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.
Showing posts with label Social Media Evidence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Social Media Evidence. Show all posts
Sunday, March 17, 2013
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Occupy Wall Street Tweets May Be Subject to Subpoena
While the Occupy Wall Street protests have cooled down the past several months, the legal issues involved with them have heated up. According to the Wall Street Journal, a Manhattan judge recently ruled that Twitter has to turn over several months of an Occupy Wall Street protester’s tweets. The tweets may be utilized against the protestor at trial.
In April, the judge in the Occupy Wall Street protestor's case ruled that the protestor does not have the right to quash a subpoena for public tweets. At that time, I stated that, "I generally agree with the main point of this decision (that the protestor doesn't have the right to quash the subpoena) that public Tweets are fair game,"
If the Tweets had been on a protected Twitter account then a warrant may have been required to access the Tweets. In general, I have no problem with law enforcement obtaining and utilizing social media evidence. However, the government must go through the proper legal channels to obtain, authenticate, and utilize social media evidence at trial.
To learn how social media intersects with the law you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
In April, the judge in the Occupy Wall Street protestor's case ruled that the protestor does not have the right to quash a subpoena for public tweets. At that time, I stated that, "I generally agree with the main point of this decision (that the protestor doesn't have the right to quash the subpoena) that public Tweets are fair game,"
If the Tweets had been on a protected Twitter account then a warrant may have been required to access the Tweets. In general, I have no problem with law enforcement obtaining and utilizing social media evidence. However, the government must go through the proper legal channels to obtain, authenticate, and utilize social media evidence at trial.
To learn how social media intersects with the law you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Monday, April 23, 2012
Occupy Wall Street Public Tweets Subpoena Decision May Have A Troubling Analysis
A judge ruled earlier today that deleted public tweets may be used as evidence in an Occupy Wall Street protestor's trial. While I generally agree with the main point of this decision that public Tweets are fair game, some of the analysis behind the decision may be very troubling.
Once a Tweet is public to the entire world you don't have an expectation of privacy even if the Tweet has been deleted. Former Congressman Anthony Weiner learned the hard way (no pun intended) that once you post something publicly you have no expectation of privacy. However, if one has a protected Twitter account where the owner of the account has the ability to choose who may have access to his Tweets and/or sends a Twitter Direct Message the user may have an expectation of privacy and then a warrant may be needed for the government to be able to access the Tweets and/or the Direct Messages.
One aspect of the decision I found to be very troubling was on page 4 where it states, "Twitter’s license to use the defendant’s Tweets means that the Tweets the defendant posted were not his." I believe that this analysis is incorrect and demonstrates that Judge Matthew A. Sciarrino, Jr. may not fully understand social media, digital technology, and public policy. In addition, on page 6 of the decision, it states, "While the Fourth Amendment provides protection for our physical homes, we do not have a physical “home” on the Internet." If Judge Sciarrino's reasoning is extended to all online services that may mean that as a society we don't have an expectation of privacy for password protected digital content. If we don't have an expectation of privacy for our password protected digital content this may drastically harm the ability for technology companies to monetize cloud computing and other future electronic services because businesses and consumers may be hesitant to utilize these services if the government has the ability to access our password protected digital content without a warrant.
While we may not have an expectation of privacy for our public Tweets, some of the analysis for this decision is terribly flawed and demonstrates the need for our judiciary to become better educated about the issues inherent with social media and technology.
To learn how social media intersects with the law you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Once a Tweet is public to the entire world you don't have an expectation of privacy even if the Tweet has been deleted. Former Congressman Anthony Weiner learned the hard way (no pun intended) that once you post something publicly you have no expectation of privacy. However, if one has a protected Twitter account where the owner of the account has the ability to choose who may have access to his Tweets and/or sends a Twitter Direct Message the user may have an expectation of privacy and then a warrant may be needed for the government to be able to access the Tweets and/or the Direct Messages.
One aspect of the decision I found to be very troubling was on page 4 where it states, "Twitter’s license to use the defendant’s Tweets means that the Tweets the defendant posted were not his." I believe that this analysis is incorrect and demonstrates that Judge Matthew A. Sciarrino, Jr. may not fully understand social media, digital technology, and public policy. In addition, on page 6 of the decision, it states, "While the Fourth Amendment provides protection for our physical homes, we do not have a physical “home” on the Internet." If Judge Sciarrino's reasoning is extended to all online services that may mean that as a society we don't have an expectation of privacy for password protected digital content. If we don't have an expectation of privacy for our password protected digital content this may drastically harm the ability for technology companies to monetize cloud computing and other future electronic services because businesses and consumers may be hesitant to utilize these services if the government has the ability to access our password protected digital content without a warrant.
