Social Media Reputation, Sexting, and Privacy

If you have been given a second or third chance to rebuild your reputation don't ruin it with a bunch of sexts. Last night, The New York Post reported that former Congressman Anthony Weiner was sexting another woman who was not his wife. In the past five years, this is the third time he has been publicly caught for this type of behavior.

Weiner's sexting cost him his job as a Congressman in 2011, his chance to become the mayor of New York City in 2013, and now his marriage.  In addition to his marriage, multiple news organizations such as NY1 and The New York Daily News have either suspended or terminated their relationship with him.  In other words, sexting has destroyed his personal life and his career as a politician/political pundit.  

While the American public loves a great comeback story, this time may be different for Weiner.  One of his sexts included a photo of his son lying next to him in bed with his shirt off. The sexts associated with his son may lead to an inquiry into potential child endangerment charges and/or utilized by his soon to be ex-wife wife in a custody battle. While the American public generally forgives those involved in sex scandals, they may not forgiving this time because a young child was unnecessarily dragged into Weiner's troubling personal activities.

I have advised many clients over the years who have either lost their jobs due to sexting, been blackmailed due to dumb online posts, or had their personal lives destroyed (i.e. marriage dissolved or personal relationship ended) due to inappropriate social media activity.  My job is to protect my clients' reputation.  Unfortunately, too often clients and potential clients contact me for counsel after an activity has been exposed.  In general, if they would have been proactive and sought advice prior to their activity becoming public their post incident options would be much different.    

During Weiner's 2011 sexting scandal, I spoke with several media outlets about his social media behavior and the law.  His 2013 sexting scandal and this current incident demonstrates continued poor judgement.  It appears that in the five years since Weiner resigned from Congress due to inappropriate social media activity he hasn't learned anything about social media, reputation, or personal privacy.     

The bottom line is that you must be careful every time you send a digital message.  You never know whom you are really talking with on the Internet.  

Copyright 2016 by Bradley S. Shear, Esq. All rights reserved.   

Microsoft Takes A Stand Against Online Violence and Hate Speech

According to Business Insider, Microsoft is making it easier to report online threats and abuse. The company has created a new form to report content posted on its consumer services that may constitute online violence or hate speech.

Some of the content that may constitute violations against Microsoft's new policy includes: postings that advocate violence based upon age, disability, gender, national or ethnic origin, race, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity. The policy specifically states, "[p]lease note that not all content that you find offensive is considered hate speech and, in reviewing your report, Microsoft may choose to take no action."

For years, the Internet has been the Wild Wild West when it comes to speech. Sometimes this a good thing while in other instances this atmosphere has created some very troubling situations. Microsoft's new policy is a positive development that is worth trying.

Copyright 2016 by Bradley S. Shear, Esq. All rights reserved.   

Feds To Protect Social Media Reputation of Nursing Home Residents

On Friday, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced that it would crack down on nursing home operators whose employees record and post on social media demeaning audio, images, and video of their residents.  

ProPublica recently documented almost fifty incidents during the past several years where nursing home and assisted living facility employees took unauthorized abusive photos of their patients and posted them online without permission.  ProPublica's investigation prompted Sen. Charles Grassley to contact the U.S. Department of Justice and the Office of Civil Rights to work on a solution to this increasingly troubling problem.  

Posting photos of others in vulnerable positions is not just a problem in nursing homes, assisted living facilities, and in hospitals, it is also a problem in other areas where people may unclothe. For example, earlier this year, 2015 Playboy Playmate of the Year Dani Mathers took a naked photo of a fellow gym member of LA Fitness getting out of the shower and posted it on Snapchat for "sh#ts and giggles". 

Social media abuse is increasing faster than the law can keep up. Therefore, it is imperative for companies to ensure that their employees are properly trained about these issues by legal experts to avoid easily preventable multi-million dollar social media privacy lawsuits.  

Copyright 2016 by Bradley S. Shear, Esq. All rights reserved.    

Playboy Playmate Under Criminal Investigation For Snapchat Photo

According to Entertainment Tonight, the LA Police Department has opened an investigation into 2015 Playmate of the Year Dani Mathers' Snapchat activity after it received a complaint from LA Fitness. It appears that the investigation is centered around an alleged illegally disseminated private image Ms. Mathers took of a fellow gym member inside an LA Fitness club. While Ms. Mathers was in the bathroom/shower area of an LA Fitness gym she took a naked photo of another person and posted it on Snapchat with some negative comments.  

