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.
Showing posts with label Social Media Seminar. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Social Media Seminar. Show all posts
Sunday, August 28, 2016
Friday, June 24, 2016
BREXIT Will Alter Technology Public Policy, Privacy, and the Law
The votes have been counted regarding the BREXIT which was the referendum on whether Great Britain would stay in the European Union or leave and the result is that the UK will exit the EU. The vote to leave won by more than a million votes (52%-48%; 17,410,742-16,141,241).
In the short term, stock markets around the world are plunging due to the uncertainty. However, when the dust has settled the legal and regulatory work on how to adjust to this change in relationship will begin. While the vote will have a tremendous effect on many international issues, it appears that the UK's data protection rules may be unaffected. In the short term, this appears so; however, in the long term this may change.
The vote was a surprise to many lawyers and technology public policy analysts and this is demonstrated by the lack of planning in the event that the UK voted to leave the EU. Will other countries follow the UK's lead and will this create new alliances? While current trade deals may not be affected by the vote, new rules and regulations will be needed and future trade deals involving the UK and the EU will need to account for this result.
Change is generally hard. The people of the UK have spoken and in a democracy the will of the people must be followed. Even though it is too soon to speculate on how this vote will ultimately affect technology public policy and privacy issues there are a lot of unanswered legal issues surrounding the process in which the UK will leave the EU.
Copyright 2016 by Bradley S. Shear, Esq. All rights reserved.
In the short term, stock markets around the world are plunging due to the uncertainty. However, when the dust has settled the legal and regulatory work on how to adjust to this change in relationship will begin. While the vote will have a tremendous effect on many international issues, it appears that the UK's data protection rules may be unaffected. In the short term, this appears so; however, in the long term this may change.
The vote was a surprise to many lawyers and technology public policy analysts and this is demonstrated by the lack of planning in the event that the UK voted to leave the EU. Will other countries follow the UK's lead and will this create new alliances? While current trade deals may not be affected by the vote, new rules and regulations will be needed and future trade deals involving the UK and the EU will need to account for this result.
Change is generally hard. The people of the UK have spoken and in a democracy the will of the people must be followed. Even though it is too soon to speculate on how this vote will ultimately affect technology public policy and privacy issues there are a lot of unanswered legal issues surrounding the process in which the UK will leave the EU.
Copyright 2016 by Bradley S. Shear, Esq. All rights reserved.
Friday, May 27, 2016
Teenager Sues Virginia Prosecutor Over Erect Penis Photo Demand
According to The Washington Post, a teenager who was caught up in a sexting investigation has sued a Virginia prosecutor for civil rights violations. While the police were investigating sexting between two teenagers in 2014 they obtained a warrant to force the teenager to enable law enforcement to take photos of his genitalia. Fortunately, the public was notified of this ridiculous situation and the teenager was not required to take a photo of his erect penis for evidence.
This request created a major public uproar. It sounded like those requesting the photos had been fans of the the 1980's movie Porky's when physical education teacher Ms. Balbricker asked the high school principal if he would sanction a penis (tallywacker) lineup of several students so she could identify which student stuck his penis through a peep hole in the girl's bathroom. Ms. Balbricker claimed that she could identify the offending student's penis because it contained a distinctive mole. In the movie, the request for the penis line up was denied.
The detective who handled the case killed himself last year after being accused of molesting two young boys so this raises further doubts regarding the motive for photos of the teenager's erect penis.I initially wrote about the case in 2014 and stated, "My hope is that prosecutors and judges across the country realize that this is the wrong way to deal with sexting by teenagers."
The bottom line is that teenagers should be provided more education about these issues instead of outright punishment for these types of situations.
Copyright 2016 by Bradley S. Shear, Esq. All rights reserved.
This request created a major public uproar. It sounded like those requesting the photos had been fans of the the 1980's movie Porky's when physical education teacher Ms. Balbricker asked the high school principal if he would sanction a penis (tallywacker) lineup of several students so she could identify which student stuck his penis through a peep hole in the girl's bathroom. Ms. Balbricker claimed that she could identify the offending student's penis because it contained a distinctive mole. In the movie, the request for the penis line up was denied.
The detective who handled the case killed himself last year after being accused of molesting two young boys so this raises further doubts regarding the motive for photos of the teenager's erect penis.I initially wrote about the case in 2014 and stated, "My hope is that prosecutors and judges across the country realize that this is the wrong way to deal with sexting by teenagers."
The bottom line is that teenagers should be provided more education about these issues instead of outright punishment for these types of situations.
Copyright 2016 by Bradley S. Shear, Esq. All rights reserved.
Thursday, December 17, 2015
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.
