Will Google Glass Change Our Children's Expectation of Privacy?

Do children still have an expectation of privacy?  Every day our personal privacy is slowly being eroded because of advances in technology.  New inventions have enabled our society to more efficiently mass produce food; create the infrastructure to warm our homes and offices in the winter and cool them in the summer; and to invent digital devices that allow us to communicate and share information from around the world and outer space almost instantaneously. 

Frictionless sharing of information between digital platforms enables us to easily provide our thoughts and ideas without having to re-post the same content over and over.  A recent change to the U.S. Video Privacy Protection Act directly benefitted some cloud based computing platforms because the revision now allows them to easily enable their users to share their video viewing history to others online.  While frictionless sharing enables users to quickly post content across multiple digital platforms it may also change our expectation of privacy.  

In 1890, a seminal article co-authored by future Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis called "The Right to Privacy" was published in the Harvard Law Review.  The law review article stated, "[i]nstantaneous photographs and newspaper enterprises have invaded the sacred precincts of private and domestic life; and numerous mechanical devices threaten to make good the prediction that what is whispered in the closet shall be proclaimed from the house-tops."  Justice Brandies' thoughts about privacy are generally credited as the first modern scholarship about the right and expectation of privacy in the United States.

While new digital technologies have made it easier for us to communicate with others, many of these new services have made it more difficult to protect our privacy. Once content is converted into digital form, it may go viral and cause major personal embarrassment.  The digital sharing of inappropriate content may permanently destroy one's personal and/or professional reputation.  Student digital  gaffes have been around for years; however, the increased usage of mobile phones with digital cameras, social media, and cloud computing services over the past several years has only increased the potential for more electronic mistakes that may put personal privacy and security at risk.

According to a 2012 Pew Report entitled, "Parents, Teens, and Online Privacy", 81% of parents of teens say they are concerned about how much information advertisers can learn about their child's online behavior.  This Pew Report also found that 69% of parents of teens are concerned about how their child's online behavior may affect their future academic or employment opportunities.  This report was created before all of the recent media attention surrounding Google's Project Glass (aka Google Glasses).   

Project Glass is a virtual reality pair of glasses that contains many of the same features of a smart phone.  For example, Google Glasses have an embedded camera, microphone, and GPS.  While Google Glasses have the potential to become one of the first commercially viable augmented reality devices, there are some significant privacy concerns that may affect children and create legal liability for users.    

If a teacher or a student wears a pair of Google Glasses during class will those in the classroom feel comfortable knowing that every in class interaction may be streamed online?  How will this affect the learning process?  How will students react knowing that everything stated in class may also be converted to text and  stored in Google's cloud and eventually attached to their online profile forever.   How will students feel if their personal conversations and/or in class thoughts  and ideas are monetized by Google and/or advertisers?  How will Google's Voice Search and Search By Image technology be utilized to data mine the information obtained from Project Glass? 

Twelve states generally require all parties consent to their conversations being recorded.  Will Google Glass be required to post a warning label so consumers are fully informed about the potential legal risks of using this product?    

Many schools across the country are implementing digital media use policies that cover social and mobile technologies.  However, Google's Glass Project may require schools to also include augmented reality technologies in their policies. 

The Internet never forgets and content uploaded online is impossible to fully scrub from the web.  Since digital platforms have the ability to broadcast to the entire world audio and video of our children that may permanently damage their reputations should the law provide our children special protections against these situations?  Children under the age of 18 generally have the right to void agreements they enter into so should they also have the right to require that search engines delete personally identifiable information about them that may harm their ability to attend the school of their dreams or obtain gainful employment?    

To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.

Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.

Did Social Media Convict the Steubenville High School Football Players?

Two guilty verdicts were handed down in the rape trial of two Steubenville high school football players.  There were no winners in this case.  A teenage girl lost her innocence, a couple tennage boys are forever branded as sex offenders, and a small town may now be known as that town where a disgusting crime came to light because of the power of social media.

