COO of Gawker Media, which owns Gizmodo, explained in a letter on Gawker that online journalists had successfully combated subpoenas before. Chen could have a shot-- in the case of Joshua Wolf, the subpoenaed blogger who served the longest jail sentence of any journalist in U.S. history for not complying, brought the issue of bloggers and the shield law to light, and Chen hopes that this will reflect in his favor.

--Sarah Morrison

Social Media Equivalent to Drugs.

A new study conducted by the University of Maryland has found that many students are hooked on social media and cellphones are similar to the addictions associated with drugs and alcohol. Many student described the withdrawals from these sites in terms similar to those used by drug and alcohol addicts.
The study from the International Center for Media and the Public Agenda, "24 Hours: Unplugged," asked 200 students on the campus to give up all media for a full day and blog on private Web sites about their experience. Student reaction showed addiction like withdrawal symptoms such as anxiety, misery, and being jittery. For these students these social sites were an extension of them and admitted that they addicted to media.
Zack Whittaker, a blogger for ZDNet, called the research methodology "pretty rock solid" but takes issue with the way the results have been interpreted by the researchers. Mr. Whittaker said in a blog post that he felt that today "the term 'addiction' is bandied around without thought or conviction.
"I defend to the highest possible level that today's youth are not addicted to social media and networking, the Web, and online media," Mr. Whittaker wrote. "We do spend far more time on Facebook and accessing the Web for leisure use and socializing, but that is part of the natural progression of tertiary, non compulsory education socialization."
This article is interesting because new media such as social networking sites are being associated as being a drug and addictive. However, just as the government presents laws against drugs its usage, one can conclude that with the new ACTA laws the government is similarly trying to restrict the usage of the new media.

Supreme Court to hear Calif. video game case

The Supreme Court will take the case of a California law banning the sale of certain "excessively violent" video games to children, according to CNN.com. The bill, which Gov. Schwarzenegger signed, outlawed the sale or rental of video games in which the player "is given a choice of 'killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being' in offensive ways" to minors. Violators would face a maximum of $1,000 in fines under the controversial law.

After Gov. Schwarzenegger signed the bill in 2005, the video game industry filed suit in California's federal appeals court and the court issued an injunction preventing enforcement of the law even before it took effect.

Now, the Supreme Court will finally hear the case of Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants (08-1448). The state claims it has a "legal obligation to protect children" from the disturbing violent images found in video games; however, video game developers maintain its current ratings system is adequate and parents can effectively choose which games are appropriate for children.

The state also said parents across California are complaining because the current guidelines do not prevent minors from playing games that contain graphic portrayals of murder and rape, which may have serious psychological effects on young people. Video game ratings, similar to movie ratings, are voluntarily industry-issued and are intended to give consumers an idea of the game's intended audience.

The video game industry says the law would amount to censorship, "using 'community standards' to evaluate artistic and commercial content."

Do violent video games have First Amendment protection when they fall into the hands of children?

How about them apples?

Technology lovers REALLY love getting their hands on Apple products before they hit the market!

PC Mag reported April 24 on an Apple "fourth generation" iPhone leak posted on a popular technology blog called Gizmodo. Similar to the O'Grady case involving a leak of the "Asteroid" on a technology blog before its release, Apple's not happy with its secrets being published. In O'Grady, Apple sued for "trade secret misappropriation," seeking subpoenas from their Internet Service Providers and others to find the identity of the leak. Those subpoenas were quashed, the court writing that the authors of the blog obtained the information in order to write news, making it OK for the secret information to be published.

As the old saying goes: history repeats itself.

Gizmodo leaked an entire set of demonstrations, photos, and videos of a prototype phone, which it purchased for $5,000 from an unknown seller, and Apple is now suing under section 485 of California law. The law states that if stolen property is not rightfully returned to its owner and then knowingly received as stolen property is considered thievery.

According to Gizmodo, the unknown source tried to contact Apple about the phone, which they claimed was "lost in a bar" and ended up in their possession. However, it is possible that the blog can be found guilty of knowingly receiving stolen property. Gizmodo said that it has yet to be contacted by law enforcement.