Monday, November 9, 2015
Supreme Court Declines Cell Phone Privacy Case
Earlier today, the Supreme Court declined to hear a case regarding whether law enforcement needs a warrant to access the location information of cell phone users. While the decision to turn down the case may disappoint some privacy advocates it is not surprising.
Earlier this year in Davis v. U.S., the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that it was not necessary for the police to obtain a warrant before accessing cell phone location records. The defendant was convicted of armed robbery based in part by his cell phone location data. The appeals court opinion compared cell phone location data to security camera surveillance images (page 27 of the opinion) which is an interesting analogy.
In general, absent exigent circumstances (legal jargon for an emergency), a warrant should be required to access the content and meta data associated with one's digital devices. In the physical world, law enforcement is generally required to obtain a warrant to search one's home or car. A home or car may contain physical information (i.e. clothing, hard copy paper records, etc...) that may indicate an investigatory target's location history or other relevant data.
Since a warrant is generally required for physical world evidence, a warrant should generally be required for digital world evidence including location information, meta data, etc...I am hoping that the court declined this matter because it is waiting for a test case that will more easily enable them to strengthen our privacy laws.
This denial of cert demonstrates that it is imperative for the privacy community to increase its efforts to better educate the judiciary, state and federal lawmakers, and other stakeholders about digital privacy issues.
Copyright 2015 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Earlier this year in Davis v. U.S., the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that it was not necessary for the police to obtain a warrant before accessing cell phone location records. The defendant was convicted of armed robbery based in part by his cell phone location data. The appeals court opinion compared cell phone location data to security camera surveillance images (page 27 of the opinion) which is an interesting analogy.
In general, absent exigent circumstances (legal jargon for an emergency), a warrant should be required to access the content and meta data associated with one's digital devices. In the physical world, law enforcement is generally required to obtain a warrant to search one's home or car. A home or car may contain physical information (i.e. clothing, hard copy paper records, etc...) that may indicate an investigatory target's location history or other relevant data.
Since a warrant is generally required for physical world evidence, a warrant should generally be required for digital world evidence including location information, meta data, etc...I am hoping that the court declined this matter because it is waiting for a test case that will more easily enable them to strengthen our privacy laws.
This denial of cert demonstrates that it is imperative for the privacy community to increase its efforts to better educate the judiciary, state and federal lawmakers, and other stakeholders about digital privacy issues.
Copyright 2015 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
California's New Digital "Eraser Button" Law
On January 1, 2015, California's SB 568 Privacy Rights For California's Minors in The Digital World goes into effect. The bill was signed in September 2013 and gave website operators a little more than a year to ensure that they have the ability to comply with the new law.
In general, SB 568, seeks to protect minors by generally prohibiting operators of digital platforms (such as web sites, online services, online applications, mobile apps, etc...) from knowingly marketing and advertising to a minor a broad range of products specified in the law. Some of these products may include alcoholic beverages, firearms, ammunition, tobacco products, fireworks, lottery tickets, tattoos, drug paraphernalia. The new law requires operators of digital platforms to notify minors of their rights to remove content or information they posted and honor their requests to remove such data, subject to specified conditions and exceptions.
At first glance, this new law doesn't appear to have much teeth. For example, the law doesn't appear to have an enforcement mechanism and it is silent about a private right of action against those who may violate the law. Therefore, when this new law is allegedly violated how does one go about rectifying the situation?
While SB 568 may help protect California minors from some digital mistakes that may harm their ability to gain acceptance into the college of their dreams, it should not replace educating our children about the digital issues that they confront every day.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC All rights reserved.
In general, SB 568, seeks to protect minors by generally prohibiting operators of digital platforms (such as web sites, online services, online applications, mobile apps, etc...) from knowingly marketing and advertising to a minor a broad range of products specified in the law. Some of these products may include alcoholic beverages, firearms, ammunition, tobacco products, fireworks, lottery tickets, tattoos, drug paraphernalia. The new law requires operators of digital platforms to notify minors of their rights to remove content or information they posted and honor their requests to remove such data, subject to specified conditions and exceptions.
At first glance, this new law doesn't appear to have much teeth. For example, the law doesn't appear to have an enforcement mechanism and it is silent about a private right of action against those who may violate the law. Therefore, when this new law is allegedly violated how does one go about rectifying the situation?
While SB 568 may help protect California minors from some digital mistakes that may harm their ability to gain acceptance into the college of their dreams, it should not replace educating our children about the digital issues that they confront every day.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC All rights reserved.
