Cleveland is known for many things. Both famous and renown. They may also soon be known as one of the first large cities in the United States to ban "destructive" social media "Flash Mobs".
According to Wikipedia, a Flash Mob "is a group of people who assemble suddenly in a public place, perform an unusual and sometimes seemingly pointless act for a brief time, then disperse, often for the purposes of entertainment and/or satire. A flash mob may be organized via social media, texting, email, or other electronic platforms.
According to Cleveland's City Council website, the new "ordinance would focus on intended use of social media to cause public disruption". Cleveland's City Council passed the law last week to combat Flash Mobs or what others may call "Tweet Ups".
What if there is a national political convention or another large event in Cleveland and social media is utilized to gather interested people to express their opinions? What will happen when the Baltimore Ravens or Pittsburgh Steelers come to town for their annual AFC North games against the Cleveland Browns and people utilize social media to talk trash about the game? One person's Flash Mob is another person's Tweet Up. How will the law be enforced?
Does Cleveland have a special ordinance on the books against utilizing a phone, a radio or television program, etc... to address the issues that this law is trying to combat? Does Cleveland's City Council need a refresher course on the First Amendment, Common Sense, etc...?
I believe this new ordinance is an over-reaction. The best course of action is to enforce the current laws on the books. The ink has barely dried and the ACLU has already sought to repeal it. I hope that Cleveland's City Council sees the error of its ways before tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees are wasted defending this ill-conceived law.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Did News of the World Also Hack Into MySpace Accounts?
Did News of the World or any other News Corp. entity utilize its position to obtain access to the MySpace accounts of those it targeted? This is a question that I have not heard asked but needs to be answered.
As the News Corp. scandal widens, it is tarnishing a media empire, destroying careers, and exposing the relationship between the tabloid media and the police in the United Kingdom. According to the New York Times, Rupert Murdoch's aides may have paid off those who had damaging information regarding the alleged hacking activities of some employees at News Corp.
Today's testimony by Rupert Murdoch in front of the UK Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee regarding the scandal did not appear to offer any bombshell revelations. However, according to ABC News the U.S. Justice Department is preparing to launch a preliminary investigation into News of the World's activities.
As with most scandals, the truth is somewhat murky and may never be known. However, this should be a wake up call to everyone who utilizes social media to store personal information and to communicate with others instead of a more secure platform.
Did News of the World reporters, editors, and/or management use their positions to try to obtain access to the MySpace accounts of their targets? I have not seen the list of those who allegedly had their phones hacked and I don't know how many of them had MySpace accounts but it would not surprise me if this avenue was explored after News Corp. bought MySpace during the Summer of 2005 (News Corp. recently sold MySpace).
I have previously discussed on numerous occasions the many privacy issues inherent with social media usage and the problems with trusting social media services. For example, Google and Facebook have had issues with employees allegedly accessing without proper authorization their users' data. As far as I know, none of these alleged incidents resulted in a prosecution under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
If News of the World employees targeted former Prime Minister Gordon Brown and allegedly violated the UK's Data Protection Act why wouldn't they also try to hack into the social media accounts of their targets?
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
As the News Corp. scandal widens, it is tarnishing a media empire, destroying careers, and exposing the relationship between the tabloid media and the police in the United Kingdom. According to the New York Times, Rupert Murdoch's aides may have paid off those who had damaging information regarding the alleged hacking activities of some employees at News Corp.
Today's testimony by Rupert Murdoch in front of the UK Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee regarding the scandal did not appear to offer any bombshell revelations. However, according to ABC News the U.S. Justice Department is preparing to launch a preliminary investigation into News of the World's activities.
As with most scandals, the truth is somewhat murky and may never be known. However, this should be a wake up call to everyone who utilizes social media to store personal information and to communicate with others instead of a more secure platform.
Did News of the World reporters, editors, and/or management use their positions to try to obtain access to the MySpace accounts of their targets? I have not seen the list of those who allegedly had their phones hacked and I don't know how many of them had MySpace accounts but it would not surprise me if this avenue was explored after News Corp. bought MySpace during the Summer of 2005 (News Corp. recently sold MySpace).