Stay tuned...

--Sarah Morrison

South Park Censored for Safety

Comedy Central censored there Wednesday’s (April 21) episode, which was a continuation of last week's, and it was a depiction of Prophet Muhammad in a bear suit.

South Park was given a warning from a radical Muslim website, revolutionmuslim.com. Comedy Central confirmed to FoxNews.com it censored the show, and the episode was not available on the website either.
Abu Talhah al Amrikee, the author of the post, said he wrote the entry to raise awareness.

The posting included “the 200th episode of Trey Parker and Matt Stone's South Park, which included a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad disguised in a bear suit. The web posting also included a graphic photo of Theo van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker who was murdered in 2004 after making a documentary on violence against Muslim women.” Amrikee said the photograph of van Gogh was meant to “explain the severity” of what Parker and Stone did by mocking Muhammad.

“We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show," the posting read. "This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them.”

"It's not a threat, but it really is a likely outcome. They're going to be basically on a list in the back of the minds of a large number of Muslims. It's just the reality."

Jon Stewart commented on the incident on his show yesterday, Thursday 22. According to The Examiner, Stewart’s show “and others have made a common practice of ridiculing nearly every major religion and belief systems. Yet, it seems the network felt the need to censor in this case over concerns of violence.”

Stewart claimed, “the censorship was a decision Comedy Central made, I think, as a way to protect our employees from what they believe was any possible harmful repercussions to them.”

He went on to criticize “the group that posted the threat on its Web site, saying your type of hatred and intolerance, that's the enemy.”

Is there anything wrong with this picture? Clearly, according to the information given above, there was no threat given on the part of any group. But a warning by an individual. An individual whose name originally was Zachary Adam Chesser. According to an article in FOX News, Chesser seemed somewhat disturbing to some of his classmates. Years later in college, he converted to Islam. So this means, Chesser, as the article claims, had some troubling traits since he was in high school. His “disturbing” attitude was not created when he converted; rather, it was there all the time. So, there is something clearly wrong with this picture. What if Chesser never converted to Islam, would the story seem different? The articles about the censorship on Comedy Central, declare that the post was not a threat, but a warning. A warning to what might happen to Parker and Stone. Take this for example, during the Civil Rights movement; no doubt, there was racism in America. So much cruelty there was towards Blacks in this country for many years. What would have happened if they were fearful of protesting? Would the Civil Rights movement have happened? Indeed, they were threatened on and before the Civil Rights movement. Anything could have happened to them. Should our freedom of speech be threatened by what we fear is going to happen? Clearly, Comedy Central pokes fun at many faiths, but is that even right? Does that not only continue the racism, stereotyping, and bigotry in this country?
So how do we determine who is right in this case?
For more info on this article visit: MYFOXNY

---MONA

ACTA Developments May Hurt ISPs, Tech Companies

The current version of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement was released yesterday, under mounting criticism that the negotiations have been to secretive up until this point, according to the Associated Press. The treaty, which involves the United States and 12 other countries, has been in the making since 2007. Last week another round of talks were concluded in New Zealand. The treaty aims to “crack down on counterfeiting, copyright violations and other intellectual property theft, and would cover everything from fake pharmaceuticals to online piracy of music and movies,” according to abc.com. However, the article further points out that ISPs and other intermediary internet companies may be legally liable for infringing content in ways they have not in the past. Every nation that signs the treaty is expected to bring its laws into compliance. Whereas the United States, under its current Digital Millennium Copyright Act requires the provider to remove infringing content, it is not subject to monetary damages. Whether this will be the case under ACTA is still unclear, and ISPs and other technology companies are not pleased.

An interesting point of view on how this will play out suggests that a commercial approach, linking ISPs with content providers could then render piracy a moot point. This would protect the technology companies from liability on infringement issues. The full argument can be found here, at computerworld.com.

Hitler Parodies on YouTube: Fair Use or Copyright Infringement?

