Notre Dame, Manti Te'o, Catfishing, Online Impersonation, and the Law

Notre Dame has one of the most storied college football programs in the country.  From the Gipper to Knute Rockne to Ara Parseghian to Rudy to Joe Montana, Notre Dame has a great reputation for winning with mystic and honor.  Unfortunately, a recent incident may temporarily tarnish Notre Dame's reputation.

Notre Dame's biggest star Manti Te'o who led the Fighting Irish to the BCS championship game this year and was 2nd in the recent Heisman Trophy voting was allegedly a victim of an online hoax.  During this past season, Manti Te'o's grandmother passed away and then within the same week his alleged girlfriend also died.  Having more than one person you are close with die in such a short period of time may be very difficult to handle and Manti Te'o received a tremendous amount of media attention during this past season partly because of it, and because he was the biggest star on the Notre Dame football team.

There were many red flags about this story that the media and Manti Te'o should have picked up on months ago.  Unfortunately, it appears that Manti Te'o did not realize he had been allegedly catfished until recently.  According to the Urban Dictionay, catfishing occurs when someone utilizes social media to create a false identify to pursue an online romance.

In general, catfishing is not against the law.  Multiple states have online impersonation laws that make it a crime to impersonate an actual person.  However, both California and Washington state's law focus on impersonating real people and not those who are part of someone's imagination.  Other states such as Arizona are also trying to pass legislation banning online impersonation. Unfortunately, some of these laws may infringe on the First Amendment and may eventually be declared unconstitutional.

This incident may cost Manti Te'o tens of millions of dollars in potential earnings.  Even though he did not win the Heisman Trophy or the BCS national championship, Manti Te'o had a good story and was a great college player.  However, NFL teams who were thinking about selecting him in the upcoming NFL draft may think twice about someone who either fell for an online hoax or who may have been part of an alleged marketing scheme.

Until all of the facts have been verified it is too soon to determine whether Manti Te'o was catfished or he intentionally perpetuated misinformation for personal gain.  I am giving Manti Te'o the benefit of the doubt at this point because it appears that he was at some point a victim and continued to be a victim of a cruel joke for a period of time.  Manti Te'o may have continued perpetuating the misleading statements about his alleged girlfriend after learning the truth out of embarrassment that he fell for it. 

Unfortunately, NFL teams and potential sponsors may not want to spend millions of dollars on someone who was allegedly duped in such a public manner.  Despite this incident, I believe an NFL team may take a chance on Manti Te'o because he may have a chip on his should to prove this incident was an aberration and that he has the talent to become a great NFL player.    

Until all the facts have been verified, it is too early to determine if an online impersonation law may apply to this situation.  There are reports that the photograph(s) of a real person was utilized; if so, that may help determine if an online impersonation law may be applicable.

The bottom line is that one must always be careful when dealing with others online and if someone doesn't have a phone and/or can't meet you in person that may indicate you are being catfished.

To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com.

Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.

Social Media Monitoring NCAA Student-Athletes May Create Legal Liability in Excess of $100 Million Dollars

In the past 6 months, California, Michigan, Delaware, and New Jersey have enacted laws banning school athletic departments from requesting or requiring their student-athletes verify their social media/digital media usernames/passwords and/or install cyberstalking software onto their personal accounts or devices.  Many other states along with Congress have introduced legislation to ban these practices to protect schools from legal liability and to protect the personal privacy of students.   

Unfortunately, some companies/"social media experts" are approaching NCAA schools and intentionally misleading athletic departments about their experience, their understanding of NCAA compliance, and their knowledge of state and federal law.  Some of these companies may claim that their "social media monitoring" services "respect privacy", or "promote compliance", or they "never ask for passwords" or that their services"facilitate education".  These claims are misleading and may create tremendous legal liability for NCAA athletic programs that engage any of these companies.

The legal liability of engaging a social media monitoring company to digitally track a program's student-athletes or employees may be tens of millions of dollars. Anyone who disagrees with this analysis needs to review the facts about the Penn State Jerry Sandusky scandal.  Emails from 10 plus years ago destroyed the careers of several well respected members of the Penn State administration/faculty and may cost the school more than $100 million dollars in fines/legal fees/judgements/settlements, etc.. 