Saturday, October 4, 2014
Student Yik Yak Threat at Towson University Leads To Arrest
Be careful what you post online. I discuss this theme constantly with my clients, during seminars, and with the media. Earlier this week, a Towson University student was arrested after posting a threat on the app called Yik Yak.
An 18-year old Towson University student allegedly made an anonymous threat against Towson University utilizing Yik Yak. The alleged threat made a reference to creating a "Virginia Tech Part 2". This troubling alleged reference to the terrible tragedy that occurred at Virginia Tech in 2007 that killed 33 people demonstrates that the student may need the assistance of a mental health professional.
According to the Towson Towerlight, "[a] resident student first reported the threat to her resident assistant Wednesday afternoon. The RA took it to the Department of Housing and Residence Life, according to the Director of University Communications Ray Feldmann, who then took it to University Police. TUPD then alerted Baltimore County Police, Maryland State Police and the FBI."
The student who allegedly threatened Towson was charged with, "threat of massive violence and disturbing operations at a school." According to the Baltimore Sun, the defendant, "told police he had learned he wasn't performing well in the jazz class and was worried his parents would pull him out of school if his GPA dropped too much..."
The bottom line is that no matter how angry one is it is generally not recommended to express your anger on social media or any other digital platform. If someone is thinking about harming others or themselves, they should meet with a mental health professional who may be able to assist them.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC All rights reserved.
An 18-year old Towson University student allegedly made an anonymous threat against Towson University utilizing Yik Yak. The alleged threat made a reference to creating a "Virginia Tech Part 2". This troubling alleged reference to the terrible tragedy that occurred at Virginia Tech in 2007 that killed 33 people demonstrates that the student may need the assistance of a mental health professional.
According to the Towson Towerlight, "[a] resident student first reported the threat to her resident assistant Wednesday afternoon. The RA took it to the Department of Housing and Residence Life, according to the Director of University Communications Ray Feldmann, who then took it to University Police. TUPD then alerted Baltimore County Police, Maryland State Police and the FBI."
The student who allegedly threatened Towson was charged with, "threat of massive violence and disturbing operations at a school." According to the Baltimore Sun, the defendant, "told police he had learned he wasn't performing well in the jazz class and was worried his parents would pull him out of school if his GPA dropped too much..."
The bottom line is that no matter how angry one is it is generally not recommended to express your anger on social media or any other digital platform. If someone is thinking about harming others or themselves, they should meet with a mental health professional who may be able to assist them.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC All rights reserved.
Monday, July 7, 2014
Social Media Posts Lead To Firing of TV and Radio Personalities
Last month, Travel Channel personality Adam Richman made some very disturbing posts that led to his upcoming new show being postponed indefinitely. Talk show host Anthony Cumia of Sirius was fired from his radio show last week for a series of allegedly racists Tweets. Both of these incidents occurred "off the air" during personal time but they had negative employment consequences.
Social Media is not the panacea that some business consultants claim. Too many self styled "social media consultants" advise their clients to pump out content on multiple platforms 24/7. On a regular basis, clients ask me about the legal, business, and reputation related issues surrounding disturbing social media posts. Unfortunately, I am usually contacted after a "social media consultant" has already provided career killing advice or inadequate training.
If one feels the need to respond to Tweets (or other types of posts) or get into a Facebook discussion with others, the amount of information/content posted should be limited since it may be utilized against you forever. Yes, forever! Any postings may be submitted as evidence in a court of law or may be used in the court of public opinion to destroy your career so less is usually more. I have never had a client tell me he or she regretted not Tweeting more or posting a longer Facebook response.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
Social Media is not the panacea that some business consultants claim. Too many self styled "social media consultants" advise their clients to pump out content on multiple platforms 24/7. On a regular basis, clients ask me about the legal, business, and reputation related issues surrounding disturbing social media posts. Unfortunately, I am usually contacted after a "social media consultant" has already provided career killing advice or inadequate training.
If one feels the need to respond to Tweets (or other types of posts) or get into a Facebook discussion with others, the amount of information/content posted should be limited since it may be utilized against you forever. Yes, forever! Any postings may be submitted as evidence in a court of law or may be used in the court of public opinion to destroy your career so less is usually more. I have never had a client tell me he or she regretted not Tweeting more or posting a longer Facebook response.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
Monday, June 30, 2014
Facebook's Unethical Experiment May Have Violated FTC Order
Facebook has proven once again that it does not care about its users' privacy and that it may manipulate their users' emotional well-being for corporate profit. In an explosive article in The Atlantic it is alleged that Facebook intentionally manipulated the news feeds of almost 700,000 users as part of an experiment about emotional contagion on social networks.
