Public secondary and post-secondary schools around the country may be creating tremendous legal liability issues for taxpayers because of their lack of understanding regarding social media and the law. According to The Daily Mail, a college freshman at the University of Georgia is suing her former Georgia school district for $2 million dollars after it utilized a photograph that she posted on her personal Facebook account without her permission in a district seminar about the Internet.
The Director of Technology at the Fayette County Schools allegedly used a personal photo of a former student to discuss the issues inherent with social media. It appears that before the seminar the former student's photo was not newsworthy or publicized other than being on Facebook. Some questions that need to be answered may include: How did the school district obtain the photograph?; Did the school district know who was in the photograph?; Why didn't the school district obtain permission before utilizing the photograph?
This litigation demonstrates the tremendous legal liability issues that secondary and post-secondary schools may encounter regarding the use of personal student photographs that appear on social media platforms. There are a handful of consulting firms that are approaching schools that claim they can properly advise schools on how to "educate" and "monitor" students online.
Unfortunately, many of these services utilize methods to "educate" and/or "track" students online that states around the country are banning. In addition, some of these services are abusing their access to students' personal digital content. For example, according to Time Magazine, a company called UDiligence was caught last year displaying the personal photographs of the students that it was monitoring to sell its services.
The bottom line is that secondary and post-secondary schools must better understand the legal ramifications of social and digital media content and platforms before they are sued.
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Monday, June 17, 2013
Google Pledges To Eradicate Child Porn From Web
It was announced recently that Google is creating a global database to try to stop the proliferation of child pornography online. According to The Telegraph, Google's "engineers are working
on new technology which will, for the first time, allow Internet search
engines and other web firms to swap information about images of children
being raped and abused."
Google has been heavily criticized for not doing enough to stop child pornography from being easily available on its web sites. According to The Guardian, last week UK Prime Minister David Cameron demanded Google do more to stop the spread of child porn online. It was reported that Google was one of the companies that was summoned to a summit to discuss these issues with Cameron's Culture Secretary Maria Miller and Tory MP Claire Perry.
I wrote about Google's alleged inaction on this matter last week because this is a serious problem that Google should devote more resources towards resolving. While I believe that Google's announcement that it is working on a new initiative to stop the spread of online images that show children being raped and abused is a step in the right direction, why did it take so much international pressure and negative media before Google decided to act?
Even though there is still plenty of debate regarding a company's legal duty to police the content uploaded or searchable on its web sites, Google may have a moral responsibility to protect our children. It is imperative that Google does everything in its power to stop the spread of child pornography on its platforms.
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Google has been heavily criticized for not doing enough to stop child pornography from being easily available on its web sites. According to The Guardian, last week UK Prime Minister David Cameron demanded Google do more to stop the spread of child porn online. It was reported that Google was one of the companies that was summoned to a summit to discuss these issues with Cameron's Culture Secretary Maria Miller and Tory MP Claire Perry.
I wrote about Google's alleged inaction on this matter last week because this is a serious problem that Google should devote more resources towards resolving. While I believe that Google's announcement that it is working on a new initiative to stop the spread of online images that show children being raped and abused is a step in the right direction, why did it take so much international pressure and negative media before Google decided to act?
Even though there is still plenty of debate regarding a company's legal duty to police the content uploaded or searchable on its web sites, Google may have a moral responsibility to protect our children. It is imperative that Google does everything in its power to stop the spread of child pornography on its platforms.
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Friday, June 14, 2013
IOC Releases the Sochi Olympics Social Media, Blogging, and Internet Guidelines For Participants
The IOC has just released its Social Media, Blogging, and Internet Guidelines for Participants and Other Accredited Persons at the Sochi 2014 Olympic Games. The Guidelines apply to all accredited persons, including all athletes, coaches,
officials, and personnel of National Olympic Committees and International
Federations and members of media accredited to the Olympic Games. The guidelines apply January 30th through February 26th.
Under the Guidelines, "video or audio content taken from within Olympic venues (including from within the Olympic Villages or the Olympic Park) must only be for personal use and must not be uploaded or shared on any website, blog, social media page, public photo- or video-sharing sites or mobile application." With the increased usage of cloud based services to save personal photos and videos, does this mean that participants may not utilize applications such as iCloud or Dropbox to save their videos or photos?