Yesterday, MSNBC.com reported that YouTube began removing videos that parody a scene from the German movie, “Der Untergang” (US Title: Downfall). According to this report, the production company, Constantin, has removed the movies due to copyright infringement. YouTube has a Content I.D. System which allows the owners of copyrighted materials to remove content on its site that contains the copyrighted materials. The report noted, however, that the clips, which add humorous English subtitles to the scene in which Hitler realizes Germany has lost the war, potentially consitute fair use. The film is in German, but the English subtitles parody the intensity of the scene. One of the videos title helps explain the sense of parody: “Hitler finds out Tony Romo dumped by Jessica Simpson.” Perhaps, for YouTube, it is easier to simply follow its policy than to worry about the popularity and fair use value of the clips.

When social media takes over

According to GigaOM and the New York Times, at yesterday's f8 conference, Facebook launched its plans to make the whole Web social. That's right, folk, social media is taking over the world.

Part of this plan has already been made public and become fairly commonplace in the technology world. Facebook Connect, which allows you to log into various sites using your Facebook username and connects information back to your newsfeed, reached 100 million users in its first 15 months according to the Times.

It outlined three key components to making this new social expansion become reality:

• "Social plugins" create "instant personalization" on participating partner sites. When you log onto a Web site, even for the first time, this widget lets you know what friends have visited that site and makes recommendations to you based on that information.
• The "open graph protocol" brings the Facebook "like" button to the World Wide Web. Users can "like" pretty much anything, and that information will be stored to help personalize your Web experience. For instance, the article uses the example of IMDB, one of the partner sites: if you "like" a particular movie, that movie will go into your favorites on the site, and other people can view information about it by looking at what you have "liked."
• "Graph API" will create a sort of cyber-newsfeed, giving Web sites access to streaming updates whenever a user creates a connection or writes on a wall. Along with this, Facebook will be adopting the open authentication protocol, OAuth, according to the article.

GigaOM's Liz Gannes recognizes that a major problem with this new system is that people are not used to this integration of information. "Users aren’t accustomed to instantly personal services, and we have no idea where that personal information is coming from," she said in her article. She does mention that there is an option to opt-out of this information sharing, which for many privacy-concerned users could be a saving grace.

Naturally, there are privacy implications out the ears surrounding this kind of Internet-wide connection, but Gannes makes a very good point: Every major change created by Facebook has been vehemently protested by at least one side, only to eventually find its place in society. Sometimes that meant the nay-sayers subsided and allowed it to become the next great protocol; other times that meant said application fell into oblivion. Regardless, this is just the next big Facebook advancement, and a few month's time will tell whether it will revolutionize Internet use as we know it, or if it will become yet another fleeting cyber-memory.

Follow-Up to School Webcam

Follow-up of my first post:

Here is a link to a video that was on Yahoo today from ABC News about the student in Pennsylvania whose school-supplied laptop took pictures of him without his knowledge. I thought it was interesting how this story is just now being talked about on TV news. Watch if you're interested.

Kansas Govenor Signs Shield Law

As we learned in lecture, only thirty-seven states have shield laws that offer reporters some statutory law protection to conceal their confidential sources or to testify. As of April 15, 2010, Kansas Governor Mark Parkinson signed the thirty-eighth state shield law.

When the Senate gave permission to pass the shield law, back on March 23, 2010, it explains who is covered under the law. “The bill defines who is a journalist and therefore covered by the proposed law. The definition includes not only traditional media such as newspapers, radio and television but an online journal regularly involved in reporting and disseminating information to the public.”

According to the article, Parkinson takes a very strong desire to protect the rights of Kansas journalists. Doug Anstaett, executive director of Kansas Press Association said, “The law will encourage reporters and their sources to step forward to uncover abuse and corruption in government.”

It will go into effect July 1, 2010 when published in the Kansas Statute Book.

To review this article: The Wichita Eagle/Kansas.com

---MONA

One giant leap for Tweet-kind?

According to the New York Times, the Library of Congress will begin archiving Twitter posts. The library explained that this is another step forward in their embrace of digital media. Academic researchers explain that typical historical accounts are elitist, and there are very little documents about everyday people. Archiving tweets can change that.