In the past, it appears Facebook related research was focused on analyzing the information users upload. In contrast, this appears to be the first time Facebook has publicly acknowledged that it was intentionally manipulating its users' news feeds for psychological experimentation. Is this the first time this has occurred? If not, is Facebook prepared to come clean about this matter and all similar user experiments?
According to the New York Times, "[t]he company [Facebook] says users consent to this kind of manipulation when they agree to its terms of service. But in the quick judgment of the Internet, that argument was not universally accepted." I have reviewed Facebook's Terms of Service and it appears it may be a legal super hero Plastic Man stretch (think South Park Humancentipad episode about terms of service) that users agreed to psychological experimentation by agreeing to Facebook's terms of service.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) which is located about a mile from my office has a very detailed history about the laws relating to the protection of human subjects who are part of an experiment. Did Facebook violate the spirit or the letter of any of these laws?
It would not surprise me if Facebook and/or other digital platforms update their terms of service to clearly state they are able to perform this type of troubling psychological testing on users. While it is too soon to speculate on whether the experiment abided by Facebook's terms of service and traditional subject informed consent rules, this should be a wake up call to regulators to look more closely at the data collection and usage practices of the digital ecosystem.
Did Facebook inform the FTC about this experiment during its 2012 investigation that culminated in the 2012 FTC Consent Order that alleged Facebook violated its users' privacy. Does performing psychological experiments on users without expressed informed consent violate this order?
The bottom line is that this should be a wake up call to those who post on Facebook and utilize platforms that use your personal information for behavioral advertising purposes and/or sell it to data brokers. As I stated on June, 12, 2014, "I don't advise anyone who values their privacy to post personal information to Facebook because it has an abysmal record when it comes to protecting user privacy." Facebook's latest actions demonstrate that it believes its users are nothing more than lab rats who give up all of their rights when agreeing to Facebook's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
In the past, it appears Facebook related research was focused on analyzing the information users upload. In contrast, this appears to be the first time Facebook has publicly acknowledged that it was intentionally manipulating its users' news feeds for psychological experimentation. Is this the first time this has occurred? If not, is Facebook prepared to come clean about this matter and all similar user experiments?
According to the New York Times, "[t]he company [Facebook] says users consent to this kind of manipulation when they agree to its terms of service. But in the quick judgment of the Internet, that argument was not universally accepted." I have reviewed Facebook's Terms of Service and it appears it may be a legal super hero Plastic Man stretch (think South Park Humancentipad episode about terms of service) that users agreed to psychological experimentation by agreeing to Facebook's terms of service.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) which is located about a mile from my office has a very detailed history about the laws relating to the protection of human subjects who are part of an experiment. Did Facebook violate the spirit or the letter of any of these laws?
It would not surprise me if Facebook and/or other digital platforms update their terms of service to clearly state they are able to perform this type of troubling psychological testing on users. While it is too soon to speculate on whether the experiment abided by Facebook's terms of service and traditional subject informed consent rules, this should be a wake up call to regulators to look more closely at the data collection and usage practices of the digital ecosystem.
Did Facebook inform the FTC about this experiment during its 2012 investigation that culminated in the 2012 FTC Consent Order that alleged Facebook violated its users' privacy. Does performing psychological experiments on users without expressed informed consent violate this order?
The bottom line is that this should be a wake up call to those who post on Facebook and utilize platforms that use your personal information for behavioral advertising purposes and/or sell it to data brokers. As I stated on June, 12, 2014, "I don't advise anyone who values their privacy to post personal information to Facebook because it has an abysmal record when it comes to protecting user privacy." Facebook's latest actions demonstrate that it believes its users are nothing more than lab rats who give up all of their rights when agreeing to Facebook's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
Monday, October 28, 2013
Penn State Sex Abuse Scandal Costs Approach $200 Million Dollars Due To Digital Evidence
The Jerry Sandusky sex abuse scandal at Penn State was horrific. More than 2 dozen young men were molested by former Penn State football coach Sandusky. Their lives were forever changed because it appears that some members of the Penn State community tried to cover up the situation instead of stepping in to help those abused.
Last year, a jury found Sandusky guilty of 45 charges of sexual abuse and he will most likely spend the rest of his life in prison. The fallout from the matter has included numerous lawsuits against Penn State. Earlier today, Penn State announced that it had agreed to pay almost $60 million dollars to 26 plaintiffs who alleged they were molested by Sandusky.