Olympians may not post about their sponsors during the games unless they have received prior approval from the IOC or their National Olympic Committee. In 2011, I predicted that the London Social Media Guidelines would cause some problems for Participants. Unfortunately, my prediction was correct. During the 2012 London Games, the Guidelines caused a major backlash with some of the Olympians. Therefore, it is imperative for Participants to understand the Guidelines so they can maximize their digital presence before, during, and after the Olympics so they are not penalized for non-compliance.
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Under the Guidelines, "video or audio content taken from within Olympic venues (including from within the Olympic Villages or the Olympic Park) must only be for personal use and must not be uploaded or shared on any website, blog, social media page, public photo- or video-sharing sites or mobile application." With the increased usage of cloud based services to save personal photos and videos, does this mean that participants may not utilize applications such as iCloud or Dropbox to save their videos or photos?
Olympians may not post about their sponsors during the games unless they have received prior approval from the IOC or their National Olympic Committee. In 2011, I predicted that the London Social Media Guidelines would cause some problems for Participants. Unfortunately, my prediction was correct. During the 2012 London Games, the Guidelines caused a major backlash with some of the Olympians. Therefore, it is imperative for Participants to understand the Guidelines so they can maximize their digital presence before, during, and after the Olympics so they are not penalized for non-compliance.
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Real Madrid Facebook Fans Are Being Targeted By Phishers
According to multiple media organizations, malware is spreading all over sports branded Facebook pages. Fans Against Kounterfeit Enterprises has uncovered a Trojan Horse that is spreading across NFL branded pages on Facebook. The New York Times has stated that this malware may drain Facebook users' bank accounts.
These malware attacks are not just targeting U.S. sports properties. According to Symantec, phishers are now going after Real Madrid's branded Facebook page. This demonstrates that there may be a coordinated attack against sports fans who visit the social media pages of major sports and entertainment properties.
The bottom line is that Facebook along with sports and entertainment properties must be very vigilant in policing their digital properties. Sports social media enthusiasts who visit Facebook and interact with sports branded pages must be very cautious so their computers are not infected and bank accounts drained.
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
These malware attacks are not just targeting U.S. sports properties. According to Symantec, phishers are now going after Real Madrid's branded Facebook page. This demonstrates that there may be a coordinated attack against sports fans who visit the social media pages of major sports and entertainment properties.
The bottom line is that Facebook along with sports and entertainment properties must be very vigilant in policing their digital properties. Sports social media enthusiasts who visit Facebook and interact with sports branded pages must be very cautious so their computers are not infected and bank accounts drained.
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Oregon Bans Schools From Engaging Social Media Monitoring Firms To Track Students and Coaches
Oregon has officially joined Delaware, California, New Jersey, Michigan,
Arkansas, Utah, and New Mexico in protecting their schools, school employees,
students, and taxpayers from the costs and legal liability
issues associated with social media monitoring students and employees. Under Oregon SB 344:
"A public or private educational institution may not: (a) Require, request, suggest or cause a student or prospective student to disclose or to provide access through the student's or prospective student's user name or password to a personal social media account. (b) Compel a student or prospective student, as a condition of participation in curricular or extracurricular activities or of acceptance, to add a coach, teacher, administrator or other employee or volunteer of the educational institution to the student's or prospective student's list of contacts associated with a social media website. (c) Take, or threaten to take, any action to discharge, discipline, prohibit from participation in curricular or extracurricular activities or otherwise penalize a student or potential student for refusal to disclose the information or take actions specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection."
The enactment of SB 344 will greatly benefit schools, school employees, students, and taxpayers because collectively public and private educational institutions in Oregon may save millions of dollars in potential compliance costs and tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in potential costs associated with social media related lawsuits. SB 344 along with similar laws around the country have banned schools from being able to utilize the social media monitoring services of UDiligence, Varsity Monitor, Fieldhouse Media, and Jump Forward to track the personal social media accounts of students and school employees.