I have previously discussed on numerous occasions the many privacy issues inherent with social media usage and the problems with trusting social media services. For example, Google and Facebook have had issues with employees allegedly accessing without proper authorization their users' data. As far as I know, none of these alleged incidents resulted in a prosecution under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
If News of the World employees targeted former Prime Minister Gordon Brown and allegedly violated the UK's Data Protection Act why wouldn't they also try to hack into the social media accounts of their targets?
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Klout's Algorithm Appears To Be Compromised By Social Media Credential Fraud
Is Klout's algorithm compromised by Social Media Credential Fraud? At this point, it appears that Klout's algorithm is unable to accurately measure influence because it is not able to accurately determine who has real online and/or real world influence due to Social Media Credential Fraud.
According to Klout's website, the factors in its algorithm include: "List inclusions, Follower/Follow Ratio, Followed Back %, Unique Senders, Unique Retweeters, Unique Commenters, Unique Likers, Influence of Followers, Influence of Retweeters and Mentioners, Influence of Friends, Influence of Likers and Commenters.
Follower/Follow Ratio which appears to be a major component of the algorithm is being manipulated by those practicing Social Media Credential Fraud. If the Follower/Follow Ratio can be manipulated, it appears that the Followed Back % is also compromised. On April 26, 2011, Klout's Public Relations Agency (Best Public Relations) informed me that Klout's website was recently relaunched. When I reviewed the relaunched website I noticed that the Follower/Follow Ratio and the Followed Back % were major components of their algorithm. Therefore, I immediately contacted Best Public Relations to let them know that Social Media Credential Fraud is affecting its client's ability to accurately claim that its service is able to measure one's online social influence.
Klout's PR firm responded back to me with a link to Klout's website that did not answer my question so I contacted them again to let them know that this is a very serious issue that has the ability to destroy Klout's credibility. I have not heard back from either Klout's PR firm or from Klout. Therefore, either Klout's PR firm did not relay my message to Klout's senior executives or they decided to look the other way about my concerns.
As Klout and other websites vie to become the modern day Nielsen Ratings for the Social Media Age they will have to find a way to factor Social Media Credential Fraud into their algorithms. Klout needs to follow Google's lead to penalize those who try to game their algorithm. Last year, a company called DecorMyEyes gamed Google's search rankings by intentionally encouraging bad publicity so that the company could obtain a high organic ranking on Google. After a New York Times article on this practice, Google updated its algorithm. Earlier this year, JC Penney was accused of gaming Google's search rankings before last year's Christmas Season and Google subsequently penalized JC Penney for its behavior.
Since Google has the clout to punish those who it deems are acting in an unethical manner to increase their search engine ranking, Klout should do the same for those who are intentionally gaming its algorithm by participating in Social Media Credential Fraud and other forms of misleading and unethical social media behavior to increase their Klout score. I challenge Klout along with the other services who claim to be able to measure online influence to follow Google's lead in penalizing those who to try to game their system.
To learn more about this issue you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Casey Anthony trial demonstrates that U.S. Constitution still matters in the Social Media Age
The Casey Anthony trial demonstrates that the U.S. Constitution still matters in the Social Media Age. Casey Anthony was accused of killing her daughter Caylee Anthony who died under mysterious circumstances in 2008. On July 5, 2011, Casey Anthony was found not guilty of killing Caylee by a jury of her peers since the prosecution did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Even though Ms. Anthony was found not guilty she still has lost in the overall scheme of things. Her daughter is dead, she has spent more than 2 years of her life in prison, and she is seen as a monster by some people. Ms. Anthony may ultimately end up earning millions of dollars for her life story but no amount of money can make her whole after the ordeal she has been through.
The State of Florida lost not because of the not guilty verdict but because they most likely spent several million dollars on a case that did not answer who killed Caylee Anthony. It is doubtful that we will ever know who killed Caylee Anthony.
The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution came out of this trial unscathed. The Bill of Rights states, "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
Some may argue that the media won while others may argue that the media lost. The media won in that it got what it wanted: RATINGS. Great ratings equals more advertising dollars. However, others may argue that television personalities such as Nancy Grace acted so inappropriate that this case is a black eye for how the media covers the courts and strengthens the argument against more cameras and other technologies in the courtroom.
Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966), is the seminal case that discusses how the media may unfairly influence pending legal proceedings. It is the case that inspired the television series and movie The Fugitive. Sam Sheppard was a doctor who was wrongly convicted of murdering his wife. The media coverage of Sheppard's case did not allow him to obtain a fair trial. Sheppard was first tried and convicted in the court of public opinion and then in a court of law. Even though Sheppard was ultimately found not guilty the ordeal destroyed his life.
In the Social Media Age, it is easier than in the Television Age to be tried to convicted in the court of public opinion. The Casey Anthony jurors were sequestered and this cost the State of Florida a considerable amount of money and was extremely difficult on the jurors during the sequestration. As I have previously stated, sequestering a jury is not practical in the overwhelming majority of cases. Therefore, a national conversation is needed to find a solution regarding how the courts should respond to the Social Media Age.
To learn more about this topic you may contact me at http://www.shearlaw.com/.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Even though Ms. Anthony was found not guilty she still has lost in the overall scheme of things. Her daughter is dead, she has spent more than 2 years of her life in prison, and she is seen as a monster by some people. Ms. Anthony may ultimately end up earning millions of dollars for her life story but no amount of money can make her whole after the ordeal she has been through.
The State of Florida lost not because of the not guilty verdict but because they most likely spent several million dollars on a case that did not answer who killed Caylee Anthony. It is doubtful that we will ever know who killed Caylee Anthony.
The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution came out of this trial unscathed. The Bill of Rights states, "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
Some may argue that the media won while others may argue that the media lost. The media won in that it got what it wanted: RATINGS. Great ratings equals more advertising dollars. However, others may argue that television personalities such as Nancy Grace acted so inappropriate that this case is a black eye for how the media covers the courts and strengthens the argument against more cameras and other technologies in the courtroom.
Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966), is the seminal case that discusses how the media may unfairly influence pending legal proceedings. It is the case that inspired the television series and movie The Fugitive. Sam Sheppard was a doctor who was wrongly convicted of murdering his wife. The media coverage of Sheppard's case did not allow him to obtain a fair trial. Sheppard was first tried and convicted in the court of public opinion and then in a court of law. Even though Sheppard was ultimately found not guilty the ordeal destroyed his life.
In the Social Media Age, it is easier than in the Television Age to be tried to convicted in the court of public opinion. The Casey Anthony jurors were sequestered and this cost the State of Florida a considerable amount of money and was extremely difficult on the jurors during the sequestration. As I have previously stated, sequestering a jury is not practical in the overwhelming majority of cases. Therefore, a national conversation is needed to find a solution regarding how the courts should respond to the Social Media Age.
To learn more about this topic you may contact me at http://www.shearlaw.com/.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Ethics, Social Media, and Live Television...You Can Run But You Can't Hide
Social Media has blurred the lines of so many things in our society. Once something is posted on the Internet it is nearly impossible to remove. To paraphrase what former heavyweight champion Joe Louis once said about an opponent, "You can run but you can't hide."
In the Social Media Age, keeping secrets and client confidentiality has become even more difficult due to the rapid pace of technology and constant innovation. In today's "look at me" world everyone seems to want their 15 minutes of fame. Lawyers are no different than anyone else due to the nature of the profession. However, lawyers must be very aware of the ethical issues inherent in the Social Media Age.
During the past year, members of the media have requested my insight on multiple occasions. Due to my schedule, reporter deadlines, etc... I have had to turn down some requests. However, I have also turned down some very high profile media opportunities due to some of the ethical issues.
At the height of Congressman Anthony Weiner's social media crisis on June 1, 2011, I was asked to speak about the matter on MSNBC television. Since Weiner had not contacted me regarding his situation, I was able to accept the the opportunity to discuss his situation on national television. I was called at 10:30am for a noon appearance and had to quickly reschedule several meetings.
It was the first time I had done a live national television segment so I did not know what to expect. I arrived at my local NBC affiliate just in time to go into makeup before the segment. Right after makeup, I was led into a small studio with a bookshelf backdrop and given a sound check. I was not provided any direction on what part of the camera to focus on and I was not able to see how I would look on camera to ensure that I was looking directly into the camera. I was in a different location than the interviewer and I could not see him or the background information that were part of the segment. The room was pitch dark except for some bright lights shinning on me.