Digital evidence (emails) was key in the Freeh Report which the NCAA appears to have relied on to levy a $60 million dollar fine against Penn State.  The total cost of this terrible scandal to Penn State may reach $150-$200 million dollars.  Absent the digital evidence, the Freeh Report may have reached a different conclusion, the NCAA may not have had the evidence to support a fine and other sanctions, and plaintiffs may have a hard time proving Penn State knew about Mr. Sandusky's behavior.  

Do schools and athletic department employees want to monitor and archive potential evidence that may be discoverable and utilized against them in lawsuits?  The bottom line is that NCAA athletic departments should not engage services that may harm their interests and put them in a position that may create tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in legal liability.  

To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com.

Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved. 

Norway's Consumer Ombudsman: Facebook Generally Agrees it Has a Counterfeit Goods Advertising Problem

According to Norway's Consumer Ombudsman, Facebook has a problem with counterfeit goods and scamming schemes being advertised on its platform.  On November 6, 2012, Norway's Consumer Ombudsman held a meeting with Facebook's representatives and the topic of discussion was misleading advertising for counterfeit goods and scamming sites on its website.

Norway's Consumer Ombudsman's position appears to be that Facebook allows onto its website a significant number of ads for web shops and scamming schemes that are in violation of the Norwegian Marketing Control Act (MCA).  These finding are very troubling and may indicate that Facebook may need to spend significantly more to comply with Norway's Marketing Control Act. 

How much more will Facebook need to spend to comply with Norway's law will depend on the depth of problem.  However, it appears that Facebook's screening process may also fall short here in the United States.  I have personally reviewed hundreds of suspected ads for counterfeit merchandise on Facebook so I believe this may be a much larger challenge than many realize.

Does Facebook have a Google pharma ad problem on its hand?  In 2011, Google agreed to pay a $500 million dollar fine to avoid prosecution due to displaying advertisements from Canadian pharmacies which illegally sold prescription drugs to American consumers.  An important question in the Google case was did it intentionally turn a blind eye to the matter?  Is Facebook intentionally turning a blind eye regarding advertising for counterfeit merchandise on its platform?

To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.

Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.

Survey Says: Parents Care About Online Data Privacy in Their Children's Schools

A Brunswick Insight survey was released earlier this week regarding digital privacy issues that affect school students.  The online survey was conducted between August 25-28, 2012 and questioned 1,035 American adults who had children in grades 1-12.  The survey's margin of error was +-3% at the 95% confidence interval. 

The overall findings of the survey strongly indicate that U.S. parents care deeply about the digital privacy of their children.  The survey results demonstrate that a national conversation is needed regarding student privacy in the Digital Age. 

Overall, 93% of parents surveyed expressed concern regarding online tracking of their children. A majority of parents questioned (54%) stated they were "very concerned" about online advertising companies tracking the email and Internet usage habits of their children while in school in order to target them with Internet advertising. Even though more than nine in 10 parents surveyed were concerned that at some schools online advertising companies may be tracking the email and Internet usage habits of children in order to target them with digital advertising, almost half (49%) of parents stated they have heard "nothing at all" about this issue.

An overwhelming majority (92%) of parents agreed that school boards that accept free email services from advertising firms should require the companies to offer a privacy policy expressly designed for school children that provides strict guarantees against user profiling or web tracking.  In addition, 90% of parents surveyed agreed that school boards that accept free email services from advertising firms should insist on contracts that expressly ban the use of children's email for ad-related purposes, including targeting of ads outside the email service.  Furthermore, 87% of parents indicated that school boards that accept free email services from advertising firms should insist on contracts that expressly require that all advertising functionality, even if purely optional, be completely removed from the software.    

Interestingly, 84% of parents questioned stated that they would be likely to take action against online tracking in schools and 50% of those questioned stated they would be "very likely" to take action.  Potential action that was listed in the survey's questionnaire included speaking out at a PTA meeting or calling a school official.  This aspect of the survey was very telling because it indicates that parents are willing to take affirmative steps to protect the digital privacy of their children. 