It appears that the only way for the above mentioned social media monitoring services to properly track students or school employees is if a student or employee either downloads an application onto his personal digital account(s), or provides a username(s) and/or password(s) to his personal account(s), or if a student authenticates his social media account(s). These services may claim that all they need to properly work is a student's name or alias to search for a public social media account. However, performing an Internet search and guessing that an account belongs to a particular student just because it is on the Internet may put you in the same position as one of the people portrayed in this hilarious State Farm Commercial. According to CNN, as of last August, Facebook may have at least 83 million fake accounts and according to PRWeek, Twitter may have as many as 20 million fake accounts.
At least 36 states have introduced social media privacy legislation along with Congress. It may only be a matter time before every state bans schools from utilizing the social media monitoring services of the above mentioned companies.
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
"A public or private educational institution may not: (a) Require, request, suggest or cause a student or prospective student to disclose or to provide access through the student's or prospective student's user name or password to a personal social media account. (b) Compel a student or prospective student, as a condition of participation in curricular or extracurricular activities or of acceptance, to add a coach, teacher, administrator or other employee or volunteer of the educational institution to the student's or prospective student's list of contacts associated with a social media website. (c) Take, or threaten to take, any action to discharge, discipline, prohibit from participation in curricular or extracurricular activities or otherwise penalize a student or potential student for refusal to disclose the information or take actions specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection."
The enactment of SB 344 will greatly benefit schools, school employees, students, and taxpayers because collectively public and private educational institutions in Oregon may save millions of dollars in potential compliance costs and tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in potential costs associated with social media related lawsuits. SB 344 along with similar laws around the country have banned schools from being able to utilize the social media monitoring services of UDiligence, Varsity Monitor, Fieldhouse Media, and Jump Forward to track the personal social media accounts of students and school employees.
It appears that the only way for the above mentioned social media monitoring services to properly track students or school employees is if a student or employee either downloads an application onto his personal digital account(s), or provides a username(s) and/or password(s) to his personal account(s), or if a student authenticates his social media account(s). These services may claim that all they need to properly work is a student's name or alias to search for a public social media account. However, performing an Internet search and guessing that an account belongs to a particular student just because it is on the Internet may put you in the same position as one of the people portrayed in this hilarious State Farm Commercial. According to CNN, as of last August, Facebook may have at least 83 million fake accounts and according to PRWeek, Twitter may have as many as 20 million fake accounts.
At least 36 states have introduced social media privacy legislation along with Congress. It may only be a matter time before every state bans schools from utilizing the social media monitoring services of the above mentioned companies.
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Social Media Monitoring Companies May Be Creating Millions Of Dollars in Legal Liability for NCAA Athletic Departments
State legislatures around the country are banning public and private schools from being able to utilize social media monitoring companies to track the personal digital accounts of their athletic department personnel and student-athletes. At least 11 states (Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, Utah, and Washington), have enacted laws that ban schools from being able to verify the social media user names and/or passwords of their coaches and/or student-athletes. Several other states have passed legislation that is waiting final approval by their state's governor.
At least 36 states along with Congress have introduced bills to protect schools and students from companies that are selling legal liability time bombs to NCAA schools. Some of these companies may claim they are a "leader" in social media monitoring services and/or in "educating" student-athletes. Common sense and due diligence prove otherwise.
Varsity Monitor, UDiligence, JumpForward, and Fieldhouse Media each sell social media monitoring services that schools in at least 11 states may not utilize to track the personal digital accounts of either their coaches and/or their student-athletes because of new laws. Schools deploying the social media monitoring services of these companies may be fined hundreds of thousands of dollars, and/or be sued for violating their student's first and/or fourth amendment rights, and/or lose millions of dollars in federal funding.
According to Deadspin, Varsity Monitor may have some troubling ethical and legal problems to address. According to Time Magazine, UDiligence was monetizing the personal photographs of the student-athletes it was monitoring to advertise their services. JumpForward has advertised that they utilize the usernames and passwords of student-athletes for their social media monitoring service.
The most troubling service may be Fieldhouse Media because it appears to be trying to differentiate itself as having less invasive tactics than the other companies. NCAA athletic departments should not be fooled. It appears that in order for Fieldhouse Media's social media monitoring service to properly work student-athletes need to verify their social media username(s). Arkansas, California, Delaware, Michigan, New Jersey, and New Mexico have already generally banned schools from being able to ask a student to verify this information.