Subsequently, the naked photo Ms. Mathers posted went viral and she has gone from being the bully who body shamed a fellow gym member for personal pleasure to a target herself.    If the person in the photo comes forward Ms. Mathers could face up to six months in prison for her behavior.

Since Ms. Mathers published the naked photo, she has been suspended from her radio show and banned from all LA Fitness gyms.  Online, thousands of people have also stated how disgusted they are about Ms. Mathers' actions.      

Ms. Mathers' behavior demonstrates she didn't even realize what she had done was wrong. Her apology shows she doesn't have a clue about the law or proper digital behavior.  Ms. Mathers only apologized for posting the photo on Snapchat.  She admits in her so called apology that she had the intent to take the naked photo of stranger and share it with her friends.  This demonstrates a lack of remorse and understanding of the seriousness of the situation.

People have an expectation of privacy in bathrooms whether they are in a public restroom or a private club.  Those who violate this expectation of privacy should be held legally accountable. If Ms. Mathers is sued by the person whom she photographed I wouldn't be surprised if a settlement or judgement is either six or seven figures. The Erin Andrews jury verdict and subsequent settlement is the benchmark to measure these types of privacy violations.  

The bottom line is that companies need to better train their employees about these issues because one dumb Snap, Tweet, or Post can create millions in legal liability.

Copyright 2016 by Bradley S. Shear, Esq. All rights reserved.

Pokemon Go, Augmented Reality, and Legal Liability

Pokemon Go is the hottest mobile game sweeping the world.  It can easily be downloaded onto a mobile device and it incorporates the physical world into the virtual world.  In other words, its an augmented reality game.

Pokemon Go uses your phone's GPS and camera while you play the game.  In addition, Techcrunch has reported that the game wants permission to collect a tremendous amount of your personal information.  Generally, you should just say no to allowing for this type of personal data collection.  

While there are thousands of games that can be downloaded onto your phone this appears to be the first popular augmented reality mobile game that has gained international traction.  It has become so popular that criminals are utilizing it to rob and harm users.  According to published reports, at least 9 Pokemon Go users have been lured and robbed while using the app.

It may be a matter of when and not if a Pokemon Go user who has become a victim of one of these crimes sues the game's publisher for creating an "attractive nuisance" or some other type of tort.  Due to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act it may be difficult for a potential Pokemon Go plaintiff to win a lawsuit based upon this or similar causes of action.

The bottom line is that users must understand the risks inherent when downloading and utilizing digital games.  Just because something may look harmless on your phone, that doesn't make it necessarily so.

Copyright 2016 by Bradley S. Shear, Esq. All rights reserved. 

Will Dallas Police Tweet Create Millions In Legal Liability?

Social Media has changed our society forever.  Our physical lives have become so intertwined with our digital lives that it is difficult to keep them separate.  Unfortunately, many people, businesses, government entities, schools, and other organizations still don't have a clue about the legal ramifications of every single Tweet, post, snap, livestream, etc...

During the past several days, we have had multiple terrible tragedies occur that were either streamed live on Facebook or posted online soon after the incidents occurred.  The facts surrounding the shootings in Minnesota and Louisiana where police officers shot and killed African-American men who may have been armed but not brandishing their weapons or acting in a menacing way are very troubling.  Due to the proliferation of cell phones and social media, footage of these incidents and/or aftermath have been viewed and shared millions of times around the world before the authorities have had the time to investigate what happened.  

Unfortunately, it appears that many government agencies do not understand the legal implications of social media.  A case in point is what happened in the aftermath of the terrible tragedy in Dallas where at least 12 police officers were shot and 5 tragically killed in a senseless attack on law enforcement who were at a peaceful protest for the shootings that occurred in Louisiana and Minnesota. According to multiple published reports, the shooter "wanted to kill white people, especially white officers".

In the chaos that ensued after the shootings, the Dallas Police Department Tweeted out a photo with the caption:  "This is one of our suspects. Please help us find him!"  Within hours of the Tweet, the person pictured in the photo had allegedly received thousands of death threats. This person ended up not being connected in any way to the Dallas tragedy and was just a person exercising his First and Second Amendment rights in a public street during a peaceful protest.  

I am not sure who on the Dallas Police Department published the irresponsible Tweet but it may create tremendous legal liability for the agency.  In 2013, The New York Post settled a lawsuit for inferring that a couple of innocent people were involved in the Boston Marathon terrorist attack. Seventeen years earlier, the 1996 terrorist bombing at the Atlanta Olympics made a pariah out of Richard Jewell after law enforcement carelessly leaked his name to the media as the prime suspect in that terrible attack.  