During the past year, parents across the United States have gone from indicating in surveys that they would be likely to take action to protect the digital privacy rights of their children to taking affirmative steps to stop practices they believe harm the digital privacy and safety of their children.  For example, parents in Delaware, California, New Jersey, and Michigan have worked to ban schools from being able to request or require students provide access to their personal digital accounts so schools may track their students' personal digital activities. 

Parents and public school students in Texas have protested against being required to wear school identification badges embedded with RFID chips that digitally track their movements while at school.  In Maryland, parents' outrage over schools that were utilizing palm scanners to obtain biometric data from students to pay for school lunches and potentially track the eating habits of students recently led to the termination of the program.  The bottom line is that parents are willing to openly protest and take legal action against practices they believe may be putting their children in harm's way.    

When parents are provided the tools and opportunity to make informed decisions they act to protect the data privacy and safety of their children.  The findings of this Brunswick Insight survey indicate that more information and transparency is needed so parents may be able to learn more about these issues so they can take the appropriate steps necessary to protect their children's digital privacy and security.  

To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
 

Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.

Michigan Bans NCAA Schools From Cyberstalking Student-Athletes

Michigan has joined the growing list of states that have banned schools from requiring their student-athletes to register and/or provide access to their personal email/social media credentials and content.  Michigan joins Delaware, California, and New Jersey in banning NCAA schools from requiring their students to verify their personal digital accounts in order to apply or attend school, keep their scholarships, or participate in intercollegiate athletics.

Michigan's legislation is the most comprehensive in the country because it also bans elementary, middle, and high schools from also requiring their students to turn over their personal digital account information.  In a nutshell, the new law generally bans all schools from requesting their students provide them access to their personal social media/digital media usernames, passwords and/or content.  This policy affirms that the state of Michigan will not allow its schools to act like China who is requiring its citizens to register their personal digital accounts so the government may "monitor" everything their citizens do online.

Michigan's legislation may save Michigan schools tens of millions of dollars per year that may have been utilized to contract with companies that offer cyberstalking services to track the digital activities of students, their families, and friends.  The companies that sell cyberstalking software to schools use terms like, "monitoring", "educating", and "leading" when describing their services, and/or companies.  In addition, if you perform due diligence on the founders of the companies that offer these so called "monitoring" or "educating" services you may notice they have no verifiable professional credentials that demonstrate that any sports (college, amateur, or professional) organization should engage them for social media or education related services.

Some of these companies are also stating that they support social media privacy legislation which if true means they support a ban on their cyberstalking services.  In order for any social media "monitoring" (cyberstalking) software to properly work it needs a student to verify his personal digital credentials.  Absent student verification these services will not work.
   
Any public school that engages a firm to "monitor" (cyberstalk) their students online may in the near future receive a letter from their state's attorney general, the U.S. Department Education, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, or a law firm regarding their practices.  Schools that  "monitor" (cyberstalk) their students online may soon encounter steep fines, lawsuits, or a loss of education funding that may amount to tens of millions of dollars.  

The bottom line is that public schools that engage self-described "social media experts"/"social media education & monitoring services"/"social media protectors of reputation" may create tremendous personal safety and privacy problems for their student-athletes, and massive legal liability issues for their institutions and taxpayers. 

To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.

(Full Disclosure:  I advised Michigan Rep. Arc Nesbitt's office on HB 5523)

Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.

UK To Revise Social Media Speech Prosecution Guidelines

The UK recently announced that it would revise its  prosecution guidelines to make it more difficult to bring legal action against those who create offensive posts online. This announcement is welcome news for the freedom of speech.

During the past couple of years, there has been several high profile prosecutions of people making racist or insensitive comments to others online.  While these comments may be offensive, racist, or distasteful, in general they would not have been prosecuted if they occurred in the United States and were directed towards U.S. citizens living in the U.S. at the time the comments were created. 