It was also recently disclosed that Penn State has so far spent more than $50 million dollars in legal fees and fines defending its conduct in this matter and the university still owes $48 million dollars of a $60 million dollar fine to the NCAA. While it is too soon to speculate on the overall economic loss to the entire Penn State community, this cost may reach hundreds of millions of dollars. While we may never be able to fully measure the precise human toll this scandal has caused, we can put a ball park figure on the economic toll so far and it appears to be north of $150 million dollars ($60 million dollars in settlements, $50 million dollars in legal fees/fines, etc.., $48 million dollars over the next 4 years in NCAA fines).
Strong eye witness testimony at trial that Sandusky was a sexual abuser appears to have swayed the jury. Interestingly, there was not much evidence that appeared to demonstrate that Penn State knew or should have known that they were allowing a child molester to roam free throughout its football facilities. The main evidence that appears to prove Penn State officials turned a blind eye to Sandusky's illegal activities was a handful of emails more than ten years old.
On November 10, 2011, I warned that the Sandusky scandal may cost Penn State more than $100 million dollars. On June 30, 2012, I wrote, "[d]igital evidence from eleven years ago may be the smoking gun that demonstrates that Penn State knew about Sandusky but intentionally did nothing to stop Sandusky...." On July 23, 2012, I stated, "[i]t appears that this scandal may end up costing Penn State closer to $150-$200 million dollars now that the NCAA has taken unprecedented action.
Many of the social media monitoring companies that approach schools lie about their founder's background/experience and/or monetize the personal student data they are collecting. Schools that engage these social media monitoring companies may be on the hook for tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in legal liability if they continue to engage these companies.
The Obannon vs. NCAA case demonstrates that schools are very vulnerable to legal liability issues regarding a student-athletes' image and likeness rights. The Obannon case along with the Penn State sex abuse scandal should put schools and the NCAA on notice that once they are aware of an issue but do not act to properly resolve it they may be liable for tens or hundreds of millions (or more) of dollars in damages.
Schools that utilize social media monitoring services to track their student-athletes' and/or employees' personal digital activities are treading on thin ice. Engaging these companies may not only lead to lawsuits, but to punative damage settlements that are designed to deter this behavior in the future. Does every school need to experience a major scandal before realizing the legal liability issues inherent with digital evidence?
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Last year, a jury found Sandusky guilty of 45 charges of sexual abuse and he will most likely spend the rest of his life in prison. The fallout from the matter has included numerous lawsuits against Penn State. Earlier today, Penn State announced that it had agreed to pay almost $60 million dollars to 26 plaintiffs who alleged they were molested by Sandusky.
It was also recently disclosed that Penn State has so far spent more than $50 million dollars in legal fees and fines defending its conduct in this matter and the university still owes $48 million dollars of a $60 million dollar fine to the NCAA. While it is too soon to speculate on the overall economic loss to the entire Penn State community, this cost may reach hundreds of millions of dollars. While we may never be able to fully measure the precise human toll this scandal has caused, we can put a ball park figure on the economic toll so far and it appears to be north of $150 million dollars ($60 million dollars in settlements, $50 million dollars in legal fees/fines, etc.., $48 million dollars over the next 4 years in NCAA fines).
Strong eye witness testimony at trial that Sandusky was a sexual abuser appears to have swayed the jury. Interestingly, there was not much evidence that appeared to demonstrate that Penn State knew or should have known that they were allowing a child molester to roam free throughout its football facilities. The main evidence that appears to prove Penn State officials turned a blind eye to Sandusky's illegal activities was a handful of emails more than ten years old.
On November 10, 2011, I warned that the Sandusky scandal may cost Penn State more than $100 million dollars. On June 30, 2012, I wrote, "[d]igital evidence from eleven years ago may be the smoking gun that demonstrates that Penn State knew about Sandusky but intentionally did nothing to stop Sandusky...." On July 23, 2012, I stated, "[i]t appears that this scandal may end up costing Penn State closer to $150-$200 million dollars now that the NCAA has taken unprecedented action.
Many of the social media monitoring companies that approach schools lie about their founder's background/experience and/or monetize the personal student data they are collecting. Schools that engage these social media monitoring companies may be on the hook for tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in legal liability if they continue to engage these companies.
The Obannon vs. NCAA case demonstrates that schools are very vulnerable to legal liability issues regarding a student-athletes' image and likeness rights. The Obannon case along with the Penn State sex abuse scandal should put schools and the NCAA on notice that once they are aware of an issue but do not act to properly resolve it they may be liable for tens or hundreds of millions (or more) of dollars in damages.
Schools that utilize social media monitoring services to track their student-athletes' and/or employees' personal digital activities are treading on thin ice. Engaging these companies may not only lead to lawsuits, but to punative damage settlements that are designed to deter this behavior in the future. Does every school need to experience a major scandal before realizing the legal liability issues inherent with digital evidence?
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)