Fieldhouse Media's Kevin DeShazo's business practices appear to raise serious ethical questions. For example, last year Mr. DeShazo created a press release announcing his social media monitoring service that quoted me without my cooperation. Did Mr. DeShazo ask for my permission to be quoted in a press release designed to sell his social media monitoring services? No. Why is Mr. DeShazo trying to associate my reputation with a practice that I along with lawyers and risk professionals from around the country believe may pose tremendous legal and financial risks to not only NCAA athletic departments, but also athletic directors and their employees?
If you perform due diligence on Mr. DeShazo you may find some issues that warrant further explanation. For example, according to his publicly available LinkedIn Profile from last year it states that before he started his social media monitoring firm he had no verifiable social media or NCAA compliance/advisory experience. Interestingly, according to his recent publicly available LinkedIn Profile it now claims that prior to starting his social media monitoring company he was working for a social media marketing firm. If Mr. DeShazo was actually working for a social media marketing company before he started his social media consulting firm why wasn't it listed previously? Also, why do some of Mr. DeShazo's listed company creation and/or employment dates not match with filings with the Oklahoma Secretary of State?
In 2001, George O'Leary, Notre Dame's head football coach resigned five days after being hired because of "inaccuracies" in his published biography. In other words, Mr. O'Leary was caught intentionally misleading NCAA athletic departments about his background. After George O'Leary, Jayson Blair was caught creating a web of lies and was terminated from the New York Times, and then James Frey, the author of "A Million Little Pieces" was caught lying to Oprah.
Anyone that approaches schools to sell services to track personal social media accounts is selling a legal liability time bomb. If a school hires a social media monitoring firm to track the personal digital content of their students or employees and it misses an indication that there may be a crime committed it may cost the school more than $100 million dollars. For proof, just review the Penn State emails regarding the Jerry Sandusky matter. Does a school want to be on the hook for tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in legal liability because it was utilizing a social media monitoring service to track personal digital accounts?
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
At least 36 states along with Congress have introduced bills to protect schools and students from companies that are selling legal liability time bombs to NCAA schools. Some of these companies may claim they are a "leader" in social media monitoring services and/or in "educating" student-athletes. Common sense and due diligence prove otherwise.
Varsity Monitor, UDiligence, JumpForward, and Fieldhouse Media each sell social media monitoring services that schools in at least 11 states may not utilize to track the personal digital accounts of either their coaches and/or their student-athletes because of new laws. Schools deploying the social media monitoring services of these companies may be fined hundreds of thousands of dollars, and/or be sued for violating their student's first and/or fourth amendment rights, and/or lose millions of dollars in federal funding.
According to Deadspin, Varsity Monitor may have some troubling ethical and legal problems to address. According to Time Magazine, UDiligence was monetizing the personal photographs of the student-athletes it was monitoring to advertise their services. JumpForward has advertised that they utilize the usernames and passwords of student-athletes for their social media monitoring service.
The most troubling service may be Fieldhouse Media because it appears to be trying to differentiate itself as having less invasive tactics than the other companies. NCAA athletic departments should not be fooled. It appears that in order for Fieldhouse Media's social media monitoring service to properly work student-athletes need to verify their social media username(s). Arkansas, California, Delaware, Michigan, New Jersey, and New Mexico have already generally banned schools from being able to ask a student to verify this information.
Fieldhouse Media's Kevin DeShazo's business practices appear to raise serious ethical questions. For example, last year Mr. DeShazo created a press release announcing his social media monitoring service that quoted me without my cooperation. Did Mr. DeShazo ask for my permission to be quoted in a press release designed to sell his social media monitoring services? No. Why is Mr. DeShazo trying to associate my reputation with a practice that I along with lawyers and risk professionals from around the country believe may pose tremendous legal and financial risks to not only NCAA athletic departments, but also athletic directors and their employees?