The United States is the greatest protector of free speech. In the United States, the general test for whether free speech crosses the line for criminal prosecution is whether the content is directed at inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action.  

The UK's Crown Prosecution Service has released its interim social media prosecution guidelines and they can be found here.  Those who are interested in making public comments about the interim guidelines may do so until March 13, 2013.  

To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.

Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.

China's Internet Policy Should Not Be Followed By NCAA Athletic Departments

China is a communist country and enacts laws that are designed to keep its political system intact.  Many countries enact legislation that is designed to keep the power status quo.

The United States' First Amendment provides its citizens the strongest freedom of speech protections available in the world.  It states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Even though our First Amendment rights have some limitations, our ability to be able to be anonymous when speaking is well grounded in our history.  China recently enacted legislation that strips its citizens of these rights online.  While this law may be acceptable in China it has no place in the United States.

Unfortunately, some NCAA schools are following China's lead and believe it is legal to require its student-athletes to register their digital usernames and/or passwords and/or download cyberstalking software onto their personal accounts and electronic devices to keep their scholarships and/or participate in intercollegiate activities.

There is no valid reason for any public academic institution to require their students to provide their social media credentials to play intercollegiate sports.  These types of policies have no place in the United States.  At least 4 states have recently enacted legislation to ban this activity and Congress has introduced a ban on this practice.

To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.

Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.

Instagram, Facebook, and Social Media Terms and Conditions

Instagram was sold to Facebook earlier this year for $1 billion dollars.  Facebook didn't buy Instagram to make its founders wealthy, it bought Instagram to monetize its users' content.  Facebook expects to monetize Instagram in the same manner it is making money off of its users' content.  This is why Facebook changed Instagram's terms and conditions last week.

Immediately after Instagram updated it terms and conditions, its users became very angry.  Despite, Instagram's claim otherwise, its new terms of service greatly expanded its rights to utilize its users' content and unlike Facebook's terms and conditions, Instagram appeared to provide itself in perpetuity the right to monetize its users' content even after a user deleted his account. 

Facebook and Instagram provide services that enable people and brands to interact with each other. In return for using their platforms, Facebook and Instagram have a right to utilize the information uploaded to make money off of the intellectual property contained on their websites.  To better understand this one should review Facebook's terms and conditions that states, "you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook."  

However, Facebook clearly states, "This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.  Interestingly, it did not appear that Instagram included this sentence in their proposed updated terms and conditions. 

Should Instagram's users be surprised at its decision to push the envelope on monetizing its users' content?  Since Facebook owns Instagram, is Facebook using Instagram as a testing ground to determine how far they can go with monetizing their users' content before their users revolt?  I discussed these issues with Bloomberg Television at the height of this news cycle: The complete fallout from this matter is still yet to be determined. Even though there is a new report that states that Instagram has lost approximately 25% of its daily active users since its announcement that it would change its terms and conditions, it is too soon to speculate if the updated terms and conditions is the main factor. It may be advisable to read the terms and conditions of every digital platform utilized so you don't become a Human Centipad.

To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.

Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.

Should Facebook Be Held Accountable For Allegedly Hosting Ads For Counterfeit Merchandise?

The Digital Age and now the Social Media Age has had a significant effect on traditional methods of protecting intellectual property.  Sports brands and athletes may be losing hundreds of millions and possibly billions of dollars a year due to fraud and the misappropriation of their digital image and likeness.  Stopping the problem is like playing whack-w-mole in your local arcade.  When you think you have hit every target another one appears.

Every couple of months there seems to be another story how law enforcement has seized websites and/or counterfeit merchandise.  Last year, when I read that Google paid a $500 million dollar fine to avoid prosecution that it knowingly accepted advertising that was against the law I wondered if Facebook had a similar problem.  I started to pay closer attention to the ads that were appearing on my Facebook account and soon realized that Facebook may be accepting ads for counterfeit merchandise.  

I have seen a tremendous number of ads for allegedly counterfeit merchandise on Facebook and I have discussed this issue with others, including the media.  Generally, Internet platforms are not liable for the content that is posted on their websites.  However, if a digital platform is put on notice about a problem and does not take reasonable steps to resolve it then it may have potential legal liability.