While we may not have an expectation of privacy for our public Tweets, some of the analysis for this decision is terribly flawed and demonstrates the need for our judiciary to become better educated about the issues inherent with social media and technology.
To learn how social media intersects with the law you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Friday, May 6, 2011
Maryland's Social Media Evidence Authentication Decision Provides Much Needed Guidance
Maryland's highest court, the Court of Appeals recently decided a case regarding authentication of social media accounts and the content contained therein. In Antoine Levar Griffin v. State of Maryland (No. 74, September Term 2010; filed April 28, 2011), the Court of Appeals held that"[t]the potential for abuse and manipulation of a social networking site by someone other than its purported creator and/or user leads to our conclusion that a printout of an image for such a site requires a greater degree of authentication than merely identifying the date of birth of the creator and her visage in a photograph on the site in order to reflect that [defendant] Ms. Barber was its creator and the author of the "snitches get stitches" language." (Griffin v. State, page 14 of the decision and page 16 of the linked pdf)
In the Maryland Daily Record, Maryland's main legal newspaper, there was a post on their Generation J.D. blog disagreeing with the Court of Appeals decision. The blog post states," Lawyers attempting to get social networking into evidence must contend with a group of judges who probably have never used a social networking site between the seven of them", and "The likelihood of fake pages and tampering is remote..." and "[g]iven the prevalence of social networking and the unlikelihood of false pages or fraudulent access..." and "[i]f any of them (Members of the Maryland Court of Appeals) have ever tried it (Facebook) out, or are active users, they are to be commended."
The above statements by John Cord demonstrate a lack of understanding of social media. Mr. Cord's post also states, " I'd love to be proven wrong." A less than 1 second Google search of "fake facebook profiles" shows that fake social media pages occur more often than than Mr. Cord states. It is very easy to create fake social media pages and have your social media account hacked. Fraudulent access to social media pages occurs more often then some may think.
In the Griffin case, the Maryland Court of Appeals spread their social media wings and demonstrated they understand some of the inherent dangers with unauthenticated social media pages. The Court was correct in determining that the prosecution should have utilized a different method to authenticate statements that appear on social media accounts and the Court offered several possible methods that may be acceptable.
A simple Google search and a thorough reading of the decision should have been done before criticizing Maryland's Court of Appeals and its judges. Before publicly criticizing a court and/or its judges, let alone the highest court in one's home state a lawyer should perform the utmost due diligence. #29 of Judge Dennis M. Sweeney's Rules For Courtroom Conduct states, "Remember that nastiness and rudeness rarely impresses the court or help your client. Courtesy is never inappropriate."
To learn how social media intersects with the law you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
In the Maryland Daily Record, Maryland's main legal newspaper, there was a post on their Generation J.D. blog disagreeing with the Court of Appeals decision. The blog post states," Lawyers attempting to get social networking into evidence must contend with a group of judges who probably have never used a social networking site between the seven of them", and "The likelihood of fake pages and tampering is remote..." and "[g]iven the prevalence of social networking and the unlikelihood of false pages or fraudulent access..." and "[i]f any of them (Members of the Maryland Court of Appeals) have ever tried it (Facebook) out, or are active users, they are to be commended."
The above statements by John Cord demonstrate a lack of understanding of social media. Mr. Cord's post also states, " I'd love to be proven wrong." A less than 1 second Google search of "fake facebook profiles" shows that fake social media pages occur more often than than Mr. Cord states. It is very easy to create fake social media pages and have your social media account hacked. Fraudulent access to social media pages occurs more often then some may think.
In the Griffin case, the Maryland Court of Appeals spread their social media wings and demonstrated they understand some of the inherent dangers with unauthenticated social media pages. The Court was correct in determining that the prosecution should have utilized a different method to authenticate statements that appear on social media accounts and the Court offered several possible methods that may be acceptable.
A simple Google search and a thorough reading of the decision should have been done before criticizing Maryland's Court of Appeals and its judges. Before publicly criticizing a court and/or its judges, let alone the highest court in one's home state a lawyer should perform the utmost due diligence. #29 of Judge Dennis M. Sweeney's Rules For Courtroom Conduct states, "Remember that nastiness and rudeness rarely impresses the court or help your client. Courtesy is never inappropriate."
To learn how social media intersects with the law you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)