Since 2011, the Dallas Police Department has spent approximately $6 million dollars on lawsuit settlements.  Most of those settlements were related to police brutality and other misconduct issues. I am not aware of a case where the police department has created a a social media fire storm that put an innocent man's reputation and safety at risk.        

The bottom line is that organizations need to better understand the legal and societal issues inherent with social media.  This includes better policies, education, and training. Over the years, I have seen too many entities create bad policies and not hire the right people to properly advise, educate, and train their employees about digital issues.  

Copyright 2016 by Bradley S. Shear, Esq. All rights reserved. 

FTC Fines Advertising Network For Illegal Mobile Tracking

The Federal Trade Commission has announced that mobile advertising company InMobi will pay a $950,000 civil penalty and implement a comprehensive privacy program to settle FTC charges it deceptively tracked the locations of hundreds of millions of consumers, including children, without their knowledge or consent to serve them geo-targeted advertising.

According to the FTC, InMobi misrepresented that its advertising software would only track user locations when they opted in. However, InMobi was tracking user locations whether users opted in or refused to provide permission. InMobi's advertising network has a reach of more than one billion devices via thousands of apps so there is a staggering amount of data that the company has illegally obtained. 

Under the terms of its settlement with the FTC, InMobi is subject to a $4 million civil penalty, which is suspended to $950,000 due to the company's financial position. The company will be required to delete all information it collected from users and it is prohibited from collecting consumers’ location information without their affirmative express consent. InMobi must also institute a comprehensive privacy program that will be independently audited every two years for the next 20 years.

How much money did InMobi make by intentionally deceiving consumers?  This deception demonstrates why there needs to be stronger laws and greater enforcement mechanisms in place to deter and stop illegal behavior. 

Copyright 2016 by Bradley S. Shear, Esq. All rights reserved. 

Florida Prosecutor's Reputation Destroyed Over Facebook Comments

Be careful what you say online because it may come back to hurt you.  Unfortunately, too many people don't heed this advice and this time an attorney has forever harmed his reputation because of unprovoked online posts. Florida Assistant State Attorney Kenneth Lewis was suspended for posting online inflammatory messages about the city of Orlando in wake of the tragic nightclub terrorist attack.  His comments violated his employer's social media policy.

It appears that Mr. Lewis has been investigated for previously posting inappropriate online comments.  Just because you have a right to say something doesn't mean its a good idea to do so.  For years, people have felt less inhibited to attach their names to very incendiary online comments because its so easy to do so from the comfort of your own home.  Unfortunately, many people don't realize that comments meant for just friends or family may be seen around the world in just seconds.

Will Mr. Lewis be passed over for promotion because of this issue?  Will Mr. Lewis' online comments encourage his employer to terminate his employment for this or other behavior?  Will his online activities hurt his ability to transition to another employer?

In the Digital Age, it is imperative to understand how the Internet may help or harm your personal and professional reputation.

Copyright 2016 by Bradley S. Shear, Esq.  All rights reserved.

Hulk Hogan Awarded $115 Million In Gawker Naked Video Lawsuit

Privacy still matters in the Digital Age.  A Florida state jury awarded former professional wrestler Hulk Hogan $115 million dollars in a lawsuit against the online publication Gawker for publishing a video of him taken without his consent of him having sex with his former best friend's wife.

$55 million dollars of the jury's award was for economic harm and $60 million dollars was for emotional distress.  Punitive damages may also be awarded next week so its possible the award may substantially increase.

The recent Erin Andrews $55 million dollar Internet naked video award set the bar for privacy violations in the Digital Age and the Hogan case appears to have taken it several steps further. While both of these cases may be appealed and its doubtful that either will ever receive close to the figures that these juries have awarded, these awards demonstrate that the public is ready to punish those who destroy the personal privacy of others on the Internet.    

Copyright 2016 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.

Judicial Redress Act Signed

In a positive development, President Obama has signed the Judicial Redress Act yesterday.  The new law will enable citizens of some of our allies to sue the U.S. government for violating their personal privacy rights.

The bill passed with bipartisan support in both the U.S. House and Senate and signed by the President soon after he received the bill.  The enactment of this piece of legislation was needed in order for the new U.S.-EU Privacy Shield Agreement to move forward in Europe.  

The bottom line is that the enactment of the Judicial Redress Act extends some of the privacy rights our citizens have to the citizens of our allies and demonstrates that our country is serious about protecting the personal privacy of their citizens.  This signals that the U.S. may be moving towards ensuring stronger digital privacy rights when it comes to matters that may affect international commerce.  