Does the law need to be updated?  Does enforcement need to be increased?

To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.

Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.  

FTC To Kids' Mobile App Developers: More Transparency Needed

On December 10, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission issued its 2012 Mobile Apps for Kids: Disclosures Still Not Making the Grade report.  The overall theme of the report is that mobile app developers need to be more transparent about how they utilize the information they collect.  The report found that "many apps included interactive features or shared kids' information with third parties without disclosing these practices to parents."

This survey was a follow up to the FTC's February 2012 report Mobile Apps For Kids:  Current Privacy Disclosures are Disappointing.  In February 2012, the FTC's overall finding was that "little or no information was available to parents about the privacy practices and interactive features of the mobile apps surveyed prior to download".

Both of these reports demonstrate the need for the mobile apps industry to become more proactive to avoid greater regulation.  Even though the Mobile Marketing Association (MMA) has been trying to self-regulate through its privacy policy guidelines and other initiatives, it appears that many app developers have not followed the MMA's guidelines. Since it appears that many app developers have not been following the MMA's guidelines the FTC appears ready to act.

The FTC's mobile apps privacy reports appear to provide the evidence that an update to the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) is needed.  While these reports appear to indicate that our children's digital privacy needs to be better safeguarded, there have been concerns from Silicon Valley and Hollywood on the depth and breadth of the FTC's proposed updates. According to the New York Times, Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Twitter, Viacom, and Disney are some of the companies who have objected to some of the proposed updates to COPPA that have been submitted.    

In general, many people don't understand how mobile applications collect and utilize the data that they acquire.  Unfortunately, due to a lack of information available many parents and children may not be able to make informed decisions about how best to protect their digital privacy.  This lack of information may be caused by a lack of transparency.  For example, the new FTC report it found that "20% (81) of the apps reviewed linked to general disclosure information, including a privacy policy" (page 7).  While this is an improvement over the 16% (64) figure that was reported in the FTC's prior mobile apps privacy report, more transparency is needed so that parents and children may better understand how their personal information is being utilized by others.

Consumers have tremendous concerns about mobile data privacy.  For example, according to a September 2012 Pew Study, "54% of app users have decided to not install a cell phone app when they discovered how much personal information they would need to share in order to use it and 30% of app users have uninstalled an app that was already on their cell phone because they learned it was collecting personal information that they didn't want to share."  

The bottom line is that parents and children need to be provided more information regarding what personal digital data is collected and how it is utilized.  If a parent determines that it is acceptable for an app to collect and re-purpose his child's personal digital data that is his perogative.  However, that is a personal decision that is best handled by a parent.  Unless the moblie apps industry is able to effectively police itself and provide parents the information they need to make informed decisions about their children's digital privacy, more regulations are needed.

To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.

Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.  

Tweeted Photo of Sex Abuse Victim Leads To Arrests

Sexual abuse is one of the worst crimes imaginable.  Abusers and rapists prey on those who are vulnerable and some of the perpetrators may do so because there is a good chance they may never be caught.

According to the Bureau of Justice, between 1992 and 2000 only 36 percent of rapes, 34 percent of attempted rapes, and 26 percent of sexual assaults were reported. Therefore, it appears that the majority of of sexual abuse is not reported and those who commit these crimes are never prosecuted.

In a very troubling case in New York City, four men were arrested for allegedly using an iPhone to take a photo(s) of a sexual abuse victim who was testifying and then uploading the photo to Twitter.  It appears that the four men who were arrested may be supporters of the defendant in the case.  

This situation demonstrates the need for the court system to create a unified digital device policy for everyone who participates in criminal and civil proceedings.  I have blogged about related digital device issues over and over so my hope is that eventually the entire court system will become more aware of the potential danger of not creating reasonable social media and digital device policies.  

To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.

Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.  