Before the segment started, I only knew that the general topic would be the legal issues that may be involved with Weiner's social media matter. During the appearance, I correctly pointed out that it was troubling that Weiner had not asked for an investigation. In the middle of the segment, I looked down for a split second because I felt something brush against my leg. After the segment, I realized that the thing I most likely felt brush against my leg was a wire that moved because my briefcase fell over it during the segment. In addition, I kept blinking throughout the segment because my eyes felt very dry. Afterward, I felt like Homer Simpson and said to myself D'oh. As Murphy's Law states, "anything that can go wrong will go wrong."
It was several weeks before I was able to view my appearance and obtain a copy of it. After seeing my performance, I was inclined not to post the appearance online but I decided that I should follow the advice I usually give clients so I decided to post it so I can provide proper context to it. My performance could have been worse. At least I didn't call the President an inappropriate name on national television.
I am very appreciate that NBC provided me this opportunity and when I am contacted again I will look to improve upon my performance.
If you are interested in viewing the segment here it is:
To learn more about social media law and ethics you may contact me at http://www.shearlaw.com/.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
NOTE: I would have uploaded the video in a more timely fashion but I was having technical difficulties uploading the video from my computer to Blogger so I finally uploaded the video to YouTube and then uploaded the segment from YouTube to Blogger. I have no idea why I was not able to upload the video directly to Blogger.
In the Social Media Age, keeping secrets and client confidentiality has become even more difficult due to the rapid pace of technology and constant innovation. In today's "look at me" world everyone seems to want their 15 minutes of fame. Lawyers are no different than anyone else due to the nature of the profession. However, lawyers must be very aware of the ethical issues inherent in the Social Media Age.
During the past year, members of the media have requested my insight on multiple occasions. Due to my schedule, reporter deadlines, etc... I have had to turn down some requests. However, I have also turned down some very high profile media opportunities due to some of the ethical issues.
At the height of Congressman Anthony Weiner's social media crisis on June 1, 2011, I was asked to speak about the matter on MSNBC television. Since Weiner had not contacted me regarding his situation, I was able to accept the the opportunity to discuss his situation on national television. I was called at 10:30am for a noon appearance and had to quickly reschedule several meetings.
It was the first time I had done a live national television segment so I did not know what to expect. I arrived at my local NBC affiliate just in time to go into makeup before the segment. Right after makeup, I was led into a small studio with a bookshelf backdrop and given a sound check. I was not provided any direction on what part of the camera to focus on and I was not able to see how I would look on camera to ensure that I was looking directly into the camera. I was in a different location than the interviewer and I could not see him or the background information that were part of the segment. The room was pitch dark except for some bright lights shinning on me.
Before the segment started, I only knew that the general topic would be the legal issues that may be involved with Weiner's social media matter. During the appearance, I correctly pointed out that it was troubling that Weiner had not asked for an investigation. In the middle of the segment, I looked down for a split second because I felt something brush against my leg. After the segment, I realized that the thing I most likely felt brush against my leg was a wire that moved because my briefcase fell over it during the segment. In addition, I kept blinking throughout the segment because my eyes felt very dry. Afterward, I felt like Homer Simpson and said to myself D'oh. As Murphy's Law states, "anything that can go wrong will go wrong."
It was several weeks before I was able to view my appearance and obtain a copy of it. After seeing my performance, I was inclined not to post the appearance online but I decided that I should follow the advice I usually give clients so I decided to post it so I can provide proper context to it. My performance could have been worse. At least I didn't call the President an inappropriate name on national television.
I am very appreciate that NBC provided me this opportunity and when I am contacted again I will look to improve upon my performance.
If you are interested in viewing the segment here it is:
To learn more about social media law and ethics you may contact me at http://www.shearlaw.com/.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
NOTE: I would have uploaded the video in a more timely fashion but I was having technical difficulties uploading the video from my computer to Blogger so I finally uploaded the video to YouTube and then uploaded the segment from YouTube to Blogger. I have no idea why I was not able to upload the video directly to Blogger.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)