If you perform due diligence on Mr. DeShazo you may find some issues that warrant further explanation. For example, according to his publicly available LinkedIn Profile from last year it states that before he started his social media monitoring firm he had no verifiable social media or NCAA compliance/advisory experience. Interestingly, according to his recent publicly available LinkedIn Profile it now claims that prior to starting his social media monitoring company he was working for a social media marketing firm. If Mr. DeShazo was actually working for a social media marketing company before he started his social media consulting firm why wasn't it listed previously? Also, why do some of Mr. DeShazo's listed company creation and/or employment dates not match with filings with the Oklahoma Secretary of State?
In 2001, George O'Leary, Notre Dame's head football coach resigned five days after being hired because of "inaccuracies" in his published biography. In other words, Mr. O'Leary was caught intentionally misleading NCAA athletic departments about his background. After George O'Leary, Jayson Blair was caught creating a web of lies and was terminated from the New York Times, and then James Frey, the author of "A Million Little Pieces" was caught lying to Oprah.
Anyone that approaches schools to sell services to track personal social media accounts is selling a legal liability time bomb. If a school hires a social media monitoring firm to track the personal digital content of their students or employees and it misses an indication that there may be a crime committed it may cost the school more than $100 million dollars. For proof, just review the Penn State emails regarding the Jerry Sandusky matter. Does a school want to be on the hook for tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in legal liability because it was utilizing a social media monitoring service to track personal digital accounts?
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Is Google Enabling Illegal Ads That May Harm Children?
Advertisements
for counterfeit merchandise, illegal drugs, pornography, etc... have been on the
Internet for years. Unfortunately, it appears
some companies that have the ability to remove ads and/or links from their web
sites to illegal products and/or services may not be putting forth their best
effort to do so. Refusing to properly
address these issues may lead to major legal and financial consequences.
Recently,
Mississippi
Attorney General Jim Hood publicly asked Google to "address issues on
its web site that are allowing users to obtain illegal and counterfeit goods,
including dangerous drugs without a prescription." According to Mr. Hood, " “[o]n every
check we have made, Google’s search engine gave us easy access to illegal goods
including websites which offer dangerous drugs without a prescription,
counterfeit goods of every description, and infringing copies of movies, music,
software and games,”. Mr. Hood further stated, “[t]his behavior means that
Google is putting consumers at risk and facilitating wrongdoing, all while
profiting handsomely from illegal behavior.”
Google's
response to Mr. Hood's allegations that it is not doing enough to stop the
proliferation of ads for counterfeit goods has been called insufficient
and inadequate. According to the Associated
Press, Mr. Hood has stated that Google's previous response was also
"evasive" and "overly technical" and that its "lack of
meaningful action is unacceptable."
The
allegations against Google are extremely serious and very troubling. This is not the first time it has been
alleged that Google is profiting from illegal behavior. In 2006, a lawsuit was filed and later
withdrawn alleging that
Google profited from child pornography. In 2009, Rosetta Stone sued Google and
eventually reached a confidential
settlement regarding allegations that Google illegally sold Rosetta Stone
trademarks to third-party advertisers that linked to sites selling counterfeit
software.
Google
has a proven track record of turning a blind eye to illegal ads on its
platform. In August 2011, Google agreed
to "forfeit
$500 million for allowing online Canadian pharmacies to place
advertisements through its AdWords program targeting consumers in the United
States, resulting in the unlawful importation of controlled and non-controlled
prescription drugs into the United States." According to the Wall
Street Journal, Google's chief executive knew about the illicit conduct
that led to the record forfeiture. The U.S.
Attorney for Rhode Island stated, "[w]e simply know from the documents
we reviewed and witnesses we interviewed that Larry Page knew what was going
on".
Google's
alleged behavior of putting advertising profits ahead of its concern for users
was also recently criticized in the United Kingdom. According to The
Guardian, "thousands upon thousands of people are paying wholly
unnecessary fees to access basic services provided by the government". This appears to be occurring because Google is
not doing enough to police its AdWords system.
It took The Guardian's researchers, "milliseconds....to find a site
in breach of Google's rules." While
Google did remove one of the sites that The
Guardian reported was fleecing UK consumers, "the search engine
continues to promote copycat sites, happily taking the revenue that they
generate". The problem of illegal
content being easily accessible on Google's web sites is so serious that Prime
Minister David Cameron recently called out Google for not doing enough to
protect our children.