New York City Jury: YouTube Promise Costs Rapper $1 Million Dollars

Earlier this week, a musician testified in a New York court proceeding that he reneged on a promise he made to pay the person who found his missing laptop $1 million dollars. What makes this promise interesting is that the musician (Ryan Leslie) made the promise via a YouTube video.   The New York Post reported that Mr. Leslie tweeted his video to gain as much attention for his missing laptop as possible in the hopes that it would be returned.

Yesterday, Mr. Leslie was ordered to pay the $1 million dollar reward that he refused to honor.  The bottom line is that while utilizing social media if you are prepared to talk the talk you better also be willing to walk the walk or in this case pay the piper.  

To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.

Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.  

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee: Warrant Needed To Read Email

Privacy law may soon catch up with the reality of the Digital/Social Media Age.  Today, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee voted to amend the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) to require that law enforcement officials obtain a warrant  before they access a suspect's personal digital account.

This is the first step in what may become a fundamental change in digital privacy for the United States.  The amendment still needs to be passed by the full Senate and then be passed in the House of Representatives and signed into law by President Obama.

While I am hopeful that Congress will act to strengthen privacy laws it is frustrating that it appears that the General Petraeus scandal may have been the catalyst for this issue.  The ECPA amendment was attached to HR 2471 which will update the Video Privacy Protection Act.

The bottom line is that if HR 2471 becomes law a warrant will be required to read one's personal digital communications.

To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.

Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved. 

Is it a crime to intentionally Tweet false news on Twitter?

Hurricane Sandy will go down as one of the worst natural disasters in American history.  According to the latest news reports, more than 100 people have died from the storm and economic damages may surpass more than $50 billion dollars.

To make matters worse, looters have made some people afraid to leave their homes to obtain much needed supplies.  As a former New Yorker, my heart goes out to my friends and former neighbors who are dealing with this terrible tragedy. 

During the storm, many people were Tweeting and posting content online.  Some people were making predictions about the storm, others were discussing their greatest fears about the storm, some were asking for help, and others were Tweeting intentionally false and misleading information.  Were all of these posts protected by the 1st Amendment? 

One of those people who were allegedly making false and misleading Tweets during the storm was Shashank Tripathi.  For example, one of Tweets stated, "BREAKING: Confirmed flooding on NYSE. The trading floor is flooded under more than 3 feet of water."  This was an intentionally false Tweet.  However, intentionally misleading Tweets are generally protected under the 1st Amendment. 

New York City Councilman Peter Vallone, Jr. has stated that he has asked the Manhattan District Attorney to look into filing charges against Tripathi for his Tweets.  Under Brandenbury v. Ohio 395 U.S. 444 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite imminent lawless action.  In addition, under U.S. v. Alvarez 132 S.Ct 2537 (2012) lying in some situations is constitutionally protected free speech. Was Mr. Tripathi's Tweets or online posts by others directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action?  Most likely not. Was Mr. Tripathi lying? It appears he was misrepresenting the truth.   

Regulating free speech is a very slippery slope.  During Hurricane Sandy, social media helped bring out the best in people and it has also has brought out the worst in others.  However, the storm should not be utilized as a reason to further regulate speech. 

To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.

Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.

New York City, Hurricane Sandy, and Social Media

My hearts and prayers go out to the families of those who perished because of Hurricane Sandy.  The hurricane and its aftermath may end up costing at least $50 billion dollars in damage.  In addition, the media is reporting that at least 50 people lost their lives due to this storm.

Sandy knocked offline popular websites Gawker, Huffington Post, and Deadspin. At this point, it is too early to fully calculate all of the damage done from this horrific storm.  In the comming days, weeks, and months there may be a better assessment of how this storm has affected those living the path and wake of Sandy.

I could discuss the importance of utilizing the cloud to back up data, or how social media can save lives.  However, as a former resident of New York City and one who became homeless after 9/11, I understand now is not the right time to talk about how social media or other digital technologies can be utilized to help lessen the effects of future calamities.   

The bottom line is that New York City is the toughest city in the world and it will get through this and become stronger by doing so.  The lessons learned from this terrible tragedy may help avert some of the same problems from happening again in the future.

To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.

Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.