An article in the Washington Post alleges that Manassas City police and Prince William County prosecutors want to take photos of a teenage suspect's erect penis as evidence to prosecute him for sexting with his girlfriend. In order to photograph the suspect's erect penis he may be required to go to a hospital and receive an injection to create an erection.
It appears that the case began when the suspect's (he is 17 years old) 15 year old girlfriend sent photos of
herself to the 17 year old, who responded by sending the 15 year old girl allegedly pornographic images of himself. The family of the girl notified authorities about the matter. Interestingly, prosecutors did not file charges against the girl.
This case reminds me of the movie Porky's when physical education teacher Ms. Balbricker asks the high school principal if he would sanction a penis (tallywacker) lineup of several students so she can identify which student stuck his penis through a peep hole in the girl's bathroom. Ms. Balbricker claims she can identify the offending student's penis because it contains a distinctive mole. In the movie, the request for the penis line up was denied.
Was the prosecutor's troubling request inspired by Porky's? As a parent of two young children, I am outraged by the actions of the police and prosecutors in this matter. What happened to educating our kids about the dangers of sexting? Why are prosecutors utilizing public resources to try to photograph a teenager's erect penis?
My hope is that prosecutors and judges across the country realize that this is the wrong way to deal with sexting by teenagers.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
Showing posts with label Social Media Student Seminar. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Social Media Student Seminar. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 9, 2014
Sunday, July 6, 2014
EPIC Files FTC Complaint over Facebook's Emotion Study
The Electronic Information Privacy Center (EPIC), a privacy advocacy group that has been performing great work for 20 years filed a complaint with the FTC alleging that Facebook's emotion study "deceived its users and violated the terms of a 2012 FTC consent decree." The complaint was filed right before the July 4th holiday weekend.
Facebook's refusal to issue an immediate apology regarding this issue demonstrates once again that the company is tone deaf when it comes to user privacy. I have documented Facebook's troubling position regarding digital privacy time and time and time, etc...again.
When I initially stated that Facebook's emotion study may have violated Facebook's FTC consent agreement early in the day on 6/30/14, I didn't see any other published articles mentioning this possibility. Soon after I posted my article, Forbes reported that Facebook changed its terms to allegedly allow user data to be utilized for "research" purposes 4 months after the study was completed.
There are many users, technologists, and members of the media who are drinking the Silicon Valley Cool-Aid and defending Facebook's (and other companies) troubling practices because privacy policies, along with terms of use, and data use policies are written so broadly in the hopes that the language allows for any type of data usage and/or manipulation. Just because one agrees to a troubling privacy policy/terms of use/data use policy clause in an agreement, that doesn't mean a court of law will automatically rule that the policy is legal and enforceable.
The common law blue pencil doctrine is utilized when contract clauses are ruled to be unreasonable and violate public policy. This doctrine enables courts to strike troubling clauses from executed agreements. Is it time for the courts to start "blue penciling" unreasonable privacy policies, terms of use, data use policies, etc...?
If some Silicon Valley companies don't start changing their data collection and usage practices it would not surprise me if the courts start flexing their blue pencil muscles to protect the personal privacy and safety of citizens in the Digital Age.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
Facebook's refusal to issue an immediate apology regarding this issue demonstrates once again that the company is tone deaf when it comes to user privacy. I have documented Facebook's troubling position regarding digital privacy time and time and time, etc...again.
When I initially stated that Facebook's emotion study may have violated Facebook's FTC consent agreement early in the day on 6/30/14, I didn't see any other published articles mentioning this possibility. Soon after I posted my article, Forbes reported that Facebook changed its terms to allegedly allow user data to be utilized for "research" purposes 4 months after the study was completed.
There are many users, technologists, and members of the media who are drinking the Silicon Valley Cool-Aid and defending Facebook's (and other companies) troubling practices because privacy policies, along with terms of use, and data use policies are written so broadly in the hopes that the language allows for any type of data usage and/or manipulation. Just because one agrees to a troubling privacy policy/terms of use/data use policy clause in an agreement, that doesn't mean a court of law will automatically rule that the policy is legal and enforceable.
The common law blue pencil doctrine is utilized when contract clauses are ruled to be unreasonable and violate public policy. This doctrine enables courts to strike troubling clauses from executed agreements. Is it time for the courts to start "blue penciling" unreasonable privacy policies, terms of use, data use policies, etc...?
If some Silicon Valley companies don't start changing their data collection and usage practices it would not surprise me if the courts start flexing their blue pencil muscles to protect the personal privacy and safety of citizens in the Digital Age.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)