Copyright 2016 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.

NFL Star Files Twitter Lawsuit Against ESPN

According to The New York Post, New York Giants star Jason Pierre-Paul has filed a lawsuit against ESPN and one its reporters, Adam Schefter, for Tweeting a photo of his medical records.  Last July 4th, Pierre-Paul was involved in a fireworks accident that severely damaged one of his hands and the incident created a feeding frenzy among the media to determine the extent of Pierre-Paul's injuries.  

Under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), the hospital and its employees owed a duty of medical privacy to Pierre-Paul.  The media is not a covered entity under HIPAA so it doesn't apply to ESPN or Schefter.  It has been reported that the hospital that treated Pierre-Paul has already settled with him most likely because it had the most to lose if the matter went to trial since it was a covered entity under HIPAA.

While HIPAA doesn't cover ESPN/Adam Schefter's actions, Pierre-Paul may have an actionable claim under Florida state law or common law. If ESPN/Adam Schefter contacted me before posting Pierre-Paul's medical records on Twitter, I would have advised against Tweeting out the photo or posting it online on another platform due to potential legal liability. While its too soon to speculate on how Florida state law or common law may affect the outcome of this case, it should make people think long and hard before they post the medical records of others online without expressed written consent.    

I have previously written about ESPN's corporate social media policy that covers its reporters here and here.  The bottom line is that professional sports teams, athletes, and those that work in the sports field need to become better educated about the legal implications of their actions whenever they utilize digital platforms. One wrong post or action/inaction that leads to a digital post may create millions of dollars in legal liability.  

Copyright 2016 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.

Apple vs. the FBI: We Can Have Both Privacy And Security

Can we have both privacy and security?  That is a question that has been popular since 9/11/2001.  I believe we can have both.  As someone who personally witnessed the terrorist attacks on The World Trade Center from a couple of blocks away (and became homeless because of them and eventually moved), I am fully well versed on these issues from the security side.  As an attorney who focuses on technology and privacy issues and who has advocated for stronger personal privacy laws on the state and federal level, I also understand the inherent privacy issues.

To recap the latest privacy vs. security debate: the U.S. Justice Department is demanding that Apple help unlock an iPhone that was utilized by the San Bernardino terrorists who killed 14 people and injured 22 in 2015.  Without getting too technical, the FBI has requested (there has been multiple requests/back and forth between the parties) that Apple create software or disable some security protections on an iPhone that would weaken its encryption to allow the FBI to ensure that it may access the contents on the device.  According to The New York Times, the FBI has also requested that Apple assist it with unlocking at least 9 other iPhones.

Weakening encryption or creating back doors into our technology may sound like a good idea for this one case; however, there are and will be other cases where similar requests will be made to access information stored on electronic devices.  If the FBI is provided a back door for this one case, security services from others countries will also demand one for their cases (there could be demands for access to phones belonging to government political opponents or to whistle blowers) as well. In addition, hackers may also utilize back doors which would harm the privacy and personal security of all of us.

I am in favor of law enforcement being able to access digital content when a valid warrant has been obtained.  However, the legal process needs to be followed before content requested is turned over. In general, a major problem with our current legal process is that our digital laws are outdated. For example, the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act which governs email access was created before we had smart phones and the Internet as we know it.  The judiciary is stuck trying to interpret laws that are woefully out of date.

Congress must step up to fix this process.  Bills such as the Email Privacy Act, and the Law Enforcement Access To Data Stored Abroad Act-LEADS need to be enacted because these bills demonstrate that government is willing to update our laws to better reflect how we utilize technology. Absent a legislative fix, private industry has a challenge when law enforcement makes certain demands which are more than just data requests. Should they comply absent trying to block these demands through the courts or should they fight law enforcement demands via a flawed legal process?

This case and others like it demonstrate the need for more dialogue on these issues and the enactment of legislation that provides clearer guidance on how to handle these issues. Technology is moving too fast to leave it solely up to the judiciary to try to interpret how laws enacted decades ago for a different time should apply in the Digital Age.  Our personal privacy and national security demand that Congress and the White House work on a long term solution to these important privacy and security issues.

Copyright 2016 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.  

Ex-St. Louis Cardinals Scouting Director To Plead Guilty To Hacking

Accessing the digital accounts of others without their authorization may destroy your career and lead to prison.  Last year, the FBI began investigating the St. Louis Cardinals because it was alleged that one or more of their employees may have hacked into the Houston Astros internal computer network. 