Facebook
recently announced that it blocks users in the Netherlands from seeing ads
for online gambling to comply with the Dutch Betting and Gaming Act. Last month, LinkedIn
updated its terms of service to ban the advertising of sexual services on its
platform. For more than ten years,
Google has been removing content from its French
and German indexes that may conflict with local laws. If Facebook and LinkedIn are able to implement
programs that block ads for services or products that are illegal in some parts
of the world why hasn't Google done more to protect its
users? Is it because 95%
of its revenues comes from advertising?
According
to the Pew
Internet Project report, 93% of all U.S. teens between the ages of 12-17 go
online. In addition, 47% of parents are
“very concerned” about their child’s
exposure to inappropriate content through the Internet or cell phones. This month, the Digital
Citizens Alliance released A
Report on How Google and YouTube Stand to Benefit When Bad Actors Exploit the
Internet that appears to demonstrate that Google is not doing enough to
protect our children. The report
provides multiple recent examples where YouTube is exhibiting ads for illegal
goods and/or services next to videos that appear to be targeted to children and/or teens.
While
some regulators
appear to be weighing whether television advertising regulations should be
applied to online video platforms, it is apparent that more safeguards are needed
to protect children from illegal ads that appear on YouTube and other web sites. Google's less than stellar record in monitoring
its ecosystem for illegal ads may push regulators and/or lawmakers to
over-regulate the Internet and stifle innovation.
Unless
Google acts expeditiously to better police its digital properties, it would not
surprise me if a coalition of state attorney generals commences legal action to
protect our children from the significant number of illegal ads that appear on
Google's web sites. To avoid a costly
and drawn out legal quagmire that may not only affect its advertising business, but the entire digital advertising economy, it may be in Google's best interest to fully cooperate with the NAAG and
take meaningful action that protects users from ads for illegal products
and/or services.
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Thursday, June 6, 2013
Top Secret PRISM Program Enables U.S. Government to Access the Personal Digital Content of Internet Users
According to The Washington Post, the "National Security Agency (NSA) and the FBI are tapping directly into the
central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting
audio and video chats, photographs, e-mails, documents, and connection
logs that enable analysts to track foreign targets." These new revelations came on the heels of a report late last night that the federal government is secretly collecting vast amounts of data from Verizon phone records.
The documents that the Washington Post has received allege that “[c]ollection (occurs) directly from the servers of these U.S. Service Providers: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple.” The court approved program is called PRISM.
The NSA and FBI were created to protect our country. I became homeless for a period of time because of the terrorist attacks in New York City on 9/11/2001. I will never forget the American heroism I witnessed from New York's Bravest and Finest that day.
I believe that our government should have the offensive capability to protect our citizens from future terrorist attacks. The alleged breadth and depth of our surveillance capabilities does not surprise me. It is possible that without these programs a dirty bomb may have already been detonated in the middle of a large American city and/or a similar large scale 9/11 style attack may have occurred.
As a society we need to determine how to properly balance the safety of our country with the personal privacy of our citizens because the decisions we make today will determine our future. Are the proper checks and balances in place to ensure that the government does not abuse its power? This question needs to be answered sooner rather than later.
I want future generations to experience life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness without losing their personal privacy.
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
The documents that the Washington Post has received allege that “[c]ollection (occurs) directly from the servers of these U.S. Service Providers: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple.” The court approved program is called PRISM.
The NSA and FBI were created to protect our country. I became homeless for a period of time because of the terrorist attacks in New York City on 9/11/2001. I will never forget the American heroism I witnessed from New York's Bravest and Finest that day.
I believe that our government should have the offensive capability to protect our citizens from future terrorist attacks. The alleged breadth and depth of our surveillance capabilities does not surprise me. It is possible that without these programs a dirty bomb may have already been detonated in the middle of a large American city and/or a similar large scale 9/11 style attack may have occurred.
As a society we need to determine how to properly balance the safety of our country with the personal privacy of our citizens because the decisions we make today will determine our future. Are the proper checks and balances in place to ensure that the government does not abuse its power? This question needs to be answered sooner rather than later.
I want future generations to experience life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness without losing their personal privacy.
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)