“This is an entirely new addition to the historical record, the second-by-second history of ordinary people,” Fred R. Shapiro, associate librarian and lecturer at the Yale Law School, said in the article.

Naturally, this raises a mountain of privacy issues. Any Twitter user's tweets will be forever down in history, whether a celebrity or a high-schooler, and no one seems to have any control over it. Matt Raymond, the library's director of communications, noted that the archive would only be available for scholarly and research purposes, not available to the general public. He also said that the majority of messages that would be archived are already publicly available on the Web.

But what about those messages that aren't part of the majority? There are users who set their profiles to private so only select people can read their tweets. Will these users' tweets be archives along with the public users?

Twitter's privacy policy states, "We may share or disclose your non-private, aggregated or otherwise non-personal information, such as your public Tweets or the number of users who clicked on a particular link (even if only one did)."

The privacy policy does not include the disclosure of private information or tweets without user consent, so how will this play out as Twitter releases tweets to the Library of Congress? While the language of Twitter's privacy policy essentially makes it clear that there is little public users can do to stop the archiving of their tweets, it leaves private users' situations vague. If Twitter attempts to archive private users' feeds with the library without seeking consent first, it can raise a slew of privacy invasion cases.

Copyright on Social Network Sites

Most people take pictures or videos of themselves and post it to social networking sites like, Facebook or Myspace. However, what some people are unaware of is that those materials are considered “original works” under copyright law. The information, unless thoroughly changed, are available to every user who comes across someone’s page. Here are some precautions people can take to ensure that someone else does not use their “original works” without permission.

According to O’Donnell and Mehta, they are as follows:

-Read the fine print before uploading. Many social networking sites will list the rights that you waive by uploading media.

-Register any important or commercial work. If you plan to offer items for sale or a work is particularly valuable to you (either commercially or personally), register it with the U.S. Copyright Office.

-Mark your documents. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act protects the rights of artists whose works are exploited over the internet.

-Most importantly, be careful. Be mindful that anything you post online can be counterfeited and fall into anyone's hands. You should be careful not to post anything that you are not willing to give up.

Being able to determine if a work is considered published if it is online is often hazy.

On December 12, 2001 in Getaped.com Inc. v. Cangemi, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held that when a web page goes live on the internet, it is distributed and "published." In that case, Getaped filed an action against Cangemi for allegedly copying portions of its website directed to selling scooters and sought statutory damages.

The Judge Ronald L. Ellis ruled in favor of the plaintiff. “Merely by accessing a webpage, an Internet user acquires the ability to make a copy of that webpage, a copy that is, in fact, indistinguishable in every part from the original. Consequently, when a web site goes live, the creator loses the ability to control either duplication or further distribution of his or her work. A webpage in this respect is indistinguishable from photographs, music files or software posted on the web -- all can be freely copied.”

We have to be extra careful of what we post to our pages. Since, the no one is entirely certain what publication consists of regarding pictures/videos posted on our pages, I would like to think we are protected under copyright law for our “original works.” Only time and perhaps another case will tell the fate of this question.

For more information go to: LAW.COM

---MONA

Internet Trouble: China-Based Hackers Steal Sensitive Information

Cybercrime remains a problematic aspect of the advancement of the World Wide Web. Because the nature of cybercrime lacks the geographical construct of space, it is normatively and empirically difficult to enforce legal regulations. Moreover, the fact that cybercrime can and often does travel across transfixed national boundaries, the issue of sovereignty and jurisdiction becomes even more disputable. Hence, when politics and political concerns are put into the mix, the whole issue of cybercrime becomes even more complicated. The recent cyber hackings discovered in India further illustrates this tricky situation.

A recently released report from Canadian researcher group called Information Warfare Monitor (you can view their official website here) found hacking activities that can be traced back to core servers in China. The report found that information regarding Indian national security, along with a total of 1,500 emails from the Dalai Lama’s office have been leaked and stolen. The report has identified an underground network called the “Shadow network” that is responsible for the operation of hacking activities in various global locations. The report also states that it did not find any evidence of involvement by the Chinese government.