According to The Wall Street Journal, Chris Correa, the former director of scouting at the St. Louis Cardinals plans to plead guilty to 5 of 12 hacking charges.  Soon after the investigation became public, Correa's employment with the Cardinals was terminated.  Why did Crorrea illegally access the Houston Astros internal network?  It appears that it was done for competitive reasons (i.e. money-winning the World Series can be very lucrative for an organization and its employees). 

Computer crimes is a growing industry and it will only increase as companies put their intellectual "crown jewels" in the cloud.  Therefore, it is imperative for companies to train their employees about cbyersecurity, cybercrime, and privacy to ensure their employees understand what they can and cannot do online.  Ignorance may lead to personal criminal penalties and corporate legal and financial liability. 

Copyright 2016 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.

Will Twitter's New Rules Lead To An NRA Account Suspension?

In order to post to most websites and social media platforms you click "I agree" to their terms of service.  In many instances the terms provide platform owners great flexibility on how to deal with visitors to their websites.  In other words, if you want to play in their sandbox you need to agree to their rules.

Earlier this week, The Washington Post reported that Twitter changed its rules at the end of last year in an attempt to limit harassment.  In particular, Twitter's new rules state:     

Any accounts and related accounts engaging in the activities specified below may be temporarily locked and/or subject to permanent suspension.

• Violent threats (direct or indirect): You may not make threats of violence or promote violence, including threatening or promoting terrorism.
• Harassment: You may not incite or engage in the targeted abuse or harassment of others. Some of the factors that we may consider when evaluating abusive behavior include:
• if a primary purpose of the reported account is to harass or send abusive messages to others;
• if the reported behavior is one-sided or includes threats;
• if the reported account is inciting others to harass another account; and
• if the reported account is sending harassing messages to an account from multiple accounts.
• Hateful conduct: You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or disease. We also do not allow accounts whose primary purpose is inciting harm towards others on the basis of these categories.

Earlier today, The New York Daily News reported that an NRA controlled Twitter account tweeted a message with the photos of two Brooklyn state lawmakers with bullets next to their photos.  This Tweet appears to have been in reaction to new legislation announced that would limit ammo purchases in the state of New York.  Does the Tweet referenced in The New York Daily News violate Twitter's new rules? 

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court in Elonis v. United States stated that mens rea (intent) was required to be proven under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) of the U.S. Code (federal law).  While the Elonis case focused on criminal prosecutions, it doesn't affect whether Twitter or other websites can make their own rules on how people may interact on their platforms.  Therefore, Twitter may at its own discretion decide to suspend the referenced account.

Copyright 2016 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.

UK: Social Media Domestic Abuse May Lead To 5 Years In Jail

In the United Kingdom, a new law has gone into effect that will enable prosecutors to go after domestic abuse perpetrators who harm their victims online.  Under this law, charges may be brought in domestic abuse matters where there is evidence of repeated controlling or coercive behavior.

Controlling or coercive behavior is defined as a continuing act or pattern of acts which are used to harm, punish, or frighten a victim.  Some examples of repeated controlling or coercive behavior may include: monitoring a person via online communication tools (i.e. tracking apps on mobile devices), or threatening to reveal or publish private information.

While its too early to speculate how this new law will be applied, it demonstrates that it is imperative to understand the legal consequences of your online interactions.  Controlling or coercive tweeting, snapping, pinning, or posting may lead to prison.  

Copyright 2015 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.

Homeland Security Will Vet Visa Applicants' Social Media

The Department of Homeland Security will soon expand its vetting of visa applicants to include social media.  This expansion appears to be in direct response to the recent terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California.  Surprisingly, there was a secret policy in place that banned officials from reviewing applicants' social media content.

If visa applicants urge their digital connections/followers to commit acts of terrorism against the United States and its allies online, it wouldn't surprise me if they would follow through with physical acts of violence if they are allowed to enter our country.  In response to these revelations about this secret policy to not review visa applicants' digital life lawmakers are demanding a change in policy. 

Will U.S. visa applications soon include requests for usernames/account names of all of one's social media accounts? Will applicants be required to provide access to their password protected accounts. Will increased scrutiny help make us safer? There are many unanswered questions as to how the actually vetting will occur.  

Copyright 2015 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved. 

EU Backs Down On Proposal To Raise Social Media Age Limit to 16

In the EU, there was a recent proposal to raise the age limit for children to access social media platforms to 16 years of age absent parental consent.  The idea behind the bill was to help better protect the personal privacy and safety of children.  Banning kids from being able to do something will only make them more interested in subject.  As a parent, I witness this phenomena every single day.