Without social media, it is possible that this case may never have gone to trial.  After the New York Times covered this matter last December, the story picked up steam.  Subsequently, Anonymous allegedly hacked into the digital accounts of some of those who may have been involved or witnessed the activities surrounding the alleged criminal activity.   

YouTube, Instagram, Twitter, and text messaging were utilized by those who either witnessed the incident or who may have been involved with the matter.  The digital content that came to light shocked and sickened the public and may have helped convict the perpetrators of this crime.

According to ABC News, "[t]he contents of 13 cell phones were analyzed, which amounted to 396,270 text messages, 308,586 photos, 940 videos, 3,188 phone calls and 16,422 contacts."  Absent the digital evidence via multipe social media platforms would there have been a guilty verdict?  While witness testimony may be persuasive, photos and videos have the ability to become very powerful evidence that may trump eyewitness testimony.  Even though this isn't the first case where social media may have affected the outcome of a trial, it may be a watershed moment for the usage of social media evidence.   

The bottom line is that those who want to violate the law should think twice because anyone who has a mobile digital electronic device has the ability to capture the criminal act.  Within seconds, people from around the world may become aware of the matter via an online post.  Therefore, social media may have the ability to become a deterrent against crime.

To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.

Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.

Texas Bill To Allow Service of Process Via Facebook

Texas recently introduced a bill that would allow for service of process via Facebook.  Texas House Bill 1989 if enacted would make the Lone Star State the first in the United States to allow for service of process via social media as an alternative means of service. 

In 2002, a U.S. court approved service of process via email.  In 2008, an Australian court allowed for service of process via social media.  In February of 2012, I told ABC News that I believe service of process via social media will become a reality in the future. 

As I stated on February 25, 2012, the biggest problem with service via social media is authentication.  Even though a digital account may appear to belong to a litigant in a judicial proceeding, account authentication is required to ensure that the account belongs to the right person.

I believe service of process via social or digital means will eventually become more common.  However, absent the proper safeguards to ensure the right "John Doe" is actually served this method has many challenges.  

To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.

Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.

European Commission Fines Microsoft $732 Million Dollars Over Browser Choice

According to the New York Times, the European Commission has flexed its antitrust muscles and fined Microsoft $732 million dollars for failing to live up to a settlement it had previously signed with regulators. The fine was based upon a 2009 agreement that required Microsoft to provide European Windows users a choice of web browsers.

Microsoft has previously admitted that it may have violated its agreement with regulators and apologized for non-compliance.  Microsoft's fine is not the largest that has been levied against a U.S. based technology company.  In 2009, Intel was fined $1.4 billion dollars for allegedly abusing its dominance in the chip market.

European regulators are currently investigating Google regarding its alleged dominant position in the search engine market.  While the FTC has ended its antitrust investigation of Google in January, European regulators have not. 

The bottom line is that it appears that European regulators have American technology companies in their cross hairs.  Therefore, U.S. based companies that create some of the world's most innovative products for use in the digital space should ensure that they adhere to all regulations and laws in the countries they operate in.    

To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.

Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.

White House Says: Unlocking Cell Phones Should Be Legal

Should it be legal to unlock your cell phone?  It was up until earlier this year.  However, due to a ruling by the Library of Congress that was based on a new interpretation of the DMCA it is now against the law to unlock your legally bought subsidized cell phone. 

Last month, a petition that was started on the White House's web site received more than 100,000 e-signatures to request that that ruling be changed.  Today, the White House responded and stated that unlocking cell phones should be legal.

Once a consumer has fulfilled his contractual obligations to a service provider for a subsidized cell phone why shouldn't he be able to utilize his cell phone on another carrier?  When someone buys a new car and is finished paying off any outstanding loans on it he is able to generally sell or utilize the vehicle in any manner that suits his purpose.  This includes updating the car's engines and internal mechanics. Therefore, why shouldn't cell phone owners have the same rights?

While the White House and the FCC's acknowledgement that this is a matter that may need a legislative resolution is good news; changing the law will take more than a couple of announcements and/or blog posts.   

To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.

Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.