This of course adds onto the political pressure on Chinese government.

"We have no evidence in this report of the involvement of the People's Republic of China," the report says. "But an important question to be entertained is whether the PRC will take action to shut the Shadow network down."

To view the original article, please click here.

Is Shame Obsolete?

In the latest installment of "All Tech Considered," NPR blogger Dave Pell explores one of the most startling questions of the Internet age. "Does the end of privacy also mark the end of shame?"

The rise of social media and the ubiquity of the Internet in people's lives has led several generations of Internet users to throw out traditional notions of privacy. No longer concerned with keeping their personal information personal, millions of people send intimate photos, life stories, biographical information, etc. out into cyberspace without a backward glance.

As we are bombarded by our acquaintances' intimate details and constantly colliding with others' private spheres, Pell argues, we will become so desensitized by "what used to be secretive behavior that almost nothing will seem wildly out of the ordinary."

Pell recalls the shame he felt as a child seeing a classmate in the waiting room of his psychiatrist's office and how he'd kept his therapy secret out of fear of being different even though, the author remarks, most of his friends probably saw shrinks, too. They just didn't know how commonplace it was.

As the concept of "oversharing" fades from view, Pell points out, so too might the concept of shaming disappear under the avalanche of status updates and Twitter feeds.

Court thwarts F.C.C.'s latest Internet regulation efforts

The US Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia decided against the Federal Communications Commission yesterday, ruling that federal regulators do not have authority "over Web traffic under current law" (nytimes.com). The decision came in response to the F.C.C.'s attempts to require Internet service providers (ISPs) to give users equal access to Internet sites. ISPs such as Comcast, which recently came under fire for limiting access speeds to the popular download site BitTorrent, will now be able "to block or slow specific sites" and charge certain sites additional fees to deliver content to users.

The 3-0 ruling, although narrowly written to address only the issue of the F.C.C.'s attempt to control Comcast's management, indicated the court's unwillingness to give the F.C.C. broader regulatory powers and may be a setback for proponents of "Net neutrality," the idea that all online content should be equally accessible. Indeed, open Internet advocates will have to turn to other methods such as enacting new legislation to achieve regulatory power over ISPs' transmission of Internet content.

“'Internet users now have no cop on the beat,' said Ben Scott, policy director for Free Press, a nonprofit organization that supported the F.C.C. in the case," the Times reported.

In a related story, Comcast is also awaiting federal approval on its acquisition of NBC Universal, which owns the NBC broadcast network and some popular cable outfits. Opponents of the vertical merger insist that cable companies should not also own the networks they are supposed to provide, suggesting Comcast might favor NBC content while limiting access to its competitors if the deal is approved.

Internet As a Problematic “Space”: The Pending Lawsuit Against EBay, Inc.

The court may soon have to decide on the question whether ecommerce should be subject to laws that traditionally govern commercial transactions that happen in geographically-bound, physical space. A plaintiff Melissa Earll, a deaf woman from Nevada, Mo., claims that eBay has violated federal and California state laws protecting disabled people against discrimination, and is bringing a lawsuit against eBay. Earll says that she is unable to verify her identity through telephone because of her hearing disabilities, which is a required step in order to register to become a seller on eBay.

Earll also claims that eBay has refused her various attempts to verify her identity through alternative ways, and that eBay has “gone out of its way” to design its registration system such that deaf and people with hearing difficulties cannot use. Earll therefore hopes to seek class-action relief from eBay, which she hopes will result in court injunctions against eBay and a requirement that eBay to develop a registration system for people with hearing disabilities. Earll’s representation argues that eBay’s site where more than 80 million users buy and sell various goods and products, is a “place of public accommodation” according to the federal Americans with Disabilities Act. They further claims that the law does not explicitly limit places of public accommodation to brick-and-mortar operations, and hence does not exclude web-based ecommerce sites.

With the rise of ecommerce sites like eBay, Earll’s lawsuit certainly confronts the outdated and rather vague legal definition in the statutory law regarding “place of public accommodation”. Should the court rule in Earll’s favor? What do you think?

The original article can be found here.