After much deliberation, the EU decided against raising the age limit for social media access to 16 years of age absent parental consent.  EU member states will be free to set their own age restrictions between 13 and 16 years of age.  The debate surrounding this issue was extremely interesting because it demonstrates that law makers around the world are beginning to better understand the issues surrounding unfettered data collection and usage. 

Its importance to have robust conversations on data protection and personal safety issues. Every day, our world is becoming more complex as more personal data is being generated and utilized in ways previously never envisioned so there is a need for these types of continuing conversations.  

Copyright 2015 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.  

Canadian Cable Company Facebook Shames Late Paying Customers

There is a valid reason why people are "cutting the cord" and getting rid of their cable subscriptions.  Some cable companies don't have a clue about customer service.  In a very troubling report, Canadian cable company Senga Services has been publicly shaming on Facebook its customers who are in arrears.

Senga Services' behavior was deemed so troubling that Canada's Office of the Privacy Commissioner asked the company to delete its customer shaming Facebook posts.  Do any of the publicly shamed customers have potential legal claims under Canadian law?  What if some of the customers that Senga publicly shamed had a bona fide billing dispute that Senga refused to addressed?  What if some customers were not properly notified of the billing issue due to a move?

Earlier this year, I switched my cable company because I had a major billing dispute.  My now former cable company had lied to me for years and over charged me hundreds of dollars.  Only after I wrote multiple letters to the company and threatened to file FTC and state attorney general complaints was I finally refunded several hundred dollars.

My matter was most likely only settled by the cable company because I am an attorney who has the knowledge and means to easily utilize the proper judicial or regulatory process to obtain the money I was owed.  Most people don't have this luxury.

Companies should tread very carefully when utilizing social media to reach their goals.  Too often organizations empower employees and/or agents to act on their behalf online who don't understand that their digital actions may have legal repercussions.  The bottom line is that its imperative to think before you post.

Copyright 2015 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.

Emoji (and the law): The Oxford Dictionary Word of The Year

The Oxford Dictionaries have chosen "emoji" as the word of the year.  According to the Oxford University Press, the use of the word "emoji" has increased "hugely" this year so it was natural for it to become the word of the year.

An emoji or emoticon is a digital icon or image that may be used during electronic interactions to convey an idea or feeling. Utilizing emojis in text messages may be useful because they express a feeling or idea more quickly than a group of words. 

Emojis or emoticons have been slowly showing up in court over the past couple of years. There have been some cases where emojis have been introduced into evidence during trial. As more people utilize these images to convey thoughts or ideas the more these issues will need to be addressed by the judicial system.  

The bottom line is that before sending an emoji in a message or posting it online make sure you understand the legal ramifications.  

Copyright 2015 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.

UK Police May Soon Have Power To View All Users Web History

Privacy is something you don't know you have until you lose it.  Unfortunately, the Internet has gone from the world's greatest communication and knowledge spreading platform to the best surveillance tool ever invented.

According to The Independent, UK police may soon be granted the power to view the web browsing history of everyone in the country.   The alleged bill would require communication companies to retain all web browsing history of its customers for 12 months in case the police or spy agencies want access.  The article claims that the police will still need to go through some type of judicial process to obtain the data.

A user's Internet search history may be very useful for law enforcement.  For example, in the United States, it appears that in the infamous disappearance of Caylee Anthony the police may have forgotten to check all of the Internet browsing history of a computer that was searched.  If all of the browsing history of the computer that was checked was readily accessible in one dashboard would it have changed the outcome of the case?

This potential new UK law is very troubling.  Will phone companies soon be required to tape record every phone call that is made?  Will people soon be required to tape record every personal voice conversation and keep a physical copy of every pen and paper interaction they have?  Will librarians soon be required to track every request by every user and keep it on file for 12 months?

The potential for abuse is tremendous.  Will one be prosecuted for just doing an Internet search about a topic?  Who will have access to it?  Will the proper cyber security and privacy safeguards be implemented to protect the data?  What happens when multiple people utilize a device?  Will everyone eventually be forced to have their own Internet ID # to track everything they do online? How much compensation will one be able to obtain after their browsing history is illegally leaked to the media?   These are just some of the many questions that need to be answered.    

Unfortunately, it sounds as though George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four surveillance society is coming true in the U.K.  Which country will be next?  

Copyright 2015 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.