What if a student takes a photo of behavior occurring in the common area of a school bathroom during school hours that appears to violate school policy and then Tweets out the image with commentary? Should the photographer who captured and Tweeted out the image be disciplined but those whose behavior allegedly violated school policy not be punished? This is a question that a public high school in Maryland is answering.
Recently, a student Tweeted out a selfie of herself with two other students in the background allegedly engaging in sexual contact. As of this writing, the photo has been re-tweeted over 14,000 times. After school administrators became informed about the situation, the Tweeter was suspended for ten days. The students who appeared in the photo (their faces are not viewable) allegedly engaging in some type of personal interaction that may or may not be of a sexual nature were not disciplined.
I am very protective of free speech rights; especially for students. I strongly believe in the Tinker v. Des Moines decision which ruled that students do not leave their constitutional rights at the school house gate. However, I believe in Griswold v. Connecticut's ruling that we all have a right to privacy. Mobile devices and wearable technology will test the right to privacy versus the first amendment in the Digital Age. This situation demonstrates that their are no easy answers regarding where our first amendment rights end and our right to privacy begins.
Copyright 2014 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
Bill Cosby, Gilbert Gottfried, Big Data, and the Right to Privacy
One of my favorite television programs growing up in the 1980's was The Cosby Show. The show was about an upper middle-class African-American family living in Brooklyn, New York. I enjoyed the show because it was funny and the issues it covered were very timely.
Recently, I watched one of my favorite episodes. This particular episode's main theme was negotiating to buy a new car since the old family truckster (i.e. think the Griswald's car in National Lampoon's Vacation) was on its last legs. Bill Cosby's character, Dr. Heathcliff Huxtable does not want the car dealer to know that he is a doctor because he fears he will lose any negotiating power (i.e. he wants to keep his potential financial status anonymous because he believes the dealership will be more flexible with a less financially successful customer; think "price discrimination" based upon ability to pay) if the dealer can size him up financially. He visits the car dealership with his son in an average looking shirt, pants, etc... and avoids telling the salesman his profession.
Dr. Huxtable is downplaying his financial position while the car salesman talks about how expensive it is to raise his children and how one of his kids now needs braces. The bottom line is that the car negotiation is moving along when all of a sudden Gilbert Gottfried shows up. Gilbert Gottfried calls Bill Cosby's character "Dr. Huxtable" (the salesman didn't know he was a doctor) and tells the salesman that Dr. Huxtable's wife was recently made a partner in her law firm and that they have plenty of money. The bottom line is that Gilbert Gottfried's information appeared to alter Dr. Huxtable's ability to negotiate the best possible deal.
Why does this matter? Think of Gilbert Gottfried as a data broker, a digital online advertising network, or an app that sells (i.e. shares, exchanges, etc...) your personal information to others. This information may then be combined so a personal dossier is created that includes both your online and offline activities. According to 60 Minutes, this information may then be sold to governments to spy on you or to entities that may prey on those who are vulnerable to sales pitches.
The more information a seller knows about its buyers the greater the risk that price discrimination may occur. Should a person's race, creed, religion, personal opinions, wants, disabilities, financial position, health status, etc... be available to sellers? Should all Americans be on the same footing when shopping or negotiating for goods and/or services? For example, should a school provider of digital services be able to sell to a data broker or insurance company the lunch purchasing information of students so a corporate entity may then utilize this information for commercial gain?
I believe our country needs to create stronger data protection laws and require data collection companies to become more transparent about their activities. I don't want my children to grow up in a world where everything they do is collected and inserted into their personal digital file and utilized to discriminate them. Shouldn't future generations have the same privacy protections we had while growing up?
Copyright 2014 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Recently, I watched one of my favorite episodes. This particular episode's main theme was negotiating to buy a new car since the old family truckster (i.e. think the Griswald's car in National Lampoon's Vacation) was on its last legs. Bill Cosby's character, Dr. Heathcliff Huxtable does not want the car dealer to know that he is a doctor because he fears he will lose any negotiating power (i.e. he wants to keep his potential financial status anonymous because he believes the dealership will be more flexible with a less financially successful customer; think "price discrimination" based upon ability to pay) if the dealer can size him up financially. He visits the car dealership with his son in an average looking shirt, pants, etc... and avoids telling the salesman his profession.
Dr. Huxtable is downplaying his financial position while the car salesman talks about how expensive it is to raise his children and how one of his kids now needs braces. The bottom line is that the car negotiation is moving along when all of a sudden Gilbert Gottfried shows up. Gilbert Gottfried calls Bill Cosby's character "Dr. Huxtable" (the salesman didn't know he was a doctor) and tells the salesman that Dr. Huxtable's wife was recently made a partner in her law firm and that they have plenty of money. The bottom line is that Gilbert Gottfried's information appeared to alter Dr. Huxtable's ability to negotiate the best possible deal.
Why does this matter? Think of Gilbert Gottfried as a data broker, a digital online advertising network, or an app that sells (i.e. shares, exchanges, etc...) your personal information to others. This information may then be combined so a personal dossier is created that includes both your online and offline activities. According to 60 Minutes, this information may then be sold to governments to spy on you or to entities that may prey on those who are vulnerable to sales pitches.
The more information a seller knows about its buyers the greater the risk that price discrimination may occur. Should a person's race, creed, religion, personal opinions, wants, disabilities, financial position, health status, etc... be available to sellers? Should all Americans be on the same footing when shopping or negotiating for goods and/or services? For example, should a school provider of digital services be able to sell to a data broker or insurance company the lunch purchasing information of students so a corporate entity may then utilize this information for commercial gain?
I believe our country needs to create stronger data protection laws and require data collection companies to become more transparent about their activities. I don't want my children to grow up in a world where everything they do is collected and inserted into their personal digital file and utilized to discriminate them. Shouldn't future generations have the same privacy protections we had while growing up?
Copyright 2014 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)